First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Tuesday, May 13, 2025

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 63

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

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

Members’ Statements

National Police Week and Support for Officers

Bryan Tepper

Komagata Maru and Action on Racism

Jessie Sunner

B.C. Dairy Day

Heather Maahs

Museums Week and Role of Museums

Nina Krieger

Golden Ears Provincial Park

Lawrence Mok

Nursing Week and Contributions of Nurses

Susie Chant

Oral Questions

Government Hiring of Consultant on Downtown Eastside Issues

Steve Kooner

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

Trevor Halford

Disability Assistance Rates

Rob Botterell

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson

Government Action on Youth Mental Health and Addiction Issues

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

Korky Neufeld

Heather Maahs

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Rosalyn Bird

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Supportive Housing and Services for Vulnerable Persons

Macklin McCall

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Government Hiring of Consultant on Downtown Eastside Issues

Peter Milobar

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act (continued)

Peter Milobar

Teresa Wat

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

Heather Maahs

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (continued)

Ward Stamer

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Tony Luck

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Tuesday, May 13, 2025

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Korky Neufeld.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Lana Popham : Today later on, we are proclaiming May 13 officially B.C. Dairy Day. It’s a day that

the B.C. dairy industry is recognized and celebrated for the work that they do and

the role that they play in our province’s food security.

I’ve got a whole bunch of guests who are joining us today, and also maybe I’ll remind

folks that at lunchtime, Rocky Point Ice Cream is going to be handing out ice cream

at the back of the Legislature.

Delicious.

Today in the chamber, in the gallery, we have Dan Wong from the Western Dairy Council,

Travis Drew from Vitalus, Tanveer Ahmed from Agropur, Catherine Tokarz from Saputo,

Bill McKenzie from Foothills Creamery, Gilles Froment from Lactanet, Jeremy Dunn from

B.C. Dairy, Casey Pruim from B.C. Dairy, Brian Janzen from B.C. Dairy, Henry Bremer

from B.C. Dairy, John de Dood from B.C. Dairy, Sarah Sache from B.C. Dairy, Mark Van

Klei from B.C. Dairy and Luke Van Huizen from B.C. Dairy.

Give them a hand.

Sheldon Clare : I rise today to introduce my staff from Prince George–North Cariboo who will be working

in the Legislature in the precinct this week: Adam Schaan from Quesnel, Shalan Pozer

from Quesnel and Johnathan Raine from Prince George.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : You know, it’s a real honour today to welcome members of United Food and Commercial

Workers 1518 into the gallery and onto the precinct today. Many of us had an opportunity

to join their delegation for breakfast this morning and to hear directly about the

important work that they do in our retail grocery sector, in our food supply chain,

in health care. All across, really, many different sectors, UFCWs are working.

We’re joined today by Patrick Johnson, president; Ronda Melbourne, secretary-treasurer;

and about two dozen front-line workers who I know are going to be bringing their stories

to many members of this precinct today.

These folks are good friends and neighbours in my home community of New Westminster,

where the UFCW office is located. They’re some of the fiercest advocates for decency

and dignity for working people ever.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome in their place.

Lorne Doerkson : I want to introduce two incredibly good friends of mine. They were instrumental in

my campaign, but they are best known for the folks that created and ran, for a number

of years, the 108 Hills resort, of course, in 108 Mile, British Columbia, a beautiful

resort.

Pat and Juanita Corbett, you are amazing human beings. You’ve done so much for the

Cariboo-Chilcotin, and I’m grateful for you.

They are joined today by Devin Verokosky and Isabel Estephan. They are two young,

brilliant, bright students that are both attending university here in Victoria.

Many, many welcomes to you all.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. George Chow : I have in the gallery two members of my constituency staff, Navleen Virk and Kayla

Charchuk, who are here visiting the Legislature and attending a conference.

I’d like to ask the House to join me to welcome them.

They’re my able staff that help me a lot. Without them, I would be at a loss.

Kiel Giddens : On behalf of the official opposition, I also wanted to thank the UFCW Local 1518

for being here for the engagement this morning and today.

Welcome to the Legislature, and of course, thank you to the 28,000 members who provide

good jobs. We’re all working towards safe workplaces for all in British Columbia,

including your 28,000 workers.

Thank you for being here.

Hon. Brenda Bailey : I’d like, also, to welcome three constituency advisers that I get to work with in

my riding of South Granville.

Just to give you a sense on the great background that these CAs bring to us. I know

everyone in this House is served by incredible people who bring all kinds of different

skills to this role.

I have three CAs here with me: Celine McRae-Hamdy, who’s actually an engineer by training;

Kathleen Serrano, who is really a true political wonk and has spent some time in Ottawa;

and Meagan Baird, who’s a small business person.

I’m so fortunate to have their skills and their amazing attitudes serve me in my work.

Thank you very much for everything you do.

Lynne Block : It is my privilege, especially during National Police Week, to introduce to you today

a dedicated and community-focused leader in B.C.’s law enforcement, chief constable

John Lo of West Vancouver police department.

Chief Lo first joined the West Van police department in 1995 and now has nearly 30

years of experience in law enforcement. Over the course of his distinguished career,

served almost entirely within West Van, he has taken on a wide range of leadership

roles and built a reputation for integrity, professionalism and a deep commitment

to public service. Notably, he is the first internal promotion to the role of chief

constable in 17 years, a testament to the trust and confidence placed in him by both

his colleagues and community.

Chief Lo’s approach reflects a clear understanding that public safety is not just

about enforcement; it is about listening, fostering trust and working together to

build a community where everyone feels safe, respected and heard.

Please join me in welcoming to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia a valued

and dedicated public servant, chief John Lo.

Amelia Boultbee : I’m honoured today to introduce from my riding Michele Cumberland and her class from

Holy Cross Elementary School, along with their chaperone, Sophie Robinson.

Sophie Robinson and Michele Cumberland have a real passion for civic education. They

do this trip every year to help students get their eyes on what actually happens in

the seat of democracy here in British Columbia.

Michele Cumberland is the recipient of the King Charles III Coronation Medal in recognition

of her significant contributions to civic education. Sophie just finished her first

year at the University of Toronto on the Loran scholarship.

Welcome to yourselves and your class.

Will the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Stephanie Higginson : I am going to join the constituency adviser welcome train that’s moving through the

House today.

I have my amazing constituency adviser, I believe, sitting up behind me, Hayley Tomlinson,

working from the precinct today. As a brand-new MLA, I am so thrilled to have Hayley

supporting me, with all of her incredible experience and knowledge.

If you could all make sure to make Hayley feel very welcome today if you see her.

Harman Bhangu : Joining me here in the gallery today is my constituency assistant, Joe Latam.

Joe was born and raised in Abbotsford, later attending the University of British Columbia.

While at UBC, Joe served as the treasurer of the Young Conservative Club, later interned

in Ottawa. Joe moved back to B.C. to work on the provincial election before joining

my staff.

Please make him feel very welcome.

[10:15 a.m.]

Tony Luck : I’ve got a couple of introductions to do this morning.

First, I’d like to welcome back my wife, after spending a couple of weeks in Edmonton,

where we were blessed with another beautiful baby boy. Unfortunately, he was two months

early and had to spend a couple of weeks in the hospital, but our little Tyson was

able to come home on Mother’s Day, and what a wonderful Mother’s Day present for the

mother to have him home at that time.

I’d also like to introduce the students of the Sardis Secondary French immersion class.

They are accompanied by Angela Robinson, who happens to be my wife’s niece. We’re

very pleased to have her in the House here today, enjoying a visit. I believe they

had a wonderful lunch together yesterday.

I would also like to introduce a group of LDS missionaries here in the gallery today.

They have been touring the precinct and are taking in our proceedings during question

period. Most of them are from the United States, so they’re here to see how democracy

really works in British Columbia.

Would you please join me in welcoming all to the House this day.

Harwinder Sandhu : I am thrilled to welcome my two CAs. For one of them, Amy Klassen, it’s her first

time ever at the precinct. And Caitlin Clow. They’re both an incredible team.

Caitlin comes from journalism experience. She was a beloved chief editor with a local

paper. Amy comes from finance and business. Originally born and raised in Calgary,

Alberta, and lived in the Kootenays — for Amy, for 15 years and then Lumby and then

Vernon.

They’re very well connected with the community and community issues. They serve with

the utmost care and fierce advocacy. When people say, during question period or other

debates, “Alberta this and Alberta that,” they have a lot to say because they have

some experience, and they tell me how grateful they and their families are here to

live in B.C.

B.C. is lucky to have them. Vernon-Lumby is lucky to have them.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Macklin McCall : Today it is my pleasure to report that the RCMP union, National Police Federation,

will be meeting with the entire Conservative caucus.

I would like to thank and welcome president Brian Sauvé, Chris Voller and Rob Farrer.

Will this House join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I would like to welcome my three constituency advisers today to the precinct. They’re

going to be working here this week. It’s Anna Bundschuh, Sarah Wasilenkoff, and Erika

Cizek.

They come from a variety of different backgrounds.

Erika had recently finished her master’s, focused on housing in rural communities,

before joining us.

Sarah has been an incredible advocate and working in victim services for a really

long time.

And Anna is an incredible community builder and special events organizer.

I am so grateful to the three of them for all of the incredible work that they do

for the riding of Kootenay Central.

Will the House please make them feel very welcome.

Ian Paton : Well, here’s a quiz for everyone. What noble profession requires a routine of getting

up at 4:30 a.m. every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, milking cows at 5 a.m.

and then again at 5 p.m. while, in between, during your 14-hour day, you are feeding,

cleaning, planting, harvesting and taking on the de facto roles of a veterinarian,

a mechanic and an environmentalist?

Working 14-hour days sounds like being an MLA here in the Legislature.

As a former dairy farmer myself, a third-generation dairy farmer, I’m so proud of

the work that they do at the B.C. Dairy Association and the folks that are here with

the processing industry.

