Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 5, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 181

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Transportation Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. R. Fleming

Bill Pr401 — Sea to Sky University Amendment Act,

J. Sturdy

Bill M205 — Name Amendment Act, 2022

D. Clovechok

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Silversmith power generating station

T. Shypitka

Michael Goldrick

J. Routledge

Qingming Festival

T. Wat

Caregivers

H. Sandhu

Marion Bremner and Kelowna Meals on Wheels

N. Letnick

Vancouver Cherry Blossom Festival

B. Bailey

Oral Questions

Crime in communities and handling of cases by justice system

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

E. Ross

Mental health supports for health care workers

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Inclusion of psychologists in primary health care networks

S. Furstenau

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Crime in communities and handling of cases by justice system

R. Merrifield

Hon. D. Eby

Community safety in Vancouver’s Chinatown

T. Wat

Hon. D. Eby

Crime in communities and handling of cases by justice system

M. Morris

Hon. D. Eby

L. Doerkson

Crime in communities and action on community safety

T. Stone

Hon. D. Eby

Crime in communities and handling of cases by justice system

P. Milobar

Hon. D. Eby

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Property Law Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

On the main motion

K. Kirkpatrick

T. Halford

E. Ross

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

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

C. Oakes

Hon. A. Kang

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2022

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: H. Sandhu.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

H. Sandhu: I am very excited to finally introduce my whole family, together for

the first time since I became an MLA. It took us a lot of planning, between

school, university and work schedules.

It may seem like a simple trip from Vernon to Victoria; however, this

trip had a little hiccup. My husband ended up in Abbotsford Hospital with an

urgent health care issue on our way here. Things are better now, thanks to

our health care system. So finally, my family made it. My older daughter,

Manreet, my middle daughter, Jasreen, my son, Avishaan, and my husband,

Baljit Sandhu, are all here today and absolutely thrilled to be in the

gallery.

Last time when we were here, we were as guests of the member for

Vancouver-Kensington, when I came to lobby for nurses issues and issues

around internationally educated nurses and their credentials. That was in

April 2014, so this is their second time to be here.

May I ask the House to

please show a warm welcome to my family.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. R. Fleming presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Trans­portation Amendment Act,

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 16, Transportation Act, 2022. These

proposed amendments to the Transportation Act will enable the B.C.

Transportation Financing Authority, BCTFA, to acquire and improve land

for the purpose of facilitating transit-oriented

developments.

Transit-oriented development is intended to maximize the amount of

residential business and public space within walking distance of transit

facilities. This promotes the development of complete, compact and

connected communities and housing, served by B.C.’s world-class transit

services.

These amendments introduced today will allow us to work with our

partners to shape growth along transit corridors to increase transit

ridership and to support the province’s CleanBC climate action targets

and advance key government priorities such as housing, child care,

education, job creation and economic recovery.

Around the world, transit-oriented development has helped cities

and regions build more productive economies, improve the quality of life

for their citizens and advance significant reductions in per-capita GHG

emissions. This bill will help B.C. boost transit-oriented developments

in every part of the province.

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

bill.

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 16, Transportation Amendment Act, 2022, intro­duced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL P r 401 — SEA TO SKY UNIVERSITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

J. Sturdy presented a bill intituled Sea to Sky University Amendment

Act, 2022.

J. Sturdy: I move that a bill intituled Sea to Sky University Amendment Act,

2022, standing in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a

first time now.

Hon. Members, the Sea to Sky University Amendment Act seeks to

extend the educational purpose tax exemption for local government,

schools and rural taxation that was previously granted to the Sea to Sky

University, also known as Quest University. It extends the tax exemption

for land owned by the university to also exempt land leased for

educational purposes by the Sea to Sky University.

At the time of incorporation, Sea to Sky University wholly owned

the property, which it intended to use for educational purposes. Today

Sea to Sky University leases the land it uses for educational

purposes.

The proposed amendment brings consistency with the similar Trinity

Western University Act and reflects the intent of the original act — to

exempt land used for educational purposes from municipal, school and

rural taxation.

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

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Members, pursuant to Standing Order 105, the bill shall stand

referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform,

Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401, Sea to Sky University Amendment Act, 2022, introduced,

read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills.

[10:10 a.m.]

BILL M205 — NAME AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

D. Clovechok presented a bill intituled Name Amend­ment Act,

D. Clovechok: I move today that a bill entitled the name hyphenation amendment

act, 2022, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper,

be introduced and read for the first time now.

I’m pleased to reintroduce the bill that was originally tabled in

2019 by former member of this House and my colleague MLA Mary Polak. I’m

honoured to continue her work to bring it forward once again.

The name amendment hyphenation act modernizes spousal name changes

by enabling spouses to hyphenate or combine their surnames at marriage.

The bill is intended to modernize the province’s outdated name-change

process. It would allow married British Columbians to combine or

hyphenate their names at no cost, the same way people can freely take

their spouse’s names.

This amendment aims to update the current practice which, under

section 2 of the act, states that a spouse may only adopt the other

spouse’s surname or maintain their current surname. Hyphenation or

combination by other means presently requires a formal name change

through other provisions in the act. These amendments are modelled on

the changes adopted by the province of Ontario.

British Columbians can easily take the last name of their spouse,

but those who wish to hyphenate or combine surnames face a costly and

time-consuming process. The bill provides a very small and simple change

that would have positive impacts for many couples. This bill reflects

the realities of the modern family in British Columbia, and I hope the

House will consider adopting to modernize an outdated name-change

process that disproportionately affects women.

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

Name Amendment Act, 2022.

Motion approved.

D. Clovechok: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

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

Bill M205, Name Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SILVERSMITH POWER GENERATING STATION

T. Shypitka: On April 5, 1897, exactly 125 years ago today, the Silversmith

generating station, originally named the Slocan Star plant, commenced

operations, and the town of Sandon became the first fully electrified

city in British Columbia.

To fully support Canada’s richest silver-lead producing region in

Canada, the Silversmith generating station is recognized as the oldest

continuously operated power plant in western Canada and brags one of the

world’s oldest alter­nating current systems.

In 1999, Silversmith became the first federally certified green

hydroelectric producer in western Canada, and, during that same year,

Silversmith won the prestigious Attractions Canada Award for over 40,000

visitors that tour the plant each year.

In 2002, Silversmith was commissioned into the B.C. Hydro grid,

solving some regional quality power problems for B.C. Hydro. In March of

this year, Silversmith was officially inducted into the World Hydro Hall

of Fame in celebration of its record-breaking performances and superb

engineering.

One hundred and twenty-five years ago Silversmith was built and

completed in two years, ahead of schedule, and was already operational

and being tested when the water licences became available. The good old

days. Silversmith predates B.C. Hydro, so saying that this is an

independent power producer would be technically wrong, but it shows how

important private energy producers are to this province and should be

supported as such.

The current owner, Hal Wright, wishes to thank the long list of

incredible people, including Eugene Peterson, former plant manager, and

Larry Bell, former chairman of B.C. Hydro, and many others who have

worked or volunteered over the years at this site and their commitment

to preserving this important piece of B.C. history — 24-7, 365 — for

exactly 125 years.

I want to thank Hal Wright for bringing this to my attention and

allowing me to share this incredible history.

MICHAEL GOLDRICK

J. Routledge: I rise to honour the life of my friend Michael Goldrick. Michael

died in Burnaby last December, only blocks away from where he was born

88 years ago.

He received his bachelor of commerce from UBC, his master’s from

Queen’s and his PhD from the London School of Economics. Michael spent

most of his working life teaching political science at York University

in Toronto.

[10:15 a.m.]

It was his own experiences as a young man that informed his

politics. He had been a logger in B.C., a kitchen helper on

cross-country trains, and a labourer in the Canadian Arctic, building

the DEW line.

Michael understood the struggles of working people. While teaching

a course on municipal politics, he was challenged by one of his students

to get out of the ivory tower and do politics in the real world. So

Michael ran in the Toronto municipal election, and with this student as

part of his campaign team, he won. This student went on to earn his own

PhD, with Michael serving as a thesis adviser. This student was Jack

Layton.

Perhaps Michael’s biggest achievement as an alderman was the St.

Lawrence Market housing development. Even in 1972, there was a critical

shortage of affordable housing in Toronto. Michael took steps to secure

a public land bank and to create dedicated space for affordable housing.

The St. Lawrence Market became the single largest redevelopment site in

the centre of any North American city in the 20th century.

When Michael retired and moved home to Burnaby, he continued to be

a mentor. I’m one of the many he influenced with his deep understanding

that politics is a collective action. It isn’t something you do for or

to the electorate; it’s something you do with them.

Michael will live on in the countless lives he touched, both

directly and indirectly.

QINGMING FESTIVAL

T. Wat: How do you honour your ancestors? Starting today and in the coming

days, Chinese communities in British Columbia will come together for the

Qingming festival.

According to the lunar calendar, Qingming takes place on the 15th

day after the spring equinox, which puts the festival in early April

every year. During this time, Chinese families in B.C. will gather to

sweeping day.”

Over the past two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has posed

challenges for Qingming gatherings. I am looking forward to this year’s

ceremonies, when families can finally gather together in person to

reconnect with their loved ones. I, myself, commemorate my late father,

my late sister and my late husband in Qingming. But I have also attended

many Qingming ceremonies to honour early Chinese settlers in British

Columbia.

In both 2016 and 2017, our former government and Premier gathered

at Vancouver’s Mountain View Cemetery to honour Chinese ancestors and

the community for their contributions to B.C. as part of a Qingming

festival ceremony. Chinese Canadians in B.C. have made remarkable

contributions to the history, culture and prosperity of this province,

often while facing intense racism and exclusion.

