Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, March 29, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 293

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Money Services Businesses Act

Hon. K. Conroy

Bill 20 — Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2023

Hon. K. Conroy

Bill M217 — Wildlife Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023

T. Shypitka

Bill M218 — North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2023

A. Olsen

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Eating disorders and Looking Glass treatment program

S. Chant

Fundraising work by Prince George Spruce Kings goalie Jordan Fairlie

S. Bond

Nowruz celebrations

F. Donnelly

Chetwynd

M. Bernier

Volunteers Are Stars Awards in Richmond

K. Greene

Al Horning

N. Letnick

Oral Questions

Attacks by repeat offenders and handling of cases by justice system

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. M. Farnworth

E. Sturko

Rural policing funding and RCMP community-industry

response group

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Farnworth

Crime in communities and impact on businesses

T. Stone

Hon. B. Bailey

Hon. M. Farnworth

Crime in communities and action on community safety

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Farnworth

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

T. Halford

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Finance, revised service plan, 2023-24–2025-26

Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, revised service plan, 2023-24–2025-26

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 38 — Membership change to Agriculture, Fish and Food Committee

Hon. R. Kahlon

Personal Statements

Withdrawal of comments made in the House

N. Simons

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Family Law Amendment Act, 2023

Hon. N. Sharma

M. de Jong

Hon. N. Sharma

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Modernization) Amendment Act, 2023 (continued)

R. Merrifield

Hon. B. Bailey

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Modernization) Amendment Act, 2023

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Pay Transparency Act

Hon. K. Conroy

R. Merrifield

A. Olsen

Bill 12 — Intimate Images Protection Act

Hon. N. Sharma

M. de Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education and Child Care (continued)

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. G. Lore

A. Olsen

E. Sturko

Hon. R. Singh

Estimates: Ministry of Forests

Hon. B. Ralston

M. Bernier

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness (continued)

B. Banman

Hon. B. Ma

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

T. Shypitka

A. Olsen

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2023

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: G. Kyllo.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: I wanted to introduce today…. We’re being visited in the Legislature,

I think members on all sides, by representatives of the Canadian Society for

Medical Laboratory Science. I wanted to introduce to all of you Ivan Miller,

Tammy Hardie, Heather Autio, Dennet Pritchard, Christine Nielsen, Maria

Clement, Marcella Navarro, Renny Gill and Michael Grant. I’ll have the

honour to meet with them later. I want everyone in the House to wish them

welcome.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have some folks visiting from our B.C. staff working in the housing

division. We have Susan Karim, Sidney Tham, Sandra Pittroff, Monica Mow and

Kate­lyn MacDougall. I’m hoping everyone can please make them really

welcome today.

R. Merrifield: Today I have the pleasure of introducing some of the delegation that’s

here from the regional district, from the Central Okanagan, who are visiting

Victoria to focus on the discussion with the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I’d like to welcome to the House, once again, Loyal Wooldridge, who’s the

councillor for the city of Kelowna and also the chair of the RDCO,

councillor Jordan Coble, from Westbank First Nation, and Brian Reardon,

who’s the CAO from the regional district, Central Okanagan. Would the House

please join me in welcoming them.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce two friends. They

used to live in Castlegar, so they used to be constituents. They grew up

with my husband. Wayne Peppard is here. I think he’s known throughout the

chamber for his longtime involvement in the labour industry. With him is Ron

Verzuh, who’s an historian who actually writes about history. Would

everybody please join me in welcoming them here.

D. Clovechok: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce my wife again

in this chamber. I almost think she’s looking for my job. Trust the Minister

of Health for that one. But it’s so funny. I know where you live.

Anyway, she’s here representing and attending the UBCM’s chair and CEO

forum and the Municipal Finance Authority meeting. Please make her feel

welcome.

Hon. B. Ralston: I’d like to make an introduction on behalf of the MLA for North Island

and myself. Joining us today in the gallery is Megan Hanacek and her

daughter Kaia Mackay. Megan is a registered professional forester and a

registered professional biologist. She’s also the CEO of the Private Forest

Landowners Association.

A little known fact is that Megan survived in the Patagonia wilderness

for 78 days before tapping out in the final episode of the History Channel’s

hit reality show Alone / After lasting for an incredible 78 days in

the wild, Megan became the longest-surviving Canadian and mother cast member

to be featured on Alone handily besting the previous Canadian

record for days spent on the show, which was 58.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I have a few friends from the regional district

of Central Okanagan. They’re here to discuss with ministries to talk about

important issues of non-treaty nation representation at the regional

government level. Westbank First Nation has sat around the RDCO board table

in a non-voting capacity for over 20 years.

Please, everyone, help me welcome Loyal Woodridge, chair of the

regional district of Central Okanagan. He’s been chair since 2021 and a

two-term city of Kelowna coun­cillor, since 2018, and chair of

Okanagan Regional Library, one of the largest regional libraries in

Canada.

As well, welcome Jordan Coble, Westbank First Nation councillor. He is

a two-term councillor with Westbank First Nation, since 2019, and sits on

the board of regional district of Central Okanagan to ensure the application

and

interpretation of Indigenous knowledge of the nsyilxcən language and a

champion for Syilx Okanagan people as an original attendee at sənsisyustən,

which is the former Westbank Indian band school.

Another friend of ours is Brian Reardon, the regional district Central

Okanagan chief administrative officer.

Please make them feel very welcome.

E. Sturko: I would like to welcome a delegation from the B.C. Principals and

Vice-Principals Association.

Thanks for the opportunity to attend a luncheon hosted for the

government, opposition and all parties at lunchtime today. I’m looking

forward to an opportunity to meet with you later this afternoon.

Won’t the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

Hon. R. Singh: In the gallery today we have some very important guests from the B.C.

Principals and Vice-Principals Association. The BCPVPA represents more than

2,700 members in the province’s 60 school districts. Joining us today are

Brian Leonard, the president, Mike Roberts, interim executive director and

communications staff Sandra Murphy and David Serpa.

Principals and vice-principals handle some of the most sensitive and

complex issues in our schools on a daily basis. Their leadership is a big

part of why B.C.’s education system is one of the best in the world. I

really would like to thank them for all the work that they do.

I know the House will make them feel very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: Today in the gallery, we are joined by Dahlia Maverick and Tom

Billings. They’re from Sooke. Dahlia plays in the Capital Region Female

Minor Hockey Association U13 C1 Reign team. They had a fantastic season. My

daughter played on the same team, and it was really great fun. It was

wonderful to watch them. They won one tournament, and they played in many

others very, very well and bonded well together.

I want to raise my hands and say thank you to the man­ager, Ty;

the coaching staff, Dave, Doug, Camille and Simon; other volunteers,

including Julie, Matt, Raphael and Samantha; and many of the parents who

also volunteered their time to make it such a fabulous season.

Would everyone please make them very welcome.

Also joining us in the gallery today, we have Catherine Clutchey,

Sarah Scorey and Zoe Tessier.

Today we were joined in the Hall of Honour by many people from the

B.C. Foster Parent Associations, the parent support society and foster

carers and caregivers.

There was Jeanette Dyer; Dan Malone; foster parents Sally White,

Darlene Younger and Sandy Case; a member of the parent support society,

Katie Robertson; April Reeve of the Indigenous Perspectives Society; and

Jennifer Charlesworth, the Representative for Children and Youth here in

B.C. Kathy Koyahara and Wayne Reeve were also here.

We were making the announcement of the significant rate increases that

caregivers will be seeing effective April 1.

I raise my hands and I say to all foster carers, caregivers and

everyone who supports you as well: “We see you. We really, really appreciate

and value everything that you do. You take care of our children and youth,

and you work 24-7. You’re changing lives, and you’re supporting our children

and youth to thrive.”

Would everybody please make them very welcome.

Hon. B. Ma: I’m thrilled to be joined here in the chamber today, up in the

gallery, by my constituent Hassan Merali from my home community of North

Vancouver–Lonsdale. He is here with his colleagues Joshua Millard and

Aryanna Chartrand from the Alliance of B.C. Students. Would the House please

make them feel very welcome.

H. Yao: Today I’m joined by two of the newest Richmond South Centre

constituents, Lorna Wong and Nick Hung. Lorna Wong is a professional

engineer, and Nick Hong actually has one of the most defined six-packs ever.

He used to be a professional Muay Thai kickboxer. Please join me in making

them feel welcome today.

Hon. G. Lore: A few months ago I had a chance to visit with some Girl Guides and

Rangers and invited them here. We’ve managed to find a time over their

spring break, and I’m so thrilled that they’re joining us today.

There’s quite a number of them. I’m just going to do their first

names, but I do want to welcome them to the House: Lucy, Lily, McKechnie,

Vivienne, Naiya, Isabel, Abigail, Megan, Clara, Brynn, Jane, Caitlin, AJ,

Cadence, Isabelle, Ella, Iris, Charlotte, Kate, Jade, Ryah, Tesla, Sophie,

Alyssa and Sylvie.

We had a chance to talk about leadership and how so much of what

they’re doing is already setting themselves up for an opportunity to lead in

their community and to give back. They’re also joined by a number of their

Guide leaders.

Will the House please make all of them feel very welcome in our

House.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to join with my colleague from Emergency Management in

welcoming Aryanna Chartrand, Joshua Millard and Hassan Merali from the

Alliance of B.C. Students. They are advocates here meeting with many people

on all sides of the House. They represent students at CapU, at Kwantlen, at

the University of the Fraser Valley and the Grad Student Society at UBC

Vancouver campus.

They’re here meeting with myself — they’re going to be meeting with

the Premier and myself tomorrow — to talk about the importance of making

sure that our campuses are safe and addressing gender-based violence on

campuses. I want to take a moment to thank them for their tremendous

advocacy. I look forward to continuing working with them.

[1:45 p.m.]

M. Dykeman: I’d like to join with my colleagues in welcoming the folks here from

the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association.

I had the privilege of working with the interim executive director,

Mike Roberts, in my time at the B.C. School Trustees Association. I know

that Brian Leonard and the rest of the team that are here are such

incredible advocates for the important role that administrators play in our

schools. The leadership that our principals and vice-principals provide in

British Columbia is really second to none. It was always an honour to work

with this organization in my role as chair.

I wanted to welcome them to the precinct and thank them for all

advocacy that they do.

G. Kyllo: I’m very proud to introduce to the House a good friend from Salmon

Arm, Kevin Flynn. He’s a long-term councillor in Salmon Arm. He’s also

currently the chair of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district. Would the

House please make him feel very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — MONEY SERVICES

BUSINESSES

ACT

Hon. K. Conroy presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Money Services Businesses

Act.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Money Services Businesses Act. The

purpose of this bill is to establish the B.C. Financial Services

Authority as the provincial regulator for money service businesses, or

MSBs. This bill will require MSBs to register with the BCFSA and will

provide for broad background checks, reporting requirements,

investigation powers and enforcement powers.

