Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Wednesday, November

22, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: J. Whiteside.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Rankin: Joining us in the gallery is the delegation from Métis Nation B.C. Over the past few

days, MNBC has met with ministers, MLAs, the official opposition — so many people.

Last night they hosted the members of this House at the Métis Summit Louis Riel reception,

where we shared in the rich history and culture of Métis people and also did some

dancing and fiddling as well.

I want to thank all of the delegation for joining us and single out President Lissa

Dawn Smith, Louis De Jaeger, Debra Fisher, Patrick Harriott, Colette Trudeau, Sasha

Hobbs, Jeremy Twigg, Kayla Brow, Susie Hooper, Callum Robinson and Colleen Hodgson.

Will the House please make them welcome.

K. Greene: I have two guests with me today in the gallery.

I have my son Sully. He is clever and sweet. He's the youngest of three, so a little

bit of trouble, but don't worry, Speaker. He's got a smile and a dimple. He'll be

okay.

I've also got with me my husband, Trevor, my heart's home and all of my tomorrows.

Please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Singh: In the House today, I have some special guests. I have my very dear friend Rupinder

Punia in the House. Along with him, he's joined by some friends from India, Gurinder

and Gagan Sidhu.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

S. Bond: On behalf of the official opposition, I'd like to join with the minister in welcoming

the Métis Nation of B.C. I want to thank them for the exceptional meeting we had yesterday,

for their hospitality, the music, the dance last night.

We know there's much more work to be done as we work with you. Thank you so much for

being here today and for the very warm welcome to your special event and for the meeting

you had with us. Thank you so very much.

Secondly, I'd like to welcome Paul Adams and Peggy Skelton, who are here from the

B.C. Rural Health Network. Again, we know that there are very significant challenges

in rural British Columbia when it comes to health care. I think all of us would agree

that we all want to see improvements. I'm very pleased to have had a meeting, with

a number of members of our caucus, with Paul and Peggy today.

We welcome them to the Legislature this afternoon.

Hon. B. Bailey: I would like to welcome my ministerial adviser. She's been with us for a few months

now. I'm speaking of Honieh Barzegari, who's actually a physician by training, from

Iran, who has experience in the pharmaceutical sector and management training. I think

it's really a testament to the high-quality people we can attract into these roles.

I'm so grateful to have her on my team.

Would you please join me in making her most welcome.

J. Routledge: Joining us in the gallery today is a former colleague of mine who is visiting from

Quebec. We were co-workers together for decades at the Public Service Alliance in

Ottawa.

She played a leadership role in some of the defining labour events: the clerk strike

of 1980, the pay equity award for federal public employees that got people over $3

billion in retro pay. After she kind of whipped us into shape, she went back to school,

got her PhD in labour and law and became a professor of labour and law at Carleton

University.

[1:40 p.m.]

She has written defining pieces on pay equity and employment equity, and I look forward

to reading an upcoming paper on wage solidarity. She has been my friend, my mentor

and my sister for many years.

Please join me in welcoming Rosemary Warskett.

Hon. L. Popham: Chelsea Wood is in the House. She's the senior executive assistant to my deputy minister

in Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. We are happy she's here.

J. Sturdy: I am pleased to have old friends from the Sea to Sky join us in the gallery today,

although I must admit they recently relocated from the snow country to the more gentle

climate of North Saanich.

Drew Meredith was a longtime resident of Whistler. Drew was a two-term mayor during

Whistler's most robust period of growth and was a key driver behind developing summer

activities for the resort, understanding the importance of the now mature concept

of four-season resorts rather than simple ski resorts.

Drew was acknowledged by the community for the value of his work that he undertook

on behalf of the resort by being recognized as a Freeman of the resort municipality,

which I think, at best, got you a free parking spot. But it's certainly a deserved

acknowledgment.

Drew is joined today in the gallery by his partner, Lori Mitchell, and their young

friend Fern Lemieux.

I hope the House will join me in helping make them feel welcome.

J. Rice: Last but not least. The B.C. Rural Health Network is in the House.

I just wanted to take a moment to welcome the president, Peggy Skelton, and the executive

director, Paul Adams. Just to let people know that the B.C. Rural Health Network provides

research-based information and data with solutions and provides services to rural

communities as far as rural health goes, whether that's resources or information or

connection.

They do a plethora of things to help further the mission of substantial rural health

care in our rural community. I'm really glad that they're here today, meeting with

members from all sides of the House.

Please make these two feel welcome.

D. Davies: I guess this is last but not least. I'm sure he was wondering if I was going to stand

up and introduce him. But I do want to extend a welcome to David Smith, who has come

all the way down from Fort St. John to meet with some ministry staff here this afternoon.

David's one of our local business persons who works in the bulk fuel industry. I want

to publicly thank David also for the continued contributions, the support to our community

and region that he does supporting different clubs. We have such a giving community,

and I know that I, on behalf of all of our region, want to thank him.

Would the House please make him feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

RETIREMENT AS MLA AT NEXT ELECTION

AND ROLE AND WORK OF LEGISLATURE

K. Chen: I'm sure we've all made decisions that have profoundly changed our lives, careers

or even ourselves. I have, like moving to Canada on my own, having my son and working

for the community I love for the past 17 years.

There have also been some not-so-good decisions, like not listening to my parents

more when I was young.

All these decisions have brought me to where I am today. Next year will mark my tenth

year in elected positions, and I've decided not to seek re-election in 2024. I want

to thank everyone who's given me their trust over the years.

Whenever I hear stories from parents like Kimberly, who could return to work as a

psychologist because of $10-a-day child care, it always motivates me to do more. I'll

continue to be a strong advocate, as I've always been, and I'll share a statement

with more details.

For my colleagues and staff members who are watching, I thank many of you for your

friendship. I have so much respect for politicians and staff from all sides of the

House who are genuine and principled.

I hope we can make this institution more caring, trauma-informed and equitable for

people with diverse abilities and [audio interrupted] backgrounds.

We need a serious recruitment and retention plan to have true representation of all

British Columbians. A simple thing like making hybrid participation a permanent option

for members with diverse situations can make a difference.

I want to give a big thanks to my caucus, the Premier's office and all the incredible

staff for your support. Life is short. We all come and go as temporary seat holders.

After several very difficult years, I finally had the opportunity to focus on my son

and face my trauma with professional help.

[1:45 p.m.]

I used to think that I had to act tough to prove my worth as a younger woman of colour

in politics, especially when faced with discrimination. But I finally learned to embrace

the power of vulnerability. I want to live in the moment more, and I will always contribute

to our community in every capacity I can.

So for those who will stay in this House longer, or even way longer, please, please

make the best decisions possible, like making $10-a-day child care a reality, fighting

against gender-based violence, standing up for human rights and always investing in

core services like housing, health, mental health, climate action and public education

so we can build a more equitable society for all.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you for bringing me into provincial politics 17

years ago. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

JUMPSTART INCLUSIVE SPORTS FACILITY

IN PRINCE GEORGE

S. Bond: Thank you very much, and don't start the clock. I just want to thank the member that

spoke previously for her service and her courage. We wish her nothing but the best

in the future in the next steps in her life.

So thank you.

Now the clock. The new Jumpstart Multi Sport Court in Prince George is the largest

of its kind built in Canada to date. It spans over 28,000 square feet, and it lives

up to its name, with courts that allow people of all abilities to play basketball,

volleyball, hockey, tennis, pickleball and even badminton. This simply would not have

been possible without the support of Jumpstart and the generosity of Prince George

Canadian Tire owners Selen and Anita Alpay.

Selen and Anita are difference-makers, well known for their kindness, their care and

their support of people and organizations in our community and far beyond. In partnership

with the city of Prince George and Jumpstart, Selen and Anita wanted a facility that

would remove barriers to recreation for kids of all abilities, giving them the access

and opportunity to try a new sport or play a sport they love.

This project is part of Jumpstart's inclusive play project. It was an incredible day,

watching people of all ages try out the courts. It was also memorable for our family.

When Selen and Anita asked if our family would place an automated external defibrillator

on site in honour of my late husband, it was an immediate yes. Selen and Anita have

been generous partners in the AED legacy project for my husband, placing AEDs in public

places throughout our region.

Thank you to everyone who made this fantastic facility a reality in our community.

We know the power of sport. What better way than to create a state-of-the-art space

that will provide a fun, safe and welcoming environment for many years to come?

A special thank-you to Selen and Anita Alpay and the Canadian Tire Jumpstart charity

for your commitment to more inclusive communities. Every time I drive by the courts

and see people playing together, I am grateful for this very special gift to our city.

YOUTH LEADERSHIP AND

CONTRIBUTIONS OF YOUNG PEOPLE

B. Anderson: Before I start, I just want to say a big thank you to the member for Burnaby-Lougheed

for her mentorship and friendship. She's meant a lot to me in this House. I just wish

her nothing but the best, and I know everyone in this House agrees with me on that.

So thank you.

Over the past five days, I have been surrounded by groups of young people, and I feel

invigorated. To start locally first, I want to thank Ben Simoni and Mel Lavery for

joining me at the B.C. NDP convention over the weekend and for so eloquently speaking

to our riding association motion championing the opportunity to create a provincial

youth climate corps. I was delighted to see the motion pass with overwhelming support

at convention.

To the young New Democrats, I would like to thank all of you that I met over the weekend

at the convention. I am so grateful for you engaging with politics and invigorating

our party with fresh, future-looking ideas. You are true leaders.

As the Premier's special advisor on youth, I spent Monday and Tuesday of this week

with the StrongerBC Young Leaders Council.

[1:50 p.m.]

The council provides their ideas and opinions to our government on a range of topics

on a regular basis. We met with the Premier yesterday, where they spoke to him about

their thoughts on things like reconciliation, housing, the importance of SOGI, the

need for STEM in rural post-secondary education institutions, the importance of de-stigmatizing

menstruation and providing period products in schools and other places. They also

spoke to global concerns like conflict and climate change.

I am truly grateful for every minute I get to spend with the StrongerBC Young Leaders

Council.

A shout-out to Emmy Wang today on her birthday.

Last night I spent the evening with the 2483 Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps. in Esquimalt.

The cadets shared with me the benefits of being a cadet and civic engagement and their

desire for changes in government policy like free transit for people under the age

of 19.

I would like to thank all of the young people I spent time with over the past few

days. You fill my cup up, and you inspire me.

Thank you to the Premier for empowering me to do this work. It is truly an honour.

SENIORS AND VOLUNTEERING

C. Oakes: Mr. Speaker, I have discovered the fountain of youth. No, it's not the blue zone diet

or some fancy supplement. It is volunteering.

Recently I had a seniors town hall. I have a solution petition that I will be presenting

this afternoon. So stay tuned.

The meeting quickly turned out to be an important lesson for all of us about the benefits

of volunteering. In a room full of people that I've long admired and respected, I

heard how each of them has taken on a cause so important to them.

