Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, April 26, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 314

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)

Ride-hail and food delivery drivers

J. Routledge

Tanner Molendyk and hockey accomplishments

S. Bond

B.C. Ferries travel for medical services and travel assistance program

J. Rice

Lisa Scott and support for women and youth in trades

C. Oakes

HMCS Discovery and HMCS Malahat and

100th anniversary of Naval Reserve

S. Chant

Community support for displaced Ukrainians in Fort St. John

D. Davies

Oral Questions

Surrey school district portable use

K. Falcon

Hon. D. Eby

T. Halford

Hon. R. Singh

Police actions and press freedom for journalists

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Farnworth

Oversight of policing and implementation of Police Act committee recommendations

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Farnworth

Government action on Representative for Children and

Youth recommendations

M. Bernier

Hon. M. Dean

C. Oakes

D. Davies

S. Bond

Reports from Committees

Children and Youth Committee, review of the

Representative for Children and Youth Act, April 2023

J. Sims

M. Bernier

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 18 — Haida Nation Recognition Act

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Lee

Reporting of Bills

Bill 18 — Haida Nation Recognition Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 19 — Money Services Business Act

Hon. K. Conroy

P. Milobar

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Money Services Businesses Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2023

P. Milobar

Hon. K. Conroy

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2023

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Strata Property Amendment Act, 2023

M. Bernier

Hon. R. Kahlon

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Strata Property Amendment Act, 2023

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 26 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 5)

Amendment Act, 2023

M. de Jong

E. Sturko

Hon. R. Kahlon

M. Lee

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 5) Amendment Act, 2023

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

S. Bond

D. Davies

Hon. A. Dix

C. Oakes

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Resource

Stewardship

Hon. N. Cullen

L. Doerkson

R. Merrifield

A. Olsen

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2023

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: S. Chant.

Introductions by Members

E. Sturko: On behalf of my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano, who is on Zoom

today, I’d like to welcome Susan Chambers to the House today. If the member

was here, she would say that Susan has been a longtime friend, a staunch

supporter and a great contributor to the community.

As well as her professional career in sales and marketing, Susan is a

board member of the Northwest Wildlife Preservation Society, a phenomenal

fundraiser for many important causes and an ever-committed volunteer for

B.C. United, serving in several volunteer roles.

Susan has always been the kind of woman who supports and mentors other

women to be successful leaders. Will the House please join me in making

Susan Chambers welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: The Canadian Union of Public Employees is having its B.C. convention

this week in Victoria, and some of the delegates are here to watch question

period.

All the way from Peace country in the gallery are Carla Sanford,

president of CUPE Local 3052, Chetwynd; Shawna Patterson, CUPE Local 3052,

also from Chetwynd; and Stephanie Goudie from Dawson Creek, the CUPE B.C.

regional vice-president, north.

Will the House please join with me and give them a warm

welcome.

B. Anderson: It is with great delight that I welcome a member back to the chamber.

Today we have Michelle Mungall. This is the first time she’s been in the

chamber since she was an MLA and a former minister. Of course, Michelle was

MLA for Nelson-Creston. I am so grateful for Michelle’s mentorship and

friendship, and I certainly wouldn’t be here today without the guidance and

support of Michelle.

With her on the floor is Vivianne Mungall, who is her daughter. This

is her first time, Viv’s first time on the floor. It’s wonderful to see her

here. She is just under two years old.

We also have, up in the audience, Zak Matieschyn. Zak, of course, is

Michelle’s husband. We have Zavier, who previously would be able to sit on

the floor. I think he was one of the first children that was on the floor,

when Michelle had House duty. And we have Roman Matieschyn.

Welcome. It’s so wonderful to have you back here in the

House.

Will the members please all welcome the family back to the

House.

Hon. B. Bailey: I hope the House will join me in welcoming my cousin Lance Bailey to

the precinct today. Lance is a millwright and works in the natural resource

sector. As a good British Columbian, he very helpfully married a woman who

is a health care worker and working in Victoria Hospital, which we’re very

grateful for.

Would the members please join us in making my cousin, Lance, feel most

welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: We have a shared guest in the gallery today. Jason Marsolais is

actually from Trail, so he’s my constituent, so I get to introduce him. He’s

celebrating his 47th birthday with us. I’m sorry, but your dad told me that,

who’s sitting beside you.

[1:40 p.m.]

Jason is actually known as a snow angel in Trail, because he can be

found outside early on cold winter mornings — we have a lot of snow —

clearing snow in the community to help keep fellow residents safe from the

slippery sidewalks.

Would everybody in the House please join me in welcoming Jason and

wishing him a very happy birthday.

J. Sims: Today I have the pleasure to introduce my cousin-sister. Even though

she is my cousin, we’ve been like sisters.

When I first arrived here in B.C., she was only about three years old.

I’ve watched her grow. She has become a mom. Now she is a grandmother, a

very strong, passionate woman who actually has followed her career, followed

her heart but right now took early retirement and is really enjoying that

too. There is an irony in there somewhere.

Of course, accompanying her are four other soul sisters, as we call

each other — Navneet Freeza Anand, Sandy Dakha, Binder Aktar and Taranjitv

Kaur Kooner. I’ve gotten to know these ladies over the last number of years.

During any campaign I have, they’re there, heart and soul. But they really

are my soul sisters, because they manage to feed my soul, which all of us

need to do when we do this job.

Thank you, and please help me welcome them.

D. Davies: I thought the Minister of Labour was going to take some of my thunder,

but he stopped just shy. I am going to introduce some of my constituents

that are down all the way from Fort St. John to also attend the B.C. CUPE

convention. Brandy Frocklage, Dave Shipley, Marie Westergaard and Bailey Van

Der Meer are down from Fort St. John attending the conference.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

H. Yao: I do take pride today for not learning how to follow instructions. I

want to wish a good friend, a colleague and a political mentor her tenth

19th birthday.

I will ask all the members in here to let us wish a happy birthday to

our Minister of Municipal Affairs.

S. Chant: I have some very distinguished guests here today. There are a dozen

members of the naval reserves here today from HMCS Discovery in

Vancouver and HMCS Malahat in Victoria. I have the commanding

officer of Malahat , Cmdr. Cameron Miller, and his coxswain, CPO2

Harry Godwin; and the commanding officer of HMCS Discovery , Cmdr.

Rebecca Hardie, and her coxswain, CPO Jason Eldridge.

They have with them other members of the ship’s company who are naval

reservists, who spend time working with the reserves as well as doing the

things that they do in their civilian life.

I ask you to make them very welcome.

E. Ross: I have three guests. It’s always exciting when rural MLAs get guests

to witness what we do here in the people’s House. We have Dr. Carla

Gemeinhardt and her daughter Aoife Baryer, who is nine years old and goes to

French immersion school in Terrace.

Dr. Carla is a local family doctor, has a primary care practice and

provides labour and delivery care, works in the emergency room and teaches

with the UBC medical program. She also has another child, who is not here

with her today. Aoife enjoys the Blueback Swim Club, plays piano, makes art,

loves skiing and mountain biking.

My third guest is a blast from the past, Brendon Grant. I used to play

soccer against him. He’s 20 years younger than me, and he used to cheat

quite a bit. But we got over that.

Brendon is an example of what we’re going through as the Haisla Nation

Council when we start to see the proceeds coming from LNG development as far

back as 2007. At that time, we weren’t quite sure about how successful we

were going to be in terms of advocating for the export of LNG, but it’s

surpassed all of our expectations, where the council could no longer control

the opportunities coming at our members.

[1:45 p.m.]

Brendon is an example of that success. Initially, he wanted to go to

college and then return to be our band manager. I encouraged him to set his

sights higher, which he agreed with. He now works with an investment

management firm out of Toronto. It’s called Jarislowsky Fraser, and what

they do is support investment mandates coming from Indigenous communities

across the country. They work with the trustees to steward hard-won capital

for economic development and settlement agreements for First

Nations.

He was guided by his grandparents, who I knew very well, and by his

parents, who I know very well, and his family, who I know very well, and he

is an example of true reconciliation in terms of what economic development

can do to First Nations across B.C. as well as across Canada.

Would the House please welcome my guests from Skeena.

Hon. M. Dean: Today is Admin Professionals Day, and admin support workers in the

work of my ministry are absolutely vital. They support our social workers,

our front-line workers and, very often, they’re the first point of contact

for people when they are in a crisis and when they’re needing help, either

at the end of the phone or sitting at reception in one of our team

offices.

I’m really delighted, today, to see that we have some admin

professionals from the ministry in the gallery. They’re joined by ADM

Carolyn Kamper.

Would everybody please show your appreciation for the work of all of

our admin professionals and make them very welcome.

H. Yao: This is my second introduction for today. I want to take a moment to

welcome Hunan Fellow Association. As an organization, they have been doing a

phenomenal job fundraising for Richmond Hospital Foundation and are

continuing to find ways to benefit and strengthen the Richmond community as

a whole.

I would like to ask the chamber to welcome Coco Luo, president; Linda

Zhen Li, executive director; Xin Yao Guo, member at large; Yi Hyuang, member

at large; Bei Feng, member at large; Xiaodan Luo, member at large; Xue Zhu

Zhu, member at large; Yajing Sun, member at large; and Shu Lin Xie, member

at large.

Please join me in welcoming this group of delegates and thank them for

their dedication to our Richmond community.

J. Rustad: It’s always a blessing to have people from your riding come down and

visit. As the member for Skeena pointed out, you don’t often get a lot of

visitors from rural B.C.

Today I have a group of 31 students, ranging from grade 9 to grade 12,

along with their chaperones, led by Adrian Pelzer. These students are from

the Northside Christian School from Vanderhoof. I had a chance to meet the

students, quite remarkable individuals.

I thought I would read a little something from their church’s website.

It goes like this: “Blessed are those who trust in the Lord and who have

made the Lord their hope and confidence. They are like trees planted along

the riverbank with roots that reach deep into the water. Such trees are not

worried about the heat or worried about the long months of drought. Their

leaves stay green and go right on producing delicious fruit.”

These young students are a fine example of that quote. Would the House

please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

RIDE-HAIL AND FOOD DELIVERY DRIVERS

J. Routledge: British Columbians have come to rely on app-based ride-hail and

food delivery services. The drivers and cyclists who provide those

services are increasingly present in our day-to-day lives. In fact, it’s

been estimated that there are upwards of 40,000 people engaged in this

industry in British Columbia. That’s a massive number.

I’d like to say a few words about what life is like for the people

who bring us our takeout dinners, pick us up at the airport or bring us

home from the bar. First of all, contrary to popular belief, being a

ride-hail or food delivery driver is not a side hustle. For most of

them, this is a main source of income.

[1:50 p.m.]

Many of them of are new immigrants and refugees who are trying to

create a self-sufficient life here for themselves and their families as

quickly as possible. While one of the attractions of the work is that

one can get hired quickly and easily, one can also be fired just as

quickly and easily.

