Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, October 6, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 226

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 33 — Food Delivery Service Fee Act

Hon. R. Kahlon

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Resolution of Pride celebration issue in White Rock

T. Halford

Stigma of mental illness and addiction and MLA’s experience

A. Singh

Enactus Okanagan College national competition win

R. Merrifield

Sheila Pither

M. Elmore

Support for human rights in Iran

S. Furstenau

Economic benefits of environmental and social investments

R. Russell

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M213 — Wildlife Amendment Act (No. 3), 2022

A. Olsen

Oral Questions

Affordability issues and salary increase for MLAs

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Farnworth

Tax policies and gas prices

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Affordability issues and profits to corporations

S. Furstenau

Hon. S. Robinson

Review panel report on drug toxicity deaths and implementation of recommendations

T. Halford

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Government action on issues in health care system and role of Health Minister

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

Tabling Documents

Guarantees and indeminities report, fiscal year ended March 31,

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 32 — Gaming Control Act

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

Hon. L. Beare

B. Stewart

Hon. M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 28 — Municipal Affairs Statutes (Property Taxation) Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. S. Robinson

P. Milobar

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2022

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: D. Coulter.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Heyman: There are some special guests joining us in the gallery today, and

it’s my pleasure to introduce them. We have Drew Milne and his family.

Drew’s an inspector with the B.C. conservation officer service. He is joined

by his wife, Jenna Milne, and mother, Janice Devlin.

Drew is being recognized, and I’ll have the opportunity to do that

later today, as the 2021 Conservation Officer of the Year, which is awarded

annually to an officer for notably exemplifying the values and hard work of

the conservation officer service: integrity, public service and protection

of our environment.

Before Drew joined the conservation officer service, he spent six

years serving Canada as part of our armed forces. He’s held a number of

postings over the years, including in Atlin, the most northern posting in

B.C. He also took a time-out from the conservation officer service to join

the environmental assessment office as a compliance and enforcement officer,

specializing in Aboriginal liaison.

Since that time, Drew has supervised and mentored officers as a

sergeant in the Kootenays, helped to train them and sharpened their skills.

His leadership experience and his background helped shape the role he’s in

today, which is overseeing officers in our south coast region, including the

Lower Mainland and the Sea to Sky corridor. It’s a challenging job, as we

talked about earlier this week, but Drew inspires the officers he works with

to be the best that they can be.

It’s my honour to recognize Drew Milne — he’s deeply deserving of the

recognition — and to welcome his family here today. I know this House will

join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Richmond South Centre.

H. Yao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the accommodation. Today I want to take a

moment to introduce the newest addition to my family. MacKinley Yu Yao

joined us in early September, and of course, I brought my daughter back,

Mackenzie Yi Yao, to join everybody.

I just want everybody to make my two

little ones welcome. Thank you, everyone.

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I have my executive assistant, Jocelyn Fan, and

the newest addition to my minister’s office at Advanced Education and Skills

Training, Tiffany Mai. They have been a really valuable team in Advanced

Education, and without them, we wouldn’t be able to be as smooth and work as

well as we can. Not only are they great staff, but they’re also great

friends.

Would the House make them feel very welcome.

T. Wat: In the public gallery today, there are three very special guests. I

want all of you to listen to my very special guests. It is really a great

pleasure for me to introduce them.

They are the Emily Mo, the director of the Hong Kong Economic and

Trade Office in Toronto; Ivy Yue, the deputy director; and my very good

friend, and resident in Richmond, Catherine Yuen, the principal consultant

of western Canada. They have been instrumental in fostering the relationship

between Canada and Hong Kong, with a particular focus on fostering the trade

and economic ties.

I wish everybody will join me in welcoming Emily, Ivy and

Catherine.

Hon. R. Fleming: It’s a pleasure to introduce a constituent of mine today who’s in the

gallery, Annette Toth, who has been a four-term vice-president of the union

MoveUP, representing 5,000 members of the ICBC bargaining unit. She, indeed,

herself is moving up in the national labour scene now. She was recently made

president of the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union and now

represents 33,000 members from coast to coast.

[10:10 a.m.]

I don’t know if her partner, Al Bieksa, is here. He, of course, is

part of this labour power couple as well, a longtime steelworker, Canadian

delegate to Pittsburgh and a representative to the United Nations

International Labour Organization.

Annette, I want to congratulate you and thank you for coming to the

Legislature today. I know the House also wants to give our best wishes to

your stepson, Kevin Bieska. We’ve forgiven him for going from the Canucks to

the Mighty Ducks and are wishing him well in retirement and his broadcast

career.

Would the House make Annette most welcome this morning.

A. Olsen: I rise today to introduce several guests who are joining us in the

legislative precinct today.

Calvin Sandborn is the legal director of the

UVic Environmental Law Centre, and his wife and close adviser, Margaret

Sandborn, is here. Jack Jones is an articled law student at the UVic

Environmental Law Centre. Helen Davis and Richard Weir are both registered

professional biologists with Artemis Wildlife Consultants, and Katherine

MacRae is the executive director of the Commercial Bear Viewing Association.

They’re here today to call attention to the important issue of protecting

bear den habitat.

Can the house please make them all feel very welcome today.

Hon. K. Conroy: I so rarely get to introduce people. I’m quite excited about this.

They’re not from the Kootenays, though. They’re actually from the Quesnel

area. Josh Pressey is here. He’s the regional executive director for

forests. He’s down here with his wife, Nicole Pressey. Nicole is the

regional agrologist for Agriculture. I told the Minister of Agriculture that

I’m introducing them on our behalf — both of ours. Nicole is here for her

25-year Long Service Award that she received last night.

Could you please join me in all welcoming both Josh and Nicole to the

gallery.

Hon. K. Chen: Today I just want to give my best wishes and wish happy birthday to a

dear friend of mine who is also a colleague in this House. She has a long

history fighting for social justice issues and climate action. She cares a

lot about her community, children and families. Many of you know that she

was actually instrumental in building the Childcare B.C. Plan in 2017 and

One thing I’m so proud of is that I have the ability to work alongside

many amazing colleagues in this house with so much diverse experience and

background. I think, for the first time in B.C.’s history, we have so many

MLAs with young families, children, and also a lot of millennials in this

House.

While this birthday girl is just a little older than millennial age,

we’ve granted her honourary membership for our millennial caucus. We were

going to dance and sing her a song, but we don’t want to get kicked out of

the House.

I just want to ask all the members in this House to wish happy

birthday to the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

P. Alexis: My daughter is watching today from Abbotsford. She was born in Ibaraki

Prefecture in Japan 33 years ago, so another birthday. I had to study very,

very hard to deliver in Japanese, but the results were wonderful, and I am

extremely proud of my daughter, who’s bold, beautiful and brilliant.

Will

the house wish her a happy birthday today — Katherine Antigone. Thank you so

much.

Hon. G. Chow: I would also like to give a welcome to the Hong Kong Economic and

Trade Office in Toronto — Director Emily Mo and her delegation. She is

hosting a community lunch today, and I look forward to meeting her there to

discuss trade as well as cultural exchange, because we do have the Chinese

Canadian Museum in Victoria, which I really want to talk to her

about.

A lot of the early immigrants hailed from Hong Kong because that was

the only port you could come to Canada, in the 1800s. Also, the Hong Kong

Maritime Museum is actually staffed by a Canadian who used to be at our

Maritime Museum in Vancouver. So I look forward to discussing cultural

exchanges.

[10:15 a.m.]

M. Dykeman: Today one of my lovely CAs, Madison Portner, is graduating from

university. She has finished her undergraduate degree. I’m super proud of

her and very excited about where this will take her for the next step in her

journey.

I was wondering if the House could please join me in congratulating

her.

C. Oakes: I, too, would like to recognize Josh and Nicole Presley. I had the

opportunity a few weeks ago, with Nicole, to attend a 100th anniversary of a

ranch in my riding. One of the things…. It’s an opportunity for us to say,

with great pride, that the Cariboo is such a rich agricultural part of this

province. We look at food security, and we look at all of the hard work, the

sweat equity that goes into 100 years of making sure that, for multi

generations, we have ranches that we are able to pass on from family to

family. It makes me incredibly proud.

