Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 3, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 222

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Speaker’s Statement

Sign language

interpretation of House proceedings

Introductions by Members

By-Election Results

MLA for Surrey South

K. Falcon

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 27 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022

Hon. M. Rankin

Bill 28 — Municipal Affairs Statutes (Property Taxation) Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. N. Cullen

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Protests in response to death of Mahsa Amini

S. Chant

Experience of parent of child with autism

K. Kirkpatrick

Municipal elections

M. Dykeman

Breast cancer screening and awareness

S. Bond

Burke Mountain secondary-middle school project

F. Donnelly

Autism Speaks Canada Walk event in Richmond-Vancouver area

T. Wat

Speaker’s Statement

Cat for Legislature

Oral Questions

Government action on issues in health care system and role of Health Minister

K. Falcon

Hon. A. Dix

S. Bond

Accountability for issues in health care system

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Call for all-party working group on health care

S. Furstenau

Hon. J. Horgan

Government action on issues in health care system and role of Health Minister

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. A. Dix

T. Stone

P. Milobar

Petitions

J. Rustad

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, independent audit report, Oversight of Major

Mines: Policies and Procedures to Address Environmental

Risks , June 2022

Office of the Auditor General, independent audit report, B.C.’s COVID-19

Response: Community Economic Resilience Grants , June

Office of the Auditor General, annual report, 2021-22

Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, annual report, 2021

Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, an opinion pursuant to

section

19(1) of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, August 30,

Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, annual report, 2021-22, and service plan, 2022-23–2024-25

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, annual report, 2021-22

Office of the registrar of lobbyists for B.C., annual report, 2021-22

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, report, A Parent’s

Responsibility: Government’s Obligation to Improve the Mental

Health Outcomes of Children in Care , September 2022

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, annual report, 2021-22, and service plan, 2022-23–2024-25

B.C. Electoral Boundaries Commission, preliminary report, October 3, 2022

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government Services Committee, Budget 2023

consultations

J. Routledge

K. Kirkpatrick

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. G. Heyman

R. Merrifield

M. Dykeman

S. Chant

D. Coulter

F. Donnelly

Hon. G. Heyman

MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2022

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Speaker’s Statement

SIGN LANGUAGE

INTERPRETATION

OF HOUSE

PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, before we do introductions, as you will see on the

screens around the chamber, we have an American Sign Language

interpreter embedded in the broadcast of the House

proceedings.

This is part of a trial that will continue through the fall

sitting period during routine businesses, until the House reaches orders

of the day. I hope that this addition will make the proceedings of the

House more accessible to individuals in the deaf and hard-of-hearing

community.

I want to express my gratitude to the team of ASL interpreters who

we will be seeing on our screens in the weeks ahead. Their work is

important and valued.

I also want to thank Andrew Spence, chief information officer, as

well as D’Arcy McPherson and Andrew Henry of Hansard Services, along

with their teams, for all that they did to make this a

reality.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: Joining us today in the gallery are Jack Agopian and Vahe Andonian

from the Armenian National Committee. They’re here, of course, for the

opening of the new session and also to raise awareness about the existential

danger and threat to the existence of the Republic of Armenia and the

Republic of Artsakh by Azerbaijani forces.

I ask the House to make them

welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce Emily Page Bishop, who is in the gallery

today. Emily is a new member of our caucus team. She joined us June 1, so

only saw the last day or two of the spring session.

She has an undergraduate degree in international relations from Mount

Allison and a master’s degree from UVic in environment studies with a focus

on political ecology. Emily brings a wealth of skills, talents and energy,

and we are delighted to have her join our caucus team.

Hon. K. Chen: It’s great to be back in this House and seeing everybody again. I just

wanted to introduce a friend who is visiting Victoria for a conference and

joining us for question period today. That is Mike Schilling, the president

and CEO from Community Savings Credit Union. As many members know, the

Community Savings Credit Union was founded by a lot of unionized labourers a

long time ago and continues to stay as a very community-oriented and

labour-friendly credit union.

I would like the House to please welcome Mike and give him a warm

welcome.

I. Paton: I’m proud and pleased today to welcome my son, Tom Paton, and his

fiancé, Clare, and the cutest, quietest little six-month-old baby Natalie,

who is with them. It’s so great to have them here. I think it’s their first

time here at the Legislature.

Would everyone please make Tommy, Clare and

Natalie feel welcome.

A. Singh: It was my daughter Leni’s birthday a few weeks ago. We weren’t

sitting, hence the belated greetings.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there’s a saying in Punjabi.

ਧੀਆਂ ਹਰ ਦੇ ਕਿਸਮਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਿਥੇ ਹੁੰਦੀਆਂ

ਜਿਹਦਾ ਘਰ ਰੱਬ ਨੂੰ ਪਿਆਰਾ

ਹੋਵੇ,

ਧੀਆਂ ਓਥੇ ਹੁੰਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ।

[Punjabi text provided by A.

Singh.]

Loosely translated: “Daughters are not in everyone’s fortune. Only

those houses that God admires above others — that’s where you’ll find a

daughter.”

As I wish my own daughter, Leni, a happy birthday, I’m also thinking

of all the daughters of Iran that are suffering today and hold them in my

heart.

G. Kyllo: We’re joined in the gallery today by a close friend of mine, Chad

Eliason from Salmon Arm. Chad was first elected to Salmon Arm council at the

age of 27. After 17 years of service, he decided not to choose to run again

in this year’s municipal elections. Chad also has a large mortgage brokerage

company in Salmon Arm. A great advocate of all things local in the Salmon

Arm area.

Would the House please welcome Chad to the House.

M. Lee: It gives me great pleasure to welcome back to the House Dave Hayer,

the MLA for Surrey-Tynehead. He was elected first in 2001, 2005 and 2009. He

served as the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism and Immigration

from 2005 to 2011.

Many of you in this House know Dave well, and his passion and

commitment and heart for the community is without equal, particularly in the

Surrey community.

Thank you, Dave, for all of the advice and guidance you’ve given to

many of us, including myself, over the years.

Will you please, all members, join me in making Dave Hayer feel

welcome in this House again.

Mr. Speaker: Premier.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, please continue.

M. Lee: I meant to say: get the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition to sit

down.

I’d like to introduce my new constituency assistant, Teddy O’Donnell.

He’s here in the House with Tiana. They’re on their break for an important

anniversary, and so they took time off to witness the new MLA for Surrey

South coming into this House today. But also, welcome to Teddy. He also has

a big heart for community.

I look forward to working with you in Vancouver-Langara in my

community office.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for Langara for ceding the floor.

I want to join with him in welcoming Dave Hayer back to the precinct.

I’m just wondering, hon. Speaker, if you’re going to recognize him for a

two-minute statement, because no one made more two-minute statements in the

time I was a colleague with Dave than he did.

So good to see you. Welcome back.

Mr. Speaker: And nobody has more business cards than he has.

[1:40 p.m.]

K. Falcon: Yes, I did indeed see the terror in the Queen’s Printer staff when

they saw David in the precinct again.

I do want to also just echo an introduction that was made by one of my

colleagues, for Chad Eliason. You know, 17 years in local government is a

big commitment, and I think it’s important that we recognize those folks —

whether provincial, federal, local — that make the commitment to spend time

in public life. It is a sacrifice, for sure.

I know that Chad served on the board of the Union of B.C.

Municipalities and municipal insurance boards. Some of his key initiatives,

I think, are worth mentioning, because often people forget: the first

community, in 2006, to offer free bus rides for children, free passes for

children, for kids; curbside collection, all the recycling waste and

composts — again, one of Chad’s initiatives. Chad was a founding member of

the Shuswap Trail Alliance.

He’s done a lot for Salmon Arm. He’s done a lot of public service. I’d

like the House to recognize the contribution he’s made.

Hon. B. Ma: I would like to welcome to the Legislature today somebody who is

watching question period from inside the Legislature for the very first

time: my former constituency assistant, Mack McCorkindale, who is now

working as an executive assistant for the Minister Responsible for

Housing.

I felt it was important to make this introduction, because I actually

saw him outside of the chambers just briefly in a very well fitted suit and

tie, and I thought: “You know, Mack, you worked for me for five years, and

you never wore a suit and tie for me.” I don’t know what happened when you

got here, but the Minister for Housing is very, very fortunate to have

you.

Would the House, please welcome him to the Legislature.

Hon. N. Simons: I just want to recognize all workers for B.C. Ferries, but one, in

particular, who is retiring after 38 years in the catering department on the

ferry that serves the Sunshine Coast and joins the upper coast to the lower

coast. I have to say that after 38 years, I’ll miss him for our

conversations about politics. It just made the trip a little bit shorter, no

less expensive. He has been a committed worker, one who we’ve all

appreciated.

Lawrence Behan, congratulations on your retirement.

T. Stone: Well, everyone in this chamber knows that we wouldn’t be here and

couldn’t do what we do if we didn’t have tremendous and loving support back

home. It’s really our families that stand behind us and put up with the time

away and the scrutiny and maybe the mood changes and whatnot. I’ll speak for

myself on that one.

I am thrilled that my wife, Chantelle, is here today. It has been a

number of years. We have very busy daughters — 18, 16 and almost 13. She has

been an incredible support to me throughout the 22 years that we’ve been

married. We’ve been together for 25 years. She loves politics, and I thank

my lucky stars every day that she never runs against me, because she would

clean my clock. There’s no question about it.

Most importantly, she’s a great mom and a wonderful person with a huge

heart. I love you very much.

Thanks for being here, Chantelle.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that her sister Marie is here,

as well, with her boyfriend Shane. I’m thrilled that they’ve moved to

Victoria, so I’ll get to see them a little bit more these days.

Welcome to both Marie and Shane as well.

H. Yao: As we know, we weren’t sitting last week, so I’ll take a moment to

wish my father his happy 75th birthday.

My father, Kirby Peou Yao, has

always been on my side. When I was not elected and was running in the

community and advocating, he was probably one of the few people who still

thought I had a slight bit of hope or had any kind of potential. I want to

take a moment to thank my father and thank my friends for all their

support.

Happy 75th birthday.

[1:45 p.m.]

By-Election Results

MLA FOR SURREY SOUTH

Mr. Speaker: Now I call on Madam Clerk to read the certification letter from

the Chief Electoral Officer regarding the by-election in Surrey

South.

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly:

September 21, 2022

Hon. Raj Chouhan

Speaker of the Legislative

Assembly

Dear Mr. Speaker:

On April 28, 2022, this office received your warrant advising of a

vacancy in the Legislative Assembly resulting from the resignation of

Stephanie Cadieux, member for the electoral district of Surrey

South.

On direction from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I issued a

writ of election for the electoral district of Surrey South on August

13, 2022, ordering that a by-election be held to fill the vacancy. The

writ specified final voting day to be September 10, 2022.

The by-election was held in accordance with the provisions of the

Election Act , and the completed writ of election has been

returned to me.

In accordance with subsection 147 (2) of the Election

Act , I hereby certify the following individual be elected to serve

as a Member of the Legislative Assembly: Elenore Sturko of the B.C.

Liberal Party for the electoral district of Surrey South.

Sincerely,

Anton Boegman

Chief Electoral

Officer

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer of the

result of the election of the member be entered upon the

Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

K. Falcon: Today at the doors of the chamber, I’m really pleased and excited

to welcome the newest member of the Legislature.