Between the Minister of Agriculture and myself, we look forward to meeting you all

this afternoon and having ice cream at lunchtime today.

Members’ Statements

National Police Week

and Support for Officers

Bryan Tepper : This week we celebrate National Police Week, a time to honour the courage, resilience

and sacrifice of our law enforcement officers.

[10:20 a.m.]

These men and women are the heart of our communities, working tirelessly to protect

us, often at great personal cost. Police officers confront danger and trauma daily,

responding to crisis, protecting the vulnerable and risking their lives. Tragically,

many have made the ultimate sacrifice, leaving behind grieving families and communities.

We honour their memory and pledge to never forget them.

Beyond the physical risks, officers face profound mental health challenges. The constant

exposure, distress, violence and loss take a heavy toll, often in silence. Issues

like anxiety, depression and operational stress injuries are real, yet only recently

have we begun to recognize and address them. Departments are now starting to offer

counselling, peer support and wellness programs, but there’s more work to do.

Acknowledging these struggles is a vital step towards supporting our officers’ well-being.

National Police Week is also an opportunity to reflect on the partnerships between

law enforcement and the communities they serve. Let’s foster trust, support mental

health resources and show appreciation for our officers’ service.

To every officer: thank you for your bravery.

To your families: thank you for your strength.

And to our fallen heroes: your sacrifice lives on in us.

Let’s make this week a moment of unity, gratitude and commitment to support those

who protect us in body, mind and spirit.

Komagata Maru and Action on Racism

Jessie Sunner : I rise today to mark the anniversary of the Komagata Maru, a dark

chapter in our

province and our country’s history.

On May 23, 1914, a steamship arrived in Vancouver carrying 376 passengers — including

Hindus, Muslims and mainly Sikhs — from British India. They came here in search of

opportunity, but instead, they were met with rejection, dehumanization and blatant

racism. They were forced to remain aboard the ship for two months, cut off from food

and water, all before being unjustly turned away under exclusionary laws designed

to keep Canada white. The passengers called the ship the Guru Nank Jahaz.

Their passage was a symbol of resistance and a sacred journey grounded in their faith

and the belief that all human beings are equal. However, that belief was met with

closed doors, and the consequences were devastating, with many passengers facing violence,

persecution and even death.

As a Punjabi Sikh woman in this Legislature, I do not take my place here for granted.

There was a time when people who looked like me had no path to citizenship, when we

could not vote in this province and when we had no rights in this very House where

I stand today.

I think often about the sacrifices those passengers made and the struggles of the

South Asian pioneers who came before us, many of whom faced open hostility and racism.

Their ongoing resilience is what made space for families like mine to come to Canada.

I also think about how today, more than a century later, racism persists, now aimed

at international students who are scapegoated, migrant workers who are treated as

disposable, and refugees who are looked upon with suspicion instead of compassion.

This is why we have a responsibility to continue fighting against injustice and to

do better each and every day.

Remembering painful chapters like the Komagata Maru isn’t just about looking back.

It’s about learning from our mistakes, confronting racism and injustice when we see

it and refusing to let history repeat itself.

B.C. Dairy Day

Heather Maahs : Cappuccino, latte, cheesecake, crème brûlée, fudge, ice cream — what do all these

things have in common? Milk and, obviously, deliciousness.

[10:25 a.m.]

There was a commercial on TV that used to say, “Milk, it does a body good,” and it

really does. Did you know that a single glass of milk contains almost every single

nutrient your body needs? Vitamin B12, calcium, riboflavin, phosphorus, milk proteins,

casein, whey protein, fats and carbohydrates.

Who do we have to thank for this vital addition and rather necessary part of our everyday

diet? Cows, of course. But who takes good care and facilitates the extraction with

loving kindness? It’s the farmer.

Today is B.C. Dairy Day. In B.C., there are 426 dairy farms. They milk an average

of 160 cows per farm and create 12,500 related jobs in this province that contribute

$1.225 billion to B.C.’s GDP. And 890 million litres of milk are produced annually.

By the way, 77 percent of those farms are in the Fraser Valley. Just saying.

Now that I’ve whetted your appetite, you’ll be happy to know — well, you already know,

obviously — that we’re being treated to ice cream by the dairy farmers of B.C. because

it’s officially Ice Cream Day. Definitely a benefit to our jobs.

Enjoy the treats today, and while you’re at it, say thank you on behalf of all British

Columbians to the amazing dairy farmers of B.C.

Museums Week

and Role of Museums

Nina Krieger : Early this month people gathered in Lytton, B.C., to celebrate something extraordinary:

the launch of the rebuilt Lytton Chinese History Museum, destroyed during a devastating

wildfire in 2021.

The profound significance of this reopening for the town and the entire province speaks

to the power of museums as sites for collecting and storytelling, for learning, connection

and renewal.

Today, in recognition of B.C. Museums Week, I thank the people at the heart of the

spaces and sites that make our communities strong. From Craigdarroch Castle to Britannia

Mine Museum, from Barkerville Historic Town to the Bill Reid Gallery, we are so proud

of our world-class institutions, which are drivers for local tourism.

I thank the Museums Association of B.C. for their support of a sector that contributes

so much to our cultural and economic prosperity and to our health and well-being.

Our government has been proud to invest in the creation of spaces such as the Chinese

Canadian Museum; and Jwest, a new Jewish community hub in Vancouver; and to support

Indigenous cultural centres that are so important for advancing meaningful reconciliation.

This government will continue to support the vision of Canadians of South Asian heritages

for a provincial museum and the vision of Canadians of Filipino heritage for a provincial

cultural centre.

Forthcoming, the Royal B.C. Museum’s new provincial archives, research and collections

campus will allow visitors and researchers to access, interact with and learn from

B.C.’s histories the diverse and sometimes painful threads that make up our past and

help us imagine a better future.

This week and always, let’s champion a thriving arts, culture and heritage sector,

which is a driver for imagination, innovation and for our identities as Canadians

and British Columbians.

Golden Ears Provincial Park

Lawrence Mok : It is springtime now, and I thought it might be timely for me to introduce to you

a breathtaking natural escape located right in the heart of Maple Ridge, and that

is the Golden Ears Provincial Park.

I must say that this park is not only a masterpiece of landscape; it is also a symbol

of British Columbia’s commitments to conservation, outdoor recreation and the deep

connection we have with nature.

Covering more than 63,000 hectares, Golden Ears Provincial Park is one of the largest

provincial parks in B.C., with a vast expanse of rugged wilderness, pristine lakes

and towering mountains. It has been a popular outdoor destination for both locals

and visitors for generations. I myself will visit this truly magnificent park several

times a year with my family or friends.

[10:30 a.m.]

Where does Golden Ears Provincial Park get its name from, you may ask? Well, it gets

its name from the twin peaks that dominate the skyline: two rugged, pointed summits

that look like two gigantic human ears that glow golden at sunset. The park is home

to dense coastal rainforests, crystal clear rivers and streams. It is a sanctuary

for birds, black bears, deer, eagles and the elusive cougars.

For the people of Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and Mission, Golden Ears is a place where

families make memories, where friends gather around a picnic table and where outdoor

enthusiasts find inspiration. It is a place of healing, reflection, fun and adventure.

Golden Ears is a perfect getaway from the hustle and bustle of city life.

I would encourage my friends and colleagues in this House to come and visit the one

and only Golden Ears Provincial Park.

Nursing Week and

Contributions of Nurses

Susie Chant : Thank you for the opportunity to rise and celebrate the nurses of British Columbia.

As always, I begin by acknowledging that I am currently speaking from the lands of

the lək̓ʷəŋən people, specifically those of the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

When I am in North Vancouver–Seymour, I work, live and learn in the territory of the

Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations. I’m grateful to all for helping me to learn the many meanings and practices

of reconciliation.

This National Nursing Week and International Nurses Day I recognize the hard work

and dedication of nurses throughout British Columbia. Nurses provide exceptional care

in our communities, hospitals and care homes, and their expertise is deeply valued,

especially in times of need.

The nursing family, including licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, registered

psychiatric nurses and nurse practitioners, makes invaluable contributions to community,

acute and specialized health care, as well as to primary care. Their role is critical

in supporting patients from the moment they enter the health care system through to

their recovery and ongoing health maintenance or to guide patients and families through

end-of-life care.

Our government is proud to work with nursing leaders and organizations to build a

stronger, more responsive health care system for all British Columbians. We’re committed

to making B.C. the best place in Canada for nurses to work. In collaboration with

the B.C. Nurses Union, we are establishing minimum nurse-to-patient ratios to improve

working conditions and enhance the quality of patient care.

The government is also working with the college of nurses and nurse practitioners

to expedite the registration process of internationally trained nurses. As a part

of this effort, we are now actively recruiting nurses and nurse practitioners from

the U.S. to join our workforce in partnership with health authorities, regulatory

colleges and other key stakeholders. We’re launching a marketing campaign in Washington,

Oregon and California to promote job opportunities in areas where nurses are needed

most.

To all nurses across B.C.: thank you for your tireless dedication.

Oral Questions

Government Hiring of Consultant

on Downtown Eastside Issues

Steve Kooner : This government has had eight years to deal with rising crime, addictions and the

mental health crisis in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. Eight years of failed

policies, eight years of continued inability to action solutions to improve the challenges

people experience on a daily basis in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver.

This government’s solution is to appoint Michael Bryant as the so-called Downtown

Eastside czar without public announcement, without public transparency, without consultation.

The activist community knew Bryant was acting as the Downtown Eastside czar, but the

public was left in the dark. The public didn’t find out until the media went digging.

Given that the Downtown Eastside is a vulnerable population, can the Premier tell

us what specific expertise Michael Bryant has to deal with the issues of the Downtown

Eastside?

Deputy Speaker : Minister for Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Thank you, Madam Speaker, and welcome to the chair. It’s good to see you there.

[10:35 a.m.]

Thank you to the member for the question.

All of us in this chamber know how the Downtown Eastside faces complex challenges

and how hard we’ve all been working to find more ways to deliver services to people.