Nicole is a big part of that — supporting our constituents — and Josh,

you know the forestry side. I just am incredibly proud of the work that this

team does.

Of course, may we have many, many more 100th anniversaries of

agricultural families, ranchers in this great province of British

Columbia.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 33 — FOOD DELIVERY SERVICE FEE ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Food Delivery Service Fee

Act.

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

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 33, the Food Delivery Service Fee

Act.

This bill will help our restaurants navigate the impacts of the

pandemic, global inflation, supply chain disruptions and labour

shortages by making permanent the temporary fee cap protections that

were implemented under the COVID-19 Related Measures Act. By limiting

the amount that food delivery platforms can charge a restaurant for core

services, we will continue to help our restaurants gain more certainty

about their costs and make it easier for them to plan for the

future.

This bill will combine the two fee caps under the COVID-19 Related

Measures Act — the 15 percent for delivery fees and the 5 percent cap on

additional fees — into a 20 percent cap for core services. This bill

will also ensure that driver protections under the CRMA are continued by

prohibiting food delivery platforms from reducing driver compensation

because of this legislation.

Many small businesses and restaurants operate on small margins. A

temporary fee cap provided much-needed relief to restaurants and

businesses, bringing some stability and certainty during very uncertain

times. By introducing this bill and making this fee cap permanent, we’re

continuing our commitment to the restaurant industry to help them

recover, to help them continue to grow and to help them serve

communities across this beautiful province.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 33, Food Delivery Service Fee 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)

RESOLUTION OF PRIDE CELEBRATION

ISSUE IN WHITE

ROCK

T. Halford: I am proud to stand in the House today to speak on a very

important matter in my riding.

In April of 2019, the White Rock Pride Society wanted to rent the

Star of the Sea Community Centre for a fundraiser that was going to be a

dinner and a dance. They were told no because their values did not align

with that of the facility.

In 2019, the White Rock Pride Society filed a complaint with the

B.C. Human Rights Tribunal alleging discrimination. As a result of their

actions, the parties met over the course of several months and discussed

each other’s perspectives, beliefs and experiences in an open-minded and

respectful manner. These discussions were aimed at repairing the

relationship between the White Rock Pride and the parish, together with

fostering mutual understanding and respect. At the heart of this shared

dialogue was an emphasis on respect for the dignity of all

people.

[10:20 a.m.]

Now, I’m proud to say a positive resolution was reached in June of

2022, where the parish and archdiocese jointly issued a statement of

commitment and apology to the White Rock Pride and LGBTQ+ community,

acknowledging and apologizing for those instances where their actions

have caused members to feel unwelcomed and excluded.

Now, I want to point somebody out, and that person is Ernie

Klassen, who is president of the White Rock Pride Society. Ernie has

been an absolute champion for Pride. He has been a champion in our

community. I am proud to call him a friend. He stated that this is a

huge step forward in creating an inclusive and diverse

society.

As a result, both parties are further committed to various actions

and consultations in the spirit of reconciliation, growth and

collaboration, but I can say how proud I am of not only the White Rock

Pride Society but Ernie’s leadership on such an important matter that

had ripple effects across this province.

I want to say thank you, Ernie. You are a true leader in our

community, and I am absolutely proud to call you a friend.

STIGMA OF MENTAL ILLNESS AND

ADDICTION AND MLA’S

EXPERIENCE

A. Singh: Monday, October 10, has been declared by the World Health

Organization as World Mental Health Day. I’ll read what the WHO says in

its introduction, and I’ll say it’s part of my lived experience and many

others here, I think. It’s important for people out there in British

Columbia to see that we here are not immune from being afflicted with

mental health issues and that that exposure is important to help break

through that stigma.

The WHO says: “Stigma and discrimination continue to be a barrier

to social inclusion and access to the right care.” And that is my own

experience. I’ve been sober since August 10 of 2010. In January of 2008,

I woke up one night throwing up blood, volumes of blood. I had had what

was called an esophageal bleed. My drinking had been so extreme that my

liver was failing. Even though my health was in such a tragic state and

any normal person would have stopped drinking, it took me another 2½

years of struggle before I was given the tools that allowed me to

recover.

The stigma and discrimination that exist with addiction and other

diseases like depression, ADHD, amongst many, is so strong that it’s

palpable. “Why can’t you just stop? What’s wrong with you? You’re down

and depressed? Just get out of bed. Pull yourself up. Don’t be weak.

Have a shower. You’ll be okay. You’re just being sensitive. Why can’t

you remember to do that task? Are you stupid?” These are not only the

things that you hear from the world, but they’re so instilled in us that

it’s the internal dialogue that we have with ourselves.

I eventually was able to crawl out of those depths, with the help

of amazing people who showed me hope and showed me that this was a

disease and that it was not a moral, ethical, spiritual or intellectual

failing on my part. Not all are so lucky, and we hear of deaths every

day in this province. They had no choice but to self-medicate with the

poisoned supply to deal with their disease.

There is help out there, and the more light we shine on the issue

of mental health, the more services we provide, the better we will all

be as a global community. That’s why I’m so proud of being on this side

of the House, the side that recognizes that and has taken unprecedented

steps to make life better for the people of British Columbia — critical

care services, increased treatment and intervention, amongst others.

Let’s continue to be a beacon of light and hope for them and let them

know that there are kindred spirits everywhere.

ENACTUS OKANAGAN COLLEGE

NATIONAL COMPETITION

WIN

R. Merrifield: Well, this past weekend Enactus Okanagan College travelled to

Toronto, Ontario, to compete in the Enactus Canada National Exposition

final round. I am so proud to say that this Okanagan team is the first

from western Canada to be crowned the national champion, out of more

than 60 teams across Canada. At the final round, 65 CEOs and executives

judged the five finalist teams on their projects and teams’

entrepreneurial leadership, innovation, business principle application

and sustainable, positive impact.

Their winning project is extraordinary. Unusually Good Food Co.

was inspired by a local student who noticed that large amounts of apples

are wasted each year because they don’t fit the grocery store appearance

standard. In response, the Enactus Okanagan College team worked

alongside the North Okanagan Valley Gleaners to turn these unusual

apples into healthy apple chips that have been distributed to local

schools, food banks and even Guatemala and Ukraine this year.

[10:25 a.m.]

Andrew Klingel, one of Enactus’s faculty advisers and a professor

with Okanagan College School of Business had this to say about the win:

“This award recognizes their resilience and determination to fight food

insecurity and climate change. The true winners are the schools, food

banks and international organizations that have received more than

120,000 servings of apple chips.”

The team didn’t stop there, as the students began producing not

only the chips but juice and other fruit products as well as utilizing

their apple pomace by-product to create apple candles. All this hard

work led to victory at the nationals, and the team will now represent

Canada at the Enactus World Cup, held October 30 to November 2 in Puerto

Rico.

SHEILA PITHER

M. Elmore: Today I rise to pay tribute to Sheila Pither, a mother,

grandmother, friend, teacher, traveller, activist and beloved community

leader who recently passed away peacefully at home, at age 89, in

Vancouver.

As the Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors Services and Long-Term

Care, I had the privilege of working with Sheila in her role as the

president of the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C., also

known as COSCO, which is an umbrella organization made up of seniors

organizations and individual associate members, since 1981.

Under Sheila’s leadership, COSCO actively shared news about our

government’s work that was of concern to their members, in a timely

manner. She also brought forward to our government’s attention

challenges and opportunities facing seniors, families and communities in

the 21st century, in times before and during the COVID-19 pandemic,

until she retired in December 2021.

Her incredible life was captured in an oral history project she

did with the B.C. Labour Heritage Centre in 2019. I was deeply moved and

inspired to hear and learn of her lifelong commitment to grassroots

activism, including speaking up for women’s rights as human rights,

workers’ rights to be treated fairly, children’s rights to play and her

conviction that seniors could be mobilized to help seniors. Through her

profession and passion to help people, Sheila acquired skills at

approaching people who were in crisis. She was a master

negotiator.