Elenore is a mom. She is a former sergeant with the RCMP, formerly

served in the military and is joined here by her lovely wife, Melissa,

and their three lovely children, who are all here today.

I want to recognize them. I see Henry already grinning up there,

and I see Marin hiding somewhere. And Bill, where are you? There he is.

Bill is up there too, and they’re all here to join her on this very

auspicious occasion. We’re thrilled to have her join our B. C. Liberal

caucus.

More formally, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you

Elenore Sturko, the member for the electoral district of Surrey South,

who has taken the oath, signed the parliamentary roll and now claims her

right to take her seat.

Mr. Speaker: Please proceed. [Applause.]

I welcome the member for Surrey South.

The hon. member for Surrey South took her seat.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 27 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2022

Hon. M. Rankin presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2022.

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce the Attorney General Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2) of 2022. The bill proposes minor amendments to six statutes

that will help bring clarity and consistency to how they are interpreted

and applied.

[1:50 p.m.]

The provisions being added through these amendments include the

following: minor housekeeping amendments to the Election Act, Lobbyists

Transparency Act and the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, as well as

new regulation-making authority to enable remote witnessing of enduring

powers of attorney and representation agreements, and the ability to

revoke the appointment of a King’s Counsel, formally Queen’s

Counsel.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022,

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

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

BILL 28 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

STATUTES (PROPERTY

TAXATION)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Hon. N. Cullen presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs Statutes (Property

Taxation) Amendment Act, 2022.

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

now.

I’m very pleased to introduce the Municipal Affairs Statutes

(Property Taxation) Amendment Act, 2022, which amends the Community

Charter and the Vancouver Char­ter. The primary purpose of this

bill is to provide a new tool to municipalities to provide tax relief to

local businesses and non-profits that have been affected by high or

unexpected increases to assessed values due to the development potential

of the property that they occupy.

As we all know, real estate markets in many B.C. communities have

led to significant increases in the assessed values of properties. These

increases can be even higher when a property undergoes a zoning change

to increase density or a property is expected to be developed in the

short or medium term.

The amendments to the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter

would enable municipalities, at their discretion, to tax the land value

of certain light industrial and commercial properties at a reduced tax

rate. These amendments are the outcomes of the property assessment

strategic review and in consultation with a broad range of municipal

business and non-profits stakeholders. I would like to thank them for

their advocacy and their insights into these tax reforms.

They are intended to replace the interim business property tax

relief legislation and provide a new tool for communities to decide, at

the local level, which businesses, organizations and non-profits need

property tax relief.

I would like to thank the Minister of Finance and her excellent

team for their leadership in guiding this legislation to this

point.

These amendments have the potential to provide significant

property tax relief to businesses and non-profits and allow them to

continue to occupy the property while a transition is in the new

development process.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 28, Municipal Affairs Statutes (Property Taxation) Amendment

Act, 2022, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PROTESTS IN RESPONSE TO

DEATH OF MAHSA

AMINI

S. Chant: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and nice to see you again.

Today, I am glad to be speaking again from the unceded territories

of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people,

the Esquimalt and the Songhees. I also continue to work, live and learn

in my beautiful riding of North Vancouver–Seymour, situated in the

unceded territory of the Coast Salish, specifically the Tsleil-Waututh

and Squamish Nations.

On September 13, Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman

was detained by the so-called morality police for not adhering to their

modesty standards, and she died a horrific and violent death while in

custody. Mahsa’s death has sparked protests on the streets of Iran and

around the world.

In British Columbia, thousands gathered on the steps of the

Vancouver Art Gallery and along Georgia Street in downtown Vancouver to

show their support. There were other gatherings here in Victoria and

also places such as Kelowna.

[1:55 p.m.]

In Iran, people have bravely taken to the streets chanting “women,

life, freedom,” understanding the risks to their own lives. The Iranian

authorities have cut off almost all access to the Internet to stop the

protest news, which is why millions of Iranians and non-Iranians have

to amplify the voices of the Iranian protesters.

For many British Columbians who have family and friends in Iran,

this is an incredibly difficult time. On one hand, these protests have

given them the opportunity to reconnect with their homeland and dream of

a brighter future. But they have also reinforced the pain of separation

and exposed, again, the brutality of a regime willing to resort to

deadly force to silence its people.

We recently marked Gender Equality Week in British Columbia.

Iran’s events are a reminder that we must actively work together to

break down barriers and ensure all people have the right to live their

full potential, free of discrimination. This is everyone’s fight,

regardless of one’s geography, and it’s not over.

I believe I speak for everyone in this House when I say that we

unequivocally stand in solidarity with the brave people of Iran and

their families in their struggle for equal gender rights, freedom and

democracy.

For women, life, freedom.

For Mahsa Amini.

EXPERIENCE OF PARENT

OF CHILD WITH

AUTISM

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m not going to talk about autism today. Instead, I’m going to

share a story of a mother with a child with autism, in her own

words.

This is from Michelle.

“Being a parent of a child with autism is exhausting. There are no

breaks. There is very little help, and you are always on. Even if my

daughter is at school or with her home team, I’m still constantly

thinking and worried about her. I feel like I’ve lost myself some days.

I don’t get the opportunity to be Michelle very often. I’m always

Sarah’s mom.

“I miss out on events or nights because there’s no sitter or the

venue would be dangerous for her. My husband and I don’t do things

together very often. It’s usually just one or the other of us that can

go.

“My daughter Sarah is seven, and we first suspected autism at age

12. She was diagnosed as autistic just before her third birthday. She’s

non-verbal and elopes frequently and has zero awareness of danger, which

results in the need for constant supervision, no matter where we are —

at home, school, shopping or even out enjoying nature.

“Going anywhere is a struggle. She’s not potty-trained, so we always

have to be aware of areas where we can pull over and put on a Pull-Up,

having to carry additional supplies and the stigma of having a child her

age still in diapers. She’s also prone to meltdowns when needing to wait

in a lineup or when she’s frustrated that she can’t verbalize a

need.

“Luckily, government funding has allowed us to build an amazing home

team for our daughter, and over the past four years, she has learned to

gain trust with her support workers and has done so well. I cannot

express how important this is to Sarah and to my family. Losing this

home team would be devastating and keeps me up at night.”

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

M. Dykeman: As we’re back here for the first day of fall session, I am

thrilled to rise in the House to share with you my thoughts on what is

truly — well, at least for some people — the most wonderful the time of

the year. In contemplating my two-minute statement for today, I really

felt obliged to craft an ode to this event using the well known song

“The Most Wonderful Time of the Year.”

Firstly, I could not carry a tune in a basket if my life depended

on it, unlike many of the talented hon. members in this House, so I’m

going to spare everyone the torture that that would cause.

Also, I’ve taken some artistic liberty with this jingle, and

actually, that would also be an understatement. There may be three words

that you’re going to recognize from the original song, but my time was

limited in crafting this masterpiece, so we’re going to have to go with

it anyway.

Hon. Speaker, it really is the most wonderful time of the

year,

when the print shops are printing,

and the chamber of

commerce memberships are suddenly doubling,

and everyone is in good

cheer.

With those signs popping up everywhere and too many

all-candidates meetings to bear,

with door knockers coming to call

and residents asking: ‘Who is this guy at my door?’

It’s the

hap-happiest time of the year.

There will be fundraisers for hosting

and campaign platforms for toasting

and Burma Shaves out in

the snow.

Well, maybe not here, but probably somewhere.

And there’ll be scary ghost stories…

Look, I thought about changing that one, but somehow it just

seemed really appropriate.

And tales of glories from elections from long, long

ago.

[2:00 p.m.]

It’s the most wonderful time of the year.

There’ll be

and there’s

going to be so much fun for all.

It’s truly the most wonderful time

of the year.

But the best part of the whole thing is that I’m not part of this

one. I get to be here in this wonderful House.

All joking aside, I want to wish all the candidates in the local

municipal elections this year the best of luck and remind everybody that

local politics is truly the level of politics that affects every

individual the most. It’s your streets, your child’s school, your home.

So make sure that you get out and vote during this most wonderful season

of all.

BREAST CANCER SCREENING

AND

AWARENESS

S. Bond: “Cancer” is a terrifying word. All of us have been impacted by

cancer in some way, including members of this Legislature.

In fact, I can vividly recall the day that our colleague and

friend the MLA from West Van–Capilano shared her news with us.

Throughout her journey, she faced the battle with courage and

determination. In fact, I am thrilled to say that she was recently told

that her latest mammogram was boring. Never have we been so happy to

hear the word “boring.”

The outcome might have been different except for a letter sent to

remind my colleague it was time for her annual mammogram. Thankfully,

she made the decision to do what she had been reminded many times was

important: get her mammogram. The result of that decision ensured the

early detection of an invasive form of breast cancer, and the rest is

history. She is literally living proof that early detection saves

lives.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a time for all of us to

celebrate the survivors, honour those who have lost their lives to this

horrible disease and do our part to share information and increase

awareness. We know that currently one in every eight women will be

diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime. Breast cancer is still

the most common cancer and the second-leading cause of cancer death

among Canadian women.

There is more to do here in British Columbia to improve the

outcomes of breast cancer for women in our province. We need to ensure

that there is timely access to medical imaging and provide support,

screening and follow-up in every part of our province. While there is

much more to do, some things we are certain about: early detection saves

lives, regular screening is critical, and there are some risk factors

that we can control.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Together, let’s do our

part to ensure that every woman has access to the screening she needs

and the support and care she deserves.

BURKE MOUNTAIN

SECONDARY-MIDDLE SCHOOL

PROJECT

F. Donnelly: Parents in Coquitlam–Burke Mountain have been waiting for a long

time, and finally, this summer, they got the news they’ve been waiting

for. I stood with the Premier and the Education Minister as we announced

$135 million for a new 1,000-seat Burke Mountain secondary-middle

school. School district 43 will contribute an additional $25 million.

This $160 million school will support future students from grades 6 to

12. Construction will begin next year.

Back in the fall of 2020, I stood with the Premier when he visited

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. He promised fund­ing for a new

secondary-middle school on Burke Mountain, and on August 30, 2022, he

delivered.

Thank you, Premier, and thank you, Minister of Education and

Finance Minister.

Coquitlam families have been calling for more schools on Burke

Mountain, and we are delivering so students of all ages can receive a

quality education close to home. Over the past five years, our

government has approved nearly $300 million for seven new, updated,

expanded and upgraded schools in school district 43. Our government has

been working hard with parents, the school district, the city to bring

those schools to fruition. I’m delighted to see the results of this plan

paying off for families in Coquitlam and Burke Mountain.

[2:05 p.m.]

A special shout-out to Burke Mountain parent organizers Isabel

Silvestre and Damian Stanley for their tireless efforts to let the voice

of parents and students be heard, and to school district 43 board and

staff for their efforts to move this project forward. This was an

excellent way to start the school year in Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. I’m

very proud of the work our government has done to date, and I’m excited,

as I know there’s more to come.

AUTISM SPEAKS CANADA WALK

EVENT IN RICHMOND-VANCOUVER

AREA

T. Wat: A bright future where all British Columbians with autism can reach

their full potential is what this House must aspire to

achieve.