MSBs are businesses that deal in foreign exchanges, wire

transfers, issuing or redeeming money orders, traveller’s cheques or

similar instruments outside of traditional financial institutions. They

are an accessible and more affordable option for some of the more

vulnerable people in B.C., and they play an important role in B.C.’s

financial system.

There are over 2,000 MSBs registered with the federal Financial

Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, also known as

FINTRAC, which handles billions of dollars annually. The new regulatory

system will help keep bad actors out of the industry. It will also allow

the BCFSA to get a clearer picture of the local industry while keeping

regulatory costs low for money service businesses and their

consumers.

By implementing the act, we are acting on a recommendation in the

Cullen commission final report to expand the mandate of the BCFSA to

include the regulation of MSBs. The act will help to ensure these

businesses are not being used to launder the proceeds of crime and other

financial wrongdoing. This work will improve the industry’s reputation

and help with some of their challenges, including access to the banking

system and the operation of unregistered businesses.

The Money Service Businesses Act does not duplicate the

comprehensive compliance program requirements administered by FINTRAC.

Instead, it focuses on conducting broad background checks of MSBs, their

agents and associates to ensure that only suitable businesses and

individuals participate in the industry.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, Money Services Businesses Act, 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.

BILL 20 — BUSINESS CORPORATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. K. Conroy presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Business Corporations Amendment Act,

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Business Corporations Amendment Act,

2023. The purpose of this bill is to help deter and curtail the use of

B.C. companies as vehicles for unlawful activities. The bill requires

private companies incorporated in British Columbia to report beneficial

ownership information to a centralized government-main­tained

registry while allowing partial public access to registry information at

no cost.

B.C. companies have been required to identify their beneficial

owners and keep a list of these individuals in their corporate records

since October 2020. Beneficial owners are the people that ultimately

control a company, and they may not necessarily be the registered owners

of the shares of a company.

Companies can be used to hide ownership through the creation of a

legal entity that is separate from the shareholders, creating a level of

anonymity. This anonymity may be exploited and abused by money

launderers, tax evaders and other criminals to assist in illegal

activities.

[1:50 p.m.]

In the 2019 Expert Panel on Money Laundering in B.C. Real Estate

report, it was estimated that $7.4 billion was laundered in B.C. in

2018. The amendments are consistent with the recommendations of the

expert panel and the Cullen commission.

Government has been committed to greater access of beneficial

ownership information since 2017 and has been working closely with our

federal, provincial and territorial counterparts to provide greater

transparency in the corporate world across Canada. This bill strengthens

government’s commitment to this crucial federal-provincial-territorial

collaboration.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House.

Bill 20, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2023, introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M217 — WILDLIFE AMENDMENT

ACT

(N o . 2), 2023

T. Shypitka presented a bill intituled Wildlife Amend­ment Act

(No. 2), 2023.

T. Shypitka: I move that a bill intituled Wildlife Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023,

of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper be

introduced and now read for a first time.

This is the second time I’ve introduced this bill, and it is one

that I believe transcends across party lines and divisions across this

province. Throughout British Columbia, millions of people enjoy our

great outdoors for a variety of reasons — hiking, biking, fishing,

hunting or just viewing what our back country has to offer. We truly

have it all here in B.C. But what makes us truly unique in our vast

province is our unique mix of wildlife and habitat. However, sadly, what

has always been our greatest natural resource is coming to a crashing

halt.

Our wide demographic of British Columbians knows firsthand how

important science-based wildlife management is to ensure healthy

wildlife populations. Proper decisions surrounding wildlife management

ensure that wildlife populations are sustainable for the future. It is

critical that transparent decisions and regulations are solely based on

what is best for the wildlife populations and can be supported by

all.

This bill, if passed, would lay the groundwork for an independent

funding model for wildlife and habitat management that is partially

distanced from the government. This would ensure the decisions on

regulations are in the best interest of wildlife populations in our

province and that funding is dedicated only to wildlife and habitat

conservation.

The funding model would be eligible to receive funding and revenue

from the different levels of government, including municipal,

provincial, federal and Indigenous. Here, 100 percent of contributions

earned from the revenue of licences and fees associated from hunting and

other forms of land use, as well as stakeholder groups, philanthropy and

industry, would be used only for wildlife and habitat

management.

Effective wildlife legislation is necessary to preserve our

wildlife populations and guarantee that regulations and restrictions

accurately reflect the science. This bill represents the foundational

element that will allow for better data collection, mapping and

identifying critical wildlife areas, among others. Such improvements, in

turn, will lead to science-based decision-making to protect wildlife and

habitat for generations to come.

I ask this House, from all sides, to join me in support of this

critical piece of legislation so we can all get to work and protect and

encourage the growth of wildlife populations here in B.C.

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

Motion approved.

T. Shypitka: I move that this bill be placed on the order paper of the day for

second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M217, Wildlife Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M218 — NORTH ISLAND-COAST

DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE

TRUST

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

A. Olsen presented a bill intituled North Island-Coast Development

Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2023.

A. Olsen: I move that a bill intituled North Island-Coast Development

Initiative Trust Amendment Act of which notice has been given in my name

on the order paper be introduced and read a first time now.

The Island Coastal Economic Trust, or ICET, is a critical economic

development organization led by communities on Vancouver Island and the

Sunshine Coast. Inexplicably, this valued organization is on the brink,

as they have fully invested their funds to impactful economic

development initiatives for 17 years. Now all the funds are almost gone,

and the trust needs to be recapitalized.

Coastal communities formalized their vision for actionable

reconciliation with the transformation of the trust as a permanent

ESG-focused inclusive regional development organization that is

co-governed by First Nations and local governments.

[1:55 p.m.]

The business plan to realize co-governance and a sustainable model

for the trust requires a generational $150 million investment. The

business plan submitted to government last September ensures that the

trust will be a catalyst for more than $1 billion in total

investment.

This bill removes the $60 million cap that is currently limiting

the B.C. NDP from turning the ICET into a permanent fund. This bill does

not spend money. It simply removes the limited cap on how much can be

capitalized.

In March 2020, Judith Sayers, Sarah Morales, Frank Leo­nard

and Wayne Rowe completed the statutory require­ment to review the

act. They made a variety of recommendations, including this initiative

for the provincial government to remove this cap.

Surprise. The B.C. NDP has not done this and has essentially

abandoned the communities on Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast

communities that many of them represent.

How are we on the brink of losing this valued regional

organization? Rather than solidifying the organization, today a $10

million lifeline was announced simply to delay the ICET’s demise,

kicking it down the road two or three more years.

This amendment removes the obstacle and allows this government to

do the right thing and recapitalize this important community-led

economic development vehicle.

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

Motion approved.

A. Olsen: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M218, North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Amendment

Act, 2023, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

EATING DISORDERS AND

LOOKING GLASS TREATMENT

PROGRAM

S. Chant: I would like to acknowledge I’m giving this statement from the

ancestral territories of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people, the Songhees

and the Esquimalt Nations. I thank them for the opportunity to live and

work here. When I’m in my riding of North Vancouver–Seymour, I work,

live and learn in the territories of the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish

Nations. I’m always grateful for the ongoing work they do in stewarding

the land and water.

Eating disorders are complex and difficult to treat, with high

dropout and mortality rates. They are often associated with other

disorders, such as depression and anxiety, and are often long-standing,

with serious medical consequences, including life-threatening effects.

Research shows that live-in eating disorder treatment can be highly

successful for youth.

Thankfully, we have the only live-in eating disorder program

specifically designed for 16- to 24-year-old youth in Canada, the

Looking Glass treatment program operated out of B.C. Children’s

Hospital. The program’s interdisciplinary staff provide a combination of

group and individual therapy, meals, support, nursing and medical care

in a 24-7 home-like environment in South Vancouver. This is a safe and

supportive environment where patients can challenge the power of an

eating disorder and learn positive ways to cope with daily

life.

The program fosters independence while providing options for

family involvement, and there’s academic help for those who have not yet

graduated from high school. The program sees over 100 patients a year,

including live-in, virtual and outpatient services.

As you can imagine, the team has faced some challenges these past

years due to COVID. However, they’ve been very innovative in reimagining

the program, including offering a full-time virtual day program and

virtual support groups.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Looking Glass team

for all of the good work that they do in helping our young people heal

and be well.

FUNDRAISING WORK BY PRINCE GEORGE

SPRUCE KINGS GOALIE

JORDAN FAIRLIE

S. Bond: While he is probably best known for his skill as a goaltender,

Prince George Spruce Kings netminder, Jordan Fairlie, is also an

ambassador for the Goalie Guild, a non-profit foundation dedicated to

the advancement of hockey goaltenders and the craft of

goaltending.

But Jordan is also doing some important work off the ice. Working

in partnership with the Canadian Mental Health Association Northern

British Columbia, Jordan launched a fundraising campaign for mental

health initiatives. All of the donations raised will support local

programming through CMHA Northern B.C.

While he grew up in Fort St. John, he is playing his junior hockey

in Prince George. Because of that, Jordan, who is 20 years old,

recognizes that people who live in our region face some unique

challenges when it comes to accessing services. He decided he wanted to

give back to the community through the Lifting the Mask on Mental Health

challenge.

Ethan Ready, director of communications and broadcasting for the

Spruce Kings, said it well when he said: “To have a player who wants to

make as much of an impact off the ice as he does on is what we want to

achieve with our players. It’s what being a Spruce King is all

about.”

[2:00 p.m.]

Once the campaign finishes, Fairlie will meet with CMHA Northern

B.C. to decide where the donations will go to support the programming

with the most need.

Not surprisingly, at the recent Spruce Kings annual awards

banquet, which I was honoured to attend, Jordan was a co-winner of the

community service award. While the fundraising campaign may be drawing

to a close, Jordan and the Spruce Kings have a lot more hockey to play,

since they are playoff bound. To date, Jordan has raised almost $6,000,

but I have no doubt that that total will increase.

Thank you, Jordan, for your leadership, both on the ice and off.

Because you stepped up, CMHA will be able to provide additional support

for those who need it most. It is a legacy you can be very proud

of.

NOWRUZ CELEBRATIONS

F. Donnelly: Salam . Nowruz Mobarak .

Nowruz means “new day” and marks the start of spring. It’s a time

of renewal and reflection. Spring represents new light overcoming the

darkness of winter. Millions of people in B.C. and around the world are

gathering with family, friends and neighbours to celebrate Nowruz, the

Persian new year. Many come together to feast, to set the haft sin table

or to jump over fires to cleanse their souls.

I’ve attended a number of Nowruz gatherings in Coquitlam–Burke

Mountain and North Vancouver. The Tri-City Iranian Cultural Society held

its annual Nowruz market on March 11, followed by a fire festival a few

days later. Large crowds of Farsi-speaking residents and others enjoyed

music, food, dancing, displays and fire jumping.

This past Saturday I attended a Nowruz celebration sponsored by

the Civic Association of Iranian Canadians. The event also marked the

completion of their seniors healthy aging project. I congratulated all

those who completed this worthwhile project and recognized their leader,

Parvin Fatemi, who does valuable work in our community as an immigration

caseworker.