My good friend Roy Zschiedrich talked about the model railway club. The club's guest

book is amazing and features entries from all over the world. The volunteers with

the club say that they're so popular. Why? Because everyone loves trains.

We received an update from Colleen Gauthier from the North Cariboo Seniors Council.

Colleen is a proud member of the Quesnel and District Arts Council. Do you know that

they're celebrating their 50th anniversary? How amazing is that?

Del Steers is with the community volunteer income tax program. It has been running

for 20 years. It helps 300 people a year, including seniors, students and newcomers

to Canada.

Judy Easy updated us on the Antique Machinery Park. You have to stop by.

Heidi Tims highlighted the new literacy centre in West Park Mall. I stopped by. Wow.

If you want access to some books, learn to use a computer and iPad and so much more,

stop by.

Mike Stevens talked about the OAPO and the services they provide. If you're looking

for a healthy meal and some senior-friendly activity, check out this group.

Phil Erickson is a member of the lawn bowling society. Look, they've recently had

thieves steal everything. So if you're looking for a great thing for Christmas to

invest in, help out the lawn bowling club. They need your help. It's a great group.

The list goes on and on. My time is short.

The secret is out. If you want to live a long and healthy life, volunteer.

SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS IN MAPLE RIDGE

B. D'Eith: Sports are so important to a thriving community and really help us to promote long

and active lives.

In our community, I've met so many great sports organizations. This summer I met with

a number, including the Maple Ridge Skating Club, who provide all sorts of skating

classes.

I also met with the Ridge Meadows Flames junior hockey club, who are thrilled to be

part of a new pathway to Junior A.

I met with the Maple Ridge Archery Club, who just started their indoor season.

Maple Ridge also has two cricket clubs — Ridge Meadows Cricket Association and Maple

Ridge Cricket Club — creating a love for cricket in our community.

As a former coach with the Ridge Meadows Minor Hockey Association, I know how exciting

playoffs and tournaments can be for players, for parents and for the community. Well,

recently our U13 A1 division Rustlers announced that they've been invited to compete

in the prestigious Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament in February 2024.

They're one of only 120 international teams to be selected. This is the first time

in Ridge Meadows history that a team has been invited to this tournament. They were

even featured on Global News on the weekend.

Now, this Rustlers team has also had a great start to the season, placing second in

the Remembrance Day tournament a couple of weeks ago. The success is a testament to

their fantastic teamwork, led by captain Dawson Malawsky and starting goalie Ashleigh

Rope and also to the guidance of head coach Dale Lupul.

[1:55 p.m.]

In fact, the Ridge Meadows Rustlers have a knack for training great hockey players.

Former Rustler Maverick Bell is the most recent winner of the B.C. Elite Hockey League

September to October U17 AAA Goaltender of the Month award.

Congratulations to our amazing sports teams in Maple Ridge and the teams and organizations,

and best of luck to the U13 A1 Rustlers this February.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

OF CLEARCUT LOGGING

M. Morris: Of the 54 million hectares of vegetation covering our province, approximately 30 million

could be considered productive forests. So 60 years ago, British Columbia converted

from select logging to clearcut logging.

Over those 60 years, close to 20 million hectares have been clearcut, eliminating

the biodiversity necessary to support all forms of wildlife. Loss of habitat has eliminated

over 50 percent of B.C.'s wildlife populations. It will take more than 100 years before

recovering habitat will be sufficient to support those disappearing species.

But the loss of habitat is only one consequence of clearcut logging. The loss of forest

cover resulting from clearcut logging and wildfires has impacted the hydrological

integrity of our watersheds.

Over the past 15 years, forest hydrology studies from UBC have now linked the loss

of forest cover to the rapid melting of snow in snow-dominated regions of B.C. Rapid

snow melt contributes to increased flood events in every watershed subjected to the

loss of forest cover.

The loss of forest cover contributes to the evaporation of moisture in the ground,

increasing the risks of wildfire. Studies have determined it takes, on average, 80

years in the southern Interior for conifer trees to reach a height necessary to provide

protection from the sun's radiation, vital in slowing down the snow melt. It will

take in excess of 100 years for conifer trees to reach that same critical height in

the central and northern Interior.

The biodiversity necessary to sustain our once world-class wildlife populations and

the ecological diversity of our province has received little consideration in clearcut

logging.

Based on science, none of British Columbia's forests subjected to clearcut logging

over the past 60 years have sufficiently recovered to protect our watersheds from

flooding, and no clearcut has recovered sufficiently to provide the necessary habitat

for fish and wildlife recovery.

Theodore Roosevelt once said: "The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources

as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired,

in value."

Mr. Speaker, are we failing the next several generations of British Columbians?

Speaker’s Statement

USE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND

BREVITY DURING QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Speaker: Before we begin question period, I would like to offer a couple of reminders.

In the last few days, we have noticed that some members, consciously or unconsciously,

have been using their electronic devices during question period. It's important that

no electronic devices should be used during question period. The provisions regarding

electronic devices are outlined in Standing Order 17A.

Should you have any questions about practice in this area, please review that standing

order or come to my office, and we can discuss.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Yeah. Don't call.

The second reminder is to all members. Please, you should be brief when you ask questions

and also equally very brief when you are answering the questions. That way it gives

us more opportunity to ask questions and answers.

Thank you very much.

Oral Questions

CLEANBC PLAN AND ECONOMY

K. Falcon: After seven years of this government, families across B.C. are barely hanging on,

with half of them only $200 a month away from not being able to meet their own family

budgets. Yet the government's own modelling, their own data, in their so-called CleanBC,

which we call cost B.C., scheme will strip $11,000 annually from family incomes every

year and wipe out over 200,000 jobs.

Now, there is a $28 billion gap between what the Environment Minister says and what

a member of the government's own Economic Forecast Council is saying, based on the

government's own numbers.

[2:00 p.m.]

My question to the Premier: how can the Premier possibly say that the cost B.C. plan

will shrink the economy by almost 10 percent and magically have no income on jobs?

Hon. D. Eby: We're through year 5 of the CleanBC plan, and what we have seen is very clear. Just

last year we added 60,000 new jobs and this year, so far, 47,000 new jobs. The Leader

of the Opposition will remember issuing a press release, when he was Finance Minister,

for 17,000 new jobs. It's the kind of economic activity we're seeing under the CleanBC

plan.

Now, the exports from British Columbia are up 41 percent over when….

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: Foreign direct investment — up 250 percent. The total between 2011 and '16 was $15

billion. Between 2017, when we were elected, and 2022, $54 billion was invested in

our province.

So I'll say that we can protect the climate for our kids. We can fight fires by fighting

carbon pollution, and we can grow our economy just like we've been doing, just like

we have to do.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: Well, the fact of the matter is the growth in government jobs has been five times

the rate as the growth in the private sector, and the Premier should know that for

long-term sustainability, you'd better be growing the private sector, because that's

where the economic revenues can be generated.

But the fact is…. Getting back to the lack of results, which is a common theme in

this Legislature, it's important the Premier recognize that emissions are on the rise,

yet his cost B.C. scheme, according to the government's own data….

I want to be clear about this. This is their numbers. They went out and procured this

firm that came back to tell them what their scheme will mean in terms of jobs. It's

set to eliminate more jobs than the entire population of Richmond in the next six

years.

Now, that's a lot of jobs; 200,000 jobs by any measurement is a lot of job losses.

As a former Finance Minister, I have to tell you that I have never seen….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

K. Falcon: I have never seen a government put forward…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Members, let's listen to the question.

K. Falcon: …a plan that very clearly lays out the implications on the budget, on the shrinking

of the economy by 10 percent and on the impacts that it will have with over 200,000

job losses.

Again, to the Premier: will the Premier address this huge discrepancy between their

own modelling, their own numbers, which predicts a loss of over 200,000 jobs, with

his Environment Minister claiming that they can somehow magically strike the GDP by

10 percent and have no job losses?

Hon. D. Eby: It's hard to know where to start here. So in 2022 — 62,900 total new jobs, of which

54,700 were in the private sector. I don't know what the member has against hiring

teachers and nurses.

In terms of cutting emissions, when we were elected in 2017, emissions were 64.4 megatonnes.

In 2021, the most recent year we have data for, it's 62 megatonnes. That's even lower

than 2007, which was the baseline year, at 63 megatonnes. We are cutting emissions

and growing the economy. We added 150,000 people to our province just last year, and

emissions are going down. Jobs are going up. GDP is going up, and we will continue

to prove, over that member's objections….

Until the leader of policy for the BCUP, the Leader of the Conservative Party, came out against climate action, he used to believe that we could grow the economy

and fight carbon pollution. He doesn't believe that anymore. All he wants to do is

fight fires.

We can do better than just fight fires. We can be leaders on climate change. We can

create jobs. We can grow the economy. We can cut emissions. You know how I know? Because

we've been doing it.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.

K. Falcon: This is a very serious subject, and it appears that the Premier has not read his own

plan, because the fact of the matter is this, just to get some context here.

[2:05 p.m.]

Here's what I've discerned. The NDP have a very bad plan. The B.C. Conservatives have

no plan. And B.C. United is the only party that has put forward a credible plan to

reduce global emissions….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let's hear the question, please.

Let's hear the question, Members.

K. Falcon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To reduce global emissions while still growing the economy.

The fact of the matter is that we have not heard the Premier answer the question I

have now asked twice. So I will try again.

Mr. Premier, your own economic modelling, your own modelling, that you retain….

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

K. Falcon: The Minister of Environment came back and told him that the impact would be a shrinking

of the economy by 10 percent — $28 billion. That's the entire Health Ministry that

would disappear, and 200,000 jobs would be impacted.

I want to remind the Premier that the Economic Forecast Council, which the chief economist

from the B.C. Business Council sits on, was put together for the express purpose to

deal with a previous NDP government that had a habit of fudge-it budgets that were

driven by revenue optimism.

Now we have another situation where their own numbers are telling them exactly what's

going to happen in terms of the negative economic impact. I just want the Premier

to answer the question and say….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let's hear the question.

K. Falcon: Will he explain the gap between what a member of his own Economic Forecast Council

is telling them, based on government's own numbers, against what his Environment Minister

seems to be saying, which is that you can somehow magically shrink the economy by

10 percent and have no job losses?

Will the Premier address that question?

Hon. D. Eby: We got there eventually.

I wish, I really wish, that the Leader of the Opposition had been there in Maple Ridge

just a week and a half ago, when we were surrounded by employees of E-One Moli in

Maple Ridge. The mayor of Maple Ridge was there — I'm looking at the member from Maple

Ridge — and we were celebrating a billion-dollar investment in Maple Ridge.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. D. Eby: The member who says we can't have a clean economy, the member who says that's not

possible –– 450 jobs building batteries for zero-emission aviation and devices right

here in our province. The largest private sector employer in Maple Ridge. That guy

is opposed to it.

That's CleanBC at work. He's opposed to Canada's first renewable diesel refinery.

