Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, November

23, 2023

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[10:05 a.m.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: A. Singh.

Introductions by Members

K. Chen: First, I just want to quickly say thanks for all the support that I've received from

all the colleagues, the staff, the press gallery and friends yesterday. It really

Today I actually want to share some really good news. Last week, we all know, our

dear colleague and friend the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness

welcomed her beautiful baby daughter, Azalea.

The same week, Friday, another friend and sister who also has a strong connection

to this House and has done years of work in the community, Jasleen Arora, also welcomed

her adorable, handsome baby boy, Jeevan Singh Arora, after 30 hours of labour and

hard work. It is also worth noting that Jeevan is the fifth baby of our former child

care team that has been very, very productive with babies. It actually started with

the Attorney General's baby boy.

I just want to wish all these moms and their growing families all the best.

Congratulations, Jasleen, her husband, Justin, and baby Jeevan.

Hon. H. Bains: In the House today are a number of executive members of the Health Sciences Association

of B.C., who are here to meet with government representatives. I'm sure they will

talk to the Minister of Health if they haven't done that already.

The Health Sciences Association members are led by their president, Kane Tse. They

represent about 20,000 members all across the province. They are engaged in health

care, science and community service professions, over 250 hospitals. Imagine the kind

of service that they provide. Any time we end up going to get health care services

at any of the hospitals, these members are there to help us.

So please help me — first of all, thank you for all the good work that you do — give

them a very warm welcome.

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I have two special guests from the district of Central Saanich:

Mayor Ryan Windsor and also CAO Christine Culham. Central Saanich is located in the

mid-section of Vancouver Island, Saanich Peninsula, and it is home to breathtaking

beaches, rolling farmlands, wineries, restaurants, hotels and, of course, the world-famous

Butchart Gardens.

My ministry remains committed to working with our local governments collaboratively

and to addressing the communities' top priorities and support the communities' vibrant

growth. I look forward to meeting with the mayor later today after question period.

Would the House please make Mayor Windsor and Christine very welcome.

A. Olsen: It's an honour today to rise and introduce Gerry Taylor to this Legislative Assembly.

Some people here may know Gerry from his time working in the provincial government.

I am blessed as the representative for Saanich North and the Islands to have many

current and former government leaders live in our community, retire in our community.

[10:10 a.m.]

Gerry was brought to British Columbia because of his love for fishing, something that

we have in common. He has been working on environmental issues in British Columbia

since the 1950s, starting as a hatchery technician at B.C. fish and wildlife and eventually

becoming the deputy director, under the Wildlife Act, for fish habitat and fisheries.

It is such an honour to be able to have constituents like Gerry who can provide their

wisdom to me and share their experiences. I've only been in this business for a very

few short years, so it's wonderful to have people who are willing to share their wisdom

with me and help guide and direct the work that I do in this Legislative Assembly.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM to Gerry.

Could this House please make him feel very welcome.

Hon. A. Mercier: We've got a great group of young people up in the gallery today, Ms. Katie Glover's

political studies class from Brookswood Secondary, from back home in Langley. They're

with teacher Victoria Wiebe today because, unfortunately, Ms. Glover couldn't make

it. She's on maternity leave after giving birth to a healthy and beautiful baby girl,

Elsie Glover.

Will the House please make the class welcome and please congratulate Katie on her

new baby girl.

S. Furstenau: I have a very special guest that I'd like to introduce today. It's my pleasure to

introduce the hon. Jackson Kiswaga, a member of the Tanzanian Parliament.

He is here with a guest as well, Helen Nation, who has done work in Tanzania with

her husband Bob to bring water projects to Tanzania. It's been a real pleasure to

meet and to get to know Jackson. I very much enjoyed hearing from him about Tanzania

and the work as a parliamentarian.

Will the House please make him most welcome.

M. Dykeman: I just want to take a quick moment to introduce someone very special to the House.

She's joining the school group, but I've had the privilege of knowing this amazing

young lady for over six years, through the farming community and through 4-H. I can't

even believe she's in high school now. I swear she's still just a couple of feet tall.

I'm wondering if the House could please help me make Victoria Baas feel very welcome

to the precinct today. I'm absolutely thrilled to see her smiling face up there.

B. Anderson: Today I am delighted to be able to introduce into the House my mayor, Janice Morrison.

Janice is the mayor of Nelson. We served together on council, but Janice and I go

way back. Her husband, Mike Bonderoff, worked with my dad since I was six months old.

I am super grateful for Janice's friendship and mentorship but also the incredible

partnership that I get to have with the city of Nelson. We have a lot of tough issues

that we have to tackle, but the best

part is that the mayor and I get to tackle those

together.

Will the House please welcome Janice Morrison, mayor of Nelson, here with us today.

D. Routley: I have two introductions.

First, I'd like to introduce to the House Ryan Alger and Kate Middleton Alger. They've

recently moved from Alberta to B.C., and they've chosen Ladysmith as their home, and

I thank them for that. For those of you who know how steep the hills are in Ladysmith,

we are always relieved to tell people that you're never over the hill in Ladysmith.

So they've made a good choice.

The second introduction is a group of students from the classical conversation group

from my riding.

Will the House please help me make them welcome.

Hon. G. Lore: I have a number of guests who are here and coming today. They are local housing advocates,

folks who've come together to advocate for more and more diverse types of housing

in our community.

I'm not sure if all of them have arrived, but I did want to take the opportunity to

introduce Luna Morris, Rob Barry, Jack Sandor, Max Thompson, Jim Mayer, Irene Allen,

Mark Edwardson, Jaron Butterworth, Samuel Holland, Izzy Adachi, Cord Corsee, Bridget

Ryan and Torben Werner.

I also see in the gallery another key person for me. Erin Willis is my constituency

assistant. She joined my office just about four months ago, and I'm incredibly grateful

to have her.

Will the House please join me in making all of these guests feel very welcome.

[10:15 a.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M226 — NO NET LOSS OF

WETLAND ACT, 2023

J. Rustad presented a bill intituled No Net Loss of Wetland Act, 2023.

J. Rustad: I move a bill entitled No Net Loss of Wetland Act, 2023, of which notice will be given

in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

I'm pleased to stand in the House to reintroduce the No Net Loss of Wetland Act, which

I first brought forward in May of 2018. Wetlands are an important part of how nature

functions. Fish and wildlife habitat, organic carbon storage, water supply and purification,

soil and water conservation, as well as tourism, heritage, recreation, education and

science are all things — and more — in terms of the values of wetlands.

Occasionally, development can impact on the functions of wetlands, and this bill is

designed that when a wetland is impacted, government will work with its partners to

ensure that there is no net loss of wetland functions through investment or enhancements

in other wetlands.

