Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 30, 2023

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 294

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 21 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2023

Hon. M. Farnworth

Bill M219 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Gas Price Relief) Amendment Act, 2023

P. Milobar

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Transgender Day of Visibility

R. Merrifield

Brant Wildlife Festival

A. Walker

Chinese Christian Mission Richmond office

T. Wat

Prince Rupert Regional Hospital

J. Rice

Denis Coupland

A. Olsen

Gaia Cares day program for seniors

J. Routledge

Oral Questions

Crime in communities and impact on businesses

S. Bond

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Lee

Hon. N. Sharma

LNG development and fracking impacts

A. Olsen

Hon. G. Heyman

Bivalent COVID-19 vaccination

J. Rustad

Hon. A. Dix

Health worker vaccination and rehiring of staff

J. Rustad

Hon. A. Dix

Mental health and addiction services and redevelopment of Riverview lands

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. R. Kahlon

Release of B.C. Housing audit report

P. Milobar

Hon. R. Kahlon

M. de Jong

Petitions

D. Ashton

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 12 — Intimate Images Protection Act (continued)

Hon. N. Sharma

M. de Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. B. Ralston

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (continued)

Hon. G. Heyman

T. Shypitka

R. Merrifield

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2023

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.

Introductions by Members

K. Paddon: This morning we raised the transgender flag in front of the

Legislature with members from across the House.

[10:05 a.m.]

It was started by Rachel Crandall in 2009 to celebrate transgender

people and raise awareness of discrimination that they face. Transgender Day

of Visibility is held annually on March 31, but since we’re all going to be

in our communities to celebrate this day tomorrow, we took the opportunity

to celebrate with some guests that I’d like to introduce today.

There are a few of them.

Alex DeForge from QMUNITY, Michael Robach from QMUNITY, Courtney

Diekebrader from QMUNITY.

Dr. Aaron Devor, chair in Transgender Studies at the University of

Victoria.

Adrienne Smith.

I know that one of my friends is going to be introducing Sussanne

Skidmore, but I can’t help but say welcome to her as well.

To everyone who joined us this morning on the lawn, thank you very

much and welcome.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have three more guests from the Ministry of Housing that are

watching question period today. We have Alyssa Teekah, we have Aman Gill and

Leslie Cramer that are watching the proceedings today.

I’m hoping the House can please make them very welcome.

Hon. A. Dix: On behalf of all members of the House who took

part in the Kidney

Health breakfast this morning, I want to acknowledge all the people from the

Kidney Foundation who have been in the building and have been meeting with

us today.

We had Pia Schindler and their entire team. I want to acknowledge, in

particular, Chief Michael Recalma, who brought the greeting. Chief Recalma

is a kidney recipient himself and an eloquent spokesperson for the

circumstance of all those who are transplant recipients.

We’ve had moving stories. We all know our colleague the Minister of

Finance is an organ donor, and we all know people in our community who have

done that, and as the member for Prince George–Valemount very eloquently

said this morning, we want to encourage everyone who can to become a

donor.

S. Bond: Thank you to the Minister of Health. I’d like to join him in welcoming

members from the Kidney Foundation here today. We certainly know the impact

on a family, on a person, when they say they are undergoing that kidney

journey. It’s very difficult.

I just want to thank Pia Schindler and the team for reaching out right

across the province to make sure that people, no matter where they live, get

support, encouragement and resources.

As the Minister of Health said, one of the things that’s most

important is considering organ donorship. I would really encourage all of us

as we move toward Green Shirt Day, which will happen in just a very short

period of time in honour of Logan Boulet.

I want to thank the member for Shuswap, who has done such an

exceptional job in encouraging all of us to become organ donors. If there’s

one thing I think we can do to support people on that very difficult

journey, it’s to consider being an organ donor.

We again thank the foundation for their important work.

Hon. J. Whiteside: Indeed, it is a real treat for me today to have a friend, neighbour

and ally in the gallery visiting us today. Sussanne Skidmore is here.

Sussanne was actually able to join many of us who were out on the front lawn

this morning, celebrating the Transgender Day of Visibility.

As the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Sussanne is a

fierce advocate. She is a fierce ally. She stands up for workers’ rights,

for human rights, in our community and across the province. We are so

fortunate to have her as a neighbour in New Westminster.

Would the House please join me in making Sussanne feel

welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: In the House today I’m really honoured to introduce to you…. We have

the voice of construction workers coming here from across the province. The

B.C. Building Trades executives are here to meet with me, to meet with the

Premier and other ministers. This morning they are here to watch us, as they

call it, to see sparks fly. They are here.

Brynn Bourke, from B.C. Building Trades.

Al Phillips, UA Local 170.

Roy Bizzutto, Cement Masons and plasterers.

Brian Cochrane, IUOE Local 115.

Mark Derten, B.C. Regional Council of Carpenters.

Geoff Higginson, Bricklayers and Allied Crafts.

Dan Jajic, district council 38.

Richard Manglesdorf, Sheet Metal Local 280.

[10:10 a.m.]

Miro Maras, Millwright Local 2736.

Jim Noon, UA Local 324.

Jason Pedersen, Sheet Metal Local 276.

Mandeep Saggu, IBEW Local 213.

Ryan Starchuk, Pile Drivers Local 2404.

Phil Venoit, IBEW Local 230.

Doug Parton, Ironworkers; Paul Beacom, Ironworkers; Lindsay Maskell,

Ironworkers.

Jeremy Allingham, B.C. Building Trades; Layne Clark, B.C. Building

Trades; Julianne Losito, B.C. Building Trades.

Russ Alexander, IBEW Local 230; Kale Anguish, IBEW Local

These are the people who build British Columbia. They continue to

build our infrastructure. Please help me and give them a very, very warm

welcome.

P. Milobar: I rise today to introduce a couple of people that have travelled here

from Kamloops. Margaret Hyslop has had an over-50-year time span now,

advising various governments of all political stripes in this place, on

matters that are important to the Indigenous communities throughout British

Columbia. She’s down here with her husband, Mark.

Will the House please welcome Drs. Margaret and Mark

Hyslop.

Hon. D. Coulter: I have two introductions. First, I’d like to welcome Jason Lum, who is

the Fraser Valley Regional District chair. He’s also a Chilliwack city

counsellor. He is one of my constituents and also my cousin.

Would the House please welcome Jason to this place today.

I’d also like to introduce business manager Miro Maras from

Millwrights Local 2736. He’s a sponsor of close to 100 millwright

apprentices throughout B.C. Mr. Maras is also the president of the Pacific

Regional Maintenance Council, which just recently announced, with Waiward

Gitga’at, that they will be a major partner with LNG Canada on maintenance

of the facility after construction. Under the PRMC, building trades unions

will continue to provide good, unionized jobs with a workforce that is

diverse and inclusive for years to come.

If everyone would welcome Miro to the House.

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I have some special guests: George Harvie, who

is the Metro Vancouver board chair and also the mayor of the city of Delta;

John McEwen, Metro Vancouver board vice-chair and also the mayor of the

village of Anmore; Jerry Dobrovolny, Metro Vancouver commissioner and chief

administrative officer; and Sandra Jansen, Metro Vancouver general manager

of external relations.

They are here to talk about their priorities with different

ministries. Metro Vancouver received over $50 million from the growing

communities fund, and I just can’t wait to see what projects they will be

building in the near future.

As well, the Premier and I made a splash announcement earlier this

month that we are providing Metro Vancouver with $250 million in funding to

upgrade the Iona Island wastewater treatment plant in Richmond. I know they

are hard at work. The strong relationships that we have between the regional

partners across Metro Vancouver have made this funding a reality.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. M. Rankin: I have two constituents joining us in the House today, Lucy and

Jonathan Mears. Lucy was a constituency assistant of mine when I first was

elected and had served previously with the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca

for many, many years. They actually met at university.

She has now retired and has become fully engaged in the FIRST Robotics

movement with her husband, Jonathan. She serves on the board of FIRST B.C.

as a co–volunteer coordinator of the Canadian Pacific regional, and they are

involved in all levels of FIRST Robotics.

[10:15 a.m.]

Earlier this week the member for Kelowna West highlighted that

Victoria held the FIRST robotics tournament recently, in which Lucy was

very, very involved in organization and showcasing the amazing robotics

teams from around the world.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. N. Cullen: Today joining us in the House is Charmaine Thom, spokesperson for the

Taku River Tlingit First Nation.

Jìnìk is a leader within her community, the very far, far northwest

quarter of our province. She is also a leader across First Nations in

bringing people together. She has travelled a long way to join us here to

talk with myself and many other members of government and others about the

importance of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation and what they represent in

terms of leadership for our province in bringing people together.

Would the House please join me in making spokesperson Thom feel very

welcome.

Hon. G. Heyman: Joining us in the gallery today are Bob and Lara McDonald. Bob is the

retiring director of extended producer responsibility in the Ministry of

Environment and Climate Change Strategy, and he has spent his entire 32

years of public service in waste prevention and recycling.

Bob’s work has helped further B.C.’s growing reputation as the North

American leader in extended producer responsibility with programs that

support the circular economy as well as our CleanBC plastics action plan.

Our program serves as a model for many other jurisdictions, and Bob deserves

huge credit for that.

I just want to say that in the years I’ve worked with Bob, his

briefings have been fulsome, they’ve been sharp, and they’ve been humorous,

and it’s been a great pleasure to work with Bob. I understand that in

retirement, he is planning to live in the country with his family in

Shawnigan Lake, when he’s not playing hockey or building an off-grid cabin

on the Sunshine Coast.

