Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 25, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 220

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Tex Enemark

S. Chandra Herbert

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Patrick Lane

A. Olsen

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. G. Heyman

Bill 10 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Elimination of racial discrimination and violence

R. Singh

Oceanside Grandmothers to Grandmothers

M. Stilwell

Down syndrome awareness

M. Elmore

Elaho River salmon habitat restoration project

J. Sturdy

Nowruz celebrations

B. Ma

Thomas Kwok Hung Wong and Chinese-Canadian veterans

J. Yap

Oral Questions

Agricultural land reserve changes and role of farmers

A. Wilkinson

Hon. L. Popham

I. Paton

Protection of wetlands on agricultural land reserve

A. Olsen

Hon. L. Popham

Agricultural land reserve changes and farm families in Surrey

J. Johal

Hon. L. Popham

S. Cadieux

Agricultural land reserve changes and role of farmers

M. de Jong

Hon. L. Popham

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Hon. J. Sims

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, Detection and Response to Cybersecurity

Threats on B.C. Hydro’s Industrial Control Systems ,

independent audit report, March 2019

Office of the Auditor General, The B.C. Oil and Gas Commission’s Management

of Non-Operating Oil and Gas Sites , independent audit

report, March 2019

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Donaldson

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

S. Thomson

Hon. G. Heyman

A. Olsen

D. Barnett

G. Kyllo

L. Throness

D. Clovechok

E. Ross

Hon. D. Donaldson

Bill 7 — Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

P. Milobar

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 2 — Protection of Public Participation Act

Bill 3 — Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

Bill 9 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

Bill 6 — Supply Act, 2018-2019 (Supplementary Estimates)

Bill 12 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2019

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2019 (continued)

Hon. M. Farnworth

Bill 11 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

A. Weaver

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training (continued)

Hon. M. Mark

J. Thornthwaite

D. Davies

D. Barnett

M. Lee

J. Rustad

N. Letnick

S. Gibson

S. Cadieux

MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2019

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to welcome some friends here, joining us in the

Legislature today. We’ve got Theo Matson, who’s five years old. We’ve got

Katie Matson, who’s eight years old. Katie is very interested in politics

and how the government works for girls and women. Believe it or not, she has

voted for the first time. She cast her vote in the municipal election in her

school. She filled out the ballot by herself and helped her brother fill out

the ballot — a great start for her. She’s joined by mom and dad, Manyi Lee

and also Keith Matson.

Keith was asked, on the way over, his occupation. He said he’s a

cabinetmaker. They’re wondering if he worked for the government. It’s the

other kind of cabinets, but maybe sometime in the future.

I ask everybody here to please give them a very warm

welcome.

S. Sullivan: We have some special guests: Shawn Shipper, who is with the Vancouver

police department, with Mayu and also with Saya, who is a very fine artist,

a world traveller and politician, perhaps, depending on what she sees here

today. Please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Ralston: The B.C. Tech Association has many of its members here today. They

hosted an event to tell us about the services they provide to help create

and grow B.C. technology companies and to benefit B.C.’s economy and our

citizens.

The B.C. Tech board members here are Cameron Burke, who’s the managing

director of PwC, and Jeff Booth, who is on many boards. Here he is described

as the president of Five Booths Consulting. The B.C. Tech staff team — Jill

Tipping, president and CEO; Chris Malmo-Laycock; Elaine Rosario; Anastasia

Hambali; and Lar Quigley.

We also had the opportunity at the event to talk with a number of B.C.

tech companies, including Rob Attwell, who’s the COO of Careteam; Christine

Gossland of Llamazoo; and Terry Tarle, senior director of MDA.

Would the House please make all of these guests very

welcome.

Hon. R. Fleming: I know that the province celebrated Family Day last month, but I’m

pleased to say that I’m having my own mini-version of it here in the

Legislature today. We’re joined in the House by my dear sister Margo

Fleming, my brother-in-law Andrew Vanderhelm, my nephew John Fowler and my

two kids, Rory and Jack Fleming. For the record, school district 61 is on

spring break, so there’s no truancy being committed here. I would ask the

House to make all of these guests most welcome here this

afternoon.

I. Paton: I would like to welcome today four members of the B.C. Farmland Owners

Association, a great group represented today in the House by Mr. Ben Dhiman,

treasurer; Gurdial Badh, chair; Jinder Berar, secretary; and Humraj Kallu,

vice-chair. I’d like to welcome them to the Legislature today and say thank

you for a wonderful rally they put on in November and another great rally

yesterday in Surrey.

M. Stilwell: Today it’s my pleasure to introduce Lisbie Rae, coordinator with the

Victoria Grandmothers for Africa, and the coordinator, Dale Ralston.

Victoria Grandmothers for Africa helps raise awareness and funds to support

community organizations in Africa where grandmothers are caring for their

grandchildren orphaned by AIDS. The group has raised more than $1.1 million

since 2006 with events like crafts sales, national walks and their annual

three-day cycle from Campbell River to Victoria. Would the House please make

them feel very welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a former member of

this House. Joining us today in the gallery is Terry Segarty. He was the MLA

for Kootenay from May 1979 to October 1986. He is joined here today with his

wife, Hillary, and three of his grandchildren — Silas, Gavin and Christine.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: In the gallery today is Anita Mark, who has been a volunteer with

Results Canada for 25 years. Results is a non-profit grassroots organization

committed to ending the worst aspects of global poverty. Anita never fails

to inspire with her efforts to raise awareness about the causes of poverty

and present the best solutions for combating it.

Tuberculosis, or TB, is not only a cause of poverty; it’s one of the

top ten causes of death in the world. Yesterday was World Tuberculosis Day,

and thanks to the efforts of Anita and the RESULTS Canada volunteers,

Victoria joined cities all over the world and put the spotlight on TB by

lighting up landmarks in red, including the ceremonial entrance and the

fountain in front of the Legislature.

Would the House please make Anita most welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Children and Family Development.

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You almost got me in trouble. I told my

husband he should watch today because it’s actually our anniversary. I think

it’s probably the 15th one that I’ve missed with him.

I just want to say happy anniversary, hon.

L. Throness: It’s always great to have family here. I have my beloved brother

Trevor Throness here; his wife, Jennifer; my niece Ella; my nephews Will and

Sam; and Sam’s special friend from Germany, Nora Faist. Would the House

please welcome them.

Tributes

TEX ENEMARK

S. Chandra Herbert: I just want to rise to note the passing of somebody who’s worked

with members of all sides of the House, Tex Enemark. Tex was a fellow

who worked hard in the mining industry. He was the head of the Mining

Association. He was the head of the Landlords Association, where I

worked with him quite a bit on residential tenancy legislation. He was a

scuba diver, sunk a bunch of ships for people to scuba dive

in.

He worked with people of all political stripes, from the Socreds

to the Liberals to the New Democrats. He taught me a lot about fairness

and about working with people with different political points of

view.

I just want to say thank you to his family. He was a character

that will surely be missed by anybody who got the pleasure of working

with him.

Introductions by Members

G. Kyllo: Joining us in the House today, I’ve actually got four guests to

introduce. The most important is one of my younger constituents. Her name is

Miss Kylie Plock. She comes from Canoe, British Columbia. She is also my

oldest of eight granddaughters. Would the House please make Kylie feel very

welcome.

Joining Kylie today is my lovely wife, Georgina, of 31 years. She is

also joined by my sister-in-law Lisa and my niece Thea, also from Canoe.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. J. Horgan: Joining us in Victoria today are a collection of young people from the

constituency of the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. Collectively

they’re called the Powell River Paper Kings, and they will be playing a

seventh game tonight at the radio out in Colwood against the Victoria

Grizzlies, who will be triumphant, as we all know. But I want the House and

all of those in the precinct to please make the Powell River Paper Kings

very, very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a reply.

N. Simons: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure where to begin. I know we don’t have a

special time set aside for rebuttals on introductions, but I would like to

also welcome the Kings. As well as welcoming the Kings, I know they’ll do

very well tonight. I’ve got my pin on, and the Premier doesn’t.

I’d also like to welcome my constituency assistant from the lower

Sunshine Coast, who’s here to observe question period. I would like to thank

all constituency assistants from all three sides of the House for the work

they do and thank Michelle Morton, who is here with us.

D. Ashton: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the chair of the regional

district here today, Karla Kozakevich. She is down with a good friend of

hers, Carolyn King, and even better friend of hers, Kelly Watmough from

Alberta, who’s visiting us for a short time.

So please, welcome to Victoria. Enjoy your stay here. Learn

lots.

There is one missing, Kal Kozakevich, Karla’s son. He’s a young

teenager that has always wanted to be the Prime Minister of Canada, but he

found out he doesn’t earn enough — the Prime Minister — so he’s not going to

be that way anymore.

Please make our wonderful guests from the Okanagan and Alberta

welcome.

J. Johal: Joining us in the House today is Tyler Pronyk, a longtime Richmond

resident and dedicated dad, and with him is his seven-year-old daughter,

Madelyn. Along with those two is Katarina Mackey, who is 12 years old, and

Gregory Mackey, who is 11 years old. I ask the House to please make them

feel welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

B. Ma: The B.C. Legislature has just hosted its second annual Nowruz

celebrations. We’re very grateful to its many contributors for helping make

it successful, including Bees Knees Café; Anar Foods; Daryâ Persian Music

Ensemble; Pari Azarm Motamedi, a poet and artist; Vancouver Pars Ballet;

members of the Victoria Iranian-Persian Cultural Society — Amir Bajehkian,

Mariam Hazhir and Daniel; and Taufiq Ahmadi, an Afghan community activist as

well. Would the House please join me in thanking them all for helping make

our Nowruz celebrations this afternoon very successful.

Tributes

PATRICK LANE

A. Olsen: I rise today to acknowledge the passing and the life of a friend

and constituent, Patrick Lane. Patrick Lane is a well-known Canadian

author and poet, just a phenomenal man, one that I had the pleasure of

getting to know over the last few years and one that was willing to

share some of his time with me to go on walks on the beach or in the

forest and to share his wise words. In fact, he had many, many wise

words.

Today I would just like to take a few moments to acknowledge his

passing, over the past couple of weeks. He’s vested in the Order of

Canada, an award-winning author.

To his family and to his partner, Lorna, our hearts are with them

and much love to you.

HÍSW̱ḴE .

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT

ACT, 2019

Hon. G. Heyman presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia

Amendment Act, 2019.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

This bill contains amendments to the Protected Areas of British

Columbia Act. The bill contains amendments that will allow our

government to move forward with ongoing reconciliation efforts with

Indigenous peoples. One class A park will be renamed to include an

Indigenous name to reflect the cultural importance of this area to First

Nations as well as its history.

The bill also continues what we do on an annual basis — namely,

adding lands to existing protected areas, improving protected area

boundary descriptions and correcting administrative errors. Amendments

to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will add lands totalling

107 hectares to six existing class A parks, improve boundary

descriptions for three parks and two ecological reserves, and correct

some administrative errors.