I met one ride-hail driver who was top-rated by his company, but

he was discontinued. The app blocked him from accepting any new

assignments. In other words, he was fired. When he tried to find out

what he’d done wrong, he couldn’t get a straight answer. Two weeks later

he was told it was a case of mistaken identity, and he was reinstated,

but he couldn’t recover his two weeks’ lost income.

Drivers can be discontinued as a result of a bad rating from a

grumpy customer. Many of them experience racism, sexism and constant

abuse on the job. Some customers have insisted that their dog come with

them, even though it’s not a therapy dog and even though the driver

informed the customer they were allergic.

We know of one driver who tried to return a phone to a customer

and got punched for his efforts. Then there are the big messes sometimes

left in the cars that have to be cleaned and disinfected at the driver’s

expense.

So next time you order takeout or a ride home from the game,

please be kind to your driver, and remember to tip them well. They are

just trying to make a living like the rest of us.

TANNER MOLENDYK

AND HOCKEY

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

S. Bond: He wore his first skates before he was two. It didn’t take long.

He was skating at the local arena once a day, and twice if he could. He

loved to play hockey at the rink, on the street, even in the house. His

love of hockey and countless hours of skating would serve him

well.

In April 2020, he was picked fifth in the first-round Western

Hockey League bantam draft to play for the Saskatoon Blades. After the

draft was complete, the Saskatoon Blades president and general manager

tweeted: “This kid is special.”

You can imagine how excited his family was, not to mention the

entire village of McBride, B.C., and people throughout the Robson

Valley. You see, Tanner Molendyk grew up in McBride, and the arena he

learned to skate in was the Robson Valley Recreation Centre in his home

community of McBride.

As a defenceman, Tanner’s job is to stop people from scoring, but

he takes every opportunity he has to put points on the board as

well.

Tanner was selected to play in the U18 World Juniors 2022 Hlinka

Gretzky Cup as part of Team Canada. That team won the gold medal, the

first time that Canada won the medal in four years.

The WHL playoffs are underway, and after losing the first three

games in their second round series against the Red Deer Rebels, the

Blades made a historic comeback, winning four straight games, earning

them the right to play in the Eastern conference

championship.

Tanner was invited to play in the CHL-NHL Top Prospects Game, and

Sportsnet has listed Molendyk as one of the top ten WHL players to watch

for when the 2023 NHL draft takes place this June. Whatever happens in

June, he will have the support of an amazing family, an entire community

and region where he grew up, and they will be cheering him

on.

We’re very proud of you, Tanner, and can’t wait to see what the

future holds for you.

B.C. FERRIES TRAVEL

FOR MEDICAL SERVICES

AND

TRAVEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

J. Rice: At the end of January of this year, the Premier appointed me as

B.C.’s first-ever Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Health. One of my

mandates is to look at the travel assistance program, otherwise known as

TAP, with the goal of making health care more equitable for those living

in rural, remote and First Nations communities.

I’m delighted to talk about yesterday’s announcement that

reservations on B.C. Ferries sailings will be waived for those using the

travel assistance program. The TAP supports British Columbians who need

to travel within the province for medical specialist services that are

not available in their own communities.

The program is a partnership between the Ministry of Health and

transportation providers who agree to waive or discount their fees for

medical travel. TAP helps alleviate some of these travel costs that

urban British Columbians don’t have to necessarily incur. We are

encouraged by B.C. Ferries’ support for this program to help British

Columbians access necessary medical care.

[1:55 p.m.]

We have much more to do in making health care more equitable for

rural remote and remote First Nations communities, and I’m glad to be

taking on some of these challenges as the Parliamentary Secretary for

Rural Health.

LISA SCOTT AND SUPPORT FOR

WOMEN AND YOUTH IN

TRADES

C. Oakes: Today I am proud to highlight a change-maker in my constituency,

Lisa Scott. Lisa is an active supporter of the B.C. Centre for Women in

Trades, an organization that has made a significant difference in her

life and her career.

Lisa has been organizing Discovery Trades Camps for young women

and Indigenous youth in Quesnel. They provide youth the opportunity to

experience the fun and excitement of interactive trades exploration

while also providing them very important life skills.

In each of the week-long camps, participants are introduced to an

array of trades and industry. The camps include occupational health and

safety, different trades such as carpentry, electrical, welding,

masonry, painting, plumbing, welding, sheet metal, heavy-duty equipment

operations in the forest industry, under the guidance of skilled

tradespeople, facilitators and mentors from across British

Columbia.

I had the opportunity to attend the first graduating class of

students from grades 4 through 7. I can share with members of this

House…. What a humbling and impactful moment, one of those truly

clarifying job moments in my career.

The pride of both the young students and their families — parents,

grandparents, and in many cases, great-grandparents — came to our local

North Cariboo Community Campus to appreciate the work these students

did. I can share that the students made some remarkable

projects.

This passion for supporting trades in our community has now

expanded across this province. Just in the last few weeks, Lisa has been

able to do electrical projects with a group of Indigenous students at

Quesnel Junior School, sat on a panel to speak at the B.C. Centre for

Women in Trades leadership training conference and supported students in

Lytton at the Stein Valley Nlakapamux School with the electrical portion

of the trades sampler program.

Lisa and her colleagues, partners and organizations have come

together to support this training, making a considerable difference. It

is changing people’s lives, and for that, let us offer her our

appreciation.

HMCS Discovery AND HMCS Malahat

AND 100 th ANNIVERSARY OF NAVAL

RESERVE

S. Chant: I rise today to acknowledge Canada’s Naval Reserve in their

centennial year, 2023, and to recognize, in particular, the

contributions to this province made by the sailors of His Majesty’s

Canadian ships Discovery and Malahat .

To begin with, I will also acknowledge that I’m speaking from the

ancestral lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən

people, the Esquimalt and Songhees, on which HMCS Malahat is

also located. I also have the privilege of representing North

Vancouver–Seymour on the traditional lands of the Musqueam, Squamish and

Tsleil-Waututh peoples, upon which members of HMCS Discovery

live and work.

The Naval Reserve was established on January 31, 1923, as the

Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve. Many reservists participated in

the keystone Allied marine campaign of the Second World War, which

sustained supply lines from the Americas to the European war

effort.

Today the Naval Reserve is represented in 24 divisions across the

country, comprising more than 4,100 Canadians. We are fortunate in

British Columbia to host two naval reserve divisions. HMCS

Discovery , located on Deadman Island in Stanley Park in

Vancouver, was established in 1924. HMCS Malahat , now located

at Shoal Point here in Victoria, was established in 1947.

Over the years, reservists have deployed from these stone frigates

on operations such as maritime security for the 2010 Olympics,

responding to the pandemic and supporting communities stricken by

emergencies, including B.C. wildfires and B.C. floods. Further afield,

they contribute to international security and Canadian Armed Forces

operations in Central and South America, Asia, the Middle East, Europe

and other areas.

Members of both Discovery and Malahat join us

today in the gallery. These proud British Columbians, past and present,

have chosen to be citizen sailors who serve full- or part-time in the

Royal Canadian Navy while engaging in their civilian lives and

careers.

We recognize them for their bravery, thank them for their

dedication over the last 100 years and wish them and their shipmates

well in their endeavours, near and far, in service to Canada.

[2:00 p.m.]

COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR DISPLACED

UKRAINIANS IN FORT ST.

JOHN

D. Davies: Getting to Canada is easy. Settling in Canada is much

harder.

Fort St. John was unprepared for the number of displaced families

arriving from Ukraine, sometimes late at night at the local airport with

nothing but the clothes on their backs. Families ranging in size from

My constituency office in Fort St. John was being flooded with

inquiries about what could be done. After finding out, two employees

from school district 60’s settlement workers in schools program, or the

SWIS program, were trying the best that they could to help support these

newcomers but identified that much more needed to be done.

So we hosted a meeting of multiple community stakeholders, which

led to discussions on creating a centralized group to support displaced

Ukrainian families in the region. Several groups were present at the

meeting, including members of the city council, Northern Health,

government agencies and, of course, the SWIS program, to mention a few.

Also in attendance was one of the Ukrainian family members who brought

her very personal experience to the table.

The meeting offered up an opportunity to find out what the

community had and what the community needed to do. Once the community

members of the region became aware of their need, they opened up their

hearts and their homes.

Our office also hosted a very successful community Christmas toy

drive for Ukrainian children. Hampers, newly purchased household items

and grocery gift cards were also delivered to the office to support

Ukrainian families.

Then discussions moved on to creating a society. I’m proud to say

that the northeast immigrant services society has now been formed,

comprised of some of the displaced Ukrainians in our community and

supported by prominent members of our community. Although this society

is in its infancy, I know that with the help of many, the society will

support newcomers in our community while they settle and feel

welcomed.

Many of these folks feel that through services and initiatives

that create positive conditions in our community, it will mean success

for newcomers, which will, in turn, foster a welcoming environment in

Fort St. John — more importantly, to feel at home as best they can under

the circumstances.

Oral Questions

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE

K. Falcon: Once again I find myself standing in this Legislature pointing out

the massive chasm between NDP promises and the results that we actually

get. The Premier and this NDP government have utterly failed on their

one signature promise they made to the parents of Surrey, the total

eradication of Surrey school portables.

The NDP promised in 2017, and I’m going to quote here: “…a total

removal of these portables over the course of the next four years.”

Well, here we are six years later. How are they doing? Well, in a truly

remarkable twist, instead of eradicating the portables, they somehow

managed to double the portables in Surrey.

Now, British Columbians have become all too familiar with grand

promises that amount to nothing, but achieving the exact opposite of

what they promised is a new level of incompetence even for

them.

My question to the Premier is a simple one. Why, after promising

to eliminate all school portables in Surrey, have the NDP managed to

double the number of portables in Surrey?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. Every parent of every

kid in our province needs to know that their kid is going to school in a

place that’s safe, in a place that’s modern and that’s great to learn.

That’s our commitment to all parents in British Columbia, and we’re

continuing that important work.

It’s no less true in Surrey than anywhere else in the province.

That’s why we have more than 2½ times the amount of capital money in our

budget to deliver schools for British Columbians than the member did

when he sat on this side of the House.

Specifically on the issue of Surrey, we have opened 10,000 new

spaces for students. There are 16 new schools or additions that are

complete or underway across Surrey. The member may remember flatlining

the capital budget for education when he was Finance Minister. and for

the four years before the last election, not building a single school in

Surrey.

We are recovering from the legacy that he left, but we are doing

that work…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: …because the people of Surrey deserve it.

[2:05 p.m.]

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

K. Falcon: Please, we can’t deal with any more recovery. My god. I mean, this

is a classic example. We’ll double the amount of money we spend to get

double the worst results. I mean, it’s unbelievable.

But as much as the Premier will try to duck and dodge, the bottom

line is that he cannot ignore the fact they promised to eliminate

portables within four years, and they somehow managed to double the

number of portables in Surrey.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Falcon: But it gets even better. Stay tuned. It gets even better, because

now, in a truly historic manner, they are going to introduce NDP

double-decker portables. That’s right — double-decker portables. Right

now they are stacking portables on top of each other at Fleetwood Park

Secondary School.

