Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 22, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 252

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Myer Horowitz

Hon. M. Dean

Standing Order 81.1

Adoption of government business

schedule

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 37 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

B. Stewart

Hon. B. Ralston

Bill 39 — Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. M. Rankin

M. de Jong

M. Lee

Hon. M. Rankin

Bill 43 — Housing Supply Act

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Bernier

S. Furstenau

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 42 — Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2022

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 43 — Housing Supply Act (continued)

S. Furstenau

B. Banman

D. Ashton

A. Olsen

R. Merrifield

J. Sturdy

C. Oakes

B. Stewart

Hon. M. Rankin

Bill 44 — Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Bernier

H. Yao

A. Olsen

L. Doerkson

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Rankin

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 42 — Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Bill 38 — Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family

Services Amendment Act

K. Kirkpatrick

M. Lee

Hon. M. Dean

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 41 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022 (continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

A. Olsen

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2022

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

MYER HOROWITZ

Hon. M. Dean: I rise today to speak about an outstanding man who gave his time

and energy generously to the communities that he lived in, including,

for a time, here in greater Victoria, and who we have sadly recently

lost.

Dr. Myer Horowitz passed away peacefully at the age of 89 on

October 24 of this year. My connection is through my role as chair of

the Centre for Youth and Society board at the University of Victoria.

Dr. Horowitz was a founding member and chair of the centre’s advisory

board. He also served as the director for the Centre for Early Childhood

Research and Policy and a member of the advisory committee for the

Family Centre.

Dr. Horowitz had a passion for learning and education that was a

running thread throughout his life, as an academic and an advocate for

education for all ages. He was active in his communities and dedicated

many, many hours to volunteering. He was also honoured with numerous

awards and accolades in his lifetime, including becoming an officer of

the Order of Canada and receiving the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee

Medal.

I hope we can all take some time to pay tribute and remember this

amazing person and send condolences to his family. I know Dr. Myer

Horowitz’s legacy will continue to live on.

Standing Order 81.1

ADOPTION OF

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

SCHEDULE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[That, pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2),

a. the question on the motion for second reading of

Bill (No. 37) intituled Energy Statutes Amendment Act,

2022 , and the question on any motion in amendment thereto, be

put by 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 22, 2022, without further

amendment or debate, and that, if a division is called, it shall proceed

forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2);

b. the question on the motion for second reading of

Bill (No. 39) intituled Judicial Review Procedure Amendment

Act, 2022 , and the question on any motion in amendment thereto,

be put by 3:15 p.m. on Tuesday, November 22, 2022, without further

amendment or debate, and that, if a division is called, it shall proceed

forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2);

[1:35 p.m.]

c. the question on the motion for second reading of

Bill (No. 43) intituled Housing Supply Act , and the

question on any motion in amendment thereto, be put by 6:30 p.m. on

Tuesday, November 22, 2022, without further amendment or debate, and

that, if a division is called, it shall proceed forthwith in accordance

with Standing Order 16 (2); and

d. the question on the motion for second reading of

Bill (No. 44) intituled Building and Strata Statutes Amendment

Act, 2022 , and the question on any motion in amendment thereto,

be put by 8:45 p.m. on Tuesday, November 22, 2022, without further

amendment or debate, and that, if a division is called, it shall proceed

forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2).

And further, that, for greater certainty, debate on the motion for

second reading of any of the noted bills may only be adjourned for the

purpose of receiving a report from

Section A or

Section C.]

Motion approved on division.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading debate on Bill 37, Energy Statutes

Amendment Act, 2022.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 42, the

Provincial Sales Tax Act.

In the Birch Room,

Section C, I call committee stage on Bill 41, the

Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 37 — ENERGY STATUTES

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2022

(continued)

B. Stewart: Well, I guess that comes as no surprise to the opposition that

closure is being introduced in terms of second reading on

these.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I know that there is a lot of discussion on all of these bills in

front of the House on committee stage. I think it’s important that

people have a chance to flush out concerns, which is really part of what

committee stage allows for.

It’s interesting. As I listened to some of my colleagues about the

amendments that are proposed here in Bill 37, I couldn’t help but think

about the changes in terms of what it is that the government’s objective

is, in terms of changing the Oil and Gas Commission and its role. I

understand the regulations are being enhanced or changed. But I think

more importantly, one of the things that it appears…. I understand that

the government is very concerned about communications and the messaging

that it provides to British Columbians and the world.

But I do want to challenge some of that. I say that the idea of

removing oil and gas out of the role of what the Oil and Gas Commission

has been tasked with over the number of decades that it’s existed, I

think, is unrealistic. I just think that the fact is that part of the

issue, in my mind, and having…. Not that I’m not supportive of the Clean

Energy Act, or the carbon tax that we implemented back in 2007. Part of

that was to change behaviours and make a conscientious

change.

I think that we would all agree that we’re fortunate to live in,

probably, a country that is blessed with so much opportunity. The fact

that we only have less than 40 million people living on the land mass

that we do — just over five million people in British Columbia…. I think

that most places would label British Columbia, Vancouver and the

communities as being unbelievably clean and not places that are heavily

polluted.

Now, I say that meaning that this whole dialogue that’s been going

on about the idea of cleaning up the environment, that we can change

this on a dime, let alone the fact that Bill 37 talks about changing oil

and gas to the B.C. energy regulator…. To be honest, I think that that’s

nice to have, etc., but let’s be realistic.

[1:40 p.m.]

I served in this House from 2009. I chose to accept a position to

go to Asia and work on behalf of the province in the trade offices that

we had over there. I didn’t know what to expect, although, mind you, I

had travelled previously into Japan, in terms of international trade,

and Hong Kong and Australia. I wouldn’t say that those countries are….

They do take their environment very seriously.

There are different challenges with every geographic region in the

world. As the representative for British Columbia in Asia, I can tell

you firsthand…. I visited countries that are struggling not only with

helping their population out.

I know that the governments…. Both parties in this House are there

to try to better the outcomes for British Columbians, whether they’re

supportive of the government or supportive of the opposition party, in

terms of making life outcomes better. Their children get better

education. There’s better health care. The opportunities are

better.

I can honestly tell you that these countries are struggling to

even scratch their way to a place where there’s an economy where they

don’t have to live in substandard accommodation. The disconnect I see,

in terms of what is trying to be accomplished through Bill 37, is the

fact that we think we can clean up the environment by simply changing

some wording, etc.

The member for Peace River South yesterday talked about the fact….

You know, the air quality in Peace River is pretty good. But it can’t be

thought that the molecules from China aren’t migrating across the

Pacific, with the airstream, etc., and landing in North

America.

I have to tell you. I looked today, just before giving these

remarks. There’s a measurement that they use. If you have travelled

internationally and you have spent time in countries that do have air

quality issues…. Air quality is just an indication of particle matters

that are in the air that will make you not live as long and certainly

make your lifestyle very much different.

You look out at how dark the day is to see what the air quality

index is. It happens that in British Columbia today, we’re looking at an

AQI index of between one and three. This is on a scale between zero and

It happens that today in Beijing, the air quality is actually

pretty good by Beijing standards. It’s 151 on that AQI scale. Now,

having been there for 3½ years, I can assure you that 151 doesn’t come

along every day. Often the days are 200, 300 and, some days, worse than

that.

I’ve actually been in the country or come in from some of the

outlying areas. I can remember, on one particular mission, coming back

from Tokyo, coming in late at night. The air quality index was so bad

that the embassy had shut down all of its operations and put people on

remote, even though they had all of these air purification systems

within the embassy. It was measured at a number that was above 1,000.

They actually can’t measure it, they say. It was so brown, so

dark.

I just can’t understand. Maybe it’s a case…. Because of the fact

that I’ve had the good fortune of not only having a business that

required some international travel, representing the government…. I do

think that we’re missing the part about what opportunities British

Columbia has to offer to the world.

We’re talking about Asia, not just China. We’re talking about

Vietnam. We’re talking about Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, Manila,

India. These countries are struggling to create an economy. They will do

whatever it takes to create energy, to create economic opportunities.

The problem with that is that those choices are often what I would

consider to be particularly bad choices.

Bill 37 talks about things that we do want to deal with. There are

lots of things in Bill 37 that we support — orphan wells, the

rehabilitation, the responsibilities. There is a lot of things in Bill

37 that, perhaps, reach too far. I say that. Overreaching is a

problem.

[1:45 p.m.]

We’ve just recently had COP 27. Lots of people around the world

are talking about what the developed countries have been doing to the

undeveloped countries and the fact…. One of the big issues was creating

a fund to help them up, etc.

I think that this is one of the things that is a complete

shortsightedness of the bill, in terms of what it’s striving to do. By

trying to change the fact….

British Columbia has this unbelievable opportunity to provide

clean energy. I’m not talking about thermal coal. That’s dirty, and it

requires all sorts of extra work to clean it up. I think that there

should be an effort to try and restrict or limit the export of that,

although British Columbia does export those things.

What we need to be looking at is: how do we do it in the best way

possible as a transition? The transition meaning that we can provide

real opportunities for British Columbians in terms of what the role of

the Oil and Gas Commission is in British Columbia, as proposed, to be

the B.C. energy regulator.

The changes that are being proposed are really very shortsighted,

in my opinion, in terms of trying to put these into place in a very

short period of time. As a matter of fact, we did hear, as you stepped

into the chair, Mr. Speaker, the fact that closure…. As a matter of

fact, I think we’re less than 15 minutes away from closure on

this.

I just want to make certain…. I think, as the minister knows…. He

well remembers his decision, as the minister responsible for trade, to

close 14 offices in one day because of the fact that it didn’t suit the

government’s needs or whatever. I think what’s shortsighted about

that….

I know the Minister of Forests was recently in Japan. I know the

Minister of Energy has been over, as well, and the former

Premier.

I think that what’s important is to look at the differences, the

opportunity. We’re so caught up in terms of what we’re doing now,

notionally, in British Columbia. We’re talking about the energy

emissions with LNG in Kitimat. The gas has to come from somewhere. It’s

certainly not the pipelines that are the problem. The output of what the

CO 2 or the NOx emissions are is kind of what the big

problems are in terms of turning that into energy.

What we really have to measure here is the equivalency of clean

LNG, which we already have LNG Canada committed to here in British

Columbia, and the fact that we have imposed regulations through the Oil

and Gas Commission upon all sorts of energy extraction. I know that this

speaks about the people that are going to be sitting on the board, how

they were arrived at, etc.

At the end of the day, it’s important to have a broad view of what

it is that we’re trying to achieve. I say that meaning…. We want to

clean up the environment globally, not just in my riding or in Vancouver

or some other place. We’ve got to be thinking on a big scale, and we are

not going to do it by just changing some words and language, by changing

it from the Oil and Gas Commission to the B.C. energy

regulator.

I have to say. What I think is really, unfortunately, lacking is….

Members of the government should be going over. They should be going to

places that I refer to as being new, emerging economies in ASEAN

countries where there is the benefit of this type of energy alternative

on an interim basis.

I think what we should be doing is looking at some of the

Scandinavian countries. If I’m not mistaken…. I believe it’s Denmark

that has a sovereign wealth fund that is massive. The point about it is

that with those types of resources…. I know that when we first brought

in the carbon tax, we directed money to clean energy initiatives to help

make the opportunity for new technology, clean technology.

