Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 136

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

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Resilience and recovery in B.C.

T. Stone

Shore cleanup initiative by Campbell River tour

operators

M. Babchuk

B.C. colleges

C. Oakes

Medical radiography technologists

S. Chant

Sources Foundation and support for mental health and

wellness

T. Halford

Chico Mendes

M. Elmore

Speaker’s Statement

Retirement of Susan Sourial

Oral Questions

Cost of living and affordability issues

S. Bond

Hon. S. Robinson

COVID-19 response and paid sick leave

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

Hon. H. Bains

Coastal GasLink compliance with environmental

requirements

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Status of Coastal GasLink pipeline project on

Wet’suwet’en lands and press freedom for journalists

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Farnworth

COVID-19 circuit breaker restrictions and support for

businesses in northern B.C.

M. Bernier

Hon. R. Kahlon

Forest policy changes and support for forest

workers

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

Tabling Documents

Gaming policy and enforcement branch, annual report 2020-21

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 30 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act,

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 18 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

B. Stewart

M. de Jong

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act,

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

(continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

A. Olsen

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2021

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: T. Stone.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: This may be more in the nature of a ministerial statement than an

introduction, but there are some very special guests, to me, personally, in the

House here today, Claudia Soto and Lulu Dosdodo.

The members here may recognize them from the Puerto Vallarta Amigos food

truck. I know that this is not a partisan issue. The member for Kamloops–South

Thompson and I share an affinity for the burritos from this particular food

truck.

Now, Lulu and Allan Cerecedo own the food truck. Allan, while starting a

business and working at the food truck, went to UVic, did his business admin

degree and is now working at a local firm here in Victoria. Claudia, working

full-time in the food truck, is also studying at UVic in the business

administration program, with Lulu, and running the food truck throughout the

pandemic. Just incredible stories about new arrivals in British Columbia from

Mexico.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome and thank

them for the amazing food that they serve us.

R. Merrifield: Loyal friends are incredibly precious. Loyal political friends are precious

and rare.

Rob Murphy is a brilliant communicator and political strategist working on

all levels of government and campaigns and brings around all his positive focus

while enjoying a great beer, scotch and cigar. While working with me might not

have been his first choice, continuing on in this political journey has been. I’m

so honoured to have him in the House today.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Rob Murphy.

D. Clovechok: Today in the gallery, I’ve got a very special person up there. She’s been

my best friend for about 20 years. She’s my confidant. She’s my supporter in

campaigns like none other. She’s my most valued critic, and she’s my mentor. She’s

also a duly elected area F director for the regional district of East Kootenay and

also the vice-chair of the regional district of East Kootenay.

I would ask this House to make my wife, Susan, feel very warm and

welcome.

Hon. B. Ma: I’m very pleased today to be able to introduce somebody very special to me

in my office, my administrative assistant, Sonja Leeuw. Sonja was hired in the

middle of the pandemic, which is a difficult time for anybody to get up to speed

in a new job, but she did it.

She works closely with my staff here and my staff in the constituency of

North Vancouver–Lonsdale to coordinate my

schedule and offer administrative

support. My constituency assistants tell me that she’s professional,

communicative, and they talk about how proactive she is as well. That’s good for

me, because as everyone in the House knows, happy constituency assistants are very

key to providing good service to our community.

Sonja does all of this while adapting to the unexpected challenges that

life throws her as a working mother of four young children. Living in Duncan, she

drives two hours each way to come here, to work here at the Legislature, and has

had to save her kids, at the same time, from boo-boos and sniffles at schools,

even having, once, to save her kids from a pine cone to the eye.

Despite all of this, she always makes sure that things are sorted for us

here in the office, working flexibly from home and filling gaps to ensure that we

keep on ticking. I’m so fortunate to have her working on my team. This is her

first time witnessing proceedings live here in the chamber.

Would the House please join me in welcoming her to the gallery

today.

Hon. M. Dean: It’s my pleasure today to introduce Miriam MacPhail to the House. Miriam is

first and foremost a friend and a supporter, not only to myself but to all of the

south Island MLAs.

[10:10 a.m.]

She’s also a graphic designer extraordinaire who helps me look my best on

today.

I ask that everybody join me in making her very welcome.

J. Rustad: There are many, many forest workers and families who would like to be down

in the Legislature this week, but due to challenges, it’s difficult for them to

get here. A few have made their way down today to witness the proceedings, and I’d

like to introduce them here today.

Rona Doucette, who represents Woss rural B.C. communities, is here in the

gallery along with Henrie Machielsen from Campbell River, representing small

businesses who rely on forestry, and Tamara Meggitt, who is representing forest

families throughout B.C.

These people have been tirelessly working in the forest sector supporting

their families, supporting their communities. They’re here to see the proceedings

and to hear answers from the minister.

Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Furstenau: I’m so delighted to introduce Emma-Jane Burian and Grace Sinats, who are

both in the gallery today.

Emma-Jane is doing a double major in political science and environmental

studies at UVic. Most of her high school, she spent her time organizing climate

justice events, and she received the 2020 Victoria Leadership Award for her work

on flourishing and safe environments, something I think we can all recognize are

essential in the times we’re in.

Grace is in grade 11 this year. She works part-time, and like Emma-Jane,

Grace spends a great deal of time organizing for climate justice. Grace has done a

TED Talk on how young voices build a strong democracy. I recommend it for anybody

to watch.

This isn’t their first visit to the Legislature. It certainly won’t be

their last. I hope one day soon to actually see them down in these seats, rather

than up in the gallery.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

RESILIENCE AND RECOVERY IN B.C.

background of fire and flood with the words in bold letters: “B.C. strong,

through hell and high water.” Powerful words summing up what most of us would

agree has been one of the most difficult years in our province’s

history.

Let’s not forget that for generations, this incredible province was

built with grit and determination. A province that punched railroads through

mountains. A province with some of the largest dams in the world. A province

that knows how to build highways through dangerous, high mountain passes. A

province truly like none other, so big and beautiful, yet different from one

region to another, with mountains, glaciers, oceans, desert, plains and rich

farmland all stitched together with beauty and ruggedness, a respect for the

massive power of mother nature and brave people.

In the face of past daunting challenges, British Columbians have always

met these challenges head on as one province, and we’ve always come through

together with courage and with hopes of better days ahead. So here we are again

in the aftermath of yet another massive disaster, one that has severed

countless highways, caused unimaginable flood damage and, sadly, claimed

lives.

There is, of course, understandable concern about the province’s

critical transportation network, with movement from our coast and the Interior

severely limited. But here’s the good news. Our province is home to many of the

world’s finest highway engineers and road builders, and they’re unfazed by the

task ahead. Let’s remember that the Coquihalla Highway, much of which was built

during harsh winter conditions, was considered one of the greatest engineering

marvels of its time.

With this in mind, we can and we will urgently rebuild these roads again

quickly. We have travelled this road before.

To everyone who has stepped up this past week — first responders, local

officials, road builders, emergency management personnel and the countless

volunteers — thank you.

To everyone who will pull out the stops to rebuild our great province,

thank you as well.

You have our gratitude, for you are proving once again that B.C. is

indeed strong through hell and high water.

SHORE CLEANUP INITIATIVE BY

CAMPBELL RIVER TOUR

OPERATORS

M. Babchuk: I’m excited to highlight a fantastic initiative that is taking place

right now in Campbell River. I had the pleasure to visit the sorting site for a

local clean coast, clean waters project.

[10:15 a.m.]

When I showed up at the New Wave Docks building, I was greeted by the

smiling faces of a group of young people decked out in heavy-duty rain gear

sorting through tons of debris that had been gathered through coastal

shorelines in and around Campbell River and the Discovery Islands.

These young people have been working on this project since September,

scouring hundreds of kilometres of coastline, collecting and removing debris.

Once a week they head to the sorting site, where they separate garbage into

recyclable and non-recyclable materials — ropes, fishing nets, chains. But what

shocked me the most was the amount of Styrofoam, from itty-bitty pieces to

great big slabs.

