Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, October 18, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 230

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 35 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. S. Robinson

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Persons Day and women’s rights

R. Merrifield

Cooperative associations

N. Sharma

Carolanne Reynolds

K. Kirkpatrick

Tiger Guo and fundraising concert for Richmond Hospital Foundation

H. Yao

Ilsa Morris and contributions to Sea to Sky Community Services

J. Sturdy

Kus-kus-sum project and restoration of Comox Bay ecosystem

R. Leonard

Oral Questions

Government action on repeat offenders and crime in communities

K. Falcon

Hon. M. Farnworth

S. Bond

Hon. M. Rankin

Drax operations in B.C. and production of wood pellets

S. Furstenau

Hon. K. Conroy

Government action on repeat offenders and role of Crown counsel

M. Morris

Hon. M. Rankin

M. de Jong

Tabling Documents

Draft notice of directive to the criminal justice branch of the Ministry of Attorney General regarding adult prolific offenders

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 29 — Mortgage Services Act (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 29 — Mortgage Services Act

Second Reading of Bills

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

Hon. M. Rankin

M. de Jong

K. Paddon

Hon. N. Simons

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2022

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: K. Kirkpatrick.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: This morning members on both sides of the House got a briefing and

presentation from the College of Physicians and Surgeons. We want to welcome

to the House, on behalf of all members, Dr. Heidi Oetter and Dr. Anne

Priestman — Dr. Heidi Oetter is the registrar and chief executive of the

College of Physicians and Surgeons, and Anne Priestman is the chair of the

board; along with their team Susan Prins, Doug Cheng and Cortney

Wiebe.

[10:05 a.m.]

We received, I think, a very good presentation together over breakfast

— answered a lot of questions that members had. I ask members on all sides

of the House to wish our guests welcome.

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is His Excellency

Bořek Lizec, the Ambassador of the Czech Republic to Canada. He is joined by

Ms. Lenka Storzer, the honorary consul for the Czech Republic in Victoria.

His Excellency is here on his first official visit to British Columbia. I

will be meeting with him later this morning. This afternoon he will be

meeting with the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation, with

the Minister of State for Trade and with you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the House please make them feel very welcome.

C. Oakes: Joining us in the members’ gallery today are a number of people.

First, I would like to recognize that we have individuals from my riding of

Cariboo North. We have Rick Wittner, who is the president of the Placer

Miners Association of British Columbia.

He also sits on the chamber of

commerce in Quesnel. Rick does a fantastic job in all of these roles. I

think it’s important that, as we recognize Small Business Week, let’s also

recognize the good work that chambers of commerce do across the province of

British Columbia.

Joining him is Jackie Sarginson. Jackie is my CA. She is such a

compassionate, caring individual to have in our constituency office. We know

how important our constituents are, and to have somebody of such

extraordinary calibre sure makes my life a lot better. Lots of hugs up to my

incredible CA up there.

Finally, I see that all the students are back today — the Alliance of

B.C. Students is back — meeting with members in this House. This week is

Student Advocacy Week.

Thank you for the incredible work that you do, and I hope everyone has

a great week.

Hon. M. Rankin: Today I have two sets of introductions. First, I would like to

introduce Daniel Boisvert and Chad Rintoul. Daniel is the president of the

B.C. Notaries Association, and he has a notary practice in South Delta. Chad

is the executive director of the B.C. Notaries Association. Both of these

individuals are very active in their communities. How do I know? It’s

because Daniel was just elected on Saturday as a city councillor in Delta,

and Chad was elected as a city councillor in Sidney.

Would the House please

join me in making them feel welcome.

I would also like to make a second introduction. Today I have two of

my administrative staff from the office of the Ministry of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation with us. Marshall Scott-Bigsby and Erica

Greenup are with us. Marshall and Erica have been working in my office since

June. They’ve done a great job in supporting our office in these last few

busy months — also, of course, to join Connie Roberts, the amazing

administrative assistant who has been with us in this Legislature for 32

years.

Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

R. Leonard: Joining us today, watching on the television, is my brother. It’s a

very exciting day. October 18 is his birthday. I’ve recognized him in the

House earlier in a statement around his journey with getting a double lung

transplant. Today he celebrates his 65th birthday, and he’s alive today to

celebrate it. He’s alive today to pick up his brushes and paint again and

have a whole new

chapter in life.

I hope that the whole House will join me in wishing him a sincere and

wonderful 65th birthday.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m pleased to welcome two people to the gallery today: Steve Kozuki,

the executive director, and Aleece Laird, the communications liaison, for

the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C.

Both Steve and Aleece are really passionate about the work of FESBC

and the work that it does to advance the environmental and forest resource

stewardship of our province. The FESBC is in partnership with the provincial

and federal governments, and they have supported over 263 projects, valued

at $238 million, in this province alone.

I want to thank you, Steve and

Aleece, for all your hard work.

Will the House please join me in welcoming them.

[10:10 a.m.]

N. Letnick: In the precinct today and joining me for lunch is my CA, Ian Robinson.

He’s brand-new, the first time in Victoria, the first time in the precinct.

Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Joining the Legislature, here in the gallery, are doctors Lesley

Lutes, Simon Elterman and Erika Penner, all of the B.C. Psychological

Association and representing, also, UBC Okanagan. They are working with my

ministry to build out services for people. I’m grateful that they’re

here.

I. Paton: I was trying to decide or see if my good friend Daniel Boisvert, a

well-known notary in Delta South, was here today, but the Attorney General

beat me to it.

Daniel Boisvert, welcome.

I want to say, as the Attorney General did say, that Daniel just got

elected for his first time on Delta city council along with his entire slate

and mayor George Harvie. So congratulations to Daniel and his entire slate

of six councillors and the mayor, who all got elected a few days

ago.

G. Lore: Joining us today are students from the Pacific School of Innovation

and Inquiry. They’re joined by their teacher, Harry Brown.

I ask my

colleagues to please help me make them welcome to this House.

D. Clovechok: Today, in the gallery, in the precinct, I want to make welcome just an

amazing public servant, Mayor Don McCormick of the city of Kimberley, who is

also on the board of the Columbia Basin Trust. He’s here to meet with

ministers, with the vice-chair of the regional district of East Kootenay.

you wouldn’t mind helping make him welcome, that would be great.

Hon. K. Chen: I am happy to welcome Dr. Fred Bemak and Dr. Rita Chung from George

Mason University, who are well-known scholars and experts on refugee

research. They’re the founders of Counselors Without Borders, and they

provide critical mental health support to refugees and people in need across

the world. They’ve travelled extensively since 1980 and really provided

research and direct service in war zones, in disaster situations.