Will the House please join me in congratulating Bob on his retirement,

thanking him for his many years of service and wishing him and Lara the very

best in retirement.

S. Chandra Herbert: I want to acknowledge Adrienne Smith, who is in the House today. I’ve

worked with Adrienne on human rights law, on labour law, on anything

relating to folks who’ve been marginalized in our communities. Adrienne is

there as an advocate with wisdom, with a strong voice and great education

for anyone willing to listen.

I want to thank Adrienne for their work and really welcome them to

this House.

M. Elmore: Joining us today is Brandon Yan, the executive director of Out on

Screen. The Vancouver Queer Film Festival is marking the 35th anniversary

this year. Out in Schools is a program that’s really taking off across B.C.

Brandon was here to join us for the flag-raising to celebrate International

Transgender Day of Visibility.

I ask everybody here to please give Brandon a very warm

welcome.

J. Routledge: I have some guests in the gallery today. They are staff, volunteers

and participants in Gaia Community Care and Wellness Society. Please join me

in giving a warm welcome to Chi-Hung Percy Wong, Wan-Chung Joseph Wong,

Tai-Ping Alice Au, Chun-Tim Ma, Qi-Yun Yang and Lung-Chiu Chan.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Joining us in the gallery today is a constituent from Nanaimo, Tamara

Graham. She is sometimes my dance partner at Diwali. She is also a volunteer

with the Kidney Foundation.

Will the House please make her very welcome.

M. Starchuk: Earlier on, the Minister of Labour had the opportunity to list off a

group of people that were there, and I would like to take the time to single

out one of the recruiters and organizers for the Pile Drivers 2404. He

shares the same last name as me. He is the father of my grandson.

Would everybody make Ryan Starchuk welcome to the House

today.

[10:20 a.m.]

M. Lee: I’d like to also ask the House to please join me in welcoming the

students, in grades 9 through 11, from Eric Hamber Secondary School, the

Griffins, the school that my wife went to high school at with her siblings

and my nephews.

I just met with the first delegation of three, which will be coming

through our assembly this afternoon. They will be here at 10:40. I’ve given

them an indication of what is going to be occurring in the House, in terms

of intimate images and that legislation, which follows QP, and the

importance of that.

I also want to welcome Adam Wightman, the social studies teacher that

is with the group.

I look forward to all the visits with our students from Eric Hamber

Secondary. I know that the member for Vancouver-Fairview would join me in

that welcome as well.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — CIVIL FORFEITURE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act,

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

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 21, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act,

Far too often people are lured into gang life with tempting images

of fast cars, glamorous homes, luxury goods. By going after property

owned by high-level criminal organizations and individuals, B.C.’s civil

forfeiture office undermines the profit motive behind unlawful activity

and sends a clear message to organized crime.

This bill contains necessary enhancements to non-conviction-based

forfeiture that would address legal issues, reduce program costs and

increase efficiency. The changes would respond to challenges faced by

the civil forfeiture office in several areas, including efficiently

collecting information needed to support the program, taking a priority

interest in forfeited property, effectively dealing with financed

vehicles and addressing organized crime’s significant role in the

illicit cannabis market.

This bill would also create unexplained wealth orders, which are

an important evidence-gathering tool that can have a powerful impact on

money laundering and organized crime here in British

Columbia.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 21, Civil Forfeiture 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 M219 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(GAS PRICE RELIEF)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

P. Milobar presented a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Gas

Price Relief) Amendment Act, 2023.

P. Milobar: I move that a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Gas Price

Relief) Amendment Act, 2023, of which notice has been given in my name

on the order paper, be introduced and now read for the first

time.

We know our province is in the middle of an affordability crisis.

Every day people struggle to make ends meet, with prices for daily

necessities like food, housing and fuel continuing to increase daily.

Leaders must take action and provide relief, and real relief.

British Columbians pay the highest gas prices, with the highest

gas taxes, in North America. This has real impacts on people, both in

terms of its direct effect on commuters and vehicle owners but also as a

result of its effect on rising grocery and housing costs. Our entire

supply chain is affected when gas reaches record-breaking

prices.

In just a few days’ time, gas prices are set to go up by another

3.26 cents per litre, as the government’s new rate for carbon tax

increases comes into force. These increases come in addition to other

taxes drivers already pay on fuel, including a dedicated motor fuel tax

for TransLink in the Vancouver area, a dedicated motor fuel tax for the

BCTFA, the provincial motor fuel tax, the federal excise tax and the

GST.

[10:25 a.m.]

The bill I am reintroducing today would allow for temporary relief

from two provincewide motor fuel taxes when prices are high, relieving

pressure on both the consumers and the supply chain. It’s a

straightforward measure that could immediately provide help to those who

desperately need it.

It’s time to get serious about making life more affordable for

British Columbians.

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

Motion approved.

P. Milobar: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M219, Miscellaneous Statutes (Gas Price Relief) 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)

TRANSGENDER DAY OF VISIBILITY

R. Merrifield: I rise in the House today to acknowledge and celebrate

International Transgender Day of Visibility. I also rise to say that

love will win, and in my core, I truly believe it. Today is a special

day during which we get to celebrate transgender, gender-diverse and

two-spirit people and educate ourselves on what we can do to be genuine

allies, while removing transphobia from our communities.

The Transgender Day of Visibility was started in 2009 by American

activist Rachel Crandall. Rachel wanted a day that would shine a light

on the struggles of transgender people, while also highlighting their

achievements. The day is now observed internationally, where we can

acknowledge that living openly as your true self is something many of us

take for granted.

In this House, we need to implement policies that work towards the

equality and respect of transgender people in the workplace, schools and

in our health care system. For too long, transgender people have had to

fight for their right to equality, and that fight continues today. It

takes great courage to not conform to the societal pressures that are

unfairly placed on transgender and non-binary people every single day of

their lives.

Today I celebrate them. Members and fellow British Columbians,

it’s important that we take time to reflect and educate ourselves on the

unique struggles that transgender, gender-diverse and two-spirit people

face every day and to celebrate their many achievements.

BRANT WILDLIFE FESTIVAL

A. Walker: Next time you’re flying back from a vacation in Mexico, imagine

you’re travelling that same distance by flapping your arms. Then

consider going all the way to the high Arctic by wing power.

That is exactly what brant geese do every spring, only to return

again in the fall, all the way back to Mexico. Well over 10,000

kilometres, round trip — it’s an incredible journey — and

Parksville-Qualicum is an important refuelling stop along the way. In

Oceanside, the Brant Capital of Canada, these intrepid travellers get

the respect they deserve. They get time and space to feed on our

beaches, and they are the namesake of the Brant Wildlife

Festival.

The spring celebration of nature was established in 1991, and this

will be their 32nd year. This festival truly has something for everyone.

The Arrowsmith Naturalists perform an annual brant count to keep an eye

on the brant numbers. The Brant Wildlife Festival liftoff is this

Friday, and I’m looking forward to attending it. They have a carving and

art show that’s in its 30th year.

This year, for the first time ever, school district 69 is hosting

the Brant Wildlife Children’s Festival, and many partners and sponsors,

lots of natural-related displays and life-sized dioramas will be

River estuary, the Heritage Forest and the Hamilton Marsh. Brant and

basic bird ID and birdwatching courses will be provided by local

experts, and the North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre will be doing an

eagle release.

There are also events at the Deep Bay Marine Field Station, The

Old School House, the McMillan Arts Centre, the Qualicum Beach Museum,

our local libraries, and so much more.

For those who are lucky enough to witness this incredible annual

migration, when you hear that “cronk, cronk” and see a trove of brants,

remember how important it is that we keep space for nature, because we

are all connected.

CHINESE CHRISTIAN MISSION

RICHMOND

OFFICE

T. Wat: It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today and acknowledge an

important milestone for an organization in my constituency. Last month I

was honoured to attend the 15th anniversary of the Richmond branch of

the Chinese Christian Mission in Canada.

[10:30 a.m.]

This marks 15 successful years of playing a vital role in the

community by offering a large variety of programs and services,

including counselling, employment programs, recreation, spiritual

growth, first-aid training and welcoming new immigrants to Canada, and

to Richmond in particular.

The Chinese Christian Mission has a youth centre in Richmond that

offers a variety of child and youth programs focused on empowering youth

to become effective leaders. The centre also provides support groups for

people with specific health conditions and family members going through

difficult circumstances.

The Richmond office is one of the many CCM offices across Canada

doing highly valuable and necessary work to serve our communities, while

illuminating the multicultural mosaic at home in Richmond and

beyond.

On top of many ongoing initiatives, the CCM is also raising funds

for the victims of the recent earthquakes in Türkiye and

Syria.

The CCM of Canada opened its headquarters in Vancouver in 1979 and

has expanded across the country, with centres opening in Calgary,

Montreal, Toronto and Edmonton, a true testament to the impact and

demand for services offered by this mission.

I would like to thank Elaine Chun, Alice Wong and the CCM team for

inviting me to celebrate their anniversary with them.

Congratulations to CCM of Richmond for 15 exceptional years of

supporting our local community, and I look forward to many, many more to

come.

PRINCE RUPERT REGIONAL HOSPITAL

J. Rice: Just before we get started, I wanted to mention that I was unable

to attend the flag-raising for the Transgender Day of Visibility, but I

did my level best to wear the appropriate colours. That’s the best I

could do today. I wish I could have been there. So I just want to give a

shout-out to all the trans people in my life and in B.C. that I don’t

know.

Today I wanted to stand up and talk about the Prince Rupert

Regional Hospital. When the Premier visited our Prince Rupert Regional

Hospital just a couple of weeks ago, we talked with a full complement of

the amazing team that keeps Prince Rupert Regional Hospital

running.