Here’s a letter from the Surrey board of education sent to the

minister yesterday, copied to all the Surrey MLAs. It reads: “We have

tried to advocate for funding privately and held meetings with you, the

ministry and local MLAs…. Unfortunately, these meetings have not

resulted in sufficient funding….”

Now, just picture this. All those NDP MLAs, including, by the way,

the Surrey MLA who is the Minister of Education, have totally failed on

the one signature promise they made to the parents and children in

Surrey, and that is to deal with the issue of portables.

Again, a simple question to the Premier. It’s actually about

portables. I say this on behalf of all the parents of Surrey. How on

earth did the Premier manage to, instead of eliminating portables,

double them and now double-decker them?

Hon. D. Eby: Our province has seen incredible growth. One of the reasons for

this growth is people choosing to move here from other provinces and

from other countries because of the economic opportunities here and

because of remarkable programs, like our child care program, leading the

way across the nation. That’s good news for us. We’re growing. We’re a

successful province. But it brings challenges. Our infrastructure is

facing major strains.

We committed almost $100 million to Surrey specifically because

that community is growing so quickly. They’re seeing the bulk of this

growth. It’s good news for Surrey. It’s good news for B.C. But we’ve got

to meet that need.

That’s why we have…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Shhh, Members.

Please continue.

Hon. D. Eby: …literally the equivalent of 400 new classrooms, 10,000 new

spaces, for students in Surrey, spaces that should have been built,

frankly, should have been well underway when the members on that side of

the House were on this side of the House. I don’t know….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Members will come to order.

Hon. D. Eby: That member is smiling. But I don’t know how you stand up and

smile and ask that question when you didn’t build a single new school in

Surrey and sold the land that the schools were supposed to be built

on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll tell you this. The parents of Surrey weren’t smiling when he

was sitting on this side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to each other, please.

T. Halford: Well, it’s pretty clear from that response that this Premier

hasn’t even taken the time to read the letter that was sent to his

minister yesterday. It is very clear from that response.

This is how Trustee Terry Allen describes the letter. The letter

is to say: “Minister, provincial government, please look at Surrey’s

request again, because you’re actually failing the students and parents

in Surrey.” That is from a trustee.

The Education Minister, from Surrey, has failed. The member for

Surrey-Cloverdale has failed. The member for Surrey-Fleetwood has

failed. The member for Surrey-Guildford and the members for

Surrey-Newton and Surrey-Whalley have all failed parents and

teachers.

This failure in Surrey, this campaign promise that has been broken

again and again, falls at the feet of this Premier. My question to the

Premier today is: when will this Premier stop failing students and

parents in Surrey by doubling up on portables?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: I really want to thank the member for the question. I’m really

happy that you are concerned about education. While your leader was the

Finance Minister, he froze education funding, and for the last four

years in the last government, there was not a single school that was

built in Surrey, and there was only one extension.

I’m very happy that we are talking about education,

because…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members. Let’s….

Hon. R. Singh: …we are doing things differently. We are investing in our future,

and that’s what we are doing in Surrey. We are listening to the needs

and the priorities of the Surrey communities, Surrey

students…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. R. Singh: …and we are investing in them.

Since 2017, we have invested half a billion dollars in capital

investments in Surrey. That has opened six new schools…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question.

Members.

Hon. R. Singh: …and many new expansions, and many more are coming.

We’ll keep listening to the needs of the Surrey community, and

we’ll keep on working on that.

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

T. Halford: Let me say it again. Here is where we are at now in Surrey under

this Premier, this minister, this NDP government: double-decker

portables. That is the vision for the NDP in Surrey.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members, please.

T. Halford: You know what? Here’s what this Premier is doing. He’s emptying

prisons, and he’s double-bunking students. That is this Premier’s legacy

in B.C. It’s sad. Instead of eliminating portables….

Interjections.

T. Halford: The Premier laughs, and he thinks it’s funny. He thinks it’s funny

that students will go their entire career in a portable.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Halford: The Premier finds this funny. I have students, I have kids that go

to school in Surrey, constituents that do. The Premier should know. He

campaigned on a promise. He has broken that promise. Not only has he

broken it; he has doubled down on it. He’s doubled down on it, and now

we’re getting double-decker portables.

Trustee Terry Allen says again: “Eliminating portables will never

happen in my lifetime.”

Instead of laughing, can this Premier get up in the House and

admit he has absolutely failed Surrey — the parents, the students; and

why is he doubling down on this failure and doubling up on

portables?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the answer, please.

Hon. R. Singh: We are creating 10,000 new seats in Surrey, and that is equivalent

to 400 new classrooms. We know that more than 250,000 people made

British Columbia their home, and many of them chose Surrey — and rightly

so, as I did more than 20 years ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. R. Singh: Surrey is one of the best places to live here in British

Columbia.

Last year, Mr. Speaker…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Singh: …we had over 1,700 new student seats open, compared to last

year.

We will keep on working. We have a list of the schools that have

opened. I would love to tell the member all the schools that have

opened, all the seats that we have created. We’ll keep on working with

the board of education, listening to their needs and their

priorities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

POLICE ACTIONS AND

PRESS FREEDOM FOR

JOURNALISTS

A. Olsen: Three weeks ago the Vancouver police department restricted media

from covering the sweeps of the Downtown Eastside. Traffic cameras were

turned off. The media were barred from entering the area. The police

chief cited privacy and safety concerns. It’s part of a pattern of

concerning police behaviour that seems to be increasing.

Last year media was restricted from covering the ongoing

demonstrations on Wet’suwet’en territory, and journalists were

unlawfully arrested. It also occurred at the demonstrations at Fairy

Creek. Media restrictions placed by the RCMP were found to “interfere”

with the important liberties of members of the media by Justice Thompson

of the B.C. Supreme Court.

[2:15 p.m.]

A free press is necessary for a healthy democracy, but despite

warnings from our highest court, police forces continue to restrict

media and hope to get away with it.

My question is to the Solicitor General. What has he done to

support the freedom of the press in incidents involving the

police?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. What I can tell him is

that, as he well knows, there are processes and procedures in place to

guide and that are often ruled on when complaints are brought. There is

a complaint process. Individuals can bring those complaints forward, and

they will be acted on. In some cases, they’re determined in a court of

law. A court and a judge make a ruling, and my expectation is that the

police abide by those rulings.

I note some of the things that the member noted, particularly in

Vancouver… It was out for about ten minutes. It was not anything

malicious. It was just an outage.

But we have rules in place. I expect police to follow them. When

they don’t, there are complaint processes that are in place,

statute-driven, that are able to deal with them.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

OVERSIGHT OF POLICING AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICE ACT

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Olsen: The public is seeing police forces growing increasingly

authoritarian and out of the reach of independent oversight. The RCMP

are not directly accountable to the communities they serve; they’re

accountable to Ottawa. The B.C. conservation service is a quasi police

force. They’re embedded within the provincial government, but don’t have

any policing oversight body.

The chief constable of the Vancouver police department bragged

about how they don’t answer to anybody. To quote the chief: “I don’t

report to any politician. I don’t report to the city of Vancouver. I

don’t report to the province of B.C. or the federal government.” So who

are they accountable to? Police are meant to protect and serve the

communities they represent. Instead, we’ve enabled the inflation of

power, and the police forces boast about not having to report to

anybody.

My question is again to the Solicitor General. A special committee

of this House was tasked by him with reforming the Police Act, and

delivering better accountability for police forces was one of our

recommendations. What progress has he made to this

recommendation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. First off, the police are accountable.

They’re accountable to the public, they’re accountable to their

communities, they’re accountable to the province, they’re accountable to

the federal government, and there are mechanisms in place to ensure

that. They have a very difficult job, as the member well knows, and I

think all of us in this chamber know.

What I can also tell the member is that the work of the all-party

committee…. My ministry has been working very hard on those

recommendations. There will be a phased approach in dealing with the

recommendations in that committee.

The first phase will be dealing with governance and oversight

issues — some of them identified in the all-party report, others

identified by work that has gone on within my ministry. It is my

expectation and my plan, as minister, to have legislation dealing with

those particular issues ready for the fall session this year, when we

come back in October.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

REPRESENTATIVE FOR CHILDREN

AND YOUTH RECOMMENDATIONS

M. Bernier: Since 2017, there has been a staggering 191 percent increase in

critical injuries and deaths of children known to, or in the care of,

this government. B.C.’s Representative for Children and Youth has

reported 528 lost lives and 7,362 gravely injured children.

In our Committee on Children and Youth, we’ve had to listen to the

heartbreaking stories of this loss. The painful reality that we hear on

this committee, though, sharply contradicts the repeated promises and

the comments made by this Premier and his party when they were in

opposition.

We need to understand. How can the Premier justify his

government’s total lack of action and the terrible outcomes described by

the independent representative when it comes to the most vulnerable

children and youth in our province?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. We are absolutely

committed to making sure that every child is safe and happy and healthy,

and is brought up with loving parents. We know the best outcomes for

children and youth are for them to stay connected with their family,

where it’s safe, and for them to always stay connected to their

community and to their culture as well. We are taking steps to change

how services are delivered in British Columbia.

[2:20 p.m.]

We know that for far too long, Indigenous children and youth have

been overrepresented in the child welfare system, and we’re making

significant changes in the system to make sure that we address that

overrepresentation.

Members of this House know that we passed important legislation

last year to support Indigenous nations exercising their jurisdiction,

so nations will be delivering services for children, youth and families

in their communities. The bill has just passed third reading that

supports our work on youth transitions.

We know, again, that the outcomes for children and youth leaving

government care are terrible outcomes. They’re disproportionately

represented in so many terrible statistics, including the superhighway

to homelessness. We are implementing, for the first time in British

Columbia, a suite of comprehensive supports that support young people to

still have a home after the age of 19, to have access to rent

supplements if they’re in market rental. There will be income

supplements, access to more education and more cultural

supports.

There is a lot more work to do, but we have started the work. I’m

hearing from children and youth and young people saying that it’s making

a real difference in their lives. That’s the work that we’ll continue to

do to help children and youth thrive.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Peace River South, supplemental.

M. Bernier: You know what would have made a real difference? Actually, action

from this government. Meanwhile, those are hollow words for 528 children

— 528 children — that have died while under the responsibility of this

government.

The independent Representative for Children and Youth points to

factors such as the overdose crisis, mental health issues, violence,

sexual exploitation. The NDP government’s response, actually, has been

shamefully inadequate. I read a quote right out of the report: “The

outcome of this inaction,” of this government, “is seen daily in the

injuries, deaths and individual advocacy issues reported to the

RCY.”

From 2017 to 2021, the representative actually has provided 63

recommendations in ten reports. What’s happened under this government?

Nine recommendations, 14 percent, have actually been looked at and

completed. That is not action. That is failure, and families and

children are paying the price.

How does the Premier square his government’s glaring inaction on

ten reports, dozens of recommendations, compared to the promises that

his government once made?

Hon. M. Dean: It is absolutely vital and we’re absolutely committed to making

sure that children across British Columbia have safe, happy and healthy

lives with their families, with families who love and support

them.