They are here accompanied by some other really outstanding scholars

from Simon Fraser University, from my community.

I ask the House to please make them feel very welcome.

M. Elmore: I’m very happy to welcome some good friends joining us here today,

Rica and Ferdie Taroy. They’re well-known, well-respected community leaders

with the Rot-warai association, successful small business owners. They own

Joyeaux Café.

They’re here with their cousin Victoria Basiliadis, with their friends

Gordon Peers and Kevin Pradela and also their friend of many years Angelina

Reyes. A special happy birthday to her. She’s celebrating her 71st birthday

and looks great.

I ask everybody to please wish Angelina a happy birthday and to please

make everyone very welcome.

A. Olsen: I rise to introduce a constituent of mine, the CEO of the British

Columbia Notaries Association, Chad Rintoul. Chad is also a newly re-elected

member of the Sidney council. I’d just like the members of this House to

make Chad feel very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — INCOME TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the

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

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Income Tax Amendment Act. The purpose

of the bill is to provide a temporary increase to the renamed B.C.

family benefit.

B.C. family benefit payments will be increased for the first three

months of 2023 to help lower- and moderate-income families make ends

meet. As a result of the extra support in this bill, families with one

child will be able to receive up to an additional $175 and up to an

extra $350 for a family with two children. Seventy-five percent of

families in British Columbia will receive full or partial benefits

through these enhanced payments. These payments will be provided

automatically. So families do not need to apply for them.

[10:15 a.m.]

The bill also renames the credit from the child opportunity

benefit to the B.C. family benefit. This new name better reflects who

benefits from the tax credit and will ensure people are able to

recognize it when they receive it.

This temporary enhancement to the B.C. family benefit is one of

government’s next steps in helping people with the current

cost-of-living challenges we are facing because of global

inflation.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: 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 35, Income Tax 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)

PERSONS DAY AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS

R. Merrifield: What I’m doing today, rising and speaking in this House, would

have been unthinkable and simply unacceptable in Canadian society 100

years ago.

However, today I am pleased to rise in this House to acknowledge

Persons Day in honour of the Famous Five, whose sacrifices, hard work

and determination helped pave the way for progressing women’s rights,

which women benefit from today. Persons Day marks the landmark court

case which saw women being considered persons, giving them certain

rights, such as the ability to participate in public life.

The Famous Five — composed of Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Louise

McKinney, Irene Parlby and Henrietta Muir Edwards — showed generations

of women, including myself, that there’s no greater reward than fighting

for what you believe is right. Their legacy lives on as we take this day

to mark the fight that brought women here. The Famous Five and their

struggle for rights also remind us that there is much work to do. In

fact, the Persons case landmark ruling exempted Indigenous and Asian

women, who were still not considered persons in a man’s

world.

Today, as we celebrate Persons Day and all the efforts put forward

by Canadian women to advance the rights of other Canadian women, we also

remember that there is work yet to be done, especially to support women

that are still facing inequities based on gender, race, sex and

abilities. As celebration of this momentous achievement, may we

memorialize the Famous Five’s efforts by continuing to stand up and

fight for what is right.

COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

N. Sharma: Today I rise in honour of Co-op Week in British Columbia, taking

place October 16 to October 22.

There are about 700 cooperatives in B.C. that contribute $2.7

billion to B.C.’s economy and control more than $48 billion in assets.

Two million British Columbians, 40 percent of the population, are a

member of at least one cooperative. Cooperatives do business in a way

that is good for people. They are democratic, collaborative and work for

the greater good by investing in the communities they serve, reducing

costs for their members and providing services people count

on.

Cooperatives in B.C. are some of the most diverse, creative and

successful enterprises in the world. This includes Solid State Community

Industries, which incubates cooperatives founded by racialized youth in

Surrey, Modo carshare, B.C. Tree Fruits, the B.C. Co-operative Housing

Federation, the Kootenay county store cooperative or River Select, an

Indigenous fishing cooperative in Williams Lake. These organizations

build housing, create jobs, contribute to the economy, promote

reconciliation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In July, we invested $2 million in the B.C. Co-operative

Association to expand opportunities for people to access the kind of

cooperative services they count on, now and in the future. Part of my

mandate as Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development and

Non-Profits is to support the modernization of the cooperative sector.

That is work we are committed to seeing through.

B.C. is known as one of Canada’s most innovative provinces for

cooperatives. Thank you to all of our cooperatives across the province

that are working for a stronger B.C.

Will the House please join me in celebrating Co-op

Week.

CAROLANNE REYNOLDS

K. Kirkpatrick: I first met Carolanne Reynolds in the summer of 2021, at Dundarave

beach in West Vancouver, to celebrate an annual event that she began and

hosted called RoyalTea-by-the-Sea.

[10:20 a.m.]

When she invited me, I was asked to wear a large hat and to bring

garden party hat, I learned Carolanne was a keen supporter of the

British monarchy. She had been hosting the RoyalTea-by-the-Sea since

2000, originally to commemorate the 100th birthday of the Queen

Mother.

I had the pleasure of seeing Carolanne in February this year at

another event she hosted, called the Heritage Fair, at the West

Vancouver Community Centre. Here Carolanne would annually bring together

stakeholder groups from across West Vancouver with the purpose of

highlighting the importance and value of the richness of West

Vancouver’s heritage.

Carolanne was also a dedicated West Van district council watcher

and regularly produced a newsletter called West Van Matters, which

contained all of the information she thought would be valuable to know.

She enjoyed making information accessible and was innovative. Now, when

it came to her reading my newsletters, she was quick to point out

grammatical errors, and I soon came to understand that I would not take

these comments personally, as she was well known for handing out notes

to everyone.

Carolanne worked tirelessly for our community, serving on

committees, boards, foundations and societies, and this work did not go

unnoticed. The district of West Vancouver gave her a heritage award in

2001 and bestowed another award in 2015 for civic commitment.

I saw Carolanne at the West Vancouver Bridge Festival this past

June, and we chatted for a few minutes. I said I would reach out to her,

but Carolanne Reynolds passed away on July 14 of this year. We lost a

community force and treasure. We will always remember her for leaving

our community a much richer place.

TIGER GUO AND FUNDRAISING CONCERT

FOR RICHMOND HOSPITAL

FOUNDATION

H. Yao: On October 8, I was privileged to be in the audience of a charity

concert. The concert was put together to raise money for Richmond

Hospital Foundation. The lead musician played his piece intensively on

both the piano and a drum set.

