Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 4, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 180

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Grammy Award recipient Alex Cuba

Hon. N. Cullen

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Voting rights and South Asian community

J. Brar

SUCCESS Foundation and fundraising gala

T. Wat

Fishing industry in Steveston

K. Greene

Rose Valley Veterinary Hospital and work of Moshe

and Noa Oz

B. Stewart

Langley Community Services Society

A. Mercier

Sikh Heritage Month

T. Stone

Oral Questions

Funding for Directions youth detox

services

T. Halford

Hon. S. Malcolmson

K. Kirkpatrick

Food security and Indigenous access to food

resources

A. Olsen

Hon. L. Popham

Indigenous harvesting rights and spraying of

glyphosate on First Nations lands

A. Olsen

Hon. K. Conroy

Review panel report on drug toxicity deaths and

implementation of recommendations

M. Lee

Hon. S. Malcolmson

T. Stone

Youth mental health and addiction services and

stabilization care legislation

D. Davies

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Funding for Directions youth detox

services

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Petitions

A. Olsen

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 8 — Powers and role of Health

Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Property Law Amendment Act, 2022

(continued)

D. Coulter

B. Banman

T. Wat

M. Bernier

On the amendment

M. Bernier

M. de Jong

Hon. D. Eby

A. Olsen

S. Furstenau

P. Milobar

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Food

(continued)

I. Paton

Hon. L. Popham

J. Sturdy

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education and

Skills Training

Hon. A. Kang

C. Oakes

S. Furstenau

MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2022

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

GRAMMY AWARD RECIPIENT ALEX CUBA

Hon. N. Cullen: I rise to pay tribute to one of our greatest cultural exports.

Last night at the Grammys, Cuban-born and Smithers’ own Alex Cuba won

the Gram­my for Best Latin Pop Album. Three times nominated, it

was his album Mendó that finally brought home the biggest prize

in music.

[1:35 p.m.]

I first met Alex as I was an amateur music promoter in Smithers,

B.C. That career didn’t last long, but I was very grateful to bring him

in. It was on the advice of a former colleague of ours who has since

departed, Bill Goodacre, who was Alex’s father-in-law.

Will the House please join me in recognizing Alex, his amazing

partner, Sarah and his entire Cuban and Smith­ereen family for his

great award last night.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: Joining us today in the House are — listen carefully — Susan Eadie,

not Eby, and her husband, Mel Rowles, both well-loved and well-known

residents out on the UBC peninsula. It’s great to see residents from

Vancouver–Point Grey here in the House today. Will the House please join me

in making them feel very welcome.

R. Leonard: I’d like to introduce to the House a constituent from Courtenay-Comox.

His name is Albert Taylor, better known as Bud Taylor. He’s come from an

audition in Coquitlam. He is a poet and a musician, and he speaks very

highly of the Eureka Club that helps integrate people and gets people well

connected within our community.

He’s filled with humour. When I think of Bud, I think of innovation,

but he says it’s innovation and hope. He looks at problems. He’s looking for

the problems, and then he looks for innovations to solve those problems, and

he’s eager to share them at all times.

Hope is an acronym, actually, and he says it stands for heaven-sent,

own solutions, pursue victory, and engage in higher porpoises.

Could the House please welcome Bud Taylor.

J. Routledge: I am thrilled to be able to introduce two young constituents of mine

from Burnaby North, Kendall Scrymgeour and Sophia Simpson. They are here

today, taking a bit of a break from their studies at UVic. Kendall is

majoring in psychology, and Sophia is majoring in business. Would you please

join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Hon. S. Robinson: Today we have in the House the mayor of the village of Queen

Charlotte. Mayor Kris Olsen is here with his lovely partner, Paula Varnell.

His Worship was born and raised in Queen Charlotte and is an excellent

advocate for his community.

His history in his community includes being acknowledged in 2010 with

the B.C. Achievement Foundation Award, acknowledging his work with youth in

the community. This is his first time here in the Legislature, so can I

invite all the members to welcome him to this place.

A. Olsen: I rise today to welcome David Courtney to the Legislative Assembly.

Saltspring Island is a volunteer-powered community in many ways. David has

been very active in engaging with me over the last five years that I’ve had

the honour of representing the beautiful community of Saltspring

Island.

The latest, and probably the most vocal that David has been, in his

advocacy with me, has been on a B.C. Ferries–related issue, as he’s been

advocating to get a two-ferry service between Vesuvius and Crofton, which is

on the northern part of Saltspring Island. I’ll be tabling a petition later

today. Could the House please welcome David Courtney to the Legislative

Assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, it’s my pleasure….

Somebody else there? Of course — Surrey-Panorama.

J. Sims: I think I’m going to get the Speaker a set of binoculars.

Mr. Speaker: Next. Next member. [Laughter.]

J. Sims: My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

This last weekend was a special place for me and my siblings. As we

know, COVID prevented many families from getting together. During COVID,

many of us experienced lots of happy moments and lots of sad

moments.

[1:40 p.m.]

For me, I lost my mother on April 6 — not this year, last year. This

was the first time us siblings got to spend time together this weekend. This

was the first time my sister could travel from San Diego and be with the

rest of us and do all the things we need to do as a family to

grieve.

I want all of you to join me in welcoming my sister to British

Columbia, and I’m so grateful that we have had this opportunity to spend

that time together this weekend.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, member for Surrey-Panorama.

Members, it’s my pleasure to introduce two new Table Officers in

training to the House this afternoon. Over the coming weeks, you will be

seeing Hayley Hill and Darryl Hol, who will be beginning their orientation

to the Table and spending some initial time at the Table during proceedings

in Committee of Supply.

Hayley is legal counsel with the Office of the Clerk and brings a

strong legal background from her years with the Ministry of Attorney General

where she advised on areas of administrative law, employment law,

indemnities, agreements and preparation of legislation. Darryl is the senior

research analyst in the Parliamentary Committees Office and brings with him

considerable experience in journalism and as a senior adviser in the federal

government.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Hayley and Darryl to the

Table team.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

VOTING RIGHTS AND

SOUTH ASIAN

COMMUNITY

J. Brar: Today we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the South Asian

community winning the right to vote after 40 years of struggle. The act

to amend the Provincial Elections Act was passed in this House on April

2, 1947.

At the turn of the last century, South Asians, of whom the

overwhelming majority were Sikhs from Punjab, came to Canada. From the

outset, they fought together against racism and discrimination they

faced on the streets of Vancouver and against racist laws that were

passed in this assembly. They were designated as untrustworthy,

dishonest and undesirable by the government of the day. South Asians

were stripped of their most fundamental right, the right to vote, on

March 27, 1907 in this assembly.

This decision caused a tremendous uproar in the South Asian

community. As a result, the Khalsa Diwan Society of Vancouver, led by

Naginder Singh Gill, made the call to fight back. This sparked further

community activism that was advanced by giants including Darshan Singh,

Hassan Rahim, Dr. Pandia, Narnjan Singh, Anjar Singh and Jag Uppal,

among many others.

After a long struggle and a delegation to Victoria and Ottawa, the

franchise was eventually restored in 1947. It is only because of their

struggle and activism that you, Mr. Speaker, are seated on that

beautiful throne. Many of my colleagues of South Asian heritage are

seated in this chamber, now responsible for making the laws to make this

province more equal, more just, more fair for all British

Columbians.

My sincere thanks to the Dr. Hari Sharma Foundation for organizing

the first event in Surrey last Saturday to celebrate this historic

victory.

SUCCESS FOUNDATION

AND FUNDRAISING

GALA

T. Wat: I rise in the House today to speak about the upcoming 2022 Bridge

to SUCCESS Gala that will be taking place on Saturday, April 23. This

year is the 45th anni­versary of SUCCESS.

Since 1973, SUCCESS has played a key role in helping Canadians and

newcomers achieve their full potential. SUCCESS offers a wide range of

multicultural programs and services, including newcomer settlement,

affordable housing and seniors care.

[1:45 p.m.]

I, personally, am also very grateful for the services and care the

SUCCESS Simon K.Y. Lee Seniors Care Home has provided to my 97-year-old

mother and my late father, who passed away peacefully at the home at the

age of 98.

This year’s gala theme is “CommUNITY and resilience.” Throughout

the pandemic, many SUCCESS clients faced deepened poverty, isolation and

health challenges. How­ever, in the face of this, our communities

have demonstrated remarkable care and generosity, and this theme honours

the tremendous community efforts that have taken place.

The Bridge to SUCCESS Gala is one of the most highly anticipated

fundraising events in the Metro Vancouver Chinese community. Due to

COVID-19, the gala was virtual for the past two years, but that did not

stop the event from being a tremendous success.

I’m very excited for the gala’s return to in-person festivities,

as this is a fantastic opportunity to celebrate the important work that

SUCCESS does in our community. The SUCCESS Foundation is hoping to raise

$425,000 in support of SUCCESS’s essential programs.

I encourage everyone to take the time to learn about the important

work that SUCCESS is doing, and if you can, purchase a ticket for this

exciting event.

FISHING INDUSTRY IN STEVESTON

K. Greene: Many people know to come down to the docks in Steveston for

fresh-caught fish, but did you know that Steveston Harbour has the

largest small-craft fishing fleet in Canada?

Fishing is an integral part of my community and contributes a lot

to the culture and economy of our little corner of Richmond. Steveston

was founded before Richmond, and it was a vibrant fishing harbour, which

continues to this day. Before settlers arrived, Musqueam fishers

harvested the river’s and the ocean’s bounty for time

immemorial.

While tourists see a cute and, admittedly, delightful historic

village, our fishing sustains our community in an important way.

Shopping for local seafood means supporting our fishers in the same way

that buying local produce supports farmers.

Spot prawns are one of the catches that are highly anticipated.

Spot prawns are a delicacy that people very literally line up around the

block for. This year’s spot prawn season starts on May 6 at Steveston’s

Fisherman’s Wharf. You can even follow Steveston Spot Prawns on Facebook

for hours, pre-orders and pricing. Supporting our fishers is some of the

very best of shopping and eating local.

But it’s not just spot prawns on the docks. Depending on the

season, you can get salmon, halibut, octopus, shrimp and more. Just be

aware that the shops in Steveston have signs asking you not to bring

fresh fish into the stores. They can get a little bit drippy, so please

plan your day in Steveston accordingly.

Fishing is a labour of love and a passion for the sea, but the sea

can be unforgiving, and there have been devastating losses where fishers

were injured or never came home. At Garry Point Park, the Fisherman’s

Memorial stands at the mouth of the channel to the Steveston Harbour to

remember those lost at sea. Every year, on the National Day of Mourning,

community members gather to remember those who were lost.

I invite everyone to support our local fishers, who work so hard

in all kinds of conditions to keep us fed with healthy and delicious

seafood.

ROSE VALLEY VETERINARY HOSPITAL

AND WORK OF MOSHE AND

NOA OZ

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure to rise today to highlight the outstanding work of

two members of the Kelowna community — Dr. Moshe Oz and his wife, Noa

Oz, who own and operate the Rose Valley Veterinary Hospital in West

Kelowna.

Their veterinary facility stands out as one of the best in the

region, having received accreditation from the American Animal Hospital

Association. This is an incredibly impressive standard, as only 12

percent of the vet hospitals in North America are accredited by the

AAHA. In Dr. Oz’s own words, this recognition is the equivalency of

Michelin stars in the veterinary world.

Their hospital is made up of 21 industry professionals who take a

proactive approach to veterinary care. The pair have won many awards,

including being named vets of the year by the BC SPCA. In 2018, the

Greater Westside Board of Trade even named Dr. Moshe Oz as the citizen

of the year and, as well, recently, in 2022, the Platinum Service

Provider.