We agree with the representative that when it comes to her

recommendations, the impacts of those changes on the ground need to be

felt faster. Work is underway on all of the recommendations of the

Representative for Children and Youth.

Rather than making cuts like under the previous government, our

government has been investing every single year, in this ministry, in

providing more services and delivering more access to services across

British Columbia. We’re absolutely determined to keep taking action. We

are working on transforming the child welfare system.

We’re making a difference in how services are accessed and how

services are being delivered to children and youth to help them and to

help their families, to help them stay together, because we know that

that leads to the best outcomes for children and youth. We are taking

action on the recommendations of the Representative for Children and

Youth.

We passed really significant legislation last year. For the first

time ever, young people transitioning from government care are able to

access services to help them thrive. At the same time, every single day

we are working with children and youth and families.

C. Oakes: The truth is that the report clearly highlights that action has

not been taken, contrary to what the minister just said. Only 14 percent

of the recommendations of the Representative for Children and Youth have

actually been completed.

Let us be clear. This is what the representative says on page 10

of the report. I’d like to quote: “Of the ten calls to collaborate with

youth and young adults, only one” — only one — “has been completed. Most

alarmingly,” and the minister talks about the work with the Aboriginal

communities, “none of the 14 calls to engage with Indigenous communities

have been completed” — none.

[2:25 p.m.]

This minister can stand up and talk about all of the work that

it’s been doing. This report shows that action has not been taken. Every

member of the Committee on Children and Youth, and there have been many

members in this Legislature that have sat on this committee, have heard

the painful stories detailed across multiple reports from the

representative. Once again this government says one thing but fails to

deliver outcomes.

How could the Premier and his NDP government have failed to do

more than a mere 14 percent of the recommendations knowing the

catastrophic consequences this inaction has on our most vulnerable

children and youth?

Hon. M. Dean: Every single day my ministry is absolutely committed to making

sure that we serve children, youth and families in British Columbia.

We’re doing that work every single day at the same time as responding to

recommendations from the Representative for Children and Youth and

making really significant changes to the whole of the child welfare

system — to how children, youth and families are able to access services

and be served.

I understand and agree with the representative that when it comes

to her recommendations, we want the impacts to be felt faster on the

ground, and many of our actions are already being felt on the ground. We

have hundreds of young people transitioning from government care who are

now receiving a $600-a-month rent supplement if they’re in market

rental.

We raised the rate for caregivers. We raised the rates for foster

carers and extended family carers by 47 percent because that rate had

been frozen for ten years. And we have harmonized the rates so that

there isn’t an incentive to come into foster care, so that young people

can stay connected to family and they can stay with extended

family.

We’re making different choices. We’re investing in services. The

budget for my ministry has gone up every single year since 2017. I hear

from young people and I hear from families that they are feeling the

difference, on the ground, of our investments in services, in supports

for families and in helping them stay safely together and stay connected

to their family, community and culture.

D. Davies: Well, unfortunately, that is cold comfort for all the kids that

are being impacted by the over-and-over failures of this government. The

representative says on page 19 of the report that this government’s

inaction has denied children essential services, stating that they “will

not see the impact of this important work during their

childhood.”

It’s hard to believe that only 14 percent of the recommendations

have been done — let that sink in; 14 percent — ignoring dozens and

dozens of urgent recommendations across multiple reports that we’ve

heard. No recognition or acknowledgment of the 528 deaths.

My question is to the Premier. How can the Premier possibly

explain his government’s inaction, complete failure to protect our most

vulnerable children and youth?

Hon. M. Dean: It’s an absolute tragedy when a child or a youth dies. My heart

goes out to all the family and community who knew children and youth who

have tragically passed away.

When we formed government in 2017, we inherited a very damaged and

broken and under-resourced system serving children, youth and families.

Since 2017, we have been investing in increasing services, increasing

access to services, making sure that we’re supporting children and youth

to stay safely with their families. We know that children are going to

thrive if we’re able to keep them connected to their family, to their

community and to their culture.

We have seen changes in practice, changes in policy, changes in

legislation. Young people transitioning from government care now, for

the first time ever, have a suite of supports and services so that they

will be able to thrive and they don’t dread their 19th

birthday.

[2:30 p.m.]

We are acting on and work is already underway on all of the

recommendations from the Representative for Children and Youth. The role

of that office is very important, and together we will continue to make

improvements in the system.

At the same time, we’re taking other measures — changing

legislation, changing investments, changing policy — to benefit

children, youth and families. Every single day staff from my ministry

are working to support children, youth and families and helping them

thrive.

S. Bond: The fact of the matter is this government wasn’t elected

yesterday. They are a two-term, more-than-six-year government. The

minister needs to haul out the report and take a look at the chart.

Critical injuries have gone up every single year under this government’s

watch — every single year. They are not our words. They are the words of

the independent representative.

Here are the facts for the minister. It’s not one report. Report

after report after report told this government they needed to do more to

protect children. Here’s the bottom line: 14 percent of the

recommendations. That’s the record of this Premier and this

government.

Of 110 child and youth deaths reported last year alone, a tragic

23 percent were substance use–related. Yet 89 percent of the

representative’s mental health recommendations have been ignored by this

government. The Ministries of Health and Mental Health and Addictions

were identified by the representative as the least responsive, and the

excuses for delays were outright dismissed by the representative. Here’s

what she said. There was “inaction both before and after the pandemic.”

Not our words; the words of the representative.

By every single measure, this Premier and government have failed

the vulnerable children in this province. Complete inaction over five

years on 89 percent of the recommendations: that’s the record of this

government.

Will the Premier stand up today and provide answers to families in

British Columbia on how they could fail so abysmally and completely

ignore the representative’s recommendations that would protect the most

vulnerable children in this province?

Hon. M. Dean: Our ministry is absolutely committed to serving children, youth

and families here in British Columbia. We have staff here today in the

gallery. Every single day our staff is working hard to keep children and

youth safely with their families and to make sure that children and

youth are connected to their family, to their community and their

culture. We know that is going to lead those children and youth to be

able to thrive.

Work is already underway on all of the recommendations from the

Representative for Children and Youth. Since 2017, we have been making

changes. We’ve been making changes to the way that services are

delivered, that services can be accessed. Rather than making cuts, like

what happened under the previous government when the other side was in

government, we have been investing in services to support children,

youth and families every single year since 2017.

We have the lowest number of youth in care. It’s the lowest it has

been in 30 years, and we have the lowest number of Indigenous children

and youth in care, the lowest in over 20 years.

We have changed legislation. We have changed policy. I have seen

practice changes. I hear from young people and from families that their

experience is different and that they are able to stay connected with

their family and keep connections with their community as

well.

There is more work to do, and we will continue to act on the

recommendations of the Representative for Children and Youth. We will

continue our work to change the system serving children and youth and

their families. Every single day our staff will continue delivering

those services and supporting children and youth and their families to

thrive.

[2:35 p.m.]

[End of question period.]

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

K. Falcon: Today in the gallery we are joined by Chris Sherry and a group of his

friends. Chris purchased a prize at a fundraiser for Vancouver College’s

100th anniversary, and that included a trip to this wonderful Legislature,

lunch with the Leader of the Opposition and a trip back. I want to welcome

them here in the gallery today.

In addition to Chris, we’ve got Darren Cannon, Jason Gordon, Tom

Gautreau, Peter Edgar and Aaron Keay.

Will the House please make them welcome.

Reports from Committees

CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

J. Sims: I have the honour today to present the first report of the Select

Standing Committee on Children and Youth for the fourth session of the

42nd parliament titled Review of the Representative for Children and

Youth Act .

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Sims: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

J. Sims: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like

to make some very brief comments.

As members know, the Representative for Children and Youth Act

establishes the Representative for Children and Youth as an independent

officer of the Legislature with a mandate for oversight of British

Columbia’s child- and youth-serving system.

No doubt members will agree that the representative’s work to

support the needs of children, youth and young adults in B.C. is

incredibly important. This report outlines the committee’s

recommendations, resulting from its review of the act, which is required

to be undertaken every five years.

The committee began its review last year and, over the course of

its consultation, heard from the representative, Dr. Jennifer

Charlesworth; government officials; organizations that work with

children and youth and young adults; and members of the public who

responded to our online survey. Many participants emphasized the

critical work that the representative does, as well as the ongoing

challenges faced by vulnerable children, youth and young adults as well

as their families in our province.

Committee members recognized the importance of incorporating

Indigenous perspectives in the act while also acknowledging that there

are a number of areas that require additional examination. As such, the

committee recommends that government undertake further meaningful

consultation with Indigenous peoples on amending the act to align with

UNDRIP.

The report identifies specific areas that this consultation should

address, including changes to child welfare jurisdiction, consultation

with and accountability to Indigenous communities, referencing the

declaration in the act and updating language related to Indigenous

peoples.

The committee also recommends targeted changes to address gaps in

the representative’s mandate to better support vulnerable children,

youth and young adults. These changes include expanding part of the

representative’s mandate to include services for gender-diverse youth

and services for children and youth with support needs beyond those

provided by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The committee also recommends allowing the representative to

provide advocacy related to special education services for children who

already receive other services from the representative. Other

recommendations focus on modernizing the language and strengthening and

clarifying a number of provisions in the act.

On behalf of the committee, thank you to all British Columbians

who shared their perspectives and experiences with us. The committee

would also like to thank the representative, Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth,

and all her staff for their ongoing work to support children, youth and

young adults.

[2:40 p.m.]

I also want to recognize the legislative staff who supported our

work.

Thank you to Karan Riarh, Lisa Hill, Mary Heeg, Mary Newell and

Jianding Bai from the Parliamentary Committees Office.

Thank you to all the staff in Hansard. You guys were

amazing.

I appreciate the thoughtful and collaborative work of committee

members past and present. Currently serving on the committee are the

member for Peace River South, the member for North Island, the member

for Maple Ridge–Mission, the member for Richmond-Steveston, the member

for West Vancouver–Capilano, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, the

member for Chilliwack-Kent, the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan and

the member for Richmond-Queensborough.

I want to thank them and their continued commitment to supporting

the well-being of children, youth and young adults in B.C.

I would particularly like to recognize the Deputy Chair, the

Member for Peace River South, for his contributions and

leadership.

M. Bernier: I won’t get into naming all of the people, as the Chair of the

committee. I’ll thank her for the work that she’s done guiding us

through the process and also just echo a lot of the thanks that she put

forward when it comes to the Clerk of Committees office and the rest of

the members that are part of this committee.

I think it’s really important to make sure we highlight, again,

and thank you, again, to all of the people who put in submissions. There

were a lot of submissions that came forward from independent groups from

around the province — stakeholders, shareholders that are directly

affected by the representative’s office and the ministry who wanted to

ensure that they help strengthen the act for the representative going

forward.

I know we heard a lot of that on the committee. We had some

amazingly good deliberations to land at the 28 recommendations that we

believe are really going to help strengthen the act for the

representative.

