Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, February 14, 2023

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 265

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Starbright Children’s Development Centre

R. Merrifield

North Island health summit and health care services

M. Babchuk

Ovarian cancer and fundraising for research

K. Kirkpatrick

Ukraine International Airlines flight 752

S. Chant

Julia’s Junction inclusive play space

B. Stewart

Special Olympics B.C. and Mission Blazers floor hockey team

B. D’Eith

Oral Questions

Attacks by repeat offenders and handling of cases by justice system

E. Sturko

Hon. M. Farnworth

Community safety in Vancouver’s Chinatown

M. Lee

Hon. N. Sharma

Government policies on fossil fuel industry and action on climate change

A. Olsen

Hon. J. Osborne

Hon. G. Heyman

Crime in communities and action on community safety

T. Halford

Hon. M. Farnworth

Government action on repeat offenders and crime in communities

R. Merrifield

Hon. M. Farnworth

E. Ross

P. Milobar

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2023

Hon. N. Sharma

M. de Jong

Hon. G. Heyman

Hon. L. Beare

Hon. N. Sharma

Bill 6 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 5)

Hon. A. Kang

M. Bernier

Hon. A. Kang

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 4 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2023

Hon. K. Conroy

P. Milobar

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2023

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2023

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: N. Letnick.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Kahlon: Today, very shortly, joining us in the gallery will be the excellent

interns that we have on the government side.

[10:05 a.m.]

We’ve got five interns who’ll be working with the government caucus.

They are Jenna Hrechka, who graduated from the University of Victoria with a

degree in political science; Kevin Wong, who studied political science, law

and society, at the University of British Columbia; Isabella Devereaux, who

holds a degree in political science at UBC; Zaina Khan, who studied history,

Indigenous studies and sociology at Simon Fraser University; and Ben

Rutkowski, who is a graduate of political science and economics at

UVic.

All members of the government side look forward to working with them

throughout this session, and I urge members to go and visit them and say

hello in their offices.

Can the House please join me in welcoming them to this

place.

Hon. M. Dean: Later on today we have two classes coming to visit and learn about our

work, and to watch a bit of question period as well, from Dunsmuir Middle

School, which is in Colwood, in Esquimalt-Metchosin. They’re coming with

their teacher, Alyson Weber.

Would the House please make them very

welcome.

A. Olsen: In the viewing gallery today is a friend, Dave Cowen, the CEO of

Butchart Gardens.

I look back very fondly to my time working in the Butchart Gardens as

a high school student. A lot of the things that I do today, in business and

in preparation to be in this place, came because I had the fortune of being

trained very well by an excellent community business.

As we’re getting ready for yet another tourist season here in the

capital regional district and the province of British Columbia, we hope the

best for our friends at Butchart and at all of the tourist venues here in

the city and across the province.

Would the House please make my friend Dave

feel very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: Six years ago, about this time, I was lying in a hospital bed holding

a new baby bundle of joy, and I want to just wish a very, very happy

birthday to Romi’s and my son Dev. He has turned six today and is the best

thing that ever happened to us. So happy birthday to Dev.

J. Rice: I realize that all of us here are away from our…. Well, I assume we’re

all away from our loved ones and our partners and wives and husbands and

whatnot.

I’m hoping you’ll humour me with just making this acknowledgment,

because it was nine years ago — this is terrible — either yesterday or

tomorrow; I can’t remember. I can’t remember, but I feel safe saying that

out loud, because that was the day that I met my current partner, my wife,

Andrea. It was during the All Native Basketball Tournament, which is going

on right now in Prince Rupert. It’s a big deal. It’s a big

hubbub.

We had this date that I almost didn’t go on, because her train was

late. She was coming from Burns Lake. It was basketball; it was a

tournament. It was busy, and we had a snowstorm, which is rare in Prince

Rupert, rare. Like, we get the rain. If it snows, it melts in a couple of

hours.

Nonetheless, we went on this date. She fed me tea, almonds and dark

chocolate, and there was not a cab. My truck was in the shop. There was not

a cab to be found in Prince Rupert, because they were driving all the

players and coaches and families around. So she walked me halfway home. That

was the deal.

However, we were so engaged in conversation that I let her walk me all

the way home. It was not a ploy; it was just that I didn’t want to interrupt

her. So then we stayed up and drank wine. We moved from tea to the wine, and

had the phenomenal first date ever.

While we did get married eight years ago in September, I just wanted

to acknowledge that today is the happy-meeting-you anniversary with my wife,

and I so look forward to the day where I actually can be present and

cele­brate Valentine’s day with her.

Please, I just wanted to acknowledge a special moment for me and my

wife.

[10:10 a.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

STARBRIGHT CHILDREN’S

DEVELOPMENT

CENTRE

R. Merrifield: Children with support needs rely on the established and trusted

relationships their families have spent years building with their

current service providers.

This is the case with Kelowna’s Starbright Children’s Development

Centre, which has served the Okanagan for 57 years. When the Starbright

CDC was threatened with closure, the entire community came together in a

rally of support. The horns were honking, the signs were out, balloons

flying and, really, hundreds of people — parents, grandparents, service

providers and community members — came out to cheer on the

cause.

One of the initiatives led by the organizers was a feelings banner

— a banner that the participants could write on to describe how they

were feeling that day. The organizers of the event, Amy and Tia, allowed

me to share their letter about this banner:

“Each little thing written represents so much. Sometimes an entire

family for generations. Sometimes an entire organization of

professionals who have devoted decades. And especially the voices of

children: the girl who kept returning to the table to underline

‘Starbright helped me survive,’ the little boy who wrote only ‘Irene.’

This is for Irene, the visual language facilitator at Starbright. He was

so excited to show her. He sought her out, so she came to see. She was

so proud of him, so he was proud of himself. This is what Starbright

does for children.

“As families, we never forget those moments, no matter how long it’s

been. We can’t describe the magnitude of the difference they’ve made in

our lives. We can’t bear to imagine where life would have gone without

them. We have deep evidence of the time Starbright saved us from utter

destruction. We are permanently indebted to Starbright. That is why we

rallied today. Please listen.”

Today I have the privilege of reading their words and also

carrying the banner into this House and hand-delivering it to the

Premier. They wanted the Premier to know their hearts are for Starbright

and the desire is to see it continue.

NORTH ISLAND HEALTH SUMMIT

AND HEALTH CARE

SERVICES

M. Babchuk: I care about public health care, and we know it is essential to

keep our rural communities strong and thriving. This is especially true

in the North Island.

In November, I participated in a meaningful and productive

roundtable discussion, the North Island health summit, with community

members and health care partners to help identify the challenges and

find solutions that will work to meet our needs. The outcome was a large

list of investments that were needed to support health care staff,

improve facilities and increase everyone’s ability to access care.

Advocating for these needs, I could not be more thrilled to see these

changes coming.

Recently, I joined the Minister of Health and the Island Health

CEO to announce a $30 million health care package to transform and

stabilize health care in the North Island. We know that staffing

shortages are one part of the challenge, and that’s why our government

is making big changes to support staff and recruit more. These changes

include staff retention incentives, bonuses for employee referrals and

enhanced safety in our hospitals.