I was intrigued when I noticed that the lead musician did not use

any sheets of music. I later learned that due to learning challenges,

the lead musician had to practice intensively, months before the

performance, to memorize the music pieces and to play through muscle

memory. The lead musician rehearsed through enough music pieces for a

2½-hour concert. To further add to my amazement, I learned that the lead

musician is not a professional musician. The musician’s name is Tiger

Guo; he’s a 12-year-old boy with autism.

Tiger wanted to express his deepest gratitude to health care

professionals for the support he received over the years. He made it

clear that music and support from health care workers are the two

greatest factors that kept him going strong. Tiger worked with his

parents and with community groups, and reached out to the Richmond

Hospital Foundation.

That’s when Tiger, his parents, and his network decided to

participate in the Richmond Hospital Foundation’s Trio of Life campaign.

Collaborating with local musicians and talents, Tiger Guo and his team

successfully raised over $20,000 from the charity concert to support

Richmond Hospital Foundation’s Trio of Life campaign.

I’m amazed by Tiger Guo. For someone who is 12-years-old and

living with autism, he has dedicated a huge amount of his free time and

energy to practice, and he has reached an exceptional fundraising goal.

It is his unwavering determination that helped him overcome this

challenge with herculean effort. Most of all, he did everything just so

he can say thank you to Richmond health care workers.

I, as the MLA for Richmond South Centre, want to say thank you,

Tiger Guo, for your dedication and hard work. You make Richmond proud,

and you make Richmond a better place for all.

ILSA MORRIS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO

SEA TO SKY COMMUNITY

SERVICES

J. Sturdy: Today, it’s my pleasure to recognize a woman of outstanding

generosity and initiative. Ilsa Morris passed away last year. However,

the impact she made across the Sea to Sky region will live

on.

Born into a German family in Poland, Ilsa survived World War II

and the very difficult postwar years. She worked as a translator at the

Canadian consulate in Hanover, where she met and married Dr. Harry

Morris, a Canadian physician. They returned to Canada, and after

initially working in her husband’s practice, she ventured into

commercial real estate and began a business that she managed right up

until the end of her life.

While much of that is notable, why I felt it important to remember

Ilsa here in this House today is that for more than 30 years, without

fanfare, Ilsa recognized the challenges faced by women, children and

families in the Sea to Sky as she continuously contributed to Sea to Sky

Community Services, a local non-profit whose programs and services reach

some of the most vulnerable people living in the constituency. Ilsa’s

donations helped Sea to Sky Community Services expand their programs and

provide new forms of support to those in need.

[10:25 a.m.]

Sea to Sky Community Services initially focused on at-risk

children and families, but it has expanded to include residential care,

women’s counselling and programs for adults with developmental

disabilities, as well as homeless outreach and prevention

services.

Ilsa helped to provide operational space for the Sea to Sky

Community Services in the Pemberton Valley, which included critically

important space for family and community programs; the Pemberton Food

Bank; an administration office; and an adjacent second family and

community space. She also made available a secure house for women and

children fleeing domestic violence. Over three decades, Ilsa quietly

contributed more than $1½ million of critical funding to Sea to Sky

Community Services.

While I knew Ilsa for a long time, I only learned of all this

after her passing. The legacy of Ilsa Morris’ generosity lives on in

individuals and families she supported. She changed so many lives for

the better. Thank you, Ilsa.

KUS-KUS-SUM PROJECT AND

RESTORATION OF COMOX BAY

ECOSYSTEM

R. Leonard: A nationally important bird area, Comox Bay, has long been

recognized for its abundant wintering and migratory waterfowl. As the

bay gives way to the estuary, you can see ancient fish weirs that fed

salmon to many thousands of Indigenous people, reminding us that the

First Nations name for this place is K’ómoks, the land of

plenty.

Over 20 years ago, archaeology student Nancy Greene, along with

her partner, David McGee, brought respect and cultural sensitivity to

her study of the K’ómoks people’s weirs. It’s a stark contrast to the

history of white settlers who exploited the abundance of the land of

plenty in ways that degraded and upset the balance, shrinking a

plentiful ecosystem as they took space and culture from the K’ómoks

people. Invasive plants nearly took out native species. Industry

hardened shores. Even the K’ómoks people’s Kus-kus-sum tree burial site

was taken from them.

Many environmentalists have cut their teeth on actions to protect

and restore this rich environment. For instance, in the early ’70s, NDP

MLA Karen Sanford worked to purchase Hollyhock Flats for the public

interest. Decades of relentless volunteer labour removed invasive purple

loosestrife so that the endangered native Henderson’s checkermallow

could thrive once again.

Today, our government has supported the community in work,

spearheaded by Project Watershed, to purchase the Oldfield sawmill site

next door to Hollyhock Flats and rebuild what once was a balanced

ecosystem. Don’t miss the televised CleanBC ad that features the

Kus-kus-sum project.

Honouring the site’s past tree burials, Kevin McPhail and his

wife, Petra, joined other volunteers to plant Sitka spruce trees this

past weekend. The restoration continues, as does reconciliation, with

the work to return Kus-kus-sum to the K’ómoks First Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to finish my introduction, because I

failed to mention my brother’s name.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Leonard: I have two brothers. I thought it would probably be good for me to

mention that my brother who just turned 65 is Cory Randolph Leonard, and

he’s very much alive today thanks to our public health care

system.

Once again, thank you, everyone, for wishing him a happy

birthday.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON REPEAT

OFFENDERS AND CRIME IN

COMMUNITIES

K. Falcon: For almost a year, we’ve watched this NDP government fumble and

bumble along as they come up with one excuse after another to justify

why they can’t and won’t do anything to deal with the explosion of crime

and repeat violent offenders.

First, they denied the problem and wrongly claimed that the crime

statistics were false: “Nothing to see here, folks.” That was their

attitude. Then they called the stories of victims “anecdotal rhetoric”

and blamed the victims for exaggerating the problem. Then, when the

former Attorney General — and, likely, the next Premier — ran out of

excuses, he hired consultants to spend 4½ months to come back and tell

him how to do his own job that he’s held for the last five

years.

When the damning report came back, confirming how bad the problem

had become, the NDP hid the most important parts of the report and only

released the

summary of the recommendations. As an aside, the former

Attorney General — and, likely, the next Premier — has yet to make a

single comment about the very report that he commissioned.

[10:30 a.m.]

Then they went on to blame the opposition. They blame root causes.