On an administrative note, I want to point out to all members that

the Office of the Clerk will be provided with copies of the official

plans, the mapped boundaries, for their review that depict the

boundaries of most of the protected areas in this bill. In addition, the

official plans will be posted on the B.C. Parks website.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

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

Bill 16, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2019,

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

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

BILL 10 — INCOME TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act,

Hon. C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m very pleased to introduce the Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019.

This bill brings together the final fiscal elements needed to support a

historic made-in-B.C. LNG investment.

[1:50 p.m.]

This is an investment that will deliver long-term benefits and

jobs for British Columbians; generate a positive return for our

province; support real partnerships with First Nations; and protect our

air, land and water while operating within strong environmental

protections through CleanBC.

This bill repeals the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act and the

Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act. This bill also amends the

Income Tax Act to implement a natural gas tax credit. This natural gas

tax credit provides a non-refundable tax credit to qualifying

corporations that own natural gas as it enters the inlet meter of an LNG

facility in British Columbia. The credit is limited to a maximum amount

that can be claimed each taxation year and can be used to reduce the

effective British Columbia corporate income tax rate from 12 percent to

9 percent if the company pays corporate tax in British

Columbia.

This legislation is the final piece of the four conditions

required for an LNG investment and the last piece of the policy

framework that was outlined by the Premier last year.

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

[1:55 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 80

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Malcolmson

Glumac

Cadieux

Bond

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Clovechok

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Isaacs

Letnick

Thomson

Larson

NAYS — 3

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 10, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019, ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ELIMINATION OF RACIAL

DISCRIMINATION AND

VIOLENCE

R. Singh: Last week we all celebrated the International Day for the

Elimination of Racial Discrimination on March 21. The shocking killings

of 69 people who were protesting against a segregational pass system

that was being imposed in South Africa in 1960 had changed the course of

world history. Since then, we continue to remind ourselves about the

challenges of self-proclaimed racial superiority that refuse to

die.

Racism continues to exist in different forms and, over the years,

has manifested itself through various shades. Nearly a week before, on

March 21, 50 people were murdered by a white supremacist in an attack on

two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. This horrific incident of

terrorism once again brought to the surface the reality of growing

alt-white populism all over the world.

No part of the globe is immune to this menace. In 2017, we

witnessed the murders of six worshipers in an attack on a Quebec City

mosque. In 1998, a Sikh temple keeper in my own community of Surrey was

murdered by the neo-Nazis. Across the border, in the U.S., a number of

places of worship belonging to African-Americans, Jews, Muslims and

Sikhs have been targeted, and we should not delude ourselves of being

impervious to growing Islamophobia here at home either.

A recent Stats Canada report has noted a 253 percent increase in

Islamophobic incidents here. And there still are certain elements who

continue to encourage these false fears with their xenophobic rhetoric

about Islam and other visible minorities.

Today it is time to be more vigilant to the safety and security of

the people of colour in our communities. We must not take things for

granted, and we must try to address the socioeconomic reasons behind the

growth of bigotry and take firm steps to stop our younger generations

from falling into the trap and to amplify the stories of people who are

trying to make things better through antiracism, awareness and

education.

OCEANSIDE GRANDMOTHERS

GRANDMOTHERS

M. Stilwell: In 2016, the Stephen Lewis Foundation’s Grandmothers to

Grandmothers campaign took off, and Oceanside grandmothers were on board

from the start. The campaign is all about raising funds and awareness

while standing in solidarity with African grandmothers who’ve lost their

own children to AIDS and now care for their orphaned

grandchildren.

Kathy Grand and Carol Lundine, founders of Oceanside Grandmothers

to Grandmothers, heard about the campaign when they went to see Stephen

Lewis speak in Nanaimo, and then they knew they wanted to help. Their

first grandmothers meeting attracted 39 women. Today, almost 13 years

later, more than 140 women are involved, and the Oceanside group has

raised more than $504,000 in many ways, including their annual Christmas

extravaganza. It’s amazing.

[2:00 p.m.]

These women and all of those involved in the grandmother campaign

are inspiring. They’re making a difference in the lives of grandmothers

and children affected by AIDS by giving their time and what they have to

raise money and awareness in any way that they can think of. They’re

creating tote bags and potholders, making jams and holding bottle

drives, lunches and garden parties. Some people may have also seen the

grannies ride through the Island towns during one of the annual

three-day cycle tours from Campbell River to Victoria. Nationwide

grandmothers have raised more than $33 million, and they are not done

yet.

Thank you to the team in Oceanside and all the grandmothers in

British Columbia and around Canada for your compassion and your

commitment to the Grandmothers to Grandmothers Campaign. It’s people

like you that are making a big world feel more like a global community.

Keep up the great work.

DOWN SYNDROME AWARENESS

M. Elmore: I rise today to acknowledge World Down Syndrome Day. The date of

the global annual awareness day is significant. It is officially held on

the 21st day of the third month, which is a nod to the uniqueness of the

triplication of the 21st chromosome, which leads to Down syndrome. This

year’s theme is “Leave no one behind,” to highlight how all people with

Down syndrome must have opportunities to live fulfilling lives, included

on a full and equal basis with others in all aspects of

society.

There are an estimated 45,000 Canadians with Down syndrome —

individuals with tremendous potential to live full lives as contributing

members of the community. The reality today is that prevailing negative

attitudes, low expectations, discrimination and exclusion ensure that

people with Down syndrome are left behind. There is a lack of

understanding of the challenges individuals face across their lifetimes

and a failure to support them with the opportunities and tools needed to

live fulfilling lives.

People with Down syndrome and those who support and work with them

must be empowered to advocate for these opportunities. This year I’m

happy to report that people with Down syndrome advocated at the United

Nations in Geneva about their rights, providing self-advocates with Down

syndrome the opportunity to speak up about what employment means to

them.

The province of British Columbia supports the well-being of all

individuals with Down syndrome and their ability to function as fully

accepted members of society. I would like to invite all members to join

me and all British Columbians to recognize March 21 as World Down

Syndrome Day. I encourage all of us to be our best selves, to rise up as

advocates for people with Down syndrome and to ensure that no one is

left behind.

ELAHO RIVER SALMON

HABITAT RESTORATION

PROJECT

J. Sturdy: I’m pleased to rise today to update the House on the collaborative

work done recently to restore salmon habitat on the Elaho River in the

upper Squamish. This river is 65 kilometres in length and has a

watershed drainage area of 1,250 square kilometres.

It is assumed that due to road construction in the 1960s or the

’70s, an enormous rock the size of a three-storey building was dropped

into the canyon and formed a barrier which all but completely blocked

access to salmonids heading upstream on the Elaho. The force of the

water passing around this rock made it virtually impossible for the fish

to overcome it.

Through the combined efforts of the Squamish Nation, Fisheries and

Oceans Canada and the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource

Operations, a phased plan was implemented to blast down the rocks over

the course of several years and re-establish fish passages. Funding for

the project was secured by the Squamish Nation and the Squamish River

Watershed Society from the fish habitat restoration initiatives and the

Pacific Salmon Foundation.

Extensive hydraulic modelling and water quality and fish sampling

took place in stage 1, followed by a series of carefully planned and

orchestrated blasts. The flow of the river was a key factor in

dispersing the blast fragments for the creation of a weir and to allow

for a moderated water force over and around the rocks. Blasting was

completed last year. There’s a planned release of juvenile chinook from

the Tenderfoot Hatchery this spring, but more importantly, currently

returning chinook and coho will now have a vastly expanded spawning

habitat. This is tremendously exciting at a time when we understand the

pressures that these salmon are under.

Combined with the ongoing work of enhancing water flows to the

Squamish River estuary, it is hoped these collaborative projects

significantly improve reproductive survival rates of these important

fish. I look forward to reporting back to the House as return and

spawning results become available.

[2:05 p.m.]

NOWRUZ CELEBRATIONS

B. Ma: Salam , Mr. Speaker.

عید شما مبارک

[Happy new

year.]

The season of Nowruz is upon us, celebrating the vernal equinox

that marks the first day of spring and the start of Persian New Year.

Here in the B.C. Legislature, we welcomed hundreds of community members

to our very own second annual Nowruz celebration.

When the sun crosses the celestial equator, the length of night

and day are exactly equal. This moment is calculated every year, and

families gather together to observe their respective Nowruz rituals.

Here on the west coast, the vernal equinox actually took place last

week, on Wednesday, March 20, at 3 p.m., and will be celebrated for 13

days henceforth.

Nowruz has Iranian and Zoroastrian roots, but it has been

celebrated by many communities from all religious backgrounds. Western

and central Asia, the Caucasus, the Black Sea basin and the Balkans are

among the countries and regions where people have celebrated Nowruz for

over 3,000 years.

North Vancouver became alive during Nowruz over the last two

weeks, with bazaars, galas, dance parties, fire-jumping festivals and

more, as our diverse communities reached out to share in each other’s

cultures. How very Canadian of them. Beautiful haft sin tables

were laid out everywhere, showcasing seven precious items, each a symbol

for something essential — health, wisdom, the environment, wealth,

power, bravery, fertility, patience, tolerance, contentment.

Community members from Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan,

India, parts of China, Azerbaijan, Syria and more all contributed to the

vibrancy of the celebrations, including those celebrations we had right

here at the Legislature.

هر روزتان نوروز، نوروزتان

پیروز

May every day be a new day for you, and may every new day be

prosperous.

[Persian text and translation provided by B.

Ma.]

THOMAS KWOK HUNG WONG

AND CHINESE-CANADIAN

VETERANS

J. Yap: I rise to honour the life of a hero, Thomas Kwok Hung Wong, the

first ethnic Chinese person accepted into the Royal Canadian Air Force,

who proudly served Canada during the Second World War despite the racial

discrimination and injustice of the times.

Thomas passed away March 10 at the age of 101 at Richmond

Hospital. The Victoria native and plane-loving Thomas was 21 when Canada

declared war on Nazi Germany in 1939. With his mind set on flying,

Thomas sailed from Victoria to Vancouver to enlist with the air force

but was turned away because of his Chinese ethnicity.

Things changed two years later when the empire of Japan attacked

Pearl Harbor. Thomas received a letter requesting his presence from the

same recruiting office and became the first Chinese to be accepted into

the air force, then graduated first class in his training and rose to

the rank of an aircraft inspector, a highly regarded

position.

Thomas was always modest about his legacy, but his contribution

went far beyond serving Canada during wartime. The service of Chinese

Canadians during World War II opened up opportunities such as full

citizenship, voting rights and admission into the professions for all

Chinese Canadians.

Thomas helped to promote the Chinese Canadian Military Museum

Society to preserve not only the artifacts but also the stories of the

veterans. I have fond memories of Thomas’s presence in numerous museum

exhibits, forums, celebrations and other events. Even as his mobility

became more limited, Thomas would be there with his fellow

veterans.