This is an initiative that was first undertaken by Ducks Unlimited, and I'm introducing

this bill now in recognition of the great work that Ducks Unlimited has done for more

than 50 years.

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

Motion approved.

Bill M226, No Net Loss of Wetland Act, 2023, introduced, read a first time and ordered

to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ACTIVISM AGAINST

GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

K. Kirkpatrick: As we commence the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence on November 25,

the International Day For the Elimination of Violence Against Women is crucial to

confront the stark reality of the situation today.

Data from Statistics Canada highlights the surge in calls to the Battered Women's

Support Services crisis line in Vancouver during the first month of the COVID-19 pandemic,

revealing the heightened vulnerability of women in times of crisis.

Additionally, in British Columbia last year, the rate of intimate-partner violence

was 292 persons per 100,000 population. This year's theme, "Unite: Invest to prevent

violence against women and girls," underscores the urgent need for substantial investment

in prevention strategies to proactively address the rise of gender-based violence.

Our unity during these 16 days and beyond is not just symbolic — or should not be

just symbolic. It's a practical necessity as we confront the pervasive issue of violence

against women globally.

Mr. Speaker, in all communities, I have heard from women that are saying there are

simply not enough housing options for them, for women's transition homes, safe places

for them to leave and particularly to leave with their children. That means that victims

of gender-based violence often stay with their perpetrators, because they don't have

anywhere safe to go.

If someone goes into a shelter or becomes homeless, MCFD also gets involved, and they

run the risk of actually losing their children, if they try and leave a violent situation.

So education is our ally. We must teach our children about consent, respect and the

importance of healthy relationships so we can break the cycle of violence.

NATIONAL ADDICTIONS AWARENESS WEEK

J. Sims: This week is National Addictions Awareness Week. Today and every day we remember those

who have lost their lives due to drug overdose. We cannot forget that these are our

brothers, fathers, uncles, sisters, sons, mothers, aunts, daughters, friends and co-workers.

We are also reminded that people are impacted by many forms of addictions in British

Columbia. We see firsthand the deep pain — physical, mental and emotional — that lies

behind addiction. Shame and stigma often stand in the way of people getting the help

they require. We must continue to build a system of care to help them where and when

they need it.

Addiction doesn't discriminate. It impacts every member of this House, every family

in British Columbia, every community, and we are committed to fighting the stigma

of addiction together.

This year's theme is "Inspiration, innovation and inclusion." Inspiration comes from

the courage of those facing addiction, the resilience of communities and the dedication

of health care professionals.

[10:20 a.m.]

Innovation pushes us to find better ways to prevent and treat addiction. Inclusion

means creating a safe space where people can seek help without judgment, breaking

down barriers to treatment and valuing every person's journey.

I want to do a shout-out to all the front-line care providers supporting those with

addictions, especially those in Fraser Health, in my riding, Surrey-Panorama.

There are programs to create awareness, to educate around addiction and to deliver

culturally appropriate supports for members of our diverse communities, including

our South Asian community. There is concerned outreach in community groups with international

students, as well as post-secondary institutions, to look at ways to share information

and resources to support students.

I know that colleagues on both sides of the House have taken the time to listen to

British Columbians who are making positive impacts across the province and supporting

individuals dealing with addictions. Together, we can do this.

HOLODOMOR COMMEMORATION

T. Shypitka: Four years ago I was given a unique opportunity to work across party lines, with colleagues

from the Green Party and the NDP, to bring recognition and, to some degree, solace

to one of the darkest periods in our world history.

The Holodomor, or "death by hunger" in Ukrainian, refers to the starvation of millions

of Ukrainians in 1932 and 1933. The Holodomor can be seen as a culmination of an assault

by the Communist Party and Soviet state of the Ukrainian peasantry who resisted Soviet

policies. This heinous act to curtail the cultural autonomy of Ukrainians through

intimidation, arrest, imprisonment, starvation and execution was masterminded by Joseph

Stalin and his totalitarian communist regime to eliminate the threat to Soviet ideological

and state-building aspirations.

Painfully, today we see the reoccurring nightmare of another unprovoked assault by

a different Soviet dictatorship. This is a violent and targeted attack against Ukrainian

people.

As horror often repeats itself, I'm here to say, so do the kindness and support from

this Legislature. For example, earlier this year this House worked together to bring

support to Ukrainian refugees who fled their home country, not only with financial

support but also by providing a B.C. driver's licence test to be available in the

Ukrainian language. Thank you for that. This may not seem like much to some, but to

those who needed that support, it meant a lot.

I want to thank this entire Legislature once again for not only designating the fourth

Saturday of November as Ukrainian Famine and Genocide (Holodomor) Memorial Day. Let

us all take some time this Saturday to join Ukrainian people and communities around

the world in remembering the victims of Holodomor and honouring the strength of survivors.

ACTIVISM AGAINST

GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

K. Paddon: I'd like to start with a trigger warning, as today I'll be speaking about gender-based

violence. I want to honour that this is a painful and traumatic topic for so many

and provide space for listeners to make the choice that supports their own well-being.

November 25 is International Day For the Elimination of Violence Against Women and

marks the beginning of 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. It is a

time for people, organizations, communities and governments to share how they're taking

action to break the cycle of violence and provide safety and support for survivors.

Everyone should feel safe and secure in their own home and community. But gender-based

violence too often impacts women, girls, two-spirit, transgender, non-binary and other

gender-diverse people with devastating and long-lasting effects. Gender-based violence

can happen to anyone. You are not alone.

Every day community organizations, advocacy groups, sexual assault centres, victim

services and transition houses work tirelessly to support survivors and their communities

with expertise and compassion. Thank you. I know you make all the difference in a

seemingly impossible time. You are not alone.

Many communities will be having events and vigils during the 16 days of activism.

I know groups and teams across B.C. are taking action to recognize and acknowledge

the 16 days and the national day of remembrance. I encourage everyone to join in if

they can and to help raise awareness. The message is: end gender-based violence. And

a reminder. You are not alone.

For those who have experienced gender-based violence, for families and loved ones

supporting victims and survivors and, also, for those who may be living in danger

right now, we grieve with you. There are resources available. You are not alone.

[10:25 a.m.]

If you are in immediate danger or think someone else is, you can call 911. You can

also call or text VictimLinkBC through its toll-free, 24-7, confidential, multilingual

telephone service at 1-800-563-0808. VictimLink staff are there to provide immediate

crisis support, information and referral services. You are not alone.

COWICHAN ESTUARY RESTORATION

S. Furstenau: Climate change will continue to deliver extremes — extreme heat, extreme drought,

heavy rains, floods and wildfires. Our best ally in combating these extremes is nature.