They blame the federal government. They blame lack of funding, They

blamed everybody but the former Attorney General, the man noteworthy for

writing the manual on how to sue the police and who let this problem

spiral out of control.

But really, at the end of the day….

Interjections.

K. Falcon: I can see I’ve struck a nerve here, folks. But really, at the end

of the day, it’s about their ideology.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

K. Falcon: They don’t want to do anything that’s going to get in the way of

coddling the criminals and putting criminal rights over the rights of

the public to feel safe.

So at long last, will this government and this Attorney General

abandon the catch-and-release program of the former Attorney General and

finally put the public’s safety ahead of the criminals’ right to

reoffend?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, because he

has given me so many places to start to try and just address and debunk

the nonsense that he has spewed in that question. From the moment we

took government, we made it clear that public safety is a

priority.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Amongst the first acts that we brought in was to go aggressive on

the guns and gangs strategy and do things that the police have been

asking for…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …that that government failed to do. We brought in a

made-in-British Columbia witness security program so that the police can

get better intelligence in terms of fighting gangs. Police had been

asking for it. We did it. They did not.

Police were fed up with having to send firearms to Ottawa for

forensic analysis, where it was always waiting for weeks and months,

which delayed investigations. We made the investigation to have our own,

in British Columbia, firearms forensic analysis lab in Surrey. That’s in

place. We did that. They failed to do that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member talks about the report. I will remind that member that

the Attorney General at that time took a leadership role in going after

by establishing the commission and coming back with recommendations into

money laundering in this province, which operated with impunity while

they sat on this side of the House.

The recommendations were acted and implemented. That’s just the

beginning. There is so much more, but I wait for the supplemental from

the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please. When the question is asked, listen to it. When

the answer is provided, have the same courtesy and listen to that,

please. You don’t have to shout back and forth.

Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: All the bluster in the world is not going to take away from their

record. The fact of the matter….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

K. Falcon: During the time that we were in government, we never saw the level

and frequency of criminal activity that we’re seeing today in British

Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

K. Falcon: The Solicitor General might try and stand up and bluster and

pretend that none of this is real, which is the line they’ve been taking

for the last nine months. But the fact is victims feel a lot

differently. When the Attorney General dismisses the concerns that the

victims raise, as he has in the past, as “anecdotal rhetoric,” that

summarizes the attitude of the members opposite.

[10:35 a.m.]

But let’s talk about some of these victims, like, for example, the

woman in downtown Vancouver subjected to a violent hammer attack; like

the senior who was sucker-punched in Chinatown, fell to the ground and

broke his hip and currently is in the hospital recovering from that

attack; or the young woman bashed on the head with a pole and subjected

to violent racial slurs; or the Mexican tourist who was stabbed in a Tim

Hortons; or the young man in Yaletown who was stabbed by a random

stranger and died.

These are real people, and these events are happening at a

frequency and an alarming rate because of the decisions of the former

Attorney General.

I just can’t imagine how those victims must feel when they’re

listening to this kind of rhetoric, about realizing that they have a

government more concerned about the rights of victims to get back into

the community to reoffend as opposed to the rights of those victims to

have a government looking after their interests. Imagine how they must

feel when they listen to that rhetoric.

An Hon. Member: Question.

K. Falcon: Oh, you’ll get that. Don’t you worry.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I want, actually, the Solicitor General or the

Attorney General or both to just think for a moment: if it wasn’t me and

none of these people were here and all the victims were sitting here,

could you look those victims…

Mr. Speaker: Member.

K. Falcon: …in the eye and say that your government has done and did

everything possible so that they would not be violently attacked by

random strangers in British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker: Members, all the questions through the Chair.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and I’m glad he raised

victims, because we are extremely concerned about victims. We think

whenever anybody is attacked that that is unacceptable, and we know the

police are doing everything they can to deal with it.

But I’d also like to point out, given that the Leader of the

Opposition has shown such concern for victims, that when he sat on this

side of the House as Finance Minister, he froze and cut the programs for

victim services. In fact, since we formed government on this side of the

House, we have increased services to victims programs by more

than…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Members, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …62 percent.

This is a government that recognizes that victims need help and

support, when you guys never did when you sat on this side of the

House.

We have….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, you’re wasting your precious time. Question period is only

30 minutes.

Minister will continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d remind the Leader of the Opposition that the rules and the

laws are made by the courts and the Criminal Code.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, enough.

Please continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I find it really interesting that the Leader of the Opposition

doesn’t talk to some of his legal colleagues next to him, because they

would tell him that (1) judges are independent and (2) the Criminal Code

of this country is the responsibility of the federal

government.

We have been working with other provinces who’ve said that violent

attacks — random, violent attacks — are a problem right across this

country. We are working with local government. We’re doing what we do as

a province. But we also know that the federal government has a role to

play and that when there are unintended consequences from legislation

that has been passed, there need to be changes.

We have been pushing on that and will continue to push that until

we get the changes that we want. At the same time, we will continue to

work with local government to put in place the programs they need, such

as the program that they themselves cancelled — the offender management

program, which police have….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Wasting time? Wasting time? The member says the recommendation

that the police want to restore that program is wasting time. That shows

he’s more concerned about headlines than actually fixing the

problem.

[10:40 a.m.]

S. Bond: That answer characterizes the exact problem that this government

has. Simply stand up in the House, raise your voice, and dismiss the

concerns of British Columbians who, day after day after day, under this

government’s watch, are facing attacks, assaults — you name it — and

this minister dismisses it.

And it’s not just the Solicitor General. It’s the Attorney

General. It was unbelievable to British Columbians when the Attorney

General stood up in this chamber two weeks ago, and here’s what he said:

“I do not think that the people of British Columbia believe that

arresting and enforcing the law…is the way to go….” That describes the

problem perfectly, and that is why British Columbians expect better of

this Attorney General. Frankly, it is his job to enforce the

law.

Yesterday, while the Attorney General was busy patting himself on

the back for making a plan to make a plan to have a meeting in Ottawa, a

man was randomly attacked just minutes from his constituency office.

Police say the victim was waiting for a bus. He was approached and

punched in the face by a total stranger. Perhaps the Solicitor General

would like to speak to that victim.

When will this Attorney General do his job, enforce the law and

end the catch-and-release program that was put in place by the former

Attorney General?

Hon. M. Rankin: I obviously have enormous sympathy for the victim of which the

hon. member spoke. It’s totally unacceptable — the situation she has

described and so many others.