Her message to us as elected officials was that one day we all

grow old, and we would want our society to help us live independently

for as long as possible and that we could get the best care in our

golden years. She reminded us that we are stronger together. She

reminded us that it’s a good investment for government to keep seniors

and elders safe and connected to their communities.

Thank you, Sheila, for connecting people around issues that matter

to them and instilling in those who crossed paths with you the idea that

everyone’s voice and unique life experiences matter. Sheila, you will be

dearly missed, and you have inspired countless generations to continue

advancing your legacy.

SUPPORT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN IRAN

S. Furstenau: I stand with the people of Iran who are standing up and standing

together against decades of oppression and intolerance. I stand with

those who are rightly enraged by the senseless death of Mahsa Amini and

with those who were killed before her and those who have died after.

Mahsa was 22 years old.

On September 28, Nika Shakarami, a 17-year-old student, was also

murdered. Mahsa and Nika are among the many who have lost their lives,

and their families are continuing to be harassed by the police to give

false statements.

In the weeks since Mahsa’s death, people in Iran and around the

world have raised their voices, demanding change and calling for

justice, for gender equity, for human rights and for freedom. In this

movement, people of Iran are not only standing up for women but also for

LGBTQ people, Afghans, child labourers, undocumented refugees, migrants,

Baháʼí people, Baloch and Kurd alike. Protests against the government in

Iran have been led by women and girls, but they are not alone. Men and

boys in Iran and people around the world are rising in

solidarity.

[10:30 a.m.]

The response from the Iranian security forces has been brutal.

According to Iran Human Rights, over 150 protesters, including nine

children, have been killed. Many reporters, including the two

journalists who reported Mahsa’s death, activists, scientists, teachers

and families of mourners have been arrested, tortured or have

disappeared.

The tenacity of the people of Iran in the face of violent

oppression is extraordinary, but they should not be abandoned in their

fight for freedom and human rights. The international community, Canada

and B.C. can and must play a role in this fight for justice and

equity.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ENVIRONMENTAL

AND SOCIAL

INVESTMENTS

R. Russell: In August, I had the opportunity to visit CheckMate, one of the

many award-winning — and consecutive 100-point, in this case — wineries

in the Okanagan Valley. They told me their story and showed me in their

vineyard how their investments in regenerative agriculture —

essentially, letting things grow a little unruly under the grapes — was

a risk they’d taken that resulted in them not losing nearly as much

product in the heat domes of 2021.

People and their businesses across B.C. are making these kinds of

investments in environmental and human capital that are returning

financial rewards. We’re building a B.C. economy that is strong, stable

and sustainable. These past couple of years we’ve seen evidence that a

commitment to investing in people can and does result in a thriving

economy. I’m tired of the stale narratives tied to an imaginary

trade-off between jobs and environment — or that investing in the

wealthy will support real people.

Yesterday a group of us met with B.C. Road Builders. We heard

about the great partnerships to rebuild B.C. highways last year, but

also, there are estimates that a $1 investment in built infrastructure

today offsets a $6 to $10 cost tomorrow.

Just as it is with built capital, so it is with investments in

human and natural capital. Take child care. Meaningful investments in

child care meant that the living wage in Metro Vancouver decreased for

the first time recently, bringing more bright minds into the workforce

and building a more enabling and supportive economy.

Or, in my whirlwind tour of Richmond-Steveston on Sunday, Ocean

Legacy’s operation, investing in removing plastics from our ocean. The

passion of those creative minds has resulted in economic energy, coupled

with environmental hope and motivation for youth, building an inspired

and sustainable economy.

Or our exciting mass timber projects. Or the seven of the

Cleantech 100 firms that are based out of B.C. — Ekona, General Fusion,

Ionomr, Carbon Engineering, MineSense, Pani, Svante.

This is building a clean economy. Investing in the place and the

environment that surrounds and sustains us and investing in people is

how we build a bright future. Healthy economies in our communities

demand appreciation of the value of those investments. We are building

an economy that works for people, not the other way around.

A. Olsen: I seek leave to introduce a bill.

Leave granted.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M213 — WILDLIFE

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 3), 2022

A. Olsen presented a bill intituled Wildlife Amendment Act (No. 3),

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to my colleagues. Sorry for the

disruption.

I move that a bill intituled the Wildlife Amendment Act (No. 3),

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

introduced and read a first time now.

For over 20 years, experts have been advocating for laws to

protect bear dens in British Columbia. The province continues to lack a

comprehensive legal protection for bear dens. Despite legislative

protections in Haida Gwaii and the Great Bear Rainforest, much of the

province continues to lack these mechanisms to protect these essential

habitats. As a result, bear dens have been left to a patchwork of

policies by logging companies, which are inconsistent and

unenforceable.

Earlier this year the Environmental Law Centre at the University

of Victoria and the B.C. Sierra Club published a study recommending

provincial legislation that protects bear dens. The act before us today

makes these essential changes. It sets out that if a person disturbs,

molests, damages or destroys a bear den, they have committed an offence.

Further, this protection stands on both Crown and private land, which is

an essential component, given the proliferation of private-managed

forest lands in pockets of British Columbia.

We are currently living through the sixth mass extinction, caused

by human activity. It is more important than ever to protect the

biodiversity of our province, and this includes protecting bear dens,

where bears hibernate, give birth and raise their young.

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

Motion approved.

A. Olsen: I move that this bill be put on the order papers for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M213, Wildlife Amendment Act (No. 3), 2022, introduced, read a

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

[10:35 a.m.]

Oral Questions

AFFORDABILITY ISSUES AND

SALARY INCREASE FOR

MLA s

T. Stone: Well, despite lots of empty NDP promises, life has never been more

unaffordable in British Columbia. The price of everything from gasoline

to groceries to rent — everything has skyrocketed. Yesterday gas prices

in Vancouver were 73 cents a litre higher than they were in Toronto. And

this cost of living crisis is having its greatest impact on families,

families that are struggling to even put food on their

tables.

At times like this, British Columbians expect their elected

officials, their MLAs, to lead by example. But instead, the NDP cabinet

gave themselves a completely undeserved $10,000 retroactive pay raise.

Now, under current legislation, every MLA in this chamber from all three

parties will receive a pay increase of, likely, up to $10,000 each

because MLA wages are tied to CPI, unless this government steps up and

supports freezing a pay wage for this year.

The official opposition believes that accepting a pay increase of

up to 10 percent would be completely out of line with the expectations

that British Columbians have — British Columbians who are struggling, as

I’ve said.

The question is a very simple one to the Finance Minister. As

families struggle with skyrocketing costs, will this government support

the official opposition and put a freeze on MLAs’ salaries for the

forthcoming year?

Hon. S. Robinson: Global inflation is certainly a big challenge, not just here for

British Columbians but certainly across Canada and around the globe.

People are getting squeezed, which is why we have taken significant

steps to help British Columbians. In fact, just this week people have

started to receive their climate action tax credits, and we’ve been

hearing about the impacts that that’s making for average British

Columbians.

In fact, we heard just recently, yesterday and today, from a woman

named Zoe, who said she’s so grateful for the one-time payment: “It

really helps those of us seniors on fixed low incomes. Thank you.” We’ve

heard from Denise, who said: “We regularly don’t get much help from

government, but we received $387, and it really helps. Thank you.” We

heard on Twitter from Nate: “Great way to demonstrate that climate

action and affordability agenda can go hand in hand.”

We have been taking action to help British Columbians. There’s

going to be more coming, because we have heard from British Columbians

how challenging it is.

But I have to say, hearing from the members opposite where

affordability…. When they were in government, they gave tax breaks to

big corporations. The Leader of the Opposition increased ICBC rates by

11 percent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: MSP by 10 percent. Tolls on bridges.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. S. Robinson: They made it harder for average British Columbians. We’re going to

continue to do the work to address what it is that British Columbians

need today and well into the future.

T. Stone: This government’s complete and total lack of support for British

Columbians struggling in this affordability crisis is breathtaking.

Highest rents in the country, highest gas prices in North America — on

and on the list goes. And this government’s been missing in action in

terms of supporting British Columbians.