Where is it? It is in Prince George. It is on the site of an existing oil refinery,

showing those workers a bright future and a low-carbon future.

We can do it. This side of the House not only believes that it is possible. We have

demonstrated it is possible, with the best GDP growth among big provinces in the entire

country.

T. Stone: The Premier just said a lot there without saying anything. He certainly didn't answer

the questions here.

The reality is this. The truth often hurts. The reality is that this government has

not met a single emissions target in the seven years they've been in power. Not one.

The Minister of Environment knows that that's true.

This government's own modelling reveals that the cost B.C. scheme will drain $11,000

from every family income every year as of 2030. It will also reduce about 200,000

private sector jobs overall in British Columbia, of which 14,000 will be in construction

alone. Now, only the NDP would think they can drive a whole bunch more supply of housing

with 14,000 less construction workers in this province.

So again, I want to ask this question. I'm going to pose it to the Finance Minister,

who's been remarkably silent on all of these economic-related questions we've been

asking for the last couple of weeks.

[2:10 p.m.]

Can the Finance Minister tell British Columbians who is right here — the Environment

Minister, or the government's own modelling and a member of the Economic Forecast

Council that predicts a loss of 14,000 construction jobs in British Columbia over

just the next six years?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, let him start, please.

Wait. Wait. Let him start.

Hon. G. Heyman: You know, I honestly don't know which is worse: the continued denial of human-caused

climate change by the Conservative Party, or the Leader of the Opposition's desperate

pandering to try to win back conservative voters by ripping up the climate plan.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: Let me make it simple.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let the opposition make those comments first, then we will answer the question.

Hon. G. Heyman: Let me try to make it simple for the opposition, because apparently, they didn't hear

the Premier, or maybe they just don't want to believe that the facts, the numbers

of the last six years, demonstrate tremendous economic growth under the NDP — the

highest GDP over that period of time of large provinces in Canada.

T. Stone: Well, I don't know what's worse. Is it the fact that this government has modelling

and has the analysis done within government and by a member of the Economic Forecast

Council, showing that British Columbians' family incomes are going to shrink by $11,000

per year by 2030? Is that worse, or is it worse that that same plan, cost B.C., is

actually going to result in the 200,000 fewer private sector jobs? Or is it worse

that this secret plan is actually going to reduce the size of our economy by $28 billion?

Cost B.C., this scheme, is set to deal a staggering blow to over 125,000 hard-working

people in the commercial, building, service and retail sectors. These are all working-class

jobs, and their livelihoods are at risk as a direct result of this Premier's cost

B.C. scheme.

Again to the Finance Minister, and we're trying so hard to assist the Finance Minister

here…. We're going to ask, again, to the Finance Minister, the person responsible

for the economic plan in British Columbia, the budget….

Can the Finance Minister please explain to British Columbians: who should they believe,

the Environment Minister or the government's own modelling and a member of her Economic

Forecast Council, which is warning of 125,000 lost service and retail jobs in British

Columbia over the next six years?

Hon. B. Bailey: With all due respect to Mr. Peacock, the quality of modelling depends on the data

you put in. This is partial data, and he's telling a partial story. I understand why

the other side….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. B. Bailey: I can understand why the other side would rather talk about modelling and what the

future might hold, but what about the results? Let's talk about results.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. B. Bailey: Let's talk about what's actually happening in our economy right now and the trust

that the private sector has investing in B.C. right now.

In addition to E-One Moli, which the Premier just mentioned — a billion-dollar investment

bringing B.C. IP back home — what about Alkemy X investing $201 million? What about

Astera Labs' $98 million?

[2:15 p.m.]

What about Hexagon Purus breaking ground — $237 million? What about Massive Canada

— $75 million? The list goes on.

Now, I understand that the Leader of the Opposition pointed out he's the past Finance

Minister. This is the party of the past. In fact, it's really unfortunate that we've

already mentioned what our B.C. dinosaur is, because BCUP-asaurus would be a great

name.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Members will come to order.

Members, let's be very respectful to each other.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Oh my god. I'm asking the other side to be respectful, and you are doing the same

thing.

Member for Abbotsford West, let's not be so cute.

CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM AND

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

MINISTRY ACCOUNTABILITY

S. Furstenau: Yesterday, in response to my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, the Minister

of Health referenced the broad engagement being undertaken around the oversight of

social workers. The public engagement period ended in January of this year, yet 11

months later, the public has not seen the results of that engagement.

When will the social work oversight report be released to the public?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. The member is correct in saying that a significant

engagement and consultation process has been completed and a lot of feedback has been

provided. It's not a surprise, because it's so critical the services that are delivered

by front-line workers, that we've received a of feedback.

It's really important to make sure that we do the analysis of that feedback and that

we are able to prepare a report that we will make publicly available that will describe

what we've heard and will take us into the next steps of the process.

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

S. Furstenau: This is the most perfect example of the problem we have with the Ministry of Children

and Families. Something as simple as an engagement report on an issue that has been

alive in this province for decades and we can't get, 11 months later, the results

of that report of that engagement.

The Representative for Children and Youth, the Ombuds office, First Nations Leadership

Council, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, advocates, families, youth with lived experiences

— all of them paint the same picture: a system that is failing to protect children

and families in this province, a system that is not supporting the parents who should

be able to rely on this and to be able to expect that from their government, a system

that can't even be transparent about an engagement process. And yet this government

delays, deflects and denies.

To the Premier, is he prepared to show the long overdue leadership and insist on transformational

reform of the Ministry of Children and Families?

Hon. M. Dean: We've known, as the member says, for a long time that the child welfare system has

been associated with the harms of colonialism. We've ended up with the overrepresentation

of Indigenous children and youth in the care system. We've known that we have needed

to make significant changes to the system.

Since 2017, significant steps have been taken. For example, unanimously, last year

we passed historic legislation to support Indigenous nations exercising their inherent

right of jurisdiction over child and youth family services.

We harmonized the rates for care so that children and youth in out-of-care placements….

We are now seeing increasing, because we harmonize the rates with foster carers, and

we increased those in the recent budget by up to 47 per cent as well.

We're supporting young people who are transitioning from the care system into independence

with a whole suite of services, because we know that that's a high-risk time for them

to be struggling and to have really adverse and disadvantaged outcomes.

[2:20 p.m.]

There's a lot more work to do, but we are building agreements with nations and supporting

them in exercising their jurisdiction.

WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT

J. Rustad: Last summer in my riding, we had significant wildfires. Quite frankly, there were

a lot of issues around that. I'm looking forward to getting an opportunity to talk

to the Minister of Forests about that during estimates, should they happen next spring.

What I do want to ask about is this. The wildfire workers that were out there, the

firefighters, did a great job in doing everything they could to stop these fires.

When the fires were controlled, we had more fires that came back down south, and the

fire crews were redeployed. That's the right thing to do, but there were local crews

that wanted to stay on.

You see, there were hot spots that were still behind the lines on these fires. The

local crews wanted to stay on. They asked to stay on to take care of these hot spots,

and they were told no. They were told to stand down.

What ended up happening? The winds picked up. Those hot spots picked up, and the fires

jumped the crew. Buildings were destroyed, and somebody lost their home.

The question to the Minister of Forests is this: was it just a money-saving exercise

that cost that home, or was it incompetent decision-making?

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to join with the member in complimenting the members of the B.C. Wildfire Service,

those community members who participated in fighting the wildfires and members of

industry who gave their equipment to support a full-fledged, widespread fight against

the worst forest fire season in the history of the province.

The issue the member mentions is one we are working with. The requirement of training

before volunteers can enter into the fight against fires is an important one for the

safety of those concerned. There is an initiative taking place in the member's region,

also in the Shuswap, where volunteers are invited to join in a community effort to

fight fires, but that requires steps of training. Indeed, that's what's taken place

in the last year.

The Premier has set up and directed that a task force examine what happened in the

firefighting season just passed, and that will be one of the topics that will be examined.

I look forward to the representations of the member into that task force.

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

J. Rustad: The issue here with these wildfires and with this decision-making was that these were

crews that were already working on these fires. These were local crews that were trained,

that were working on the fire and that wanted to remain working on the fire.

These were not volunteers to be trained. These were people that were on the ground

that knew the situation and knew that these hot spots had to be taken care of. They

knew there was risk, and they explained that to the Wildfire Service. They explained

that to the crews that were in charge, yet they were still told to stand down.

I guess the question is this. When you have a situation where there was clearly incompetence

in the decision-making, will this government provide compensation for the damages

that were caused to the people because of this poor decision-making by this minister

and this government?

Hon. B. Ralston: It is regrettable that the member chooses to denigrate and attack the B.C. Wildfire

Service after the service that they have given to the province after the worst firefighting

season in the history of British Columbia.

Certainly, the issues the member raises will be explored by the task force, and I

look forward to his representations to that task force.

CLEANBC PLAN AND ECONOMY

P. Milobar: Well, the government may want to try to brush off now five questions in this question

period so far, trying to get some clarity around their own commissioned report around

cost B.C. It's their own data sets. It's their own report. It was actually reviewed

by somebody that's a member of the Economic Forecast Council for the Finance Minister.

The reality is that under this Premier's watch, B.C. has become the most unaffordable

province in Canada — period. And that's for everyday regular people. The most unaffordable.

Now the government's own data…. Again, they paid for it. They asked for it to be done.

They asked for the data set. Back to the Labour Minister, who doesn't seem to believe

that.

[2:25 p.m.]

Their cost B.C. scheme will wipe out nearly 24,000 transportation jobs alone. That's

real working families in the trucking industry, wiped out and gone. Only the NDP would

think they could wipe out 24,000 transportation jobs between now and 2030 and that

there would be no impact.

Now, the viewers at home might not see it. It seems to be a little game between the

House Leader and the Finance Minister today where they openly laugh back and forth

as the House Leader picks a different minister to answer.

I'm going to ask for the sixth time now. I'm going to ask the Finance Minister for

the sixth time now, because the Premier has refused to answer the question. The Environment

Minister hasn't answered the question. The Jobs Minister hasn't answered the question.

This is about the person in charge of the $80 billion budget that gets advised by

the Economic Forecast Council. In fact, December 4 is the next time she'll be getting

advised.

Does the Finance Minister have confidence in the member at the Economic Forecast Council

that reviewed the government-commissioned report on cost B.C., showing 24,000 job

losses in transportation and a further 176,000 across the economy, or does she not?

Mr. Speaker: Member, it is the Government House Leader's prerogative whoever he advises to stand

up and answer the question.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Hon. K. Conroy: We all know that people in B.C. are facing big challenges right now, and it includes

a slowing global economy, which is creating issues in the province.

What I want to remind people is that when those members sat on this side of the House

and when the economy slowed in those days, they cut services. They cut services to

health care. They cut services to education. They cut services to sexual assault centres.

They did things like increase tolls.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, shhh.

Hon. K. Conroy: You know, one of the members referred to the truth hurts, and I think they might be

hurting quite a bit right now.

