Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, April 7, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 184

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

Tributes

Gerhard Blenk

R. Merrifield

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Diane Nicholls

Hon. K. Conroy

Introductions by Members

Statements

Message of appreciation for Legislative Assembly Protective Services and Victoria Police

Hon. M. Farnworth

S. Bond

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. N. Cullen

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Green Shirt Day for organ donor awareness and registration

G. Kyllo

R. Glumac

Vaisakhi

B. Banman

Big Bro’s Barbershop

N. Sharma

Indigenous economic development and Tsawout partnership

A. Olsen

Chilliwack Child and Youth Committee

D. Coulter

Oral Questions

Crime in communities and handling of cases by justice system

S. Bond

Hon. D. Eby

T. Halford

Government action on climate change and policies on LNG development

A. Olsen

Hon. B. Ralston

Hon. G. Heyman

Supportive housing and services for persons with complex care needs

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

R. Merrifield

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Crime in communities and handling of cases by justice system

L. Doerkson

Hon. D. Eby

M. Morris

E. Ross

Question of Privilege (Speaker’s Ruling)

Motions Without Notice

Membership change to Parliamentary Reform Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Membership change to Health Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Membership change to Legislative Initiatives Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Dean

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. R. Fleming

B. Stewart

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Citizens’ Services (continued)

B. Banman

Hon. L. Beare

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2022

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: P. Alexis.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Farnworth: April is Safe Digging Month in B.C. It’s a time to reinforce the message to

call or click before you dig. I’m here to help reinforce that message. Our 21

members from the British Columbia Common Ground Alliance are here today in the

precinct and watching question period. Would the House please make them most

welcome.

Tributes

GERHARD BLENK

R. Merrifield: It’s with sadness today that I rise to honour the passing of one of Kelowna’s finest businessmen and developers. Gerhard Blenk, the developer who founded Kelowna’s Wilden neighbourhood, has sadly passed away at the age of 81.

Born in Germany, Blenk operated businesses in many different industries, including the oil industry, hunting industry and, on the side, started investing in development. He started in Alberta and moved to western Canada as he discovered the Okanagan Valley, purchasing the piece known as Wilden today in the mid-1990s.

I was just starting in development when his property was going through the planning stages and learned a great deal through the thoughtful approach to the development in Wilden, the largest master-planned community in our city.

Blenk was a pioneer and understood how sustainability could be fostered while providing

homes for a growing community. I’ll use his quote. Blenk said: “For me, the

challenge is finding the right balance between creativity and beauty on one

side and then the regulations and economics on the other. I know, at the end of

the day, there will be some financial profit, but the greatest profit will be

to look at some beautiful subdivisions surrounded by preserved green space. I’m

really looking forward to that day.”

He passed away on March 28, 2022, in his beautiful home in Wilden with his family by his side. He will be missed, but his legacy in Wilden will live on.

Introductions by Members

Hon. H. Bains: Really pleased to welcome a couple of my constituents who are in the gallery, proud residents of Surrey-Newton, Jaspal and Gurpreet Sodhan. They have been great volunteers all their careers and their lives. They raised four beautiful children and put them through B.C. universities. Now they’re employed all around the province, including one of them who works for us as a legislative assistant, Pavan. Please help me and give them a very warm welcome.

D. Coulter: Today I am pleased to have one of my constituents in the House and on the precinct. Her name is Caitlyn Tuytel. She’s a 16-year-old student from Sardis Secondary School, and she’s going to graduate early, which is spectacular.

I got to spend time with her yesterday. She’s really smart and super passionate about agriculture. She’s a dairy farmer. She’s also a barrel racer. She’s really into 4-H cattle as well.

If the House could welcome Caitlyn.

D. Routley: I’d like the House to help me welcome two really good friends and

constituents, Sandra Zuccolini-Larocque and Mike Larocque. For Sandra, her history

goes back, in Nanaimo, to the coal-mining days. Her family lived in the South End,

as does she. She’s been a great volunteer for the fantastic South End Community

Association over the years. Mike is a DJ. Yeah.

[10:10 a.m.]

Sandra is also the place where I would place the blame for my pestering of

the Environment Minister for funding of the historical Morden Colliery Park in

Nanaimo. The blame goes to Sandra for my pestering of the minister, as does the

credit for saving that park and earning the investment to it.

Thank you, Sandra and Mike, for your great contributions to our

community.

J. Rice: As we are currently in the middle of Emergency Service Dispatchers and 9-1-1 Awareness Week, I’d like to share some thoughts on the people who do very important work every day in our province.

Emergency service call-takers and other personnel involved in this vital public safety role are true unsung heroes who play an integral

part in keeping our communities safe. They are the calming voices who take swift action to help people when they call 911 in a moment of personal distress.

I’m pleased to welcome two E-Comm 9-1-1 representatives to the House this morning.

Meghan Taylor has been a 911 police call-taker for more than five years. She began her career at West Shore RCMP before transitioning to E-Comm’s Vancouver Island 911 centre.

Nicole Israel has 20 years of experience in emergency communications, working in both police call-taking and dispatch. Prior to joining E-Comm, Nicole was a telecommunications supervisor at the Saanich police department.

I’d like to extend a warm welcome to both Meghan and Nicole this morning.

F. Donnelly: It gives me great pleasure to welcome back to the Legislature one of my

political heroes and good friends, John Cashore. John served as MLA for

Coquitlam-Maillardville between 1986 and 2001. He served in cabinet as Minister of

Aboriginal Affairs, Minister of Labour and Minister of Environment, Lands and

Parks. He also served as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of

Education.

During his time as Minister of Environment, he greatly advanced the NDP’s

goal of doubling the amount of parks and protected areas in B.C. to 12 percent. He

introduced the zero AOX pulp pollution regulation, and he was instrumental in the

creation of the Muskwa-Kechika special management area, some 4.4 million hectares

in the Northern Rockies.

Since retiring from political life, John has continued to be a tireless

advocate for the environment. I’m lucky to have such a distinguished gentleman as

an adviser on such things as Pinecone Provincial Park, which is in my

riding.

Prior to politics, John was a United Church minister, serving in many rural

and Indigenous communities in B.C. He has 11 grandchildren, enjoys hiking,

fishing, canoeing and spending time with his friend Sharie Ford.

Sharie, who also lives in Coquitlam, is an active volunteer with SHARE and

the Crossroads Hospice Society. She’s on the council of Como Lake United Church,

which is working to provide 75 units of below-market and market rental

housing.

John and Sharie are visiting the Legislature today and are here in the

gallery. Would the House please join me in welcoming John Cashore and Sharie

Ford.

Hon. L. Popham: I’d like to follow the member for Chilliwack and welcome Caitlyn to the

chamber.

I met Caitlyn in 2019 at the PNE during a 4-H event, and we hit it off.

really proud of Caitlyn. She participated by rescuing hundreds of animals during

the floods in the Fraser Valley, and she did it with so much grace. She is an

incredible young woman. She is an incredible farmer and a leader in her own

community. I think we probably are looking at a future Minister of Agriculture in

our midst.

I’d like to welcome you here. It’s been such an honour for me to spend time

with you. We had a sleepover last night, and we went to Pagliacci’s.

Every conversation I have with Caitlyn proves to me that she is such a

solid person and a hard worker. Also, as the member mentioned, she’s straight

As.

[10:15 a.m.]

The world is open to whatever you want to do. We’re just so happy to have

you here. Welcome.

S. Chant: I would like to introduce, virtually — today is organ donation day — a person who has donated over 100 times with blood and also has donated bone marrow, which has managed to make a young woman, a mother of two young children, able to see her children grow, go to school and do a number of other things.

Anyway, I’m always very proud of these folks, and I’m particularly proud of this one. He continues to donate blood on an ongoing basis. He also happens to be my husband, Rick Chant.

Tributes

DIANE NICHOLLS

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s with mixed emotions that I tell the House that Diane Nicholls, the assistant deputy minister and chief forester, is leaving the B.C. public service. As the Minister of Forests, I have often relied on Diane’s wise advice and vast experience on many issues that relate to this ministry, and I will miss her very much.

Diane has been B.C.’s chief forester since 2016 and has had many successes throughout her

tenure. Her influence and enthusiastic approach will be difficult to replace.

She’s been instrumental in ushering in a new era of forest management planning

that includes enhanced benefits for forest communities, First Nations and all

British Columbians. Some of Diane’s other accomplishments include building the

office of the chief forester, which holds the mantra of caring for B.C.’s

forests.

She was also instrumental in bringing the Forest and Range Practices Act amendments to enhance forest management planning and align with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. She’s led successful partnerships with the federal government on initiatives that include the low-carbon economy fund, the forest carbon initiative and the 2 Billion Trees program. She also introduced a collaborative approach to timber supply reviews.

Finally, she helped to bring forest products innovation to the front of the government agenda with the forest bioproduct strategy. Not only is she B.C.’s first female chief forester; she is also the first woman in Canada to hold this position.

Please join me in wishing Diane well in her future endeavours, where she will have the incredible opportunity to pursue her passion in the bioeconomy. I say she leaves big shoes to fill, but maybe I should say big high heels.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Malcolmson: In the House today is my uncle Paul Barber. He was a documentary producer for the Journal on the CBC for almost 20 years. Many people will remember that work. He was a staffer in the Schreyer government, a public servant at Queen’s Park under all three parties: NDP, Conservative and Liberal. He’s also the husband of my beloved late aunt Kim Malcolmson. Will the House please make my uncle Paul very welcome.