Leadership is also about leading by example. Unless we, as

legislators, take the necessary step to amend the Members’ Remuneration

and Pensions Act to provide for a freeze this forthcoming year, every

member in this chamber, every MLA, will receive upwards of a $10,000 pay

increase next year — again, against the backdrop of families barely

being able to put food on their tables.

I, frankly, can’t believe that while families are having trouble

making ends meet, this government isn’t willing to stand up today and

just say: “Yes, we are going to lead by example. We will join the

official opposition, and we will make a sacrifice here like British

Columbians are doing.”

[10:40 a.m.]

Moments ago I provided notice to the Clerk of my intention to

introduce a private member’s bill that would freeze MLAs’ salaries,

meaning that while families are facing upwards of 8 percent inflation,

MLAs won’t see any increase in their paycheques. If the government

chooses to introduce their own legislation on this, the government

should know they have the full support of every member of the official

opposition with that legislation.

I want to be clear about something here. This is about principles.

This is about leading by example. This is about understanding that

people are making sacrifices. Our former B.C. Liberal government froze

MLAs’ salaries for four years, 2010 to 2013, amidst a global economic

crisis. Freezing MLAs’ salaries was the right thing to do then. It’s the

right thing to do today.

Will the NDP stand up today and do the right thing, recognize that

families are struggling and agree with the official opposition and

support the official opposition’s call to freeze MLAs’ salaries for the

forthcoming year?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Is the question over, or are you still continuing?

Minister of Finance.

Hon. S. Robinson: All I have to say at this point is: “Holy chutzpah, Batman.” To

hear from those folks over there about freezing wages…. They froze the

minimum wage for years for British Columbians, for the lowest-paid

workers. Then of course they had the youth wage — remember that? — for

young people so that they could….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, are you interested in the answer or not?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: You’re not? We can end question period right now if you

want.

Just show some courtesy, please.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

The Minister of Finance will continue.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, because their chutzpah is on

full demonstration here in this House. The chutzpah to suggest that when

they were in government, they took care of people…. It’s absolute

chutzpah. What they did was they did not allow the lowest-paid workers

in this province to get an increase. They would absolutely not increase

the minimum wage.

I think we need to remember a couple of things. We, too, froze

MLAs’ salaries. We did that just a couple of years ago. We did do

that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. S. Robinson: Their chutzpah is getting away on them again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, that’s enough. Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: If they would be happy to listen, I would be happy to tell them

that I am interested in having a conversation with our House Leader and

Chair of LAMC to consider the proposal.

P. Milobar: It’s quite shocking, though, that the minister fails to see that

the questions have been about personal accountability and responsibility

for ministers and the government and the actions they personally take to

set an example. It should be a fairly simple yes or no, and one would

have hoped that the government and cabinet had already had internal

discussions on something like this, but apparently not.

It’s bad enough that it would result in an upwards of $10,000

raise for every single MLA in here, but I’ll remind the minister and the

rest of cabinet and the public that it’s actually $15,000 for the

cabinet ministers. So it is a significant increase at a time when most

people in the public would not be seeing $15,000 added to their pay

packet.

In fact, a new survey shows that over half of the people in B.C.

say it has become less affordable to feed themselves and their families.

Working men and women in our province in record numbers are being forced

to go to food banks now to try to be able to provide for their families.

This Thanksgiving we will have the most families in the country forced

to make changes to their Thanksgiving meals because they can’t afford

the cost of food.

[10:45 a.m.]

But the minister can’t give a simple answer whether or not she

will decline a $15,000 raise this year. While families have to tighten

their belts this Thanksgiving, the gravy train is running along for this

government.

We need leadership. Will the minister not consider standing up

today, as the head of government finances, and saying they’re not taking

the raise and they’re going to suspend it for a year?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s not about cleanup; it’s about explaining some facts to you on

how it works. And you know how it works. First off….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Opposition leader.

Please continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member may have forgotten, because he has been away from this

place. But he also sat on this side of the House when the previous

government brought in place an independent body that sets our pay and

benefits. That was supported by all members of this House.

The member will also know that when it comes to the increase that

takes place at the end of each year, based on the CPI, that takes place

not in this chamber but, in fact, takes place at the LAMC meetings, when

they do their budgetary proposals for the coming year.

And again, that member is wrong. It does not have to be overridden

in this chamber. It can be overridden by LAMC. That is, in

fact….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Do you want to hear the answer, or don’t you want to hear the

answer?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is exactly what happened the last time the pay was frozen, at

the beginning of the pandemic, when we were due for a 2.8 percent

increase. We agreed and said that that would not go ahead. That’s

exactly how that process….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, they come here saying they want to talk about

affordability. I’m explaining how the process works — not through

stunts, but how it actually works — and, clearly, they’re not

interested.

That comes back to LAMC at the end of this fiscal, at the end of

this year, when the budgetary process is underway, when we know exactly

what the inflationary rate is at that time — because it changes

throughout the year — and a decision will be made.

I can also tell you that the Finance Minister has already

approached me about that in terms of raising this issue at LAMC to deal

with the cost-of-living increase and how we would deal with it, and

that’s when and where this will be done.

What’s unfortunate is…. I understand that when they’re bereft of

ideas, when they’re bereft of any public policy announcements, they want

to try and grandstand, which is what they’ve done. But the reality is

that that’s where it will be dealt with. That’s exactly what we’re going

to do, and the Finance Minister is indicating that.

TAX POLICIES AND GAS PRICES

P. Milobar: Well, let’s be clear. The Finance Minister was at least permitted

to try to answer the question the first two times and didn’t indicate

that she had discussed this at all with the Solicitor General. But on

answer No. 3, suddenly it has been under discussion by

government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

P. Milobar: What has become very clear today is that the government needs a

little more time to come up with their justifications and

rationalizations, moving forward.

Let’s look at another way that life has become less unaffordable

under this NDP government. B.C. has the highest gas prices, highest gas

taxes in North America. We have for quite some time now. Now, I know

they don’t seem to be aware of how badly people are hurting.

For the Minister of Energy’s own knowledge, right across from his

constituency office, gas is currently $2.40 a litre today and climbing

as we head into the long weekend. This is hurting everyday people. Mary

Kleiner from Vancouver, who owns a moving business, has already spent

$3,000 more on fuel this year, which is raising costs for all of her

customers.

[10:50 a.m.]

Statistics Canada has pointed out to the gas relief program as a

significant factor in controlling inflation in Alberta. They took

action. The University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe says: “The full

provincial gas tax cut is…being passed to consumers.”

Instead of cutting taxes temporarily, though, this government

wants to keep reaching into people’s pockets again and again.

Why won’t the NDP do what they’ve been asked to do, all year now,

and temporarily cut the provincial gas taxes so that people have a bit

of affordability heading into long weekends and in trying to get around

this province to visit family?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, again, I have to say it’s always fascinating to hear members

opposite talk about affordability for British Columbians, given their

track record, when they would give speculators and the top 2 percent

earners in this province a tax break. That’s what they did last time,

and they have said that they would do it again. What we’ve been doing is

really helping British Columbians with their child care costs — in fact,

$550 a month.

I can only speak to an event that I was at. I was at a baby shower

not too long ago. One of the young women who was just heading back to

work, after taking her second maternity leave, came up to me in absolute

tears. This young woman, Kate, said: “You don’t understand what this

means for me and my family.”

What it means for her is that she will get to keep this extra

$1,000 a month. That’s what it means for her. She said what that means

for her and for her family is that she will have more time with her

children.

It’s because we are delivering on child care — which, I would say,

the previous NDP government started. I believe that the minister over

here, the Minister of Public Safety, brought it in. And guess who cut

that. Guess who cut that program back in 2001. It was the people on the

other side.

We are boosting the B.C. family benefit up to $350….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Order, Members.

Members, order.

Hon. S. Robinson: An additional resource, coming to those very families — an

additional $350 for a family of two children — will be coming again in

the new year. We’re continuing to deliver for British Columbians,

because we care about the affordability.

AFFORDABILITY ISSUES

AND PROFITS TO

CORPORATIONS

S. Furstenau: Indeed, the cost of living and affordability for British

Columbians are top of mind for everybody right now, and people are

struggling.