They cut fees like…. So many things. But then they increased fees, like tolls.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: They increased tolls. They increased MSP. They used ICBC as their own personal ATM

machine. They increased ferry fares.

Families and businesses just can't afford that kind of message right now. They can't

afford that kind of action.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: So we are taking action. We're taking action to reduce costs. We're taking actions

to support the services and infrastructure that people rely on right now. We're supporting

high-value manufacturing projects that diversify local economies and create jobs right

across the province. We have companies that are coming here to invest in B.C. We're

speeding up permitting so we can move projects forward.

We're delivering housing. We're expanding on child care. Seventy-five percent of the

people who came into the workforce last year were women, and they joined the workforce

because of our child care program.

I look forward to more questions.

M. de Jong: This is what the chief economist wrote on Monday. This is a quote: "The government's

modelling shows the main mechanism to achieve quick reductions in greenhouse gas emissions

by 2030 is to substantially downsize the B.C. economy, especially its export and industrial

base." The government's own modelling.

Economists for BMO said the following, referring to the plan: "When applied in combination

with these policies, the financial implications, complexities and regulatory burden

could make further development in the province of British Columbia potentially uneconomic

for much of industry. We believe these policies could act as an indirect production

cap for industry in British Columbia."

Now, this is Mr. Peacock, economist for BMO. These aren't some radical, fringe economists

that are operating underground, manufacturing conspiracy theories. These are members

of the Finance Minister's own Economic Forecast Council.

[2:30 p.m.]

Just to remind members: that is the forecast council that was created in response

to a former NDP government actually getting caught manipulating and ignoring financial

data from their own officials.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

M. de Jong: Here we are again, seeing the same thing occur….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, as I reminded at the beginning of question period, let's be brief

in asking a question and also brief in answering the question, please.

Does the member have a question?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Hold it.

M. de Jong: I get it, Mr. Speaker. They've all got their talking points. They've got to get out

there and start tweeting on this plan again, right? They're all out there tweeting.

They're all out there….

Mr. Speaker: No, no.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Nobody is allowed to use electronic devices in the question period.

M. de Jong: A pledge I am happy to make, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

M. de Jong: It actually isn't that funny watching Hockey Night in Canada turned into "Government Advertising Night in Canada." What they don't want to do

is they don't want to tell people the truth.

My question actually is to the Finance Minister. She didn't answer it the last time.

Does she actually accept the analysis from members of her own Economic Forecast Council?

She's having a meeting with them on December 4, in two weeks. She going to meet with

them. Does she accept the analysis that says this cost B.C. plan is going to cost

24,000 transportation jobs, 5,000 forestry jobs, 22,000 manufacturing jobs, 2,200

mining jobs?

If she doesn't agree with that analysis, will she stand up in the House today and

lay before the House her explanation for why that analysis based on her own government's

data, her own government's modelling, isn't valid and isn't appropriate for this House

to consider?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, please.

Hon. D. Eby: The member doesn't like that I'm smiling, but I'm smiling because I'm talking about

B.C.'s economy.

Now, if this were some new plan that we hadn't seen before, if this was some brand-new

thing…. We've been working on the CleanBC plan for five years, and we have results

that I'm happy to share with the member.

Last year's job creation was three times higher than when the Leader of the Opposition

was sitting on this side of the House. We're talking about tens of thousands of jobs

every year. Exports are up 41 percent compared to when those guys were on this side

of the House.

Foreign direct investment is up 250 percent compared to when you were on this side

of the House. We have the highest credit rating among provinces. We have the highest

GDP growth among provinces.

Now, we know that is not enough. We have to protect the environment and the climate,

and we have to support families that are struggling with costs. That's why we're taking

action on housing. You know?

By the way, when we take action on affordable housing over here, I want people at

home to note that every single time, those guys on the other side vote against it.

Is it any wonder our economy didn't grow when they were here?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: Is it any wonder that we ended up in that situation?

We're supporting people. We're growing the economy. We're building homes. We're building

schools. We're building hospitals...

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …and we're going to do a lot more of it.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour of presenting three reports from the office….

Interjections.

[2:35 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

I have the honour of presenting three reports from the office of the registrar of

lobbyists: Determination Decision 23-04 , Determination Decision 23-05 and Determination Decision 23-06.

Hon. M. Rankin: I have the honour, myself, to present the B.C. Treaty Commission annual reports for

years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023.

For 30 years, the B.C. Treaty Commission has been committed to modern-day treaty-making,

and we want to recognize their good work in preparing and releasing these robust reports

every year.

In particular, after 30 years, we want to also appreciate the current chief commissioner,

Celeste Haldane, for her commitment to a whole-of-government approach at all levels

to reach collective milestones and implementation of BCTC's goals.

Petitions

C. Oakes: I rise to present a petition requesting that this House take immediate action to raise

the income threshold for supports like SAFER and B.C. income assistance for seniors

to keep up with the rising inflation.

Additionally, we request this hon. House to advocate to their federal counterparts,

urging them to increase financial supports to B.C. seniors, ensuring that they have

the resources available to meet their needs.

A. Olsen: I rise to table a petition with 890 signatures calling on the Legislative Assembly

to protect all extant populations of Oldgrowth Specklebelly Lichen and immediately

require British Columbia to implement the recommended 200-metre no-timber harvest

buffer minimum around each tree in which this species is found on Crown lands.

Motions Without Notice

EXTENSION OF SITTING HOURS

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move:

[That the House recess from 6.30 to 7 p.m. and, notwithstanding Standing Orders 2

(1) and 3, thereafter sit until 9 p.m. today, and that, notwithstanding the Sessional

Order adopted on October 5, 2023,

Section A conclude its proceedings by 6.30 p.m.

today.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Please proceed.

T. Stone: I've heard a few of my colleagues just say it now: "Here we go again." It is beyond

bewildering to have the Government House Leader, 48 hours after he last did this,

put another motion on the floor of the House to change the hours of the sitting for

today. This, as I said in my remarks two days ago, is just very, very odd and unnecessary.

Two days ago, when he made the last motion to go to a late night sitting, that was

apparently because there was a sense on the government's part that we were going to

go really long on Bills 45 and 47, which, by the way, it's the right of the opposition

to spend however much time we want to spend on bills and prioritize our time accordingly.

I had said at the time, two days ago, that there was no attempt on the part of the

Government House Leader to reach out to me directly to have that conversation. Two

days ago, there was no communication. The late night sitting, I would have advised,

was not necessary, if we had been consulted.

As it turns out, the opposition did its job that day. We prosecuted Bills 45 and 47

and were done by the regular end-time for the day of 6:30. That was the plan all along.

Two days later, we find ourselves here again, with an apparent need on the part of

the Government House Leader to add time to the sitting today, not because the official

opposition obviously won't and can't speak for the third parties.

[2:40 p.m.]

But there's nothing that the official opposition has signalled directly or indirectly

to the government that would reflect our belief that additional time is needed based

on the fact that there are only about five pieces of legislation left on the standing

order with five days left in this session, yet the government has decided that it's

their intent to move forward with this. Apparently, it's because Bill 44 must get

done today, according to the government.

As I said a couple of days ago, and it was echoed by other members of the chamber,

this is absolutely not how this place is supposed to work. It's actually ridiculous.

It's, frankly, almost backdoor closure, where the government is predetermining up

front, with five days left in the session, how much debate time they want on this

bill versus that bill versus this bill versus that bill.

It's actually the opposition's job to prioritize what we spend our time on from a

legislation perspective. But our ability to do that depends on this government's ability

and willingness to do its job, and that's being organized and not being sloppy with

House management.

It is, as I said a couple of days ago, the government's job to bring the legislation

forward. We don't control the legislative agenda. We bring forward private members'

bills and those kinds of things, but we don't drive the legislative agenda, the official

government business of this place. That's the government's job.

The practice has generally been that government puts the vast majority of its legislation,

if not all of it and certainly major pieces of legislation, on the order paper by

about the mid-point of the session, which leaves adequate time, theoretically, for

the opposition to look at that volume of legislation that's on the table and to prioritize

the time that the opposition wants to spend on each of those bills. That is how this

place is supposed to work. We both have a job to do.

Instead, the government, session after session after session, including this session,

has introduced major pieces of legislation much later than the halfway point of the

session. That has become a common practice.

I'll say on that last point that often the bills that are the last ones to be introduced

by this government can often be the most substantive. What has resulted, then, from

that is not enough debate time being available in the last couple of days of a session

and the government inevitably having to impose closure — the main purpose being the

government not managing the introduction of this legislation in a timely fashion that

will actually enable the opposition to do its job.

The previous sessions, we actually found ourselves, with this government, waiting

two, almost three weeks before any significant legislation was actually introduced.

And then being accused of lighting our hair on fire at the back end of the session,

because we're upset and frustrated that closure has been imposed.

I appreciate if this is the Government House Leader's attempt to make sure that he

doesn't actually have to formally implement time allocation motions, closure motions,

but we have seen time allocation used increasingly in previous sessions.

We had one situation under this government, recent session, where two major overhauls

of forestry legislation were introduced in the dying days of the session, both requiring

a time allocation. The minimal amount of time they were debated was done in two separate

chambers. The forestry critic and the Forests Minister had to have other people cover

them off in these two…. But it didn't matter, because in both cases, we only got through

a minimal number of clauses of those two bills before time allocation had to be implemented.

FOI legislation, the Bill 36 fiasco from a previous session not that long ago, where

we were only 200 clauses through a 600-clause bill — fundamental changes to health

professions — and this government introduces that bill without adequate time for debate

and then shoves it down everyone's throats through the use of time allocation.

This session alone…. It's been pointed out, but I'll say it again. There are eight

government bills that have had to be amended after being introduced during this session.

That reflects a level of sloppiness on a different level.

[2:45 p.m.]

How you could bring forward legislation…. Maybe once or twice, but bringing forward

eight pieces of legislation in a session and having to then subsequently have it pointed

out that you actually got this

section wrong. This

section is incoherent with that

section. You got the numbering wrong. There's a spelling mistake here. It's absolutely

ridiculous.

The slapping together of miscellaneous statutes bills, including pretty significant

provisions that typically had been, in practice, dealt with in stand-alone legislation….

We have very significant changes being made to shelters in British Columbia, and the

government, instead of doing that in a stand-alone piece of legislation which would

be dealt with independently, buries it in and amongst a whole bunch of other miscellaneous

items in a miscellaneous statutes bill. That's not how that's supposed to be done.

It's been pointed out in this House: the unprecedented use of three chambers at the

same time to scrutinize legislation. I've been here long enough to see three chambers

used often, but it was typically for estimates, and you would be sitting in the Birch

Room and, most often, in the Douglas Fir — not to be actually scrutinizing, in committee

stage, legislation. Legislation is typically done in this chamber. It won't be the

case, it looks like, for the balance of this session, but it has become routine where

this government has three Houses going, with two parties that have two members each.