[1:50 p.m.]

Dr. Noa and Dr. Moshe go out of their way to save the lives of

countless animals, many at no charge or at discounted cost. During the

recent devastating floods in Princeton last fall, a dog was injured

during the disaster. The two doctors and their team immediately stepped

up and performed an emergency procedure for only a fraction of the cost.

Their clinic also housed 80 cats last summer during the wildfire

evacuations, doing what they could do to help those facing

evacuation.

The Doctors Oz and their team always go that extra mile, looking

for the best interests of the animals and their families. They run their

business with compassion, excellence, and are a force for good in our

community.

Today I want to say a sincere thank-you for everything they do for

West Kelowna’s animals and the families who love them.

LANGLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES SOCIETY

A. Mercier: It’s a pleasure to rise in this House and talk about a phenomenal

organization in my community of Langley that has been doing so much over

the past 50 years. That’s the Langley Community Services Society or the

LCSS.

Since the 1970s, Langley Community Services Society has been

providing impactful services and counselling to youth, adults and

families in Langley, offering support with substance use issues, housing

challenges, newcomer settlement and more.

These valuable programs make a difference in countless lives and

are helping make Langley a more inclusive place to live. I’ve got no

doubt that under the continued leadership of my friend Sanjeev Nand, the

executive director of LCSS, they’re going to continue to make that

progress for at least the next 50 years or until Sanjeev retires and

finds a suitable replacement candidate.

The work they do is so impactful. I’m thinking of the Langley

Local Immigration Partnership, which helps coordinate integration and

settlement services for new Canadians in Langley.

It’s worth noting that in 2016, the township of Langley had the

highest immigrant population growth in British Columbia, at 21.5

percent, and the city of Langley was just behind them in fifth place, at

15½ percent. I can tell you, with SkyTrain coming to Langley, which

everyone’s excited about, that transit-oriented development and growth

is going to continue to occur and is going to continue to mean rapid

population growth, so these services are more important than

ever.

In addition, they also sponsor a poverty law program that has pro

bono legal clinics every second Wednesday of the month, which is an

invaluable service providing access to justice to folks throughout

Langley.

I’d ask the House to give me a big hand and a big congratulations

to Langley Community Services Society on their 50th

anniversary.

SIKH HERITAGE MONTH

T. Stone: Today it’s my honour to rise in the House to recognize Sikh

Heritage Month. Sikhs have been in British Columbia for more than 130

years, contributing to the rich economic, social and cultural fabric of

communities in every corner of British Columbia. The first Sikhs arrived

in the Fraser Valley in 1905, first establishing themselves in the

agriculture and forestry industries. Between 1904 and 1908, around 5,000

men and the occasional woman settled across the province.

In 1906, the Khalsa Diwan Society, Canada’s first Sikh

organization, was formed. Two years later, on January 19, 1908,

Vancouver became home to North America’s first gurdwara or Sikh temple.

The Second Avenue Gurdwara operated out of a stately two-storey building

in Kitsilano, serving a community that numbered around 2,000 in its

first year. The Khalsa Diwan Society would later oversee the

construction of temples in Victoria, Abbotsford and New

Westminster.

During this time, the Sikh community faced significant hardships,

including disenfranchisement, violence and legislated racism that sought

to keep them out of our province. The Komagata Maru incident

exemplifies the discrimination endured by Sikhs in British Columbia. In

1914, Canadian officials refused to allow a ship and its 376 would-be

Indian immigrants to dock. Officials ordered passengers to stay on board

for 63 days with little food and water, only to be forced to turn

around.

Despite the discrimination and the challenges faced by early Sikh

settlers, the community persevered, and Sikh British Columbians have

continued to make outstanding contributions to this province, and we are

all stronger for it. This year’s theme for Sikh Heritage Month is

“Sat Sri Akaal.” This is a popular greeting among Sikhs,

but it is also a rallying cry to bring people together. This is a very

fitting theme, as we recognize the incredible selflessness and kindness

exhibited by the Sikh community throughout the pandemic and last year’s

wildfire and flooding events.

There are many ways to celebrate Sikh Heritage Month, and I hope

all of us can take some time this month to learn more about and

celebrate the rich history of Sikhs in British Columbia.

[1:55 p.m.]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR

DIRECTIONS YOUTH DETOX

SERVICES

T. Halford: For almost 30 years, Directions youth detox has helped young

people with addictions. But last week, shockingly, this government

decided to cut funding and close the program, which is the only youth

detox centre in Vancouver.

Ciara Frith is a youth detox counsellor, and she says: “Directions

youth detox is a unique and much-loved service. Many youth will suffer

from its closure.”

My question is to the minister. Will you do the right thing,

reverse this cut and stop this closure?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The need is great across British Columbia for the mental health

and addictions support care that we are adding almost every week. It’s

hard to find a week on the calendar where we are not building more

treatment, more detox beds, opening new supervised consumption sites and

advancing work like decriminalization and prescribed safe

supply.

To the member’s question, there will be no reduction in service in

any place that we are adding more supports. As we are implementing our

unprecedented expansion of funding for building that continuum of care

that did not exist before, health authorities do look at existing

contracts and existing services. They do find, sometimes, that there are

better ways to deliver supports, and that is the case with

Directions.

The contract won’t end until June, and what Vancouver Coastal

Health is doing with the funding that the province provides is hiring

new employees and providing new supports, all based on the consultation

that the health authority did with the families and children.

As the course of the overdose crisis changes, so do the services

that we deliver, and there will be no reduction in services for young

people grappling with substance use challenges.

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

T. Halford: We’ve seen this before. We’ve seen it with Pathways, Keremeos,

Sequoia and all their youth recovery homes in Vancouver — all cut by

this government.

When Pathways was defunded, the minister promised there would be

no disruptions. She was wrong. Only 10 percent of Pathways clients

registered to get help from the health authority.

Alicia Hamilton says: “Directions youth detox has served so many

youth. Why would anyone consider closing a crucial service in an opiate

crisis and highest drug overdose cases? We need more beds, not

less.”

Again to the minister, why is this minister closing Directions

youth detox and reducing services to those in need at such a critical

time?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We’re using an evidence-based approach to expanding services to

continue to build a system of care where there was not one before. That

often means taking a hard look at existing services, sometimes offerings

that have been used for years, and asking whether this is still the same

way to go.

This is what Vancouver Coastal Health did with the families and

young people that have been receiving services through Directions. In

cases like in Richmond, for example, we did see how the redirection of

funds, as we’re adding new funds into the system, how changing the

system of delivery resulted in remarkable improvements in access to care

for young people and families throughout the community.

In the case of Vancouver Coastal Health and the Directions youth

detox centre, it was a social detox, not a traditional detox bed. What

we learned was that the model of care being used at that facility isn’t

any longer aligning with current guidelines that are developed by the

B.C. Centre on Substance Use.

Instead, a new contract that is going to be out for tender will

contribute to other actions like hiring nine new full-time employees,

expanding home stabilization teams to provide longer-term wraparound

support, more access to home and community detox with medical supports

and creating a Downtown Eastside youth outreach team.

This is all based on the consultation that we heard from young

people and families.

[2:00 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: The closure of Directions youth detox is personal to me. When you

say no reduction in services, I don’t understand where a

street-entrenched young person at one o’clock in the morning who decides

they need to seek support is going to go with the closure of this only

youth–focused detox program in Vancouver.

I know this home. I’ve had the honour of meeting the staff and

some of the young people that are in this program and have experienced

it. I’ve seen the impact of Directions on the vulnerable youth,

including a 16-year-old girl who had her life saved by this program and

its incredible, caring staff.

The alternative is that a young, vulnerable woman like this

16-year-old would be forced to go to an adult facility because this is

the only youth facility available. That would make her more vulnerable

to adults, drug dealers and negative influences.

I am begging the minister: will she please reverse this cut and

protect the youth who, I know, depend on the life-saving services

provided at Directions youth detox?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Vancouver Coastal Health has undertaken community engagement with

youth and families. What they heard is that there is a need for more

support for parents and caregivers to be involved in their child’s care

and that there is a need for more responsive and client-centred

services.

I’ve directed the health authorities never to let a contract like

this expire without already having the new system of care in place, so

there will be no loss of support and services for young people.

Vancouver Coastal Health says that this was an underutilized

system.

We’re going to build different kinds of supports, as directed and

determined by the people that are using them. There’ll be no loss of

service. There will be new services added instead, by the time that the

contract with Directions ends in June.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: The minister talks about family and in-home care. Many of the

young people who are street-entrenched and who access this service don’t

have family. They don’t have anywhere else to go. So the other programs

that are being described are not programs that are going to be

appropriate for them.

If the minister were serious about saving lives, she would restore

funding, not just to Directions but to all the community recovery

centres that have been cut by this NDP government.

The minister’s record gives us little reason to trust her. She has

admitted that of the youth beds announced two years ago, only 28 have

opened, which is less than a quarter of what this government promised.

An estimated 300,000 youth in B.C. — that is one out of five — need

mental health and substance use services.

Things are getting worse, not better. I’ll quote Serena Jackson,

who is a youth support worker: “Shutting down Directions detox, in the

middle of a poisoned-drug crisis, is completely unacceptable. People

will die. This is not an exaggeration.”

Will the minister please reverse this NDP cut?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Once again, I’ll say to the member that there is nothing in our

budget or in our government’s term that you could call a cut in service.

In every way, we are expanding services.

There’s no question that fighting two public health emergencies

and unrolling a mass immunization campaign have made it challenging for

our health care system to implement, for example, the doubling of youth

treatment beds that we have committed to in the budget. The work

continues to be underway. We’ve already added hundreds of new treatment

beds; we’re adding hundreds more.

I will hold our record up against any other governments in British

Columbia, any time. We’re determined to build the supports that young

people need.

In this case, with Directions, we are not discontinuing service;

we are adapting and expanding service that young people need in that

community. Vancouver Coastal Health is the implementor and is making

those decisions, based on evidence, with our funding.

FOOD SECURITY AND INDIGENOUS

ACCESS TO FOOD

RESOURCES

A. Olsen: Food security is a growing concern in British Columbia. With the

impact of the climate emergency, food security is felt in the grocery

stores and in our budgets — empty shelves and sky-high prices of food.

But in Indigenous communities, such as my own, food security has been

under threat for much longer. We view, in here, food security through a

colonial lens.

[2:05 p.m.]

Take, for example, how resource development has significant

negative impacts on hunting. Each year, my family goes hunting for a

moose. But in recent years, it has been more like a hike with a gun. As

my sister Joni Olsen, a negotiations analyst for the

W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Council, said

at a recent meeting:

“The western definition of food security has and continues to

destroy Indigenous food security. Agricultural nutrients and fecal

matter in the waterways have cumulative effects on species and create

DFO closures on our beaches. When the tide is out, our table is set. But

this has not been the case on polluted beaches. When the beaches close,

it criminalizes our harvesting and our food security. Keep in mind that

the Blueberry ruling was on the cumulative impact that toxin input and

removal of habitat contribute to.”

What specific actions has the minister taken to protect all forms

of food security, including the right of Indigenous people to harvest

wild animals, plants and medicines?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question.

I think it’s a really important question to be posing, especially

these days, as we see so many situations where our general food security

in the province has been under threat by climate change–related

disasters, supply chain issues, because of the pandemic. All of this

brings into question what food security is for our province. It’s one of

the things that our government is especially interested in, because we

need to include everybody in that conversation.