Statements

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION FOR

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY PROTECTIVE

SERVICES

AND VICTORIA POLICE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know it has been a long session of introductions today, but I do think that the one I’m about to make is important, and I think all members of this chamber will appreciate it.

Over the last number of weeks, this building and many members have faced challenges from those who want to protest outside the front of the chamber. We have had absolutely incredible work from our legislative protective services, the staff at the Sergeant-at-Arms, Victoria police department, and Chief Del Manak and all the sworn officers who have helped keep this precinct and members safe and allowed legitimate, peaceful protest to take place.

I think we should all, at the end of this week, give them a very hearty thank-you for a job well done.

S. Bond: On behalf of the official opposition, I want to thank the Government House Leader for doing what we need to do more often, and that is to recognize and provide thanks to the people who help us get our work done here.

On behalf of the official opposition, we want to join with the Government House Leader in expressing our heartfelt gratitude. It makes it a lot easier to come to work, knowing that there is an incredible team of people taking care of us and looking after each other as well.

Thank you to the House Leader for raising that today.

[10:20 a.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Hon. N. Cullen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2022.

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

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 20. This bill amends nine pieces of legislation, including the Auditor General for Local Government Act, the Community Charter, the Local Government Act, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, the Vancouver Charter, the Islands Trust Act, of course the Cultus Lake Park Act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

Bill 20 does five primary things. One, it removes redundant legislation that is no longer required. Secondly, it clarifies a local government’s authority on electronic meetings and subdivision of land that is not agricultural land. It updates legislation to provide gender-neutral language. Fourth, it provides the city of Vancouver the same authority all other local governments have to do energy benchmarking. Lastly, and most importantly, it implements new requirements for local elected officials who are charged with or convicted of criminal offences.

These amendments include repealing the Auditor General for Local Government Act, clarifying that the authority to hold electronic meetings applies to local government bodies, providing certainty on an approving officer’s statutory discretion to permit subdivision of land that is not agricultural land, modernizing the Vancouver Charter by replacing gender-specific language with gender-neutral language, authorizing the city of Vancouver to require energy benchmarking, and changing the timing of when disqualification of local elected officials applies to the time of conviction for an indictable offence and not waiting until sentencing occurs.

It also requires a local elected official who has been charged with a criminal offence to take an immediate leave of absence from their duties.

These changes are what municipal leaders have been calling for. These changes are what the public expects. These are changes that we seek to implement as government.

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I’m pleased to table these amendments, which respond to ministry housekeeping needs, specific legislative requests from the city of Vancouver and recommendations from the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Cullen: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

GREEN SHIRT DAY FOR ORGAN DONOR

AWARENESS AND

REGISTRATION

G. Kyllo: Today, April 7, Canadians are recognizing Green Shirt Day. On this day, we remember and honour defenceman Logan Boulet of the Humboldt Broncos, who tragically lost his life in a 2018 bus crash but helped to save and improve the lives of six people through organ donation. Logan’s selfless act has opened up the conversation around organ donation, inspiring thousands of Canadians to register as donors and to carry Logan’s legacy forward.

In Canada, almost 90 percent of Canadians say that they support organ donation, but sadly, only 32 percent have actually registered as donors. Green Shirt Day serves as a reminder that we need to take a few moments to go through the simple process of registration to ensure our choice is recorded and respected.

Although donation rates have improved over the last ten years, there is more to be done, as approximately 250 Canadians die annually awaiting an organ transplant. It’s suggested that every person who registers their intent to donate speak with an average of four others about organ donation. That means that 100,000 new registrants leads to almost 400,000 conversations.

I encourage every member of this House to continue these conversations, to become educated on organ donation and to do their part to register as an organ donor at transplant.bc.ca. Just by registering as a donor, we have the potential to save and improve the lives of those awaiting organ transplant. I can’t express enough the gratitude that we have for those who have already registered.

[10:25 a.m.]

Let’s get B.C. to a place where not a single person dies awaiting an organ transplant.

R. Glumac: I am wearing a green shirt today because today is Green Shirt Day for organ donor awareness. This day highlights the need for registered organ and tissue donors. By recognizing this day, we are encouraging more people to make an important choice to improve access to life-saving and life-transforming transplants.

Our government and B.C. Transplant are committed to raising awareness and sharing information about the need for organs so that more lives can be saved or improved, giving more families the precious gift of time with their loved ones.

After the Humboldt Broncos bus crash, Logan Boulet succumbed to his injuries. He was registered as an organ donor, and he gave the gift of life to others. In fact, he saved six lives and inspired thousands of people around the world to register as organ and tissue donors. His family, the Canadian Transplant Association, B.C. Transplant, donor families, transplant recipients and health care providers carry on Logan’s legacy by encouraging everyone to wear green on the anniversary of his donation.

In 2021, in B.C., there were 75 living donors and 150 deceased donors that gave the incredible gift of life. Organ donors give people waiting for a transplant an opportunity to live their lives to the fullest.

It’s important to know that there are hundreds of people still waiting for an organ transplant in B.C. I encourage everyone to take two minutes, the time that it takes to watch this speech, to register as an organ donor at www.taketwominutes.ca.

On behalf of the provincial government, I thank all those who have become organ donors and those whose selfless, generous acts have helped others.

VAISAKHI

B. Banman: On the 14th of April, the traditional harvest festival Vaisakhi will be celebrated. As one of the most important dates of the year, it is usually celebrated on either the 13th or 14th of April to commemorate the solar new year.

Vaisakhi is a Sikh and Hindu festival with deep, historic roots that’s celebrated by many communities all around the world. The festival is very important in Sikhism, as it is also a day to celebrate the year 1699, the year when Sikhism was born as a collective faith. Communities hold parades throughout the streets, with lots of singing, hymns, prayers and colourful clothes, known as Nagar Kirtan.

Abbotsford and B.C. have a strong and celebrated Sikh community. Abbotsford is home to the Gur Sikh Temple, a national historic site since 2002 and known as the oldest-existing Sikh temple in North America. It’s more than 100 years old, and it remains as a symbol of the long history of Sikh Canadians in Abbotsford and their service to our community and province.

I am inspired by the work of the Sikh community in B.C., and I truly appreciate all that they do. Their aid throughout the entire COVID-19 pandemic shows how incredibly gracious and generous they are.

Both communities’ generous spirit was also incredibly apparent during the devastating floods last November. The Hindu Cultural Society made efforts to send a trailer full of supplies to evacuees from Merritt and Kelowna, and the Sikhs delivered thousands of meals to those that were stranded.

As we all know, COVID has prevented gatherings. We know that this Vaisakhi will be extra special to many.

I would like to thank both the Sikh and the Hindu communities for their constant devotion to the province and to the people of this province. I wish them truly, this year, a very happy Vaisakhi.

BIG BRO’S BARBERSHOP

N. Sharma: There are times in your life when you know you’re in the presence of a truly extraordinary person. Jessie Anderson is one of those people.

In 2015, Jessie Anderson opened Big Bro’s Barbershop with $9,000 in his pocket, raised from crowdfunding. As a young person, he worked with his idol, Jim Deva, at Little Sister’s bookstore and decided to get to work on his own vision to create a trans-inclusive space for his community.

[10:30 a.m.]

With a beautiful barber pole swirling with trans colours of blue, pink and white, this barbershop is dedicated to the wellness of the trans community and owned by a member of the trans community. He created a place where trans people could receive hair services without hassle, purchase gender-affirming products that are rarely available on store shelves and have access to resources that are often difficult to find or afford.

True leaders break down barriers for a better world and create the path for others to follow. Jessie continues to shatter hurdles of running a trans-centred business. He told me some of these barriers. Insurance providers, for example, didn’t have a category for gender-affirming products, so he took on the leadership of educating them to get the proper coverage, changing the system for all that came after.

There are many reasons why people from all over the province come to my riding, and Big

Bro’s Barbershop is one of them. People from Kelowna and the Island show up at

the doorstep of the barbershop to find community, acceptance and the resources

that they need. Jessie wanted a place where all people can feel part of a

community. So the next time you need a great haircut and inspiration, stop by

Big Bro’s Barbershop, and you’ll receive both.

Jessie and team, thank you for your leadership in making us all better.

INDIGENOUS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

AND TSAWOUT

PARTNERSHIP

A. Olsen: I rise today in celebration of an economic development venture between

my relatives, Tsawout, and Cascadia Seaweed.

November 2019. I was proud to stand in this assembly as part of the

unanimous support in the passing of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act. Articles 3 and 4 of the Declaration Act highlight Indigenous

people’s right to self-determination, the right to freely determine their

economic development and the right to autonomy in matters relating to their

territory and local affairs. Articles 20, 21, 32 and 36 all highlight the right

of Indigenous people to make decisions about their territory and economic

opportunities.

In February of 1852, my W̱SÁNEĆ

ancestors entered into an agreement with James Douglas, the first governor of

the colony of British Columbia. Fast-forward to 1989, and the B.C. Court of

Appeal ruled in favour of the Tsawout in the Saanichton Bay Marina case. The

court decision was critical in defining our right to fish as formerly,

including our right to catch fish and the right to the places that we

fish.