Traditional Nowruz celebrations are more important than ever to

Iranians. These celebrations are considered

an act of defiance in the

face of widespread human rights abuses taking place in their homeland.

The “Women, life, freedom” movement is front and centre at many of these

events, and I assured those in attendance that our government supports

them in their struggle to achieve gender equity, equality and democracy

in Iran.

Iranians have told me they feel stressed. They tell me it’s not

easy to work, to study and to live a normal life when people that they

know are experiencing violence and upheaval in their homeland. I will be

attending more Nowruz events next week and will continue to stand in

solidarity with those who are celebrating while at the same time,

thinking of people in their homeland who are fighting for equality and

freedom.

Never forgive. Never forget.

CHETWYND

M. Bernier: Chetwynd, nestled in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, is a

small and resilient community in my riding known for being the home of

the International Chainsaw Carving Competition, which fits this

community well, since the prime industry here is logging, with the

supporting mills, which, for years, have been the major employer in this

region. These mills have provided stable, family-supporting jobs for

decades, which, for a small community, has been the driver to ensure

that that community prospers.

Unfortunately, in four weeks, the Canfor mill will be closing,

leaving 150 full-time employees unemployed. A few, luckily, have told me

that they found other jobs, though. But the downside to that is that

these people have told me they have to leave the community. It’s not

just the workers that we lose. It’s their spouses, the families, the

children. Nurses are leaving Chetwynd now, and they already struggle

with finding nurses.

It’s teachers. It’s volunteer firefighters. It’s coaches and other

community volunteers that will be lost. It’s the small mom-and-pop

organizations and businesses that support the mills and the workers that

will struggle. It is the fabric of the entire community that will be put

to test.

There are huge benefits in our small, rural communities that were

built because of the resource sector and that could continue to thrive

and have success if the resource sector was supported by government. But

unfortunately, we’re seeing way too many communities right now that are

struggling to know what the future holds for them.

[2:05 p.m.]

On a positive note, we are talking about people who are very

dedicated to their communities, who are strong, passionate and

resilient. I know the people of Chetwynd will band together and support

each other, and we will get through this challenging time.

I want to wish all the workers, their families and the community

of Chetwynd the very best as we all try to cope with this

change.

VOLUNTEERS ARE STARS

AWARDS IN

RICHMOND

K. Greene: Richmond Cares, Richmond Gives, the foundational Richmond

organization, is hosting the annual Volunteers Are Stars Awards on April

19. It’s a fun and uplifting event to celebrate incredible volunteers in

our community and celebrate all of our award nominees. Volunteers give

selflessly of themselves to make Richmond an even better place to live,

work, learn and play, and our community is so grateful for all that they

do.

I want to highlight a few of the volunteer nominees from my riding

of Richmond-Steveston who are being recognized in three different

categories. The Star of Richmond Award is to recognize outstanding

leadership volunteers. Nominees in my riding are Mary Derksen from the

Cancer Care Clinic in Richmond Hospital and Lillian Callegari from the

ambulatory care clinic in Richmond Hospital.

The Shooting Star award is to recognize outstanding youth

volunteers who are already contributing so much at a young age. Our

Richmond-Steveston nominee is Ava Koldenhof from the Richmond Christmas

fund.

The Nova Star award is to recognize an outstanding individual

volunteer, who are so important to organizations across Richmond.

Nominees from my riding are Frank Fowlie from the Commonwealth Games

Federation Ethics Commission, Patricia Gustafson from Richmond Red

Cross, Marcus Narsaiya from Special Olympics, Charles Pinto from the

Richmond Food Bank, Linda Shirley from the Richmond Community Arts

Council and Ron Toffolo from the Richmond Food Bank.

The Constellation award is to recognize outstanding volunteer

groups, and the nominees are the Not So Silent Night committee, which

organizes the signature event to support the Richmond Christmas fund;

the Richmond Advocacy and Support Committee, which connects low-income

residents with the opportunity to tell their lived stories through art

in a variety of mediums; and the Health Care Auxiliary Thrift Shop,

otherwise known locally as the Steveston hospital thrift store, raises

funds for the purchase of medical equipment and patient programs at

Richmond Hospital, Minoru Residence and Lions Manor.

There are many more volunteers than the ones I’ve just highlighted

for my riding of Richmond-Steveston, and they are all stars.

Thank you to each and every volunteer for all that you do for

us.

AL HORNING

N. Letnick: Al Horning passed away last week, March 20. He was 83 years of

age. Many in this chamber knew him, worked with him.

Eighty-three is slightly above the average for people in our

country, but he was way above average — maybe not in height, because he

and I were about the same height.

He was a businessman, a realtor, a champion snowmobiler, a Sports

Hall of Famer, Kelowna city councillor, a Member of Parliament and of

course, an MLA right here. He served for over 20 years in our country,

our province and our community. He was a champion of everything Rutland,

everything Kelowna, everything B.C. and every­thing of our

country.

He left us a legacy of fiery, just advocacy for everything that

was important to his community: expansion to the Kelowna Airport, new

highways. And really passionate about Rutland Middle School, which I try

to continue on his behalf.

But he was more than that. He was a dedicated father, a

grandfather, a loving husband to Donna, who passed away at the beginning

of COVID. I know that people here lost loved ones during COVID — very

difficult. Together he and Donna were a political force in our country,

our province and our city. I, for one, would not be here if it wasn’t

for Al Horning and Donna Horning.

You know, Al always said that he was supposed to pass before

Donna. He was kind of pissed off, actually, that he had not. But I can

tell him now that she’s been up there waiting for him for a few years.

He’d better get his butt in gear and keep the speeches short because, if

anything, Donna was really proud of how Al kept his speeches short and

just delivered on the goods.

[2:10 p.m.]

Now, traditionally in this Legislature, in this chamber, after a

testimonial like this, we do not applaud, but I would ask all members of

the House to do the opposite and applaud a good man who served our

country and our province. [Applause.]

Oral Questions

ATTACKS BY REPEAT OFFENDERS AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

K. Kirkpatrick: The surge of violence that began under the Premier’s watch as a

soft-on-crime Attorney General continues to devastate communities like

Nanaimo.

On Monday, in broad daylight, a 27-year-old woman was heading back

to work when she was the victim of a violent, random assault. This was a

prolific offender who appeared out of nowhere, grabbing her by the

throat and sexually assaulting her. When she broke free and ran, he

chased her, screaming that he was going to kill her. I can’t even

imagine how terrifying that would be.

How much longer will people be forced to live in fear as a result

of this Premier’s catch-and-release policies?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. The event she describes is a

horrific event, which all of us absolutely just abhor. The individual

has been arrested and will face the consequences of the justice system.

It is my expectation that when they are found guilty, they are sentenced

to a very long time behind bars, because that’s what should happen to

individuals in these kinds of cases.

But what I can also tell the member is that we are doing

everything we can to ensure that laws are strengthened around issues of

bail and bail reform, which is why we worked with other provinces and

the federal government, and this province has taken a leadership role in

that regard, to deal with the issue of reverse onus, so that those who

pose a danger are not released.

I can assure the member that we will continue that work and

another initiatives. But what’s clear is that we will continue to work

to ensure that our communities are safe.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: That response offers cold comfort to the woman who was brutally

attacked in this random sexual assault. People in Nanaimo need more than

just talk. They need results, and they need to be able to feel safe in

their own community.

With 28 separate criminal court files, Brett Ranger is a

dangerous, violent, prolific offender. The fact that he is today being

remanded until April 4 is, again, cold comfort to his victims. He has a

lengthy criminal record yet was left free to terrorize more victims

under this Premier’s catch-and-release system.

The violence on our streets — as we have seen day after day, and

the last few days have just been more than we can even imagine — has

made people feel more vulnerable and unsafe than ever.

The question to the Premier. Is he going to put the rights of

victims of repeat violent offenders ahead of the rights of those violent

offenders to be released back into communities like Nanaimo?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I thank the member for the question. I want to assure the

member that we take the rights of victims very seriously. That’s why we

restored funding, increased it by more than 70 percent, for victims of

crime. During the time that your party was on this side of the House,

increases did not happen.

In terms of results, that’s why we went to Ottawa to get bail

reform. We made it a priority. This province made it a priority. Other

provinces worked with us to get the federal government to make the

changes that we need to see happen.

This province has put in place initiatives in terms of ensuring

that police have the tools that they need, tools that they decide that

they need and tell us that they want. That’s why we funded the

additional 270 positions for RCMP members in small, rural communities

right around this province.

[2:15 p.m.]

It’s also why we have restored funding to sexual assault centres,

so that when these types of crimes happen, women know that there are

places where they can go for help and assistance. Those are initiatives

that this government has taken and will continue to take, because

everybody deserves to feel safe wherever they live in this

prov­ince.

We want to also make sure that those who are found guilty through

our independent judicial system serve a long time behind bars, where

they should be. But make no mistake. This government is absolutely

committed to ensuring the safety of British Columbians, wherever they

are in this province.

E. Sturko: These initiatives that the minister is speaking of, and some of

the things that government is working on, come into effect. First of

all, they’re announced to take place years from now and are affecting

people who already have become the victim of crime. What is this

government doing to step up and prevent people from becoming

victims?

It’s all fine and dandy to bring things into effect that will help

people after they become victims. But why must we wait for action until

people are suffering? They’ve become victims of crime. They’ve been

sexually assaulted or, even worse, they’ve lost their life to violent

criminals.

Even the Premier’s own handpicked expert, Doug LePard,

acknowledges that B.C. stands alone with a 40 percent decrease in the

number of people in jail — now out on the streets, thanks to this

government’s soft-on-crime policies.

In the Premier’s five years as Attorney General, violent crime has

more than doubled in Nanaimo, from 1,200 reports to over 2,600. Collen

Middleton of the Nanaimo Area Public Safety Association says: “They’re

literally playing Russian roulette right now with the lives of people in

Nanaimo. We’re sick of it. We’re done.”

Innocent lives are put at risk by the Premier’s catch-and-release

policies, while prolific offenders like Brett Ranger continue to be

released and wreak havoc in our communities. How much longer will

communities like Nanaimo have to suffer the consequences of the

soft-on-crime Premier’s failed catch-and-release policies?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I want to make it clear.

Right from the point when this government was sworn in, this government,

the Attorney General, now Premier, and the former Premier have made

public safety a priority, putting in place initiatives that could have

been put in place in this government many years before but

weren’t.

We work with police to identify their priorities. Police said that

putting in place a witness protection program to build strong cases

against organized crime and gangsters was a priority for them. We put

that in place. That has resulted in a significant increase in

convictions for murders and solvings of murders that that were, in

essence, cold cases.

Police identified the need for a forensic firearms lab so that we

weren’t sending weapons to Ottawa for analysis, being able to do better

forensics here in this province. We put that in place. We identified the

issues around listening to local government in terms of what challenges

they were facing in their communities. That led to the LePard-Butler

report. It led to initiatives which are being implemented already and

new ones being put in place.