We have built new housing. We have strengthened access to addiction treatment services.

We have added employment supports to be able to help connect people with good jobs

that are meaningful to them and help them access more opportunities.

But we know that systemic challenges remain. We know that for businesses and for residents

the neighbourhood can be unsafe or people can feel unsafe.

That’s why we engaged Michael Bryant, to be able to work directly with the community,

to find advice, to evaluate the work that we’ve done to identify solutions to the

gaps and the work that remains ahead of us, work that our government is committed

to do.

Deputy Speaker : Member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

Steve Kooner : Mr. Bryant was the head of Legal Aid and suddenly left after two years.

Can the Premier please inform the House why Mr. Bryant left Legal Aid so abruptly?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Michael Bryant’s previous experience includes being a lawyer, CEO of Legal Aid B.C.,

executive director and general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

He also held political office in Ontario — first as Attorney General, also as Minister

of Aboriginal Affairs, also as Minister of Economic Development.

The roles that he has held give him a unique perspective but also an outside perspective.

His ability to work with a variety of communities who are impacted by the systemic

challenges on the Downtown Eastside is work that we are glad to see him do.

Trevor Halford : We know about Michael Bryant’s past work history. That is why we have so many questions

about Michael Bryant.

The fact is that this government is in the business of rewarding friends and insiders.

But this? This one may be the most egregious.

Here’s what we know so far. The minister is right. He is a former Attorney General,

Liberal cabinet minister. They should maybe google why he left Ontario.

Michael Bryant was appointed a consultant in February on a six-month contract worth

$150,000. How do we find out about this work? We find out about it through Global News . Then we get a press release issued in panic. He also gets $25,000 in expenses.

My question is a simple one, to the Premier or to the Attorney General or to anybody

that can provide an answer. Was the city of Vancouver consulted before Mr. Bryant

was hired?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : Michael Bryant has held a variety of roles that give him a unique perspective and

ability to work with the businesses, the communities, the people affected by the continuing

systemic challenges on the Downtown Eastside.

He comes to this work as a lawyer and a former elected official, but he’s also been

very public about his own struggle with addiction. That lived experience and his recovery

journey is certainly well known and compelling to us. These are valuable perspectives

to bring to this work.

While we continue to work to keep people in the Downtown Eastside living and working

safer and make the area safer for everybody, it’s very important to hear outside perspectives.

That’s the work that I’m pleased that Michael Bryant is doing.

Deputy Speaker : Member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

Trevor Halford : That’s great. So outside perspectives for $150,000 for six months of work.

You know what? This is maybe why it’s so quiet on the government side. We have a pretty

good idea why he may have left B.C. Legal Aid. I think the Premier might have an idea.

I think the Attorney General might have an idea. They’re not going to get up and talk

about this.

In fact, the Attorney General, we know, has met with Mr. Bryant. We know the Premier

has met with Mr. Bryant as early as February of this year.

[10:40 a.m.]

What did Mr. Bryant tell Global News what his big mandate is, what justifies $150,000 for six months of work, $25,000 worth

of expenses on the backs of our most vulnerable people on the Downtown Eastside? Here

he says, and I quote: “Whether the plans the province has underway and the commitments

the province made during the election are going to make sense.”

That’s absolutely embarrassing. A plan for the Downtown Eastside. Are you kidding

me?

The Premier may not want to answer this. The Attorney General may not want to answer

this. The Solicitor General may not want to answer this.

What justification does this government have for giving this contract to this individual

on the backs of our most vulnerable people?

It’s absolutely a disgrace.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : I am honoured to stand up and support and describe the work that this government

has been doing, investing in: a combined 211 supportive homes and shelter spaces are

underway or will be preserved; opening the new Road to Recovery addiction treatment

centre, fulfilling our commitment to have addiction treatment on demand for the people

that need it most; expanding the Hope to Health program to help 50 percent more people

with complex mental health and addiction challenges; and working with Lookout Society

in the Downtown Eastside, integrating supportive housing with comprehensive employment

services.

Those are only four of the programs that we’ve added.

Given our closeness, almost every minister directly funding and building new programs,

it’s absolutely a benefit for us to bring an outside perspective with someone with

a unique set of qualifications to investigate that work, to identify gaps and to point

us towards the future work that we need to carry on.

Disability Assistance Rates

Rob Botterell : Across the country, disability assistance fails to meet the poverty line. In B.C.,

there have been menial increases to rates for persons with disabilities. The costs

of housing and essential goods have increased drastically, yet assistance rates have

failed to keep pace.

The market basket measure of poverty is $2,400 a month, while B.C.’s assistance for

a single individual is barely $1,400. That’s a gap of $1,000 a month. This is legislated

poverty. It’s unjust. Year over year, advocates call for this government to raise

the rates.

To the Premier: when will you instruct your government to finally raise disability

rates above the poverty line?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : The world does feel uncertain right now. The cost of living has been under pressure

by global inflation, by terribly increased costs of groceries and, for British Columbia

especially, an intractably high cost of housing, which we’re working very hard to

bring down, having some impact.

The member’s intervention is exactly why we have made five increases to income and

disability rates since 2017. This is the largest by any government in British Columbia

ever. Since 2017, the rate for a single person is up $450 a month. That is a 74 percent

increase.

We’ve doubled the seniors supplement with this year’s budget, and we’ve increased

SAFER grants by 30 percent.

[10:45 a.m.]

Across government, we are making investments so that people who have faced challenges

can overcome the terribly increased cost of living. We’ve also got the highest earning

exemptions rate in the country so people can supplement, with earned income, their

disability benefits. We’re also continuing to invest in employment training programs

and job support programs for people who have faced barriers.

It’s work that we have been fully committed to, but to the member, it’s a very fair

point. It’s work we’re going to continue to do.

Deputy Speaker : House Leader for the Third Party on a supplemental.

Rob Botterell : To the minister, could she survive with a household income of less than $2,300 a

month?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : The work that we have done to….

Interjections.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : I see the members of the opposition are heckling even on this question.

Again, I’ll flag our record against the Leader of the Official Opposition when he

sat in the provincial cabinet. They froze income assistance rates…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker : Members. Members.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : …at $610 for a decade, and we have increased….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker : Minister, just a minute. Sit down.

Members. Members, let’s hear the answer.

Minister.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson : We’ve increased rates five times, where the Leader of the Opposition’s party froze

income assistance at $610 a month for a decade. They took away the bus pass for disability;

we gave the bus pass back. They never touched the senior supplement; we doubled it

and increased it again.

I’ll hold our record up against theirs for vulnerable people any day.

Government Action on

Youth Mental Health and

Addiction Issues

Claire Rattée : Speaking of that record, the CEO of CLBC gets a $12,000 car allowance, so I’m sure

we can find some money in the budget.

Yesterday I raised the case of a young Indigenous woman who was denied access to a

shelter and found dead the next morning. The Housing Minister falsely insinuated that

it was a municipally run shelter to off-load the responsibility before doing a victory

lap.

To be clear, it was a permanent shelter that was run with B.C. Housing funding that

she was turned away from.

Sadly, her story only gets worse. After one of her overdoses, this young woman was

hospitalized, and staff allowed her to use fentanyl and meth inside her hospital room.

When her father made a complaint, instead of receiving the necessary medical intervention

to help stabilize her, she was given a wheelchair so that she could continue to use

drugs — just outside.

Does this Health Minister think that it’s appropriate to give vulnerable youth a wheelchair

to continue using drugs when they are in crisis?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question.

Anybody seeking health care in a facility like a hospital needs to get the care that

they deserve and need. There are people who enter hospital facilities and other health

care facilities who are experiencing substance use and addiction issues, and it’s

important that they are treated with dignity and respect as well.

We know that workplace safety is the ultimate goal here, that patients and nurses,

doctors, the whole health care team need to be safe. That’s why interventions like

overdose prevention services are important.

That’s why we’re working to release overdose prevention services, minimum service

standards, to work with health authorities to ensure there are places that are safe,

where people can access not only the ability to use substances when they are facing

these kinds of challenges and, most importantly, to get access to the supports and

the care that they need.

It’s incredibly important to me that every single person using British Columbia’s

health care system is treated with that dignity and respect. I want to assure the

member that that continues to be my commitment, and I welcome further conversation

with her about this individual.

[10:50 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker : Member for Skeena with a supplemental.

Claire Rattée : Just a few months ago this young woman was sober for a full week. She made it to

a Kelowna hospital with her father, begging for help, begging for treatment. Her father

said to me: “She could get free food, free crack pipes, free sleeping bags, free drugs,

free Narcan. You know what wasn’t free? Help.”

Instead of recovery services, she was given prescribed alternatives, despite already

being sober, and sent back to unsafe conditions, where she relapsed.

How does this government not see that their approach is enabling and not helping?

Hon. Josie Osborne : These are exactly the circumstances that we hear about that allow us to redouble

our efforts and our commitment to serving people who face these kinds of crises. We’re

taking actions on all fronts to fight the toxic drug crisis and to support people

experiencing these kinds of substance use issues.

We’re building the Road to Recovery model, a seamless continuum of services for people,

with same-day access to a team that will triage and help a person access opioid agonist

therapies, help them access the supports that they need. Building more treatment beds,

more recovery beds — that’s what dignified treatment looks like for people, increasing

the number of services that are available for people so that they can get the help

that they need when and where they need it.

Korky Neufeld : Well, she received everything that harmed her but the help that she needed. It’s very

sad. A Jordan’s principle–funded treatment place was fully approved for this youth

in a centre in Alberta, but no one from child and family services here in B.C. showed

up to the hospital to complete the paperwork. What happened? The opportunity was lost.

Not only did this young person need to go to Alberta for proper support, how can this

minister explain letting a treatment plan fall apart simply because their ministry

staff couldn’t do their job and show up?

Hon. Josie Osborne : As I’ve mentioned, we are doing everything possible that we can to support youth

and adults who are experiencing substance use issues to access the care and the treatment

that they need.