I’m so grateful for his visit. I know he didn’t expect a shout-out

today. But he talked with everyone. He talked with our kitchen staff;

our cleaning staff; our Indigenous patient liaison; diagnostic imaging;

the MDR, medical device reprocessing, people who clean all the equipment

and tools that we use; lab techs; nurses; doctors; and

administration.

I know this, and I know rural MLAs know this too, but we heard

about how the job versatility of rural health care providers provides

for our people. They have to wear many hats. You have to be good at a

lot of different things in rural health care.

We also heard about some of the hospital infrastructure

challenges. But we also heard about some of the amazing upgrades, like

the new lab equipment that was recently put in place after a

fire.

I can’t believe I have no time left. But I just wanted to say

thanks to the Premier for coming. Sorry I talked so long.

I recently had two procedures at the hospital, and I got to see

the physical challenges they spoke about. Most importantly, I was well

cared for, and the people and the staff were professional.

I just want to give a big shout-out to the team at Prince Rupert

Regional Hospital.

DENIS COUPLAND

A. Olsen: I was elected in Central Saanich in November 2008. That night I

received a phone call from Denis Coupland. Now I was a councillor-elect.

Denis wasted no time to introduce me to the important work that he and

hundreds of volunteers have been doing to protect, enhance and repair

our wetlands, creeks, streams and shorelines of the Saanich

Peninsula.

We met for a drink at the Prairie Inn. Denis was the first person

I met in my new role. He was there to shamelessly lobby me on behalf of

the peninsula streams. He was direct. They needed me to support their

request for a grant-in-aid.

[10:35 a.m.]

Over the years, I grew to know Denis as a friend, a passionate

advocate and activist, defending biodiversity, and Denis was a voice

that nature doesn’t have. His involvement in the Hagan-KENNES watershed,

working closely with my W̱SÁNEĆ

relatives, inspired the effort to change the name on the map to reflect

the name that has always been there: KENNES. Denis understood there is

more to a name than a word.

When I became the MLA, Denis emailed me to ask about dates for the

Saanich Inlet round table, making sure he coordinated the voices of the

Saanich Inlet so that they could be heard during legislative breaks. “I

want a date when you’re not in the Legislature so you don’t have an

excuse to miss the round table,” he wrote to me.

Whether it’s fiercely defending the Saanich Inlet, streamkeeping,

shorekeeping, restoring wetlands, removing invasive species, Denis

Coupland was a driving force on the ground and around the

table.

Denis Coupland passed away on February 18, 2023.

On behalf of all our friends and fellow volunteers, to Denis’s

family — Jason, Kristen, James and Aiden — our community and our

environment are better because of your father and

grandfather.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM .

GAIA CARES DAY PROGRAM FOR SENIORS

J. Routledge: Imagine, if you will, that you are 87 years old. You are widowed.

You live alone. Your health has failed significantly. You have trouble

feeding and bathing yourself. You are starting to get confused about

simple tasks.

to know, but you are not a new Canadian. You’ve lived here since before

many of us were born. You spent your working life toiling in one of the

industries that has powered British Columbia’s prosperity. You raised

your family here, but your family is showing signs of exhaustion, and

you are beginning to lose your will to live.

Well, Gaia Cares has opened a new program in Burnaby North, and it

can give you a new lease on life. It started last May as a three-hour

table tennis class. Since then, it has evolved into a seniors all-round

development day program that provides structured and supervised social,

recreational, physical, cognitive, self-care, aesthetic and educational

activities for frail seniors, post-stroke clients and those living with

early signs of dementia.

The program helps to prevent social isolation and encourages

independent living in the community. It also provides support and

information for caregivers. The program runs every Thursday from 9 a.m.

to 3 p.m. It is led by three staff and three to five volunteers with

professional backgrounds in social work, nursing, physiotherapy,

education, rehabilitation and exercise science. They communicate with

participants in their first language, which is Chinese. They provide

culturally appropriate hot meals and nutritional snacks.

I know that there are many more Chinese-speaking families in

Burnaby North whose quality of life would be improved by being part of

Gaia Cares.

Oral Questions

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES

AND IMPACT ON

BUSINESSES

S. Bond: Well, small businesses in British Columbia are literally caught in

the crossfire of the brutal violence and random attacks enabled by the

soft-on-crime Premier’s catch-and-release system.

Sandeep Alexander, for example, owner of the Festal Café, has

faced relentless vandalism, theft and even threats to his staff. He

says: “Almost every other day, we have people walking in, threatening

our staff, taking money, iPads being stolen, and multiple encounters of

vandalism.” He is now being forced to close his café on Granville Street

because of the random violence and chaos impacting his

business.

This is happening all across the province, in every single

community.

[10:40 a.m.]

How many businesses must close due to rampant crime and vandalism,

and when will the soft-on-crime Premier step up and provide some

financial support for businesses that are barely hanging on due to his

failed catch-and-release policies?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. All of us share the

concerns around the issues that the opposition has raised and that we

hear about. But I want to make it clear: everyone deserves to feel safe

in their communities.

That’s why we’ve taken the initiatives and the actions that we

have done in terms of increasing resources that police have asked for to

be able to deal with the situation that they’re facing, the men and

women who do an incredible job in terms of law enforcement in our

communities right across this province — putting in place the tools that

they have required.

Whether it’s ensuring that we get changes done in terms of the

Criminal Code. Whether it’s ensuring that we get changes in terms of the

way in which calls are dealt with, through the expansion of Car programs

to deal with mental health calls, the peer-assisted care teams which we

piloted on the North Shore and New Westminster. They have proved to be

extremely successful and are going to go out across the

province.

It’s specialized teams of police prosecutors and probation

officers and corrections officials to be able to deal with people that

police have identified before they get to the justice system or after

they get to the justice system. All initiatives that police have

requested so that they can do the job that they need to do. We take this

very seriously.

Other initiatives. Today’s legislation that has been tabled, part

and parcel of that work. We’ve done a lot. There is more to do, and we

will continue to do it.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that response.

I would ask him to take just a moment and stop and reflect on how

absolutely terrifying it would be to be working in a dollar store or a

convenience store or a café and have someone who is armed walk in and

either threaten or actually physically assault that person. It is

terrifying. It is happening everywhere, and it is because we have a

soft-on-crime Premier who has a catch-and-release policy in

place.

Let’s hear from John Neate, who runs JJ Bean Coffee, because he’s

speaking up as well. Here’s what he had to say. “You go down Columbia

Street and Hastings, and people are shooting up right in front of you,

don’t even care. It’s happening everywhere, in every alley, every door,

every storefront, and crime is worse than it has ever been.” Not my

words. The words of John Neate.

Desperate businesses are begging for support to help mitigate the

devastating impacts of vandalism and property crime. Yet the Premier

and, again today, this minister simply ignore their pleas for help. How

many more people need to be hurt, and how many more

businesses?

The question is about mitigation to support businesses in British

Columbia. How many more of them need to close before this random

violence and vandalism stops?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I appreciate the question from the member, but I want to

make it clear that since taking office, our Premier and our Attorney

General have been anything other than soft on crime, have brought in

initiative after initiative after initiative to deal with the challenges

that communities are facing across this province.

I know the opposition wants to dismiss initiatives such as $230

million for RCMP in small and rural communities, which will help ensure

that enforcement takes place in those communities that she’s talking

about. The opposition wants to ignore the initiatives in terms of mental

health supports, in terms of housing supports for those with mental

health who are committing some of the crimes that we’ve seen in

communities across this province that she talks about — that they get

the help and are off the streets.

They can try and dismiss the fact of the expansion of the Car

programs, which was something that they called for, which was put in

place. Action was taken by this government. You called for it to be

expanded, and that’s exactly what we’ve done. Those are actions and

initiatives.

It’s new initiatives such as the peer-assisted care teams, which

have been piloted and seen to be a success, and now we want to take it

out across the province — unlike the last time, when you sat on this

side of the House and there was an effective pilot program, a repeat

offender management program, and you cancelled it.

Interjections.

[10:45 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We understand the challenges that businesses and communities are

facing. We work with the professionals who are doing the work — the men

and women in our police forces, the men and women in our social service

agencies and our health care workers. We will continue to take the steps

that we need to make sure that our communities are safe.

M. Lee: Let’s be clear. The initiatives after initiatives after

initiatives over the past six years for this Premier are not working.

The Premier’s catch-and-release system is failing. Violent random

attacks have never been worse in British Columbia than they are right

now under this soft-on-crime Premier. Serious assaults involving weapons

or bodily harm in Vancouver are up over 30 percent compared to the 2017

to 2019 average.

Yesterday the VPD announced that despite arresting over 200 people

with 4,700 previous convictions combined, many were right back out on

the streets on the same day. The very same day. Small business owners in

Vancouver — including in Yaletown, West End, Gastown, Chinatown and

Downtown Vancouver — simply can’t handle the unchecked violence that has

skyrocketed under the soft-on-crime Premier’s catch-and-release justice

system.

Joanne Zarife runs Zaatar w Zeit, which is mere steps from where

Sunday’s deadly random stabbing took place. She shares similar

experiences as other Vancouver businesses, with her employees feeling

scared to come to work due to theft and violent confrontations. She

says: “We don’t feel safe anymore.”

Can the soft-on-crime Premier tell small business owners like

Joanne when she and her employees will feel safe again?

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for raising this very important issue.