We've already canvassed that issue.

Gone is the predictable parliamentary calendar. We had a day taken out of the parliamentary

calendar this session. There was nothing put in. There wasn't a day added to the end

of the session. They didn't start the session a day early. Last session, actually

a year ago, in the fall session, an entire four days ripped out of the parliamentary

calendar to facilitate the new Premier swearing in.

Gone is the fixed budget date. The budget date sort of moves all over the place now

from year to year. As I've said, the proper notice of legislation for the opposition

parties to actually adequately prioritize our time — that's gone. You wake up every

morning not knowing if you're going to have hours added on or an extra this or that

or things moved around. That's not a way to manage the Legislature. The chamber is

not here just to suit the whims of government.

As I said, I fully acknowledge…. Having served on the executive council and having

sat on that side of the chamber, I completely understand who actually brings forward

government legislation in this place. I understand how that process works. I understand

how the legislative review committee process of cabinet is supposed to work to make

sure that legislation that comes to this place isn't riddled with errors and items

that need to be corrected and further amended on the floor of this House.

I understand that government has got a tough job to bring forward that legislation.

It has to figure out the timing of it and all the rest of it. But the opposition is

expected, by the people that we represent and by British Columbians generally, to

come here and actually scrutinize the legislation, actually hold the government accountable.

That's how the system is supposed to work.

If it's the government's intention to fundamentally change the sitting hours, if the

Government House Leader would like to tack on two hours a day or an hour and a half

a day to the sitting hours, or if he wants to go to late-night sittings, I'll say

this, and I'll say it very clearly right now.

We'd be happy to do that, but do it in a predictable fashion. Do it as part of a sessional

order on the front end of a session. Amend the standing orders. Do it so that, as

has been said by other members in this chamber, all of us in opposition, all of our

staff, everyone in government and their staff can actually predictably manage their

time because we know when we're sitting.

This isn't about not wanting to work more or hoping to work less or whatever. This

is about saying, "We'd be happy to be here until nine o'clock on sitting days," if

that's truly the intention of the government. But to send out notice in the morning….

Interjection.

T. Stone: The Government House Leader says last night. Okay. Whoop-de-ding, right?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

T. Stone: Twenty-four hours' notice, 12 hours. The point is completely missed by this Government

House Leader.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Peace River South, the Opposition House Leader has the floor, please.

[2:50 p.m.]

T. Stone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bottom line is this. The day-to-day manipulation of this

House, the hours and the chambers….

The day-to-day manipulation by the Government House Leader is not right. It's not

how this place is supposed to work, and it needs to stop. We need better planning

and better communication from the Government House Leader.

I'll say this in

summary. While it's not lost on me that the government will ram through

this motion with their majority, and that is their right to do as the government with

the majority of seats in this place, the official opposition isn't going to play any

games. We're not going to be told by the government what bills we can and cannot focus

on and how many hours we spend on things and try to be made to be…. You know, we're

filibustering or spending too much time on this bill or not enough time on that bill.

Our choice is our choice.

If we have an entire caucus that wants to get up on a particular bill and express

their views, then that's what we're going to do. All we ask of the Government House

Leader and the government is to manage this place with some level of predictability,

so it's responsible, so that we know what's in front of us and so people can plan

accordingly.

I would ask that the Government House Leader start doing his job.

A. Olsen: I rise to speak to this motion. We heard what the Official Opposition House Leader

had to say, and I think the recent history that we've experienced in, frankly, a chaotic

legislative agenda and how it has been delivered and then how the House is subsequently

managed….

I just ask members of this place to go back to grade 9 or grade 10 social studies.

For some people, the curriculum might have substantively changed. For others, you

might remember that this government was created with an executive branch and with

a legislative branch and separation between those powers. Unlike others of our cousin

houses across the Commonwealth, in this House, there is a dangerous blurring of the

separation between the legislative and the executive branches.

At times, it feels like we should just have the Premier's office move right on into

this chamber and just make decisions. It's the responsibility of the people who manage

this place to ensure that there is a healthy separation between the executive branch,

who brings forward legislation and who governs this province, and the legislative

branch, whose job it is to scrutinize their work, because what is happening in this

House right now is a dangerous blurring that lives past the precedents that are set

by this government.

This government acts like they are going to be sitting in those seats forever, but

they may not after next November. I know they don't believe that that's going to be

the future, but a different group might be sitting across there, and the very same

tools and tactics that have been used to capture this place by the Premier's office

could be used against them. They could be complaining about this just a few short

months from now.

What is happening with this

schedule and with this management of this House and with

limiting the ability for the members of the opposition, for the members of the public

to even know what legislation is in front of the legislators that they elected to

come here, have the ability to scrutinize those pieces of legislation…. How does anybody

know what the impact of the housing bills are in front of us?

We get them put halfway through a November election, and they're going to be shuttered

by December. No debate. No discussion. No air. No proofing. The critics scrambling

to try to understand what it is, because they've painted a picture in about five or

six different buckets, and we're supposed to find a way to figure out how the buckets

line up. No idea the impact that it's going to have.

[2:55 p.m.]

No time to understand what the forestry impacts were. That legislation still, in broad

strokes, hasn't been regulated. They smashed it through, gave themselves a bunch of

power, took it and now are taking their time. Took credit for the changes, by the

way, that haven't been regulated on the ground.

This House should be a democracy. It is not acting like a democracy. We have essentially

given power to a group of people, the executive, and they have full control over what

we debate, when we debate it and for how long we debate it.

It is infuriating, because then we have to go back out to our constituencies. I've

got to go back to Saanich North and the Islands and say: "Yeah, that place that we

have gave good air to that piece of legislation. It's going to actually change the

investment you've made in your real estate. It's going to change the form and character

of your community. It's going to change how our forests are managed."

We had a member talking about clearcutting. We have no idea about what the future

of that is, even though we've had legislation around forestry. Bang, bang, bang, bang,

bang.

Does this remind us of grade 9 or 10 social studies in any way?

It's certainly not how our Westminster system should be working — not even close.

This House and the management of the time in this place should not be at the whim

of the people that are bringing the legislation in and not even giving us the moments

we need to be able to understand the legislation that's in front of us so that we

can ask informed questions, so that we can critique it.

The people of British Columbia need to understand how their democracy is being run

right now, because it's teetering, and that is not an exaggeration. We have a situation

where we ask the question: "Okay. How can we tighten this up? How can we offer something

of value to this situation?"

There are not even the basic rules in our standing orders that put any controls around

what this government, future governments can do. It used to be that there was some

conversation and handshakes that the House Leaders had, where, actually, we operated

with collaboration, collectiveness alongside the Speaker, in order to make sure that

the flow of business was done.

Those meetings aren't happening anymore — the collective, the whole group. Little

notifications, this, that. Here we go. Another day, long here….

We need to wake up to the fact that this House has a very dangerous line that is blurred,

that actually has some very dangerous outcomes if used inappropriately, and this government

may not use it. But as soon as the executive branch of this institution starts to

own and control the legislative branch, we're in a very, very dangerous spot, and

that's what has happened.

Just because the B.C. NDP exceptionalism has them believing that they have every right

to do it, the right to rule like some sort of — I don't know — third-term government….

They're only in their second term,

You shouldn't be acting like you're in your third term. You're only in your second

term.

But they're acting with the arrogance of a third-term government. It needs to stop,

and it needs to stop now.

A. Walker: I will echo some of the concerns of the previous House Leaders and add my own perspective

to this.

This last spring my daughter and I planted 400 dahlias. We've got a small farm, and

it's a beautiful thing when you take a young child — I'll bring this to relevance,

don't worry — and you put these tuberous roots in the ground, and the rules are that

you don't water them until they pop up, and then you have to nurture them.

You have to follow them through, and you have to watch to make sure that they are

looked after, that they have water, that they have food, that they are able to thrive.

If you don't, if you neglect them, if you become complacent, you will see decline.

You will see decay. That same lesson my daughter and I learned this spring is the

same lesson I think we're all learning in this place here right now.

[3:00 p.m.]

In my new role as the fourth and a half party, I have been able to look at things

with a different perspective. I've tremendously enjoyed this, but I've noticed a few

challenges in this House and in the way that we do business that I think this provides

an opportunity to bring to light.

The member for Burnaby-Lougheed mentioned that we are only in this place temporarily,

and I think that's too easily forgotten. The member for Saanich North and the Islands

mentions precedents. The way we behave ourselves here will be looked upon by future

legislators, and that will establish the precedents that we can see forward.

Yesterday we saw an amendment brought forward by that same member, Saanich North and

the Islands, in a committee. It was wonderful to see the back-and-forth, and the minister

agreed. But what was strange for me was to watch the minister say: "I agree to this

amendment." It's not unprecedented, but it doesn't happen very often.

Then she had to look over to the other members of government to get their attention,

tell them how they had to vote, because members of government were doing other things.

They were watching Netflix. They were signing Christmas cards. They were catching

up on emails. They didn't have a clue what was going on, and….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Walker: So the House Leader says…

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Members, the member has the floor.

A. Walker: …that I wasn't sure they were….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Members, the member for Parksville-Qualicum has the floor.

Please continue.

A. Walker: Thank you, Speaker. I'll withdraw the brand name of Netflix. I'm not sure what was

being watched, so I apologize for that.

I mean, we've all done this from time to time. We have lives. We have stuff we have

to do, and that's fine. But it was just a perspective that I noticed. It was unusual

to have an amendment that was approved by government, and people didn't know what

was going on.

The other challenge that we saw was…. You know, things are changing on the fly. We

saw…. On Monday, this exact same motion came forward, and at that time, I had no notice,

which meant that not all members of this assembly had been given notice that this

was coming.

People need predictability in this place. The rules that have changed meant that….

The week before, I brought an amendment forward. Division was called, and because

of the rules of this place, I wasn't even able to vote on my own amendment. Like,

how strange is that? As a legislator representing my community, government had set

up a rule that precluded me from being able to vote on my own motion.

Interjection.

A. Walker: Exactly — because we weren't in this chamber, having multiple chambers going at the

same time.

I don't mind the idea of running late. I actually have been advocating for this for

a long time, when I was on the government side of things. But when you have multiple

chambers to prevent members from being able to participate fully, I see that as a

huge challenge. When the rules change on the fly, it provides the lack of certainty

that we need.

The member for Abbotsford West, on Monday morning, gave an impassioned speech about…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Walker: …the importance of government.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please, let's not have side conversations.

Please continue.

A. Walker: One of the three pillars he had identified was predictability. So I support the idea

of staying tonight till nine. People in our communities expect us to work hard.

But I would hope that this government would take time after this session, whether

it's through an all-party committee or whatever that looks like, to really look at

the challenges that we've experienced, whether it was forcing closure or extending

late hours with no predictability, and look at…. Whether it's through standing orders

or a customary agreement, come up with a plan so that when we come back in the spring,

we can all know what's going on. We can do our best, and we can work together.