I know that the opposition doesn’t like to hear about the past. I know they don’t

want to hear about the record of their leader when he sat on this side of the House.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker : Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne : This is the kind of service that they gave to people during their time in office:

cutting funding to the ATLAS youth recovery in Terrace, the only residential recovery

centre for youth in the northwest; closing the adult psychiatric unit at Abbotsford

Hospital; eliminating psychology services for adult rehabilitation at the Royal Inland

Hospital; closing the only withdrawal management program in the Fraser Valley.

We are building more beds. We are adding more services. We are expanding the continuum

of care for people, and we will not stop.

Heather Maahs : Between the ages of 14 and 16, this young woman’s family repeatedly begged child

and family services for help. When they called on a Monday, they were told no one

could come until Friday. When they requested mental health support, they were told

it would be a 34-day wait, despite her having a documented history of self-harm and

trauma.

This was not a one-time error. This was the norm.

How can the Minister for Children and Family Development possibly defend a system

that makes a child in crisis wait for more than a month for care?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : Every child in this province and every family deserves access to the support and

help that they need when they need it. More importantly, my ministry is also focused

on support and help earlier on so that children and families don’t get to crisis.

Our ministry is focused and has invested in enhanced early intervention therapy services

that support children at the youngest ages. We have wraparound supports and services

in community and child development centres that combine developmental specialists

with mental health specialists with clinical counsellors. We have integrated child

and youth teams in schools. We have invested in Foundry centres. We have made more

investments in mental health services than decades before.

There is more work to be done, and it’s heartbreaking to me to hear when any child

cannot access the supports and services that they need. I’m a mom of teenagers. My

teenagers have needed to access support and services.

We know that there are waits. We know that there are struggles. We are working every

day to decrease barriers, to decrease silos between ministries. That work is ongoing,

and we will continue to do the work.

Rosalyn Bird : Unfortunately, the current government continues to talk about the history of the

opposition ten years ago. Ten years ago this young woman was ten. Youth are in crisis

now — now, youth.

Today this young woman lives in a homeless camp in Nelson, where she has been sexually

assaulted. She’s addicted to fentanyl, meth and benzodiazepines. According to her

father, at one point this government placed her in an SRO with a known human trafficker.

Yesterday this Minister of Housing stood in the chamber bragging about unrelated projects

while ignoring this young lady’s crisis, even though the local NDP MLA has been fully

aware of the case details and should have relayed them by now.

How can this government justify letting a vulnerable teenager, struggling to overcome

addiction, fall through every crack, only to end up in a drug camp surrounded by predators?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Every single individual, whether they’re young, whether they’re seniors, deserves

to get access to housing. The member from Terrace, yesterday in her question, said

this individual was sleeping in an emergency weather shelter.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I heard it. I’ll check the record. But that’s funded by local government, and that

was my comment.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Clearly, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale continues to heckle, continues to not be

able to control the heckling that comes out of her mouth. Perhaps I’ll answer when

the member is ready.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Great leadership material for the next B.C. Conservative Party, from the member for

Surrey-Cloverdale.

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Even their members are laughing.

The member referred to the housing that I mentioned. The housing that I’ve mentioned

is important because we’re making investments to invest in housing that people need

that are struggling in our communities. Why are we making those investments? Because

those investments weren’t made for decades. We are decades behind when it comes to

affordable housing.

We talk about supportive housing in this time, all the time, but I continuously hear

opposition every time. We’re going to continue to invest in supportive housing in

Nelson to support vulnerable people, to get them indoors. It’s vitally important to

do so.

What I want to hear when we bring these projects forward, not only in Nelson but in

Richmond and other communities…. It would be good to hear these people supporting

it. The story of this young woman is tragic. But every time we open supportive housing,

that’s who it’s supporting. It’s supporting vulnerable people.

You can’t come in this House and criticize us for not having enough and then, at the

same time, go in your communities and talk about how you don’t want these housing

units in your community. You can’t have it both ways.

We’ll continue to do the work to support this vulnerable person and other vulnerable

people, because we know this housing is vitally important.

[11:00 a.m.]

Supportive Housing and

Services for Vulnerable Persons

Macklin McCall : This week I’ve been working with a man recovering from addiction, living with a brain

injury and completely blind. Yet he’s been shuffled between two wet housing facilities

that put his sobriety at risk.

Agencies aren’t talking to each other. He was sent to a new residence without a replacement

white cane, just a broomstick to guide himself.

Is this how we treat vulnerable people in this province? Can the minister explain

how this level of negligence is acceptable under her watch?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The member didn’t share the community, but I assume it’s West Kelowna. The member

will be aware that we’ve been working with the local government to try to scale up

more opportunities for people, all different types of opportunities — both some sites

that are wet, as the member has replied, and some that are dry — because we know that

needs are different for individuals.

We have had some challenges in the community to get those units up. We’ve had some

successes in the neighbouring community in Kelowna. The member will be aware that

we’ve got approximately 140 units that we’ve scaled up to get people indoors.

But this is why we’re making these investments. This is why we’re going to communities

and trying to make the case for why communities should accept this type of housing.

We know that not every single person’s needs are the same, but we also know that we

need to have a breadth of options of housing available in communities.

Again, I’ll reiterate what I said in my previous answer, which is that I appreciate

the member bringing this case forward. I appreciate members raising issues on behalf

of people who need supports. But what I’m asking is for this support to go outside.

Go to your communities and make the case for why supportive housing is needed.

In here, you’re telling us that you think it’s important. Good. I’m with you. We’re

doing that. We’re out there talking to communities. But what we need from you is to

go out there in your communities and say why it’s needed, and that’s what we’re not

hearing so far.

Government Hiring of Consultant

on Downtown Eastside Issues

Peter Milobar : Well, the problem with that answer is that we repeatedly bring these issues to the

government, and the only people they seem to listen to is the mutual admiration society

on that side of the House. They don’t realize these are the issues from the communities

we’re bringing forward, and they’re not solving the problems.

You know, it’s interesting. Shortly after the Premier strong-armed his way into the

Premier’s chair through that sham of a leadership race the NDP had, the Premier insisted

he had all the answers for the Downtown Eastside. He cut his teeth there as a young

lawyer. He knew what needed to happen. He was going to take it over. He was going

to take the reins of it, and you would have changes you could touch and see and feel

immediately. That was the Premier’s commitment.

Then, in the election, when he had been failing for two years, he said…. His commitment

in the election, as he just said the other day: “Whether the plans the province has

underway and commitments that the province made during the election are going to make

sense.”

So a man who said he had all the answers, goes through an election saying he has all

the answers, now has to actually hire yet another consultant to find out if his plans

actually make sense or not. That’s the track record of this government. Seven years

of failure. Now they have to review all of their failures to figure out how to fix

the mess they’ve created after seven years.

We’ve asked a couple of questions today about the hiring of Michael Bryant. A couple

of key ones have been conveniently completely avoided by this government. So dealer’s

choice. They can pick either of the two that they’ve refused to answer.

Why did Michael Bryant leave B.C. Legal Aid — not Ontario; B.C. Legal Aid — after

only two years, and was Vancouver actually consulted about the secret hiring, apparently,

of Michael Bryant back in February?

They can answer either or both of those questions if they choose, or they can go down

weird rabbit holes like they’ve been doing for the rest of today.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : There was a lot in that rant that we just heard, but I’ll go to the core principle.

I think what the member was talking about is the things that they’re hearing in their

community.

I hope he’s hearing in his community that people are pleased with the largest investment

in housing in the history of Kamloops.

The member from Terrace raised an issue in this House about an individual who had

their money being clawed back. I hope she’s hearing that that issue got resolved.

[11:05 a.m.]

The member from Prince George…. I’m sure that they’re hearing that the largest investment

in supportive housing, which is addressed at Moccasin Flats and getting people indoors,

is helping.

I hope the member from Campbell River is hearing the same thing.

I hope the members and all their communities….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker : Members. Members.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker : Members. Members, we’re close here. Let’s hear….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker : Members.

Minister, hold on.

Hold on. Let’s hear the response from the Minister.

Proceed, Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I clearly hit a soft spot. My point is this. The point is that the housing we are

putting into communities and the supports we are putting around those housing units

are making a big difference in communities.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker : Members, we’re near the end here. Let’s hear the response from the minister.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker : Hold on. Hold on.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker : Minister, just a minute. Just a minute.

All right. Proceed.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : We’re going to make investments in community. It’s making a real difference. We’re

turning a corner. We know we have more to do, and we are going to continue to do that

work.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Claire Rattée : I’d like to raise a point of order, please.

The Minister of Housing — I’d like him to withdraw his comments saying that I had

said it was an emergency weather shelter. I did not say that.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member.

I’ll ask the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs if he wishes to respond to

the point of order.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I thought I heard that, and I said that in my comment. If I am in fact not correct,

I will withdraw.

Deputy Speaker : The Chair will review the relevant transcripts and take the matter under advisement.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 14.

In the Douglas Fir Room, continued estimates on the Ministry of Children and Family

Development.

In the tiny House, Birch Room, continued committee stage on Bill 13.

[11:10 a.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects

(Streamlined Permitting) Act

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : All right. I call the House to order.

Recognizing the member for Kamloops Centre to continue second reading on Bill 14,

Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Peter Milobar : I rise to speak to Bill 14, also known as the “Just trust us, we’re the NDP cabinet,

and we know better than experts” bill, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined

Permitting) Act. I say that because Bill 14 raises a lot of concerns.

As we’ve heard, there’s no doubt that we need to continue to look for ways to green

up B.C.’s power supply. There’s no doubt that we need to continue to look for ways

to electrify our economy, to transition away from fossil fuels, to embrace newer technologies

to power B.C. in a way that future growth requires and the world is demanding. But

Bill 14 doesn’t really accomplish that. What Bill 14 does is it provides a massive

power grab to government under the guise of fast-tracking projects.