It’s not a question of waiting. We identified the challenges in

terms of vacancies in British Columbia in small and rural parts of the

province. That’s why we put in place the funding for RCMP for 274 new

officers.

We get the smirks from the other side when they profess to be

concerned about public safety.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, both sides.

The Minister will

continue.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Let’s be clear. We’ve been taking initiatives since we formed

government day one — initiatives at the federal, provincial and local

government level. We will continue to do that. We will continue to work

with the professionals on the ground who know what needs to be done in

terms of policing and in terms of the social side of things to ensure

that people in this province are safe.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey South, supplemental.

E. Sturko: This government has announced initiatives, but it’s results that

they haven’t delivered for British Columbians.

In my community, in Surrey, children were among 30 people at the

Guildford Landmark Cinema who were randomly attacked by a man wielding

pepper spray this weekend. Families can’t even visit a coffee shop or go

to the movies without having to worry about a random attack in British

Columbia.

This Premier is the architect of catch and release, and this

Premier has consistently put the rights of criminals above the rights of

communities throughout his entire career, in and out of

politics.

While Housing Minister, this Premier is the one who

warehoused….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Members, please. Let’s listen to the question.

E. Sturko: I see someone laughing on that side, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please, Members. Members, shhh.

Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, Members, that’s enough, please.

The member will continue.

E. Sturko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was while this Premier was Housing Minister that he warehoused

people without proper mental health supports, creating chaos in

neighbourhoods across the prov­ince.

When will the brutal, random attacks which have become the norm

under this Premier, under his catch-and-release system, finally

end?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’m glad the member from Surrey raised the questions about her

community, because the issue of bear spray is one that we were well

aware of. That’s why, when we went to Ottawa, we worked with Manitoba to

get that changed so people who engage in those kinds of crimes with bear

spray are now included on the reverse onus as to why they should not be

getting bail. That was action taken.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, and the member now wants to talk about victims. Well, let’s

talk about victims.

You cut. You failed. Your….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You failed. Your government failed, when they sat on this side of

the House, to increase funding for victims. In fact, you cut funding to

sexual assault centres. Your government cut funding.

Again, the member….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member, through the chair, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Again, the member talks about Surrey. I will make this comment

about Surrey. The reason we put in place the victim protection program,

which police wanted, was to deal in part with the significant challenges

that were faced in Surrey. This government put that in place, not them

when they sat on this side of the House.

What I want to tell this House: the success of that program has

resulted in more than 270 convictions, 419 charges, 134 murder charges,

and 77 firearms charges.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Results, every single one of them. Murder cases solved, convicted,

sentenced to jail for more than 276 years, exactly where they belong.

This side of the House takes public safety seriously, and we will

continue to do that.

RURAL POLICING FUNDING AND RCMP

COMMUNITY-INDUSTRY

RESPONSE GROUP

A. Olsen: Mr. Speaker, we’ve heard the Minister of Public Safety say that he

takes the rights of victims seriously. How about the rights of the

victims of colonialism?

In November, the B.C. NDP government announced that it would

provide $230 million to bolster staffing in rural police departments. It

appears that $36 million of those funds were designated for “police

response to unlawful protests.”

[2:25 p.m.]

My question is to the Minister of Public Safety. Is this $36

million allocated to the RCMP community-industry response

group?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. What I want to tell him

is that the $36 million is over three years. It is based on an average

that we have spent in this province over the last number of years in

dealing with the enforcement of court-ordered injunctions. We have, in

this province, an independent judiciary, courts that make court orders,

and it is the responsibility of the police to enforce those court

orders. That comes with costs.

As part of the budget process, we have to ensure that there is

money in place to do just that. We put in place an average of what has

been spent over the last number of years, and that is a three-year sum

that the member is talking about. It works out to about, as I think it

was last year, around $11 million.

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

A. Olsen: Of course, those injunctions are protecting the rights of

corporations, not the rights of Indigenous people that have existed and

belonged to the lands that these resource projects are being undertaken

on. The community-industry response group or C-IRG, as it’s known, was

created in 2017 to support the construction of the Coastal GasLink

pipeline and the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion projects in the face

of broad public opposition and Indigenous assertions of

jurisdiction.

The C-IRG has been accused of unlawful use of force, arrests,

detentions and assaults against Indigenous and non-Indigenous land

defenders, many of whom are my constituents, many of whom I would

consider Elders from my riding.

Right now this crew is rolling, and the minister knows this, on

Indigenous people in their own territories, as we speak. The RCMP unit

now faces several lawsuits and investigations for misconduct. The RCMP

Civilian Review and Complaints Commission announced two weeks ago that

they are conducting a “systemic investigation” of C-IRG. A national

coalition is calling for the suspension of C-IRG while the CRCC

investigates these hundreds of complaints against the unit.

The CRCC reviews can take up years to complete. The extent of the

human rights abuses and violations of Indigenous peoples on their own

lands by this unit has not yet fully come to light.

How does this government justify giving a controversial RCMP unit

tens of millions of dollars, and will this B.C. NDP government stand

this militarized police unit down while they’re under this

investigation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and I would like to

make a couple of points.

First off, we have an independent judiciary in this country that

makes rulings and issues an injunction. It’s the responsibility of the

police to enforce that. You cannot, on one hand, say, “Hey, we like this

ruling. So it’s great that we’ve got an independent judiciary,” and on

the other hand, say, “Oh, we disagree with this ruling, so the whole

process is nothing,” just to protect a special interest

group.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, that’s not a false argument. It’s a fact that we have an

independent judiciary in this country, which is a cornerstone of our

democracy. It’s one, I think, that does a very effective job.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What I would also say: it’s not giving money. The police have a

job to do, which is to enforce a court-ordered injunction. It costs

money to do that.

We have to pay for the costs of the policing that takes place in

the course of the enforcement of these injunctions. We budget for it,

based on the amount of money that has been spent on an annual basis over

the last number of years. That is our best estimate.

In some cases, it may cost more; in some cases, it may cost less.

If it costs less, that money can go somewhere else. It is not a case of

just giving money and saying: “Do with it what you will.” It’s because

the courts have said: “We want the injunction enforced.”

They have the responsibility to do that, hon. Member. I understand

that you don’t like it, but that’s the fact.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES

AND IMPACT ON

BUSINESSES

T. Stone: Well, let’s be clear: the rampant, random attacks, the vandalism

and the social disorder, which is getting worse by the day, lies at the

feet of this Premier, who also happened to be the Attorney General for

5½ years.

[2:30 p.m.]

It was this Premier who was responsible for buying motels in

communities across B.C. and warehousing the mentally ill and addicted,

some of our most vulnerable citizens, with no supports except publicly

provided addictive drugs.

It was this Premier who, through every policy choice he made as

Attorney General, put the rights of repeat violent offenders above the

right of British Columbians to be safe and feel safe in their

communities. The Premier has been consistent with this bias his entire

private and public career.

Now, as people suffer brutal violence and random attacks in

downtown Vancouver, local small businesses are caught in the crossfire.

One in ten storefronts in Vancouver now stands vacant under this

government. In the area of Hastings Crossing, vacancies are at a

staggering 28 percent.

Desperate businesses are begging for support and, through the

business improvement areas association of British Columbia, have

proposed that this government create a fund to mitigate the devastating

impacts of vandalism and property crime on small business. Broken

windows, theft and vandalism are costing shop owners thousands upon

thousands of dollars, but there’s no support for them in the NDP’s

budget.

My question to the Premier is this. Will the Premier reverse

course and say “yes” to this proposal to create a fund to combat the

soaring costs of random violence and vandalism that are literally

decimating small businesses in communities right across British

Columbia?

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you

to the member opposite for the question. These are very challenging

times for small businesses. I, myself, have been a small business

person, and I think often about the challenges that these businesses are

faced with. It’s one thing after another, it seems, very much, for small

businesses in regards to the effects of the pandemic and the supply

chain challenges, the increase in borrowing funds….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. B. Bailey: Many small businesses have come through the pandemic with the

support that we provided them, more than $500 million worth of support.

And while this is very helpful to small businesses, I am listening to

small businesses. They are facing challenges, and this is important to

us.

We know that small businesses make up 98 percent of the businesses

in our communities. They’re incredibly important to us, and I look

forward to continuing to do the work with them to ensure their

success.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, the minister standing up and saying that small businesses

are important to her and important to the government is cold comfort for

the small businesses out there that are being decimated.

This Premier, as I said in my previous question…. Every single

opportunity that he has had, whether it was as Attor­ney General,

as Minister of Housing or now as the Premier of British Columbia…. He

has consistently, through his policy choices, put the rights of violent

offenders to reoffend over the rights of British Columbians to be safe

in their communities. And in addition to the public safety issue, this

has meant small businesses are caught in the middle. Thefts, windows

broken, vandalism — on and on and on the list goes.

The members opposite are getting the same emails that we’re all

getting, in the opposition, from these small businesses. Not a single

penny in the NDP’s budget to help small businesses with this social

disorder, which is caused by the government’s policies. But, you know:

“Small business is important to us.” Give me a break.

Just today Vancouver police stated that they have arrested 217

people over the course of a three-week period for violent retail thefts.

In one incident, a man with 37 criminal convictions entered a dollar

store near Granville Street and threatened staff with a knife. Staff

Sgt. Mario Mastropieri of the VPD says: “In Vancouver, we continue to

see an alarming trend of repeat offenders and people using violence to

commit their crimes…. Business owners are frustrated by the financial

losses and by the danger employees face for merely coming to work to

earn a living.”

[2:35 p.m.]

The soft-on-crime Premier’s catch-and-release justice system is

causing havoc for local businesses and threatening the safety of their

employees and their customers alike.

When will the Premier step up and take the necessary actions which

will actually deliver positive results and end the random violence and

vandalism which is plaguing small businesses all over British

Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member across the way. I’d like

to point out…. He seemed to forget something in his little thing, when

he quoted the VPD. Retail crime is growing in major cities throughout

North America and in Vancouver. This isn’t just a Vancouver problem.

This is a problem North America–wide.

It’s why we’ve had to take an approach that works with all levels

of government. It’s working with the city of Vancouver on addressing the

social issues around housing and mental health and addiction. It’s

working with police to identify the tools and the resources that they

need to be able to do these kinds of sting operations that take these

individuals off the streets. It’s working with the federal government so

that we can get changes to Bill C-75, in terms of reverse onus and so

that the unintended consequences from that piece of legislation are, in

fact, corrected.

I know they don’t like to hear it. This province and this Premier

took a leadership role on that issue, and we will continue to do

that.

That’s why we’ve increased funding to deal with the mental health

issues, in terms of the Peer Assisted Care Teams, which communities have

been asking for, and to expand the car program, which communities have

been asking for and which police have been asking for. Those are

initiatives that this government has taken and will continue to

take.

