Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 7, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 166

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

Statements

Worker safety and commemoration of farmworker deaths

Hon. H. Bains

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Harmandeep Kaur

J. Sims

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Commercial Liens Act

Hon. M. Farnworth

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Community social services

J. Brar

Social workers

D. Davies

Japanese-Canadian history and culture in Steveston

K. Greene

War in Ukraine and fundraising run by Vova Pluzhnikov

S. Bond

Refugees

A. Singh

Vancouver’s Chinatown

T. Wat

Oral Questions

Action on gas prices

T. Halford

Hon. J. Horgan

P. Milobar

HousingHub program and non-market housing

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Eby

Restaurant patio permits

I. Paton

Hon. M. Farnworth

T. Stone

Groundwater use licensing process

L. Doerkson

Hon. K. Conroy

M. de Jong

Tabling Documents

B.C. Utilities Commission, annual report, 2020-21

Motions Without Notice

Committee of Supply to sit in three sections

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 4 — Skilled Trades BC Act

G. Kyllo

Hon. A. Kang

M. Lee

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Skilled Trades BC Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport

Hon. M. Mark

T. Wat

E. Ross

MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2022

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

B. Anderson: I would like to introduce Jessica Harnett, who’s joining us today. She

is from Powell River and part of the Métis Nation. She is participating in

the Indigenous youth internship program, and her placement is with the

Ministry of Children and Families.

Today Jessica got to join me through the twinning program, which is

the Canadian women in parliament. We had a wonderful morning. We were able

to meet with the Premier and with the minister. I have no doubt that Jessica

has a bright future ahead.

Thank you, Jessica.

Hon. A. Kang: It is not often that I get visitors from Burnaby–Deer Lake. Today I

would like to introduce my two CAs, who are up in the gallery today, Nick

Hsieh and Kate Olivares.

Kate Olivares was a B.C. NDP intern here last term, and she made quite

an impression on me. She brings joy, laughter and sunshine to my office. I

often would hear her laughing through the walls and have to remind her that

I was still doing a video greeting, so I couldn’t have her voice

there.

Nick Hsieh is wonderful. He is so calm and polite. His last name,

Hsieh, is the same as the Mandarin word xie xie . He just brings

this sense of calmness into my office.

Lastly, I also have Jocelyn Fan, who is my executive assistant, who is

thoughtful. She takes care of me and makes sure that I am where I need to be

and I do remember to eat.

Would the House please welcome my fantastic team here to the House

today and make them feel very welcome.

Statements

WORKER SAFETY AND

COMMEMORATION OF FARMWORKER

DEATHS

Hon. H. Bains: March 7, today, is a reminder to all of us of when the workers,

who were on their way to work, died in an accident. Three women died.

Mr. Speaker, you and I have been attending these vigils ever since, and

you and I were there again on Saturday.

What I’d like to share with everyone in this House is the speech

by the daughter of one of them, Avneet Sidhu. I thought it was very

important. It’s a very compressed part of her speech — it was a long

speech — but it has the message. So here it goes.

“Today I would like to share my story on behalf of families, in the

hope that it resonates and is kept in mind as we think about the

significance of workers’ lives. I’m the daughter of two immigrant

parents who moved to B.C. from the state of Punjab in the late 1990s

when I was five months old.

“This is really funny, I think. They sent me to Punjab so that their

families could raise me while they stayed here and worked and did not

need to pay for daycare. The drive to excel and be prosperous in this

country was so great that they sent their kids away, to be able to work.

Eventually with all of their hard work, they saved up and were able to

buy a place, and I came back.

“Then, in 2007, tragedy struck. As I walked home from school by

myself — because my grandma had not come to pick me up — I noticed our

driveway, filled with cars. And after that, I just remember being

confused for a very, very long time — for years.

“Part of the community that raised me was institutions like the B.C.

Federation of Labour and Archway Community Services. Work should not

become life. All workers should have a reasonable expectation of safety

in their workplace, and they should feel empowered to bring those

concerns forward to the right channels. This is not only a day to pay

reverence but also to collectively remember and renew our commitment to

improving health and safety in the workplace to prevent further injury,

illness or death.”

This is Avneet’s story. I bring it to all of your attention,

because I am sure everyone here will take courage, resolving to remind

ourselves that every worker has the right to go to work, be safe and

come home safe and healthy.

[1:40 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

B. Stewart: It’s an honour to rise today to introduce somebody who is well known

in this House — on both sides of the House. I want to introduce Dave and

Cheryl Byng.

Dave, as many of you will remember, was a former deputy minister in

government, serving in Jobs as well as in Transportation. His wife, Cheryl,

is a retired teacher in the province.

I think one of the things that stands out most for me is Dave’s

illustrious career in Transportation over 30 years. They moved around the

province and lived in places like Cranbrook, Terrace, Haida Gwaii and, of

course, here in Victoria, where Dave is making up a new life being a

semi-professional photographer. Instagram is his shop.

Anyway, he and Cheryl are hoping to go to Croatia later this year. He

also spends time fixing up a jeep with creature comforts, he tells me. I’m

not exactly certain what that is. Please welcome Dave and Cheryl

Byng.

G. Lore: I noticed in the gallery today Karen Aitken, who is the director of

parliamentary education and who holds a special place in my heart. Fourteen

years ago she set me up on a blind date. I was a parliamentary intern, and

she set me up on a blind date with another parliamentary intern, who is now

my husband. Just an extra warm welcome to Karen Aitken.

S. Chant: I would like to introduce today Wenonah North Peigan. She is Blackfoot

and Anishinabe, from Treaty 7 territory.

She is also here as part of the Canadian women in parliament twinning

program to recognize International Women’s Day. She is working with the

provincial Indigenous youth intern program and is currently associated with

the Attorney General’s ministry in the special investigation

division.

Here today as part of International Women’s Day recognition, I hope

that the House will join me in welcoming Wenonah and the other three interns

to the Legislature as they take this opportunity to get a closer look at the

machinations of the provincial government.

S. Furstenau: I have two guests to introduce today. First is Crystal Lewis, also a

Commonwealth Women Parliamentarian intern. Crystal is a member of the

Squamish Nation and a graduate from the Coady Institute’s Indigenous Women

in Community Leadership program at St. Francis Xavier University. She was

one of five chosen from across Canada to participate in GreenPAC’s

environmental parliamentary internship.

By 19, Crystal had run for Squamish Nation chief and council, focusing

her campaign on sustainability, wellness and transparency. She was nominated

as a peer leader and peacebuilder for the UN Association of Canada and

created Canada’s first-ever youth policy for the UN Security Council

resolution. Suffice to say we have learned a lot from Crystal spending the

morning with us in our caucus, and we are very grateful for the time that

we’ve had with her.

I also want to welcome Regina Williams, who is in the gallery today.

She is the mother of our intern Rose Williams. Regina is originally from

Cork. She is now a postmaster for Canada Post and a city councillor on Haida

Gwaii. She is a lover of all racquet sports, specializing in pickleball,

tennis and badminton, and she will be competing in tennis for the B.C.

Seniors Games this fall in Victoria.

Would the House please make both Regina and Crystal very

welcome.

S. Cadieux: I’d like to introduce the House to Saige Girouard, who lives in

Victoria. She is a Métis woman who graduated from Okanagan College with an

honours BBA, specializing in management and human resources. As an

Indigenous intern, she is working as a research and outreach assistant at

the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation.

As well, joining us is the program administrator for the Indigenous

youth internship program, Samantha Dovell, who completed a bachelors degree

in athletic and exercise therapy in 2019. She spent time living abroad

before returning to Canada and securing the position with government very

recently.

[1:45 p.m.]

On behalf of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and myself, who

have been spending time with these lovely ladies today, and we’ll do a

little more this afternoon, would the House please make them

welcome.

Tributes

HARMANDEEP KAUR

J. Sims: I stand in this House today to remember a young woman, Harmandeep

Kaur. She came to this country seven years ago as an international

student and left her native Punjab. Imagine the pain and anguish of

parents when their children go away to study.

She was murdered, killed while at work in Kelowna. Last weekend

was her funeral in Squamish. Her family is in anguish. They came to see

their daughter after seven years, a daughter they thought they would be

celebrating with because she just recently got her permanent residency

after completing her studies and working. Instead, they came to a

funeral.

I am sure every member in this House joins me in expressing our

heartfelt condolences to the family who lost a daughter.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: Today I want to introduce a very powerful young woman in my life. Her

name is Ella. She’s my daughter. She’s nine. I invited her to join us in

question period today. She chose to stay in my office, which is probably a

good choice on her part since her dad is asking a question today.

Nonetheless, Ella is an amazing young woman. She has a pro-D day today

because Friday was report card day, and this morning, we had a chance to

meet her teachers. One of the remarkable things about Ella is that she is so

focused on her grades. She was very unhappy with one of the grades that she

received. She wanted us to inquire deeply with her teachers as to why it was

that she received the grade that she did, because anything less than

straight As is a failure for her.

Anyway, I’d like to welcome Ella. I think maybe she might be watching

this on TV, but if she’s not, we’ll show it to her later.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and could the members please make her feel

welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Members, today we left a little booklet on your desks, which you may

find very useful. It will assist you to follow some of those guidelines to

make introductions, for scripts and everything. Please read it, and if you

can, leave it here in your desk so it will be handy when you need it. Thank

you.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — COMMERCIAL LIENS ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Commercial Liens Act.

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

now.

I am pleased to introduce the Commercial Liens Act on the behalf

of the Minister of Finance.

The purpose of this bill is to reform and consolidate the law of

British Columbia for liens that secure payment for repairing, storing

and transporting goods. The rationale behind this area of law is to

recognize services that improve or maintain the value of another

person’s property by giving the service provider a lien on the property

to secure payment if the person doesn’t pay for the services.

Courts have recognized this category of liens since the 16th

century. For almost as long, courts have recognized liens for the

transportation of goods by a common carrier such as today’s regulated

motor carriers. Starting in the Victorian era, statutes in B.C. and

other provinces have given liens to woodworkers, tugboat workers,

warehousers and livestock keepers and have expanded the lien rights

given to repairers.

The Commercial Liens Act will modernize this area of law. It will

replace a confusing and inconsistent patchwork of statute and common law

with a comprehensive and fair framework.

[1:50 p.m.]

This reform supports the goal of having consistent law across

Canada to reduce the burden of having to follow different rules in each

province. The bill adopts the model Uniform Liens Act prepared by the

Uniform Law Conference of Canada, which has been responsible for a

number of important law reform initiatives, including the Personal

Property Security Act.

In developing this legislation, we were mindful of government’s

obligations under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Act. Our assessment shows that changing the law of liens, as proposed by

this bill, does not uniquely affect the Indigenous rights described in

the UN declaration on the rights on Indigenous peoples.

This bill gives clear rights to service providers or customers and

anyone else with the interest in the goods that are subject to a lien.

Everyone involved will be able to know when a lien exists and the

process that lien holders must follow to sell or keep goods subject to a

lien. This reduces the risk and cost involved under the current

law.

By introducing this bill, we are continuing our commitment to

support a strong sustainable economy that works for everyone.

Mr. Speaker: The question is the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House.