We've degraded much of the nature in B.C. to the point where it can't help us when

we need it the most. An example of this is the Cowichan estuary. The partnership between

the Nature Trust of B.C., Cowichan Tribes, Ducks Unlimited Canada, the Habitat Conservation

Trust Foundation and the provincial and federal governments is focused on the restoration

of the Cowichan estuary so it can more effectively cope with rising sea levels and

improve conditions for the sea life that depends on the health of that estuary.

This project is one example of the restoration that needs to happen across B.C. Over

the next two years, dikes that have been created to hold back the estuary water will

be removed. This will allow for intertidal channels, salt marsh habitat and marine

riparian habitats to be restored. The lands were purchased in 1990 by Nature Trust,

with the intention of restoring this ecologically significant area.

There will be some loss of farmland for this restoration work. Of course, we have

to be serious about protecting farmland, but the food security from the estuary is

also critical. Young salmon start their lives in the estuary and return to spawn.

Cowichan Elders have shared stories from generations before, a time when crabs and

clams were abundant and bountiful in the estuary ecosystem.

B.C.'s estuaries make up less than 3 percent of B.C.'s coastline, yet they support

80 percent of coastal fish and wildlife. We have to be as serious about protecting

these areas as we are about protecting farmland.

I celebrate the critical work of the Cowichan estuary restoration project, which will

enhance resilience, for Cowichan and for B.C., for the future.

COMMUNITY SPACES IN PORT MOODY

R. Glumac: We've spent a bit of time in this House talking about housing — in fact, sometimes

late into the evening. I wanted to spend a few minutes talking about community. It's

the things in our community — the people and the places where we come together — that

truly make a home feel like a home.

Community is running into friends when you're walking your dog in Bert Flinn Park

in Port Moody, a park that was not always a park. People came together to try to protect

that park, in fact, and voted out an entire city council to do that. Community is

running along the Shoreline Trail and coming across a group of people looking up and

talking about the herons' nests that are up there. Community is a Sunday concert in

Rocky Point Park.

You can also find this sense of community in our very own Brewers Row, a group of

breweries located close to our Moody Centre SkyTrain station right across from Rocky

Point Park. It's often bustling with people, families and dogs. It's an economic hub

and a social hub of our city. You'll find trivia nights, open-mic nights, weekly running

groups, drag shows, yoga nights and some incredibly amazing food trucks.

I feel so fortunate to be able to represent such a dynamic and growing community.

We know how important it is to build housing, but a home is truly a home when it's

embedded in a community where we feel connected with each other in the spaces outside

of our homes. These places are important, too, and need to be appreciated, strengthened

and enhanced as we grow.

[10:30 a.m.]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON

CLEAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

AND ENERGY COSTS AND SUPPLY

M. de Jong: For weeks now, the official opposition has been seeking real, actual relief for British

Columbians who are facing dramatically increasing costs of living, including, unfortunately,

the NDP government's relentless, continued increases to the carbon tax. Those requests

have been dismissed. They have been ignored.

Yesterday the official opposition received a copy of an internal memo sent by the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. I know the minister will remember

the memo. She sent it yesterday at 7:13 a.m. It's from the minister, and I've sent

a copy over to her just a few moments ago so she'd have it to reference.

It begins with the following line: "The Premier is looking for a big and shiny affordability

measure." It goes on to reveal plans to politically manipulate B.C. Hydro to stall

collapsing support for CleanBC.

Can the Minister of Energy and Mines explain what exactly she meant by "big and shiny

affordability measure"?

Hon. D. Eby: I wonder why the member of the opposition would be surprised that this side of the

House is looking for every opportunity to support British Columbians. I make no apology

for searching for affordability options for British Columbia, especially as we prepare

our budget.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: Big affordability initiatives? Absolutely.

Let me tell you about the affordability initiatives that many British Columbians actually

think are helpful and shiny. Reducing child care costs by up to $900 a month — that's

a big affordability announcement. Reducing….

The other side kept increasing ICBC rates over and over, and that minister lacked

the political courage to even release a report with the recommendations for how to

fix ICBC when he sat on this side of the House, the member for Abbotsford West, when

he cut those pages out of the report about how to make ICBC more affordable for British

Columbians.

And now he stands up and says: "Shame on you for trying to find more affordability

options for British Columbians"?

Shame on you, Member.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, supplemental.

M. de Jong: Well, it'll be interesting to see if the Premier maintains his enthusiasm to defend

the document.

The minister's memo goes beyond just manipulating families with talks of something

big and shiny, which…. By the way, families need something real and practical, not

big and shiny.

In her memo, the minister proposes an order-in-council to gain — it's the quote from

the memo — "leverage with companies like Fortescue. You're either going to pay B.C.

Hydro $1 billion under the existing tariff or agree to scale down the size of your

project." Fortescue is the proponent of Project Coyote, a multi-billion-dollar green

hydrogen and ammonia production facility located in Prince George.

Can the minister explain what appears to be a clear threat, and what does she mean

when she says she wants to acquire leverage over Fortescue?

Mr. Speaker: Premier.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, hon. Chair, now we're….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Premier has the floor.

Hon. D. Eby: These are the exact projects the members on the other side were railing against yesterday

in our CleanBC plan. "How dare you? How dare you?"

A billion-dollar plant…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …for the member from Prince George's community that is struggling economically.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: They all stood up and said: "Abandon climate change."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount.

Members, please. No interruptions. Thank you.

Hon. D. Eby: Today, they're supporting it, supposedly.

[10:35 a.m.]

Yesterday it was all about attacking our CleanBC plan that's delivered record numbers

of investment in this province from companies like Fortescue. I've met with the CEO.

He flew to Prince George. He met with the mayor. He met with the First Nations. I

love the project.

There is a huge challenge. They need 1,000 megawatts of power to do what they want

to do, and it has to be clean energy. We have to do this work with Fortescue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: We have to do this work with hydrogen.

The other side got up yesterday, and they said: "We're going to rewarm Christy Clark's

2013 LNG plan." Well, we're moving in a different direction. They oppose it. We stand

for climate action. We support the project, and we're going to do the work.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let's have the courtesy to hear each other, please.

Member for Abbotsford West, second supplemental.

M. de Jong: What has become abundantly clear is that the new direction involves threatening companies,

threatening them — companies that have entered a regulatory process in good faith,

that are part of an exercise, that want to invest but are now, according to the Minister

of Energy and Mines' own document, being confronted by this: "You're either going

to pay B.C. Hydro $1 billion or agree to scale down the size of your project."

Isn't that eerily familiar to what the B.C. Business Council economist Mr. Peacock

said when he wrote that the government's approach to climate change is to downsize

the economy, to shrink the economy, make your project smaller?