We’re also improving staff accommodations and covering wages,

mileage and meal expenses for staff that travel between communities.

We’re investing in a new shuttle to get patients and staff to and from

health care facilities, and we’re working to upgrade those facilities by

purchasing a new mobile CT machine and renovating and modernizing spaces

in the Port McNeill and Port Hardy hospitals.

To relieve some of the pressures on emergency departments, we are

adding more sobering assessment beds and providing 24-7 access to

appropriate supportive care. There will be four more long-term-care beds

at Port Hardy and increased services for home health, home support,

mental health and substance use services in Port Hardy and the

surrounding area. These changes will help rotating or last-minute

closures and give us reliable emergency hours so people can count on

help when they need it.

I want to say thank you to all the participants in the health

summit and raise my hands to health care workers for their dedication

and service to their patients and our communities.

OVARIAN CANCER AND

FUNDRAISING FOR

RESEARCH

K. Kirkpatrick: I only recently learned that 3,100 women are diagnosed with

ovarian cancer every year in Canada, and almost 2,000 of those will die.

More than 75 percent of affected women are diagnosed at an advanced

stage because early-stage disease is usually asymptomatic, and symptoms

of late-stage disease are non-specific.

Recently, my friend and fellow North Shore resident, Pamela

Martin, told me about an initiative to help support the research

required to find a cure for ovarian cancer. This idea came from Jim

Shepard, a well-known community and business leader.

[10:15 a.m.]

Events like this are often born out of a personal connection.

Jim’s daughter-in-law was diagnosed with stage 3 ovarian cancer in 2018.

Jim followed her journey as she went through life-saving treatment at

the ovarian cancer centre and B.C. Cancer Agency. And because of her

excellent care, combined with a new drug that destroys the protein that

this cancer needs to survive, his daughter-in-law’s outcome is

positive.

Through her cancer journey, Jim witnessed firsthand the work of

the talented researchers here in B.C. While they are leading the world

in pioneering treatments and breakthrough discoveries, they are doing so

on a razor-thin budget. So Jim decided to raise funds for research and

founded the Plunge for the Cure Foundation. With a group of well-known

change-makers like my friend Pamela, he’s raising money to fund the gap

in life-saving research.

This year the inaugural 2023 Plunge for the Cure will take place

on May 28 at Kits Beach. As we know, Mr. Speaker, summer comes early to

Vancouver. In fact, the average temperature in May is a balmy 17

degrees.

Sign up online for the Plunge for the Cure at

plungeforthecure.org. Together we really can crush ovarian cancer. I

hope you’ll consider joining Jim Shepard, Pamela Martin, many others and

me in plunging for a great cause.

UKRAINE INTERNATIONAL

AIRLINES FLIGHT

S. Chant: Today I’m glad to be speaking again from the territories of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the

Esquimalt and the Songhees.

I continue to work, live and learn in my beautiful riding of North

Vancouver–Seymour.

January 8, 2023, marked the third anniversary of the downing of

the Ukraine International Airlines flight 752, shot down by the Iranian

regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps shortly after taking off from

Tehran international airport.

This heinous act claimed the lives of all 176 passengers and crew

on board. Fifty-five Canadian citizens were on the flight, along with 30

permanent residents and others with ties to Canada and British Columbia.

This tragedy is the largest loss of Canadian lives in an air disaster

since 280 Canadians died in 1985 after a bomb exploded on Air India

flight 182.

Three years later, after flight 752 was shot down, the victims’

families have yet to see the Iranian government be held accountable for

this crime. On Sunday, January 8, I joined over 10,000 Iranian Canadians

who gathered despite the cold and rainy weather to walk in unity down a

lengthy route to commemorate the victims at the event organized at the

North Vancouver Shipyards by the Association of Families of Flight

PS752. The Premier, several ministers, colleagues and other government

officials from federal and municipal levels were there, providing

strength and support to those who had lost loved ones and fortifying the

calls for justice.

To honour the victims and the role of the Iranian diaspora in the

fight for women, life and freedom, our B.C. NDP government is working

with the city of North Vancouver and contributing as much as $100,000

for a permanent monument.

Our outrage at the attack of 752 is undiminished by the passing

years. Members of this Legislature condemn this horrific act and stand

with the victims’ families in demanding justice.

JULIA’S JUNCTION

INCLUSIVE PLAY

SPACE

B. Stewart: I want to talk today about Julia’s Junction. It’s an inclusive

play space for all abilities planned for the Westbank Town Centre Park.

It is the vision of Melissa Grassmick, whose daughter Julia was

paralyzed by a blood clot at 17 months old and requires a wheelchair to

get around.

People with disabilities represent 5,500 residents in our

community. That’s one in six people in West Kelowna, including the

families and friends of people with disabilities. There are close to

17,000 affected by the lack of fully inclusive playgrounds.

Julia’s Junction will be a destination play space for people of

all ages to enjoy, regardless of their physical or cognitive ability or

mental diagnosis. It will include features such as wheelchair-accessible

play structures, multisensory play elements, as well as a sheltered area

with picnic tables and a water feature. This safe, inclusive space will

provide children with an opportunity to engage in diverse play

experiences, build relationships and develop their skills in a fun and

meaningful way without barriers.

[10:20 a.m.]

A total of $750,000 needs to be raised to build this playground.

So far $667,628 has been raised, with an expected construction date to

begin this April. This meaningful and important project is getting

closer to becoming a reality by the day.

I look forward to the construction of Julia’s Junction and the

opening of a place where nobody is excluded from play because of their

disability and for our community to come together to make connections

through play.

SPECIAL OLYMPICS B.C. AND

MISSION BLAZERS FLOOR HOCKEY

TEAM

B. D’Eith: Before I start, I’d just like to wish my amazing wife, Kim, a very

happy Valentine’s Day, and I’d also like to express my sincere hope that

all of my colleagues in this House have a chance to share a moment with

the people that they love today. Love truly does conquer all.

Earlier this month, the 2023 Special Olympics B.C. was held in

Kamloops and hosted by over 500 athletes from all over the province. The

Special Olympics B.C. began in 1980, and since then they have supported

and encouraged athletes with intellectual disabilities. It’s a space for

athletes experiencing disabilities to play competitive sports, make

connections, get involved with the community and showcase their talents.

The five pillars of the Special Olympics — inclusion, diversity,

empowerment, respect and excellence — are all values shared by our

government and everyone in this House.

In the 2023 games, our Mission floor hockey team, the Mission

Blazers, had the opportunity to compete. They were undefeated and

claimed a gold medal. The team is led by Coach Brendan Turner, and they

played four outstanding games against Kelowna, Delta, Kamloops and

Richmond, ultimately winning the gold.

While the entire team did a fantastic job, some MVPs are

goaltenders Mitchell Howell and Justin King and my constituent Bryce

Schafelberger, who scored two incredible goals against Richmond, giving

them the lead and eventually winning the game.

Interjection.