Bill 11, Commercial Liens Act, 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)

COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES

J. Brar: I rise in this House today to acknowledge the month of March as

Community Social Services Awareness Month. This month we recognize the

important and often challenging work of community social services

organizations throughout the province.

B.C. community social services organizations provide vital

services to some of our province’s most vulnerable individuals. Every

day thousands of British Columbians depend on the services provided by

over 2,000 community social service organizations across B.C.

The past two years have been the most challenging that many of us

have experienced, and during this difficult time, more than 42,000

British Columbians who work in the social service sector have been

there, ready to serve people in need. Our community social service

workers provide mental health and addiction services. They provide

support in sexual assault centres and transition homes, helping women

and children who are fleeing violence. They are in community centres,

supporting newcomers to access services to help make B.C. home and

working with families and children with special needs.

These organizations provide advocacy, support and services for

youth and families, Indigenous people and persons with a disability.

B.C. They are involved in community projects, employment training

programs and so much more. They serve people with dignity and

respect.

Community social services are vital to the quality of life of all

British Columbians, so there’s no question that they make life better

for people in B.C.

I would like to invite all members of this House to join me and

everyone in British Columbia to recognize the month of March as

Community Social Services Awareness Month.

SOCIAL WORKERS

D. Davies: I’ll follow up on my colleague as well. Before her passing,

Princess Diana once famously said: “Carry out a random act of kindness,

with no expectation of reward, safe in the knowledge that one day

someone might do the same for you.”

March is recognized as National Social Work Month, a time to

recognize and thank this incredible group of people that have committed

themselves to helping people and whose days are filled with acts of

kindness to improve the lives of fellow British Columbians and

Canadians.

Over the past year, communities across our province have come

together and gone to great lengths to prevent COVID. But at the same

time, the impact of the pandemic and the horrific disasters last year on

our mental health has been unavoidable to most if not all of us. That’s

why this month it’s especially important that we recognize and honour

this special group of front-line workers who are there to support the

most vulnerable members of our communities — those who are the safety

net for people who find themselves at a time of crisis, whether it be

because of COVID or other circumstances.

[1:55 p.m.]

Our social workers are essential to meet the needs of British

Columbias, who are facing overwhelming uncertainty, carrying the pain of

loss or are subject to the economic, health and social inequities that

exist across our province, which have been made worse by the pandemic.

Our health and well-being go beyond just physical health and the

essential work that our many social workers do every day to ensure those

who feel they have no one to turn to always have someone that they can

turn to.

As there is a need for social workers across British Columbia, I

encourage you to look into this very noble profession, which is vast,

exciting and rewarding. I also encourage every British Columbian to

reach out and thank their local social workers for the work that they do

today and every day to make our province and world a better

place.

JAPANESE-CANADIAN HISTORY

AND CULTURE IN

STEVESTON

K. Greene: The historic community of Steveston was founded in the 1880s, and

Japanese Canadians have been part of the fabric of Steveston since its

founding. The bustling fishing and cannery industries brought people of

diverse heritage together, and our community thrived.

Before World War II, there were over 2,000 people of Japanese

descent living in Richmond, out of a population of 10,000 people. They

were important contributors to the betterment of Richmond, building a

hospital and a school that could be used by both Japanese and

non-Japanese residents.

When World War II broke out, the Canadian government disgracefully

forced Japanese Canadians to internment camps and dispossessed them of

their belongings and assets. The city has created the Nikkei garden

memorial in the heart of the village, and I encourage everyone to visit,

learn and reflect upon that period of history.

To work on healing Richmond’s Nikkei community after the war,

Japanese Canadians partnered with the city to build the Steveston

Community Centre, with an agreement that they could use some of the

space for a judo centre, and the judo club was formed in

Later, in 1972, the doors opened on the new Steveston Martial Arts

Centre, the first dojo outside of Japan to be built using traditional

Japanese architectural style. I would like to note that the Steveston

Martial Arts Centre is having its 50th anniversary this year, which is a

considerable accomplishment. The centre is an important hub for

Steveston. Together with the Japanese language school and Japanese

gardens, they make up the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre.

I’d like to recognize original judo club members Martin Kuramoto,

Art Nishi, Hap Hirata and Isao Kuramoto for being part of the foundation

of an important community institution. I’d also like to extend thanks to

Al Sakai, judo club president; Toshi Uchiage, karate club president; and

Ray Murao, kendo club head instructor, for their work ensuring the clubs

are vibrant now and in years to come.

WAR IN UKRAINE AND FUNDRAISING

RUN BY VOVA

PLUZHNIKOV

S. Bond: Over the past few weeks, we have watched in horror as Russian

forces invaded the democratic nation of Ukraine. We have seen terrible

images of families huddled in underground subway stations and bomb

shelters. We have seen catastrophic destruction, millions of people

fleeing for their lives, and been struck by the overwhelming devastation

of war.

While we have done our best to express our support for the

resilient, peace-loving people of Ukraine and worked in this House to do

what we can, we have also struggled with feelings of

powerlessness.

Imagine being a Ukrainian student athlete at the University of

Northern British Columbia and knowing that your mother and father and

other family members are in imminent danger. That is exactly how Vova

Pluzhnikov feels. As he shared his story recently, he talked about the

feeling of helplessness that he was dealing with every single day and

the need that he felt to do something to show his support and provide

assistance to his people, his country.

Tomorrow in the city of Prince George, Vova will put on his

running shoes and run 44 kilometres, one for every million people who

were in Ukraine when Putin invaded. He will be asking people to donate

funds to the Canadian Red Cross Ukraine humanitarian crisis appeal. Vova

intends to complete his run tomorrow at 4 p.m. at Prince George city

hall.

Since I couldn’t be there to support you in person, Vova, I wanted

you to know that all of us here in this Legislature will be cheering you

on and will be keeping your family in our thoughts and prayers in the

days ahead.

I’m inspired by Vova’s love and commitment to his fellow

Ukrainians, and today I ask anyone who may be able to donate to his

fundraiser to do that. I encourage people at home to run a

section of

the run with Vova tomorrow.

[2:00 p.m.]

Thank you, Vova. We are so proud of you. We stand with you, and we

stand with Ukraine.

REFUGEES

A. Singh: Both of my parents were refugees. Like millions of others during

the partition of India and Pakistan, they were forced to flee their home

and travelled on foot to the relative safety of post-partition India.

They were six and seven years old at that time. Their families left what

little they had behind.

Displacement is part of my intergenerational narrative. Stories of

displacement and the Pakistan partition were an integral part of my

family’s narrative. In the last few weeks, the plight of refugees has

come to the forefront of our minds again as millions flee the war in

Ukraine.

I’m heartened by the response and goodwill of the people and

countries that have opened up their hearts and resources to those

fleeing from war and oppression. The same was done for my parents and

their families 75 years ago. I’m heartened that our government is

working with the federal government and has pledged $1 million to the

Red Cross to aid displaced people. There will be more to do,

undoubtedly.

That is the way it should be. We as a world have worked hard to

put in the legal and administrative mechanisms to deal with displaced

people. I’m also wary, wary that as headlines recede, that goodwill

becomes short-lived, and wary because there are still active conflicts —

Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan — places from where displaced people

have all but been forgotten.

We all remember just recently the vivid images from Afghanistan

with people desperately hanging on to and falling off planes because

they feared for their future. We forget too easily, especially when it

comes to those that are the most marginalized, and refugees are on the

top of that list.

Let’s take inspiration from this moment in history. I urge all in

this chamber and in this province to pledge to continue to remember this

generosity and empathy as time goes on and not to forget it, to call out

when politicians, politicians like Maxime Bernier, and regressive forces

target refugees for their own political gain or to call out those that

associate with these forces.

When they use terms like “illegal refugees”…. By the way, in

international law and Canadian law, there is no such thing as an illegal

refugee when you’re seeking asylum.

Let us call out these moments and not tolerate them. Let us use

this powerful moment in history and pledge to continue to be empathetic

and present for displaced people all over the world.

VANCOUVER’S CHINATOWN

T. Wat: It was established more than a century ago as one of the central

communities for newly landed Chinese Canadians, and today it has grown

into one of the most distinct cultural and historic neighbourhoods in

North America. Vancouver’s Chinatown has been a staple of our great

city’s landscape and cultural identity since 1886, attracting thousands

of people from across B.C. and across Canada and welcoming countless

international tourists each year.

Granted a designation as a national historic site in 2011,

significant efforts have been made over the past decade to revitalize

the neighbourhood by giving local monuments and stores a facelift, while

encouraging more business and tourism to the area.

While there’s great work being done on the ground by organizations

like the Chinese Cultural Centre, the Vancouver Chinatown business

improvement association, BIA, and many local business owners and

community leaders, the past few years have not been without their

challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic, the ongoing opioid crisis and a rise

in anti-Asian racism through vandalism and hate crimes have and continue

to put incredible strain on Chinatown.

The Vancouver Chinatown BIA is asking for an increased police

presence, including foot patrols, and a bubble zone around Chinatown for

repeat offenders. This BIA has to spend half of their $480,000 budget on

security instead of promoting businesses.

The best way we can support this community is by taking the time

to enjoy what Chinatown has to offer. Whenever you are in the area,

Members, I encourage you to stop by one of the incredible restaurants in

Chinatown. Stop at the local cultural grocers. Just take in the

Millennium Gate and other breathtaking monuments found in this historic

neighbourhood.

Together let’s preserve the history and culture of this important

area in Vancouver and do our part to ensure British Columbians can

continue to enjoy Chinatown for generations to come.

[2:05 p.m.]

Oral Questions

ACTION ON GAS PRICES

T. Halford: Despite two straight elections with big promises about

affordability, life has never been more unaffordable under this NDP

government. The cost of everything is up, from housing prices to grocery

bills and, of course, to gas.

Affordability at the pumps is nonexistent. Gas prices have now hit

$2.10 a litre. It’s costing more for families to get to work, more to

take their kids to soccer practice. Everything is just costing

more.

Families are struggling to get by every single day, and other

provinces are stepping up. We are seeing other Premiers take real action

to help families, not just making empty promises. Families expect this

Premier to step up and keep his word.

My question is to the Premier. Will he finally deliver on his

failed promise to give British Columbians the help they need

today?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his interest in affordability

issues.

We’ve been, of course, on that file for the past five years,

reducing costs in any number of ways. I can inventory them for the

member, but I suspect I’ll be up for the next half-hour. I’ll have

plenty of opportunity to do that.

Instead I’ll say — I think; I believe — the obvious: that

international commodity prices are in upheaval. That’s the case in

British Columbia. The impacts are felt here. They’re felt in Montreal.

They’re felt in Florida. They’re felt in central Europe. Just last week

the members on that side were critically concerned about affordability

in Germany, as am I and as are all citizens of the world.

We have to start with the fundamental premise that the instability

we’re seeing today is not a result of government policy. It’s the result

of one government’s policy, and that’s the government of

Russia.

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

T. Halford: To the Premier, this isn’t new. British Columbia had the highest

gas taxes and gas prices in North America before the war, and they’re

the highest today.