The vision of building that future is what brought together folks

from my constituency of Richmond North Centre and beyond on September 25

at the Vancouver-Richmond Autism Speaks Canada Walk. Featuring a

one-kilometre walk alongside the gorgeous riverside trail on Sea Island

in my riding, a stunning performance by a choir from the autism

community and various local organizations supporting the event, the

Richmond Autism Speaks walk raised almost $50,000.

I would like to thank everyone that volunteered, participated and

contributed to the cause of raising awareness and understanding and

promoting social inclusion and acceptance of people with autism. Special

thanks to Krista Leitham, national manager of community events, and her

staff for making this event possible.

Autism Speaks Canada has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars

and reached millions of people. As do many other organizations of

various sizes, they are working hard to build a kinder and inclusive

society. Yet we know that a lot more work needs to be done. People with

autism — and in many cases, their loved ones who work hard to put the

right supports in place around them — need to be better supported. It is

our responsibility to make sure that we empower and enable the autism

community to prosper and contribute to a brighter British

Columbia.

I encourage all members of this Legislature to support and

encourage their communities to participate in their local Autism Speaks

Canada Walk events and help build a better future for all.

Speaker’s Statement

CAT FOR LEGISLATURE

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, before we start question period today, I have to

deal with a very important and serious matter.

Over the last couple of months, Rob Shaw started a kind of

movement to have a cat in the House. He was encouraged and supported by

the Opposition House Leader, the Minister of State for Infrastructure,

the Minister of Finance and many others.

I promised Rob Shaw that after receiving….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: He’s there?

I promised him that after receiving his suggestion, I would have a

very wide-based public consultation. So I did. I consulted with the

Premier. I consulted with the Minister of Jobs and Economic Recovery. I

consulted with the Minister of Health. I consulted with the

four-year-old daughter of the member for Langley. I consulted with the

son of the Deputy Speaker and many other people in the opposition

parties as well.

Today I have decided that we will have a cat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Is Rob Shaw dancing there?

Anyway, our cat’s name is going to be Macey Hansard.

Ladies and gentlemen…. I was going to say brothers and sisters.

Members, I introduce to you today Macey Hansard.

Just watch with me. There it is. [Applause.]

[2:10 p.m.]

This cat will be residing in my office and, occasionally, in Rob

Shaw’s office.

If anybody needs some cuddling, please come and visit her. She is

fully trained in counselling — Macey.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES

IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

AND ROLE OF HEALTH MINISTER

K. Falcon: After five years of this Health Minister, our health care system

is, to borrow a term from the Premier, crumbling.

One million British Columbians wait-listed to see a specialist.

The worst walk-in clinic wait times in the country. Hundreds of

thousands of our neighbours and friends unable to get timely medical

imaging. One in five British Columbians that cannot access a family

physician — almost one million British Columbians.

Hospitals in chaos. Emergency rooms closed right across the

province. People dying after two days on a stretcher in hospital waiting

rooms. Ambulance delays that are literally costing people their

lives.

Now, in the real world, anybody overseeing such a compilation of

failure would have been fired a long time ago, but there’s been zero

accountability in this NDP government, and it’s time for that to

change.

Will this Health Minister do the right thing today, accept

responsibility for his government’s appalling record of failure, and

resign?

Hon. A. Dix: My reflection on this period of two public health emergencies is

what extraordinary work health care workers have done around British

Columbia. I think our record in challenging times, as a jurisdiction, in

response in particular to COVID-19, has been without equal in the world,

and I’m very proud of it. I’m very proud of everyone

involved.

I just note, for example, that in March and April of 2020, as

Minister of Health, I was responsible for one of the most difficult

decisions I had to make, which was to delay tens of thousands of

surgeries. Ninety-nine percent of those were made up — 99 percent; and

surgical wait times were reduced in a time of pandemic. We increased our

capacity.

How did we do it? By adding anaesthesiologists, by adding nurses,

by adding medical processing technologists, by taking action. Equally in

primary care, we had to take steps to maintain the system as a result of

COVID-19 measures, and we did, changing fee codes and increasing the

number of primary care visits.

There is no question that, like every jurisdiction in the world

and every jurisdiction in Canada, our health care workers, our health

care professionals, our health care teams and patients are facing

challenges they have not seen before. Since I’ve been Minister of

Health, there are 38,000 more of them — doctors and nurses and nurse

practitioners and health sciences professionals and health care workers

who are making a difference for everybody.

I’m proud of them, and I’m proud of the B.C. health care system,

while recognizing all of the things we have to do now, all of the things

we have to do in primary care and surgery and diagnostics and long-term

care, to make it better.

K. Falcon: It’s not about the health care workers. We know they’re doing

exceptional work. It’s about a system that this NDP government has

overseen now for almost six years that is literally

collapsing.

[2:15 p.m.]

Now, the minister can make all the excuses he wants, but results

are what matter. He loves to cite all kinds of meaningless numbers in

this House, but he ignores the numbers that matter. The numbers that

matter are outcomes and results — what people are actually seeing out of

this health care system.

The public has lost faith in useless announcements that don’t

result in any improved services or results. Take just one example. Over

14 months ago, the minister made a big, flashy announcement claiming he

was going to improve the ambulance response times. But things have

actually gotten worse since that announcement 14 months ago.

Yet when the NDP were quick to fire the CEO of B.C. Ferries

because of, apparently, some late ferry delays and some cancellations,

at the same time, they’re protecting a minister who is overseeing a

system where people are literally dying as a result of the lack of

services that they’re looking for when they need them in this

province.

Will the minister just wake up to the reality that the results

we’re getting are not working? It’s time for somebody — somebody,

anybody — in this government to accept the responsibility for what’s

taking place.

Hon. A. Dix: Members of the House will know…. The Leader of the Opposition is a

former Minister of Health. He will know this, that our ambulance

service, B.C. emergency health services, had 30 percent permanent staff

when I became Minister of Health, a situation that put it maybe in the

20th century, maybe in the 19th century in terms of organization — after

16 years, including some of them with him as Minister of

Health.

Today, hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. A. Dix: We just heard a member of the opposition shout out about union

members. He’s referring to ambulance paramedics and

dispatchers.

You bet there are more of them. That bargaining unit has increased

by 26 percent because of the demand for ambulance services. So 500 new

full-time and part-time positions. More ambulance response than ever

before.

We are facing a period of, of course, very significant challenges.

Members will know that. We went one year, 2020 to 2021, when we had

100,000 more calls on a 500,000 call base. Our ambulance paramedics,

under those circumstances, have done an excellent job. We have to

continue to build our ambulance service, adding full-time ambulance

paramedics, adding air ambulances, which was essential during the

pandemic, when we flew hundreds of people from the North, and saving

lives every single day.

Unlike the opposition, who refer to ambulance paramedics and

dispatchers as just union members, in a derisive way, we believe in

them. We know we need more of them. We know they deserve our support. We

know they deserve our support when they’re dealing with two public

health emergencies, and they will continue to get it every single

day.

S. Bond: What British Columbians know is that when they call 911 in British

Columbia, there is no guarantee that an ambulance is coming. That’s not

about paramedics; that’s about this minister and this

government.

He did it again today. What British Columbians want this minister

to do is acknowledge, for once, that we have a health care crisis. Every

single part of the health care system is in crisis.

Radiologists in the province are just the latest to feel they had

no choice but to publicly beg for this minister to meet with them and to

do something. They warned the minister that we are facing a tsunami of

late-stage cancer cases because of delayed access to medical imaging for

hundreds of thousands of people in British Columbia. Wait times of two

months for a diagnostic breast exam, 2½ months for mammograms, three

months for biopsies and over one year for screening

ultrasounds.

[2:20 p.m.]

The minister knows this is completely unacceptable. It is time

that he accepted responsibility.

British Columbians have lost confidence in this minister. Today he

needs to do the right thing: accept responsibility and

resign.

Hon. A. Dix: I would say that the one subject this opposition shouldn’t be

raising is diagnostic imaging. In the Northern Health Authority, which

the member represents, they did 22 MRIs per 1,000 when I became Minister

of Health, about a third of the health care they got in Ontario. What

have we done? We went from 174,000 MRI exams in 2016-17 to almost

300,000 in a pandemic….

Interjections.

Hon. A. Dix: We added 220,000. That’s 220,000 CT scans. Now, I admit that the

low base before that made that number seem bigger, because it was a low

base. But we went from one of the bottom in the country to one of the

top in the country in terms of diagnostic imaging. That is what the

facts are.

Now, I would agree with radiologists that we need to always do

better, and I absolutely will meet with them and absolutely work to do

better. But I would say this: on this question where people, especially

in Northern Health and especially in Fraser Health, had levels of care

below standard, and that standard has been raised up, it’s very

surprising to hear the opposition, who were the authors of the policy

that allowed people to sit and wait or buy their own care, to make this

argument in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, perhaps the minister has forgotten that the letter came from

radiologists in British Columbia. And if he wants to talk about reality

in Northern Health, then perhaps he should’ve been at the rally where

nurses in Prince George said to this government and this minister that

they are done. They expect him to do something.

Let’s talk about outcomes, because that is what matters. This

province used to lead the country in cancer outcomes, but not anymore.

Last year a 32-year-old woman with a high genetic risk of developing

breast cancer had an abnormal MRI, but it took six months for a breast

biopsy to finally confirm the cancer.

Surgery wasn’t done for another three months after the diagnosis,

a full nine months from the abnormal imaging. Now the breast cancer is

almost six centimetres in size, and it requires both chemotherapy and

radiation, the devastating personal result of a crumbling health care

system that this minister continues to refuse to acknowledge.

British Columbians expect better from their Minister of Health.

They expect him to acknowledge a system that is going to

collapse.

To the Minister of Health, will he listen to British Columbians

who are crying out for this government to take action? Will he do the

right thing today: step aside and resign?

Hon. A. Dix: Action is what’s required. When I became Minister of Health, we

were last in Canada in registered nurses per capita. Last. You can’t get

any worse than last. Since then, we’ve led the country.

In February, we

announced new training positions for nurses across British Columbia. We

made changes for internationally educated workers. Action — that’s what

people want. They want action, and that is what they’re

getting.

[2:25 p.m.]

The Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Health for two years.

There were fewer registered nurses when he ended than when he started,

which is quite an achievement.

We have led the country in more registered nurses, and we have to

do more. That is why we’re training more. That’s why we are making it

easier for internationally educated nurses to work here. That’s why

we’re treating health care workers with respect. That’s why the people

who provide care at the bedside in long-term care and acute care and in

the community…. Health care assistants have been respected and added in

the tens of thousands since I became Minister of Health.

Their policy was to disrespect them, to take away their rights and

to lay them off. Our policy is to support health care workers, because

health care workers support patients.

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ISSUES

IN HEALTH CARE

SYSTEM

S. Furstenau: My colleague and I spent the summer travelling around the

province, meeting with doctors, specialists, nurses, mayors, councillors

and citizens.

In Smithers, we heard how doctors are scrambling to do the job of

five people. Every year they face budget cut after budget cut. Even the

cream in their coffee has been taken away.

In New Denver, ambulances aren’t coming when they’re needed

because the single truck available in the region has been sent out for

something else.