Again, I want to end by thanking the representative personally, on

behalf of the opposition and the entire committee. We know the hard work

the representative, her office and all of her staff — what they do to

try to help the children in the province of British Columbia by putting

forward recommendations that will not only strengthen this act to help

the representative but recommendations that come forward to try to

strengthen what we do in this Legislature to protect children and youth

in our province.

Thank you again to everybody involved with helping with this

review for the Representative for Children and Youth Act.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 18.

In committee room A, I call debate on the Committee of Supply for the

Ministry of Health.

In committee room C, I call Committee of Supply on the Ministry of Water,

Land and Resource Stewardship.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 18 — HAIDA NATION

RECOGNITION

ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

The Chair: We are ready to proceed.

Hon. M. Rankin: It’s a pleasure to be here on Committee of the Whole for Bill 18.

I, perhaps, could introduce, before getting too far along, my talented

staff that are here to assist me.

On my left is Becky Black, legal counsel, Ministry of Attorney

General. On my right, Deputy Minister Tom McCarthy from the Ministry of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. Behind me is Mr. Heinz Dyck,

who has been the negotiator with the Haida for many years and who got us

to this point today.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is about changing the legal

structure to recognize the Council of the Haida Nation as the governing

body of the Haida Nation for the Haida people.

This, I think, is due to the relationship the province has been

able to develop with the Haida over the years and recognizing their

inherent rights of governance and self-determination as recognized and

affirmed both in

section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, but also, of

course, in the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples.

Perhaps with that, Mr. Chair, I’ll take my seat, and we can

proceed with the clause-by-clause.

On clause 1.

M. Lee: We are on limited time, as I understand from instruction from

House Leaders here. I appreciate the ability and flexibility of the

Third Party House Leader, as well, to give me the time that I have with

the minister on this bill, which is short. So I appreciate

it.

With that in mind, if we can keep our back-and-forth fairly

precise and short. I know that we had fairly meaningful and thoughtful

discussion at second reading by the minister, myself and the House

Leader for the Third Party.

On clause 1 sub (a), can the minister explain the scope and extent

of the “inherent rights of governance and self-determination” that are

referred to in this clause?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: To the member for Vancouver-Langara, I will do my very best, in

light of the time constraints, to do what he quite properly asked, which

is to keep our answers short so we have enough time to do justice to the

clause-by-clause analysis.

The member asks about the scope of inherent rights, as in clause

1. I think the answer to that is that these rights are deliberately not

defined in this bill. These are not defined because, of course, they

evolve with the jurisprudence as courts pour more meaning into the words

section 35 and define what inherent rights mean.

More importantly, perhaps, is these rights predate B.C.’s

Legislature. These rights are those that predate contact, and it’s an

effort to ensure that we can move forward with the nation in defining

together, through negotiations, the exact scope of that — what they mean

in the here and now, in the province of British Columbia, in the country

of Canada.

It is the Council of the Haida Nation that will be recognized as

the holder of those rights, on behalf of the Haida Nation, and the

governing body in respect of those rights.

M. Lee: On our second reading speeches, we acknowledged in detail, all

three of the members here, how we got here, the significance of the

Haida court decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, and the follow-on

steps with the previous government and this government with the Haida

Nation itself. I know that the minister is not suggesting, of course,

that we go back to the courts to define what the inherent rights of

governance and self-determination are for the Haida Nation, but there is

a recognition that there is a determination to be made.

Can I ask, then, what the expectation is between the government of

British Columbia and the Haida Nation in terms of to negotiate what the

rights of governance and self-determination are pursuant to this

recognition.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member, I think, first of all, frames this question quite

properly. It was certainly not our desire to go back to the courts. He

references the litigation back, now, a generation ago that was brought

by the Haida Nation to assert title in the territory. We have moved from

that to the GayG̱ahlda Changing Tide agreement, which provides a

framework for the answer that the member seeks, the nature of which is

to provide, through negotiation, the recognition of inherent title and

what it means on the land.

For example, we are committed to trying to harmonize the Haida

laws, which have existed for many, many, many years before contact, as

well, with federal and provincial laws on Haida Gwaii. We hope, through

the negotiations, to determine jurisdictions and management of Haida

Gwaii together and to advance governance matters more

generally.

I can give an example. When it comes to parks and protected areas,

for example, there’s a national park reserve on Haida Gwaii, and there

are provincial protected areas. Given the importance, of course, that

the Haida and all First Nations have recognized for land-based and

resource matters in their territory, that will be a matter of great

importance — natural resource management, land management and protected

areas. It’s those sorts of things where we will work together to meld

our jurisdictions.

I point out that we’ve had that underway for many, many years in

Haida Gwaii, under earlier legislation brought forward by an earlier

government. This is, in a sense, a continuation of that dialogue about

the inherent rights and what they mean to the people on the

land.

M. Lee: I really do appreciate how we’re trying to get through this. It’s

a very short time to cover a lot of ground in a very significant manner

for both the Haida Nation and the province of B.C. and the significant

body of work that’s occurred.

The minister just referred to, of course, as we did in second

reading, the Haida Gwaii Reconciliation Act, under the former Gordon

Campbell–led B.C. Liberal government, of which our current Leader of the

Official Opposition was certainly a member of the executive council. I

know that in that legislation, of course, it specifically called for

protected areas management plans, as we discussed in my second reading

speech.

The changing tide agreement certainly does, as the minister

presents, both with the federal government and the provincial

government, the framework for reconciliation…. As we look at that table

the way it was set under that agreement and what’s called for in

negotiation, can the minister clarify for us, then…? The entrance of

that framework for negotiation is…. In terms of the recognition of the

Council of the Haida Nation as the government of the Haida Nation, to

what extent is that a necessary step in the furtherance of that

framework for negotiation and reconciliation?

Hon. M. Rankin: Recognizing the member’s desire to move quickly, I’ll try my best.

I can confirm that in the changing tide agreement is a recognition of

the importance of the Council of the Haida Nation being recognized. It

was one of the priorities indicated throughout our negotiations. That is

why we are here with this step along the journey.

[3:00 p.m.]

M. Lee: With the short number of questions I can ask here in the short

time we have…. I appreciate that there is a progression. Just to ask the

minister….

Another way of asking the question, for clarity purposes, is this.

We know, of course, under existing treaty agreements with the

Nisg̱a’a, the Tsawwassen, the

Maa-nulth…. When you look at those agreements, there is….

When we talk about recognition of self-governance and

self-determination, there are, enumerated in various clauses,

descriptions of what that scope of jurisdiction is. In the absence of

that, this recognition act is taking the first step — I’m asking the

minister to confirm this — to recognize the Council of the Haida Nation

as the government of the Haida Nation, to recognize that the Haida

Nation has an inherent right of governance and self-determination but

then leave the determination of the scope of those rights of governance

and self-determination, as we’ve been discussing, to

negotiations.

First of all, I’d ask the minister to confirm that that is the

correct way of describing this. Secondly, in the absence of this

recognition, in the absence of Bill 18, what would we be left with? Does

that materially impair the ability of the province of B.C. to negotiate

and continue with what’s called for under the agreement? I’m just trying

to draw out the understanding of the purpose of this bill.

Hon. M. Rankin: The first step is to have this recognition of the Council of the

Haida Nation. It’s going to be defined through our other governance

arrangements, which are contemplated in the framework agreement, as the

member would know.

This is an important, incremental step along the way. I think it

is important because it is providing a restructuring of our relationship

with the Haida Nation. I think that’s, at bottom, what we are trying to

do through this incremental step.

There will be more to come, as the member has anticipated.

Discussion on title is, of course, going to be something that we’ll have

to continue, as we’ve been trying to resolve our relationship, which

started with litigation. But we cannot continue, the Haida have told us,

with an Indian Act band or two bands. We cannot continue with a Society

Act created under B.C. law.

We’re trying to provide…. The Haida have insisted, properly, that

we redefine and reconstruct that relationship. This bill is a step along

the journey to do just that.

M. Lee: I think that is a very helpful explanation, from the minister, in

terms of the objective and the purpose of this. I certainly can

appreciate the importance of this recognition to the Haida Nation for

the reasons the minister just said.

Having said that, recognizing that there has been a very long

period of time, to say the least, for the Haida Nation and the peoples

of the Haida Nation to get to where we are today….

[3:05 p.m.]

There is more work to be done, as contemplated under this

framework agreement for reconciliation. In the interim, after the

passage of this bill — if there is further intervention, let’s say,

that’s required by the courts to make some determination — what will be

the meaning of this recognition in the expectation of this minister?

What is the meaning of this recognition, in itself, in the absence of

further definition through negotiation?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member asked the question about how, if further court

intervention is required…. What does this recognition legislation mean

if it’s enacted?

First and foremost, the litigant would be the Haida Nation as

represented by the Council of the Haida Nation. I think that’s a very

important point. It would not be an individual Chief on behalf of the

nation, or whatever, as in the past. It would be now, clearly, the Haida

Nation as the litigant, as represented by the government we would be

recognizing here.

Secondly, as the member would know, by recognizing that the

Council of the Haida Nation has the powers of a natural person…. That

means that contracts — which could be dealt with through the courts, of

course — and other agreements would be in their name.

Thirdly, it would mean that the society, which had to be the de

facto governing body, will be, ultimately, dissolved. This new entity,

this legally recognized entity, would be, for all purposes, the

representative of the Haida Nation.

M. Lee: At this point, I have to be very mindful of the time that I have

left on this bill. But I do appreciate the minister’s responses and the

manner in which he has provided….

In terms of other First Nations in this province…. Can the

minister provide any comment about what the meaning of this recognition

act is to other nations that might seek a similar level of recognition?

Are there any comments the minister can make, at this time, that will

help and assist in considering this bill and how it may set a…? I guess

precedent is the word for it, but there are other words that might

describe this, given the significance of it. It’s more than just a

precedent — an example to other nations as to how they might seek this

formal legal recognition by way of legislation.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I anticipated the member’s question. It’s a very important

one.

Every situation is unique. We’ve been working with the Council of

the Haida Nation for two decades, over 20 years, to get this right and

get to this point in time. So that took a lot of work. We are at

different places with other nations, as the member would know. The

province has developed, over those years, a very strong relationship

with the Council of the Haida Nation. This legislation represents an

incremental step in legal recognition of Haida governance.

Now, I think it’s important, when the member asks about other

nations, that we recognize just how unique the Haida Nation is in this

regard. They have had the Council of the Haida Nation as their

nation-level Indigenous governing body, if you will, for over 40 years.

It’s a stable governance system with which we can work, and have worked,

effectively. In 2003, over 20 years ago, the Haida Nation adopted its

constitution, which confirmed the role of the Council of the Haida

Nation.

So there are ingredients to our successful recognition, should

this bill be enacted, of the Haida nation that well might be applicable

in other nations, but we are in different stages with the 200-plus

nations of British Columbia in that regard.

M. Lee: Again, I appreciate the minister’s anticipation of the question

because I do think it was an important question to be asked.

I did refer at length, in my second reading speech — as well, the

minister acknowledged it in his response — to the constitution of the

Council of the Haida Nation, which is available on their website. I

think it demonstrates not only the length of time in which they’ve

governed themselves in respect of that constitution, but it does

demonstrate as well the nature of how a nation looks at its own

governance, including in the areas that are covered by the

constitution.