B. D’Eith: Oh, I know. Sorry, my friend.

I want to congratulate Amanda, Bryce, Dan, Doug, Josh, Justin,

Liam, Matthew, Mitchell, Paul, Russel, Thien, Thuc, Tony and Coach

Turner, also known as the Mission Blazers, on your win.

I’d like to leave you all with the athlete oath for the Special

Olympics B.C. It’s a very simple but powerful statement: “Let me win.

But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt.” This statement

demonstrates the importance of trying despite any barriers one may have,

and it represents the true nature of the Special Olympics that provide

hope, motivation and opportunity to everyone in our

community.

Oral Questions

ATTACKS BY REPEAT OFFENDERS AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. Speaker: Happy Valentine’s Day. I’m sure there will be lots of love

exchanged in the next 30 minutes.

E. Sturko: There is a massive disconnect between the Premier’s rhetoric and

actual results when it comes to crime and social disorder. The explosion

of violence that began during his time as a soft-on-crime Attorney

General continues to wreak havoc in communities.

Last month we saw example after example. In Burnaby, a woman was

savagely attacked and left seriously injured on the sidewalk in an

unprovoked attack. In New Westminster, a vicious random attack with a

stun gun sent a victim to hospital, and in Vancouver, an armed criminal

who was on bail tried to enter a bar on Granville with a

firearm.

Prolific offenders continue to be put back into the community to

hurt innocent victims. Is this what people will see and have to

experience in their lives every day? Will the Premier end his

catch-and-release system so people can feel safe again?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question. What I can tell the hon.

member is that ever since taking over as Attorney General and then as

Premier, our Premier has done an amazing job in terms of bringing

forward initiatives that are going to deal with some of the challenges

that we’re facing in communities.

[10:25 a.m.]

We have seen funding increases now in terms of putting in programs

and supports for police and communities to deal with some of the

challenges that they’re facing with those who are addicted to substances

and have mental health issues, for example: an expansion of the Car

program; the creation of peer-assisted care teams so they can diffuse

situations and not necessarily have a police officer attend a situation,

whereby a mental health worker may be the more appropriate response,

freeing up police to be able to do additional duties on additional work

in key critical areas around public safety.

At the same time, we’ve made it clear that we want to see changes

done at the federal level in terms of the bail situation. The Attorney

General and the Premier have spoken with the Minister of Justice and the

Prime Minister on that. The federal Justice Minister has indicated a

willingness to look at and to make changes to the bail conditions, the

unintended consequences from Bill C-75.

There’s a significant amount of work being done by the Premier, by

this government on this side of the House, to keep our streets

safe.

Mr. Speaker: Surrey South, supplemental.

E. Sturko: What’s amazing is how this government could have stood by for

almost six years now and watched people get randomly attacked on the

streets of this province. It’s absolutely ridiculous for me to actually

hear the word “amazing” come out of someone in this room’s mouth when I

know that people have received a pipe to the side of the head, been

stabbed in the throat trying to deliver food in Vancouver.

You know what? It’s results that matter. It’s been

an­nouncement after announcement and initiative

announce­ments. And you know what? It’s results and what people

see that actually matter.

Last week another senior was the victim of a vicious random attack

in Chinatown. The offender, Alan Kipson, has a history of assault and

failing to appear in court. But despite being found guilty of assault

just two months prior, Kipson was allowed back into the community, where

he went on to viciously attack a 74-year-old woman waiting for a bus.

The elderly victim was rushed to the hospital, while Kipson walked

free.

When will the Premier end his catch-and-release system and put the

right of victims to feel safe ahead of an offender’s right to

reoffend?

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

opportunity, because she is new in the House, to remind her of the

initiatives that this government has undertaken under the six years that

we have been in power.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, it’s Valentine’s Day.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. You know, I always find it interesting

that whenever I’m about to let them know the facts, they don’t want to

hear it. They start to get all agitated. I can understand that. I can

understand that because when you look…. The largest single investment in

policing in the history of this province….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The largest single investment in policing in the history of this

province, which nobody on that side of the House did when they sat on

this side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The first 277 positions to be filled — this government is funding

them.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, the member from Kamloops. I’d like the member from Kamloops

maybe to talk to his colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie, who tried

to do it but wasn’t able to, because their budget-focused cuts wouldn’t

allow it.

We put in place the first witness protection program, made in

British Columbia, that’s resulted in a significant increase in charges

and convictions of people convicted of murders and crimes.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Member.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We brought in place the first forensic firearms to crack down on

gang activity. All of those initiatives done by this government. Sixteen

years they had to do that, and they failed every single time.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

IN VANCOUVER’S

CHINATOWN

M. Lee: Well, the minister stands in this House talking about the Premier,

the Attorney General as he was in his role for 5½ years. He’s had six

years to fix this, and under his watch, things have only gotten worse in

Chinatown and in communities across our province.

[10:30 a.m.]

People do not feel safe on our streets. What people see and feel

in Chinatown is how a once-thriving community is now plagued by violence

and hate. Under this Premier’s catch-and-release system, random attacks

continue to escalate, and anti-Asian hate crimes are 400 percent higher

than in 2018, according to a recent report to Vancouver city

council.

Vancouver has become the anti-Asian hate crime capital of North

America. Seniors who call Chinatown their home live in constant fear,

and it’s time for the Premier to start taking some responsibility. After

six years of worsening results, when will people see an end to the

random attacks, the constant social disorder and escalating anti-Asian

hate crimes in Chinatown?

Hon. N. Sharma: Everyone deserves to feel safe in their communities. When we hear

about those traumatic acts, we can all stand together here and condemn

them.

As a government, we’re taking action. Two weeks ago I met with

Minister Lametti to talk about what’s at the core of this issue, which

is a bail reform policy that needs to be addressed. We had a very

productive meeting, and I’m looking forward to changes there.

This government is taking action to keep our communities safe. We

issued a new bail directive for repeat violent offenders to all Crown

prosecutors. We’re standing up 20 new dedicated Crown prosecutors as

part of our repeat offenders action team that will focus specifically on

repeat violent offenders. We have seen a 32 percent increase in Crown

counsel budgets, and that’s after the opposition starved it for

years.

This is a government that is committed to taking action to make

sure that our communities are safe.

Mr. Speaker: Vancouver-Langara, supplemental.

M. Lee: That response from the Attorney General is simply just not good

enough for the seniors and other people living and working in Chinatown

who are scared and continue to live and work in fear. This government,

this Premier, has had six years to address this, and this Premier’s

soft-on-crime approach simply is not working.

What people see and feel in Chinatown is how a once-thriving

community is now plagued by violence and hate under this Premier’s

catch-and-release system. Every day people are seeing and feeling the

evidence that the Premier’s catch-and-release system is a dangerous

failure.

On the weekend, we saw the Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Garden in Chinatown

maliciously vandalized and, again, with fake blood sprayed on its walls.

The garden’s executive director, Lorraine Lowe, says: “These unchecked

crimes send an unmistakable message of anti-Asian hate.”

Vandalism in Chinatown has skyrocketed by a staggering 455 percent

since 2019. It’s time for this catch-and-release Premier to take

responsibility. How much longer must the residents of Chinatown endure

these random attacks, rampant social disorder and escalating hate

crimes?

Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question. When we hear about these acts of racism

and violent attacks, we all can stand together to condemn them, and our

heart goes out to the victims.

My role as Attorney General is to make sure that the justice

system has the tools that it needs to respond. I spoke about our new

bail policy and the directions that were going forward. I spoke about

our investment in Crown counsel and the 21 new dedicated Crown

prose­cutors that will be focused on repeat violent offence

response teams.

Everyone agrees this is a national issue. The Premier has written,

along with other Premiers, to the federal government to ask for changes

to the bail policy that will help us put more tools in place for our

Crown prosecutors to respond to repeat violent offenders.

We’re going to keep doing the work necessary to help make sure

that our communities are safe and to address the challenges that we feel

and we see in our communities.

[10:35 a.m.]

GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON

FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY

AND

ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

A. Olsen: During the B.C. NDP leadership event last fall, Premier Eby said:

“We cannot continue to subsidize fossil fuels and expect clean energy to

manifest somehow. We cannot continue to expand fossil fuel

infrastructure and hit our climate goals.”

My question is to the Premier. Will he commit to no new expanded

fossil fuel projects in British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker: When we ask questions, Members, no names are to be

mentioned.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I appreciate his

interest and his passion for this topic, one that our government

shares.

We have been very clear all along that all future LNG projects

need to fit within our climate commitments. We have said this over and

over again. The Premier has backed this up. It has been a strong part of

the message from our government. We are going to continue to work with

the oil and gas sector to reduce emissions to fit within our

sec­toral targets and to hit those targets.

I am so honoured to have this position, to be working with my

colleague the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy

together to address this. I appreciate the question.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and apologies.

It’s essentially the same response the Premier gave us last fall —

that we are going to be meeting our 2030 and 2050 targets, and that’s

the goal of CleanBC. Unfortunately, we’re not on track to meet those

targets as we currently stand.

The fact of the matter is that we’ve got multiple LNG proposals in

this province being speculated upon, many of which are very bullish in

there for the future of LNG in this province, a response this government

has yet to tamper down. We’ve got Woodfibre, Tilbury, LNG Canada

phase 2, Cedar LNG and Ksi Lisims LNG all ready to go in this

province. If they are going to move forward, then it’s going to take

CleanBC and the rhetoric around it and completely make it

meaningless.

My question to the Minister of Energy: with all of the speculation

about these other LNG projects, does she still believe that we can

expand the fossil fuel industry and meet our climate goals?

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

member’s passion for meeting climate goals, but I simply do not accept a

characterization of one of the leading climate plans in North America,

in a context when other people are doing absolutely nothing, as empty

rhetoric. It’s simply not true.

We have a broad series of actions across all sectors that are

designed to reduce emissions between now and 2030, now and 2040 and now

and 2050. We’re making progress on them. This is hard work, but we’re

doing it. It involves meeting with industry, whether it’s the oil and

gas sector, the pulp and paper sector or the mining sector and working

with them to drive down their emissions.

This is not some something that can be simply done by an empty

statement in this Legislature, an empty statement in front of cameras or

a stroke of a pen. This is hard work, and we’re taking it on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. G. Heyman: That’s why we’ll continue to work hard with our partners and with

our communities to meet our climate targets, because that’s what British

Columbians expect.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

ACTION ON COMMUNITY

SAFETY

T. Halford: What people see and feel in downtowns across this province is a

daily reality of crime and social chaos. This past week in Victoria

alone, multiple storefronts had their windows smashed and random acts of

vandalism.

It’s actually gotten to the point where small business owners like

Tara from Baggins Shoes are at a tipping point and are looking at

leaving downtown for good. She says: “Broken glass. Used needles. Human

excrement. We seem to be left to our own devices.”

[10:40 a.m.]

My question is a simple one to the Premier. How many small

business owners will have to flee before the Premier ends the crime and

disorder that we are seeing in all our downtowns across this

province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question, but I want to make it clear:

this government takes these issues very seriously. That’s why we work

very closely with local governments on ways in which we can deal with

some of the situations that they find themselves in.

There are a number of reasons that the member well knows for the

problems that we’re seeing. We’re seeing it through the toxic drug

supply, we’re seeing it through the mental health and addiction issues

and we’re seeing it through the unintended consequences that have come

about because of some of the changes made at the federal

level.

What we have made clear is that all levels of government have to

be involved. That’s why we’ve been working with local government to

identify areas where the province can assist them, whether it’s through

things such as downtown revitalizations or whether it’s ensuring that

they’ve got the housing resources that they need, where we’ve seen some

progress being made in a number of areas, in communities such as

Vancouver and Victoria.

At the same time, it’s working with communities that recognize

that they need additional support in terms of policing. That’s why we’ve

put in place the surge teams in places like Prince George, in Terrace

and in Kamloops to assist police in doing their job. That’s why we’ve

made the largest single investment in terms of policing of the 277

vacancies on the provincial police line, to ensure that they’re able to

serve smaller rural communities which are going to assist as

well.

We also need… There are changes that need to be made at the

federal level, from the issues that have come around from the changes

that they made around bail, and the court cases that have come from

that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’m trying to give an answer to a question, and what do you do.

You get heckled.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Anyway, working with the federal government to make those changes,

where the Justice Minister himself has said British Columbia has been a

leader on this issue. We take it very seriously. We’re going to continue

taking the actions, working with local government, police and the

federal government to deal with the problems of public safety that

communities are facing.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON REPEAT

OFFENDERS AND CRIME IN

COMMUNITIES

R. Merrifield: You know, I’m sitting here listening to the minister’s response,

and I’m just flummoxed by the fact that it’s just, in his words, always

someone else’s fault for this government. It’s either the local

governments or the business associations or the federal government’s

fault.

But the lip service, the announcements and the long list of

rhetoric are not results that are actually experienced by our citizens,

who are traumatized and fearful by what they see in our streets

daily.

Kelowna has the highest urban crime rate in Canada. This is what

people have experienced in my community, just in the last month. A man

attacked, left lying on the ground, unconscious and bleeding from his

head. Threats and smashed windows from a man with an axe in an

unprovoked attack. And last week a prolific offender who personifies the

Premier’s catch-and-release system was back in the news. Tyler Newton,

the bus killer with over 50 criminal charges, committed yet another

crime after being let out again into our community.

When will the catch-and-release Premier prioritize the rights of

victims to feel safe over the rights of prolific offenders like Tyler

Newton to continue to reoffend?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thanks to the member for the question. I’d like to remind that

member that hiring 270 new RCMP officers that will assist in rural small

communities across this province on the provincial line is not rhetoric.

It’s action.

Expanding car programs that local governments have been asking for

is not rhetoric. It is action.

Peer Assisted Crisis Teams, which have shown huge success on the

North Shore and in New Westminster, being expanded across this province

to some 20 communities — that’s not rhetoric. That’s action.

[10:45 a.m.]

Unlike the opposition when they sat on this side of the House and

cut victim services programs, we’ve expanded those programs. That’s not

rhetoric. That’s action.