We agree with the hon. member for Surrey South, who says we cannot

simply arrest our way out of this problem. We have a great number of

things we must do, and that includes enforcement by talented and

dedicated Crown counsel around this province, led by an able Crown

counsel himself, with many years in the job, who was appointed to this

role under the leadership of the former government.

We take our responsibilities to victims, to community, to safety

very, very seriously on this side of the House. We’re not passing the

buck. We’re working with local communities. The Urban Mayors Caucus have

been tremendous allies. We commissioned an independent report to see if

there were more things that could be done.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

There is no need for comments, Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. Rankin: We worked with local governments to see if there were more things

that could be done on the ground in their communities to make people

safe.

We do not apologize for going to the place where the Criminal Code

gets amended and to work with all the Attorneys General and all the

Public Safety Ministers across this land to say that change is needed.

We will continue to do that.

We will also continue to invest heavily in the social programs

that are needed to address the root causes of crime because we believe

it’s important to be tough on crime and also tough on the causes of

crime.

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

S. Bond: Well, I would agree with the Attorney General on one thing: change

is needed, and where it’s needed is to end the catch-and-release program

that his former Attorney General put in place.

Every day in this House we bring serious, challenging issues to

this Attorney General. And what does he talk about? Passing the buck.

That is exactly what he does every single day. In fact, let’s talk about

creating a plan to create another plan to plan.

What British Columbians want and have shown in large numbers over

the last few days…. They want action. They are done. They want a

province where they can feel safe in their communities. That includes in

Kelowna, where recently a young man was randomly assaulted while walking

with his friends. And then what happened? His friends were smashed in

the face with a flashlight and pepper-sprayed. These attacks are

happening every single day under this government’s watch. In fact, we

hear every day that people have never seen it worse. That’s the record

of this Attorney General.

So when will he do the right thing? When will he stand up, do his

job and end the catch-and-release program put in place by the soon-to-be

Premier?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The kinds of crimes that the hon. member is referring to are

utterly unacceptable. They’re horrific.

Random attacks, we learned, are a fact of life, sadly, across this

entire country. We are trying to make sure that we address that

head-on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. Rankin: The pandemic has exacerbated mental health problems and drug

addiction problems. The majority of the people who are engaged in these

horrific crimes are people who have been affected by that. We have to

ensure that we address that and enforce the law effectively….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Rankin: We have to ensure that we enforce the law effectively as well as

take the steps to ensure that those people are not on the street and

don’t have the opportunity to do the crimes in the first

place.

To suggest that we are passing the buck by talking to other

governments to make sure that the bail reform legislation is altered….

At the meeting of the federal, provincial and territorial Attorneys

General and Public Safety ministers, it was suggested that ministers

unanimously agreed to a subsequent urgent meeting to consider concrete

proposals to address these issues.

We would wish….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the hon. member seems to be suggesting that bail reform is

something that the province can do. We cannot, and we are doing our best

to ensure that those who can make those changes, make those changes,

because we understand, on this side of the House, that keeping people

safe is our job.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, please.

Leader of the Third Party.

DRAX OPERATIONS IN B.C.

AND PRODUCTION OF WOOD

PELLETS

S. Furstenau: Two weeks ago my colleague asked about BBC and CBC reports that

have shown that Drax, a U.K. energy giant, is turning whole trees from

primary forests in B.C. into pellets to burn. The minister said that no,

they are not. She said that Drax is not using whole trees or primary

forests for wood pellets. Those comments are on the record.

We have a copy of the minister’s estimates binder from earlier

this year. On page 66, there’s a note that says: “Confidential. For

minister’s use only. An estimated 75 percent of fibre for pellet

processing facilities comes from sawmill residuals.” In other words, at

least a quarter of the fibre used in wood pellets is not sawmill

waste.

The BBC and CBC both have video evidence showing whole trees being

cut, transported and processed at the Drax site. My question to the

Minister of Forests: does the minister want to try again to answer the

question? Are whole trees from primary forests being turned into wood

pellets in B.C.?

Hon. K. Conroy: I will try to ensure that I say it so that the member understands,

so yes, I will try again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Members, Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: The ministry actively monitors the input used by pellet sectors in

B.C. They are made almost entirely from waste, and 90 percent comes from

sawdust, shavings, chips and harvest residuals.

You know, B.C. is a really important source of bio­economy

for many countries, and that source is transitioning away from

coal-fired power. Now, it’s better to turn waste into bioenergy that

displaces fossil fuels instead of burning it in open slash piles or

leaving it on the ground, which creates even more GHG.

The reality is that no one is turning whole forests into pellets.

The reality is that those logs were taken to sawmills — in fact, two

sawmills — that turned them into sawlogs. No one in their right mind

would take a sawlog, a perfectly good piece of timber, and turn it into

pellets. Sawlogs are going for $150 a cubic metre. Pellets are going for

$25. Logs that are used for pellets are going for $25.

[10:50 a.m.]

Those are logs that have been burnt that can’t be used in a

sawmill. Those are logs that have been affected by the pine beetle that

can’t be used in sawmills. Those are logs that have been rotten and are

creating GHG in the environment. So pellet mills only use low-quality

logs that can’t be used in sawmills.

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

S. Furstenau: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

S. Furstenau: I think it would just be so much easier for the public and the

rest of us if we could get direct and clear responses. The minister very

carefully used the words “almost entirely.” She very carefully did not

say there are no whole trees from primary forests being turned into wood

pellets.

The minister’s allegiance to Drax is fascinating. In 2021, this

company took control of 66 percent of the wood pellet production in this

province, monopolizing the industry. In 2022, the former chief forester

resigned her position and assumed a vice-presidency role in this giant

corporation, a giant corporation that lobbies this government regularly.

In fact, several experts have called for the Competition Bureau of

Canada to review Drax’s activities in B.C.

I’ll ask the question in a way that the minister can understand.

Trust. Trust is the currency of democracy. The public has seen reliable

reports from international, renowned media agencies with video footage

to back up their claims. Is the minister calling the reports of the BBC

and the CBC false?

Hon. K. Conroy: I will make sure that I put accurate information on the record,

which is something that I have always done.

Again, not all harvested logs are suitable to be turned into

pellets. Some of them are too small. They’ve been damaged. It’s either

beetle-killed, fire. I’ve already talked about that. Some logs are

processed, but it is very, very few. In fact, these logs represent less

than 0.5 percent of the total provincial harvest — 0.5

percent.

We know that logs are 150 bucks a cubic metre. No one is going to

process a log that should be turned into a sawlog into pellets. That is

not happening in this province.