Recognizing, of course, that we do acknowledge that it is for the

Indigenous nations themselves to determine their governance, as we’ve

seen with other nations in this province, is there an expectation, when

we look at the model of governance that the Haida Nation has, that for

this formal level of recognition…?

Again, appreciating the unique history of the Haida Nation,

including the fact that on Haida Gwaii, as far as I understand it, there

are no overlapping claims of note from other nations because of their

unique geographic position…. That might be one indicator in terms of the

unique nature of the Haida Nation itself, in respect of where other

nations situate themselves geographically here in the province of

B.C.

Is this to be a standard to be looked at by other nations when

they look at formal recognition in the manner that this nation is

receiving from this government, in this province?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member adding to the list of reasons why we are

comfortable and anxious to proceed to this next step with the Haida. He

added to the fact of the longevity of their governance arrangement the

transparency of their governance arrangement — I think that’s a very

important point — and also the accountability that they’ve had to their

members.

In his second reading speech, the member — and I won’t take the

time to repeat what he said — noted, I think accurately, the way in

which hereditary and an elected governance work together, the respect

and involvement of hereditary systems within elected systems, the two

bands and how those bands from Old Massett and Skidegate are represented

in the Council of the Haida Nation, and so forth. That integrated system

is, of course, one that’s stable and accountable and one which we are

anxious to continue to work with.

The member, used the word “overlap,” and I think that’s definitely

a fact. I don’t deny what he said, but I think that’s of more relevance

in the issue of Aboriginal title than it is with governance.

M. Lee: That concludes my questions with the time that I have been

allocated. I appreciate the ability of the minister to rapidly respond.

I look forward to further discussion of this as we go in other bills and

other opportunities.

Thanks again, Mr. Chair, and through you to the minister and his

team.

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:17 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 18 — HAIDA NATION

RECOGNITION

ACT

Bill 18, Haida Nation Recognition Act, reported complete without

amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. G. Heyman: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 19.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — MONEY SERVICES

BUSINESS

ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 19;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:18 p.m.

The Chair: All right, Members. We’ll take a short recess to have the

appropriate parties come to the appropriate place.

The committee recessed from 3:19 p.m. to 3:22 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: We are here for committee stage of Bill 19, Money Services

Businesses Act.

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to say I’m looking forward to the debate with the

member. With me I have Joey Primeau, the senior executive director of

the strategic policy and support, policy and legislation division, and

Christian Nordin, the senior policy advisor, financial and corporate

sector policy branch, strategic policy and support, policy and

legislation division.

On clause 1.

P. Milobar: I only have a few sections’ worth of questions on this bill. Just

to start off, I’m wondering if the minister can provide us with a

timeline of when this bill was first envisioned, started to be worked on

and got us to where we are today — that timeline.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I’ve got all the dates for the member. It started after the first

German report came out. The exploratory on starting this bill, that was

in March 2018. More significant work started after the Maloney report

came out. That was in March 2019. There was a series of consultation

that then happened from March 6 through to April 30 of 2020. Public

consultation with a number of stakeholders was done.

Then the Cullen commission work was ongoing. The work on the

legislation continued while the Cullen commission was ongoing, but the

legislation wasn’t finalized until after the Cullen report was released,

which was in June of 2022, because they wanted to make sure that the

findings from the Cullen report were incorporated into the

legislation.

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On clause 5.

P. Milobar: This

section is around the registration requirements and

registration required specifically. “A person must not carry on the

business of providing money services unless the person is (

a) registered

under this Part as a registered money services business to carry on the

business of providing those money services, or (

b) exempted by

section 6

or the regulations from the requirement to be registered under this

Part.”

That all is fairly straightforward, and I get that that’s setting

out the framework for the ultimate registration process that is the

purpose of this bill, really. I guess the question ties into, though,

that this bill doesn’t become law until the orders-in-council are signed

off on — basically, the regulations that go with this bill have been

developed. That’s why I asked around the timeline of the bill

development.

Although this bill…. I can understand why you would maybe wait at

that point to make sure it is synced with the Cullen commission report.

It was certainly being worked on long before the Cullen commission was

even contemplated in terms of the money laundering.

[3:30 p.m.]

It has been, I guess, a piece of the tools that law enforcement

has needed and known for quite some time in terms of regulating money

services businesses, and the government wanted to have eyes on as well.

If you think 2018 to 2023 now, that’s a five-year window of time to get

us to where we are today.

I guess the question is…. The next step of this will be having

those regulations developed so that people will actually have to

register. What is the timeline, and how quickly will those regulations

be in place once this bill goes through third reading?

Hon. K. Conroy: We don’t have a strict timeline for the regulations. The

regulations will be developed in collaboration with the Financial

Services Authority. We need to understand how they want to design the

systems, because they will be the administrator of the

process.

Clauses 5 to 10 inclusive approved.

On clause 11.

P. Milobar: This is the

section that deals…. Clause 10 dealt with how to make

an application for registration, and this clause refers to 10, and it

says: “The superintendent may, to the extent the superintendent

considers necessary for the evaluation of an application under

section

10, (

a) conduct an investigation, or (

b) require the applicant to

provide the superintendent with additional information, documents or

verification.”

I’m wondering. How does the conducting of an investigation or

requiring more information interlay…? I’m assuming the idea here is that

you’ve submitted your paperwork, as per the rules in clause 10, and the

superintendent has more questions. Maybe it’s around some of your

practices or things of that nature.

How does it affect somebody if somebody is in the middle of court

proceedings? Is it that it’s a conviction? Or is it that they’ve only

been alleged but they haven’t actually gone to court yet, or that

charges haven’t actually been laid?

I ask that question in the backdrop of E-Nationalize. My

understanding of that case was that although they couldn’t make any

money-laundering conviction stick, the best they might have been able to

get them for was basically something very similar to this in terms of

money services, and he didn’t have a registration, or he didn’t have a

licence. The people involved in E-Nationalize would have been under

investigation. They would have been at the courts, but they weren’t

actually convicted of anything.

[3:35 p.m.]

Would that actually prohibit them from being registered while

they’re going through all of that process where they haven’t actually

been found officially guilty of anything yet? Or is it still open-ended,

and they would be given a licence up until an actual conviction

happens?

Hon. K. Conroy: This is actually covered in

section 13, but I can give the member

the answer now, if the Chair is okay with that and the member is okay

with that, and then we’ll just skip it when we get there. Under

section

13, the superintendent can determine to register the applicant, but they

can also refuse to register the applicant if, in the superintendent’s

opinion, the applicant is unsuitable.

As well,

section 13 establishes that the superintendent may refuse

to register an applicant if, in the opinion of the superintendent, the

applicant, as I said, is unsuitable to be registered. Or it also lists

things like “the applicant, an agent of the applicant or an associate of

the applicant or agent…reveals the applicant to be unfit to be

registered” because of any of the following: they had a registration or

licence refused, suspended or cancelled under real estate, insurance,

mortgage services or securities legislation of B.C. or another

jurisdiction, or they have been disciplined by a professional body or

convicted of an offence.

Again, if the superintendent feels that they are unsuitable, the

superintendent has the ability to refuse to register an

applicant.

P. Milobar: Just for the minister’s knowledge, I appreciate that into 13. I do

only have other questions on 22 as well. So if the minister is okay with

me toggling between 11 and 13 on the same topic, then I’ll just continue

on here for a second, based on that answer. Or if the Chair would like,

I guess we can, maybe for ease, just vote on 11 and 12, and then I’ll

ask on 13.

Clauses 11 and 12 approved.

On clause 13.

P. Milobar: I guess, based on that answer, though, it sounds as if…. Again,

this could be somebody’s livelihood at stake, on whether or not they get

registered or not. Accusations are one thing. Investigations are another

thing, as we have seen, especially in the money-laundering sphere. All

governments of all political stripes, provincial and national, have

discovered, over the last 15 years or so, just how hard it is to get a

conviction.

[3:40 p.m.]

I fully support trying to do things to keep getting stuff in place

to minimize and try to address that. That’s not a shot at anything. This

is what we have to keep trying to do as governments. I’m just trying to

get clear. Again, the most high-profile collapse that just happened….

The Premier tried interceding directly to try to get that case appealed.

Even that appeal was rejected by the special review.

Given that that individual in that case wasn’t actually convicted

of anything…. When you read 13, the only time it says that that would be

rejected is in (2)(a)(iv): “been convicted of an offence….” I’m just

wondering how a superintendent would have that much latitude in a

jurisdiction, by law, that is you’re innocent until proven guilty, to

potentially impact somebody’s livelihood.

I’m just trying to get a sense of how this will meaningfully

change the ball game for somebody that may or may not be of the most….

They may very well be under investigation, could be under investigation

for very good reasons. But there’s a big difference between that and, as

we’ve seen in this sphere, proof to the point of conviction. I’m just

trying to get how this

section actually provides that much strength to

the superintendent that they essentially can just make a ruling based on

what they feel versus what has been proven. Could we get some more

clarification on that?

Hon. K. Conroy: We can’t say how it will apply to any specific case, because we

can’t assume how the superintendent will make a decision. It is somewhat

at their discretion. As I said, the superintendent can determine the

suitability.

[3:45 p.m.]

I think in what the member was suggesting or inferring…. There is

a clause in

section 13: “If the superintendent refuses to register an

applicant or amend an applicant’s registration, the superintendent must

(

a) give the applicant written notice of the refusal and the reasons for

it.” They also have to “advise the applicant of the right to appeal

under Division 7 [Appeals to Financial Services Tribunal] of

Part 3.” If

a person doesn’t agree with the superintendent’s decision, they have a

right of appeal.

Clauses 13 to 21 inclusive approved.

On clause 22.

P. Milobar: I don’t want to give the impression to the minister that I’m only

interested in convictions here, but this is meant to be a bill to help

crack down and provide a tool for regulation as well as law

enforcement.

I’m just trying to get a sense on this part here, on 22(2)(4)

again. It says: “been convicted of an offence under an enactment of

British Columbia or a law of another jurisdiction.” Is that conviction

just a financial conviction? Or is it any type of actual criminal

conviction?

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s any conviction.

Clauses 22 to 33 inclusive approved.

On clause 34.

P. Milobar: I’m just wondering, in terms of the maximum amount of the

administrative penalty under subsection (1) being $100,000, given the

dollar values that we could be talking about, especially if you’re

trying to crack down on substantial potential money-laundering

operations through money services businesses…. How did the $100,000 come

to be? How was it arrived at, and is there not a worry that that starts

to be viewed as simply a cost of doing business?

If I’m operating in a sphere where I have to register, with the

rest of this bill, and then I get caught and get my registration pulled,

or I’m acting untoward within the rules, I have an administrative

penalty for $100,000. If I go to reapply, I’m likely not going to get

reregistered. That’s understood. But it seems that you could still

operate without that registration and just get tagged for another

$100,000. I think somewhere else it goes up to $200,000.