The W̱SÁNEĆ right to fish is

unqualified, protects us against infringement of our right to carry on our

fisheries as formerly and includes the right to travel to and from our fishery.

Finally, the court found that generally, the rules, when applied to the treaty,

should be given fair, large and liberal construction in favour of the

W̱SÁNEĆ.

It is with this understanding that the Tsawout have exercised their

right to create a first-of-its-kind marine use law as the foundation of this

important economic development partnership. This is exactly what we hoped for

when we passed the Declaration Act.

I raise my hands to the Tsawout leadership, Elders and youth who have

made this opportunity become a reality.

CHILLIWACK CHILD AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

D. Coulter: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell you about a very important organization in my community and an important milestone they’re having. This month the Chilliwack Child and Youth Committee, or CYC, as it’s known, is having its 30th annual conversation on children and youth. The CYC is also celebrating its 30th anniversary, having been in Chilliwack since 1991.

The Chilliwack Children and Youth Committee represents a variety of community groups — governmental and non-governmental. They provide leadership and advocacy in the delivery of human and social services to children, youth and their families. Their mission is to work collaboratively in liaison with clients in the design, implementation and evaluation of the continuum of services which enhance the well-being of children, youth and their families.

There are 32 organizations in the CYC, including organizations such as the Stó:lō Nation, school district 33 and the Ann Davis Transition Society, to name just a few.

This year’s annual conversation on children and youth is themed “Reconnection, reflection and reconciliation.”

[10:35 a.m.]

Prior to the disruption of the COVID restrictions, the Chilliwack CYC conversation on

Chilliwack’s children conference was an important annual gathering of our

community’s social, health, education professionals to network and celebrate

innovative programs and services and to develop joint action plans to address

services and service gaps. The event will take place both virtually and in

person, and there will be a variety of workshops and celebration events

throughout the week of April 26 to April 29.

Over the last two years, CYC hasn’t been able to facilitate an annual conversation. They are thrilled to create spaces together to reconnect with each other, celebrate the CYC’s 30th anniversary in Chilliwack and take time to learn and grow around our individual and community’s role in reconciliation.

Oral Questions

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE

SYSTEM

S. Bond: This week we have raised the serious concerns that British Columbians

have about the revolving door of repeat offenders being released, re-offending

and being released again. Random assaults, violence and disorder are escalating

in communities right across the province, from Surrey to Prince George. In

Vancouver, people are facing, on average, four unprovoked stranger assaults

every single day.

People are worried. They’re scared, and they have the right to feel safe

in their communities.

What is the Attorney General doing to deal with repeat offenders and,

even more seriously, the lack of confidence that British Columbians have in

their justice system?

Hon. D. Eby: I share the member’s concern, to a point. That concern is about the violence and the crime that some people are seeing in our province and some of the horrific attacks described by the members opposite over the last week. I’m concerned about the victims. I’m concerned about their families and friends. Obviously, everybody in this House needs and wants British Columbians to feel safe in their communities, and these attacks corrode that feeling of safety.

I say to a point, because the members have tried to connect this to provincial government Crown counsel and difficult decisions made every day by Crown counsel in their incredibly important work. I’ve provided them with data and advised them about an area where I share concern. We have seen a decline in the COVID year of the number of approved charges. I’ve asked Crown counsel to look into why we saw that 7 percent decrease.

I can advise the member that the Minister of Public Safety and I have met with the

Vancouver police department to specifically canvass their suggestions around

prolific offenders in Vancouver. We’re actually meeting with them again today

to further that discussion. I would welcome suggestions from the member

opposite around — within our provincial authorities, within our provincial

jurisdiction — the opportunities that we have to deal with this.

I know, too, that overlying this is a concern that people are seeing in the community — very visibly, people struggling with mental health and addiction issues in the streets. That also increases anxiety. I know that our complex care initiative is going to make a really big difference in that.

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions…. Five hundred people struggling with serious

mental health and addiction issues will be much better supported and will not

be using emergency rooms, courthouses, police resources, and so on. That will

make a difference.

We’re making progress. There’s more to do, and I welcome suggestions from the opposition, if they have some.

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

S. Bond: Well, I want to be perfectly clear with the Attorney General. The

comments we make and the issues we raise in this House are not a reflection of

the people who work in the justice system. They’re about the Attorney General

and his responsibility in British Columbia. This is on his watch. This is his

responsibility.

In fact, on the minister’s own government website, it says: “British

Columbians expect the justice system to keep their communities safe.” Nothing

could be further from the truth in British Columbia right now. People need to

have confidence. They have to know that their Attorney General is going to

stand up for the concerns that they have about feeling safe in their

communities. The current approach is simply not working.

[10:40 a.m.]

It was absolutely horrifying to learn that a 67-year-old vulnerable

senior in Surrey was stabbed because someone else wanted his seat on the

SkyTrain. That is unacceptable, and the Attorney General knows it. It is

horrific when seniors cannot feel safe taking transit in our province. British

Columbians, who are scared and feel unsafe, have lost their trust in the system

and in this minister.

What exactly is he going to do to allow British Columbians the right to

feel safe in their communities?

Hon. D. Eby: What a horrific incident on public transit that the member describes. I can’t imagine the anxiety and the concern that the family of this individual feel, and I wish this person the best with recovery from that violent attack. It sounds awful. I heard from the member from Kelowna about a similar horrific attack along a trail in her community — again, random, unprovoked attacks. That’s really frightening for people.

Now, when police investigate these crimes, when they arrest people, when they put that

investigation file together and bring it to Crown…. I can assure British

Columbians that that will be reviewed by Crown against minimum standards to

ensure that when that’s brought to court, there will be a conviction. We will,

and have, grappled with decisions like R. v. Jordan , out of the

Supreme Court of Canada, that impose very strict timelines on us getting these

matters to court and making sure that the files are complete and ready to go so

that we get that conviction. They can have confidence in the work of Crown.

They can have confidence in the justice system.

With respect to the police investigation, I wish them all the speed and accuracy and

enthusiasm they can bring to investigating these things, putting those files

together and bringing them to Crown counsel.

If members have any concerns about decisions by Crown on violent attacks

like this, come to my office. I do have the ability to direct Crown, if they

have a concern about the decisions that are being made by Crown. I have

confidence in our independent prosecution service.

T. Halford: People were shocked earlier this year when Miguel Machorro, a tourist from Mexico, was repeatedly stabbed in a Tim Hortons in a random attack. The attacker was wanted after failing to return to the home where he is required to live as a condition of his previous release. He also has an extensive record of prior crimes, including sexual assault in 2019.

To the Attorney General, when will the province address these random attacks that continue to undermine public confidence in the justice system?

Hon. D. Eby: Over the week, I’ve run the members through some important changes that

were made at the federal level and an important Supreme Court of Canada

decision called R. v. Zora . These relate to the conditions that are

imposed on people when they’re accused of having committed an offence. Our

courts and our prosecutors are bound by this federal legislation.

I’ll just read a

section of Bill C-75, the federal law, so the member

understands what the court is interpreting when they make decisions like this.

They require a “principle of restraint” for police and courts to ensure that

release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention. It’s a federal

law. In the R. v. Zora decision, the Supreme Court of Canada

reinforced that, saying that bail conditions need to be based on the premise

that somebody going to court is presumed innocent.

Now, our Crowns work within this context set out by the Supreme Court of

Canada and the federal government. I don’t know all the details of the case

that the member presents. If he has concerns about decisions by Crown, related

to offences, he should come to my office so that we can have those

discussions.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.

T. Halford: I thank the Attorney General for the quote. I will actually read the

Attorney General a quote from the victim so that maybe he can understand what

is actually going on in the streets. “I sincerely thought I was going to die.

This aggression was without any provocation on my part.”

[10:45 a.m.]

We need our communities to be a safe place for everyone. People don’t

feel safe when prolific offenders are released again and again, and random

attacks occur on our streets every single day. The Vancouver police have said

that in Vancouver four random assaults per day are what they’re

finding.

When does the Attorney General plan to start restoring public confidence

in our justice system?

Hon. D. Eby: The Minister of Public Safety — his staff intervened in the Vancouver police budget process to ensure that the Vancouver police had the resources they need to investigate these matters and bring people to justice, bring them to the court system for prosecution, which is incredibly important.

When matters come to Crown, I can advise the member they take it very seriously, their responsibility to ensure public safety and to apply the federal Criminal Code and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Other than ensuring that police have the resources they need, the Crown are applying the law and prosecuting these cases and doing it in a way that results in convictions.

I would welcome suggestions from the member about preventing these kinds of attacks. We’re

also engaging with police and with other stakeholders. In fact, I’m meeting

today with Vancouver police to discuss exactly these issues.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

AND POLICIES ON LNG

DEVELOPMENT

A. Olsen: Yesterday the Globe and Mail indicated that Shell is assessing the financial viability of expanding LNG Canada here in British Columbia. “It raises the urgency for more LNG supply, because Europe and the world desperately need it,” says Wael Sawan, the head of Shell’s integrated gas and renewables division.

The Minister of Energy sees this as an indication of his government’s success. The minister said: “The fact that LNG Canada is eager to move forward is a strong indication that companies see B.C. as a secure jurisdiction to invest in.” Let’s be clear. Shell is trying to spin increased profits as a humanitarian project in a climate emergency.