The Premier continues to make things worse, not better. He

promised to take action, and the only thing British Columbians got was

an utterly useless website. He has increased gas taxes every year,

turning the carbon tax by removing revenue neutrality and taking over $1

billion in extra taxes that should have been returned to British

Columbians. Almost 40 cents a litre is controlled by this Premier — 40

cents a litre. Other Premiers are acting, and this Premier chooses to do

nothing.

Will the Premier finally follow through on his promise and help

British Columbians with the soaring gas prices?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m sure the member will know — if he doesn’t, those who are more

experienced in this House will know — that the carbon tax was brought in

by the former Liberal government, as were low-carbon fuel

standards.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: I hear “revenue neutral.” Revenue neutral to them was a $2 billion

corporate tax cut. That’s what they did. That’s what they did with

carbon prices. The member will forgive me if I don’t embrace their

so-called revenue neutrality.

The root of the issue is that we’re in an extraordinary

time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: We’re in an extraordinary time. The member for Nechako Lakes

surely knows that.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nechako Lakes.

Hon. J. Horgan: Perhaps he has an answer to the question, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nechako Lakes, please listen to the answer when the

question has already been asked.

P. Milobar: The Premier seemed to take decisive and quick action in this

budget when he made sure that he was covered with a $40,000 pay hike and

that his cabinet was covered with a $20,000 pay hike.

There are real-world implications when the Premier refuses to take

action on the high price of gas. It’s hurting non-profits like the

Backpack Buddies, which delivers food to kids in need. In fact, that

agency is facing around a $20,000-a-year increase to their fuel bill to

be able to deliver food to kids in need.

I guess the $20,000 is okay for cabinet. No worries when it comes

to the Backpack Buddies. The co-founder of the charity, Emily-anne King,

says: “My biggest concern is how it’s impacting families.”

Again, the Premier has repeatedly promised to take action around

gas prices. He has done nothing, yet he controls 40 cents, and climbing,

a litre of taxes.

When is the Premier going to do something to help struggling

families with the price at the pumps?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m quoting Kevin Falcon when he said, “I don’t want to…pretend

there’s any magic solution” to fuel price increases that had doubled in

the past 12 months, which is what he said in 2008.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: The magic and the pixie dust seem to be existing in a party that

Kevin Falcon left but has now come back to. Perhaps you can send him a

memo and see what his solutions are to this problem, because he didn’t

have any when we were asking the very same questions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order.

Members, come to order.

The Premier will continue.

Hon. J. Horgan: British Columbians have been concerned about gouging at the pumps

for a long, long time. This is a new phenomenon. What we did to address

that was…. We brought in fuel transparency legislation so that the

independent Utilities Commission could ensure that every increase in

gasoline was directly a result of market forces and market

conditions.

Now, there was a time in ancient, ancient history when the people

on that side of the House called themselves free-market politicians, but

that free market disappears when you travel from here to over there.

Instead of being up front and honest with British Columbians and telling

them that an illegal invasion in Ukraine is resulting in the increases

we’re seeing today, they want to turn it around and say the carbon tax,

which they championed, is now the problem.

I don’t get it. Pick a side, Member. Pick a side.

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

P. Milobar: As we’ve pointed out many times: highest gas taxes, highest gas

prices before the war. We continue to have those in North America, and

this Premier has done absolutely nothing.

He may want to quote 13 years ago. Let’s look at his own words

four years ago, 207 weeks ago, when he said: “We have talked about a

range of options, and we will look at them…should prices remain high

over the next number of weeks.” I guess 207 is not a high enough number

of weeks that prices have remained high, to the Premier.

But wait, there’s more: “If the price increases persist through

the summer, we’ll look at other options.” That was April 4, 2019, a year

after the Premier first started promising relief at the pumps for

people. Then in February of this year: “Everything’s on the table. I’m

certainly prepared to look at any opportunity we have.” That was in

February.

We’ve seen other provinces act on gas prices. We’ve seen them try

to bring relief at the pumps. This Premier, instead, has grandstanded

for years about protecting consumers, but he hasn’t done a thing. All he

has done is build a useless website that was built around the inability

for…. The BCUC expressly was forbidden to look at government policy and

government taxation as it related to the price at the pump.

Again, if the Premier had a solution 207 weeks ago, it is high

time he provides us with what that solution is and actually takes some

action for a change for people.

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the enthusiasm from the member is undeniable.

But what have we done for the driving public in British Columbia?

We fixed the dumpster fire that was ICBC. It led to 500 bucks in the

pockets of ratepayers, just by making those changes. It gets better care

for people and protects us from the usury that used to be on that side

of the House.

Every dollar that came into ICBC on their watch went to pad their

budget and give tax breaks to corporations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Fess up, Members. Fess up. Your focus, when you had the

opportunity, was not on the travelling public — far from it. Your focus

at that time was to gouge the travelling public by increasing their

ability to travel in the Lower Mainland, the only place where there were

tolls. They’re not anymore. We got rid of those as well.

Just in case the member’s not aware of this, gas prices have gone

up and gone down and gone up and gone down over the past number of

years. Now the travelling public has protection.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: They can go to the Utilities Commission — not to the opposition,

the Utilities Commission — where independent analysis will take place,

and they can get real answers to the problems of today.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it would be very useful if you hear the question and then

listen to the answer, please.

HOUSINGHUB PROGRAM

AND NON-MARKET

HOUSING

A. Olsen: Meanwhile, while we have this debate in this House, the fossil

fuel industry has registered $46 billion in profits last

year.

Anyway, the government has made it clear that since 2020, their

solution to the housing crisis has been to build more supply. It’s true

they have built more supply than over two decades ago, but the experts

are also clear that not all housing supply is made equal.

[2:15 p.m.]

City of Vancouver policy, started during the Vision days,

incentivizes developers of “for-profit affordable housing.” Under this

program, an affordable studio apartment costs $1,800 a month, an

affordable one-bedroom goes for $2,200 a month, and if you’re a family

in need of a three-bedroom apartment, that’s $4,000 a month. This is all

supposedly affordable housing.

At these prices, the market-driven “for-profit affordable housing”

model is failing British Columbians. This B.C. NDP government has

invested $2 billion of public money into the HousingHub, but this public

investment is not restricted to non-market housing options.

To the Attorney General and Minister of Housing, how much of the

HousingHub money is dedicated to non-market housing

solutions?

Hon. D. Eby: First of all, I know the Georgia Straight

article the

member is quoting with his rent numbers. The

article is incorrect. It

cites market rents at $4,000 for a three-bedroom and affordability

quite…. I’m happy to share the report with him. When reading media and

it refers to reports, sometimes it’s helpful to get the report and

review the report itself.

Secondly, on the HousingHub….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, it’s a good idea to read the report if you’re interested in

housing.

The second piece is that for the $2 billion that we put into the

HousingHub, it’s expressly designed to support increased affordability

and increased construction of market rental housing. That’s what the

program is designed for. It’s meant to bring down the cost of rental

units in market buildings that are being constructed and to incent

developers to build desperately needed rental housing.

People are lining up for rental housing. We know that Amazon is

adding 5,000 employees in Vancouver. We know that Microsoft is adding

5,000 employees in Vancouver. Where are these people going to live if we

aren’t building market rental housing?

This is desperately important. Middle-income housing, including

rental housing, is critically important. It shouldn’t be made light of.

It’s as important, and it takes pressure off the low end.

It’s a key part of our government’s policy. I’m very grateful the

member asked the question.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands,

supplemental.

A. Olsen: Public money should be invested in non-market housing solutions

instead of subsidizing the construction costs for developers. As it

stands, there is no incentive to create truly affordable

housing.

The member can stand and diminish the numbers. The reality is that

British Columbians are contacting us all the time, telling us that

affordable housing units are well out of reach for them. They’re not

affordable for British Columbians.

The government isn’t prioritizing housing that will meet the basic

shelter needs for British Columbians. For example, Co-operative Housing

Federation of Canada pointed out that across Canada in 1982, more than

6,500 co-op housing units were built. In 2020, only 500 were built

nationally. In B.C., that number, obviously, is much smaller.

Just last month NDP MP Dan Davies stood in the House of Commons to

celebrate….

Interjections.

A. Olsen: Don Davies. You didn’t join the NDP?

MP Davies invited prominent members of his Vancouver-Kingsway

community “who shared their experience, knowledge and vision as to how

we can expand this incredibly successful housing model into the 21st

century.”

To the Attorney General and Minister of Housing, his federal NDP

counterparts seem to get it. Why is the B.C. NDP not investing

HousingHub public money, $2 billion, on building more non-market housing

options such as co-ops?

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows that the HousingHub program is only one of many

different housing programs we’re running. We have a massive — in fact,

an historic — investment in non-market social housing.

Recently in this budget, the Finance Minister stood and introduced

an incredible social housing program for people struggling with serious

mental health and addiction challenges that the Minister for Mental

Health and Addictions is bringing into being in partnership with health

authorities — 20 sites across the province, desperately

needed.

Literally billions of dollars into non-market housing solutions —

buying hotels to get people inside out of parks, redeveloping those

sites into mixed-income housing developments like the Capital City

Centre Hotel in Victoria.

We are doing the important work that was neglected for 16 years by

the other side, and we’re going to keep doing it.

[2:20 p.m.]

RESTAURANT PATIO PERMITS

I. Paton: The restaurant sector has taken many hits over the course of this

pandemic. They’ve closed, then they’ve opened for takeout. They’ve tried

not to lay off staff and have rules that constantly change, sometimes

without any warning.

Now, just as we head into the patio season, government is shutting

down patio permits. It makes no sense. In Vancouver, it’s going to cost

up to $5,000 to go through a 34-page guide which requires increased

fees, hiring a structural engineer and architectural drawings, all for a

patio as small as six square metres.

Will the Premier stop this madness and instead allow the temporary

permits that were allowed under the pandemic to continue?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The period to extend was extended and has been extended, and many

municipalities have, in fact, already taken up the offer of making

patios permanent. I can tell you that in my own community of Port

Coquitlam, they have made them permanent.

The decision on doing that is made by the local government. It’s

the city of Vancouver that is making that decision. The province has

extended the time. Local governments are doing just that. But it is the

city of Vancouver that is making the decision on whether or not to and

where to and how to make patios permanent.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Delta South, supplemental.

I. Paton: Well, not according to the letter written to the government by the

mayor of Delta. This is not just a problem in Vancouver. It’s actually

provincial regulations. Starting June 1, the province has decided that

existing patio service areas having been allowed for two years will end.

The restaurants will have to pay a non-refundable $400 fee, submit floor

plans and refer to the local government.

As it says on the provincial government’s website: “Approval can

take up to ten months,” and “Not all TESA authorizations will be viable

permanent patios.” Before you apply, you must comply “with all local

permits, guidelines, bylaws and requirements.”

We are talking about thousands of patios that already went through

approvals. They were built, and they exist today. Will the Premier tell

us why the province is planning to kill these patios as of June

Hon. M. Farnworth: From the very moment that the ability to put the patios in place,

it was made clear that this was a temporary measure to deal with COVID.

That timeline has been extended now for the second time to June 1. Local

governments are aware of that. Local governments have the ability to

decide how long it will take, where they will allow patios and what form

they will take.

I’m sure the member knows that in some communities, they actually

put the patios into a traffic lane, and they now have to be moved.