With his passing, there are now only a handful of surviving

Chinese-Canadian World War II veterans. I ask that this House join me in

expressing our gratitude to Thomas Wong and to recognize the importance

of his service to our province and to Canada. May we also continue to

honour his surviving wartime comrades who served so that future

generations might live in a free, just and democratic

society.

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we begin question period, if I might give you a

friendly reminder that cell phones and other electronic equipment are

not permitted to be used during the question period time.

[2:10 p.m.]

Oral Questions

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE CHANGES

AND ROLE OF

FARMERS

A. Wilkinson: Now, farmers in our society are often described

as producers, and for good reason. They know how to produce

food.

We have a group of farmers with us here in the gallery today, and

they are completely fed up and angry. They need to be able to manage

their lands to produce food. They’ve found that under this Agriculture

Minister, their property rights are being seriously trampled on. These

farmers have come from the Fraser Valley because they are angry about

the treatment they’re receiving from this Minister of

Agriculture.

Will the Minister of Agriculture please rise in this House and

explain why she’s trampling on the rights of farmers and why she refuses

to meet with them?

Hon. L. Popham: It is absolutely a pleasure to stand up and talk about our support

for farming in British Columbia. I think that is most evident with

having the largest agriculture budget that this province has ever seen

from the ministry.

The policies that we’re putting into place to support farming are

unprecedented. We’re supporting fruit tree growers. We’re supporting the

seafood industry. Everywhere across B.C., you’ll see our policies at

work supporting the hard work of farmers.

You can’t really farm if you don’t have an agricultural land

reserve to do it on. So we’re making sure that we’re revitalizing that

reserve. We’re making it stronger than ever. In doing so, we’re making

it more viable for farmers to make a living. It’s very important that

farmers have this land base to work on, and I’m proud of the work that

we’re doing.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: It’s a good thing these farmers came over from the valley to hear

this in person because it’s hard to believe what the minister is telling

them.

They have been singled out for discrimination. They have been told

that they no longer have the status of “person” to make an application

to change the use of their land. This is a form of discrimination that

is intolerable to these farmers.

Four of them have come over. One of them is Ben Dhiman. Here’s

what Ben said yesterday when hundreds of them gathered in Surrey to

protest this minister’s arrogance. “There’s been a constant attack on

our way of life…”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Wilkinson: “…and, most importantly, our rights as property

owners.”

What will this minister do to address the legitimate concerns of

these Fraser Valley farmers? They are being discriminated against on the

basis that they are told, after all these years, all this commitment to

till the land, all the effort they go through to grow crops, all the

effort they put into feeding the people of British Columbia…. This

minister has the gall to turn around and tell them: “You no longer have

the status of ‘persons.’ Get out of my office.”

Hon. L. Popham: It’s very disappointing to hear the Leader of the Opposition

mislead the public of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: Over the last two weeks, I have watched the official opposition

fearmonger within their constituencies. I can tell you that it’s

extremely disappointing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The Minister of Agriculture has the floor.

Hon. L. Popham: The definition of “persons” has not changed by Bill 15. Nothing

has changed.

Interjections.

Hon. L. Popham: Of course farmers are people. The work I do every day proves how

important these people are in British Columbia.

I understand why the official opposition is so upset. For 16

years, they considered the agricultural land reserve a bank for

development. Well, we consider it a reserve for agriculture and food

production. I’m sorry if that upsets you.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second

supplemental.

[2:15 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Minister of Agriculture doesn’t need to be worried about

upsetting me. She does on a regular basis. It’s the thousands of farmers

in the valley. This issue will not go away by casting abuse at

me.

The fundamental rights of these farmers are being affected. These

are property rights, land rights. These people bought the farmland on

the basis that they’d be able to apply for the uses they need to make a

living as farmers. This minister has the gall to sit here today and blow

off their concerns.

Why did hundreds of them gather yesterday and say they are

completely fed up with the arrogant approach of this minister telling

these people their attachment to the land doesn’t matter to her, “Go

away”? When will this minister figure out that hundreds of farmers are

angry with her in the valley, thousands of them are angry with her

around the province? She still refuses to meet with them to discuss

it.

Hon. L. Popham: It’s disappointing, again, the story that the Leader of the

Opposition is trying to spin over there. The Leader of the Opposition

mentioned a group that’s here visiting us today. I can tell this member

that I met with them in person in November. I’ve had conference calls

with this group. I also took time out of my

schedule and reserved a spot

at 12:15 today to meet with this group again, but they cancelled out. I

have been trying to meet with them.

I understand that they have concerns. I can also tell this House

that we believe in the agricultural land reserve. We believe that it is

an economic driver in this province. Not only are we offering

opportunities for farmers to make a living on this land by putting

policies in and putting supports in place that support the work they do;

we are making sure that the agricultural land reserve is there for

future generations.

It’s been in place for 45 years. A government that had the

foresight to see how important this would be…. We are the envy of other

jurisdictions. On our watch, we will make it stronger.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

I. Paton: Well, I’m happy to speak on behalf of my caucus as somebody that

actually has been a commercial farmer. Three generations of farming in

my family, and my father, by the same name, was chairman of the

Agricultural Land Commission at one time in this province.

The minister has defended her attack on farming by claiming: “The

volume of applications to review has become burdensome.” There are

legitimate reasons for these applications, and only a fraction relate to

development. In all, there were only 39 applications provincewide last

year. It is actually the minister’s own fearmongering suggesting that

the ALR is being used as a land bank for development. This is complete

nonsense.

To the minister, how are 39 applications being burdensome to the

Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. L. Popham: Unfortunately, the member has got the facts wrong yet again. Last

year there were around 600 applications with the Agricultural Land

Commission. If we’re talking simply about exclusion applications, there

were around 40 for the entire province. That is true.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: Why are we looking at exclusion? Why are we changing the process

for exclusion applications? When you remove land from the agricultural

land reserve, it can create holes in this reserve. The continuity of the

landscape changes, and it’s detrimental to agriculture. As a farmer, the

member should know that.

I travel all across the province. The one thing that’s constant in

every area that I go — people are thankful for the agricultural land

reserve. They want it to be protected. Up in the Cariboo area, I have

ranchers telling me that every time a piece of property is developed, it

changes the way they have to farm.

[2:20 p.m.]

This legislation supports farming. We support farming. I think the

opposition should get on board.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

I. Paton: Well, I think we all understand that the land commission gets

applications all the time from local governments for lot line

adjustments, different things like that — non-farm uses. We’re talking

today about exclusions. We’re not talking about usual applications that

come in on a weekly basis from local governments.

The minister’s claims about an overwhelming number of applications

and wealthy speculators are ridiculous. There are over 4.6 million

hectares of land in the ALR, consisting of over 17,000 farms and

thousands of farmers. But only 39 exclusion applications were put

forward last year. This is an attack on farmers, yet the minister can’t

even explain what crisis she is trying to solve.

My question to the minister, again: why is the minister attacking

farmers as speculators?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll just wait for a moment till it’s quiet, Minister.

Okay, Minister of Agriculture, proceed.

Hon. L. Popham: I understand, again, why the opposition is upset. They don’t

believe in the agricultural land reserve. When we took office, we made a

commitment that we would revitalize the agricultural land reserve. We

would make sure we’re protecting the land base, and we would make sure

that farmers could farm on that land base.

So far what we’ve done is we’ve stopped the illegal dumping of

waste on farmland that was happening on this watch. We’ve addressed

speculation and mega-mansions, which that opposition didn’t do. We’ve

created legislation that supports multigenerational farm families. We’ve

unified the ALR, bringing it back to one zone, making sure it has

provincial protection. We’ve also given the ALC the tools they need to

do their job.

PROTECTION OF WETLANDS ON

AGRICULTURAL LAND

RESERVE

A. Olsen: In recognition of World Water Day last week, I stand to ask about

an issue that has long troubled me.

For the most part, the ALR protects arable land from urban sprawl.

But within its laudable and important purpose, it contains a critical

environmental flaw. The ALC Act allows and encourages the draining and

filling of ALR land. While this may provide agricultural benefit, it can

also destroy wetlands that have immense ecological value. They are

critical to our ecological circulatory system, storing and filtering

water and controlling volume and quality in our watersheds. There are no

provisions within the ALC Act that allow these values to be recognized

on agricultural land.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. We agree with the

critical importance of protecting and defending food-producing land, but

we must ensure that agricultural activities are not jeopardizing other

important ecological habitats. Has the minister considered implementing

regulations to support the preservation of other ecological values on

ALR land?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the very important question from the

member.

Our government knows that wetlands provide a critical habitat for

fish, birds and other wildlife and, in fact, make up about 5 percent of

our land base in this province. We know how important it is to have

healthy wetlands. Often these wetlands are in an agricultural

setting.

I’ve been very happy to be working with and hearing about programs

where ranchers and farmers are actually embracing the idea of having

natural ecosystems working with their farms and, in fact, making a

healthier farming setting as well.

[2:25 p.m.]

I’d be happy to talk to the member about a specific program called

Farmland Advantage that’s happening up in the Cariboo area. Basically,

it took a wetland that had been farmed for quite some time. There were

not very many wild birds or animals in this wetland area. The farmer

embraced that and has now brought back those critical birds and

ani­mals into that area. He’s also an incredible

rancher.

There are ways that we can work together with agricul­tural

and natural areas, and I’m really happy to have that conversation with

the member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister. The governance of the ALR needs to

recognize that the ecological values are valuable to society and should

also be protected. I’m happy to hear the example of the individual

that’s taken this, but I think that it’s important that it’s captured

within the governance of the ALR.

For thousands of years, these wetlands were an essential part of

the local landscape. It’s a place where animals, birds and plants

thrive, as the minister acknowledged. It’s an ancient supermarket of

sorts for my WSÁNEĆ ancestors that harvested foods and materials there

that were important for their quality of life.

But there’s a problem with the incentives. There’s a constant

battle with nature that could easily be solved if the preservation of

specific ecological values was given tax credits like the production of

the small amount that is currently captured within the legislation.

Maintaining wetland habitats should be recognized as an allowed non-farm

use, and draining wetlands should require explicit permission from the

ALC.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Will she consider

looking at the incentive structures provided to farmers in B.C. in

relation to preserving ecological values on ALR land?

Hon. L. Popham: Point taken by the member. It’s an excellent point. I think

there’s been more and more discussion about the value of ecological

goods and services with agricultural land in natural areas.

The Agricultural Land Commission does recognize the importance of

wetlands, and that is why there are functioning wetlands that are

happening on agricultural land reserve farms right now. We also have an

environmental farm plan program through my ministry that works with

farmers who want to work with these wetlands and natural

areas.

Let’s have a chat. Let’s have coffee later, and we can discuss how

we can make that work better.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE CHANGES

AND FARM FAMILIES IN

SURREY

J. Johal: Multigenerational farm families have been betrayed by the minister

and the NDP. Now, last fall Surrey NDP members looked farmers in the eye

and promised that building plans would be grandfathered. Instead, they

broke their promise and have failed to deliver. The assault on farmers’

rights continues.