As a Chinese British Columbian, I am immensely grateful for their

resilience, hard work and advocacy as they paved the way for us today.

Today I am proud to honour Chinese–British Columbian

ancestors.

Please join me in extending best wishes to all who are showing

respect and commemorating their ancestors during this traditional

Qingming festival.

CAREGIVERS

H. Sandhu: Today I rise in this House to recognize National Caregiver Day, to

honour all of the hard work and dedication that caregivers offer around

the clock in our province, in our country and in the world.

Caregivers are the most caring people in this world. They always

think about the well-being of people in their care, and they often

forget their own existence and needs. Caregivers’ roles are significant,

giving over 80 percent of the care when needed, yet they often are

unrecognized, unsupported and underappreciated.

We cannot imagine the world and care without caregivers. Often

what we see about their sacrifices, dedication and hard work is just a

tip of the iceberg. It takes a lot of patience, kindness, care, hard

work and dedication to become a caregiver.

[10:20 a.m.]

While we recognize caregivers today to honour them, we also need

to reflect on and create awareness about caregiver burnout. Their work

includes many sleepless nights, financial strain and countless unpaid

hours without a break. We must always find ways to support them and

their physical and mental well-being. If you are a caregiver or know a

caregiver, please help to support them and increase awareness of family

and friends’ caregivers.

Many caregivers don’t realize that there are resources and

supports available. I urge you to go to www.familycaregiversbc.ca or

call B.C. caregivers support line at 1-877-520-3267 to get more

information.

Please join me to recognize millions of paid and unpaid caregivers

in our province and across the country for the selfless, tireless,

exceptional care they provide. Let’s honour their vital role.

MARION BREMNER

AND KELOWNA MEALS ON

WHEELS

N. Letnick: Today I would like to introduce this House to Kelowna’s Business

Leader of the Year, Marion Bremner, the manager of the Central Okanagan

Region Nutritional Society, otherwise known as Meals on

Wheels.

Marion is a remarkable trail-blazer and has been described as an

inspiration to not-for-profit leaders throughout the Okanagan and, dare

I say, throughout the province.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Meals on Wheels has

doubled the number of its weekly food deliveries to Kelowna residents.

Marion put stringent safety measures in place even before the government

declared the pandemic, and they were able to keep seniors safe in their

homes.

Of course, the price of gas is causing some difficulty for Meals

on Wheels, so anything that any ministers can do to provide grants to

this organization would be much appreciated.

Before joining Meals on Wheels, Marion had a long and

distinguished career in both business and community involvement. She was

the first woman director, in 1978, and then the first woman president of

the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, in 1985. She also ran successfully in

1988 for city councillor, and was elected four times for a total of 11

years.

In 1990, she founded Habitat for Humanity in Kelowna and went on

to become the first woman chair of Habitat Canada and secretary for

Habitat International, representing Canada and building homes with

former U.S. Presi­dent Jimmy Carter around the world. Quite a

legacy.

Marion believes that the ability to bounce back from adversity is

possible when we cling to our values, maintain a positive attitude and a

sense of humour, practise open and honest communication, meet challenges

with diverse measures and support and mentor each other and

others.

My congratulations to Marion, who has, and I’m sure will continue,

to make our community a better place, not only on behalf of myself and

my colleagues in Kelowna West and Kelowna-Mission but all the people who

live in the Central Okanagan.

VANCOUVER CHERRY BLOSSOM FESTIVAL

B. Bailey: What better way to welcome the onset of spring than to participate

in this past weekend’s Cherry Blossom Festival at David Lam Park. This

year the event included the Big Picnic, where the participants laid

their blankets among the majestic cherry blossoms and enjoyed delicious

preordered bento boxes or something from one of the many food

trucks.

I personally was deeply moved by the opening ceremony, which

celebrated Japan’s original gift of cherry trees to the city as symbols

of friendship. Consul General Hatori acknowledged their gift of

sakura to the Musqueam, the Squamish and the Tsleil-Waututh

Nations.

There was a beautiful gift-giving ceremony where First Nations

representatives presented Consul General Hatori with gifts from their

heritage, and the consul general shared gifts from Japan. First Nations

representatives from each nation joined the consul general in the

Japanese kagami biraki , the breaking of the sake barrel to

bring harmony and good luck to the event.

What a beautiful and meaningful exchange this was. In fact, Consul

General Hatori shared that in his 3½ years as consul general, this was

one of his most meaningful days.

It was a pleasure to meet David Lam’s daughter, son-in-law and

granddaughter and to participate on a nature walk where a UBC botanist

taught us all about the special sakura trees David Lam loved so

much.

[10:25 a.m.]

Congratulations to the wonderful Linda Poole, who founded this

festival 18 years ago, to the volunteers, board of director and staff.

The mission of the festival is to actively engage the diverse

communities through accessible arts and culture that celebrate the

transcendent fragility of the cherry blossom, and this was certainly

achieved.

As the Japanese poet Issa wrote in 1819: “There is no stranger

under the cherry tree.”

Oral Questions

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE

SYSTEM

M. Lee: Last week we were shocked to hear the Attorney General deny the

problem of escalating random assaults and prolific offenders. But in

community after community across B.C., we are hearing the

opposite.

Earlier this month in Victoria, John Dickinson was fatally stabbed

outside of a bar by a man already facing charges of attempted murder,

assault with a weapon, uttering death threats and assault. But he was

out on bail because B.C. Crown counsel agreed to release him on

conditions that weren’t followed. As John’s sister says: “It brings into

question the justice system, because if they hadn’t released him on

bail, my brother would still be alive.”

Why are an increasing number of prolific offenders being put back

on the street, where they continue to commit assault, vandalism and even

murder?

Hon. D. Eby: I think that anytime there’s a horrific, violent incident in our

communities, our hearts go out to those who are affected, whether the

victim of crime or their family members and friends.

I think it’s important for us in this House, at the provincial

level, to think about how we can work and prevent these kinds of things

and respond to them, but it does do a disservice to the public to fail

to recognize some of the important policy changes around bail that have

been made by the federal government, to blame Crown counsel for

implementing the federal law as they have to do, as is their mandate, as

they swear their oath to do.

When a Crown counsel is faced with a difficult decision, as

Attorney General, I have an opportunity to direct Crown counsel, to

overrule them. I do that very sparingly — I know that is the tradition

in this place — because I trust Crown counsel to evaluate the facts on a

case-by-case basis and implement the federal law.

Now, the member will know, as a lawyer, that there have been two

big changes at the federal level. One was Bill C-75, which talked about

using a principle of restraint for police and courts to ensure that

release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention. That is

direct from the legislation. There was a Supreme Court of Canada

decision called Regina v. Zora , in 2020, that reinforced that.

The court was very clear that prosecutors may not use bail as a way to

implement criminal punishment — that it must be clear, and it must

address the flight risk of the individual.

I’m glad that the member is raising this important issue, but I

regret very much that he’s blaming Crown counsel for doing their job of

implementing the federal law.

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

M. Lee: The Attorney General, as our chief legal officer, knows that he

needs to protect and maintain confidence in the administration of our

justice system in this province. That is his primary duty.

The bail conditional release indicators that the Attorney General

has available to him through the Crown prosecutor’s office, the factors

needed to ensure the safety and protection of the public and also

maintaining the public confidence in the administration of justice —

these are the tools that the Attorney General has available to him.

People need to have confidence in our justice system, and people need to

feel safe in our communities.

The bottom line is that our justice system is failing to protect

the public from repeat offenders. Just this past Saturday in Victoria, a

mother and father were attacked while they were walking their infant

child in a stroller. The father was beaten on the head, and the mother

and child were pushed out into the street.

Families are feeling helpless, and they aren’t getting answers

from this government.

How many more attacks will it take before the NDP takes action to

keep people safe on our streets?

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Well, I heard about that horrific attack as well. Certainly, I

know, for all of my colleagues on this side — I imagine, all colleagues

from all parties — how devastated we would be if that had been a member

of our family. I think about my own family — if that had been my wife

and child. It fills a person with anger and rage, and understandably

so.

These violent incidents in our community…. We need to respond to

them as a government, and we will do so. Ultimately, the police will

investigate, the Crown will review and apply the federal law, and an

independent judge will make a decision. It’s the way our system works —

the way it should work. I have confidence in that system. It is not a

perfect system, but it is the best system we have. We will keep working

to make it better, hopefully together.

E. Ross: Terrace remains in a crisis over the level of crime, but the

Attorney General’s response last week was to pretend there wasn’t a

problem: “We’re seeing progress.” That answer was far from the reality

that people are experiencing, not only in Terrace, but in all our

communities, all across B.C.

After watching a repeat offender walk right out of the store with

an entire canoe — packing an entire canoe out of Canadian Tire —

Canadian Tire wrote to me: “There is absolutely no reason not to steal —

none — because there are no consequences when you do steal.”

This is what the people of Terrace are living with. This is what

the businesses of Terrace are living with on a daily basis. Just last

week at our local legion, Branch 13, for the third time in two years,

there was a fire set — third time in two years — and nothing was

done.

My question is to the Attorney General. What will it take for the

Attorney General to take public safety seriously and prosecute these

repeat offenders?

Hon. D. Eby: Obviously, the member quoted five words from a lengthy answer that

I gave him about Crown approval rates. I did not deny that there was an

issue in Terrace. In fact, I said, at the end of my answer, that I look

forward to working with the member and with the mayor and council to

address the issues in Terrace. That’s exactly what I said. The member

can check Hansard .