I’m wondering. Making sure how airtight this is in terms of it

just not viewed as the cost of doing business. With this bill, it’s now

$100,000 with or without a registration number, as a money service

business.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: If they continue to act untoward, and they lose their

registration, then, yes, they would get fined $100,000. But if they

continue to provide money services, if they continue to operate, they

then can go to jail. The superintendent can use their powers to have

them charged, and they can go to jail.

So it is significant. You can’t just keep doing it and keep

getting fined $100,000. The reason for $100,000 is that it’s also the

same fine that’s used under the Real Estate Services Act and the

Mortgage Services Act. It aligns with the administrative penalties in

other areas that the FSA administers.

Clauses 34 to 66 inclusive 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 3:52 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — MONEY SERVICES

BUSINESSES

ACT

Bill 19, Money Services Businesses Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Heyman: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — BUSINESS CORPORATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 3:54 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will take a short recess while we get people in

place.

The committee recessed from 3:54 p.m. to 3:55 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill 20,

Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2023.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

P. Milobar: I only have a few questions on this bill, as well, just for the

minister’s knowledge. The last bill was around convicted or not

convicted and things of that nature. This will be much more around

information, of people’s more sensitive information

gathering.

Clause 3 is amending

section 119.2 and adding the following

paragraphs…. It’s (d.1) that is particularly…. In this day and age of

people trying to protect areas of identity, social insurance numbers

are, obviously, a key part of that.

With all of the other layers being added with this bill, (

a) why a

social insurance number, and (

b) who will have access? Will it be in a

siloed database, or will it be something that, depending on who’s

filling in the request for information, if they don’t fill in the right

field and block something out, would automatically be sent off to

somebody requesting information on the corporation’s

ownership?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Before I start, I’m going to introduce my staff. Joey Primeau is

the senior executive director, policy and legislation division; Chad

Vandermolen is the director, financial and corporate sector, policy

branch; and Samar Demontigny is the legislative analyst for the

financial and corporate sector, policy branch. They’re all with the

policy and legislation division.

To your question, Member. Unique identifiers, like the social

insurance number, are taken because it identifies a person. So if

there’s somebody with the same name, they can make sure that they are

identified as that individual. There’s not a case of mistaken identity.

That’s why the social insurance number is used.

Also, the security is on a tiered access system. So only law

enforcement, tax authorities and certain regulators — for example,

FINTRAC or FSA — can actually access the information. There’s a

restriction on use by private companies or by the registrar to actually

utilize this information. That’s listed under division 3,

section

119.62.

Clauses 3 to 10 approved.

On clause 11.

P. Milobar: And 11 seems to be the meatier part of this bill, actually, in

terms of the various subsections within it. It’s around the registrar’s

transparency register, search and inspection and things like

that.

On 399.44, this is where the public, it appears, would have a

right to access information from this registry. I guess the question I

would have is…. Again, in a day and age of identity theft and things of

that nature, can the minister explain why in (

a) it’s both the

individual’s full name and year of birth?

It just seems to be trying to tie many different touchpoints of

identity. I get that the concept of a transparency registry is to have

transparency for the public so they can understand who owns. But at a

certain point, two people with the same name, with all of the other

touchpoints like whether or not they are a Canadian citizen or a

permanent resident…. If it’s not a Canadian citizen, every country or

state in which the individual is a citizen…. I mean, there are a lot of

other touchpoints in there, as opposed to getting in some of those more

personalized identity pieces. So why the need for year of

birth?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Staff consulted with the information and privacy commission, and

they felt that this provided the public with enough information to

protect individuals and the minimum that was necessary to avoid

confusion or avoid mistaken identity. The office said that they thought

this was a balanced approach. The staff looked at other jurisdictions.

The U.K. had actually added in the birth month as well as the birth

year, but we just went with the birth year because we felt that was

enough information.

P. Milobar: On 399.48(a)(ii), so this is about search and inspection for law

enforcement purposes: “from which a law enforcement proceeding is likely

to result.” When I read this part of the clause, it appears that if law

enforcement feels that they might have an investigation that they want

to have going, they get full access to the information. It seems

contrary…. And again, I am not a lawyer. I don’t even pretend to play

one on TV.

My rudimentary understanding, though, is that typically, things

like this would require…. That’s partly what takes so long on drug cases

and things of that nature. It’s the amount of time it takes for them to

get approval for gathering of certain information from data sets, in

terms of court sign-off and warrants and things of that

nature.

Is this clause saying that law enforcement would no longer need

warrants to gain access to this information? The wording “from which a

law enforcement proceeding is likely to result” is pretty open-ended.

There are all sorts of investigations that never proceed to

charges.

[4:10 p.m.]

The police can start an investigation. It doesn’t mean they’ve

necessarily consulted with the Crown, is my understanding, even. They

gather their evidence, then they take it to the Crown to see about

proceeding. But certain pieces of that information-gathering to get to

that stage have already had to be vetted by way of getting a

warrant.

Is this that no warrants are necessary or is there a wording error

that needs to be corrected? Again, expecting that some of these are

going to get challenged in court at some time, just trying to get on the

record what exactly the intention is.

Hon. K. Conroy: The legislation doesn’t change the powers and authorities with

respect to police authorities, but it is still a matter for the courts

to decide. It gives them access to the information, but it doesn’t

change how they act under the law. If the law determines they need a

warrant, they need a warrant.

One of the policy objectives that this beneficial ownership policy

does is facilitates efficient access of the information without actually

requiring physical inspection of corporate offices, for instance. They

can get the information here.

Clauses 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

On clause 14.

P. Milobar: I’m hoping the minister will humour me here. This is in the area

of my last question. Keep in mind, I did not write this bill, so I have

no choice but to ask a question that intersects with about three

different areas of this bill moving forward. I’ll try to walk your staff

through it as well so you can follow the breadcrumb trail, because

imagine me trying to read it for the first time.

[4:15 p.m.]

In clause 14, it says: “No appeal lies in respect of a decision of

the minister under section…424.29.” So if you jump forward to clause 18,

424.29 is there, and it’s talking about “a reasonable period of time

after receiving a written notice of appeal…the minister must confirm,

vary or rescind the contravention” as applicable. An appeal under this

section may be conducted in writing. Then it says: “Promptly after

making a deci­sion​…​the minister must give the

person….” So it doesn’t say, really, what promptly means. That can be

widely open to

interpretation.

That’s not the biggest concern. In 14, it makes it clear that

there’s no appeal that lies in respect to the minister’s decision,

especially under the sections. Then in the

section it references, not

only does it say that; it says: “(

d) the date by which an application

for judicial review, if pursued, must be commenced.” So that’s in

424.29.

Further down, in for 424.32, it says: “If a person makes an

application for judicial review” for the minister under

section

424.29.

There are two or three different times that 424.29 gets referenced

as a space to go for an appeal or a judicial review. Yet in 14, it makes

it very clear, well ahead of that, no appeal lies in respect of a

decision of the minister.

Can the minister explain how in one

section people are being told

there is no appeal of the minister’s decision, yet if you jump forward a

couple of clauses, there are two or three different ways to actually

appeal that minister’s decision?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I am not a lawyer either. Judicial reviews typically deal with the

decisions of administrative decision-makers, while appeals typically

deal with the decision of a court. As this process requires an

administrative decision, it is best to deal with it through a judicial

review rather than an appeal.

A person can seek judicial review but not an appeal. The different

rules and procedures apply to the court process, so different standards.

The courts have more latitude on an appeal than a judicial review. So

the intent was to provide a limited review of the decision, as opposed

to a broad appeal.

Clauses 14 to 24 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — BUSINESS CORPORATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 20, Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 22, Strata Property Amendment

Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — STRATA PROPERTY

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 22;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 4:26 p.m.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Bernier: I’ll just say thank you to the minister again. Good to see him,

and thank you to his staff.

We won’t have a lot of questions on this but obviously a few

details that we just want to iron out. I think the minister may or may

not have heard some of my commentary at second reading.

Maybe we’ll start here in clause 2 — the amendment that’s being

put here. Can the minister just explain what the intention is behind

this

section and the changes here?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The purpose of it is to require strata corporations to retain

copies of the electrical planning reports and other reports related to

EV-charging infrastructure. The significance is that this change will

help ensure that the strata corporations retain important information

needed for the consideration and management of EV-charging

infrastructure.

M. Bernier: Just knowing a little bit about this…. Can the minister explain,

then, is there going to be pre-assessment done — requirements of

stratas, of what the existing hydro infrastructure has and then how that

will be changed — as infrastructure for EV vehicles is added? Is there

going to be a benchmark? Are there going to be changes?

Then with that, the intention of having and keeping this, is this

going to be accessible to strata members? As the minister knows, when

somebody owns — we’re talking ownership here — a strata and they go to

sell it, a lot of times realtors and others require a lot of

documentation. Not only the AGM minutes and the capital infrastructure,

but also this will be a requirement, I’m assuming. So will that be

accessible? And how will that transition take place?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The report is about setting benchmarks — the capacity, what the

usage is — and this report could be disclosed to new buyers if

requested. It’s not something that would be mandatory, but if it’s

requested, yes, it would be available for anyone looking to potentially

buy a new unit.

[4:30 p.m.]

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister. How did we arrive at a 50 percent

threshold? How was that number chosen? Why is the government wanting to

make that change when stratas in a lot of areas have 75, sometimes 80,

different percentages used for passing at the strata level? Why is the

government trying to impose a change like this?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member is correct. You can have unanimous, three-quarter and

majority. We’ve chosen majority. It helps remove some barriers and makes

it easier for those who want to have that infrastructure but still

requires a majority of strata members to vote in favour of heading in

that direction.

We did consult widely with stakeholders, both organizations that

represent strata corporations but also advocates who were wanting to see

more EV capacity being available to them. From most consultations…. The

majority was what everyone had suggested.

M. Bernier: Maybe the minister…. I’ll just try to give an example and try to

understand the process here, how government landed on this 50 percent.

We did hear this government and the Premier talk about right-to-charge

legislation, which obviously this isn’t. So I bring it back to just

trying to understand how this will play out.

I’ll use an example. If I’m in a strata…. It’s a small townhouse

complex of, let’s say, four units. I want to install an electric

charging system in my one unit. There are only four of us. The other

three vote against it, for whatever reason. Does that mean, even though

I have an electric vehicle, that because three out of four voted against

me having an electric-vehicle-charging station, now I’m stuck not being

able to implement that?

Maybe the minister can walk through how that process could be

managed.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re talking about common areas. I think there’s a whole host of

things that impact all the owners in the building. Safety codes would be

one, costs related to it, making sure that the work is done through

approved contractors, etc.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

When you’ve got a building with ten strata owners, for example…. I

think it’s important, if it’s a common area, that a majority of the

strata corp owners understand the direction it is going and then

understand all the things that are being put in place to mitigate the

risks to the others.

M. Bernier: Maybe I should ask this, then. This government put a policy

forward and an announcement that all vehicles sold by 2030 have to be

electric vehicles. The assumption, then, would be that pretty well

everybody who has a vehicle in a strata is going to require a charging

system.