There’s no way you could make them permanent.

Many communities, already aware of that, have done that work and

are allowing patios to be permanent. Others are taking a much more

time-consuming, potentially bureaucratic approach. That’s what that

letter refers to. But local government makes those decisions because

it’s local communities that decide when, how, where, if and when they

become permanent.

T. Stone: It’s convenient for the Deputy Premier to fail to include in his

response the role that the liquor and cannabis regulation branch plays

in this.

This is what Mayor Harvie mentioned in his letter — the Delta

mayor — to government, very clearly: “To extend the use of this TESA

space,” applicants have to “apply to the LCRB for permanent outdoor

patio space.” They have to pay a $400 fee. They have to resubmit floor

plans, and they have this referred to local government.

It says on the website that this could take up to ten months. This

isn’t that hard to understand. The so-called TESA authorizations were

submitted online at no cost and usually approved within five business

days. Over 2,000 restaurants and other similar organizations were

approved for this patio space, only to now see that space end now on

June 1.

Bridgitte Anderson with the Board of Trade says: “At the beginning

of the pandemic, there was a willingness by business, by government, by

individuals to really think about how to do things differently and to

make it easier for businesses to operate. What happened to that

mindset?”

There is an easy fix. Just make these patio spaces permanent, and

do that now. No red tape, no jumping through hoops, no added fees. Just

allow these businesses to keep their patios open permanently.

Will the Premier do that today?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’m not quite sure what part of my answer the hon. Member didn’t

understand, but when you have a patio on a temporary basis that’s put

into an oncoming traffic lane, the idea of making it permanent sounds

somewhat ridiculous to me.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: What we don’t understand, and what British Columbians don’t

understand, is the disconnect between what the minister is saying here

today and what is on the government’s website when it comes to

this.

Only the NDP would take a program that’s working for struggling

restaurants and replace it with a long, drawn-out exercise in red tape

and fees to enable small businesses to do something that they’re already

doing.

In the last election, both parties promised to make permanent the

expansion of service areas such as patios. The NDP made this promise on

page 46 of their election platform. Even the Deputy Premier said:

“Temporary patios have been a lifeline for so many businesses and

workers, and we will make these expanded serving areas part of their

long-term recovery and beyond.”

That’s not what is happening as of June 1, when these permits

expire. Struggling businesses will then need to pay a fee. They’ll have

to submit floor plans. They’ll have to go through local government

referral processes, and sadly, these patios are built. These patios are

paid for. The patios are loved by the public, and these patios have

served as a lifeline for struggling restaurants and other

businesses.

Will the Premier keep his promise and make this common sense patio

policy permanent to give struggling businesses a fighting

chance?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, that’s in fact what is taking place by the extension to June

1. That is the second extension to local government. They have been made

well aware of that, and many communities have already done that — my own

community in Port Coquitlam, for example.

But what’s also intriguing is that once again, the Liberals don’t

quite tell the whole story. The comments by Bridgitte Anderson were made

in relation to the city of Vancouver, not on a provincewide basis. It’s

unfortunate they couldn’t do that.

The decision on whether and how the patios should be permanent,

which many communities are already doing, is made by the local

government. Some have moved very quickly. Others, in the case of the

comments by Bridgitte Anderson, refer to a particular municipality, I

gather, in the case of Vancouver.

That being said, we moved very quickly to put this into place. We

extended the timeline, because we are pleased with the response from

local government. They have the tools and the ability to do that. Many

communities are doing just that, and I expect many more of these patios

to be made permanent. Of course, they must fit in with the needs and

requirements of the local community.

GROUNDWATER USE LICENSING PROCESS

L. Doerkson: The NDP have completely bungled the new groundwater licensing

system. They have created stress and uncertainty for thousands of

British Columbians and apparently find it funny. As of March 1, anyone

not signed up, no matter that they may have worked their land for 100

years…. According to the NDP, they are now illegally accessing

water.

People are confused, and they’re worried, and the government

shrugs its shoulders as if there’s nothing that they can do.

Can the minister confirm if those not yet registered will have

their water cut off? Will they face fines for watering their

livestock?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. I want to remind the members

opposite that they actually started this process in 2016. The reality is

this has been…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: …challenging work, because the process that was originally started

was extremely complicated. So what we did is we brought in additional

staff. We streamlined the process, and we have had thousands more people

that have signed up. In fact, last week…. It’s interesting. Because we

extended the deadline in 2019, we got feedback from people who had

signed up.

[2:30 p.m.]

We got feedback from people in the industry who had signed up. The

winery industry, for example, in Kelowna, said: “We have signed up.

Everybody should have signed up, and they knew to sign up.” People have

been getting letters, have been getting correspondence since

We have sent out additional information to people, and 180,000

flyers were sent out to rural B.C. just to say: “If you need to sign up,

phone.” We’ve had people on the phone lines ready to help people sign

up. And 50,000 letters have been sent out since this process started,

and 67,000 brochures have been distributed.

We have had ads. We have worked with the B.C. Cattlemen’s

Association, the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, the B.C. Groundwaters

Association and many others. We’ve put hundreds and hundreds of ads into

newsletters and magazines to say to people: “You need to sign

up.”

What we need to remind people is that we need to ensure that we

are taking care of water in this province. I don’t need to remind

anybody in this province that last year, last summer, we had drought.

Vancouver Island was in drought conditions. We need to ensure that we

know who is using the water. We need to ensure that it’s done

properly.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, supplemental.

L. Doerkson: If nothing, that answer absolutely highlights why people are

confused and afraid of the rules going forward. You did not answer the

question, Minister. I’ll try again.

Why is it that the cabinet ministers won’t take and accept

responsibility for this registry? They’re certainly happy to accept a

$20,000 raise. The minister does not want to talk about what might

happen, so let’s talk about what is happening.

Linda Dunn of Barrier got a bill for $1,300 in fees, backdated for

the entire five years that the NDP has been in power, to run a small dog

grooming shop. Linda says: “It’s a nightmare — that amount of money to

backpay. I nearly fell over and haven’t slept at night.”

The government continues to hammer people with new taxes in this

province — and fees, whether it’s gasoline, used cars, online

marketplace or groundwater. The NDP have bungled this file

badly.

Will the minister now push pause, please, instead of making this

situation even worse?

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to quote the former minister, Mary Polak, who brought

the legislation in.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

“Water is vital for life, and the new Water Sustainability Act is

essential in protecting our environment for future generations.” That

was the members opposite’s Minister of Environment who said

that.

This is crucial work…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: …and we are getting it done. As we said, the best thing that

people can do is to get their applications in. We put the support out to

help people get their applications in. As part of the act that the

members opposite brought in…. Part of that act said that there would be

fees that had to be paid, since 2016, so it is not something that we

dreamed up. It is legislation that was brought in by members

opposite.

We are not going to be unreasonable. We are urging people to reach

out. There’s a 1-800 number. There are people still there working. We’re

saying that if you did not get your application in, there is a fee. That

was made very clear since 2016.

We are saying to you: reach out to the Water Sustainability Act

folks who are waiting to help people, and we will work with people. We

will not be unreasonable.

M. de Jong: Look, I think the concern on the part of many people is that

perhaps their definition of what is reasonable may differ from what the

minister and the government’s definition of reasonable is.

The minister knows, given where she lives in British Columbia,

that these are people and families whose ability to live where they do

in British Columbia is tied to their access to water. Their ability to

operate a small business is tied to their having access to water. They

have had that access, in some cases, for generations.

[2:35 p.m.]

Their concern is this. In many cases, they are still unclear as to

whether or not they’re even required to register. If they don’t, the

minister has acknowledged that there are serious, serious ramifications,

both in terms of fines and continued access to that water.

What they are looking for, and what we are asking from the

minister today, is some assurance that people, that families living in

rural British Columbia will not have their access to life-sustaining

water suddenly cut off because of the implementation of the policy —

that the minister is fine….

That’s what they’re looking for. That’s what we’re asking — some

assurance that they will not be penalized for failing to register for a

process that has not been without problems and, for many, has been very

confusing.

Hon. K. Conroy: As I said, we are following the process that was brought in, under

the legislation, when that member sat at the cabinet table. We have

streamlined the process and made it easier.

What was also part of the legislation is…. There is a fee, if you

didn’t apply before the 1st. So there’s a fee. There are no fines.

There’s a fee.

We have had…. You know, it’s interesting. When we said that the

deadline was March 1, over 40 percent of the applications, in the

entirety, were received in the month of February. People recognized: “Oh

my goodness. This is real. This is going to be implemented.”

It has to be implemented, because we need to know who is utilizing

water. We need to know how much they’re using. We need to ensure that

everybody in the province has fair access to water. Water is critical.

It’s our life resource. It keeps us going. It feeds our animals. You’re

right. The member is right.

We want to ensure that people have submitted their applications.

We’re saying to them: “Phone and get help. People will walk you through

to ensure that you get your application in. There is a fee now. If you

haven’t applied by March 1, there is a fee.” That was part of the

legislation. That has been in place since 2016.

Again, I’ll say…. We put out an MLA package to every MLA’s office.

Actually, I want to thank the members for Cowichan Valley and Saanich

North and the Islands, who worked with my office to ensure their

constituents got the application form. We got hundreds of applications

from those areas.

I really hope members opposite also did that. We know every single

MLA’s office in the province….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Conroy: That is wonderful to hear. It’s really important, as MLAs, that we

are helping our constituents to get the things done they need to get

done.

This is critically important to the province, and I’m glad that

people are actually stepping up.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to present the 2020-21 annual report for the B.C. Utilities

Commission.

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

TO SIT IN THREE

SECTIONS

Hon. M. Farnworth: As part of this afternoon’s business, we’ll be dividing the House

into this chamber and the Douglas Fir Room for the budget

estimates.

By leave, I want to move the motion that for the remainder of the

current session…. I’ll read through it. The opposition have got a copy

of it. It is the same motion that we do every session.

[2:40 p.m.]

[That, for the remainder of the current Session:

GENERAL

1. Certain proceedings of the House may be undertaken in three

sections, designated

Section A,

Section B, and

Section C, to be subject

to the rules that follow.

Section A and

Section C sit in such committee room as may be

designated from time to time, and

Section B sit in the Legislative

Chamber.

Section A and

Section C be authorized to examine all Estimates,

and for all purposes be deemed to be the Committee of Supply, and that

the Standing Orders relating to the consideration of Estimates in the

Committee of Supply and to Committees of the Whole House be applicable

to such proceedings, save and except that, during proceedings in

Committee of Supply, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit

such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

Section A be authorized to consider bills at committee stage

after second reading thereof, and for all purposes be deemed to be a

Committee of the Whole House, and that the Standing Orders relating to

the consideration of bills in a Committee of the Whole House be

applicable to such proceedings.

Section A and

Section B be authorized to examine all Estimates

and any public bill appearing on the Orders of the Day at committee

stage, which may be considered in the order determined by the Government

House Leader in accordance with Standing Order 27 (2).

Section C be authorized to examine all Estimates, which may be

considered in the order determined by the Government House Leader in

accordance with Standing Order 27 (2).

7. Estimates or bills previously referred to a designated

Section

may at any time be subsequently referred to another designated Section,

as determined by the Government House Leader in accordance with Standing

Order 27 (2).