A question to the minister. Did Surrey MLAs make any effort to

advocate for their constituents and community?

Hon. L. Popham: I couldn’t be more proud of my colleagues from Surrey who brought

issues to me as we developed this legislation around the changes to the

ALR. I absolutely got feedback from them. You will remember that back in

the fall, when we changed the legislation, we did an amendment,

specifically because our Surrey MLAs were so effective.

We have made the agricultural land reserve stronger. We’ve also

recognized the needs of multigenerational farm families, and we’re proud

of that work.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: The minister just said that the members from Surrey had talked to

her, yet I get calls almost every day in my constituency office where

people are stuck in some permitting hell because this minister has stuck

them there, No. 1. And No. 2, the farmland owners association, for the

past four months, has been trying to get a meeting with this minister.

They have called. No response. They have sent letters. No response. Four

months. A further reminder that the members from Surrey are not taking

care of their farmers and their constituents.

[2:30 p.m.]

There’s a word in Punjabi….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, you might wish to lengthen your question so that you have

enough time to get your message across.

J. Johal: Oh, I plan to. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There’s a word in Punjabi called chamcha . It means

sycophant. There’s no better term to describe these Surrey NDP MLAs: a

bunch of chamchas . They’ve done nothing to advocate for those

farmers — nothing. They have done absolutely nothing, these Surrey NDP

MLAs — absolutely nothing.

A question to the minister. Why is the minister going after these

farmers’ rights and land?

showboating.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in my previous answer, I have had a meeting. I had a

meeting with this group. It was a productive meeting. I’ve had

conference calls with this group. And a meeting was organized for 12:15

today. I reorganized my

schedule because I heard they were coming over,

and they phoned and cancelled it.

I have made every effort to meet with this group as well. I would

be happy to meet with them, but unfortunately, they cancelled the

meeting.

S. Cadieux: The minister believes that the NDP government knows best how to

manage private property, especially the private property of ranchers and

farmers. Multigenerational farm families are being attacked, and the NDP

MLAs from Surrey have definitely failed our community.

Jinder Berar is here today. Can the minister tell him why she’s

attacking him and his hard-working farm family?

Hon. L. Popham: I’m proud of the work that our government has done making sure

that the agricultural land reserve is there for farmers to do their job.

The changes that we made in the fall were changes that will protect the

agricultural land reserve and allow farming to happen.

Under this former government’s watch, what we saw was speculation

and mega-mansions being built, making sure that new and young farmers

would not have a chance to farm…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: …on that land. They would not have a chance to farm on that

land.

I understand why the opposition is so frustrated. They believe

that the agricultural land reserve is there for development. We believe

it’s there for agriculture. And that’s it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.

S. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, what I heard in that episode of the “NDP Government

Knows Best” is that the NDP government thinks longtime multigenerational

farm families in my constituency are speculators. This is

nuts.

This minister has decided that only a government is a person.

Farmers no longer have the right to advocate for themselves and their

land. Multigenerational farm families in Surrey have been betrayed and

are labelled as speculators by this minister and this government. This

is discrimination.

[2:35 p.m.]

To the minister again, can she tell the families of Surrey why she

is attacking Jinder and his family as speculators?

Hon. L. Popham: It begs the question from me: why does the opposition continue to

fearmonger? The opposition is implying that somehow we are not standing

up for farmers when that’s all we’re doing on this side of the House on

the Agriculture file.

Exclusions from the agricultural land reserve permanently damage

the agricultural land reserve. It permanently damages it. What we’re

saying is if you want to take land out of the agricultural land

reserve…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: …then it should be part of a commu­nity planning process.

That’s fair.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE CHANGES

AND ROLE OF

FARMERS

M. de Jong: Last year, as we’ve now ascertained, there were 39 applications

for exclusion. Twelve of them were granted. A total of 28 hectares

excluded.

The minister responds by saying to the hard-working women, men,

families who farm, who get up at four and five in the morning, who try

to contend with unpredictable weather, farm the land and often have

other jobs to support their farm…. She calls them

speculators.

She says the ALR has to be protected from them because they’re

speculators. Then she purports to dehumanize them by incorporating a

definition of “person” that doesn’t include a single human being. It’s

insulting. It’s disgusting.

Will the minister stand up and finally admit that support for

agriculture begins by showing respect for the men, the women and the

families that actually do the farming in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Popham: I can see that the member is very passionate about his

misinterpretation of this proposed legislation. Our government is

actually passionate about farmers and farming.

I will repeat for the member so he doesn’t have to go out and

spread fear among his constituents, which happened this past weekend.

The definition of “persons” is not changed by Bill 15. It remains

exactly the same. The constitutional rights of individuals have not

changed.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. de Jong: Well, the minister can end any doubt. It’s a pretty

straightforward proposition.

If she can name and alert the House to a single human being

anywhere in British Columbia, anywhere in Canada, anywhere in the world

that is captured by her proposed new definition of person, I’ll

apologize to her. But she can’t do it because she is introducing a set

of reforms that will require government….

Government knows best. That’s the new policy. The farmers that are

here who have spent generations, whose grandparents, whose parents,

whose children want to farm that land, are being deemed second-class

citizens.

It’s time for the minister to stand in this House and show some

respect, apologize and understand that it is the farmers that need

support, it is the farmers that grow the food in this province, and it

is the farmers that she is showing the ultimate disrespect

for.

[2:40 p.m.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: I don’t even know how to respond to that except….

Interjections.

Hon. L. Popham: What I know is that there will always be a fight between the

official opposition and the government, because we believe strongly that

the agricultural land reserve was put in place for future generations.

It’s more important today than it has ever been. That side of the House

believes it’s there for development, and they’re very upset that they

may not be able to have mega-mansions, dump construction

fill….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Minister.

Hon. L. Popham: There will always be this constant fight between us, but that’s

where it stands. On our watch, the agricultural land reserve is for

farming.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

J. Yap: I rise on a point of order. During question period, the member for

Surrey-Fleetwood used unparliamentary language. I believe, as an hon.

member, that he should withdraw the comment.

Mr. Speaker: So noted.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. J. Sims: I rise on a point of privilege, and I would like to reserve my right

to raise that at a later time.

Mr. Speaker: So noted, Minister.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to table the following reports from the

Office of the Auditor General: Detection and Response to Cybersecurity

Threats on B.C. Hydro’s Industrial Control Systems and, secondly,

The B.C. Oil and Gas Commission’s Management of Non-Operating Oil

and Gas Sites .

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 14, Heritage Conservation

Amendment Act, 2019. In

section A, I call the continued estimates debate for the

Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — HERITAGE CONSERVATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that Bill 14, the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, be

read a second time.

The proposed amendments to the Heritage Conservation Act will do a

number of things. It will enhance the protection of areas with heritage

and conservation values in the province, and this is vitally important,

because our heritage and archaeological values connect us all to the

rich cultural history of British Columbia.

The act has not been substantially amended for over 20 years, and

the proposed changes make specific improvements to the act to increase

its effectiveness.

[2:45 p.m.]

It’s important to say that British Columbia…. I think many people

in this province and certainly all MLAs in this chamber know that B.C.

has a rich and diverse history. That includes archaeological sites

dating back at least 14,000 years that provide physical evidence of how

and where people lived in the past, historic places that contributed to

the development of the province and some of the most important fossil

locations in the world that illustrate the evolution and development of

life on earth.

With that background, the proposed amendments will legally require

people to report discoveries of specific sites or objects with potential

heritage value. This allows my ministry to protect previously unknown

heritage property. If its existence is never known, the heritage

property could be damaged, fall into disrepair or be lost

forever.

As a little background, as well, other Canadian jurisdictions that

require discoveries to be reported include Alberta, Yukon, Saskatchewan,

Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince

Edward Island. They all have heritage legislation that requires people

to report certain discoveries of heritage value. As I said, these

changes are long overdue and address the fact that the act has not been

amended significantly or substantially since 1994.

What these other jurisdictions have found, and what we anticipate

will be found in B.C., is that although it’s difficult to assess how

many sites are being reported in these other jurisdictions as a result

of the legislative requirement, most provinces have indicated that this

requirement increases knowledge of heritage values and promotes the

reporting of heritage discoveries, something that the people of B.C. are

well suited to do. With this legislation, increased knowledge around

heritage values will become more prominent, and the required reporting

will lead to that and add to that.

The other proposed amendments in this proposed act in front of us

will also involve expanding the ability to refuse, amend, suspend and

cancel permits. As well, a person may be required to obtain and pay for

a heritage inspection or investigation as a precondition of alteration

of a site.

Now, that’s done already on major projects, whether it’s through

Crown agencies or major development projects, but these amendments allow

that this may be required in other developments as well. In fact, this

provides more flexibility and permit management, and allows permits to

be managed based on individual circumstances. That, in turn, provides

greater opportunity to mitigate potential impacts to heritage property

and proponents.

It’s a matter of understanding and having sites that are

discovered reported. That’s an education process. Then, in turn, as

they’re reported, we’re being proactive. In the long run, it will lead

to fewer challenges for people who actually want to develop a site or

who have plans to make alterations to a site, because they can mitigate

the potential impacts in advance rather than coming along, finding an

object and then having to make alternative plans that could be more

costly because it’s done ad hoc.

We’re also improving compliance and enforcement tools specifically

to authorize officials to enter land for the purposes of administration

and enforcement of the act. These are similar tools, as far as the

enforcement goes, to those that natural resource officers already have

in connection to wildfire under the Wildfire Act and in connection to

forestry under the forest, range and protection act.

The proposed amendments also recognize, in this aspect, First

Nations’ call for improved protection of heritage property. This is an

important part of this government’s efforts toward reconciliation with

First Nations and follows on our commitment to the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

[2:50 p.m.]

The proposed amendments to the Heritage Conservation Act also

support the delegation of ministers’ powers and duties to any employee

of government at the discretion of the minister. Some might wonder:

“Well, why is this necessary?” It’s going to result in more responsive

decision-making and corrects a significant deficiency in the current

act.

An example of that is that currently only the minister may record

certain heritage property to their register, which is an administrative

function best suited to the B.C. register of historic places and

ministry staff. It’s going to significantly streamline and enable more

responsive decision-making when it comes to heritage values in the

province.

All together, these amendments allow government to take more

decisive action to preserve heritage and archaeological sites and

objects, protect previously unknown heritage property and respond to

First Nations concerns about protecting heritage and archaeological

values.

With that, I’m going to wrap up my comments on second reading. I

look forward especially to other speakers’ comments on second reading

and on these proposed amendments, and I look forward to hearing positive

feedback and answering any questions when it comes to committee

stage.

J. Rustad: I’m pleased to be able to rise to respond to Bill 14, the Heritage

Conservation Amendment Act.

I think it’s safe to say that everyone in this House agrees on the

importance of preserving the past, to celebrate it and to learn from it.

I’ve had the pleasure and the opportunity to travel to a few other

jurisdictions with, of course, history a lot older than ours and to see

some of the archaeological values that are in there. There’s no question

of the need to protect and to recognize those. For us in British

Columbia, although we don’t have, perhaps, the same type of history, we

do have a rich history, a very rich history with our First Nations.