I have mentioned in the media that I felt that some of the

information said in both of the films was inaccurate. When we were asked

to provide information, we did. It was not published.

Again, less than 0.5 percent of the total provincial harvest —

that is, the whole logs — go into a pellet mill, and those are logs that

cannot be utilized anywhere else in the sawlog industry.

You’re welcome.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON REPEAT

OFFENDERS AND ROLE OF CROWN

COUNSEL

M. Morris: Yesterday the Attorney General stood up and said that we need

action now, but then he proceeded to claim that it all depends on

Ottawa.

Six months ago I called for a dedicated Crown counsel for prolific

offenders, and the NDP still hasn’t acted on that. This is a provincial

responsibility — full stop. It was even one of the 28 recommendations

from the NDP’s own damning report, and something that he can do

today.

Why hasn’t the NDP taken immediate action and assigned a dedicated

Crown counsel to focus on violent, prolific offenders?

Hon. M. Rankin: There are a number of measures that we’re taking that we think

will make a difference. We are looking at all 25 of those

recommendations, including the one that the member referred to. There

were 28 that were in the report, three of which have already been

implemented, including the one to deal with the prolific offender

management program, which was so successful but which was cut by the

last government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The kinds of things we are investing in, in social programs, are

going to make a difference. For example, peer-assisted care teams —

which was the number one recommendation of the report the member

referred to — involve civil-led responses to people who are in drug

crisis or have mental health issues. Teams are being rolled out in

Victoria and in New Westminster — and soon on the North Shore. Did the

party opposite, when they were in government, do anything of the sort?

No.

We are investing up to $164 million, in the last budget, for

complex care housing, which will eventually have 500 people housed who

have the needs for that kind of wraparound service. Did the former

government do any social investments of that kind? No.

Community transition teams are identified in the

report…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Rankin: …as critically important. That deals with people who are released

from correctional facilities and often to go back to the street where

they were before, without the supports, without anybody helping them

navigate through the system. We have expanded our program, which we

introduced, to ensure that it’s 90 days’ support for these people and

that all ten correctional facilities in this province will be subject to

this new program. The former government did nothing of the

sort.

We think this is critically important to address the situation on

bail reform. We are working with our federal partners, who have 100

percent responsibility for that, but the report to which the member

referred was a function of work with the local mayors across this

province. In his very community of Prince George, the mayor said, about

that very report: “I think the recommendations encompass everything that

we were looking for and hoping for that would come out of that

report.”

We are working at the local government level. We are taking our

responsibilities…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. M. Rankin: …to enforce the law, and we are working with the federal

government to change the law.

M. de Jong: The Attorney gave a relatively long answer and managed to

successfully avoid answering the question in any way, shape or

form.

My colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie offered up,

yet again, a specific course of action that this Attorney and this

government could take, and the Attorney refuses to provide a clear

answer, a straight answer, about why that step hasn’t been

taken.

In fact, it’s a recurring theme: the Attorney, the previous

Attorney and the government continuously pleading a lack of ability to

deal directly with chronic repeat offenders. But what we see, and what

British Columbians see, is not a lack of ability but a lack of will.

That’s what they are seeing.

You know, a few years ago — more than a few years ago, back in ’93

— the then Attorney General saw a problem with domestic violence cases.

They were understandably and justifiably concerned, and the then

Attorney General Gabelmann took specific steps. He issued specific

directions to prosecutors across British Columbia about how to conduct

those prosecutions to address that dramatic rise in domestic violence.

Other Attorneys General have issued similar directives in circumstances

where it was appropriate to do so.

Six months ago — six months ago — in the course of the estimates

debate, I had this conversation with the Attorney’s predecessor, and I

presented him with a draft directive. It’s only one page. The

significant paragraph read as follows — it would be a directive to

prosecutors: “In circumstances when an adult prolific offender is

brought before the courts on additional charges, a presumption shall

exist, on the part of the Crown counsel, that the public interest,

including the safety of the public, is best served by seeking the

detention of the accused adult prolific offender, pending the

disposition of the matter.”

[11:00 a.m.]

That is a direction that this Attorney General could give. His

predecessor did nothing. I’ll table it again after question period. But

what I’d like to know, and what British Columbians would like to know,

from this Attorney General is: will he today issue that directive? If

not, why not?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Let him start, man.

Hon. M. Rankin: As I said to the hon. member for Prince George–Mackenzie, we are

looking at the specific proposal that was made by the LePard-Butler task

force, if you will, and their recommendations, and that would be for a

dedicated Crown counsel. That is an area that is under active

consideration.

The member for Abbotsford West has, I think, made a constructive

suggestion concerning the directive.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Rankin: We have, of course, reviewed it, and we’ve looked at this issue in

the past and are continuing to do it.

The member will know the constraints that the courts have imposed

when it comes to dealing with amendments to a directive, changing the

criminal law of Canada or changing the case authorities, such as is our

case. In other words, the presumption that the member talked about,

would that line up with our criminal law and with the court’s chartered

jurisprudence?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. Rankin: It was a serious question, and I’m trying to provide a serious

answer.

Yes, it’s under consideration. Every tool in the toolkit is under

serious investigation. But we cannot, with a directive, change the

criminal law of Canada or the Charter of Rights of Canadians. And that

is what we’re examining actively.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

M. de Jong: As I alluded to just a moment ago, I’d like to table a document, the

section 6 Crown Counsel Act draft directive, first tabled in this House six

months ago.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued Committee of the Whole, Bill 29.

[11:05 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 29 — MORTGAGE SERVICES

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 29;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

Clauses 13 to 38 inclusive approved.

On clause 39.

P. Milobar: Just a couple of questions on this section, really around how many

staff and the capacity within the investigative wherewithal of BCFSA

currently.

Does the minister know how many staff they currently have

available for investigations and what the current caseload for that

staff is?

Hon. S. Robinson: We’d have to check in with the BCFSA to get a specific number for

the member. We’re happy to do that and provide them with that

information so that it’s accurate.

P. Milobar: Well then, I guess I’ll reframe a little bit.

What types of discussions, as this bill was being drafted — one

would assume in concert with discussion with the BCFSA…? What is their

expectation for increased staffing for investigations? What type of

skill set would be required? What confidence level do they have, given

we have a kind of a hiring skill shortage across a wide range of things?

I would think this would be a specialized type of investigation body

that would be needed.