COMPOSITION

8. The Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole or their designate

preside in

Section A and

Section C.

Section A consist of 11 Members, not including the Chair, being

seven Members of the Government Caucus, three Members of the Official

Opposition Caucus, and one Member of the Third Party Caucus.

Section C consist of 11 Members, not including the Chair, being

seven Members of the Government Caucus, three Members of the Official

Opposition Caucus, and one Member of the Third Party Caucus.

11. The Members of

Section A be: the Minister whose Estimates are

under examination or who is in charge of the bill under consideration

and Hon. Lisa Beare, Garry Begg, Bob D’Eith , Hon. Mike

Farnworth , Hon. Selina Robinson, Niki Sharma, Dan Ashton,

Bruce Banman, Karin Kirkpatrick , and Sonia

Furstenau .

12. The Members of

Section C be: the Minister whose Estimates are

under examination and Michele Babchuk , Hon. Adrian

Dix , Hon. David Eby , Hon. Rob Fleming , Hon.

Ravi Kahlon , Hon. Bruce Ralston, Trevor Halford, Norm

Letnick, Mike Morris , and Adam Olsen .

13. Substitutions for Members of

Section A and

Section C be

permitted with the consent of the Member’s Caucus Whip, where

applicable, or otherwise with the consent of the Member.

Section B be composed of all Members of the House.

DIVISIONS

15. When a division is requested in

Section A, the division bells

shall be rung four times and the division shall proceed in accordance

with Standing Order 16, as amended by Sessional Order adopted on

February 8, 2022.

16. When a division is requested in

Section B, the division bells

shall be rung three times, at which time proceedings in

Section A and

Section C shall be suspended, and the division shall proceed in

accordance with Standing Order 16, as amended by Sessional Order adopted

on February 8, 2022.

17. When a division is requested in

Section C, the division bells

shall be rung five times and the division shall proceed in accordance

with Standing Order 16, as amended by Sessional Order adopted on

February 8, 2022.

18. If a division is underway in

Section A or

Section C at the time

that a division is requested in

Section B, the division in

Section B be

suspended until the completion of the division in

Section A or

Section

REPORTING AND COMPLETION

19. At 15 minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment

of the House, the Chair of

Section A and

Section C shall report to the

House.

20. If a report from

Section A or

Section C includes the last Vote

in a particular Ministry Estimate, after such report has been made to

the House, Members of the Government Caucus shall have a maximum of

seven minutes cumulatively, Members of the Official Opposition Caucus

shall have a maximum of four minutes cumulatively, Members of the Third

Party Caucus shall have a maximum of two minutes cumulatively, and

Independent Members shall have a maximum of one minute cumulatively to

summarize the Committee debate on that Ministry’s Estimates. Such

summaries shall be in the following order:

a. Independent Members;

b. Third Party Caucus;

c. Official Opposition Caucus; and

d. Government Caucus.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 4, Skilled Trades

Act.

In Committee of Supply in

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, it will be the

estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 4 — SKILLED TRADES BC ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 4;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

On clause 1.

G. Kyllo: I’m not sure if the minister wanted to make some opening comments

at the start of committee stage. No? Okay. Great.

It’s certainly my privilege and honour to stand as the critic with

the responsibility for Labour and Skills Training. It’s a very important

piece of legislation. This is a reintroduction, for the most part, of

legislation that was in place back in the 1990s. It was subsequently

repealed by the previous government.

I certainly have some very in-depth questioning of the minister,

with respect to the challenges that we have, actually, in the workplace

in B.C. right now, with the availability of skilled

tradesworkers.

As the minister and the government have indicated, there’s a

significant shortage of skilled workers in the province currently.

Especially as we start to come out of COVID, we are seeing a real

shortage of workers in general available, not just skilled workers but

workers in general.

Many businesses and shops are finding extreme difficulty in

finding the necessary workers in order to keep their businesses running,

so it’s going to be really important, as we go through this line of

questioning, to have a better understanding of what kinds of data and

research the minister and this government undertook to have a good

understanding of what the implications are going to be on the

availability of workers in order to meet the challenges of a worker

shortage in the province currently.

I just want to again thank the minister and their staff for the

original briefing that was provided to my colleague the member for

Cariboo South, who actually participated in that. I was away for a few

weeks, and I’m just really happy to be back in the Legislature and

having this opportunity to make a series of inquiries on this particular

piece of legislation.

[2:50 p.m.]

As we look to

section 1, I’m wondering if the minister can share

with this House what level of consultation and stakeholder engagement

was undertaken, not just with the broader industry sectors that’ll be

impacted by this legislation but also with First Nations communities

around the province, in contemplating and bringing forward this piece of

legislation.

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member for Shuswap for being part of our

committee today.

Before I begin, I would like to introduce the staff that are with

me today. I have Bindi Sawchuk, who is assistant deputy minister for

workforce development and skills training. As well, I have Tony

Loughran, acting assistant deputy minister for governance and corporate

planning; as well as Emily Cronin, executive director of workforce

development and skills training; and Kelly Fitzsimonds, senior

legislative analyst. Thank you so much for supporting me

today.

I’m also looking forward to having a great conversation about

skills trades training, and thank you so much for your initial thoughts.

I know that we have a skilled trade workers shortage in British

Columbia, and this is exactly what our act seeks to do — to strengthen

our trades model that we have here in British Columbia.

The ten recommended trades that we are recommending to STC were

chosen based on several criteria, including minimizing negative impact

on the labour supply in key industries. The social and economic analysis

conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers indicates that labour shortages for

these ten trades would be minimal, less than 1 percent.

In terms of the question on consultation, we conducted extensive

engagement on skilled trade certification over the summer and fall of

2021, with a goal of learning how we can best support workers, employers

and Indigenous communities to transition to skilled trade certification.

Our ministry’s engagement approach consisted of four streams: employers

and apprentices, the broader public, Indigenous communities and industry

stakeholder representatives.

[2:55 p.m.]

Who did we hear from? We heard from 130 employers, apprentices and

other organizations that participated in eight round table discussions,

balancing rural and urban representation. Also, 54 Indigenous people in

seven dialogue sessions and one-on-one meetings.

AEST staff also met with several key Indigenous partners to gain

further insight into potential impacts of implementation of STC — for

example, IAHLA and FNESC; as well, 30 one-on-one meetings with

stakeholder representatives with the Parliamentary Secretary for Skills

Training, including labour organizations, industry associations, PSIs,

student groups, First Nations and non-public trainers; and lastly, over

860 participants in an online survey with broad representation of

training system participants.

M. Lee: To join my colleague here, I just wanted to probe a little

further, if I may, in terms of the nature of the consultation with the

Indigenous communities and peoples. I know that in appendix A of one of

the consultation reports there is the listing of the 54 bodies,

associations and First Nations, that were consulted with.

Could I ask, first, were the other First Nations and Indigenous

communities in this province that are not listed here, on this list,

also consulted?

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member from Langara for that question. Skilled

trade certification engagement was conducted in the spirit of building

lasting reconciliation and respecting our obligation under the

Declaration Act. We consulted with the First Nation Leadership Council

and Métis Nation B.C. on how to best engage with all First

Nations.

Based on their guidance, we reached out to all First Nations,

Métis and Indigenous service organizations and offered multiple

opportunities for input, including community dialogues, input into the

survey and opportunities for one-on-one meetings or written

submissions.

M. Lee: I am going to turn to

article 19 and 21 of DRIPA in a moment, but

I just wanted to confirm my understanding. From what the minister said,

it sounded like the nature of the consultation with Indigenous

communities and First Nations in this province, over 204, which are not

listed here on appendix A to the consultation document, was based on

notification.

Could I ask the minister to confirm that the nature of

consultation was relying upon notification of the opportunity but not

actually direct engagement and consultation. Is that correct?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: I’m very proud of the work that we have done to consult with

Indigenous stakeholders from all aspects of trades, and we will continue

to do so. So yes, there was a direct notification to all First Nations

and MNBC, with multiple opportunities to provide input. We also followed

up with phone calls and emails.

M. Lee: Well, given the time that I have to probe this level of

consultation, I’m sure that…. It’s surprising for something as important

as this, given the nature of the level of response. By my count, there

are probably 40 First Nations out of 204 that actually responded and

that actually had direct engagement or consultation.

When we look at

article 21 of DRIPA, it talks about the fact that

“Indigenous peoples have the right, without discrimination, to the

improvement of their economic and social conditions, including…in the

areas of education, employment, vocational training and

retraining….”

Is it the government’s view that what is being brought forward

under Bill 4 is done without discrimination against Indigenous peoples

and their right under

article 21 of UNDRIP?

Hon. A. Kang: In response to that, I just want to let the member know and just

refresh his memory that when the current act, which is the act brought

forward by the members of the opposition when they had the opportunity

to be in government…. The ITA Act was brought forward, and there were no

consultations done. In the spirit of reconciliation, we are consulting,

and we have given multiple opportunities for emails and

follow-up.

[3:05 p.m.]

The proposed legislation is related to

article 21, subsection 1 of

UNDRIP and the right to improve economic and social conditions,

including vocational training and retraining, and as requiring

consultation and cooperation under

section 3 of the Declaration

Act.

This is what we are trying to solve with this legislation today:

introducing the skilled-trades certification model in B.C. It is about

putting workers first, all workers here in British Columbia, to help

address the needs of our changing economy now and for the future as we

build a stronger, more inclusive economy in B.C.

In 2003, the previous government introduced legislation which

eliminated compulsory trade requirements, transitioning B.C. to a

voluntary certification model. Therefore, the current model has led to a

trades workforce in which thousands of workers have no formal

recognition of those skills and trades. These workers are often paid

less, they have lower rates of employment stability, and they have

challenges in mobility, as well. This is what we are trying to

solve.

As well, what we are doing here, as our bill, will help ensure

that we have enough trades workers by breaking down barriers to keep

underrepresented and equity-seeking groups such as women, Indigenous

people and new immigrants from becoming certified and increasing the

prestige of the trades to draw more youth into these careers. This will

shift the conversation so that the trades are recognized as critical and

valuable careers in our society — trades careers in the long term;

community building; good-paying, green jobs that support families and

communities.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister. I’m sure that, in

terms of the overall foundations of the bill, the member from Shuswap

will have the opportunity, at length, with the minister to

discuss.

I want to address the first point that the minister made in terms

of the act that was previously brought in by the previous government.

This fails to recognize that, as I’ve been saying in the role that I

have as a critic for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, this

government still does not understand what we did in this House 27 months

ago when we adopted, unanimously, the UN declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples.

That sets a new standard on this government. So the level of

consultation that I’m referring to is not the standard that was set by

the previous government, as good as it was. We’re talking about an

increased standard and the failure by this government to meet that

standard. We’re still waiting for the action plan, and it’s 27 months

later.

But coming back to the impact on Indigenous peoples. It’s referred

to on page 26 of the broader survey on public engagement that when the

question was asked, “Do you identify as urban Indigenous…?” I presume

that the response of 40 percent came from the 60 respondents who

identified themselves as, or as the survey identified as,

Indigenous.