We want to see people come to British Columbia and invest, and the Minister of Energy

is developing strategies to threaten them. So the question…. To threaten them to downsize

their project. She sent the memo. The Premier can try to cover as much as he wants.

What did she mean when she said to Fortescue, when she alluded to Fortescue, and said:

"I'm going to either get them to pay $1 billion, or I'm going to tell them to downsize

their project"?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, do you want to answer? If not, please, please stay quiet.

Premier.

Hon. D. Eby: The inconsistency from the other side of the House on climate action is unbelievable.

This is the same group that literally yesterday said they would rip up the climate

plan that delivered Canada's first renewable diesel refinery, Canada's first, in Prince

George. They said they would rip up that plan. That was yesterday.

If you want to talk about threatening business, if you want to talk about threatening

jobs, abandoning…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member. Take it easy.

Hon. D. Eby: …the CleanBC plan that has delivered lower emissions, record foreign direct investment,

including….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: You can ask another question after that.

Hon. D. Eby: Including the E-One Moli project in Maple Ridge, with a company that wouldn't have

come here under their watch, because they were only promoting LNG.

Fortescue. I've met with the CEO. He met with the mayor. He met with First Nations.

We love the project. Here's the challenge. They need 1,000 megawatts of clean power.

How do we ensure that we deliver that without impacting rate affordability for British

Columbians?

We need affordability. We need clean energy. We need jobs. And there's only one party

that's going to deliver all those things. It's this side of the House. That side of

the House doesn't like this project. They don't like the clean diesel refinery. They

don't like CleanBC. They'd rip it all up. That's not a surprise to anybody.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. If the opposition wants to ask questions and answer themselves,

that's okay. We can arrange that. If not, let the other side answer. You will disagree

with their answer; no doubt about it. But let's have the courtesy to listen to that,

please.

Member for Kootenay East.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Well, this isn't the time for deflection; this is the time

for some answers and some straight-up ones from the minister. She's got some explaining

to do. Let's look at the tactics that are being used right now by this government

to adjudicate projects.

[10:40 a.m.]

Let's be clear. The NDP is clearly picking winners and losers here because, according

to the minister herself, in her own document, it says: "Right now we have no framework

to adjudicate between projects fairly."

The minister's memo underlines how NDP manipulation has left B.C. Hydro woefully short

of the power we need. We've been saying that for a long time now, and there is not

enough electricity for industrial development. This NDP government were the ones that

delayed and opposed Site C and shut down clean energy projects, mainly IPPs. Now they

don't have enough power, and now they're in panic mode.

The minister writes that she wants to use a stick against companies and is intent

on applying leverage against Fortescue's Project Coyote project, to force them to

scale down the size of their project. That's clean and simple. The minister needs

to respond.

Can the minister explain in her own words about using leverage and a stick against

companies?

Hon. D. Eby: I have been very clear that there is a huge opportunity for British Columbia right

now. We have clean, firm power that is in desire from a whole range of industries.

Now, the province of Quebec has been building in advance of demand. I think there's

an opportunity for us to do that too. So we have a task force working with B.C. Hydro

to deliver more power at actually affordable rates for British Columbia.

That's something that matters to us, and it didn't matter to you when you did the

IPP project.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: In addition to that, we have a number of proposals coming forward to us that are looking

at the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States and saying: "Look, we're thinking

about locating in the United States. What kind of support can you offer in British

Columbia?" We're working with the federal government with these companies.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. No.

Hon. D. Eby: But we need a framework to be able to determine which projects go ahead in terms of

public support in that way. This is not an inconsequential thing. It resulted in a

billion-dollar investment in Maple Ridge in the E-One Moli project. So when we get

it right, there are good, family-supporting jobs, but it's important to get it right.

It is a fraught process. This is public money, and it is serious.

The need for a framework is an important thing, and I'm surprised the members oppose

that. But of course, they oppose our entire clean economy agenda, where we're reducing

emissions and delivering jobs right across the province.

Mr. Speaker: Kootenay East, supplemental.

T. Shypitka: Well, we have all this power. If we're so flush with power, why are we using sticks

and leverages against companies? These are partners in British Columbia. Using a leverage

and a stick against these companies who have entered a regulatory process, such as

Project Coyote, in an environmental assessment process right now — in good faith,

I might add — is just the kind of unpredictable and hostile environment that will

drive more jobs out of B.C.

Here is yet another candid admission from the minister about the NDP's cost B.C. framework

that is in total shambles. The framework makes "most projects uneconomic to proceed."

Can the minister explain? Here's the opportunity for the minister to explain her own

memo. Can the minister explain her own words about making most projects uneconomic?

Hon. D. Eby: November 2023, E-One Moli announces a $1 billion battery plant in Maple Ridge — 450

jobs.

January 2023, U.S. company Alkemy X invested $201 million in expanding visual effects

operations in Vancouver.

September 2023, Canfor announced $200 million for a new high-efficiency facility in

Houston, B.C.

June 2023, Massive Canada announced a $75 million new mass timber manufacturing facility

in Williams Lake.

March 2023, DP World completed their $350 million Vancouver port expansion.

September 2022, San Group announced $23 million in the value-added division at Port

Alberni.

April 2022, Wētā FX announced $201 million for their international visual effects

office outside New Zealand.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. D. Eby: August 2021, Hexagon Purus broke ground on a $237 million battery pack and hydrogen

storage facility.

I could go on.

CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM AND

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

MINISTRY ACCOUNTABILITY

A. Olsen: Rest assured, the Premier will have his opportunity to continue, but on a different

topic. Perhaps with all the exercise the Premier has been getting today, he will finally

— finally — answer a question on behalf of the most vulnerable children in our province.

For years, we've heard tragic stories. We've read the Ministry of Children and Family

Development audits and the damning reports from the Representative for Children and

Youth. All have painted a picture of a broken child welfare system in British Columbia.

[10:45 a.m.]

This session I have clearly outlined the hypocrisy of this B.C. NDP government, who

can't even hold themselves to the same basic standards that their former leader, John

Horgan, had when he demanded the minister protect children and not protect the institution.

After hearing yet another tragic story in the Fraser Valley, reading another pathetic

ministry audit, I've had enough, and for the first time, and only time, I call for

the resignation or the firing of a cabinet minister.

There is another story, this time of a judge, Kimberley Arthur-Leung, who excoriated

this ministry for failing to deliver the basic standards of social work while holding

parents accountable. The judge called for "ethical, moral and legal consequences for

the level of neglect."