What does António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, have to say about this type of

humanitarianism? “People and the planet are getting clobbered by climate

change. Nearly half of humanity is living in the danger zone — now. Many

ecosystems are at the point of no return — now. Unchecked carbon pollution is

forcing the world’s most vulnerable on a frog march to destruction — now. The

facts are undeniable. This abdication of leadership is criminal. The world’s

biggest polluters are guilty of arson of our only home.”

My question is to the Minister of Energy. Will the B.C. NDP caucus continue to subsidize the expansion of LNG Canada?

Hon. B. Ralston: I think we all read that report from the IPCC with concern. The chair of the IPCC said: “We are at a crossroads. The decisions we make now can secure a livable future…. I am encouraged by climate action being taken in many countries. There are policies, regulations and market instruments that are proving effective. If these are scaled up and applied more widely and equitably, they can support deep emissions reductions and stimulate innovation.”

Our approach to LNG development here in British Columbia is, I think, well known, but let

me repeat the principles that guide us in our considerations. One is

guaranteeing a fair return for B.C.’s resources. Two, jobs and training for

British Columbians. Three, respect and partnership with First Nations. And

four, protection for B.C.’s air, land and water, including living up to the

province’s climate commitments.

We will continue our approach that ensures the project fits within CleanBC. We will not cut corners on the environmental assessments that protect people, land and water, and we will not abandon our climate plan, globally recognized as an innovative solution for industry.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.

[10:50 a.m.]

A. Olsen: B.C. is already failing to meet our sectoral emission targets. We somehow believe that expanding LNG is possible.

In a CBC

article this week, the Minister of Environment said: “We’ve made it clear in our

Roadmap to 2030 that we’re committed to a 33 to 38 percent reduction in

emissions, upstream and downstream, in the oil and gas sector. That is part of

our roadmap, and we’ll be judged on that.” That’s true. This government will be

judged on that.

Phase 1 of LNG Canada is included in CleanBC models; phase 2 is not. The B.C. Sierra Club is suing our government for failing to provide a detailed plan to achieve emissions targets. The Minister of Energy can say whatever he wants, but we don’t have the information to be able to actually judge them on it.

They say emissions enabled by the LNG Canada terminal at Kitimat alone would make it nearly impossible to meet the targets that these ministers are talking about. Jens Wieting of the Sierra Club said: “The NDP restarted the process of the carbon tax, but both the previous Liberal government and NDP government have supported more fracking and building more LNG terminals, and that’s a key part of the problem.”

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Explain to this assembly how the expansion of LNG Canada can fit into our 2030 emissions targets.

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

Let me simply state, as the member quoted, the CBC interview, what I said. We introduced

the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030 to spell out for British Columbians, all British

Columbians, as well as our colleagues across Canada and across the world, a

series of measures we would take across transportation, across buildings in

communities, across industry, including the oil and gas sector, as to how we

would reduce our emissions. Included in that was a clear commitment to reduce

emissions in the oil and gas sector by 33 to 38 percent by 2030.

The focus of emission reduction has to be on reducing emissions. We will work with industry, with nations, with experts — and we’ll introduce regulations if necessary — to demonstrate clearly to British Columbians how we will achieve the commitments that we made. That is what we need to do. That is what we’ll be judged on.

I’ll simply close by quoting one of the British Columbia members, a previous member, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “I am thrilled with the release of the CleanBC Roadmap that fulfils our original commitment in CleanBC to fully meet our legislated greenhouse gas emissions target for 2030.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: “The roadmap’s comprehensive sectorwide approach to emissions reduction

leaves no stone unturned…. It’s a plan that signals to the world that B.C. is

going to lead the way in the transition to a low-carbon future.”

Those words come from a climate scientist. That climate scientist is a

member of the faculty at the University of Victoria, and his name is Andrew

Weaver.

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND SERVICES FOR

PERSONS WITH COMPLEX CARE

NEEDS

M. Lee: This week we learned that residents at Woodwards Community Housing in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside are losing an on-site nurse — this at a time when this government should be adding mental health resources in supportive housing, not taking them away.

This nursing position has been funded since 2010 but is now being cut by the NDP. Woodwards resident Angel Gates wants to know why. “During a pandemic and opioid crisis, you’re going to take away our nurse?”

Will the NDP listen to Angel and the other residents of Woodwards and give them back their nurse, who they rely on?

Hon. D. Eby: I saw the same news

article that the member did. Obviously, I’m concerned. I understand that Vancouver Coastal Health has made a decision around allocating resources. I can assure the member and the residents of Woodwards that we are looking into it.

[10:55 a.m.]

R. Merrifield: Cutting mental health supports in supportive housing is exactly the opposite of what we need to be doing right now and exactly the opposite of what this NDP government promised.

When the Premier was asked about the tragic slaying of UBCO security guard Harmandeep Kaur, he said: “It is high time that we started building the complex care so that we can house those individuals.” The RCMP say this is the third incident in Kelowna this year where a person was killed related to a mental health issue.

Our city’s promised complex care facility is nowhere close to completion, despite consistent urging by the city of Kelowna for the last three years — even delivering a white paper in 2020 to this government. Instead of urgency, there is no timeline, no budget and no clear difference being made on the ground by this NDP government.

My question is this. How much longer will Kelowna have to wait until shovels are in the ground on complex care?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, I’ll address the member’s question about complex care housing in a minute. It’s an important one.

I will say again, in this chamber, that for any of us to conflate mental health or

substance use with violence is not fair. It builds stigma. We have to let the

police investigate their work. Driving fear and driving people’s hiding of

mental health and substance use challenges is something that drives people away

from the health care system. So we need to be very careful about how we speak

about these things.

Now speaking to the member’s question about complex care housing. Members will remember that it was in February that we committed, in the Finance Minister’s budget, $164 million to build complex care housing facilities throughout the province and, at its total build-out, to bring services for people with heretofore unmet needs — complex intersections of mental illness, substance use, often living with acquired brain injury — the people for whom supportive housing has not been enough, people who either have been evicted often or at risk of eviction.

In February, we adopted the budget. This week the first citizens — new residents of complex care housing — moved into the first facility in Surrey. That is breakneck speed.

We all feel the urgency. We have announced complex care housing in Kelowna. It’s one of

only five communities that has been named. That work is happening with urgency

throughout government. I’m honoured to lead that work. I’ll continue to talk

with the member about how plans advance in Kelowna, but she can be very pleased

that the advocacy of her mayor has resulted in an announcement for Kelowna.

They will have complex care for people, in the past, who were left out in the

cold.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE

SYSTEM

L. Doerkson: Certainly, I don’t think you could define breakneck speed over a period of five years that you’ve had opportunities to fix some of these problems.

The Attorney General had mentioned canvassing us for suggestions on how to help in this province with respect to what is happening on our streets. I have a suggestion. How about we try to stop releasing these repeat offenders? How about we start there?

Every day in Cariboo-Chilcotin, we see the results of a justice system that is failing to protect the public from repeat offenders. Police this week are looking for a man who entered a 7-11, pepper-sprayed an employee and demanded cash and cigarettes.

On Monday, Britany Methot’s truck was stolen. Also on Monday, in Williams Lake, an RV trailer was stolen from Lakeview Avenue. On Dog Creek Road, a man was shot outside of his residence. Armed robbery, theft and shootings, day after day after day.

Front-line responders, our RCMP, are doing everything that they can to keep our communities safe, but our residents are losing faith in our justice system.

[11:00 a.m.]

When will the Attorney General address this daily violence on our streets?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s important to recognize the role of Crown counsel, which is that they receive the recommendations from police. So when they’re actively investigating something and putting the file together, Crown then receives the file from police.

The members earlier asked questions about people who had been “catch and released.” There was a stabbing in a coffee shop, a horrific incident. As of the most recent information I have, that individual was arrested and charged and remains in custody. There was a Surrey stabbing of a senior on a SkyTrain. The most recent information I have is that that person was charged and remains in custody.

I think Williams Lake is a community that has struggled with crime for a long period of time. In fact, they have really struggled, historically. They were No. 1 for crime, I will note, even before we formed government. The city council and the mayor have worked really hard to bring that down. We’ve had multiple meetings, including as recently as last week, with the mayor from Williams Lake, to identify solutions.

The member can be dismissive of my invitation to the opposition to bring forward

suggestions. That’s fine. I also note that sometimes they say that we don’t ask

them for suggestions.

If you don’t have suggestions, that’s fine. We’re doing the work over here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, we can’t release people who haven’t even been arrested, in the examples that he gave. The people need to be arrested by police, brought to Crown, and Crown will do the work according to federal law.

Suggestions about how we interrupt this cycle for people, beyond complex care and beyond other initiatives we’re doing, are always welcome from the other side.

M. Morris: Last month a Surrey police officer working with the Car 67 mental health unit suffered stab wounds when attacked by a woman who was wanted on outstanding arrest warrants. Two weeks ago in Kelowna, a man pulled a knife and stabbed an RCMP member in the face. Just yesterday we learned of another RCMP officer stabbed trying to make an arrest in Keremeos.

Day after day we see violence on our streets as individuals are released and breach bail

and probation conditions. People have lost faith in the administration of

justice in this province.

When will the Attorney do his job to restore the confidence that has

been completely lost?

Hon. D. Eby: We started this session this afternoon by expressing appreciation to law enforcement in this place but also externally — the Victoria police department, who have done work to keep us safe here. I think that it’s an opportunity — the member’s question — to express appreciation to all law enforcement in the province for the work they do to keep us safe.