It’s why in small communities, when they’re facing these kinds of

similar problems…. We are funding the addition of 277 police officers

who will be able to assist communities. It’s why, when we were

government, we put in place the surge teams in communities such as

Terrace, Prince George, Kelowna and Kamloops, which, all of those

communities have said, have worked extremely well.

We have done a lot, but we know there’s a lot more to do. We are

working with the business community, local government, other provinces

and the federal government to put in place the initiatives to deal with

these kinds of crimes and criminals.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

ACTION ON COMMUNITY

SAFETY

P. Milobar: Well, this Premier — be it as Attorney General, be it as Premier,

be it as life before a politician — has done nothing but defend the

rights of lawbreakers over the rights of victims.

The Solicitor General can mention victims today. It’s too bad this

government did not use the word “victim” once, with any dollars

especially attached to it, in their most recent budget. The word

“victim” doesn’t show up in that budget one time.

The facts are very simple. The Premier’s handpicked expert, Doug

LePard, pointed it out. B.C. stands alone, based on this Premier’s

soft-on-crime policies, with a 40 percent decrease in the number of

people in jail in British Columbia compared to the rest of the country,

which the Solicitor General likes to try to deflect away. I have news

for the Solicitor General. The people of B.C. expect this government to

deal with issues within B.C. and to actually create safe

streets.

Let’s look at the crime stats, B.C.’s violent crime severity

index. They’ve increased 30 percent under this soft-on-crime Premier’s

watch. A 75 percent increase in the rate of no charge assessment under

this Premier’s watch. Vancouver is averaging four unprovoked stranger

assaults per day, which are getting more and more violent every single

day, under this soft-on-crime Premier’s watch.

Serious assaults involving weapons or bodily harm in Vancouver are

up over 30 percent compared to 2017 under this soft-on-crime Premier’s

watch. In 2022, over 91,000, or 49 percent, of non-emergency calls wound

up being abandoned by E-Comm under this soft-on-crime Attorney General’s

watch.

The system is broken. This government is failing on every measure.

When can communities meaningfully see some results that will actually

make them safer on their streets instead of the continual passing of the

buck that we see from the Solicitor General and whichever Attorney

General might happen to be filling the role today?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Only an opposition that doesn’t understand how our criminal

justice system works would say that going to Ottawa to get changes is

passing the buck.

When it comes to victims…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …of crime and support for victims of crime, let’s just refresh

that member’s record, his government’s, when they sat on this side of

the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.

Members will stop now, please.

The minister will continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: When gang violence ran rampant in the Lower Mainland, when they

sat on this side of the House, did they increase service for victims?

No, they didn’t. They cut it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In 2009, in the budget then, they spent $42 million. In 2017, in

their budget that they tabled, they spent $40 million — $40

million.

In 2018, when we took office, in our first budget, we put $48

million in. In this budget, the budget that he says doesn’t do anything

for victims, $78 million.

But more important, hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, enough. Please be quiet.

Please continue.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

For the leaderless opposition, this side of the House will

continue to make investments in policing, in communities right across

this province. We will continue to expand the Car program, which we are

doing. We will continue to put in place…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …the peer assisted care teams, hon. Speaker, which communities

have been asking for. We will continue to work with law enforcement,

social service agencies, with communities.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know they don’t seem to understand it, but we will also continue

to work with the federal government — which has responsibility for the

Criminal Code of this country, which the vast number of people in this

province understand — to get changes put in place that will protect

people and make communities safer. It’s unfortunate that they don’t get

that.

[End of question period.]

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

T. Halford: I rise on a point of personal privilege related to the remarks made by

the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m pleased to present revised service plans for the Ministry of

Finance and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

These updated plans reflect the transfer of authority for the Liquor

Distribution Branch from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Public

Safety and Solicitor General. The changes to the service plans are

administrative in nature and are effective April 1, 2023.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 38 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 38 — MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO

AGRICULTURE, FISH AND

FOOD COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 38 with respect to membership on the Select Standing

Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food, standing in my name on the

order paper.

[That Adam Olsen be removed as a member of the Select

Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food.]

Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the motion.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call second reading on Bill 17, Family Law

Act.

In committee room A, I call continued debate on the Committee of

Supply for the Ministry of Education and Child Care. When that

completes, the Ministry of Forests will begin Committee of Supply in

committee room A.

In committee room C, I call continued debate on Committee of

Supply for the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

When that completes, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy will begin Committee of Supply in committee room C.

[2:45 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: All right, Members. Let’s get this debate underway, the second

reading of Family Law Amend­ment Act, 2023.

Personal Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS

MADE IN THE

HOUSE

N. Simons: Earlier today I used the “L” word, and while you, Mr. Speaker,

didn’t hear it, I did. I withdraw, and I apologize.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — FAMILY LAW

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

The Family Law Amendment Act, 2023, amends provisions with

part 5,

property division, and

part 6, pension division, of the Family Law Act.

These amendments represent phase 1 of a multiphase project to modernize

the act.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, if we could have a little quiet in the chamber,

please.

Hon. N. Sharma: The act came into force ten years ago, and there have been many

societal changes and developments in case law since then. My ministry is

reviewing its provisions to ensure that they continue to meet the needs

of families in British Columbia. The modernization project is occurring

in phases, because the act is large and covers many areas that impact

families. A phased approach will better allow the public to meaningfully

participate in, and ministry staff to complete, the review.

The

part 5 amendments clarify two important property division

issues. The first is the division of spouses’ excluded property that is

transferred between spouses during their relationship. Generally,

excluded property is not divided between spouses when they separate, but

the act allows for division in certain circumstances. There has been a

divergence in case law about whether excluded property that is

transferred between spouses should be divided and whether a common law

evidentiary rule, the presumption of advancement, applies. This

divergence has resulted in an uncertainty that has negatively affected

out-of-court settlements and led to a significant amount of

litigation.

The amendment clarifies that the presumption of advancement does

not apply to the division of property under

part 5 and that excluded

property remains excluded, to be divided only as provided for in the

act. The amendments make corresponding changes to expand the factors

that the courts can consider when dividing excluded property. These

changes allow the court to divide excluded property in a more

predictable way that should encourage out-of-court settlements and

reduce litigation.

The second issue addresses what happens to companion animals,

known as family pets, when spouses separate. This is an example of

modernizing the act to reflect changes in society and how people’s

relationship with their pets has evolved over time. There are currently

six American states that have recently established similar legislation,

but B.C. would be the first Canadian jurisdiction.

The amendments regarding pets create a definition of a “companion

animal” and clarify that spouses can make agreements about whether one

of them will own or possess the pet or whether it will be shared, if

they both want to retain a relationship with the companion animal.

Established factors the court must consider when making sole ownership

orders about a companion animal include the history of risk of family

violence or animal cruelty, the relationship a child has with the

animal, and who has cared for the pet and is willing and able to

continue to care for it.

Importantly, these amendments authorize the B.C. Provincial Court

and Supreme Court to make orders related to companion animals, to allow

spouses to choose the court they wish to use. These amendments were

developed based on written and survey feedback from a public

consultation as well as discussions with an advisory group of family law

practitioners and advocates.

The

part 6, pension division, amendments are based on

recommendations from a report published by the British Columbia Law

Institute in March 2021. The changes seek to ensure that the pension

division provisions in the act remain up to date and interact

appropriately with pensions, administration practices and actuarial

sciences.

[2:50 p.m.]

Some of the notable additions clarify that locked-in retirement

accounts, or LIRAs, and life income funds are divided under

part 6 of

the act rather than

part 5, and how annuities are divided when spouses

separate.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney for her remarks on second reading with

regard to Bill 17.

I think it’s fair to say that the area of the law that we are

dealing with here is applicable to people who are generally experiencing

one of the most emotional times in their life. I dare say, in this day

and age, there’s probably no one who either hasn’t directly themselves

experienced the breakdown in a family relationship or doesn’t know

someone who has.

So many people are able to view this area of the law through the

lens of personal experience, and some of us are able to view it not just

through that lens but through a professional lens of having been

involved in, sadly, the litigation that sometimes follows to settle the

matters that require settlement when that relationship breaks

down.

I say that because, to a certain extent, people might look at a

bill like this and see the inclusion of new terminology like companion

animals. I suppose the layperson’s equivalent would be the word “pets.”

Yet language in these instruments is so important that the definition of

what a companion animal is and what it isn’t becomes significant. We’ll

spend a little bit of time in committee just exploring and verifying

what is included and what happens when there is an overlap between, for

example, a farm animal and a companion animal or a family

pet.

These things take on…. Most people don’t have to have it explained

to them the emotional attachment that exists between a family and

members of a family and their family pet. That is amplified tenfold when

the family unit breaks apart and decisions have to be made, obviously,

about property, custody and care for children. I have to say — based on

some experience, professional experience — it’s sometimes the pet that

becomes the triggering point for a more prolonged dispute between the

parties that has negative consequences for everyone.

There is a theme running through the legislation that I think is

an important one. I’m grateful to the Attorney General and her staff for

the opportunity we had earlier today to go through some of the technical

aspects of the bill. But that theme is to try and address an uncertainty

that has arisen through some of the litigation that has taken place in

interpreting the existing

part 5 and

part 6 division provisions of the

act.

In the context of a relationship breakdown, a marriage or

marriage-like relationship breakdown, uncertainty can be devastatingly

consequential. If we accept, as I do and used to say to people that I

was assisting, when a relationship breaks down, the objective is to

ensure that there is a fair settlement between the parties and to let

them get on with their lives. That’s certainly to the benefit of adult

partners and certainly to the benefit of any children that might be

involved in the breakdown in that relationship.

So uncertainty, or the opposite of that, creating certainty for

the parties involved in a breakdown is important. Creating certainty for

the professionals — sometimes lawyers, sometimes counsellors — who are

advising those parties is important.

[2:55 p.m.]

Quite frankly, to the extent that this branch of government, the

legislative branch, can create certainty for the judicial branch of

government…. I like saying “judicial branch of government” because it

drives judges crazy when they hear…. Yet they are. They are the third

branch of governing our society, and creating a measure of certainty for

them as it relates to the law they are charged with interpreting and

applying, is, at the end of the day, also helpful.

We’ll talk a little bit in committee stage about the provisions

and how they’ll operate and the considerations. And there’s an

interesting facet, by the way, to this companion animal/pet component

that I’m sure the Attorney will elaborate on in the committee stage,

which allows for the parties in a broken relationship to come to an

agreement. And I think the terms that are used — to jointly own a pet,

to share possession…. I guess that means Fluffy spends one week with one

party and another week with another party.

But that can be very important for a family, especially at a time

when…. Or to give exclusive ownership to one of the parties…. The

parties to a relationship can agree to those terms, but significantly,

the act makes clear that a court cannot do that. To use the term, the

court is not, under this legislation, permitted to grant joint custody

of Fluffy. I’ll ask the Attorney that when we get to the committee

stage.

I understand, I think, the legal rationale behind that, and it’s

one that some people may not like to hear, and that is: the law deals

with Fluffy as property. And under the existing laws that we have, the

division of that property must be final. But it also should act or could

act as an incentive for people to come to their own agreement around how

to deal with a family pet.