I thank all members who have stuck through this, continuing in this chamber. Thank

you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the motion that was tabled by the Government House Leader.

Division has been called.

[3:05 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.]

Motion approved on the following division:

yeas — 49

Anderson

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D'Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Osborne

Parmar

Phillip

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

nays — 25

Ashton

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Letnick

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Paton

Ross

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Tegart

Wat

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act.

In Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 44, Housing Statutes

Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 48 — LABOUR STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

J. Sturdy: I just have a couple of comments here before I hand it over to the critic.

[3:20 p.m.]

Much of this was developed as the result of government not feeling that it was their

responsibility to provide a briefing to the critic and a briefing to the opposition

and then give the members on this side of the House the opportunity to have an informed

discussion and debate around this legislation.

What we've experienced here this afternoon is really just a continuation of the deterioration

of the state of decorum and respect in this House, and it's very unfortunate.

I would like to give kudos to the member for Saanich North and the Islands. I thought

he made very poignant and important points and comments earlier on in this debate

on the special motion to sit late tonight. I won't belabour that, other than to say

that this bill we're speaking to here today is just another example of the ongoing

deterioration and lack of respect around how we govern, how this province is governed

under this government.

When we look at the formulation and the process of this bill, it's really just another

empty piece of legislation. It's really disappointing we're dealing with this and

how we're ignoring, in many respects, other pieces, important parts of this Legislature

–– namely, a committee that I sit on, which was a committee that was appointed last

May to look at updating ride-hailing or passenger-directed vehicles, the legislation

around it. The committee was formed last May. It didn't start sitting till this fall.

But we have done some really good work that could well inform the minister's decision

or this legislation that we're debating here today.

So it's really disappointing that there's just not respect for the committee work

in this House. There's not respect for the opposition or the critic in this particular

piece of legislation. Then with, of course, the idea that there was an agreement that

all legislation in this fall sitting was going to be introduced by a certain period

of time, which was a couple of weeks ago. This is something that has been standard

or been accepted practice in this House for many, many years, and that practice seems

to have essentially vanished.

This legislation, Bill 48, is another piece of enabling legislation. It's a ten-clause

bill with little to no detail in it. Really, the regulation is intended to be developed

in the coming months, although the government claims to have been working on this

legislation for 18 months and it really begs the question: what have they actually

been doing? Then not respecting the fact that there's a committee formed that would

very much inform this bill.

It's more of the same. We're seeing these haphazard pieces of legislation, numerous

pieces all combined together, all making it very difficult for the opposition to do

their job and to prosecute this legislation in an effective way when it's just disjointed.

And that seems to be the approach here again — disjointed and not respecting the work

done by committees. It's a pretty sad state of affairs and disappointing, although

I'd have to say not unexpected.

I'll conclude here, just recognizing and respecting the time in this House –– that

there are many opposition members who had an opportunity to speak yesterday. It's

worth noting that while government may not be particularly proud of the legislation

as being proposed, this government chose not to, essentially, speak to it, although

I will recognize that the minister did give it some time, which is an exception in

the introduction of legislation lately.

[3:25 p.m.]

So I won't belabour this, other than to repeat what was said yesterday in one respect,

and that is that this is a piece of legislation without details, where the details

of the legislation will essentially be developed by cabinet through order-in-council

behind the veil of cabinet secrecy. So we won't really have an opportunity to understand

what we're going to see until we actually see it. There's no work for this House to

do.

I will note, as well, that the…. The minister had made some comments about these types

of operators and drivers suffering under the effects of high costs and that this legislation,

or the regulation, eventually may well provide some relief to those drivers. Yet the

minister and government refuse to accept that they could make a difference today by

accepting some of the recommendations of this side of the House in terms of repealing

or eliminating the gas tax for those exact drivers that are under those cost pressures.

It's ironic that we…. There's a desire to be seen to be doing something, although

what that something is we probably won't know for a year. There's an opportunity to

make a difference today, and that opportunity was rejected.

I thank you for the opportunity to have some time on this, Madam Speaker.

G. Kyllo: It gives me a great deal of pride to rise in the House today and speak to Bill 48,

the Labour Statutes Amendment Act.

I want to thank my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky for his commentary.

I think it is important to remind those listening at home that the culture and the

traditions of this House have changed drastically under this two-term NDP government,

which has an increasing prevalence of arrogance.

There has been a standing tradition in this Legislature that legislation is tabled

by the mid-point of a legislative session. As we can all imagine, pieces of legislation

have far-sweeping impacts on the lives of many British Columbians. It's important

for the opposition to have the opportunity to understand what legislation government

is bringing forward in order to do the appropriate consultation with impacted user

groups and to have a better understanding of how the proposed legislation may impact

their lives.

Again, we have seen with this particular bill…. Only two weeks remain in the session,

and Bill 48 was tabled on Monday. My office reached out, looking for a briefing, email

after email after email, only to be ignored, with zero response on Monday, to even

get a briefing on what the intention of this legislation that's before us is.

Two weeks left on the legislative calendar. Yet another labour bill is dropped. I

can appreciate the frustration of both our House Leader and the House Leaders of the

Third and the Fourth Party for the challenges that this presents. Legislation is brought

forward at the last minute, with no forewarning, and then the House Leaders have to

try to understand and to determine how much is the appropriate amount of time to debate

all of the different bills that are remaining to be concluded.

It's not just second reading debate, which we're on today, on this particular bill,

but the committee stage. That is the detailed scrutiny, line by line, clause by clause,

of the different legislation in order to ask some very important questions and to

provide clarity on what government is intending to do with the proposed legislation.

As my colleague also indicated before me, the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky….

The notion that as the legislation is brought forward…. We need to have ample time

in order to scrutinize those bills.

It is concerning that we see an increased level of arrogance of this government in

not providing appropriate notification, appropriate time for the House Leaders to

adequately plan the remaining days of the Legislature and the questions that we are

going to pose in order to better understand the direction of government.

[3:30 p.m.]

As we are seeing, also, with this particular piece of legislation…. Almost all of

the details are being put off to regulation.

It certainly used to be part of the tradition of this House that important legislation

included the majority, the bulk of the provisions so that there was an opportunity

for British Columbians to better understand what the direction and what the will of

government is.

But what we have seen with increasing repetitiveness by this government is vague legislation

which leaves all of the detail up to regulation. As my colleague before me indicated,

it will be left to cabinet and the executive council to make determination on what

the actual rules and regulations are surrounding this legislation, without any opportunity

to have the bills scrutinized in this chamber.

With respect to Bill 48, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, there has been some consultation

that was undertaken by government, but that consultation did not provide the direction,

I don't think, that government wanted to go in. So rather than conclude with the input

that was provided under some of the previous consultative work that was undertaken

by the NDP government –– because that consultative work did not give the direction

that matched government's direction –– they decided to wind up that committee and

then start all over again.

As we now understand, there's other committee work that's going on to better understand

the ride-hailing services and the impacts of some of the precarious work or the gig

economy. Before that work is even concluded, government runs forward, in the last

days of the legislative calendar, with yet another bill providing direction with respect

to ride-hail servicing and delivery services in our province.

Now, the bill provides a definition for online workers and establishes online platform

workers. This will be an example of SkipTheDishes drivers, Uber drivers, etc., and

it has changed the fundamental description and definition of who is actually an independent

contractor. I believe that this sets a very dangerous precedent where government now

will make the determination whether you're deemed to be an employee or a private contractor.

Many of these individuals that work for some of these corporations, they have their

own vehicles, they have their own insurance, they set their own hours and they make

their own determination on which rides they're going to accept or which deliveries

they're going to accept.

They, in essence, satisfy the definition of an independent business owner. They have

full control over their hours of work, and they have full control over the expenses.

Any of the tips that are actually provided, either to Uber drivers or to those that

are doing delivery services, they maintain, and they keep 100 percent of those tips.

So they actually satisfy and currently meet the description and definition of a private

contractor.

For some reason, government has decided that they know better. With this piece of

legislation, they're looking to change the definition and now, somehow, make the determination

that for these workers, they're no longer going to be determined to be independent

contractors. They're going to be treated similar to employees.

It is essential that all workers are put in a position to succeed and are working

under acceptable standards. Not only does looking after workers unleash the potential

of our workforce; it's also just the right thing to do. I don't think anybody has

any qualms or quarrels with that.

However, while we can support this general goal, our B.C. United caucus has some significant

questions about the functionality of the bill itself and how it's going to be enacted

to benefit British Columbians.

The topic that's on everybody's minds right now is affordability. Government has the

opportunity to improve affordability in a number of different measures.

[3:35 p.m.]

The Labour Minister yesterday, in his opening comments, talked about these precarious

workers and that, jeez, they've got rising fuel costs. That's why we have to change

the regulations.

and our leader has committed to doing, by removing the provincial fuel tax from gasoline

and diesel, saving drivers 15 cents a litre on gasoline or 14 cents on diesel or on

gasoline?

But what does this government do? "Oh, no, we can't make any initiatives to actually

save and help with the affordability crisis. Here's what we're going to do. We're

going to add an additional cost burden on to Uber drivers," which is going to get

passed on further to consumers, only adding to inflation.

Now, despite announcements suggesting these imminent changes, the implementation of

these changes is largely deferred to future regulations. As such, the details on how

these changes will practically affect workers, businesses and consumers is extremely

limited.

These changes will make delivery more expensive for consumers. The bigger concern

has to do with who is to determine the hours of work. When a driver decides and signs

on to the platform, is that when the clock starts ticking on what's deemed to be their

starting time? Is it when they actually accept their first ride-hail or their first

delivery?

What happens at the conclusion of a delivery? They might choose…. An independent contractor

has the ability to make their own determination on which ride they may want to take

next or which delivery service.

Maybe the next delivery that comes up on the app is for a ride out to Surrey, and

maybe the driver chooses: "I don't want to go to Surrey today. It's going to take

me too long to get there and back. I'm going to wait for the next delivery order."

Do the companies now have to pay for all of that wait time, even when that wait time

is the result of the choice of the driver?

If that is the case, we will see a shift — I'm sure; I'm quite certain — where these

companies will have no choice but to say: "You know, your opportunity to actually

make that choice to maybe not take the next available ride and to take the ride of

your choice…. Maybe you're going to have to take that next available ride because

you're on the clock and we're going to have to pay you wages for all of that time."

These are the items that have not been canvassed, have not been discussed directly

with all of these different ride-hailing companies or the delivery companies. And

these are concerns and the reason why the legislation should have the details in the

bill, in the law, so that everybody has a chance to actually question it and provide

answers from government to better understand how this bill is going to actually impact

not just the companies but also the workers and, in the end, the consumers.

But we don't have…. We're denied that opportunity because we have an arrogant government

that feels that they know best. "We're going to hammer this piece of legislation through

in the dying days of the Legislature. Just trust us. We're going to figure it out.