There is a need to make sure that we recognize, protect and preserve

what we can around that.

It’s critical for the entire province and it’s also important, of

course, for First Nations, as I said. But we must, as a society, ensure

that we are working together to protect these heritage sites and the

objectives. For me, this is one, and just the first, reason that this

legislation that we’re actually debating falls short of the

mark.

When the current government was in opposition, the opposition side

of the House, the members of the NDP shared a lot of rigorous

indignation and bold ideas about what needed to happen to protect sites

and artifacts. They called for the establishment of a First Nations

heritage protection program that would fund local governments to help

protect sacred sites in their communities. It sounds like an interesting

idea, but unfortunately, that idea didn’t make it into this piece of

legislation that is before us here today.

Now, back when they sat on the opposition side of the House, the

NDP called for a change to the legislation so that First Nations burial

sites would be protected in the same way as any cemetery in B.C. — with

a ban on any building. But now that they’re in government, the NDP has

failed to act or chosen not to act and left this ban out of the

bill.

When in opposition, the NDP wanted the government to purchase

private property to halt development near First Nations archaeological

sites, but the legislation we’re debating today offers no plans or

mechanism for the province to step in and compensate the private land

property owners if they’re forced to sell their property after the

discovery of a heritage site or object.

This failure to deliver on their own demands is merely the first

failure of this bill. The bill is also a failure in its erosion of any

sense of balance when it comes to protections, all while layering on new

costs, potentially steep, on landowners. This legislation further

downloads the costs for site investigations and archaeological studies

onto unsuspecting property owners. I say “unsuspecting,” as there are

many areas around the province where there is designated potential

archaeological interest, and you can’t find out where they are, in some

cases. You may end up buying a property and have no idea that there are

some archaeological values in there.

Let’s say that a local farmer wants to add to her barn. That barn

has been there for a long time. It and the land have been in the family

for generations. The decision, one assumes, by someone in Victoria,

would unilaterally decide that in order to add to the family barn, an

expensive and intensive archaeological study is required. That barn or

active farmland, worked for generations, just got way more

expensive.

[2:55 p.m.]

Sadly, this bill seems to be, like so much of the government

legislation, based on the belief that people will just have to have

blind faith in anything that this government does. That is because, once

again, we have before this House hollow legislation set up for debate. I

say it’s hollow because so much of it won’t be revealed until a later

date, and it will be developed behind closed doors.

It’s critical to have certainty for dealing with issues like land

and possible heritage values, but the bill offers no certainty, except

that landowners will be stuck with large bills. Once again, we have a

bill that talks about worthy goals — protecting key heritage sites — but

offers little in the way of details on how it will be done, except for

imposing those costs on the landowners. Too many aspects of this bill,

including how to define classes of property, persons, sites, objects,

circumstances or areas, classes of heritage property and more, are all

left undefined. After the kerfuffle over the definition of a “person”

under the agricultural act, I can understand why.

All that we get, quite frankly, are promises of regulations to

come at a later date. Only when we get those details will we have a

chance to truly see what they’re trying to do with this. Of course,

those details are not going to be subject to debate in this legislative

chamber, nor will they face any sort of public consultation process.

They’ll simply be dumped on unsuspecting landowners. Worse, property

owners may not even be aware, as I mentioned earlier, that they may have

these sorts of challenges when they buy a piece of land and try to do a

development.

Quite frankly, the public deserves better and deserves to know how

this government plans to carry out these changes. Bill 14 offers a

top-down, Victoria-knows-best approach with its planned expansion of

government powers to conduct site searches and intrusive investigations

on private property. Well, they’ve managed to squeeze in the details

about that, which is quite interesting; they didn’t leave that for

regulation.

The bill will allow “authorized officials” — to be defined later,

of course — to enter land if there is a reason to believe that these

lands or premises have heritage value in an object or in the site

itself. They can come onto someone’s property to inspect, to take

samples, to request identification of individuals. These officials will

be allowed to issue warrants or search a premises and seize evidence if

needed. While these sweeping powers are outlined, little about how they

will be monitored and used is to be found in the bill. I will definitely

be asking for information about this when we get to the committee stage

on what seems to be the creation of a heritage police force.

As an opposition, we’re also concerned about the new powers for

the minister. Under this bill, landowners and project proponents, who

are working away under an approved permit and moving forward in good

faith, can be, if the bill becomes law, stopped dead in their tracks.

The government has taken on sweeping powers to amend, suspend or even

cancel permits already granted to alter a heritage site.

Even with a permit already approved and granted, there is no

certainty. This adds to the tremendous amount of uncertainty that is

being added all across this province for anybody that wants to move

forward with any kind of project, whether it’s something as significant

as a major project or whether it’s something as simple as a renovation

to a home. That uncertainty is what drives out investment and confidence

in this province, and building a province and building a future for

working families requires this certainty. This bill is yet another

attack.

When you think about what the government is doing with the

speculation tax, with the changes on the Agricultural Land Commission,

the changes that will declare that farmers are no longer persons who can

apply under the ALC for decisions, one wouldn’t be far from the mark to

suspect that this government is leading an attack on the very nature of

private property itself.

Make no mistake. On this side of the House, we believe in

protecting those heritage values, artifacts and sites. They’re critical

for our history; they’re also critical for our future. All of us believe

in the preservation of B.C.’s cultural values and those of our First

Nations in this province, but this legislation fails to establish the

balance and the certainty required to ensure that protection happens in

a reasonable and responsible way.

[3:00 p.m.]

I look forward to the clarification and the discussion that will

happen at committee stage. Obviously, there are some interesting

components, and I know that some of my colleagues will have much more to

say.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m pleased to speak to Bill 14, amendments to the Heritage

Conservation Act, which was introduced in this House on March 6. The

Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development is making these changes so that our government can take more

decisive action to conserve heritage and archaeology sites and

objects.

Now, the Heritage Conservation Act has not been significantly

amended since 1994, which is 25 years ago. The act’s original purpose

was to encourage and facilitate the protection and conservation of

heritage property in B.C., but deficiencies in the act made it difficult

to achieve these objectives.

It’s interesting. The member for Nechako Lakes was talking about

the deficiencies he sees in the act but in the 16 years the member

opposite sat in government — and, actually, I believe sat in this

position — did nothing to change this and to ensure that the heritage

and the conservation sites were being protected. I would hope that he

would take some comfort in knowing that this government is finally,

after 25 years, making the amendments that need to be made.

It’s time to make the act more effective by addressing issues that

have long been raised about compliance and enforcement and other issues.

I know that stakeholders, like First Nations leaders, have raised

concerns with the minister about the act’s deficiencies, and I’m glad to

see that they are being addressed.

Now, there are going to be four amendments that affect the aspects

of the act. These are reporting, permitting, compliance and enforcement,

and delegation. I’m going to talk a little bit about each of

those.

In reporting, the act is being amended so that anyone who has

reason to believe that they have discovered an object or a site that has

heritage value must report that to the ministry. I know that big

corporations who are out digging and mining companies…. Archaeologists

are usually on site so that they can actually do that work. Smaller

companies and people that are just out digging in their yard obviously

don’t have that. So this is really important. We know now that people

need to report to the ministry if they discover something that could be

of heritage value.

The government keeps a provincial heritage register so that

heritage property can be duly recorded. Recording that heritage property

helps mitigate impacts to heritage value. Under the current act, the

only findings of potential heritage value that must be reported are

those found by persons with a Heritage Conservation Act permit. As a

rancher myself, I don’t think that every time we dig in our yard, we’re

going to be thinking we need to get a Heritage Conservation

Act….

Even in the Kootenays, when you’re digging around, you could find

things of value. I know up in the Arrow Lakes, people were digging and

found a significant number of arrowheads that were left by the Sinixt,

the nation that the federal government declared extinct but obviously

have living, breathing people today. Those pieces of property were

found, and they didn’t have to be reported.

This act ensures that it has to be reported. It allows the

ministry to protect those previously unknown sites and, when

appropriate, to publicize it. I think it’s important that we know where

those sites are. If its existence is never known, the heritage or

archaeological property could be damaged. It could fall into disrepair

or forever be lost.

We were walking up the Slocan Valley a few years ago, a walk up

the Slocan Valley for a fundraiser for housing for seniors. As we walked

— I had four of our grandkids with us — we stopped to visit a site of

pit houses that were also left from the Sinixt Nation.

[3:05 p.m.]

The two older grandkids at the time, three years ago, were nine

and ten. They were really excited about the opportunity to see this. We

talked about the history and what had happened and how these came to be

made. It’s so important for kids to know that and to be able to go and

see that. This bill will make sure that that’s happening so that kids

can actually go and see these archaeological sites, these historical

sites.

Also, it is going to change permitting. Right now the Heritage

Conservation Act permits are intended to help identify, protect and

conserve heritage property. That’s so important. They’re also meant to

minimize and mitigate impacts where potential conflicts have been

identified between cultural resources and proposed development. However,

there are limitations in the legislation that undermine these

purposes.

The purpose of these amendments that the minister is bringing in

is to expand the ability to refuse, amend or suspend and cancel site

alteration permits. These amendments will improve permitting powers by

providing greater flexibility in permit management. They allow permits

to be managed based on individual circumstances and provide a greater

opportunity to mitigate potential impacts to heritage property and

proponents. These amendments address some significant deficiencies that

hinder the minister’s ability to actually utilize the act.

As well, there is going to be changes to compliance and

enforcement. So the effectiveness of the act is hindered by limitations

on compliance and enforcement, which will be addressed in these

amendments. For example, authorizing officials will be allowed to enter

land for the purposes of the administration or enforcement of the act

and establishing new offences, allowing for continuing offences and

extending the time limit to lay an information from two to three

years.

These will significantly improve the ability to enforce the act

and reduce the risk of defence and of forfeiting prosecution. The

amendments address a known concern from the act, from First Nations.

Then, there’s also the delegation where the amendments expand the

minister’s ability to delegate their powers and duties under the act.

This will allow for a more appropriate level of decision-maker to take

on these decisions.

Now, I want to talk a bit about the United Nations declaration on

the rights of Indigenous people and the fact that First Nation leaders

have been calling for this. First Nations have been meeting with the

minister and telling him about their concerns about historical artifacts

being lost. The changes being proposed are reflective of those expressed

concerns raised by First Nations and calls for greater protection of

archaeological and cultural sites, which is in the spirit of the United

Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. It’s something

that I believe everyone in the House agrees with.

The changes recognize First Nations calls for improved protection

of heritage property and support articles 11 and 12 of UNDRIP and uphold

direction to review policies and programs and legislation to determine

how to bring the principles of UNDRIP into action.

This is a good first step, and it is just a first step. It

addresses known issues with the act that, again, have been raised with

the minister by First Nations right across the province. The archaeology

branch staff continue to engage with First Nations on what more needs to

be done to preserve heritage sites in the province.