We’ve had debates here in the last five years about whether we

should be doing hydroelectric. Currently it’s one of the largest and

most beneficial clean energy projects that we actually have in British

Columbia, let alone….

[1:50 p.m.]

We’re working with companies like Corvus, which is doing energy

with batteries in ships that are coming to shore, etc., and storing that

energy. That happens to be in the Lower Mainland. There are lots of

great companies that are doing things like that.

I think that what Bill 37 really misses the mark on is the fact

that it…. We should be celebrating the fact that we have the resources

that we have and that we can provide an alternative to these countries

that are struggling to actually deal with the pollution, and they’re

choking on it. I mean, you only have to…. You don’t have to just watch

the news. You go to those countries and you see. I think that that would

be certainly something that….

Maybe when the House isn’t sitting, there should be a delegation,

and perhaps, maybe, Mr. Speaker, you’d be one of the ones that might

want to lead that delegation and come back with the perspective that

I’ve tried to explain to the Minister of Energy here in terms of the

supreme importance of us trying to understand what our role is in the

global scheme of things and being able to make certain that we can make

that difference.

We can make that difference in our lifetime with those countries

if we’re willing to not turn the tap off and say: “No, no. We don’t have

that.” They don’t have the gas — the gas reserves. I mean, knowing what

China has…. They have gas reserves, but they’re miles deep into the

ground versus in Montney and some of these other places where we have

resources in the northeast of the province.

I’m not even certain how many of the members in government have

physically been across the Rocky Mountains into the Peace River to see

the difference and know what it’s like. Having been, formerly, the

Agriculture Minister, I know that there are good agricultural

opportunities up there for certain commodities and crops, etc. But there

are challenges, and the energy that we could provide…. It could provide

the financial alternative to not having the resources to improve health

care, education — all the things that we want to do.

We talk about poverty. We talk about those things. These are the

things that those resources can help bring. I’m not saying to forget

about it, and I think that Bill 37 clearly doesn’t say forget about it.

It says: how do we deal with orphan wells? How do we deal with the Oil

and Gas Commission or the new B.C. energy regulator?

I just want to digress for a second here. I can tell you that one

of my very first official visits as a member of government was to Fort

Nelson. Now, Fort Nelson, in that particular time, was a booming

community of only 2,500. But at the time, the Oil and Gas Commission,

soon to be the B.C. energy regulator, provided Bill 37 passes…. It was a

brand-new office, locally, to help make certain that people that are

working in this northern region….

You have to remember…. We think of Fort Nelson as being the very

far north. Well, let me tell you, the oil and gas fields that are north

of that are a far cry, and they need local decision-making. But there

are lots of other good services in places like Fort Nelson — Service

B.C., MCFD. They’re all there.

One of the things about that particular community is that these

jobs are local to the jobs that are being done up there. They’re people

that know what’s going on. They understand the problems that have

existed from past activities, whether there were financial reasons why a

well is orphaned or whatever. But I think that the thing about it is

that these local people understand that, and they know, often, how best

to address those things.

I really do commend the fact that we want to try to make certain

that there’s no such thing. We don’t want that term “orphan well” in

British Columbia, if we can help it. But we can’t necessarily, with the

stroke of a pen, force and make those things kind of all

happen.

I think that the Oil and Gas Commission currently has seven

offices. I look at the fact that the changes that they’re proposing here

really does….

The concern that we would have if and when we get to committee

stage on this is that we’re going to want to talk about the principles

of fairness and investment certainty that these changes will make.

That’s really what it’s about, right? One of the biggest problems in

foreign jurisdictions, looking at a place like British Columbia, is what

type of certainty do we have in terms of energy, in terms of extracting

it? What are the rules?

[1:55 p.m.]

I know that in my time in Asia, I made it very clear that once you

had permits, they were very certain. Now, it wasn’t easy to get the

permits. You had to go through the environmental assessment office, the

Oil and Gas Commission, or the B.C. energy regulator.

But the principle of having certainty is so important. We need to

make certain we do that, not just in oil and gas. We need to do it in

forestry. We need to do it in mining. We need to make certain that these

opportunities are not snatched away from people that live in the far

north up in Fort Nelson, Fort St. John or Dawson Creek. As I said, how

many from this building have actually been to those

communities?

I think that the things that are important is that I know that

there are complex discussions. With UNDRIP going on, it is very

important that First Nation consultation is taking place. We’ve seen

that with issues in terms of where the majority of this is going with

First Nations.

What’s being proposed here is that we also include, in a new board

— the B.C. energy regulator — a First Nation representative as one of

the board members, which I have no problem, provided that they come with

the balance and experience that is necessary to make certain that we

make informed decisions. Poorly informed decisions lead to this

uncertainty and wild, crazy things that are going on.

I know the Minister of Forests and I have talked ad nauseam about

the changes in terms of the forest deferral act that was implemented a

while ago. The bottom line is that I think that the situation is it’s

left the companies in a very difficult situation. How do we get to that

point? How do we build consensus? How do we do the right thing, making

certain at every step of the way? So this is really important that the

message to the new board and the changes that we’re making to the B.C.

energy regulator are very clearly the type of decisions that are

balanced, informed and thoughtful, knowing our goal.

That’s, first of all, what we have to do. The idea that we want to

produce LNG for ten years, 20 years…. What’s it going to take for India

to clean up and get rid of some of the problems. India is not the only

country. The population is so populace. I know the other day that we

passed eight billion people on the planet. We have to do something,

because we’re not going to get away from energy and the need for

it.

You can only look at what’s happening in the situation with

Ukraine today in terms of the fact that all of those people that have

lost, whether it’s nuclear or natural gas, are turning to any other

source that they can just to get through the winter. That’s what those

other countries that we’re talking about are actually faced with.

They’re looking at any opportunity, and what we need to do is create the

opportunity through the regulation of the gas and the things that we

have here to make certain that what we’re doing is creating

opportunities and an alternative solution.

The other thing that was mentioned in here is the…. I think that

the current proposal that the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission can hold…. WIP

is entirely responsible for obligations under a permit. In the context

of an orphan site, regardless of the WIP’s ownership share, that should

be concerning. One of the things that….

Sometimes in these investments, or the way that these are shared

investments in terms of extracting, getting permits, etc., is that the

permitting is either you’ve taken over assumed liabilities from other

people…. It will maybe, perhaps, even put such a restriction in terms of

these companies that are looking for an opportunity in being able to

actually move ahead and actually being able to complete the work that

was expected where there is a problem like an orphan well.

One of the things that’s proposed here is that this would

fundamentally change how the risk is balanced among the partners. That

means the partners, the board of directors. I think that although there

is responsibility from boards of directors — don’t get me wrong — they

need to make certain that we know what they’re stepping into, trying to

make certain that they understand what their risk and liabilities are

and trying to work with them to find a solution.

[2:00 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the

House earlier, I invite the member to take their seat.

I now must put the question on second reading of Bill 37, Energy

Statutes Amendment Act, 2022.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole

House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 37, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Osborne: I call second reading on Bill 39.

BILL 39 — JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that Bill 39 be now read a second time.

Bill 39 will ensure clarity with respect to the judicial review of

decisions made under decision-making agreements under the Declaration on

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. The amendments in the bill are

part of the government’s implementation of the Declaration Act that

provides tools for the province and Indigenous governing bodies to

develop decision-making agreements. These agreements support

predictability for how decisions are made and are a mechanism for

Indigenous peoples to fully participate in decisions that affect

them.

This bill will ensure shared accountability for decisions made

under these agreements by providing clarity to the courts on any

judicial reviews of decisions made under decision-making agreements with

Indigenous governing bodies.

The Judicial Review Procedure Act is a procedural statute that

governs the processes that apply to judicial reviews of decisions made

by government decision-makers — for example, decisions to issue forest

licences or highway use permits. Judicial reviews ensure that decisions

have been made reasonably, fairly and within the decision-maker’s scope

of authority.

At this time, there have been no Indigenous governing body

decisions made under the Declaration Act decision-making agreements. The

amendments will clarify that a consent-based decision of an Indigenous

governing body that is made in accordance with a decision-making

agreement will be subject to the same processes under the Judicial

Review Procedure Act as government decisions that followed the consent

decision.

At present, our government has entered into a consent-based

decision-making agreement under

section 7 of the Declaration Act with

the Tahltan Central Government. This agreement advances reconciliation

and provides clarity and predictability for the Eskay Creek

revitalization project.

Because the processes in the Judicial Review Procedure Act already

address situations where two or more decision-makers make decisions

jointly, the bill does not contain amendments to address joint decisions

under the Declaration Act decision-making agreements.

Our government has started negotiations with the shíshálh First

Nation, the former Sechelt Nation, on the first joint decision-making

agreement under

section 7 of the Declaration Act. This agreement, once

negotiated, will apply to decisions on dock tenures within the shíshálh

swiya — that is, their traditional territory — and will

build upon the current model for making shared decisions on dock tenures

that was established back in 2018.

This bill also contains a new definition of “Indigenous governing

body.” It has the same meaning under the bill of the term found in the

Declaration Act.

The amendments provide another option for how service of legal

process may be made on an Indigenous governing body where there’s an

application for judicial review and service is required. Service may be

effectively made in accordance with the rules of the court, if

applicable, or in accordance with the Declaration Act decision-making

agreement.

The amendments ensure that the procedural rights for notice and

participation extend to Indigenous governing bodies where there is a

judicial review of a consent-based decision of an Indigenous governing

body. The bill also extends the tools available to the court for

ordering the record to be filed by ensuring the court can order the

record of the Indigenous governing body consent decision under

section 7

Declaration Act agreements.

[2:05 p.m.]

This legislation furthers government’s commitment to strengthening

relations with Indigenous peoples in the spirit of reconciliation. The

amendments were developed in close collaboration with the First Nation

Leadership Council, the Alliance of B.C. Modern Treaty Nations and

several

section 35 rights holders, such as the shíshálh

Nation.

M. de Jong: The topic for discussion is, and I suppose will remain, Bill 39,

which is a short piece of legislation that speaks to both some

procedural matters and the opportunity to seek a judicial review of

certain decisions made by a governing body. Those are important

evolutionary mechanisms in the law that flow from the adoption of the UN

declaration. They are worthy of consideration. I would say this.

Conceptually, they are worthy of support.

But the backdrop against which this conversation is taking place

needs to be commented upon, because for people watching, a few moments

ago something has taken place in this chamber that directly impacts this

piece of legislation and other pieces of legislation. That is the motion

that the Government House Leader has introduced that, amongst other

things, severely limits the opportunity this House will have to consider

this piece of legislation but also other pieces of

legislation.

The rules around quorum require that members of the government be

in the chamber. I rather suspect that many of them would rather not be

here, because they must be incredibly embarrassed. If they’re not, they

should be. To table legislation in the final three or four days of a

session — legislation that the government touts as being fundamentally

important to the future of the province — to table that legislation to

fit with a political agenda that was entirely within the control of the

government and then say, less than 24 hours later, that there will be

one or two hours of debate on that legislation is reprehensible,

indefensible and an embarrassment.