In the Cowichan Valley and Saanich, patients with cancer are

waiting months to receive treatment or being told they’re likely not to

see an oncologist before they die.

In Nelson, emergency rooms are almost closing due to a shortage of

nurses.

In the Interior and on the Island, ERs are closing on weekends and

evenings because of this problem. We ran the numbers — 126 ER closures

this year.

The health care system is in crisis, and people are very

concerned. But what we heard from people was not that they wanted blame

assigned or fingers pointed. They wanted solutions brought

forward.

My question is to the Minister of Health. I hear the minister, I

think, taking some responsibility for the state of health care in B.C.,

but I’d like to hear from him. What does accountability for the state of

health care in B.C. look like?

Hon. A. Dix: I think in the face of two public health emergencies that affected

everybody in B.C. — and everybody in B.C., just about everybody, has

contributed to that response — what we do and what we have to continue

to do is work to ensure that our health care system provides the care

for patients that they need when they need it.

On surgeries, that meant 84 different measures to reduce wait

times, adding new nurses, new anaesthesiologists, new medical processing

technologists so that people would get care sooner.

In long-term care, it meant…. Ninety percent of care homes were

below the government’s own standards — their own standards; and they

stayed that way for ten years after the standards were that. We’ve

raised those standards in long-term care to meet that standard. We had,

in British Columbia, 90 care homes that were under three hours per

resident-day. There are none today because of the action that we took,

and that makes a real difference for people.

We’ve increased and improved diagnostic care. During the pandemic,

when we needed to hire 1,500 contact tracers, we found them, and we

hired them. When we needed to put up the biggest immunization program in

history, a program that has saved tens of thousands and more lives, we

found the staff, and we did it.

I think that’s accountability. I think that’s responding. And I

think we have to acknowledge as well that the demand on our health care

system in an aging population is growing and will continue to

grow.

That’s why we presented, on Thursday, a health human resources

plan for the coming years that will focus on retention of our existing

health care workers, recruitment training and the redesign of the system

to ensure that the next generation, as this generation has a time of

challenge, gets the care they need.

That is the approach we take. It’s action, and it’s a

response.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

[2:30 p.m.]

CALL FOR ALL-PARTY

WORKING GROUP ON HEALTH

CARE

S. Furstenau: I hear the list of actions. I’m not sure it really speaks to the

question of accountability.

Particularly hearing from mayors at UBCM recently…. The question

that kept getting put to us in meetings was: “Who’s responsible for the

fact that the ambulance doesn’t come? Who’s responsible for the ER not

being open when I need it? Where’s the accountability in this system?

Where does it rest?”

The health care crisis we are in absolutely is not something that

happened overnight. It’s years of mismanagement. It’s years of cuts.

It’s years of health emergencies. And like many issues we face, it’s too

big for one person.

The Premier recently said good ideas come from all sides of the

House, and just a couple of weeks ago at UBCM, every party leader in

this House gave speeches on the importance of collaboration and working

across party lines. British Columbians do not want health care to be

used as a political football. British Columbians want to know that all

of us — and we are all committed to this — are committed to solving this

crisis.

My question is to the Premier. Will he strike an all-party working

group on health care?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the leader of the Green Party for her question.

The notion of collaboration, which all of us — the member, the

Leader of the Official Opposition, the Green Party leader and myself —

spoke about to the Union of B.C. Municipalities last week, remains true

today, as true today as it was last week.

The challenges we face are profound. The challenges on the human

resource side, which we’ve heard from the official opposition this

morning, are absolutely the same in Alberta, the same in Saskatchewan,

the same in Ontario, the same in Quebec. That’s why all of the Premiers

of Canada, from all political parties, have said we need to collaborate

all orders of government, which includes local governments.

We’ve had ideas and suggestions and proposals coming forward to

myself, to the Minister of Health and to others, and we continue to work

on those. The challenge is, of course, that we have already seen

tremendous collaboration on some significant issues on all sides of this

House.

We’re going to be talking, I’m sure — I’m hopeful — about repeat

offenders in a few moments, as other questions come forward. What did we

do to start that work? We collaborated together looking at the Police

Act for the first time in 50 years. Not the government, not the

opposition, not the Green Party. All of us.

When called upon to do something more about the challenges with

one of the health care crises the minister talked about, the opioid

crisis…. We have an all-party committee doing that very work. So the

collaboration on a bunch of issues is happening.

If we are going to address the challenges in health care, which

the minister has been talking about, which the official opposition has

raised, we need a national response. That’s not finger-pointing. That’s

saying to our partners: “We need to do this together.”

A human resource strategy in British Columbia is going forward

despite the absence of the federal government.

But if we’re going to be successful in every corner of this

country, we have to have a Prime Minister, a Finance Minister in Ottawa

and a national government that understands and recognizes the issues

that the Leader of the Official Opposition raised, the issues that the

interim Leader of the Opposition raised and the issues that have been

raised about accountability. What are we going to do together to solve

these challenges for the people of British Columbia and

Canada?

We can’t do it by ourselves. Good ideas do come from every hon.

member, and they should be heading to Ottawa. We need to have the

federal government with us, shoulder to shoulder, to solve these

profound issues.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES

IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

AND ROLE OF HEALTH MINISTER

K. Kirkpatrick: On July 9, a woman was admitted at Lions Gate Hospital for

possible heart problems, but instead of getting the help she needed, she

spent two days lying on a stretcher in an overcrowded waiting room. By

mid afternoon of July 11, two days later, she was found unresponsive by

a family member and later died.

This is what Adriane Gear, of the B.C. Nurses Union, said about

this tragedy: “Nurses are upset. They’re angry. They feel this is

something that absolutely could have and should have been prevented.”

This has happened at the Lions Gate ER, but this could be, honestly, any

emergency room in the province at this point.

[2:35 p.m.]

What was the Minister of Health’s reaction? The minister

downplayed what happened, claiming that the woman received “significant

care.” Now, I can’t imagine that having anyone in your family die on a

stretcher in an overcrowded waiting room should ever be considered

significant care.

This province deserves a Health Minister that prioritizes

outcomes. Will this minister do the right thing: stand up and

resign?

Hon. A. Dix: As members of the House will know, when individual cases come

forward, we don’t comment in a specific sense about those cases. What I

would say here, and what I was referring to, was the care provided by

doctors and specialists and nurses, in this case, at the Lions Gate

Hospital.

There are issues, especially in that period, in terms of having

people leave the emergency room and go up to the wards. It’s why it is

so important that we have a health care system that allows them to do

that, that allows people to have supports in the community so that we

have room on the wards. In that case, we went through, in detail, that

issue with the Vancouver Coastal Health staff.

I think for the family, there is absolutely nothing to be saved.

It is absolutely tragic when someone passes away, particularly in those

circumstances. That’s why we have to do exactly what we’re doing, which

is, in a very challenging time for the health care system, add health

care staff, train more, recruit more so that patients get the care they

deserve and in a location that, clearly, is not acceptable — get that

care in their own room, where it should be, in a hospital like Lions

Gate.

That’s what I said at the time. I expressed my profound sadness at

the time. Nobody downplayed anything, and to suggest that we’re doing

that, for the sake of political rhetoric, I don’t think is the right

path.

T. Stone: Well, the disconnect between what the minister is saying here

today — frankly, what he says on most days — and what’s actually

happening out there in communities is breathtaking.

In every corner of this province, people are suffering. They’re

unable to access basic health care services, like accessing a family

doctor. In my hometown of Kamloops, over 40,000 residents are without a

family doctor today.

The time for action is long overdue, but all we’re getting from

the minister are empty words and empty announcements. The bottom line is

that his results as Minister of Health are terrible.

Enough is enough. That’s the message from British Columbians

across this province. Enough is enough.

Surely this minister knows that he’s failing. Nothing that he’s

tried, nothing that he throws at this, no announcement that he puts out

there…. None of it is working.

Will he do the honourable thing and resign as the Minister of

Health, or is he going to wait for the next Premier to fire

him?

Hon. A. Dix: I would say that what people in B.C. deserve is action, and that’s

what they’re getting.

We’ve gone from zero urgent and primary care centres to 29, who

have served 1.4 million people, who have 370 staff in them. We’ve added

59 primary care networks, who have 1,210 staff in them, more than 200 of

those staff — principally, family practice doctors and nurse

practitioners — to support people dealing with issues of mental health

and addiction. More than 200 added, net, to primary care networks

because that is what doctors said they needed.

We’ve added surgeries, surgical nurses, anaesthesiologists,

medical processing technologists such that those wait times have gone

down.

There are significant challenges in these times of a pandemic.

It’s why we’re taking action everywhere to support primary care, to

support patients in getting the care they need and deserve in the

community.

That’s why we’ve taken the actions we’ve taken since 2017, when

B.C. was below everybody else in key categories, to raise up those

standards; why we’ve taken actions during the pandemic to address the

very serious challenges facing all aspects of our health care system;

and it’s why we’re taking action now.

[2:40 p.m.]

I would say, to the hon. member, in Kamloops and everywhere else —

in Kamloops especially, where they’ve seen more challenges than anyone

else because of all of the events that occurred…. When they see more

challenges, we need to continue to do what we’re doing, which is to add

nurses, to add doctors, to add health science professionals so that

people get the care that they deserve.

P. Milobar: Today we’ve heard example after example, and it’s like the

minister doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge that this is what’s

actually happening in people’s everyday lives in the health care system

in British Columbia.

On August 25, in Barriere, in my riding, tragically, an

eight-month-old baby lost their life waiting for an ambulance. According

to Troy Clifford of the Ambulance Paramedics: “We didn’t have an

ambulance available for somebody in their time of need.” That’s the

reality of what’s happening in our paramedic system right now. They’re

burned out. Thirty percent are reporting feeling burned out — 30

percent.

We have acute shortages of ambulances across this province, and

this minister keeps standing up trying to make it sound like he’s done

everything possible and he’s having nothing but great success. He’s not.

He’s failing by every single measure.

It’s putting the stress on the family that loses the baby. It’s

putting the stress on the health care workers that have to stand by and

watch that unfold, be it a first responder, be it a nurse, be it a

radiologist, be it a family doctor. They’re all feeling the stress under

this minister’s failure, over the last five years, of the health care

system. When will this minister stand up, do the right thing and, for

once, take accountability for something happening under his

watch?

I’ll remind the minister that most of the health authority boards

were appointed by this minister over the last five years. This is a

direct result of his lack of action and his lack of

accountability.

When will this minister take the proper responsibility and do the

right thing, the honourable thing and resign?

Hon. A. Dix: We started this question period — at least, I did — talking about

patients and health care workers and health care professionals and the

difficulties it causes when people don’t get the care that they need,

the challenges of being in a pandemic and the overdose public health

emergencies and the exceptional steps that have been taken to address

these difficult times. The opposition, of course, is doing what, I

guess, oppositions do, which is talk about politics. Well, I don’t agree

with that approach.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: In every case, when tragedies occur, whatever the circumstances….

We can’t, as the member will well know, talk about the circumstances. It

is awful. It is beyond awful for the family in question And we, if we’re

a caring society, grieve with and take every step we can to improve a

public health care system which serves us well but can serve us

better.