How does the minister square that? In the example we just talked

about…. He’s saying a common area, and everybody has to approve it.

Wouldn’t we want to be getting ahead of that curve, if the government

actually intends on following through with their policy direction that

they’re trying to achieve here in the province of British

Columbia?

Again, I go back to…. If it’s 50 percent in those examples, we’re

not exactly going to meet the desired outcome that this government’s

intention was on the right-to-charge legislation.

Maybe the minister can just explain, then? Are there timelines on

this? Is there a timeline and parameters around when stratas can or

cannot approve this and the 50 percent? Is the government going to come

back with more changes to allow for greater charging infrastructure next

year? Is this just a start? How do we see this playing out over the next

few years?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. I think what’s important to

note here is the strata corporation cannot unreasonably refuse a

residential strata owner’s request for the installation of an EVC on a

user-pay basis when certain criteria are met. When there are significant

changes required to common area space, then a majority vote would be

required.

[4:40 p.m.]

If, for example, there is a row of townhouses, the person has

access to power just outside of their space and it doesn’t require

significant changes, then it wouldn’t require the 50 percent vote. The

requirement is if the strata corp feels that the change is significant

enough that it will have impacts on the common area, then the strata

vote comes in.

M. Bernier: I appreciate a little bit of that clarification, but it sounds

like, through that answer, there is still a lot of onus, I guess, on the

strata for the determination of what’s considered an easy plug-and-play

system for an electric vehicle or whether it’s infrastructure that’s

going to be required.

It sounds through that…. We talked about it in clause 2, a little

bit about the electrical requirements. These all kind of do bridge

together, I believe, the way I’m trying to understand it, which maybe

would actually play into some of the decision-making from a strata

council on whether they would require the 50 percent

majority.

Ontario, when I looked into this, has a law that actually, when

they were looking at this…. The stratas or condo boards are prohibited

from rejecting an owner’s application to install electric charging

systems within the condo or strata property. That’s how they do it in

Ontario.

By the answer I just received from the minister, it sounded quite

similar, so were similar provisions to Ontario looked at? Through this

process, we’re still saying that 50 percent is kind of a criteria, and

it’s leaving it up to, like I say, the strata to determine a lot of

this,

whereas in Ontario, it sounds like they can’t prohibit.

Maybe the minister can just explain: was that Ontario model looked

at when they were trying to put this together here?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member. I think these are good questions. We

certainly have been watching what has happened in Ontario. There are

some states across the U.S. and some areas within Australia that have

passed some, actually, similar pieces to what we’ve done.

I think it’s important to note that that this type of legislation

is new. There’s a lot of data collection needed. There are still lessons

to be learned about how we can move forward. A lot more details will

come through in regulation, because I suspect the member is going to ask

that. The member, I think, alluded to this question earlier as well:

does this mean that there will be future changes to this?

I can say that, given that this is a new space — it’s an emerging

space, and a lot of jurisdictions are trying to sort out how to move

forward — it is likely that there will be future changes associated with

this. Again, we’re going to continue to learn to see where jurisdictions

are, how this conversation continues to evolve, but the information here

was built on learning from other jurisdictions.

M. Bernier: I’ll get to some more detailed questions, maybe, on power

requirements when we get to it. I believe it’s clause 7. I just want to

ask the minister: when we talk about the requirements and the 50

percent, which is relevant to clause 3, are most…? I shouldn’t say

“most.”

To quantify it correctly, many stratas are in a situation where

there would be large or largish requirements to have the electrical

infrastructure requirements. They would have to be trenched in. There

would have to be possible upgrades to the facility. So there is

typically, I would argue, in most situations, a lot of work that has to

have taken place.

[4:45 p.m.]

Now in the Ontario model, as I talked about, they can’t refuse.

The minister said that in situations like what I’ve just described —

which I would argue is probably a majority, without all the data in

front of me — that would still require 50 percent.

I guess my question to that is: is there an appeal process that

can take place? We are going to have…. It sounds like we’re putting a

lot of onus back on stratas. We’ve seen a lot of changes in this House

over the last little bit reflecting stratas, so of course, I’m hearing

from a lot of them that they feel like they’re being targeted. A lot of

implementation regulation changes from government are targeting stratas

specifically, understanding some of the rules that we have to deal with

here on this specific topic. But through that process, is there an

appeal process?

I’ll use my example, again, of one out of four. So three people

say no; one says yes. Is it a lost cause? The person has no choice but

to say: “I can’t plug in my electrical vehicle. I have to move.” Do they

have to appeal to the strata for reconsideration? Is there another body

within government somebody can appeal to? Maybe the minister can just

walk me through that.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think if, in the example the member shared, there was a dispute,

then the individual strata owner could go through the CRT.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

M. Bernier: I do have a few questions here on clause 4 as well. This is really

referring to the parking — parking stalls, parking privileges — a little

bit bridging from some of the conversation we just had, as

well.

What are the practical provisions of how this

section here is

really going to play out? I’m just trying to understand, again, what the

thought process on

section 4 is, the requirement here, and what the

intention is for the minister on this section.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The purpose is to allow strata corporations to grant a permission

or privilege in relation to a parking stall with access to EV charging

for a period of more than one year, if any such period is set out in

regulations. The significance of this is that this change provides

regulatory authority to allow strata corps to allocate parking stalls

for longer than one year when an owner pays to install EV charging

infrastructure at their allocated parking stall.

Without this change, owners who pay for the installation of EV

charging at their designated parking stall would be at risk of losing

access to the charging equipment. This would deter owners from investing

in the EV infrastructure.

M. Bernier: Can extended parking assignments only take place if an electric

vehicle charging system has been installed? Is that the only time that

we can extend that?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: A good question from the member. The intention is around EV

infrastructure, but it is a prescribed class that could be used for

other purposes.

Clauses 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On clause 7.

M. Bernier: I guess a couple of quick questions on this, as we talked about

the requirements that are going to be seen across the province when we

talk about electrification, specifically into our stratas. Many stratas

were built well before this discussion ever came about. What

conversations has the government had with B.C. Hydro? How are they going

to fit into this as a partnership that will be required to work with

stratas?

Hon. R. Kahlon: B.C. Hydro is obviously well aware of our zero emissions act and

what that means for B.C. Hydro, especially as we see more electric

vehicles come online. When the process is happening, yes, the strata

corp. or the individual person who is getting that system, the

infrastructure, in their space will still have to contact B.C.

Hydro.

M. Bernier: I just want to flag that, obviously, this is going to be a huge

cost. It could be cost-prohibitive, a cost barrier for many stratas,

knowing how much it costs to install not just the charging system but

either underground or overhead infrastructure requirements, depending on

how that strata was built. Obviously, very few are put in with

three-phase or that kind of level of power. We know that this could be a

hugely expensive issue, so I just want to flag that.

My last question on this section. There are some current grants

that are given. Does the minister know….? This is for putting in

charging stations, those grants I’m referring to in this section. Is the

minister willing to commit to maintaining the current grant levels for

charging infrastructure, or does he see that changing over the next year

or two?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. I’m sure the member can

appreciate that it’s the Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation

Ministry that handles this. But he had to try, so I appreciate his

question.

Clauses 7 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:54 p.m.

The House resumed; J. Tegart in the chair.

[4:55 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — STRATA PROPERTY

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 22, Strata Property Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 26, Municipalities Enabling

and Validating Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 26 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING

(N o . 5)

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 26;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 4:58 p.m.

The Chair: I call the committee to order. We’re here with Bill 26, the

Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 5) Amendment Act,

On clause 1.

M. de Jong: Welcome to the minister and his team of staff. I hope from the

conversation, the discussion we had at second reading that the minister

and his staff got a sense of the lines of questioning and the areas of

interest that the opposition will have with respect to this

bill.

In order to perhaps help organize and expedite this, I can advise

the minister that what we’d like to do…. Given the composition of the

bill, we think all of our questions are going to be contained within

section 2 of the bill. I should say also that our colleague from West

Vancouver–​Capilano would normally be engaged in this exercise but

is indisposed, is ailing today, so the minister gets three for the price

of one.

[5:00 p.m.]

In the proceedings today, we’ll begin with the member for Surrey

South, who will pose some questions in the area that we indicated

earlier about the nature of the project that is the subject of this bill

before the House.

Hopefully, that’s helpful in terms of providing some indication of

the approach we hope to take.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

E. Sturko: Just to be clear, I will have a number of questions that have to

do with the type of services and the type of facility that is scheduled

to be built in Vancouver.

I’ve heard from a lot of constituents. Frankly, I’ve heard from a

lot of different people from all over the Lower Mainland, Metro

Vancouver area, who have concerns about a lot of proposals with

supportive housing. People, time and again, wanted me to be clear that

they don’t want to be a NIMBY, if that’s the term that can be used. It’s

a “not in my backyard” type of person. What people really want is to see

this government step up to provide housing that actually has the

adequate supports that people need.

The majority of those, I would say, who did contact my office and

the offices of my colleagues expressed their concerns with the fact that

there are, time and time again, examples that we’ve seen where people

have been warehoused or put into supportive housing, where adequate

supports weren’t there. It led to not only problems for the individuals

that were residing in those supportive housing units but also for the

community at large — increases in street disorder, open use of illicit

and hard drugs, crime, people with safety concerns and then, of course,

concerns of warehousing people without adequate social

supports.

The bottom line is that people have no confidence that this

government is going to be able to deliver the supports that residents,

both inside this housing development and outside in the neighbouring

community, will actually need to make this a success.

It is an extraordinary measure for the government to step in, in

this way. I can certainly understand the spirit with which the

government is acting, wanting to make sure that there are places for

people to go when they need them. But I don’t believe that the concerns

of area residents have necessarily been heard. All the information was

not necessarily available at the public hearing. The information that we

might be able to garner today will help, at least in this circumstance,

to give people — perhaps, if you’re willing, Minister — some clarity and

peace of mind with regard to this housing development.

What’s happening here in this discussion, I think, is the

questions that many of the people in this community have. Unfortunately,

if this bill is passed, they might not be able to have the opportunity

to ask those questions. Therefore, this is why I am engaged in this line

of questioning.

A study in the B.C. Medical Journal found that 72 percent

of supportive housing tenants said that they felt their health needs had

gone unmet. How is this acceptable?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can’t comment on the report the member refers to or the number

the member refers to. I don’t have access to it.

Maybe I’ll take a step back. There’s a few comments the member

made…. First, she says that many people contacted her and said that they

are not defined as a NIMBY. That’s great to hear that people said

that.

What I can share with the member is that it’s often that local

governments and community advocates do hear that: “not in my backyard.”

The member from Kamloops was talking about his experience as a mayor

yesterday, and how there were lineups of people saying: “We need

housing, but not in my backyard.” I’m sure many people and local

governments can share their experiences.

[5:05 p.m.]

Surely the member and I can agree that people will be safer in

housing than they will be in a park. We have members in Vanier Park

right now, sleeping in campers, and people in encampments in the

neighbourhood. Surely we can agree that having people under shelter is

safer than