Let’s look at timelines as we discuss Bill 14 today. It was back in January the Minister

of Energy had indicated that Bill 14 would be needed to fast-track the projects that

this government has been talking about since January, yet here we are debating it

with seven days to go in the Legislature. Doesn’t sound like it was too much of a

rush for the government to bring forward.

Why would that be? Oh, probably because they rushed Bill 7 in on March 13 that if

they had not needed to gut in terms of

part 4, they wouldn’t have needed Bill 14.

They could’ve just changed any law at will of government. So, further delay from this

government that says they’re a government trying to take action and move forward quickly

on things.

You know, when you look at this government’s history and track record of the amount

of times they have said over seven years that they’re taking action, that they’re

speeding processes up, that they’re accelerating permitting, that they’re getting

bureaucracy out of the way, that they’re invigorating the energy sector, that they’re

going to move forward with projects in a cohesive and timely way…. The amount of times

they’ve actually changed legislation to do that…. I’ve actually lost count.

Now, I was the Environment critic for 3½ years from 2017 till the election in 2020,

and there was an environmental assessment review act that then Minister Heyman brought

forward. It had a lot of the same talking points from government that this does in

terms of moving forward projects quicker, keeping things out of the law courts, making

sure there’s true reconciliation with Indigenous communities, and so on, and so on,

and so on.

Yet with Bill 14, what we have is a dramatic overreach by government. Now, I think

it’s telling, the amount of overreach this has, because the government felt compelled

to make this a confidence vote. They said the same with Bill 7, and then they had

to backtrack almost immediately after people started to actually read the legislation

and realized just how all-encompassing it was.

Then they brought forward Bill 14, introduced Bill 14 and made sure everyone understands

it’s a confidence vote. Well, that made my life a lot easier, because I have absolutely

no confidence in this government on just about every single topic. So for any and

every confidence vote that this government is asking me to express in them, I know

what my vote is going to be, and it’ll be a vote of no.

[11:15 a.m.]

I have no confidence in this government. I have no confidence in this government’s

ability to deliver what they say Bill 14 is actually going to deliver. Because here

we are, mid-May — what is that, five, six months since January, when this was first

announced? — and we’re finally getting to it. That’s the rush that this government….

Interjection.

Peter Milobar : The minister can say three, and maybe that’s the problem. It’s NDP math at its finest

yet again.

It was January when it was first announced that we were going to be seeing projects

around wind being fast-tracked.

Interjection.

Peter Milobar : Oh, December. It gets even worse. The minister is making it even worse in terms of

the government expediting things along.

The point is that the concept gets floated by a government in December, and here we

are in May. Legislation that was acknowledged by this government as needing to happen,

changes to the energy regulator, doesn’t come forward at the beginning of our session,

doesn’t come forward in the middle of our session. It comes forward in the dying days

of our session and comes forward actually with closure introduced a day or two later

to say: “We’re going to limit debate; we’re going to shut things off on Wednesday

on the last week that we’re here.”

I remember we’re not here next week, so it’s really seven days’ worth; six if you

consider next Thursday doesn’t count as in relation to Bill 14 because the government

is sure to take away even one more day of debate.

It’s interesting, because typically, closure gets brought in for the Thursday of our

last day of sitting. In fact the Energy Minister would well know that because he was

the Health Minister when Bill 36 got the same type of treatment, and that was on a

Thursday that they decided they didn’t want any more questions on the 400-plus clauses

that hadn’t been canvassed yet on Bill 36, after waiting to bring it forward and through

this House in a way that did not allow for proper vetting of such a substantive bill.

They’ve done it with forestry bills. Back in 2021, we actually had two forestry bills

being debated at the same time in this chamber. We had one at second reading in this

chamber; we had one at committee stage in the other chamber. Both wound up with closure

on the last day of sitting. One didn’t even get out of second reading and was passed

by this government, on fundamental changes to forestry. The other one had the Forests

Minister in the other chamber dealing with committee stage on the other bill, and

that got closure. That’s how this government operates.

On Bill 14, they’re operating the exact same way: “Don’t worry, folks. Nothing to

see here. Just trust us. Cabinet knows best. We’ll solve all the problems.” Except

they haven’t solved any problems in the last seven years. They’ve made everything

worse by every measure.

Frankly, we’re supposed to trust that the Energy Minister, who presided over a health

system that declined over the last seven years, now has all the answers, by way of

regulation and Bill 14, to solve our energy problems that have been building for the

whole seven years this government has been in office.

Remember, this is a government that was fundamentally opposed to Site C and how the

power was going to be redundant when Site C came online. Then they became government,

and they thought: “Well, we’ll delay it for a year. We’ll go through the motions with

the Green Party to make it look like we’re being sincere with our confidence and supply

agreement, and then we’ll continue with Site C, realizing we actually need the electricity

if we’re going to electrify the province.”

Here we are seven years later. Site C, I would remind everybody, by their own former

Minister Mungall, as of June 30, 2017…. This government took over July 2017. June

30, 2017, Site C was on time and on budget. That was their own minister’s words. It’s

now been delayed, and we can’t even get an accurate pricing number out of this government.

They refuse to say. The last estimate we’ve had is $16 billion, not $6 billion like

it was supposed to be, and no clear number. No clear number.

Interjection.

Peter Milobar : The Minister of Energy can say that’s not true, but he can go back and read the transcripts

of estimates where Minister Mungall actually did say “on time, on budget as of June

30, 2017.”

Interjection.

Peter Milobar : I guess the Minister of Energy is feeling a little stung by our lines of debate on

Bill 14.

It’s very interesting to hear, Madam Chair, how reactionary he has been to just about

every one of our speakers. I think that, in itself, should be a red flag to a great

many people when a minister is this defensive at second reading about a piece of legislation

that they’ve slow-walked into this chamber, that’s demanding the amount of authority

and autonomy they require.

[11:20 a.m.]

The government will say: “Well it’s the Energy Regulator. The Energy Regulator is

going to look at all this. Don’t worry.” Yes, because this is a government that has

such a stellar track record with independent regulators.

They certainly never, ever tell the B.C. Utilities Commission what to do, no siree.

They certainly don’t tell ICBC what they should or shouldn’t be doing. Apparently,

B.C. Ferries, which desperately needs more vessels than they currently have…. The

ferry commissioner is about the only one they’ll actually listen to and turn around

and say: “Oh, no, no. We can’t step in where a statutory body is. They’re independent.”

Apparently, only the Ferry Commission is independent under this government’s eyes.

Now we’re supposed to believe that the energy regulator will be left to themselves,

with Bill 14, and that cabinet will not be sticking their thumb on the scales.

It creates a lot of questions and a lot of concerns. A lot of those will be canvassed

at committee stage. A lot of the answers will undoubtedly be very evasive from a government

that does not believe in transparency at the best of times.

You know, it’s interesting. Wind farms are not small ventures. The finished product,

absolutely we understand, is considered a green energy and everything else. We can

understand that. But to try to pretend that there was not study after study around

the world of potential impacts to flight patterns of birds, to a wide range of wildlife,

to the noise that it makes and what that does to wildlife impact in surrounding areas….

It’s laughable that this government is trying to say that they can fast-track those

environmental processes because it’s a wind turbine.

I can remember years ago, when my daughter was going to university down in California,

flying in from Arizona over into the city she was living in, and a massive, massive

wind farm of rusted turbines between Arizona and Bakersfield — weren’t moving, were

just sitting there. Now, it was probably a failed private venture. I’m not sure. We

were just flying over. But to think that these don’t have massive footprints for substantive

energy generation, you’d be fooling yourself.

These are massive blades. These are massive towers. They need massive footings. They

need massive equipment to build. You are not helicoptering all that you need to build

a wind farm into these areas — unless, I guess, you’re going to be flying Sikorskys

in tandem. That would be a nice GHG emission profile for that construction project,

I guess.

We won’t know because we won’t have to look into that, under Bill 14, because these

are deemed to be green, no matter what the impacts of construction actually are.

I haven’t heard a good explanation from the government — maybe at committee stage

we will — of how exactly you build a construction road to get to a wind farm without

properly looking at things like streams and the culverts that would need to go in

or the bridges that need to go in to get that equipment in, the cutting through of

roadways that needs to happen.

How is that industrial service road any different than a service road for a logging

operation trying to access a cutblock? That needs to actually make sure that they

are taking those environmental considerations in: watersheds, denning areas of animals,

time of year, the type of cut and fill that will be needed to construct a road, the

switchbacks that would be needed.

The blade of a wind turbine will make roads with switchbacks very, very difficult

to try to build, which means, likely, an even more cumbersome roadway that needs to

be built.

How does that differ from what TMX had to go through to put in the pipeline right

away? How does that soil disturbance differ?

I would hope the Energy Minister is very well aware of TMX. I mean, we’ve gone from

“every tool in the toolbox” to “dredge, baby, dredge” when it comes to that project.

Interjection.

Peter Milobar : Apparently we are. At least the Energy Minister is on the road to Damascus somewhere

when it comes to energy projects. Maybe he’s arrived. I’m not sure.

Let’s look at the construction of TMX and how it relates to Bill 14. Why is that ground

disturbance…? Why is it that they literally had to worry about salamanders, as it

got down closer to the Lower Mainland?

[11:25 a.m.]

They had to worry about bird migration, nesting time frames. They had to start and

stop construction in different segments based on that. Freshets of streams — construction

had to start and stop. Impact of salmon-bearing streams or not. What was going to

happen after, in terms of remediation to the area?

It’s not a road that’s left. It’s a pipeline that they obviously don’t want people

driving on. But it’s a big, massive corridor. It creates a massive corridor for predators

like wolves and others to access wildlife that they would otherwise have a lot harder

time to access in those areas. All of that gets looked at.

Now, it can be looked at expeditiously. It could be looked at quickly. We’re not saying

that you need to waive everything. We’re saying: why is it that this government, despite

repeated, over the last seven years, adjustments and legislative changes to things

like environmental assessment acts…? By their own words, when they introduced it,

by their own press releases, they were supposed to change all of this to expediate

things and move things forward quickly.