They go to the grocery store, and the basics are far more

expensive than they were even weeks or months ago. We know that food is

going to get more expensive as climate change progresses. We know that

without closing the vacancy control loopholes, rental housing will

continue to rise. Rent in Victoria has jumped 18 percent in the last

year alone. And we know that without access to affordable transit,

people will have no choice but to drive their cars and pay the rising

costs of gasoline in this province.

Today we’re hearing proposed concrete steps from the opposition,

we’re hearing responses from government, but we’re also hearing a lot of

pointing and blaming. I don’t think that’s what British Columbians want

to hear right now. They want to hear about what specific solutions are

going to be put on the table that will address the growing challenges

that they are facing to meet their monthly bills and daily costs. While

the people are struggling, corporations are taking home record-breaking

profits.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. What concrete steps is

she going to take to rein in the profit-taking that is happening and

being paid for by the people in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: I agree with the member; people really are struggling. They really

are.

[10:55 a.m.]

That’s why we have already taken some significant actions, whether

it’s an ICBC rebate or additional supports through the climate action

tax credit, so that we can be efficient and get money into people’s

hands. In the B.C. family benefit, there’ll be an additional top-up for

those families that are eligible.

It’s why we limited rent increases to only 2 percent. It’s also

why we eliminated the previous B.C. Liberal government’s automatic 2

percent plus CPI. We had to change that formula as well. So we’ve taken

some significant steps over the last number of years. Again, I want to

say…. I hear the member saying: “Well, that was retroactive.” But if we

hadn’t done that, then I think 7.4 percent would be the tax increase —

if the B. C. Liberals were on this side of the House.

We’re continuing to address those very, very challenging problems,

which are not just here in British Columbia. I think the member knows

full well that this is around the globe. It’s not unique to British

Columbia. There are some significant challenges, and we’re going to

continue to work with everybody to address ways that we can help

families.

But again, I want to remind the member…. I know that this is

important to her — making sure that that child care is affordable. I

really have to say….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, some people seem disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that child care

is affordable. But I know that the British Columbians who are now

benefiting significantly — paying, perhaps, an average of $20 a day —

are saying that this is making a real difference in their lives, and

we’re going to continue to drive those costs down, Mr.

Speaker.

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

S. Furstenau: While I appreciate the points that the minister made, none of them

spoke to what people can see is happening, and this is this growing

profit-taking that is happening by corporations. As people are

struggling to just afford to live, companies are claiming record

profits.

Loblaws: first-quarter earnings rose by almost 40 percent — first

quarter, a 40 percent rise. Cargill reported a 63 percent increase in

profits — profits of almost $5 billion. Oil and gas profits are through

the roof. Canadian Natural Resources has more than doubled its profits.

Petronas, one of the key owners of the destructive Coastal GasLink

pipeline, reported $5.1 billion in profits over the summer, more than

double their profits last year.

There is a growing inequality, and it is marked. Telus, inserting

itself into our public health care system, reported profits of $4.4

billion over the last quarter, an increase of 7.1 percent.

My question again is to the Minister of Finance. While British

Columbians struggle, these corporations are raking in record profits.

What steps is she going to take to ensure that British Columbians are

not suffering from this profit-taking?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, perhaps the member didn’t hear my previous example of this

young woman who is seriously benefiting in a big way from our investment

in child care. Perhaps she’s forgotten that we’re delivering free

transit for children. This makes a significant difference for

families.

I also want to assure the member that we’re committed to ensuring

that big corporations pay their fair share. It’s why we’re eliminating

the largest fossil fuel subsidy in B.C., the deep-well royalty program.

It’s why we’re increasing the minimum oil and gas royalty rate by 66

percent. We increased the tax rate for large corporations in 2018 from

11 percent to 12 percent. What this means is that there is more revenue

that allows us to reduce costs for people, strengthen our public service

as well as fight climate change.

REVIEW PANEL REPORT ON

DRUG TOXICITY DEATHS AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

T. Halford: Yesterday, after seven long months, the government quietly

released the response to the 2022 coroners service death review panel on

illicit drug toxicity deaths. The response was too little, too

late.

In 2018, the government accepted all recommendations from that

panel, but not this time. Not only has the minister failed to implement

the recommendations. She has given absolutely no faith or directions

that this government accepts the 23 recommendations put forward. The

reality is that under this minister, things have gotten worse. In fact,

tragically, since this report was released 211 days ago, over 1,200

British Columbians have lost their lives.

My question is: how many people have to die before this minister

actually takes action and understands that this is an urgent

situation?

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Every day, the loss of life to the toxic drug supply, the voices

of people working on the front line — the families and loved ones and

community members who have lost team members, co-workers, peers…. Those

voices all inform, every day, our government’s response to the toxic

drug crisis and the ongoing public health emergency.

As the toxicity of the drugs has increased and the loss of life

has deepened, our government continues to evolve its response. That’s

why we went from one supervised consumption site, in 2016, to 42 now.

That’s why, in the first two weeks of the pandemic, British Columbia

introduced the first-in-Canada prescribed safe supply program — to

separate people from the toxic drug supply — and why we’ve continued to

expand and evolve it. That’s why we’ve added hundreds of new addiction

treatment beds. That’s why we introduced new regulations into the

treatment and recovery sector, and we’re going to do more across the

continuum.

Almost every week there are new announcements of new programs, and

we continue to take the advice from people on the front lines about how

to save lives at this really terrible time.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES

IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

AND ROLE OF HEALTH MINISTER

S. Bond: The disconnect that we hear every day from NDP cabinet ministers

and what British Columbians are experiencing in their lives is shocking.

Whether it’s crime, whether it’s the cost of living or whether it is

health care, under this government’s watch, British Columbians are

saying that it is the worst they have ever seen.

Yesterday we learned of yet another horrific example of a health

care system that has collapsed. As difficult as it is today to even

share this story, families want their government and their minister to

hear them, to hear their voices to know the pain and sorrow that they

are experiencing.

Sara, a mother in her second trimester, went to the Penticton

Regional Hospital ER in excruciating pain. She was left alone for an

hour and a half before being told to use the washroom, where she

miscarried her son. Sara said — and this is Sara’s voice, not mine: “I

went in there and gave birth to my son all by myself, screaming for

help…. I was just standing there in the bathroom by the wheelchair…. And

we had no help.” Even once she got to her room, Sara says no one checked

on her, for hours, and she waited again alone, traumatized and in

shock.

I want to be clear. This is not about nurses or doctors. They are

overwhelmed. They are demoralized. They are overloaded. This starts at

the top, and it starts with a minister who constantly fails to

acknowledge the crisis that we have in our province and fails to accept

responsibility for the outcomes. We have a health care system that has

collapsed. British Columbians like Sara and countless other ones deserve

better, and the minister knows it. Something has to change. It is simply

not acceptable that a young mom like Sara has to go through that in the

province that we love.

I am asking the minister today to acknowledge not only Sara’s pain

but the situation that exists in this province. It is time he did the

right thing. Something must change; it starts at the top. Will the

minister do the honourable thing and resign?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Obviously, in a case such as this, the grief, the sense of loss of

individuals is profound. Every time this occurs — every time this occurs

— we need to review and make the system better, to respond better, to

hear those voices. That’s the reason why we have independent reviews of

these processes — to ensure that people get a sense of agency and voice.

Those reviews are initiated by people in cases exactly like

this.

Our obligation to people, I think, in a public health care system

is to deliver a high quality of care everywhere. It’s to respond to the

situation we’re facing in front of us. We have been doing it — our

doctors, our nurses, our health sciences professionals and our health

care workers have been doing it — in an extraordinary way for 2½

years.

We have been in crisis for 2½ years. We’ve been in a public health

emergency for 2½ years. When you delay tens of thousands of surgeries,

that’s a crisis. When you make a decision to move primary care to

virtual, that’s a crisis. When you take actions in long-term care that

affect everyone, that’s a crisis.

Our obligation, it seems to me, after 2½ years of that crisis and

six years of the public health emergency, the overdose crisis our system

is facing, is to continue to build and support health care workers. It’s

to add nurses — not to cut them, but to add them — to lead the country

in more nurses and then add more, to create circumstances so that people

can come to this country and work and provide better care for

people.