We're going to do whatever we choose, and you guys are denied the opportunity…." And

British Columbians are denied the opportunity to raise questions and to ask what the

direction is and what the full impact is of legislation in this chamber.

Now, the delay of regulations has impacted a diverse group of workers, including young

workers, Indigenous peoples, racialized individuals, persons with disabilities, women,

newcomers, linguistic minorities. Again, it all comes back to the biggest challenge

that British Columbians are facing: the rate of inflation, high costs. This piece

of legislation will add additional costs onto the backs of everyday individuals, those

either using ride-hailing services or those that are undertaking to utilize the delivery

services of some of the many companies out there — Uber Eats, DoorDash and others.

[3:40 p.m.]

The decision to regulate the status and rights of online platform workers and operators

through regulation rather than direct legislation limits the abilities of MLAs to

both consult and do the appropriate consultation with those impacted and to address

the concerns of our constituents. As I've said, ultimately, Bill 48 defers everything

to regulation, so we really will not know the full impact.

What we do know and what we have heard is that delivery workers on food delivery platforms,

for example, are earning, on average, $27 an hour. I think, last time I checked, the

minimum wage is $17.25 an hour. These companies have indicated that the average hourly

rate earned by some of these drivers is $27 per hour while delivering, which includes

100 percent of the tips.

B.C. drivers overwhelmingly value their flexibility and mostly use platforms for supplemental

income. Some 90 percent of drivers agree that being able to choose when, where and

how they work should be protected if laws are going to be changed, and 56 percent

of the drivers in B.C. would stop dashing and working for many of these firms if they

had less ability to choose the days or times that they worked.

This is about choice. As I mentioned at the outset of my comments, I think this is

a dangerous precedent, when government starts to manipulate and determine who is deemed

to be an independent contractor and who is an employee.

When we think about what is motivating government, I certainly have not had contact,

as the Labour critic, by any individuals or workers that are working in this sector,

expressing concern or challenges with respect to the many platforms that they work

for. We have to think: what is the motivation of government? Why is this piece of

legislation before us today?

We certainly have seen government, where they have the opportunity to address items

like inflation and the cost of living, having chosen to ignore it and to not undertake

those opportunities that are before them — whether that's making changes to provincial

sales tax, reducing taxation on fuel, potentially keeping the carbon tax in check

and not raising the carbon tax in advance or higher than other provinces and other

jurisdictions in Canada. These things are just adding to the cost burden that British

Columbians face.

I look to other areas where this government has significantly changed legislation

to the benefit of the select few and at the discrimination of others. We only have

to look to the community ripoff agreements, where this government has chosen to deny

85 percent of workers in British Columbia the ability and the right to work on many

of the horizontal construction projects, and now some of the vertical construction

projects, in this province — Pattullo Bridge replacement project, Highway 1 construction

project, the Cowichan Hospital, BCIT trades training centre.

I thought that in this country we had a choice, that workers had the choice to choose

to associate and that workers also had the choice to choose the union to represent

them. Not this government. This NDP government has made the determination: "Unless

you join the union that is favourable to us, that we like, your choice no longer matters."

If a worker chooses to be a member of the Christian Labour Association of Canada,

Canada West, CCWU, All Nations United. These are all progressive unions that are chosen

by their workers. Those aren't good enough. If you want to work on any taxpayer-funded

projects, you have to cancel your membership with your union of choice.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if you could show the relevance to Bill 48.

[3:45 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: Absolutely. This is speaking to the bigger affordability issue. This particular legislation

is only going to add to the inflationary pressures that are affecting hard-working

men and women across the province.

I think it is important to note that any one piece of legislation on its own may not

be the death knell that kills the economy in this province. It's the accumulation

of many of these pieces of legislation that discriminate against workers' rights,

take away the choice of the worker to choose their union of representation and drives

up capital costs.

I've shared in this House many times before that the very first community ripoff agreement

that was undertaken by this government was in my community of Shuswap, the Salmon

Arm west construction project. I was very proud in September of 2016 to announce that

project: $163.7 million for a 6.1-kilometre four-laning project. A project $20 million

over budget — another one of these community ripoff schemes, and they only built half

the project. Taxpayers were fleeced. Workers were discriminated in my own riding.

As we look to some other areas where this government has failed to represent the workers,

this bill — which this minister has indicated they are intending to support through

this legislation — is adding to the cost of British Columbians but, at the same time,

not necessarily fighting for all workers — picking winners and losers.

I only have to look to the employment standards branch, an organization that is there

to provide adjudication for concerns for private sector workers in this province,

where we've seen wait times go from two months in 2017 to a staggering 16 months under

this current government. Their own target is to have 80 percent of claims completed

and adjudicated within six months. They're failing; they're only achieving 20 percent.

When there's an opportunity within this government's control to stand up for workers,

to provide the necessary support so that workers are entitled to some form of justice,

they have failed miserably. They've turned their backs on those workers, and they

are left struggling, waiting for the opportunity to have their concerns addressed.

We've certainly seen an increasingly bloated public sector. There needs to be maintained

an equilibrium, I think, in this province: the number of private sector jobs versus

public sector jobs. What we have seen under this administration are 34 percent more

public servants, costing $17.4 billion annually in additional wages and benefits.

Where is the benefit? Where is the improved service to British Columbians? We're not

seeing it.

One other item that was brought forward just a few years ago was the paid-sick-leave

legislation to support workers during the middle of the pandemic. During the pandemic,

I would agree. Workers that were ill had a virus. The last thing we'd want to do is

to have a worker have to choose between going to work with an illness and maybe passing

that virus on to another worker or maybe staying home.

When government had that opportunity to provide that support, they also had the opportunity

to provide what would be a balanced approach. They had the opportunity to help shoulder

some of that cost burden, which was all put on the backs of businesses. They chose

to put the full burden on the backs of businesses, where this government is profiting

off paid sick leave in the province of B.C.

Deputy Speaker: Member, if you could bring it back to Bill 48, please.

G. Kyllo: Absolutely, thank you very much, hon. Chair.

Over the last number of years, we have seen challenges with respect to support, not

just for workers, but even for skilled trades, where we have seen a real failing in

the increase in the support for the apprentices across this province, with only a

1 percent increase in skilled-trades training seats.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think, if we look at all of it together, this is where we see increasing challenges

with the direction of this government. This is, yet again, another example of some

of the failings that have negatively impacted workers and failed to actually support

workers in British Columbia.

Just looking at the clock…. When we have a look at the ride-share and DoorDash drivers

specifically, in 2022, the last year that I have data, the average Canadian driver

of these services spent fewer than three hours per week on a delivery app — three

hours. For the large majority, this is all supplemental income. There are very few

that actually drive for either Uber or some of these delivery services as a full-time

job.

For the large majority, it's a supplemental income, yet here we have government meddling

with the private sector and with the opportunity of these private sector contractors

to engage in their work. We've seen a government that seems to always know best and

to continue to put pressure not just on the companies but also make efforts that are

actually going to further increase the cost of inflation in our province.

Only 13 percent of B.C. drivers rely on delivery or ride-share as their only line

of work, and 76 percent of drivers say it would be hard to make ends meet if they

were unable to get income from ride-share and delivery services. The increasing cost

of inflation and the increasing pressure is requiring that even people that have full-time

work already are finding the need to provide supplemental opportunities to increase

their income with these ride-share programs and delivery services.

Now, the costs that are associated with both delivery and ride-hail are again very,

very different. I think it's important that government should be taking that into

consideration. We certainly don't see any of that in the legislation that has been

tabled so far.

Compared to delivery services, ride-hail comes largely with higher capital costs.

There's an expectation for a higher-level quality of car, cleaning costs, maintenance.

These workers have to be challenged with looking after their clients. With delivery

app operators, there are no such conditions around the quality or level of the vehicle

that they necessarily utilize. They have a lower cost construct. They don't have to

carry passengers.

Delivery drivers also spend a lot less time driving. They also have the ability of

working on different apps at the same time and actually bundling services. They may

have an opportunity to pick up from a number of restaurants that may be going to the

same location, as an example. But again, with this particular legislation, there's

no ability for us to make that determination that that is even being considered with

respect to the legislation before us.

In closing, the concern that I certainly have and I believe many British Columbians

will have is: what is going to be the ultimate impact? What is going to be the increased

cost of that ride-share? What is going to be the increasing cost of having that delivery?

As costs go up, we very well may see that many of these drivers find that there's

a reduced demand for their services. At that point, where is the net gain?

I appreciate the opportunity to raise some of the concerns in this Legislature, and

I certainly look forward to an opportunity to have more scrutiny of the bill during

committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, recognizing the Minister of Labour to close debate.

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It is a pleasure. I would like to thank many members who

participated in speaking to this very, very important bill.

[3:55 p.m.]

I want to also thank the parliamentary secretary, who did a lot of work. She was the

one who was front and centre in speaking to those workers, talking to the companies,

talking to all the other activists and helping us walk through, listening, absorbing,

analyzing and finally advising us on how to put together what the workers' needs were

and what the employers' sides of the issues were and to come up with a balanced approach

that we are seeing in this bill. I just want to say thank you very much. Job well

done.

I'd just like to touch on a couple of areas. I think the critic talked about: what

is the need? What drives for us to do this? Somehow, because his office did not receive

any inquiry by anybody about the need to protect these workers…. Somehow they are

already making $27 an hour. Somehow, by protecting and giving the basic minimum standards

to these most vulnerable workers that provide service to us, it's going to drive the

inflation higher.

I thought, watching them sit on their side of the House for six years, that they would

have learned some lessons — that the workers are the backbone of our economy, the

very workers that… They trample on their rights every chance that they receive, every

opportunity they had when they were sitting on this side of the government — every

chance they have. The only time they talked about workers in this House was when they

were taking away their rights. They didn't even spare the injured workers. They took

their rights away.

A rehab….

Interjection.

Hon. H. Bains: The opposition critic says that that's not true. Go and take a look at the act that

was brought in, in 2002-2003. I'll give him one example. If you are lucky, under that

regime, to get a disability pension, instead of being indexed to full CPI, which used

to be the index of CPI minus one, the life pension is no longer a life pension. That's

the right that they took away.

He liked to argue that, no, they did not do that. Now, I was hoping that sitting on

that side of the House for six years, they would have learned that the workers' work

should be valued. Workers should be respected — that they would've learned that. Obviously,

they have not learned anything in those six years.

I can tell you that the workers are watching. They have listened to the speeches from

that side. They have listened to the speeches from me and this side. They know that

as long as they are sitting on that side of the House, their rights will be protected.

They cannot harm them anymore. That's what the workers are going to do. But I'm giving

them an opportunity, hopefully, that they will learn, because you cannot grow an economy

by trampling on workers' rights, by taking away their health and safety protections.

That's what this bill is all about: protecting their health and safety. If they are

injured at the workplace, they will be entitled to WCB coverage like all other workers.