I’m just curious what that looks like in those discussions

drafting this bill.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, if you’re going to have a conversation, I’m going to

ask that you step outside the chamber, please.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: BCFSA already does have investigators for mortgage brokers. This

current legislation that’s here before us is actually modelled on the

Real Estate Services Act that currently exists. If anything, it will be

more streamlined in terms of having specialized knowledge within the

organization itself.

Clauses 39 to 47 inclusive approved.

On clause 48.

P. Milobar: I’m just curious if frozen property would include homes that have

been purchased via a mortgage.

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asks about how orders to freeze property are made

against licensed persons. Freeze orders may only be made if there are

reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a contravention of the

act that is contrary to the public interest. It provides a tool that the

superintendent can use to secure a licensee’s property and protect those

assets, pending the outcome of investigation and hearing. A freeze order

protects the property from being sold or disposed of.

Fairness is provided by allowing a person with an interest in the

property to apply to the Supreme Court for disposition of the property.

This provision is consistent with

section 46 of the Real Estate Services

Act. This provision is made to apply to unlicensed persons by

section 51

of this act.

Clauses 48 to 62 inclusive approved.

On clause 63.

P. Milobar: This is a pretty lengthy clause and runs — one, two, three —

almost four pages long. I only have one or two questions, surprisingly

enough, for it.

This section, for the viewers at home, deals with the rules of the

authority — the authority being the BCFSA — by

definitions in it. I just

want to clarify. In (8) of this clause, it says that: “The Lieutenant

Governor in Council may, by regulation, (

a) make rules or repeal or

amend rules made by the Authority under this section, and (

b) specify

powers of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations under

this Act and authorize the Authority to make rules under those specified

powers.”

That’s basically at the end. There are only nine left. I just want

to clarify with the minister that essentially, despite the three or four

pages of

preamble of what sets out the authority and their rules of

authority — which is the BCFSA — ultimately, the minister can create the

rules that the BCFSA would need to operate under for these new

regulatory provisions, if the minister feels that the rules aren’t

adequate or not appropriate.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct. I’ll read into the record…. The rule-making

allows the authority to respond quickly to emerging issues in the

sector. The authority will have rule-making power to set qualification

requirements that include licence categories and terms, education,

experience and other qualifications to be licensed as well as exemptions

from licensing.

The authority will have rule-making power to set standards of

conduct in business practices that include the operation of trust

accounts, business operations, standard business forums and information

disclosure statements. As well, the authority will be able to set

different standards for different circumstances, including conditions

and restrictions on licences, requirements to post security and filing

of reports, returns and other information.

By allowing rules to be made by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the government still retains the ability

to direct policy.

P. Milobar: With that in mind, then…. I’m assuming that the minister would

feel it’s appropriate that the industry, the mortgage broker industry,

should have a reasonable expectation….

If they’re feeling they’re not getting anywhere discussing with

the superintendent of the BCFSA potential changes or areas that they

feel need to be changed or improved, they should have still a reasonable

expectation of reasonable access to whoever the minister happens to be

to voice those concerns and have those conversations and not feel like

they’re just going to be automatically told to go back to the BCFSA and

have those discussions.

Hon. S. Robinson: Absolutely, that is the case.

I also neglected to mention, in my previous answer…. I think it’s

important that it’s understood. Providing the authority with rule-making

authority is consistent with what we have with the Real Estate Services

Act as well as the Financial Institutions Act. These are consistent

rule-making processes that we have, as well as access to the minister if

policy isn’t moving in the direction that is, on the whole, best for

British Columbians.

Clauses 63 to 104 inclusive approved.

On clause 105.

P. Milobar: This is the commencement clause, in terms of when it comes into

effect. It comes into effect with an order-in-council.

What is the expectation, by the minister, for this to come into

effect? We’ve seen varying speed with this type of commencement date. If

it’s an FOI law…. It happened almost 15 minutes after the bill was

passed. Others have taken quite some time. So I’m just curious what the

expectation of the minister is for this bill to come into

effect.

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This act will be brought into force by regulation at a date that

is yet to be determined. The earliest would be fall of 2023, given the

significant amount of work that needs to be done. Time is needed to

develop rules and regulations under the act in consultation with both

the BCFSA as well as industry.

In addition, changes to the register of licensees, application

forms, information statements and related guidance are needed to

transition to a new licensing system. It’s within that context that we

appreciate that there’s lots of work that is to be done.

I’m also expecting that there are no more questions, so before I

take my seat, if I can just thank staff who have worked on this for

years. This has been a significant undertaking, and I want to

acknowledge Suzanne and her team for the amount of literally heavy

lifting of getting this work done. It’s a significant body of work, and

it’s going to make a difference for British Columbians.

I also want to say God bless…. The member for Kamloops–North

Thompson — God bless his mom. He started this off, and I have tremendous

respect for her.

Clause 105 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: Madam Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:22 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 29 — MORTGAGE SERVICES ACT

Bill 29, Mortgage Services Act, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. N. Simons: I call second reading of Bill 27, Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 2).

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 27 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2022

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

There are six statutes being amended in this bill, all of them

minor. They are limited in scope and will help, however, to bring

clarity and consistency to the statutes and how they are to be

interpreted and applied.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

First, there are minor housekeeping amendments proposed to the

Election Act to correct a cross-referencing error.

[11:25 a.m.]

The amendments to the Lobbyist Transparency Act will reinstate the

registrar’s authority to remove a return record from the registry when

it’s found to be non-compliant, which was inadvertently removed when

amendments were made in 2018.

Thirdly, amendments to the Power of Attorney Act and the

Representation Agreement Act relate to the witnessing requirements for

making an enduring power of attorney and a representation agreement. The

amendments will provide authority to allow for the remote electronic

witnessing of these planning instruments as an alternative to in-person

witnessing. This will allow for remote witnessing to provide greater

flexibility, including in situations where in-person access may be

limited.

Next, the Queen’s Counsel Act is being amended and now will be

called the King’s Counsel Act. While B.C.’s

Interpretation Act allows

for references to Her Majesty in existing statutes to be interpreted as

referring to the new monarch, having this statute already included as

part of this bill provides us with the opportunity to make this

non-urgent amendment.

The other amendments to the Queen’s Counsel Act include provisions

to enable the revocation of a Queen’s Counsel, now King’s Council,

appointment and the addition of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court

as a required consultee. The other minor amendments address a gap with

respect to the order of precedence of appointments.

Lastly, the amendment to the Wills, Estates and Succession Act

addresses a relatively rare occurrence where property transfers to the

government in absence of a legal heir but government has no specific

authority to appoint someone to administer the estate.