Our obligation to people, individuals and all people is to provide

the best possible care. And as Minister of Health, I’m

determined….

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: Oh, the Leader of the Opposition chooses to heckle. That’s fine.

He chooses to heckle.

There is a contrast here, and I will leave that contrast for

another day. But registered nurses were cut when he was Minister of

Health. We have led the country….

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: Yes, they were. The numbers don’t tell a very distinct story, but

that’s not the important question. The important question is right now

taking the steps that we are taking to continue to build a health care

system that provides high-quality care for everyone, and I remain

determined to do so.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Robinson: I respectfully present the approved guarantees and indemnities report

for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, in accordance with the Financial

Administration Act,

section 72(8).

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill 32.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 32 — GAMING CONTROL ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to move Bill 32, the Gaming Control Act, and I

move that it now be read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to speak to this particular piece of legislation.

This bill will repeal and replace the existing Gaming Control

Act.

[11:10 a.m.]

The bill responds to the recommendations by Dr. Peter German and

Justice Austin Cullen to address systemic weaknesses in B.C.’s

regulatory framework that hindered an effective response to the

proliferation of money laundering through Lower Mainland casinos. The

bill will strengthen the general manager’s role as the regulator by

providing them with the authority to set and enforce requirements

imposed on registrants, licensees and the B.C. Lottery Corp. through a

regulation-making authority.

The bill creates a unique authority for the general manager to

establish standards and requirements through regulations respecting

topics such as detection and prevention of unlawful activity, prevention

of problem gambling, advertising, security and surveillance.

The bill will also introduce new provisions to prevent money

laundering in gaming facilities by creating statutory requirements

respecting completion of source of funds declarations and introducing

accompanying offence provisions. The general manager will have greater

regulatory oversight of B.C. Lottery Corp., including through an

enhanced administrative monetary penalty regime applicable to the

Lottery Corp.

In addition, this bill modernizes the legislation to align with

more modern B.C. statutes, as the current Gaming Control Act has not

been comprehensively updated since 2002. Taken together, this

legislation closes gaps by introducing new prohibitions and measures

that will better protect the integrity of the industry and the safety of

British Columbians.

In developing this bill, ministry staff have undertaken

consultations with the province’s gaming sector. The sector supports a

strong regulatory framework to help the public regain confidence in the

industry. The changes introduced in Bill 32 will provide British

Columbians with confidence in knowing that British Columbia’s gaming

industry operates fairly and with integrity, and that when problems

arise, a strong regulatory regime is in place to protect

them.

M. Morris: We welcome this. The B.C. opposition welcomes the changes to the

Gaming Control Act, 2022, that are outlined in this particular

bill.

There have been a number of struggles over the years with illegal

gaming in the province. I go back to my policing days and a lot of the

things that we were doing as a provincial police force to address some

of these things. I go back to 2015, when I was the Solicitor General,

when we were sitting in government, where we formed the Joint Illegal

Gaming Investigation Team to address a lot of the illegal gaming issues

that had crossed my desk when I was the Solicitor General — and previous

Solicitors General’s desks as well.

With the aid of my colleague, who was the member for Abbotsford at

the time, we put this program together and made it part of the Combined

Forces Special Enforcement Unit mandate to target and disrupt organized

crime and the gang involvement in illegal gaming. That was one of the

mandates for JIGIT — to conduct criminal investigations of illegal

gaming activities throughout the province and to prevent criminal

attempts to legalize proceeds of crime through gaming

facilities.

That started off on a high note. These very well-qualified

investigators started looking into a lot of these things, a lot of these

activities. I was being briefed on a regular basis, as the Solicitor

General, as to what investigations they were conducting, the extent of

the investigations and the expanse of the investigations themselves.

They were looking quite promising.

The government changed, and somehow a lot of information was

leaked that jeopardized an ongoing investigation, at that time, that

prevented Crown counsel from being able to lay the appropriate charges

in that investigation. That surfaced a number of things. The key

investigation was actually initiated by police back in 2014-2015 that

had identified that as an issue within our casinos.

[11:15 a.m.]

I think these changes are timely. I think there was a lot of

information that surfaced during the Cullen commission, and I applaud

Justice Cullen for the work that his commission did on this.

It was extensive. They interviewed a lot of witnesses. When I had

the opportunity and time, I had an interest in this file. Being the

previous Solicitor General, I had an interest in that file. I was

interested in a lot of the testimony and evidence that was presented by

many of the witnesses that were there.

I also applaud Dr. Peter German for the work that he did on this

as well. Peter German and I go way back. We were colleagues within the

RCMP, and we trained about the same time. So I view him as a very

credible source of information as well.

The regulatory framework, the briefing that I had on this

particular bill yesterday…. In fact, it wasn’t very long ago, but I was

very impressed with the work that the staff had done in putting this new

statute together. A lot of the old sections are still within in Bill 32,

but there are a lot of sections in there that do address the regulatory

parts that were brought to the surface by the Cullen commission

themselves. I applaud them for incorporating that into this

bill.

There’s been a lot of work gone into this. I can see that. It

addresses the weaknesses that existed in the regulatory framework. I

know that there was some confusion at times between the B.C. Lottery

Corp. and the regulatory body under the provincial jurisdiction.

Sometimes communications between the two miss their mark. This

particular statute goes a long way to address that and clarify the roles

and responsibilities established as the general manager’s position, that

will lead the initiatives from the province to ensure that there’s some

solid regulatory oversight to this.

There’s increased training for workers within the gaming sector

themselves. There are a number of factors that they’re bringing to bear

on this, particularly with disclosure of the source of funds, as an

example. Hopefully, we’ll see some strength and some changes to the

federal FINTRAC regulations on this as well.

This was encouraging. This is something that this side of the

House welcomed, with the outcome of the Cullen commission. The work that

has been done to arrive at this particular piece of legislation, I

think, is commendable. It incorporates the changes that the Cullen

commission has recommended and Dr. Peter German has recommended as well.

It’s a step in the right direction.

I look forward to speaking about this in more detail at the

committee stage. There’s a lot of information in this particular bill

that we need to go over, but at the end of the day, I think this is

going to be good for British Columbians. It’s going to establish more

confidence in B.C.’s gaming industry. There will be support by all

sectors for this, moving forward.

Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member opposite for the comments. As I appear

to be the last speaker, I’ll do some final comments for the

minister.

Very much appreciate the support in the intentions of the bill

before us today and look forward to having those further conversations

with you in committee stage.

With that Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: I do see somebody else who does want to speak now, so I think I

will recognize the Member for Kelowna West, as he wants to engage now on

this bill.

B. Stewart: Sorry. I assumed that the member opposite was going to be speaking

on this particular bill.

Thank you to my colleague from Prince George, north, for his

comments as both a former Solicitor General….

You know, we appreciate the fact that the government has

undertaken the work to do both the report by Dr. German and the Hon.

Austin Cullen. I just want to essentially say that, retrospectively,

when you look back at the complexity of gaming in British

Columbia….

[11:20 a.m.]

As the government knows, this was introduced by their government,

not the opposition. We were not critical of it, but the fact is that we

were cautious at the time when it came in.

I think the problem is that it’s easy to retroactively and

retrospectively look at this and blame or point the finger, but I can

assure you that when it came time to looking at further increased

regulations by government, in my term as a minister, we seriously looked

at this, and we didn’t know the answers. We didn’t have the benefit of

looking at a detailed analysis that has been done by Austin Cullen and

Peter German.

So what I think we’re looking at is that we want to find a

solution going forward. We want to make certain that this works. We

don’t want just increased regulations that don’t have the teeth. I think

that Bill 32 does bring into it the fact that there are significant

regulatory powers under the new general manager — and their ability to

do the things that are right and necessary to make certain that this

bill is a well-thought-out and active bill that will lead

to….

The things that we don’t want to have happen…. We don’t want a

gaming industry that is considered to be something that’s inferior or

labelled as being suspect. That’s not British Columbia’s reputation.

We’ve worked very hard on the sectors that depend on the fact that when

people come to British Columbia, they can expect the highest

standard.

But the complexity in this is not just British Columbia. It’s not

just the fact that the former NDP government brought in casinos, etc.

The bottom line is they went into it knowing that there could be

challenges. But it’s assumed that OSFI and FINTRAC and all of these

federal organizations are going to provide the insight about capital

that finds its way into here.

The fact that we talk about the possibility of dirty money, or

whatever the language is that’s being used, is horrific. The bottom line

is if my colleague and his predecessors have knowingly avoided this…. I

think it’s important to realize that the fact is that in the reports, it

clearly says that there was no knowledge or no meaningful exemption by

them in terms of what they were doing in terms of trying to execute

their job.

I know that these people have come from both policing and the

idea…. But this is the underworld that we’re dealing with, that we’re

trying to regulate here. It isn’t the good people that come here that

want to have a great time at the casinos, the new ones that have just

opened up, I hear, recently in the province. I think it’s important that

it’s not a free-for-all. That’s what we’re trying to get to.

I do want to make certain that the fact is that we don’t

underestimate that it’s difficult when you’ve been labelled or called

out as if you were knowingly allowing this stuff to go on in the

province. I think that, frankly, there is no public reason for that. The

fact that there was, in the report, that we were not knowingly

responsible or not having done things….

I know that we took actions, and I know that the bottom line is

that I think that the reports exonerate the former ministers

responsible. I think the reality is that we do want to get to the bottom

of this, so we welcome increased training for gaming workers. We want

them to know that when something’s wrong, they have the ability to stop

that, not let things proceed as we’ve seen in the video. Of course, we

put in these types of things so that we could make certain that we could

try and track and make certain that this wasn’t going on, but obviously

it’s proven that it wasn’t enough.

Replacing the Gaming Control Act of 2002, this bill gives more

independence to the regulators, as I’ve said, allowing for greater

enforceability of the standards and the expectations of British

Columbians. That’s the people that are in this sector. They want

transparency. They want to make certain. They don’t benefit from having

people call them out or suggest that they’re not the right

operators.

I would hope that with the increased regulation, if there are

operators that are operating in any part of that grey area, etc., they

are able to be not just punished. The bottom line is that corrective

action can be taken and that it’s clear, swift and direct. I don’t think

that there’s any part of our caucus that is not speaking and siding with

that.

[11:25 a.m.]

It’s encouraging to see that the government is taking these

recommendations in the aforementioned report and proposing legislation

that sets out to address money laundering in British Columbia. I think

we know that money laundering doesn’t just happen at casinos. Money

laundering is an issue whenever there’s crime involved. Certainly, from

what little I know about the crime and dirty money and things like that,

I think that the bottom line is what we’re trying to do is to make

certain that we….

Legitimate taxpayers want to make certain that people that are

earning things improperly, or the bottom line is that they’re doing it

in a manner that is untoward towards the government and the people that

are depending on actual benefits to what’s taking place in terms of the

way that money’s coming into the province, etc…. We just want to make

certain that we’re supporting that.

I can see that this legislation is important, and British

Columbians are looking for real results. I certainly look to support the

Minister of Public Safety in terms of making certain that we work

towards working with him on Bill 32 and bringing this bill into place.

Thank you very much. I’ll take my place.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank members for their participation in the debate. I’m glad to

hear the support for this legislation. I know that there will be

questions, no doubt, being asked at committee stage, and I’ll be happy

to answer that.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 32, Gaming Control Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 28.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 28 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

STATUTES (PROPERTY

TAXATION)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 28;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:29 a.m.

The Chair: We’re here for Bill 28, Municipal Affairs Statutes (Property

Taxation) Amendment Act, 2022.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I look forward to questions from the members opposite. I just

wanted to take a moment to introduce and thank staff who are here

joining me. We have on my right Renee Mounteney and Shauna Sundher, who

are here to help steward us through this bill.

On clause 1.

P. Milobar: I’m hoping, with the minister’s indulgence here, we can go through

some kind of overarching questions to start the bill off as we usually

do and then get into more of the granular detail as we go through clause

by clause.

The first question I have — a series of questions — is really

around the consultation that led to this piece. It’s a little unclear

what level of consultation was done, which municipalities were actually

consulted in this. When we did ask during the briefing, staff indicated

that although consultation had happened, they were unable to talk about

what was discussed in the consultation because it’s confidential, which

is, of course, concerning when we’re dealing with a piece of legislation

trying to figure out what the true sentiment was to develop this

consulting. It doesn’t mean the full agreement of what’s in the bill. It

simply means that people were talked to.

Why it’s difficult is the timing of this bill. I recognize it

needs to come in to try to be ready for tax season for a municipality,

but as the minister is well aware, we’re also a week away from municipal

elections across the province, so trying to get a hold of either

retiring mayors or sitting mayors that are in the middle of their own

re-election — and councillors — makes it very tough to get a sense of

where their mindset is on this overall bill.

Could the minister provide some detail to us? Which municipalities

were consulted with this legislation, and what was actually discussed in

that consultation?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked about consultation. It was quite an extensive

process. There was some recognition that external stakeholders had

differing interests and, certainly, different opinions about how to best

address the issue that’s before us. It’s quite complex.

[11:35 a.m.]

Stakeholders were generally most supportive of what you see before

us here, and staff have been working on the design and the detail of the

proposed legislation closely with stakeholders, including business

organizations, to ensure that it’s usable. Several Metro Vancouver

municipalities have indicated that they understand some of the concerns

that we had with varying different proposals.

To be very specific about who was in the team, in terms of who was

consulted and who did the work, our ministry team consulted with local

governments. They consulted with taxing treaty First Nations. They

consulted with landlord and business groups. They consulted with the

UBCM as well as members of the Small Business Roundtable and the

intergovernmental working group on small business property taxation,

which was a defined group that made up most Metro Vancouver working

groups, which are most Metro Vancouver municipalities, as well as

Victoria and Kelowna, around that table.

I can share with the member that the consultation focused on,

first of all, defining the issue and policy considerations as well as

potential options. The ministry staff worked very closely with external

stakeholders to make sure that we could fulfil our commitment. This is

not a normal practice, but they did engage on detailed legislative

development with a select group of municipalities to ensure that the

final product would be usable.

P. Milobar: Are those municipalities free, now that the legislation is in

front of us, to be able to speak freely about the legislation and the

process of consultation, or are they under ongoing non-disclosure

agreements?

Hon. S. Robinson: As with any other legislation, they were under non-disclosure

agreements. But now that it’s been tabled, they are certainly free to

speak.

P. Milobar: The minister mentioned the intergovernmental working group. There

was a proposal, titled Split Assessment Through New Commercial

Sub-class . How does this proposed legislation differ from that

proposal? If the minister could shed some light on that.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to preface my specific response to note that staff were

directed to look at all proposals that were being presented, whether it

was from the opposition or from local governments, in order to identify

what would be the best path forward.

The member asked specifically about the subclass recommendation

from some stakeholders. Ministry staff and solicitors had some

significant concerns with that proposal. Defining and legislating new

assessment concepts that would be valued provincewide and would be made

public on the annual assessment role would be difficult to defend upon

appeal. The appeal risk could lead to revenue uncertainty for

municipalities and undermine the purpose of the relief. That was a

concern that was identified.

Another one was requiring B.C. Assessment to provide new

valuations for many commercial properties throughout the province to

address an issue that is most pressing in urban municipalities. It would

have been inefficient and could have unintended consequences such as

cost and appeals.

The subclass proposal does make a fundamental change to the

assessment system by altering prescribed property classes and would

allow municipalities to determine which properties would be

subclassified, where classification is one of the B.C. Assessment’s core

responsibilities. It sets a precedent, resulting in owners of other

property types lobbying government for a subclass. What staff did was

look at what the outcome would be. The legislation that’s before us is

to achieve the outcome that everyone is looking for without creating

these other potential risks to the assessment system.

[11:40 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Thanks for that. The minister referenced a lot of consultation,

primarily with Metro area groups. That makes sense, given that that’s

where the bulk of this would be a more predominant problem, I guess,

consistently across the Metro municipalities and in other more

satellite, like a Kamloops or a Kelowna community.