It’s very difficult work, and the member’s examples that he gives of horrible attacks on police demonstrate that it is risky work. So when family members send off their loved ones to be police officers in the community, I think they all have a little bit of anxiety. I know I would. It’s a very difficult and challenging job. When someone attacks a police officer, when they attack a civilian, when they stab somebody, when they assault somebody, we count on police to do those investigations, to bring those matters forward into our justice system.

I’ll take the member’s point. It is not a perfect system. It is the best system we have,

and we are working every day to improve it to make sure that those matters are

getting to trial sooner and that we’re meeting the timelines set out by the

Supreme Court of Canada so that matters aren’t dismissed for technicalities, to

make sure that the files that are brought forward by police are sufficiently

robust that we’re actually going to get a conviction so the person serves time

for a serious crime. We’re doing all of that work.

I’m happy to provide a briefing to the member about the detail of the work that’s been happening within the Crown prosecution service to achieve those goals, even in a pandemic, even when our justice system was under incredible stress.

E. Ross: We’re listening to the Attorney General’s answers. We know Crown counsel

is trying do their job. We know that, and we commend them for that. We know the

RCMP are trying to do their job. We understand that. This is about what the

Attorney General is not doing. This is about what the B.C. government is not

doing.

[11:05 a.m.]

You even look at the B.C. government website. It says: “British

Columbians expect the justice system to keep their communities safe.” At the

end of that, it says that the B.C. government is transforming justice services

in ways that meet these expectations, meaning safety of our communities, our

businesses.

The question has been asked repeatedly. We brought examples of attacks,

shootings and stabbings happening in our communities. But instead of listening

to the concerns of the people of Terrace, who are facing theft and violence on

a daily basis, the Attorney General is dismissive.

Momentum is building, as Terrace is getting cities across B.C. to sign

on to their letter calling for tougher action on repeat offenders.

“Communities, local business owners and workers, the economy as well as the

public feel the impacts of repeat offenders who commit property crimes and

thefts repeatedly and without consequence.” The letter has found support from

Duncan Mayor Michelle Staples, with more and more cities signing on.

My question. How many more cities will have to lobby the Attorney

General for action before he finally takes action on repeat

offenders?

Hon. D. Eby: It was the mayor of Terrace, not me, in the Terrace Standard who said that we had a very productive meeting, that she felt heard, that she was optimistic that she would see action. I share that view.

I think there is an opportunity for us to work together — not just with the mayor from Terrace. We’re also, I can advise the member, working with the urban mayors on exactly this issue. We’ve been meeting with police, the Minister of Public Safety and I. Again, we have a meeting today with Vancouver police on this very issue.

I can assure the mayor of Duncan, the mayor of Terrace, other mayors that are concerned about this activity — and I’m sure they’re hearing about it, in an election year, from constituents — that we are here to work with them and address these issues. I look forward to doing that.

[End of question period.]

Question of Privilege

(Speaker’s Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair is prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the member of Saanich North and the Islands earlier this week, which was taken under advisement.

On March 31, following oral question period, the member for Saanich North and the Islands reserved his right to raise a question of privilege regarding comments made by the Minister of Forests with respect to the spraying of glyphosate in the forest sector.

The member outlined his question of privilege on April 5, making a number of submissions to the Chair, primarily being scientific evidence that was not the subject of debate in this House. The member repeatedly characterized the minister’s remarks as misleading and suggested that the minister intended to mislead the House in making them.

Guidelines for raising a question of privilege are outlined in Parliamentary Practice

in British Columbia , fifth edition, at pages 399 to 400. One of the

essential elements required is “a brief written statement of the matter, which the

member reads to the House.” The brief statement of the matter is to inform the

House of the facts on which the question of privilege is based. The statement

should primarily focus on any applicable parliamentary authorities which may be of

assistance to the Chair, not arguments with respect to differences of opinion or

fact amongst members.

The Government House Leader submitted that the question of privilege raised by the member for Saanich North and the Islands was not a breach of privilege but was rather a dispute with respect to facts.

The Chair thanks the member for Saanich North and the Islands and the Government House Leader for their submissions, which assisted the Chair’s review of this question of privilege.

The Chair will note that an allegation that a member — and, in particular, a minister — has deliberately or intentionally misled the House is a serious accusation and ought not to be made lightly. I emphasize this, as it is an important reminder to all hon. members given the cut and thrust of debate that can take place in this chamber, where matters may be raised that other members may not agree with.

When such an accusation is made, the role of the Chair is to determine, based on the evidence presented, if the member deliberately misled the House and to determine whether the House was thereby prevented from exercising its duties or was obstructed in doing so, which would amount to contempt.

[11:10 a.m.]

The Chair delivered a ruling on a similar matter a few weeks ago, on February 14. So the

Chair encourages members to revisit the Votes and Proceedings of that day

to familiarize themselves with the full extent of parliamentary authorities that

may guide a presiding officer in adjudicating such a matter.

In short, when deciding on such a matter, the Chair must examine any evidence that proves that the statement was misleading, that establishes that the member — in this case, the minister — making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect and that establishes that the member intended to mislead the House in making the statement.

There’s nothing that the member for Saanich North and the Islands has outlined that would allow the Chair to make that determination. What the member outlined amounts to debate, a debate that should unfold through other avenues in this House, not by raising a question of privilege and making an allegation based on a difference of opinion regarding a statement of facts. The different views that may frequently arise in such a debate are not a matter for the Chair to weigh into.

Furthermore, not only is the dispute with respect to facts something that shouldn’t be raised as a question of privilege, but it is also not something that should even be raised as a point of order, as outlined in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , fifth edition, on page 133. It is simply inconsistent with the rules of debate that have guided the proceedings of this House for decades.

Having considered the submissions of the member for Saanich North and the Islands and the

Government House Leader, it’s the finding of the Chair that there was no

intentional or deliberate misleading of the House on the part of the Minister of

Forests. It is, therefore, the ruling of the Chair that a prima facie breach of

privilege has not occurred.

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move two motions regarding committee assignments.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The first motion. I move:

[That Norm Letnick , MLA replace Stephanie Cadieux , MLA as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.]

Motion approved.

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO

HEALTH COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[That Dan Davies , MLA replace Stephanie Cadieux , MLA as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Health.]

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a third committee assignment.

Leave granted.

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO

LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[That Norm Letnick , MLA replace Stephanie Cadieux , MLA as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Initiatives.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading debate on Bill 17, Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued estimates debate for the

Ministry of Citizens’ Services.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

This bill includes amendments to the Offence Act that modernize

violation ticket dispute processes in the B.C. Provincial Court. Currently,

dispute processes are heavily paper-based, and the use of technology is the

exception rather than the norm.

These amendments provide increased flexibility for British Columbians to

engage with the court electronically, and they provide for processes which

could allow ticket disputes to be resolved faster and without having to

physically appear in a courtroom.

[11:15 a.m.]

These amendments are expected to increase the efficiency of dispute

processes, thereby reducing pressure on court resources. The amendments also

create regulation-making authority to establish time-limited pilot projects

that can be used to develop and test new ways to resolve violation ticket

disputes that must currently only be set for trial.

For example, new processes can be developed for when a person does not

want to dispute the offence but simply needs more time to pay or a fine

reduction. These pilot projects will allow us to work with the Provincial

Court, law enforcement and other stakeholders to explore and test new

approaches to dispute resolution to improve the process for all

participants.

I’ll note that there have been some media stories brought forward by

lawyers that practice in this area expressing concern that lawyers may somehow,

by this bill, be excluded from hearing trials or that trials related to traffic

matters would be heard by someone other than a judicial justice or Provincial

Court judge. I would like to enter into the record some clarifications to

address those concerns so that people know what our intent is.

On the first question. Is the government trying to eliminate lawyers

from traffic court trials? No. This bill does not eliminate lawyers and doesn’t

propose to eliminate lawyers from appearing on behalf of clients for traffic

court trials. What it does do is create a first step, which is entirely

optional, through a pilot program that someone could go to in an attempt to

negotiate the fine if they’re not able to pay or to negotiate for more time to

pay the fine that is due on the ticket.

Currently the only way a person can do that is to show up at the trial.

To save court resources, having a first step where those negotiations can take

place — you don’t need the judge, you don’t need all the trappings of the

Provincial Court, and you can just deal with it before it gets to trial — we

hope will significantly conserve resources.

It’s important to note that will be entirely voluntary, if a person

wants to participate in it or if they want to go directly to trial. There are

no changes proposed in relation to trials whatsoever, and people will still be

able to bring a lawyer to those hearings or have a lawyer appear for them if

they wish.

The second issue is: will it remove a person’s right to dispute a

traffic ticket in person in front of a judicial justice or a judge? This is an

important piece. It is the intent of the government that people be provided

with the option and courts be provided with the option — the Provincial Court —

to do online traffic court hearings.

I disagree profoundly with the comments that have been made in the media

that you can’t have a fair hearing through an online process, that it’s somehow

a lesser form of justice. For many people, not having to trek to the courthouse

in downtown Vancouver and sit in a hallway for an entire day waiting for their

matter to be called, compared to appearing by their smartphone or by their

laptop at home and only when their matter is called, means they don’t have to

take time off work. It means they don’t have to commute into Vancouver, for

example, or into another major centre to argue their case. It’s much more

convenient.