To the Premier: what more is there to say? How many more stories do we need to hear

and read before this Premier will finally stand up, as he's been doing all morning,

and seriously take action for a serious problem?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. I absolutely understand his passion. I understand

where the question is coming from.

When I hear of examples where basic practice and policy are not being followed, I

also have the same response. I also ask those questions, and I give direction to staff

to make sure that, actually, policies and procedures are being followed…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. M. Dean: …and that I know there is good quality oversight of all of the practice of all of

our front-line workers.

Having been a front-line worker myself, I know how important it is to follow basic

practices and procedures to make sure that children are seen, that they are supported

and that they receive…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. M. Dean: …all of the services that they need.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member, supplemental.

CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM AND

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

MINISTRY ACCOUNTABILITY

A. Olsen: Let the answer stand to provide the example of why we need a new Minister of Children

and Family Development. When we are reduced to talking about the most basic level

of service not being delivered over and over again — not one audit, not one report

but multiple, over and over again — and then that's the response…. It's astonishing.

We have been raising policy, good policy ideas, policy ideas that aren't necessarily

ours — they're shared by the social work community — that can improve the Ministry

of Children and Family Development.

We suggested that instead of apprehending children and dooming them to this broken

child welfare system this minister is managing, why not put the $135,000 into a fund,

make it accessible by the family, get them food and clothing for daycare and other

social services they need? Instead of having the social workers…. Why not have them

support the family, not destroy them?

We made basic suggestions that social workers in this ministry be required to be members

of the College of Social Workers. It protects them and the children from the broken,

bureaucratic child welfare system. The B.C. NDP — they're studying it. The report

— unavailable.

It's clear the Minister of Children and Family Development is totally incapable of

the transformational change that her ministry needs. To the Premier….

One more chance to stand up and answer this question, Mr. Premier — one more chance.

When is he going to replace this Minister of Children and Family Development with

a serious person, someone who is going to take the job seriously just like they did

in the 1990s, maybe with someone from outside of government, and create a child welfare

system in this province that we can be proud of?

Hon. M. Dean: Since 2017, we have been making very significant changes in the ministry. This chamber

unanimously supported significant legislative change to support Indigenous child welfare

jurisdiction.

We have also introduced historical legislation, leading the country to support young

people who are leaving the care system and transitioning to adulthood. We have harmonized

the rates for in-care and out-of-care, and we're changing the whole of the in-care

system. We're working on the system and services to support children and youth with

support needs.

We have the lowest number of children and youth in care in over 30 years. We have

the lowest number of Indigenous children in care in over 20 years.

I know there is a lot more work to do, and I am absolutely determined to continue

to make improvements and to change the child welfare system.

[10:50 a.m.]

POLICE SERVICES IN SURREY

J. Rustad: Today the city of Surrey is going to the people of Surrey with an ad campaign showing

that this NDP's Surrey police tax will cost Surrey residents $10,000 per homeowner

over a ten-year period, with zero increase in public safety.

Conservatives have been clear. We support democracy. We support a referendum on policing

in Surrey so that Surrey taxpayers can make an informed democratic decision. But unfortunately,

instead, the Premier has come down on Surrey with an iron fist, and since then, the

NDP has been trying to bully, belittle and diminish Mayor Brenda Locke and the Surrey

taxpayers.

The question to the Minister of Public Safety: now that the city of Surrey has taken

out advertisements to demonstrate how much this brutal NDP tax hike is costing everyday

working homeowners, will you admit that this bullying approach has failed, restore

democracy and hold a referendum?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. We have canvassed this issue extensively. This

has been a topic in our region for five years now, where the decision, first by an

elected council, was made to head towards a regional police service. I do believe

the mayor was part of that original slate that ran on having Surrey police.

Now we've gone through an extensive review. The Solicitor General has done independent

reviews on costing, and it was determined that in order to ensure safety of the public,

the police transition needs to continue. That was what was determined.

I think it's important that the city of Surrey, of course, can do what they believe

they need to do. But when we have so many challenges in our communities — we're struggling

with housing; we're struggling with so many things — surely….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: If the member over there has a question…. I suspect the member should stand up and

ask the question. This was asked by the B.C. Conservative Party.

If the mayor wants to address important issues in her community, like housing and

other issues, what I would recommend is that instead of spending dollars on this,

spend that money on infrastructure so we can get more housing built in our communities.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

GOVERNMENT HOUSING POLICIES

AND ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR

J. Rustad: I'm sure the residents of Surrey would much rather be spending that $10,000 on that

infrastructure as opposed to the NDP's tax plan.

However, Surrey isn't the only one suffering across this province. Families all across

B.C. are being crushed by this unbelievable weight of the socialist NDP's anti-homeowner

agenda.

This NDP Premier says: "Government cannot rely on the private sector. Government needs

to build middle-class housing." He says that the NDP-built homes, the government-owned

homes will be "privatization proof." In other words, this anti-private-sector NDP

plan will actually make it impossible for middle-class workers to own their own home

— and build equity, for that matter.

I just want to point out that this approach has been tried in other jurisdictions.

Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, North Korea and even the old Soviet Union took this approach.

The reality is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member has the floor.

Please continue.

The member will continue.

J. Rustad: The reality is that socialism kills the middle class, as has been proven time and

time again.

Why is this NDP Premier suggesting that the private sector has no role in building

housing? Does he really believe that socialism this time could actually work?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I don't know where to start. It's not often that I'm lost for words in this place.

I spent the last few days defending our legislation to allow more private-sector homes

to be built. I spent two days defending our position on enabling the private-sector

to be able to build more housing. And today I'm being told that we're destroying the

private sector.

I don't know. I don't believe this is a serious question, but I will say….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, members. Members.

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Here's what we have said consistently. I'll say it again. The private sector has a

role to play in addressing the housing crisis. That's why we're legalizing housing

with our legislation. That's why we're legalizing housing on single-family lots. That's

why we're legalizing opportunities for homes near transit.

But we cannot address the housing crisis just by the private sector. There are certain

segments of our population that the not-for-profit sector has to play a role in. We've

said that from the beginning. We need everyone to be part of the solution.

Yes, the private sector has a very important role, and we need to support that. But

the non-market housing sector must grow. That's why we're investing $7 billion in

funding to build affordable housing. That's why we have a half-a-billion-dollar rental

protection fund to get more housing back into the non-market sector. It's vitally

important that we do that.

CARBON EMISSIONS FOR ENERGY PROJECTS

A. Walker: Yesterday in question period, I heard the Premier, as we all did, make statements

defending the CleanBC plan and pointing out that 2022 was a record year for exports

in British Columbia. The party was jubilant about the idea that we saw a record level

of exports and pointed to that success as the CleanBC plan.