Everyone deserves to feel safe in their communities. When we hear about

the violence in our streets, we know that we have to take action. That’s

exactly why we’re taking the actions that we’re taking. It’s exactly why

we went to Ottawa to ask for changes to the Criminal Code specifically

around repeat violent offenders, so we have better tools in our justice

system to keep them off our streets.

It’s exactly why we’re not waiting just for Ottawa make those

changes. We’re investing in the programs that we need in B.C. that we

know have been effective in the past, like the repeat offenders teams

that are going to circle around these repeat offenders and make sure

that there’s a plan in place to keep our community safe and them off the

streets.

We’re taking the actions and investing in the programs that we

know have worked in the past, because we believe that everybody deserves

to feel safe in our communities. We’ll keep doing that work.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Langara, supplemental.

M. Lee: We used to have a society here in British Columbia which was based

on the rule of law. But now it seems we just have a state of

lawlessness, all under this soft-on-crime Premier’s watch….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

M. Lee: This is what B.C. has become, where people don’t feel

safe….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear the question, please. Let’s hear the

question.

Shhh. Let’s hear the question. Please continue.

The member will continue.

M. Lee: Well, I don’t know what the member opposite was referring to. But

I know that for every member here in this House, our daughters, like

mine, who work in Downtown Vancouver, blocks away from where that deadly

stabbing occurred on Sunday, and young people who go to work every day

in Downtown Vancouver — her co-workers, her friends — don’t feel safe. I

know that each member in this House recognizes what it means when your

children or your spouse or your parent is walking in the neighborhoods

where they don’t feel safe anymore. That’s what it feels

like.

We can, here in this chamber, talk all about initiatives. But it’s

not working. It’s not working. People don’t feel safe on the streets

where they live and where they go to work.

[10:50 a.m.]

No neighbourhood has been more devastated by the Premier’s failed

catch-and-release policies than Chinatown. Thefts, vandalism and social

chaos on our streets spill into Chinatown on a daily basis. Twenty

percent of well-established legacy businesses that have been part of the

community for generations have permanently closed just in the past five

years, under this NDP government.

Next month Kent’s Kitchen will join the growing list of closures,

including Goldstone Bakery on Keefer Street and Mitzie’s on Pender

Street.

How many businesses will close before this soft-on-crime Premier

ends his catch-and-release system and supports small businesses being

decimated by the cost of random violence and vandalism?

Hon. N. Sharma: Everyone deserves to feel safe in their communities — women

walking down the street, people in their businesses. We know, and I want

to send a message to all those businesses and those people that are

feeling unsafe that their government is taking the actions necessary to

make the situation better.

This is an issue that I know we joined ministers across this

country to sit down with the federal government to talk about what we’re

all experiencing in cities across this country, which is an increase in

violence. In Ontario, they talked about gun violence. In Manitoba, it

was bear spray. Here we talked about our issues. We called upon the

federal government to make the changes necessary to the bail policy so

we have better tools in our system for repeat violent

offenders.

I’m pleased that we have a commitment, that they said they would

make those changes this spring. We’ll be watching to make sure they

happen. In the meantime, we’ll continue to invest in the programs and

work with our communities to make the situation better.

LNG DEVELOPMENT

AND FRACKING

IMPACTS

A. Olsen: The Montney play in northeastern British Columbia is the largest

potential greenhouse gas emission source in Canada and the sixth-largest

in the world. While the government rhetoric promotes LNG as clean, we

can’t escape reality. Exploiting these fossil fuels is contributing to

catastrophic climate change.

By approving new LNG projects, the B.C. NDP is locking our

province into a fossil fuel economy for decades. The impacts of these

choices will be far-reaching, including the upstream emissions increased

by fracking. Fracking emits large amounts of methane, which is 85 times

more potent than carbon dioxide. Fracking is water-intensive, causes

earthquakes, poisons groundwater and is linked to rare cancers and

serious health problems.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation. How many more fracked gas wells are needed to feed the

climate monster created by this B.C. NDP’s LNG economy?

Hon. G. Heyman: As I’ve explained previously in this House, as well as publicly,

we released a little more than two weeks ago our new energy action

framework.

The purpose of the framework is to create a context in which

British Columbians can be assured that we will be on track to meet our

legislated emission reduction targets as part of our CleanBC plan and to

meet our oil and gas sectoral target by working with industry and

Indigenous nations to put in place a regulatory cap on emissions from

the oil and gas sector. There are a variety of means that will be used

to meet that cap.

There are other factors in play with respect to the Montney, the

recent agreement with the Blueberry River First Nation to limit

disturbance, all of which is going to lead to concentrated work by

industry, by government, by First Nations to ensure we are on track to

meet our targets while we also focus on building a strong economy that

will include clean energy opportunities in different places in British

Columbia; that will benefit Indigenous nations; that will benefit our

workers, including our building trades guests here today; and that will

position British Columbia very, very well for the clean energy economy

we are all transitioning to around the globe.

Mr. Speaker: Third Party House Leader, supplemental.

[10:55 a.m.]

A. Olsen: The minister knows that the energy action framework doesn’t do

anything for the increased threat of earthquakes, the increased poisoned

groundwater, the increased poisonous and toxic tailings ponds, so that

is really the future of the northeast in our province.

Remember last fall when the Premier said that new fossil fuel

infrastructure is not compatible with meeting our climate targets? For

decades, this B.C. NDP government has promised to be one thing, and then

they’ve shown British Columbians they are another. On one hand,

approving more LNG and more fracking, and on the other hand, creating a

framework to reduce emissions that we just heard about from the

minister.

There was no LNG industry in this province until this B.C. NDP

government created and subsidized it, and the best way to deal with

emissions, as we all know, is to not create them in the first place. A

new poll shows that British Columbians overwhelmingly prefer government

to focus on developing renewable energy over LNG. Instead, the B.C. NDP

has chosen more methane emissions, more fracked gas wells, more polluted

water, more poisonous tailings ponds, more pipelines, more RCMP

raids.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation. When will fracking end in this province?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think what the member opposite is trying to do is take his

focus, a justifiable focus, on meeting our climate targets and reducing

emissions and make it a completely binary choice, like there’s a light

switch we can flick today and move to a new energy reality.

It is a transition. We are engaging in that transition. We are

doing it through a number of mechanisms that included the announcements

from a little over two weeks ago. The new energy action framework is a

way to meet both our climate commitments and build a healthy clean

energy economy that is growing around the world and that we want to be

on the leading edge of.

Let me simply close by quoting the professor at the School of

Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, Andrew Weaver:

“B.C. is leading the way with a new enhanced energy framework, a bold

plan that will drive down emissions and build new opportunities in the

clean economy sector. This framework will accelerate the province’s

climate commitments while also supporting new opportunities in clean

energy and technology, setting up the success of future generations, who

will benefit off today’s investments in clean energy projects in

B.C.”

BIVALENT COVID-19 VACCINATION

J. Rustad: To the Minister of Health, could the minister please explain the

rationale for encouraging people in B.C. to get the third shot in the

fight against COVID-19?

Hon. A. Dix: To save their health. To save their lives. To take care of their

loved ones. To take care of one another. To help us deal with a global

pandemic that has affected every one of our lives.

It is true that there are, at present, more than one million

people who haven’t taken their bivalent shot. I encourage them. There

are appointments available today, and I encourage them to do

so.

I think, as we look around the world, we can express our gratitude

to the doctors and nurses and naturopaths and dental hygienists who

delivered our vaccine program in British Columbia. It saved,

conservatively, hundreds of thousands of lives and allowed us to do

things that were important, like our children going to school here. It

allowed us to come together in the community to help one another in one

of the most difficult periods in health care and in our community that

we have ever seen, one that was unexpected and one that we responded to

collectively, and I mean everybody, in an extraordinary way.

The reason we get vaccinated is to love one another and to express

that love by taking actions to protect ourselves and to protect our

loved ones. I’m very proud of the vaccine campaign.

I encourage everyone who hasn’t got their first shot to get their

first shot, who hasn’t got their second shot to get their second shot,

who hasn’t got their third shot to get their third shot, to get their

bivalent vaccine today.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nechako Lakes, supple­mental.

[11:00 a.m.]

HEALTH WORKER VACCINATION

AND REHIRING OF

STAFF

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for that response. I want to start with a

quote from the federal Minister of Health, who stated on June 30 of the

year 2022: “The immunity conferred by the primary series of vaccines

administered in 2021 has now waned.”

It has now been almost two years since the original series of

COVID vaccine shots were administered to health care workers in B.C.

From my discussion with nurses, approximately 75 percent of the nurses

in the North and 60 percent provincially have not received a third

booster shot. According to the federal minister, this means those nurses

are essentially the equivalent of unvaccinated health care

workers.

B.C. is facing a health care crisis. Nurses are being burnt out,

working far too many overtime shifts. Hospitals are providing minimal

nursing coverage. Emergency rooms are continuously on diversion. Health

care workers are extremely frustrated, and most importantly, patients

are suffering.

When will this minister stop playing politics and hire back the

health care workers that have left the system due to their choice to not

receive the COVID-19 vaccine?

Hon. A. Dix: As always, in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, we rely on the

science. On issues of vaccination, we rely on public health.

The order in question is a provincial health order. It’s one that

I support, but it’s a provincial health order. So 99 percent-plus of

B.C. health care workers got vaccinated. The reason they did is because

they know and they care about their patients and their health, and they

made that determination.

I have respect for everybody. I know decisions are difficult to

make and have been difficult to make for people who did lose their

positions. I respect everyone in the difficult choices they

make.