E. Ross: For years, we’ve been bringing accounts of victims of violence to

this Legislature and trying to get government to act. Now, we’ve heard

the responses from government, and it is rhetoric. We’ve heard this

government blame the federal government, for example. We know that this

government downloads responsibility on municipalities and small

businesses. We’ve heard all that.

But this is the first time that I’ve heard government get up and

say: “The work that we’ve done to protect B.C. citizens from violence is

amazing.” That’s the first time I’ve heard that, when the amount of

attacks are going up in British Columbia. Just take one account of a

victim that gets hit on the side of the head and tell them that this

government is doing amazing work.

People across the province are growing tired of the Premier’s

excuses amid ongoing crime and social disorder in our communities. A

recent rally in Nanaimo saw hundreds of people calling for the Premier

to be accountable for his lack of results. This rally happened in

January 2023. There was no mention of amazing results.

One resident, Karen Kuwica, spoke out about the devastating impact

of crime in her community. This is what she’s got to say. “We’ve already

had a loss of life from a robbery that became violent. We’ve had fires

in vacant buildings. We’ve had a suspected hit and run that took a life.

The list goes on and on, and it’s only been a week.” A British Columbian

citizen is saying this. It’s not us. It’s not the opposition.

My question is to the Premier. When will the Premier put the

rights of victims and communities ahead of offenders who repeatedly

wreak havoc and terrorize people?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. It’s unfortunate that the

member seems to characterize the initiatives that we have undertaken —

whether it’s wanting to get changes made to bail reform, which the

Attorney General and the Premier have spoken to the Prime Minister about

— as blaming someone. It’s not blaming.

What it’s recognizing is that the feds made some changes. There

were consequences, unintended consequences, that are impacting them. We

are working to get those things changed.

In the same way, we work with local governments in his community

of Terrace, where the RCMP were facing challenges in terms of the

resources that they were facing. We put additional resources into his

community, into Kamloops, into Prince George. I can tell you, on my

recent trip to Prince George, the police there indicated how pleased

they were that we have put those surge teams in, because they were

proving invaluable.

Those are real initiatives, in the same way as the initiatives

that we’ve undertaken in terms of victims. This side of the House has

put victims first. That’s why we’ve increased the funding for victim

services, unlike them, who cut the funding.

Finally, we have not blamed local government; we’ve worked with

local government. The Premier, when he was Attorney General, was asked

by local governments saying: “We’re facing some challenges.” He asked

for additional information, “Come with us and tell us,” specifically to

each community, and mayors did that.

The results out of that were the LePard report, which has

initiated other initiatives in terms of mental health and addictions,

additional police resources, all of those things designed to assist

communities and help keep our communities safe.

P. Milobar: Well, the Solicitor General routinely gets up and blusters in this

House, but he seems to have missed the plot line here.

[10:50 a.m.]

The sad reality is we’re asking questions of, actually, the third

Attorney General that this government has had, and instead of hearing

from the Attorney General, we keep hearing from the Solicitor General

about policing.

The police are just as frustrated at all the people that are

getting randomly attacked in this province. We’re not questioning the

work of the police forces in this province. We’re not questioning their

attempts at public safety. They’re just as frustrated with this

Premier’s catch-and-release system that has been initiated over the last

six years, as he has been the Attorney General and now the

Premier.

But we don’t hear…. Apparently, this Attorney General is not

allowed to answer. The House Leader won’t let her get up and actually

answer questions. Two questions have been answered today out of how

many? People deserve to hear answers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. That’s okay.

Continue.

P. Milobar: The former Attorneys General were allowed to answer it well, Mr.

Speaker. They seem to be very sensitive today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, shhh. Both sides calm down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members will come to order now, both sides.

The member will continue.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government House Leader seemed to have

something to work out there.

People are being attacked repeatedly in unprovoked events in this

province. This government continues to brush it off as if we’re making

things up and that people are actually safer and crime is under control

under this Premier’s catch-and-release system. It’s simply not factually

correct. It’s just more and more empty NDP rhetoric and

promises.

In Nanaimo, small business owners like Jeff Ross say that, just in

the last 60 days alone, he’s had two break-ins, three vehicle break-ins,

two shoplifting events, two store windows being broken and garbage

strewn all over the place. If you listen to the Solicitor General,

somehow things are okay.

Well, here’s what the Nanaimo mayor, Leonard Krog, said. Imagine

if Mr. Krog had actually been made the Attorney General. Perhaps this

province would have been actually safer, and he wouldn’t have left to go

to the mayor’s chair in Nanaimo in the first place.

But let’s look at what he says at the rally. He has called upon

the provincial government over and over again to “provide the secure

involuntary care” people need. That’s one of this government’s former

MLAs who is now the mayor of Nanaimo saying that.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

P. Milobar: How much more violence, theft and business closures will people

have to endure before this soft-on-crime Premier actually starts taking

meaningful action and ends his catch-and-release system to make

communities safe again?

Mr. Speaker: Members, it’s the government’s prerogative whoever they want to

stand up and answer the question. Please. We all know that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will point out to my colleague across the way that he said that

I said it’s okay, that the crime is okay. He said that I said it’s okay

that all these things are taking place. That is simply not true.

Everybody condemns the violence that’s taken place.

What I’ve said in terms of amazing: we’ve got an amazing Premier.

We absolutely do have an amazing Premier. But let’s….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members, enough.

Please continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I listened to the member’s question, and nearly all of it related

to my ministry. I mean, he specifically accused me of saying something

is okay. So you’re darn right I’m going to take this opportunity to

answer the question to point out that they cut victim services; that

they failed to add additional police resources to communities such as

Prince George, Terrace and Kamloops that were asking for them; that they

had 16 years to try and fill the provincial police line. They failed to

do that.

Those are actions that this side of the House is doing. This side

of the House is taking action in terms of working with the federal

government to get those changes needed around bail reform.

[10:55 a.m.]

That’s why the federal Justice Minister said that British Columbia

is taking a leadership role, hon. Speaker. We have been working with

local government, the city of Vancouver, on putting additional resources

into communities — whether it’s successful programs we have piloted on

the North Shore, expanding them provincewide, such as peer-assisted care

teams; or whether it’s expanding the car program; all of those things

are taking place — and making sure that victim services get more funding

than ever happened on that side of the House.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: Hon. Speaker, I call Bill 3, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, second

reading.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

The bill amends the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act. As part of the November 2021 amendments to FOIPPA,

housekeeping changes were made to provide clarity and improve the flow

section 3, which discusses application of the act. It was discovered

that a drafting error created an unintended gap in coverage for the

records of the independent officers of the Legislature and the Auditor

General for Local Government. This bill will restore coverage to what it

was before the act was amended in 2021.

This bill also amends the Ecological Reserve Act and the Park Act

by enabling administrative penalties. This is necessary to ensure that

penalties for offences can be scalable to address the impact of the

non-compliance on protected area values and to deter future

non-compliance.