Members in this House know our largest export is energy products, and in 2022, we

saw a massive increase — a doubling — of the value of coal exports in British Columbia.

There is a lack of common sense when the Premier, in defending the CleanBC plan, points

to a doubling of coal exports as a measure of success.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. We will

see, in the next couple of years, some significant energy projects come online: the

Trans Mountain Pipeline in one year, LNG Canada two years from now. The Coastal GasLink

pipeline is already completed.

The question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation is: what are

the total emissions that we will see in British Columbia…? Not in the downstream emissions.

What are the emissions that we will see in British Columbia from these projects —

for the pipeline, for the compressor stations and for the fuel we use to transfer

this energy across the world?

Hon. G. Heyman: As the member knows, our CleanBC plan is modelled on a 40 percent reduction in emissions

from the 2007 baseline by 2030. We're working hard to meet that. That includes accounting

for resource extraction and production in British Columbia. It includes, as the member

should know, the emissions upstream and at the facility from LNG Canada phase 1, which

was modelled within the plan.

In addition to that, we're bringing in an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector

to meet their sectoral target of 33 to 38 percent.

And the member should know that coal exports from British Columbia are metallurgical

coal, among the least carbon-intensive coal in the world. It is used to make steel

for things like wind turbines and many other facets of the clean economy.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

A. Walker: I listened carefully, and I didn't get an answer at all.

Yes, we're exporting coal, and the party seems to be proud of this. That coal gets

burned. Whether it's used to create energy or used to create steel, it still represents

significant emissions.

I'm not talking about the downstream emissions. We have seen in the 16 years of the

B.C. Liberals, now B.C. United, the total emissions in British Columbia went down

by 2.4 megatonnes. Under their watch, emissions went down. We have seen this government

reduce emissions by 2.4 megatonnes. Exactly the same.

The question is not about all the great work that's taking place. I asked very specifically,

and I know the minister has the answer. What are the total emissions that these three

massive industrial projects will have for British Columbia?

Hon. G. Heyman: Let me correct the member. Emissions went up in British Columbia from 2007 to 2017.

[11:00 a.m.]

When we introduced the CleanBC plan in 2018, they have gone down in absolute terms.

They have gone down on per capita terms while our economy has grown, while our population

has grown massively. It is significant — below when we took office, and below 2007.

Our efforts to reduce emissions further continue to ramp up. If the member wants exact

numbers, I suggest the member access the CleanBC website, where we provide transparent

information for all British Columbians.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

S. Furstenau: I rise to seek leave to table a letter from the Nature Trust of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

S. Furstenau: I'd like to enter into the record this letter from the Nature Trust of B.C. responding

to comments made by the member for Nechako Lakes on October 5 of this year regarding

land acquired by the Nature Trust in the Cowichan Valley, claiming the organization

acted unlawfully, in breach of contract.

The letter seeks to correct the record, and that the claims that were made by the

member are incorrect and unfounded and was sent to ministers on October 31, 2023.

Hon. L. Beare: I have the honour to present the annual report of the chief records officer.

Petitions

T. Shypitka: I rise to present a petition from 2,739 concerned citizens of East Kootenay and the

province of British Columbia, that we have lost our right to accessible health care.

I want to thank and recognize these petitions, which were a culmination between the

Triangle Women's Institute of Grasmere and the Sparwood thrift shop, and respectfully

request that the hon. House upgrade the East Kootenay Regional Hospital to fill the

medical needs of East Kootenay residents requiring renal, cardiology and oncology,

including radiation care and treatment. Until that time, the petitioners strongly

recommend access to Lethbridge and Calgary hospitals be granted and available to patients

of the East Kootenay.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act.

In Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 44, Housing Statutes

Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 45 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 4), 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 45; S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

[11:05 a.m.]

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. There's been a request for a brief recess so that the opposition

critic can arrive. We will be going to Bill 45, just for everybody's understanding,

in this chamber.

The committee recessed from 11:06 a.m. to 11:07 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay. We will now come out of recess. The critic has arrived. I think we're going

to get underway if everyone's ready. I understand we're doing Bill 45, Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023. I've been given an indication that there are

going to be some changes to the ordering of the clauses that we're going to address.

But I look to the government for….

We are on clause 1, unless there's been a move to stand it down, which hasn't happened

yet.

Hon. L. Beare: We're going to be standing down

part 1 of the bill, moving to

part 2, the post-secondary

education and future skills amendments.

The Chair: I think there are two clauses related to housing. My understanding is you wanted to

go to clause 3. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, clause 3, please.

The Chair: For clarity for everyone, clause 1 and clause 2 are currently being stood down. We

will return to those at a later time. We will start at clause 3, which is titled Professional

Governance Act.

Clauses 1 and 2 stood down.

On clause 3.

C. Oakes: Could the minister walk us through the history of this act? Of course, it was introduced

first in 2019 and then amended in 2022. And here we are again.

As with so many bills that we've seen during this legislative session, we are amending

a bill for the third time. What prompted these further changes?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: Before I begin, I'd just like to introduce two folks who are here to help me in terms

of answering the questions: Kate Haines, the superintendent of professional governance;

and Alayna van Leeuwen, the deputy superintendent of professional governance. They

have a wealth of experience in the administration of this act.

The member is well familiar with the act, as she alluded to, in terms of its introduction

and then changes.

This set of measures represents a series of technical housekeeping amendments that

stem from advice from the office of the superintendent of professional governance,

from the practical experience applying and administering the act; namely, the purpose

on a general sense, because the member asked a general question, is in order to bring

clarity to the regulatory community on the powers under these provisions in the administration,

with an eye to the process for adding additional professions or additional professional

regulators under the act.

C. Oakes: Was there a specific process or series of events that necessitated these changes to

a still relatively new act?

Hon. A. Mercier: The office of the superintendent of professional governance…. And I'll go back and

forth between saying that and OSPG in the purpose of this debate. The OSPG conducted

two designation assessments in 2022.

As well, it went through the process to designate architecture under the act and had

a considerable amount of experience where the rubber hits the road with that, which

led to the provisions you see before you today.

C. Oakes: The minister mentioned that two designations have gone through in 2022. What were

those two?

Hon. A. Mercier: For clarity for the member, they were designation assessments, not designations, and

that is home inspectors and landscape architects.

C. Oakes: I guess, then, the most recent profession brought under this act was the architects.

Why did this process take three years?

Hon. A. Mercier: Could the member elaborate which process she's referring to? Is she referring to the

assessment process for the professions or the process for amendments?

C. Oakes: What was the most recent profession brought in under this act? And how did the process

inform these changes?

