Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, April 6, 2023

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 301

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 24 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023

Hon. N. Sharma

Bill 22 — Strata Property Amendment Act, 2023

Hon. R. Kahlon

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Vaisakhi

E. Sturko

Tsunami preparedness

M. Babchuk

Canadian war memorial and the Battle of Vimy

M. de Jong

Easter egg hunts in Kootenay area

B. Anderson

MLA’s family history and cancer awareness

S. Furstenau

Impacts of fatphobia

A. Singh

Oral Questions

Government action on homelessness in Downtown Eastside

K. Falcon

Hon. R. Kahlon

Supportive housing and action on homelessness

E. Sturko

Hon. R. Kahlon

Transitional housing and action on homelessness

S. Furstenau

Hon. R. Kahlon

Crime in communities and impact on businesses

C. Oakes

Hon. M. Farnworth

B. Stewart

B. Banman

S. Bond

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 39 — Electoral Boundaries Commission report proposals

Hon. R. Kahlon

M. de Jong

S. Furstenau

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 21 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2023

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. M. Rankin

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Food (continued)

I. Paton

Hon. P. Alexis

J. Sturdy

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2023

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. B. Ma.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Alexis: I’m sure we can all agree that today is a special day here at the

Legislature. Today a part of my duties includes celebrating B.C. Dairy Day

and eating ice cream.

In British Columbia, about 470 dairy farms produce 890 million litres

of milk annually. They support 12,500 industry jobs and contribute $1.25

billion to the provincial economy. Today, B.C. Dairy Day, is an opportunity

to recognize the important contributions of the dairy industry and dairy

farmers, producers and processors in British Columbia.

Joining us today are some of the people responsible for bringing dairy

products to all of British Columbia, and delicious ice cream to Victoria for

later today.

In the gallery, we have Sarah Sache, Gene Sache, Holger

Schwichtenberg, John de Dood, June de Dood, Henry Bremer, Mark Van Klei,

Christa Van Klei, Rebecca Senicar, Dave Taylor, Michelle Laszczyk, Sue Hall,

Thomas Cuthbert, Daniella Reid, Jeremy Dunn and Luke James.

I would kindly ask the members to join me in welcoming them, and I

hope you will join us at noon today on the back steps of the Legislature for

a B.C. Dairy Day ice cream celebration.

K. Kirkpatrick: It’s my great pleasure today to welcome my constituents from West

Vancouver–Capilano, Lesley and Mike Hobbs. I believe they’ve been hidden up

from my view there, but I’m sure that they’re in the House.

Leslie and Mike are both very creative individuals. Lesley is a gifted

artist. Her vibrant, colourful paintings reflect the passion she has for

life and for her craft. Mike is a talented guitar and banjo player who is

recently retired from a lifetime of gigging. Today also happens to be

Lesley’s birthday.

Would the House please join me in making Lesley and Mike feel most

welcome, and happy birthday to Lesley.

Hon. M. Dean: I have two introductions today. Joining us in the gallery is Byron

Loucks, president of the Victoria Grizzlies Junior A hockey club. Their home

arena is The Q Centre in Colwood. I want to thank him for working with me to

bring together five West Shore organizations to sign the Period Promise

pledge.

We have the Grizzlies, who were the first sporting association to

sign, the Westshore Wolves, the Shamrocks, West Shore Parks and Recreation

Society and the city of Colwood. At the signing event, we were joined by

young women athletes of the Capital Region Female Minor Hockey Association

and a local producer and supplier of menstrual products, joni.

People now coming to train and coming to spectate at The Q Centre will

soon have access to free menstrual products.

Would the House please show their appreciation and welcome.

Also joining us today in the gallery is MCFD staff member Lindsay

Storie. She’s a senior legislative analyst. Lindsay worked on the

legislative amendments for youth transitioning from government care, and I

want to raise my hands and say a really big and sincere thank-you to

everybody in the team who has been working on this really important matter

for years. I know that they are really pleased to see the next steps that we

are taking.

Would everyone please welcome her and express appreciation for the

work of the whole team.

D. Clovechok: There are people in your lives that continually fill your bucket, no

matter how low that bucket is, and I’ve got some of them in the gallery here

today.

My daughter Stephanie is up in the gallery. She’s at a CEO conference,

a tourism conference here. My granddaughter Ava is here. She was doing her

thing in New York City last week at this time. My granddaughter Shea is

here. She’s got a personality as big as the Rockies. My grandson Luke is up

there, who loves basketball; and their aunt, Emma Watson.

If you’d all welcome them to the House, that would be

awesome.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: Joining us today are 12 students from Victoria High School’s politics

12 class with their teacher, Mr. Brian Bradley. The students are learning

about how government works, political institutions and democracy.

Many of the students are joining us at the Legislature for the first

time, but one of the students, Rory Fleming, has been here many a time with

her dad, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Will the House please help me make all these grade 12 students

welcome.

I. Paton: Being national dairy day, I’m not sure how many people in the House

today can say they’ve milked cows for a living, but I’ve done that. I

consider them my colleagues. These are men and women that are here today

from the Okanagan. Well, the people are here today; we left the cows at

home.

I also want to thank the minister. I want to welcome my fellow

colleagues, dairy farmers from the Okanagan, from Vancouver Island. A

special thank-you to Jeremy Dunn, who’s the executive director of the B.C.

Dairy Association. They’re a great bunch of folks.

They work hard every day, 365 days of the year. Think of any other

profession where you get up at 4:30 in the morning. You milk cows in the

morning; you milk cows again at 4:30 in the afternoon. It doesn’t matter

whether it’s your birthday or whether it’s Christmas morning, New Year’s Day

or you’ve got the worst flu or hangover. You’ve still got to go milk those

cows.

So a big round of applause for all the dairy farmers that are here

today.

A. Singh: It’s my great pleasure to introduce our very good friend Bill Sundhu

and his amazing partner, Satwinder Paul, from Kamloops. They’re up there in

the corner somewhere.

Aside from being described as the best mom in the world by Ellora and

Sachin Sundhu — who, by the way, work in this big House — she’s a tenured

professor and program coordinator of water and wastewater technology at

Thompson Rivers University.

My friend Bill. For over 39 years, he has been a trial and appellate

lawyer in the criminal justice system, human rights and civil liberties. He

has extensive experience in all court levels of the Canadian legal system

and international tribunals and courts. He’s on the duty roster, not only

serving legal aid clients in Haida Gwaii but also a rostered counsel at the

International Criminal Court at the Hague.

Please welcome them.

G. Begg: Yesterday I had the distinct pleasure to welcome, as gallery guests, a

group of constituency assistants that work for the NDP government caucus

here to Victoria. Today those who weren’t here yesterday are here, and I’d

like to welcome them as well. I’m challenged, of course, not to say as nice

things as I did yesterday to this group.

We all know how valuable they are. I know that you will join me in

welcoming the NDP constituency assistants association members here to the

House today.

Hon. B. Ma: Joining us in the House today is Arianna Klus, my administrative

coordinator, who actually also requested the reflection that I read earlier

this morning.

Arianna has been such a joy to work with. Unfortunately, she has given

notice. I guess she’s had enough of me, and she’s going to go out to explore

other adventures in her life.

Arianna, I just want to let you know how wonderful it has been to work

with you. Thank you so much for your service to my office, to this House and

to the province of British Columbia.

Would the House please join me in making her feel so welcome that

maybe she changes her mind.

E. Ross: The tie is back for a very special reason. Late last night I got

surprised with a visit from my daughter Miranda. She’s in the gallery

today.

Before I became an MLA, I was a coach. I was one of her coaches. I

coached junior girls, senior women. That’s why I can’t be a fan today. I

scream at the TV. I scream at players. I really criticize.

Just an apology to the Haisla senior women that actually placed second

in the Prince Rupert All Native Tournament just this past February. I didn’t

think they were going to make it because I didn’t think they trained hard

enough. They didn’t run hard enough. They didn’t do enough push-ups. But

they came in second. They actually surpassed all my expectations.

My apologies to the Haisla senior women’s basketball team. You did us

proud.

[10:15 a.m.]

My daughter is here alone. She did not bring my grandson. That’s a

point of order, I believe. But this is her, and this is her son. I’m very

proud of her and what she’s done.

Would the House please welcome Miranda Ross.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2023

Hon. N. Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2023.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 24, the Miscellaneous Statutes Act

(No. 2), 2023. This bill amends the following statutes: Child, Family

and Community Service Act; Societies Act; Human Tissue Gift Act; Strata

Property Act; Employment Standards Act; Vancouver Charter; Motor Vehicle

Act; and Community Living Authority Act.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 22 — STRATA PROPERTY

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. R. Kahlon presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Strata Property Amendment Act,

Hon. R. Kahlon: I am pleased to introduce the Strata Property Amendment Act, 2023.

This bill will improve access to electric vehicles charging in

residential strata buildings by making it easier for strata corps and

owners to move forward with the installation of electric vehicle

charging.

B.C. is leading North America in electric vehicle uptake with one

of the largest public charging networks in Canada. The number of EVs has

grown from 5,000 in 2016 to more than 109,000 as of December 2022. This

is all part of the continent-leading CleanBC plan to reduce our

emissions. It’s one of the next steps we need to take to make EVs more

accessible to every person who switches to electric vehicles and brings

us closer to our climate goals.

This builds on the existing work to move away from gas vehicles,

including our electric vehicle rebate program, provincial sales tax

exemption on used EVs and the Zero Emissions Vehicle Act. The changes

will also encourage strata corporation planning for future electric

vehicle charging needs and will support early adopters of electric

vehicles through a user-pay model.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22, Strata Property 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)

VAISAKHI

E. Sturko: I rise in the House today to celebrate Vaisakhi, a cultural

festival this year on April 14.

Vaisakhi finds its roots amongst Sikhs and Hindus who mark it as

the beginning of the New Year and the spring Harvest Festival. It

promotes justice, equality and the creation of a more equal and just

society.

During Vaisakhi, members wear five articles of faith, practise

daily meditation and have access to their Sikh spiritual guide. Around

the world, communities hold parades, sing hymns, prayers, but most don’t

compare to the large celebration that we hold in Surrey, which is one of

the largest outside of Punjab.