I’m going to continue to give everything I have, on behalf of the

government that will give everything that we have, to support a public

health care system that gives care to people. We’ll continue to do that,

continue to provide the support we need, continue to transform the

system, continue to break down barriers, continue to provide support for

people, because it’s those patients and those doctors and those nurses

and those health sciences professionals and those health care workers

that provide care for patients that matter.

That is what I am focused on in this time: improving care for

everybody.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

J. Rustad: It’s a pleasure to rise, with the conversation, of course, that just

happened in question period. I rise to present a petition signed by 410

people from my riding, from the area of Fraser Lake, including the Nadleh

Whut’en and Stellat’en First Nations, requesting seven-day-a-week ambulance

coverage for the area.

The people in the area deserve a timely response and

professionally trained paramedics who respond during our emergency care

needs.

[2:45 p.m.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling several reports.

The first one is the Auditor General’s report, Oversight of Major

Mines: Policies and Procedures to Address Environmental Risks, June

2022 ; Auditor General’s report, B.C.’s COVID-19 Response:

Community Economic Resilience Grants , June 2022; Auditor General

annual report 2021-22, June 2022.

Conflict of Interest Commissioner, 2021 Annual Report ;

Opinion of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner Pursuant to

Section

19(1) of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act in the Matter of an

Application by Lorne Doerksen, MLA (Cariboo-Chilcotin) with Respect to

Alleged Contraventions of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act by the

Hon. Josie Osborne, MLA (Mid Island–Pacific Rim) and Minister of Land,

Water and Resource Stewardship , August 30, 2022.

Human Rights Commissioner, Annual Report 2021-22 and Service Plan

2022-23–2024-25 .

Information and Privacy Commissioner, Annual Report

2021-2022 .

Registrar of Lobbyists, Annual Report 2021-2022 .

Representative for Children and Youth, A Parent’s Responsibility:

Government’s Obligation to Improve the Mental Health Outcomes of

Children in Care , September 2022; and Annual Report 2021-22 and

Service Plan 2022-23 to 2024-25 .

Electoral Boundaries Commission, Preliminary

Report .

Reports from Committees

FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT

SERVICES

COMMITTEE

J. Routledge: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select

Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the third

session of the 42nd parliament, titled Report on the Budget 2023

Consultation .

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

Motion approved.

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

report.

Leave granted.

J. Routledge: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make some brief

comments. The annual budget consultation is an important exercise of

democracy that allows British Columbians to share their views, ideas and

priorities for the upcoming provincial budget. From May 30 to June 24,

British Columbians provided thoughtful and passionate recommendations on

a range of issues, including health, the environment, housing and many

others.

During this process, we heard 306 presentations, received 372

written submissions and 861 survey re­sponses.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to express our sincere

appreciation to everyone who took the time to participate. Your

contributions directly informed the committee’s 216 recommendations for

the 2023 provincial budget. In making these recommendations, the

committee recognizes concerns of unaffordability, the rising cost of

living and access to health care that are top of mind for many British

Columbians. We also highlight the impact of climate change and the

urgent need to increase mitigation and resiliency across sectors and

communities.

Throughout the consultation, British Columbians put forward many

thoughtful and creative solutions to address the challenges facing the

province. Committee members appreciate these ideas and acknowledge the

need for solutions to reflect unique local circumstances and incorporate

local and Indigenous knowledge rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all

approach. Further, we highlight the need for increased data collection

and many areas to better inform policy and decision-making.

[2:50 p.m.]

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all committee

members, especially the Deputy Chair, the member for West

Vancouver–Capilano, for their support and work on this consultation and

for their thoughtful contributions and discussions during deliberations.

Recognizing the significance and range of concerns and priorities

brought forward by British Columbians during this consultation,

committee members worked hard to review, engage with and discuss each of

these issues.

As members of this House are likely aware, there is a considerable

amount of work behind the scenes to conduct a consultation of this

scope. On behalf of the committee, I would like to acknowledge and

extend our appreciation to Legislative Assembly staff for their work on

this consultation.

From the Parliamentary Committees Office, thank you to Jennifer

Arril, Artour Sogo­monian, Mary Newell, Katey Stickle, Natalie

Beaton, Jesse Gordon, Jonathon Hamilton, Victor Lucy, Jianding Bai and

Emma Curtis.

From IT, thank you to Darren Parfitt and Mahfuj Enam.

From Hansard Services, thank you to Amanda Heffelfinger, Simon

DeLaat, Dwight Schmidt, Billy Young and the entire Hansard broadcasting,

transcribing and publishing team.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the budget

recommendations for 2023.

I would like to echo what the member for Burnaby North has said,

in terms of the extraordinary work that we saw with staff, the support

of staff, and also to thank all of the public for their many submissions

and being able to hear more about what’s happening in unique parts of

British Columbia.

This was my first time being involved in this consultation, and I

found it extremely valuable. The process was, I’ll say, for the most

part, very collegial, with significant agreements in many

areas.

What stood out during this consultation was that British

Columbians are concerned about worsening affordability and quality of

life. We heard from individuals and groups calling for urgent action,

from the overburdened health care system to a lack of affordable housing

and the underfunding for children and youth with support needs required

to address wait-lists.

These are issues that the opposition has been pressing government

to solve for a long time, as our proposed solutions continue to be

dismissed. Public consultation is important.

True democracy relies on governments listening and acting on that

consultation. Consultation without true engagement on issues that matter

to British Columbians is meaningless. The opposition is calling on the

government to accept the following report recommendations in an urgent

and timely way.

Conduct an immediate review of primary care to determine how the

existing system can more effectively serve the community. Increase

access to longitudinal care.

Identify and resolve issues and identify opportunities to improve

navigation for the public. Incentivize the private sector to be

innovative in creating, addressing the low housing stock.

Ensure any changes for children and youth with support needs are

fully funded to provide appropriate resources and eliminate

wait-lists.

Take action immediately to address pay equity for women. Invest in

funding for literacy education, including digital and financial

literacy.

Enhance capacity to address mining and natural resource permitting

backlogs to ensure predictable timelines.

We were all pleased, on this side of the House, to hear about the

implementation of a split assessment model. It’s something we have been

asking for, for quite some time.

Prioritize the enactment of prompt payment legislation that’s

inclusive of lean reform and adjudication.

Provide increased predictable multi-year funding to the community

social services sector, including administrative funding and supports to

address compensation challenges.

These are all recommendations which we agreed as a committee and

are contained in the budget recommendations.

Now, some of the report recommendations echo private members’

bills which the opposition has proposed multiple times, such as the

Equal Pay Reporting Act and the Assessment Amendment Act. It is time for

government to take people’s concerns seriously, set their priorities

right and deliver tangible results.

[2:55 p.m.]

If all the members of the committee all agreed with everything

they heard, there would be no need for government and for opposition, so

you’ll not be surprised if I do mention some recommendations that were

heard but excluded from the report but that we think are important to

the province of B.C.

Supporting all child care providers, including independent ones,

to be part of the overall system and ensure the efficient and equitable

rollout of $10-a-day child care for British Columbians.

Return the carbon tax to revenue neutrality to put money back in

the pockets of British Columbians and support trade-exposed industries

with decarbonization projects.

Recognize and conduct a full review of the impact of this

government’s taxes on businesses. Ensure farmers are not double-billed

for MSP and EHT for seasonal workers.

The government members’ reluctance to engage in some of these

issues speaks volumes about the lack of intention and capability to

provide help and deliver true results for British Columbians.

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

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading debate, Bill 26.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. G. Heyman: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 26, the

amendment of the Environmental Management Act. I would also like to note

that I am the designated speaker for second reading of this

bill.

Bill 26 is important for a number of reasons, a number of

important administrative factors that will allow conservation officers

to do their jobs more effectively and more efficiently, to provide

greater protection for the public interest and to ensure that the intent

of the legislation is completely reflected in the language of the

legislation.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

It’s also going to give me great pleasure to speak to this bill

because it’s an opportunity not just to talk about the words that are in

the bill and what they will mean in terms of enforcement but also to

speak to the proud history of the conservation officer service — at one

point many, many years ago known as game wardens — the role they play in

the community, the challenges they face, the important interactions they

have with members of the public, as well as the strong educational role

they play.

Let me speak to some of the specifics of the amendment. What we

want to do with Bill 26 is ensure that conservation officers are able to

do their work more efficiently and more effectively.

What this amendment says on its face is that evidence collected by

conservation officers in the course of an investigation can now be held

for up to 12 months. That means that when conservation officers seize

evidence, they will be able to take the time that’s necessary to

properly process the evidence, to consider it, to provide it to the

court in an acceptable manner and form and to ensure that the timetables

and schedules and delays that are sometimes encountered in the course of

the justice system don’t interrupt this important flow.

This can often take much longer than the three months, and this

timeline has regularly been exceeded. That’s the timeline of three

months that we are seeking to amend with this bill. What that means is

that conservation officers will frequently end up having to go back to

court, sometimes as many as three times, before the 12-month mark in

order to get extensions. That takes up their time that could be better

spent pursuing the investigation or doing other duties — of the many,

many duties they have over the large areas they routinely cover and are

responsible for.

[3:00 p.m.]

It also, of course, takes up valuable time in the court system,

time that the court could better spend addressing cases that come before

it and meeting the public’s expectation that the courts will operate

efficiently, effectively and address the issues of public safety that

the courts exist to protect as well as to ensure that justice is

done.

This is not new. At one point, conservation officers had the

authority to retain evidence for up to 12 months from a day of seizure.

And in the course of updating legislation, as we all know often happens,

sometimes a detail, a consequential reference is omitted. And what we

all understood to be the case — and intended to be the case and knew

needed to be the case — all of a sudden, if you look at it carefully

with a strict legal eye, is no longer absolutely clear. Of course, the

administration of justice and the enforcement of laws by those people,

like conservation officers, charged with upholding and enforcing the

laws needs to be absolutely clear and explicit.

This amendment will return the previously held authority of

conservation officers that evidence can be retained for up to 12 months

from the day of seizure. Returning this authority will alleviate time in

the courts. It will alleviate time spent by conservation officers

seeking an extension and other affected parties that need to take

part

in hearings for time extensions. It will, in short, ensure that

conservation officers can do their job, that the public interest is

protected and that court time and resources are used appropriately and

well spent.

Let me talk a little bit about the process here. For instance,

after seizing electronic devices, conservation officers require forensic

experts to extract data from those devices and provide it to the court

in an acceptable manner. We all know that when people see anything in

the course of the administration of justice that calls into question

acceptable process — whether all of the procedures were followed,

whether all of the aspects of the law were properly addressed — they

have the ability to call into question how that court proceeding takes

place and whether evidence should be allowed and whether the proper

administration of justice can, in effect, be redirected through

administrative error or technicality.

That’s why it’s so important for conservation officers, for our

system, for forensic experts to take the time necessary to do things

right — to extract data that could be important evidence, to provide

that data to the court in an acceptable manner. And we know that these

methods take time. In fact, for probably most members of this House —

except those of us who may have extensive background in technology,

particularly information technology — the process of extracting data

from hard drives or electronic devices, whether they be mobile ones or

computers, is kind of a mystery.

I know that I am gratified that there are people who specialize in

this, who are expert in this — and, I should add, expert in this on the

right side of the law — and that they are using these skills and talents

to ensure that where there is evidence of wrongdoing, evidence of

potential harm to people, to communities, to the environment, they’re

able to go into these devices and dig for the kind of evidence that

conservation officers know they need to provide the court in order to

make their case.