This project is the initiative of the Campbell River Association of Tour

Operators. This group of local tour operators pivoted from their usual work

when COVID-19 disrupted our tourism sector. They created employment

opportunities for a bunch of committed youth, are cleaning up miles of our

coastline and have demonstrated a huge amount of resiliency.

During my visit, the tour operators launched their grizzly meter, a sign

that has since been erected in downtown Campbell River that shows just how much

garbage has been collected over what length of shoreline. At the time of my

visit in early November, they had traversed 250 kilometres and had collected

over 50,000 pounds of garbage.

On any given day, in all kinds of weather, at least 12 young people,

along with tour operators, are out there collecting sacks of debris and making

a huge impact on cleaning up the coastline. I was so impressed by the

dedication of this group. They’re enthusiastic to do the work. They are deeply

invested in this project and passionate about the environment. It was

inspirational.

I hope this chamber will join me in expressing my deepest appreciation

for the job that they are doing.

B.C. COLLEGES

C. Oakes: I’m so proud to rise in the House today to discuss the important role

that B.C. colleges play to the economic recovery in British

Columbia.

B.C.’s colleges are the heart of our post-secondary education system.

They serve people in communities all across this province. They work closely

with major employers, stakeholders and government. They’re on the ground in our

communities, understanding the existing gaps and labour market needs. If you

are an employer that seeks some staffing, why not contact your local college to

see if there’s training and employees that you can access?

One such program that I’m a strong advocate for is the dual credit

program, which lets high school students take college trade courses while

earning dual credits towards their high school graduation. The College of New

Caledonia has been an influential supporter of students, and I’m so proud to

work closely with CNC and to celebrate the work that they’ve accomplished in

partnership with our school district to offer dual credit programs.

Now, I’ve seen the success of this program firsthand, and I feel there

is great value in expanding these types of programs across British Columbia. I

feel that the dual credit program could be expanded into health care, care

aides, early childhood education foundation courses and could have a

significant impact in each of our communities.

I would like to congratulate Dr. Dennis Johnson on becoming the eighth

president of the College of New Caledonia. Dr. Johnson brings more than 30

years experience in the post-secondary sector, and we’re very pleased to have

him in the North.

I would also like to recognize Dr. Johnson on his appointment yesterday

as the board chair of B.C. Colleges. In Dr. Johnson’s words: “As we recover

from the COVID-19 pandemic and build new opportunities in a changed world, the

province’s colleges are focused on ensuring students can access the training

and applied education they need for better lives and stronger

communities.”

I know that I join all members of this House in congratulating Dr.

Johnson, thanking outboarding chair Sherri Bell, from Camosun College, and

offering our support to all of our B.C. colleges, recognizing the critical role

and impact they make in our communities.

MEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY TECHNOLOGISTS

S. Chant: Today I rise to talk about the unseen workforce that does a great

service in keeping our health delivery system moving. Usually I talk about the

nurses, who are always there providing skilled care in both hospitals and

homes. We talk about our first responders as well — ambulance, fire and police

— who attend to scenes and sort things out.

We talk about those who keep our supply chain going — our farmers, our

truckers and our grocery stores — or our volunteers, our service agencies, our

churches, who reach out to provide care and support in so many ways. The list

of people goes on, all of whom contribute towards managing and recovering from

this thing we call COVID, amongst other things.

[10:20 a.m.]

Well, today I would like to talk about a different group of people, also

important, especially when you’re in need of diagnostic services to ensure

effective treatment, those folks who take you into their specialized area with

mystical equipment and position you in such a way that a clear X-ray image can

be taken of any affected area. These are our medical radiographic technicians,

and just like many other health care roles, we don’t have enough of them. We

don’t recognize their value and importance until we can’t get an appointment,

urgent or otherwise.

Luckily, the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training and her

staff have been busily at work, ensuring that we now have more training seats

opening up for these important people. The two-year diploma program is

available at BCIT, Camosun College and the College of New Caledonia.

Students are trained in areas of computed tomography — or CT, in our

language — fluoroscopy, OR imaging, emergency trauma, interventional procedures

and mammography. These programs include classroom learning, labs and clinical

placements throughout B.C. and are a viable career choice for anyone with an

interest in providing essential health care support.

Thank you to our MRTs for the specialized and important work that they

do.

SOURCES FOUNDATION AND SUPPORT FOR

MENTAL HEALTH AND

WELLNESS

T. Halford: On November 6, it was truly a Run for the Roses. The 25th anniversary

gala for Sources Foundation was a truly special event. Over $300,000 was raised

in support of mental health and wellness.

For over 40 years, Sources has been a pillar in many communities across

this province. I know that all members of this House share stories of how

Sources has impacted their constituents at their most vulnerable

times.

The foundation is built upon a vision and a dream, a desire to ensure

that no one slips through the cracks and that support is available within our

communities. Their dream is to provide a legacy to ensure that the help we

provide today plants a seed that continues to grow in the future, to make a

difference for this generation and each generation to come. Whether it’s a

senior experiencing social isolation, an individual or family who is struggling

to complete their income tax return or a mom trying to access support in order

to flee domestic violence, Sources is there.

I want to congratulate Sources CEO David Young and Sources Foundation

president Bruce Hayne and the countless volunteers, sponsors, donors and board

members that continue to make this event, this foundation, this organization a

success year after year.

CHICO MENDES

M. Elmore: As we grapple with the impacts of climate change and many in British

Columbia continue to struggle and brace with the devastation it has wrought, I

recall the life of Chico Mendes.

Chico Mendes was an inspirational leader whose courage created systemic

changes in the Amazon rainforest and around the world. He was a Brazilian

rubber tapper who was able to organize and move the government into setting

aside large tracts of the rainforest as reserves to protect it from

destruction.

He was killed by a rancher’s son in 1988. He would have been 77 this

December 15. He was one of 18 children who only learned to read and write when

he was 18 years old. He was determined to learn more about why his and other

families were kept poor and exploited. Through newspaper articles that spoke

about social and political issues, he came to understand issues around

unionization and human rights and learned lessons that helped shape his

understanding of the struggles before his people.

Through his dedication and commitment to what is just, he was able to

organize his fellow rubber tappers and others into fighting back against the

destructive uses of the rainforest. They formed the Xapuri Rural Workers Union

in their area and later expanded to other regions. They united with other

unions and organizations. In 1977, at the age of 33 years old, he was elected

as city councillor. He used his position to organize popular debates, peaceful

protests and political participation.

He was called a threat to national security, arrested and tortured, but

he persevered. A few years later he helped create the National Council of

Rubber Tappers. Together with others, they discussed national problems of

deforestation and exploitation. He was able to unite previously opposed groups

like his fellow rubber tappers, Amazonian Indians and international

environmental activists under common goals.

Chico Mendes lived a remarkable life and left us with a lasting legacy

and lessons that surely serve us well to this day. Importantly, he also

recognized that protecting the workers and the environment was more than just

about that. I end with a quote from him: “At first, I thought I was fighting to

save rubber trees. Then I thought I was fighting to save the Amazon rainforest.

Now I realize I’m fighting for humanity.”

[10:25 a.m.]

Speaker’s Statement

RETIREMENT OF SUSAN SOURIAL

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we start question period, I have a special statement to

make.

Hon. Members, when this House reconvenes in the new year, one of our

esteemed Table Officers, Susan Sourial, will no longer be at the Table, as she

will be embarking on her retirement.

Susan began her parliamentary career at the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario, where she primarily supported the work of parliamentary committees, 11

in total, over the course of 22 years of service to that institution. In 2011,

Susan joined the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, first in committee

research services, then as Committee Clerk and then in her current role of

Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations. In the fall of

2011, we briefly loaned Susan to the Yukon Legislative Assembly to serve as the

institution’s acting Deputy Clerk.

In a decade of service to our Legislative Assembly, Susan has supported

the work of 17 committees, including select standing committees, special

committees and the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, assisting these

committees to fulfil their terms of reference from this House. Susan’s name is

attached to over 20 committee reports. Susan has also served as a Table

Officer, supporting hundreds of hours of proceedings of this House, Committees

of the Whole and Committees of Supply. She was also an assistant editor of the

fifth edition of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , published

in 2020.

Many members of this House, past and present, have relied on Susan’s

steady hand, her knowledge and her expertise as they navigated their work on

parliamentary committees and as they navigated the procedures and practices of

this House. Her dedication and service to the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia have been most valued and appreciated, and I can say with certainty

that they have made our institutions better.

It is my hope that in her next chapter, Susan will enjoy the simple

things that bring her joy: biking, kayaking, being outdoors and

reading.

Susan, on behalf of all members, I congratulate you on a remarkable

career, one of steadfast servitude that has demonstrated exceptional dedication

and integrity and one that has brought great honour to your profession. We wish

you the very best in your retirement. [Applause.]

Oral Questions

COST OF LIVING

AND AFFORDABILITY ISSUES

S. Bond: Every day British Columbians are waking up in our province and finding

it harder to get by under this government. Despite two straight elections with

big promises about affordability, life has never been more expensive than under

the NDP. This government has no plan to put people’s worries at ease, and many

families are actually asking themselves how they will continue to be able to

afford to live in our province.

We have seen four straight months of high inflation. That’s because

things like housing, gas and food are getting more expensive day after day, and

with the latest climate disaster in our province, we’re already seeing the

price of everything increase, because our supply chains have taken a

significant and devastating blow.

Will the minister tell British Columbians exactly what this government

is going to do to ensure that they can take care of their families? Tell them

how they’re going to be able to continue to afford to pay for increasing gas

and food and housing. British Columbians deserve that. This government promised

it and has simply failed to deliver. Where’s the plan?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I can agree with the member that things have gotten more difficult since

COVID, for sure. They certainly have.

I also want to remind the member — I want to remind everyone in this

House, and I want to remind British Columbians — that when they sat over here,

they gave tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent and made everyone else pay for

it. I want to remind everybody what that meant for ordinary British

Columbians.

What that meant was that their MSP health premiums doubled. So what did

we do? We eliminated them. Hundreds of dollars in people’s pockets.

ICBC car insurance. When they were on this side of the House, it went up

30 percent. What do we have now? We actually have…. ICBC has a surplus. And not

only that, it was able to give rebate cheques — not one but two.

We’ve also introduced the child opportunity benefit that provides up to

$2,600 for families with two kids. That is making a difference and putting

money into people’s pockets.

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

S. Bond: The minister can stand up, and all of her colleagues can clap, but there

are families today in British Columbia who want an answer from this minister

and this government about exactly how they’re going to pay for their groceries

tomorrow morning. That is on this government’s shoulders. This is a two-term

government that made big glossy promises, big brochures about how life was

going to get better. They have simply failed to deliver. British Columbians are

struggling. That answer just doesn’t cut it.

The minister can try taking a victory lap all she wants, but let’s look

at some of the numbers that British Columbians are facing. Does the minister

know that since the pandemic started, the cost of getting chicken at the

grocery store has gone up by 17 percent? For beef, it’s 20 percent. Housing

prices are at an all-time high. In fact, the elusive dream of owning a home is

disappearing. It takes 34 years in British Columbia to save for a down payment

on a house if you live in Vancouver.

There has been no action whatsoever on tackling gas prices, despite

getting promises three times from the Premier. Our supply chains have been so

drastically impacted by the latest disaster that the Royal Bank of Canada said

that things are going to continue to get worse.

British Columbians deserve a better answer than that. What they deserve

is a plan. They deserve support and help — and this government to keep the

promises it made during two election campaigns.

To the minister again, maybe this time she can look British Columbians

in the eye and tell them how they’re going to pay for their groceries

tomorrow.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for the question. I really think it’s

absolutely fascinating to hear from this member their newfound interest in the

struggles of ordinary people.

They made life so hard. They had a server wage in restaurants. We got

rid of that. We increased the minimum wage.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member had already asked the question.

Hon. S. Robinson: In fact, wages are up 21 percent since we formed government. We made

transit free for children. That makes a difference to families. You know what

else we did? We took tolls off bridges.

Finally, what I want to say is: thank goodness it’s us on this side of

the House and not the people over there.

COVID-19 RESPONSE AND

PAID SICK LEAVE

T. Stone: Not only has this government broken its promise on affordability, but

they’re also breaking the Premier’s promise to not download costs onto small

businesses, especially those that can least afford it. Now, we’re still in the

pandemic, but in 39 days, the NDP are cutting sick leave funding for workers

and businesses. They’re putting the entire cost on businesses that are, again,

hanging by a thread.

[10:35 a.m.]

Yesterday in the Q2 report, the government confirmed that $310 million

budgeted for sick leave will be unspent and returned to general

revenue.

My question to the Minister of Labour is this. Instead of letting this

$310 million sick pay funding expire in 39 days, will the Labour Minister today

commit to extending government-paid sick leave so that it doesn’t expire at the

end of the year?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the fact…. In my Q2 report yesterday, what we saw around the

sick pay was the fact that British Columbians recognize that you take sick time

only when you need it.

We prepared, as part of our pandemic contingencies, to make sure that we

had resources available to support British Columbians as we go through COVID,

making sure that we had the resources to make sure that there was support so

that workers didn’t have to go to work sick. I think that everyone in this

House agrees how important that is.

What we saw was that British Columbians recognize that you only take

sick time when you need it. I think that we can all be comforted by the fact

that workers know what they need to do in order to keep themselves, to keep

their colleagues and to keep their customers safe.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–South Thompson, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, we agreed that workers shouldn’t have to go to work if they’re

sick. That’s why we supported the sick leave plan. But we’re also going to

ensure that the Premier and that this government are held accountable for the

commitments that were made to ensuring that the costs of sick leave were not

going to be thrown entirely onto the shoulders of small businesses in this

province.

Again, in only 39 days, employer-paid sick leave comes into effect, and

workers and employees still have absolutely no idea what will be implemented.

The Premier’s specific commitment around this was crystal-clear. He said that

we are looking at how we can implement sick pay “in a seamless way without

putting more burden on business at a time when business can least afford

it.”

Government should do what we’ve been doing through this session. There’s

been an extension of a variety of COVID measures. The government should be

taking the opportunity immediately to eliminate all uncertainty, concern and

anxiety out there with small businesses and workers, and they should roll over

this program. They should roll over the $310 million available and continue the

current government-funded program until businesses in this province are fully

recovered.

Again, a very simple question. I’m looking for a straightforward answer

from the Labour Minister. Will the Labour Minister extend the $310 million for

government-paid sick leave that, if it isn’t extended, is going to expire in

only 39 days?

Hon. H. Bains: I thank the member for his question.

Among many lessons that we learned during the pandemic, one was that

workers were forced to go to work when they were sick. They brought the virus

to the workplace. That virus spread among the workers, and in many cases,

businesses had to be shut down. In Fraser Health alone, in April and May — two

months — over 180 businesses were shut down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: Some of them more than once. Those workers at workplaces, when they

became sick, went home to live with their families and their

communities….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, a question was asked. Let’s listen to the answer.

It’s okay. Let’s listen to the answer. Wait until he

finishes.

Hon. H. Bains: It doesn’t surprise me that sometimes, when it even looks like something

is a benefit to the workers, they light their hair on fire.

Let me tell you this. There are economic costs for not having paid sick

leave in place.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: The seniors advocate, in her last report two or three weeks ago…. I urge

all of you to read that. She said that the workers, because they didn’t have

paid sick leave, came to work sick, and then they spread that to the patients

and to the workers. Therefore, many deaths….

There’s a human cost. There’s an economic cost for not having paid sick

days. We are going to do the right thing. We listen. We have consulted widely.

And 60,000….

Interjections.

[10:40 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. H. Bains: And 60,000 servers came back.

You know what? Both workers and businesses are worried. They’re

concerned that people are going to work sick. We are going to make it right so

that workers don’t have to choose to go to work sick or stay home and lose

money.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Can we get to the next person?

COASTAL GASLINK COMPLIANCE WITH

ENVIRONMENTAL

REQUIREMENTS

S. Furstenau: Coastal GasLink has been found to have violated multiple environmental

requirements over the past year and a half. Over the course of constructing

their natural gas pipeline in Wet’suwet’en territory, CGL’s failures to comply

with environmental requirements have resulted in damaged habitat, eroded

waterways and the contamination of watersheds with pollutants.

Inspections in late 2020 by the environmental assessment office found

that Coastal GasLink activities are harming watersheds. In early 2021,

independent erosion and sediment control auditors found that CGL was violating

eight out of nine requirements. Coastal GasLink has failed to reclaim and

restore the waterways that they have polluted.

The company’s infractions have impacted Indigenous rights as well. In

July, Coastal GasLink was issued a warning after wrongly blocking a

Wet’suwet’en woman from attempting to monitor pipeline construction in her

territory.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. On the

one hand, the RCMP have eagerly enforced an injunction on behalf of CGL and

this government’s fossil-fuel-expanding agenda. At the same time, there have

been multiple instances of environmental violations on the CGL pipeline since

construction began with little or no enforcement. What will the minister do to

ensure timely enforcement of these environmental violations?

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

Coastal GasLink, as part of its environmental assessment certificate,

has to abide by a number of conditions. It has to continue to abide by those

conditions. Staff and inspectors that are part of the environmental assessment

office have regularly conducted inspections. They have issued orders. They have

issued directions.

When they found those directions were not being complied with, they

upped the level of inspection, and they have issued more orders and are now

going through the process of considering the application of administrative

penalties to make the point. We take the conditions on this certificate

seriously.

I continue to be briefed by staff. But I don’t take over the role of

staff in ensuring that an orderly application of orders and, ultimately,

penalties, if required, are administered.

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

STATUS OF COASTAL GASLINK PIPELINE

PROJECT ON WET’SUWET’EN

LANDS

AND PRESS FREEDOM FOR JOURNALISTS

S. Furstenau: Administrative penalties but no police raids yet, I understand. It’s

clear that this company has been harming the environment, and this government

has abdicated its responsibility to the public interest. This abdication

extends to basic Charter rights too.

Last week two journalists were illegally arrested when reporting in

Wet’suwet’en territory. They were jailed for the entire weekend and only

released yesterday. We’re now learning that the RCMP had been tracking these

specific journalists, which makes it very hard to understand how the police

were saying: “We didn’t know that they were journalists when we arrested

them.”

Yesterday more than 40 news outlets and journalists signed a letter

directed to the Minister of Public Safety of this House calling on him to

uphold the rule of law and ensure that police actions are not infringing on

press freedom.

This isn’t the first time this government has restricted press freedom.

The summer enforcement of media exclusion zones at Fairy Creek was found to be

unlawful. I think all of us, no matter where we stand on these issues, should

be deeply concerned, because the role of the media and press freedom in

democracy is essential. We don’t want to have these continuing stories where we

are looking very much not like a democratic country in the way the press are

being treated here.

[10:45 a.m.]

My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General

and Deputy Premier. He has said that press freedom is important, yet what we

have seen in this province this year tells a very different story. What will he

do to ensure that the Charter-protected freedom of the press, recently

reiterated by Justice Thompson in a B.C. Supreme Court decision, is upheld in

this province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

I have to take issue with a couple of points, the first being:

government has not infringed on freedom of the press. Freedom of the press is a

fundamental foundation of our democratic system in this province and in this

country and continues to be so. We take that very seriously.

The second point that I would also make is that when it comes to the

enforcement of a court-ordered injunction, that is done by the police. It is

not directed by myself as Solicitor General, and as I have said before in this

House, nor should it be.

What I can also tell the member is that when it came to the issue of the

journalists, that went in the appropriate place in terms of the court, which

issued a decision around bail and the undertaking, which the journalists agreed

to do, and they were subsequently released. In other words, the judicial

process worked appropriately, and that’s as it should be. Not being directed by

politicians.

COVID-19 CIRCUIT BREAKER

RESTRICTIONS AND SUPPORT FOR

BUSINESSES IN NORTHERN B.C.

M. Bernier: Weeks ago the Premier said businesses impacted by the northern circuit

breaker “still have opportunities to access provincial programs.” But here’s

the problem. There are no programs right now. There’s nothing for them. They

all closed. Once again from this government, false hope for people and

businesses that are struggling.

The regional health restrictions…. The circuit breaker that’s been

announced has now been extended indefinitely. That means no hope for many. The

Premier said that this Minister of Jobs would be “observing the activities in

the region.” What does that mean? We need people to not be observing. We need

this minister to be doing his job. We need this minister to be supporting

businesses who need help now.

A very simple question to the minister. Will the Minister of Jobs commit

today to new circuit breaker programs for northern businesses that are

struggling?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, it’s been highlighted that there are some businesses that,

throughout the province, are still struggling throughout the pandemic. The

members know, because we canvassed this yesterday as well as part of another

debate, that the measures that have been put in place in Northern Health are

similar to ones that were put into some of the Fraser Valley as

well.

The major restriction that’s been put in place right now is that liquor

can’t be served past ten o’clock. Restaurants can continue to function.

Restaurants can continue to have people visiting them. Restaurants can continue

to serve food past ten o’clock, but they cannot serve alcohol past

ten.

We appreciate that has some impacts. We’ve also offset that impact by

reducing liquor pricing for businesses by 20 percent. So they’re making more

money on liquor sales now than they have ever made. They’ve been advocating for

that for ten years. The members on the other side will know, because they

knocked on their doors several times, asking for that. We have lowered their

costs.

We know, because of the pandemic and the high case counts and the loss

of life, that measures were needed to be put in place. That’s why they’re there

— moderate measures. Certainly, our hope is that the vaccination rates continue

to rise and that cases continue to fall so that we can relieve those moderate

measures so that people can return to a normal which they’re comfortable

with.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Peace River South, supplemental.

[10:50 a.m.]

M. Bernier: I’m trying to figure out why this minister wants to treat different

parts of the province differently. The last time there was a circuit breaker

announced, we made sure, unanimously in this House — we all got together to

make sure — there were programs and supports for struggling employers and

families. It was very easy to do. It was easy to do then.

Now we’ve announced another circuit breaker that is hurting families and

employers, and this minister is sitting on his hands. He’s doing nothing to

help them. Even yesterday in this House, he quoted that this is “certainly not

a circuit breaker.” It’s almost like he’s trying to play a word game to avoid

helping people. Exactly what Dr. Henry said when she announced these

restrictions was: “It’s a circuit breaker.”

Is Dr. Henry right? Is it a circuit breaker? Is the minister right? This

is not a circuit breaker. It doesn’t matter. The employers and the families are

hurting and need help now. Even arts groups up in the region right now are

seeing the curtain drop, and they’re losing another part of a busy time of year

for them where they could be operating. To make it worse, the government has

said now there’s no end date for this circuit breaker, no hope for these

people.

The government has an opportunity. This Minister of Jobs has an

opportunity today to give hope to these struggling people. Will he commit to

stop just observing and actually do his job, introduce a circuit breaker

program and help these struggling families and businesses?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’d remind the member that we have provided the highest per-capita

supports for people and businesses in the entire country. In fact….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Can we move on with the answer now?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll say it again. We have provided the highest per-capita support for

people and businesses in the country. In fact, the recent budget had additional

supports. By the way, the members didn’t support it, didn’t support the

additional measures that we put in place, which was a shame.

The member also is not clear. When he refers to the circuit breaker,

which we put significant dollars on the table, was when businesses

were….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It was at a time when businesses were shut down. Businesses couldn’t

serve patrons inside their establishment. They had only takeout. They couldn’t

serve any alcohol. We had complete shutdowns. That’s when the historic amount

of dollars, the $528 million that we supported, $22 million in grants directly

going to the pockets of businesses in their communities…. So to compare the

circuit breaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The Leader of the Official Opposition loves to heckle. This is an

important question. I’d like to provide the answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it’s important that we listen to the minister now.

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I already have highlighted — I’ll say it again — the measures that

we’ve put in place, the measures that the provincial health office has put in

place are very moderate to ensure that case counts come down. The core point of

what’s being done is to save lives.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The Leader of the Official Opposition is correct. We have supported them

the entire way, and when we brought in a budget this year, the opposition

wasn’t with us. They didn’t support the additional measures for communities.

They did not vote in favour of that.

We continue to support businesses. Businesses can continue to operate.

They can serve food. They just can’t serve alcohol past ten o’clock.

FOREST POLICY CHANGES

AND SUPPORT FOR FOREST

WORKERS

J. Rustad: In the gallery today are hard-working men and women of the forest

sector. They represent tens of thousands of workers across this

province.

[10:55 a.m.]

Amanda Shortreed, who co-owns West-Pro Logging, writes that the

minister’s deferral announcement has had immediate consequences. “Much to our

shock and dismay, we found out one and a half weeks ago that much of our winter

plan has now been deleted.” I’ve received hundreds of emails from across the

province, as I know the minister has as well, of similar stories.

The government has already admitted that because of their policies,

thousands of workers are going to be out of work.

Can the minister tell the people in the gallery if they will be one of

them?

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to thank the member for the question.

I also want to welcome the families to the gallery here today. I

understand their concerns. I do understand their concerns. I also went through

the concerns of the forest industry back under the member’s government, when

30,000 people lost their jobs in the forest industry.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: Under our watch…. We are ensuring there will be supports in

place.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Minister, continue.

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do have a vision for forests in this province. Our vision ensures

that workers and communities benefit from secure, innovative forestry jobs for

generations to come. I want to make sure that we have a forest industry that is

sustainable and resilient and that our kids and grandkids can not only work in

today, if they so choose, but they can work in for generations to

come.

We have to make changes in the forest industry, but we will be there to

support families who are in forestry-dependent communities.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nechako Lakes, supplemen­tal.

J. Rustad: According to Stats Canada, there were about 10,000 forestry job gains

between 2009 and 2017, and they’ve all disappeared now under this

government.

Quite frankly, that answer the minister just gave is cold comfort to the

good, hard-working folks that are in the gallery here today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s listen to the question, please.

The member will continue.

J. Rustad: There are 13 families that rely on West-Pro Logging. As Amanda says:

“The way in which this has been handled and implemented has been irresponsible,

hasty and, quite frankly, shady. I don’t trust that you will be there to help

anyone. I’m sad. I’m scared. I’m worried for my family and for the families

that rely on us.”

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker. I doubt there are very many people on that

side of the House that have ever signed the front side of a paycheque. I have.

I can tell you that the stress that you go under in trying to make sure that

you can provide for your workers and make sure that they have a job is

enormous.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

J. Rustad: Can the minister tell these families why she is so determined to put

them out of work?

Hon. K. Conroy: I really want to acknowledge the workers in the gallery. I also want to

say that I’m really quite concerned about the misinformation that is being

spread by this member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order.

Hon. K. Conroy: Unlike the other side of the House here, we will be supporting workers.

We will be supporting communities that will be impacted by these potential

deferrals, deferrals that have not been made yet.

We will have a comprehensive suite of supports for people, including

connecting workers with other employment opportunities, providing education and

training opportunities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members will be quiet now.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, funding those people that are interested in bridging to retirement,

which was why we oversubscribed….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Minister.

Members, let’s show some respect to the families, please, and the

workers. Listen to the answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. Calm down. Calm down. Take a deep breath. It’s not the end of the

world. Let’s listen to the answer.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Sure enough, Member.

The minister will continue.

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we know that there is interest in bridging to retirement, because

it was well subscribed in 2019 when we did the same program, when there was a

turn in the industry.

We’re also supporting new infrastructure projects and innovation in

rural communities so there are opportunities for employment. We are going to

work in collaboration with local communities, with workers, with contractors

and with industry to ensure we get this right, because this is critical for

jobs today but also for jobs in the future.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to table the annual report of the gaming policy and

enforcement branch.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 30, Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act.

In

section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued Committee of the Whole on

Bill 23, Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 30 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 30;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

The Chair: Did the Attorney want to make an opening statement?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined here by Alayna Van Leeuwen, policy analyst with Ministry of

Attorney General. Thanks very much.

On clause 1.

M. de Jong: I’m probably going to deal with clauses 1 and 2 together. I won’t be

particularly…. It’s just a short group of questions.

If the minister can offer his rationale for the selection of the new

date, December 31, 2022.

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The reason for the date is twofold. One is it gives us enough time in

terms of not having to come back to the House. If we were going to be coming

back in the spring, the way that our legislative drafting process works, we’d

be working on that right now. So it’s logistical, on one hand.

On the other, it’s based on expert advice that we received. I’m advised

staff consulted with the deputy provincial health officer, Brian Emerson, as

well as emergency management B.C. They advised that this was an appropriate

date, and I’ll note that there is the ability to terminate the act sooner, by

regulation, if things are looking more positive.

M. de Jong: I’m not going to ask the Attorney for a full-on public health briefing.

But can he offer anything, expand just a little bit, on the advice with respect

to the second part of his answer in terms of the information he received about

the appropriateness of that 12-month extension, noting, for example, that we

have dealt with another piece of legislation that spoke, I think, of, roughly,

an 18-month extension for these purposes? The government has opted for

Hon. D. Eby: Obviously, I think we all hoped when we set the last date that we would

be in a much better position by December 31, 2021, in terms of the impact of

various public health measures. I note that many parts of the province are

experiencing that, but some aren’t.

I’m advised there wasn’t some incredibly detailed epidemiological

process that led to this date, but rather a date that was set based on the

advice of these officials in terms of what they thought was realistic in terms

of timelines around what we faced, hoping for the best that we could pull it by

regulation sooner but prepared for a longer period of time. Then we might need

this.

I note that the member raised the issue of the COVID access zones

legislation, which we canvassed together recently, and the 18-month period,

compared to the 12-month period. That bill has the same feature of being able

to be withdrawn by regulation if things are looking better. But the 18-month

period takes us to the end of a school year, which we thought would be more

understandable and predictable for folks and easier for

administrators.

M. de Jong: Let’s just deal with and confirm, once and for all, on the record,

something that the Attorney had said. There is a regulatory to repeal this act

in advance of the new date, December 31, 2022. There is no similar regulatory

power to extend the application of the act. That would require a reintroduction

of legislation in the chamber. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: That’s correct. Given the authorities that are within the act, we

believe, as a matter of policy, it appropriate that any extension that would be

required should necessarily come back to the House for the approval of

Legislature, rather than be extended by regulation or some other

process.

[11:10 a.m.]

M. de Jong: The effect of passage of this provision is to extend the life of the act

but, more particularly, extend the life of orders that have been issued

pursuant to the provisions of the act. Is the Attorney in a position to

indicate on the record the number of orders that remain in effect?

Hon. D. Eby: Currently there are 13 orders and two regulations in effect. Anyone who

is interested, the information is publicly available on the B.C. Laws

website.

M. de Jong: My understanding is that there is a slight difference between the

regulations and the ministerial orders insofar as the orders are set to expire

at the end of this calendar year and would do so without passage of the

provision we’re dealing with now.

Whereas the regulations…. Sorry, I should

correct that: would expire and require being reissued, as opposed to the

regulations, which would remain in effect following passage of this

provision.

Have I got that right?

Hon. D. Eby: The short answer — I don’t see why I would stick with the short answer

when there is an opportunity to give a longer answer — is yes.

There are two scenarios, one in which this legislation doesn’t pass

and…. The bill in front of the House doesn’t pass, so the date isn’t extended.

December 31 comes, and the bill sunsets. In that case, everything…. Both the

orders and the regulations all sunset.

If this bill does pass and the date is extended by a year to December

31, 2022, the regulations continue. They’re essentially refreshed, and no

further action is required to be taken for the regulations. However, all of the

orders do have expiry dates already built into them, so they would need to be

revisited by cabinet and re-established in order-in-council.

The member is correct — but a bit of detail there about the distinction

between the regulations and the orders.

M. de Jong: In the case of the orders that include within them expiry dates, am I

correct, though, that notwithstanding the inclusion of expiry dates within the

orders, if the COVID-19 Related Measures Act were to be repealed in advance of

that expiry date, the orders would repeal with it?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes. That’s correct.

M. de Jong: The two regulations that remain in effect pursuant to the COVID-19

Related Measures Act…. I’m advised that they are listed as Nos. 31 and 32 — the

COVID-19 (South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act) Regulation

and 32, the COVID-19 (Provincial Court Proceedings) (No. 2)

Regulation.

Those are the only two regulations that remain in effect. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes. That is correct.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. de Jong: All right. We come to this fascinating little discussion we might

have.

I suppose I should ask. With respect to clause 3, I’ve indicated that

I’m supportive, not offended in any way by the proposal to extend the time

period for the independent compensation committee to do its work. But it’s

probably appropriate to ask the Attorney to put on the record the government’s

and his rationale for making that change.

Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Speaker, with appreciation to Alayna, we do have three other staff

for this. If we could have a brief break to bring in those staff who worked on

this

section of the bill.

The Chair: The House will be in recess until we have the appropriate parties in

position.

The committee recessed from 11:15 a.m. to 11:17 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple of sets of rationale for the extension of the timing

before a JCC is appointed. First of all, we would be following other

jurisdictions. Alberta, Ontario and the federal government all have four-year

commission cycles, so there is some good precedent for this.

Without a doubt, having this every three years instead of every four….

There is a lot of staff time as well as judicial time that goes into these

commissions, so it does have the effect of conserving resources and ensuring

efficiency.

There’s also the reality that often these matters do end up in court. To

go through the process, often all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada,

requires a certain amount of time. So it avoids the situation that we found

ourselves in, in British Columbia, where we still don’t quite know what the

outcome is of the 2016 Judicial Compensation Commission. A number of things

flow from that, making it difficult to calculate what judges’ salaries actually

are for purposes of budgeting and so on. So there are a number of good reasons

for this proposal.

M. de Jong: I made a fairly cynical remark during second reading about litigation.

The Attorney has just referred to, I think, ongoing litigation out of the 2016

process. Is that the only version of this that’s still…? I’m getting a very

quick indication that it is not. But I’m curious to know how many of these

reports and recommendations are still being litigated.

Hon. D. Eby: We were recently in the B.C. Court of Appeal on the 2016 matter. The

B.C. Court of Appeal allowed government’s appeal in July. Currently, the

Provincial Court Judges Association has filed an application seeking leave to

appeal to the Supreme Court on that matter. We have filed a response opposing

leave.

[11:20 a.m.]

In addition, with respect to the 2019 Judicial Compensation Commission,

the Provincial Court Judges Association has also filed for a judicial review of

government’s response, and that was filed in B.C. Supreme Court.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

On clause 5.

M. de Jong: We began a bit of an exchange, and I noted and was appreciative of the

Attorney’s remarks in winding up the second reading debate in the House. In

posing the question, I don’t….

I’ll restate my observation and recognize that what is being proposed

here is not a huge change, but it does, in one limited circumstance, establish

a mechanism whereby it’s not the assembly setting the remuneration for the

independent judiciary. It does, then, become the executive branch. I’m going to

ask the Attorney to offer his thoughts on whether he sees that as in any way

problematic.

I had heard him talk about, at one point — either in response to me or

the Third Party — the expedited process. I’m not sure I quite understood that.

In the existing process, if all of the recommendations are accepted, the report

is on the floor of the House and nothing gets done, I think it’s two weeks —

maybe staff can confirm that — and it just automatically takes effect. But it

does flow via the legislative branch of government.

The Attorney, in fairness, indicated that he might be prepared to

consider suggestions for an amendment. I thought about that, and I appreciate

it. I’m not sure there’s a way for me to suggest tinkering with what is clause

5 in this particular act.

I just couldn’t think of a way to do that that wouldn’t cause all kinds

of…. Short of not supporting the section, I suppose, which would leave the….

Short of voting the

section down, which I think would have the effect of

maintaining the present structure….

There are some rambling thoughts on the preference I have for

remuneration — for the independent judiciary to be set both practically and

visibly by the legislative branch as opposed to the executive

branch.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. Staff and I were paying attention

to his remarks and did a little bit of work on this, so I’m grateful for

that.

The process, as it stands right now, is that the committee comes up with

the recommendations, provides them to government. Government receives those

recommendations and then waits. If the House is not sitting, it has to wait

until the House starts to sit. Once the House starts to sit, there are seven

sitting days within which government must table the report. These are sitting

days. These aren’t just days under the

Interpretation Act. The Leg. has to be

sitting.

Then, after it’s tabled, there are 16 further sitting days within which

government can either put forward its proposal to replace the recommendations

or do nothing and accept them. If the Legislature rises before the expiry of

those sitting days, then the clock starts again at the next sitting of the

Legislative Assembly.

What this means, in practice…. It sounds like it wouldn’t add up to a

lot of time. Staff have calculated it. They advise me that this results in 150

calendar days, on average, between the receipt of the recommendations from the

committee and them actually being implemented as compensation change for

judicial justices and Provincial Court judges.

There is an issue here, a timing issue, of 150 days, which is

significant, which this is aimed at. Now, with respect to the…. Oh, pardon me.

I was overly optimistic. What I heard from staff through the mask was 150 days,

but staff have corrected me. In fact, it’s 250 days, on average, before the

compensation change goes through.

Now, with respect to transparency and issues canvassed during second

reading debate, just in terms of bare constitutional requirements, it’s our

understanding that there is no constitutional requirement that the Legislative

Assembly itself be decision-maker on JCC recommendations. It’s open to a

province or territory to grant that authority to the executive or to the

Legislature at their discretion.

Some provinces have gone one route, and some have gone another. Ontario,

Alberta and Saskatchewan have acceptance processes for these committees that do

not involve the legislatures. In other words, they are done through executive

committee.

It’s important to note that this doesn’t stop the report from being

tabled. There is still a requirement that the report be tabled. All the OICs

are published, including any OIC that would accept the recommendations. So it

would be fully transparent about the decision government had made — that it was

a decision of government —

whereas currently the report can be tabled and then

nothing happens. That is deemed acceptance, and there is no publication at that

stage.

In addition, it’s in a very limited circumstance, which is where

government agrees with the recommendations. If government wants to change them

in any way, then that would go through the regular process of review through

the Legislative Assembly. It is, as the member acknowledged, a very discrete

set of circumstances that would shift this but potentially one that could save

a considerable amount of time and uncertainty around actual compensation for

judiciary.

M. de Jong: To be clear, I don’t think I take issue with the Attorney’s observation

that he is satisfied that the province has the authority and the constitutional

authority, ultimately, to do this: to accept and set remuneration by

regulation. I think that’s correct. I don’t take issue with that. I guess I’m

just advocating a preference. I don’t think I’ve got a lot more on

this.

I’ll ask this. It might be difficult to imagine this circumstance, but

given how litigious this has been in the past, it may be not an entirely

impossible scenario. A report is prepared, tabled. Government of the day

decides that it is prepared to accept all of the recommendations unchanged,

issues an OIC to that effect and, for some reason relating to the operation of

the independent committee, litigation breaks out. It seems odd, but lots of odd

stuff has happened in this world of setting compensation.

[11:30 a.m.]

We end up with litigation, despite the fact that all the government has

done is accept, unchanged, the recommendations. Any concerns on the Attorney’s

part…. What then happens as part of that litigation is an application for

access to all of the supporting documentation from the executive council that

led to the creation of the OIC.

Hon. D. Eby: Perhaps one of the reasons why this was triggered in the member’s mind

as an important area to canvass is that this exact issue on the 2016 Judicial

Compensation Commission was taken all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada by

the Provincial Court Judges Association. They were seeking access to the

cabinet documents underlying the decision of government around the 2016 JCC,

and the Supreme Court of Canada denied that interlocutory application,

ultimately.

Our understanding of the decision is that that is now settled law and

that those cabinet documents are not subject to judicial review — that it’s the

decision itself.

M. de Jong: Right. I think this is my last kick at this.

That decision, though, having been made pursuant to the existing

statutory framework…. Does that…? Is the Attorney at all…? And you may not be

worried. It may not matter in the Attorney’s mind. But in a scenario where the

format has changed and there is now an OIC process by which that happens, is

there a possibility that that decision can be distinguished and a subsequent

application…? Maybe the Attorney is not concerned, either way. But does that

render the earlier decision a bit moot in the case where we’ve created a

slightly different mechanism here?

Hon. D. Eby: The member may have seen me waving up at the gallery. It’s just nice to

see that we have school groups, it looks like, visiting our Legislative

Assembly again. It’s a pleasure to see you all join us as we….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: That’s right. I think it’s particularly exciting for this group —

judicial compensation, a new law coming into the province. That’s what we’re

asking and answering questions about. Welcome to the assembly.

The court’s decision on that issue, we think, articulated a broad

principle, although it was certainly in a specific, factual scenario, including

the legislation at the time, which we’re seeking to change, as well as the

specific documents that were being sought by the Provincial Court Judges

Association.

Certainly, I would hesitate to say this is not something that could be

argued and, in fact, it likely will be argued, just given the history of this

process of setting compensation for judiciary. But our feeling is that the

broad principle articulated to the Supreme Court of Canada would run to that a

relatively low risk. But maybe we’ll be revisiting this in five years and

having a different conversation. These are challenging areas to

predict.

Clause 5 approved on division.

Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:35 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 30, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 18, Human Rights Code Amendment

Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 18 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:39 a.m.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined by Colleen Rice, director of justice policy, policy and

legislation division, and Melanie Tucker, senior policy analyst, policy and

legislation division. We’ll be talking about the human rights code, which is

the law that protects people in our province from discrimination and

racism.

On clause 1.

B. Stewart: I just want to ask the minister about the definition which is described

in clause 1. It says: “‘Indigenous,’ in relation to a person, means Indigenous

within the meaning of ‘Indigenous peoples’ as defined in the Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.”

[11:40 a.m.]

I just would ask for clarification on the rights of Inuit and Métis

peoples, who are often referred to as Indigenous or as part of that, and how

they’re going to be considered under the human rights in this particular

bill.

Hon. D. Eby: This definition refers back to the Constitution Act, which includes

Indigenous…. It includes First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. By

incorporating that definition from the constitution, Métis people are included

in the definition.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. de Jong: The House, in second reading, I think, articulated and indicated its

support, for a variety of reasons offered by participants in that debate, for

why this is an appropriate and welcome step to take…. I suppose, in the

committee, though, I feel a certain obligation to pose a couple of questions to

the Attorney to achieve, perhaps, a better understanding of what the effect of

this will be.

I suppose the obvious question is: can the Attorney General offer the

committee an example of a discriminatory behaviour or practice that would be

captured by this new category within the act of “Indigenous identity” that

wouldn’t previously have been captured by one of the other

definitions that

exist in the existing code?

Hon. D. Eby: On a point of law, staff advised — it’s certainly their understanding

and my understanding — that Indigenous people were and are protected under the

current human rights code, under the existing enumerated grounds.

With that said, something that Ardith Walkem raised in her report for

the Human Rights Tribunal…. There were two parts to it. One was that currently

Indigenous people have to, essentially, choose: “Do I want to allege that I’m

being discriminated on the basis of race, or do I want to allege that I’m being

discriminated on the basis of colour?”

In those scenarios, Ardith Walkem’s report found that Indigenous people

don’t really see themselves in that way and didn’t feel that that adequately

reflected what they were experiencing, in being discriminated against as an

Indigenous person. So this responds to that concern. It also puts in plain

language, in the code itself, if someone were reading the code: “Do I have a

right here to go the tribunal? Oh, I’m Indigenous, Indigenous identity. I am

here. I can go.”

Trying to reduce that barrier in the statute itself to someone feeling

like: “Oh, I’m not sure if what happened to me fits within those categories….”

The reason why that’s important is, certainly within Ardith Walkem’s report,

there was identification of the fact that Indigenous complainants were

underrepresented at the tribunal. In other words, the tribunal wasn’t hearing

from Indigenous people in the way that one would expect, given what Indigenous

people deal with in our society still, unfortunately, with respect to racism

and discrimination. So she recommended this amendment to us.

[11:45 a.m.]

Also, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond’s report In Plain Sight , in

relation to the health care system and discrimination, racism faced by

Indigenous people in the health care system…. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond

recommended to government that we do this as well.

There are a couple of reasons for putting this forward. The functional

legal protections are arguably the same. I say “arguably” because the

substantive…. One of the pieces of the law is that we hope that people see

themselves and understand themselves as protected. That is really what this is

aimed at.

M. de Jong: The Attorney referred to the report In Plain Sight . So I’ll

accept the invitation maybe to use that as a basis for an example for the

conversation we’ll have here.

I think I understood the Attorney General to say that were an individual

— or a group, for that matter — identified within that report to have advanced

a claim under the human rights code today, the protections are there for them.

But much of the concern is that in the absence of a specific reference to

Indigenous identity, the belief is that there is a reluctance on the part of an

Indigenous person to do that. That’s why, in a sense, this represents a bit of

an exception, insofar as it truly particularizes a particular group.

Is that, roughly speaking…? This notion that Indigenous people are

underrepresented — the report has said that, and the Attorney mentioned it

today in his second reading remarks. That is the essence of the rationale for

doing this and one, I think, that the House has embraced and

endorsed.

Hon. D. Eby: The short answer to the member’s question is yes. The longer answer

is….

This is something that we heard from our Indigenous partners, that this

was something that they wanted to see in the code — something that we heard

from experts that were looking at and interacting with Indigenous communities

or were themselves Indigenous, looking at barriers to Indigenous people

accessing the human rights protection system in our province.

I almost hesitate to say it’s similar, but in the past, government has

taken steps to identify a group of people who specifically need to see

themselves in the enumerated grounds who would otherwise have to rely on

what’s, in human rights law, called a constellation of factors or, essentially,

put together a series of different grounds to describe their experience. The

member will, I’m sure, recall the amendment made by the previous government,

the B.C. Liberal government, to include gender identity and expression in the

code.

[11:50 a.m.]

Previously somebody who faced discrimination because of gender identity

or expression would’ve had to cobble together a number of different grounds and

try to explain why their discrimination was protected — not immediately

intuitive to someone who is looking at the code, who might be facing various

forms of marginalization. The government at that time felt it necessary, even

though the legal opinions were that this is a group that was protected under

the existing language, to put that specifically in there so that that group was

able to see themselves in the code and that their rights were

protected.

I say…. I hesitate to say “analogous,” because the experiences are

different, but the legislative issue is the same here: Indigenous people who

really do need to see themselves and identify a way to access the protections

of the code in our province and their protections against being discriminated

against, against facing racism. So to give that clarity.

And to not require Indigenous people to have to identify in some way

that they don’t really see themselves. Instead, to give a path for Indigenous

people to identify themselves as they see themselves within the code is, in

fact, a human rights approach and, in fact, what the spirit of the code is

meant to be, as opposed to a legalistic or a formalistic kind of

approach.

M. de Jong: I don’t mean the next question to, in any way, be a trick question or to

try and be mischievous. We’ve had some conversation about the

underrepresentation of Indigenous people in the human rights complaint process.

Is the Attorney…? Does he have any sense, based on the advice he has received

from some of the legislative officers and the reports…? In saying that, does

someone have a sense of what the target…? I don’t even want to use that term —

target a certain number of complaints — but if the Attorney understands the

essence of my question….

If the present participation rate is deemed unnatural or inconsistent

with what the perceived experiences are, does he have a sense of what a more

appropriate level of participation would be?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s no target — perhaps obviously, but I think important to say that

on the record. What the issue is that this is aimed at is…. When Ardith Walkem

went out and met with Indigenous people and talked about the Human Rights

Tribunal and the human rights code, Indigenous people themselves identified

their reluctance to go, the barriers that they saw to advancing

complaints.

When you see reports like Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond’s report In Plain

Sight about racism against Indigenous people in the health care system,

the widespread nature of the issue, the profound concerns Indigenous people

have about accessing health care as a result and whether they’ll be treated

fairly in a hospital environment or a medicalized environment….

[11:55 a.m.]

You know, these are profound issues for our province. The

underrepresentation or the reluctance to participate or the barriers that have

been in place….

There were a number of different recommendations that came out of Ardith

Walkem’s report to improve Indigenous participation. We have seen some increase

in the willingness of Indigenous people to use that system to bring forward

concerns about racism and discrimination to the point that now, I understand,

11 percent of complaints at the tribunal are from people who self-identify as

Indigenous people.

Our hope is that this is one more piece that will help Indigenous people

feel more comfortable accessing the tribunal and its protective abilities

around responding to incidents of discrimination and racism.

M. de Jong: Am I correct that following the passage of these provisions in Bill 18,

an individual who believes they have been subject to discrimination on the

basis of their Indigenous identity will thereafter be in a position to file a

complaint on that basis and all of the remedies set out in

section 37 of the

code will thereafter be available to them in pursuing that

complaint?

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct.

M. de Jong: Any additional remedies that would be relevant to this topic, beyond

those set out in

section 37?

Hon. D. Eby: The answer is no.

Clauses 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 18, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 23;

R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 11:09 a.m.

On clause 33 (continued) .

J. Rustad: Hon. Chair, I first want to start and just apologize. I’m going to

repeat a question here from yesterday afternoon.

The Chair: Hang on. There seems to be an issue with the broadcast. Let me just

pause for a moment.

[11:10 a.m.]

All right. We’re good to go now. Recognizing the member

again.

J. Rustad: Technology. Actually, I have to admit the Hansard staff in the building

do a remarkable job. There are so few problems that come up that whenever there

is an issue, they can certainly be forgiven for that.

Yesterday I asked a question just around reforestation for things like

areas of catastrophic damage, as part of the forest landscape planning process,

and whether or not there would be a time frame associated, with targets, for

reforestation. I think the minister did answer that question, but if the

minister could perhaps provide that answer again, that would be

helpful.

Hon. K. Conroy: Before we start, I want to introduce the staff who’s with me today.

Ariel Taylor is the manager of Indigenous consultation and negotiations. Tony

Cheong is our senior legislative analyst. Doug Kelly is our director of forest

tenures branch, and Diane Nicholls is our ADM and chief forester.

There may be a time frame associated with something like wildfires. That

all depends on the outcomes identified during the forest landscape

process.

J. Rustad: I seem to recall, I think, that that was the answer from yesterday, so I

appreciate the minister providing that.

The reason for asking the question is that there’s somewhere between one

and two million hectares from previous years, not even including what was burnt

this year, that has yet to be reforested, much of it needing rehabilitation and

work. I was hoping for some assurances that through the landscape planning

process, the forest landscape plan process, there would be a focus and an

effort to try to get these stands rehabilitated and reforested as soon as

possible. I was hoping that the landscape plans would have a target.

I think, if I heard the minister correctly, what the minister has said

is that that will depend on the negotiations, government-to-government, as to

whether or not those targets and those kinds of activities would be put into

place. Maybe I’ll allow the minister just to confirm that.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I’ll just let the member know that these are not negotiated. It depends

on the outcomes of the values that are developed during the collaborative

planning, the forest plan planning process. They’re not negotiated; it’s part

of the process.

J. Rustad: I appreciate that. Yeah, right — negotiation, collaboration. Having been

the minister for a number of years, it’s kind of one and the same in terms of

the efforts. I won’t quibble over semantics about that. When you’re sitting

down at a table, going back and forth, collaborating, in my own mind, that’s

kind of negotiating. Anyway, it doesn’t matter.

Okay. We have these plans that are going to be developed in

collaboration with First Nations, with input from communities, and other values

that’ll be part of it. Obviously, the province has values that, I’m assuming,

will be part of these plans as well, that are a significant component, such as

supporting the production and supply of timber on the forested

landscape.

Is there a directive from the minister, or is it entirely up to the

chief forester’s office, to determine the provincial requirements or the

provincial desires for putting things like stands back into production and

dealing with these catastrophic areas? Obviously, that goes back and forth, but

there must be some priorities that are put forward to be able to meet issues of

production and supply of timber in the forested areas, as well, of course, as

conservation of the environment. Many of these areas that are disturbed need to

be rehabilitated and have got unstable slopes that need to have a lot of work

done on them.

The purpose for asking this question is because the avenue for doing

this work historically, as in the recent past, has been through Forest

Enhancement Society of B.C., which is out of money. There’s a tremendous amount

of work that needs to be done on the landscape, to be able to rehabilitate

these areas and get them back into sufficiently stocked standards, as opposed

to, currently, NSR, which they may or not be, in terms of the level of impact

from fires.

My hope is that a priority from government — through the chief

forester’s office, whether it’s directed to or as a priority of the chief

forester’s office — that they would bring to the table, as part of the

collaboration, would be to see these stands rehabilitated. That’s the reason

for asking the question.

Maybe I could ask, from this perspective, whether or not there will be a

provincial direction or a priority given by the chief forester’s office to get

these stands rehabilitated. If so, how would that be seen to be undertaken as

part of the overall plan or the prescription that would end up on the

landscape, associated with the plan?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Reforestation is done by licensees by obligation. Reforestation is also

done by government programs when obligations aren’t present. This won’t change.

Reforestation will still be a priority. That’s what the province will bring to

the development of the outcomes during the forest landscape planning

process.

J. Rustad: I’ll wait for estimates, should I have the honour of being the critic,

to ask the minister about just how that will be done in terms of reforestation.

I recognize that’s not part of this bill.

In 2.23, it talks about: “Before establishing a forest landscape plan,

the chief forester must consult and cooperate with Indigenous peoples whose

rights could be affected by the establishment of the forest landscape

plan.”

The minister previously just talked about collaboration. I’m just

curious as to why the word “collaboration” is not in that section.

Hon. K. Conroy: I was only correcting the member’s misuse of the word “negotiation” when

I said negotiation or collaboration. The requirement to consult and cooperate

is consistent with the language that’s in the Declaration Act. We have adopted

the language from the Declaration Act.

A. Olsen: With respect to the word “cooperate,” specifically, can the minister

provide a definition of what cooperation would look like or what that means,

whether it be the use of it in this act or the use of it in another act? If

it’s referring to another act, what does cooperation look like?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Cooperation will be determined through the government-to-government

discussions. It may look different depending on the nation we are in

government-to-government discussions with.

A. Olsen: The use of the term “Indigenous peoples….” I recognize there was some

discussion about this yesterday.

The minister just stated that cooperation will be defined by the

government-to-government relationship. How would this clause impact individual

Indigenous people?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Indigenous peoples that hold rights are recognized and affirmed by

section 35 under the Constitution Act, 1982, and it’s a matter that has been

answered through the evolution of law under

section 35.

A. Olsen: I’m a member of W̱JOȽEȽP, and we have

the Douglas treaty. The Douglas treaty is a historic treaty, and it was signed

by the heads of households. It affords me, as a Douglas treaty person, the

rights to hunt and fish as formerly. And “as formerly” has largely been defined

in our courts as that there has been a duty to protect those rights and the

places where I can undertake those rights. Obviously, the fishing aspect of

this is not applicable.

How would the minister…? In terms of Indigenous peoples whose rights

could be affected, can the minister please explain to the Legislature how my

rights, as a Douglas treaty person, would be…? How would the government

cooperate with those individual rights that I have to continue to hunt and fish

as formerly? This language is not just in

W̱JOȽEȽP. There are 14 of these treaties,

and there’s also very similar language that’s used in other treaties in the

province.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The duty to consult includes the requirement to accommodate if and when

there is an impact to Aboriginal or treaty rights.

A. Olsen: A duty to consult who?

Hon. K. Conroy: Indigenous peoples who hold

section 35 rights.

A. Olsen: All of us individually?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The requirement to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples is a

process that’s well established. That obligation doesn’t change with this

act.

A. Olsen: Can the minister please provide what that is, for this debate? Rather

than just saying that it is what it is and hasn’t changed, it needs to be on

the record what that actual process is.

Hon. K. Conroy: The duty to consult has been defined through the evolution of case law

section 35, and in some cases, it’s further clarified through the

government-to-government agreements with rights and title holders.

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

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.