Did the minister consult — it sounds like she did — with the Lower

Mainland chambers of commerce boards as well as the board of trade on

this legislation? If so, how does this legislation differ from what

their requests were?

Hon. S. Robinson: We had engaged the Small Business Roundtable, which is a group

that is connected to the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and

Innovation. We added additional members, including a member from the

B.C. Chamber of Commerce as well as the CFIB.

P. Milobar: The core of the question to the minister, I guess, was: how does

this legislation differ from what those groups’ requests were, if at

all?

Hon. S. Robinson: Our understanding is that some of these groups endorsed the

subclass that I just read into the record, which ministry staff and

solicitors had concerns with. Once that was shared with them, they, too,

understood what the limitations were with that

recommendation.

They are satisfied with the outcome that we have here before us as

part of the legislation. We are achieving the outcome that they were

looking for but finding a different avenue to get there.

P. Milobar: Thanks for that, Minister.

Was it the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs that did the consultation and discussion? I ask that because….

It was, obviously, the Municipal Affairs Minister that introduced the

bill, and we now have the Finance Minister. I recognize government can

interchange ministers, but most of this seems to be changes to the

Community Charter and that versus what would normally be considered a

provincial tax area.

Why the overlap? Why not just one ministry from start to finish?

Who was actually the lead on the consultation and the development of the

actual drafting of this?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question.

I started this work when I was the minister responsible and have

followed the work. It was the Ministry of Finance, actually, that did

the work, given the nature of the tax and that the B.C. Assessment act

has followed me to the Ministry of Finance.

The changes are actually in the Community Charter and the

Vancouver Charter. The only piece, I would say, that my colleague did

was not significant heavy lifting. It was just about introducing

it.

[11:45 a.m.]

It’s legislation that is under Municipal Affairs, because it’s the

Vancouver Charter and the Community Charter. The work happened with the

Ministry of Finance. It’s so closely tied with B.C. Assessment, and we

needed to work closely with them.

P. Milobar: Another question, I think, about the consultation. I recognize

we’re coming up against the clock, so this might be the last one before

we note the hour.

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce…. Now, they, over the last while,

have been reasonably firm in their direction, in terms of when they make

a statement on government policy, especially taxation or changes that

have been made. If they support or…. They’re very clear with where their

concerns are.

Their statement on this legislation, however, was a little more

muted. I’ll read from it. It says: “As with many legislative changes,

sometimes the devil is in the details. We look forward to seeing the

enabling regulations and the administration of the new tools by local

governments.”

I’m just wondering. It sounds like the minister feels that there

was extensive and adequate consultation. Why, then, would the chambers,

I guess, be leery of what the details will be, moving forward, in terms

of the regulations and the administration of these tools?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think, if I understood the question….

This is permissive relief that will be available to local

governments to use at their discretion. That might be a rationale for

why some of the businesses are saying it might be great that local

governments now have this tool. This is an important tool that local

governments have been asking for, frankly. Until it actually gets picked

up by local governments…. I suspect that might be what the member is

hearing.

Everyone has agreed that having a permissive tool is the best way

to go. Local governments have certainly expressed that; businesses have

expressed that. I guess their concern is…. Until it’s actually moved

forward and implemented, they would, I guess, reserve their comment on

how helpful it is.

P. Milobar: The minister has referenced…. She had been previously the

Municipal Affairs Minister and, I believe, a former councillor as well.

So very well versed on local government, absolutely.

When we were bringing forward our private member’s bill, which was

similar to this in terms of the end goal and the end result…. Several

times the minister referenced the Cariboo regional district as not being

supportive and that being the reason that our proposed private member’s

bill was not adequate. It would not meet the needs of the Cariboo

regional district.

Now, that always stuck in my head. I’m sure it doesn’t surprise

the minister. I would fire back, either by way of a heckle or by an

actual direct question, that I was unaware that the Cariboo regional

district had such a high demand on their airspace parcels as you might

find in the Lower Mainland.

I’m not going to read through all the different times she has

referenced the Cariboo regional district. The minister, the Municipal

Affairs Minister as well as the now Finance Minister, is very well aware

of regional districts, obviously, by her citing a regional

district.

I guess the concern I have is…. The Community Charter guides

incorporated municipalities. The Vancouver Charter guides Vancouver —

obviously, by the name, the title of it. The Local Government Act is

actually what regional districts operate under. I see nothing in this

bill that addresses the Local Government Act.

Why were regional districts left out of such a substantive change,

which would give tax flexibility to local governments?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to correct the record. What I quoted was the fact that the

regional district didn’t support a blanket change. That’s why I quoted

them. They weren’t supportive of the action that was being

proposed.

[11:50 a.m.]

I can provide the member with a rationale for why this doesn’t

apply to regional districts, in the form that is before the House.

Regional districts generally do not directly tax properties. Instead,

regional districts requisition their member municipalities and the

provincial Surveyor of Taxes for rural electoral areas to tax on behalf

of the regional district.

The regional district’s portion of a property tax bill tends to be

a very small portion, and any tax relief provided through the proposed

legislation would likely be minimal. In addition, regional districts

have more limited authority to provide property tax relief than

municipalities. For example, specific property tax tools such as

revitalization and land assessment averaging are only available to

municipalities. So it’s within that frame that regional districts

weren’t included.

P. Milobar: I’m very well versed on regional districts’ taxing authority. I

was chair of the Thompson-Nicola regional district for five years and

vice-chair for two. So I get that side of what the minister just

said.

However, they do have taxing authority. They collect for a much

more defined basis of services that they’re providing, admittedly, than

a municipality. It has to be much more directed. One area, even within

an electoral area, may just charge for streetlight service, and the rest

of that electoral area doesn’t charge for the streetlight because they

don’t get the benefit of the streetlight. So I get all of that. I

understand all of that. But the answers back from the minister over a

three-year period referred to regional districts.

Now, again, the Cariboo regional district was referenced, so

that’s why it stuck in my head. Frankly, I’m not as worried about the

Cariboo regional district or even the Thompson-Nicola regional district

having the ability to action this, because the likelihood of them

needing that in an electoral area is very low. But there are other

electoral areas in this province that have been left out of

this.

There are areas around UBC that are in an electoral area. There

are areas around Cultus Lake that are in an electoral area. In the Metro

area, the Metro area that was heavy on the consultation piece, there are

many electoral areas that actually are feeling the same pressures — and

businesses on pieces of property within those electoral

areas.

People might sometimes have the impression that all electoral

areas are rural and ranches and sprawling acreages. That’s not the case

when you get into the Metro Vancouver area. Again, if changes are being

made anyway…. I recognize that they have a different taxing structure,

but so did municipalities, under the Community Charter, until this bill

came forward. That’s the whole premise of this bill: to change their

taxing ability, to give them more flexibility.

For three years, regional districts were referenced as a reason

for a delay in bringing forward the legislation. Why are they not part

of the legislation when it’s finally being brought forward, especially

those electoral areas that are in Metro areas, which were apparently so

heavily consulted with the creation of this legislation?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to be really clear. It wasn’t regional

districts that were driving this. This clearly was coming from urban

centres.

I don’t know why the member keeps wanting to go back to the

Cariboo regional district. I agree with him. I don’t think this is a

particular challenge in the Cariboo regional district.

Again, regional districts don’t have the same tax relief tools

that municipalities have, so it’s within that framework that this is

moving forward. The member noted that there are some areas outside of

municipalities, like UBC and the University Endowment Lands, that might

be quite unique than other rural areas. But we also haven’t heard from

any regional districts or electoral areas where they are needing this

sort of tool.

Having said that, and because — and the member knows full well —

there’s a very different taxing structure that happens in regional

districts, we didn’t want to delay getting this to the floor of the

House and debated and passed. We want those that are asking for this and

demanding this and having significant challenges…. We want to work as

quickly as we can to get this to the table, and we’ll certainly be

monitoring and engaging. If we do hear that there is additional work

that needs to be done as a government, we’re happy to take a look to see

what more might need to be done.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

Copyright © 2022 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

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

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.