What happens currently, because this work…. First of all, there is

high demand for forensic experts. It’s not like conservation officers

can snap their fingers and get somebody they need to do the work

immediately.

[3:05 p.m.]

These people are in high demand, and often there is a queue, a

wait for their services. So it can take longer than three months to get

the data. It can also depend on the amount of data that’s stored and

whether and how it’s been stored and whether it has been hidden or

masked or encrypted in some way. So this process takes time.

Currently with the three-month limit that we’re seeking to amend

to 12 months, near the three-month marks, conservation officers have to

notify the party who the item was seized from that there will be a court

hearing. Conservation officers have to apply to the courts for an

opportunity to be heard and then provide evidence at the hearing as to

why a continued detention of a seized item is required, because the

specification, in reading the act in its current form, as amended, leads

one to believe that three months is the limit, because that was an

extended reference that was inadvertently missed.

This takes time. It takes time to notify the party. It takes time

to prepare the case for an extension. It takes time to prepare for…. One

might expect, from someone whose devices have been seized in order to

find evidence that they are guilty of a violation of the law or a

crime…. They certainly would, I expect, have an interest in not seeing

those devices held for longer because, potentially, the retention of

those devices and the further examination of them could in fact lead to

their acquittal or to the charges being dismissed or not

heard.

So it is important that conservation officers, in preparing a case

for an extension, do it thoroughly, which takes time — that they

anticipate and lawyers anticipate the case or objections that might be

raised to holding this material for a longer period of time. And then

they, of course, have to go to court, and they have to provide the

evidence that’s required of the court.

They have to do all this work to prepare for court, to anticipate

what they might face in court, to consult with lawyers and to go to

court to achieve the extension, which, fortunately, is granted in all

cases, to my knowledge. The conservation officers are good at their

jobs. They do a thorough job. They ensure that when they go to court,

they provide the evidence that’s needed.

My point here, and I think it’s a point that all members of this

House would agree with, is: wouldn’t we rather have conservation

officers focusing on interacting with the community, protecting people

from dangerous encounters with wildlife, protecting wildlife from

dangerous encounters with humans, educating children and parents and

community members about the dangers of having food attractants that

aren’t properly secure, that lure bears into habitable areas and then

habituate them to these food sources and ultimately lead to their

destruction?

That’s not through the bears’ fault or any animal’s fault but

because people often aren’t aware of the consequences of their actions

or their carelessness. That’s an important role played by conservation

officers, to which I’ll return in some time.

Those aren’t the only duties performed by conservation officers,

but that’s what we want them to focus on, as well as enforcing our laws

around wildlife, as well as enforcing our laws about pollution, as well

as investigating incidents of pollution, particularly where there may be

some thought that there was negligence or wrongdoing in

accor­dance with the law and that the conservation officers should

therefore do a thorough job of that investigation, protecting our

environment and protecting the public interest and upholding the laws

that they are sworn to administer, laws they take very

seriously.

[3:10 p.m.]

All members of this House and all members of the public would

likely agree that what we really want and need to see from conservation

officers is to prepare their material for a court case, particularly if

it involves the examination of electronic devices or other equipment

that has to be seized and held, in order to gather the evidence to

present before a court so a court can properly ascertain whether there

is guilt or innocence and, if there’s guilt, what the degree of it

is.

We want them doing that once. We don’t want them doing that four

times when once is good enough. We want to ensure that their time, as

well as the time of the courts, is used properly and

effectively.

As I’ve said, our system of justice is fair. It provides accusers

and officers of the law, as conservation officers are, the ability to

make a case, the ability to arrest, the ability to seize material, the

ability to go to court to talk about what they believe has happened and

to provide evidence to support that belief and to let the court

determine.

In addition to that, the person who has had items seized, the

person who is being investigated, the person who has been charged and

who is likely to go to court, of course, can make arguments about

whether their rights are being unnecessarily infringed upon with further

holding of devices or evidence. That’s why it takes time. Those rights

are now available to people, essentially, every three months. Justices

might decide to, for instance, only order one three-month extension or

no three-month extension.

The justice may wonder why it is taking so long. Every time a

conservation officer and our justice system have to consider whether an

extension needs to be granted for the holding of evidence, it detracts

from the work of the conservation officer service. It detracts from the

time and attention of the courts to other pressing matters. It runs the

risk that an investigation, which has entailed sometimes many, many

hours….

For instance, an investigation into alleged poaching might involve

hundreds of hours of investigation. Part of that investigation, of

course, is an examination of evidence that’s been seized. It may be an

examination of devices. All of those are entailed. To run the risk of

having that case never heard because a justice has been convinced that

an extension is unreasonable or something slips up in the administrative

process of preparing the material and the case for an extension…. It’s

dangerous, frankly, in my opinion, to the protection of the public

interest that conservation officers are sworn to and attempting to

perform every day.

Once an investigation is completed, the conservation officers

submit a report to Crown counsel recommending charges. Until a decision

is made on a charge approval by Crown counsel, conservation officers are

required to hold seized evidence.

We know the court systems…. As much as we want them to be a

just-in-time system, we know that can’t be. There are many people before

the courts. There are many demands on public services.

While it’s important for the administration of justice to be

timely, timeliness takes some time in many instances. So it’s important

that conservation officers have the ability to hold seized

evidence.

[3:15 p.m.]

The timelines for completing an investigation and preparing a

report to Crown counsel and then Crown counsel making the decision on a

charge approval regularly exceed a three-month time period for

environmental offences. This is not uncommon. This is, in fact, common.

It’s the experience. It is the way things work.

Therefore, to have a three-month time limit on the holding of

evidence and a requirement to suspend other work on an investigation or

other investigations or protection of the public interest in order to go

back to court and seek an extension really is problematic. It’s not in

the public interest. It’s not in the interest of justice. It’s not in

the interest of protecting the environment. It’s not in the interest of

conservation officers who are already stretched thin. Again, hon.

Speaker, I’ll talk about that in a few moments.

It’s difficult for them to have to turn their attention to duties

that are required under the laws that exist now, which we are seeking to

change with this bill. But it is difficult for them to turn away even

temporarily, even for a short period of time, from the many, many

pressing issues they must deal with on behalf of the public of British

Columbia.

To have to go back to court potentially three times before the

12-month mark to apply for further detention of seized material and

evidence simply makes no sense. It’s not in the public interest.

Fairness to the accused does not hang on this. The system provides

fairness, but the public interest provides that cases and investigations

on which those cases are based go forth, go forward.

People can be assured that when conservation officers are working,

based on their tax dollars, to investigate violations of the law or to

protect the environment, the work they put in will be fruitful and that

it won’t be derailed on administrative technicalities. It won’t be

derailed because something had to be prepared to meet a time limit, and

it wasn’t possible to do that, or it was missed. Or the court made a

decision for whatever reason that does not allow that investigation to

be completed in the sense of a case for charges being presented and then

the charges going ahead if that is the decision of Crown

counsel.

Some justices may give a three-month extension. Some may give a

six-month extension. Some may give a nine-month extension. It is

possible a justice could extend on the first request for the full 12

months, but it’s certainly not guaranteed. What is guaranteed is that

having to return to court takes court time. It takes the time of the

affected party who’s being investigated, which may also not be fair. Of

course, it takes the time of conservation officers.

Restoring the legislation back to the 12-month initial detention

period relieves all of the preparation time, the notification time, the

application time, the hearing time that’s involved in the justice making

their decision. Their decision about whether to grant an extension that

under the old legislation and many other pieces of legislation is

routinely set at 12 months. That’s frankly a delay and an amount of time

that’s just simply unnecessary and not warranted. It interferes with the

administration of justice. It’s undue infringement on the important time

and the role conservation officers play in our communities, and it just

doesn’t work.

[3:20 p.m.]

That’s why it’s important to make this amendment. But in making

the amendment and in talking about the amendment being needed so

conservation officers can play the important role in their community, I

think it’s also important to talk a little bit about the importance of

the conservation officer service in British Columbia — the kind of work

they do to protect the environment, to protect wildlife and fish, to

protect British Columbian people as well as the safety of people. That’s

actually the work that we’re talking about ensuring that conservation

officers can maximize without having to do unnecessary administrative

work in preparation for court.

The conservation officer service has been doing that work —

protecting the environment, looking after the safety of British

Columbians, ensuring that poaching doesn’t take place and that if it

does take place, people are held accountable. There’s a range of other

duties that conservation officers perform now in terms of investigating

all kinds of environmental pollution or other acts that threaten the

environment, whether there are spills, whether it’s illegal dumping,

whether it’s any form of unlawful act on the land base.

Over 115 years ago in 1905, the conservation officer service

started as the game warden service. As I said, there’s been a tremendous

evolution over the years. Our conservation officer service is a leading

natural resource law enforcement agency. It specializes in public safety

related to human-wildlife conflict. Responsibilities include managing

complex commercial, environmental and industrial investigations, and

compliance and enforcement services.

I will offer one example of this, among many. We all remember the

tragic collapse of the Mount Polley tailings dam almost ten years ago

now. There was a huge impact on the lake and river system. There was a

huge impact on fisheries. There was a huge public outcry at the horror

of the visual images of this slurry of toxic tailings that escaped the

tailings dam and moved into the river and lake system.

People wanted accountability. There was a long and complex

investigation into this, conducted by the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans federally and the conservation officer service of British

Columbia.

In this case and cases like this, the conservation officer service

effectively functions as a form of what is a police service. They are

public safety officers. They function, they investigate, they’re trained

to investigate, they gather evidence, they sift through evidence, they

consider evidence, and they have as important a role as the police do in

municipalities around B. C. in preparing a case for Crown counsel

consideration.

The conservation officer service of British Columbia put more than

two years into this. The decision was made because, in order to gather

enough evidence, British Columbia’s statute of limitations of two years

was not enough time to create all the evidence needed to make a case.

Further to that, of course, federal legislation provided for greater

penalties, more meaningful penalties as both deterrence and a message,

if those are warranted in a court proceeding. And there is no statute of

limitations for those federal charges.

[3:25 p.m.]

The conservation officer service focus…. Many people at the time,

in 2017, said: “Why were charges not pressed?” There were a variety of

reasons for that in British Columbia, but it was always the intent of

British Columbia and the conservation officer service to work with

federal authorities to prepare the most comprehensive, thoughtful, fair

— obviously fair — package of material that could be considered by

federal justice authorities to decide whether that case should proceed

to court. It’s such a complex investigation that the federal authorities

are still considering that. We all, of course, eagerly await a decision

being made on that.

I know that the work put into preparing the case, the evidence and

the material so that British Columbians and other Canadians could be

assured that an event of that magnitude, an event of that severity, if

it were caused by negligence, to whatever degree…. There would be a case

created and evidence gathered that would allow our justice system to

make that determination. And the very fact that we have a conservation

officer service that will do investigations like that, I think, speaks

to the importance that our conservation officer service has and plays in

protecting the public interest on every level.