The bill amends the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act

to direct revenues from administrative penalties into the park

enhancement fund. This will allow the funds to be used directly to

remedy the protected area values that were damaged by the violation and

to cover the costs associated with the extraordinary enforcement

expenses. This supports the principle that violators, not taxpayers,

should shoulder the financial costs of their offences.

The bill enables the minister to suspend a permit issued under the

Ecological Reserve Act. Suspensions add flexibility to the minister’s

compliance and enforcement tools in a manner that aligns with modern

natural resource legislation. It also makes amendments to the Protected

Areas of British Columbia Act. The amendment continues the routine

business of improving protected area boundary descriptions and

correcting administrative errors.

Thorsen Creek is an 8,504-hectare conservancy established in 2008

after a recommendation by the Central Coast land and resource management

plan. The proposed amendment will remove 14 hectares from the

northwestern corner of the conservancy. This land was erroneously

included in the conservancy when it was established in 2008. The land

includes industrial activities and infrastructure that existed prior to

the conservancy being designated and that are inappropriate in a

conservancy.

The B.C. Medical Association is a voluntary association of

physicians, resident physicians and medical residents, representing

physicians in the province, including in their negotiations with the

B.C. government. The hospital appeal board and the Medical Services

Commission are statutory bodies with memberships specified in the

Hospital Act and the Medicare Protection Act. Both include members from

the BCMA.

The BCMA legally changed its name to the Association of Doctors of

B.C. in April 2020. The bill will amend the Hospital Act and the

Medicare Protection Act to substitute the name Association of Doctors of

B.C. for all references to B.C. Medical Association. These amendments

will ensure the accuracy of these statutes and the board appointments

made under them.

[11:00 a.m.]

In 2021, the B.C. Ombudsperson produced an investigative report

into municipal tax sales and vulnerable people. Each year properties on

which taxes are delinquent are offered for sale at public auction. We

know there are citizens who, for any number of reasons, may not fully

appreciate the consequences of delinquent taxes, the potential loss to

their property or the steps that can be taken to avoid the sale of a

property. The report contains a series of recommendations designed to

protect vulnerable property owners whose properties are at risk of a tax

sale.

This amendment responds to one of the Ombudsperson’s

recommendations. It will require that additional notice of an impending

tax sale be provided to property owners. Specifically, a municipal

collector will be required to give notice 60 days before the date of an

annual tax sale to each owner of a property and registered charge holder

on a property subject to a tax sale.

Finally, this bill makes validation and confirmation provisions,

consequential amendments and housekeeping amendments.

M. de Jong: It’s my first opportunity, in the confines of this chamber, to

extend a welcome to the new Attorney General and to congratulate her on

her appointment to that lofty position.

An Attorney General that preceded me once made the observation

that amongst the legion of lawyers that patrol across the land…. Some

are anxious for an appointment, eventually, to the bench. Some are not.

But virtually every lawyer would like to be Attorney General for a

day.

The minister now assumes that position for more than a day and, as

we have heard just a few moments ago, inherits a long list of challenges

that she and the government must confront and deal with. I say, from the

opposition benches…. We wish her success in that regard and hope she

enjoys somewhat more success on some of these matters than we have seen

in the past.

Those days are ahead. Our task today is to briefly consider the

first bill that the minister has tabled as Attorney General. I won’t

attempt to characterize it as the single most controversial piece of

legislation that we have seen.

My practice on these matters, and it’s one I intend to continue,

would be, in second reading, simply to alert the Attorney and her staff

and, in this case, perhaps staffs in other ministries to the areas that

the opposition will look to canvass in more detail when we get to

committee stage, as opposed to embarking upon a lengthy discussion of

all of the various provisions at this point. The easiest way for me to

do that, in a relatively short legislative instrument, is to refer to

the clauses. I think we call them clauses now, not sections.

Clause 1 is actually something that falls directly within the

parameters of the Attorney General. It is the product of a process that

was created in this House a few years ago, whereby errors that are

deemed to be less substantive errors can be corrected by regulation as

opposed to legislation. This, I think, falls into that category, where a

regulatory process was used to correct a cross-reference there. Then

those regulations and those changes require ratification in the

Legislature.

I may have a question or two about the

schedule and the process

that was followed here. That will have more to do with the process than

it does with the substantive change that is being corrected.

There are clauses, clause 2, dealing with changes to the Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I won’t try to anticipate

fully the discussion that will take place at committee stage relating to

the extended coverage that this purports to create and to apply certain

provisions to this chamber and offices of this assembly.

[11:05 a.m.]

I will say this, and it is not meant to be unnecessarily

argumentative. For reasons that relate to recent history…. When this

government makes changes to this act, the opposition gets suspicious.

That is a product of some unfortunate decisions that were made by the

government over the course of its nearly six years in office. So the

minister and her colleague responsible for the Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Act should anticipate some questions to

clarify and have placed on the record what the intention is with respect

to the provisions in clause 2.

The minister has referred to sections 3 to 10, which deal with the

environment and parks legislation. They appear, on the surface, to be,

especially with respect to parks, technical and corrective, although

whenever governments seek the authority to expand their penalty

provisions and administrative penalty provisions, it’s probably

appro­priate…. There will be some questions relating to those

provisions as well.

Sections 11 and 12 deal with health and are, as I read them and as

the minister has just pointed out, essentially designed to acknowledge

the new name for the Doctors of B.C., the B.C. Medical Association. I

wouldn’t expect there to be, really, any questions relating to those

sections. I say that only because health officials have got enough to

do. It would seem unwise to have a myriad of them waiting around for

questions that never arise.

Sections 13 to 15 deal with the municipal legislation and notice

provisions. I think my reaction, quite frankly, was the same as most

people. I would have thought that on something as significant as a tax

sale, there would have already been notice provisions. That, apparently,

is not the case or not the case to the extent that there should

be.

I think that the opposition’s interest in these sections will be

twofold. One is to understand properly, at the committee stage, how

those notice provisions will operate. The minister made, I thought, an

interesting comment speaking about vulnerable landowners. This may well

be one of those cases where it is not just the fact of providing notice

but how that notice is provided. A vulnerable landowner who….

If we accept the proposition that no one purposely seeks to avoid

their obligations as they relate to property taxes…. Most reasonable

people would understand that there are consequences for that, including,

potentially, the loss of that land. That occurs either when financial

circumstances have deteriorated to a point where the non-payment of

taxes is involuntary or the person has lost the capacity to properly

understand what their obligations are. If I said, say, seniors…. I

wouldn’t want to be accused of suggesting that only seniors can lose

their capacity. Other people, for other reasons, can.

If that is true, then receiving a notice in the mail may not be

sufficient, although it generally is. That’s how we generally provide

notice. It may be that on something….

[11:10 a.m.]

If we stop for a moment and consider what the average value of a

home in British Columbia is today…. The fact that an organ of state

would come along and, in the case of non-payment of taxes, quite

properly initiate proceedings, ensuring that the person to whom that

action applies not just has notice but understands the significance of

that notice, there should be a heightened obligation on the part of the

state to ensure that that is the case.