In fact, that’s exactly what happened. I met with the mayor and

council from Terrace. I met with the Minister for Municipal Affairs. The

member can read the

summary of that meeting in the Terrace

Standard by the mayor. It was very constructive. She had a

sense of hope that we’ll be able to work together to address this

issue.

I invite the member to be a part of that solution.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Skeena, supplemental.

E. Ross: You know what? People in my community, in my riding, feel like

even if these repeat offenders are arrested, they will be back on the

streets to cause more damage, more fear.

As Coun. Sean Bujtas says: “We need to prosecute repeat offenders.

We need to get these prolific offenders off the streets of Terrace and

have them stop terrorizing our municipality.”

The meetings are great. The words are great. The data is great.

But what we need is action. That is what the people of Terrace are

looking for. That’s what the people of Skeena are looking for. But the

Attorney General is refusing to acknowledge the problem, much less deal

with it. I have a letter from a store clerk who writes that there is a

man in town who steals from local businesses every single day. There are

more offenders like this in Terrace. It’s not just one single

person.

My question to the Attorney General. What is it going to take for

the NDP to take these random attacks and repeat offenders

seriously?

Hon. D. Eby: I stand here. I recognize that there’s an issue in Terrace. The

member certainly raised it in the House. I responded then that I look

forward to working with him and the mayor on the issue, and the Minister

for Public Safety is committed to do the same. He insists the opposite

is true. I don’t know why.

What I can say is that there is an issue. Even when someone is

sentenced to jail for shoplifting, they will be released, and when

they’re released again, in many cases, when they’re suffering from

addiction, mental health issues — they’re homeless — these issues will

happen again and, in some cases, worse.

[10:35 a.m.]

Sometimes people go into prison, and they come out worse than when

they went in. So for a lot of people, to interrupt this cycle, we do

have the opportunity to work together on things like complex care, which

is to address the health issue of the person — the addiction issue, the

mental health issue, the homelessness issue — that is closely connected

with their offending, which makes people in the community feel less safe

and makes businesses question why they’re operating.

I’m very excited to work with the Minister of Mental Health and

Addictions in addressing the core issue that some of these individuals

face — not everybody, but some of these individuals — that brings them

into contact with the criminal justice system. We’re putting forward

solutions. I invite the member to be a part of it. I was very grateful

for the meeting with the mayor and council to address those issues in

Terrace.

MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORTS FOR

HEALTH CARE

WORKERS

S. Furstenau: I listen with great interest to this conversation and

back-and-forth, because I agree that access to mental health care is a

significant issue and problem in our province right now.

Health care workers are on the brink of collapse. One-third of

health care workers — maintenance, transportation, clerical and other

Hospital Employees Union. One-third of nurses are also expected to

resign, according to a separate survey in late 2021 from the B.C.

Nurses’ Union. And 82 percent of them say that their mental health has

worsened during the pandemic.

Thousands of health care workers are considering leaving their

profession, in part because their workplaces do not provide mental

health supports. Access to counselling, therapy, psychologists is not

covered for many. The people who we depend on for care are being left

out in the cold when it comes to their own mental health. Mental health

care is treated as a nice-to-have, not part of the primary health care

for essential workers in this province. They are burnt out, they are

overwhelmed, and they’re not being looked after.

My question is to the Minister of Health. What is his ministry

doing to increase mental health supports for health care

workers?

Hon. A. Dix: This has been, I think it’s fair to say, for health care workers

across the system — those who work in primary care, those who work as

ambulance paramedics, those who work in emergency response in general,

those who work in acute care, those who work in long-term care — an

extraordinarily difficult period. That is why, throughout this period,

we have taken actions to support health care workers — actions that are

unusual in the Canadian context.

For example, all of the steps taken to support long-term care

workers — historic steps — including, of course, the unanimous decision

by this House to get rid of Bills 29 and 94; the HCAP program which has

added thousands of health care workers; and our training programs that

have supported health care workers. In addition, health care workers

have come together on issues of occupational health and safety, with new

programs, a new system that supports those workers.

We will continue to work to support our workers across the

community. There is — and I’d be happy to provide the member with a

briefing on this — extensive effort being done to support our health

care workers, because the member is right. We not only need to recruit a

new generation of health care workers, but we need to retain the ones we

have. This is particularly true, as some members of the opposition will

know, in particular communities. That means supporting them in every

circumstance. That’s what we continue to do.

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

INCLUSION OF PSYCHOLOGISTS IN

PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

NETWORKS

S. Furstenau: It’s not only health care workers who are, in fact, struggling

with mental health and mental illness. One in five Canadians will

experience a form of mental illness every year. One in two will

experience a form of mental illness by the age of 40. Rates of

depression and anxiety are at an all-time high. The number of people

dying from a poisoned drug supply has never been higher.

When mental health and mental illness go untreated, people end up

in a health care system already overburdened for their unmet needs. This

is adding to the burnout that we see in health care workers. It’s

costing enormous amounts of money, and it’s not solving the problem. In

the summer of 2020, B.C. Green caucus, along with the B.C. Psychological

Association, proposed a solution to this crisis: fund psychologists as

part of primary care networks.

My question is to the Minister of Health. This minister boasts

about opening urgent and primary care networks. When can British

Columbians expect to have their minds and mental health treated as part

of their health and be provided access to psychologists as a standard

part of primary care networks?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The demand for mental health and substance use services — already

enormous before the pandemic hit — has been exacerbated in every way.

There is no question. The particular burden on people working on the

front line is evident to all of us in all of our communities.

Through every urgent primary care centre, there is access to

mental health counselling. Primary care networks have been a great help.

We’ve also built, with and for health care workers, two different online

platforms — one called Care to Speak, another called Care for Caregivers

— both online resources that give access to free counselling.

For anybody working on the front line, know that this whole

Legislature thanks everybody for their tremendous work and also that we

have counselling, particularly tailored to the particular pressures of

the pandemic, available for you.

More broadly, the workplace mental health hub was developed,

again, for people during the pandemic at businesses — small businesses,

hospitality, tourism — where people have been under particular pressure.

That is an important piece of work.

The Psychological Association has recently given us a proposal

that does fit, in some ways. with the mandate instruction that the

Premier gave me to look at new, low-cost and no-cost ways for people to

access counselling. That’s in addition to the 49 community counselling

organizations that we are funding. They are connecting thousands of

people with additional supports in communities, and we’re grateful to

those groups that are connecting people with immediate care.

Along with other proposals that we receive, we’re considering the

proposal of B.C. Psychological Association, now that they have given us

a specific proposal.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE

SYSTEM

R. Merrifield: In Kelowna, Dallas Zackodnik was recently attacked on the Kelowna

Rail Trail in the middle of the afternoon by two men. The 17-year-old

suffered a fractured skull and a collapsed lung.

Dallas works full-time to support himself, and all his possessions

were taken in the attack, including his bike, which was found dumped in

Mission Creek, along with his shoes and cell phone that were taken. Four

months later Dallas says he’s had no justice: “The last few months

haven’t been easy and, unfortunately, still no charges on the

attackers.”

When will the Attorney General start protecting people like

Dallas?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m not familiar with the horrific attack the member describes,

where it’s at in the process, if there was a report to Crown counsel or

what the decision of Crown was. I can advise the member and Dallas that

sometimes there is a delay in laying charges as police assemble their

file. We have, from the Supreme Court of Canada again, in a case called

Jordan, very strict timelines — I know the members opposite grappled

with that as well, when they were in government, all provinces in Canada

— to get people to trial.

We need to make sure that the police files are complete and the

case is ready to go to trial before the charges are laid. That can

result in a delay in charges being approved. I don’t know if that’s the

case here, because I don’t know that file, and the member hasn’t brought

it to me. I’m happy to speak with her and get details for her and for

Dallas.

I know independent Crown counsel are glad to meet with victims of

crime to talk them through what the process will be. I’m glad to raise

that for Dallas, if he would like that.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

IN VANCOUVER’S

CHINATOWN

T. Wat: Chinatown used to be a place of pride for all of Vancouver, even

for British Columbia, but nobody comes to visit anymore, because they

don’t feel safe.

[10:45 a.m.]

Peter Lau has operated a business in the neighbourhood for 46

years and started a petition after a mural and his business were

vandalized. Eighty percent of stores have had to add additional security

measures, and store owners are having to pay for their broken glass

every single day. Graffiti is up by 300 percent, and the Chinatown

business improvement association spent half of their budget on security

last year.

When will the NDP take their safety concerns seriously and take

action to protect this historic community?

Hon. D. Eby: Certainly, I’m personally well aware. I know the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I speak regularly — and the Minister of

Public Safety — about how to support Chinatown. The member opposite will

know the investments that our government has put into Chinatown,

everything from supporting local festivals to get people back into

Chinatown.

We know that foot traffic, both from tourists and from people

outside Chinatown coming to shop, is vitally important to reducing

street-level crime. More feet on the street and more eyes just creates a

safer environment for people.

We’re also investing millions of dollars in a beautiful new

Chinese Canadian Museum. We’re committed to the success of Chinatown. I

was recently downtown with the Chinatown Foundation, opening a massive

new housing development, as well as a health care centre for

people.

Our commitment to Chinatown is clear. I recently did an interview

with Global about an increase in vandalism in Chinatown, committing

again to partner with the Minister of Public Safety to address these

quality-of-life issues that make people feel less safe.