Two years ago, through my ministry, we formed the B.C. Indigenous

Advisory Council on Agriculture and Food. Throughout these last two

years, we’ve come to a terms of reference. We are now compiling, working

with Indigenous partners, a set of action plans that reflect what we

would consider modern-day food security but also Indigenous food

security. That takes into account different types of food systems, like

natural food systems, wild mushrooms, berries, etc.

I think we’re well on our way to having a different lens on what

food security is, and I’m really proud of the work that has been done by

our Indigenous partners.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.

INDIGENOUS HARVESTING RIGHTS

AND SPRAYING OF GLYPHOSATE

ON FIRST NATIONS LANDS

A. Olsen: I thank the minister for her response. It’s an important response,

because last Thursday, we heard the Minister of Forests defend the

spraying of poisonous glyphosate, saying it was allowed because it’s

regulated through the Integrated Pest Management Act.

Let me remind the Minister of Forests that these pesky plant

species that she justifies killing are native plants. They’re not pests.

They’re the foods and the medicines Indigenous peoples have harvested

and traded since time and immemorial.

Our Minister of Forests is killing native plant species as pests.

It’s no wonder why this government has been so reluctant to actually

pass biodiversity legislation. They’re too eager to wipe out whatever

biodiversity we have left to protect these lifeless tree farms so the

forestry industry can increase their timber harvest volumes.

If willfully destroying biodiversity isn’t enough, the policy our

Minister of Forests defended last week is a clear example of

environmental racism.

When asked about this last week, the minister did not answer the

question. In fact, the minister knowingly ignored this clear case of

environmental racism and took refuge in the laws and regulations that

enable environmental racism to exist in British Columbia.

I will ask the minister again. Does the minister believe that the

rights of Indigenous peoples to harvest traditional plants are

outweighed by the ministry’s interest to maximize harvest volumes by

spraying glyphosate?

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to be clear, since 2015, the use of glyphosate in the

forestry sector has actually declined by 95 percent. The member referred

last week to the Sea to Sky region. Glyphosate has not been used in that

area for over ten years, and there is no planned use for it this

year.

[2:10 p.m.]

All six First Nations that were impacted by the B.C. Timber Sales

pest management plan were consulted as part of its development.

Actually, in clear contradiction to what the member’s claim was last

Friday, the Squamish First Nation put out a public statement confirming

that they were, in fact, consulted. They have agreed to the current

plan. There will be no glyphosate use in that region.

REVIEW PANEL REPORT ON

DRUG TOXICITY DEATHS AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

M. Lee: One month ago the B.C. coroners death review panel called for an

urgent provincial response to match that of the response to COVID. Now

the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council is demanding urgent action and is also

calling for the same kind of urgent response as with the

pandemic.

Judith Sayers says: “We can’t keep saying this is a crisis, an

emergency, if we haven’t taken drastic steps to prevent more deaths. The

time to act is now.”

Will the minister listen to the Nuu-chah-nulth and accept the

urgent timelines and recommendations of the death review

panel?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The toxic drug crisis has affected every ministry, almost, in our

government. Across government, we are working in unprecedented ways,

adding new services across the continuum.

Harm reduction in the form of supervised consumption sites,

including inhalation sites. There was one in 2017. There are 40 now, and

we are building more.

We’ve added hundreds of treatment beds. We’ve opened the Red Fish

Healing Centre, the first place to open on the former Riverview lands,

now known as səmiq̓wəʔelə — 105,

first in North America, concurrent disorder treatment beds, and we’re

going to add more. We’ve added hundreds of adult treatment beds. We’re

going to add hundreds more.

We are expanding our prescribed safe supply. We’re the first

province in Canada, I think the first place in North America, to

prescribe safe supply, and we are expanding it — adding new drugs,

adding new access points.

In every way, we are acting with urgency, including with First

Nations leadership. I don’t think there’s any other province in Canada

that funds directly a First Nations Health Authority. We work hand in

hand on overdose response.

The loss of life is terrible. The urgency we feel every day is

strong. Many of the actions in the death review panel are actions we’ve

been working on and continue to focus on every day.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Langara, supplemental.

M. Lee: This clearly is a crisis and an emergency, and families all over

British Columbia continue to feel how that is. We need action and

urgency from this government, and Judith Sayers says: “The government

response hasn’t been enough.”

Acting with urgency starts with accepting the recommendations of

the death review panel. But we have yet to hear from this government

something as simple as: “We accept the recommendations.”

The panel provided a blueprint with critical deadlines, including

under recommendation three. That recommendation is that by April 11, one

week from today, the minister must work with groups, including the First

Nations Health Authority, to review recommendations from the 2017 death

review panel that the government has yet to act on.

Will the minister accept all the panel’s recommendations and take

the priority actions called for by the April 11 deadline?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The panellists on the death review panel are the organizations and

the health authorities that we work with every day. It’s with them that

we built the Pathway to Hope. It’s with them that we run our overdose

emergency response centre. It’s with them that we identify what gaps

were in the continuum of care and that we continue to fill out those

gaps in treatment, recovery, prevention, overdose prevention,

decriminalization, safe supply — all of the things that we’re

doing.

The many actions that are identified in the death review panel

report are the ones that are already embedded within our overdose

emergency response plan; our joint steering committee, which includes

multiple independent officers from across government which inform me and

my ministry directly.

We are working every day, including with the First Nations Health

Authority — $20 million to build new treatment centres; $20 million to

support the design and implementation of land-based healing approaches;

$24 million over three years for First Nations–led and specific overdose

prevention and response; and $1.13 million to Métis B.C., again on

overdose response actions.

[2:15 p.m.]

We are working every day as fast as we can. It’s a tragic calamity

of the COVID-19 pandemic that the spikes in drug toxicity, from 4

percent to 8 percent fentanyl in the months before the pandemic was

declared to now 24 percent to 28 percent, are outstripping our

life-saving interventions and efforts. We just have to work harder and

do more, faster.

T. Stone: Well, solving a crisis, especially one that has been a public

health emergency for six years and that’s claiming the lives of seven

British Columbians every single day, starts with a purposeful action

worthy of the crisis that you are trying to solve.

The 23 experts on the death review panel concluded that what the

government is doing isn’t working, that much more urgency is required

and that putting the 30/60/90-day action plan in place by May 9 is a

reasonable recommendation to make, a reasonable action to take in the

near term.

Nothing would speak stronger to our collective commitment to

urgency than putting this action plan, which does have aggressive

timelines and critical accountabilities, in place and putting it in

place immediately. Unfortunately, to this point, the minister has

rejected the timeline to complete the action plan, as recommended by the

death review panel, saying: “It doesn’t work.”

Time is of the essence. Despite the minister refusing to do so

previously, will she today reconsider her opposition and commit to

tabling a 30/60/90-day action plan by the death review panel’s May 9

deadline?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I support the actions described in the death review panel, and I

have said in the House, and I’ve said so publicly the day that the

report was released.

For me to give communities and people that are losing loved ones

every day a false sense of confidence that we can do in 30 days what

this province has been trying to do for the last five years…. What would

be gained from that? We are losing people every day. But saying, “Let’s

just turn it around. Let’s change that terrible outcome in 30 days” — I

wish that it could be so. I wish that it could be so.

YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH AND

ADDICTION SERVICES AND

STABILIZATION CARE LEGISLATION

D. Davies: The death review panel found that most deaths occurred among young

people. Yet this minister, who is cutting youth detox services during a

crisis, is far behind on her promises. Foundry centres massively

delayed. Youth treatment beds that aren’t open after two years. And

integrated child and youth teams that are not even staffed years after

they were announced.

Two years ago this government withdrew a flawed Bill 22 and

promised to consult and reintroduce legislation to support parents and

youth. Where is the urgency for these young people? To the minister:

will legislation to support youth be introduced this session?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: In every element of health care and mental health deliveries, we

are expanding services for young people. The member mentioned Foundries.

Ele­ven locations open now of these inspiring, integrated….

Reproductive health, primary health care, mental health counselling,

addictions counselling support.

Eleven locations now, and as I assured the member in estimates,

Burns Lake, Comox, Cranbrook, Langley, Squa­mish, Surrey, Port

Hardy, Williams Lake — all about to open. Delayed, certainly, by supply

chain and construction through the pandemic. But soon to open, and many

of them in this calendar year and coming months, I hope.

The expansion of early psychosis interventions — $53 million well

implemented across the province, ICY teams coming on board, working with

Dan’s Legacy and other organizations to do that work of stabilizing

youth after an overdose.

[2:20 p.m.]

Across the continuum and across every stakeholder, we’re working

directly with people on the front lines, adding services in every way as

fast as we can. That work continues.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

D. Davies: I believe the minister must believe we’re making these questions

and these stories up, because the fact remains that there are

significant challenges happening.

Youth and families that have lost loved ones deserve action now.

The Premier either genuinely thought that Bill 22 was important enough

to plunge our province into an election in the middle of a pandemic, or

he was only cynically using it as an excuse.

Here we are, two years later, and there’s still no sign of

legislation. This is what the Premier said: “I believe this is an

important bill, because I’ve talked to parents who’ve lost children.”

Can the minister, can this government, tell those parents why, after the

NDP used it as a political excuse, they have taken no action for two

years on helping these families?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Let me be clear; I don’t agree with the member’s characterization

of the Premier’s actions or of our government’s actions.

I will say that safety of youth is our government’s top priority.

When we first put forward legislation in 2020, we heard from families,

Indigenous leadership and health care providers that we needed to have

more conversations with them. We’ve continued to do that. In the

meantime, we’ve been focused on building up all the missing pieces of

the voluntary health care system for youth struggling with addictions

challenges, opening new youth treatment beds, 20 in Chilliwack, almost

30 in other parts of the province.

We’re increasing funding for mental health and substance use

services, supporting initiatives that meet youth where they are at —

like the Dan’s Legacy project that we are funding in four hospitals,

where peers connect with youth right after an overdose, build that

relationship and trust and connect them to a range of health care and

social services — and opening more community Foundry centres, moving

Foundry online and establishing the Foundry app so that people anywhere

in the province can connect with care.

There is more that we’ve done, and there’s more to do.

FUNDING FOR

DIRECTIONS YOUTH DETOX

SERVICES

P. Milobar: Earlier the minister said that she didn’t want to give false

confidence. Well, the problem is that she has created no confidence for

families and youth in this province seeking treatment.

We see 2017 recommendations still outstanding from the coroner,

and this minister refuses to acknowledge the urgency that those need to

be acted upon. Those recommendations have been out for the whole length

this government has been in office, yet they remain

outstanding.

Now with a new death review panel out: still ignored. Of 123

promised youth treatment beds, only 28 are open, yet the minister tries

to make it sound like there are expanded youth treatment options. The

reality is that they’re falling further and further behind as we slowly

climb from six deaths per day on average to seven deaths per day on

average under this government’s and this minister’s watch.

For youth struggling with addictions, the NDP is making things

worse and not better. The facts back it up. Now they’re closing youth

detox treatment. The minister can try to say that it’ll be seamless;

history will say that that has not happened since 2017.

Here’s what Rebecca Pollard says: “I’m a registered nurse and feel

this move is reprehensible in the current context of the opioid crisis

and increased substance use in the youth population. We need more of

these centres to open urgently and, certainly, not to close. Please

reverse your decision immediately.”

Or Stephanie Bendixson, who says: “Why are we taking the service

away when we are in the middle of an overdose crisis? Helping homeless

youth is key to preventing future crises, not to mention that it’s just

the right thing do. I can’t believe we live in a society that thinks

taking away this service makes sense.”