In fact, that theme, we might as well say it here, whether it is

in the context of a prenuptial agreement, a cohabitation agreement…. I

know it’s really difficult to say to people who have just fallen in love

and are planning their future to have them turn their mind to what might

take place if it all doesn’t work out. Yet there are certain real

advantages to doing that, and here is yet another piece of the menu that

could be addressed in that prenuptial or cohabitation agreement, and

indeed in a separation agreement if the relationship doesn’t work

out.

The other area…. And I don’t want to diminish or be flippant

about, in any way, the issue around pets/companion animals, because,

emotionally, that can be of far more consequence than significant

amounts of money, in my experience, in terms of assisting the parties in

getting on with their lives and finding a settlement.

The amendments in this piece of legislation that deal with

property and a situation…. When we come to the committee stage…. I’ve

already alerted the Attorney’s staff to the fact that I’m going to ask

the Attorney, when we are dealing with clauses 3 and 4, to come armed

with some practical examples, because to have this conversation in any

kind of an abstract way is incomprehensible for not just the average

person but for virtually anyone.

[3:00 p.m.]

The common scenario, of course, is the couple that comes together

in a marriage or marriage-like relationship that is subsequently

captured by the property division provisions of

part 5 or 6 of the act,

where one of the parties has brought a piece of real estate, perhaps a

family home, into the relationship and then, subsequently, chooses to

place a partner on that title. That triggers or has triggered a whole

series of presumptions.

The one that is referred to here in the act is the presumption of

advancement, an old common-law principle that can still have some very

real implications at the time a relationship breaks down, because the

courts have dealt with that scenario. We’ll get more specific in

committee stage. The courts have dealt with it differently.

In an age when, whether we’re talking about — be careful what

terms you use — a first-time relationship, which may or may not involve

people at a younger time in their life, versus relationships that might

be second or third marriages or the equivalent of second or third

marriages that happen far later in life. The older one gets, presumably,

the more assets and more property people may have accumulated. Having

clarity and certainty around what the rules would be upon dissolution or

breakdown in the relationship is clear.

To the extent that there is uncertainty in a pretty fundamental

area of property division law, the act, with the help of the agency

referred to by the minister, is seeking to address that and create more

certainty. I use that term. We’re creating more certainty. We are not,

in my view, creating absolute certainty. Because in the sections of the

legislation, clause 6, there’s an expansion of the range of

considerations that a court can bring. But these are still subjective

matters.

One likes to think, and I always took the view, that in these

situations, the best service lawyers could render was to provide their

clients with sound advice that led to a settlement that didn’t require

litigation. But that’s not always the case. That does require

reasonableness on the part of both parties. But for the lawyers that

might worry that there won’t be anything to argue about, clause 6 still

leaves some room for the clever advocacy skills of those who do find

themselves before the courts on behalf of their clients, which then

takes me to the provisions dealing with pensions.

It’s interesting. I’ll make this confession, although I’m a little

bit embarrassed. Given my age, I probably should have known what a life

income fund and a LIRA are. As the years go by, that becomes far more

relevant to my consideration. But I didn’t until a friend of mine drew

it to my attention, and not in the context of this legislation but

because of some research and work that they were undertaking.

Pets are important. The parts of this bill that deal with the

notion of the advancement are important. Arguably, from a fiscal point

of view, this could be the most important provision of all, because

ensuring that there is clarity around how the pension asset is divided

between parties is fundamentally important. As I understand, the lack of

clarity or the confusion that has arisen relating to LIFs, LIRAs and

annuities has caused a lot of consternation.

[3:05 p.m.]

The fact that different courts at different times have chosen to

divide these assets either pursuant to the rules under

part 5 or

part

6…. What I’ll ask the Attorney to confirm when we get to the committee

stage is that this represents a clear direction to the court that these

parts of the pension asset are to be dealt with under

part 6 as parts of

the pension. Where this becomes relevant, of course, is…. I shouldn’t

say “of course.” I would not have known this but for the intervention of

my friend a week or two ago.

In an age when it has become more common to take a commuted value

of a pension…. This can amount to significant amounts of money. So the

person that says, “Rather than wait until I’m 60 or 65,” whatever the

age is, “to begin collecting my monthly pension, at age 45, I’m going to

take X amount.” The mechanism by which that is calculated is

horrifically complicated and involves everything from bond returns and

interest rates…. I won’t even begin to try and communicate the formulas

that the actuaries would use to calculate that amount on behalf of a

pension plan.

What is far more relevant is, as between the two parties, one of

whom may have a legitimate claim to a portion of that amount…. The rules

around pension entitlement as it relates to the monthly payment are

pretty clear. A spouse has an entitlement based on the amount of time

that they were together prior to separation. That’s generally fairly

straightforward when calculating a percentage of the monthly amount. But

what if one of the separating parties decides to take the commuted

value? What happens then?

As I understand — and again, the minister can confirm this during

the committee stage — the inequity or the unfairness that has, at times,

arisen is where that lump sum payment…. Taking the commuted value

involves a portion of that pension entitlement going into a life income

fund and then a portion coming by way of cash into a LIRA. But it would

be unfair to simply apply a 50 percent division to that amount in

situations where the parties have not been together very

long.

So we’ll explore that in the committee stage of discussion around

this bill, but given the age demographic of our society and, I take it,

the increasing tendency on the part of many to seek the commuted value

of their pension in advance of the pension date, which triggers the

creation of these funds — the life income fund and the LIRA — it’s

important that everyone have a clear understanding at the time that

relationship breakdown occurs as to what the entitlements are so that

that part of the property division can take place on a definitive,

accurate and fair basis.

I think it is fair to say that the opposition believes it

understands most of what is intended with the legislation and

understands and accepts that insofar as creating certainty or

uncertainty presently exists, it’s a beneficial thing, we’ll want to

ensure in our committee stage debate that the wording around the

legislation actually accomplishes what we are told the intention

is.

[3:10 p.m.]

As always, it’s tricky. We’ll want to make sure we’re not

inadvertently condemning Fluffy to a life of hell by inadvertently

neglecting some provisions of what a court should consider in dealing

with that situation.

But it will be, I think, a fairly technical discussion, but one

that I think will assist people if we are able to do so on the strength

of specific examples that point to what the regime will look like when,

as I expect, this bill and the laws proposed within it become part of

the property division regime within British Columbia.

Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close

debate?

Hon. N. Sharma: I look forward to our committee stage. I have to thank the member

for speaking about the areas and clarifying where any further comments

or discussion might be.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 17, Family Law Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 14.

Deputy Speaker: Members, it will take a few moments to just get us adjusted for

committee. I just suggest a brief recess.

The House recessed at 3:11 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MODERNIZATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14,

Miscellaneous Statutes (Modernization) Amend­ment Act, 2023;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:15 p.m.

The Chair: All right, Members. Here we are. I’d like to call this

committee into session looking at committee stage of Bill 14,

Miscellaneous Statutes (Modernization) Amendment Act, 2023, and we

are on clause 1.

On clause 1 (continued) .

R. Merrifield: I really appreciated the opportunity yesterday just to ask those

reassuring questions and appreciated the minister’s answer, just about

the rights of individuals and how they will be maintained and upheld,

even with the language being changed. That gives a lot of

comfort.

My last question is this. Is this process of inclusive language

actually supported by any funding that will then go to help all of the

regulators and all of the different programming, etc., adjust to the

inclusive language?

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the member for the question.

This work on these particular pieces of legislation is complete,

so there’s no additional work that’s required, and there are no specific

implications in regards to programming. Thus, for that reason, there’s

no financial attachment to this bill.

Clauses 1 to 1201 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Bailey: I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bailey: No?

The Chair: Sorry. Division has been called, Members. Thank

you.

[3:20 p.m. - 3:25 p.m.]

The question is shall the committee rise and report Bill 14

complete without amendment.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and

Proceedings .]

The committee rose at 3:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MODERNIZATION)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 14, Miscellaneous Statutes (Modernization) Amendment Act, 2023,

reported complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you’ve heard the question.

[3:30 p.m.]

Division has been called.

Members, do we have an agreement to waive the time?

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Members, the question is third reading of Bill 17.

Bill 14, Miscellaneous Statutes (Modernization) Amendment Act,

2023, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division. [See

Votes and Proceedings .]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 13.

[3:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — PAY TRANSPARENCY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 3:36 p.m.

The Chair: We will call the committee to order. We are dealing with Bill

13, Pay Transparency Act.

I will ask the minister if she’d like to introduce

staff.

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

With me today I have Asha Bhat, the assistant deputy minister of

the gender equity office, and Alison Dudley, executive director of the

gender equity office. Of course, our Parliamentary Secretary for Gender

Equity is with us as well.

On clause 1.

R. Merrifield: I’d like to start off by asking some pretty big questions on the

definitions, etc. We’re going to start just on the actual thresholds

that are described. I’d love to know how the minister actually chose

those thresholds, based on business sizes. Were the industry, or

industries in general, consulted?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, the industry was consulted. Consultations were held with

small, medium and large-sized businesses across the province. Thresholds

were determined to ensure businesses of smaller sizes could ease into

the reporting system, and then year-by-year reporting could also be

fine-tuned to ensure that there is a seamless process for small

businesses. We started with larger businesses because they obviously had

larger human resource offices, so that they could more readily engage

with the system.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I’m curious. Were the

findings of the industry consultative process ever made public in any

sort of a document or report?

Hon. K. Conroy: The consultation paper was made public. It was posted, but not the

actual findings. A what-we-heard report wasn’t part of the process, but

what was heard was definitely part of how the legislation was

formed.

R. Merrifield: Is it possible for the minister to provide that report?

Hon. K. Conroy: Notes from the consultation process have not been made

public.

R. Merrifield: Could the minister please specify how many businesses will be

captured at each stage of the phasing in of this act? For example, under

3(a), for 2024, 1,000 or more. Just how many businesses does that

represent across British Columbia? In (b), for 2025, 300 or more. How

many businesses are represented in that number?

Hon. K. Conroy: In stage 1, it covers approximately eight employers, 3 percent of

the workforce. Stage 2 covers approximately 172 employers, 33 percent of

the workforce.

[3:45 p.m.]

Stage 3 covers 700 employers, approximately 46 percent of the

workforce. The final stage, stage 4, covers approximately 8,537

employers, 65 percent of the workforce.

R. Merrifield: Thanks for the answer and the statistics. Could the minister also

please specify how many employees? Do you have the number of employees?

We’ve got the percentage of employees, but do you have the actual number

of employees that will be captured at each stage?

Hon. K. Conroy: We don’t have the exact numbers, but it’s felt that by the end of

the process we’ll have covered about 1.5 million employees.

R. Merrifield: Will franchises, such as McDonalds, Boston Pizza, Subway, be

considered one employer, or will they be considered multiple employers?

Are they covered under 3(a), or would they be covered under

3(d)?