I think it’s important, just to wrap, that specific amendments are

designed to improve the act’s effectiveness. So they’ll require

discoveries of potential heritage and archaeological value to be

reported. They expand the ability to refuse, amend, suspend and cancel

permits, and they provide that a person may be liable to obtain and pay

for a heritage inspection or investigation as a precondition of site

alteration.

They enable delegation of statutory powers, and they improve

compliance and enforcement tools, all of which are things that need to

happen. When you think

an act that hasn’t had anything done for 25

years…. I think its time has come. I think that probably the members

from the Peace country would probably appreciate that part of this act

is also dealing with paleontology finds, which is dinosaurs.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s what we’ve said. That’s what it said. So I think that’s

really important. That’s what it says in the bill that I read. I think

it’s important to acknowledge that.

[3:10 p.m.]

Okay. We’ll just leave it at that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s great that this is generating conversation. It’s unfortunate

that the members opposite had 16 years and did nothing about this. They

let it sit. They did nothing. I mean, the act has remained exactly the

way it was since the ’90s, which is 25 years ago.

It’s true that the First Nations have been calling for amendments

to this act. It’s really important. These amendments seek to resolve

some of the recognized issues with the act, for more focused and

meaningful change. I think that’s really important. I think it’s good

that the minister is finally…. The ministry has said that we need to

bring this act in, that it’s important. It’s critical for archaeological

sites across the province, for heritage sites.

I think that I’m very pleased to support this bill, and I hope the

House will join me in also supporting the bill, because it is of

critical importance.

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to rise to provide some comments on and speak to Bill

14, the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act.

To open my comments, I’d just say — as my colleague from Nechako

Lakes did, as well, and I think it’s fair to say all members of the

House agree — and recognize that it’s important to preserve our past and

to ensure that that past, whether it’s stories or artifacts or

implements, is preserved and helps support that history and stories that

are so much a part of our history here in the province.

Coming from a family that currently continues to farm our heritage

farm…. It’s 127 years we’ve been on the property. My brother owns and

operates the farm now for the family and is doing his continued

contribution towards heritage preservation by preserving heritage

buildings on the property by actually moving — I forget the total count

now; I think it’s maybe three or four — heritage barns from other

properties, as properties are being sold, onto the property and

incorporating them into the farm operation.

It is important that we do this, and we have to do it as a

society: ensure that we’re all working together to protect the heritage

sites and the objectives of the heritage act. I think, in response to

the member opposite, it is not fair to say that nothing has been done.

We have worked hard — we did, as government — to preserve a number of

sites. In fact, I was involved in a number of those sites, recollecting

issues like the Marpole midden and Grace Islet, where government had to

come in and, at cost, take steps to ensure that those sites were

protected and preserved.

It is interesting to look at the amendments that are being

proposed here. I think it’s more important to look at what’s not here,

as opposed to what is in in the legislation, in the amendments, because

I recall, as minister being responsible for the legislation, that the

real call from the members opposite, when they were in opposition, was

for the appropriate funding to be put in place to support the

preservation of these sites and work.

I recall and have looked at the legislation, the private member’s

bill that was introduced, I think at least a couple of times, by the

former MLA from Esquimalt, Maurine Karagianis, who proposed amendments

to the legislation. She was very passionate about it. A key element of

the private member’s bills that she put forward was the establishment of

a First Nations protection program.

[3:15 p.m.]

If you look at the bill, it would require the minister to

establish a provincial program for preserving and protecting First

Nations heritage sites, remains and objects. The program will make funds

available to local governments for the protection of the First Nations

heritage sites. The Lieutenant-Governor would do a number of different

things — procedures for administering the program, requirements for

funding applications and funding maximums under the programs.

The approach, and not just in the private member’s legislation

that was brought forward but also in other representations that were

made, was that there should be the appropriate funding made available in

order to support the objectives of the Heritage Conservation Act when

those circumstances come into play where those values need to be

protected and preserved and that those costs shouldn’t be borne by the

private landowner.

What we see in this legislation, in these amendments, is that

principle that they advocated so strongly for is not here in these

amendments that are before us. I also recall, in representation in the

House, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, the Green Party as

well, calling for that kind of funding to be put in place as well. Very

clearly, it is not included in this legislation.

My colleague for Nechako Lakes also referenced the issue around

the call at that time for amendments to the Cemetery Act to prevent

building or activity on known cemeteries and sites as well. That’s not

in this legislation as well — missing parts to this legislation that I

think are really critical. It’s an area that certainly will be explored

in the committee stage on the bill.

What we’re really seeing is an approach that adds significant

additional powers for the minister, additional powers for officials to

authorize officials to enter property, sweeping powers to talk about how

permits could be cancelled, changed, altered — amending them, suspending

them, cancelling. All of those kinds of steps that are added in these

amendments….

So much of this legislation, or proposed amendments, is left to

future regulation about how it’s going to be implemented with these new

powers and new authorities. I can recall, at many occasions and many

times, the members opposite, when they were in opposition, lamenting and

really criticizing us at the time for leaving so much in regulation and

not in the legislation — leaving it till afterwards when those details

and the implementation provisions will be made clearer at that point in

the enabling nature of the legislation.

Really, what we have here are increased authorities, powers under

the legislation. But we don’t have that balance in the approach. We

don’t have the certainty for private property owners. So in many cases,

the situations will result in developments that can’t proceed, in

renovations that may not be able to proceed for specific buildings or

properties. Or outbuildings on the sites may impact negatively the use

of the property, that potential. All of this cost is expected to be

borne by the individual property owner.

[3:20 p.m.]

I think it’s a bit of a pattern that we’re starting to see from

this government when you look at the approach of a speculation tax on

cabins, if you look at the ALR provisions where farmers and ranchers are

now determined not to be persons for purposes of making applications.

It’s a little bit more that all of government knows the best way to do

this.

Ultimately, the responsibility and the obligations in these

situations are going to fall to the property owners — the duty to report

under the legislation. One of the challenges in that is if there isn’t

the balance in the process, then in many cases…. Owners, in some cases,

will be reluctant to report those provisions because they don’t see the

balance in the approach here.

So worthy goals in the legislation, in the amendments, but again,

with the powers that are added to it yet to be defined, in many cases,

in regulation, it causes a lot of concerns. The balance and the approach

in the legislation will cause a lot of very significant concerns for

private property owners.

As we have said, we really do believe in and support the

preservation of those values, particularly First Nations’ values, in

British Columbia. But I think that as we will go through the committee

stage, we’ll see that the balance is not here in this legislation and

that it really does shift and download those responsibilities and costs

onto individual property owners without the balance being

provided.

I know that the archaeological branch within the ministry does a

great job — 54,000 registered sites. I think they deal with somewhere

over 500,000 applications, permits, alterations on an annual basis. They

do a great job in the work that they do and play a very, very important

role.

But when the balance isn’t there in the legislation…. That balance

has been called for previously by the members opposite in private

members’ bills, in representation in the House during debate and during

question period — approaches by both the members opposite who are now in

government and the member for the Green Party at the time, as well,

calling for the need to have that protection fund in place that helps

those individual property owners in those circumstances. This

legislation doesn’t provide for that.

I know there will be questions in the committee stage. I look

forward to hearing the responses from the minister during that portion

of the debate. I appreciate the opportunity to make these few comments

on the legislation that’s before us.

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s my honour to stand and speak to Bill 14, the Heritage

Conservation Amendment Act, a long-overdue piece of legislation. I think

we all notionally recognize that in order to know who we are and where

we come from, and part of shaping where we’re going, we need to know our

history. We need to know the history of other people who’ve lived in

this place since time immemorial. This act focuses on how we can

conserve the aspects of heritage that contribute to that

history.

Whether you’re a new Canadian — and I’m a first-generation

Canadian — who has just moved to beautiful B.C. or an Indigenous person

with roots here for millennia, we all have an interest in protecting and

conserving our heritage and important archaeological sites.

Strengthening protection for archaeological sites is a key and critical

part of reconciliation and a key part of implementing the UN declaration

on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

[3:25 p.m.]

If we don’t protect historically significant sites, then we rob

from children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and future generations

the ability and the tools to learn the story, the unfolding and ongoing

story of the land and the place where we live. That’s why I’m proud to

stand here today and speak in support of the bill, the first update to

the Heritage Conservation Act in 20 years.

I reflect with both interest and some bemusement on the comments

from the member for Nechako Lakes and the member for Kelowna-Mission

who, on the one hand, recognized the very important aspects contained in

this bill — the importance of heritage, the respect the former minister

and now MLA for Kelowna-Mission has for the heritage conservation branch

and the goals — but say that somehow we haven’t got it right.

At the same time, we’re actually bringing in long-overdue changes

to enhance the ability to protect and conserve critical aspects of

British Columbia’s history and heritage, particularly those for

Indigenous nations. Members opposite have said we’ve made this a

responsibility of private landowners and we haven’t done any of the

things or put any of the funding in place that they think is important

to protecting and conserving heritage.

In listening to that, I reflect on much of what I have heard over

the past 20 months, as a minister, from Indigenous people not just here

but from around the world when I travel as part of climate discussions.

People talk about what the changes that are happening to their homes,

that impact their culture — the changes that happen to the traditional

ways of life, the artifacts that reflect that traditional way of life

and even the language, the loss of the language as the result of changes

on the landscape — mean to them and the loss of something that’s

irreplaceable.

That’s why our government committed $50 million to restoration of

Indigenous languages as an important part of essentially funding

important aspects of heritage and conservation that are intrinsically

part of the language that reflects the history of Indigenous peoples in

British Columbia.

In my ministry, we have worked closely with Indigenous nations

around recognizing their interest, their role and their history in

provincial parks through naming, though partnership agreements and

through ongoing discussions with them about areas of critical importance

to them, as well as areas that are currently within provincial parks

where we can take measures to protect important historical and cultural

values.

I appreciate that the role of opposition is to question and to

oppose. That is an important role for opposition, and it’s to be

respected. I would also respectfully say that we’ve done more than put

words on paper here. We’ve put money in many places to back it up. We’ve

put policies in place to respect heritage, particularly for Indigenous

peoples, and we’ll continue to do so.

This bill places greater protections in the hands of all of us

collectively, of government, and gives the Ministry of Forests, Lands,

Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development enhanced powers around

permitting to be used when needed. As the minister pointed out, these

are flexible powers of permitting. They can be tailored to the

particular circumstances of individual finds, individual

landholdings.

But it’s important to be able to ensure that we speak to

landholders or tenure holders when there is the potential to restore or

destroy something that is irreplaceable and fundamental to the culture

of this land and to the history that we all benefit from, because

without that history, we can’t shape a viable future.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

We have about 500 permits a year coming to the B.C. archaeological

branch, and this oversight is crucial to ensuring that there is

government involvement in discovery and reporting of sites that might

have heritage value and that we have measures in place that require

these reports to be made.

[3:30 p.m.]

I appreciate the comments from the member opposite that there may

be a disincentive, but I think during committee stage, those questions

can be canvassed thoroughly.