Most people, and I would say this probably included myself before

spending time talking to conservation officers about their work and

learning more about their work as the minister responsible, think of

conservation officers that we see in our community, conservation

officers we’ve met, and conservation officers we see on the news, if

there are animals that are habituated and creating dangerous conflict or

potential conflict situations for humans and communities, whether it be

the stories we heard of coyotes in Stanley Park or bears that become

habituated to garbage in forest interface communities. That’s what we

think of.

Those who have been fortunate enough hear from conservation

officers in schools and get some education about the work they do and

about the risks that are faced by humans if we don’t ensure that we

don’t think or act like it’s somehow a favour or a good thing to feed

wild animals. I think we’ve all seen the signs that say: “A fed bear is

a dead bear.” People don’t initially start out doing these things out of

ill will, although they may well start out of a lack of information and

a form of ignorance.

Conservation officers have an important educational role to play

in ensuring that people have the knowledge they need to protect

themselves, to protect their communities, to protect their children and,

of course, to protect the animals who have a right to exist in their

natural habitat. We have moved, as we have to when we establish

communities, into areas that at one point were completely wild. They’re

wild, and they’re available for the animals to roam in

freely.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

When that changes, we need to ensure that enough of their habitat

is protected. They can live, they can hunt, they can feed themselves,

and they can feel free from threat. When we engage in behaviors that

invite them…. And sometimes it’s not even a matter of inviting animals.

If there’s a scarcity of food, they will go looking. If one of the

places they go looking is people’s backyards with unsecured garbage,

that’s where they’ll find food, and that’s where they’ll get used to

food. That’s, of course, where there will be a potential threat to

humans and children and others, for a variety of reasons. That’s why the

educational role of conservation officers is so important.

[3:30 p.m.]

One of the things I do as minister…. It’s why it’s so important to

me to ensure that we amend this act with this bill to ensure that we are

not essentially demanding that conservation officers spend large amounts

of administrative time returning to court to have an order that should

be for 12 months in the first place. This bill seeks to make 12 months

constantly extended, and all the work that has to be done to prepare

that material.

One of the reasons I feel strongly that we need to do this is what

I hear regularly when I go every year to the Union of B.C.

Municipalities convention. One of the things my ministry does…. There

are a number of functions that are integral to local government, whether

it is approving waste management, whether it is helping municipalities

deal with a number of the challenges they have with remediation and

remediation approvals as they seek to expedite housing or economic

development — but also, in rural communities, the conservation officer

service.

It’s one of the things people identify as a key government

service, for a variety of reasons, whether it is the interaction of the

conservation officer service with members of the community; whether it

is the education provided by conservation officers in the school system;

whether it is the sense of security people have when they know a

conservation officer can respond quickly to a threat or a danger from

wildlife, from human-wildlife conflict; whether it is people’s

frustration that polluters are going unchallenged, uninvestigated or

unticketed if they believe that because there isn’t a conservation

officer in the area, they can get away with stuff.

What I hear from local government is: why isn’t there a

conservation officer in our town? It’s an important question because

conservation officers provide so many services, some of which I’ve

outlined and others of which I’ll talk about.

We do our best. The truth is that it would be great to have a

conservation officer in every small community in British Columbia, but

as members of this House know, despite the fact that I’m very proud of

the fact that we have raised the budget for conservation officers, we’ve

increased the number of conservation officers, we’ve trained more people

to be conservation officers, and we’ve built a better service, we’ve had

to go to a regional response model. We constantly assess that against

the number of calls received by the conservation officer service for

assistance, and we adjust as necessary.

We place our conservation officers in the communities where there

is the highest risk. In other cases, we locate them strategically on a

regional basis and, hopefully, so that when there is a call, they are

able to respond as quickly as possible and respond with support. Not

every situation in which a conservation officer inserts themselves is a

safe one, and we want to ensure they’re safe.

The message that I get from local government…. They accept that.

They’re reassured that we don’t make arbitrary decisions about where

officers will be stationed, that if the number of calls to the service

goes up in an area, we will notice it, and we will prioritize and rank

that and respond to it. But the message I constantly get is that

conservation officers are valued members of the community.

People will tell me stories about a particular conserv­ation

officer and how they’ve interacted with children in the community and

what it’s meant to the community, the educational programs that the

conservation officer has undertaken with members of the community to

ensure that people know what it means when they’re careless with their

garbage, their food or their fruit trees that they’re not harvesting —

that people understand that there is a consequence of that. It may be a

consequence for the animals that they love to watch and see, that they

don’t want to hurt, or it may be a consequence for their children or

their pets or their community.

[3:35 p.m.]

What we want to do in these cases is protect people while

protecting the rights of the animals to live in their natural habitat

and not to have their habits and what they’re used to in terms of

gathering food, in a sense, perverted by easy access to inappropriate

food that is simply too close to human communities and creates a

risk.

I want to just tell a little story from my past weekend, the end

of last week and this weekend. I had the opportunity to take a trip to

the Central Coast to view some of the conservancies that were part of

the Great Bear Rainforest and to meet and talk with people in Indigenous

communities, people who worked in the area of conservation as well as

the B.C. Parks employees who are administering these areas.

I was very glad to be reconnected and reintroduced to one of our

outstanding park rangers, who is also currently an acting area

supervisor and plays a tremendous role in the area. His name is Steve

Hodgson. One of the things that is so incredible about Steve is the

relationships that he’s built with the nations in the area — the

Heiltsuk, the Kitasoo/Xai’xais, the Nuxalk Nation — in working with them

and their guardian programs to ensure that we are managing conservancy

areas in traditional Indigenous territories with great sensitivity and

collaboratively and we’re recognizing the knowledge, the experience, the

values, the deep sense of cultural connection that Indigenous peoples

bring to these areas.

Steve is well regarded by the Indigenous people in the area

because he has taken the time over many years to engage with them, to

listen to them, to deal with them respectfully, to look for solutions.

But because the Central Coast is a large and disparate area, people have

to do a number of functions. Steve actually also functions as a

conservation officer, or as he says: “When I get home from my park

duties, I’m on duty as a conservation officer if people make a call

because there’s an incident or there’s a threat or they feel that the

services of a conservation officer are needed.”

Steve and I were on the boat. We had a chance to have a

conversation, and we were talking about the many reports that we hear

about “problem bears” in Bella Coola and the surrounding areas and how

he actually deals with people who have properties where bears are being

attracted to fruit that falls off the trees — plums, apples. I mean, if

you were a hungry bear and you saw a lot of fruit lying on the ground,

you’d want to go get it. That’s what they do, and that’s why we have

laws that say that people are responsible for managing animal

attractants. What that actually means is you either have to fence off

your property, preferably with an electric fence, to keep the animals

away, or ensure that the fruit isn’t a ready attractant for

them.

In talking to Steve, he talked about the process he goes through

with people who may initially call and say: “Well, you should shoot that

bear. That bear is a threat to me. That bear is going to come back.” I

said: “So do you just take out the ticket book and write them up and

say, ‘It’s your fault. You’ve got this fruit here. It’s falling on the

ground’?” He said: “Well, I could do that, but I probably wouldn’t have

a very good relationship with them. They’re my neighbours. I talk to

them one day, and that night, I look out my front window, and they’re

driving down the road in front of my house. They’re talking to me.

They’re talking to my kids. They’re interacting with my wife. So what I

want to do is be effective.”

[3:40 p.m.]

He talked about…. He may start by saying, “Well, why do you think

the bears are attracted to your property?” and pointing out the fruit

and talking about the things that can be done to keep the bears from the

fruit and from being a threat.

We know. I’m sure members of this House have received

correspondence or had conversations that are not dissimilar to many of

the ones that I’ve had in two forms. One is: “Kill those animals that

are threatening me and my family, and kill them quick.” Then there’s

another tranche of emails that I get, which is: “Why is the conservation

officer constantly killing these animals? Why don’t you address the

issues and the people that are attracting them?”

I want to be clear. When there is a real threat to humans or to

communities or to families, the conservation officers will take the

action necessary, if it’s not practical to consider rewilding a bear or

relocating a bear or another animal. At some point, they’ve become too

habituated to break that habit, so the goal is to protect

communities.

But the broader goal is to prevent animals from getting habituated

in that way. That is by taking action with people who are leaving their

garbage loose, who have properties that have lots of attractants in them

that aren’t being properly managed or protected. That’s best done by

education. It’s best done by establishing relationships.

For all of us who have spent any time at all living in rural

communities — and this is not untrue in neighborhoods in urban

communities; I’ve lived in both — relationships are important. If you

want people to listen to you, if you want people to consider a behaviour

change, they have to trust you. They have to feel respected by you. They

have to believe that you are a member of the community, just like them,

and that you care about many of the same things they do, irrespective of

the fact — if in fact — you have certain authorities as a public safety

officer.

The approach that Steve talked about was, I believe, the right

one. It takes time. It takes time to connect with people. It takes time

to change people’s habits. It doesn’t happen with one conversation. It

doesn’t happen by writing one ticket. It happens by being a member of

the community, by showing people alternatives, by convincing them there

are other ways to behave that are better for them, better for their

families, better for the environment, better for wildlife, and that

these things are possible.

Steve also talked to me. He gave me some colourful and funny

examples of people who took some time to change their habits and the way

they interacted with nature but did so nonetheless. He also told me some

quite moving stories about…. He gave an example of a restorative justice

process that was offered in place of a court hearing with someone who

had violated some environmental rules in Indigenous territory, with the

Indigenous people, and the emotional moment when the person really

realized the impact on other people of what they had done and how that

had led to very significant behavior change over two generations of that

person’s family. That resulted in a very lengthy, constructive,

supportive and mutually beneficial relationship with the

nations.

That’s why it is important for conservation officers to do all

aspects of their job, not to be stuck at desks, filling out paperwork

every three months to return to court to seek an extension on the

holding of evidence. It’s because there are very important things for

these people to do.

[3:45 p.m.]

In 1905, we have game wardens concerned with inci­dents of

poaching, concerned with safety of citizens, concerned with protecting

people and communities and the resources of British Columbia. That

evolution has hap­pened over decades.

There are three units in the conservation officer service. There

are the uniformed officers, who are in provincial operations. There’s

the provincial investigations unit, which undertakes the kind of

investigations that we’ve been talking about. That may result in the

seizing of evidence, the holding of evidence, the presenting of material

for the courts, to support a decision about whether or not to proceed

with charges and then to support those charges in court, if that’s where

they go. Then, of course, there are a variety of people who provide

program support throughout the system for both the investigations unit

and the operations unit.

We have conservation officers located in 45 communities throughout

British Columbia, many of whom, as I mentioned previously, work on a

regional basis. They will move throughout the region as needed. They

will respond to calls. They are not fixed in one place, and they cover

as much territory as effectively as they can. Headquarters, of course,

is here in Victoria.

They’re trained. They’re dedicated. They’re responsible for

enforcing 33 federal and provincial statutes. They hold special

provincial constable status under the Police Act, and they have an

unrestricted appointment to enforce acts and statutes and to protect the

public and to preserve the peace.

That’s why it is very important that they have the same abilities

as all other people who have status under the Police Act and who serve

as public safety officers to hold evidence for a reasonable period of

time. That both protects the rights of an affected party from whom

evidence has been seized but also ensure that the public is confident

that the public interest is being upheld, that people who break the law

will be held to account and that the system won’t stumble or fail

because of administrative failings.