We are already doing this on bail hearings. When you think about bail

hearings being a very serious matter, we do an online bail hearing. Surely

traffic tickets, as well, could be heard by an online process. So we may have

to agree to disagree in terms of the perspective of those media

commentaries.

That is something that we are aiming to do — to move more of these

matters over. It will be up to the chief judge to determine whether or not a

person has an option to appear one way or another in the administration of

this. The chief judge does have jurisdiction over how those appear. This is one

more tool for her to use to deal with COVID backlogs and make sure that our

justice system is running well and efficiently.

The trials will be heard by JJPs, judicial justices of the peace, or

Provincial Court judges. That will not change under this bill.

I hope that clarifies that lawyers will still be able to appear, that

trials will still be heard in front of an independent judicial justice or

Provincial Court judge, and this bill does not change those things.

The bill also makes amendments to the Ministry of Energy and Mines Act

to repeal unneeded and outdated requirements around the certification of

mineral assayers. The act’s requirements were intended to reduce fraudulent

mineral assays by requiring the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation to create a board to certify individual assayers. These sections,

first introduced in the late 1800s, are obsolete due to the professional

regulation of geoscientists and the growth of modern laboratories. Repeal will

bring British Columbia in line with other jurisdictions.

[11:20 a.m.]

There are also technical amendments here in the Insurance Vehicle Act to

clarify the statutory authority for an additional deduction and basic vehicle

damage coverage with respect to crashes involving more than one vehicle owned,

leased or rented by the same person. There is no change in basic vehicle damage

coverage policy in this bill.

Finally, this bill also makes consequential amendment and housekeeping

corrections to other statutes.

M. de Jong: I listened carefully, as always, to the Attorney’s remarks. As is

frequently the case with miscellaneous statutes amendment acts, there are

several items dealt with, and they will be the subject of review and discussion

and debate at the committee stage.

I think it’s fair to say that the bulk of what is being dealt with,

though, relates to the Offence Act, and several facets of what is being

proposed have generated some public interest. The Attorney has, happily,

recognized that and endeavoured, in a general way at this stage of the bill’s

consideration, to provide some initial responses to those concerns.

I will say this on behalf of the official opposition, and I think this

is reflective of the general attitude in the public. The idea of modernizing

processes and taking advantage of technologies to do so is not something that

either the opposition or I think most people are in any way offended by or

opposed to. Doing so in a way, though, that does not compromise people’s rights

and procedural rights is, I think, the issue and where we need to ensure a

proper balance is struck. Modernizing process, yes. Reducing or compromising

people’s rights, no.

The questions that will be considered when we get to the committee stage

debate are whether or not appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that

there is no compromise of people’s rights. I will foreshadow that conversation

and the importance of it by pointing out that much of the discussion that has

been generated publicly has focused on the amendments to the Offence Act as it

relates to violation tickets. That’s because that’s the terminology of the

bill, and that’s significant and relevant terminology.

Violation tickets aren’t just speeding tickets. The Attorney, again, I

think made specific reference to highway traffic offences and what’s been

referred to as traffic court. By the way, I don’t minimize in any way, shape or

form the importance of disputes that arise and the issuance of violation

tickets with respect to allegations of highway traffic offences. Our ability to

move around as members of society is very much tied, in many cases, to our

ability to operate a motor vehicle.

Charges and violation tickets that lead to convictions can, in some

cases, lead to the loss of that right. In some cases, what flows from that is

the loss of employment. That can have profound consequences for families. So we

have to be a little bit cautious not simply to, when we hear about procedural

matters like this, say: “Oh, well, we’re talking about a speeding ticket, and

it’s no big deal. Most people get one at some point in their life, and you

simply deal with it.”

You deal with it. In some cases, they are disputed, and it is necessary

to ensure that we have processes in place that provide a citizen with a fair

opportunity to defend themselves against the allegation that it is still for

the Crown to prove.

[11:25 a.m.]

In addition to highway traffic offences, of course, violation tickets

can be issued with respect to any number of other provincial statutes: the

Liquor Licensing Act, the Wildfire Act, the Commercial Transport Act, the

Firearm Act, the Cannabis Control Act. I could go on and on and on about other

statutes, other laws, in British Columbia, the enforcement of which can lead to

the issuance of a violation ticket.

The Commercial Transport Act, by definition, relates to people who earn

a living transporting goods, operating commercial vehicles. So the consequences

of a conviction under some of these statutes can be profound in terms of the

ability to continue operating a business or to continue remaining employed. All

to say that carefully scrutinizing what is being proposed here in terms of the

incorporation of technology into the dispute process is, I think, an

appropriate, valid and worthwhile endeavour and one that will be undertaken

when we get to the committee stage.

The Attorney has pointed out and made reference to some of the pilot

projects that are being proposed that appear, by virtue of the provisions of

the bill, to be time-limited, and he has referred to the voluntary nature of

participation in those pilot projects. Both of those are relevant and important

features included in the bill and ones that we will want to explore further in

the committee stage discussion.

The overall intent, I think, flowing out of the pandemic, in a time when

other means were found to allow hearings to take place electronically…. Again,

I don’t think the Attorney or the government needs to anticipate profound

opposition to the concept of having these hearings conducted differently and

making use of technology. I think what he should anticipate, though, are

questions around the degree to which it is made mandatory and the fact that

there may be some concerns from people.

We’re still, as a society, I think, in a period of transition. There is

a whole group of people for whom the notion of logging onto a computer or an

iPad or an iPhone is still problematic. The idea that — in pursuing a dispute

to a charge that is levied against them by the state, by the Crown — they might

be required to do that through some electronic means or through the use of

technology and that would be mandatory? I’m not sure we’re there yet as a

society and should be removing, entirely, the option of someone to attend at a

place physically and meet that allegation in person.

The act, to be fair, starts with the presumption that disputes will be

carried out in person. But it does create, for the Chief Judge of the

Provincial Court, the option, to be exercised at her or his discretion, of

removing that presumption. We’re going to need to explore further, with the

Attorney, some of the risks associated with doing that and whether it’s

appropriate, given the breadth of offences that this legislation is going to

cover.

[11:30 a.m.]

The notion that any citizen confronted by a charge or an allegation that

they have committed an offence under a provincial statute is entitled to, if

they wish to avail themselves of it, legal representation is, I think,

fundamental.

I don’t expect that the Attorney General is going to argue that

proposition. We heard him make the point that there’s no intention on the part

of the government, with these amendments, to remove that fundamental right,

which, by the way, draws on guarantees that exist at a constitutional level in

the Charter of Rights.

What we will need to do, though, is explore, through these pilot

projects…. Where I think the concerns that we’re hearing are ultimately going

to be focused is…. Albeit that they may be voluntary…. Is it appropriate, even

as part of a voluntary process, to create rules and regulations that would

preclude someone from having the assistance of legal representation if they

deem that appropriate?

I suppose, at a practical level, we could say this. The wisdom or the

practicality of hiring a lawyer to argue for more time to pay a $120 violation

ticket is probably self-evident. Some of the statutes, though, that are covered

by these amendments involve potential fines in the hundreds of thousands of

dollars — and, in some cases, more than that.

We have to be careful, I think, not to become so focused on what will

undoubtedly be the bulk of the violation tickets and lose sight of the fact

that this legislation will have application to a broad series of circumstances

where the ramifications and where the implications for the citizen or a company

could be profound.

Although I appreciate the fact that the Attorney has emphasized the

voluntary nature of the pilots, I will say…. Even in those circumstances, I

have some concerns about the possibility that, in availing themselves of those

processes, people may be required to surrender a right that they otherwise

would have to seek the assistance and have the assistance of legal

counsel.

Those are some of the areas that we can explore in greater detail when

we get to the committee stage of the debate. They are important

concepts.

At a time when I think there is a desire to incorporate and avail

ourselves of technology…. I accept that in many cases, the intention may well

be to make the process more accessible and easy for people. For some other

people, it may have the opposite effect.

I’m also alive to the cost pressures associated with running the courts

and how that may be motivating some of the amendments before us. The

administration of justice and the opportunity for people engaged in defending

themselves against charges and allegations of having committed an offence by

the state are such that I think we have to be very cautious and very careful

about ensuring that we aren’t inadvertently compromising people’s ability or

compromising rights that they have acquired either constitutionally or over

years and years of procedural fairness, jurisprudence.

Those are the areas that I thought I would highlight, not surprisingly,

in the second reading discussion. I anticipate some other members may have some

comments on these matters and will take my seat and allow the debate to

continue.

[11:35 a.m.]

S. Furstenau: I’m speaking to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

I listened with interest to both the Attorney General and the critic for

the official opposition. As was pointed out, there are a number of different

pieces of legislation being looked at here. We, too, have heard concerns about

particular aspects of this, particularly the methods of hearings or appearance

in relation to violation tickets.

I’m just going to tell a little story from a long, long, long time ago.

In the 1980s, in Edmonton….

Interjections.

S. Furstenau: No, not a confession. Somebody I knew, an acquaintance, a friend, a

friend of a friend.

I have a lot of friends in here right now, Mr. Speaker, helping me along

with this story.

There was a traffic violation allegation brought against a friend, and

she disputed the allegation. It was about speeding. It wasn’t by a police

officer; it was by a member of the public. That dispute ended up in the courts.

There were a number of us supporting this person in their first court date

appearance. When she arrived, the person who had brought the allegation

identified to the judge overseeing the hearing that she couldn’t identify who

it was in the room. Thus, the violation allegation against this person was

dropped.

This is an interesting point to the idea that any hearing class of

violation ticket or class of hearings regarding violation tickets be held by

telephone, video conference or other means of electronic communication. The

critic for the official opposition raised the point, and I think this is really

valid as well. I think of my mother, in her 80s, a very safe driver. However,

who knows. She might find her lead foot one day. She would be really challenged

to engage in a hearing, which I expect would be stressful for anybody, in an

electronic way.

I think there is that important recognition…. As was pointed out, there

is a transition time that we are in. Not all of us have our avatars up and

running. There’s that challenge of electronic means. So I look forward to

hearing the discussion and questions at committee stage on this.

The other one, clause 8, I’m interested in also understanding a bit more

clearly…. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council having over-reaching regulatory

powers relating to offences, enforcement officers, violation tickets, court

registries, hearing locations, dates of violation tickets, dates of completion

and amounts of the fine on ticketed amounts indicated in violation tickets. I’m

curious to learn in what circumstances this could be applied. What are the

parameters? What would be the necessity for this to be used?

Then, finally, in the changes to the Ministry of Energy and Mines Act,

removing the legislative requirement for mineral assayers to be certified, the

rationalization being that they are now regulated as professional

geoscientists.

I am, again, curious about these changes and these steps — in

particular, the changes to the requirements of transparency under the Freedom

of Information and Privacy Act going along with this. These are the areas that

we are interested in learning more about in this Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading of Bill

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Dean: Firstly, I will move that Bill 17 be committed to the Committee of the

Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Deputy Speaker: Now I’ll ask the acting Government House Leader the next

steps.

Hon. M. Dean: I now call committee stage of Bill 13.

Deputy Speaker: We will take a very brief recess as we prepare the appropriate parties

to get into committee stage of Bill 13.

The House recessed at 11:40 a.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:43 a.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. R. Fleming: I move the amendment to clause 1 of Bill 13 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

[ CLAUSE 1, by adding the underlined text as

shown:

Section 36 of the Passenger Transportation Act,

S.B.C. 2004, c. 39, is amended by adding the following

subsection:

(1.1) Despite the reference to

Part 5 in subsection (1) (c)

(ii)

(

a) the holder of a temporary operating permit issued under

section 38 and a person who drives a motor vehicle as a passenger

directed vehicle under a temporary operating permit issued under

section

38 must comply with

section 42.2 [prescribed record checks required

for drivers of passenger directed vehicles] , and any regulations made

for the purposes of that section, as if

(

i) the temporary operating permit were a licence,

and

(ii) the permit holder were a licensee, and

(

b) section 42.21 [review of acquired record or results of

prescribed record checks] , and any regulations made for the purposes of

that section, applies in relation to a person who drives a motor vehicle as a

passenger directed vehicle under a temporary operating permit issued under

section 38 , as if

(

i) the temporary operating permit were a licence,

and

(ii) the permit holder were a licensee.]

On the amendment.

Hon. R. Fleming: I will outline an explanation of the amendments to my colleague the

opposition critic. I think it’s always good to detect these things during the

law-making process, as opposed to after or in a court, where legislation like

this could be tested, presumably.

These amendments to clause 1 of the bill provide added clarification by

referencing that it is the temporary operating permits issued under

section 38

of the act to which the record check requirements outlined in clause 1 or 2

apply. Temporary operating permits under

section 38 of the act are issued by

the Passenger Transportation Board to current licensees who seek to temporarily

increase their fleet sizes during holiday or peak season periods of the

calendar year.

It’s important that those who drive under a temporary operating permit

issued under

section 38 are required to undergo the same record checks that all

other drivers operating under a company’s licence are required to do. The

addition of the phrase “issued under

section 38” in clause 1 makes this

clear.

Amendment approved.

On clause 1 as amended.

[11:45 a.m.]

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure to stand up and talk more about the importance of Bill

13 and what it tries to bring for public safety, both for the

passenger-directed vehicles as well as people that are operating these

vehicles.

I guess one of the questions that I first want to direct to the minister

is that these regulations, which were set to expire in September of this year….

I question why the changes didn’t occur earlier, when there was an opportunity

under Bill 21, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2) in

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the critic.

I should have, at the outset, introduced ministry staff I have here with

me to help answer some of the questions the critic may raise today. To my left

is Anthony Hamilton, who is the director of policy and projects at the

passenger transportation branch. To my right is Steve Haywood, who is the

executive director of the CVSE and passenger transportation branch.

They have advised me — and jogging my own memory from the miscellaneous

bill that the member referenced, last fall, a few months ago — that it was

important at that time, and urgent in fact, to reschedule the parliamentary

committee to review ride-hail and taxi modernization because we had

extraordinary declines in ridership and no real baseline of data that we hoped

to have, because of the pandemic.

We could have, I suppose, introduced Bill 13 at that time in the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. But as the member will perhaps

appreciate, legislative services reviews and drafts legislation in a variety of

ministries, and that was urgent to deal with last fall.

This is urgent to deal with now, but obviously, we do have transition

time until September, so I think this bill is landing at the right time to make

sure that there is no interruption or any possibility that there could be

people working in the industry who have not had proper criminal record checks.

In the interest of passenger safety, there is continuity here, and there will

be no interruption on what is current practice.

B. Stewart: Thank you, Minister. I realize that the past couple of years have been

difficult to predict, and I know people that are in this industry who have

struggled immensely. I’m looking forward to, I think, cruise ships starting to

show up here next week, and hopefully, their businesses pick up.

I guess the question about…. I mean, it’s difficult to predict. However,

the travelling public is starting to see increases in the magnitude of where

people feel that it’s safe to travel again. Airports are filling up, and I’m

sure that taxis and ride-hailing companies will be equally affected. The

demand…. I suspect that some people may have left the business. I don’t know

the exact numbers, and maybe you do to that.

I guess I’m kind of wondering. From the ride-hailing point of view….

This all really kind of stems back to passenger-directed

transportation.

[11:50 a.m.]

Can you clarify the number of companies that are currently licensed as

ride-hail companies that are new to the province, both Vancouver and — I see

Kamloops is listed in there — the other areas? I have certainly heard from many

other communities about the fact that they have been strongly in favour of

this, especially, as you just mentioned, during periods where these companies

have surges in terms of needs for drivers and making certain that they meet

that.

Could you clarify the number of ride-hail companies in the province

today and where they operate?

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, I’m advised that the Passenger Transportation Board has

approved 25 TNS licensed companies across the five TNS regions in

B.C.

B. Stewart: Just to the heart of this, I think that if you could clarify, Minister….

Or if I could ask the minister what those five TNS regions are,

please.

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member, there are five regions that he’s inquiring about. Region

1 is known as Metro Vancouver, region 2 is the capital regional district,

region 3 is the rest of Vancouver Island, region 4 is the southern Interior,

and region 5 is the north coast and islands inclusive of Islands Trust and

Sunshine Coast.

B. Stewart: There have been a number of approaches that I’ve personally had since

taking on this critic role about the limitations and bringing these things to

even the community I represent in Kelowna. I know the mayor of Kelowna and

council have written me and been very specific about when ride-hailing is

coming to the Okanagan.

Can the minister just, perhaps, elaborate if there is a limitation by

the Passenger Transportation Board currently that limits any of these five

regions from having passenger-directed ride-hailing?

[11:55 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: There are two companies that are licensed that were approved and

actually have operated. Lucky to Go is one, and KABU is another, in the

southern Interior and Kelowna.

I’m advised that these companies are currently not active, although they

could become active. They are approved for operation. One of them,

unfortunately…. Not a great time to enter the market was in July 2020. We were

in the throes of the first wave of the pandemic at that time. Those certainly

could be part of the ground transportation network in the member’s city and

region.

As we’re just getting into the exciting part of committee stage, I

regrettably move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

leave to sit again.

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

leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Dean moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CITIZENS’ SERVICES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); B. Bailey in the chair.

The committee met at 11:17 a.m.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $656,645,000 (continued) .

B. Banman: I believe that when we left, we had just gone over the Indigenous procurement initiative. The next question I have on that is: how high of an importance level does the minister consider the Indigenous procurement initiative to be? Low, medium or high would suffice as an answer.

Hon. L. Beare: While we are preparing the answer for the member, I do have a correction I want to read into the record. We always make sure we review the statements from yesterday, and anything that needs clarification we like to read into the record.

Yesterday I stated that through the new CETA requirements commencing in September 2022, every procurement system would be required to feed into B.C. Bid. That includes the health sectors and the school districts that we call the MASH sector. I need to correct that statement to say that every procurement completed by the province of B.C., including the MASH sector, that meets or exceeds financial thresholds as determined by CETA will need to be uploaded to the federal single-point-of-access site.

B.C. Bid will be linked to that site, therefore, and the MASH sector could choose to cross-post to B.C. Bid to meet the CETA requirements. We’re currently engaging with the sectors on that.

[11:20 a.m.]

Yesterday I provided some numbers related to B.C. Bid users. While the numbers quoted were correct, I just want to clarify how I described them. It came out a bit muddled in my answer.

Within B.C. Bid, the correct numbers, as I said, were 6,000 suppliers and 3,000 buyers. The buyers group is made up of the broader public sector and provincial government. They’re broken down as 1,651 broader public sector buyers and 1,475 government buyers.

Those are the corrections. I’ll return in one minute for the answer.

Yes, it is a priority. I know the member’s going to have some further questions, so I’m really excited to read out what we’re doing in this sector.

B. Banman: At first, I got my hopes up that you were going to admit that the previous government had done a lot of work on B.C. Bid, but I do appreciate the correction.

Anyway, be that as it may, the question I have would be: does the ministry track how many Indigenous businesses it offers contracts to? If not, why does the ministry not track the information?

Hon. L. Beare: That’s something that’s currently not available to us but we’re looking to do through the new B.C. Bid.

B. Banman: I guess the importance of that is…. I’m a big fan of data and metrics. If this is important, then I think it’s important that we do track the Indigenous communities accurately so that we can know what their participation in the B.C. Bid system would be. To say it is one thing, but the proof’s in the pudding. So I would recommend that we start tracking that information so we can get some good data on that for next year when we ask.

My next question is: what is social procurement? It seems rather vague. Could you give us a description?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: In its simplest form, it’s about other values outside of simple contract pricing. Government purchasing can have a range of impacts beyond generating revenue for government suppliers and getting the province what it needs to serve the people here in B.C.

Social impact purchasing allows government, essentially, to do more for people and communities when it spends its public dollars. The province’s social impact guidelines, which we have and I know that the member is aware of, provide clarity on how government ministries can consider these social values when purchasing services with a total value of under $75,000.

For example, up to 10 percent of the score can be awarded to proponents that propose social impact enhancements like skills training or new job opportunities for people who are underrepresented in the workforce. We want to work to provide additional supports to increase opportunities for social procurement, and we’re working with staff to implement these social purchasing goals so that we’re able to provide more for British Columbians than simple contract pricing.

B. Banman: You know, I can appreciate that this is…. What I’m hearing the minister say is that this is more subjective than objective. It’s much easier to be objective about nickels and dimes than it is to be about social procurement.

I guess the question we would have is: how does the ministry, then, plan to actually

measure the performance outcomes of social procurement, and how do we know

that, based on its subjectivity, it’s actually reaching the goals that are

being initiated or the achievable goals that we wish to achieve?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I just want to clarify that we do have clear guidelines in place for

social procurement. I just wanted to make sure that was clear for the member.

The role Citizens’ Services has in procurement is in setting those policies and

setting those guidelines and those strategies.

We have a model of procurement that is decentralized, so each ministry

is responsible for the outcomes of their own procurements. But I really do

appreciate the member’s point. I really liked the question, and that is

something I’ll take away and look at.

B. Banman: The next question I want to do is on connectivity, which is actually

very near and dear to my heart.

Just a moment ago my mother tried to get a hold of me. She can’t send me

a text message because she does not have cellular coverage where she lives. She

rolled her truck, hit some black ice not that long ago. She’s fine, luckily,

but part of what she’s going through is trying to connect with me. She doesn’t

know I’m in a meeting, and I can’t connect to her.

We take, often, things such as text messages for granted. Connectivity

is, I think, one of the biggest challenges that we have in rural B.C. We’re

really creating the haves and the have-nots. Those who do not have connectivity

are at a huge disadvantage, be it trying to make a doctor’s appointment, trying

to talk to your son, trying to reach out, trying to get an education — all

these things. I know that the minister shares this.

I want to ask a couple of questions, if I may, to the minister. In the

2022 budget, the minister pledged $289 million over the next five years to

expand connectivity. Also, on March 8, 2022, the minister, along with the

federal minister, Minister Hutchings, announced $450 million in funding to

deliver high-speed Internet to every British Columbian.

The question I have…. And I’ll wrap a couple of them together. Is the

$450 million in addition to the $289 million, or does it build off the $289

million? In other words, is the $289 million subtracted? And has B.C. received

the $450 million that the federal government pledged?

Hon. L. Beare: First off, to the member, a big hello to the member’s mother. We have spoken about the member’s mother in this House in the past, so I’m very happy to hear the member’s mother is okay. That’s a terrible situation to be in.

[11:35 a.m.]

I know the member has spoken with me about this before. We’ve shared the chats on how important it is, how this announcement for connectivity is important to every single British Columbian, especially in rural, remote and Indigenous communities who don’t have connection.

The member did a fantastic job of outlining what that really means to people, so I want to thank the member for that. Hopefully, we can get the member’s mother some good connection soon.

Very clearly, yes, the provincial portion of $415 million includes the $289 million in Budget 2022 and 2023, and that builds…. It is also inclusive of investments government has made, to date. The MOU has been signed with the federal government, which results in jointly funding projects as they roll out, to 2027. That’s how that’s structured.

B. Banman: I appreciate the minister’s kind words. Having said that, I’m not so sure that even if she gets connected, she’s going to get a cell phone. But that’s another thing. I’m in big trouble.

Interjection.

B. Banman: Yeah, every time. I’ve got a whopping coming my way. I just know it.

Anyway, on March 8 of 2022, the Premier posted on his Twitter page that everyone in B.C.

will have high-speed Internet by 2027. How close are we to this goal, and

exactly what does this entail to be able to get this…? It’s a monumental task.

What does it entail to get there?

Hon. L. Beare: The member asked how far away we are from this. Well, we’re five years

away — 2027, in fact. Very happy and excited about that. I wanted to walk the

member through a little bit, because it is an important and a good question. I

love that the member and myself are able to have these discussions here in this

House.

[11:40 a.m.]

When our government started working on this file in 2017, 25 percent of

rural, Indigenous and remote communities had coverage. With our investments

during that time, to date, we currently are sitting at just over 40 percent.

All of the projects we funded and announced and that are currently in flight

that are going to take this next year or so to build…. Once all those are

completed out, we’ll be at 60 percent of rural, remote and Indigenous

communities being covered.

In that short window of time — our government has been working from 2017

to now — we’ve been able to go from 25 percent to soon-to-be 60 percent of

coverage, which is a remarkable amount of work done with my team behind me here

— such a staggering amount of work to be able to get that done. It’s made a

difference in people’s lives. It’s huge, and I know the member knows

that.

We’re able to build on that momentum to get this next set of

accomplishments done. How we’re going to do that is by building on existing

programs that are in place, with the UBF, with the federal government, where

we’re building on our existing programs that we have here in our provincial

government.

We will be launching a new connectivity program, which was announced

alongside the announcement, to bring in those projects that are actually going

to fill the gaps. The great news for the member that I know he’s going to be

very happy to share in his communities is that work has already started. We

already launched the RTP, a request to participate, out for communities to take

a look at. Service providers, local governments, Indigenous governments can all

now have a transparent look at what is going on in connectivity across the

province.

We’ve outlined on the map the regions that have the gaps, and everyone

now gets to take a look and participate and assess how we’re going to work

together to best fill those gaps. The work is starting, and it’s going to be a

great amount of work over the next five years to get it done, but I know

communities all across the province are really looking forward to this work. I

know everyone across government is looking forward to it as well, so we’re

happy to get started.

B. Banman: I appreciate the answer from the minister.

As it was pointed out to me, just to put it in perspective for those

that may be unaware, we’re really talking about a territory that’s the size of

France. I commend your staff for doing this. It is of grave importance, whether

it’s trying to, like I said, book a hospital visit or apply for a circuit

breaker grant or book a flight for a holiday or connect with loved ones or get

an education.

This is, I think, one of the greatest challenges that I see, moving

forward: to be able to get people that connectivity. Whether they choose to use

it or not, well, that’s up to them. But they at least have the ability to

choose it.

It seems like there’s been a lot of money that’s been spent on this thus

far. As the minister mentioned, 2027 is the goal. We’re going to hold the

minister to that. The minister has already gone over the percentage of British

Columbians that don’t have coverage. I know of one person, as I’ve

mentioned.

I’ve talked with industry. One of the challenges that industry is having

is, for instance, something as simple as having the ability to put their wires

on a telephone pole in a timely manner and not go through the red tape of being

able to put their stuff on a telephone pole, whether that be owned by one of

the large communication companies, which I won’t mention, or whether that be

owned by a Crown corporation which uses those poles to transmit

power.

What is the ministry doing to ensure that these sorts of red tape are

being eliminated so that they can actually get the job done in a timely

manner?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: First, the member…. I’m really glad he’s able to take the time and meet

with the telecommunication companies as well. We get to do it regularly here in

our ministry, and it’s very important to hear what they’re saying.

On a couple of things, first off, they are extremely happy about this

announcement. The ability to partner with government to actually connect the

province is such a fantastic opportunity for everyone involved. Here in British

Columbia, we have almost 80 telecoms, actually — small, medium and large. We

have such a diverse range of operators here in B.C. — it’s absolutely fantastic

— some being community-owned and -led, Indigenous-owned and -led, and private.

It’s just such a great mix here.

For the member’s question regarding polls, yes. The Minister of Energy

and Mines and I have regular conversations and meetings about this to ensure

that everyone is getting prepared. We’re going to continue meeting with the

Minister of Energy, but it’s going to have to be an all-of-government approach.

Absolutely, our government is committed to ensuring that we get this done by

2027. Of course, we’re all going to have to work together to ensure we can do

that in a smooth manner.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

Copyright © 2022 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.