I don’t know to what lengths this government wants to go to, to

chase away support and bipartisan support, but they’re doing a pretty

good job. The government stands up. Ministers stand up. “We want to work

together. We want to have your support on pieces of legislation that are

worthy of that support.” You know what the prerequisite to supporting

legislation is? It’s having the time to examine and debate it in this

chamber.

Now, that may seem to some members to be funny. I don’t find it

very funny. I cannot think of a time in 29 years when a government of

any political stripe has done what this government has done

today.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Well, the member for Chilliwack seems to have something to say.

I’d like to sit down and cede my time. But there is no time, because his

party has imposed closure. And he finds that funny. He finds that

humorous.

“Here’s legislation,” the government says yesterday. The new

Premier. This is the new Premier’s idea of a coming-out party? This is

demonstration of his commitment to the democratic process? Signature

pieces of legislation, he calls them. Signature pieces of legislation

that will chronicle a path forward on an issue that most British

Columbians think is very important, and we will have one or two hours of

debate.

[2:10 p.m.]

Why has the government chosen to proceed down this path in this

manner? We have, over the course of this session, in so many instances,

demonstrated what can be accomplished when members work together

cooperatively. There’s a bill in another committee room, a 600-section

piece of legislation, that was, admittedly, the product of all-party

work. And the remaining process to complete that work was for a

committee of this assembly to go through it in a responsible way to

ascertain whether or not it accomplishes what members hope it will

accomplish.

After cancelling an entire week of sitting, the government now

says that won’t happen. Couldn’t be bothered. Couldn’t be

bothered.

Deputy Speaker: If the member wants to talk about what’s happening in another

committee room, of course, he can go there. We are here, of course, on

Bill 39.

M. de Jong: Actually, the motion that limits the discussion of this bill is

directly on point.

Deputy Speaker: We’re on Bill 39.

M. de Jong: It is directly on point and the motion….

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. If you’ll take your seat, please.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, if you’re suggesting that we’re not, then I’m all

ears.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Take your seat, please.

I was simply asking the member to speak to the legislation, which

is Bill 39, the Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act. The member was

speaking about another piece of legislation in another committee, which

is not appropriate as per the standing order. So if the member could

draw his comments back to the bill, I would appreciate it. Thank

you.

M. de Jong: I’m not withdrawing any comments, Mr. Speaker. Thank

you.

Deputy Speaker: If the member is trying to get a fight from the Speaker, he’s not

getting one. I did not ask him to withdraw. He’s sitting right beside me

here. I simply asked him to speak to the bill.

M. de Jong: If the Chair’s direction is that in a case where closure has been

imposed on the strength of a motion just tabled in this House, on the

bill that is before the House now — that, somehow, that is

inappropriate, then I am at a loss to explain how members of this

chamber can do their job.

Deputy Speaker: We’re not having a debate here, Member.

The member is free to talk about the bill and the implications of

closure on this bill. The member was speaking about the implications on

another bill, which is not in front of this chamber. So the debate is

over. Let’s continue to discuss Bill 39. The member may

continue.

M. de Jong: Well, I can assure you that the debate is not over for me. It will

be shortly, because the government says it is.

Mr. Speaker, you and other members of the chamber may discern that

I’m a little worked up. I don’t get worked up that much anymore, because

I thought I’d seen it all. I actually thought I had seen it all, but I

have never seen a Premier in his first week in this House do what has

just happened. I have never seen a Premier introduce legislation that he

says is groundbreaking…. What did the Attorney General call it?

Historic.

These bills, Bill 39…. They deserve an opportunity to be examined.

I think any responsible review of the record of debates in this chamber

over the course of the last four or five weeks would confirm that the

debate that has taken place has been responsible. It has been

informative. In most cases, I dare say, it has been

collegial.

[2:15 p.m.]

But someone has come along after cancelling an entire week of the

session and, with respect to Bill 39 and other pieces of legislation,

has said: “No. That troublesome process called democratic debate in a

chamber is just a bit of a problem, so we’re not going to do it

anymore.” Talk about a legacy forged in the first days in

office.

I wonder if any member of the government will stand to defend it.

If there is some compelling reason for why the debate on Bill 39 and

other pieces of legislation need to be truncated in this fashion, then

I’d like to hear it. You know, the whole point of having a parliamentary

calendar was so that members could understand, and the government would

table, its legislative portfolio, its legislative agenda. All of those

bills would be tabled, and then the obligation shifts to the opposition

to allocate time as they see fit.

The prerequisite to that is the government needs to table the

legislation in a timely way, or it doesn’t work. It was never, ever,

ever contemplated, in the creation of what we now call the guillotine

motion, that the government would table a bill on a Monday and impose

closure on a Tuesday. It was never contemplated, as we see with Bill 39,

that the Attorney General of the province would stand up….

I am trying to imagine what the Attorney General would have said,

as an opposition member of the federal parliament, if this has happened.

I think he takes a measure of pride in being a democrat — a small-D

democrat. I suppose he probably takes pride in being a big-D Democrat

too. I think he probably…. But today is not a day to be proud of that.

Today, with his and his colleagues’ fingerprints on the motions before

this House and the impact it’s having on discussion around Bill 39 and

other pieces of legislation, is not a day to be proud to be a member of

a party that touts itself as a democratic party.

The whole notion…. I said this yesterday. My point was: in

circumstances where it was clear that the government intended to go down

a certain path, I said, “Be careful,” because I have been around long

enough to know that no one sits on either side of the House forever. It

might seem like that on some days, but by establishing the pattern and

the precedents that this government has in the last few days —

procedural precedents around disregard and disrespect for this

institution — they may one day rue the day. But they did so.

There are very few people watching these debates. I’m not naive

enough to think that there are people across the province tuning in. But

they do expect that in the creation of laws — which is what we do here,

besides allocating tax dollars — that bind and influence the behaviour

of its citizenry, the members of this chamber will devote themselves to

the responsible review of legislation that creates those

laws.

[2:20 p.m.]

Whether it is around issues of a judicial review on decisions from

First Nations governments or housing issues — the rules that people

create in their neighbourhoods that those bills, those proposed laws,

will be scrutinized and will receive a sufficient and responsible level

of attention, and they’re not. They’re not, Mr. Speaker, not because of

circumstances beyond the control of this government. I do want to

emphasize that again. I did yesterday, and I will do so again

today.

Everyone understands that there are circumstances that are beyond

the control of government and that require us to be flexible here. Not a

single member on either side of the House, I expect, would take issue

with adjusting the rules to take external factors beyond the control of

any of us into account. We have demonstrated that and proven that in the

past.

This is all within the government’s control. This travesty has

been manufactured by the government and by the Premier with the

acquiescence and support of every member of his cabinet, and it is

deplorable. Each one of these members of the executive council and, by

extension, members of the government caucus now own a part of that

legacy. They have contributed, signed off and endorsed that approach to

law-making in British Columbia.

We may or may not have an opportunity to consider Bill 39 in

greater detail. It’s hard to say. Things change pretty quick around

here. One minute we have a democratic institution dedicated to the

responsible review of legislation, and the next minute we have the

Premier’s little playpen, his little parliamentary playpen.

Deputy Speaker: I might again, Member, draw you back to the contents of Bill 39.

Thank you.

M. de Jong: A parliamentary playpen that the Premier believes he can

manipulate, direct and dictate procedurally. That’s what he’s done

today. If he did it today, in his first week in office, imagine what

he’s going to be like in his second week and his second month. That’s

what we’ve learned about the former Attorney General, who is now

Premier, the leader of the New Democratic Party.

I wonder if the realization that the new Premier would shut down

debate on Bill 39 and other pieces of legislation…. I wonder if that’s a

pledge he made to his caucus colleagues, all of whom apparently

supported him to become Premier.

That’s where we’re at. I don’t know if we’ll come back to a

committee stage. Historically what you will see in a debate like this

is…. In terms of the concept of the bill, we either support or don’t

support it. Many times oppositions support the bills in principle and

say: “Well, we’ve got some questions in committee.”

I don’t know if we’ll have a committee. Why would I think today

that there would be a committee on any of the legislation? The Premier

may decide that’s just not necessary any longer, and tomorrow we’ll get

another one of these.

[2:25 p.m.]

Unprecedented. Unprecedented in the annals of parliamentary

democracy, at least in the last 40 years, that a government would

conduct itself in this way.

Now, maybe the defence…. I suppose I have to be fair to this

extent, because maybe I’m giving too much credit. I am operating on the

proposition that this is the worst form of manipulation — purposeful,

designed.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the motion that was debated and voted on earlier is not

the subject of this discussion. This is Bill 39, the Judicial Review

Procedure Amendment Act, 2022.

The Speaker has given the member considerable leeway under our

rules. He’s made his statement.

My point is that we have a bill, and that is what we’re meant to

be addressing here.

M. de Jong: Always helpful, Mr. Speaker. You just took 47 seconds of the

remaining time I have left.

Deputy Speaker: Well, then I would ask you to please focus on the bill.

M. de Jong: And I would ask you to give me the opportunity to do so, Mr.

Speaker. I am aware of the rules and the motion that pertains directly

to the piece of legislation that we are debating today. I dare say we

are now engaging in the debate you said you didn’t want to

have.

Deputy Speaker: Then please focus on the bill.

M. de Jong: If you’ll let me, Mr. Speaker, happy to.

Deputy Speaker: Member, there’s no need for back-talking the Speaker here. We do

have rules here. They’re meant to be followed by every member of this

House.

M. de Jong: You’ve now taken an additional 37 seconds of the limited time I

have to deal….

Deputy Speaker: This is your time, Member, and you’ve decided not to follow the

rules here.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I just want to exercise my parliamentary right as a

member of this assembly.

Deputy Speaker: Member, sit down. Sit down.

I understand the member might be looking for fireworks. He’s not

getting them from this Speaker.

I’m asking you to follow the rules, which is to speak to the bill.

If the member chooses not to follow the rules, which is to speak to the

bill, which is the Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, then I’m

going to have to move on to the next speaker. It is important we address

the legislation in the time that we have.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, if the ruling from the Chair — and you can make this

ruling, I suppose — is that in a case where the government has imposed

closure on a piece of legislation, we’re not allowed to talk about the

fact that they’ve imposed closure…

Deputy Speaker: Member.

M. de Jong: …then that is a new ruling from the Chair, and you might as well

make it so at least we’ll understand what the rules are.

Deputy Speaker: No it’s not.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Enough, Member, sit down.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Sit down, Member, or I’m going to ask you to leave the chamber.

Thank you.

I’ve asked you to follow the bill. I’ve asked you to focus on the

legislation. You’ve made your case around time allocation, which is not

a debatable motion under the rules of this House. It’s debating

something that happened in the past. We’re asking you to focus on this

legislation.

That is the rules in this House, and at this stage, the member’s

wanting to debate me and continuing this. I’m going to ask another

member, to give their chance to speak, because the member has decided

not to follow the rules of this House.

Point of Order

M. de Jong: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you are denying me my right to speak

in this chamber on a piece of legislation, then I need to hear that

now.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’ve asked you to speak to….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, sit down. Sit down.

[The Deputy Speaker rose.]