I look forward to working with the member to address this. With

the loss of tourists as a result of the pandemic, the loss of that

street traffic, I think there are few communities more affected than

Chinatown. As a community that historically has been left to the bottom

of the list, ignored and discriminated against, I understand why this

weighs particularly on the community and that it feels particularly

acute.

We want to support them as much as possible in success. Success in

Chinatown is the government’s and the province’s success.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE

SYSTEM

M. Morris: At a recent town hall on a crime wave being faced by Vancouver,

business owner John Clerides described it as: “The worst I have ever

seen. Random assaults, window breakage, mass amounts of shoplifting,

theft, human defecation, people living on the streets.”

Meanwhile, the provincial government is denying there’s a problem

at all. The catch-and-release pattern with the prolific offenders that

we see is bringing the administration of justice into

disrepute.

When will the government listen to the people of Vancouver and

actually start prosecuting repeat offenders?

Hon. D. Eby: Again, a member is standing up and suggesting that I’m denying an

issue that I didn’t deny. There are issues in downtown Vancouver with

the reduction in foot traffic downtown. We’ve seen an escalation in

quality of life, minor property crimes, graffiti. Certainly we’ve seen,

with people less able to access services during the pandemic, an

increase in visible mental health and distress in the community. It

makes people wonder what’s happening and feel unsafe.

We have a number of responses on different fronts. The Minister

for Public Safety, his staff, addressed an issue with the Vancouver

police budget to make sure that resources were available. The Minister

for Mental Health and Addictions is opening two complex care sites in

Vancouver to provide additional supports to people struggling with

mental health and addiction issues.

As far as Crown counsel, I’d invite the member to, certainly,

bring forward any information that he has about a concern related to

specific cases. I have shared infor­mation about Crown counsel’s

approaches, as well as significant changes in the federal law, that

Crown counsel are bound to follow.

I look forward to working with the member on specific issues he’s

identified. I know he’s a former police officer. Maybe he has some

insights that would be helpful.

[10:50 a.m.]

L. Doerkson: We are seeing a surge in crime throughout all communities in

Cariboo-Chilcotin as well. Prolific offenders with serious charges are

constantly released into our community, with ineffective deterrents to

reoffend.

Last weekend search and rescue in Williams Lake was the victim of

the loss of an auto extrication vehicle worth more than a quarter of a

million dollars. It was stolen from their garage right downtown in

Williams Lake.

Our residents demand to know what the government will do to

finally address these prolific offenders.

Will the Attorney General today admit that there’s a problem and

take action?

Hon. D. Eby: In the meeting with Terrace, Mayor Cobb was there from Williams

Lake. He and I have had a number of meetings to discuss the challenges

that are faced in his community. I know that the Minister for Public

Safety has incorporated into base budget funding that was provided to

the city as a response to COVID to improve community safety. I know

there’s more we can do.

Again to the member, no one is denying that there’s an issue with

prolific offenders, especially that are grappling with mental health and

addiction issues. Our government is taking a number of important steps

in that regard. We welcome feedback from the members about other ways,

at our provincial jurisdictional level, we can address these

issues.

I think that’s really one of the best ways that we’ll see success

on this incredibly challenging piece. I know that the members, in

bringing these issues forward, are doing exactly what they should be

doing as the opposition, which is raising the profile of issues the

government needs to work on.

I can assure that member, as well as all of the members, that we

are aware of this issue, that we are working with mayors on these

issues. The Minister of Public Safety and I, the Minister for Mental

Health and Addiction — we are working on these issues, and we will see

progress on them.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

ACTION ON COMMUNITY

SAFETY

T. Stone: After five years of inaction, businesses in communities all over

B.C. are closing. They’re closing because they can no longer take the

unchecked violence that’s impacting their customers and their

employees.

Random assaults and violence have gotten so bad in downtown

Kamloops that recently the McDonald’s closed its doors permanently. The

owner of the restaurant says doing business is no longer possible. She

said: “It’s for the safety and well-being of our people that we needed

to make a change, and McDonald’s Canada saw that too.”

This is but one business among many being so nega­tively

impacted by assaults, violence, vandalism and thefts, both inside and

outside of their stores.

My question is this. How many businesses will close before we see

action from this government to address random street violence, which is

impacting these businesses and indeed British Columbians all across our

province?

Hon. D. Eby: Whether it’s fuelled by mental health and addiction issues,

whether it’s fuelled by just a profit motive or otherwise, our

government has taken a number of steps to address these

issues.

I want to identify for the member that British Columbia is not the

only jurisdiction grappling with an increase in crime following the

pandemic. It’s a topic of study across North America — why we’re seeing

escalations in property crime, why we’re seeing escalations in random

attacks in many major centres across North America. But what is clear to

me is that we need to respond to this with made-in-B.C. solutions, which

is why we’re doing things like complex care housing.

Putting somebody in prison for a short term, and then they’re

released back into the community, homeless, to repeat the cycle again

and again, isn’t going to work to address these issues. Criminal law and

prison are part of an array of responses, and we believe that to truly

interrupt the cycle for….

I will say that for companies, restaurants — big chains like

McDonald’s, all the way down to small ma-and-pa shops — grappling with

people who are clearly dealing with mental health and addiction is

probably one of the biggest issues I hear about and why I’m so hopeful

for the complex care model that we’re launching to interrupt that cycle

for so many people.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE

SYSTEM

P. Milobar: Well, the Attorney General knows full well of the pleas of the

victims and their families. They’re wanting the province to accept the

fact that they are facing a massive crime problem today.

[10:55 a.m.]

I would suggest all 87 elected officials here get regular emails,

government MLAs as well, about the issues in their communities. But the

minister also seems to be ignoring the very statistics in a letter that

was provided to myself that shows the number of no-charge

recommendations under this government’s watch, from 2017 to 2020, has

increased by 45 percent.

No wonder communities are feeling like this government is not

trying to do anything to address the street disorder. It has increased

no-charge recommendations from 8,600 in 2017 to nearly 13,000 a year

under this government’s watch and this minister’s watch. That’s 45

percent.

With the no-charge recommendations increasing to 45 percent under

this minister’s watch and crime and disorder on a steady rise, when is

this minister going to take action to help communities and

neighbourhoods across B.C. start to feel safe once again?

Hon. D. Eby: We did see an increase in the number of no-charge decisions. The

member’s numbers are different from those I would present to the

House.

I can say that in the year before the pandemic, 84 percent of

charges were approved by Crown counsel. In 2020-21, the first year of

the pandemic, that went to 77 percent. It is a decrease of 7 percent in

charge approvals by Crown counsel in a single year.

There were a number of factors during that year. Bill C-75, which

I advised the member about, the R. v. Zora decision about

administration of justice offences, definitely factors. The pandemic and

the decision by Crown or by judges to release people when they may not

have otherwise done so, because there was concern about COVID-19

outbreaks in prisons, and essentially sentencing someone to contract

COVID was not something that the courts were willing to contemplate at

that time for certain offences, especially people with compromised

immune systems and so on, as you often see with people in Provincial

Court.

There were a number of factors, but I take the member’s key point

that this is an important indicator. I’ll assure the member that I am

tracking it and that I have asked Crown counsel to provide me

information about why, to the best of their knowledge, we saw that

departure from historic trends.

I can advise the member that to the best of my knowl­edge,

it’s not due to any policy change made by the provincial government, as

we had a full year of experience under all the policy changes that we

made at the provincial level, and this appears to be pandemic-related.

But without pre-judging it, we’ll wait for Crown counsel to provide that

information to me.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading, Bill 12.

In

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call the Committee of Supply, estimates

of the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training.

[11:00 a.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — PROPERTY LAW

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

On the main motion.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m pleased to rise today to continue debate on Bill 12. I have

been very busy this week, and I wasn’t sure I was going to actually have

time to prepare for this or read the bill. When I picked it up, I

thought this was actually just the

preamble to the bill. But it actually

is the bill, so it didn’t take me all that long to get prepared

here.

This is a bill about nothing. It’s an outline. It’s a sketch. It’s

two pages long, and I’ll note it’s also two pages long in 14-point font.

It simply enables the minister and cabinet to make all the real and

substantive decisions in regulations and take them away from public

scrutiny for the sectors to understand, for individual British

Columbians to understand.

This government is very good about making announcements without

details. When announcements are put forward, when legislation is put

forward where all of the substantive information is moved to behind

closed doors for cabinet to make these decisions, it causes anxiety and

concern in the communities that are impacted.

Remember the Employment Standards Act amendment? We knew it was

going to be about sick days. We didn’t know if it was going to be three

or five or ten sick days. For a period of time, there was a lot of

anxiety in the community, not knowing what they were going to have to

budget, what the impact was going to be.

The same thing happened when government introduced changes to CYSN

funding, children and youth with support needs. There was a big

announcement: “We’re going to make all these changes. But hey, you know

what? We’re not going to tell you what those changes are. We’re going to

give you a little bit of information, but we’re going to make you guess

and try and fill in the blanks.” That is not the right way to make

legislation. It is not the right way to treat British

Columbians.

There is a lot to be said about what this bill will enable,

although it actually doesn’t tell you what it is. There has been no

meaningful input from the sector and from British Columbians, no robust

sector engagement, before the drafting of this two-page bill. Again,

this is the same thing that happened with autism funding — no

substantive consultation with those people who will be most impacted by

the changes in the legislation.