Bill 14 essentially says, by the government: “We failed. It doesn’t matter what our

changes were over the last seven years. It’s failed.” We can’t get anything done quickly

in this province. “Our solution is, instead of actually truly fixing the problem so

we can have efficient and proper environmental oversight of projects, we’re just going

to remove it completely, based on what the end product of the project is, not what

the impact of that project is during construction, as it’s getting located. Just simply

what the end product is.”

“We agree with wind power, therefore we don’t worry about the inputs to construction

and the harm it may or may not cause to a wide range of things when it comes to the

environment. We’re not so sure about oil and gas, so we’re going to put up every roadblock,

every tool in the toolbox we can, to slow that project down. Mines? Maybe we agree

with it, and maybe we don’t. We’ll get back to you in 12 years.”

Somehow adding this next layer of uncertainty to industry in Bill 14 is supposed to

bring peace of mind and de-risk investment decisions. A fundamental thing this government

doesn’t seem to understand is how these investment decisions on projects are made.

I get that they have a handpicked group of wind farms. That’s wonderful for those

wind farms. What about all the other projects that have been waiting for years and

years?

You know, large corporations are just that, and these are big projects. You need large

corporations attached with them. Whether we like that or not, that’s just the cold

reality for them to be able to get the financing they need and make the final investment

decisions they need to move things forward like a wind farm. They have projects going

on all over the world. Pulp mills have projects going on all over the world. Sawmills

have projects going on all over the world. Their parent companies.

What happens is each project goes into a board of directors meeting and makes their

pitch for why the project in a certain jurisdiction should be the one that gets the

scarce amount of dollars. Unlike this government, which seems to think you just keep

running higher and higher deficits, that’s not how the corporate world works. They

need to see an actual return on investment.

So you have five or six projects from around the world competing at the same time.

They look at competitiveness, at the jurisdiction, the stability of the jurisdiction

that they’re trying to operate in, tax regime, permitting timelines, permitting process,

permitting certainty. You start reading through Bill 14….

You can’t just read through Bill 14 in isolation, because Bill 15 will have some impacts

on this, as well, and actually so will Bill 7. This government has done a very good

job of just separating the three and trying to pretend each one is independent of

each other. Well, that’s not what’s going to happen.

There are huge question marks as to how you would even reasonably get approved or

not in a timely fashion in B.C. already. This Bill 14 is actually adding to that uncertainty.

It’s adding to that risk profile.

Then those companies that have enough capital in the year to invest in three of the

six projects being pitched to their board have decisions to make.

[11:30 a.m.]

You know, we reference TMX, we reference Site C, and we reference LNG to this government

all the time, because as much as the Energy Minister wants to try to say we’re the

party of no, he must be confusing his days. I can appreciate that, because he’s flip-flopped

on his views of Kinder Morgan, in particular, so many times that he probably doesn’t

remember which one — he of the wool weathervane, created, based on that project.

I was at a breakfast when he said: “Well, it’s built now. It’s time to move on.” You

know, the Energy Minister seems to get agitated. I was not the one characterized that

I could kick a dog and still win an election. That was not me. The Energy Minister

might be able to remind me of who that was, but it wasn’t me.

This is the problem. This is a government that fundamentally, in their background,

have always been opposed to projects like this. They talk about how…. And this is

why it’s so critically important. They talk about why these projects are important,

but then they slow-walk them, and they create impediments, despite their press releases

saying they’re speeding things up.

For the three projects I mentioned, the three big projects — TMX, what used to be

Kinder Morgan, the old Kinder surprise; LNG; and Site C — over the last four to five

years, as much as this government wants to say their GDP had higher growth than the

rest of Canada, that’s because 80 percent of the growth in B.C. was tied directly

to those three projects. Without those three projects, our GDP growth in some years

would have been negative. Those three projects have now come to a close.

This government has wasted the seven years saying they’ve expedited permitting, saying

they’ve got rid of duplication, saying they found ways to advance projects, and we

have nothing sitting in the wings. Their answer — with Bill 7, with Bill 14, with

Bill 15 — is just to say: “Forget about it. We’re going to just start signing executive

orders by cabinet and say handpicked projects here, there and everywhere get to move

forward. Other ones go to the back of the line. You can still wait ten or 12 years.”

Still, especially for a group that is clinging to power…. Remember that this was supposed

to be the supermajority government that is now clinging to power strictly because

of a deal with the Green Party. It forces the Green Party into an agreement around

confidence votes, which the Green Party has said very clearly, at a minimum, on 15….

I think that on 14 they still have major concerns too. They don’t consider these part

of that agreement, and I don’t blame them.

Talk about an overreach from a partner with a one-seat majority, based on the partnership

with the Green Party, to introduce something like Bill 14, which says: “Eh, it doesn’t

even matter that we said for the last seven years that we fixed the environmental

assessment process. We’ve strengthened it, made it better, made it more consistent,

streamlined it, and we’ve sped it up.”

Their answer is Bill 14, and it says to the Green Party: “Suck it up. Don’t worry

about the fact that environmental assessments are essentially being removed, because

you should like wind turbines.”

It sounds like the Green Party has figured out that there might be a little bit of

disturbance. There could be some very serious environmental consequences to these

wind farms. It doesn’t mean wind farms can’t happen in B.C. But you can’t just try

to pretend that because it’s a wind farm, you wrap yourself in a Green cloak, and

you say: “There. We’ve solved all the problems.”

The other problem with Bill 14 is, when you go through it all clause by clause — the

definitions, the streamlined projects, the streamlined permitting, the application

of this division, administration of delegated instruments, another area of level 2

streamlining, application of Energy Resources Activities Act, administration of Energy

Resources Activities Act — time and again, the language in this bill, the language

that this government has used to describe this bill, aligns very closely to what they

have said over the years, about all those other times they had solved the permitting

issues in B.C. — all the other times.

[11:35 a.m.]

It’s simply not good enough. Bill 14 simply does not actually accomplish what the

government is purporting it’s going to accomplish.

I think it’s great that the government has found ways to find Indigenous partnership

groups and investor groups to come in on wind energy projects. But it doesn’t mean,

just as with any other segment of our population, that just because one Indigenous

community has developed an equity partnership with a wind farm, the nations in and

around that area are all in unison and in agreement for that. We saw that with LNG.

Wet’suwet’en — some supported it; some didn’t. Hereditary versus elected.

For this government to try to portray Bill 14 like it solves all of those Indigenous

investment issues is simply not accurate. The government hasn’t been clear, with Bill

14, how they intend to move forward with those issues without triggering more lawsuits,

because they don’t have a clearly defined process. Bill 14 doesn’t spell out a very

clear, defined process. It gets you an idea of what the government is proposing to

do, but then they have all these override clauses that enable them, by way of regulation,

to just keep changing the rules.

Partway in a project, if government wants to change the rules on you, they can. Partway

into a project, if government wants to change some of the cost structures on you,

they can. That doesn’t create certainty; it creates the exact opposite. If one project

needs slight rules changed, government could just change them. Why did that one get

that help? Does it come down to which lobbyist gets hired?

You’re going to hear a lot of similar things said about Bill 15, because there are

a lot of similarities between the two bills. This one is much more energy-focused;

I grant that. The other is even more all-encompassing. But all you have to do is look

at the lobbyist registry. All you have to do is look at some of the names on that

lobbyist registry and their tight ties to this government — former MLAs, family members

of cabinet ministers that have government relations firms.

Now, I’m not saying anything untoward has happened previously. I’m not saying anything

untoward will happen, moving forward. But it could. And public trust…. The basic tenet

of public trust is the appearance that it can be trusted.

Bill 14 does not set the stage for that trust. The picking of winners and losers,

the fact they’re already citing which projects they have deemed that Bill 14 will

be in effect for — what does that say to project No. 10 or 11 that wants to raise

their hand up and say: “What? Am I too late to the game now? Did I just hire the wrong

government relations firm? Why wasn’t I on the first list?”

You know, this government made a big deal about changing the lobbyist rules and changing

the donation rules, and then they bring in things like Bill 14, which totally circumvents

all of that in terms of public trust. There’s the real conflict of interest, and then

there’s perceived conflict of interest.

The perceived conflict of interest is actually the harder thing to manage for public

trust, but it’s something that governments should be, over and above, trying to manage.

Bill 14 sets the framework for perceived conflicts of interest everywhere, and then

the ministers in this place get so upset when we dare to ask questions that the public

is asking about some of those questionable relationships with government relations

and themselves.

We’ll keep asking them. You’ll notice I was pretty careful. I didn’t even use names

or anything. I could. I mean, technically I can’t get sued for saying it in here.

But I’m not trying to paint any one person or firm that way. I’m saying it creates

a massive perception problem that is real.

[11:40 a.m.]

With none of that being spelled out, with how open-ended this can be, with the fact

the government can just keep changing the rules on these groups anytime they want

and the fact, frankly, that this is a confidence vote — and I have, as I said at the

beginning, zero confidence that this government, based on their track record of any

file you want to talk about, knows what they’re doing — there’s absolutely no way

I could support Bill 14, not just in its current state, but in any state.

I welcome the government to make every one of their bills a confidence vote. They

might see just how little confidence we and the rest of B.C. actually have in them.

Teresa Wat : It is an honour to rise in this chamber this morning as an elected representative

for the constituents of Richmond-Bridgeport to speak to Bill 14, the so-called Renewable

Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Let me say this clearly at the outset. I rise in firm and unwavering opposition to

this legislation, not because I’m against the development of renewable energy in British

Columbia, but because I’m against the centralisation of power, the erosion of democratic

oversight and the blatant hypocrisy that this bill represents.

Let’s be honest with ourselves. British Columbia needs more energy. That’s a fact.

With our population growing in our province, our industry evolving and our collective

commitment to electrify our economy intensifying, the demand for reliable and sustainable

energy is only increasing. B.C. Hydro itself forecast that electricity demand will

rise by 15 percent by 2030, and by many estimates, that demand will double or triple

by mid-century.