We have workers in the system, we have nurses in the system, and

we have the coroner saying this government is not doing enough fast

enough.

When will the minister reverse this decision and actually add true

capacity to the system so that our youth can get the treatment and help

they deserve?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: In addition to the 48 new youth addiction treatment beds that we

have opened already, there will be another almost 100 that we are on

course to open. We have expanded early psychosis funding, and in

relation to the death review panel in 2017, we have added drug testing.

We have closed loopholes in the regulations for addiction treatment

beds.

Much of that work is complete — as much as we were able to do

within the existing framework — and we’ve closed regulations in every

case that we can.

We continue to work to repair a damaged system that we inherited.

We will continue to do the work every day and would be so grateful for

the partnership of the opposition, rather than to alarm community

members that we are losing services.

There will be no loss of service with Connections. There will be

more services for people, more attuned and more in line with what the

young people that we have asked have need for. That’s the way that our

government works — informed by the people that need and use the service.

That is the system of care that we’re working hard every day to

build.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

A. Olsen: I rise to table a petition. It’s titled “The Fix for Route Six,”

advocating that the government institute a two-ferry service for the

Vesuvius Bay to Crofton route servicing Saltspring Island and

Crofton.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, Douglas Fir Room, I call the continued estimates debate

for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. After they are finished, we will be

going to the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 8 — POWERS AND ROLE OF

HEALTH

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I move Motion 8, standing in my name on the order

paper:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Health be empowered to

examine the urgent and ongoing illicit drug toxicity and overdose

crisis, and in particular:

1. The increasing toxicity of illicit drug supplies in

British Columbia, including but not limited to, trends in the patterns

of use of illicit drugs, the illegal drug market, the role of organized

crime, and the rapid increase in toxicity coinciding with the COVID-19

pandemic;

2. The systems and services guiding government

responses to illicit drug supplies and toxicity deaths and injuries in

Canada (federal, provincial, territorial and local) and other

jurisdictions; and,

3. Relevant and recent reports, studies and

examinations as the Committee deems appropriate.

That the Committee make recommendations with respect to:

1. Responding to the crisis with reforms and

initiatives by the Province and local governments, including those which

may require federal approval;

2. Continuing to build an evidence-based continuum of

care that encompasses prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and

recovery; and,

3. Expanding access to safer drug supplies,

implementing decriminalization, and disrupting illicit toxic drug

supplies.

That, in addition to the powers previously conferred upon Select

Standing Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on

Health be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers

except the power to report directly to the House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following

Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. conduct consultations by any means the Committee

considers appropriate;

d. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and,

e. retain personnel as required to assist the

Committee.

That the Committee report to the House by November 2, 2022, and that

during a period of adjournment, the Committee deposit its reports with

the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may

be, the Chair present all reports to the House.]

Motion approved.

T. Stone: I would rise today to move an amendment to the motion. Does

the vote need to conclude first?

[2:30 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Member, the House has already voted on the motion, so there’s no

debate on it.

I understand the member’s concerns, however, when the Chair moved

the question…. At that time, if the member had stood up to ask for

space, a place to debate, we would have done it.

The vote has already taken place, so the Chair will not allow to

continue to have the debate on it.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate, Bill 12.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — PROPERTY LAW

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

D. Coulter: I’d just like to talk about where I left off on Friday. What I

wasn’t hearing in this House when we were debating this bill, or when

others were debating this bill, was what this meant to the people that

would get caught up in no-condition offers and that would be hurt by

it.

So I’d like to maybe rehash the story of the folks from Nanaimo,

Matthew Noel and his mother, Wendy Ettinger, who bought a house. They

paid over asking, and they were pressured into buying the house without

conditions, so that meant they never got an inspection. When they took

possession of the house, the whole….

[2:35 p.m.]

I will just quote Noel here. “The whole house is filled with

penicillin and Stachybotrys, which are both toxic moulds,

life-threatening moulds, and I can’t breathe in there.” He cannot live

in this house. As a matter of fact, when he did this interview for CHEK

TV, he had to do it outside of the house.

They thought that this house was brand-new, only a year old, but

it turns out this house was sitting for seven years and was flooded off

and on. That’s why it had this dangerous mould in it. Now, what happened

was they had to pay $100,000 to repair the home.

The president of the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board, Don

McClintock, says this case is why inspections are crucial and why buyers

shouldn’t be tempted to pass on them. Without any conditions, they have

unconditionally purchased the home, and they have no further

recourse.

These people weren’t just buying a house. They were buying

themselves a home, a home to live in. After they paid over asking price

and were pressured into making a no-condition offer and not getting a

home inspection, they could not move into this home.

It used to be the norm that houses were bought with conditions,

usually conditions of financing and a home inspection. This used to be

the norm. Now, up to 70 percent of homes are bought without conditions.

We’re creating a new norm here, and we shouldn’t be doing this. This

endangers folks who are buying homes. They can get into situations like

this.

Like I said Friday, you can test-drive a car. You can make sure

that clothes are the right size for you. You can go to the supermarket

and squeeze bread or a grapefruit, or another fruit. You can make sure

that you want to spend your money on these things. Why can’t you do that

when it’s the most expensive thing you will ever buy in your life — a

home to live in? You should be able to get an inspection. This bill

allows a period of time after the offer is made to have an inspection

done.

I’m not hearing from the members on the other side about the

people that this affects. I’m not hearing about people at all. Going

back to produce, this side acts like they just fell off a rutabaga truck

and rolled in here, as if they weren’t in power for 16 years and set up

the conditions that are pressuring buyers into buying houses with no

conditions. They set this up, and now they’re demanding that it be fixed

and fixed immediately.

However, they don’t really want it fixed. They want to take the

B.C. Real Estate Association’s suggestion of a pre-offer period of five

days. We know that pre-offer periods have some issues. I’ve heard that

some realtors are already creating a version of that right now to

encourage multiple offers and bid up the price.

What the B.C. Real Estate Association is suggesting isn’t tenable,

but it’s no surprise that they support people who are benefiting off the

overheated housing market — no surprise at all. They claim they care

about people. Well, I’d like to see some action that they care about

people. Why not support a bill that helps people? They don’t want to do

that.

I’ll tell you why they don’t want to do that. Their leader opposes

the speculation and vacancy tax. That’s a tax on people who have more

than one home and leave them empty.

[2:40 p.m.]

These are the most wealthy, privileged people among us. That’s the

kind of people they support on that side. Now that their leader is

running in an election campaign, I hope he explains exactly how that

helps everyday people. The other side can’t support any bill that

actually helps people out.

Interjection.

D. Coulter: I will point to one thing in the bill that helps people out. It

gives people a period of time so that they can have an inspection

done.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Members. Members, the member for Chilliwack has the

floor.

Let’s not engage in back crosstalk, Member.

D. Coulter: The other side heckles because they don’t want to do what’s right

for people. They would rather support business. They’ve proven time and

time again, when they were in power and when they sit in the opposition

benches, about who they care about — exactly who they care

about.

I just would like to see them support a bill that helps folks out.

I would like them to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak,

and support a measure like this. But they can’t do that.

You know, I have a friend…. I have a friend….

Interjection.

D. Coulter: Once again heckling me because they don’t support real

people.

Interjection.

D. Coulter: Okay. Talking to each other about how you would like big business

to get ahead — it’s nice.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: All right, Members. This is the….

Members.

D. Coulter: My friend bought a home in Victoria with his brother and

sister-in-law. He was pressured by real estate agents to buy with a

no-condition offer. He is now doing renovations to this home, and he

doesn’t know what he’ll find. He has no recourse if he opens up a wall

and finds mould in there. He can’t sleep at night just trying to get

some repairs done to his home.

How can you not support this bill that would help him sleep at

night, that would help people who are buying homes — to remove some of

the pressure off of folks, some of the pressure from the overheated

market, and support these people? `

They’ve proven time and time again…. They come in here and act

like they care about real people. When they were in power, all they did

was give large tax cuts to corporations and make fees on services for

regular people. Right?

I want to see them support this bill — put their money where their

mouth is and support this bill. That’s what I would like to

see.

You drive the car into the ditch. You dent it all up to all heck.

Then when it’s being pulled out of the ditch, you start pointing at the

dents and go: “You must fix this, and you must fix this now.”

Interjection.

D. Coulter: No. That’s the 16 years you were in power.

Deputy Speaker: Okay, Members. I know it’s getting spicy, but let’s focus on Bill

12, the Property Law Amendment Act. Let the member for Chilliwack have

the floor, and then you’ll get your chance.

D. Coulter: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You know, even though this bill is about consumer protection,

sometimes we veer into housing affordability. Rightfully so — we’re

talking about housing. But we’ve accelerated record investments in

building homes, and we have 32,000 homes already built or underway.

That’s way more than they built in 16 years.

We’ve turned more than 18,000 empty condos in the Lower Mainland

into homes through the speculation and vacancy tax, a tax — like I said

before — that their leader opposes, a tax on the richest people in this

province that actually frees up 18,000 homes for regular

people.

We’re going to work with local governments to speed up new

approvals of new homes. We have more new rentals since 2017 than the

previous 15 years combined.

Deputy Speaker: If I might, Member. Just draw the speech back to Bill 12, the

Property Law Amendment Act. That would be appreciated.

D. Coulter: Absolutely. I’d love to talk about Bill 12.

[2:45 p.m.]

Let’s hear from other people who support this bill. Let’s hear

from Ted Gilmour, a Vancouver home inspector for over 20 years. He says

that anyone making an offer without conditions of a home inspection is

gambling with their future. “They don’t know what’s in the next chamber”

— I assume that’s a gun reference — “and their welfare is at

stake.”

This bill is to protect people from being pressured into dangerous

risks like that. The B.C. Liberals are siding with those who have a

vested interest in this overheated housing market instead of everyday

people. We have a quote from a recent homebuyer, Michael

Renaud:

“I am lucky that I am a red seal tradesperson and could inspect

homes I viewed myself and with friends. I’d be very uncomfortable making

an offer on a $1 million home without a house inspection or the time to

get good advice.

“As a recent buyer, both viewing and financing felt rushed, and I

would have appreciated more time to review everything on such an

important purchase. I think this is a step in the right direction, and I

hope more policy is implemented to help first-time homebuyers, in

particular.”

Think about this. This is the largest purchase of your life. These

people aren’t buying houses, they’re buying homes. And they’re at risk.

This market is overheated, and they’re being pressured into making

no-condition offers that could get them into major peril. Like Matthew

and his mother Wendy from Nanaimo.

Let’s also talk…. We have a quote here from Helene Barton,

executive director of Home Inspectors Association B.C.: “Every B.C.

homebuyer must be allowed the opportunity to conduct their own due

diligence prior to a purchase and avoid the high risk of buying without

a home inspection.”

Let’s hear from Paul Taylor, president and CEO, Mortgage

Professionals Canada: “The introduction of a short, unrestricted

cooling-off period or a separate, longer period to ensure that

appropriate financing can be arranged would remove uncertainty from home

purchases and sales and potentially save both buyers and sellers

considerable costs over time.”

Why does this side oppose this? This is how homes used to be

bought, right? This overheated market is benefiting folks who profit off

of it. Let’s be clear. What is a commission on million-dollar homes

these days? And then you’re pressuring homebuyers into making offers

without conditions? Making offers without conditions — that’s the

aberration here. Homes used to be bought with conditions, and that’s the

aberration. We cannot let it become the norm.

This legislation that the Finance Minister has introduced is

great. I support it 100 percent. I wish the other side would too. I wish

the other side would support something that helps everyday, regular

people.