It can’t be ignored — before moving on with this debate — as well,

that we once again find ourselves with an issue of transparency. We see

again why this government has been named the most secretive government

in Canada by the Canadian Association of Journalists. We cannot forget

that we are dealing with a government — we’ve seen this already — taking

great strides to strip away transparency and accountability rather than

to improve them. What better way to strip away transparency than to not

tell people in a public forum what they are doing in one of the most

problematic housing markets that British Columbians have ever

seen?

With Bill 12, the NDP is asking this House to pass legislation

that is entirely made of regulations that only they themselves have

seen. It makes us think of when the Minister of Citizens’ Services

introduced a controversial Bill 22, which also left details up to

regulation. We all know how that has turned out. It is clear that this

type of legislation and the process that this government undertakes in

bringing legislation forward does not serve the best interest of British

Columbians.

[11:05 a.m.]

As a result of Bill 22, the Minister of Citizens’ Services has

completely destroyed this government’s credibility when it comes to what

they continue to tell us over and over with this kind of legislation.

It’s: “Oh, don’t worry. Just trust us. We know what we’re doing.” But

we’ve seen that that isn’t the case, and we can’t trust this government

to take policy and legislation that should be open to the public and

open for debate and take it behind closed doors.

What is the reason that that is being done? Is there a concern

that there’s something wrong with the regulations, that there’s

something wrong with the process? Why wouldn’t it be out here and

debated, allowing opposition parties to have an opportunity to publicly

ask questions?

Making matters worse, when you think about this…. The irony is

that government is trying to ram through a bill very quickly, without a

lot of information. But we know what this bill is about. It is to allow

purchasers to have a period of time where they can do due diligence

before they make a commitment, but the government itself is not

providing the public or the opposition the opportunity to do due

diligence before this bill is voted on. We can’t do due diligence when

we don’t know what this bill is about.

These regulations are purported to be based on a report from the

B.C. Financial Services Authority that has not even been made public

yet. It is unreasonable and, in fact, perplexing that government would

ask the members of this House to take a vote on a bill where the BCFSA

report is almost about to be made public yet they’re asking us to do

this — to vote on something where, if we just waited a little while

longer, we might actually have something substantive to be voting

on.

Yesterday it was shocking and disappointing to see government

members vote down an amendment to this act which was only meant to

provide some additional time to see the results of the BCFSA report and

to be able to make an informed decision on whether this legislation

should pass.

We have to wonder, and media has to wonder, why this has to be

rushed through so quickly and why members on the other side of the House

did not vote in support of an amendment which was meant to do exactly

what they’re saying we need to do — to provide time to reflect upon

something and to have time to look at all of the information that should

be available — leaving no space for genuine and informed debate. We do

really have to ask why.

We should also remember that this seems to be a trend of this

government. The FOI act was pushed through, inexplicably, prior to even

allowing the select standing committee whose whole purpose was to review

the legislation…. Yet without that committee even undertaking their

work, this government decided that they needed to pass this FOI

legislation right away, without giving the opportunity for informed

debate.

This bill is seeking to implement a cooling-off period in the

process of buying and selling a home. It is enabling legislation

respecting the residential right of a rescission on home sales. The

government is modelling this on the Real Estate Development Marketing

Act, which is specific to presale condos, but this is a completely

different bird. This is not the same kind of transaction.

[11:10 a.m.]

With presales, you can’t ask for a home inspection, because the

building is not there yet — it hasn’t even begun construction in most

cases — and purchasers have an opportunity to have clear deficiency

inspections prior to closing. There are warranties. These are two

completely different things.

Interjection.

K. Kirkpatrick: Yeah, they’re completely different things.

Interjection.

K. Kirkpatrick: Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree with the

minister.

The regulations will be determined after the passage of the bill

and likely informed by this report, the BCFSA report — which we actually

don’t have and which we know nothing about what the context will

be.

In essence, what we’re doing here today and what the opposition is

doing…. We have an obligation, as opposition members, to be asking

questions about legislation, but really, what we’re debating here is the

lack of the ability to debate. That is really unacceptable.

Interjection.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m sorry. If the minister was speaking to me…. I was not

sure.

This means the following details and rules haven’t been decided in

this House. They’re substantive. They can change the market. They can

tilt the market. They can upturn the market, but these are details that

are going to be addressed at a later time.

I’ll go through them. I know my colleagues have, in their previous

responses in this debate, but I think these are worth repeating and

having on record. We don’t know what the prescribed number of days after

a sale is going to be where an offer can be rescinded. We don’t know

that.

This is substantial. Is it five days? Is it seven days? Is it 15

days? Purchasers are, 90 percent of the time, also sellers. If you are

putting some kind of constraint on the front end of a transaction —

which is a much larger transaction than simply a purchase transaction —

has there been consideration given to the impact down the line in terms

of a seller’s ability to then purchase and to close on

something?

Is that seller going to have any recourse if they can’t close on

their property and they lose their property because somebody has changed

their mind — somebody who may not have had true intention to complete

that purchase? This government intends to address limiting “waivers of

the right of rescission and the circumstances in which that right may or

may not be waived; (

b) respecting service of a notice of that

rescission.”

Will penalties be paid by the purchaser to the seller if the

purchaser actually exercises that right of rescission? “…timing of the

payment of the deposit under a contract of purchase and sale despite any

provision of the contract to the contrary; (

e) establishing procedures

for the payment of the deposit under a contract of purchase and sale;

(

f) respecting the return of the deposit paid under a contract of

purchase and sale if the purchaser exercises the right of rescission…”

and exempting types of property classes and classes of

buyers.

What about private sales? Can people opt out of the relationship

if they’re not within the MLS market and within the realtor market? Are

purchasers and sellers able to waive a requirement, as they can waive

the subject and subject removal? Will this be the same thing? How will

this be policed? If you have a private sale, is something going to

happen in the land titles office that they’re going to validate as to

whether something was done?

I know some people in the House have had experience in the U.K.

real estate market. There is, I think, a legitimate concern that this

bill could have an impact on the process of purchasing homes in British

Columbia that is like the system in the U.K., where buyers and sellers

are subjected to a conveyance period that is very long and very

bureaucratic.

I think, by any measure, the U.K. model doesn’t work. It’s not

something to hold up as a model of good real estate practices. It can

take upwards of four months to see properties change hands, and you

often see deals fall apart.

[11:15 a.m.]

How can members of the House adequately debate this legislation

when it is raising far more questions than it’s answering? This is going

to have such a profound effect on the market and on individuals in the

market, on all British Columbians. Passing ill-informed legislation can

do the opposite of its intention.

For example, is there now going to be an incentive for investors

or purchasers to make multiple offers on multiple properties because

they know they will not be bound to an agreed-upon sale price or an

agreed-upon sale? This has the potential to flood the market with

not-genuine offers, where you’ve got somebody who’s making multiple

offers so thar they can find the best deal they can. Meanwhile, you’ve

got sellers — who have been tied up waiting to find out what’s going to

happen — not being able to move forward with their purchase.

There are concerns that a bill like this, without a clear

understanding and clear research from the sector — from purchasers,

buyers, the BCREA and the real estate boards — that this could actually

be more problematic and could drive costs. We know that the lack of

affordability for housing in British Columbia is an issue. We’re not

debating that; that is a fact. The average housing price is nearly

$600,000 more than it was in 2017, more than five years after the NDP

has been in government.

For far too many people in British Columbia, they can forget

purchasing a home. The ability to find rental and to be able to afford

rental is crippling for many families. For their ability to ever even

think about moving into purchasing real estate — that dream is a pretty

distant one for them. We need to focus on the right things in this

market, and we need to desperately see measures which are going to

increase affordability in British Columbia. I do not see how this bill,

as light as it is, is actually going to accomplish that goal that we’re

all working towards.

The average price in British Columbia has surpassed $1.1 million.

That’s up 25 percent in the last year alone. It now takes 36 years for

somebody, on average, to be able to save, if they have any savings at

all, to actually have a down payment on a house in B.C., in Vancouver,

according to a national bank report.

We all know these prices are not a Lower Mainland thing. It’s not

a Vancouver thing; it’s across the province — Chilliwack, 40 percent

increase; Langley, 39 percent increase; Abbotsford, almost a 40 percent

increase; Port Coquitlam, 35 percent; Surrey, 34 percent; Squamish, 31

percent.

What does this do? It drives the rental market; it drives

scarcity. We desperately need to see true measures that will actually

fix the problem. I’m not quite sure which problem, specifically, this

legislation is trying to fix, but this bill is not going to do it. It’s

incredibly frustrating that this government talks over and over again

about affordability, and all the great things they’re doing about

affordability. This is not where their time should be spent on trying to

address that. This is not going to help.

Has government considered ways that people can get around this?

I’m a bit unclear. If we are intending to rewrite contract law, I’d like

to understand the obligation of additional monitoring of this. With

anything like this, when you bring a new requirement in to do something,

you are adding an additional layer of bureaucracy. You’re adding more

forms that need to be filled out, and you’re adding something that needs

additional monitoring. Who is going to do that initial monitoring, and

what will the cost be? As soon as we start adding….

[11:20 a.m.]

Now we’re trying to increase affordability by adding something

that is actually going to cost us money to oversee. What happens in the

future — the minister might remember past history — when interest rates

rise? When I bought my first house, 11 percent was my interest rate. It

was 11 percent. Can you imagine that today? Who would be able to afford

it if it was 11 percent? What goes up must come down; what goes down

must come up.

We know that we are seeing the impacts of rising interest rates.

It would be glorious if that actually had an impact in cooling off the

market, and I believe that ultimately, it will. But what happens to this

legislation when that does start to happen, when the market does start

to shift and we’ve put an artificial impediment into the ability for

that housing market to monitor itself?