I’m asking the member to sit down. I’ve been clear about what I’ve

asked the member to do. He’s chosen not to do that, so I’m going to ask for

another member to have their chance to speak.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, enough. If the member’s choosing not to follow the rules, I

will have to ask the member to withdraw.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please leave the chamber.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The member’s decided to try and have an argument with the Speaker.

That’s not how this place works. I’ve asked the member to follow the rules,

which is to speak to the legislation.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Enough, Member, enough. This is your time. You’ve decided to waste it

in arguing with the Speaker. I’ve asked you to follow the legislation and to

follow the rules.

[The Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

Deputy Speaker: Are there any other speakers?

Recognizing the member for Vancouver-Langara.

Vancouver-Langara has the floor.

Member, what is your point of order?

M. de Jong: The clock indicated that I had a remaining eight minutes left, and I’m

at a loss to explain to my constituents why those eight minutes were denied

to me.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the Speaker has been clear. I asked you to follow the

legislation and speak to the actual bill as opposed to other issues relating

to the bill that are not in the bill. I’ve asked….

That’s been clear. I’ve stated it multiple times, given the member

multiple leeway. The ruling is clear. Thank you.

M. de Jong: I’m still unclear on your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please have your seat. Please take your seat,

Member.

This House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 2:30 p.m. to 2:35 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We’re back here for second reading of Bill 39. I

have recognized the member for Vancouver-Langara, if he had chosen to

continue to stand.

The member for Abbotsford West raised a point of order. I ruled on

that point of order. It’s not sustained. I’ve made my reasoning clear. So

I’m not sure if the member is asking to raise a different point of order,

but the ruling is pretty clear here, Member.

The member for Abbotsford West.

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Speaker. I am certain it is clear to you, Mr. Speaker. It

is unclear to me on what basis the Chair has chosen to deny me the time that

would otherwise be available as part of the standing orders to complete my

comments on Bill 39.

I understand that the Chair takes issue with some of my commentary.

The practice, as I understand it, has always been to afford members the

opportunity to take those comments under advisement.

I should say, as well, and I say this with respect to the Chair, that

it’s clear upon reflection that my tone was quite heated earlier. The Chair

needs to be respected, and believe me, I am alive to the importance of that.

And to the extent that my tone, at least, was disrespectful, I need to

apologize for that.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for that. It was not respectful and did not respect

the role of the Chair to all members, which is to make sure that all members

get a chance to speak.

The rules are also clear that the discussion needs to be relevant, and

it can’t be repetitious. The Chair asked numerous times for support from the

member to discuss the relevant chapters, sections, etc., in the bill. The

member decided to argue with the Chair, so I decided to move and request

another member to speak to the bill, as we have limited time, as the member

stated numerous times.

So at this stage, we’re not going to continue this debate.

M. de Jong: The precedent, Mr. Speaker, then, that has been set is that if the

Speaker takes issue with comments made by a member of this assembly, he’ll

simply move on and deny the member….

Deputy Speaker: That’s not correct, Member.

The member, if he could take his seat…. The Speaker has made his

ruling. I’ve made clear that, as in the rules and as I’ve seen happen in

this House many times over, if a member is being repetitious, if they’re not

being relevant, the Speaker draws the member to the legislation. I chose to

do that with this member numerous times, and then the member chose to argue

with the Speaker.

So we’re done with this, Member.

If he could take his seat. The member has made his case, the Speaker

has made his ruling, and if the member could take his seat at this stage, it

would be appreciated by all other members so we could get back to the

legislation and discussion.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I can raise another point of order.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if you have another point of order, if you can raise the point

of order under the standing orders, I would like to hear it,

then.

M. de Jong: The standing orders provide a requisite amount of time for members of

this assembly to make comment with respect to a bill.

[2:40 p.m.]

Now, happily, although this may change, bills being subjected to

motions of closure have heretofore been unusual. That may be changing, I

fear. In fact, all indications are that….

Deputy Speaker: What is the point of order, Member?

M. de Jong: That pursuant to the rules of this House, I am entitled to speak for

another eight minutes on this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the rules of this House, the member is also required to be

relevant and to speak to the legislation.

So I’ve made my ruling….

M. de Jong: Now apparently I am unable to make my point of order without

interruption.

Deputy Speaker: The member is making the same point of order as he tried

earlier.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, the Speaker has given latitude, has requested relevance, has

requested lack of repetition, has requested to get back to the bill numerous

times. The Speaker has reminded this member numerous times to do

so.

The member has chosen to argue each and every time and has continued

to argue each and every time, while claiming he wanted to get back to being

able to talk about the bill. When I’ve given him leeway to do so, we go back

to the same argument.

I’m not sure we’re going to be helpful to anybody here at this point,

Member, to continue this circular discussion when it’s clear…. If the member

wants to speak to the legislation, we should speak to the legislation. I

respect the member enough to give him the time to finish, but I ask the

member to follow the rules of this House and to respect the Speaker as he

says he wants to do.

Please proceed, Member.

Debate Continued

M. de Jong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a shame that the concepts and the principles contained

within Bill 39, important and relevant as they are to the evolving

relationship with B.C.’s Indigenous peoples and First Nations

people, would be compromised and limited in the way that they are.

You know, there are aspects of judicial review and how those rules

would apply to the agreements that are referred to in this

legislation. We won’t have time to discuss that. We won’t have an

opportunity to pose those questions.

My colleague from Vancouver-Langara has some very real

concerns and questions pertaining to aspects of this bill as they

relate to, actually, other pieces of legislation that are before

this House, in child protection.

It is incumbent upon members of this assembly and, certainly,

members of this opposition to point out to the public that our

opportunity to pose those questions, to raise those issues on a

piece of legislation like Bill 39 and other pieces of legislation

that, by his own word, the Attorney General and the Premier describe

as historic and unprecedented…. Well, apparently they’re historic

and unprecedented for the wrong reasons, because I’ve never seen a

government introduce legislation on a Monday and impose closure on a

Tuesday.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

We know politicians — Premiers, ministers — like the term

“legacy.” They like to look back and point to pieces of legislation,

legislation like Bill 39 and other pieces of legislation that are

being considered by the House.

[2:45 p.m.]

But the legacy that has been set today and the pattern that I

fear will be repeated over and over and over again is that this

chamber now will be relegated by the Premier and his executive

council to an, in their mind, insignificant body whose only purpose

is to rubber-stamp, at the Premier’s behest and on the Premier’s

schedule, whatever legislation he deems appropriate to present

here.

That’s not democracy. It has become fashionable, for reasons

that have been discussed elsewhere, to refer to the Premier’s

ascension to his post as being tainted. There are reasons for that.

It probably falls outside of the ambit of the discussion we’re

having in the House, but what does fall within the orbit of what

we’re discussing is how every bit of legislation this government has

introduced and made subject to these closure bills is now

tainted.

I will say this again. Believe it or not — and there is ample

evidence to support this proposition — there is an ability on the

part of members of this assembly to work together to achieve good

things. The government has put all of that — not at risk. They have

thrown all of that away, because when we take a bill like Bill 39 or

other pieces of legislation that are the product of bipartisan work,

we ask only one thing.

The public asks only one thing, I believe, in return: that

their legislators, who they elect and pay to perform this function

have a reasonable opportunity — not a limitless opportunity but a

reasonable opportunity — to scrutinize and determine whether that

legislation meets the objectives that the government says they are

trying to achieve and, in some cases, that the opposition is trying

to achieve.

That is all that is asked for in return. This Premier and this

government have signalled that we are asking too much. They have

chosen, instead, to proceed with an absolute disregard not just for

the principles of democracy but the traditions of this place and the

importance of those traditions.

Now, I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the function of the

Legislature as regards Bill 39 and other pieces of legislation —

maybe it’s changed because the Premier has decided in all his wisdom

to make public the legislative review committee proceedings. I don’t

think so. I don’t think he’s inviting the public in to be part of

those discussions. I don’t think he’s inviting people in to be part

of the discussions that take place around the cabinet

table.

The only place the important issues considered by pieces of

legislation like Bill 39 can receive an airing is in here, and that

has now been eliminated. It has been eliminated. Democracy has been

sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, because the Premier

has a political agenda that is all about making the Premier look

good. Democracy will be sacrificed in the name of that overarching

objective.

As I indicated earlier, my tone at a certain point got — I

hope, uncharacteristically — harsh and heated, but the government

has put a muzzle on this chamber in a way that I’ve never seen

before. I don’t expect we’ll hear any member of the government try

to defend that, because it is indefensible, but within the limited

time available, I did want to and do want to make the point that the

legitimacy of legislation like Bill 39 and other pieces of

legislation has now been compromised.

If the government expects the opposition to simply stand up

and salute and support pieces of legislation that it has been denied

the right to properly scrutinize, then I’m afraid they’re dreaming

and they’re wrong, because we won’t do it. We won’t do it. We can’t

do it. It’s not the responsible thing to do.

[2:50 p.m.]

There could have been a better way, but the Premier and the

government have chosen to manipulate this institution of democracy

in a way that is indefensible.

M. Lee: I came into this chamber about an hour ago to stand to speak to

Bill 37 and was watching the member for Kelowna West, following the lead

of our critic the member for Kootenay East, speak to that bill. The

Speaker said: “Time allocation, two o’clock. You’re done.”

Madam Speaker, the reason why the member for Abbotsford West was

so heated certainly is not out of disrespect to you and your office. It

is out of concern for how this government, under this Premier, has

completely undermined the democratic process of this House.

Why does that matter? Well, let me give you a few examples. The

member for Abbotsford West referred to, of course, in this bill debate

on Bill 39, the importance of the Judicial Review Procedure Amendment

Act. It introduces what ministry staff have informed us, the member for

Abbotsford West and myself, of accountability measures for First

Nations, for Indigenous nations, as to how they use

section 6 and

section 7 of the DRIPA act. That’s important.

I was not able to speak today about another important issue that’s

on Bill 37, and that’s connected to Bill 39. Bill 39 is connected to

Bill 38. At 3:15 or after, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and

myself will be in a separate chamber. Why? Because we have three

simultaneous chambers happening at this time, with extended hours, with

closure, with one week less of debate.

Why? Because as the member for Abbotsford West just said, it’s all

about the new Premier. It’s all about how he positions himself in the

first three days of his 100-day plan. He has undermined the democratic

process of this House in such a way that I find it very difficult to

participate in this process, to stand here to be cut off from wanting to

express the concern about the term “supporting reconciliation.” That is

a new term in Bill 37. It’s important to question what that

means.

Why? Because supporting reconciliation is a new term that is

plopped in the middle of Bill 37. Yet we have, on Bill 39, the

accountability measures. We talk about, in Bill 38, the kind of

opportunities there are for coordination agreements, joint

decision-making agreements, with Indigenous nations to take

responsibility for the care of their children.

The implications on this bill is, on Bill 39, that the decision of

the Indigenous governing body and any reasons given by it must be

provided. Well, I want to raise that as an item of consideration,

because we may not have the opportunity at committee on this bill to

even ask the questions.

[2:55 p.m.]

I spent yesterday, as I have in previous days, with the member for

Prince George–Valemount asking questions on Bill 36. I had the

opportunity — thank you to the Minister of Health — to understand the

consultation process with Indigenous nations for that bill.

But I can say to you that despite his best efforts to demonstrate

the level of consultation, I’m not hearing the same on Bill 38. I hope

to ask that question in a moment. But it does raise the question on Bill

39. How many First Nations truly understand that what is tied to DRIPA

section 7 is the requirement that they need to provide the reasons

given for their decision?

The Judicial Review Procedure Act is an important review and

accountability for certain decisions. If we look at other examples, such

as the B.C. Administrative Tribunals Act, there are descriptions in that

statute of the kinds of procedures, the standard of review, that would

take place. Under this amendment, and under DRIPA, there are no explicit

standards of review.

I know that we have the Tahltan Central Government agreement with

the province of British Columbia, relating to consent decision-making

around the Eskay Creek project. When you look at that agreement, there

are no standards of review requirements spelling out the reasons for the

consent to be provided.

I think it’s very important for nations that are looking to this

government to work through that joint decision-making process under

section 7 of DRIPA that they understand what the standards review is

that will be applied to them in their decision-making if they were to

take on this responsibility, which is a statutory power of

decision.

Again, second, it’ll be important for nations and for our chamber

to understand the nature of the reasons, the requirements, around the

record of that decision by the Indigenous governing body. These are

important considerations as we look at this Judicial Review Procedure

Act and the amendments that are being provided under Bill 39.

We know that when we have the opportunity to review what an

Indigenous governing body will be taking on, we need to confirm what

standard will be applied to the exercise of their decision-making

ability in order to confirm that they have that discretion that’s

granted under the agreement with government. Whether that’s an absolute

discretion…. This amendment to this bill, as set out in this bill,

doesn’t require that reasons be given. It just says: “any reasons given

by it.”

The language does matter. That is the opportunity to have that

discussion with the minister responsible for the Attorney General

Ministry, who’s sponsoring this bill, as he brings it forward to this

House — to have the opportunity to have that reviewed.

I’m very concerned that we may not have that opportunity. We have

a situation here where various bills are being provided with short

shrift in terms of the level of discussion and review that is available

to us.

[3:00 p.m.]

When I said earlier that the shifting of the words, which are

important, to

section 4 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act…. That

section

sets out that to address the interests of Indigenous peoples in this

province, there’s a recognition to encourage the participation of

Indigenous people “in processes affecting them.” Well, processes

affecting them, of course, are the regulatory processes around oil and

gas, as we look at the expansion of the mandate of the Oil and Gas

Commission, to be renamed with more general wording around support and

reconciliation.

We have a government here that is ramming through legislation

without much review, but these changes do matter. They matter because as

we talk about reconciliation with Indigenous nations in this province,

we see, time and time again, the rushed nature with which bills are

introduced into this House, the overwhelming requirements that are

hitting Indigenous nations so that they aren’t able to respond in a

careful, thoughtful way as much as they would like. That’s why we need

the time, in this House, to review the legislation that’s being

presented.

Again, my concern around Bill 39 is that these changes have not

had the full line of discussion within Indigenous nations, as to how

they consider the rights that they’re going to be faced with under the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. As we look at the

opportunities that are available to us, we know that, with Indigenous

nations, participation and partnership in our resource economy is

certainly part of reconciliation. The opportunity that the Tahltan have

— to have greater decision-making responsibility for the Eskay Creek

project — is a good example of that.

I have had written confirmation with the minister about the usage

of this section. We know that, with the mining sector, when this

section

7, which Bill 39 pertains to, was introduced, the previous Minister for

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation confirmed that there would be an

opportunity for that level of consultation available with the industry,

that the kinds of decision-making agreements that pertained to this

particular

section would focus on high-level strategic decision-making

interests and not individual permitting processes, and that the Crown

still retains the final decision-making authority.

That final decision-making authority with government is where this

needs to be clarified, because as with the agreement with the Tahltan,

it seems and appears on its face that there has been a change in

approach. I know that, in response, the minister has indicated that

government has learned a lot from working with the Tahltan, and future

Declaration Act

section 7 agreements would benefit from the experience

that this government has had with the Tahltan Nation.

As we look at the greater recognition of Indigenous laws relating

to self-government, certainly as it applies to children and families,

it’s a recognition, under our constitution — that has been ruled on by

the courts and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada — that the

legislation that this government is presenting to us needs careful

review. The implications of the legislation are far-reaching.

[3:05 p.m.]

They’re far-reaching, not just for the nations themselves but for

all British Columbians, as to how we look at the sharing of

responsibility and the sharing of partnership as it relates to resource

development. We know that, even with the oil and gas sector, we’ve seen

situations where, for 15 months after the Yahey decision, government

froze all permitting in northeast British Columbia across all sectors.

We’re still waiting on this government for clarity. Hundreds of millions

of investment dollars continue to leave this province because of that

lack of clarity.

Both Indigenous communities and non-Indigenous communities are

looking to this government for that leadership. So when it uses words

around supporting reconciliation, we need to know from this government

what it means by that in the context both of Bill 37 and Bill 39,

because these two bills are linked in the respect of how this government

is going to work with First Nations to have that level of partnership to

develop the resources of our province in a way that will promote

economic reconciliation with First Nations themselves.

We know, with the opportunity that is presented here, that when we

look at the wording that’s been changed, no longer are the purposes

clauses in Bill 37 spelling out the kind of level of involvement that

we’ve seen. I’ve mentioned one in terms of encouraging the participation

of Indigenous people in the processes affecting them. Well, again, the

mechanism under Bill 39 certainly would provide them with

that.

Bill 37 already has been tabled, and the debate that’s been cut

off…. It sets out important purposes and purposes that relate to

fostering a healthy environment, ensuring safe and efficient practices,

assisting equitable participation in shared pools, effective and

efficient processes for review of applications for permits, ensuring

applications are approved in the public interest. Again, encouraging the

participation of Indigenous people and the processes affecting them.

Participating in planning processes and undertaking programs of

education and communication.

These are the important purposes that are being stripped out by

this government under Bill 37. They are undermining the regulatory

regime that was intended to promote the further development of the oil

and gas sector in this province. Promoting that oil and gas sector has

meant significant economic benefits to Indigenous nations as well as

Indigenous people who are working in the oil and gas sector.

I’ve had good discussions — the member for Peace River South has

joined me in this discussion — for example, with the Chief of the

Saulteau First Nation, a Treaty 8 First Nation. He himself is a person

who has a long background in working in the oil and gas

sector.

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I just remind you that we’re on Bill 39.

M. Lee: Well, Madam Speaker, as I mentioned — and I appreciate that — the

linkage between Bill 39 and Bill 37 is quite significant because it does

talk about the importance of supporting partnerships, and how we support

these partnerships relate to using the mechanism that is set out in

section 7 of DRIPA that’s to be the subject matter of judicial review

under Bill 39.

I think it’s important that we understand how this government sees

those opportunities for partnership, particularly when it changes the

wording, which is a small wording change. But because of closure, I

haven’t had the opportunity to actually express that comment in this

House.

[3:10 p.m.]

This is the reason why, when we look at the pattern of closure by

this government…. Two o’clock today, Bill 37; at 3:15 today, Bill 39; at

6:30 today, Bill 43; and at 8:30 today, Bill 44. In a rapid succession,

debate on these very important measures is being cut off.

It puts a member like myself in a position where…. How am I

supposed to do my job? How am I supposed to hold the government to

account on important measures and legislation that affect Indigenous

peoples and Indigenous nations in our province? That is my critic role.

Without having that opportunity, this government has cut off not only

myself and my role but that voice, because there are a number of nations

that have not been consulted. I know that. Nations tell me that. Nations

are not aware of some of the parts of this legislation that is being

introduced in this House.

It is an affront to the democratic process that each of us hold in

this assembly that we’re not able to participate in the way through the

first, second, third readings of bills and the committee stages on these

bills. It puts us in a position where I, in the time that I’ve had here

in talking to this bill, have had to make some points related to other

bills.

But why is that important? Because, as I was saying yesterday in

committee on Bill 36, there are points in the other bills that relate to

Bill 36 as well. There’s a learning around the fiscal framework that is

there with First Nations and expectations of First Nations around how we

deal with discrimination in our province with the health care system.

There is a need for greater resource support and capacity for First

Nations and Indigenous nations as they take back responsibility for

their children. That is a discussion we’ll have in a few minutes on Bill

38, before closure is brought to that bill as well.

These are important discussion to be having as to how British

Columbians and Indigenous peoples will be working forward on their

bills. I know that when we look at the two important housing bills that

have been brought forward by this government and by this Premier and

bringing closure on the very next day that those bills were introduced

in this House…. Well, that closure was not just for those bills. It’s

been for everything else. It’s been every single other bill that we have

right now up for debate, and it is impeding the ability of members of

this House to debate and to fully review the legislation that’s being

presented at the committee stage as well.

This is something that makes it very difficult for members of this

House to participate in the review of this legislation. It makes me

question why we are here, because we are not being given the opportunity

to have this discussion, to have the response from the ministers

responsible for introducing the legislation.

Yesterday, we got to

section 110 of Bill 36. There are hundreds of

more sections to review — 650 sections. That is a very important bill

that has important ramifications for how the health care system is

governed through our professional colleges. It also has important

ramifications for how Indigenous peoples ensure they have the cultural

safety to work with our health care system. The anti-discrimination

measures in that bill are spread through many different sections in that

bill.

To the extent that I’m involved in another bill on self-government

for children and families for Indigenous nations, I will not be able to

join the member from Prince George–Valemount on the other bill, debate

and discussion. This is just a small example of what happens when this

Premier cuts off debate for his own agenda, manipulates the

schedule of

this House in a way that is highly disrespectful, not just to the

members of this House but to British Columbians and other members of our

province that rely on us to do the job that we’re elected to

do.

As we look at the opportunities to continue to review Bill 39, we

know that the Judicial Review Procedure Act is a very important and

fundamental aspect of the framework around DRIPA that we have supported

in this House.

[3:15 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. Lee: I still have five minutes and 45 seconds on the clock

there.

Deputy Speaker: Members, pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the

House earlier today, I invite the member to take your seat and must now

put the question on second reading of Bill 39, Judicial Review Procedure

Amendment Act, 2022.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole

House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 39, Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, 2022, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. K. Conroy: I call second reading of Bill 43, Housing Supply

Act.

BILL 43 — HOUSING SUPPLY ACT

Hon. M. Rankin: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

B.C. is in a housing crisis. Housing supply has simply not kept up

with demand. Essential workers and middle-income households are finding

it difficult and sometimes impossible to afford the housing they need in

the communities they work in. While many communities are already working

hard to attract and to support growth, more can be done to ensure

adequate and appropriate housing supply. This bill will help address the

housing crisis by allowing the province to take a leadership role in

ensuring municipalities are creating a regulatory environment that

supports the creation of new housing supply that meets the needs of

British Columbians.

It does this in several ways. First, it enables the minister to

receive and review housing needs reports produced by municipalities

together with other information related to supply and demand for housing

to ensure municipalities are accurately forecasting and planning for

current and future housing needs.

Second, it gives the province the authority to work with specified

municipalities to develop housing targets that reflect housing need, set

timelines to achieve those targets and create performance metrics to

measure progress.

Third, it allows the province to review the progress of

municipalities toward meeting housing targets and ensuring that

municipalities are creating conditions to facilitate new housing

development.

Last, if a municipality is not making progress toward its housing

target, the province may take further progressive compliance actions,

including the appointment of an adviser or advisers to review a

municipality’s planning and development processes and practices and to

report back to the minister. Actions may also include the minister

issuing a directive for a municipality to enact or amend a bylaw or

issue or refuse to issue a permit. Finally, the highest level of

compliance action: the province directly enacting or amending a bylaw or

issuing or refusing to issue a permit by order-in-council.

Taken together, these actions will support the expansion of

adequate, appropriate and affordable housing supply and increased

housing options for British Columbians. The bill was developed through

engagement with Indigenous partners and key sector stakeholders.

Ministry staff will work closely and collaboratively with specified

municipalities to set targets and monitor their progress. The bill

recognizes municipal autonomy. Once target setting is established,

municipalities will determine how to best achieve the target through a

review of their development policies and practices.

The legislation will have far-reaching benefits for British

Columbians, as it will enable the construction of housing across the

housing continuum and ensure that municipalities are creating the

conditions that will deliver adequate and appropriate housing supply. We

expect the development community to view the new legislation as good

news, as they should benefit from more streamlined development approvals

and knowing what housing targets a specified municipality is working

toward. Ministry staff are developing regulations to implement the

proposed legislation, which would be brought into force by regulation in

mid-2023.

[3:20 p.m.]

This bill builds on the work our government has already done to

streamline the development approval processes and is an important step

toward expanding housing supply in partnership with municipalities in

communities where there is a need for more housing.

The bill puts people first by addressing housing needs of British

Columbians. It helps make life more affordable, as increased housing

supply helps stabilize price and rent. It makes for a stronger B.C.

economy, supporting stable and sustainable communities.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the opportunity to stand up and speak to Bill 43,

although it sounds like it’s going to be for, unfortunately, a limited

time. Originally, when this government — of course, with only two days

after today now left in session — brought forward these pieces of

legislation that they say is signature or historic, whatever words they

want to use, I was to announce that I was going to be the designated

speaker.

We needed time to really speak to this bill, to try to digest what

it really means, and to share some of the concerns and some of the

benefits that we’re hearing of through this piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, I won’t have that time now, as we’ve heard, with closure

coming in.

I do find it very interesting — the situation that we find

ourselves in on just day 2, in this Legislature, of a brand-new Premier:

already, a slap in the face for the democratic and legislative process

that, I would say, people have fought long and hard to ensure that we

have in this Legislature, in British Columbia and in Canada as a

whole.

I know this government has already won the award for the most

secretive government in Canada. I will now applaud them for winning the

award for the most antidemocratic party in Canada. The members, if they

want, can allow more time, and we can speak, and they can speak to these

too.

I appreciate being heckled. I do wonder how the members of the NDP

justify this. I wonder how they go back to their constituents and say:

“Yes, we have elections. Yes, we have a democratic process. Through that

democratic process, we get a governing body, and then we get an

opposition — an opposition to hold government to account.”

When we’re looking at Bill 43, my job, I thought…. Not only as the

critic but as a duly elected person in this House, I have the

legislative ability to stand up and speak. That process, for me, is to

bring the questions to government, to hold this government accountable.

I’m curious as to how these NDP members are going to go back now to

their constituents, celebrating Christmas, and say: “By the way, it’s a

slap in the face for democracy, because we don’t actually want debate

anymore.”

The Minister of Transportation can laugh all he wants. The

Minister of Transportation can laugh all he wants at the slap in the

face of democracy that we’re seeing in this House right now when we’re

shutting down debate.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Actually, yes.

Deputy Speaker: The member has the….

M. Bernier: Sorry, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would ask you to bring your remarks back to Bill

43…

M. Bernier: Actually, Madam Speaker, I am doing just that.

Deputy Speaker: …and continue. Thank you.

M. Bernier: Madam Speaker, I would love to do exactly that, which is what I’m

trying to do. I would love to be afforded more time to speak to Bill 43.

Now, I don’t know if it’s mismanagement or incompetence of this

government, because I’ve never seen this.

When I looked into this, we have only two days now — not counting

today; I’ll give them credit — left after today to bring in what they’re

saying is key legislation. At the very end of a session, there’s not

going to be adequate time, on Bill 43, to ask the questions that the

people of British Columbia are already starting to ask, on these

specific bills.

[3:25 p.m.]

The Minister of Transportation can try to shut it down, just like

his House Leader did, and say we shouldn’t be talking about these bills.

But I think it’s really important, when we talk about

democracy….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: He can continue to heckle all he wants, Madam Speaker, but this is

exactly what we’re talking about. When we want to talk about bills, we

can’t. They’ve already shut it down. Now when I’m trying to make a point

about the fact that I can’t talk about it, they want to shut that down

too. We’ve seen that happen quite a bit already today in this

Legislature, when people aren’t given their legislative rights, duly

elected rights that I have, to speak in this House.

The Minister of Transportation can continue to heckle and babble

all he wants. Maybe the whole point is that he should go back and look

in the mirror and want to know why he is okay with shutting down

democracy as well. Bill 43 is….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, it’s a party of no democracy, to go to the Minister of

Forests.

The whole issue here is that if this government wants to say these

are important bills — maybe they are — how do we know? We’re not going

to be given adequate time to even debate that.

We know the struggles that people in British Columbia are facing

around housing right now — the majority of those created under this

government — with the amount of rent going up so that people can’t

afford to live here and the amount of available housing going down so

that people can’t afford to get into a house.

Obviously, we’re going to have lots of concerns and questions that

we want to raise. This government wants us to stand up and support all

these bills. How do we know if we can even support the bill when we

don’t have time to talk about the bill?

I welcome the Leader of the Green Party, who wants to partake in

this.

Look, at the end of the day, the people of British Columbia are

struggling in the housing sector, whether it’s affordable housing,

rental or market housing. Of course, they could have done this, if it

was so important, months and months ago or even years ago. They sat on

their hands and did nothing for the last five years, while the crisis

continued to grow in British Columbia.

They waited, until just a few days were left in the sitting, to

bring forward legislation that could have been done a long time ago.

While people have suffered, while prices have gone up, they did nothing.

By the minister’s own admission, and as the Premier said yesterday, Bill

43 really isn’t going to come into effect for possibly another six or

eight months, yet they have to cram it through with no debate

now.

This is another pattern that we’ve seen from this secretive

government: “We don’t want to talk about it, don’t want to be held

accountable and don’t want to debate it. Just trust us. We’re going to

do it behind closed doors and tell you later.” I’ll tell you right now,

as a former mayor, I’d be nervous as heck looking at this, not

necessarily because of the contents of the bill per se but by this

government’s arrogance, of ramming things through without consultation

or fair scrutiny.

This bill is specifically about, it says, trying to work with

local governments, right after the now Premier — a few days on the job,

through his leadership campaign and others — basically blamed everybody

but himself. He blamed local governments, blamed foreign buyers, blamed

everything for the housing crisis. He’s now only realizing, ironically,

after two days of being in this chamber as the Premier, that maybe we do

need to collaborate with all different levels of government and the free

market to try to build this housing supply.

People have been struggling, and now they’re being told by this

government, through this bill: “Don’t worry. We’re putting this bill on

the floor, we’re ramming it through with our majority government without

real consultation or debate, and then we’re going to go out and consult.

Then we’re going to go out and talk to local governments.”

The minister is unable — I’ll ask in committee stage, if we ever

have time and if we ever get there — to identify which eight or ten,

through his questions. He said they’ve got eight or ten municipalities

that they’re going to be targeting. So which eight or ten? If they

haven’t decided yet, why are we pushing this, ramming this through

without discussion?

What are the outcomes going to be? Well, in this bill, it says

we’re going to determine which eight or ten communities are the “bad

players” — as I think was one of the terms that the now Premier has

used.

[3:30 p.m.]

Guess what. We’re going to now reward them if they achieve certain

goals. But what about the municipalities that are already doing a good

job? Where is their reward? I’m curious to hear what the minister is

going to say about that — if we have time.

It’s, I think, for a lot of us, almost a loss of words on what

we’re seeing take place in the Legislature today. My in-box on Bill 43

and, I’m being told, soon-to-be-discussed Bill 40 — because of closure

of this government — is full of concerns or questions or clarifications

that people want me to raise in this House as critic. But now I have to

go back and tell them, “I’m sorry, the arrogance of the NDP will no

longer allow me to do that as the critic. I won’t have time to ask those

questions on your behalf as a citizen of British Columbia,” because this

government has chosen that that’s no longer democracy.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

This government has decided that Bill 43 should just be rammed

through without discussion or debate. Is it important? Maybe. How are we

supposed to know? Do I take the minister’s word for it? Well, we’ve seen

the track record of this government when they make grandiose promises or

announcements and then fail to deliver. Is this another one? I don’t

know. We’re not going to have time to discuss it. I’ll tell you, if this

is truly a signature piece of legislation, then I cannot believe the

path that we are going down with this NDP government, with a slap of the

face of democracy.

When we look through the legislation — and we’ll probably hear it

from the minister and others — it’s: “Don’t worry. Cabinet will decide

later. There are going to be orders-in-council. We’ll make

determinations.” Guess what. In true NDP fashion, those OICs don’t come

back to this House either. None of this will get to be debated. None of

it will get questioned. None of it will be scrutinized.

For the people out there who are watching today…. As some of my

colleagues have said, it’s probably not a lot. People are busy with

their lives. I get that. But those that are I’m sure would be shaking

their heads right now on the fact that this government is being so

undemocratic. For a party that likes to have “democratic” in their name,

it does completely the opposite.

This legislation, on face value…. We’ve all talked about how local

government needs to pull up their socks in some ways. Nobody is arguing

that point. Some have done a great job. Some are struggling in order to

achieve the goals. What’s interesting in this piece of legislation,

though, is the unintended consequences that could come from

that.

The Union of British Columbia Municipalities has even put out a

statement saying that they’re concerned, because of the lack of

information, that this could have unintended consequences for

municipalities. I’ve got questions and comments I’d love to have on

that. I’m not going to have time because this government is going to ram

it through with their majority government and not allow that.

Again, I have to report back to UBCM and say: “I’m sorry. I wasn’t

able and afforded the time to give the proper scrutiny to the questions

and concerns that you have on behalf of local government, because that

wasn’t allowed.”

I don’t have to reiterate some of the comments that were made

earlier today by some of my colleagues. How disappointed — frankly, I’ll

say disgusted — I am to see what transpired today. It’s something that I

truly have really never seen before in the history of this parliament,

when I’ve researched and tried to find how governments have acted. To

bring forward pieces of legislation….

Interjection.

[3:35 p.m.]

M. Bernier: The member for Maple Ridge–Mission can keep laughing all he wants.

It just shows how seriously he takes this as well.

I do find it ironic that when we try to talk about the lack of

democracy and the issues that have transpired today, the members of the

NDP chuckle and think it’s funny that they’re shutting down debate and

not allowing us to speak to the issues that we want to speak to. That’s

appalling, and they should be embarrassed by that.

Again, I’m curious on how the members go back to their

constituents. They can keep shaking their heads all they want, even the

Minister Responsible for Housing. They can shake their heads all they

want, but this is an important issue.

If they truly think these are important bills, then how do they

justify not speaking to them? Because we’ve been shut down, even members

of government are going to be able to go back home now and say: “These

were important bills, but I didn’t have time to speak to them either. I

was just told to vote in favour, not even knowing what it was.” That’s

what we’re going to see take place.

Local governments are going to find out, under Bill 43, maybe in

six or eight months, who the municipalities…. Eight or ten are chosen;

that’s what it says here in this bill. Then they’re going to be given an

undisclosed time period to put a plan forward to this government —

because that’s not in the bill. Then, at the end of that undisclosed

time, it goes back to the minister and the government.

We heard today that the new Premier wants to create a new Ministry

of Housing, probably to deflect away from six years of him not being

able to do it himself. So now, at least, he’ll try to find somebody. I’m

curious to see who’s putting their hand up for this one, to take on this

role. But now there’s going to be a new minister. Well, that new

minister is now going to have, according to the legislation, an

undisclosed period of time to review the information that that local

government has put forward. Then it goes back….

The reason why I’m saying this is there’s so little detail on

timelines. The government wants to tout this as a signature piece of

legislation that’s going to bring more housing online in the province of

British Columbia. Yet I don’t know. I read through it. There’s not one

piece, not one word, that I can find in this piece of legislation that

sets any goals, that sets any targets, that will actually have results

and that will actually bring housing online to support families that

need it. There’s nothing in here.

I’d love to have more time to digest this and also to talk to

these groups who are all concerned. Normally, past practice in this

House is that legislation is all presented within about the midmark of a

session, spring or fall, or sometimes an emergency or summer session.

The reason why governments of the past of all stripes would look at

bringing all that legislation in, such as Bill 43, by the middle of a

session was to allow time for feedback, for scrutiny, for the public to

look at a bill like this, to see: what are the implications of this

bill? How will it affect me, or not?

It was to give opposition time to really come forward and ask

questions and to hold government accountable. Fast-track to today, and

that doesn’t matter anymore. Accountability is out the window. Scrutiny

— out the window. Arrogance — in the House.

This is one of the problems that I have. The government will stand

up and say: “We want you to support all these bills. They’re important

bills. Please support them. We’re not going to let you talk about them.

We’re not going to let you ask questions about them of any substantial

time, but we still want you to support them.”

[3:40 p.m.]

I’m curious. In Bill 43, when we’re looking at the duties of this,

back to the heavy hand…. The Premier, to his credit, said that this is

something that we want to continue doing, and it’s all about going back

to local government.

Well, as a former mayor myself, I do find this one quite

interesting, the approach that government is going to take, because as a

mayor, I was duly elected to represent my community through that

process. I listened to constituents. Through that process, we put

together comprehensive plans or housing plans for our community based on

those talks with our citizens. This bill, though, says that the minister

can establish the housing targets for a municipality.

Now, I understand that because of the frustration over the last

couple of years of all the extra taxes that this government has imposed

and the amount of investors who have slowed down on building projects in

British Columbia, that now has impacted the supply. I get that. That’s

this government’s watch. Those are this government’s policies that have

created a lot of that turmoil, and now they’re going to put the hammer,

as they say, on local government.

I’m the first to say that, as I mentioned earlier, some local

governments have done a great job to try to achieve the goals that are

required around housing. Some, not so much, and there may or may not be

different circumstances, around that, of why. So it’s going to be

interesting to see how this plays out.

The reason, again, why I bring that up is if it’s going to be the

heavy hand of government, how do they impose, and how do they plan on

imposing, legislative-approved targets for each municipality when they

may or may not be able to achieve them, when the government themselves,

nowhere in this bill, is looking in the mirror and realizing that

they’re part of the problem? All the different taxes that they’ve

imposed have been part of the problem — their lack of direction and, as

we talked about today, some of the problems with B.C. Housing and

others, where stock is not being built to the level that is

required.

CMHC has said that we need over 500,000 new units in the province

of British Columbia within the next, I guess, about five or six years.

Curious to see how that’s going to be achieved when this government has

only been able to build about 7 percent and open up 7 percent of their

promised 114,000 housing units.

I know that the minister and the Premier like to say: “But don’t

worry. We’ve got plans for the rest of them.” The minister doubled down

today and said: “Don’t worry. Those 114,000 will be built within the

next five years.” It’ll be interesting to see how they count that,

because I guarantee it won’t be government doing it. They’re now going

to have to change how they count.

They’re going to have to look at what everybody in the private

sector is doing. Sure, they could probably build 114,000 if we get the

heck out of the way and let them do what they’re good at. Then this

government will try to take credit for that. They did absolutely

nothing, but they’ll try to take credit. I’m sure they will. I’m sure

there’ll be some kind of banner announcement of: “Look, we hit the

114,000 houses in British Columbia, through nothing that we

accomplished, but we’ll take credit.” I’m sure that’s what we’re going

to see take place.

[3:45 p.m.]

This bill, when you look at it, appears to be another level of

bureaucracy, basically to monitor bureaucracy. The reason why I say

that, again, is back to my point that government now is going to watch

what local government is or isn’t doing and then report back. It’s going

to be just more red tape, more discussion, more…. I don’t

know.

But is it actually going to achieve the outcomes that we all want

to see — that is, actually the housing supply built, which is not only

needed but what this government also promised? We didn’t need to get

more bureaucrats involved. We didn’t need to have more red tape

involved. We could have started right from the get-go and just started

cutting some of the taxes that this government has imposed and the red

tape that they themselves have in place. That could have actually

sparked more investment and more building in the province of British

Columbia.

When we look at one of the reports that was done by C.D. Howe, for

instance, it’s $644,000 before a shovel really even hits the ground. So

$644,000 is spent just on taxes and fees for the average house in

Vancouver. Think about that one for a second. I know the Chair, who

lives in Vancouver…. We’re talking about $644,000 before I’ve even moved

in, before I even start building, really, a place.

No wonder people can’t afford to live in Vancouver or many parts

of the Lower Mainland. I’d even argue it’s all over British Columbia

now, as we watch things play out. I know Victoria, it was just

announced, was and is one of the most expensive places now to rent or

live in all of Canada. That is unfortunate, because it is a beautiful

place, where we’re standing right now. It’s unfortunate that people will

continue to struggle when it comes to being able to afford those

homes.

Depending on how we get to committee stage or if that even

happens, with debate being shut down like we are seeing, I think it’s

incumbent on this minister, on behalf of government, to be able to

answer these questions. It is going to be interesting. I’m not trying to

say I’m in the know, because I’m not. But it will be interesting — I say

this in all due respect to the present minister — that in a week from

now we’re having a new Minister of Housing.

It may or may not be this present minister. I’m not foreshadowing

anything that I don’t know. Maybe he does, and he can talk about that

later. I think it’s going to be an interesting position if we get to

answering some of these questions that the next Minister of Housing is

going to be tasked with delivering on. I say that because as a former

minister, I know how difficult that is and how that will be.

I want to end off kind of where I started. I only have two minutes

left. I did originally say that I was going to….

Deputy Speaker: There is still time, if you want to be the designated speaker, but

of course….

M. Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know you weren’t here when I mentioned,

at the very beginning, that my original intention was actually to be the

designated speaker, which would afford me up to two hours to speak.

Unfortunately, we’re in a position where this government has invoked

closure, saying that every single person in this House has to squeeze

now into two hours. Not just me as the critic; every single person in

this House.

We have just over two hours to speak to what this government is

saying is signature and an important piece of legislation. I know many

colleagues on my side of the House wanted to speak to this bill, because

they’ve been hearing from their constituents and their local governments

some pros and cons that they wanted to get on the record. They’re not

going to be afforded that opportunity now, because of this

government.

[3:50 p.m.]

We could have been here last week. Sorry, let me correct that. We

were all here last week, but this government chose to cancel four

sitting days. They could have brought this bill…. If it’s so important,

it could have been brought forward months ago. It could have, at least,

been brought forward five, six days ago. But no. They brought it to this

House now with only two days left to discuss a multitude of bills. Four

bills that we’re trying to talk about are being forced and invoked

closure on them today.

It’s a sad day for democracy, and the members of this government

should be ashamed for how they’re treating this Legislature.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 43, the Housing Supply Act. But before I

get to the legislation, I want to, as I have a tendency to do, tell a

few stories.

When I was little and my parents divorced, my mom was working at a

bank in downtown Edmonton. She had three kids — single mom — and needed

to find housing that she could afford. At the time, in Edmonton, there

was city-owned housing, and it was indexed to a person’s income. So we

moved into a three-bedroom townhouse. I guess it was a four bedroom. All

the kids got their own bedroom. Brother was in the basement, sister and

I upstairs, mom upstairs.

The townhouse, fantastically, was located within a block of my

elementary school, an elementary school where I had the privilege and

good fortune to go to French immersion, so I was learning French. It was

on bus routes, so I could bus from one part of town to the other and

easily navigate that.

What it gave to my mom at the time was the ability to plan her

finances, to budget with an affordable housing budget and to be able to,

over time, save up enough money for a down payment on a piece of land,

which she eventually bought — an acreage outside of Edmonton — and

built, first, a small little carriage house and then built her own

house, her and my stepfather. They ran a B and B.

So it was a was a happy housing story, really, for a single

parent. What is missing right now in B.C. and in so many places, but

particularly here in B.C., are happy housing stories. And it’s why it’s

important for governments to really have a clear vision for housing and

to be able to articulate and explain: what does it look like when we

have succeeded on the housing front? How do we know that we’ve achieved

what we’ve set out to do, and what does it feel like for people when we

get there?

I think what this legislation today presents are some tools. This

legislation, really, grants the Ministry Responsible for Housing with

the power to set housing targets in specific municipalities and, if

those targets are not met by the municipality, to force the municipality

to take action. As we’ve been hearing from the other comments, we don’t

have a lot of detail on that, and I expect we’ll get some more of that

detail. But it’s a tool.

It’s fundamentally agnostic on the type of housing. There is a

mention of affordability in the bill, but it will be interesting to see

what that definition of affordability is.

[3:55 p.m.]

Is it the CMHA definition? Is it affordability as in housing that

only costs 30 percent of a person’s income? Is that the affordability?

Because that’s a measure of affordability that we should be striving for

that is very rare in this province for most people.

The challenge with having tools without a clear articulated vision

is that we don’t know if those tools are getting us to where we want to

get to.

For us, our vision really is around everybody in British Columbia

having a safe, affordable, accessible home to live in and for that home

to be in a community that also includes transportation, that includes

the kind of infrastructure that brings people together — libraries;

learning centres; excellent public transit; walkable, rollable

communities; green spaces — and that in that community and in that

housing, people’s needs are being met.

These pieces of legislation, both this bill and the bill that

we’ll be debating later today, aren’t in their legislation and their

tools articulating a vision. We haven’t heard a vision particularly

articulated thus far in the presentation of this. We often hear from

this government, whether it’s on housing or as it has been on child

care, that it’s about spaces, units. But the kind of units, the kind of

housing really matters. This is what I would hope to be hearing from

this government.

There has been criticism that has come forward in the brief 24

hours that we’ve had this bill before us. The most contentious issue

seems to be that this is a legislative stick, not a carrot. It’s a tool

that, though the ministry assures us they will not be heavy-handed, can

push municipalities into approving housing.

I think it’s really important to recognize that we just had our

local elections. A lot of people that ran in those elections would have

run on a particular platform. And that platform, in some areas of this

province, might have been about limiting density or protecting green

space or all kinds of things related to housing or related to the nature

of their community. I would expect and anticipate that there’s some

anxiety now about this relationship between local governments,

municipalities and the province, in light of this bill, around the

ability for people who have run on a particular platform to be able to

deliver what they promised in their election.

But this isn’t my main critique of this legislation. My main

critique is that this change overlooks the key issue that is driving the

housing crisis in our province, and that’s the fact that housing is

treated as an investment, a commodity, and not a human right. To address

the crisis that we’re in, the depth of the crisis that we are in, it is

true that we absolutely need more housing. We need more supply. But it

is the type of housing that counts.

Currently housing is incredibly expen­sive. It’s expensive

because property owners who more and more frequently are real estate

investment trusts…. This is one of the things that we’ve been raising

concerns about repeatedly in this House: the role that real estate

investment trusts are playing in the housing market not just here in

B.C. but globally.

There’s a really terrific film, a documentary called

Push , about the global housing crisis, and it really dives into

the role that these investment bodies are playing in that there’s a

significant amount of wealth and capital, and people are looking for a

place for that wealth and capital to essentially be stored for

investment uses.

[4:00 p.m.]

Out of this has developed this real estate investment trust realm,

and these are, essentially, portfolios that include real estate. So

instead of having a landlord whose name you know, whose phone number you

have and who is a person, ideally, who lives in your community, your

landlord is a real estate investment trust.

The goal of that investment trust is to get more profit out of the

investment. You, as a tenant in any of these properties, now can be

either an impediment to that profit-making or not an impediment to that

profit-making.

I think it’s really critical that we recognize that these kinds of

market forces at play really take out the human-right-to-housing piece

of the equation. We know about how they can charge high prices to

tenants. We know that they can incentivize what they call unit turnovers

to hike rents, and we know that they’re doing it so they can

profit.

I was talking to somebody who’s a renter in Vancouver and who was

complaining about some flooding that had happened in their unit. They

didn’t want to be in any way a problem. The concern was: “I may be seen

as a tenant that’s a problem, and I do not want to lose my

housing.”

The expectation…. That relationship between the tenant and the

landlord, that reciprocal agreement, is broken when the tenant is in a

place of such fear of losing their housing that they will not ask for

what should be absolutely expected: good maintenance, repairs, a

response to flooding.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if I may interrupt you just for a brief moment. We have a

committee that needs to report out. If you could reserve your place and

adjourn the debate, we will be right back with you.

S. Furstenau moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 42, Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Deputy Speaker: Acting Government House Leader. Oh.

Sorry, Minister. There’s a consultation of the Clerks. I don’t

know if that’s what you call a group of Clerks — a consultation — but

maybe it should be. Okay.

Oh, the “intituled” part. Yes. The motion for third reading of

Bill 42, intituled Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2022, is carried,

and the bill has passed.

Hon. K. Conroy: I call, in the Douglas Fir Room, Committee of the Whole for Bill

38, Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment

Act.

In this chamber, continued debate on the Housing Supply Act, Bill

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 43 — HOUSING SUPPLY

ACT

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Third Party.

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think “a consultation of Clerks” sounds

just right. You can use your powers for good and declare it

so.

I’ll just wrap up. Back to the vision and what I hope that we will

hear more about and see in response to this housing crisis that we’re

in. What we need, now more than ever, is non-market housing, co-op

housing, not-for-profit housing, housing that is specified to the needs

of communities and that focuses on providing homes, not

profits.

[4:05 p.m.]

The evidence shows that with a significant amount of non-market

housing, the prices of market housing actually stabilize. Non-market

housing isn’t just beneficial to those who can access. It’s beneficial

to everybody, because it reduces the extreme price jumps in rent that we

have seen.

I’d argue that the role of government is not to drive its own

profits or the profits of private and wealthy developers. I’d argue that

the role of government is to serve the public interest, provide

essential services and make sure that the conditions for people to

thrive are what we are creating in this province.

Housing is one of those conditions. Housing is something that the

new Premier once acknowledged in this chamber as a human right. If this

is true, then I hope to see this Premier fund non-market housing. I hope

to see that he will support municipalities in their housing targets and

ensure that these targets are not just met by developers seeking to find

ways to create profit but that the Premier will set, fund and meet

targets for non-market housing.

It isn’t a silver bullet, but continuing the path that we’ve been

on for the last two decades is just going to make the problem worse. It

will make those who have the wealth and capital able to continue to

benefit from these market conditions and those who don’t continue to

struggle.

With that, thank you very much.

B. Banman: I get up today with a heavy heart. This government has decided,

after taking a week off, that debate is not worthy in this House.

They’ve invoked closure.

For those at home that are watching, closure basically means that

debate comes to an end. There is a finite deadline, and all of the bills

that are currently being debated in the House end up coming to a

screeching halt.

I would say that one of the bills that is before this House right

now is one of the largest bills that has come before the House in

decades. All of our emails have been flooded. Our in-boxes have been

flooded by people who have concerns about that bill, which is Bill 36. I

know we’re here about Bill 43, and I’ll get to that.

One of the most important and historic bills and one of the

lengthiest bills, over 600 and some odd clauses and over 200 and some

odd pages…. This government decided: “Hey, let’s all take a week off.

We’re going to be here anyway. Let’s not show up in the House and

actually respect the taxpayers that expect us to debate bills. Let’s

have a holiday for our incoming new Premier instead.”

I don’t know what the reason was to not be here when we were all

here anyway. It’s an atrocity. It is an outrage. I would encourage those

that are at home watching to write an email and express your extreme

frustration that this government decided not to debate the bills and

give them the time that is required. Many of the questions that they

sent emails about will never get an answer, ever.

Now we’re here talking about Bill 43. Bill 43 is the Housing

Supply Act. I would love, in the committee stage, to ask some questions

about that on behalf of many cities that may…. We really don’t know

which cities. That’d be one of the first questions. Which ten cities are

going to be picked?

Ten cities at random that only the Premier knows, or perhaps the

Housing Minister knows, will be picked. I think that those cities have a

right to know which ones they are and to phone their MLAs and ask

questions on their behalf on Bill 43 and what its ramifications are.

They got robbed of that right. They got robbed of it, because we won’t

get a chance to do that.

[4:10 p.m.]

Section 1 of this bill includes

definitions of specified

municipalities to which the act applies, estimated to be eight or ten

communities. Now, I was, as some of the rest of us have been, in

municipal government. I was a mayor, and I was on council, and I can

tell you that our city was quite often frustrated. We wanted to move

things forward, but requirements put in by the provincial government

were there. Yet this bill seems to be pointing everything at the cities

and downloading onto the cities and doesn’t seem to have any inward

reflection on what the provincial government can do on their behalf to

streamline this.

As was mentioned prior, approximately $644,000 are taxes and fees

and requirements — $644,000 for the average single-family home in

Vancouver. No wonder that part of the prices are high if that’s what it

takes to actually build a home in Vancouver. It’s outrageous.

For the provincial government to now go point at cities and say:

“You’re the problem. You’re the problem. You’re the problem.” Some of

that is fair criticism. But I would say that when you’re pointing your

finger at others, you’ve got three pointing back at yourself.

Rather than give us the time to debate this, this Premier’s first

move is to invoke closure and shut down debate, very similar to when he

was Housing Minister and ram-railed through, against Penticton’s better

wishes…. This “we know better than you” attitude is not going to sit

well with these ten communities. It’s outrageous.

The first act is to basically just shoot democracy down. We are

supposed to be here in this House to debate these bills, and this

Premier is sending a message loud and clear that democracy is no longer

alive and well in British Columbia under the understanding of what many

of us think democracy should be. Shame. Shame, indeed.

First ruling out of this Premier’s new directive is to shut down

and gag debate. It is a very, very sad day, not only in this province

but, quite frankly, in this country.

Section 2 enables the housing target orders to be set by the

minister. Housing orders must include performance indicators, timelines

and any other matters. I’d love to be able to debate in committee stage

and actually get some metrics on what that means, because this

government, quite frankly, is not really good at measuring metrics. It

comes up with all kinds of plans but no way of measuring the

outcomes.

I think it is worthy within this House for these eight to ten

cities — those lucky ones that are going to get the dart thrown at the

board or however they’re going to come about doing this — to have an

idea as to what that actually means. They must include performance

indicators. Well, what’s that? This government sure as heck doesn’t like

using performance indicators on themselves, yet they’re now going to ram

that down the throats of cities that they’re going to have to come up

with some kind of performance indicators. We don’t even have the chance

to figure out what they are.

[4:15 p.m.]

It’s going to come up with timelines. Well, what does that mean?

Is it six years, six months, six weeks? What are the timelines to get

housing going?

Now, I will say that it is refreshing that the Premier has figured

out, after denying it when he was the Housing Minister, that hey, supply

is part of the problem. It’s a huge part of the problem as to why

housing prices are at the levels that they are. Hooray. Maybe through

the debate, we could have sunk home a few other indicators as to why

housing prices are high as well.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I have grandchildren. One is a marine

biologist. The other one’s going on for his PhD. My hope, and part of

the reason why I got into politics, is that if they chose, they could

choose this province to live in. The marine biologist, well, who knows

where she is going to go. Her particular area of expertise is sharks and

rays.

Now, I said, when I was the mayor of city hall, that there are not

a lot of sharks that swim up and down the Fraser. There are a few that

swim around city hall, perhaps, and I would say there are a few that

swim around the Legislature here. We are closer to salt water here, so

there will be some just out there. But up and around Abbotsford, it’s a

heck of a long way for a saltwater being to go up the Fraser to get to

city hall.

All joking aside, one of my greatest fears is that they would be

forced to leave this province because they cannot afford to live here.

Sometimes the opposite side of the House loves to paint us as if we

don’t care. It’s like they think we don’t have kids too, that we don’t

have grandchildren that we care about. I don’t want to have to have the

conversation with my grandchildren, as I’m loading up their luggage and

their belongings into the U-Haul, when they come to me, and they say:

“Papa, I don’t want to leave, but I have to. I have to, because I can’t

afford it. You were there. Why didn’t you fight for me?”

We may come to different ideas as to how we’re going to get

affordability. But I’ll tell you one thing. Shutting down debate is not

going to get us there. It’s outrageous that that’s what we’ve done. It’s

insulting to anybody that believes in democracy that the first thing

this Premier did was close down the debate. My grandchildren deserve

more than that. They deserve better than that. All of our children

do.

I don’t know how this side of the House can sit there with a smile

and somehow think it’s okay. It may get the bill passed, but it is sure

as heck not okay. When you outnumber us practically two to one, it w