Hon. K. Conroy: With franchises, locations are typically independently owned and

operated, so the individual employers, the franchisees or business

owners, would be responsible for producing their own reports if they

individually meet the employee threshold numbers at the location, or

locations, that they operate. For instance, Subway Canada would not be

required to produce a report on behalf of all of its franchise locations

in B.C. The responsibility would rest with the individual

employers.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister. Is there a risk, Minister, that some of them

might not even have to report then, because they would be under that 50

threshold?

Hon. K. Conroy: By the fourth year of this rollout, if they have 50 or more

employees, they would have to report. It’s something that we’re going to

be looking at and fine-tuning as this process moves forward, if that’s a

number we would like to change, or just to see how it’s going to

work.

R. Merrifield: I definitely understand the delicacy of not burdening very small

businesses and enterprises with a level of bureaucracy that is difficult

for them, right? I mean, they just don’t have the staff to try and

report out, etc. So I understand the difficulty. It’s just that when we

have a large number of them that could be under that 50 threshold, that

could be problematic just in terms of a population that would not be

part of the numbers or part of the reporting data that we’d

have.

I’m going to move on, though, to the next question and ask…. The

employer health tax, actually, currently considers related enterprises

as one single business for accessing taxable payroll. So will there be a

similar principle applied for this legislation, or will businesses be

considered separately?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member. It’s a good question. Details will be refined

in legislation, but it’s also why we will be in communication with

employers to make sure that we’re determining the best way to move

forward with the legislation and get the reporting done that needs to be

done.

[3:50 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: Just to clarify what I’m hearing from the minister, right now that

determination has not yet been made.

Hon. K. Conroy: Each business would be considered separately. However, when this

is…. It’s something…. It’s under consideration under the regulations,

not legislation. We want to make sure that we determine the best path

forward for employers.

R. Merrifield: Will the minister be devoting any resources to helping smaller

enterprises prepare for the legislation being phased in? I’ll note that

there are 8,537 of those smaller businesses, those 50 to 300, that are

in that range.

Are there any resources that are devoted to helping small

businesses with this? If so, does the minister have a financial

estimate?

Hon. K. Conroy: These will be the things that we undertake as we move forward. The

Ministry of Finance has a dedicated webpage to explain the requirements

under the Pay Transparency Act. It’s easily searchable from the

ministry’s home page or by entering “pay transparency B.C. government”

into a search engine.

If an employer goes on to the site and doesn’t find the

information they’re looking for, they can email ministry staff directly.

The email is paytransparency@gov.bc.ca. The information could be posted

on the site. We’ve already answered a number of questions that have come

from employers, and we are looking to respond to employers very

quickly.

A. Olsen: I’m reflecting on this bill and reflecting on how I want to

approach what has been offered. I provided my second reading remarks

some days ago. I’m not sure which one it was now, but it was a while

ago.

I think it’s important to first acknowledge that there is a step

being taken. It doesn’t, in my opinion, go far enough.

I have both a son and a daughter. I was thinking about this over

the spring break. My partner and I have raised our kids to be equitable

— equity between our two children. There aren’t those traditional

divides in our family. The boys go with the dad, and the girls go with….

There isn’t that.

I see my children as equal in my eyes. They both have their own

strengths. They both have their own weaknesses. They’re individuals. But

they’re equal in my mind.

[3:55 p.m.]

My children are going to have remarkably different experiences

because one of them is identified as my son and one of them is

identified as my daughter. That’s just the world that they are going

into. As we navigate this pay transparency legislation…. To me, it’s

very challenging to think that we are only taking a moderate step

forward to be able to say to my daughter that she’s not going to expect

to earn less than her brother in her life.

The other thing, too, that is interesting is, as we’ve watched and

listened to the debates that have come from this bill…. I think I should

frame this, as well, in a conversation that I had yesterday with the

B.C. Nurses Union. We were talking about all sorts of things around

employment.

If my daughter chooses to be working in what is seen as

traditionally women’s work — nurses, ECEs, teachers…. She can also

expect to have a more expensive education than if her brother chooses,

for example — or even if she chooses, for that matter — to become a

welder, a plumber or an electrician, traditionally seen as men’s

work.

We have two completely different systems. An apprentice for a

plumber can get paid while they go to school, and they go to school for

a much shorter period of time. An ECE, which we need many, many

thousands of in this province, can expect to be paying to go to school.

A nurse, when they’re at the end, as a fourth-year nurse, will pay to

work.

I think that as we are looking at equity or transparency in this

bill but equity, in general…. We still have a long way to go in this

province to ensure that this world is equitable, truly

inclusive.

I’m just wondering what it was…. To the minister, why was the

choice to go with pay transparency legislation, not pay equity

legislation or not what many jurisdictions in the province have? That is

two companion bills, which have pay equity and pay

transparency.

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to thank the member for the question. I understand where

he’s coming from. I have four kids and nine grandkids.

I was very proud that my oldest granddaughter went to work in the

shutdowns at Teck Cominco and the pulp mill in the last couple of years,

jobs that are not seen as typically for young women. She held her own,

and she came home very proud to let me know that there were quite a

number of young women that were working the shutdowns in what would have

been seen as traditionally male jobs. She also has a grandmother who was

one of B.C.’s first female power engineers. So I know what it’s like to

work in a sector that’s traditionally seen as so-called men’s

work.

I also know that I made the same wages as men did when I worked,

and she makes the same wages as men do when she works. They were large

companies, large companies that were making sure that

happened.

I hope that by the time the member’s children go to work in the

industry, this bill will finally be fully implemented. This bill is the

first step in pay equity. It’s to ensure pay equity across all

sectors.

It’s important work to advance pay equity in B.C. It strikes a

good balance between the interests of advocates, employers and

employees. It will be a critical new tool in our work, which our

government is doing, to address the pay equity gap. It has also been

shown in other jurisdictions that have very similar legislation that it

is helping with the pay equity gap, and that is another reason why we’re

moving forward with this first very important step.

[4:00 p.m.]

A. Olsen: There are many hazards just to even having this conversation. I

don’t want to assume that there…. There are the traditional roles and

the traditional views, and that’s, I think, the frame that I asked that

question in, recognizing, of course, that there is a choice to work in

any industry and, in fact, encouraged to. So I appreciate the response

from the minister.

After so many months, after so many years of this being put in

front of this government, why is it that this government chose to take a

modest step forward rather than just delivering what I think you see

other jurisdictions in this country delivering — both pay transparency

and pay equity?

Hon. K. Conroy: This is a first important step. A key goal of this legislation is

to shed light on the pay gap and to empower job seekers and employees in

their job search and in the pay negotiation process, enhancing the

transparency of employer pay practices. It can expose wage

discrimination, and this can empower employees to demand equal pay at

the workplace and nudge employers to do more to ensure that their pay

practices are free of discrimination.

Addressing the pay gap requires an all-of-government approach. We

are already making progress in narrowing the pay gap through investments

in training, education and child care and through our increases to the

minimum wage. I mean, 75 percent of the people that entered the

workforce last year were women, and that was directly attributed to our

child care programs. Pay transparency legislation is going to be another

critical tool that we can use to shine a light on that gap and decrease

it.

A. Olsen: Why not, along with pay transparency legislation, include pay

equity legislation?

Hon. K. Conroy: This is the first step. We’re taking this all under consideration,

working with employers and employees as we transition to stage 4, and

this is the first step.

A. Olsen: The reality is that when this legislation came out, there was

quite a lot said about it. The fact that this government hasn’t brought

forward pay equity legislation for us, but has instead taken, as the

minister frames it, a first step that doesn’t include pay equity but

does include pay transparency, puts the burden back on the worker, to an

extent.

I’m going to table an amendment to clause 1.

[ CLAUSE 1, by adding the underlined text as shown and

deleting the text shown as struck out:

Definitions

(1) In this Act:

“annual report” means a report under

section

“director” means the individual designated

under

section 10 as the director of pay equity and

transparency;

“Indigenous governing entity” has the same

meaning as in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act ;

“Indigenous peoples” has the same meaning as in

the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act ;

“pay” means, subject to any prescribed

exceptions, the following:

(

a) a salary, wage or commission that is paid or payable

by an employer to an employee for labour or services provided by the

employee;

(

b) money that is paid or payable by an employer to an

employee as an incentive in relation to hours of work, production or

efficiency;

(

c) money that

(

i) is paid or payable by an employer to an employee at

the discretion of the employer, and

(ii) is not related to hours of work, production or

efficiency;

(

d) compensation, including all payments and benefits paid or

provided to or for the benefit of a person who performs functions

that entitle the person to be paid a fixed or ascertainable

amount;

“pay transparency report” means a report

prepared by a reporting employer under

section 5;

“personal information” has the same meaning as

in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act ;

“publicly advertised job opportunity” means a

specific job opportunity that an employer advertises to the public in

any manner;

“reporting employer” means an employer referred

to in subsection (2) or (3).

(2) The following are reporting employers:

(

a) the government;

(

b) British Columbia Housing Management

Commission;

(

c) British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority;

(

d) British Columbia Lottery Corporation;

(

e) British Columbia Transit;

(

f) Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia;

(

g) Workers’ Compensation Board.

(3) Unless exempted by regulation, an employer that has the

following number of employees on January 1 of the applicable year is a

reporting employer:

(

a) for 2024, 1 000 500 or

more;

(

b) for 2025, 300 50 or

more;

(

c) for 2026, 50 or more; for 2026,

more than the lesser of 49 and any prescribed

number.

(

d) for a year after 2026, more than the lesser of

49 and any prescribed number. ]

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: This amendment adds pay equity to the list of the director’s

responsibilities. It expands the definition of “pay” and changes the

time frame for reporting. Stakeholders have called for this change. An

open letter from over 125 individuals and organizations stated that “the

legislation should require transparency of total annual compensation,

including all bonuses and non-monetary benefits and perks. This

information should be tied to job titles and descriptions of core

duties.”

Understanding total compensation is necessary to en­sure pay

equity, and that’s the reason why I’m moving the amendment to these

definitions. Pay needs to be broadened to include compensation other

than wage and salary, including benefits, pensions and other items that

cannot be captured through a simple definition of “pay.”

[4:05 p.m.]

It would be better to use the word “compensation,” which you will

see is being done in the definition under pay,

section (d):

“compensation, including all payments and benefits paid or provided to

or for the benefit of a person who performs functions that entitle the

person to be paid a fixed or ascertainable amount.”

I also move the change to the time frames for reporting. The

current time frame is very long for such slight legislation. Experts and

stakeholders called for this legislation to apply broadly across the

economy. They state that pay transparency should be mandatory for all

employers with ten or more employees across all sectors. Pay equity is

needed in organizations of all sizes.

The Chair: My ruling is that the amendment is in order. We’ll take a

short recess to ensure that everyone has a copy, and then we’ll come

back into committee.

The committee recessed from 4:06 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

A. Olsen: First, I would want to just make sure that I use the correct

language — that I am moving the amendment that has now been shared with

the Clerk and the Clerk’s table.