That's what this bill talks about. They would be entitled to at least minimum wage,

like other workers enjoy in this province, and pay transparency, so that they will

know how much they will be paid by agreeing to this assignment. They will know that

there is a process in case their app is deactivated, and there is a process for them

to give their side of the story.

[4:00 p.m.]

This is all fairness. Somehow BCUP doesn't agree with those basic minimum standards.

Listening to the opposition critic….

We are going ahead because we know this is the right thing to do. We know this is

the right thing to do.

And with that, I'd like to say thank you again to many people who put a lot of work

behind it. A lot of consultation took place. Hundreds, if not thousands, of workers

were consulted directly. That's why we came up with this.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to say thank you again to many people who participated in

this. With that, I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members, you've heard the motion. It's to move second reading of Bill 48, Labour Statutes

Amendment Act, 2023.

Division has been called.

[4:05 p.m. - 4:10 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act,

Second reading of Bill 48 approved unanimously on a division.

Hon. H. Bains: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, read a second time and referred to a

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

today.

[4:15 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 44, Housing Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 44 — HOUSING STATUTES

(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 44; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 4:18 p.m.

On clause 1 (continued) .

The Chair: We'll call the committee to order. We're dealing with Bill 44, clause 1. Recognizing

the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

A. Walker: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to this place.

I got the list, from the minister, of the different agencies and local governments

that were consulted. I appreciate his so expeditiously sharing this. I see on this

list there's a group of 31 developers and non-profit sector representatives. Going

through that list, about half of them seem to be developers and the others are agencies.

I'm just wondering how it was that the ministry selected which private for-profit

corporations to do this engagement.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Most of them were brought together by different industry groups. The Homebuilders

Association, the UDI, the ULI — they bring their members together for round tables.

A. Walker: Was there a public call for for-profit developers to participate or only those that

were brought in through the round tables of the associations?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There was no public call.

A. Walker: This space sounds amazing when the acoustics are just right, and Hansard is doing

a wonderful job. Thank you.

[4:20 p.m.]

Carrying back on the conversation before, if a self-contained dwelling unit — I might

not have the language right — has laundry or not, it doesn't matter. It requires a

kitchen to count.

To the minister: is a housing unit a housing unit if it does not contain a washroom?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A dwelling unit means a building or a part of a building that (

a) is a self-contained

residential accommodation unit, and (

b) usually has cooking, eating, living, sleeping

and bathroom facilities.

A. Walker: I guess the reason I'm asking these questions in this way is…. We have some short-term

rentals that are purpose-built that are buildings with many detached self-contained

units that don't have kitchens.

S: o the question is: if you have a property that has one self-contained unit and — I'm

sorry, I don't have the language; I'm just still setting up here — then five other

units that don't have kitchens, could that property owner still build three more units

on the property?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I'm sorry, to the member. We don't understand the question. Maybe if he can rephrase

it.

A. Walker: Certainly. So in communities like mine, it is not uncommon to have lock-off suites

in a dwelling unit that maybe doesn't have a kitchen. They were previously used as

short-term rentals.

Now I'm hearing from people that they may rent them out to students or to other groups

that are looking for this space because it's affordable. It's the only option the

property owner has. It obviously wouldn't be conforming to new building code, but

it's an existing space.

So the question is: if there's a building that has multiple units like this in it

that don't contain a kitchen, would they then deduct from the total count of the four

maximum allowable units on a single-family lot?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I'm not going to get into kind of hypotheticals. I'll just say that this is the definition

of the dwelling units, and depending on the size of the lot, they can have three or

four.

A. Walker: It's not a hypothetical in my community. We have homes that have two lock-off suites

that have no kitchen facilities — they do have bathrooms — that were previously used

as short-term rentals and now, based on previous legislation, are being brought in.

So this house has three units, but really only one according to the new legislation.

So the question is: would that property owner then be allowed to put three more units

on a property if these other units are not meeting the description of a self-contained

unit?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This legislation talks about minimal allowable zoning. So the local government would

have to ensure that it fits within the

definitions.

A. Walker: Yeah, I get that. It's just like we're talking about "housing unit," which is the

new definition in the act. A housing unit, as defined by our conversation back and

forth, requires a kitchen and a bathroom. I'm providing an example. It's not hypothetical.

This exists in my community, homes with lock-off suites.

We also see that with apartments, but it wouldn't apply obviously. But a home with

a lock-off suite…. A council would likely consider that two housing units, but under

this act, I'm just trying to clarify that it would be considered one housing unit.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I lived, when I was in university, in a home with five different students. We shared

a kitchen, shared some bathrooms, but it was a single-family home. So in that situation,

if they were to add units, they could add units that are separate, as long as it's

as the description I've provided earlier of what a dwelling unit is.

Of course, if they're building something new — I mean that's a whole different piece

— they would have to fit within this.

A. Walker: Not to dwell on this, but just as an example, there's a single-family house. If it

has got two lock-off suites that don't have kitchens, and they go to council to get

three more units, it's my understanding that, under this new act, they would be permitted

to do.

Hon. R. Kahlon: If they fall within the definition of the legislation, yeah, I suppose so.

A. Olsen: I'm just following up on a question from the member for Parksville-Qualicum earlier

around a consultant report that looked at the number of units that British Columbia

needed.

[4:25 p.m.]

The minister talked about a report. One has not been made public. I'm wondering if

the minister will make the report and the terms of reference for the report…. Will

he table it with the House here?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The report talks about net new units, not what's needed. It talks about net new units

because of this policy, and we will be making it public. I can't make it public today,

but we will be making it public in the very near future.

A. Olsen: I think that it's important that as we're trying to analyze the impact that this bill

has, we have the information that's informing the minister so that that can be scrutinized.

Secret information could be anything.

Can the minister provide a timeline for when the report will be tabled with the House

so we can see the information that's informing the decision-making?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member. My expectation is that when we release the site standards, we'll

be releasing the report as well.

A. Olsen: Can the minister confirm if that will be before or after this debate on Bill 44 has

passed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, the legislation speaks for itself on where we're heading. The information about

modelling will be released when we release the site standards in regulations in a

few weeks.

A. Olsen: So the information that justifies Bill 44 can be scrutinized once Bill 44 is passed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The information that tells us the potential amount of units that can be built will

be released when the site standards document comes forward.

What justifies the legislation and the bill that we brought forward has been a combination

of work. We released our Homes for People strategy earlier this year, indicating we

were heading in this direction, so the data on what outcomes we can get from it will

be released when the site standards document comes, but that document didn't justify

our legislation. Our legislation speaks for itself.

A. Olsen: Okay. I get it. However, the fact of the matter is that we've had very little data

given by the minister, very few numbers, actually. One of the numbers that we've been

given with some certainty from the minister was 130,000 or whatever — 150,000, right?

That's the only number that we have that is kind of the foundation — the cornerstone

of this.

We're going to be able to scrutinize the quality of that report. We're going to be

able to scrutinize the methodology. We're going to be able to maybe look at the terms

of reference guiding the development of that.

We know that depending on the question you ask, it largely determines the number that

you get back. I have no idea what question the ministry asked their consultants. I

don't even know who the consultant was. The minister didn't mention it. There's no

way to determine whether the cornerstone is actually a valid cornerstone.

We have to take the minister on his word that the number is 130,000. We have to take

the minister on his word that there was a consultant and a report. We have to take

the minister on the word that the terms of reference wasn't funnelling toward a decision

that we were looking for. All of this information is going to be coming available

to the members of this House who represent the people of British Columbia after the

bill is passed.

Will the minister tell us who the consultant was, tell us when the report happened

and whether or not he's prepared to provide to British Columbians the information

that the study that he referenced that is informing this this bill — whether it will

be made available to the public for scrutiny prior to the end of this bill, before

this bill becomes law?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The consultant group was MountainMath. It looked at our policy and gave us some estimates

on what we believe the outcomes could be, but we didn't use that to inform our legislation.

We actually looked at other jurisdictions. We put best practices in place to inform

our legislation. That information is not something that drove our policy. That information

is outcomes that we believe we can get from the policy.

A. Olsen: There are specific numbers in this bill — three, four, six units, specific numbers

in this. They could have been two, three, five. They could have been nine, ten, 12.

[4:30 p.m.]

Presumably those numbers were built off of some kind of statistics, some kind of data,

some kind of information, not just random numbers picked out of the air. Maybe that's

the case, and if that's the case, the minister can tell us just random numbers.

But the reality is that the minister, in answering questions to my colleague, gave

us a number: 130,000. This is what the outcome is, right? It's informing this debate.

He used this number to inform this debate. I'm wondering how this information is grounded,

how it was arrived at.

The minister is unprepared to share this information with the House so that we can

scrutinize it, meaning the people of British Columbia are simply to take his word

that this is the outcome that we can…. Perhaps it has been modelled. No idea what

the quality of that modelling was. No idea what the quality of that outcome is. British

Columbians won't know until after this bill has been completed debate. Correct?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The three, four, six units is on best practices that we've learned from around the

world. The modelling did not dictate what number we would choose, so the member is

incorrect in stating that. What we did with the modelling was to get an assessment

of what we could get outcome-wise given the policy work that was already happening.

The member can look at jurisdictions. If he wants to look at our housing task force….

He can look at Ontario's housing task force, which also recommended four and six units.

Look at Washington state, Portland, California. We looked at many jurisdictions to

see what the best practice is for number.

I appreciate he's trying to make the case, for some reason, that we can't have a fulsome

discussion because he doesn't know the modelling of the outcome. But the modelling

shows us what the potential outcome can be from the legislation. It didn't inform

us in the development of the legislation.

A. Olsen: It's absurd. That's absurd. What's absurd about it is that all the way through this

debate, we've had an idea of the number of units that has been stated that British

Columbia needs. We now have a number of what we can expect to come out of this. We

have numbers that are suggesting the amount of density increase that this bill is

going to…. None of it is linked? That's absurd.

If that is the way that this housing bill has been brought, then nobody should be

voting for this. If none of these numbers are linked…. All I'm doing is trying to

understand how the ministry and how the minister has linked these. Very few solid

answers about….

We've got reports from Ontario. We've got reports from around the world. We've got

some reports. I can go and look for the reports. That's the response. It's the single

biggest act of rezoning happening right now in our province, and every British Columbian

needs to just go and look at all the reports from all the jurisdictions around the

world.

When asked, "Minister, please tie these numbers together," it's not possible to tie

the numbers together, or he's unwilling to tie the numbers together. Provide the data.

Is the report a public document?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We will be making the modelling public when the site standard documents are released.

K. Kirkpatrick: To follow on what my colleague here is saying, this means that the key supporting

information that will justify this legislation is not going to be released until after

the bill has passed. I would just like to clarify that that is what the minister has

just told us.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The information that informed this legislation is based on best practices around the

world. It was a key recommendation made by our housing task force. It's also a recommendation

made by Ontario's housing task force. It's policies that other jurisdictions on the

west coast have put in place.

The modelling helps us identify what we think the outcomes may be, and that information

we will be making public. But the fact that we have this legislation, the fa