M. de Jong: Thank you to the Attorney for his comments with respect to Bill

27. It is a piece of legislation that lends itself to more

discussion/debate during the committee stage. That’s common with respect

to miscellaneous statutes amendment acts of this sort.

My practice in the past, and one I will continue, is to try to

advise the Attorney now of the areas where he might anticipate

questions. I am grateful, by the way, for the opportunity to meet with

his staff in advance, so he may already have some of this information,

but it’s probably appropriate to put it on the record now, put those

comments and alerts on the record in second reading.

The Attorney should probably anticipate a few questions around

section 2 of the bill — or clause 2; I guess we now refer to them as

clauses, not sections — only to make clear…. In my discussions, I was

left a bit unclear on whether or not this represents the restoration of

a provision. At one point in the briefing, it was indicated to me that

this is a new provision. That’s not my understanding.

If the provision that’s being restored was inadvertently deleted

in 2018, it may be helpful, even in advance of the committee stage, if

the Attorney or one of his capable staff want to just send to my office

the reference to the earlier

section or subsection that was

inadvertently deleted. That would be helpful and save us some time at

committee.

The amendments under the Power of Attorney Act, clauses 6 and 8 of

the bill…. I understand that the genesis for this took place as a result

of the experiences with COVID and temporary measures that were in place

and that the ministry has taken some lessons or gained some experience

there.

The granting of a power of attorney — as the Attorney, I’m sure,

agrees — is not an insignificant step. It is the bestowing upon someone

of the power to stand in your place and wield all of the legal authority

that you do, so the procedures that give rise to that transfer of

authority are important. I will likely want to explore briefly with the

Attorney, in committee stage, what is being contemplated.

[11:30 a.m.]

I understand that clause 8 creates the regulatory authority

necessary to breathe life into the provisions of clause 6. But even in

his comments just a moment ago, the Attorney used a word…. He talked

about the desire to create the ability to sign a power of attorney

remotely.

All of these words in the age of technology, I think, become

significant — remotely versus electronically versus visually. So the

Attorney should anticipate some questions around what those regulations

are likely to look like. What do he and the government intend to create?

What mechanism is in the Attorney’s mind in amending and creating this

alternative process for powers of attorney and, I think, representation

agreements, which come along a little bit later?

The second part of clause 8 refers to

section 41.2 and relates to

regulations in relation to extrajurisdictional powers of attorney. My

question to his staff was whether or not this was being included to

address some kind of a problem that has arisen, and I was advised that

what is taking place here is that there’s no substantive change — that

the provision is simply being renumbered and that these provisions

currently exist in the act under 41(4). I’ll ask the Attorney to confirm

that on the record as well.

The provisions dealing with the King’s Counsel act, the renaming

provisions, are obvious, for obvious purposes. And then the creation of

the revocation ability, as initiated by the Attorney

General….

I should say, by the way, I guess to put on the record maybe for

the benefit of a few members of this assembly, that I did pose the

question and seek the guidance of the conflict commissioner relating to

the ability of those in this chamber who have the designation to

actually participate in the debate insofar as lawyers in private

practice, I think, do derive some additional benefit from having that

distinction. I can advise that the commissioner offered her opinion that

there were no impediments, to her mind, to participation in the

discussion.

Finally, the Attorney can anticipate a few questions on clause 19

as it relates to the intestacy situation that he describes and how that

is intended. I guess I’ll probably start with: what is the gap that has

been identified and needs addressing here?

I spent a delightful three or four days in this chamber a number

of years ago with the now mayor of Nanaimo, when we rewrote the wills

and estate laws of British Columbia in what was an enjoyable debate. As

we contemplated every possible permutation of intestacy and the passage

of the estate, it seems we may have missed one. I’ll pose that question

to the Attorney at the appropriate time.

[11:35 a.m.]

Sometimes in those matters, the easiest way — it’s a bit

presumptive, on my part, to suggest these things — is to provide an

example, because in the abstract, I find these things are very difficult

to understand otherwise. An example of the circumstance in which this

change in the intestacy provisions would be applicable will be

helpful.

I think those are my comments on the second reading, hon. Chair.

We’re obviously happy to facilitate passage into committee stage for the

purpose of having those discussions. Thank you for the time

today.

K. Paddon: I could not let this go by without talking about a

section that I

think is going to be really important, especially during Community

Inclusion Month. We have an opportunity for a change here that I fully

support, and that’s around the Representation Agreement Act, as well as

the Power of Attorney Act. I would like to just take a few minutes about

the representation agreement, because not everybody in the province may

understand why this would be an important change.

I know that we do so much business here that might seem standard.

It might seem that this is just the course of business, but as the

member previous pointed out, there are some lessons to be learned from

COVID. Some of them have been devastating, but some of them offer a lot

of opportunity, and this is one. With COVID, there were temporary

adjustments made to the way that we do a lot of kinds of business. With

regard to the Representation Agreement Act, the changes during COVID

For those who don’t fully know, a representation agreement is very

different than a power of attorney, in that, like my colleague said

before, the power of attorney is, I think they said, not an

insignificant step, which is absolutely very true.

I’ve had the privilege of serving youth and adults with

intellectual disabilities over the course of my career. I’ve also worked

with victims. I’ve worked with seniors. There are a lot of situations

where giving up one’s rights, one’s autonomy, may not be the best or

most dignified choice, and a representation agreement offers an

alternative to that.

A representation agreement allows an adult, 19 years or older, to

select somebody who will act with them in their decision-making, who

will support them in that decision-making. They don’t take over their

rights, they don’t take over their ability to be part of that decision,

but they are now involved in that decision. That’s really

important.

We know that organizations like the B.C. Schizophrenia Society,

the B.C. Centre for Palliative Care, Family Caregivers of B.C., Seniors

First B.C., Community Living B.C., all of these bodies, offer

information about representation agreements because this is a tool that

can be used to allow supported decision-making in a way that is very

inclusive. It doesn’t override the rights or will of the

person.

To be able to do any part of this remotely, to be able to remove

any kind of physical barrier, be it because of rural distance or because

of mobility issues — or even, potentially, just access to the people

that you would need to finish this process — is really important. Any

learned, it can absolutely work, and in the way it was intended, is

something I absolutely would support.

I just wanted to rise and talk a little bit about representation

supported decision-making and choice, should be made as accessible as

possible. With that, I will take my seat and thank you so much for the

opportunity.

Deputy Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 27.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Simons: I move that the bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole

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

today.

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

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

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. N. Simons moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:40 a.m.

Copyright © 2022 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

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

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.