Now, we know that housing affordability has soared. The province

needs more supply. At every stage of the housing continuum, we need more

supply. You cannot expect to control prices if you are not keeping up

with the demands for housing. This is the demand not just for housing to

purchase, but this is for rental housing. It’s rental housing at

different income levels. It’s the housing where somebody may move from a

rental into an initial small condo. Next, where do they go?

We’re focusing on the wrong thing here. We need to be looking at

how we can be creative, how we can think differently about what housing

is and what we should be creating as housing. We’re looking in the wrong

place here. We’re trying to fix one little thing — and we’re not even

sure if that’s what the cause of the illness is — rather than looking at

the whole body itself and some creative ways to developing housing in

B.C.

Now, you’d think that this government would live up to at least

one promise on housing affordability so that they would not have to

listen to the opposition continuing to ask about it. What about that

twice-promised $400 rental rebate? What about it? I don’t understand

why…. This is something that this government ran on. This is something

that has not happened, time and time again. I think renters are

resenting that, and renters are going to stop believing that this is a

government that is looking out for their best interests. So

ill-thought-out policy.

Experts have been clear that this kind of legislation will result

in further costs, further bureaucracy, longer time to actually be able

to…. The longer something takes, the more something costs, and it will

be a greater strain on affordability. What we need desperately is a plan

to stabilize housing and to create more supply.

Now, I don’t see that in this bill, and I don’t hear this from

government. I hear slogans, lots of slogans. A lot of child care

slogans. A lot of slogans around how they support vulnerable people in

the community, and a lot of slogans about how they’re going to deal with

resolving these issues that we’re having in the real estate

sector.

As a vegetarian, I don’t often say this, but when you look at

something, I can say: where’s the meat here? Where is the meat in this

legislation? What are we even debating, other than saying to this

government: “This is wrong. This is inappropriate”? It is sneaky to try

and put legislation forward without telling us, without sharing with the

public and sharing with the opposition what this is really about, what

the impact is going to be.

[11:25 a.m.]

Especially if we’re on the eve of a report that has purportedly

been used to inform this legislation, why on earth are we pushing this

through right now, without simply waiting for that report to see the

light of day so that we can have a more substantive debate about this

and so that people can understand what it is that this government is

actually trying to accomplish?

Instead of providing reassurances, this legislation is just

leaving us with more questions. Why is this NDP government choosing an

option that may very well raise prices and not lower them? And why have

they decided to go about introducing changes in the least transparent

way possible?

As a result, although it’s been very difficult during the debate

to actually uncover any information, we do hope, as this progresses

through stages, that the minister is going to be willing to provide us

with real and substantive answers to questions that this legislation

certainly has not answered for us.

T. Halford: I am pleased today to rise to continue debate on Bill

Quite often on my way home, my walk, I call my dad just for a

quick talk. It’s something we have done for the last number of years. My

dad, as a kid, would always read to us “The Cremation of Sam McGee.”

Now, I’m not going to do what my colleague from Abbotsford West did

yesterday. My dad’s not on Twitter. He’s not on Facebook. He’s not on

any of those things, but he was quite enamoured with the fact that one

of our colleagues was able to insert that poetry into a debate. It’s

something that was quite amusing.

It was actually quite nice to kind of share that moment with my

dad. I then had to walk him through how to get onto Hansard and watch

the video and everything like that. So that was about 45 minutes of my

life last night. That’s a bit of a glimpse into how I spend my evenings

now, bonding with my dad over Hansard.

The legislation before us is somewhat troubling. The minister in

cabinet, to make the real decisions and then decide the details through

regulations and pull it away from the public scrutiny without any

input…. I think that we are, today, discussing a bill that is almost a

blank piece of paper. What it contains is, basically, the question:

“Trust us now, and we’ll fill you in later.”

I think that is something that we continue…. I know we as

opposition — and I have heard from my constituents — struggle with that

notion. When members of this House are asked to vote on legislation and

represent their constituencies, the constituents, whether they are

constituents of opposition members or government members or Third Party

members, deserve to know what their MLA is actually voting in favour of

or voting against. I think I learned that in social studies in grade

It’s fairly important that we understand the powers that we have

in this House, the powers that government has, the powers that executive

council has, the powers that reside within the Finance Minister, who is

responsible for about $60 billion of public money. That is a tremendous

responsibility. It’s one I know that every member in this House takes

seriously. I know that the Finance Minister takes it seriously, but

credibility does come into question when we are presented with a bill

like this that is in essence just saying: “Hey, we’ll fill in the blanks

at a later date.”

I think, given some of the examples we have seen in this House,

that hasn’t worked out so well. That’s caused some troubling

conversations, some angst and issues around transparency and

accountability, and I think those are conversations in this House that

we want to avoid.

[11:30 a.m.]

We have an obligation to our constituents, to the people who put

us here, that when we are here in the House, working on legislation,

working on items that are, at the essence, to make life better for

British Columbians, we have to have a full accounting on what that is,

what those bills, what that legislation details. I think the majority of

the House would agree that we’re not there yet on Bill 12.

We weren’t there on Bill 22, and we saw how that turned out. It

was embarrassing. I think it was an opportunity for us to learn.

Obviously, we are now discussing a bill, in essence, that has some of

the same issues regarding transparency that we discussed before. We have

to ask ourselves: is this serving the best interests of British

Columbians?

To make matters worse, we’re talking about regulations based on a

report from the B.C. Financial Services Authority that hasn’t even been

made public yet. We’re hearing that that could happen in short order,

but I must ask the government and must ask the minister: if that’s the

case, why wouldn’t we give every member of this House that opportunity

before we are asked to vote on this piece of legislation? Why wouldn’t

we take that opportunity to actually see the report, wait for the report

and make sure this legislation is doing what this minister says it’s

trying to accomplish?

We have an obligation here not to ram bills through without having

informed debate. We don’t want to erode the ability of this House, of

the opposition parties, to in fact do their job, to come in here and

scrutinize government legislation. I think this bill is a disservice to

that purpose.

Here we are. I think all members of this House can agree that we

are in an absolute affordability crisis here in B.C. I know the minister

talks about it often. The Premier talks about it often. I think every

member of this House talks about it often. It has never been worse in

terms of affordability for British Columbians than it is today. It’s

housing. It’s the purchase price of a house. It’s the rent. It’s the

groceries. It’s the gas. It’s everything. Everything is going up. Taxes

are going up.

British Columbians are telling us en masse that they can’t keep

pace. That’s not breaking news. That’s not something that I’m making up.

It’s the fact, as every member of the House is getting these emails.

They’re getting those pleas for help, whether it’s a single mom or

whether it’s a family.

I have a lot of senior citizens in my riding, and a lot of seniors

in my riding — a lot of their pensions are actually the equity of their

house. They don’t have a government pension. They don’t have a private

pension. Their equity is their pension. That’s what they’re depending on

when they move to that latter stage of their life. In my riding, we have

a lot of seniors that are on fixed incomes.

[11:35 a.m.]

One of the things I do here, and I’ve raised it in question

period, is the commitment on the $400 renters rebate. Again, that’s

something that this government has not been able to action, and we’ve

seen it promised in two election cycles. This government can move

quickly when it wants to. This bill is evidence of that. It’s moving so

quickly we’re not even seeing the report that it’s actually supposed to

be based on yet.

When it comes to a renters rebate, we’re okay to tell senior

citizens in my riding, who are on a fixed income, who could very much

use that $400: “Hold tight. We’re working on it. Not yet. Just

wait.”

They’ve been waiting a long time. I think that part of the

struggle is that maybe this government just is running out of ideas.

Maybe this government is out of touch. I think that humours the Minister

of Finance, but to go in White Rock, where we do have a number of

seniors that are renting units….

Interjection.

T. Halford: I guess the next piece of legislation the minister’s going to

bring in is the free contraception that this government has promised and

that they’ve also failed to deliver on. Haven’t seen that

yet.

When we’re talking about the bill in front of us, we’re talking

about…. It’s funny. I think the minister…. I appreciate the minister in

the job that she’s got in front of her and the importance of it, but the

job’s got to come with some opposition, some criticism, especially on an

item like this, where we are seeing this government struggle, mightily,

to actually be relatable to the affordability issues that British

Columbians are facing.

It’s not just a problem in my community. It’s a problem in every

single community across this province. Every member is hearing this day

in and day out.

This bill seeks to implement a cooling-off period in the process

of buying and selling a home. More precisely, it’s enabling legislation

respecting the residential right of rescission on home sales. In

essence, this government is modelling this from the same provision in

the Real Estate Development Marketing Act for presale condos. But I

think the case has been made many times in this House that that is a

completely different transaction.

With presales, you can’t get a home inspection, because

construction hasn’t even begun yet. It’s a completely different

situation. I think that that clearly illustrates that this government

just continues to be out of touch, not realizing the struggles that

British Columbians are facing every day.

Interjection.

T. Halford: I take pauses so I can enjoy the witty banter from across the

aisle. The Minister of Labour…. Yes, he still will have time to speak,

unless he’s…. Maybe he’s writing his upcoming municipal speech. I don’t

know. We’ll have to….

Interjection.

T. Halford: Yeah, that idea would…. Well, it would be interesting. Let’s just

say that. Yeah, okay, we’ll talk about the minister’s municipal

ambitions maybe at a later date. This probably isn’t the appropriate

time to be doing that. I don’t think there’s ever an appropriate time to

be doing that, actually.

Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder, we’re speaking of Bill 12.