I heard the minister mention architects, so maybe that could be a good example of

something that we could canvass.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: To answer the member's question, architect is the most recent profession. The OSPG

worked collaboratively with the regulator for between one and two years on bringing

architects underneath the PGA. There were a number of mechanics that had to be worked

through in terms of the profession's bylaws, the implications for the board.

That process and the experience of the OSPG working through it, which is…. As the

member knows, the world of professional governance can be very niche and idiosyncratic

and very technical. But that process, then, of going through and applying that has,

in part, led to these amendments to bring clarity around the process for the potential

for future designation — just to make that simpler and more clear for all parties,

going forward.

C. Oakes: What were the costs associated with this most recent process? I understand we're trying

to streamline and trying to provide clarity, and I know we'll get better, as we have

more go through. But, approximately, what would be the estimation of costs?

Hon. A. Mercier: With the caveat that that is a question that is more appropriate for estimates than

the committee process in debate on these amendments, I will say for the member's knowledge

that there were no external consultants engaged in that process. That's just part

of the regular cost and FTE component of the OSPG in their regular duties.

C. Oakes: I'm fascinated by this whole process and, of course, the team that works behind this.

I probably know a few of them. I'm just curious, as I was following through on Bill

38, as well, and understanding that team that's behind it, through the Ministry of

Post-Secondary and Future Skills and now the OSPG.

Is there a correlation? Or, I guess, the team that's working on this…. Will this team

have any…? Are any of the members on that team also going to be part of the eight

people and the superintendent that was mentioned that was brought through Bill 38?

And, I guess, for members who might be watching the International Credentials Recognition

Act…?

Hon. A. Mercier: This is straying a bit from the matter under consideration, but this was pretty well

canvassed with the member's colleague during the debate in committee on Bill 38, which

is that the OSPG and the FTE tagged to the OSPG in the ministry will be merging with

the credential recognition improvement branch in order to administer both acts.

C. Oakes: I think it is relevant because it speaks to the team that will be responsible and

bringing this through. I think that when it was canvassed, there were eight people

that were looking at a significant amount of work. I guess I speak to the process

and the timelines because we want to make sure that we'll be able to enact all the

legislation that we're bringing forward and that it'll be timely.

Eight people to manage multiple pieces of legislation, multiple acts, is pretty significant.

So is there a thought to the workplan on how we're doing all the credentialing as

well as now bringing in this piece of this act, if there are other professions that

are going to be brought in?

[11:20 a.m.]

I'm just trying to understand, from a scope perspective — a significant amount of

work that these pieces of legislation are now going to be being brought forward. As

I understand it, we have a superintendent and, I think, eight people, eight staff,

that are working on that. I could….

The Chair: I would just ask that questions about other legislation be asked during those periods

and that we just stay focused on this piece.

C. Oakes: Sure. Well then, on this piece of legislation, how many staff will be working to enact

this piece of legislation, including, I guess, the superintendent and then the staff

working on this piece of legislation?

Hon. A. Mercier: For clarity, this is not a new function or setting up a new office that needs to be

stood up under these amendments. These are bringing clarity and some changes to an

existing process in order to designate professions and professional regulators under

the Professional Governance Act.

The question the member is asking was debated at length in the committee stage debate

in Bill 38 with her colleague the member for Shuswap. I think we spent one to two

hours talking about the civil service organization of the OSPG and the new superintendent

of international credential recognition.

I think we're straying pretty broadly from the relevance, as this doesn't set up a

new superintendent. I will indulge the member here, as it has been debated at length

already in this House, that there are eight FTEs in the OSPG. There are eight FTEs

in the credentials recognition improvement branch, which are being reorganized together

as one body.

A posting will go up, under the B.C. Public Service Act, for one individual to fulfil

the role of both superintendents. The acts will be co-managed by that group, and we

expect it to be about 15 to 20 FTEs. There will be, and has to be, some flexibility

there in terms of the actual workflow and demand as it proceeds and as the other act

comes into implementation.

I would say we're straying pretty far from the relevance of this act. This act is

about amendments to the process to designate new professions and professional regulators.

To delve deeply into the FTE…. I understand the member's curiosity. It's a very interesting

team doing a very, very interesting and cool field of work. I think it's most properly

left to the estimates process, which the member is going to have a considerable amount

of time with after budget.

C. Oakes: Just to be clear, too, this is my legislative time to make sure that what is being

brought forward has done the due diligence in the checks and balances. So it is very

relevant, because it goes to the fact that it took one to two years to go through

the process of just bringing in one body, the architects, as we discussed in the previous.

From a scope perspective, what is this team of 15 to 20 people, as we bring in the

amendment…? They were looking at the process for bringing new professions into this

act. I'm trying to understand the scope. It takes one to two years to get one through

this process. There's quite a list. How many have been completed under this act so

far from what was originally set forward in 2019?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: For clarity, there were initially five professions under the act, or five professional

regulators. Architects were added, which brings it to six.

The OSPG has many functions with those regulators, from capacity monitoring to compliance

reviews and a whole manner of things. I mean, one to two years for the architects

doesn't denote that that's all they were doing in that span of time. There's a whole

range of work and factors of things that they've got going on, in that sense.

But to be clear, this provision, these amendments will not add additional scope in

terms of scope of work. There are already provisions within the Professional Governance

Act that deal with designating new professions or new professional regulators under

the act.

What these provisions do in these amendments is amend those provisions of the Professional

Governance Act to bring more clarity to the process, in large part for professional

regulators in the regulatory community, so that that can go forward.

So in that sense, it doesn't add any additional scope than what was under the act

previously. It really is…. When I say they're technical housekeeping items that are

borne from the experience of the OSPG in terms of the administration of that in their

experience, that's exactly what they are.

C. Oakes: In subclause 3(a), "by adding the following

definitions…." What is the significance

of adding the definition of "designated profession" to the Professional Governance

Act? Can the minister walk us through what this is for and how any regulations are

impacted by this definition?

Hon. A. Mercier: This is a good example of providing clarity for the regulators who are looking at

this act. What this does…. It doesn't so much add "designated profession." That definition

is already under the act, but it's under

section 89 of the act.

What this does is to move that into the

definitions section. So a regulator or someone

on the board of or working for a professional regulator, if they go to the

definitions

section, can find the defined terms, which adds to, basically, the readability of

the act for the regulators.

C. Oakes: Can the minister explain the rationale behind the inclusion of the definition of a

professional organization under this clause and, broadly, within the act? Further,

can there be more than one professional organization for a designated profession that

meets this criteria?

Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you to the member for the question. What including professional organization

does is it defines a term that's used in the act but is left undefined, which can

lead to some confusion. So it defines professional organization. There can be more

than one professional organization for a given profession under this definition, which

is a corporation that acts as an advocate for persons who practise a profession and

is not a professional regulator.