Second, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: I have no idea who is sitting in the gallery this afternoon, but there

are a whole bunch of people that showed up in our gallery.

I just wanted to

welcome you here while we’re debating Bill 13. This is the Pay Transparency

Act. We are in the committee stage of the debate. This is where we go

through clause by clause of this bill and where we understand what the

intention of the government and the minister is and where the members of the

opposition, which you see sitting from here on, go through each clause to

ask questions about the intention of it.

Welcome to our House. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.

Maybe we can all make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the amendment, but we will not be

supporting this amendment. It too quickly accelerates the implementation

of the reporting, and it will place an undue burden on small businesses,

especially, to adapt to this new model that is being proposed. We’ve

heard very clearly from small businesses that they need some time to

carry forward with what we are proposing. We want to make sure that we

support everyone so that it gets done in the right way.

[4:10 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I hear the minister’s response. I do think it needs to be put on

the record that women in this province, in particular, have been waiting

for this for a long time, and to think that this amendment would speed

it up….

This process for this legislation, at least for this first step of

the legislation, has been in the process for six years, perhaps. It is a

remarkable step back from what the predecessors of this B.C. NDP

government — the previous version back in the 1990s, early 2000s — had

implemented with pay equity legislation. I recognize the impact that

this has on business, but to think that that….

We’re essentially saying that the burden, then, should be carried

by women in this society. So I don’t accept the reason why the

government will not vote for this. Of course, I support it, and it’s

disappointing that the government’s view of this is that we’re moving

too quickly. Because I think, in the grand scheme of things, when you

look at the fact that this is a process that started….

I mentioned in my second reading debate speech a number of former

B.C. NDP MLAs and cabinet ministers that were talking about that process

22 years ago, starting 25 years in advance. So this is not a fast

process. This is painfully slow.

R. Merrifield: I’ll just take a couple of seconds. I need a little bit more time

to digest as to whether or not I will consider support, but I do want to

make a couple of comments to what I’m hearing from my other opposition

colleague from the Third Party, and that is that women have been

waiting.

As a woman, I can tell you that women have been waiting. They have

been waiting for as long as I have been an adult, which is about 25

years. I could go back and give a history lesson on all of the things

that we have come and have been able to do over the course of my

lifetime and the measures that have been put into place in my lifetime.

I know that I would not be where I am today without the pioneers who

went before me. And what I want in this bill and what I see in this bill

is another step, another measure, another amount forward for

women.

As I have researched these measures over the course of the last 15

years, I know that there are some dangers with pay equity acts and

measures and laws. The dangers come from things like pay compression,

which can happen when laws aren’t thoughtfully and carefully measured

out in accordance with how it should be.

I want to talk just briefly, because I know that we’ve been

speaking about what happened in 2001 and the measures that were brought

forward and then not. I’m actually very happy that they were not brought

forward in 2001, that those measures were taken away, because as I

reviewed what was passed back in 2000 and 2001, I actually called them,

like, the tattletale bill. It was this bill where you as a female would

have to go and then prove that you had been unduly treated and that your

pay was not equal. There were so many flaws with that.

I actually celebrate that this is going to be phased in. I liked

the minister’s answer that there is going to be an iterative process on

the regulations and that there will be lessons learned from the biggest

companies who have the easiest time in terms of reporting and data and

making sure that all of those tweaks and nuances are there.

I do think that there are some things that could be improved upon.

I’m appreciative of the process, and I like that during this committee

phase we’re going to be drilling down into some of those aspects. But I

think where we ended up in terms of the phase is not too

long.

I do believe that already, I’ve been getting emails from

businesses who are like: how do I do this? Where do I report? There’s an

eagerness, but there’s also a fear and trepidation — how do I do this?

What do I report? — and companies that are going to struggle with the

capacity to actually report.

[4:15 p.m.]

I like the approach that we’re taking today. I need time to

consider whether or not we support the amendment, but I did want to just

say that pay transparency and pay transparency legislation is the

mechanism to get to pay equity as a concept. It has been proven, through

jurisdictions that have already got pay transparency legislation in

place, that that gap narrows, and it narrows significantly — by almost

40 percent.

I don’t necessarily agree with my colleague from the Third Party,

and I do think that this is a measured step that balances both the end

goal, as well as the disruption and the positive disruption that this

will create.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers to the amendment, the motion is

approval of the amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

The Chair: We’re back on clause 1.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the opportunity.

I think we’re achieving what we need to achieve here, which is a

discussion about this and the choices that were made and, clearly, the

options that are in front of this government. I think we are moving

through this process as we should, and it’s nice to hear the responses

from the official opposition and from the government.

I am going to move a second amendment to clause 1. This is, in

part, because one of the challenges is that as Bill 13 is currently, it

doesn’t have a purpose of the act. That’s what the amendment that I’ve

just shared with the table accomplishes. Stakeholders have called for a

purpose to be identified in the act.

[ CLAUSE 1.1, by adding clause 1.1:

Purpose

1.1 The purposes of this Act are as

follows:

(

a) to promote equality in employment through increased

trans­parency of pay and workforce composition;

(

b) to work toward pay equity legislation;

(

c) to support open dialogue and workplace consultation

be­tween employers and employees on issues concerning

employ­ment compensation.]

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: Basically, what this amendment outlines is that the purpose of the

act is to promote equality and employment through increased transparency

of pay and workforce composition, to work toward pay equity legislation

and to support open dialogue and workplace consultation between

employers and employees on issues concerning employment

compensation.

Marjorie Griffin Cohen and Humera Jabir have noted how important

it is to understand what the act intends to accomplish and to have an

idea of what would be the basis for the five-year review that is in this

act. These objectives reflect the government’s reported reasoning for

doing it, and that’s the reason why I moved this amendment.

The Chair: I’m going to call a short recess in order to distribute the

amendment.

The committee recessed from 4:18 p.m. to 4:21 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll call the committee back to order.

The amendment is in order. We are not actually amending clause

1; we’re adding clause 1.1.

On the amendment, are there speakers?

A. Olsen: I appreciate the nuanced correction. Thank you for that. It’s

adding

section 1.1.

I’ve stated what it is that I would like to see in the bill that’s

in front of us, and I don’t have anything further to say.

R. Merrifield: I was just over, while we were photocopying the amendments,

chastising the House Leader for the Third Party for not getting the

amendments faster. I could have reviewed them and, possibly, lobbied,

through my caucus, to try and rally some support.

Unfortunately, I’m getting these kind of at the eleventh hour, so

I won’t be able to support them on behalf of my caucus at this

point.

Hon. K. Conroy: I think it’s very clear, upon reading the act, that it has been

written to address the pay gap through a pay transparency

report.

As I said, this is an important first step. We need to ensure that

due diligence is in this legislation so that we can ensure that we move

forward in a good way. The ultimate goal is to ensure pay transparency

and to work that through in a four-year stage.

Amendment negatived on division.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

R. Merrifield: This gets down into the meat of this legislation. In reading it,

with respect to the publicly posted job opportunities….

My first question. We will start with a real high level. What are

the penalties for contravening this section?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This legislation is about building a better system. While

reporting is mandatory under the legislation, we’re taking a

collaborative approach through public education and positive enforcement

where the director will remind employers of their obligation through

this legislation.

R. Merrifield: So there’s a reminder that’s given by the director, and that’s

really the only form of enforcement in terms of publicly posting job

salary scales?

Hon. K. Conroy: The director will be responsible for providing support to

employers to meet their obligations under the act. This support will

involve providing information on the act through website information and

responding to employer questions. The director will also receive

information from employees about employers who are not complying with

their obligations under the act, allowing the director to monitor and

track non-compliance.

The director will be responsible for producing annual reports and,

potentially, supporting a review of the act within five years. The

director will also follow up with the employer to provide information on

its obligations under the act, as I said. The director will also track

and monitor reports of non-compliance and use this information to inform

annual reports and a review of the act, which has to be completed within

the five years.

R. Merrifield: So there will be a tracking system, then, that will create data as

to which companies are reporting and which companies are not reporting?

Am I understanding that correctly?

Hon. K. Conroy: The director will track any reports of non-compliance and follow

up with them. It’s important that we recognize that the public education

is important, that the work that’s going to be done by the director is

important and the director will be responsible for reminding employers

that this is their obligation under the legislation.

R. Merrifield: I’ll build a scenario. How does the director actually become aware

of a company that is not posting a salary scale on their job

postings?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Complaints will be received through the gender equity office or

directly to the director of gender equity.

R. Merrifield: So the director will not be proactively mining, indeed, or mining

different HR companies’ postings, etc., to find companies who are not

complying and then encourage them to comply.

Hon. K. Conroy: The ministry will take an approach of positive encouragement to

ensure that the legislation is being followed. If there is a complaint,

the director will follow up on those complaints.

R. Merrifield: Are there any resources that will be allocated that will allow

this process to occur?

Hon. K. Conroy: Is the member talking about resources for someone to make a

complaint or resources for the office? I’d just like some clarification

on the question.

R. Merrifield: Absolutely. So the process for the office to actually be able to

field those complaints and then follow up, do the due diligence, etc.,

and try and — I believe it was called — support compliance.

Hon. K. Conroy: A pay transparency unit is being established to carry out this

very important work, including the public education.

R. Merrifield: Where under the budget does the pay transparency unit fall within?

And how much is allocated to the pay transparency unit?

Hon. K. Conroy: I believe that would be a good question for estimates.

R. Merrifield: Considering it’s still the same minister and the same staff, I

just thought I’d save us both a little time there, I guess. But much

appreciated. I will definitely make note of that one.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

My next question is actually to go to some of the changes that

could transpire with these public postings. My question to the minister

is: how might including salary ranges in job postings affect the hiring

process and the decision-making for employers?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

That’s actually beyond the scope of the legislation.

R. Merrifield: So the minister doesn’t have any anticipation or expectation for

how actually posting the salary scales will affect the hirings of those

organizations.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: That would be up to each individual employer, something that their

human resource units would determine. Again, it’s out of the scope of

the legislation.

R. Merrifield: How does the minister, then, anticipate that including salary

ranges in job postings will impact the overall culture and values of the

organizations within B.C.?

Hon. K. Conroy: Posting clearly the pay range within a job posting empowers the

applicant in their negotiations — particularly women, Indigenous people

and racialized people — in making strong decisions on their employment

and their job search, which strengthens their negotiating

position.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister, for the answer to how it would affect the

employee. But I was actually asking about how it would affect the

organization. How does having that posted affect the values and culture

of an organization that is having to post that?

Hon. K. Conroy: Values and cultures of employers are out of the scope of this

legislation. But some employers are definitely interested in using pay

transparency as a marketing tool to attract talent and showcase

themselves as a top employer, especially in a market that we have in our

province, where we have some of the lowest unemployment in the

country.

[4:40 p.m.]

Employers are looking for good, qualified employees and offering

those good positions, wages and benefits to attract them.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister.