Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 31, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 177

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 17 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

International Transgender Day of

Visibility

T. Stone

G. Lore

Autism spectrum disorder and Pacific Autism Family

Network

K. Kirkpatrick

Good citizenship medal recipients Christopher Horner

and Beverly Lore

J. Rice

Cancer awareness and Daffodil Month

S. Furstenau

Ramadan

A. Singh

Oral Questions

Affordability issues and rebate for

renters

S. Bond

Hon. B. Ralston

Hon. D. Eby

Tax on sale of used cars

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Transit and commuting costs

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Consultation on spraying of glyphosate on First

Nations lands

A. Olsen

Hon. K. Conroy

Property taxes for small businesses and split

assessment proposal

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

Child care fees and subsidies for child care

providers

R. Merrifield

Hon. K. Chen

Government response to affordability

issues

M. de Jong

Hon. S. Robinson

Question of Privilege (Reservation of

Right)

A. Olsen

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Property Law Amendment Act, 2022

(continued)

P. Milobar

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and Food

(continued)

Hon. L. Popham

D. Ashton

I. Paton

THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2022

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.

Introductions by Members

G. Lore: I have quite a few introductions to give today. Today is Trans Day of

Visibility, and in the name of visibility, we have more than 35 members of

the two-spirit, trans and non-binary community, as well as allies, joining

us today. I really appreciate the opportunity to make a few

introductions.

I’m going to start with Alyx, an incredible community organizer,

parent and friend. They founded an organization that offers connection and

support for gender-diverse kids and their families. They were recently

awarded the Lieutenant-Governor’s Silver Medal for their master’s thesis on

the importance of centring the voices of trans youth in their own care. Alex

is joined by their wonderful partner, Amy, and their children, four-year-old

Arden and four-month-old Juna.

A welcome, also, to Dr. Aaron Devor, who holds the Chair in

Transgender Studies, the first research chair of its kind, and who also

leads the Transgender Archives at the University of Victoria. Fun fact: the

research chair was established by a generous donation from Lt. Col. Jennifer

Pritzker, the world’s first trans billionaire.

Next, I’m thrilled to introduce seven-year-old Zoey, who is an

adorable rascal and an avid reader and writer. She absolutely has something

to say if you are stuck in a world that does not include her. She is here

with her parents.

We’re lucky to have a few members of the public service here with us.

Sofie Grahn is a senior policy analyst with the Ministry of Education. We

have Liz Boychuk, who was recently on the subcommittee for EDI with B.C.

prosecution service. Julian Paquette is with government

communications.

I’d like to recognize Jade Ashbourne, who is a senior ministerial

adviser to the Minister of Finance. Adam LynesFord is a senior ministerial

adviser in Housing.

Joining us is also a group representing QMUNITY, including Anoop Gill,

who is co-executive director of the organization, and Michael Robach, who

has been instrumental in organizing events and opportunities to connect

today.

Also joining us are Ali Blythe, Hannah Brown, Cameron Chevier, Sansal

Gumuspala, Jamey Jesperson, Griffin Nesbitt, Eli Verdugo, Alivia Wong, Hope

Warren, Wren Hawke Smith, Kai Jacobsen, Esther Suwannanon, Yahlnaaw and Ace

Mann.

Lastly and importantly, it’s important for all allies to show up. So

I’m so glad to have my daughter, Eve Lore, here, one of the littlest allies

in this work.

Thank you for the chance to introduce these wonderful folks and the

many others who are here.

M. Dykeman: I just wanted to take a moment to wish one of my constituents, who I

know will be watching at home, a very happy birthday. This gentleman has let

us know by email three times that it’s his birthday tomorrow, and I think

that he’s going to be testing whether I remember that. So I figured I should

get some evidence.

Could the House be join me in wishing David Lyons-Black a very happy

birthday.

[10:10 a.m.]

S. Bond: Today I’d like to welcome two very special guests to the gallery, Kyle

and Griffin Granger. Kyle is the husband of one of our exceptional research

officers. We are very lucky to work with Jen Wizinsky every single day. She

is bright, hard-working, and she’s fantastic at what she does.

Today we’re happy to welcome Kyle and Griffin. Griffin, who is just

six years old, is their oldest child, and today is his first time watching

question period in person.

I’m told that while Griffin is, of course, excited to be visiting

here, his absolute favourite thing to do besides playing hockey is to

explore the beach by their home looking for all kinds of creatures. And I

should tell members he is very proud that he just lost his first

tooth.

We are delighted and very happy to welcome to the House today Kyle and

Griffin Granger. Please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have a couple of introductions to do today. The first is that I want

to wish a happy belated birthday to our emergency management B.C.

communi­cations director, Jordan Turner, who does an amazing job for

me and is here in the gallery watching things today, as opposed to being in

my office.

I’d also like to make, for tomorrow, a happy April Fool’s Day birthday

to my executive assistant, Melissa Meyer, who is also here today. She gave

me a note of all the great things to say that she does, but time is short,

so I will pass on that.

Finally, I would like to say a farewell to someone who has done an

amazing job for me since I became Solicitor General in this ministry, and

that is my communications director, Caroline McAndrews. She has done just a

terrific and outstanding job. Caroline, I just want to thank you for all the

work that you’ve done. I’m really sad that you’re leaving my office, but I

know you’re going to do a great job in your next position.

Thank you, hon. Speaker. I’d just ask the House to wish happy birthday

to my two staff and to thank Caroline McAndrews for the wonderful job that

she’s been doing for me.

L. Doerkson: It’s certainly a pleasure this morning for me to be able to introduce

a good friend of mine, Walt Cobb. He is a long-standing mayor of Williams

Lake. He has sat on far too many boards and committees for me to list here

today, but it’s safe to say that he’s done some incredible good for

Cariboo-Chilcotin and specifically for Williams Lake. He’s done thousands of

hours, and I mean that, of volunteer work and has likely cooked more

pancakes than anybody in the chamber today. Please welcome to our chamber

Mayor Walt Cobb and a past MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Thank you for joining us today.

S. Furstenau: I’m really delighted to introduce Darya Kudruavtseva. She is in the

gallery today. She’s here to shadow me. She was here a couple of weeks ago.

She’s 15 years old, turning 16 next month. She’s a high school student at

Claremont high in grade 11, and she’s doing a film project about women’s

strength that she hopes to have screening in Sidney in May.

I will invite all of the members to look for that potential screening

of Darya’s first — I expect — of many films. She’s applying to film schools

in Canada and the U.S. She has absolutely found her passion, and I’m

delighted to have her here today to shadow. We will be coming to see you,

Mr. Speaker, and asking you about the mace.

A. Singh: Tomorrow, April 1, will be my father, Jagdish Singh’s, 81st birthday.

Dad was born in 1941, in Chak 235, Lyalpur, Punjab, in what is now Pakistan.

After the partition, at the age of six, he, along with over one million

other refugees, fled on foot to a new life in India.

In his 20s, he moved to Bangkok and then Hong Kong, where he took on

whatever employment he could — security guard jobs, an interpreter at the

courts, and finally, a clerk at a travel agency before he went on to start

his own travel and cargo agency.

I remember vividly going with him to work and sleeping under the

stairs of a building where he worked as what they called a watchman. Simpler

times. As Bob Dylan would say: “I wish, I wish, I wish in vain that we could

simply sit in that room again.”

He eventually started his own small travel agency, Maharaja Travels,

which grew to be wildly successful. He was known for his immense generosity

in the Indian community in Hong Kong, and as a result, everybody called him

Maharaja, which means emperor.

[10:15 a.m.]

He lives with me, and although much of him has been taken by

Alzheimer’s, that kindness and that smile still shine just as strong as

ever.

I ask this House to join me in wishing him a very happy and healthy

birthday.

R. Merrifield: Every once in a while, you get to meet someone who absolutely changes

your life. Jody Cleland is my constituency assistant, and she is certainly

that person. She is extraordinary in how she serves the residents of

Kelowna-Mission.

It really feels like I’ve known Jody for a lot longer than the year

and a half that we’ve worked together. I actually met her husband, Jordan,

first — Burma-Shaving during the campaign. He told me the story of how he

had worked in politics and how he had campaigned for a leadership candidate

in Alberta.

What I found particularly interesting in his story was that the other

campaign at the time was run by his wife, Jody. Well, sure enough, the front

page of a googled Edmonton Journal actually showed them back to

back and told the story: a husband and a wife working as two campaign

managers of opposing candidates. Well, the best man and the best woman won,

because Jody’s candidate won in that race and went on to become Premier of

Alberta, and Jody served as a ministerial assistant for many

years.

Fast-forward to today. I pulled from a few emails that I’ve received

about Jody. She’s called a miracle worker, tenacious, kind, responsive. She

has listened to thousands of constituents and tried to help every last one

of them. While speaking to one of them after Jody had worked with him, he

referenced her as somewhat of a counsellor, as she had worked through the

issues that he was facing.

She is loved by our seniors — as she will help them with access online

or filling out forms — but, moreover, loved by our community. An example of

that love: we’ve even had someone walk into the office with a tear-stained

face because someone was finally able to help them. She is truly amazing. I

am blessed to work alongside her in the constituency.

Today she is joined by her husband, Jordan, who was not the successful

campaign manager in the leadership race, and her amazing future politician

daughter, Grace.

Please, would the House join me in welcoming them.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’d like to introduce who’s joining us in the gallery today, Megan

Hanacek. She is the CEO of the Private Forest Landowners Association. She’s

also a registered professional forester and a registered professional

biologist with over 20 years of experience in B.C. forest management, and

she sits on our Minister’s Wildlife Advisory Council.

An interesting fact about Megan for those of you who are fans of the

TV show Alone. Megan survived in the Patagonia wilderness for 78

days before tapping out in the final episode of the History Channel’s hit

reality TV show Alone . She was one of the longest-surviving

Canadian cast members to be featured on Alone — someone you don’t

want to mess with.

Great to have you here.

Can you all join in welcoming her.

S. Chandra Herbert: I wanted to join my colleagues in welcoming our guests here for Trans

Day of Visibility. It’s incredible. You belong here. Some of you are friends

that I’ve known for…. I guess it’s over 12 years ago when we first met,

working to add gender identity and expression to the human rights code, so

it’s so good to see you here today.

I want to make a special mention of QMUNITY. For those that don’t

know, its location is in my constituency, 1170 Bute Street; however, they

have a provincial mandate. If you need to up your queer competencies, learn

how to be better employers or better representatives, learn to reflect the

true diversity of your community or just update some terminology, they are a

great resource. I can’t recommend them enough for your education and for the

betterment of our province.

Thank you to all of our guests for being here today.

S. Chant: I’m very excited to welcome a couple of constituents from my riding,

whom I don’t see very often here, which is very exciting to me. From North

Vancouver–Seymour, I’d like to introduce Grace Smith, who works as a

consultant with IBM, and Peter Smith, who is the principal engineer with

Amazon. They are in the gallery today to watch us debate.

[10:20 a.m.]

T. Shypitka: If there’s one thing I learned a long time ago, when speaking about

your spouse, it’s better to be proactive than reactive. My wife, Carrie, the

love of my life, is going to have a birthday on Saturday. Unfortunately, I

won’t be there, so I wanted to wish her a happy birthday. I won’t tell you,

actually, how old she is, but I can say she’s a lot younger than me. That’s

a good hint.

Anyways, would the House please recognize her birthday and celebrate

with me.

R. Leonard: I’d like to introduce to the House Nina Usherwood and Rosalind

Humphreys. This year they’re celebrating 20 years together with a renewal of

their vows.

I’ve met them because they are very strong advocates in our community,

and they’re very involved in issues around health and justice. It is a real

demonstration of the strength of their relationship, that shines through in

all that they do. More than you belong here, we are honoured to have them as

part of Courtenay-Comox.

Please let the House welcome them and help them celebrate 20 years

together.

Hon. M. Dean: Today I’d like to just say a big thank you to Kirsten Lauvass. She’s

been my communications director’s support for well over a year. It’s been

really super to work with her, but she’s leaving tomorrow.

Would the House please express their appreciation for her service as

well.

D. Coulter: I just realized it’s my baby brother’s birthday tomorrow. I didn’t get

him a gift. He’s an actuary in Boston, and you’d never know he’s my baby

brother. He looks much older than me. But he is very passionate about

bouldering and sailing, and we’re very proud of him in my family.

Would the House please clap for my brother Christopher Coulter for his

birthday tomorrow.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 17, the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2022. This bill amends the following statutes: the

Insurance (Vehicle) Act, the Ministry of Energy and Mines Act, the

Offence Act. This bill also makes repeals and consequential amendments

to other statutes.

I’ll be pleased to elaborate on the nature of these amendments

during the second reading of this bill.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Speaker: So that was the question.

Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL TRANSGENDER

DAY OF

VISIBILITY

T. Stone: Today marks the International Trans Day of Visibility, an annual

celebration of trans pride and awareness. This day celebrates the

members of the transgender, gender-diverse and two-spirit community,

highlighting their contributions to society in addition to raising

awareness of the unacceptable discrimination they continue to face

worldwide.

It’s important that trans people are empowered to celebrate who

they are and that we all voice solidarity with the trans community. We

must recognize the pressure many trans and non-binary people face to

conform and change, and acknowledge the courage it takes to live

authentically.

[10:25 a.m.]

This day is about understanding how living openly as your true

self is something that many of us take for granted. Often for trans

people this is difficult and even dangerous. Increased positive

visibility of trans people in our communities, media and public life

brings awareness and changing attitudes, and this is key to securing

their fundamental rights.

How can we in this House play a role? Well, one way is through the

Creating Connections campaign which is once again being launched by the

Rainbow Health Cooperative. It is designed as a pay-it-forward system

where the organization drops off for each MLA a small package containing

information on the transgender community and a trans flag. You’re

encouraged to take this package and pass it on to a person in your

constituency you would like to build a connection with.

This is a great opportunity to provide visibility to the

transgender population, and I encourage every member of this House to

participate in this campaign.

G. Lore: I, too, rise to recognize International Transgender Day of

Visibility, and I stand as an ally with the honour of celebrating our

peers, colleagues, friends and family.

Let me start with Jamie Lee Hamilton, an outspoken activist for

sex workers and Indigenous women. In 1998, she dumped 67 pairs of

stilettos in the front of city hall demanding attention for the dozens

of sex workers who were missing in the Downtown Eastside. She was also

the first youth in Canada to start medical transition and the first out

trans candidate to seek public office.

Last year Blake Desjarlais became Canada’s first openly two-spirit

Member of Parliament. Just last week Niis Mious, a

Nisg̱a’a two-spirit person, was

awarded the Medal of Good Citizenship for their work to create food

security for Indigenous families based on cultural understanding,

consistency and trust.

At the University of Victoria, Dr. Aaron Devor holds the world’s

first Chair in Transgender Studies and set up the Transgender Archives.

This year the archives celebrate their tenth anniversary, upholding a

commitment to research and community-building for and by trans and

non-binary, two-spirit and other gender-diverse people locally and

globally. I encourage everyone to check out their community stories

online to learn more.

I also want to encourage everyone to participate in

#YouBelongHere, an advocacy campaign by QMUNITY, B.C.’s queer, trans and

two-spirit resource centre.

I would also like to recognize all the peer supporters at Trans

Care B.C. who help people access the gender-affirming health care they

need and deserve.

I want to lift up B.C. lawyer Adrienne Smith, whose work and

advocacy protects the human rights of trans people.

Two-spirit, trans and gender-diverse people are amazing. May we

all learn something from their courage to be themselves.

As anti-trans laws that endanger trans people and trans families

and deny health care for trans kids continue to be introduced and passed

in other jurisdictions, we must recommit to work here in B.C. and beyond

so that the need to be courageous is replaced with ease, love and

celebration.

AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER AND

PACIFIC AUTISM FAMILY

NETWORK

K. Kirkpatrick: This Saturday marks World Autism Day, and today I’m honoured to

speak about the work of Wendy Lisogar-Cocchia and Sergio Cocchia, who

dedi­cate much of their energy supporting families and autistic

people.

As opposition critic for Ministry of Children and Family

Development, I have learned a great deal about autism spectrum disorder,

particularly in recent months since government announced the change to

the autism funding model.

Autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, is a developmental condition

that impacts typical brain growth, affecting individuals very

differently. Common characteristics include difficulty with

communication, social interactions and repetitive patterns of behaviour.

The word “spectrum” refers to the wide range of symptoms and severity.

Each child is unique, and intensive treatment can have positive impact

on autistic children.

Enter visionaries Wendy and Sergio, who, as parents of an autistic

child, founded the Pacific Autism Family Network. Their first location,

called GoodLife Fitness Autism Family Hub, opened its 60,000-square-foot

facility in 2016, with a mandate to serve the lifespan needs of

individuals and families affected by ASD.

When a diagnosis of families of autism is made, families often

need help navigating therapies and supports to determine what is best

for their own unique child. The Pacific Autism Family Network provides a

reliable, one-stop-shop source of information and help.

[10:30 a.m.]

This includes assessment, therapy, education and support services

and programs. There are clinics, classrooms, spaces for autism

organizations, video conferencing and so much more.

In closing, I would like to thank and to celebrate my constituents

Wendy and Sergio for their dedication to the autism community, their

philanthropy and for creating such a meaningful organization to help

those with autism have a happy, meaningful and rich life.

GOOD CITIZENSHIP MEDAL RECIPIENTS

CHRISTOPHER HORNER

AND BEVERLY LORE

J. Rice: I’d like to recognize two Haida Gwaii heroes and recent Medal of

Good Citizenship recipients.

gudangaay k’uuk ahl iiwaans, Christopher Horner, takes on many

roles in his dedicated service to the community of Masset and

surrounding communities. As the Elders Centre coordinator, he provides

supports for Elders and adults with ability challenges while overseeing

the food bank program for all communities on the north end of Graham

Island. As pantry coordinator under the Local Food to School program,

Christopher teaches life skills and incorporates client participation in

greenhouse and community gardens. He’s also involved in the Warrior

Program, where he facilitates mental health wellness programs for youth

and adult men.

The Bayview Market has operated for more than 60 years as a local

grocer in rural and remote Port Clements. Owner-operator Beverly Lore

and the Bayview are icons of community spirit. Beverly sponsors

community, sporting and church events and has helped purchase playground

equipment for Port Clements children. At the peak of COVID-19, Bev and

her family were providing free delivery service not just for Port

Clements residents but to other communities up and down, all over Haida

Gwaii.

There are no pharmacies in Port Clements, so the Bayview serves as

a prescription pickup location. Prescriptions are delivered to the

store, where they are held for residents to claim. This valuable

community service allows vulnerable people to live in their home

community longer.

In the very early days of COVID-19, Bev set up a handwashing

station outside her store, complete with warm water. Her community

spirit shone through this dark time as she provided lyrics for people to

sing while they washed their hands.

The Medal of Good Citizenship celebrates British Columbians who

have acted in a particularly generous, kind or selfless manner for the

common good, without expectation of reward. Recipients Beverly Lore and

Christopher Horner exemplify these qualities, and I want to thank them

for their selfless service.

CANCER AWARENESS AND DAFFODIL MONTH

S. Furstenau: Cancer is a thief. It robs us of the people we love. It robs our

health, our limbs, our dreams, our futures. Twenty years ago it robbed

my family of two people, left us without the joy of being with them, of

sharing with them. It robbed their grandchildren even the opportunity to

meet and know them.

In April 2001, my father, Peter Furstenau, was diagnosed with

multiple myeloma. The cancer moved so quickly, we didn’t have the chance

to start potentially life-saving therapy. He died October 16 of that

year, one week before his 62nd birthday. As we all tried to navigate

through the deep fog of grief, cancer came again. My dad’s partner of

over two decades — my stepmother, Patricia Lloyd — was diagnosed with

large cell lung cancer in January 2002. Six months later, on June 7, she

died. Pat’s daughter Jessie was 25.

Peter and Pat were vibrant, extraordinary, beloved, wonderful

people. Both were working at Malaspina. Pat was a director of the

library, overseeing the redesign, and dad was teaching statistics and

psychology. His stats students were so grateful to him, they wrote him a

song on the last day of class.

I miss them. I wish that they could have met their grandchildren,

my children, Peter and Eleanor, and Jessie’s children, Avery and Smith.

I wish I could seek their wise counsel, their support. I wish I could

soak in their generous and abundant love.

[10:35 a.m.]

Tomorrow is the start of the Canadian Cancer Society’s Daffodil

Campaign for Cancer Awareness Month. Two in five Canadians will be

diagnosed with cancer. But the work of researchers is creating a bulwark

against the thievery of cancer.

The Daffodil Campaign also supports the programs that provide

comfort and connection to cancer patients and their loved

ones.

I am so deeply grateful for the counselling that I was able to

access through the B.C. Cancer Agency in the wake of the life-altering

loss that I and my family experienced 20 years ago.

RAMADAN

A. Singh: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for her

statement.

This weekend over two billion people in the world will begin the

celebrations for Ramadan, the Muslim holy month. This includes many of

my constituents in Richmond-Queensborough, including those that attend

the Richmond Jamia Mosque and the Az-Zahraa Islamic Centre, who will,

after two long years of the pandemic, be able to celebrate openly and

safely with their community sisters and brothers.

Ramadan is one of the holiest months of the year for Muslims.

Muslims commemorate the revelation of the Quran and fast from food and

drink during the sunlit hours as a means of drawing closer to their

higher power — to God — and to cultivating self-control, gratitude and

compassion for those less fortunate.

Ramadan is a month of intense spiritual rejuvenation, with a

heightened focus on devotion, during which Muslims spend extra time

reading the Quran and performing special prayers. Those unable to fast,

such as pregnant or nursing women, the sick, elderly people and

children, are exempt from fasting.

This year the month-long fast of Ramadan begins around April 2 or

3 and will end around May 1 or 2. Muslims fast from predawn to sunset.

It’s a fast of between 11 and 16 hours, depending on the time of the

year, for a period of 29 to 30 days. Ramadan is a time to train both

physically and spiritually. This is time for self-reflection, spiritual

improvement and as a means to grow as an empathetic member of

society.

In addition to the personal aspects, Ramadan is also a highly

social time, as Muslims invite each other to break their fast together

and meet for prayers at the mosques. Many mosques hold daily community

dinners, where Muslims can break their fast together.

Charity and social responsibility are also an integral part of

Islam and are magnified during Ramadan. Many mosques host open houses

for their friends and neighbours of other faiths to join them for the

fast-breaking dinner, or Iftar, at the end of the fasting

day.

I would ask that this Legislature join me in recognizing this

special day and month for many of our fellow British

Columbians.

Oral Questions

AFFORDABILITY ISSUES

AND REBATE FOR

RENTERS

S. Bond: The Premier rose in the Legislature earlier this week and said: “I

don’t understand this affordability stuff.” Well, that certainly

explains a lot.

British Columbians are paying the highest gas taxes in North

America, and they’re going up, with the Premier doing nothing. Housing

prices are skyrocketing, but the Premier’s affordable home promise is

going to take 100 years to complete. Rents have gone up 20 percent in

Vancouver in the last six months alone, yet nothing has been done about

his promise of a renters rebate.

While it’s clear — and the Premier admitted it here in the

Legislature — that he doesn’t understand affordability, could he

possibly tell us why he has failed to keep a five-year promise related

to a renters rebate?

Hon. B. Ralston: It’s interesting to hear the members on the other side and their

new-found concern for the struggles of ordinary people. When they sat

over here, they gave tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent and made

everyone else pay for it. MSP premiums doubled. ICBC car insurance rates

went up over 30 percent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Ralston: Roads and bridges were tolled. Their government created the

housing crisis by putting speculators and developers ahead of people.

Here on this side, we’ve continued to reduce costs for people as we

invest in the services that they count on.

Interjections.

[10:40 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, please come to order.

Hon. B. Ralston: The new ICBC rebate, thanks to our work to fix ICBC. The child

opportunity benefit, up to $2,600 a year for a family with two children.

Reduced child care costs. Lower car insurance. Ended MSP premiums. There

are many more, but I’ll wait for the supplemental to list

those.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, it’s a question period, not a comedy show. Let’s

be quiet.

S. Bond: Well, apparently, while the minister yesterday missed the question

by a mile, he’s no better today when he got up and was given a chance.

He absolutely missed the entire point of the question for a second day

in a row. Wow. Let’s try it again, and let’s hope this time we get

somebody who actually understands the importance of the renters rebate

to get up.

It’s easy for the Premier to actually stand in the House and say

he doesn’t understand the affordability stuff. It’s even more so after

he gave himself a $40,000 raise. But British Columbians struggling with

higher gas prices, higher transit costs, higher grocery costs…. You

know, to the members opposite, British Columbians do understand the

affordability issue.

Jennifer Bradshaw of the volunteer advocacy group Abundant Housing

Vancouver is clear that help for renters is needed now, as the market

only gets worse. “Low-income renters should really have those sorts of

supports, and that should have happened much more quickly.”

While the Premier may not understand affordability — he admitted

it here in the Legislature — I think he should understand keeping his

word to British Columbians.

It’s been five years. Where is the renters rebate?

Hon. D. Eby: I want to thank the Minister of Energy, who clearly saw my first

reading speech and thought he would step in to assist. Obviously, not my

best day in the Legislature. Let’s try to turn it around

here.

The Minister of Finance is working on the renters rebate. That

policy work continues. It’s an important issue. I thank the member for

raising it. But it’s also important to recognize what we have done to

keep rents down. One of the things we did was we got rid of the

additional 2 percent that got charged every year to renters. That’s

saving families thousands of dollars. But it’s important to recognize

that those are families that are already in rental housing. There are a

whole bunch of people who are looking for rental housing.

The member quoted Abundant Housing, and I agree with the advocates

in that group that believe we need more housing. That’s why I’m really

proud that in our first three years, our government registered more

rental units for construction than the old government did in the

previous decade.

More than 53,000 new homes were registered last year. That’s the

highest ever since B.C. Housing started collecting data in 2002. And we

turned 18,000 empty condos into rented homes, thanks to the speculation

tax, which, by the way, they voted against and opposed.

TAX ON SALE OF USED CARS

P. Milobar: Despite the Premier’s elections promises of no new taxes, there

are now three new taxes being brought in by the NDP this budget. No

wonder he says he doesn’t understand this affordability stuff, because

he also doesn’t understand how to keep a campaign promise.

The Premier is going to tell you now what your used car is worth.

If you happen to get a good deal, well, too bad for you. The Premier is

going to tax you on the higher amount that he feels your car is worth

because, as some of his members have alluded to, apparently you’re a tax

cheat if you find a good deal on a used car.

The budget document on page 91 was very clear that the people hurt

by this change are “more likely to be low- and middle-income”

people.

Again, why is the Premier going after low- and middle-income

people who are just looking for a good deal on a safe used

car?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, PST has always been payable on privately purchased new and

used vehicles. That hasn’t changed. In fact, post HST, it was Kevin

Falcon who chose to apply PST to used goods in this province. Yes, I

have to inform the House of that truth.

However, I think it’s important to really understand…. I’m really

pleased to hear that the member opposite actually read the budget

document. But if he turns to page 159, he will see table A4.1, “Net

provincial taxes since Budget 2016.” What do we find?

Well, what we find is that if your family net income is $30,000,

back in 2016, you were paying $177 in taxes. Now, actually, it’s $1,442

back in your pocket, as a result of the decisions of this

government.

If your family net income is $60,000, you used to pay $4,238 a

year in taxes, in 2016. Now you’re paying $1,539.

Let’s take it up another notch. If your family net income is

$100,000, you were paying $7,473 in 2016, and now you’re paying

$5,658.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear the question please, Members.

TRANSIT AND COMMUTING COSTS

P. Milobar: If you happen to be in those income brackets and live in the

Finance Minister’s riding, you’re paying an extra $4,500 a year to rent

because you can’t afford to purchase either. That’s under this

government’s watch that that’s happened.

It makes no sense that a Premier who “doesn’t understand this

affordability stuff” gets to decide what a good deal on a used car is.

It’s not just used cars, though. The cost of transit is scheduled to go

up. The cost of getting from Surrey to Vancouver is rising to $185 a

month. The cost of gas is still the highest in North America. In fact,

these rising commuting costs are a direct result of the Premier removing

the revenue neutrality to the carbon tax.

How much longer is it going to be for commuters — whether it’s a

car, bus or SkyTrain — to see some actual real help in this

affordability crisis from this government?

Hon. S. Robinson: No doubt it continues to be challenging for British Columbians

during these very challenging times coming off of COVID, and certainly

what we see happening in Ukraine has added increased pressures for

sure.

I think it’s really important to recognize, if we hadn’t taken the

actions that we’ve been taking over the last five years, just how much

harder it would be for British Columbians. Remember tolls? They’re gone

now. They’re gone. MSP premiums. They’re gone as well. Thanks to the

work of my colleagues on either side of me, ICBC now not only is in the

black but we’re giving rebate cheques to drivers.

Free transit for children under the age of 12. If I might read

into the record that what means…. For a whole lot of families, the

family vehicle is the bus. It is the bus. We’ve heard from Bikram, who

lives in Vancouver with two children. This is what Bikram had to say

about what it means to them to have free transit for their

children.

“For a working family like ours, free transit for kids under 12 is

such a big help. This year we would have spent around $1,400 on transit

passes for our two young sons. We can certainly put those savings to

good use. We rely heavily on public transit in our day-to-day lives. We

use public transit to visit our families and take the kids to the

various activities, like skating, swimming, soccer and Kumon. Both our

children will absolutely benefit from free transit, and so will our

family.”

[10:50 a.m.]

CONSULTATION ON SPRAYING OF

GLYPHOSATE ON FIRST NATIONS

LANDS

A. Olsen: Yesterday we celebrated the tabling of the Declaration Act action

plan. We’ve repeatedly committed to repairing the legacies of

colonialism, to upholding Indigenous rights, including their rights to

their territories — rights to fish, hunt, gather medicines and foods

unencumbered.

This week Angelina Hopkins Rose from St’át’imc Nation was in the

news. Hopkins Rose is calling on the government to pause a proposed land

management plan to spray glyphosate and other poisons in the unceded

territories of the Stó:lō the St’át’imc, the Nlaka’pamux, Musqueam,

Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh First Nations. Hopkins Rose’s activism has been

successful. This weekend my constituency office — actually, our

constituency offices — received over 2,000 emails on the

issue.

The management plan in question takes effect tomorrow and will

have these carcinogenic chemicals sprayed broadly across their land —

lands where Indigenous peoples regularly harvest berries and other

traditional plants and medicines. Hopkins Rose is saying there was not

nearly enough consultation with Indigenous peoples on this management

plan.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. In keeping with our

commitments under the Declaration Act, will the minister pause the

spraying of glyphosate set to begin tomorrow, and order a consultation

with Indigenous peoples that have been affected by this?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question.

I’ve done a lot of research on this. We’ve also been…. There are

questions about glyphosate use in forestry, and the effects of

glyphosate on human health have been really extensively reviewed by

international regulatory agencies, including Health Canada, with the

conclusion being that exposure to glyphosate does not pose a

carcinogenic or general toxic risk to humans. It remains an important

tool for establishing conifer or conifer-deciduous mixed stands and

ensuring future timber supplies.

That said, the use of this herbicide in B.C.’s forest sector has

declined significantly in recent years, as foresters use a variety of

approaches to manage competing vegetation, including manual, mechanical,

burning, biological and herbicides. The glyphosate use in forestry has

to comply with B.C.’s Integrated Pest Management Act, and steps have to

be taken to minimize impacts on environment, including in fish-bearing

streams.

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

A. Olsen: My question was about whether or not engagement with Indigenous

nations, as we celebrated — quite intensely celebrated — yesterday….

Allowing non-members onto the floor of this Legislature to speak is a

substantial thing.

According to the plan, B.C. Timber Sales will be permitted to

spray. Whether they’re spraying less now than they have in the past

makes little difference. The fact of the matter is that they’re going to

be allowed to spray glyphosate and other poisons for the next five

years.

These poisons will be used to kill salal, mushrooms, Indian

hellebore and berries — thimbleberry, raspberry, salmonberry, red

elderberry, huckleberry, blueberry, ocean spray. These are all species

that are unwanted, apparently. Unwanted by whom? I don’t think they’re

unwanted by the bears, but they’re certainly not unwanted by Indigenous

people, who have been picking and harvesting these as staple food

sources for thousands of years.

Ocean spray, as an example of the connection that I want to make

here…. Ocean spray, as my uncle

J,SIṈTEN talks about, is the sign

of Saanich summer. When the ocean spray starts to bloom, and we can

smell that beautiful scent throughout our territories, we know it’s time

to go out and engage our fishing in the summer in the Gulf

Islands.

These are species that are unwanted, yet Indigenous people have

been using them, species such as ocean spray, to be able to understand

how to live properly in our territories. These will just be wiped out

with the spraying of glyphosate.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. Does the minister

believe that the rights of Indigenous peoples to harvest traditional

plants are outweighed by the ministry’s interests to maximize harvest

volumes by the spraying of glyphosate?

Hon. K. Conroy: I respect the member asking the question and his considerable

knowledge on Indigenous peoples’ culture. I respect that there have been

changes in this Legislature.

[10:55 a.m.]

We are working with Indigenous people. In fact, under the B.C.

Integrated Pest Management Act and the B.C. Integrated Pest Management

Regulation, the use of herbicide and products in forestry for vegetation

and invasive plant control requires authorization by way of registering

a pest management plan, which requires First Nations and public

consultation — but First Nations consultation. That is something that we

take seriously.

Every year a notice of intent has to be submitted to the Ministry

of Environment and Climate Change, with detailed treatment maps. Again,

that consultation with First Nation is required.

There has also been new technique on using superior orchard seed,

improved nursery techniques, fast-growing seedlings and well-timed

planting so that we can improve plantation survival in areas of high

vegetative competition. That’s reducing the amount of herbicide used for

plantation management.

I visited the plantation, the centre, in Vernon recently and saw

the work that was being done on this, the considerable work being done

to try to improve the seeds that we are using right across the province

to ensure that we can use less herbicide when it comes to making sure

that we are investing in our forests. But also, it’s very critical that

they also consult with Indigenous nations, which is part of what the act

is about.

PROPERTY TAXES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

AND SPLIT

ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL

T. Stone: The Premier says he just doesn’t understand “this affordability

stuff.” But I’ll tell you this: many small businesses in this province

understand the affordability crisis. The NDP have failed to act on the

skyrocketing property taxes on unused airspace over the heads of small

businesses, and this is forcing many of these small businesses to either

raise prices or to shut down for good.

That’s hurting popular restaurants like Red Burrito on Lonsdale

Avenue, which is closing down after a decade and a half of being in

business. They closed because they were faced with steadily rising costs

and a shocking 15 percent increase in their lease costs, driven entirely

by property taxes.

Now, the Minister of Finance could act to protect local businesses

and the people who enjoy them by enacting split assessment.

The question to the Minister of Finance is this: how many

businesses will close down or raise their prices before the NDP take

action and throw a lifeline to these struggling small

businesses?

Hon. S. Robinson: We’ve certainly, through the pandemic, witnessed the challenges of

many small businesses. That’s why our government has been there right

from the beginning, making sure there were supports available to small

businesses, making sure that they had the ability to keep their doors

open. Many of them have been certainly challenged by a whole range of

challenges as a result of COVID — everything from accessing labour,

dealing with the changing requirements that were recommended by the

provincial health officer.

I have to say that with the supports we’ve provided, many

businesses have been able to keep their doors open. We recognize that it

continues to be a challenge, and that’s why we’re going to keep being

there for business.

That’s why we continue to have a pandemic and recovery contingency

available for this next budget, because we know that we’re not through

this yet and that we need to continue to be there for businesses and for

people and for communities.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, this is nothing new to this minister. This issue was first

brought to her attention nearly five years ago as the issue was

building, and it’s gotten worse and worse and worse. We’re talking about

a lot of small businesses that have been struggling because of

skyrocketing property taxes on the unused airspace over their heads.

It’s happening in communities all over the province, including in the

Finance Minister’s community of Coquitlam.

The good news is that the work is already done. The working group

consisting of a whole bunch of local governments, the UBCM, the chamber

of commerce, CFIB, have all come together, and they proposed this split

assessment solution as an optional tool that local governments could

use. Many of them have said they would use it.

What did the Finance Minister do when she was the Housing Minister

back in 2020? She brought in a permissive tax exemption tool. Do you

know how many local governments…? She said this would be the silver

bullet that would provide a tool for local governments. Do you know how

many local governments have used this tool in the last two years? Zero.

Not a single one. They continue to call for the split assessment

tool.

[11:00 a.m.]

I’ve introduced a private member’s bill. It’s sitting on the order

paper. I’ve introduced it five times now.

Fraser Young of Lift Breakfast Bakery in North Vancouver says

costs are forcing him to raise prices on his customers. “Everything is

up. Nothing is down.” Everyone but the minister — business groups, local

governments, the UBCM — agrees on this split assessment solution. It’s

all drafted. It’s all ready to go. Businesses are being caught with

these massive increases in the unused airspace over their

heads.

Will the minister either embrace the bill that’s on the order

paper or write her own bill, implement a split assessment tool so local

governments can do what they want to do, and that’s provide much-needed

support for struggling small businesses in their communities?

Hon. S. Robinson: We know that many small businesses that pay property taxes under

their commercial lease are struggling when there are unexpected spikes

in their taxes. We also certainly heard from UBCM, which was very

divided. They were very divided on the member’s proposal. In fact,

Cariboo regional district, Whistler, Lantzville — they were against it.

So for the member to suggest that the UBCM supports it is actually not

quite accurate.

Now, we did take a look….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Members, let’s listen to the answer.

Hon. S. Robinson: Clearly, they’re not interested in what we’ve done, Mr. Speaker,

because they keep heckling me. But if they’re interested in hearing what

I have to say, I’m pleased to stand on my feet and continue with my

response.

We did take a look at the member’s private member’s bill. It is

too broad. It does not take into account the significant consequences to

the entire tax system, and it is not going to give the small businesses

the tax break that they need.

That work is being undertaken as we speak. We continue…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: …to consult with local governments.

It actually isn’t five years. It’s actually two years. It has been

two years during a pandemic that we’ve continued to do the work. We have

dedicated staff who are continuing to work with local governments, with

the UBCM, to make sure that we find the right path to make sure that it

works appropriately, the way it’s intended.

CHILD CARE FEES AND SUBSIDIES

FOR CHILD CARE

PROVIDERS

R. Merrifield: Just like renters, commuters and small businesses, parents and

child care providers are also finding out that the Premier doesn’t

understand the affordability stuff.

Jennifer Ratcliffe is the owner of Pebble Lane Early Learning in

Surrey. She says: “Promises and agreements are not kept. Most recently

the 2022-23 funding for many daycare owners has been delayed. The

funding directly affects staff, families and, most of all, the children.

How can we continue to depend on a government that chooses to ignore the

owners and make light of our parents’ concerns?”

Tomorrow is April 1. Will the minister stop making excuses and

deliver the funding?

Hon. K. Chen: I thank the opposition member for the question.

I reiterated this yesterday. No timeline has been missed. We’ve

been working hard with providers to make sure we can continue to pass on

savings to families and parents and ensure stability for providers

too.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform the member

opposite that yesterday staff has looked into all the cases that the

members opposite have raised in question period. We learned that three

of the providers have received approval or temporary approval between

March 23 and March 28. Another provider has received confirmation on

March 29, the day after they completed their application. The remaining

provider was contacted on March 24, and until now, staff has not

received a response.

We share the same goal of ensuring providers are receiving the

support they need to pass on savings to parents. We want to work with

providers to make sure savings are passed on to providers. If the

opposition member has any cases or scenarios, again, I encourage the

opposition to work with us to bring forward the cases so we can look

into them and make sure that providers will get the savings and that

parents will have the stability.

[11:05 a.m.]

To date, my understanding is that all completed

appli­cations have received approvals, and all the remaining ones

are either receiving temporary approval or have been contacted by staff.

We are committed to continue to work with parents, as we have been, and

providers to ensure that we can pass on savings to parents. I hope the

opposition member can work with us and bring forward the cases that

you’re raising instead of creating unnecessary fear and division among

parents and providers.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

AFFORDABILITY

ISSUES

M. de Jong: I got a call yesterday from a constituent. He’s one of these

constituents — I think we probably all have them — who actually watches

question period. He doesn’t get to watch it live. He watches the

late-night version of question period.

Here’s what he said to me. He said:

“It’s the applause. It’s the applause that I hear from the

government that drives me crazy, because it feels like they’re mocking

me. I don’t understand why they’re applauding. Are they applauding the

fact that yesterday, when I went to fill up my car, it cost me $60 more

than it used to, and that’s going to translate into $2,000 more per

year? Are they applauding the fact that my wife, who relies on a transit

pass, is now going to have to pay more, and that’s going to cost us

hundreds of dollars a year?

“Are they applauding the fact that the used car we were hoping to

buy is now going to cost more because of tax policies introduced by this

government? Are they applauding the fact that the shopping cart full of

groceries that used to cost us $250 now costs us over $400? Or maybe

they’re applauding the fact that our rent” — his and his wife’s rent —

“has gone up over $3,300 per year.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

M. de Jong: Are they applauding the fact that despite the ending of

COVID-related restrictions, for all of the reasons, and more, that he

just alluded to, they won’t be going on a vacation? They’re not going

anywhere this year. That’s what he said.

He said: “When I hear them applaud, it feels like they’re mocking

me.” He said this. “You don’t actually have to be on the Academy Awards

to be publicly slapped in the face when you hear the government

applaud.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. de Jong: Would the Premier…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Question, please.

M. de Jong: …explain to my constituent, and the millions of British Columbians

who are facing the same challenges, why he and his colleagues applaud

their absolute refusal and inability to address, in a meaningful way,

the crisis of affordability facing so many British

Columbians?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate hearing the member’s commentary about the challenges

that some British Columbians are indeed facing. I think it’s really

important to recognize that there have been some significant changes

that we have made over these last five years. That has made a difference

in people’s lives.

When you take a look at the fact that if you’re a family earning

$80,000 of family net income, your taxes back in 2016 were $5,637 and

now they’re $3,342, that’s a signifi­cant difference.

I also think that over the last five years, if we hadn’t made the

changes that we have made, people would still be paying MSP premiums.

They would be paying sky-high ICBC bills. They would be paying interest

on their student loans. We got rid of interest on student

loans.

[11:10 a.m.]

They would be getting paid one of the lowest minimum wages in

Canada. That’s no longer the case, because they’re getting the highest

minimum wages right now. That makes a difference for British Columbians.

The average B.C. family would also be paying $1,000 a year more on rent,

if we hadn’t taken the measures that this government took over the last

number of years.

Finally, I think it’s interesting that when we formed government

and the commitment was to fix ICBC and there was a lot of work to do to

fix that dumpster fire, Mr. Falcon, the Leader of the Opposition,

thought that the ICBC rebates were stupid, little cheques.

Well, those stupid, little cheques are paying the bills for

British Columbians. We’re going to keep working every day to address

affordability for British Columbians. That’s what we have been doing

since we formed government in 2017.

[End of question period.]

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

A. Olsen: I rise to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege relating

to the Minister of Forests’ comments about glyphosate.

Orders of the Day

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

Law Amendment Act.

In

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued esti­mates debate

for the Minister of Agriculture.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — PROPERTY LAW

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: All right, Members. I’d like to get second reading

underway.

P. Milobar: I’m happy to rise and continue with my comments on Bill 12, the

Property Law Amendment Act. Yesterday I was touching on the problematic

way this bill has been brought forward. Really, it’s a bill that leaves,

quite literally, everything up to regulation afterwards. There’s no

clear direction forward with this bill.

We’re not sure what the actual state of play will be for people,

moving forward, as they’re trying to buy or sell real estate. In fact,

most experts agree that a cooling-off period, especially if it’s of any

significant length of time, will actually put pressure to increase

prices on housing and not bring stability and affordability into the

equation.

I can only surmise that the minister has come to a place to agree

with that assessment, given that the comments of the minister in the

media after this bill has been introduced has been much more about

consumer protection, as opposed to driving down the cost of housing or

bringing affordability into the equation.

Now, consumer protection on a wide range of things, I think, is

always a good goal to strive for, but when it’s a bill that has

absolutely no detail on how that regulation will actually protect the

consumers, that is a big problem.

We saw that with the Minister of Citizens’ Services, with the

Freedom of Information Act, in this chamber. This government has lost

all credibility when they bring forward bills that rely solely on

regulation after the fact, and the bill is strictly a concept paper.

They will call it enabling legislation, but really, it’s a concept paper

versus an actual, true piece of legislation for people to look

at.

When we look at what happened with the Freedom of Information Act

changes, there was a statutory committee that was struck that was

supposed to actually do the work to advise this chamber and the minister

on what changes should happen. Instead of letting that committee do its

work, the minister spent days upon days evading questions and not

providing any clear answers, letting the House be told that regulation

would be done after and, in fact, would come after a lot of

consultation.

[11:15 a.m.]

Well, a lot of consultation turned out to be 15 minutes and a

paper signed in the back hallway after the debate ended. That’s why the

credibility, when the government brings forward bills like this now,

moving forward, is completely shot, because we know that the BCFSA has

to bring forward a report that will actually be the basis for what these

recommendations are.

We won’t see that report for the next little while. The minister

refuses to say when exactly it will be done and when it will be released

publicly. Will it be released publicly before regulations are made or

after the regulations are made? We don’t know. It starts to become

problematic, because the concepts in the bill have huge flaws in

them.

Will people have the ability to sign off and waive their right to

the cooling-off period? We don’t know. That’s left to regulation. We

don’t know if the purchaser, on a piece of legislation that’s designed

to protect them, will still have the right to just waive that right,

sign it and say they’re done. They don’t want a cooling-off

period.

If they refuse to complete the sale near the end of the

cooling-off period, is there a holdback of funds? Is there some other

deposit that is defaulted? We don’t know. That’s left to regulation

sometime in the future. How many days will they have to decide to try to

arrange for things like financing and home inspection in their deal?

Well, we don’t know. That will be left to regulation.

Now, in the briefing, we were told that the U.K. model is one

example out there. The U.K. model takes around 16 weeks. Deals fall

apart all the time, and it’s a mess. So we have somewhere between one

day and 16 weeks that could be at play on the cooling-off period,

because we just don’t know. That was the answer given by the ministry

staff in the briefing.

All the questions we asked…. As much as the professional public

service was trying to do their best to answer our questions in the

briefing ahead of this debate, their answers were: “Those would be good

questions for the minister. We can’t answer that.” Because they don’t

know.

Why the rush? Why the rush on a bill that has a concept about

regional differences being in it? Why should people in the Lower

Mainland receive one level of consumer protection if they’re purchasing

a house, and this bill provides the opportunity and the ability for

people in the Peace country to have a totally different set of rules

that they have to go by? You’re either protecting the consumer, or

you’re not.

If there are regional differences, how is that going to work when

someone is selling in Vancouver, trying to move into the Peace region or

into Kamloops or into Kelowna or Prince George or vice versa? It happens

all the time. They have one cooling-off period in one region of the

province, at one of the houses that scenario is tied up in, and a

completely different one. How can you close on a house if you don’t know

for sure yours is sold?

It’s going to create a mess. It’s going to create a mess, because

there’s complete uncertainty about what the regulations will be. This is

a bill that has one clause, essentially, in it. That clause says: “Stay

tuned. Everything will be left to regulation.” But we know, just based

on the track record of broken promises that leaving things to regulation

— “trust us; we’ll deal with it in the future” — leads to a bad

outcome.

We were elected; 87 people were elected to this chamber to

reasonably represent the interests and the views of the citizens of

British Columbia. Those five million people expect that we are debating

and looking into and scrutinizing legislation that has even the

slightest bit of detail to it — that we can actually make informed

debate and an informed vote on their behalf. They bestow that honour on

us every four years — unless, you know, when the Premier decides to call

snap elections. But generally speaking, every four years.

[11:20 a.m.]

It’s a serious responsibility we have been tasked with, and this

government has chosen time and again to present bills to this House that

leave everything to regulation. We saw it with sick pay, and what

happened? This week alone the corrections to the sick pay legislation

had to happen, which we warned about when we were debating it in this

House because there was a lack of detail.

The minister waved off all concerns and said: “Don’t worry about

it. We’ll capture all that in regulation.” Regulations get announced. We

point it out then. “Don’t worry about it. We’ll fix it if it becomes a

problem.” Guess what. It became a problem within two months of the

regulation being out.

The stubborn adherence by this government to continually do this

is remarkable. It shows a complete, ever-escalating arrogance that only

the government side must know how government works and how process and

procedure works. “Don’t worry about it.” They’ll take care of it. Time

and again, that has proven to be false.

If you look at what’s happening with the FOI right now and the

committee that’s doing the work after the fact and the commentary being

presented to that committee, that bears it out as well.

Now we have Bill 12. This has perhaps the least amount of detail

of those other two bills I talked about. It’s not trending in the right

way. Government is actually trending to make things even more secretive.

It’s like they said: “Oh, well, we got given a national award.” A

national award from the journalists across this country — normally,

governments are pretty proud of that. But this award was for being the

most secretive government in Canada. How sad is it that they seem intent

on being a repeat winner? That’s what this government seems to think

qualifies as good governance in the province of British

Columbia.

We get presented with a bill that, quite literally, says

everything will be left to regulation once we get a report in the next

week or two. We’re here until the first week of June. What would have

been the harm of delaying this bill at a minimum until we could see a

bill that had some framework of timelines, of penalties, of potential

penalties based on a report?

By the minister’s own admission, the intention is to have the

regulation in place by summer. So it sounds like they’ve either got the

report already and just don’t want to tell us, or they’re fully

expecting to just implement the report’s recommendations as quickly as

possible. Either way, why do we not see that reflected in this

legislation?

It is simply inconceivable that you could ask people in a

heightened real estate market right now to have any faith in what’s

going to come out of this when everything gets dismissed out of hand.

The real estate association comes out with a 57-page white paper of

suggestions and recommendations, researched with data to back it up, on

how to get to some of the concepts that this bill has purported to try

to solve. What was the answer from this minister on that white paper? It

was dismissed out of hand within the hour.

We know those recommendations aren’t going to be acted upon in

terms of regulation that could come into this bill after the fact. But

again, we don’t know. This is supposed to protect consumers. Well, a lot

of people purchasing a house are also, at the same time, trying to sell

their house. This doesn’t provide any certainty for that. In fact, it’s

going to start to have a ripple effect, especially…. And it’s not

uncommon for the first offer to fall through on a house.

When asked, the only thing the staff could say with certainty at

our briefing was that a new cooling-off period would take effect for the

second person making an offer on that house. Is the cooling-off period

five, ten days?

[11:25 a.m.]

If it’s ten days, that means the second person now has ten days to

walk away from the deal. If you wind up getting into a situation of a

third, you, as a homeowner, could be sitting there trying to sell your

house so you can move and make an offer on something else, or you have

to keep walking away from your deals as well, as the deals on your home

keep falling apart due to no fault of yourself.

The minister can’t even be bothered to tell us the number of days

that the cooling-off period will be. And why is that important? If the

premise is so that you can get financing, and if the premise is so that

you can get a home inspection, I have news for the minister. Banks — if

you haven’t already been preapproved, you’re going to be hard pressed,

for the average person, to get an approval through in five business

days.

Home inspection? Good luck finding somebody that’s going to show

up, do a proper home inspection, properly get the report done to you and

back in your hand so that you can do proper due diligence in five

business days. That’s assuming it is a five-day window. We don’t know

what the recommendation will be.

We don’t know what the bill will say, ultimately, moving forward.

That’s all being left for people to make a decision in a back room. And

by people, I mean cabinet. We saw how well that worked out with FOI

legislation. The cabinet didn’t even meet. They couldn’t have. The

document was ready to be signed as soon as the debate was over in this

House — 15 minutes after debate was over, it seems. Regulation on this

bill, the actual details of this bill will not happen until long after

this bill has been debated and rammed through by this government. It’s

completely unacceptable.

It’s completely unacceptable there’s even the concept of regional

differences. We don’t have regional differences for consumer protection

if you’re going to buy a stereo. We don’t have them when you go to buy a

car. Consumer protection in B.C. is consumer protection. How are you

supposed to buy or sell a house in one region that has a completely

different cooling-off period timeline than the jurisdiction you want to

move into or out of? It makes absolutely no sense.

Why is there a heightened need for protection for people if there

are ten bidders on a house, as there are in the Lower Mainland, versus

five, which is quite common in Kamloops, versus two at the same time in

Dawson Creek or Fort St. John? It’s still pressure on the consumer,

according to the minister. The fact there’s even the concept of that in

this flies in the face of the minister saying this is about consumer

protection for all.

The fact there’s no certainty or clarity about waivers being

signed or not is shocking — the fact that we don’t know if you can just

sign away and say: “That’s okay.” What if…? Let’s just say it’s a

five-day cooling-off period. You, as the purchaser, choose to not have a

home inspection done. Is it mandatory? Well, we don’t know. What if you

want one, but you can’t get one arranged in that five days? We don’t

know.

Again, too much is left to people guessing what is in this. It’s

not an appropriate way for legislation to move through a chamber where

there are 87 people tasked by the public — the five-million-plus people

that live in this province — to properly scrutinize and properly

understand what the motivation of government is and, more importantly,

what the rules will actually be that people will operate under on any

given topic in this province.

We will have a lot of questions at committee stage on this bill,

and I fully expect the minister to do like the Minister of Citizens’

Services: keep insisting it’s all going to be decided later after

consultation. I hope there’s actually some time after consultation, and

it’s not 15 minutes after we pass this bill.

[11:30 a.m.]

A. Olsen: I appreciate the opportunity to offer some of my initial thoughts

on Bill 12, the Property Law Amendment Act.

Unfortunately, it’s pretty difficult to actually have any kind of

informed debate on this bill. Basically, other than the pieces of paper

that have been put in front of us with a couple of clauses, the content

of this bill doesn’t exist. The important pieces, the information that

will impact the public, will all come later. It will all come after this

debate has been adjourned. I fear that even in committee stage we’re not

going to have the details that I think the public in British Columbia

deserve from their democratically elected institution.

As I have, unfortunately, continued to repeat in this House, the

process in this chamber is an important one. This government and

previous governments — this government is the one that I’m focused on

now — have found a way around the process, a way to skirt the democratic

process that this chamber is supposed to function on. By offering only

enabling legislation, by offering a few pieces of paper that give the

minister and the cabinet the power to fill in the blanks later, there’s

no opportunity for the public to understand what it is that their

elected officials, their elected representatives, are actually

debating.

That’s a big problem in a democracy. It’s supposed to be all out

in front of the public. The members of the opposition are supposed to be

given the benefit and the opportunity to be able to challenge the

notions that the government is putting on the table to create a law.

That’s our job. Essentially, the government has taken that away from the

members of the opposition to be able to do their job on behalf of the

people of this province. It’s called Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Our

job is to challenge and to test the laws that the government has put on

the table, and we’re not able to do it.

It was good of the Ministry of Finance to offer us a briefing,

although it was 30 minutes when, frankly, we could have been doing

literally anything else and would have got more information about this

bill. I felt for ministry staff. I felt for ministry staff. Frankly, it

was embarrassing for them to not be able to do their job either. All of

the decisions that are going to be made in this bill were

political.

Therefore, the civil servants who are there to serve the public in

a similar way — to administer the work of the politicians — couldn’t

even answer the questions. You could see the challenge that they were

put in as I and the other members of the opposition were there to ask

important questions so that we could have an informed debate in this

House and that this debate could be about the bill rather than about the

erosion and undermining of our democracy.

If the government wants to continue to put this kind of enabling

legislation on the order papers for debate, and they really want me to

continue to have to stand for the next three years and talk about how

they’re wilfully undermining and eroding our democracy, then fine.

That’s the effect of this enabling legislation and the process that this

government has undertaken. The public will have no deeper understanding

of a new law in this province after this debate is over, because it’s

all going to come later in regulation.

Question after question, in committee stage, to the minister will

be responded to…. This is a prediction of mine. “That’s going to come

later in regulation. We’re engaging in a public consultation

process.”

[11:35 a.m.]

Again, we’ve put the legislation out in front of understanding the

public consultation that’s currently underway by the Financial Services

Authority in this province — or is done, or is not done, or might be

done, or is close to being done, or something. Something happened. We

don’t know, and we’ll find out later.

All we know right now is that the people’s government has gone to

the people and said: “Give us the power to do this thing. We’re not

going to define it clearly. We’re going to give you some vague

understanding of what it might be about, but we’re not going to give you

the details. You just have to give us the power to do it.”

As the minister said in the press conference last year, announcing

the cooling-off period — which has now been rebranded; it’s now called

the homebuyer protection period — this is the largest investment that

British Columbians are going to make: a new home or the next

home.

Their elected officials are given no information on the details of

that, no understanding of how aspects of this bill are going to interact

with each other and no ability to test the minister on the details.

Well, it’s a farce. It’s making a farce of this House. It’s making a

farce of this chamber. It’s making a farce of our process.

I’m part of that Committee to Review the Freedom of Information

and Privacy Act that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson was

mentioning just a few minutes ago. That’s a tough committee to be on

right now because, frankly, the legislative changes came last fall,

before the committee had a chance to review the legislation.

Last week Sean Holman — who, this House knows well, is a fairly

well known political scientist and journalist who studies democracy —

made a presentation to the committee. He quoted Ralph Nader, who said:

“Information is the currency of democracy.” I ask the members in this

House: is that what we have here? Do we have information? Do we have

democracy?

I think that where you have the absence of information is where

you have the absence of democracy. The opposite must be true, if we

accept Ralph Nader’s comment. Clearly, I think that one of the

differences between a democratic and an autocratic government is the

control and flow of information and the amount of confidentiality and

secrecy, compared to the openness of the debate, the openness of

information and the flow of information.

There is no information about this bill. We know that the

government wants to do something about the ability to rescind an offer

once a person puts that offer on the table. We have no idea of how long

it will be allowed. We have no idea as to the abilities of waivers. We

have no idea about how it is going to interact with other offers that

might be on the table. We have no idea of how it is going to impact the

sale of a home if the purchaser is also the seller of a home that

they’re living in. We have no clue.

As Ralph Nader said, if information is the currency of democracy,

and you have an absence of information, then you have an absence of

democracy. That’s what this is: an absence of democracy.

Holman continued that access to information is “about whether we

have enough information to make the rational and empathetic decisions

expected of us in a democracy during this new age of disaster.” Well, I

think a lot of people in the province — millions of people in this

province — would characterize the situation in our real estate market as

a social disaster and as an economic disaster.

[11:40 a.m.]

Access of information is “about whether we have enough information

to make the rational and empathetic decisions expected of us in a

democracy during this new age of disaster.” We are dealing with a social

crisis in housing in this province.

We have a government that is…. I believe that this announcement

last fall was an effort to appear to be doing something. We have a

social and economic disaster. I’ll ask the question: does this bill give

anybody in this House the ability to make a rational and empathetic

decision?

It lacks all of the important information. Even in committee

stage, when we have the ability to go into the detail…. Where the comma

is placed is as important as the words that are chosen. We see these

miscellaneous stats and amendments will move a comma. My former

colleague used to talk about commas and apostrophes. That’s the detail

when you’re making a law. The difference in a sentence might be where

the comma is placed. We have no idea what letters are going to be used,

what numbers will be used in this bill. We will not know

that.

We will not know that when we get to the end of committee stage,

because this government — this Minister of Finance — is explicitly

asking us to pass a bill with no information. Is explicitly asking us:

“Make an irrational decision.” This Minister of Finance is asking their

colleagues in the B.C. NDP government to make an irrational decision, a

decision to approve a bill that nobody in this House will have any

information about, in a disastrous housing crisis, where people’s lives,

their livelihoods, their safety, their security — where everything about

their life is on the table.

We have been asked in this House to make an irrational decision to

approve a bill that we don’t know the impact that it could or could not

have on the people of British Columbia. It really is an offence to this

democracy. It is not how the process in this place was designed to work

or should work.

Holman continued. Do we want to “cultivate that democracy,” or do

we want to “salt the soil of the fact-based communities that we have

spent centuries building together”? That is a powerful question that

every member of this House is being challenged with, with this Bill 12.

Are we going to allow enabling legislation that literally has no

substance to it to salt the soil of our fact-based societies?

Democratic societies that are empowered, that exist the way they

do today, because of access to information, access to the ability to

understand what’s being said, what’s being asked of you and for your

ability to make a rational and empathetic decision.

The point Holman was making, the point that needs to be grasped by

every member of this House — some of who will stand and vote on this

bill without spending any moments considering it, because they are

rightfully doing other business…. They have put their trust in the

people here that are tasked with stewarding this bill through this House

— the minister, the critics in the opposition. They trust us to be

putting something of value on the table. Are we salting the soil of our

fact-based communities, ones that our predecessors have nurtured and

have spent centuries building together, as Holman says.

[11:45 a.m.]

I understand why a minister may need to put a

section in a bill

that enables them to do things in regulation. That’s not what I’m

talking about here. So if we have speakers coming up saying, “Well, that

member from Saanich North and the Islands clearly doesn’t understand how

legislation works. Clearly, ministers have to put in enabling sections.

Clearly, there’s a need for aspects of bills to be enabling,” that’s not

what I’m talking about here. What I’m talking about here is a situation

in which we have an entire bill that is enabling — no other

information.

One section, a bunch of consequential amendments and emptiness — a

void, a vacuum. Nothing. Salting the soil of our fact-based communities.

Undermining and eroding our democracy. People have spent decades in this

place sitting by, quietly allowing this undermining and erosion to

happen. Stunning. It’s stunning.

I imagine that there’s probably going to be division called on

this. I imagine that this House will be full. I imagine that everybody

will stand and sit when they’re told to stand and sit, and many people

in this place will have no idea what just happened.

Interjection.

A. Olsen: I said I imagine. It’s an allegation, sure. It’s also been my

experience, repeatedly.

When we take a look at this, the only thing that I will leave

British Columbians with is an apology. I’m sorry. I’m sorry I wasn’t

able to serve you well today. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to evaluate the

details of this legislation, which will have a small or a large impact

on the place that you live — as the Minister of Finance said, on the

largest investment that you will or you have already made.

I’m sorry. I’m sorry we can’t do our job, because we’re left with

nothing, just like the minister’s own staff. Left with nothing to talk

about in the briefing. We just ended the briefing. We said: “Well, okay,

that’s great. Thank you.” Nothing to talk about. Nothing to talk about.

Great.

We can say that we were briefed. I guess the only thing that’s

appropriate is to apologize that at second reading, I can’t give you

more information about what’s in this bill.

Likely more apologies to come, as we go through the committee

stage of this debate and try to get to the details of what’s in this

bill and still get no information about how this is going to impact

British Columbians and their largest investment that they’re going to

make, or that they have made in their homes, in a real estate market

that is unattainable and unachievable for many British Columbians and a

rental market that is growingly unattainable and unachievable for many

British Columbians in a disaster — a social and economic

disaster.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

A. Olsen moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND

FOOD

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); B. Bailey in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:20 a.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $88,820,000

(continued) .

Hon. L. Popham: I think I owe one of my colleagues an answer from yesterday. I’m

in receipt of the document that he provided for us. I’ll just read into

the record the relevant information that I think he will need and,

possibly, mostly will know. But I’ll just clarify.

The carbon tax provides a signal across the market to encourage

innovation and support the transition to a lower carbon future. The

government recognizes that a balance needs to be found between reducing

emissions and sustaining economic development, particularly in the

context of agriculture and food security. As such, B.C. offers several

carbon tax programs for businesses.

I just want to reflect on how I initially responded. I would

expect that the member would especially understand that the carbon tax

provides a signal across the market to encourage innovation. I say that

because it was this member’s government that brought in the carbon tax

and, I think, with the same intent in mind.

That being said, there are things that we have done. Actually, the

previous government initiated the greenhouse carbon tax relief grant,

which we are continuing on. That specifically addresses greenhouse

growers and the carbon tax. Although there’s no carbon tax relief

program specifically for the poultry sector in B.C., there are funding

options to help B.C. farmers in reducing energy consumption.

I think the most important change that’s been made since the

carbon tax was initially brought in was the launch of the CleanBC

program for industry in 2019. This program includes the CleanBC

industrial incentive program and the CleanBC industry fund.

In support of agriculture climate action, Budget 2022 includes $15

million over three years to support increased beneficial management

practice programming. Budget ’22 will include more support for what the

BMP program already funds — on-farm practice changes related to energy

efficiency and alternative energy that poultry farmers can access. The

funding will also support activities that enhance the BMP program,

piloting commercialization and on-farm adoption of new agritechnologies,

practices and fuel switching that assist the sectors to transition to

net zero.

I was just at the B.C. Egg Producers AGM a week and a half ago,

and I spoke to an egg producer. They actually have transitioned to solar

panels on their roofs and reduced their energy consumption

significantly, so there are incentive programs to help do

that.

I think the agriculture industry as a whole is very keen on trying

to move their businesses forward and to be more efficient to reduce

emissions. But we do understand that it’s costly to do so, so we’re

trying to provide some of that money to incent them to move in that

direction.

D. Ashton: To the minister and to her staff, first of all, thank you for your

ongoing emphasis on improving agriculture, speaking from a person that

participates in that and loves it — most of the time, except at pruning

time.

Hon. L. Popham: It’s a love-hate relationship.

D. Ashton: It is.

Minister, a quick follow up. Her Worship Mayor Toni Boot, from

Summerland, Summerland council, administration staff and staff at the

municipality of Summerland and, as importantly, if not more, individuals

in the preceding area are still curious about the opportunity to develop

a food and innovation hub.

[11:25 a.m.]

I’m doing a follow-up to the letter, and I’m going to thank you on

behalf of council for that letter, but is there any additional

information available through yourself or through your staff about that

opportunity presenting itself in the near future?

Hon. L. Popham: I’m always very happy to have any discussion about the food hubs

that are being set up around the province. We have 12 that have been

initiated. A couple of years ago, we did start some very interesting and

productive conversations with Summerland. There was a bit of a blip on

the timeline as things went a bit silent, but I do know that there is

passion around making sure that we can find a direction forward, and I

know that Summerland is very interested in that.

What I can commit to you today is that we’re going to revisit with

Summerland to see where they are. I think a feasibility study has been

done, but we’re going to maybe check in to see if that’s still accurate.

Then we can have some one-on-one conversations with the member after we

do that.

D. Ashton: Thank you. The opportunity does exist in Summerland. We have PARC,

the Pacific agricultural research station, and some incredibly talented

scientists and technicians up there.

Thank you again. On my behalf and on Her Worship’s behalf, we’ll

work hard on our end. We would just ask that the attention be paid to it

by the ministry, if at all possible. That was more of a statement than a

question.

Next is something else incredibly important in the area. Coming

from a municipal government and coming from a regional government, we

have looked long and hard for a piece of property for an organics

treatment and processing centre. When I was the chair of the regional

district, if I remember, we had 23 sites as far as 60 miles away,

looking at how we could put this together. It’s taken a long time, a

terrific amount of staff time.

A site was found through an opportune moment of a rancher retiring

and selling a piece of property. The regional district was able to

acquire the property. It has gone through the commission once, and it

was turned down. There is an appeal process, and I’m kind of treading

around here, around the process, gently.

To the minister and the minister’s staff, there are exceptions

that are made. We all know that that happens. This is government we’re

talking about, not a private operator or anything else. Government has a

lot more flexibility than a person that is trying to do a private

for-profit.

The other extreme example in this is that the regional district of

Okanagan-Similkameen was awarded a substantial amount of money from the

Ministry of Environment to help with this process. There’s a fuse lit on

that, and that fuse is quickly going to the point where it could expire

in the future.

I would just ask…. I do not want to put the minister or her staff

in any situation of an answer, because the appeal process is underway,

but could attention be paid to this, please? It is very important to the

regional district, and it encompasses a lot of municipalities and

townships plus the outlying areas.

[11:30 a.m.]

They have this interest. They want to do it, and it will work. If

you have the opportunity, if you’re in Penticton and area, please go up

and see how the disposal site is run at this point in time, below it.

There is a unique opportunity. Please keep an eye on this for

us.

Hon. L. Popham: I’m very glad that the member brought this forward today. I can

assure the member that it has the attention of government. The Ministry

of Environment, our ministry — we understand the looming deadline on the

funding.

Given that there is, most likely, an appeal process in play, I

won’t be able to comment on the ALC’s opinion of what’s happening. But I

can say that we’re very aware of it, and we’re live to it. But I

appreciate the advocacy from the member.

D. Ashton: Thank you, Minister. Like I said, I had to tippytoe around it, as

you do, and I fully understand that.

Last but not least, more of a statement. I know your passion for

agriculture, and I think people realize that I have a terrific passion

for it also. Land size in the Okanagan is difficult, because we’re

caught between the lake and ground that, at a certain elevation, is not

applicable for agriculture. Agritourism is very important in the

Okanagan and, I’ll say, also in the Similkameen area.

I would just hope that the minister and ministry staff would work

in hand with the Tourism Minister, because that’s what brings people to

the Okanagan. You know, it’s so wonderful. Again, I think, if I remember

correctly, our average farm size is about seven and change acres. That’s

approximate. Don’t quote me on that exactly. Farmers — whether it’s

vintners, etc. — have really reached out and done an incredible job of

drawing people in, and it promotes agriculture continually.

I would just ask, again, that the ministry work hand in hand with

Tourism, because it’s a booming and blossoming market that we can all

work and all be able to show the products that we grow.

Again, thank you to the minister and thank you to her

staff.

I. Paton: Thank you to my colleague for those questions. I do have another

colleague arriving soon with a question, which is great. Everybody’s

very involved with agriculture.

Interjections.

I. Paton: Yeah, I’m just managing. Okay. But I’ll take credit for a great

set of estimates this year.

I need it to be known, and I think the minister knows it, my true

champion of agriculture in B.C. is for the conventional farmer, the guys

and ladies that are out there, day in and day out, that are raising the

cattle up in the cattle country — dairy farmers, poultry farmers, people

growing vegetables, potatoes — that are actually putting the food on our

grocery store shelves that we see everyday — these big bins of potatoes

and all the things that are available to us.

That’s who I look out for, more than anything. It’s the big,

conventional farmer that’s going through a tough time right now with the

price of fuel and the price of fertilizer. It’s just endless what

they’re facing with fires and floods and drought and all these different

things.

I digress. As we move on to the topic of food hubs…. To me, I’m

not really sure how to look at food hubs. It’s a nice gesture; it’s a

nice idea. But my question: how many food hubs are up and running right

now, 100 percent running? What is the cost to the government of each

food hub that has been put together? I think there are 12 of

them.

[11:35 a.m.]

Can the minister tell us if there are actual, conventional farmers

— that are growing potatoes, vegetables, milking cows with dairy,

raising poultry — that would be using these food hubs, or is it people,

city dwellers, that use the food hubs to make a better blueberry

muffin?

Hon. L. Popham: I can see a bit of trepidation from the member around the food hub

network, so first off, I’m going to invite the member to go on a bit of

a tour with me, if he can.

I think if he sees the excitement, from food processors and

farmers, around the opportunities that are coming, not just to urban

settings but to rural settings, around just the potential that these

food hubs are giving to primary growers…. Conventional growers, organic

growers — small-scale, medium-scale and even, in some cases, large-scale

farmers — develop products that they would normally not have the

opportunity to develop, due to barriers of cost of entry as a food

entrepreneur, and get these out onto the marketplace.

We offer business supports to make sure the packaging is done

properly so that they can be on grocery store shelves. We have food

processors that have grown out of the food hub. So it can be a place for

them to start and then to move on to create a larger facility, a

stand-alone facility that represents their businesses. We also

definitely have processors that are happy to be using a food hub, which

is a shared-use food processing centre, to get their products into small

markets, medium markets and large markets.

You can find these products everywhere — in grocery stores like

Save-On-Foods, in Whole Foods, in farmers markets. You can find them in,

basically, any town that has a food hub. You’ll start seeing their

products filtering out throughout the community. The best

part is that

that’s not where it stops. They end up being available throughout the

province, across Canada and then into some international

markets.

The member was wondering how much has been spent and where these

food hubs are. We started with one pilot and demonstration food hub in

Vancouver. That was an investment of $750,000. That launched in early

2019. There are two food hubs, in Surrey and Port Alberni. Surrey was a

$750,000 investment. Port Alberni, which is really….

Surrey is focused on plant-based proteins and jams and jellies,

and we have opportunities there to make products for the health

authorities, which is a really interesting connection — develop

products, through these food hubs, for health authorities — like a

raspberry protein drink that’s coming from B.C. raspberries. I think

there was development that was being done with someone whom we both

know, Rhonda Driediger, and her raspberry crop.

There’s a farmer there that grows specifically…. I think the

member will know that if a farmer has a dedicated market to sell into,

it’s great for the farmer, because they know what they have to grow. The

person receiving the primary product knows what to expect and when to

get it.

[11:40 a.m.]

In that one in particular, there are a lot of products that are

created out of onions. One of them is kind of an onion jam. There’s a

farmer that is growing on Westham Island who has dedicated their entire

onion crop for this facility. So it’s giving opportunities for primary

farmers there.

There’s a food hub in Salmon Arm. I was just up cutting the ribbon

on that one. That was a $565,000 investment. It tried to launch in 2021.

We didn’t have the official ribbon cutting till last weekend. It was

fabulous. It’s almost fully subscribed now, with a variety of goods that

are being created. One of those goods is a product called Hellish

Relish. They’re using primary products grown in the area. There’s also a

barley tea that’s using B.C. barley from B.C. barley farmers. It’s

creating this very unique tea that’s now available across Canada for

online sales.

There’s a food hub in Quesnel. We had an investment of $500,000.

That one is set to have the ribbon cutting this fall. It’s had some

complications due to just the pandemic and the supply chain.

Many of these facilities order very cutting-edge processing

equipment, and there has been a supply chain issue getting that

equipment into the food hubs. Once it’s there, they seem to be getting

off the ground quite immediately after that.

There’s a Cowichan Valley food hub that’s under development.

That’s been an investment of $800,000.

Kamloops, which I also just visited, has two operating facilities

— there was an investment of $800,000 — including Gardengate Training

Centre and a mobile food-processing unit that’s specifically focused on

First Nations goods.

There’s a ribbon cutting anticipated in Victoria, with an $800,000

investment, hoping to open by the end of this spring.

Rock Creek was an $800,000 investment. That one was focused on

meat processing.

There’s one in Bowser, a $550,000 investment.

Creston, which I went up and cut the ribbon on recently, was

$550,000. Creston is an amazing example of an incredible fruit basket.

They didn’t have any processing opportunities — or it was small — for

products like cherries that weren’t able to be sold on the fresh market

due to damage. We saw through the heat dome, etc., the many challenges

that cherries tend to have. They’re using stuff that would have gone to

the landfill or a waste pile, creating cherry juice, dried cherries — a

whole bunch of incredible products there. I would say that there are

conventional farmers using that facility.

Let’s see. What else did we have? Maybe that’s the end of the list

for now.

I will say that there’s an absolute connection to conventional

farming and the food hubs. It is supposed to be a place for small and

medium-sized businesses to scale up and, hopefully, fly on their own,

but it doesn’t take away from the fact that some small businesses want

to stay there.

I. Paton: A quick question. Then I want to be able to get to my colleagues

from Kamloops and from Kelowna. Hopefully, the whole afternoon I’ll have

to myself.

Hon. L. Popham: Well, wait a minute. I asked you if you’d go on a tour.

I. Paton: Oh, absolutely. I’d love to check out the latest pumpkin

pie.

Hon. L. Popham: That was quite derogatory, but you’re going to be so impressed.

You know what? Actually, I’ve got to say….

The Chair: Members.

Hon. L. Popham: I know you’re running out of time. We’re opening one in the Fraser

Valley. You must know how important that facility will be in the Fraser

Valley after what they’ve gone through.

I. Paton: I understand that there are people that are chefs and sous chefs

and all the people that want to make use of these commercial kitchens.

But the question is: how many bona fide farmers who have farm status —

who actually have an acre, half an acre, 200 acres, who are out there

every day in their work clothes producing food — would have time to go

and make use of these extremely expensive food hubs? That is my

question.

The second question is: how do you know that they’re using B.C.

products? How do we know that the food hubs aren’t being used with

imported food to make their new recipes?

Hon. L. Popham: There is not an official requirement for the food hubs to use B.C.

food, but we are making those connections so people know where to source

from. That’s been the biggest problem for small- and medium-scale food

entrepreneurs. Where do they access the goods that they need?

[11:45 a.m.]

You must have heard about a company named Goodly Foods. Have you

heard of them? Okay. Well, I’ll explain it on the record.

Goodly Foods is a company that started in a Vancouver food hub.

They go around and collect vegetables that they call ugly vegetables.

It’s usually stuff that would end up in a waste pile, and it could be

from anywhere — anywhere that there’s a grocery store that wasn’t able

to sell them in time. They are creating soups and stews, and they

started in a food hub.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Popham: Okay. Well, anyway, I’m talking about Goodly Foods.

The most interesting and amazing thing that has happened is that

because of our Feed B.C. program, they have been connected to Fraser

Health. Fraser Health is now using Goodly Foods’ soups and stews within

the health authority. That’s a massive, massive opportunity for farmers

in British Columbia, and we see this all over the place.

The health authorities are taking in more and more B.C. products,

but they need a place that will be able to make the products that they

need. There are lots of food processors of British Columbia. There are

lots of them, large scale. This is addressing a different type of food

processor, and it’s creating a lot of job opportunities in these hubs,

in communities around the province. That’s why we’ve made sure that

they’re in urban areas and in rural areas. The excitement around these

businesses is quite substantial.

The Chair: Noting the hour.

Hon. L. Popham: We just never have enough time.

Interjection.

The Chair: As per the sessional order.

Hon. L. Popham: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 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.