[11:40 a.m.]

T. Halford: Speaking on Bill 12. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just the thought of

the minister making a municipal run has got me flustered.

Let’s talk about the details that are supposed to be coming at a

later date on Bill 12. There’s a long list. The prescribed number of

days after the sale where the offer can be rescinded? Don’t know.

Limiting waivers of the right of rescission and the circumstances in

which the right may or may not be waived? Don’t know. Respecting service

of notice of rescission? Don’t know. Penalties paid by the purchaser to

the seller? Don’t know.

Timing of the payment of the deposit under a contract of purchase

and sale despite any provision of the contract to the contrary? Don’t

know. Establishing procedures for the payment of the deposit under a

contract of purchase and sale? Don’t know. Respecting the return of the

deposit paid under a contract of purchase and sale if the purchaser

exercises the right of rescission, including exempting types of

properties or classes of buyers? Don’t know.

That’s a lot of questions — a lot of important details that I

think buyers and sellers, just the general public, would want to know

before their MLA would come in here and make an important decision on

how they’re going to vote on Bill 12. In all seriousness, I think that

that’s a fair expectation from our constituents — that we would come in

here and make an educated vote on a piece of legislation and have that

full scope, that full detail.

My colleague put forward an amendment yesterday that was voted

down. It was something that was easy for the government to actually

accept. I think it was something that the public would expect — to say:

hey, let’s just wait until we have all of the information. Let’s wait

until we have all of the details. I think that’s common

sense.

If my child came to me and said, “Hey, Dad, I need 100 bucks to go

do something,” I’d say: “Oh, Sasha, what do you need that $100 for?” And

she’d go: “Well, I’m not sure yet, but I need it, and I’ve got to have

it now. Like, you’ve got to give it to me now. But in a couple of weeks,

I’ll have the information. I can tell you more about it.”

Now, I can give her the 100 bucks, and chances are she’s going to

probably use it on maybe Minecraft or maybe a Pokémon card. I

don’t know. She’s actually a fairly smart purchaser. But I would say

there would be an expectation that I would have a little bit more

context before I made that decision, to protect my 100 bucks but also to

protect her from making a decision when we didn’t have all the

facts.

I think that’s what we were trying to do with the amendment, and

this minister is basically telling British Columbians: “I know better

than you, and I’m not going to wait. I’m going to do it now.”

If I was going to run in a municipal election, I definitely would

not take that approach. The public is going to want to have a better

expectation.

[11:45 a.m.]

You’re going to work in their best interests. You’re actually

going to have all of the information. Disclose it and debate it. Stand

by it. Champion it, if you’re that confident in the bill, which I’m sure

the minister is. I don’t know about her colleagues, but I’m sure the

minister is. Just allow us to have all the information.

We saw in previous legislative sessions, fairly recently, when

that didn’t happen, how that worked out: not well. We’ve seen when

legislation, sometimes, is not fully done properly, and you have to come

back and fix things. I don’t know if we have any recent examples of that

by a member of the executive council, where they did a piece of

legislation and flubbed it up and had to come back and fix it. Maybe we

did. I don’t know. I’ve got to go back and check.

That’s part of the challenge that we have here. Give British

Columbians the benefit of the doubt. Give them the respect that when we

come into this House and do this important work, no matter the side of

the House we’re on, we have the full information.

If this government thinks that it has garnered the full trust of

every British Columbian to say: “Hey, don’t worry about it. We’ll take

care of it for you. You don’t need to know the details….” I don’t think

that was the mandate given to the NDP government in the last election.

It wasn’t: “Hey, go do what you need to do. We don’t need the details.

We trust you.” Now, maybe that’s the mandate that this minister thinks

she has, but I don’t think that’s the mandate that any government has.

That’s not how this place is supposed to work.

We saw that fail in spectacular fashion in November. Now we’re

running the risk of doing it again, all while we know that if my

colleague from Peace River South and the amendment that he put forward….

It actually somewhat protects the government from that embarrassment

that we saw.

I think we have an obligation to do better than what we are

currently doing. I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity

to speak on this piece of legislation.

E. Ross: It’s my privilege to get up to speak to Bill 12, the Property Law

Amendment Act. I would like to say that I truly understand the details

of what this bill is, but I can’t, because there are no details in this.

Just like many other bills that pass through this House, the details

will be left for regulations.

There are a lot of MLAs that have been elected to this legislative

House to actually address the details in bills. That’s why we’re here.

We’ve got to take a bill from the floor and actually go home to our

constituencies — in my case, Skeena — and explain the consequences and

what it will mean to citizens of our ridings.

As we’ve heard time and time again here, at least from this side

of the House, there are not enough details to describe this to citizens

of B.C., much less buyers and sellers, in terms of the housing market,

in terms of the housing crisis that British Columbians, especially

millennials, are experiencing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What’s troubling about this is not only the fact that there are no

details of this. What’s troubling about this is that there are no

government representatives speaking to this bill. Two government MLAs

have gotten up to speak to this bill out of 57 — three if you include

the Finance Minister. And that’s who this bill belongs to; that’s who is

tabling this bill.

[11:50 a.m.]

I’m sure the constituents of 55 constituencies would appreciate

the details of what this bill actually means in terms of the housing

market, in terms of the cooling off and how it actually intends to

address the cooling-off period that this bill proposes. But we don’t

know.

We don’t know how it is going to address the cooling-off period,

because there are no details. This is just a shell of a bill. British

Columbians will have to wait until the details are actually covered in

the regulations, which I’m assuming are going to follow in the next

three months, six months, 12 months. I’m not sure.

I don’t think anybody is sure in terms of that, including the B.C.

Real Estate Association, including buyers and sellers of the housing

market that actually want answers today.

Noting the time, I reserve my place in this debate, and I move

adjournment of the debate.

E. Ross moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED

EDUCATION AND SKILLS TRAINING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Sims in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

On Vote 12: ministry operations, $2,612,688,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We’re ready to start another

scintillating morning. We are meeting today to continue

consideration of the estimation of the Ministry of Advanced

Education and Skills Training.

I now recognize the member for Cariboo North.

C. Oakes: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We are now moving into questions

around the service plan and the budget.

To perhaps set the stage, we all recognize and understand the

incredible importance of post-secondary skill training across this

province. I think that the one thing that COVID has done, and the

pandemic, is really shone a light on the incredible importance of both

our universities and our colleges across the province.

I guess, in opening remarks, I would like to provide the minister

an opportunity to look at the importance that the sector has, in

recognition of the pandemic and, perhaps, provide some insight into why,

when you look at the budget, the operating budget for post-secondary

education has remained static at such a critical time in British

Columbia’s history.

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member opposite for her question. This is a very,

very important question. We do recognize, and I recognize, that

post-secondary education is very critical, especially at this time, for

British Columbians.

We have recognized that those who have post-secondary training,

whether that’s in skills training or a bachelor’s or master’s degree,

are more resilient during a pandemic and that they are able to attach

themselves to the labour market at a critical stage during any type of

economic downfall. They are able to get back with some sort of

upskilling or re-skilling.

My ministry has endeavoured to continue to support with economic

recovery and with future endeavours and dream jobs of individuals who

are looking forward.

[11:10 a.m.]

Your question, in terms of operations…. Under the NDP government,

since 2017, we have increased the operations budget of $546 million, and

$170 million of that is in programming.

We have made record investments in targeted skills-training seats

in high-demand areas. Some of these training seats are in health, in

tech-related sectors, in ECE, in Indigenous skills funds, in short-term

training, because we know this is what British Columbians

need.

C. Oakes: Seventy-five percent of the funding that Advanced Education

provides to the public post-secondary institutions is based on the

operating funding that goes to post-secondary education

institutions.

When we had the briefing — and I very much appreciate the briefing

that was provided by the staff — I asked the question: what was the

increase over last year to the public post-secondary institutions for

their operating grants? So the increase over last year. The block

funding to the public post-secondary sector has been static. There has

been no increase to the public post-secondary institutions.

My question is: how do we reconcile the fact…? I asked this

question last year during estimates. The public post-secondary

institutions are faced with the increased costs of the pandemic. Like so

many other institutions and organizations, they’ve had increased costs

on ensuring that their….

They had to move to hybrid. A lot of the digitization had to be

increased. The cleaning protocols and all of the protocols that were

tied to the pandemic increased the costs to the public post-secondary

institutions. Last year during estimates, when we asked the question,

institutions were expected to take that out of their operating funds in

order to fund.

My question is: in light of the fact that public post-secondary

institutions have had to take funding out of their operating to cover

the costs of COVID, why in this budget this year is there no increased

cost for public post-secondary institutions? That is going to impact the

ability for them to provide critical training to British

Columbians.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: In reference to the increase in our block budget, we have seen an

increase due to reflecting the collective agreement for salary, and

that’s $10,000,695. So that’s included in the block funding.

I think your reference is to the spending and investments to keep

students healthy and safe during the pandemic for post-secondary

institutions. Institutions have been able to manage their costs through

their reserves, and they’re fiscally great managers of that, and I have

trust that they do that.

I also would like to remind you that since 2017, our government

has been making very significant targeted investments in our budget in

terms of our in-demand jobs and careers, such as health, technology,

ECE, Indigenous skills funding and short-term training.

C. Oakes: Let’s take a moment, then, to look back to 2017.

We’ve heard the Premier speak about the importance of training.

We’ve certainly heard from ministers and heard from this government the

significant importance of training both to support British Columbians

and to drive the economy. We certainly know that over the next decade,

we’ll have over one million job openings in British Columbia. Now more

than ever, it is critically important that we be investing in our public

post-secondary institutions and our training institutions.