But the ones I make, the ones Dr. Henry make, the ones that we’re

making in British Columbia are to give priority to people who come to

our acute care hospitals, dealing with cancer and heart disease and

diabetes; the people who live in our long-term-care homes, where they’re

their homes, who are unbelievably vulnerable today, yesterday and before

to the COVID-19 pandemic — to give their health priority.

That’s why we have taken difficult steps together as a community

to protect the health of everyone, and we are going to continue to do

so.

MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES

AND REDEVELOPMENT

OF RIVERVIEW LANDS

K. Kirkpatrick: Every day we see the terrible consequence of people with severe

mental health and addiction issues not receiving the help that they

desperately need. The Riverview lands have long been recognized as a

potential site for healing. In fact, the Premier himself admitted it in

2021, saying: “It has the potential to touch many more lives through

delivery of more mental health services.”

Yet two years have now passed, and B.C. Housing has now,

shockingly, confirmed that there are zero plans to realize that

potential. In fact, without any public notice, work on Riverview

abruptly stopped in January, and there isn’t even a timeline for

resuming work. Riverview is stalled. B.C. Housing is a complete

disaster.

Given the terrible costs of this failure, why has the Premier

accomplished absolutely nothing in two years to address the mental

health and addiction crisis by using the lands at Riverview?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There are so many things in that statement that are factually

incorrect, I don’t know where to start. But I will say this. What is

understood is that when the previous government shut down Riverview,

there were not enough supports built in communities to support people

that needed it. That is a fact.

We are, right now, in discussions with Kwikwetlem Nation. What’s

vitally important in those negotiations is that we don’t go in there and

say: “Here’s our plan. Come on to our plan.” What’s vitally important as

part of those discussions is saying: “Let’s sit down at the table and

build those plans together.”

[11:05 a.m.]

The interview, perhaps, that the member was talking about…. I had

made that clear to the member, to the reporter as well, that we are in

conversations with the Kwikwetlem Nation. We are in conversations with

them about what the future of that site can look like.

They are in an election right now. That’s why there’s a pause,

because we wanted to let their election process happen. Once the

election process is over, we will continue that conversation.

RELEASE OF B.C. HOUSING AUDIT REPORT

P. Milobar: What is clear is that B.C. Housing is in complete disarray, and

they seem to go out of their way to have a lot of secrecy around their

operations. In fact, we have a forensic audit that’s now been sitting

for upwards of three weeks on the government books.

The Premier has the power to release the forensic audit

immediately. As the Freedom of Information Act makes it very clear under

section 25, he has that power.

Will the Premier commit to releasing that forensic audit of B.C.

Housing today and make it available for scrutiny at Public

Accounts?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The Premier earlier this week made it clear — I certainly have

made it clear — that our intention is to have that report released with

as little redaction as legally possible. I have read the report. I

believe it’s in the public interest.

Right now we are following the process that needs to be followed,

which is notifying any entities that may be named to give them the right

to be able to see the contents where they’re named. Once that is done,

once the process is complete, we will be releasing this report to the

public so the public can see what the findings were.

M. de Jong: What we have and what the government seems to refuse to want to

acknowledge is an absolute mess out there. We’ve got a growing state of

lawlessness. We’ve got people who are terrified to go out on the streets

in their own community. We’ve got businesses that are being forced to

close because of the escalating rate of violent crime where they

operate.

What we also know is that when it comes to releasing reports and

information that accurately reflect the negative results of the

Premier’s failed policies, he has a marked preference for finding times

when he thinks the least number of people might be paying

attention.

So let me ask this. The minister insists that the report is

coming. Well, which holiday long weekend is he going to release it on?

Are you going to hide it in the Easter bunny’s basket? Maybe he’ll drop

it on the weekend everyone is heading off to the campground on Victoria

Day, or maybe the government hopes that the noise from the Canada Day

parades will drown out the criticism that undoubtedly exists within that

forensic audit.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

M. de Jong: Or who knows? Maybe they’ll declare a new statutory holiday called

Take Out the Garbage Day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Shhh.

Please proceed.

M. de Jong: We actually wouldn’t have to ask the question if the minister and

the Premier would do this: release the audit today unredacted so people

can see the impact of these failed policies. When will they release the

report?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll just say that the jokes from the member are not funny. And

what else wasn’t funny was when he removed an entire

chapter out of an

ICBC report. We will take no lessons from that side about releasing

reports. They have zero credibility on the topic.

What I have said, I’ll repeat again, which is that I’ve read the

report, I believe it’s in the public interest, we are following the

normal processes that are needed and we will be releasing it.

[11:10 a.m.]

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. Ashton: It gives me good pleasure today to bring a petition to the Legislature

from four hard-working, incredible ladies in Penticton and area that are

doing their best to inform people in our area.

“We, the undersigned citizens of B.C., ask the B.C. government to take

immediate action to stop all logging in areas of risk, as defined by the

forest strategic review, and protect trees, preserving biodiversity and

resilience and supporting First Nations, critical to our planet’s survival

and act on all 14 recommendations in the B.C. government panel’s A New

Future for Old Forests .”

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, Intimate

Images Protection Act.

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

for the Ministry of Forests.

In committee room C, I call continued debate, in the Committee of Supply,

for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 12 — INTIMATE IMAGES

PROTECTION

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 12;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:14 a.m.

The Chair: If I might, Members, let’s have some order in this chamber,

please.

[11:15 a.m.]

We’re just waiting for the arrival for staff for the Attorney

General so that we can start this committee stage consideration of

the Intimate Images Protection Act, Bill 12. We’re here for

clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 12.

Hon. N. Sharma: I would like to acknowledge the staff that are here with me today

from the justice branch, Darin Thompson and Kaleigh Johnston.

On clause 1 (continued) .

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, we were on clause 1, and after dealing with some

preliminary matters, we were actually considering some of the

terminology that is defined in clause 1 of the bill.

The term that I’d just like to take a moment to pose some

questions to the Attorney on is that term “depict,” which becomes a

defined term under what will ultimately become a new act. The definition

is set out in subs (a), (

b) and (

c) of the definition.

I noted that in the report of the Uniform Law Conference of

Canada, they turned their mind to a possible fourth category that they

term “wholly original content,” and we can explore briefly what that

entails. The government has chosen not to include a reference to “wholly

original content.” I’m wondering if the Attorney would like to indicate

why that decision was made.

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll just read out the

section that answers your question here.

The definition of “intimate images” would likely not apply to wholly

original content, such as a drawing or a painting.

While still being harmful and humiliating, the harm that a person

might suffer in the case of original art is of different character than

photos and videos and does not involve the same breach of trust or have

the same implications for sexual autonomy. In cases involving wholly

original art, a person may have to consider relying on other causes of

action, including invasion of privacy, defamation, intentional

infliction of emotional distress, etc.

M. de Jong: So the Attorney and the government are satisfied, therefore, that

a very lifelike drawing of an individual that is nude or nearly nude —

an intimate drawing in a very lifelike fashion that, presumably, could

constitute a similar invasion of privacy — does not warrant the same

degree of protection as a photograph or a video.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: A few things to add from my previous comments.

The first one is…. I’m told the landing of that definition was

based on a review of academic articles. So academics were giving

guidance on the types of images that are causing the most harm and how

to circle around those images with the act. We framed the act in the way

that focused on those ones with the most harm and the most need for

intervention, I guess I would say, when it came to an illegal

action.

I would also say that what will happen with this definition, as

the member knows, in terms of how the law develops, is…. I’m sure there

will be many factual scenarios that come up when it comes to this

definition of “depict.” The adjudicator would determine whether or not

it fits within that category.

M. de Jong: Okay, that’s helpful. Two things, though, flow from that. The

first….

If I didn’t acknowledge this, I should have, and I will. The

Uniform Law Conference of Canada report, upon which I think much of the

legislation or the vast majority of it is based, considered this matter

and provided a rationale for a definition that they believe does not

capture a sketching or a drawing. I make that acknowledgment.

What I just heard from the Attorney is…. I think what I just heard

is that she believes this definition is broad enough to possibly capture

a sketching or drawing. The type of drawing I’m thinking of is a very

lifelike depiction of an identifiable individual that, for all other

purpose, if it were a photo, would be captured by the provisions of this

act.

The Attorney seems to have meant to convey earlier that she

believes this definition is broad enough to capture a sketch, a drawing

or an etching.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I think what’s clear, with the evolving nature of technology and

the different uses of technology and how quickly it’s evolving…. We know

that the definition, as written, and, also, the jurisprudence will

evolve to capture all that. So I’m really reluctant to make a comment on

a factual scenario that might restrain judicial discretion when it comes

to the

interpretation of that definition.

What I will say is…. I think that once this is in place, we’ll

have many scenarios or factual circumstances that come up. A person is

free to come forward, with this process, to talk about the image that

they feel is being spread without consent and seek a judicial

determination on whether or not it falls under this broad

definition.

M. de Jong: All, again, helpful. I will take minor issue with simply one part

of what the Attorney said.

These debates, just in general terms, as I know the minister

knows, are kind of intended to convey an intent of parliament. So when I

ask the Attorney whether she believes the definition is broad enough to

include a drawing or a sketching, I think it’s a relevant question. To

say: “I don’t want to influence judicial consideration….” Actually,

that’s why we’re here. We are here to convey and ensure that the will of

parliament, as expressed in this legislation, is as clear as it can

possibly be.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: We’ve been engaging in a very interesting and complicated

discussion about technology, technology’s interface and its evolving

nature with how it can change images — alter images and change that

level, basically, between original art and an altered image.

What I will say clearly is that the intention of this definition

is not to include original art. Original art is not included. There are

other remedies, as I mentioned before, if somebody feels like they’ve

been violated in that way. We’re not condoning that type of

behaviour.