Am I to take it that, in the so-called engagement that this

government has done, based on 60 individuals who responded online, 40

percent of them are urban Indigenous? What is that? We’re talking, well,

20 people, I suppose — 20 people are urban Indigenous, and 40 people are

not. That is the reliance and this is the level of survey that this

government has done. Is that correct?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: We have met the standard for engagement. So with skilled trade

certification engagement, as I said before, we conducted engagement in

the spirit of building lasting reconciliation and respecting our

obligation under the Declaration Act. We continue to do that every step

of the way in different types of programming, but especially in this

entire process.

Like I said before, we did consult with the First Nation

Leadership Council and MNBC on how to best engage with First Nations. We

got that guidance, we got their advice, and then we moved forward. Based

on their guidance, we reached out to all First Nations,

Métis and Indigenous service organizations, and we

offered multiple opportunities for input, which included community

dialogues, input into the survey and opportunities for one-on-one

meetings or written submissions.

We are deeply committed to the input engagement with Indigenous

people, and my ministry will continue and will ensure that we act to

fulfil our obligations. The Indigenous engagement was conducted between

July 2021 and January 2022. Draft legislation was shared with Indigenous

leadership for comment, and feedback was received prior to finalizing

the bill.

For example, a requirement for the ITA to consult with

representatives of Indigenous peoples on the development and the

implementation of the strategic plan and a new object statement were

added to affirm Skilled Trades B.C.’s strategic mandate to promote

participation of Indigenous people in the industry training and

apprenticeship system, including to encourage Indigenous people to

register in and to complete apprenticeship programs.

M. Lee: While I appreciate the response from the minister, there are a

variety of questions that arise from that. But let me just say that….

I’ll make one comment in response. The standard that the minister speaks

about, in terms of the level of consultation under DRIPA…. I wait for

the government to show us and demonstrate what that is, because I have

not heard. The standard of consultation, I don’t expect, is just based

on notification. I think that they, with respect, have lots of

challenges in that area.

Let me ask, though. On page 10 of the consultation report with

Indigenous peoples, it refers, of course, to a number of barriers that

Indigenous peoples have to accessing training, including child care,

being in remote communities and also barriers associated with driver’s

licences. I wonder whether this level of consultation is actually met

and has actually raised up these concerns and what level of assessment

there’s been done by the ministry on what the baseline is, in terms of

this change under this act. How is this proposed bill going to address

these barriers?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Through the consultation, we have heard from Indigenous

stakeholders and Indigenous people who are in the trades that they do

not want to default to the racism of low expectations. They want to be

challenged. They want to participate in the trades, and we have put into

place supports for everyone to be successful and for everyone to be part

of the economy.

Skilled-trades certification requires us to break down barriers

that already exist in the system and create more opportunities for all

workers. Our plan is to introduce supports and resources that directly

address complex factors such as racism and sexism in the workplace;

proximity to post-secondary training; as you have talked about, there’s

child care; but as well, access to transportation; low essential skills

and limited financial resources.

Examples of supports include: apprenticeship advisers, and we have

hired several who are of Indigenous background; understanding the

culture; financial supports; increasing training close to home;

educational programs and training to change behaviour on the worksite

and in the classroom; and essential skills training, upgrading and

exam-writing supports. We know all of these are needed, and we’re going

to make sure that all people are successful as they go into their

journey.

Overcoming these barriers with supports opens more doors to

good-paying and mobile jobs that support families, provide equal

opportunity for underrepresented and equity-seeking groups and recognize

trades workers as critical and valuable to our province.

M. Lee: What is the breakdown of Indigenous peoples who are working in

rural communities that are going to be affected by this new training

regime? What is the actual number, and what is the baseline figure

around where they reside?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: We don’t have that level of breakdown or the number breakdown that

you’re looking for. We do know that there are approximately 8,000

uncertified workers employed across the ten recommended trades, out of a

total of 64,000.

These trades were specifically chosen because of the relatively

low uncertified workers and in order to minimize the potential

disruption of labour supply and training seat capacity — that’s rural

and urban as well — especially when we look towards COVID-19 economic

recovery. So we were very deliberate in our casework and in our studies

of the ways that we can be supportive.

M. Lee: This is the time that I have to participate in this committee

process, and we haven’t really gotten into the identification of the

baseline that I was looking for, for Indigenous peoples in this

province.

If I can take one more example. I’m just trying to assess what the

government…. The government says that they’re going to provide

additional supports to Indigenous peoples in order to meet the new

requirements under this act. I’m not hearing about the definition around

what that is.

If I take, for example, the challenge around Indigenous peoples

who have a barrier around drivers’ licences. What is the percentage,

then, of Indigenous people that are going to be requiring the training

under this act who do not have a driver’s licence? And what is the

estimated cost, by this government, in terms of how they’re going to

assist Indigenous peoples in order to obtain those drivers’ licences? Of

course, you need to get those drivers’ licences in order to reach the

training or even the jobsite.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: I know the member opposite is asking about the supports that we

have. I’m happy to answer that question, but I would like to remind the

member that we are on

section 1. It’s on definition and

interpretation.

The

section does just only define the terms that are meant to have

specific meaning for the purpose of the Skilled Trades BC Act. The

question that you’re asking right now pertains to implementation, but

I’m happy to answer that question for you.

The supports that we are putting in place we are very proud of. It

is to support all British Columbians who want to be part of trades to be

successful. We are committed to ensuring that all workers can become

certified and benefit from certification.

Some of the supports that we have invested in are the 25

apprenticeship advisers who offer direct support to apprentices,

employers and communities in every region of the province. That also

includes Indigenous communities. As I have said before, we also

specifically made a very thoughtful process to make sure that we do hire

Indigenous apprenticeship advisers and those in different regions to

serve that purpose.

We also have an expanded customer service team to answer

questions, support registration and

schedule exams as well as connect

Indigenous trades workers with Indigenous departments within PSIs and

Indigenous education organizations to access individualized supports.

Also, we have Indigenous community-based training programs to ensure

Indigenous learners can receive training close to home, access mentors

as well as have driver’s licence training.

There are currently 16 programs being delivered, with an

additional 22 under development. We will continue to do that work that

is needed, but we will continue to consult on what kinds of services are

helpful and are also needed. We’ll continue to develop…. This is not a

beginning or an end process. This is a journey that we’ll be on

together.

We have a dedicated completions team to work one-on-one with

apprentices who may need additional support to complete the necessary

requirements, including refresher training, tutoring, additional

learning and examination preparation. We also have support and

accommodations to complete the certification program, which includes

pre-exam, one-on-one support such as guidance and assistance, learning

plans and resources, and exam-writing accommodations such as increased

additional writing time, assistive reading technology, private sittings

or translation support.

Also, we have streamlined the application and verification process

for uncertified trades workers applying to challenge the certification

exam. We also have virtual tools to support apprentices with low

essential skills and/or learning disabilities to be more successful in

technical training.

We also have programs connecting apprentice trades workers to ESL

supports and access to a suite of financial supports and incentives,

including grants, tax credits and loans, as well as distance and

flexible learning options for technical training.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

[3:30 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: To help inform the decision-making for the Ministry of Advanced

Education and Skills Training, they engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers to

assess the potential impacts of mandatory certification. In their

report, it actually identified that mandatory certification is likely to

lead to a net decrease in labour supply. It continues on with indicating

that some uncertified workers are likely to leave the trades labour

force, which may lead to a further reduction in labour market

outcomes.

How does the ministry reconcile a report that the government has

engaged on the impacts of mandatory certification with the object of the

corporation, where the report clearly indicates that this particular

bill will lead to a net decrease in labour supply?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you so much to the member opposite for asking this question.

This is a very good question.

We’ve been transparent with our research and the process leading

up to the Skilled Trades BC Act.

As I have said before, we have a long list of supportive services

to support someone in exploring the journey, for someone to be going

through a journey or for them to be recertified or fully certified. We

do believe that with the right supports, all uncertified trades workers

can become certified. That’s why we did the consultation, and we went

out to talk to people. “What do you need? What are the gaps that you

see?”

In addition, we expect to have the flexibility to provide special

temporary work authorizations or exemptions for some workers should this

need be identified during their engagement.

G. Kyllo: The Ernst and Young report. I think the minister referenced

earlier in her commentary a less than 1 percent impact for the ten

recommended trades that are set forward in this bill. If I look to the

report that was undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers, appendix C sets

out a fairly lengthy and in-depth table setting out all of the different

trades. It sets out the apprenticeship share of employment, also

identified a journeyperson’s share of employment and then also lists, in

the last column, an uncertified share of employment. Now, I’m assuming,

and it’s my understanding, that this represents workers that are

currently working in these specific trades that currently do not have

any certification levels.

The minister had indicated that with the initial ten trades that

were identified, there was less than a 1 percent potential impact. But

as I look through the list, the ten trades that have been

identified….

[3:35 p.m.]

For example, motor vehicle body repairs. It indicates that

currently the apprenticeship share of employment is only 6 percent. The

journeyperson share is estimated currently at only between 43 and 64

percent. The uncertified share….There’s a big range here, and I

understand that these estimates were actually provided by the Ministry

of Advanced Education and Skills Training. It indicates that the

uncertified share of employment, just for that particular job sector….

The range is between 8 and 51 percent.

Can the minister just confirm that there is that level of

uncertainty — that potentially up to 50 percent of workers working in

that specific trade currently are not certified?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member opposite for that question.

The range that you have seen in the business case is something

that the business case estimated, because we don’t have a record of

uncertified workers. But we do see that there is a high range, and we

don’t expect to be on the highest end. But it is also why we’re taking

the skills trade certification in two different phases.

When you’re talking about the auto service technician, they do

have a higher number of uncertified workers. When we introduce the ten

initial trades, we’re doing that in two phases. Phase 2 will include the

three automotive trades with lower rates of certification — the

automotive service technician, autobody repairer and

heavy-duty-equipment mechanic.

This phased approach, in addition to providing a one-year

transition period before skilled trade certification trades requirements

are enforced, will enable individuals and employers to easily come into

compliance with skilled trade certification trades requirements. That’s

why we have a longer implementation timeline for automobile, because

we’re looking out for these workers. We want them to be successful, and

we don’t want to be leaving them behind.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

The minister, in her earlier comments, indicated that of the first

initial ten trades that are being considered for implementation, there

would only be a 1 percent impact with respect to this new legislation.

Yet for just one of these trades, the minister’s numbers, which the

minister has shared with us — it’s actually part of the report that the

government has relied upon in tabling this legislation — indicate a

variation from 8 to 51 percent. Up to 50 percent of the workers in this

specific field, and this is from motor vehicle body repairs, currently

may not be certified.

The numbers in the minister’s own report tell a very, very

different story. If I look at the other trades that are listed, I can go

on. Gas fitters, the range is from 23 to 50 percent

uncertified.

Now, the minister said that only 1 percent of workers will be

impacted by this legislation that are currently uncertified, in her

opening comments. Yet the data from which the minister is drawing their

conclusions and tabling this legislation….

Again, for motor vehicle body repairs, 8 to 51 percent; automotive

service technicians, truck and bus mechanics, 7 to 41 percent;

electrical power line and cable workers, zero to 18 percent. These are

huge variations.