The last three parades were all unfortunately cancelled due to the

pandemic. So I’m incredibly excited to say that this year’s parade will

be occurring on Saturday, April 22, where up to half a million people

are expected to attend.

This is a fantastic time to celebrate Sikh culture and to honour

the outstanding generosity of the Sikh community and what they provide

to British Columbia every day.

[10:20 a.m.]

In 2018, I had the opportunity to attend my very first Vaisakhi in

Surrey, and I was struck by the music, the colours, the ceremony and

particularly struck by the tremendous generosity of Sikhs performing

seva , handing out tea, sweets and food. I felt incredibly

welcome to participate and to enjoy that experience.

I’d like to take a moment to commend the outstanding contributions

of Sikhs and Hindus from across British Columbia on their ongoing

generosity.

I hope you can enjoy the festivities this year, and I wish you all

very happy Vaisakhi.

TSUNAMI PREPAREDNESS

M. Babchuk: Tsunami Preparedness Week is April 9 to 15 and is an annual

reminder for those who live, work or visit coastal communities to plan

and practise how they would get to high ground in the event of a

tsunami.

In 2016, the high-ground hike event was launched to raise

awareness about B.C.’s tsunami risk and give coastal residents and

visitors an opportunity to practise reaching their tsunami safe zones.

This year high-ground hike is returning to in-person events in more than

15 communities. If you live on the coast, check to see if your community

is hosting a high-ground hike.

I’d like to give a shout-out to Shaun Koopman, the protective

services coordinator at the Strathcona regional district for driving me

into the community of Oclucje last summer to help deliver tsunami

signage but also for his participation in bringing the documentary

Tsunami 11th Relative to ten different Vancouver Island

communities. Tsunami 11th Relative highlights First Nations

history and stories about earthquakes and tsunamis, as well as

Indigenous knowledge of tsunamis on the west coast of Vancouver

Island.

If a tsunami warning advisory or watch is issued, people in the

notification zone will receive a warning that will be broadcast across

television, radio and mobile devices through B.C.’s emergency alert

system. But in coastal communities, it’s important to be

prepared.

Build a grab-and-go bag; create an emergency plan; know which

tsunami zone you’re located in; know the difference between a tsunami

warning, advisory and watch; and read the PreparedBC Earthquake and

Tsunami Guide .

Lastly, comment on a know-your-tsunami-zone post on PreparedBC’s

Facebook or Twitter during Tsunami Preparedness Week for a chance to win

one of five four-person home emergency kits.

On the coast of B.C., it’s always good to be tsunami

safe.

CANADIAN WAR MEMORIAL

AND THE BATTLE OF

VIMY

M. de Jong: A few years ago someone asked me for a list of places that I

thought every child in British Columbia or Canada should visit at some

point. There are lots of candidates, obviously, but at or near the top

of my list would be the Canadian war memorial in Vimy,

France.

If you do get a chance to go, you will be struck by the serenity

of those 100 acres of the original battlefield that have now been set

aside and how that stands in such stark contrast to the horrific sounds

of battle that permeated the place in April of 1917. There’s the majesty

of the monument itself, which casts this forlorn look over the now

peaceful fields where so many people lost their lives all those years

ago.

Of course, the historic significance of the battle of Vimy for

Canada and the role it played in forging a national identity, the four

divisions of the Canadian Corps fighting together for the first time

under Canadian leaders like Arthur Currie from here in Victoria. Most

importantly, the magnitude of the personal sacrifice revealed in the

individual names that are etched in stone in the foundation of the

monument, over 10,000 casualties in that battle alone.

If you get a chance, you can go down into the tunnels and see

where young men — 18, 19 — waiting for the call to go into battle etched

what for many of them would be their last earthly message to be

remembered.

Time has obviously robbed us of the last remaining survivors of

the Battle of Vimy, but what it can’t do is diminish the magnitude of

the sacrifices they made. They answered the call, did their duty, and

they preserved the freedoms that too many of us take for granted

today.

Today in this chamber and next week on Vimy Day, we will remember

them.

[10:25 a.m.]

EASTER EGG HUNTS IN KOOTENAY AREA

B. Anderson: People across our province are observing and celebrating a range

of religious and cultural events this week. I want to highlight events

this week that will bring many members of our communities together for

egg-citing activities.

Nelson’s Daybreak Rotary Club is hosting their tenth annual Easter

egg hunt at Lakeside Park in Nelson on Saturday, April 8. With a parade

kicking things off at 9:45, the park will be hopping with a range of

family-friendly activities. Everyone is welcome to participate in the

parade. Bonnets and costumes are encouraged.

Now, we know how exciting and popular the Easter egg hunt is. So

after seeking advice from the Easter Bunny, who I am told will be in

attendance, the wise folks at Rotary have scheduled the Easter egg hunt

by age groups, starting with our littlest Easter egg hunters, those two

years old and under, at 10:45 a.m.

There will also be the Rotary Nelson Daybreak hot dog fundraiser,

and the food is always egg-cellent. There will also be crafts and face

painting. Remember to bring your basket and a smile. I look forward to

seeing you there. I also want to thank all of the event organizers,

sponsors and volunteers for making the event possible.

Kaslo also has a unique Easter egg hunt on the Kaslo River trail

this weekend. Download the Kootenay Lake road trip app, open the Kaslo

River trail tour, and collect all four Easter egg badges while you learn

fun facts and listen to reflective music. After you collect all the

badges, head to one of the participating businesses in Kaslo where you

can collect an Easter surprise.

People are able to participate in the Kaslo River trail tour

Easter egg hunt from Friday, April 7, at 9 a.m. until Saturday the

eighth at 5 p.m.

Have an egg-static weekend, everyone.

MLA’S FAMILY HISTORY

AND CANCER

AWARENESS

S. Furstenau: Just over a month ago, I spent time with my Uncle Wolfgang, who I

had only met once before. He’s my father’s older brother. They grew up

together in northeast Germany during World War II.

Wolf told me the story of his own escape from East Germany as a

teenage boy, leaving alone on a train with a lunch kit, exiting before

the train got to the border, watching from a field the pattern of

soldiers who were monitoring the border, and making a dash for it in the

dusk, getting across into West Germany and starting his new life, which

ultimately led him to being a U.S. citizen and having a career at

IBM.

A few months later my grandmother, father and aunt also made the

brave journey out of East Germany to a refugee camp in West Berlin. For

Dad, that journey brought him here to Sidney, B.C., where he joined his

older brothers.

It was a joy to spend time with Wolf, to hear his stories. He is,

in so many ways, just like my dad, his younger brother Peter — the same

curiosity, joyfulness, kindness and easygoing nature. It was like having

a chance to see what my dad would have been like had he lived into his

80s. But these last two decades I could have had with my dad were stolen

by cancer 22 years ago.

Each year at this time, we wear a daffodil, and we reflect on the

toll that cancer takes on all of us. Had Dad been diagnosed even a few

months, years, later, he may have lived several more years with access

to treatment for multiple myeloma.

Research is essential for the cures, treatments and, hopefully one

day, the eradication of cancer.

I’m grateful to the Canadian Cancer Society for the work they do

and for the support that they provide to cancer patients and their

families.

IMPACTS OF FATPHOBIA

A. Singh: In the wake of an Oscar win for The Whale , a horrifically

discriminatory movie that uses fat suits — and don’t be mistaken; a fat

suit is just blackface in another context — and a storyline to paint the

protagonist as grotesque, pitiful, it’s well beyond time we talk about

fatphobia.

We talk about racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, sexism,

but we don’t address the systemic oppression that affects people who

live in large bodies.

[10:30 a.m.]

Fatphobia is the implicit and explicit bias that is rooted in a

sense of blame and a presumed moral failing. Being fat is highly

stigmatized in culture. Anti-fatness is intrinsically linked to

anti-Blackness, racism, classism, misogyny and many other systems of

oppression.

Often it is blaring and obnoxious, but more often than not, fat

phobia is less overtly mean and, instead, cloaked in concern for the fat

person — your mom clipping articles about how being at a higher weight

causes worse COVID complications. It’s actually way more complicated

than that. Sometimes it looks like unsolicited suggestions to exercise

or subtle weight-loss advice. Or fat phobia can come out as classic

microaggression. “You have such a pretty face.” The unspoken part: “The

rest of you, not so much.”

There’s this mistaken belief that if you diet or you eat a certain

way, you can control things. But there is more and more evidence that we

are largely not in control of our body size. The harmful effects of fat

phobia are a constant for people in larger bodies, and it is more

intense for women. Higher-weight people of colour also face dual

stigmatization that can compound things like the wage gap and medical

discrimination.

Experiencing weight stigma has real-life effects. The stress and

repeated trauma that aggressions create leads to more illness. It causes

anxiety, depression, poor body image, poor self-esteem.

Women earn less as they gain weight. People, especially women,

seen as fat get poorer medical care.

This is a life-and-death issue for many. It destroys

people.

It’s up to us to make this world a better place for everybody.

Let’s do that.

Hon. G. Lore: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Lore: The students and the class I introduced before have now arrived. I

just want to welcome Mr. Bradley and the Vic High politics 12 class to the

House.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON HOMELESSNESS

IN DOWNTOWN

EASTSIDE

K. Falcon: The Premier made headlines when he claimed that he would take over

management of the Downtown Eastside last year. Late last year, we’ll all

remember, he even made an announcement standing on an empty lot on Main

Street, promising housing units by March to end the

encampments.

But as usual, NDP announcements do not equal results. They never

equal results. Both the promised housing and the Premier are nowhere to

be seen and missing in action. In fact, it’s the mayor of Vancouver and

the council that have showed the leadership in dismantling those tent

cities and getting rid of the challenges that were being faced in the

downtown core of Vancouver.

Because the Premier has failed to do his part, that means that

yesterday, Vancouver “couldn’t commit” to housing evicted residents. The

violence and the chaos in communities throughout this province has never

been worse than it is today. And without housing available, those tent

encampments will simply move to another park or

neighbourhood.

My question to the Premier is: how can anyone trust any of the

Premier’s empty announcements when the results are never there when

people need them?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I thank the member across the way for the question.

No doubt the situation, in particular around the Hastings

encampment, is a challenging one, and yesterday was a challenging day. I

can say to the member that yes, we did step up to say we are going to be

taking an important role, not only in the Downtown Eastside but

addressing housing issues across the province.

The challenges that we’re seeing around the encampment — this is

not a one-year, two-year, three-year problem. This is a problem that’s

been building for decades. This is a challenge that we have, as a

province, I think, not seen enough leadership to address.

I can share with the member that yesterday, the city took some

actions on the Downtown Eastside. Part of that was our staff on the

ground worked around the clock to find enough housing for everyone that

said they needed housing. In fact, I can share with the members today

that we have now enough housing, enough shelter spaces available for

those that are in the encampments.

[10:35 a.m.]

We have connected with the city of Vancouver staff. They will be

talking to every individual, asking them if they need access to shelter,

and we have shelter space available. That’s positive news.

I can also share with the member that we were slated to have about

100 units, 98 units, opening this month. We got an occupancy permit for

that, and we’ll be moving people from shelters into the new 98 units

over the coming days as well.

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

K. Falcon: I rarely agree with the Housing Minister, but I’ll certainly agree

with him that there hasn’t been enough leadership on this over the last

six years. I would remind the member that you’ve been in government.

This is your second term and your sixth year, and we still have not

seen….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

K. Falcon: Apparently I touched a nerve over here.

Mr. Speaker: The member will ask through the Chair, their question.

K. Falcon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They’ve had six years to deal with this, and the Premier says it’s

“a sad day.”

The current Housing minister admitted yesterday in question period

that he only learned about the leadership by the mayor and council at

the same time that the media was being notified. That’s not leadership.

In fact, that’s called leading from behind. Right now we need a province

and a Premier that know how to lead in front and help deal with it, not

just in Vancouver, but in every community in the province of British

Columbia.

The reality is that they talk about these housing units. They

never appear and never materialize. The reality is that those tent

cities just move from one location to another. In fact, that’s actually

now official NDP government policy. The NDP’s…. Well, wait for it. The

NDP’s Downtown Eastside provincial partnership plan working document

actually says it right there, “Some people may not transition to indoor

options…. As such, there is a need to ensure that parks or other outdoor

shelter options” are made known.

Three years ago the Premier was the Housing minister who was

tasked in his mandate letter to address homeless encampments, and he

failed to do his job. He’s now the Premier, and he’s personally

responsible for the current failures and the never-ending tent cities

that are plaguing communities right throughout this province.

My question is to the Minister of Housing, who apparently is going

to take these questions. Since they failed to ensure that the housing is

there when it’s needed for those in the Downtown Eastside, where is the

next neighbourhood or park going to be that the tent cities are going to

be moving to?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have been working with the city of Vancouver for months now.

The mayor has said several times that he appreciates the support, the

work we’re doing to build the housing. We worked with them to identify

additional sites.

We’ve got 98 units coming because of the collaboration. We were

able to work with them to increase density on some of the projects that

we’ve already got when it comes to supportive housing. That’s the type

of collaboration we wanted to see with them, and we’ve got

that.

I think it’s important to note, first, that the challenge around

encampments is not a challenge only in B.C. This is a challenge being

felt across the country. Ministers from across the country are talking

about the shift they’ve seen coming out of the pandemic, the additional

pressures they’ve seen and what that means for their communities. It’s

an issue that’s being dealt with, that’s being challenged. Communities

across the U.S., every single community is dealing with similar

issues.

Our view is that we need to get people in the shelters. We need to

get people in the housing, and we’re doing that. I shared an update with

the member. We have enough shelter spaces. It’s our belief that the

shelter spaces are safer than the encampments. We’ve always said, from

the beginning, that encampments are not safe. We’ve always said that

from the beginning. We need to get people into the shelters and then do

the assessments and then give people other opportunities.

For the member to suggest that this is a problem that just arrived

and that we haven’t taken enough action, they were in government for 16

years.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: No. Well he said there was nobody that was homeless. He says there

was no one that was homeless. The Leader of the Opposition says nobody

was homeless at the time when he was in government. That is absolutely

false. He can stand up and correct himself.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s a reason why they didn’t take action when they were in

government. There’s a reason why they didn’t take action, and the

answer….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Oh, they’re saying thank-you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: You can thank me after I tell you what the president of the B.C.

Liberal Party — okay, or whatever they’re going to call themselves —

said. He said: “We should focus on the 60 percent and essentially not

bother with some demographics that will not likely or absolutely never

will support us, like ‘homeless people’ or ‘people dependent on social

supports.’”

[10:40 a.m.]

That’s why for decades there was no investments in housing to

support the most vulnerable people in this province.

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

AND ACTION ON

HOMELESSNESS

E. Sturko: This government loves to try to share the blame by saying that

things are bad everywhere. The reality is that the unhoused crisis, the

mental health and addictions crisis, is nowhere worse than it is today

in British Columbia.

Today the Premier admits, “We have, in the past, moved people

directly from encampments into housing…and it didn’t end well,” but the

only apparent plan is to go right back to warehousing people with severe

mental health and severe addictions issues, and it’s not going to end

well again.

This Premier is warehousing people with severe mental health and

putting them in hotels that aren’t safe, without proper supports. The

24-hour supports that he claims exist are just someone staffing the

front lobby — no nurses, no medical professionals and no

help.

In 2020, the Premier paid half a million dollars per room to

warehouse people in the old Howard Johnson Hotel on Granville Street.

Since then, police have been called to the site 2,494 times, including

751 calls last year, according to the Vancouver police

department.

When will the Premier stop warehousing vulnerable people in unsafe

conditions that only create more violence and make our streets less

safe?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I’ve stated in this House before, during the pandemic, there

were a lot of people that had needs, a lot of challenges that came out.

We took action to ensure that every single unit we could get access to

we made available to provide housing for people and provide the supports

that those people needed. We will never apologize for that.

In fact, I think that the opposition…. Tell us what they would

have done differently. Would they not have bought housing units that are

available? Would they not have found everything that they could to get

people housing?

It’s vitally important that we get people the housing and get them

the supports they need. I’ve had the opportunity to meet with many

people that have found success in the supports we provided. I was just

recently in Vernon, where I met a woman who was in an encampment, and

who, thanks to the supports that we provided, was able to get into a

shelter…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, shhh. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …was able to get into housing, then get trained up and now is

supporting people that are struggling.

We have seen success…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …and we’re going to continue to help people to get the supports

they need.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I’ve highlighted, these are challenges being dealt with in

communities around North America. We are taking action here to provide

housing for people. I again highlighted some of the

successes.

We were able to find housing for 90 people on the Hastings

encampment. We were able to provide, yesterday, shelters for everybody

that needed it. We have 98 units now that have an occupancy permit.

We’re going to be able to get additional people into those units. We

have up to 330 units coming by the end of June. We have even more units

coming this fall. We’re making the investments to ensure that people

have the housing that they need.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey South, supplemental.

E. Sturko: Yes, you know what? I find it outrageous to hear the minister

stand up and defend warehousing people in hotels. Just to make this

point, I’m going to read the Premier’s quote, which he gave today, again

and actually expand it with the detail it really included. “We have, in

the past, moved people directly from encampments into housing without

knowing who they were, what their backgrounds were, and it didn’t end

well,” he said. “We had to actually close a hotel in Victoria that we

had leased, because of that approach.”

Yet what he said is continuing to happen, and this minister is

standing up and defending warehousing people. The Premier’s plan to

warehouse people with severe mental health and addictions issues leaves

them vulnerable to crime and violence. The chief of the Victoria police,

Del Manak, said that drug dealers and criminals are now setting up

operations right under B.C. Housing’s nose: “Most of these locations

have criminals that are embedded within these locations that are

exploiting people…. Many of these supportive housing locations are not

safe.”

[10:45 a.m.]

Under this Premier, it’s now routine for firearms and drugs to be

seized at B.C. Housing locations.

When will the Premier get serious about public safety and stop

warehousing vulnerable people without support in unsafe

conditions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The alternative to providing housing and mental health supports is

having people living in encampments. That’s why we’re providing the

housing for people. That’s why we’re providing the mental health

supports.

Yes, I would agree with the member on one thing. There are people

who prey on the most vulnerable. Yes, that exists. That happens in every

community across the province, across the country, across North America

and parts of the world. We’re all in agreement that that kind of

behaviour is awful. That’s why it’s important for us to ensure that

these people have the supports they need. Often there are cases

where….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: These are complex situations, hon. Speaker. These are very, very

complex situations. Everyone has different needs. That’s why we’re

building out the supports that people need.

Again, I know that right now the encampment on Hastings Street is

top of mind for everyone here. Again, I can share with the members that

we are able to get people shelter. We are able to get people into new,

renovated sites that we are bringing on. We have more units coming on

board.

Yes, we have stepped up and said that we’re going to take

leadership, because for decades, nobody did. Nobody took leadership.

Nobody said: “You know what? These people deserve to have the supports

that everybody else does.” We believe that, and that’s why we’re doing

this work.

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND

ACTION ON

HOMELESSNESS

S. Furstenau: I’m listening to the dialogue between the government and the

official opposition. I’m hearing “encampments.” I’m hearing

“warehousing.” I’m hearing “shelters.” I’m hearing “units.” I have not

yet heard the word “homes.”

Yesterday the Vancouver police swept through the Downtown Eastside

and cleared people off the street. This province has had an issue of

homelessness for years. Over and over again, the response has been to

clear the streets, and it has got us nowhere. There are already reports

today that the police are back, removing tents that went up

overnight.

This government seems to have no real plan for homes, for housing

people in a way that is sustainable, rehabilitative and forward-looking,

but others do. The Village project in Duncan provides short-term housing

with wraparound support for the most vulnerable people. People get their

own space to call home, a door that locks. They get mental, physical and

spiritual support. They get food, they get other assistance, and they

get a supportive community of peers. It has been successful.

Where this government has failed to address homelessness,

communities have found their own solutions. They’ve brought ideas to the

table and are asking this Premier and this minister for their

support.

My question is to the Premier. Will he commit, on the record, to

come to the table and fund the communities that are creating solutions

by building tiny home projects like the Village in Duncan?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the question. So $4.3 billion. We have

part of our next three years to build housing for people. That’s $4.3

billion. This is a serious commitment to build the housing that people

need. We’ve been having this discussion all week. We need housing —

everything from for people that want to buy, to people that are in

encampments and that need that stability in their lives.

The member will know that we funded projects in Port Alberni

around tiny homes. We are looking for all innovative solutions that work

for communities. We continue to do that work. I have meetings with

mayors in communities around the province. All of them have different

ideas of how they think they can address the challenges in their

communities. Of course, I commit to working with all mayors to find

solutions that work in every community.

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

S. Furstenau: For the last two days at the UBCM housing summit, I heard from a

lot of local elected representatives who said that they were coming

forward to the provincial government, to B.C. Housing, to the Ministry

of Housing, to the minister, to the Premier.

They had solutions that were working for their communities on the

ground, but they were encountering barriers, they were encountering lack

of support, and they were encountering a situation where they weren’t

getting the funding for the solutions that they brought

forward.

[10:50 a.m.]

These tiny home projects have demonstrated that what’s needed is

not just units or shelter or spaces or encampments. People need homes.

They need community. They need supports. The communities that are doing

this are demonstrating that this does not have to be a forever

emergency. We can solve homelessness. That has to be the

goal.

My question again to the Premier. The Minister of Housing mentions

$4.3 billion, but the tiny village project in Duncan had to go right to

the wire to find out whether or not the funding would be renewed again.

They need consistent and sustainable support, as do the projects around

the province that are providing these solutions.

Will the Premier give a clear signal that he is serious about

working with the communities, that he will fund these transitional

housing projects?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you again to the member for the question.

I’m absolutely serious about working with local governments to

find housing solutions. The member mentions Duncan. Of 281 units — not

units, 281 homes — for people, 66 have opened up, and 215 are under

construction. These are homes for people in the member’s community, and

that’s what we’re doing in every community.

I have local mayors coming to me all the time saying: “I’ve got an

innovative solution. I think this would work in our community.” Of

course, we’re going to work with everyone to find something that works

within those communities.

We’re funding housing not only in municipalities. We’re also

funding housing on and off reserve for Indigenous populations, the only

province in this country that has stepped up and said: “You know what?

We can’t wait for the federal government anymore. We must build this

housing.”

We’re investing in housing on reserve. Housing that meets

everyone’s needs is our goal, and we’re going to continue to work with

all our partners to help address that challenge.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES

AND IMPACT ON

BUSINESSES

C. Oakes: Small businesses in Quesnel are hanging on by a thread as a direct

result of this Premier’s soft-on-crime policies and total failure to

provide the proper supports for people with mental health and addiction

issues in our community.

Willis Harper, Mama C’s, Circle S, and the list goes on and on,

are all reporting increased violence, shoplifting and attacks on

staff.

This week I received a letter from the Quesnel Downtown

Association: “Criminals are no longer hiding in the shadows. They

operate in plain sight as there is little or no consequences for their

actions.” The letter goes on: “The added cost of theft, vandalism,

security and loss of production is both crippling our ability and will

to survive.”

To the Premier, when is the Premier going to give these businesses

financial support to offset their losses from his soft-on-crime

policies?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I just want to, first off,

reject the premise of soft on crime. The initiatives that I’ve outlined

in this House over the last number of weeks have demonstrated beyond a

doubt that this government is committed to keeping our communities safe

wherever they are in British Columbia.

We’ve done a range of initiatives based on what police and

policing agencies have asked for us to put in place, whether it is

changing the Criminal Code, whether it is putting in place peer-assisted

care teams to deal with those mental health calls, whether it is the

expansion of the Car program, for example. All of those things are

designed to help the police keep our communities safe. We will continue

to do that work because we know that that is what is going to

succeed.

Couple that with the programs on mental health and addictions and

housing. It is a multi-pronged approach to deal with the situation that

communities such as yours are facing. We’ve been doing a lot of work.

There’s a lot more to do, but we’re committed to doing it.

B. Stewart: The consequences of the Premier’s catch-and-release system and his

decision to warehouse people with severe mental health and addiction

issues without supports are painfully evident.

[10:55 a.m.]

In Kelowna, B.C. Housing literally warehoused people with severe

mental health and addictions at a former fruit-packing warehouse. The

results of the Premier’s decisions are that business break-ins in

Kelowna have skyrocketed 26 percent and shoplifting incidents are up 17

percent just in 2022 alone.

This is the experience of one retail worker, not just threatened

yesterday again. It’s “not safe for anyone,” not to mention “all the

customers we’ve lost…I have never been so scared. This is just not

right.” Staff and business owners say the total disorder, crime and

violence have grown exponentially and continue to get worse.

When will the Premier give small business owners some desperately

needed financial support and relief to mitigate the damages caused by

the soft-on-crime policies?

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

Again, I will point out the work that’s been underway, working

with communities such as Kelowna where I recently met with the mayor of

the member’s community to deal with some of the challenges that they’re

facing. We’ve got a good working relationship.

That’s why, when these issues were being identified by local

governments, the Premier, myself and other ministers met with the mayors

of the large communities dealing with these challenges and came up with

a strategy that involved, first off, the LePard-Butler report and then

moving on from there to implement those recommendations.

At the same time, working with police, as I’ve outlined on a

number of occasions in this House, recognizing that there are changes

that needed to be put in place around the Criminal Code. Going to Ottawa

— B.C. taking that leadership role to do just that — and a commitment

from the federal government to put in place changes that make it easier

to keep repeat offenders off the streets, where they belong.

At the same time, provincial initiatives are seeing teams and hubs

in more than 12 different communities around this province to deal with

many of the challenging offenders the member is talking about — Kelowna

being one of those communities, along with Prince George, along with

Nanaimo, along with Vancouver, along with Terrace. As well, working with

police to ensure that they’ve got the human resources that they need.

The largest single investment in policing in the history of this country

announced by the Premier — money in the budget to do just

that.

We are working as hard as we can and as diligently as we can, and

we will continue to do that to ensure that our communities are kept

safe.

B. Banman: Small businesses in Abbotsford, as well, are struggling to survive

amidst the total chaos caused by this Premier’s decision to warehouse

people without supports and his catch-and-release system. These

businesses are desperately seeking some financial relief. Staff at a

local dollar store are scared to come to work as they deal with theft,

threats and fear of attacks with weapons.

Local business owner Paul Esposito says the level of violence is

getting worse and worse, and businesses in the area are having to deal

with the costs of constant theft, smashed windows, fires, daily cleaning

of human feces, urine and needles. He said just this past weekend alone,

the police were called five times, and fire and paramedics arrive on

almost a daily basis.

When is this Premier going to deliver relief for local businesses

that are plagued by increasing crime and violence as a direct result of

his soft-on-crime policies?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Once again, I am just going to take issue with that statement of

“soft-on-crime policies,” because nothing could be further from the

truth. Our justice system….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Please continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Our justice system is not a policy. The Criminal Code of Canada is

just that. It is laws put in place. They are not policies decided on the

whim of a Premier. This government has taken action since the day it was

first sworn in, in 2017.

[11:00 a.m.]

As I have outlined to this House on a number of occasions, we

started in terms of dealing with the guns and gangs challenge that we

faced in this province, putting in place a witness protection program

that has resulted in a significant increase in the conviction of those

who have committed murder. They are now behind bars where they

belong.

We put in place a firearms lab for forensic analysis of firearms,

weapons that were used to commit crimes in this province — the first of

its kind — so that we weren’t having to send them back east to Ottawa,

and all the time that that took. We’ve ensured that we’ve got Crown

prosecutors that are working with police to build as strong a case as

possible when dealing with violent offenders.

As I’ve said again and again, it is this province that showed

leadership in getting Ottawa to make commitments to change the Criminal

Code so that we are able to deal with the consequences of the changes of

Bill C-75. That was a federal law that impacted the issue of bail, hon.

Speaker.

Putting that reverse onus on those who would use knives, on those

who use weapons, on those who have had a history of violence in the past

— that is action. This government is proud of it. Every step of the way,

we’ve done it, and we will continue to do a lot more.

S. Bond: Well, the Solicitor General might want to attempt to reject the

concept of “soft on crime,” but maybe he should look a victim in the eye

and say that. Every single day in this province, we hear stories of

violent attacks, random violence, theft — an explosion.

The Minister of Housing should feel ashamed of himself. He stands

up in this House…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

S. Bond: …failing to look at the fear, the anxiety, the chaos and the

violence that exists every single day in this province. What does he

talk about? Success, and how proud he is. Shame on that minister for not

paying attention.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Bond: This government and Premier can continue to stand up and make

comments like that all day, but they need to understand the reality that

small business owners are facing, that victims are facing, in British

Columbia.

We should be perfectly clear. It is absolutely this Premier’s

soft-on-crime policies and his decision to warehouse some of the most

vulnerable British Columbians without the supports they need that has

led to an explosion of social disorder, theft and violence. That is

squarely on the shoulders of this government.

Maybe the Solicitor General would like to speak to this person.

Last week we learned of a man who walked into downtown Vancouver, to a

clothing store. He threatened to kill the staff with a knife, and then

he robbed the store. The prolific offender was arrested four times

during a three-week period, charged with theft, assault with a weapon,

and two counts of failure to comply. Guess what. He was released every

single time, and he is back on the street today. That describes “soft on

crime” in just about everybody’s books.

When is the Premier going to at least acknowledge that they have

failed abysmally? It is time for them to step up, help small businesses,

and support victims in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. To suggest that we

don’t take those things seriously is simply wrong, and that member knows

this. We have concern for victims, hon. Speaker.

That is why we increased funding for victims-of-crime programs.

Where were they when they cut it, when that member sat on this side of

the House? Let’s also be clear….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Members, Members.

Hold it.

Members, the question was asked. Let’s hear the answer now,

please. Okay?

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

That is exactly why, for those kinds of situations that we have

seen in this province and right across this country, this province led

the way to get changes done at the Criminal Code, to keep those kinds of

people off the street. That is why….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Members, Members.

Members. Calm down.

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is why we sought the commitment from the federal

government…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Calm down.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …to make the changes — so that those kinds of individuals are not

released and they’re kept off the street — which was to see an expansion

on the reverse onus, so that it doesn’t just cover firearms, but it

covers knives, it covers weapons, and it covers those with a history who

have engaged in that kind of behaviour before.

That’s commitment from this side of the House — to get those kinds

of changes. Whether it’s keeping criminals off the streets or supporting

victims, this government has a record that we will not back down from in

terms of trying to keep our communities safe.

[End of question period.]

K. Falcon: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

K. Falcon: Today in the gallery, we are joined by the grade 10 and 11 class of

the Prince of Wales Mini School with their teacher, Tony Lee, and some

parents that have joined with them. I would ask the House to please make

them all feel welcome today.

S. Chandra Herbert: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Chandra Herbert: As an alumnus of Prince of Wales Mini School, I want to thank the PW

Mini for being here.

I just want to say: “Roll on, Mini. Welcome to your House.”

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Motion 39 on the order paper.

In

Section A, I call estimates of the Ministry of Indi­genous

Relations and Reconciliation.

In

Section C, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and

Food.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 39 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

COMMISSION REPORT

PROPOSALS

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 39, standing in my name on the order

paper.

[That, in accordance with

section 14 of the Electoral Boundaries

Commission Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 107), the proposals contained

in the British Columbia Electoral Boundaries Commission Final Report

tabled in the Legislative Assembly on April 3, 2023, be

approved.]

I want to take an opportunity and thank the people who put in a

lot of work when it came to the Boundaries Commission report.

I want to thank, on behalf of government, three members in

particular: Anton Boegman, who is a commissioner and the Chief Electoral

Officer of British Columbia. I want to thank Justice Nitya Iyer and

Linda Tynan for their work they have done, to do this important work on

behalf of the province of British Columbia.

I was very impressed with the engagement that they took on,

travelling through the province. They had travelled to 43 communities in

this province. That’s a lot of work. Those that have served on the

Finance Committee know how much work it is to travel to multiple

communities.

This group of folks who stepped up to serve the public did that

work in a good way. Thirteen public hearings, 76 presenters. They had

800 submissions. All of that work led to the Boundaries Commission

report.

I just want to take the moment to thank them for that work.

Obviously, we know that will have a big impact on this

province.

On a personal note, from my community of North Delta, there’s a

small area of my community which now will be part of the Delta South

riding. I know that the member that’s there now, or whoever it is, will

serve that community well. It will be hard for my community to lose a

small part of the community, but we will work together to make sure that

all constituents in this province get the service that they need. I’m

confident that whoever comes in will work hard for that

community.

With that, I just want to say thank you again to the members who

put their work in on this and thank them for the extraordinary amount of

work that they put in.

M. de Jong: There is quite a storied history in this province, going back for

as long as we’ve been a province, about how boundaries and electoral

districts have been created and how those boundaries, over time, have

been adjusted.

I will say happily that over the last number of decades, there

have been fewer stories and fewer opportunities to allege the kind of

gerrymandering and manipulation that may have taken place

formerly.

[11:10 a.m.]

In fact, the measure of success for this process is probably the

fact that we can now keep our speeches pretty short in terms of what we

have to say about not just the process but the results from that

process.

I’ll begin by saying that the official opposition joins with the

Government House Leader in paying tribute to and thanking the members of

the Boundaries Commission. It’s a daunting task to take a jurisdiction

the size of British Columbia and, then, try to draw boundaries on that

map, taking into account the competing interests and considerations that

always go into this exercise.

I have to say that, over the years, I have been struck by one

thing. Though politicians do not always occupy or generally do not

occupy the highest rung of the social ladder in terms of regard and

respect from citizens, try taking away their MLA, and you will find that

people are, happily, very protective of the representation that they

receive and the communities of interest that represent constituencies

across British Columbia. That has been the case.

Today this motion relates to a report and a series of

recommendations that, happily, I think, has found a credible balance

between the challenges of ensuring that votes are distributed across

this province and have relatively equal value within the meaning of some

of the judicial decisions that we have seen and, also, recognizing the

incredible challenges associated both with representing and being

represented if you reside in a part of the province that may be as large

as many European countries, which is the analogy we often

make.

The commission has, I think, toiled diligently to try and find

that balance. We are gratified, as the official opposition, to see that

they have attached importance and attached value to the arguments that

were made by many, many presenters around the importance of preserving

levels of representation in the more sparsely populated areas of the

province. In fact, outside of the Lower Mainland….

My recollection, from the report, is that they are recommending

the addition of a seat outside of the Lower Mainland. That’s, obviously,

good news for people in that part of British Columbia as

well.

The two questions that one would generally ask in deciding whether

to support the motion adopting the recommendations contained in the

report and then, subsequently, the legislation that will follow to

enshrine those recommendations in law are: was the mandate provided to

the commission a fair and a reasonable one? And then, secondly: in

exercising that mandate, did the commission operate fairly and

reasonably and free from undue influence or interference?

The official opposition is, happily, able to conclude favourably

in response to both those questions. That leads us to draw the

conclusion that the recommendations contained in the report are worthy

of support.

[11:15 a.m.]

Now, we just heard a moment ago from the Government House Leader,

who commented on a slight change within the constituency that he

presently represents. I expect that there are members on both sides of

the House…. In fact, I know there are members, colleagues of mine, who

have seen similar adjustments in the electoral districts that they

represent. They may have an opportunity and wish to avail themselves of

an opportunity, when the legislation is presented, to bring that to the

attention of the House.

I expect we’ll also want to comment on the fact that, in some

cases, those changes were made following the tabling of the preliminary

report and have caught some people by surprise in their communities. I

know there will be an opportunity for them, on behalf of those folks, in

places across British Columbia so affected, to make that point and to

draw it to the attention of the House and, I suppose, by extension, the

Electoral Boundaries Commission and Elections B.C.

For now, the task is to pass judgment on the motion and the report

itself and the recommendations contained therein.

In this instance, for the reasons I’ve alluded to, the opposition

is content to lend its support to the motion on the floor of the House

today.

S. Furstenau: I, too, wish to extend my appreciation and gratitude to the

commission and to the members of the commission who have taken on this

very significant task of looking at the electoral boundaries.

As we proceed to the motion today and then to the legislation, I

think that the task in front of us…. The member from the official

opposition, Abbotsford West, raised this as well. Our task now is to

ensure that representation is as effective as it can be.

I note in the appendix, in the comments, a change to the

preliminary report. There is a recognition of the need for cohesiveness

of community to be taken into account. While some, the House Leader for

the government and others, might be noticing some small changes, there

are some pretty significant changes to the riding of Cowichan, which

does look at two very distinct communities, as opposed to the cohesion

of one, in the new boundaries.

I recognize all of the things that go into looking at these

boundary changes and electoral map re-drawings, largely demographic.

Representation by population is clearly the driving force

here.

As legislators, we have this other consideration that we carry

very, I think, seriously, which is effective representation in a

democracy. With a limited number of representatives, how do we most

effectively represent communities in this province? I hope that we will

be looking at that as the legislation comes forward.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the adoption of Motion 39.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Lore: I request a short recess.

Mr. Speaker: This House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 11:18 a.m. to 11:22 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 21, Civil Forfeiture

Amendment Act, 2023.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — CIVIL FORFEITURE

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:23 a.m.

The Chair: All right, so we’re here on Bill 21, the Civil Forfeiture

Amendment Act, 2023.

Did the minister want to make an opening statement? No. All

right.

On clause 1.

M. Morris: I’m not going to get away that light. I’ll just have a couple of

questions that are general in nature and applicable to the entire

amendment or the entire statute. this bill before the House

here.

The first one is pertaining to UNDRIP and the amount of

consultation that has taken place with respect to this particular bill

before the House here right now. How many First Nations communities have

been spoken to or consulted in relation to this?

Then the other part of this is that this is a law of general

application, and I’m wondering about the minister’s views on the

application to First Nations who are involved in activities that might

fall under the provisions of this entire bill that’s before the House

here right now.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll make two

observations to the member’s question. First, these amendments did not

trigger the need for extensive consultation under UNDRIP. And second,

these would not apply on reserve lands, which are federal

lands.

M. Morris: But it would still apply if a First Nations is living on First

Nations lands but he is conducting businesses off reserve lands, in our

communities throughout the province here, of a nature that would subject

him to the provisions of this statute.

Hon. M. Farnworth: If the assets, let’s say, in part of an investigation, are off

reserve, then, yes, it would be captured by these amendments.

M. Morris: Thank you for that, and there will probably be some more

applicable questions as we go through some of these various clauses in

here.

The other general question I have in going through the bill is

just the makeup of the civil forfeiture office and the resources that

the director has available to him or her. There’s a significant amount

of work that’s involved with this. Just wondering what the makeup of the

office is today and what the makeup of the office will be once we

implement the provisions of Bill 21.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are currently 19 staff.

At the same time, as I know the member is aware, this is a

self-financing office. So if it needs to staff up to deal with a

particular situation, it is able to do that, as it is

self-financing.

M. Morris: Excellent. I appreciate that.

Under clause 1, under the definition of “financed vehicle,” it

appears to be inclusive of all serial-numbered properties. Is this

correct? Did I read this correctly?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just a quick clarification, or maybe my answer will clarify it for

you. If you’re talking about cash for the serial number, no. If you’re

talking about everything else that has a serial number like a car, boats

or what have you, then the answer would be yes.

M. Morris: Okay. That’s interesting. So “financed vehicle” would include

vehicles of all sorts, I suppose. Just to further that, then,

serial-numbered goods such as securities, precious metals and whatnot

would be captured under this particular definition?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it would be just vehicles. It would include boats.

M. Morris: Including boats? Okay. Thank you for that

clarification.

I’ll move on, still on clause 1 here. I go back to serial-numbered

goods, then, which states in the bill “means a motor vehicle,

manufactured home, boat, outboard motor, trailer or aircraft.” Would

this include industrialized equipment that we see throughout the

province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it would.

M. Morris: Would the definition of the “motor vehicle” follow the definition

under the Motor Vehicle Act for motor vehicle?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would actually follow the definition of the Personal Property

Security Act.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Morris: Clause 2: “Section 1 is amended by adding the following

subsection:

(3) A person who indirectly engaged in the unlawful activity

that is the basis of the application referred to in paragraph (

a) of the

definition of ‘uninvolved interest holder’ includes, without limitation,

a person who had knowledge of the unlawful activity and received a

financial benefit from the unlawful activity.”

This is quite a comprehensive section, I think, when I look at it.

Will this

section capture the parents of an individual who is actively

involved in unlawful activity? The parents may have knowledge of it

because they’re living in this house financed from that. They might be

driving a vehicle. And would it also apply to all of the individuals

that are living in the house?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be yes, but it would also mean that you’d have to

prove you were wilfully blind to the activity that was taking place. So

you knew about it, but you just turned a blind eye to it.

M. Morris: Just with respect to how this process works, I guess — we may get

into it in other sections — how does the director receive the

information for him to initiate some of the actions that we’re going to

see, that we’re going to talk about in the future clauses of the bill

here?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be from police referrals. And in terms of the issuance of

an unexplained wealth order or a decision to make a forfeiture, that

would be decided by a court.

M. Morris: Thank you for that. Who conducts the investigation to

see…?

I know there are a number of pretty adequately covered

definitions

of affiliated persons and connected persons that we’ll get into later on

here. Does the director do that investigation himself to find out, in

this case, what family members might be aware of and involved or

indirectly engaged in any of the activities in that unlawful activity,

or is it up to the police department of jurisdiction?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s both. I expect that the bulk will be done through police

referral. But at the same time, the director does have the ability to

receive and access open-source information that can lead to an

investigation or to an unexplained wealth order, for example.

M. Morris: Thank you for that. Just to make sure I’m clear in my mind here,

the director’s office has investigative capacity and ability to conduct

their investigations as they see fit?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, they do have the capacity, and we’re looking to expand that

capacity as it’s required and needed.

[11:35 a.m.]

M. Morris: I think this is a fabulous section. I think that a lot of these

families that are out there need to take notice. I hope they’re watching

and paying attention to this, because this is exactly what the police

and this province need when it comes to these families that turn a blind

eye to a lot of the activities that are taking place in the community,

to their son or daughter driving home in a brand-new BMW and with no

explanation for that particular wealth.

Exploring this, I took a deep dive into the Civil Forfeiture Act

and this particular bill here. It has boggled my mind, but it’s also

great to see a lot of the things that we’re going to be discussing

further on here.

I’m happy with clause 2, Chair.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. Morris: In clause 3,

section 4.01 is repealed and this new

section is

substituted here: “A person who files a response to proceedings

commenced under

section 3 must set out in the response particulars of

the nature of the interest or the portion of the interest that the

person claims in the property that is the subject of the application for

forfeiture, including the extent of the interest or the portion of the

interest in the property.”

Now, I guess I’m jumping ahead. When I looked at this

section and

I looked at

section 11.09, for the unexplained wealth order itself, this

doesn’t seem to be quite as comprehensive. I’m just wondering: was there

any consideration to making it as comprehensive as

section 11.09? Why

would the difference be for this particular order?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The

section the member is referring to, 11.09, is more

comprehensive because it is a court order that will be making the

determination there,

whereas this does not need to be because this

section is not a court that will be making the determination.

M. Morris: So this

section is just where an individual must identify an

interest in the property that he or she has.

Just let me look at 11.09 here. If the person just identifies the

interests and says, “This is mine; I bought it off this individual six

months ago or a year ago,” is there a requirement for him to explain

anything more than that, then? Or is the director going to be satisfied

with just that one statement?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is really the initial action, so all that is required is to

state the nature, the extent of your interest.

I would venture to say that if the police are continuing or doing

an investigation, for example, and they’re finding out that that’s not

quite the nature or the extent of your interest, then you’re going to be

answering a lot more questions.

[11:40 a.m.]

M. Morris: I hope they do. Yeah. So it would be the responsibility, then, of

the police to verify the information that the person that’s providing

the response gives? Or is it up to the director to continue that

investigation and dig up that information?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’ll be up to the director to lead the evidence, and then it will

be up to the court to make a decision on what happens next.

M. Morris: Being the skeptic…. I’ve seen over the years, dealing with the

criminal element, the liars and the cheaters and the thieves that take

advantage of our systems and whatnot that we have. When I look at the

depth of detail required under 11.09, the particulars of the acquisition

and the maintenance of the property and costs incurred and those kinds

of things that really prove the person’s interest in that particular

property, I’m just a little curious as to why that depth of information

isn’t required at this particular level here.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess the point I’d make is the point I made in the beginning.

This is the initial stage. At the very bare minimum, the individual has

to say: “Hey, this is my interest in the property” or “This is where I

obtained the property.” That does not make it the end of it; 11.09 is

for when you’re going to the court process.

It is a court proceeding, and that’s why it’s much more in depth

than this section. This

section at this point is not a court proceeding,

unlike 11.09. This is the beginning and the bare minimum that’s required

from the individual who we are looking at as to where they got some

property.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

On clause 5.

M. Morris: Clause 5 talks about when a forfeiture order is effective in

relation to the various types of property. I was going through this, and

it talks about…. I’ll just look at

section 7(c).

[11:45 a.m.]

It says: “subject to paragraph (b), in the case of personal

property or the whole or a portion of an interest in personal property,

at the earliest of the following dates, as applicable.” They talk about

a “notice of interest published under

section 23.04 in relation to the

property or the whole” and the date that the notice of interest was

published. Another one is the date that a notice of forfeiture was

registered. And then the other is the date proceedings were commenced

under

section 3 in relation to the party. So it’s the

earliest.

I’m thinking that

section 3 is the commencement of the process,

and nothing else can happen until the commencement of the process. When

I was reading this, I was wondering what the purpose of the other

sections are — the earliest of the date that the notice of interest is

published, that the forfeiture is registered, that the forfeiture was

initiated or the commencements under

section 3.

Does anything start without a commencement under

section 3, with

relation to forfeiture orders and the notice of interest being

published?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, you are correct.

The others that you’re talking about, because you said it doesn’t

start before the commencement, is actually, in fact, cleaning up the

language that’s already in there to make it clear about what’s involved.

But in terms of “nothing starts before the commencement,” that is

correct.

M. Morris: Okay. So it cleared up the language, I guess. This is a new

section that the other one would repeal. This is a new one that’s

supposed to be clarifying the language on there. So I’m still a little

bit unsure.

We see

section 3 is the commencement of actions under this, yet we

have at the earliest of the following…. It’s in there. I’m just not

clear as to the application of those provisions.

Nothing can start without a

section 3 application, right? At the

earliest, the

section 3 would normally be the case. Is there any…? Can

the minister give an example of — the earliest or the date that notice

was published or forfeiture was registered or initiated — when those

have been used or when they would be used?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hopefully this helps. It allows for it, in essence, to be

backdated to the first time that somebody becomes aware that there is an

interest in the, let’s say, property or the asset. So it allows us to go

back.

If you have anything after that, I’ll follow up.

M. Morris: In my mind, then, if…. What we’re saying is a respondent has

registered an interest in the personal property or a portion of the

interest in the property.

[11:50 a.m.]

Then at whatever date he registers it — when the interest is

published or when the notice of forfeiture was registered, or the

forfeiture was initiated — it would be backdated, then, to the date if

the application under

section 3?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, that’s correct.

M. Morris: It’s clear in my mind now. Thank you.

The other one is, with respect to

section 7(

b) covers respondents

who sell real property after the director has filed a notice under

section 23(1), and subsection (

c) covers all other personal property.

What if the real property is sold, and proceeds are taken out of B.C. —

electronically transferred, or whatever the case might be? What’s in

place to keep that from happening?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s not something that we have seen. Generally, what happens is

that the director files a certificate for property litigation on an

asset so that it cannot be sold and turned into cash and transferred out

of the province.

I know we’ll be back after lunch. With that, hon. Chair, I move

the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 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. N. Sharma moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS

RELATIONS AND RECONCILIATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call the Committee of Supply,

Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue consideration

of the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation.

I now recognize the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $57,912,000

(continued).

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

I now recognize the member for Vancouver-Langara.

M. Lee: I just wanted to continue the questions that we had yesterday in

respect of 4.42 of the DRIPA action plan. We had a general response from

the minister in terms of the economic metrics that are being

co-developed with nations.

Could I ask the minister…? Can he give us a few examples of the

types of economic metrics that are being considered here?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Welcome to my colleague from Vancouver-Langara, and I thank him

for the question, an important one.

[11:20 a.m.]

This question involved the economic metrics contemplated under

item 4.42 of the action plan under the Declaration Act. The question, of

course…. I’d start by saying the design work to achieve that is being

co-developed, as contemplated by the action plan item, at the moment by

Indigenous peoples and the province.

I can report that there’s been some significant work done, work

that’s necessary. I think the member would agree with me that there are

significant data challenges in understanding the reality of Indigenous

communities, the majority of whom live off reserve or in urban

centres.

The data challenges are requiring us to come up with new metrics.

When I say “us,” I mean to say that the responsibility of the centre for

excellence that has been created — the B.C. First Nations Centre of

Excellence for Economic Development — has been the work of First

Nations. But the ministry lead is what we call JEDI — Jobs, Economic

Development and Innovation. It is that ministry that is working with

First Nations to create the tools and data for First Nations to enhance

economic development in their communities.

The metrics simply have not worked in a meaningful way. There’s

been a significant amount of work already done by those First Nations.

One piece of work that I commend to the member — he may well be aware of

it — is work that was done in 2020 by the B.C. Assembly of First

Nations. It’s called Centering First Nations Concepts of Wellbeing:

Toward a GDP-Alternative Index in B.C.

It’s a lengthy piece of work. It’s an interesting piece of work. I

think it’s work that elsewhere in the world…. Alternatives to GDP have

been sought in Bhutan and places like that, but they’ve applied it to

the reality of Indigenous peoples in British Columbia.

I believe that the centre of excellence I’ve referred to has been

something that the province has contributed $1.2 million to, to assist

the First Nations in moving forward on and helping to do that important

work. We’re only a year into, not even, the action plan’s five-year

work, and I’m pleased that the important work the member references is

underway as we speak.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s references in a number of ways. I hope

to have the opportunity to join our House Leader, then the shadow

minister for JEDI, in his estimates review. I’ll look to pick up the

discussion there.

I recognize that this action item, of course, is a

co-responsibility, as listed in the brackets, between this minister and

the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation. I certainly

appreciate the minister referring to the Centre of Excellence — and I do

know the important work of First Nations leaders, including Regional

Chief Terry Teegee — and his focus on, amongst many of his

responsibilities, getting that progress to that stage. I hear the

minister’s response on that.

I am actually also referring to the same body of work that the

minister just mentioned, which is the BCAFN document, November 2020.

This review of various alternative measures by different countries,

including New Zealand, goes beyond economic, of course. When we look at

well-being.… We know that the work of the B.C. Business Council, as

well, under the former CEO, Greg D’Avignon, went to consider other

measures beyond just economic measures.

I appreciate that when we look at socioeconomic development, we

need to consider the impacts on environment, cultural diversity, impacts

on good governance. These things are all interconnected, but of course,

that baseline work, even from the AFN’s perspective, was done in

November 2020.

I think it’s a fairly comprehensive document. It certainly gives

examples of the kinds of measures around economic metrics, as well as

other metrics, that will be important.

I would encourage, as we have this discussion with government,

that we find the framework with First Nations. I hope that this is a

priority of government amongst all the other 88 action items, excluding

this one.

[11:25 a.m.]

Let me just ask, though…. In terms of the annual report, we know

that under legislation, on June 30 of this year, the government must

table in the House, in the Legislative Assembly, as it has done in the

past, the annual report on the progress under this act, the DRIPA Act

itself.

This will be the first report that the DRIPA action plan has been

in place, meaning it’s been a full year, ending March 31. The shape of

the report…. And this partly relates to metrics. So we’ve just had a

brief discussion on econometrics, acknowledged the broader GDP

alternative index in B.C. that the BCAFN have considered. But in terms

of the actual reporting on the annual report, I’ve certainly looked at

the annual reports that have been tabled to date, and that, certainly,

to say the least, is a work in progress. It speaks of the different

initiatives that government has had underway with First Nations in our

province.

Can the minister describe the kinds of…? And I appreciate, again,

the report is not yet tabled. I appreciate that it may still be being

formulated. But can the minister describe the kind of framework for

which this annual report will take shape against individual action

items, including 4.42, in terms of descriptions of progress against

those particular action items?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member’s question. He referenced a number of things, including

the work of the B.C. Business Council under the leadership of former

executive director Greg D’Avignon. I appreciate that reference because

Mr. D’Avignon has worked very closely with Indigenous leaders on a

number of fronts — particularly in measuring the ESG of activities in

our province, for which I think we should all be proud — and focusing

in, under the social heading, on the work with Indigenous leaders and

Indigenous peoples.

I think the reference is much appreciated because he has been a

leader in that regard, and the work of the Business Council needs to be

recognized, I believe. So thank you to the member for referencing

that.

Then the question went to the annual report. I would agree with

the member and acknowledge that the earlier annual reports he quite

correctly characterized as works in progress because there hasn’t been a

full calendar year for the annual report to report on. So therefore,

this is going to be an important document that the member rightly says

must be tabled in the Legislature by the 30th of June.

[11:30 a.m.]

What will it contain? Well, the annual reports are, I stress

again, developed in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous

peoples. The point of the report is to be ensured that the province and

the work it’s doing with its Indigenous partners are transparent and

accountable. That’s entirely consistent with what the act

contemplates.

I would say to the member that progress is being measured in a

number of ways. We’re working with our Indigenous partners to identify

suitable tools to do the monitoring, the assessing and the reporting on

how we’re aligning our laws of British Columbia with the commitments of

the declaration on the rights of Indigenous people and how we can see

progress on those actions in the annual report.

There will be, in the upcoming annual report, to try to be

specific in answering the member’s question, a high-level dashboard

that’ll highlight the implementation status of all 89 actions, along

with the detailed reporting on actions that are being implemented in the

first year of the action plan.

Some of those actions are already complete. Others are underway

and reaching completion. But there are others that are much more

ambitious and, of course, will be reported over the ensuing years. We

anticipate that the upcoming annual report will also feature progress

measures for year 1 actions that are being developed in consultation and

cooperation with Indigenous partners.

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s response. I would say that, as the

minister would appreciate, the questions I’ve been asking yesterday and

today are an attempt to get further clarity and understanding as to

progress made and also key areas that I’ve discussed yesterday. I’m

about to bring on one other here this morning.

The importance of transparency and reporting back will be

important because of the nature of DRIPA itself. It’s set with the

Legislative Assembly and nations’ expectation around progress against

the five-year action plan. In the way the minister just described, I

look forward to seeing that in the report. It is consistent with his

predecessor in terms of the dashboard expectation with

measures.

I would also say that I appreciate the minister’s recognition of

good friend Greg D’Avignon’s leadership. I was actually hopeful that

that work would continue on under his leadership. I hope that as we

continue to look at economic metrics with the BCAFN, I think, there’s a

lot of coming together here. Again, I am encouraged by the minister’s

response in that.

Another example of another action item which I’d like to speak

to…. And I did have the opportunity to speak at length with the former

Minister of Energy and Mines in last year’s estimates. It was somewhat

indicative of the minister’s response, which was the first year of the

five-year action plan…. At the time this was tabled and the time we were

in estimates with the former minister, in terms of action item 2.14, it

is the modernization of the Mineral Tenure Act in consultation and

cooperation with First Nations and First Nations

organizations.

I will say that I still recognize that it is the responsibility of

the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low-Carbon Innovation, not this

minister. I appreciate that. I appreciate that there are two nations

that are challenging the mineral tenure regime in this province in the

courts. That’s the second point. I do appreciate that restriction, as

well, in terms of the ability of this minister to comment.

But I would say a couple of things. This is a two-part

conversation. One is, in terms of 2.14, the former minister indicated

that it would take the year to develop the plan to move forward with

that action item, which at the time was somewhat understandable in the

sense that the action plan had been developed. We know that that came

over many, many months, beyond the expectations of government or the

Legislative Assembly, partly to do with the pandemic.

[11:35 a.m.]

In terms of the actual measure and plan to meet that action in

2.14, in recognizing the importance of the relationship with First

Nations, including the Gitxaałaas well as Ehattesaht First Nation….

Those are the two nations, of course, that are challenging the mineral

tenure review system, the claiming system online, in the

courts.

I know that the minister and I — and members of our opposition

caucus and, I’m sure, members of the government — have had the

opportunity, including the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, to

meet with, for example, Ehattesaht First Nation. They’ve had the state

of emergency declared, with six deaths in their community of only 500

members, in northern Vancouver Island. There’s lots that can be

discussed there about that challenge.

In terms of providing economic opportunity for a nation which is

struggling to deal with the challenges of poverty, housing, mental

health and addiction supports on their nation’s territory in a more

remote part of Vancouver Island, we need to continue to find ways to

make progress on the economic opportunities and partnerships with a

nation like that.

I appreciate that they have forestry, fisheries and other

interests, which I did cover yesterday. In this part of the committee

debate, I’d ask, in that manner, for the minister to first comment on

the progress being made to his knowledge against action item 2.14. I’ll

just stop there for a moment and ask and invite the minister to comment

on the progress and the definition of the plan to meet 2.14.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member’s question. It gives me an opportunity to

talk about a number of related matters involving the nations that he

referred to.

In particular, action plan item 2.14 deals with the modernization

of the Mineral Tenure Act, something that has been sought by Indigenous

partners and to which we readily agreed as a matter that requires the

kind of concerted work that we are currently undertaking. Now, I

appreciate the member acknowledging the fact that the primary

responsibility — no surprise for such work — will be the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

Yes, indeed, the member helpfully acknowledged that this matter —

insofar as two First Nations have brought a challenge that’s currently

before the courts — makes it difficult for me to specifically speak

about that litigation — which, of course, I will not. The province is

indeed planning to modernize the whole Mineral Tenure Act. We committed

to do that, and we’re on target to do that.

Early work on this process includes the engagement with First

Nations as the rights and title holders, and we’ll continue this work

through the modernization process. We’re including not just First

Nations and their organizations, but the industry, of course, and

stakeholder groups.

The guidance that our Declaration Act secretariat is providing to

support the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation is

underway. Their job is to ensure that the consultation and cooperation

that I talked about with First Nations are actualized, are realized and

are not just words. That is work that’s underway and, I think, essential

in the context of reconciliation.

The member referred to the Gitxaała and to the Ehattesaht First

Nation. I met Chief Simon John and his community up in Campbell River,

along with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, a few weeks

ago. It was tragic, as they described the public health emergency. They

created a state of emergency as a consequence of overdose deaths of

younger members of their community — many of whom live, of course, off

reserve.

Their community is a small community near Zeballos, which itself

is far away and remote, but the deaths occurred in Port Alberni,

Campbell River and the like. It was indeed a tragedy. The province was

able to come up with several million dollars that day to assist them

with their immediate needs, but there is an acknowledgment by everyone

concerned that much more needs to be done.

That First Nation, however, despite the challenges at the social

level, has had some significant successes economically. They were the

first First Nation to receive an irreplaceable tree farm licence many,

many years ago. I was recently here in Victoria to celebrate. They came

down to talk about their acquisition of a majority interest in a company

called Strategic Natural Resource Consultants. They are very proud of

that, as they should be.

It’s a company that does business literally all over the world,

and five offices in various parts of our province — Fort St. John,

Prince George, Campbell River, elsewhere. It’s a remarkable success

story, and they see their future, strategically, as being able to work

with that company, which undertakes mining projects, timber cruising and

the like. They use drones; they use modern lidar technology.

They’re advised by a former member of the Legislature, Mr. Rod

Visser, who has been instrumental in the work that they’ve been doing.

It was really uplifting, frankly, to see the success that they had

economically. At the same time, sadly, at the social level, they’re

facing some significant challenges. We’ve helped them. I’ve talked to my

federal counterpart about their challenges, and I’ve asked the federal

government to step up and help more. I’m hopeful that that assistance

will be provided.

Since the member has referred to the important work of the Mineral

Tenure Act reform, it gives me the opportunity to talk about something

that we should all, as British Columbians, be very proud of: the first

open-pit mine permit granted since 2012, for the Blackwater mine

southwest of Vanderhoof, in cooperation with the Lhoosk’uz Dené and the

Ulkatcho Nations, both of whom have economic and community development

agreements with the mine proponent.

[11:45 a.m.]

There are 457 direct jobs; 825 jobs during construction as well.

It’s $13.2 billion for the province’s economy and $2.3 million in

provincial revenue.

This is the kind of economic work that so many of our nations…. I

could go on about the Tahltan. The member is well aware of the successes

in that area. That is the future in consultation and cooperation with

First Nations.

The Mineral Tenure Act, of course, is only the first step along a

long journey. The vast majority of the stakes that are sought on the

ground never yield a mine, as the member well knows. But for those that

do, we are ensuring that that work goes on with the full participation

of First Nations. The Blackwater is an excellent example of the

future.

The Chair: We’ll try to squeeze in one more question. We’ll ask the

member and the minister to keep answering questions brief, if

possible.

M. Lee: I appreciate the length of the minister’s response in the sense

that it does introduce other topics about capacity building, getting the

resource available so that a nation like Ehattesaht can meet the other

needs of that community. But we can talk further after the lunch break

about that.

I appreciate the minister’s response to the front end, and I know

the sensitivity around this. But let me ask the question this way. As we

were talking yesterday, the minister referred to the holistic use of the

interpretive approach of UNDRIP. There’s recognition, of course, of

specific approaches and focus around free, prior and informed consent.

That is language specifically referred to in UNDRIP itself through

various articles.

Is it fair, when we’re talking about that fundamental approach

that’s embedded in UNDRIP, that that is something that the government is

quite mindful of when we look at the Mineral Tenure Act modernization

and how that will be modernized to ensure that there is free, prior and

informed consent?

Could I ask the minister to comment on it, knowing that that is a

fundamental tenet in UNDRIP and the government’s approach to economic

development, let’s say, with First Nations?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you very much. I appreciate your guidance that we need to

conclude rapidly, but the member has opened a very large door. I kind of

feel I have to do justice to his question when he talks about

article

19. I’ll try to do so quickly, therefore.

Article 19 has to be read in its entirety.

Article 19 of the

declaration states as follows: “States shall consult and cooperate in

good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned through their own

representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and

informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or

administrative measures that may affect them.”

[11:50 a.m.]

I had the benefit, before I was appointed to this role as Minister

of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, to read the hours of debate

that the member for Vancouver-Langara and the member for Abbotsford West

engaged in with my predecessor, Scott Fraser, on this very difficult

topic. Therefore, I’m informed by that conversation as I enter

this.

I can say to the member that we have had some success in achieving

that level of involvement contemplated in

article 19. We’ve had success

with the Child, Family and Community Service Act as well as the Adoption

Act recently. The thing, I suppose, that our Declaration Act contains

that the federal government did not see fit to include is

section 7,

which allows for the kinds of agreements that really embrace the

member’s question — that is, the free, prior and informed consent

approach.

That is why, for example, we are working with the Tahltan and

Eskay Creek project in a consent-based agreement for the environmental

assessment of a very large mine operation to be forthcoming in that part

of the world once the processes have been completed. That is the way, we

believe, that we can take the approach contemplated in

article 19 and

make it work on the ground in British Columbia.

I’d have a lot more to say about

section 7 agreements and the

success we’re having with the Tahltan, but I think in the interests of

time, I should probably leave it there.

I would move that the committee rise and report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND

FOOD

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); R. Leonard in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:14 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply,

Section C,

to order.

We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates

of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

I now recognize the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 12: ministry operations, $93,246,000

(continued) .

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Delta South.

[11:15 a.m.]

I. Paton: Welcome, everyone, to Agriculture. It should be a good day today,

with some ice cream at lunchtime.

I’d like to go back briefly to carbon tax. Recently a report out

of Saskatchewan has shown us that the Canadian Senate is reviewing a

bill, C-234, to exempt carbon tax charges on propane and natural gas for

barn heating and grain drying.

My question. Again we see an 80 percent rebate at point of sale

for greenhouses in the province of B.C. for the use of propane and

natural gas. Why can’t we see the same take place for other types of

agriculture that need forms of heating in their barns, such as poultry,

grain dryers and the mushroom industry?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: We recognize that farmers are faced with rising costs. It’s not

just gas. It’s feed and fertilizer and a host of other things. And as

you know, we’ve introduced a suite of programs aimed at supporting

farmers to be more efficient and to reduce costs.

On the issue of taxation, the member knows that tax policy is the

responsibility of the Ministry of Finance, so it’s recommended that you

actually have a session through estimates with the minister.

I just wanted to follow up. Yesterday we promised we’d get you a

membership list of the deputy ministers advisory committee. We gave out

the general sectors that were involved, but I’d like to actually share

the list with you today, if I could.

I. Paton: Thank you to the minister for that.

Moving on, before I turn it over to my colleague from Sea to Sky,

I’d like to discuss briefly the minimum wage increase and employers

health tax. Most farmers aren’t known to pay for MSP premiums, so this

will largely hit them as a new tax. Is there any money in the

Agriculture budget specifically designated to offset the impact this

will have on farmers?

To further my question is an example of EHT hitting not only the

farming community but agricultural businesses in general. For instance,

BCfresh is the major distributor of our vegetables in my riding of

Delta. They told me the other day at a meeting I had that prior to the

EHT, their annual payment for employees’ MSP was around $16,000. It is

now at around $68,000 because of the change from MSP payments they were

making to the employer health tax.

There’s an example of how it’s hurting not only farmers but

agricultural businesses as well. Just this morning I spoke to a large

greenhouse operator in my riding, as well, in Delta to speak about the

increase to minimum wage.

When you think of a farmer that’s maybe a small-scale farmer, a

dairy farmer, who maybe has two or three employees, it’s not such a big

deal to see minimum wage go up by $2 or $3 over a period of five years.

But if you’re a greenhouse operator that has 125 employees show up each

day, each being increased by $2 or $3 or $1.50 each time, at the end of

the year, that adds up to thousands and thousands of dollars.

My question is about EHT and the increase to minimum wage. As he

indicated to me this morning, other provinces in this country have

introduced incentives to help farmers to offset the increase to minimum

wage. That is my question.

[11:25 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: In the member’s question, he has raised another example of input

costs. We understand that the cost of production has increased

substantially for the agricultural sector. Again, this is why we’ve

introduced a comprehensive suite of programs, with a historic $200

million attached to that.

To the member’s comparison, I’m not aware of any province or

territory providing that level of one-time support — I’m referring to

the programs that I just mentioned — to the agricultural sector, and

we’re quite proud of that. We heard from many associations — in fact, at

breakfast this morning with the dairy group that’s here — that they are

very supportive of these and excited about these new

programs.

J. Sturdy: To follow up on my colleague’s questions around input costs,

specifically with regard to the employer health tax, I’m sure the

minister is aware that there are about 8,000 seasonal agricultural

workers in the SAWP program in British Columbia on an annual basis. The

minister should also be aware that those SAWP workers are not eligible

for Medical Services Plan benefits, that they can’t receive MSP

benefits, yet agricultural employers, farmers….

When the EHT is calculated on their premium, the calculation

includes those seasonal agricultural workers who are not eligible. Does

the minister feel that that’s a reasonable approach?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: I appreciate the member’s question, but it actually belongs to the

Ministry of Finance. I think that you should take that question up with

my colleague the Minister of Finance.

J. Sturdy: We certainly, I’m sure, will take that opportunity.

That wasn’t the question. It was whether the minister felt that

this approach was reasonable. And is she advocating for a change in that

policy?

Hon. P. Alexis: I appreciate the question.

Of course my ministry works with the Finance Ministry and others

to advocate for the interests of the agricultural sector. But again,

questions on tax policy are not mine to answer.

J. Sturdy: Thanks to the minister for that answer. I suspect that we…. That’s

what we expected would be the answer.

The minister has mentioned input costs on a number of occasions.

This is a particularly egregious one, because it’s an increasing input

cost with zero benefit. It’s almost punitive in some respects. I don’t

think that farmers would mind paying…. Well, obviously they want to

minimize input costs. The idea that you’re paying a tax on something

where you’re not able to take advantage of the service provided really

is unfair in many respects.

[11:40 a.m.]

The minister mentioned the issue of the $200 million for

efficiency and cost. We have a list here of what those programs are that

the minister mentions.

So $30 million to the new relationship for Indigenous food

sovereignty; $20 million to IAF for food security; $20 million to IAF

for flood mitigation; $20 million for food processors through IAF; $20

million for food affordability, and I’m not quite sure where that money

is targeted — the supply chain, I guess; $1 million for the city of

Richmond; $49 million for social development and poverty reduction; $20

million, give or take, for food banks; $7.5 million for United

Way.

Out of that list, I don’t see anything that flows directly to

farmers to help them reduce costs and to help them be more efficient.

That is, honestly, what we were led to believe it was for.

Perhaps the minister could help us understand where there’s

actually a direct benefit to the farming sector.

Hon. P. Alexis: Government’s vision for agriculture is focused on four central

themes, which I touched on yesterday: increasing food security for

British Columbians, making tangible progress on reconciliation, helping

the sector adapt to climate change and increasing the sector’s ability

to supply food products to British Columbians and to export markets. Our

year-end spending was specifically tailored to support these

themes.

For example, our $15 million commercially viable replant program,

our support for a $1 million tree fruit marketing strategy and our

investment of $20 million in improving irrigation systems will help

hundreds of farmers improve their productivity. Our $20 million Fraser

Valley flood mitigation plan and our $20 million emergency planning and

preparedness program will help farmers adapt and prepare for weather and

climate events, which are becoming far too frequent in British Columbia.

Our $30 million Indigenous food sovereignty fund will provide direct

supports for First Nations farmers and communities who are seeking to

strengthen their own domestic food supply.

Together these programs are providing real supports for farmers

who are seeking to sustain and build their capacity to produce food for

British Columbians.

I. Paton: In supplementary estimates…. We all know that the government, with

a huge surplus, was dumping money out of the back of a truck before the

end of this fiscal year. And $111 million went to Agriculture and

Food.

When we asked questions that afternoon in supplementary estimates,

no one with the ministry had an answer for us as to where that money was

going to go and how it was going to get spent. But the next morning we

got a full listing of where the money was going to go. It was mostly

going to be handled by programs with IAF.

My question to the minister. If the minister didn’t know where the

money was going to go the night before…? With the big announcement in

Vancouver…. Why was IAF not even represented at that announcement, if

$111 million was going to IAF literally the next day?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. P. Alexis: IAF is a third-party administrator of funding. Farmers and

processors will benefit from the funding, not the IAF.

I understand, hon. Chair, that I must move the committee rise and

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 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.