These are not projections to ignore. We must prepare for a future that is cleaner

and more efficient, and that includes building the infrastructure required to power

it. But preparation does not justify authoritarianism. Planning for the future does

not excuse the dismantling of public scrutiny. Expanding renewable energy must not

come at the cost of trampling on due process, undermining democratic institutions

or marginalising local voices. Yet that is exactly what Bill 14 attempts to do.

Behind the glossy language of streamlining and efficiency lies a dangerous truth.

This bill is a power grab, pure and simple. It represents the worst instincts of this

government, the same instincts that were rightly rejected by the public just a few

weeks ago when they tried to pass sweeping centralization under Bill 7.

After public backlash forced them to pull the most offensive provisions from that

bill, they have returned with Bill 14, a legislative Trojan Horse cloaked in renewable

rhetoric but carrying within it the very same threats to our democratic foundations.

Let’s call it what it is. Bill 14 is Bill 7 by stealth. This government, already infamous

for its obsession with secrecy and its hostility towards transparency, is now seeking

to grant itself extraordinary authority under the guise of urgent climate action.

[11:45 a.m.]

But urgency does not justify overreach, and expediency is no excuse for dismantling

checks and balances.

The hypocrisy here is galling. This is the same B.C. NDP government that for years

railed against development and energy projects when they were in opposition. They

opposed the Site C dam. They opposed LNG. They opposed the Trans Mountain expansion

project with every legal tool at their disposal. They obstructed, they delayed, and

they deflected the cost of those projects — sometimes by billions of dollars.

Let us not forget, the original cost of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion was

$5.4 billion. By the time it was done, that price tag had ballooned to over $34 billion.

Why? Because of the legal and procedural sabotage orchestrated in large part by this

very government.

Now, after years of being the party of no, they want us, they want British Columbians,

to believe they have had a miraculous change of heart? They have gone from obstructionist

to an evangelist of energy projects overnight.

They are evoking the spectre of Donald Trump and unstable geopolitics to justify granting

themselves unchecked authority. They have even started talking about dredging Burrard

Inlet to allow larger oil tankers through — something unthinkable to the Minister

of Energy, then leader of the NDP, in 2013. He lost an election on the infamous Kinder

Morgan flip-flop.

Let’s not kid ourselves. This is not a conversion based on principle. It is a political

calculation.

I ask for adjournment of the debate and reserve my right to continue my debate.

Deputy Speaker : You’re looking to reserve your spot and….

Teresa Wat : Can I reserve my right to continue my debate after the House resumes?

Deputy Speaker : Certainly, you may do that, if that’s your intention.

Teresa Wat : Yes. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker : Okay, certainly. So it’s to reserve your place for your debate and to continue remarks

and motion to adjourn debate this morning.

Teresa Wat moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

George Anderson : The Committee of Supply,

Section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry

of Children and Family Development and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Jessie Sunner :

Section C reports progress on Bill 13 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Bowinn Ma moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker : We stand adjourned. We’ll return at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

Proceedings in the

Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee,

Section A.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Children and Family Development

(continued)

The Chair : Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply,

Section A, to order. We are meeting

today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Children

and Family Development.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $2,442,836,000 (continued) .

Heather Maahs : I’m going to revisit a question I asked yesterday. I asked about missing Indigenous

children and youth, and the response was zero. However, I have statistics that state,

and this is from the RCY report, that 54.4 percent of young people reported as lost

or missing from care were Indigenous. Also, I have a stat that says Indigenous females

were found to be overrepresented among young people reported lost or missing, 62 percent.

And 32.9 percent of Indigenous children were reported lost or missing more than once.

I’m wondering if we could revisit that question in light of these numbers that are

from this report.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : The question yesterday, as I recall it from the member, was how many children in

care are currently missing, and I answered that question appropriately.

Heather Maahs : All right. Well, I’ll move to a different line of questioning.

What is the role of the new Indigenous child welfare director position, and how does

this portfolio provide oversight and accountability to Indigenous children and youth

in care?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I am actually quite honoured to have the opportunity to talk about Jeremy Y’in Neduklhchulh

Williams — his role as our Indigenous child welfare director. It is the very first

Indigenous child welfare director in Canada. There are a number of really important

things to point out with respect to the ADM’s role.

The new Indigenous child welfare director furthers our commitment to reduce the overrepresentation

of Indigenous children and youth in our care, to keep children and youth connected

to their families, their culture, their languages. Jeremy provides advice and guidance

on crucial Indigenous child and family service decisions.

Jeremy will also work to support Indigenous jurisdiction through upholding the UN

declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and harmonizing the rights and laws

of Indigenous people with our provincial laws.

By changing the way that we do this work, we truly are transforming our child welfare

system, and that aligns with the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action and supporting

better outcomes for Indigenous children, youth and their families.

On November 24, 2022, Bill 38, Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services

Amendment Act, was passed into law, making amendments to the Adoption Act and the

Child, Family and Community Service Act. This included the provision to create an

Indigenous child welfare director within the ministry, long advocated for by Indigenous

partners, including the First Nations Leadership Council and Métis Nation B.C.

[11:20 a.m.]

The role includes three main areas of responsibility, practice and oversight support.

The director is responsible for enhancing and improving oversight of practice to Indigenous

children, youth and families. Jeremy is responsible for supporting and deepening culturally

safe and trauma-informed practice, grounded in Indigenous world view and cultures.

Another area of responsibility is partnership and advisory: to be responsible for

working in partnership with Indigenous people; to be guided by their communities and

priorities for child and family services and Indigenous jurisdiction, which we’ve

canvassed quite a bit; to be responsible for working across MCFD to provide guidance

on how policies, processes, practices and operations can be aligned; and to better

support Indigenous jurisdiction.

It’s a really important role. It’s a role that we’re very proud to have at MCFD, and

I’m very proud of the work that Jeremy and his team is doing.

Heather Maahs : When did this work commence?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : There were years of consultation and development of the role and the responsibilities.

It was really important for us to work with our Indigenous partners, Indigenous leadership

to ensure that we got it right.

As far as when the position actually began, September 30 of 2024, on Orange Shirt

Day.

Heather Maahs : What is the reporting structure for this position? Who reports to the director, and

who does the director report to?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : The Indigenous child welfare director is an assistant deputy minister position, and

that position reports to the deputy minister.

[11:25 a.m.]

The division is a growing division. This is a new position and a new division. The

deputy minister of Indigenous child welfare supports our 25 Indigenous child and family

service agencies in the province and also supports our work with respect to jurisdiction

under our DRIPA action plan and our commitments to truth and reconciliation.

Heather Maahs : What is the budget allocation for this new position, directorship?

Hon. Jodie Wickens : All compensation for ADMs and ministry executives is publicly disclosed and is within

the ministry’s budget. The ADM for Indigenous child welfare would not be any different

than any other ADM in our ministry.

Heather Maahs : What would that be?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I’m going to provide the member with the range of salaries for an assistant deputy

minister, which is publicly available. I do have to caution….

I am uncomfortable with the line of questioning around what the salary is for an Indigenous

child welfare director. I believe that our compensation is publicly available. It

isn’t any different for any one assistant deputy minister versus another. There is

a range based on qualifications and experience, and the range of salary for an assistant

deputy minister is $196,300 to $243,800.

Heather Maahs : I’m not really clear on why there’s uncomfortableness with giving me an answer to

a question which is public information, regardless of race or creed or any position.

That should be public information because it is public taxpayer money that is paying

for it. Upon hearing that, would the minister like to be more transparent?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I have provided the salary range. We have talked about that it is publicly disclosed.

My personal discomfort with the line of questioning is that I went through the purpose

of the role, the historic nature of the role, our commitments to truth and reconciliation,

our DRIPA action plan, and I have yet to receive a question on the salary of executives

on any part of my ministry up until this point. So I think the context is really important,

and I think it lays the groundwork for telling a story.

We compensate our leaders and our executives, and that compensation is disclosed publicly.

I think the value of the role is transformational, so I am expressing my discomfort

with the line of questioning. That is my personal discomfort with the line of questioning.

The salaries are available to you online.

Heather Maahs : To the minister: well, that’s very disappointing that you’re refusing to answer this

question. Regardless of the….

Actually, it’s more pertinent with all of the responsibility given to this position.

I’m actually quite surprised that in estimates, where our job is to question the minister

about the budget…. This is a new position, a brand-new position, and I think the public

deserves a straightforward answer. This shouldn’t be difficult. Am I going to be forced,

at this point, to file an FOI in order to get that information?

Interjection.

Heather Maahs : Excuse me? Are we weighing in from the gallery? Thank you.

That’s my question. Am I now forced to file an FOI to receive this information?

The Chair : Member, the minister was very clear that she answered the question. You may not like

the answer to the question, but you may want to revise the way that you’re asking

the question. Then she may be able to give you a different answer.

That being said, the minister has been very clear that she’s given an answer. You

asked the same question again. She stated her response, and that’s the end of it.

If you would like to ask a different question, please go ahead.

Heather Maahs : All right. Perhaps the minister would like to share whether or not this salary is

based on the upper or the lower end of the scale that was given as an answer.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I just want to make sure that the member opposite understands that compensation for

executives is determined through the Public Service Agency, that public accounts will

disclose the salaries of public servants and that decisions for compensations are

made based on a variety of criteria.

I have been generously provided permission to share with you that the salary for this

position is on the lower range of that range that I provided.

Heather Maahs : Well, thank you. I appreciate that answer, and I am very familiar with PSEC, who

does oversee salaries and wage benefits, from my time on the board.

I’m going to ask you now how many ADMs work for the Ministry of Children and Family

Development.

The Chair : Member, just a reminder that your questions are through the Chair. Thank you.

Hon. Jodie Wickens : I did the introduction at the beginning of estimates, where I introduced everyone.

We have seven ADMs in the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Heather Maahs : Hon. Chair, through you to the minister, forgive me for not remembering the number

that you gave in your opening — seven. Thank you very much.