Where it gets more complicated, and where, I think, judicial

intervention may be needed, is that original art can be altered in many

different ways and depicted in different ways to capture somebody in a

way that would be brought into this legislation. This is where we’re

thinking that this will evolve with technology. We leave it open for

that to evolve because, I think, given the nature of how quickly things

can spread and change and be altered, you really need that judicial

determination on that particular image to see if it has been captured in

that way.

I hope that brings clarity.

M. de Jong: Again, it is helpful. There are subsequent provisions that deal

with the phenomenon of an image that has been altered, and we can

explore that, perhaps, a little further down the line.

Look, I’m not advancing the proposition that there is a rogue army

of artists out there who are on the verge of trying to cause harm by

creating pictures and drawings that are in violation of people’s

privacy.

[11:35 a.m.]

I’m not going to ask the Attorney General this question, but my

expectation is that of the complaints that she referred to and the

charges that she referred to last day — virtually none of them or

probably none of them — related to drawings and artistic impressions as

opposed to photographs or videos. If that’s not the case, the Attorney

can advise the committee. But we can certainly move on to other

areas.

The next term under the Ds is the term “distribute,” which

occupies a place of prominence in the legal construct that is being

created here. I’ll start by asking the minister to confirm whether or

not an applicant or a claimant, in availing themselves of the remedies

that the act provides, is required to demonstrate an intention to

distribute on the part of a respondent in the case of clause

Hon. N. Sharma: No, there’s no level of intent required. The elements of making

out the statutory offence are that it’s non-consensual and there’s been

distribution.

M. de Jong: All right. Let’s just take a moment, then, to ponder that. On its

face, the verb “to distribute” requires an intent. I can’t imagine how

one would distribute something without having the intent to do so. Is it

the presence of the phrase “otherwise make available” in the definition

that eliminates the need to establish intent?

I think my question is one of mechanics. On its face, the term

“distribute” would seem to require an intent to do something. Is it the

inclusion of the phrase “otherwise make available” that eliminates that

otherwise standard requirement of intent?

Hon. N. Sharma: Like many of the provisions in this act, it’s really

victim-driven. It focuses on outcomes for the victim, so the idea that

“distribute….” Unfortunately, with technology, it can be done without

intent.

For example, if you upload an image and it’s easy for other people

to depict it or distribute it in other ways, you may not have intended

that distribution. Right? But because you did the uploading, the

distribution happened. And there are other examples where, maybe,

there’s no intent but it’s being distributed that are interplayed

between a lot of the non-consensual disclosure of these

images.

[11:40 a.m.]

It’s meant to be as broad as possible. For example, if you have an

image of somebody that you have…. It’s an intimate image without

consent, so it meets that definition. You’ve hung it on a wall — right?

— so it’s available for distribution.

The reason that the definition is very broad is because we want to

capture all scenarios where there’s harm to the victim, and distribution

can show up in many different ways, like in the example that I gave

you.

M. de Jong: On the basis of that helpful explanation, in the Attorney’s mind,

or perhaps even more importantly in the context of the way the bill is

drafted, is that lack of requirement for intent present to an equal

degree with respect to applications made under clause 5 and clause

Here’s my rationale. To the minister’s point, the plight of the

victim as it relates to the injunctive relief in clause 5, there would

seem to be a very rational argument that one is indifferent to the

question of intent. It’s just “This is happening, and it must stop,”

versus the relief that is available in clause 6, which relates to

damages.

It strikes me that the question of intent might be, in many cases

would be, relevant with respect to an assessment of damages, whether

they’re pecuniary damages or otherwise.

Hon. N. Sharma: We’re getting into some of the sections that come later on that

actually explain the different types of orders that have different paths

when it comes to damages.

[11:45 a.m.]

For

section 10, the real focus of that one…. That one is about

just getting the order to take down the image. It’s very fast, and it’s

meant to be circled around that. But then, when we come to any claim for

damages, the court would consider a wider range of factors, which are

set out in the legislation.

The real driving force is consent. If you are an accused in this

scenario, what you could raise as a defence is: “I had the consent for

the distribution up to this point, or up to that….” That’s the way that

this legislation is framed. It’s more about that.

M. de Jong: We will come to some of those distinctions, the difference between

the clause 5 versus clause 6 process.

One thing maybe we should probably be careful about in the case of

this — I say this with genuine respect — is we should probably avoid

using terms like “the accused” in these proceedings. There are obviously

respondents, and I certainly know what the Attorney was referring to.

But we had, I thought, a very good conversation last day about

establishing that the separate Criminal Code process remains in effect

where there is an accused, versus what we are dealing with here, which

is a respondent.

The next term that is important in the context of the legislation

and how relief is sought and plays a role in securing the relief is an

Internet intermediary. It’s one of those things that on the surface, I

guess we can imagine….

I’ll read the definition into the record. It means “an

organization that hosts or indexes third party content through an online

platform.” I’ll simply ask the Attorney to kick this off, to advise the

committee of two or three obvious examples of who the ministry and she

believe qualify as Internet intermediaries.

Hon. N. Sharma: This is another example that will be ever evolving. We want this

definition to be broad enough to keep up with the different platforms

and how the Internet evolves. But I can give you examples of sites where

this would be captured, like Facebook or Twitter or Reddit or other

platforms that young people might use.

M. de Jong: The common feature…. What I think the definition is seeking to

focus in on are Internet organizations that allow interaction between

third parties, and access and participation, whether by subsequent

posting or commentary, by third parties. Is that a fair assumption on my

part?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.

[11:50 a.m.]

M. de Jong: The question that I think I put to the staff in the briefing we

had is if that’s the general proposition, we immediately think of those

large platforms, the ones that the minister mentioned. But would it also

include a smaller website with a chat room where there is an opportunity

for third parties to interact?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, it’s broad to just have any organization that hosts or

indexes third-party content. Yes, it would be a platform like the member

suggested.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FORESTS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Routledge in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:17 a.m.

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply,

Section A, to order. We are

meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the

Ministry of Forests.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $483,568,000

(continued) .

M. Bernier: Again, welcome to the minister and all the staff. We don’t have a

lot of time this morning, but we’ll get into it again this

afternoon.

I was saying, before we got on camera, just letting the minister

know…. We’ll definitely get into, this afternoon, some issues around old

growth, the BCTS and probably talk about some stumpage and some revenue

issues that are in the ministry.

I do want to start with a couple of very specific issues, to put

on the record. I want to thank the minister in advance for, hopefully,

dealing with an issue. I know — and I say this with respect — that he’s

new to the file, but he will be aware of this.

I’ve had the privilege of meeting with the Interior Logging

Association. I want to do this here, because I think it’s really

important that staff hear this. I know some of them are

aware.

They are definitely concerned right now about a very specific

issue for their members, and that’s the ILPP, the pension plan, for the

Interior loggers. There are some huge issues. I know it’s a cross-issue

between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Forests

collectively. I know that the previous Minister of Forests was aware of

this. She is conveniently now the Minister of Finance.

I’m putting this out here. I’m hoping staff of the minister will

help with this and get a hold of Todd Chamberlain, the general manager

for the Interior Logging Association, to help with this

issue.

[11:20 a.m.]

Just very, very quickly…. I won’t get into it. It’s actually way

beyond my knowledge.

There are struggles right now, especially for the small players,

who have been contributing into a pension plan — the pension fund, the

ILPP — for multiple decades now. This started back in the ’80s, if I

remember, when I was researching it. We’re now at the point, though,

where the pension plan is underfunded. There’s pressure being put

on.

I don’t know, and I’m not putting blame on why this happened. We

have something, in the situation here…. We have a lot of small,

mom-and-pop operations that are on the verge of bankruptcy if they get

pressured into what they’re expected to do to bring up the pension plan

and to ensure that it’s a solid plan.

Anyway, I won’t get into the full details, other than to say that

I’ve read through this. This is something that the ministry and the

Ministry of Finance definitely, I hope, will take seriously and get a

hold of them, because there are a lot of jobs at stake.

I’ll just quickly share…. I talked with one individual, 85 years

old, who is now receiving a letter saying…. Because he previously owned

a company 20 years ago, he is being asked to pay upwards of $1 million

into the plan. You can appreciate that is not something that can take

place.

I’m just looking for, maybe, a quick answer from the minister that

he and his ministry will follow up on this.

Hon. B. Ralston: I appreciate the member having advised me earlier that he’d had

these conversations.

The regulatory locus of this issue is with the Ministry of

Finance. They administer the pension standards legislation. The Ministry

of Forests is well aware of this issue and is dealing with it and

working with the Ministry of Finance. I think the member would be well

advised to take this issue up with the Minister of Finance in her

estimates, which I understand have not yet taken place.

Just to reassure the member, we are well aware of it, and steps

are being taken. I appreciate the seriousness of the issue and its

importance to the ILA and its members, both past and present.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the answer from the minister again. I do realize it’s

the Ministry of Finance that manages a lot of this. Obviously, I’m

looking for advocacy from the minister. It sounds, through his answer,

that his staff are aware of this. We will flag it, as we have, for the

Minister of Finance, who we know is aware of this as well.

It does sound like…. Time is of the essence on this specific

issue, which is why I thought I would raise it here today on the record.

I’m just asking for all hands on deck to consider this.

One other issue that I’m looking for some response from the

minister on…. About three or four years ago, we raised, in this chamber,

during the Premier’s estimates, the lack of availability for MLAs to

consult with, talk with and, frankly, even have coffee with Ministry of

Forests staff.

I will tell the minister, as a personal example…. I have a

district office in Dawson Creek for the Peace region. I used to have a

great relationship with that office and with the staff. This is not an

attack on the actual staff that do the work in our field offices. This

is more, I believe, the direction that they’ve been given.

Now, three or four years ago, the Premier stood in a large House

here and said: “Absolutely. Any MLA can talk to staff in district

offices. We’ve never given direction that they can’t.”

That was three or four years ago. We are continuing to hear

stories from MLAs, especially right now, with the crisis in the forestry

sector, who are just trying to get information on behalf of constituents

and logging companies or large primaries and to reach out to local

district offices.

[11:25 a.m.]

They are advising us that they can’t talk to us. They’ve been

advised they cannot answer the door or return phone calls. We have to

have permission, and everything must go through the minister’s office.

We were told by the Pre­mier three or four years ago that was not

the case, and that would change.

Can the minister give me an answer on why three, four years later

that direction has not been given to staff? Can we at least have a

relationship like we used to?

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you very much. I’m told the normal procedure, and it’s

unchanged over the years, is that MLAs are entitled to talk with staff.

All that’s requested is that requests go in through the minister’s

office, my office, just so that, as the minister, we’re aware of what

the request is. Those requests can be answered quickly and the meeting

set up.

The only caveat, I would say, is that during fire season it’s

important that there be some respect for the autonomy of the operation

during an emergency. In the past, and I’m not suggesting that this

particular member did that, there have been occasions when MLAs have

entered into the emergency centre, the fire centre. It’s just awkward,

and it’s not advisable. That would be the caveat that I would put on

that.

M. Bernier: Thank you. I appreciate that answer. I just want the minister to

recognize…. First of all, maybe I’ll go to the latter part of his

commentary.

I agree. Obviously in a crisis situation…. Yes, all hands are on

deck where they can be. Also understanding the roles that each

organization, each department and office plays, trying to manage that

during a crisis situation and the respect that’s needed to do

that….

I think we all agree that it would be inappropriate. Sometimes

people are looking for answers for constituents and trying to help. I

understand the minister’s point on time and place in that

situation.

[11:30 a.m.]

I will say, on his first parts of his commentary, that that didn’t

always used to be the case, that we’d have to have the permission of the

minister. I’ll give an example of where…. It’s not quite red tape. It’s

the delay that comes into place. I appreciate his offer that they would

try to have a quick turnaround in the ministry office. That doesn’t

actually happen presently. I’m not sure what the minister’s example of a

quick turnaround would be, but I’ll give him one where I had, I thought,

a very simple request from a constituent that was waiting on a

permit.

They contacted the local office because they had been waiting for

almost a year for an answer. So I contacted the local office to say:

“Can you give me an update on where we are on a timeline, so I can help

this constituent along?” They said: “I can’t tell you. Talk to the

minister’s office.” It was about 2½ months later that I got a response

back from the minister’s office saying: “Thank you very much. We’ll look

into this.” It never said that I could look into it or that there…. And

then it was about six months later that same constituent came back to my

office saying he still hadn’t heard anything.

Those are the things I’m talking about. In fact, in a lot of these

situations…. Again, I’m not putting blame on the local district office.

I wonder how that’s playing out.

In a situation where we have a lot of these micro kind of issues,

I think we could actually help in that relationship-building. It’s not

that we’re trying to have influence on some of this permitting. Because

I understand, and I believe we all understand, the role that the

different offices have looking into the different aspects before a

permit is issued.

But sometimes that relationship of just having somebody in the

local office contact a constituent can go a long way, I think for all of

us — including the minister’s office by taking something off his desk.

I’m only flagging that. I don’t need a response from the minister other

than to say that if he thinks a quick turnaround is needed, I do too. I

just believe that there’s an opportunity here where we can streamline

the situation and streamline the offices as well.

That’s more of a monologue commentary. I’m not trying to be

unintentionally provocative again, like I was last night, as the

minister said, but….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Now it’s intentional. That’s right.

In the last few minutes I have before we move into the other

House, I just want to change directions now. We talked in the minister’s

estimates binder yesterday and some of the direction that… Sorry, not

estimates binder. I’m drawing a blank on the name now. My apologies. On

the direction he was given by the Premier yesterday, we canvassed that

quite a bit.

I want to talk now a bit about just the economic state of the

forestry sector in the province of British Columbia. It’s my

understanding that as of last fall, 43 mills in 28 communities are

either active or planned curtailments around the province. Has that

changed at all? Can the minister give me an update through his staff now

that we’re in the spring of 2023?

I know there have been other permanent closures that have been

announced. As of last fall, there were 43. Again, 28 communities. We’re

talking about communities right around the province. This is not one

part of the province. So again, just a quick update: how many mills have

closed in the last year? We’ll start with that. How many have announced

curtailments?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I just wanted to comment on what the member described as a

monologue, on the contact with the minister’s office. I agree with him,

and I don’t think that that took place since I’ve taken over as

minister. The timeline that he set out for a response on a question from

an MLA — I agree with him. It is too long. Certainly, my direction has

been that responses have to be quicker.

One of the highest priorities is responses from MLAs, whether

they’re opposition MLAs or government MLAs. That has to be a higher

priority. That kind of timeline — I agree with him — is too long. I’ll

do what I can to make sure that’s the case. The deputy, certainly, is

aware of that, and the direction has gone out.

As the member knows, the forest industry is cyclical. Permanent

closures do take place. In the 16 years that the member’s party was on

this side of the House as government, there were many closures. Dozens

of mills were closed, and 30,000 jobs were lost. So it’s not unique to

this particular juncture in history. I think the member is well aware of

that.

[11:40 a.m.]

Let me just say that from March 2021 to March 2023, I’m told,

there have been eight permanent operating changes announced, four full

facility closures, one partial mill closure and three shift reductions.

There have been nine indefinite closures, of which seven were full

facility closures, one was a shift reduction, and one was a mill

closure.

In total, there have been 17 permanent and indefinite curtailments

from 2021 to March 2023, just last week: nine lumber mills, three pellet

mills, three pulp mills, one pulp and paper mill, and one plywood mill.

More than 1,900 workers have been impacted by the permanent and

indefinite closures in B.C. from 2021 to March 2023.

The reason given for the majority of the curtailments and closures

in late 2022 and 2023 have cited fibre supply issues and low lumber

prices. As we discussed yesterday, the member will recall that prices on

softwood lumber exports into the United States were at record highs in

2021 and 2022, but the prices descended very, very rapidly towards the

end of last year. Into this year, it continues, and those low lumber

prices have a huge impact on the profitability of certain operations.

CEOs and boards of directors make the necessary adjustments, regrettable

as that is.

I would not want to minimize or dismiss the concern that

communities have about the impact of layoffs and permanent closures

within their communities. The member cited Chetwynd yesterday in the

Legislature and the impact of the closure of the mill and the pellet

plant there. For a small community, the impact has a huge ripple effect,

as he rightly pointed out, and we’re well aware of that. The Ministry of

Jobs and the transition teams are there, assisting with the transition

in any way that can be helpful to workers or families and to the

community.

I think that this is something that we’re acutely aware of — I’m

acutely aware of it — and doing everything we can to mitigate, working

with the industry to build a long-term, profitable, prosperous forest

sector in the province. I regard it as a fundamental industry here in

the province, and I think the future, notwithstanding some of the

current predicament that we face collectively, is, in the long run, a

bright one.

M. Bernier: We’re going to get into this probably a little bit deeper after

lunch, for sure. I appreciate the minister acknowledging the pressures

on communities, obviously. We’ll talk about some of that because we want

to ensure that the supports are there when these closures,

unfortunately, have been taking place around the province.

I also am completely aware, as I believe most of us are, of the

cyclical aspects in the resource sector when it comes to the products —

whether it’s in the mining sector and all the different components or in

forestry, pulp and paper, dimensional lumber. Obviously, we are subject

to a market that fluctuates.

That has always happened. This is not new. That fluctuation is

taking place, and companies make investment decisions, short- or

long-term, based on their knowledge base of understanding those market

trends that will happen provincially, nationally and globally, depending

on the product.

Before we break here…. Knowing that this has been going on for

decades, that companies know the market trends and make those decisions

— the minister just announced to the House, which we all know, a lot of

the closures that have taken place over the last couple of years — can

the minister tell me why he and his government and the Premier of the

day said that zero would be closed and that nobody would lose their

jobs?

In 2017, he was very bold on his announcement of the importance of

the forestry sector. That’s one of the only positive things that I’ve

heard from this government in the last five years on support for the

forestry sector, even though the minister himself is saying how

important it is.

Why did the Premier so boldly say that no jobs will be lost, that

no mills will be closed? Now the minister is saying that this is normal

and that this is cyclical.

The Chair: Minister, I think what we’ll do is we’ll break for lunch, and

then you can answer the question after lunch.

Hon. B. Ralston: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

AND

CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); F. Donnelly in

the chair.

The committee met at 11:21 a.m.

The Chair: All right, good morning. I call Committee of Supply,

Section

C, to order. We are meeting today to continue consideration of

estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy.

On Vote 24: ministry operations, $199,682,000

(continued) .

Hon. G. Heyman: I’d like to begin by a delayed answer to the question put to me

yesterday respecting Jimsmith Park day-use bank degradation. The answer

is an engineering firm was engaged in the 2022-23 fiscal to assess the

current day-use-area grades and degradation challenges. A full layout

and plan has been developed for the site. The project is currently on

B.C. Bid for tender with a construction plan for this upcoming spring.

We confirm that the beach site will be completely overhauled with a goal

to provide a more accessible, safe and usable space for park

visitors.

T. Shypitka: So a completion date is…?

Hon. G. Heyman: We don’t have an exact date because it’s still up on B.C. Bid, but

our expectation is to begin construction this spring and complete

construction within this season.

R. Merrifield: I know we started off yesterday, and I missed your amazing opening

remarks. I do want you to know that they were my bedtime reading last

night, as I scrolled through and got to read them. I do appreciate the

welcome that you extended, too, and the introduction to your staff. I do

want to also echo that today and just say thank you to all of you for

all the preparation that you do and all the work that you do in

prioritizing our environment in our province.

As the shadow minister for Environment and Climate Change

Strategy, I am here to discuss this critical role and to challenge the

minister. So today I’m not going easy, like I did last year, on the

minister. I’m going to be much more aggressive on asking questions but,

really, to refine the plan and to move us all forward

together.

Our beautiful province of B.C. is so blessed with an abundance of

natural resources and a diverse ecosystem. From the towering peaks of

the Rocky Mountains to the lush rainforests of the Pacific coast, our

province’s natural beauty is simply unrivaled. However, this very beauty

and the well-being of our communities are truly under threat from the

devastating impacts of climate change.

As we examine the financial statements of the Budget 2023, it’s

essential that we prioritize our environment and climate change

mitigation, not only for the sake of our province’s economy and natural

resources but for the long-term survival and prosperity of our

communities, our children and our future generations.

[11:25 a.m.]

While there have been efforts in recent years to tackle the

challenges posed by climate change, the metrics and outcomes,

unfortunately, do not reflect the progress that we urgently need.

Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. We will talk about the slight

dip of 2022, but we also continue to see extreme weather events. Those

have become more and more frequent and more intense, and our ecosystems

and biodiversity are being pushed literally to the brink.

It’s clear that the current approach just isn’t sufficient, and we

need to take bolder, more innovative steps to address this existential

crisis. It’s time for us to engage in a comprehensive planning process

that encompasses every aspect of our society and economy, from

transportation and energy production to land use and

agriculture.

I’m excited to see some of the aspects of Budget 2023. In some of

my questioning, I’m hoping to get to some of those big plans and big,

bold ideas that are necessary to continue to prioritize investments in

green infrastructure, renewable energy sources and fuels, and

sustainable technologies that will help us transition towards a

low-carbon economy. We have to support our industries in developing and

adopting clean technologies, and we must invest in climate-resilient

infrastructure to protect our communities from the impacts of climate

change.

Moreover, the planning process needs to be inclusive and

consultative. One of the things that I remarked on as I reviewed our

estimates from last year was the minister’s attention to our Indigenous

communities and the consultative processes that have gone on with them.

But it has to be fully inclusive, with all of our Indigenous

communities, our local governments, the private sector and civil society

to help develop comprehensive solutions.

I’m also going to be asking questions to ensure that the

transition towards a low-carbon economy is just and equitable, providing

support to all of our communities that are dependent on carbon-intensive

industries. At the same time, we must enhance our efforts to monitor and

track our progress on climate change mitigation. That includes robust

data collection, transparency and accountability to ensure that our

efforts are effective and that we are on track to meet our ambitious

climate targets.

In my role as the minister’s critic, I urge all of us on both

sides to recognize the urgency of this issue and make the necessary

commitments to protect our environment, our economy and our communities

from the devastating impacts of climate change. This is our opportunity

to drill down — did you get it? Pun intended — and really take a look at

what Budget 2023 means for our economy and our environment as we move

forward.

That concludes my opening remarks.

I can just move into my first question. Are you ready?

Awesome.

We’re going to just start with talk about 2020 emissions. It was

the first time in a long time that we’ve actually seen a reduction in

our emissions as a province, but I have to say it was a disappointing

reduction. Canada’s total GHG emissions decreased by 8.9 percent.

Compared to B.C…. We were only able to decrease by 4 percent during the

same time period, barely half, not even half of Canada’s

reduction.

My first question to the minister is why.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, welcome to the critic, the member from Okanagan,

Mission. I appreciate the member’s focus on the seriousness of the

climate change crisis that the globe faces and that we in B.C., of

course, face and have felt some significant impacts from

already.

Certainly, we know we will continue to feel more, so it’s

incumbent on all of us…. This is an area where I hope all members of the

House will find ways to work together — while we may differ on certain

mechanisms, that we’ll find ways to work together to retain our

commitment to significant emission reductions in line with our

legislated targets.

To that end, I would point out that many of the measures that we

have introduced through our CleanBC Roadmap to 2030, which was the

completion of the CleanBC plan, are in the process of being implemented.

Some regulatory measures are being developed. Other programs are in

place, are picking up steam but haven’t yielded full results and

certainly hadn’t by 2020.

But we take the crisis seriously. We know that we all need to

intensify our efforts, all governments across Canada, and the B.C.

government is no exception. We will continue to look for ways to do that

by constantly examining the success of the measures we have in place,

tweaking them where we can to make it more effective.

To that end, we consult regularly, including with our

multisectoral Climate Solutions Council, which is broadly representative

of academia, of environmental organizations, of industry — significant

representation — as well as local government, First Nations and labour

as well as youth. So we use a number of mechanisms to check on the

effectiveness of what we’re doing.

With respect to the 2020 emissions specifically, I would say that

two of the reasons — and the only ones that leap out — why the B.C.

reduction was not as great as Canada as a whole was because we rebounded

more quickly than other jurisdictions in Canada, including not being on

as much of a roller-coaster in terms of shut down, open up, shut down,

open up.

We had a more steady approach to the economy. It’s one that I

think British Columbians appreciated. I think it was one that was led by

my colleague the Minister of Health, along with the provincial health

officer and then Premier Horgan, to take a steady approach and deal with

a devastating impact on our population and economy in a way that was

thoughtful, effective and didn’t cause the same level of disruption to

the economy that happened in other parts of the country.

Unfortunately, one of the by-products of that is we didn’t see

emissions drop as much as other parts of the country. But I think on

that, as well, we want to see a steady trajectory.

[11:35 a.m.]

The other reason is that we had in-migration and immigration of

approximately 50,000 new citizens in British Columbia. We will continue

to see the population of British Columbia grow. It is a very desirable

place to live. It’s a place with a healthy, strong economy that we’ve

taken great pains to develop and promote and nurture, and we will

continue to do that.

Of course, we don’t offer that as…. Well, we can’t meet our

targets because we’re getting more people. It makes it more challenging.

It means that we need to be aware of it and that we need to ensure that

we are really effective with our programming to reduce emissions so we

can absorb a greater population. Even though our emissions per capita

may be lower, we know….

Our legislation calls for absolute emission reduction, and that’s

what we’re focused on.

R. Merrifield: The minister talked about the measures that have been deployed

that have not quite had their effect or come to fruition yet. In

reviewing the last few years of estimates, that same reasoning has been

given.

My question to the minister is: at what point will we see or have

some assurance that the measures that are being employed through the

CleanBC plan are actually having any effect whatsoever?

Hon. G. Heyman: My associate deputy minister is just itching to offer the greatest

hits list, but I don’t want to reveal everything all at once.

First of all, areas where we’ve had tremendous success, I think,

are…. We have blown through our targets for the takeup of new car sales,

zero emission. We are doing very well. We’re the envy of North America.

California was inspired by us surpassing them, on a per-capita basis,

and quickly upped their game. We’re kind of neck and neck to the race

for takeup now.

We also know that there are other areas where we need to ensure

that we meet our targets and do better. That includes the adoption of

energy switching for home and building heating, the adoption of heating

and cooling, the adoption of heat pumps, the retrofitting for energy

efficiency, medium- and heavy-duty transportation. Those are all areas

that we’re focusing our efforts on.

Another area in which we have really exceeded our target…. We’re

on track to do much better than our target of a 45 percent reduction in

methane emissions by 2025. Of course, we have a target of 90 percent

from the oil and gas sector by 2030 and near elimination in all industry

by 2035.

R. Merrifield: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. Thank you for not going

through the full hit list. That’s excellent.

I’m not actually looking for the hit list. I’m pretty aware of

what the programs are and what’s being offered. I’m actually asking:

what are the results?

[11:40 a.m.]

I’m just going to take one, for an example, in terms of asking the

question. The new car program that you mentioned…. How much has that

actually reduced the emissions in B.C.?

Hon. G. Heyman: We do know that we are at almost 20 percent new car sales and

light-duty vehicles, and our 2025 target was 10. So it’s 2023. We’ve

almost doubled it.

It’s difficult to attribute emission reductions in a sector to any

one single initiative. For instance, we’ve also been working on

expanding and supporting public transit, which has faced a lot of

difficulty during the pandemic. People were worried about the safety of

public transit, so ridership went down. We’ve taken a number of measures

to support public transit and ensure that we keep ridership up. We are,

of course, hopeful that it will soon reach previous levels and exceed

them.

[11:45 a.m.]

I cannot give an exact figure for emissions that have been reduced

as a result of the light-duty-vehicle incentive program, although I am

relatively sure that we could get the figures, probably not today, on

the number of light-duty, zero-emission vehicles that have been bought

in B.C. since our programs came into place, as well as vehicles that

have been removed through the SCRAP-IT program and what that looks like

in terms of a reasonable average of greenhouse gas emissions per

vehicle.

That could probably be accomplished through a technical briefing

from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation as well as

climate action secretariat staff. As the member knows, the program is

delivered through Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Noting the hour, I’ll ask the minister to move the

motion.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

Copyright © 2023 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.