Conservation officers work with many private and public partners.

They work with compliance and enforcement officers in the Ministry of

Forests. They work with the RCMP. They work with Environment Canada.

They work with the department of fisheries, with First Nations and with

local and provincial stakeholders. They do this to reduce human-wildlife

conflict. They do this to prevent pollution. They do this to prevent

environmental catastrophes. They do this to ensure that environmental

laws are upheld and that people follow them. They, of course,

investigate where these transgressions take place.

Their motto is: “Integrity, service and protection.” I think that

really sums up, in pretty simple terms, how this agency, B.C.’s

conservation officer service, deals with the many complex challenges of

modern-day environmental law enforcement. It is not easy. Law

enforcement in any jurisdiction is not easy.

We see that every day on the news. We see people who have to make,

often, very quick judgments under extreme pressure, trying to do the

right thing and, of course, subject to review by independent oversight

agencies, by the courts, by their peers, by the public. Nonetheless,

they play an important role in protecting the public. It’s not

easy.

Every year I have a chance to meet with and talk with conservation

officers. I have a chance to see the young people who are recruited to

be conservation officers, who either are on their way to the training

school in Alberta or have recently returned, who are beginning their

first months of fieldwork in preparation to becoming fully authorized

conservation officers. They are enthusiastic. They are also very, very

serious.

[3:50 p.m.]

When you consider that you’re applying for and entering a job

where you’re uniformed, where you’re a symbol of the law, where you’re

armed, where you might have to potentially use those arms, where you

may, in faraway, isolated areas, have to encounter and address people

who are also armed, who may or may not welcome your presence or your

opinion that they’re conducting themselves in a way that is unlawful and

which they should cease doing…. There’s a lot of potential stress and

tension.

I look at these young people. I see their pride in what they’ve

learned, their pride in the work that they’re committing to doing, their

desire to do a good job. Of course, the response to the considerable

rigours of the training that they undertake…. It’s not easy.

Increasingly, over the years, I’ve noticed more women joining the

conservation officer service. We’ve made a conscious effort to reflect a

far greater diversity of British Columbians and, particularly, to

recruit Indigenous people to be conservation officers as well as to

develop collaborative and intertwined relationships between conservation

officers, park rangers and officers and Indigenous guar­dians,

both in the Interior and on the coast. This is work that

continues.

I look forward to meeting some of these conservation officers

again, after they’re a couple of years out from graduation, when they’ve

been in the field and they’ve been doing the work for some time. They

can tell me some of the stories about their best days as well as their

worst days. There are worst days. It can be dangerous work. I referenced

that.

Let me talk about a couple of officers who died in the course of

carrying out their duties. Officers, of course, have to deal with wild

animals, and that can be threatening. They’re managing human-wildlife

conflict.

I want to talk about two conservation officers who died while

carrying out their duties, one of whom was shot and killed on this day

in 1932, game warden Albert E. Farey, as well as another game warden,

Dennis Greenwood, who died in 1930.

On October 3, 1932, game warden Albert E. Farey was shot and

killed in Lillooet while inspecting an illegally possessed deer hide.

Albert Farey was a decorated World War I veteran. He obviously served

the country, protected people, placed himself at risk. He was also

described as a popular officer with not only a splendid war record but a

splendid peacetime record.

There’s a history to the killing of Albert E. Farey. In 1929, in

the course of carrying out his duties, Albert Farey charged a person

named Frank Gott with illegal possession of a deer carcass and issued a

fine of $25. In today’s dollars, that would be around $300. I’m not

suggesting the amount of money is meaningless. That’s the cost of a

deterrent to illegal activity. Nonetheless, Frank Gott held a grudge

against Albert E. Farey for the next three years.

[3:55 p.m.]

On October 3, 1932, Frank Gott had set up a hunting camp along the

north fork of the Bridge River. Shortly after setting up the camp, Game

Warden Farey made contact with Gott and the hunters that were

accompanying Gott. He had a brief conversation with Gott, and he decided

to search the camp and its surrounding area. Who knows what motivated

Albert E. Farey to do the search, but he found and uncovered a bag

containing a deer hide. The hide did not have the proper species tag

attached, which made its possession illegal.

At some point, during his questioning of Gott, which was his job

and his duty — and obviously, he would have had to handle with

sensitivity — Warden Farey turned away to inspect the deer hide more

closely, and Frank Gott shot him twice in the back, and he killed him

instantly. A witness said: “I saw Frank bring the rifle up about halfway

and fire. Mr. Farey fell at the first shot.” After shooting the warden,

Gott handed the rifle over to one of his companions and walked calmly

into the bush.

I’m trying to imagine. I never worked as a conservation officer,

but I did work as a compliance and enforcement officer in the Ministry

of Forests, and not everybody that I was talking to about complying with

the Forest Act and the requirements of the Forest Act and the

regulations was perfectly thrilled to have me explain the law to them

and instruct them that they’d be really better off, and we’d all be

better off, if they followed the law. Sometimes they understood and got

it; sometimes they grumbled and were cranky. And sometimes they were

kind of hostile and intimidating.

I try to imagine what it would be like to walk into a situation,

isolated in the bush, doing my job, enforcing it with somebody that I

knew had held a grudge against me for several years, who was armed, and

then to pay for that with my life. It’s pretty incomprehensible, but I

assume that most, if not all, conservation officers have wondered about

that at various points in their career, and that it’s, in fact, a real

threat.

The story goes on about Frank Gott and Albert E. Farey. As I

mentioned, Gott walked into the bush, fairly calm, after killing a man.

After a two-day manhunt, he was confronted by game wardens at a crossing

on the Bridge River. He refused to surrender. He ignored several warning

shots and was shot and wounded in the leg as he tried to escape. He

wasn’t killed. He was wounded in the leg as he tried to escape. He never

stood trial for the killing, because he died enroute to the hospital

from a combination of shock and advanced tuberculosis.

We remember today Game Warden Albert Farey for his work to enforce

poaching laws, his work to protect and uphold British Columbia laws, his

work to be part of the community. As was said, an honourable person in

peacetime and then, of course, his service to all Canadians during a

period of war.

It’s honourable work. It’s hard work. It’s potentially threatening

work. It’s potentially dangerous work. We, I think, owe gratitude and

support to the women and men who choose to do that work. I’m really

happy to have this opportunity to talk about the nature of that work and

why it’s so important that we maximize their efforts and keep them as

safe as possible.

[4:00 p.m.]

One of the really great honours that I have each year is getting

to present the Conservation Officer of the Year awards. This past year

my colleague, the Minister of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship,

stood in for me to meet with the family of Sgt. Steve Ackles, who passed

away in March 2021 after an illness. Sergeant Ackles was named

Conservation Officer of the Year in 2020, and the Minister of Land,

Water and Resource Stewardship got to meet with his family. His son Kyle

Ackles, who followed in his father’s footsteps, became an inspector with

the conservation officer service, general investigations

section.

I think Sgt. Steve Ackles — I will assume — did his job with

dignity. I know that, or he wouldn’t have been Conservation Officer of

the Year. He did it effectively. He did it with honour, but I assume he

also did it with a great sense of joy and dedication that he

communicated to his family and his children, including his son Kyle,

who, faced with all of the opportunities for how to spend one’s life in

gainful employment for the rest of our remaining years, chose to join

the conservation officer service just like his dad.

Sergeant Ackles had a lot of relevant experience. He’d worked in

logging. He’d worked in construction for many years before he looked for

a career change. And when he did a career assessment — this is

interesting — it was suggested to him that a conservation officer job

might be better suited for him. I assume there might be a number of

reasons for this. He might have had a great love of the outdoors, a

great love of wildlife, a love of nature and a desire to be able to

bring that together with his day-to-day working life as well as to

provide the kind of service that British Columbians rely on to protect

our natural heritage, our wildlife — and to uphold our laws, of

course.

Not in his 20s or even his 30s but in his 40s he returned to

university to train for this new role, and he became a conservation

officer in 2005, and he was proud. I’m told he was the epitome of a good

conservation officer. He was passionate about protecting the

environment, fish and wildlife, and he had a work ethic second to no

one. He was respected. He worked hard. He was dedicated to his job. He

wanted to do it effectively, and he wanted to do it to protect British

Columbians.

His son Kyle said that coming to his career with the conservation

officer service later in life gave Steve a bigger, better appreciation

for the job. He would often say something that many of us sometimes get

to say and probably wish that we would get to say every day of our

lives: “I can’t believe I get paid to do this.”

That’s not a bad way to feel about your job. And frankly, for the

public of British Columbia, paying for the work of Steve Ackles and

other conservation officers with our tax dollars, we want them to feel

that way, not because we want them to work for free — I want to be clear

about that; they earn every cent they get paid — but because we want

them to be dedicated to their job and love their job.

Steve’s career took him to various postings throughout B.C. —

Nanaimo; Port Alberni, close to where he raised his family in

Parksville; and his last position was as a sergeant in the Omineca

region. He was a predator attack team specialist and a valued member of

his community.

He made a huge difference in the lives of his colleagues — who

learned from him, who enjoyed working with him, who could rely on him,

who are probably inspired by him; I mentioned his reputation for having

a strong work ethic — and of course, in the lives of his friends and

family and his community. He was known for his humour as well as a

sometimes blunt speaking style.

I talked earlier about how important it is for conservation

officers to be able to connect with people in the community, not to

simply be the tough cop or to write the tickets or to come in and just

hammer people for transgressions or behaviour. Obviously, the job is to

enforce the law, and they take that seriously, and we want them

to.

[4:05 p.m.]

We also want them to see where there’s an opportunity to change

people’s behaviour, to educate them, to inspire them, to engage them,

and that sometimes involves a blunt speaking style, a sense of humour, a

sense of community, a sense of connection.

Steve could swap field stories with fellow officers. He could

speak passionately to the media about bear conflicts and human actions

that resulted in them. He knew how to connect with people. He knew how

to educate. He knew how to do his job, not just in a narrow bandwidth

of: “This is the law. I’m out in the field. If I see somebody breaking

it, this is what I do to enforce it.” He understood that there were a

number of ways to get to a good result. And getting to a good and

permanent result sometimes requires bluntness, both in action and

speech, and sometimes it requires connection.

I’m told that no matter how busy he was, Steve always made the

time to help others. He would share his knowledge with students,

particularly students who were interested in joining him on the career

path to be a conservation officer. He spent countless hours mentoring

students at Vancouver Island University.

I know that Steve’s son Kyle carries himself with the same

professionalism, the same appreciation for our natural environment, the

same thoughtfulness that his father did. I’m pretty sure that all the

conservation officers who worked with Steve took the same message, that

they learned from him, and I’m pretty sure that the people in the

communities in which Steve worked also learned from him and appreciated

him.

I’m pretty sure that the students that were mentored by Steve

listened to him carefully and took good lessons. I’m sure those who were

thinking of becoming conservation officers, or the possibility of

becoming conservation officers or working in resource management or

compliance and enforcement in some way, listened to him carefully. Some

of them would have been inspired to pursue that dream.

Others might have thought, “That sounds like really important,

fascinating and interesting work, but I’m probably not cut out for it,

given what I’ve heard,” and would have made other choices but also would

have come away with the appreciation that I have — and that I hope we

all have — for the role that conservation