I’m proud that this bill has the support of Indigenous nations in

British Columbia, because the measures in it are a significant part of

our commitment to implementing the UN declaration on the rights of

Indigenous people. It’s a first step to addressing some of the known

issues that exist with the act, and staff in the archaeology branch will

continue to engage on an ongoing basis with Indigenous nations. But it

is important to take those steps, because those steps could have been

taken in the last 16 years yet weren’t.

Obviously, this bill is about Indigenous heritage, but it’s also

about other forms of heritage. When I walk through my own riding, I’m

often struck by what has been preserved in the short history of the

colonization of that area and the inhabitation of the area which I

represent.

In Vancouver, there is a group that conducts what’s called Jane’s

Walk to learn about the history of the place in which we live. Many

times when I have participated on those walks, I have learned so much

about what once was in the area we know as Vancouver, some of which you

can still see traces of, much of which has disappeared forever, and a

portion of which the city of Vancouver, other governments in other parts

of British Columbia and their areas and all of us, as well as the

provincial government, can assist in restoring.

It’s critically important that we know something about where we

live. Otherwise, we can’t understand what was lost or what steps we can

take to rebuild and replace.

I think about families that lived here for generations. I think

about my parents, who came to Canada to find a safer place and a

prosperous future for them and their children. They were interested in

learning about the place that they had chosen to call home. They spent a

considerable amount of time with their children, encouraging us to learn

the same.

We have a duty to people who were here before us, to remember what

they did to live their lives, to live in harmony with the land and the

resources around them and also what they did to create a modern province

in which we now live and from which, in many respects, we benefit. We

have a responsibility to learn from them and their history so that we

can create a better future for everyone.

Staff in the ministry will be able to work more effectively with

additional compliance and enforcement tools to ensure that our heritage

is not interfered with or lost forever. The requirements to report

discoveries are critical to this, and the ability of FLNRO staff to

apply conditions and permitting to protect important heritage values and

the flexibility to adapt those to particular communities is critically

important.

Going forward, if any person or group wishes to proceed with

alterations or developments to a site where there isn’t sufficient

information about the heritage value, they may be required to work to do

a heritage investigation before they can receive the site alteration

permit. That’s important, because if that isn’t in place, we will far

too often, as we do now, discover after the fact and too late that

things that can never be replaced have been destroyed and that it

needn’t happen.

It’s not necessarily the case, as members opposite have said, that

these may involve costs. In fact, they may potentially involve fewer

costs by not requiring rehabilitation or remedial action. It’s about

applying a principle of knowledge and precaution to ensure that what we

value, and what we have a responsibility to protect, we actually value

and protect in action and through legislation.

The investigations will lead to better decision-making and better

protection of heritage property. We know that Indigenous nations were

concerned about the lack of investigation. I’m glad that we have

amendments to the act to address this issue, and that is why there is

support from Indigenous nations.

[3:35 p.m.]

Under these changes, people will now be legally required to report

discoveries of objects that might have heritage value. The only way

we’re going to know is if we know enough to take a look. Without this

mandatory reporting, an untold number of objects that hold historical

significance could disappear forever, as has, in fact, been the case now

for decades.

It’s an honour to support this bill. I’m pleased and proud that

our government has brought it forward, and I look forward to continued

debate.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands.

[Applause.]

A. Olsen: Well, thank you to the member for Chilliwack-Kent. That was a

robust welcome from the members opposite. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 14,

the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act. This is an issue which is of

specific importance to me, to my family and to my people, the WSÁNEĆ

people. As many who have been following the news in this province may

recognize, my family, my relatives and my extended relatives here on the

south coast were involved in a very emotional and, at times, bitter

situation on Grace Islet, off Saltspring Island. I think it was

2013-2014.

This is a situation in which gravesites that had been known for a

very long time had a house constructed on them. It was deemed to be okay

to take those grave middens and encase them in concrete and continue to

build a private home, a vacation home directly overtop of the final

resting place of our Coast Salish ancestors. I don’t know of a time or a

place in which that would be acceptable in this province, elsewhere. I

don’t know that you could imagine doing a similar kind of act or a

similar kind of thing at a cemetery, say, for example.

It exposed, in this province, something that Indigenous people

have known for a very long time: that there are two sets of standards in

this province. It’s unfortunate, it’s sad, and it’s incredibly

frustrating.

I know that my family members who were on the Tsartlip council at

the time…. When the first application for permits came in and they

bitterly opposed it, they were told that since there was only one of the

dozens of First Nations actually opposing or that had actually submitted

a response to the notification, there wasn’t sufficient evidence to show

that people cared. So it proceeded. We had a situation in which the

government of British Columbia watched over, through their process, a

situation in which known gravesites, known sacred places, were

desecrated and were built on.

I don’t know who would want to live in a house overtop of a

gravesite, but that was the case in this province, and it was one which

was incredibly frustrating over the months and months and months that we

were told that, simply, the minister could not get a mandate to act. The

minister could not get the authority to actually act, to intervene in

this desecration.

I ask the members here today to simply imagine a scenario. Just

imagine a scenario where one of your ancestors, one of your

grandparents’ graves…. It was being proposed that their gravesite was

going to have a house built on it, and it was returned that the only

thing that needed to happen in order for that to occur would be for

those gravesites to be encased in concrete, and then you could go ahead

and build right over top of that. Again, I don’t think that there is a

situation in which anybody would consider, in any way, this kind of

behaviour or activity taking place overtop of a known

cemetery.

[3:40 p.m.]

When the member for Kelowna-Mission mentioned that the member for

Saanich North and the Islands wanted to see the Cemetery Act changed, he

does so with great knowledge. It was a conversation between him and I,

that we had, where we talked about the need to provide greater

protection for Indigenous heritage sites, for gravesites, for the final

resting place of our ancestors and, indeed, for the sacred places and

the artifacts — or items of cultural significance, as I prefer to call

them.

That is something which has inspired me and propelled me,

actually, into this place. It was my involvement in that Grace Islet

story where I worked alongside the former member who held this seat, who

represented the beautiful riding of Saanich North and the Islands, Gary

Holman, who did a phenomenal job of standing up in this place during

question period and asking questions of that minister.

It was that work both in this place and outside of this place,

which I was able to do, that helped bring attention to this situation.

So to see that this bill is coming forward and that aspects of the

concern that was raised back then are being addressed in this bill, Bill

14…. For that, I raise my hands. I’m thankful to see the work is

starting.

It’s important, I think, to just note that it’s a start, because

the work on this bill is not complete. It’s been acknowledged in a

briefing that we received that, yes, this is indeed just the first piece

of work that can be done.

Going through the bill…. The sections that require the duty to

report a discovery. The opportunity for the province to increase

heritage protection. The very, very detailed ways that they can protect

the heritage and do investigations to ensure that they’re able to take a

look at the property much closer, to inspect it. The power to issue and

amend permits. And then a whole host of ways for the minister to be able

to have authority over those permits. Indeed, these are very important

ways that this bill, the Heritage Conservation Act, has been

strengthened with this amendment.

Entry and inspection. The fact that the minister can or the

minister can ensure that somebody can — not meaning that the minister

has go to the place and enter on to the premises and inspect, which I

think is the current situation. A pretty busy person to be doing that

kind of work. I think that the opportunity to be able to go in, enter

the property and see what’s actually on site is important.

This bill, in many respects, does strengthen the current

legislation that we have in place. There are some aspects of this which

I think it’s important to raise. It’s been noted here that First Nations

communities or Indigenous communities have been engaged and that First

Nations have been engaged on this. I’ve become aware, though, that there

has been some criticism with the process of this. I think that some

frustration has been expressed that the First Nations Leadership Council

was not engaged more thoroughly and, perhaps, maybe individual First

Nations.

I think it’s important that as we proceed, we honour the fact that

Indigenous communities have established a leadership structure. It’s not

a perfect leadership structure. There are a lot of challenges with it,

and I think that would be acknowledged both from the perspective of this

place but also from the perspective of an Indigenous person who has

tried to navigate First Nations politics. It’s tough. But Indigenous

people do have a leadership structure, and it’s important that it be

fully engaged in these processes — that not just individual First

Nations but the leadership that’s acknowledged and recognized by

Indigenous people be honoured and be included in this.

[3:45 p.m.]

It’s my understanding that they’re expressing disappointment and

frustration that they have not been, in their terms, adequately

consulted on this. I think further to that, though, it’s important to

acknowledge that they also express the fact that they don’t necessarily

disagree, as I’ve stated, with these amendments. These are needed

amendments, and I think that the First Nations communities will look at

these amendments and generally, if not wholeheartedly, agree that these

are good amendments. But they certainly don’t go far enough, nor do they

go far enough fast enough, from my personal perspective.

This is not a new process. This is not a process which has just

started in the last 24 months. This is a process that has been underway

with the provincial government now for many decades, indeed for more

than a century. So 1865 was the first bill; 1867 was an amendment, 1925,

1960, 1977, the 1990s. Now we’re taking a look at it again.

I think back in the 1990s, they instituted

section

Section 4 of

the current act talks about agreements with First Nations. This is where

First Nations in the province may enter into a formal agreement with

respect to the conservation and protection of their heritage sites. This

has been, I believe, in the act since the 1990s, this

section

In a 2012 document called the First Nations Heritage

Conservation Action Plan …. The Indigenous leadership of the

province pulled together the chiefs. They started their own process.

They pulled together the First Nations communities, and they wanted to

ask them: how is it that we can strengthen heritage conservation in this

province? One of the aspects of this was to begin to enter into formal

agreements with the province.

The provincial government, over the last 20 years, has disputed

this process and has frustrated this process. Indeed, to this day, First

Nations and Indigenous communities are still complaining that even

though there’s a pilot project underway, we still have yet to achieve

any kind of action on

section 4, these agreements with First

Nations.

I think that it’s important to acknowledge the long history in

this province, and that’s perhaps why we have a Heritage Conservation

Act. This is, indeed, a long history. Well, it’s a very short long

history, but it’s a long history between Indigenous peoples and the

newcomers to this province, still relatively new.

I think it’s important that as we start to move towards the United

Nation’s declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, as we move

towards the implementation of that, we understand within it that the

relationship between First Nations, Indigenous people in this province

is changing, and I think that we should be embracing that change. Many

of the articles within the UNDRIP are articles that protect these very

aspects that we’re talking about, the ancestral remains — just as

everybody in this place wants to have the ancestral remains from their

family lineages to be protected and honoured, to not be built on, to not

be unnecessarily dug up and disturbed.

I understand that this province has a much, much longer history.

We’re going to find things, but it’s how we respond to the things that

we find that I think is most important. It’s the things that we have

found, the way that we behave when we have found them, that I think

really sends a message to Indigenous people in this province.

If we are going to say, “We acknowledge that place. We acknowledge

that it’s sacred to you. We acknowledge that your ancestors are buried

there, and we are going to allow you to build on it anyway,” that sends

a message that no matter how many times we stand in this place and no

matter how many times we stand outside this place, exactly what the

relationship with Indigenous peoples means to the people within this

place.

I stood in this House, and I acknowledged and was very thankful. I

raised my hands to the important investment that was made with respect

to Indigenous languages. When we talk about reconciliation, I think that

it’s important to understand there are a couple areas in which there was

a definitive attempt to detach Indigenous people from their cultures in

the past.

[3:50 p.m.]

One of those was through the removal of Indigenous languages.

Another was through the removal of sacred objects that were part of that

culture or making illegal the sun dance on the prairies and in eastern

Canada and the potlatch here on the west coast. By making those illegal

and not allowing Indigenous people to openly associate with those

important cultural rituals and ceremonies…. Very much the same, by the

way, as the ceremony that undertakes the authority of this place — that

I am standing here speaking to a speaker, that I’m standing here

speaking to this House through a speaker. It’s very similar to the

Indigenous culture that I come from with the WSÁNEĆ people — not too

different.

I think that it’s important to acknowledge that the second step

forward that we could be taking when it comes to reconciliation is

through the protection of heritage sites and through the conservation

and protection of important items of cultural significance. By returning

these items, by making it much simpler for Indigenous people to protect

their ancestors, packaging that with the important investments that both

this government and the federal government have made to Indigenous

languages, we start to make real, remarkable steps forward when it comes

to reconciliation.

These are the actions behind reconciliation, so I’m happy to stand

today to see that the work that was done at Grace Islet did indeed

protect that island. I’m happy to stand today and proud to be the now

member for Saanich North and the Islands, where we see one of the first

pieces of work done on this important bill, this piece of legislation

that is incredibly important for me, my family and my extended family,

our relatives across the province.

I look forward to continuing to work with the minister to ensure

that some of the criticisms that have been made about the process in

this can be repaired, because there still is much work to be done, as

was mentioned by the member on the opposite side.

I think that there is an opportunity here, a very positive

opportunity, for this government to embrace the action of reconciliation

by partnering the substantive investments that it made in reconnecting

Indigenous people with their languages with the repatriation and the

protection, so that we’re not just going to museums and visiting —

visiting — our items of cultural significance, but that they are back in

our communities and that they have their rightful place within our

ceremony, within our ritual and within our families like they’re always

supposed to.

With that, I’m going to take my seat. I thank the minister for the

work done so far. I look forward to the work yet to be done, and I’m

happy to support Bill 14, this amendment to the Heritage Conservation

Act.

HÍSW̱ḴE

SIÁM .

D. Barnett: I rise today to speak to Bill 14, the Heritage Conservation

Amendment Act.

It is safe to say that everyone in this House agrees that it is

important to preserve the past, to celebrate it and to learn from it.

This is critical for the entire province, and it is important for First

Nations in British Columbia. We must, as a society, ensure we are all

working together protecting heritage sites and objects.

That is one and just the first reason the legislation we are

debating today is such a disappointment. When they were on the opposite

side of the House, members of the NDP shared a lot of righteous

indignation and bold ideas about what needed to happen to protect sites

and artifacts. They called for the establishment of a First Nations

heritage protection program that would fund local governments to help

them protect sacred sites in their communities. The ideas didn’t make it

into the legislation in front of us today.

[3:55 p.m.]

Back when they sat on this side of the House, the NDP called for

changes in legislation so a First Nations burial site would be protected

in the same way as any cemetery in B.C. It’s a protection, with a ban on

building. Now that they are in government, the NDP has either failed to

act or chosen not to act and left that ban out of this bill.

In opposition, the NDP wanted the government to purchase private

property to halt development near a First Nations archaeological site.

But the legislation we are debating today offers no plans or mechanisms

for the province to step in and compensate private property owners if

they are forced to sell their property after the discovery of a heritage

site or object.

This failure to deliver on their own demands is merely the first

failure of this bill. This bill is also a failure in its erosion of any

sense of balance when it comes to protections, all while layering new

costs, potentially steep, on private land owners.

This legislation further downloads the costs for site

investigations and archaeological studies onto unsuspecting property

owners. Let’s say a local farmer wants to add to her barn. That barn has

been there for a long time. It and the land have been in the family for

generations. A decision, one assumes by someone in Victoria, could

unilaterally decide that, in order to add to the family barn, an

expensive and intensive archaeological study is required. That barn, on

active farmland worked for generations, just got more

expensive.

Lately the minister responsible for this legislation has been

labelling any challenge to plans as fearmongering. Sadly, this bill

seems to be, like so much of this government’s legislation, based on a

belief that people will just have to have blind faith in anything this

government does. That is because, once again, we have before this House

hollow-shell legislation up for debate. I call it hollow shell because

so much of it is to be revealed at a later date and, as usual, developed

behind closed doors.

It’s critical to have certainty for dealing with issues like land

and possible heritage values, but the bill offers no certainty, except

that landowners will be stuck with large bills. Once again, we have a

bill that talks about worthy goals — protecting key heritage sites — but

offers little in the way of details on how it will be done, except for

imposing costs on the owners of the private land.

Too many aspects of this bill — including how to define classes of

properties, persons, sites, objects, circumstances or areas, classes of

heritage properties and more — are left undefined. All that we get is a

promise of regulations to come at a later date. Only then, we get the

details. Of course, those details will not be subject to debate in this

chamber, nor will they face any sort of public consultation process.

They will simply be dumped on unexpecting private land owners. The

public deserves better and deserves to know how the government plans to

carry out these charges.

Bill 14 offers up a top-down, Victoria-knows-best ap­proach

with its planned expansion of government’s power to conduct site

searches and intrusive investigations on private property. Well, they

managed to squeeze in details about that.

Still, the legislation is not just top down. It’s also

heavy-handed in its approach. The bill will allow authorized officials,

to be defined later, to enter land if there is reason to believe that

lands or premises have heritage value in an object or in the site

itself. They can come onto someone’s property to inspect, to take

samples and to request identification of individuals. These officials

will be allowed to issue warrants to search premises and seize evidence,

if needed.

While these sweeping powers are outlined, little about how they

will be monitored and used is to be found in this bill. I will

definitely be asking for information on what seems like a heritage

police force during committee stage.

[4:00 p.m.]

As an opposition, we are also concerned about new powers for the

minister. Under this bill, landowners and project proponents who are

working away under an approved permit and moving forward in good faith

can be, if this bill becomes law, stopped dead in their tracks. The

government has taken on sweeping powers to amend, suspend or even cancel

permits already granted to alter a heritage site. Even with a permit

already approved and granted, there is no certainty.

Building a province and building a future for working families

requires certainty, and this bill is an attack on certainty. When you

think about what this government is doing with the speculation tax and

with their changes to the Agricultural Land Commission — the changes

that will declare farmers are no longer persons who can apply to the ALC

for a decision — one wouldn’t be far from the mark to suspect that

government is leading an attack on the nature of private property

itself.

Make no mistake. On this side of the House, we believe in the

protection of heritage values, of artifacts and sites. All of us believe

in the preservation of B.C.’s cultural values and those of First Nations

in B.C., but this legislation fails to establish the balance and the

certainty required to ensure that protection happens in a reasonable and

responsible way. I look forward to asking for clarification about this

bill at committee stage.

G. Kyllo: It’s always a pleasure to rise in the House and respond to the

current bill that’s before us, on behalf of the hard-working

constituents of Shuswap.

Regarding the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, it was

interesting listening to the member opposite — the member from the Green

Party, the Third Party, for Saanich North and the Islands — when he

referenced some of his concerns around the protection of Grace Islet.

That was where there was an actual burial site that was

identified.

Although the legislation doesn’t necessarily always fit every

instance or occurrence around the province, I’ve got to give thanks, I

think, where credit is due. The folks at the heritage branch did an

amazing job. It was the previous government that came to the aid of the

folks that were concerned, the First Nations that were impacted, and

looked at funding the actual purchase of that island. That was under the

former Minister of FLNRO, the member for Kelowna-Mission.

Obviously, British Columbians are very concerned about the

importance of preserving the heritage and history of our province. I

think it’s always an opportunity to celebrate, in that we have an

opportunity to learn from our past. It’s important for society and

extremely important for First Nations in B.C., who have resided on these

lands for thousands of years. As a society, it’s imperative that we work

together to understand, acknowledge and work together to pro­tect

and preserve heritage sites and objects in our province.

It’s interesting that the NDP, when in opposition, called for a

number of bold movements in order to further protect and enhance the

heritage protection act, for the legislation that is now before this

House. Unfortunately, the current bill seems to be devoid of many of the

things that they spoke of in opposition. I think it’d be interesting to

hear, from the current government, why those items and issues that were

of great concern when they were in opposition somehow are void and

neglected from being brought forward in this current

legislation.

One of the items they called for — it was actually spoken about

previously by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin — was the establishment

of a First Nations heritage protection program that would, among other

things, fund local governments to help protect sacred sites in our

province. Again, no inclusion in this current bill. In our collective

history, the heritage of our province is just extremely important. It’s

important for society, and it’s important as an opportunity for us to

protect what’s in the public interest. Preserving our past and

acknowledging the previous uses of our lands and items of significant

heritage value — those are deemed to be in the public

interest.

[4:05 p.m.]

I certainly appreciate and, I think, value that need, but what we

are seeing here is that the protection of those interests, which is in

the public purview, is being undertaken to be protected at the cost of

the private landowner. I think that that’s an area that should be

canvassed and could be discussed as part of the debate on this current

bill.

Obviously, we respect our First Nations communities, their use of

the lands, especially where there is significant evidence of previous

use of particular areas. Where those are identified and we have a need

to provide protection of those lands, why should it be at the expense of

the sole property owner? If the need or value, I guess, in the public

interest is for the general society, why is it that those costs are

borne specifically by the property owner? Those sorts of issues are very

concerning to me as a member representing constituents of Shuswap and, I

think, should also be something of concern both to government and, of

course, to us as opposition.

As we see increased powers being given to the minister

responsible, we need to make sure that those additional responsibilities

and powers are actually canvassed here in this House and are not left

for government to decide behind closed doors and to develop through

regulation.

The opportunity for British Columbians to be aware of the changes

to the legislation…. Especially when it comes to improved or increased

powers for the minister to intervene and make decisions and rulings

around potentially rescinding permits or altering permits that are

already issued, it’s very important that the details of scenarios and

circumstances under which those might be undertaken are canvassed in the

House, where the general public have an opportunity to fully understand

what it is that the government is intending to do.

We certainly see concerns about what’s been canvassed in the news

media about potential erosion of property rights in B.C. We have

certainly seen increased concerns about capital investment in our

province. When you look at the ability for businesses to have a clear

and concise determination around project timelines, anything that builds

on additional uncertainty doesn’t help to attract capital to our

province. I think this is yet another means where it is not sending the

right signal to our business and investment community. If I may, this

legislation, I believe, is weak. It leaves far too many

definitions to

be decided and set by government, devoid of further debate or public

scrutiny in t