The second part of the conversation — I think it’ll be my

colleague from Peace River South who engages in the exchange — will be

our concern that not only are we correcting a significant technical

requirement and a missing feature in the act, but that the government is

concerned, given the continuing deterioration of our economic situation

in British Columbia, that this is a provision that is going to become,

sadly, more relevant in the weeks, months and years ahead.

There are certainly signs pointing in that direction. I think the

minister or her colleague…. I’m not certain how the government and the

minister wish to organize the committee stage debate. I would suggest

that in the past it has been helpful to have the folks responsible for

the relevant legislation in place to answer the questions, but that will

also be a topic for discussion going forward.

That’s my best synopsis of where I think the conversation will

take us in committee stage. As is, I think, normal in this case, the

opposition is happy to facilitate passage through second reading so that

we can get to that more detailed discussion on those matters.

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m just happy to make a few brief comments to my sections of this

bill. As my colleague the Attorney General has already noted, the

amendment in respect of protected area boundary descriptions just

continues the regular practice of correcting administrative errors and

improving boundaries as they’re described.

I would like, partly in response to the member for Abbotsford

West, to speak a little bit to the amendments to the Park Act and the

Ecological Reserve Act that introduce administrative penalties. Perhaps

I can offer a bit of clarity; I certainly will look forward to any

questions that come up in committee stage with regard to

this.

What the administrative penalties will do is give B.C. Parks a

wider and more practical range of tools to address regulatory

non-compliance in ecological reserves and parks. The province can, as

members know, prosecute offences in court, but administrative penalties

are timelier, they’re more cost-effective, and they’re less stigmatizing

than a court prosecution. They can be, therefore, more

effective.

Court prosecutions, of course, are appropriate for some serious

offences, but administrative penalties are a common tool used throughout

many ministries to achieve the goals of compliance and corrective action

on less serious offences. This will help us and B.C. Parks fulfil the

mandate to protect the park and ecological reserve values, improve human

health and safety and remove less serious cases from a court system

that, frankly, does not need unnecessary overburden.

Let me give a couple of examples of some of the offences that

could be met with a penalty. It could be a trespass by a logging company

that could profit from the sale of timber, whether that is an

intentional or unintentional trespass into a protected area. It could be

the construction of illegal structures or roads that therefore would

leave the Crown to pay for the removal and restoration that might be

entailed to restore the park or protected area to its original

values.

[11:15 a.m.]

It could be illegal use or removal of other park resources. It

could be permittees who simply fail to report their activities. It could

be the removal of resources — for example, people harvesting salal,

mushrooms or trees within a park and thereby profiting from selling

those products. Finally, it could also be just simply a failure to

comply with the director’s order to repair or restore resources that

were damaged in the course of illegal activities.

The legislative scheme that will be introduced by this amendment

is modelled after the Environmental Management Act in four main ways.

Directors would have the authority to make administrative penalty

determinations, as well as to negotiate a resolution of the matter

through an agreement with the violator. Employees, officers, directors

and agents can be liable for authorizing corporate non-compliance.

Penalties can be recovered as a debt by filing a certificate in court,

and penalty decisions can be appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board.

Other aspects of procedural fairness are also consistent with the

Environmental Management Act and other structures that use

administrative penalties throughout government.

Finally, the revenue that would be collected from these penalties

will be directed to the park enhancement fund. This will support the

principle that where there are costs resulting from illegal activity,

those will not be borne by the taxpayer; they will be borne by the

offenders. That includes costs needed to detect and prove

violations.

With that, hon. Speaker, thank you very much. I will take my

seat.

Hon. L. Beare: I’m very pleased to speak with you today about my very minor

amendment that I have in Bill 3, the amendment needed to address an

error in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We’re

here to correct a drafting error that occurred in last fall’s

amendment.

In November 2021, we made changes to FOIPPA, including structural

and housekeeping updates to

section 3. This

section defines which

records are covered or not covered by FOIPPA. The structural changes to

section 3 were meant to add clarity. However, the drafter accidentally

excluded the records of the independent officers of the Legislature and

of the Auditor General for Local Government from most of the FOI

requirements and privacy protections provided by the act.

As drafted, this amendment will correct these issues and return

coverage to the officers of the Legislature and the Auditor General for

Local Government to the same as it was prior to the 2021 amendments. The

Information and Privacy Commissioner was consulted on the draft of this

bill and is supportive of the changes. The other officers have been

notified of the intent to correct the error.

That’s it for our role in the bill. Thank you very much,

Chair.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close

debate?

Hon. N. Sharma: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just a few comments. I want to thank,

first of all, the member for Abbotsford West for his kind words, at the

beginning, of welcome to my role. I look forward to working with the

member for Abbotsford West.

To answer one of the questions he raised, we will be, in the

committee stage, having the relevant ministers available to answer any

questions, so you’ll have the detailed response.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 3, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, read a second

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

next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 6 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING ACT

(N o . 5)

Hon. A. Kang: Madam Chair, I move that the bill now be read a second

time.

I’m pleased to rise today in the House to speak on this very

important legislation. I’m honoured, as the new Minister for Municipal

Affairs, to be tabling this bill in the House.

Bill 6, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 5), is

an important piece of legislation that has a key goal, which I will

speak to in more depth: to maintain protections for the Dominion Radio

Astrophysical Observatory, located in the White Lake Basin in the South

Okanagan.

[11:20 a.m.]

To achieve this goal, Bill 6 enacts the Municipalities Enabling

and Validating Act (No. 5). The proposed legislation would permit an

extension of a unique land use contract within the regional district of

Okanagan-Similkameen, despite a sunset provision in the Local Government

Act that terminates all land use contracts as of June 30,

This land use contract, LU-6-D, provides a regulatory framework

for the St. Andrews community, which was established in 1973. Its

provisions minimize disruption to the Dominion Radio Astrophysical

Observatory by limiting the total number of dwellings and by placing

restrictions on the household electrical devices that could cause radio

frequency interference. The observatory is a major international

scientific contributor and is also a regionally significant economic

contributor. It is one of only two such radio telescope facilities in

North America.

Its site within the White Lake Basin was selected in 1960 as a

result of a Canada-wide search for a suitable location. Location in a

radio quiet zone is central to its continued success. The federal

government has requested an extension for this land use contract while

it explores other options for maintaining protections to the

observatory.

We considered other local government land use tools that could be

used alone or together rather than exempting LU-6-D from termination.

However, none would provide the same long-term certainty on limits of

dwellings and, therefore, population density, which is a key interest of

the federal government.

Because of this exceptional set of circumstances, we are seeking

to permit extension of this one land use contract for a period of ten

years with the possibility of a future extension by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council regu­latory authority.

We have also been attentive to the requirements of the Declaration

on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act as we developed this

legislation. As a result, 21 First Nations were notified on the proposal

to extend the RDOS land use contract, LU-6-D. The First Nation

identified as having primary responsibility for the area expressed

support for restrictions on development in the White Lake area around

the observatory, which is a highly significant cultural area.

Our government is listening to the needs and requests of local

communities by clarifying their authorities and providing them with

tools they require to respond to their community’s needs. The proposed

amendments in Bill 6 are supported by the regional district of

Okanagan-Similkameen, where the amendments impact them

specifically.