I can tell you, categorically, the NOC code 7241, electricians,

and it’s in brackets — except industrial and power systems. So

electricians. The report indicates 58 percent

of the workers in this category are apprentices, 54 to 79 percent are

identified as journeyperson, and it shows that zero percent are

uncertified.

[3:45 p.m.]

I know absolutely, categorically, that is false. The number of

individuals working in the electrical trades field that currently are

uncertified is not at zero percent across this province. So maybe I’ll

back up one step, and I’ll maybe provide the minister an opportunity to

share with us the raw data that was utilized to actually develop this

information from which the ministry is relying on in tabling this very

important piece of legislation.

Will the minister share with us the raw data that was actually

provided to PricewaterhouseCoopers for their evaluation in creating and

compiling this information that the ministry is actually leaning upon in

order to provide guidance for the drafting of this

legislation?

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member opposite for that question.

The AEST LMIO model, based on the B.C. employment and

highest-education background data from the 2016 census…. We have that

census from StatsCan. The data and the research of the

PricewaterhouseCooper report was a starting point. So we have updated

some estimates of the data, and this was validated by our stakeholder

advisory working group.

[3:50 p.m.]

For the electricians, and these are stats of 2016, from StatsCan,

it’s approximately 13,000; for the estimated uncertified workers, it’s

274. For industrial electricians, it’s a little bit under 4,000, 3,800;

for the estimated uncertified workers, it’s 12. For power line

technicians, we have 1,235 — I’ll just be more exact, I guess; and for

the uncertified workers, it’s 36.

For gas fitters, it was 1,040; for the uncertified workers, it’s

39. For steamfitters and pipefitters, we have 2,460; for the uncertified

workers, it’s 102. For refrigeration and AC mechanics, we have 2,570;

for the uncertified workers, it’s 348. For sheet metal workers, we have

2,515; for the estimated uncertified workers, it’s 458. For high-duty

equipment mechanic, we have 5,220; for the estimated uncertified

workers, it’s 856.

To the member’s question, for the automotive service technicians,

there are 17,575 that are employed, and 4,669, approximately estimated,

are uncertified. For motor vehicle body repairers, it’s 4,145; for the

estimated uncertified workers, it’s 1,356.

G. Kyllo: With respect to the information that the minister has provided,

the census data she referred to was from 2016. That’s a full six years

ago, certainly not current data. The minister indicated that there has

been additional, I guess, consultation, maybe with some of the

stakeholder groups, to support or verify those numbers. I can assure the

minister that those numbers are grossly inadequate and unrealistic,

especially when it comes to the electrician trade.

From the information the minister just provided, when it comes to

the automotive technicians, I believe the minister had indicated that

there were 17,000 working in the field, 4,000 uncertified. Well, 4,000

on 17,000; that’s 23½ percent. So 23½ percent of the workers working in

just that trade alone are currently uncertified, yet the minister is

trying to make this House believe or to inform this House that only 1

percent of workers were going to be impacted by this

legislation.

I’ll give the minister an opportunity to see if she’d like to

maybe correct that statement, because it’s obvious and apparent, by the

minister’s own information that she has relied upon, that a

significantly higher number than 1 percent of workers are uncertified

and are going to be impacted by this particular legislation.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you so much for asking for clarification. I know the PwC

report has said that there are no more than 700 that could potentially

leave the workforce. We read the report, and we understood that. That’s

why we went out to consult: to ask, to see what types of supports can be

put in place to support people to completion or to retain people in the

system. The work that we are doing is taking the report and using it to

make sure that people who want to pursue the trades can be

successful.

G. Kyllo: I think data is important. The information which the minister is

relying upon is incredibly important. The words that are being shared in

this House are certainly also incredibly important.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has indicated that this particular piece of

legislation will likely lead to a net decrease in labour supply. The

information that’s provided in this document, and that the ministry is

relying upon in tabling this legislation, has indicated that 23½ percent

of automotive technicians are actually uncertified. It also indicated

that for motor vehicle body repairers, 8 to 51 percent are

uncertified.

Now, the minister has shared with us that the proposal is for

these initial ten trades to be brought in under two specific phases. The

minister had also indicated that for the motor vehicle body repairers,

it would be implemented over a one-year transition period.

Can the minister share with this House how many apprenticeship

skills training positions are currently available in the province of

B.C. for motor vehicle body repairers, and if there are sufficient seats

in order to satisfy upwards of a 50 percent increase in one year alone?

Where I’m getting at in this is that the implementation schedule, to me,

seems incredibly rushed. What I certainly don’t want to see…. I don’t

think any British Columbian, especially anybody that’s working in that

particular trade….

We’ll likely hear many stories of individuals that might have been

working in that field for the last 20 years. They have all the necessary

skill sets to actually complete and conduct the work of that particular

trade, but they have yet to go through any kind of a certification

program. At a certain point in time when it becomes compulsory, that

individual no longer will be able to actually earn a living for his

family in this specific trade, unless that individual goes and

undertakes this very important skills training work.

[4:00 p.m.]

I certainly don’t deny that there’s value in having trade

certification, but it’s incredibly important to ensure that the ministry

has appropriate training programs available to satisfy the entire need,

or what we will likely see is individuals that might have worked in a

particular trade for 20-plus years suddenly being told: “Sorry. We

appreciate you have the skill set. We appreciate that you’ve been

working in this field for the last 20 years. But because of this bill,

you can no longer generate an income for your family.”

I have great certainty that there is a gross shortage of seats

available in order to meet the pending demand that is going to be

forthcoming, let alone the cost that is going to be borne by these

individuals — travel, accommodation, trying to find the opportunity to

actually find a seat that is available so they can actually take the

necessary certification.

It’s important, as we look to this legislation, that we have some

comfort from the minister and this government that they will ensure that

nobody is going to lose their job and lose their ability to continue to

provide for their families on account of the change in

policy.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you so much for that question. That question had a lot of

really good thoughts in it, and we want to make sure that we collect all

these for you.

No, the employers will have one year to support uncertified

workers to come into compliance from when their trade is designated as a

skilled trades certification trade. And I am very confident, as we talk

to our training facilities and post-secondary institutions, that there

is capacity there.

Designation will occur through regulation. If an em­ployer

has too many apprentices to meet the ratio, the ITA will work with

employers to find more journeypersons to help them meet the ratio

requirements.

What we are doing here is helping employers and apprentices and

those who want to enter trades, every step of the way, to become

successful, because we’re not putting up red tape. We’re actually

creating red seal, and this is what we are trying to do: to put value

back. I do want to emphasize that while most employers are already

meeting the proposed ratio, if some employers demonstrate that they

cannot come into compliance, they will be able to apply through ITA for

a temporary adjustment.

As well, I know that you also talked about capacity. Access to

in-classroom trades training is a priority that won’t change with the

introduction of skilled trades certification. We expect more

tradesworkers to access apprentice training seats and are confident that

the majority can be handled by post-secondary training

institutions.

During the engagement, we have heard concerns that the skilled

trades certification may create wait times for specific trades programs

in some regions that already are experiencing high demand. That is why

we are introducing STC trades in phases so that the system has time to

respond and is ready to welcome additional trades students.

As well, we are hearing from people what they need. That is why

three weeks ago we made an announcement of an additional investment of

new money, $5 million over three years, to increase apprentice training

supports and program seats so that apprentices can access training when

and where they need it.

As well, we do know that just because workers will become

uncertified doesn’t mean that they don’t have avenues to certify. Of the

4,000 workers that we know, approximately 2,200 workers in automotive

service will challenge the exam. They’re already in the system. They

have the hours. They have the knowledge and ability. They just need to

challenge, so they don’t need be to part of the in-class or the training

system.

While they are challenging the exam, they can continue to work as

usual. This component will not require seats if people are challenging

the exam. So there is capacity. There are supports.

The purpose of this legislation is to bring back prestige to the

tradespeople and to put value back — definitely not to create any

barriers — because we have heard what tradespeople need. And we are

working to provide the supports and services that I previously have

mentioned.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for that response. I appreciate that the

ministry is going to make best efforts to ensure that there are enough

trades-training seats in order to satisfy the significant demand that is

going to be placed upon government associated with this legislation. But

what I didn’t hear was that there is going to be a guarantee.

[4:10 p.m.]

As I indicated earlier, individuals that may be already working in

these specific fields that are being impacted by these ten initial

certified trades are not going to be guaranteed the opportunity to have

a seat in order to obtain that necessary certification. I might also add

that there are significant costs that will be borne by employees when

they undertake this certification.

The federal government has done a great job in recent years on

making an easy transition from employment, with no waiting period to go

onto EI for their skills-training time, but it only pays 55 percent of

their gross wage. So right out of the gate, there is a reduction in

pay.

In addition to that, if you happen to live in maybe even a remote

riding like Shuswap, the trades training is not available just down the

street. The individual will have to travel to an outside jurisdiction,

whether it be Kelowna or Kamloops or Vancouver, in order to take that

trades training — travel costs, accommodation costs. Good luck trying to

find it.

A foundational skills-training program could be upwards of ten

weeks. Try to find accommodation in the Lower Mainland for ten weeks

when you live in a small, little community. Meanwhile, somebody is going

to have to provide for your family while you’re away taking that

foundational skills training. It is a significant burden.

I appreciate the object of this bill of increasing trades. But as

was identified back in the 1990s and then in 2003 when the compulsory

trades component was actually removed and moved to a voluntary

apprenticeship program, it’s had great success — I believe, over a 350

percent increase in the number of apprentices over that time period. But

this legislation will put considerable cost burden on the backs of

employees, and it will also take workers out of the workforce. We have

an overheated labour market currently.

As I said at the outset of my commentary when we started to debate

this piece of legislation, there are worker shortages throughout British

Columbia. You just have to walk down the street and see the number of

help-wanted signs. I was talking to a contractor only a few weeks ago

that indicated he’s turning work down because they cannot find enough

certified trades. In one instance, he actually had to pull back and

rescind a house contract because he did not have the available skills

trades or availability of labour in general in order to satisfy that

particular contract.

What will happen when all of these workers go to undertake their

skills training? It’s going to take them out of the workforce. These are

not my words, Minister. These are the words of the individuals who are

hired to actually complete this report. They’re the ones that are

setting out and identifying the significant concern on the net decrease

in labour supply.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report also goes on to say, a report

commissioned by government…. It outlines that “without sufficient

support from government and employers, members of some equity-seeking

groups — including Indigenous workers, immigrants and those with

disabilities — are likely to exit the trades labour force at a higher

rate than workers….” So there are some significant concerns on the

impact.

I have a friend who has been working in the electrical field for

the last 15 years. He’s getting close to 60 years of age. When I was

chatting with him about this new compulsory trades program, he said:

“What? I’m going to have to go back to school?” A very talented

individual, he knows the trade inside-out. He’s been working under the

supervision of a journeyman red seal electrician for many, many years.

He’s paid a rate that is almost commensurate with a journeyman

electrician.

Because government deems that compulsory trades are the topic of

the day — with a lot of pressure, I’m sure, being received by the

building trades unions and other large union organizations in the

province — they’ve decided that that worker now has to go to school or

trades certification program in order to continue to provide for his

family.