Can you tell us what their salaries are?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens : As I mentioned to the member previously, and she acknowledged, all salaries are determined

by the Public Service Agency through a variety of decision-making factors that are

separate from my role as the minister. We also publicly disclose all salaries over

$75,000 through public accounts, and that’s available to see. We can certainly pull

that up for the member opposite and provide it to her, because it would have every

ADM and deputy minister and my salary. It would have everybody’s salary on there for

her or the public to see.

I would also say executive and support services is in the budget. It has minimally

changed year over year. The change in that number, I would say, would be in alignment

with inflation and regular increases to salaries and benefits. I don’t have the exact

numbers, but surely, I can pull that up after estimates.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

Proceedings in the

Birch Room

The House in Committee,

Section C.

The committee met at 11:17 a.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2025

(continued)

The Chair : Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, to order.

On clause 5 (continued) .

Ward Stamer : Just a couple of quick questions to the minister to wrap up the rest of the wildfire

changes.

First question on 5. When it talks about…. In section (2), it goes through after the order is given and the subject of the order and then

informing the person of the following…. And then it talks about possible work that

is going to be done or prescribed or required.

On section (2)(v): “the right of the minister under subsection (3) (

b) to carry out the work.” Is that a generalized term inasmuch as giving the minister

authority to actually get the work done? Are we talking about still having the parameters

in the order where that remedial work may be done by the proponent in a timely fashion

or if the minister or the ministry has to step in and do the work and then that work

will be charged back on the order?

Can I get a little bit more explanation on exactly what that

section means where the

minister will carry out the work?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar : This section, I have been advised by staff, is rarely used. We’re keeping it aligned

with sections 25 and 27, and nothing, really, has changed here, as it’s noted.

As the member touched on, the Wildfire Act,

section 28, provides the minister with

the authority to issue a remediation order requiring specified persons to carry out

remedial actions in relation to harm resulting from a contravention. It sets out a

requirement, allows the minister to take actions and sets out the information that

must be included in a notice as well.

Ward Stamer : Thank you for the answer, Minister.

Then down further, when it talks about in

section (b), “in subsection (3) by striking

out ‘the date specified in a written notice given under subsection (2)’ and substituting

‘the date specified under subsection (2)’” and then the repealing and substituting

the following — can we get a little bit more clarification?

I know we had a question last night about written notices, how those notices were

going to be delivered — if there was going to be an order, or if there was going to

be a time for a proponent to be able to discuss. Can I ask for a reason why we’re

going to be taking the written notice portion out of this?

Hon. Ravi Parmar : The member’s question is a good one.

Very similar to the answers that I provided yesterday, it’s just updated language.

The notice requirement still remains. It’s just redundant, and it has been covered

in other sections.

Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On clause 8.

[11:25 a.m.]

Tony Luck : I really appreciate the opportunity here to go over some of the things about municipal

affairs, especially some of the changes to the voting procedure for civic elections

— excited to see some of those, having been involved in a couple of civic elections

in the past. Some of them are good.

We’re just going to go through here and ask some questions. I don’t think there’s

anything too technical here, but certainly holding feet to the fire and making sure

we get all our i’s dotted and t’s crossed.

Thank you very much for that.

The first question. We’ll look at clause 8 first. I’ve only got two questions there,

so it should go pretty straightforward here. The first question: could the minister

clarify whether the intent of clause 8 is to harmonize practices across local government

jurisdictions, or is it targeted solely at addressing a unique issue with greater

Vancouver region? Is there a bigger picture involved there?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : First, I want to thank my critic. I did hear his speech to this bill. There were

thoughtful remarks and some critiques, and I’m happy to canvass that today.

I do have to say that I heard some other speeches from the opposition members, which

were a little, I would say, hyperbolic and a little bit over the top. So I hope when

I make some opening comments to each of the sections that my critic doesn’t see that

as a reflection on his comments, because they were not his comments.

It’s important to note that this

section was requested to us. This is not a

section

where we’re overtaking local government. That’s what I heard in the speeches, and

that’s not the case. I’ll just put some context for the member.

Clauses 8 and 40 are aligned to this section, and this is an agreement that Metro

Vancouver and the federal government had around $250 million to go towards the Iona

wastewater facility. The agreement was that in order for Canada to give $250 million

for Iona wastewater, Metro Vancouver would agree to two years’ instream protection.

The province’s role is changing the rules to allow Metro Vancouver to do that.

I know there were some questions raised by some members about how much money is going

out of Metro Van’s pockets, etc. First, I’ll say that this was canvassed amongst mayors.

They made a decision. My understanding is that the federal government is providing

$250 million. The instream protection and the measures that Metro Vancouver agreed

to are about $220 million. There’s a $30 million net for Metro Vancouver above and

beyond what they will be putting in place for instream protection.

I just wanted to ensure that that was on the record. This is very much focused on

just Metro Vancouver and the commitment that they made to the federal government to

unlock that federal investment.

[11:30 a.m.]

Tony Luck : Excellent, thank you for that answer. We were just wondering about how far the reach

would be.

So $250 million on a $10 billion project — I think that was the last number — is a

small amount of money, not in our eyes but certainly in the government’s eyes. We

appreciate the answer there.

I’ll just ask one other question related to clause 8, then, having looked at the rest

of that. Is there any potential for retroactive financial impacts on developers or

property owners as we move forward with the amount of money and what they’ve done

on that one?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’ll just read this into the record.

Metro Vancouver regional district and its greater boards have an existing development

cost charge bylaw that was enacted on March 22, 2024. The instream protection period

for that bylaw expired on March 22, 2025. The legislative change that’s being made

is retroactive to ensure that the developers that had completed applications prior

to the enactment of the development cost charge bylaw continue to have access to the

lower rate of development charges for an additional year.

Tony Luck : That’s to the city and to the developer. Is there any financial impact to the property

owners themselves, the ones that are carrying the burden for this?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : That’s not our understanding, because this is DCC-related, and that goes on to new

development and not to existing tax base.

Tony Luck : No other questions for clause 8, unless one of my members does. Nope. We’re okay

there.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Tony Luck : Just a couple of questions around clauses 9, 10 and 11 that seem to be related. What

is the rationale for defining Vancouver land use provisions within the Housing Supply

Act, and how does this definition enhance the act’s applicability to the city of Vancouver?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It’s a drafting omission from when this bill was introduced. Everywhere where we

make a change to the Local Government Act, it enacts with the Vancouver Charter, except

for in these three places. We had found that it didn’t actually have it in both. That’s

why we’re adding it. It’s just to make sure that it’s consistent to what’s in the

bill for the Local Government Act.

Tony Luck : Clause 10 amends

section 11 to include references to Vancouver land use provisions.

How will this amendment affect the process by which housing targets are set and enforced

in Vancouver compared to other municipalities?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It mirrors them so that they’re the exact same. I should note, again, there were

comments being made about some sort of massive power grab being done by the government

in the second round of speeches. This is aligned with everything that’s already in

place for local governments.

As well, Mayor Ken Sim was praising this legislation when it came forward, because

it allowed us to be able to ensure that we’re comparing apples to apples from communities.

The biggest challenge we had was that communities had different understandings of

how much housing they needed. This legislation allows us to do all of that.

[11:35 a.m.]

To the member’s main premise of his question, everything that’s there for the Local

Government Act is the same for the Vancouver Charter.

Tony Luck : Yeah, I think we had a discussion about Vancouver Charter versus Community Charter

in one of our debates some time ago and what that might look like, moving forward.

But yeah, clause 9 — I think we’re okay with it, if you’d like to call that one.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Tony Luck : I’ve got to be a little quicker on those ones, don’t I? My age must be showing or

something. But anyway, thank you. Appreciate that.

Given the unique governing structure of Vancouver under the Vancouver Charter, how

does the amendment ensure consistency in housing supply and objectives across different

jurisdictions in British Columbia now, not just in Vancouver and that? There may be

a consistent answer on that one, but we’ll explore it.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It’s a similar answer to the other section. It’s just to ensure that the same powers

under the act that are available under local governments are the same for the Vancouver

Charter. So again, it’s mirroring the powers that are there for local government.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Tony Luck : Just some questions around clause 10 of the Islands Trust Act and a few things like

that. What specific circumstances trigger the need for appointing an acting local

trustee under the amended

section 6(6) of the Islands Trust Act?

The Chair : Member, we’re on clause 11.

Tony Luck : Oh, I’m sorry. I’ll stay sat for clause 11.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Tony Luck : I’ll make sure we uncluster those next time. They’re a little clustered up, but yeah.

All right, so a question for clause 12. What specific circumstances trigger the need

for appointing an acting local trustee under the amended

section 6(6) of the Islands

Trust Act?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Again, I’ll start by saying this is not some power grab of government to try to take

over local government. I have to, unfortunately, say that every time.

This host of recommendations comes through a group that we have by legislation. It’s

a technical advisory group committee. It’s got UBCM, LGMA, Elections B.C., BCSTA,

Ministry of Education and the AG. Then they give us advice on the changes that are

needed.

To the member’s specific question around what the process is that we follow for the

Islands Trust, under the legislation, the terms of office for electoral area directors

of the Islands Trust trustees continue until their successor takes office.

For municipalities, their term ends immediately before the first council meeting.

This means that if no candidates come forward for the office of electoral area director,

or none, or only one local trustee office, then the term of the previous director

trustee is continued. This provides for continued representation for the area.

Incumbents will have discretion to decide if they want to continue for the next four

years, or they can formally resign and trigger a by-election.

Tony Luck : That sounds reasonable. Are there defined qualifications or eligibility criteria

for individuals to be appointed as acting trustees?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Under the legislation, persons who may be appointed to local office are those who

are qualified to hold office, which means they are 18 years of age or older, a Canadian

citizen, a B.C. resident for at least six months and not disqualified from being nominated

or voting in an election in B.C. or otherwise disqualified by law. In addition to

those requirements, they are resident of the jurisdiction to fill the vacancy.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.