With that, hon. Chair, I want to thank you and all members of the

House. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in the continued

debate today on the second reading of this bill.

M. Bernier: I’ll start by also thanking the minister for the synopsis that we

just heard on this bill.

You know, at first when I looked at it, I thought I might have to

identify myself as the designated speaker and speak for two hours. It

looks like on this bill I might not have to. It’s been….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Yeah, thank you to the member whose…. I know you’d love to hear me

speak for two hours on this one.

I want to thank the minister as well for availing myself with her

staff this morning within her ministry, who gave a quick briefing on

this piece of legislation. As the minister highlighted, it’s been going

on for many decades that this issue has been in place for this region.

We need to make sure for the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory

that it has more of that protection for the next ten years, at

least.

I will say that I think it’s important to almost highlight for

someone like myself — who gazes up at the sky quite regularly not just

in question period but actually outside of this House as well, with a

lot of amazement — that this is only one of two places in North America

where we have this observatory doing this work. So obviously understand

the importance of that with the federal government and appreciate the

minister’s highlighting of the communication with local government and

local First Nations as well.

I’ll be sitting in for now on behalf of the member for Penticton

until he’s able to speak to this, but I appreciate the minister’s

time.

[11:25 a.m.]

When we get to committee stage, I’ll probably have just a few

basic questions. I don’t think we’ll have any other speakers from our

side of the House. As I said, this piece of legislation seems, on the

surface, to be pretty self-explanatory. So I appreciate, when we get to

committee stage, maybe a few questions. Again, I thank the minister for

bringing it forward.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close

debate?

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you so much to the Member for Peace River South for your

comments. I look forward to our continued discussion and debate on Bill

6 in the committee stage.

With that, I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 6.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Kang: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 6, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 5), read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I call continued address and debate on the Speech from the

Throne.

I request a brief five-minute recess.

Deputy Speaker: We will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 11:26 a.m. to 11:31 a.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: We’ll call the House back to order.

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you for your consideration. I did err on what we’re

calling. We are calling the committee stage on Bill 4, the Finance

Statutes Amendment Act, 2023.

Deputy Speaker: We’re going to wait for staff to come in.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 4; J. Tegart in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:32 a.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: We are now in committee stage. I will call the committee to

order. We are dealing with Bill 4.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’d just like to introduce the staff that are with me. I have

Renée Mounteney, the assistant deputy minister, policy and legislation

division; and Tim Prisiak, the director of capital markets policy,

financial and corporate sector policy branch. Looking forward to the

discussion.

P. Milobar: Thanks to the minister for the introductions there. I don’t

anticipate there’ll be a ton of questions on this bill, frankly, so it

won’t be my usual repertoire, as can happen sometimes.

Just a couple of questions, though, on clause 1 specifically. This

seems to be the area that will be closing the loophole that was

discovered in the previous legislation that was brought forward by the

previous minister.

Can the minister just confirm that this is indeed the

section that

will be closing that loophole around pension benefits and how, I guess,

the Pasquill court case tied into the wording that we see here

today?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The member is correct. In 2021, in the court case that he referred

to, the Pasquill case, the B.C. Court of Appeal held that this ability

to enforce against registered plans did not extend to the items exempted

from the enforcement under

section 70 of the Pension Benefits Standards

Act, such as pension funds that are life income funds, known as

LIFs.

The proposed amendment closes this gap, allowing the BCSC to

enforce against the pension payments currently excluded by

section 70 of

the Pension Benefits Standards Act.

P. Milobar: I guess I’m just trying to get some certainty here. Bill 33 was

originally, in my understanding, in 2019. The government of the day,

this government — a previous minister, again, I acknowledge — brought it

forward. That’s where this loophole was left. It was then discovered. We

have a court case that has wrapped up or is in process, depending on

appeals and things of that nature.

Again, can the minister walk me through the timeline of when this

loophole was discovered and started to be worked on as it relates to the

court case as well?

Hon. K. Conroy: I wouldn’t characterize this as a loophole. This is actually a

normal occurrence, for courts to interpret legislation and provide

guidance once the legislation has been passed.

Once a decision was made in the Court of Appeal in the Pasquill

case that the member is referring to, in 2021, the ministry had clarity

in law to make the necessary changes. That’s what we’re presenting

today.

P. Milobar: I appreciate that the minister doesn’t want to call it a loophole,

but the reality was that there was about a $700,000 LIF in this case, is

my understanding, on a $21.7 million fraud judgment, and the government

discovered that they could not actually go after the $700,000 LIF based

on their 2019 legislation. I guess we can agree to disagree on whether

or not it’s a loophole or error or anything of that matter.

The reason I’m asking those questions on the timelines is to gauge

the government’s confidence in terms of the timeline that this

correction to an error in the legislation that was made….

[11:40 a.m.]

How confident is the government that they have actually closed

said loophole or fixed the error in the 2019 legislation they first

brought forward, based on not just that case but looking at any other

potential cases that may come forward in terms of these types of pension

funds that may be captured by this legislation?

Hon. K. Conroy: We’re confident this amendment will address the issues raised in

the Pasquill court case. In fact, with the Pasquill court case, it only

referred to pensions under the Pension Benefits Standards

Act.

The ministry has in fact looked, what you’ll see under clause 2,

to deal with also taking this legislation to deal as well with pooled

registered pension plans.

P. Milobar: The Pasquill case shone a light on this loophole, I guess, needing

to be fixed. It sounds like that’s exactly what this is endeavouring to

do, but there’s no expectation from the government that this legislation

could be retroactive to that case.

In other words, the Pasquill…. I believe its $700,000 LIF will

remain untouched based on previous legislation, and this legislation is

just simply forward-moving. Or is it the expectation of government to

try to go back after those funds?

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s not retroactive, and I can’t comment on the action the BCSC

could potentially take in the Pasquill case.

Clauses 1 to 17 inclusive approved.

On clause 18.

[11:45 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Just a couple of commencement questions here. I get the royal

assent side of the commencement.

Could the minister…? Sections 1 to 4 and 5(

a) and (

c) and sections

6 to 17 — their commencement is all by regulation of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, so cabinet.

Can the minister maybe just provide us with the expectation of

when those regulations will be set out and will actually take effect,

those various clauses?

Hon. K. Conroy: I would say in the near future. It will be determined by when BCSC

is ready to have them come into effect. They will need some time to

implement these changes, and we will be working with BCSC to ensure that

they are ready to implement. Then the OICs will move ahead.

P. Milobar: Will any of the timing be contingent on…? A great many of these

clauses are also trying to, in my understanding, have some consistency

across the country with other jurisdictions, other provinces.

Will any of these commencements be contingent on waiting for

agreement with other provinces, or is it strictly a stand-alone exercise

for B.C. and the Securities Commission within B.C.?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: BCSC works regularly with other jurisdictions across the country.

We’re always alive to harmonization concerns with other

jurisdictions.

Clause 18 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 4, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L. Beare: A big hello to the students who have just joined us

here.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

Copyright © 2023 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

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

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.