B. Banman: I’m pleased to rise today to continue debate on Bill 12. But I

have to say that calling it a bill, at least to me, seems somewhat

misleading because there’s nothing in the bill. It’s left to

regulations. What the member for Chilliwack fails to understand is that

if the bill had substance to it, this side of the House would be more

likely to be in favour of this bill.

Interjection.

B. Banman: I’m sorry. Does the speaker from Chilliwack still have time, or is

it now mine?

Deputy Speaker: Absolutely yours, Member. He’s now done.

[2:50 p.m.]

B. Banman: It’s like Groundhog Day all over again. We went through

this in this House previously with bills that have been here. In

particular, the one that’s near and dear to my heart happens to be Bill

22 with regards to FOIs.

That was all left to regulation as well, and quite frankly, it

ended up, in my opinion, putting a minister in a very bad spot. Had the

regulations been put forward, or had it actually been included in the

legislation, we could have debated the regulations. But literally within

minutes of royal assent, the very thing that this side of the House was

asking about, which was fees, magically appeared. It put a particular

minister in a very bad spot.

Healthy debate is a great thing, but there’s nothing to debate

here. I find much of what the previous member has said, the member for

Chilliwack, extremely entertaining, especially when one considers that

it was that member that said he was the last generation that would ever

be able to buy a house.

The last generation ever to afford to buy a house — nothing could

be further from the truth. It’s just inaccurate. There were plenty of

homes that were sold. I have talked to developers. I have talked to

realtors. I have talked to people that are in the home market that have

done multiple offers. I have talked to sellers. I’ve talked to a lot of

people about this very bill. To portray this side of the House as if we

don’t care is just laughable. It’s also insulting.

We all come to this House to do what’s best by our constituents.

Now, we may disagree as to what that is, but quite frankly, it’s

insulting to listen to the words of the previous speaker. It is. To

think that we are opposing this…. You know, here’s a simple solution.

You make a home inspection part of what is required to list a home for

sale. Problem solved. Problem solved, if that’s all it is: a simple home

inspection.

The previous speaker insulted the integrity of realtors. It’s like

he doesn’t understand that realtors speak on behalf of both the

purchaser and the seller. They’re different realtors. That was taken

care of a long time ago — that with realtors, one represents the seller,

and the other represents the buyer. In order to get around that, there’s

a raft of paperwork that has to be signed, and the purchaser knows that

they are on their own.

But to solve the issue of an inspection is quite simple. You just

make it part of what’s required. It’s no different than the statement

that someone signs with regards to a disclosure statement on their home.

It becomes part and parcel so that someone would look…. Now, I don’t

think that this side of the House would have any problem with that

whatsoever. Yet what’s being proposed is: “You know what? Trust us. Hey,

we’re going to settle this behind closed doors. It’ll have zero public

scrutiny, but hey, you know what? You can trust us.”

We did that dance before with the whole FOI thing. Look how that

turned out. A minister ended up having their integrity questioned on the

floor of this House as a result of that. Clearly, regulations behind

closed doors are a bad idea for everyone, including government. It

literally casts a huge shadow of suspicion because it…. Especially

something like this.

[2:55 p.m.]

This is not rocket science. This should be rather sim­ple.

Put the regulations there. There was no reason to push this and rush

this as it is. As soon as there was any baffling on this side, it should

have been removed, sent back and come here with the actual legislation

clearly written out for all to see.

Did we talk with realtors? I don’t know that we did. I have a

letter here from the B.C. Real Estate Association. I would like to read

it into the record, because I think it’s important.

“On behalf of the province’s eight real estate boards and 24,000

realtors, the B.C. Real Estate Association, BCREA, supports the

government of British Columbia’s intent to introduce a homebuyer

protection period. However, the B.C. government’s cooling-off period

fails to meet the needs of British Columbians. A recent independent

survey of 1,157 British Columbians shows that only 35 percent of

consumers support introducing a cooling-off period.

“‘Policy should equally protect all parties involved in real estate

transactions, while also contributing to a smooth functioning market and

improved housing affordability. But the province’s plan to amend the

Property Law Act to create a cooling-off period in real estate

transactions leaves B.C. consumers with more questions than answers,’

says the BCREA chief executive officer Darlene K. Hyde. ‘A cooling-off

period will likely increase competition for any given property, has the

potential to increase prices and does not clearly take risks to sellers

into account.’”

She carries on.

“‘Given that the government has again announced plans for policy

changes without publicly stated and evidence-based reasoning or proper

consultation in advance of committing to the direction, it’s no wonder

that consumers don’t have confidence in what they’ve proposed,’ adds

Hyde.

“B.C. Real Estate Association urges the government to consider the

following before proceeding with regulatory change. Any new policy

should protect both buyers and sellers equally. Sellers often become

buyers in a real estate transaction, and the cooling-off period exposes

sellers and the market in general to greater risks and

uncertainty.

“Provide evidence-based reassurance that the government’s

cooling-off period won’t unintentionally worsen affordability.

“Ensure that consumers and the real estate professionals who support

them are appropriately supported during the transaction.

“As the voice of B.C.’s 24,000 realtors, BCREA rejects any

suggestion that realtors are not invested in consumer protection and

housing affordability. On behalf of realtors, in February 2022, BCREA

presented the B.C. government with a white paper with more than 30

recommendations on how to improve housing affordability and strengthen

consumer protection.”

It was called A Better Way Home: Strengthening Consumer

Protection in Real Estate. It is “a white paper that

incorporates findings from focus groups with consumers and realtors,

years of survey data and a detailed analysis of economic and secondary

literature, including the impacts of attempted housing market

interventions worldwide.”

“Instead of a cooling-off period, a key recommendation in the white

paper” — a recommendation — “is the introduction of a pre-offer period

of a minimum of five business days from listing, during which

prospective buyers could hire home inspectors of their choice, review

important documents, ensure financing and complete any other due

diligence prior to making an offer.

“‘The realtor profession does not benefit from overheated market

conditions that leave most of their clients frustrated and discouraged

as they lose out again and again on their home-ownership dreams,’ says

Hyde.

[3:00 p.m.]

“‘It’s time to let go of that harmful preconception and acknowledge

the important contributions realtors can make to better protecting

consumers and improving housing affordability.’

“Seventy-one percent of British Columbians say that realtors should

be consulted when it comes to developing and implementing policy

impacting real estate markets.”

That’s the end of their letter.

Yet once again, Groundhog Day all over again. Were people

consulted? “Oh, yeah. Yeah, we consulted them.” You wouldn’t want to go

to the people that are actually experts in the field, that deal with

this day to day, and talk to them. It appears as if they were not

consulted.

That’s nonsensical to me. It makes no sense. Why would you not

want to go talk to the people that it is their business? Yes, of course,

bring in home inspectors. Yes, of course, bring in bankers. Bring in

others to figure out what we can do to protect consumers and the

sellers.

Everybody deserves to be able to afford a home — everybody. The

realtors that I’ve talked to…. Once again, it is not the first time in

history that we’ve gone through periods where there have been heated

markets.

There were some extraordinary circumstances that got us here.

Nobody could foresee that there was a bunch of people that decided,

because of COVID: “I can’t go world travelling. But, you know, I’m about

ready to retire. What I can do is, I can sell my house. I can help out

my kids by giving them a down payment, and I can go afford and buy that

little cottage on the lake or wherever it is that I want to go.” The

problem with that is that it added to the heat of the market.

Now we’re not just dealing with someone who lists their home for

sale and wants to go purchase somewhere else. We now have them helping

out their family. So potentially, you have three purchasers all in the

market at the same time — three people looking for the place to work at

home instead of one. It was unprecedented times. Nobody could have

foreseen it. But here’s the good news. In my neck of the woods, I’ve

talked to a few realtors. They’re now having open houses again. It’s

cooled off.

This legislation is going to come at a time that’s only going to

make things worse, and it really isn’t actually needed as much as people

think it is. Now, that does not mean that we should overlook the fact

that nobody should ever buy a house if it needs a home inspection. But

to leave it to regulation…. “Trust us. We’ll do it behind closed doors.”

We already did that once, and it didn’t turn out so good. It put both

sides into a big fight, and it left a minister having to defend their

integrity.

I don’t ever to see that happen in this House again. Talk about

disrespectful. It was disrespectful to both sides. It was embarrassing.

The potential to have this happen again lays right in front of us,

because what’s to be trusted about lack of input, behind closed doors,

where regulation can be done willy-nilly however somebody feels during

the day, with no debate in this House?

That’s why we were elected: to take a look at legislation and find

ways to improve it, be that through debate, be that through an

amendment. That’s what’s supposed to happen in here. But this government

is now developing an unnerving pattern of bypassing consultation and

going directly to regulation behind closed doors.

That’s what this side of the House is offended by. That’s what the

previous speaker from Chilliwack just doesn’t seem to understand. It’s

fine for him to throw barbs at this side — that we’re this, and we’re

that. That’s the part that’s missing from all this — the fact that good

legislation requires good debate. It’s the long-standing history of it.

It shouldn’t be circumvented at all.

[3:05 p.m.]

You know, I ended up buying a home that needed a lot of repairs. I

know what it’s like to think you’re going to do a simple little bathroom

reno, and you open up a kettle of worms. I’ve been there; it was

devastating. I didn’t sleep for weeks, because it wasn’t just one area

of my house. It was a number of areas of my house.

I have great empathy for those that find themselves with…. A

little bit of lipstick and paint has hidden some sins. It shouldn’t

happen to anyone. I think this House would be in agreement. If we can

prevent someone from being maxed out — every last nickel to try and get

into a place — who finds that they are now in a position where they

can’t even live in their own home, I can’t see anybody in this House

who, if they could, wouldn’t find a way to help someone prevent

that.

Together we can find ways to help that, but there is no together

here. It’s like writing a blank cheque. I don’t do that with my kids.

It’s not that I don’t trust them; it’s just bad practice. This is bad

practice, and it needs to stop. You can’t just say: “Hey, trust us. Ah,

we’ll deal with it later, behind closed doors. Yeah, yeah, we’ve

consulted people. Don’t worry about it. We’ve got your

backs.”

Then, when it’s pointed out by professionals that there may be a

problem with this particular plan…. Rather than stop, take a pregnant

pause and go, “Oh, okay. Well, what seems to be the issue with it?” no,

we don’t do that. We get all offended, call the other side names, and we

double down, when really what’s happening is someone’s waving a red flag

and saying: “Wait a minute. There are some issues here that perhaps you

haven’t bothered to think about.” That’s what good parliamentary debate

does.

This is not the way to go about business in this House. It may be

efficient for the one side. They outnumber us two to one. They can do

whatever they want. Really, the only chance that this side has is to

actually use common sense and reasoning, to say: “Wait a second. There

are some issues with this particular legislation. We think you should

reconsider parts of it, and together we can come up with a good plan

that’ll help protect all British Columbians.”

To insult the integrity of realtors — I don’t think that’s wise.

To insult the integrity of those who want to sell their home — I don’t

think that’s wise either. If someone wants to finally cash out and sell

the home that they’ve spent years trying to pay off so that they can go

retire and buy their little cottage in the country, or their dream, or

buy their condo somewhere — wherever it is that they want to downsize

and go do — that should be applauded. It shouldn’t be insinuated that

they have nefarious reasons for doing so.

There are alternatives to this. I just am at a loss, sometimes, as

to why this government thinks that hiding stuff behind closed doors —

for regulation, without public debate, without proper scrutiny — is

wise. This is how you end up making really, really bad

decisions.

Then there were comparisons to presales. Well, of course, you

can’t do a home inspection on a presale. Here’s a news flash: it ain’t

been built yet. How are you supposed to inspect that? You can’t inspect

something that hasn’t been even put in the air yet. That’s why it’s a

presale. It’s a totally different set of rules. It’s

different.

[3:10 p.m.]

The details that are missing from this legislation are vast. One

of the details that will be decided at a later date is the prescribed

number of days after the sale where the offer can be rescinded. Let me

talk about that for a minute. There is nothing preventing a person from

putting in ten offers on ten different homes and having them accepted.

The time period goes by, and they could rescind on all ten. This could

happen multiple, multiple times. Not a thing can be done about

it.

As a matter of fact, it was brought to my attention by one realtor

that there would be nothing at all stopping someone from dropping $9,500

cash on every single offer that they made. No record of that cash would

need to be made, because it’s under the FINTRAC $10,000 minimum. They

could then cancel them all, and they’ve just now got $95,000 that comes

back to them that’s been cleaned. That wasn’t talked about, but it’s

potentially there.

The other details that will be later held behind closed doors are

limiting waivers of the right of rescission and the circumstances in

which that right may or may not have been waived; respecting the service

of a notice of rescission; penalties paid by the purchaser to the seller

if the purchaser exercises that right; timing of the payment of the

deposit under a contract of purchase and sale, despite any provision of

the contract to the contrary; establishing procedures for the payment of

the deposit under a contract, purchase and sale; respecting the return

of the deposit paid under the contract to purchase and sale if the

purchaser exercises the right to refuse or to renounce the offer,

including exemption types of property or classes of buyers. That’s a ton

of stuff that should be here.

You know, I get that we want to do something now. I’ve never made

a decent decision ever when I felt panicked. This legislation seems ripe

with panic. We’ve got to do something now. We’ve got to do something

now. We’ll sort all of the details out later. Let’s just get it on the

floor and get it done, so we can say we’ve done something. Talk about

getting a car into a ditch. That’s how you do it. We need to pull this

legislation. We need to have sober second thought on this legislation.

We need to have input and consultation.

The sad thing is that, as I mentioned, this boom might very well

be turning its corner and levelling out.

Interjection.

B. Banman: While the members may laugh about that, that’s exactly what’s

going on with a number of realtors that I’ve talked to in my area. We

have the threat of high interest rates. Those that wanted to sell in the

market and move on have done so. All of the indicators are pointing that

this panic buying could soon be over. All of this frustration, instead

of coming up with good legislation, is a knee-jerk reaction that at the

end of the day, won’t be helpful.

There is a lack of affordable housing in British Columbia. We all

know it. One of the biggest things we can do to make houses more

affordable is to increase the supply. Part of the legislation in this, I

believe, should be dealing with that very question. The single biggest

reason that homes are priced the way they are is because there is a lack

of supply. Yet it’s not mentioned. It is not even discussed.

[3:15 p.m.]

Since this government came into power, under this government’s

watch, the average price of a home has surpassed $1.1 million. That’s up

25 percent in the last year alone. Not the last 15 years; the last year.

One of the single largest price raises of all time happened underneath

the NDP’s watch.

We all want to find reasons to make houses more affordable. Here’s

why. My own personal reason: I don’t want to see my grandchildren forced

to move somewhere else. It’s one of the reasons why I decided to get

into politics in the first place: to make sure that my grandchildren and

their friends and future generations could choose to stay in this

beautiful province if they wanted.

If they choose to go elsewhere, well, that’s one thing. My heart

will still be broken, but it would be their choice and their dreams.

What I don’t want to do, as I’m helping them pack up their belongings in

their car, is to have to say, when they ask me: “Papa, I don’t want to

leave, but I have to. I can’t afford to live here. Papa, you were there.

Why didn’t you do something?”

What I’m saying is that this side of the House wants to come up

with solutions to that. The other side of the House — government — needs

to listen. They need to allow us to participate. We’ve got a lot of

expertise on this side of the House. We’ve got colleagues that have

built homes. I was the mayor of the largest city by land in British

Columbia. We have people that were former realtors or have relatives

that are realtors. My neighbour did home inspections.

We want to participate, but if this government continues to go

down this road of, “We know it all. We know better. Trust us. We’ll deal

with it behind closed doors. We don’t need your advice. Just go sit over

in the corner and be quiet and watch this. We’ve got it,” it’s going to

end in a disaster. That’s not how you come to get good legislation and

good, decent decisions. You do that by using all of the knowledge and

power in this House.

My colleagues on the other side are not bad people. Their

intentions are the same as this side. We want our children to be able to

afford to stay here, together. Together we can do that, but it requires

listening and communication on both sides. This is the parliament. It

comes from, as my colleague from Abbotsford West said, the French

version of parler , which means to speak, which means to

discuss. This one-sided tone, this leaving it to regulations is not

working, and it needs to change.

T. Wat: It is always an honour and a privilege for me to stand up in the

House, in this people’s House, be it introductions of my visitors, the

stakeholders; making a two-minute statement; presenting a petition to

the House on behalf of my constituents; or engaging in debate of the

bills. I always feel it is such a great privilege and honour,

especially…. I am an immigrant. I came to this great country, this great

province, in 1989, from Hong Kong, when it was still a British

colony.

[3:20 p.m.]

I am sure many immigrants, even in this House — I’m sure many of

us, or a few of us, are immigrants — have decided to emigrate to Canada,

to British Columbia, for a whole lot of reasons. One of the reasons is

because we want to live in a place where we can have full democracy,

where we can have full debate of a bill. The government will provide

information for opposition members so that they can study the bill. They

can do research and come to this House and have a constructive debate so

that any government, any governing party who is in the government, can

listen to the other side and come up with the best policy for British

Columbians.

That’s what we are for, and I’m sure that every single one of us

who decided to run for politics, all of us, wants to work for the

interests of British Columbians.

But this afternoon I really feel so sad. What a waste of the time

of this people’s House and a waste of time of all of the opposition MLAs

to stand up and to debate Bill 12, the Property Law Amendment Act, 2022.

I can say that it is virtually a blank piece of paper.

I was wondering. Last night I was having a nightmare. Was it April

Fools’ Day? If the bill was presented on April 1, I thought that the

minister was playing an April Fools’ joke. No — I pinch myself — this is

really the kind of bill that we have to debate.

Honestly, I don’t know how and where to start. I’m glad that

eventually two members of the governing party stood up in this House

and, supposedly, debated on this bill. I wish more members of this House

could stand up and debate on this bill, especially if the government

claims themselves to be caring for the interests of each and every one

of British Columbians and trying to make life affordable. I don’t

understand why, of my colleagues across the aisle, only two of them

stood up.

The minister of municipal services stood up last Thursday. He was

trying to defend the minister, saying that there has been consultation,

which is a joke. During my time, my allotted time, I will read out

letters from my constituents and also from British Columbians. Also, a

letter was sent to the minister that there was no consultation with the

real estate association. What was the minister of municipal services

talking about?

The member for Chilliwack, who spoke before my colleague from this

side of the House…. The comments he made were so insulting. That member

said that the opposition doesn’t care about the interests of British

Columbians. We do. I must say that members of the governing party…. They

are all kind-hearted. I’m sure each and every one of them also wants to

do good for British Columbians and for the people of this province. It’s

just that they don’t know how to do it.

The government just doesn’t want to listen to the professionals.

Quite frankly, I’m not surprised — but I’m certainly disappointed — that

this bill allows the Premier and his cabinet to make all the decisions

and decide on all the specific details, in yet another piece of B.C.

legislation, through regulations.

[3:25 p.m.]

As my colleague, the member for Abbotsford South, has said so

eloquently, the Premier and the cabinet just wanted to ram through the

regulations away from public scrutiny and without the input of the

opposition. I call on the Premier and the cabinet ministers. Many of

them were in opposition before. They do understand the role of

opposition, and they made many constructive inputs when they were in

opposition. But here we are, given a bill that’s like a blank piece of

paper, without details — nothing. How can opposition do our

jobs?

We honestly treasure the time for this debate and want to give the

best of our input from what we heard from our constituents, from the

professionals, from the stakeholders, but we haven’t been given this

opportunity by this government.

This bill has potentially disastrous consequences for housing

affordability in B.C. and for my constituents in Richmond. If this

government is really serious in tackling housing affordability, they

should have consulted professionals and listened to British

Columbians.

We have seen this government use every excuse for the horrendous

state of the housing market, including standing idly by when they could

have refuted the racist stereotypes that today’s housing prices are the

sole result of Chinese foreign investors, a stigma that has led to

unjust and unfounded stereotypes for young Chinese-Canadian families

buying homes.

I was being stigmatized, too, because I’m part of the

Chinese-Canadian community. We saw this perpetuated in the 2015 Andy Yan

report that was decried as racist, a study that a member of this current

government participated in. Having an Asian name doesn’t make you guilty

— or at least it shouldn’t. For this government to tie the housing

market, which this government has done nothing to cool, to one ethnic

group was bad enough. But then the link was made to money laundering,

adding another arrow into the racist quiver.

It is not appropriate to distort facts that contribute to

cas­ual racism. The issue here is supply, supply and supply. I

hope that this government uses this opportunity to remove racial

stereotypes in our housing market and, instead, bring forward real,

viable solutions.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

As if this bill was not bad enough, something that deeply

concerned me is that the bill continues to reinforce secrecy, which is

not what I expect to emigrate to this democratic country. It really

disappoints me after all these years. And this bill fails to uphold

transparency for British Columbians. This legislation is concerning, but

it is an incredibly concerning trend. We have experience with this

administration over these past few years.

[3:30 p.m.]

Once again, this government provides yet another example as to why

they were deserving the most secretive government in Canada award by the

Canadian Association of Journalists. I don’t know how members of this

government, how the other elected members of this governing party think

about their government being awarded the most secret government…. If I

were them, I would be ashamed of myself for being connected with this

government.

Especially for those who are immigrants to this beautiful country,

to this beautiful province, we want to see democracy in full play. It’s

not here in this House. If my husband were still around, he would ask me

to quit. He would tell me: “There’s no point debating in this House,

because look at this government. It’s totally secretive. What’s the

point of wasting your time? You should spend more time with your

grandchildren.”

I find it quite troubling that we are dealing with a government

that has already taken great strides to strip away transparency and

accountability, through controversial policy and legislation like Bill

22, rather than improve them. That’s why I find it incredibly difficult

to debate this bill. I’m lacking words, especially as an immigrant.

really reveal how I feel. I will try my very best. If I could speak in

my mother tongue, it would be much better.

If we consider Bill 12, the NDP is asking the House to pass this

legislation that is entirely made of regulations we haven’t seen yet. I

must quote Vaughn Palmer’s article. It’s so well written. It lays out

what British Columbians feel about this Bill 12. Vaughn Palmer’s

article

appeared on March 30.

He quoted the minister in the news release as saying:

“‘People need to have protection as they make one of the biggest

financial decisions of their lives. We want to make sure people buying a

home have time to get the information they need to make a sound decision

within limits that still gives sellers the certainty they need to close

sales.’ But the actual text of the bill the minister introduced Monday

said” — let me emphasize this — “next to nothing about how the

cooling-off period would work.

“All relevant details about the so-called homeowner protection

period were left to be determined by the NDP cabinet once the

legislation passes. How long is the cooling-off period? That will be up

to the cabinet. How big a deposit must be paid in advance to exercise

the right? That, too, will be set by the cabinet. How big a penalty, if

any, must the prospective buyer pay to the seller if he or she backs

out? Cabinet, again.

“You get the picture. The sections in the bill delegating regulatory

powers to the cabinet are three times as long as the brief opening bit

creating the hypothetical right of recission.”

[3:35 p.m.]

Actually, there is so much in Vaughn Palmer’s article. If I have

time, then I will continue to quote him, because it’s so enlightening.

Don’t listen to the opposition, Members. Just go on the website and take

a look at Vaughn Palmer’s article.

As elected representatives, it is our duty to act on behalf of our

constituents and advocate for our communities. But again, I have to say

it’s difficult to do so if we are given blank pieces of

paper.

We know that this is not the first time the government has tried

to pass shell legislation and then make all of the decisions through

regulation. This government and this minister have completely destroyed

the government’s credibility when it comes to “just trusting them” with

regulations. We saw that with Bill 22, and it’s déjà vu all over again.

Who knows? This will be repeated over and over again until they are

overthrown in 2024.

We see it again in Bill 12 now, but if that wasn’t bad enough,

this regulation they seek to implement behind closed doors will be based

on a report from the B.C. Financial Services Authority that hasn’t been

released to the public yet. No one has seen the report that this

legislation is based on, so how can we, as members of this Legislature,

debate a bill that we haven’t even seen yet?

I really pride myself on being able to advocate for my community

in Richmond, but my constituents feel like they are being left out of

their own democracy. My constituents and the rest of Richmond find that

housing in Richmond, in the beautiful city of Richmond, is so

unaffordable. I really want the other members in Richmond…. Now they are

the majority, they can make more noises heard by this government. I am

the single voice, so I might not be as effective as they are. Hopefully,

my other three members will listen to the young residents in Richmond to

know how difficult it is to even find rental space.

This is reported in Richmond News . Let me quote Mark Lee,

who is a Richmond resident. He told Richmond city council last Monday

that he moved to Richmond after being outpriced from Vancouver, but he

is finding Richmond unaffordable as well.

Another Richmond-born, David Yang, also talked about the outlook

for the younger generation in Richmond. He said they are looking to stay

and live in the beautiful city of Richmond, but now the outlook is not

looking good at all.

David Yang said: “Working families, young people and seniors are

at a crossroads with the city’s affordability cri­sis.” The

following quote, I hope the three members from Richmond will listen to

carefully: “At this critical juncture with no end in sight and rising

housing costs, homelessness and growing inequality, policy-makers and

decision-makers simply have to step up big-time, or they have to step

down.”

It is completely unreasonable for the government to ask members of

this Legislature to vote on this bill.

[3:40 p.m.]

As I said earlier, without the BCFSA report being made public

first — and, yes, they are doing just that — we are expected to vote

blindly, with my eyes closed, and I do not support that. I do not stand

for this lack of transparency and secrecy in our legislative

process.

The reality is that this government is trying to push this bill

through without leaving space for genuine, informed debate. This is what

I have learned since I became an elected official nine years ago — this

is my third term — and I always valued this opportunity for informed and

genuine debate. The government is erasing the ability of this House, in

particular of the opposition and the Third Party, to do their

job.

British Columbians are noticing, and our constituents are

recognizing, that this is becoming a pattern for this government. They

are worried. Many of them called me and talked to me over the weekend

when I got back to my riding, and it’s rightly so that they are worried,

especially those immigrants who come here for democracy. What’s

happening to democracy in B.C.?

This bill also truly worries me. Bill 12 seeks to implement a

cooling-off period in the process of buying and selling a home. More

precisely, it is enabling legislation respecting a residential right of

rescission on home sales. The government is modelling this on the same

provision in the Real Estate Development Marketing Act for presale

condos, but this is a completely different type of

transaction.

Does this government not realize that with presales, you can’t ask

for a home inspection because the building hasn’t even begun

construction? This is simple ABC; it’s completely different. That’s why

I started my comments, at the beginning, that members across the aisle

are all kind-hearted, but they are totally not competent to take on this

job.

It really breaks my heart to see young families, people, students

in my riding of Richmond North Centre and even in the city of Richmond

being forced to leave because of this government’s mismanagement of

housing. Young people, working families and seniors are at a crossroads

with the affordability crisis, and this is a sentiment that is not

unfamiliar to most British Columbians.

Why are my constituents worried? Well, I’d be happy to tell you.

The reality of this means that the details of this bill will not be

decided in this people’s House but entirely by the minister and cabinet

after the legislation has already been passed. It worries me that this

government can decide key elements of this bill behind closed doors,

bypassing everyone. This sounds like what country in the world?

Everything is behind closed doors. The public is worried. My

constituents are worried, and they are frustrated with this pattern of

theirs.

When you consider all this, there is no question why today’s bill

won’t do anything to improve housing affordability. I really don’t

understand why the NDP is choosing an option that will raise prices

instead of lowering them.

[3:45 p.m.]

I truly do want to adequately debate this legislation. I try to do

all the research I can. Normally, I’m extremely hard-working, but I

can’t find anything, because there’s nothing in the bill. I know that it

will have a huge impact on so many people in our province. I know the

lack of affordable housing in B.C. is one of the biggest issues our

province is now facing. Far too many people can barely afford rent, let

alone purchase a home in B.C.

I’d like to respond to my colleague, the member for Abbotsford

South, who said he got into this job because he wants his children,

grandchildren and great-grandchildren to have a house of their own, a

home of their own. For me, I only have one daughter. She cannot find a

reasonable, high-paid job, and she has to get out of here and work

overseas, where she can find a much better, more fulfilling

career.

If this government continues on their pattern, a lot of investors

and businessmen will leave, leaving no jobs. They are doing nothing now

to try to improve housing affordability. I don’t know when my daughter

can come back. My worry is the same as my colleague from Abbotsford

South. We desperately need to see measures to improve housing

affordability in B.C., but this bill will not accomplish that goal.

Experts have been clear about what the government’s bungling will do:

raise costs even further, putting even greater strain on people during

an affordability crisis.

On behalf of my constituents and my community, I urge this

government to reconsider backroom business and to instead be transparent

and work collaboratively to address this pressing issue for all British

Columbians.

M. Bernier: I delayed my time in getting up because I was waiting to see if

somebody from the NDP would choose to speak. It’s unfortunate, as we’ve

seen this debate go forward, that we’ve had one, maybe two, members from

the government side of the House that have had, dare I say, the courage

to stand in this House and speak to this bill.

For those watching, for those in the House that are partaking in

the debate today, we’re talking about Bill 12, the Property Law

Amendment Act, which this government has put forward. Typically, when a

bill is presented in the Legislature, it comes with details; it comes

with information. Government will present a bill. They’ll present a

process that they want to follow through with. They’ll present details.

They’ll present what their initiatives are, with the information laid

out descriptively within that bill — usually after it’s gone through a

legislative reviewing process — so that this House can do their job: to

scrutinize and debate the bill.

Now, I probably should have started at the beginning by saying

that although there is not much in this bill to talk about, I probably

will have a fair bit to say. I will notify that I will be the designated

speaker on this bill. The reason why I brought up…. Oh, I just noticed

the clock has changed, and I have two hours to speak. That’s what that

means now. I’m hoping that everyone is grabbing a coffee and sitting

back for the ride.

What’s really important, though, is when we’re talking about

putting legislation in front of the House…. I’m looking at all members.

This is not just about opposition. This is for government members as

well.

[3:50 p.m.]

It’s our job and their job to look at that information, to

decipher the information and the direction that government wishes to

proceed on and, as I said, debate the merits and the details within that

bill, within that legislation. Contrary to the member for Chilliwack’s

comments and rant earlier about this, there have been many times when a

bill has been presented in this House with the appropriate details for

people to look at what the objectives are, where members of this House

can make a fair and reasonable decision on whether to support or not

support that bill.

In a surprise to those who might be watching — and, obviously, to

the member for Chilliwack — there are many times where this House will

unanimously agree on a bill, unanimously agree on an objective that’s

going to help the people of British Columbia. We’ve seen that over the

last couple of years through the COVID-19 pandemic. We’ve seen it around

initiatives that are going to make lives better for people in British

Columbia. We have those debates, those discussions. As I say, there have

been many, many times when we collaborate. We work together to help

people.

Unfortunately, though, this bill is, for the most part, one page,

one section. Government could have put, basically, one phrase that just

says, “Trust us,” because that’s what they’re asking everybody to do.

With no information — I’ll get into some of the details, or should I say

lack of details, in the bill a little later on — government has put this

on the floor and said: “We have no information. We’re not going to tell

you what we’re doing. We’re going to be secretive. We’re going to

discuss this behind closed doors, at some future date. Don’t worry. Just

pass this. We want you to support this, but we don’t know what we’re

even asking you to support yet.”

It’s basically a shell, maybe even a bit of a shell game that this

government is trying to do. They don’t want to be accountable. We saw

that with Bill 22, which the Minister of Citizens’ Services put forward

— the very controversial bill that was put in this House, where

government tried to, I’ll say, pretend that they didn’t know where they

wanted to go. Yet miraculously, ten minutes after the bill was passed in

this House with no information, they obviously had an epiphany and

decided what they wanted to do, even though they’d stood in this House

and said they had no idea.

You’d think this government would have learned their lesson just a

few short months ago when that whole controversial issue happened, where

the integrity of the minister was called into question in this House,

where pretty well every media outlet in the province of British Columbia

was going after this government, saying that what they were doing was

wrong. It wasn’t transparent; it was secretive. It was not serving the

people of British Columbia in the way this House, this Legislature, is

supposed to treat the people of British Columbia.

By the Canadian Association of Journalists, this NDP government

was awarded as the most secretive government in Canada last year because

of the way they’ve approached this Legislature and the way they’ve taken

advantage, I would argue, of a majority-government situation after they

called a snap election in the middle of a pandemic — which they’d said

they wouldn’t do. They took advantage of the people in that process as

well. Then this government continues to take advantage now in this

House.

Well, I guess they won an award for it, so they can be proud of

that. They can brag about that. The whole idea…. We’ve heard from

numerous members — whether it’s the official opposition or members from

the Third Party, the Green Party — who have stood up in this House and

said that this is really a slap in the face to democracy.

[3:55 p.m.]

We wouldn’t continue saying this if it weren’t so. You wouldn’t

hear every member who’s speaking about this complaining about the lack

of transparency if they were being transparent. We wouldn’t be

complaining about the what-ifs if they actually had detail in the bill.

Now, I’m going to assume, watching this all play out, that the NDP

members are incredible dancers, because they’ve really mastered the

sidestep. But it’s time that they actually do their jobs as well¸ which

helps this House do its job.

The Minister of Finance, in presenting this bill, acknowledged,

when she put the bill on the floor, that there was basically no

information. It’s almost as if she was proud of that, to say: “Don’t

worry. Trust me. When I get information from the B.C. Financial Services

Authority” — which, by the way, could be any day — that’s what, this

minister and this government say, they’re going to use to help shape the

legislation. But they’re not going to tell us about that until after

they ask this House to pass the legislation.

This government — we heard the member for Chilliwack; I believe

we’ve even heard the minister — is basically calling into question the

integrity of the Real Estate Association, of the profession, of the

almost 25,000 people who work in the real estate industry in the

province of British Columbia — saying that, basically, they’re part of

the problem. I see members almost nodding as if they’re agreeing with

that.

Here’s the challenge. This government, again, is out

blam­ing everybody else for their failures. We’re talking about an

affordability crisis. We’re talking about what everybody is saying is

one of the most important things facing the people right now in the

province of British Columbia, and this one-page — basically, one-section

— bill with no information is the best that this government can come up

with.

This is the shingle they’re hanging on the door saying…. This is

what? What’s this going to solve? There’s no information. This isn’t

going to solve a thing. Most real estate professionals who looked at

this said that because of the lack of information and the way our sector

is right now, the real estate sector out there in general…. I’ll talk

about some of the housing stats later on in my speech. Almost everybody

who has looked at this, including most of the mainstream media, has

said: “This is going to do nothing for affordability. This is going to

do nothing to help people.” In fact, this could backfire and actually

increase the cost to get into a home.

Now, the B.C. Real Estate Association put together a white paper.

Why did they do that? Well, I’ve talked to many of them. Frankly, they

were insulted about the fact that we’re talking about something that’s

paramount and fundamental to what they do, yet they weren’t consulted.

They weren’t asked about this — 25,000 people on the ground who

understand the industry, who understand what’s working, what’s not

working, the challenges and the opportunities. Did this government give

them an opportunity for themselves to be part of the discussion?

No.

They put out a white paper — quite extensive, actually. They used

that expertise that they have, and they put forward 30 recommendations.

I won’t bother reading all those recommendations into the House, because

my hope would be that the government, that didn’t want to actually take

any of their advice, would have at least looked at those

recommendations, would have at least looked at that white paper

themselves. Most of what they’ve said — it was a bit of a slap in the

face, of not being included — is: “This is not going to

work.”

[4:00 p.m.]

House prices have doubled in the last five years under this NDP

government. Anybody who has been fortunate enough to own a home and buy

a home, I’m sure, is quite pleased with that, if they’re in that

situation. Anybody who’s struggling right now to get into the housing

market, to own a home for themselves, for their family — we’re hearing

those struggles.

Many people are forced to rent — if they can afford rent, because

that has gone up by $3,000 a year in this province as well and continues

to climb under the NDP. The government, when they put this forward — to

talk a little bit more about how the real estate industry in the sector

works — said: “Well, we’re actually putting this in place and using the

Real Estate Development Marketing Act as kind of a tool to

reference.”

Well, that act talks about presales. That act talks about

different transactions and how they take place, especially with

presales. For anybody who knows anything about presales and who has,

maybe, put an offer in, you’re basically buying a concept. You’re

looking at a drawing. You’re not looking at the physical structure,

because it hasn’t been built yet. Presales are a way for the developer

to get money up front to help offset the development costs, to be able

to build the development so that people can then move in.

So when this government says, “We’re modelling it after the

Development Marketing Act,” like presale condos, where you can have an

inspection, well, I don’t know about you, but if you hire a home

inspector to go inspect nothing, you’re going to get about the same as

what this bill is: nothing. You cannot inspect something that hasn’t

been built yet.

Should there be discussions around home inspections? Sure. I can

see that as being important. I can see that as being why that’s the only

association that was a validator for this bill. But we need to look at

all of this holistically. This whole discussion started because of the

affordability crisis.

This government has been pressured and pressured to do something.

In fact, all they had to do was fulfil or make good on at least one of

their affordability promises around housing, like a $400 rebate — we’ve

talked about that lots in this House — but none of these promises have

seen the light of day. They’ve never come to fruition.

They’ve made great glossy slogans at election time, when this

government, the NDP government, stands up and says: “We understand that

affordability is so important to all of you, so we’re going to do

something about it. Here are all our promises. By the way, don’t expect

us to fulfil any of them.” But it sounds good to get

re-elected.

This government should have been listening to everybody — all of

the stakeholders, not just the ones that they’ve stereotyped and blamed,

like a real estate agency, where they try to say they have a vested

interest.

Well, a news flash for you: the people who have the most vested

interest in the high real estate market right now are the NDP

government. They’re collecting almost $3 billion a year in property

transfer tax — $3 billion. That has almost doubled as well. It seems to

be the theme with this government — doubling. Double the taxes; double

the debt; double the deficits; double down on broken promises. It seems

to be the theme.

When we’re talking about the words that members of this House make

and how important they are, we need to remember that there are lots of

different sectors out there that are working around housing, around the

real estate profession.

[4:05 p.m.]

The real estate agencies themselves…. There are eight boards, as I

mentioned, almost 25,000 realtors in the prov­ince, and they’re

ticked off. They are mad and insulted by the way they’re being treated

by this government, by the comments of the minister. We even heard it

again, just 45 minutes ago, from the member for Chilliwack, who called

their integrity into question.

I’m going to read into the record. As the Housing critic, I’ve

received literally hundreds of emails in the last couple of weeks on

this bill. I’ve had numerous — probably close to a dozen now — Zoom

calls and meetings with different associations who are upset with the

approach this government is making.

This one here I want to read into the record because it kind of

highlights a little bit of the frustration. It’s a little long, but as I

acknowledged, I do have time as the designated speaker. This is from an

award-winning realtor that emailed me, Robert. I won’t use his last

name, but he’s from right here in Victoria. His words to me, actually,

were quite powerful. It highlighted not only the dis­connect but

some of the challenges that people are facing with this

government.

Let me start by reading a good portion of this email. Of course,

it was addressed to me.

“If the minister was willing to have a respectful conversation with

the real estate profession and listen to concerns based on actual work

experience in the field by us, I doubt that this law would have been

introduced at all. My primary concern, though, however, is how this act

is now being misrepresented by this government. The act contains no

requirement mandating sellers to provide access to their homes, either

for a building inspection or appraisal, during the so-called cooling-off

period.”

I will add in here: maybe that’s the plan later? We don’t know.

Because the real estate profession wasn’t included and there is nothing

in the bill, we have to go with what’s not in there as well.

“The bill’s purpose is being promoted as confronting some of these

very issues. However, this is now confusing for consumers, as buyers and

sellers would still have to agree contractually for the buyer to even

have access to the house for a building inspection or appraisal during

that cooling-off period. A seller can simply say, ‘No, I’m not letting

anyone in my house; it’s my private residence,’ or choose an offer that

does not provide any such property access. Furthermore, the delegated

regulation-making authority does not appear to empower this minister to

mandate inspections or appraisals. It almost makes you wonder if the

minister herself does not even know what she is proposing.

“At the heart of this issue is a government disinterested in

understanding the property-buying and -selling process, yet this is also

a government that seems to be eager to make policy that will have

consequences in a billion-dollar market in British Columbia. If they

cannot be trusted to propose any evidence-based policy or something as

straightforward as a home-buying process, how can we have any faith in

this government’s ability to foresee the consequences to the market of

their reckless meddling with this bill? Policy based on strident

personal views, distorted logic, all of which is entirely free from

evidence-based facts which have been proven by time, do nothing to

enhance affordability of housing in your province.

“It is my hope that this act and the inflammatory language used by

the minister and members of the House in relation to the real estate

profession can be resoundingly condemned in the House by all those with

an interest in truly improving our property-buying and -selling process,

which will be truly in the interest in all consumers.”

I mean, that’s just one of hundreds of emails that I’ve received

from people who are frustrated with this government.

[4:10 p.m.]

Now, on the bill, I want to thank — I should thank, genuinely

thank — the minister’s staff. The critic for Finance, myself…. We were

offered a briefing on this bill. Of course, we took up that offer. I

want to thank the staff — the ministerial staff and the bureaucratic

staff — that sat in on that briefing.

I also feel horrible for them, for the position that they were put

in for that briefing — that the minister would actually agree to a

briefing of nothing, basically throwing her staff out there. To every

single question we asked — which, we thought, would be just a logical

question, based on the information that we had with the bill presented —

pretty well every answer we got was: “That’s a good question,” “You’re

going to have to ask the minister,” “It’s not in the bill,” “We don’t

know.” Every answer was: “You’ll have to ask the minister.”

Now, that is not meant in any way to be critical of the staff.

That is not their fault. The staff didn’t have the information. I know,

because I’ve sat through in my years here, that when we’ve had

briefings, staff genuinely want to assist and share information where

they can to help the process move forward. That’s what briefings are

supposed to be, so that you have a better understanding of the bill.

It’s so when you come to this House as opposition, you’ve been given

that background, that information, so that you can make a rational

decision and have a rational conversation based on the merits of a bill

with that information that’s presented.

Again, I thank the staff for that. I don’t want to say it was a

waste of time. That wouldn’t be fair. It’s not staff’s fault, but again,

how awkward that must be for the staff to be put in that

position.

Here’s where I go with this, though. We’ve got a couple of

situations here — I’m trying to figure out which this is — when it comes

to this bill. We’ve heard that basically nobody from the government side

of the House wants to speak to this. They don’t want to defend it. They

haven’t been able to, I guess, frankly, because it’s really hard, even

when we heard the member for Chilliwack trying to say how excited he is

to support all the information in this bill.

If I were a constituent in Chilliwack, I’d be contacting him and

saying: “Okay. I’m glad you’re happy to support this. What information

are you supporting? Where is the detail that you’re supporting as a

member of this Legislature?” There is none, which leads me to a really

weird crossroads that I have to ask this House.

Either all of the members of the NDP know exactly what the

recommendations are going to be…. They’ve had a secretive meeting — we

know how they win all those awards — that says: “This is what we’re

going to do. Here are all the regulations. We know exactly how this is

going to look. No, we did not put it in writing. No, we didn’t put it in

the legislation, because we don’t feel we have to share anything with

this House, but we’ll let all of you know.” I’m hoping, in some weird

way, that that’s maybe what happened.

Otherwise, we’re going to have every member of the NDP, government

members, cabinet members, backbench members…. How are they going to

vote? How do they look in the mirror? How do they go back to their

constituents and say: “I am so proud that I represented you in the

Legislature today by approving a bill of nothing. That’s what I said I

was going to do. If you elect me, I’m going to go the Legislature and be

secretive with the NDP government, not tell you anything, and I’ll

support all of it.”

[4:15 p.m.]

Now, we all know…. I’ve got a member to my right who has been here

a few years longer than me, and I don’t think we’ve ever seen a time

where one NDP member has stepped away from the ranks and voted against

something that they were told to vote for.

Even if they have no clue about the details — I say that

respectfully, because there are no details — they’re going to be told

how to vote. They’ll stand up, one by one, and say they’re going to vote

in favour of it, because they were told to. At what point, though, do

you look at yourself and say: “Is this why I ran? Is this why I was

elected? Am I truly serving my constituents properly?”

Either all of the members of the NDP know all the details, and

they’re just hiding it from this House, like I said…. If that’s the

case, we’ve got bigger problems in this Legislature, and we have massive

issues, not just about secrecy, but for the trust in the establishment

of this facility, if that’s the way that this present government is

going to treat the people, not only of this chamber but of the province

of British Columbia.

Either they know the information, which is why they feel confident

supporting it, or even worse, they have no clue of what the regulations

are going to be. Based on the bill that’s in front of us, they have no

clue of what’s going to happen later on this year, yet they’re going to

be told to support it anyway. Now, we’ve heard other members before

myself — the member for Saanich North and the Islands, and others — who

have talked about, basically, the need for respect for this facility,

for this Legislature, for the process. What we’re seeing here is the

lack thereof.

I don’t have to go much deeper into it, because we did see and

hear some great examples and some heartfelt opinions about why we’re

going down the wrong path here with a bill like this. The challenge we

have is that this government is not looking in the mirror, where the

issue lies. For the last five years, it has been deflection after

deflection. First, if I remember correctly, around four or five years

ago — affordability crisis — this government gets into power, and they

blame foreign buyers. “Not our fault. We’re going to fix it. We’re going

to blame foreign buyers.” Then the prices of houses went up, and this

government got more pressured that they had to do something.

What did they do? Well, they came out with anothe