That, I think, is extremely concerning, especially with the labour

shortage that we currently have at hand. Now, I know that we’re still

just getting on to

section 3.

I think, with that, maybe I will take my seat, and we’ll move on

to some subsequent sections of the bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

On clause 5.

[4:15 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: When there is reference to the duties that the board could

delegate, can the minister provide a bit of clarity on what specific

duties could be delegated?

Hon. A. Kang: Before I answer this current question, I would like to take an

opportunity to answer the previous questions which I didn’t get an

opportunity to do, so I’m going to just do that right now.

I did hear that there were concerns about workers who are in the

field for a long time and not having the opportunity or not having the

time to go back to school, or they’re at an age where going back to

school doesn’t make sense to them. That’s exactly what we’re not doing.

We’re not doing that. Challenging the exam, one can continue to

work.

There are also timings that…. There are five years to take the

challenge as well, so there is plenty of time. For someone who is 60 and

might be retiring at 65, then they don’t need to take that challenge.

It’s not about going back to school and getting the basics.

As well, there were concerns about people not able to get

training. In November of 2021, 80 percent of IT apprentice survey

respondents agreed they were able to take technical training at a time

and location that was convenient to them. The source of that is the IT

annual apprentice survey, so I would advise the member to take a look at

that.

As well, the question on employees and employers and their

concerns. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, in 2021…. This is the largest

and most broadly based business association in British Columbia, and

they represent more than 120 chambers of commerce and boards of trades,

and 36,000 businesses of every size and every sector and

region.

[4:20 p.m.]

In 2021, the chamber released a report with recommendations to

government that included: “Should discontinue modularized training and

certification and…should reinstate compulsory certification, in

alignment with the rest of Canada, accompanied by using a clear

framework for the review of trades with an effective compliance and

enforcement policy, based on evidence-based analysis and input from

industry.”

That’s exactly what we have been doing. Last point is that it

should include that first- and second-year apprentices should be

sponsored by a company prior to registering for school.

As well, what’s the problem here that we’re trying to solve with

skilled trades certification? Introducing the skilled-trades

certification model in B.C. is about putting workers first to help

address the needs of our changing economy, for now and the future, as we

build a stronger and more inclusive economy in B.C.

In 2003, when the previous government introduced legislation that

eliminated the compulsory trade require­ments, transitioning B.C.

to an open labour market really hurt this industry. The current model

has led to a trades workforce in which thousands of workers have no

formal recognition of their skilled trades, and these workers are often

paid less and have lower rates of employment, stability and

mobility.

By implementing skilled-trades certification in B.C., we will make

sure that workers are credentialed to the highest possible skill level

to meet the future demand of a strong, inclusive and sustainable

economy. We have heard that there are challenges. There are gaps. That’s

why we have supportive services in place.

Now, to answer your current question right now about delegating,

the board is able to delegate almost every­thing, except the

bylaw-making authorities and having a review officer. So just two things

that the boards cannot delegate.

G. Kyllo: I’ve got a couple of other follow-up questions. Maybe rather than

asking them one at a time, I’ll ask a few questions, and if the minister

would be kind enough to answer those together, that would be

great.

The questions are: who may the board delegate to? Then the other

portion to that question would be: why has it changed that the powers

and duties of the board may exercise powers under the act? This appears

to be a bit of a shift. If there’s a shift to regulation in an OIC, how

would the board supervise or delegate those powers?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The board can delegate authority to the CEO, an employee of the

Crown corporation. These provisions bring it into line with other, more

modern Crown legislation, as we have seen updated in our province and

other provinces.

G. Kyllo: The minister has indicated there are initially ten trades that are

being contemplated being implemented as part of this legislation. Can

the minister confirm with this House that the ten trades that have been

identified are the only ten that are proposed to be implemented as part

of this initial piece of legislation? If she can set out, specifically,

which trades will be under the phase 1 implementation, which trades

under the phase 2 and what those timelines are.

I think it’s really important that businesses around the province

have certainty around what the expectation levels are. I’m just looking

to see if the minister would be able to provide that clarity to the

House.

Hon. A. Kang: We are introducing ten initial trades in two phases. The first

phase is electrical and mechanical trades by 2022. Phase 2 is automotive

trades by 2024.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

We are contemplating that phase 1 will be those trades with the

highest certification rates, so three electrical trades — construction

electrician, industrial electrician, power line technician — and four

mechanical trades: refrigeration and air conditioning mechanic,

steamfitter, sheet metal worker, gas fitter.

Phase 2 will include three automotive trades with lower rates of

certification: automotive service technician, autobody repairer and

heavy-duty-equipment mechanic.

This phased approach, in addition to providing a one-year

transition period before skills trade certification trade requirements

are enforced, will enable the individuals and employers to easily come

into compliance with skills trade certification trade

requirements.

[4:30 p.m.]

Our long-term vision is to provide opportunities for industry to

submit requests or recommendations to the ITA, who will present

recommendations to government for approval of additional trades for

skilled trades certifi­cation so that more workers and employers

can realize the benefit of certification.

The Chair: Member.

G. Kyllo: Welcome back to the chair, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

So I’m clear, the minister had indicated phase 1 implementation in

2022 and for phase 2, 2023. Sorry, the minister was just signalling to

me. If the minister could just provide a bit more clarity. Like, is that

at any time during the year? When would be the deadline, the date, by

which an employee will have to have either challenged the certification

requirement or, at the very minimum, actually achieved their first year

of apprenticeship in order to continue to work in all of those

respective trades? I’m just looking for a bit more clarity as far as

timeline, both for phase 1 and phase 2.

Then if the minister could also clarify and actually just provide

some clarity to this House: will it be only these initial ten trades

under this timeline, or is government giving themselves the ability to

make adjustments and changes both to timelines and to the number of

trades through an order-in-council? Do we have the minister at her word

that what is presented here today is with certainty what is being

anticipated for implementation?

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you for asking for clarification.

Phase 1 will be June 2022, so these trades will have one year to

comply or to register as an apprentice or to challenge the exam. Phase 2

will be 2024, June, and they will also have one year.

To confirm, yes, only these ten trades in this particular

timeline.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister. That is very helpful and, I think,

comforting, that there will be no surprises, so thank you for

that.

In one of the minister’s previous answers, the minister referred

to ratios. I’d made a note, so I’m coming back to that now. I’m just

wondering if the minister might be able to provide a bit more clarity.

When she referenced ratios, what was she was referring to? If she just

could provide a bit more clarity on those ratios. I’m assuming that’s

likely the ratio of journeyperson or red seal–certified journeyperson to

apprentices, but I just want to have a bit more clarity with respect to

what that reference was to.

Hon. A. Kang: The journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio prescribes the maximum

number of apprentices that can be supervised per one journeyperson. We

are considering a ratio based on input and recommendations from industry

consultations, as well as other provinces’ ratios, but no decision has

been made yet.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister provide some clarity to this House on when they

anticipate establishing those ratios and how those will be communicated

out to the various industry groups?

[4:35 p.m.]

I guess as a further part of that question…. If we look to

electrical trades, for example, the ratio for an industrial electrician

working on a large highrise construction site or maybe in a power

substation versus, maybe, an electrician that might be working in a

manufacturer — a manufacturer of modular homes, as an example. Very

different environments.

Is it being contemplated that those ratios will be adjusted based

on the, I guess, complexity of the work that’s being undertaken by those

specific trades?

Hon. A. Kang: We do expect that June 2022 is when we will be having more clarity

on the ratios, and it will be enforced in 2023. The ITA will be

communicating this. Maybe some clarity, just on the question on the

adjustments that you were asking.

Then, just lastly, I wanted to let the member know that

section 32

is the

section that is talking about ratios, so perhaps we could talk

about this at a later

section as well.

Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On clause 8.

G. Kyllo: Yeah, just briefly on this particular section, if I could just

catch up here. With respect to the bylaws, I’m just trying to ascertain:

if the board happens to disagree with the direction of the minister, who

has the ultimate say?

This, I think, just comes back to a bit more of a discussion

around who, ultimately, is in control of the organization. The concern,

quite often, especially with a separate Crown corporation, is the

potential for minister overreach. I’m wondering if the minister might be

able to provide a bit more clarity with respect to this particular

section and how, if there is a disagreement between the board and the

minister, that is reconciled. Or does the minister ultimately have the

ultimate say on directing the Crown corporation?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The government has oversight over their Crown corporation, so the

minister can ask for a bylaw to be amended from time to time, but

ultimately, we will be working together to get the best advice and to

get the best bylaw. Ultimately, it will be the government that would

have the power to amend a board bylaw.

Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On clause 11.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for that last response. Under

section 11

— this is financial administration, strategic plans and reports — I’m

just wondering: are there any user fees that industry will be required

to pay? Under this particular section, are there any user fees that

industry will be required to pay?

Hon. A. Kang: There will be no impact on the industry. This is solely for the

operation of the Crown corporation. This is for the Crown corporation to

have a financial fiduciary duty to report to government, and that they

are doing this in a sound, responsible way. This also mirrors other

Crown corporations and their management — nothing to do with

industry.

[4:45 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Great. Thank you very much for that clarification.

There’s reference to the SkilledTradesBC to produce an annual

report after the end of each fiscal. I wonder if the minister could just

clarify when those reports are anticipated to be actually tabled. As

well, just wondering if the minister sees any potential barriers

preventing SkilledTradesBC from producing the strategic plan before

April 1, 2023, which is the current deadline that’s kind of established.

So just a bit of clarity on those two items.

Hon. A. Kang: The end of the fiscal year is March 31. The annual report would be

ready within two months, so approximately the end of May. As well, there

are no problems or any barriers for our strategic plan to be tabled on

April 1, 2023.

Clauses 11 and 12 approved.

On clause 13.

G. Kyllo:

Section 13. Will this

section give powers to create new programs

at different institutions? If so, has the minister considered expanding

training seats or maybe the ability of providing training through

alternative means to increase the gross number of seats that are

available annually in the province?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: This is a carryover from the old act to the new act, so this

section provides powers to the corporation for the designation of

apprenticeship programs and approval of industry training programs under

the act, and for the development and oversight of these

programs.

I just want to, once again, really emphasize that we do have the

capacity right now to provide programming for the first ten STC trades,

and we expect to be able to meet this demand. But also, we will be

putting these STC trades into two different phases so that we are able

to meet the capacity. In addition to that, we are investing another $5

million, as I have said before, to create more seats and to create more

support.

G. Kyllo: Thank you, Minister, for reminding me of that. The $5 million over

three years is, really, a bit of a pittance, when you have a look at the

implication and the significant number of increased training

requirements in the province. It sounds like a big number, but $5

million over three years is a very small amount of money, when I have a

look at the significant additional burden that’s going to be placing on

these accreditation institutions.

With respect to this particular

section of the bill, it’s been

pretty apparent from this government that it has a propensity for

supporting building trades unions and discriminating against progressive

unions like Canada West or the Christian Labour Association of

Canada.

Can the minister share with this House: will equal opportunity be

provided for additional trades-training opportunities for progressive

unions, or will they continue to show discrimination and only want to

support trades-training opportunities with the larger, better known

building trade unions?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: Just to clarify that. The $5 mil