What I am trying to understand by looking at the finances is that

under the block funding formula, the funding has not increased for 75

percent of the funding that goes to public post-secondary institutions.

I understand that there’s a portion, 25 percent, for targeted funding,

but we certainly understand that, under the labour market analysis that

has been completed, it is critically important for us to be investing in

our public post-secondary institutions. And again, this funding to

public post-secondary institutions has been static from last

year.

I understand that there are some additional incremental

requirements in this budget, but funds to actually go into public

post-secondary institutions to make sure that we’re providing the

adequate training is essential.

In the economic development plan that was announced by this

government and the Premier, a significant component of an action item

for that was the launch of the Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs of

Tomorrow plan, which falls under this ministry. Can the minister please

provide us with where we can access the actionable item that was

identified in the economic plan, the Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs

of Tomorrow plan? Where is the plan and the timeline for that

plan?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: I just want to begin by correcting the member opposite. We have

increased the base, the operating grant of this year. We increased that

to reflect the collective agreement. But as well, we have made

investments in targeted funding, which will be supporting some of the

actions in our action plan, which is your question.

I would like to appreciate the member’s interest in funding for

post-secondary institutions. I know you’re very passionate about

programs, and I do share that passion as well. But I would also like to

remind the member that in 2013, when their side were in government, they

cut operating grants by $50 million per year. So that meant that in

2013, there was $50 million less, and in 2014, there was $50 million

less. We are working with less, and that’s why it is important that we

look to a funding review. We would like to fix the inequities of the

past.

[11:25 a.m.]

Straight to the question of where the Future Ready job action plan

is right now, my ministry is working with key partners in the industry,

with stakeholders, to ensure that we tailor programs and have good

engagement to develop the action plan. This is the Future Ready skills

plan.

In the meantime, the immediate workforce initiatives will address

urgent workforce challenges. Some of these challenges include the

continuation of StrongerBC-funded initiatives with expanded

micro-credentials, short-term skills training for in-demand jobs,

Indigenous community skills training and education, and targeted

training for health and human services. As well, we are investing in

more graduate scholarships and internships to support innovation in

B.C.

We also know how important it is that we build on the success of

investments that we have been doing, and we’ll continue to do that. Last

year we provided $41.1 million to support over 2,600 spaces in

tech-related programs. This year is the final year of the current

expansion, where we will reach $42 million in ongoing funding for 2,900

seats. We are also developing the next expansion of 2,000 new tech

seats, as it is outlined in my mandate letter.

We have invested in, and will continue to invest in, graduate

student scholarships and internships. Almost $36 million since

I will have more to say about the status of our programs and

funding opportunities for people to re-skill and upskill to meet the

jobs of today and tomorrow. I look forward to working with the member

opposite on that.

C. Oakes: The Premier, several weeks ago, announced the StrongerBC economic

plan, “A plan for today, a vision for tomorrow.” The foundational pillar

of the economic plan is understanding the labour market challenges that

we have. If you go to page 8, the No. 1 action of this whole plan, which

the NDP government has put forward, is training and launching the Future

Ready: Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan.

Now, one would suspect that if one was to launch an economic plan

based on training, the training component would have been completed

first. A whole plan built around understanding the needs of the labour

market and the one million job openings over the next decade, built on a

foundation of how critically important….

Eighty percent of the population is going to require some kind of

post-secondary education. One would have expected that when this plan

was launched, which was tied to the training of those one million people

and 80 percent requiring post-secondary education, that plan would have

been completed.

Again, in order to move this plan forward, it’s critically

important…. The launch of the Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow is

critical. When exactly will this plan be completed?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member for the question. We are in the

development and engagement stage with Indigenous partners and sector

stakeholders, and this engagement is going to be planned for spring of

2022. Your direct question is when it will be implemented, and it will

be implemented this fall.

I want to make sure that we’re clear that we’re not starting from

zero. We have a very good foundation that we continue to work on,

because we have recognized that we need one million workers in British

Columbia. We are working towards that. There are immediate actions we

are doing, and we are building on a solid foundation. Our solid

foundation is built on economic recovery and the things that we are

already doing as we continue to consult, because we want to make sure

that we hear the voices of everyone. We want to make sure that we are

going in the right direction.

In terms of economic recovery, B.C. continues to lead the country

with the highest labour force growth, with 2.5 percent, and highest

employment growth, with 1.9 percent since pre-pandemic.

I know we can do better. We’re able to offer British Columbians

more opportunity with good post-secondary investment.

We also have good policy leadership as our foundation, and we’ll

continue to build on that, such as Childcare B.C. We want to make sure

that there are no barriers, that barriers are reduced for parents who

want to go back to work. Some of the reasons why people aren’t able to

be part of the workforce right now is because of the lack of child care.

We are working very hard on that.

As well, our post-secondary system…. We are investing, annually,

$118 million in trades training to support 98-plus skilled

trades.

As well, we are working on reconciliation. That is why

consultation, development and engagement with Indigenous partners is

very important. We have a strong network of Indigenous post-secondary

institutes that we are investing in as well.

We are also supporting workers. WorkBC centres are investing $272

million annually and job connection infrastructure with $6 million

annually. As well, there are three streams of skills-training programs

for vulnerable workers, in which we see an investment of $125 million

annually, and sector and community labour market partnerships to address

emerging workforce challenges with $26 million annually.

So work is on the way. Work continues to be on the way. We are not

starting from zero. We are in the middle of our planning and

programming, but we will be putting together an action plan that will be

supporting all British Columbians for the next ten years.

[11:35 a.m.]

C. Oakes: Going back to B.C.’s economic plan, “A plan for today, a vision

for tomorrow,” that the Premier launched several weeks ago, a critical

action was launching the Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow

plan.

I heard that the delay of the Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan

was because there needed to be stakeholder engagement and engagement

with Indigenous communities. Does that mean that this plan that the

Premier launched has not consulted with Indigenous people and

stakeholders, so that the launch of this was premature?

The foundation of this economic plan was ensuring that we

understood the needs of training for people in British Columbia. What I

heard is that you’re not releasing the Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs

of Tomorrow plan because consultation has not happened with Indigenous

communities and stakeholders.

Hon. A. Kang: I just want to clarify. There is no delay on the launch for the

Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan. I think what you’re

referring to is B.C.’s Economic Plan , which had extensive

consultations with all stakeholders. That includes Indigenous

stakeholders.

As I have said before, there are actions in my workforce readiness

plan that are continuous. There are immediate actions that we are taking

right now. What we are doing is consulting further, to make sure that we

have the right steps that are needed for our action plan to continue

with the ten years that we are looking forward to, to have the right

workforce and to have the right supports for the workforce in the next

ten years.

C. Oakes: Turning to the words of the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery

and Innovation — I guess it’s a reflection where the minister talked

about 2013 — in the words of the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and

Innovation: “Because we can’t go back to the way things were before.

That’s why we’ve developed this plan.” I want to put that oar in the

water.

[11:40 a.m.]

Certainly, the pandemic has changed a lot for British Columbians.

“The StrongerBC economic plan…includes a generational commitment to

develop the talent British Columbia needs to grow and innovate across

our economy.” So the StrongerBC economic plan is to include a commitment

to develop the talent — which, one would suspect, would be tied to our

public post-secondary institutions and which, one would further suspect,

would be tied to investment into our public post-secondary institutions,

to develop that talent.

Without the plan to clearly understand what that investment needs

to be, I hope the minister can understand the concern, which many people

will have, that perhaps the launch of this plan was ahead of what the

minister just said. This plan needs to be tied to some kind of

investment in our public post-secondary institutions. If we’re looking

at two or three years out before we’re going to see the types of

investments that we need, to make sure we’re achieving the results of

the StrongerBC economic plan, that’s the next election cycle.

We are in year 5 of a ten-year plan in the labour market, and

we’re seeing that the labour market is getting worse. We are not seeing

any…. We’re waiting on a plan that’s supposed to be tying the Skills for

the Jobs of Tomorrow plan to labour, and we have a funding review that

has just been announced that’s going to take two years or a year and a

half to complete.

I guess, to the minister, how does she reconcile the fact that we

need to have investment right now…? In fact, we needed to have this

investment in skills training two or three years ago. We’re now

looking…. Based on the timelines that the minister has just outlined, we

could be waiting a couple more cycles in the budget before we’re going

to see any really considerable investment to support building that

talent pool that has been identified in the Premier’s and the Minister

of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation’s StrongerBC economic

plan.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Yes, I would like to make sure that we are clear on the actions

that my ministry is doing and contributing. I think the member may have

it backwards. The economic plan is a road map for the Future Ready plan,

and no one said anything about delaying funding. The plan will be

released in the fall, as I have already mentioned.

I also want to emphasize that we have been investing, and continue

to invest, as we implement and consult on this plan. Since 2017 until

today, we have been investing in health care, tech and ECE seats. In

health, we have invested $178.4 million; in tech, we have been investing

$155.2 million; and in ECE, we have been investing $36.6

million.

We have been investing. Investment is happening right now, and it

will continue to be as well. We do want to reiterate that this

development is in the action plan. It’s a new action. So government

contributes. It’s not the main, sole contributor of this plan. We will

be working with stakeholders, industries, post-secondary and other

ministries. We will be doing more.

We are going to be putting people in the centre of our plan, and

that’s what we will be doing. We will be consulting, and we will be

making sure that we get this right.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

Copyright © 2022 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

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

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.