I'll give, for the sake of clarity, an example that comes to my mind in my previous

life as a regulated professional, as a lawyer.

[11:30 a.m.]

There's the Law Society of British Columbia, which is a regulator, but there are many

professional organizations that promote the profession, for instance, the Canadian

Bar Association or one I had a lot of experience with, the Canadian Association of

Labour Lawyers.

You can have a number of different organizations that promote or do advocacy on behalf

of the profession that aren't the regulator.

C. Oakes: What changes are introduced by the repeal of the definition of "professional regulator"

and the subsequent substitution in subsection 1(1) of the Professional Governance

Act?

Hon. A. Mercier: Thank you to the question from the member. This really goes to removing ambiguity

or the potential for any confusion, which also is part of the reason it's tied to

the introduction of "professional organization."

It functionally removes the word "association," and for exactly the example I just

gave. The Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers is an association; it's not a regulator.

So it just makes it much more clear for folks who inhabit that regulatory space and

who deal with these bodies on exactly what the provision means.

C. Oakes: To the minister: do you see that the amendment definition of the professional regulator

will any way impact the governance structure of the professions under the Professional

Governance Act?

Hon. A. Mercier: To the member's question, this is really about making the distinction between a professional

regulator and a professional organization. Once they come under the act, they'd be

expected to be regulated and achieve the same governance standards.

Now, that being said, there are provisions here, in this misc statutes bill, that

deal with some transitional governance issues for bodies that come under the PGA that

I'm happy to canvass as we get down to them. But for the purpose here, this is more

so just about making that distinction.

C. Oakes: I do look forward to canvassing that when we get to that portion of the bill.

The new definition for professional regulator now actually specifies jurisdiction.

Why was it necessary now, and not before, to specify jurisdiction? What prompted this

change?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: This is another example of just bringing clarity to regulators in terms of changing

the language from an enactment to

an act of British Columbia, another province or

Canada so that they know that it's not necessarily exclusive to

an act of, just say,

the province of British Columbia.

C. Oakes: How does the amendment to the definition of "professional regulator" align with the

governance responsibilities outlined in the acts of British Columbia, other provinces

or Canada?

Hon. A. Mercier: Just a question of clarification for the member. Is the member asking about potential

for conflict between an enactment and the Professional Governance Act for a body that

comes under?

C. Oakes: Just for clarification, there are other acts that may…. What supersedes? If you have

the acts of British Columbia or you have this piece of legislation, would there ever

be…? What piece of legislation supersedes this act?

Hon. A. Mercier: The Professional Governance Act was drafted with an eye to that problem. Once a professional

regulator comes under the PGA, their home enactment can be repealed by regulation.

That conflict would not arise once they are under the PGA. The PGA then becomes the

enactment, and the OSPG derives their authority from that.

C. Oakes: That answered my next question, which was: why the repeal and the substitute of the

definition of the regulatory body? So thank you very much.

Can the minister elaborate on the role of the regulatory bodies as outlined in the

amended subsection 1(1) of the Professional Governance Act?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. A. Mercier: The function of a regulatory body under the Professional Governance Act continues

to be to regulate the profession.

The function of the amendment here specifically gets away from the language of a regulatory

body that is continued, established, etc., and instead points to

schedule 1 of the

act, where the regulatory bodies under the act are listed, for clarity's sake.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

C. Oakes: This change appears to be mainly housekeeping and shuffling pieces of the act around.

Can the minister confirm? Are there any substantive changes made to these provisions

section 1?

Hon. A. Mercier: No.

C. Oakes: Thank you very much.

Why would it be necessary to move these provisions around?

Hon. A. Mercier: This clause is a similar type of housekeeping to consolidating the

definitions in

the

definitions section. This was in the designation

section but pertains to the powers

of regulatory bodies. It will be consolidated into the part of the act that deals

with regulatory bodies.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

C. Oakes: How does the amended definition clarify or modify the scope of a "different governing

body" compared to the previous definition, particularly in terms of professional regulation

within and outside of Canada?

Hon. A. Mercier: This is another piece of housekeeping that has to do with the change to the definition

of "professional regulator," which now includes being an enactment and specifies jurisdiction

as being in another province or within Canada.

[11:45 a.m.]

This is a change that just reflects that change in the provision of the Professional

Governance Act that deals with conflict or discipline from professional bodies outside

of Canada.

C. Oakes: Considering the previous definition in this amended definition, are there any subtle

nuances in language or terminology that might influence the

interpretation of what

constitutes an applicable regulatory body in each case?

Hon. A. Mercier: No.

Clauses 5 and 6 approved.

On clause 7.

C. Oakes: Can the minister outline how the role of the superintendent is changed under this

clause?

Hon. A. Mercier: This provision doesn't change any of the obligations or responsibilities of the superintendent.

But what this amendment does do is add some administrative and procedural fairness

components to the process. Namely, it provides an opportunity to be heard before the

superintendent provides a report to the minister.

It also requires the OSPG to publish the minister's written reasons for the recommendations

the minister makes under this provision to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So

it provides for some more openness, transparency and fairness.

C. Oakes: So that's one piece of how the minister's role is further refined under this amended

section. But what is the minister now required to do that you might not have been

required to do in the previous act?

Hon. A. Mercier: One of the main parts of this provision is that it includes the provisions that the

minister's recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council respecting the designation

of a profession, that there's a recommendation respecting whether a new regulatory

body should be established, an existing professional regulator continued or an existing

regulatory body being given responsibility for the new profession. That goes back

to the experience of the OSPG dealing with regulators.

There may be instances where you bring a profession under, or, rather than going through

and bringing a whole regulatory body under, you may want to designate a current regulatory

body or a different regulatory body as the regulatory body for a given profession.

[11:50 a.m.]

C. Oakes: By when must the superintendent publish the minister's written response as per subsection

(5)? Is there a timeline? Will formal notification be sent out through specific channels?

If so, how?

Hon. A. Mercier: Our expectation would be in a timely manner.

C. Oakes: Could we be a little bit more clear for what "timely" would be? Is "timely" three

months? Is "timely" three weeks? What would be the expectation?

Hon. A. Mercier: This would effectively be an order-in-council of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

It would be subject to the cabinet process and the process of cabinet confidentiality,

and the OSPG would coordinate the posting of the reasons along with that.

C. Oakes: If an application is deemed refused under subsection (6), is there an appeals process

Or is the refusal final?

Hon. A. Mercier: Under the act, it would be a final process but, of course, subject to administrative

law and procedural fairness.

Clauses 7 and 8 approved.

The Chair: I understand the member has questions on clause 9, but we're going to note the hour.

Hon. A. Mercier: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada