Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, November

30, 2023

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: T. Stone.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: It's my honour today to welcome leadership staff and project partners from the Forest

Enhancement Society of B.C. or, as they are sometimes known, FESBC. This organization

works with Indigenous groups, local communities, contractors and forest companies

to implement projects that help protect communities from wildfire, provide the fibre

that keeps mills running, and improve forest ecology.

This year, the society funded 61 projects, including 19 just announced today. I'd

like to mention the members of the board and staff: Dave Peterson, board chair; Trish

Dohan, secretary; Ken Day, director; Mike Kelly, director; Steve Kozuki, executive

director; Joyce Clarke, finance and administration manager; Aleece Laird, communications

liaison; Kimberlee Baggio, communications support; and an important partner, Percy

Guichon, executive director Central Chilcotin Rehabilitation Ltd.

Would the House please join me in giving a warm welcome to all the members of FESBC.

C. Oakes: It's not very often that we get visitors from Cariboo North here in the Legislature.

I'd like to welcome Fred Rogger and Anna Rankin, who are visiting us here from Quesnel.

Fred is a retired teacher and taught one of our long-serving B.C. staffers, Cam Ehl,

who is also from Quesnel. Fred is one of the reasons why Cam developed an interest

in politics and was an inspirational teacher to so many students in school district

28 over the years.

It's not just Cam. Fred, you have inspired many people in our community to go on and

take leadership positions. You're an excellent teacher, and we're grateful for all

that you've done.

I had the opportunity to work with Anna on the airshed management work in the community

over many, many years. You're a tireless advocate in our community.

Would the House please make these two exceptional people welcome.

R. Parmar: I've got two sets of introductions today. Firstly, it's an honour to invite to the

House today two incredible residents of the West Shore area. We've got Christine Lervold,

a proud SD 62 trustee, who took over for me on the school board earlier this year;

and from the city of Colwood, Bruce Brown, retired staff sergeant with the West Shore

RCMP.

I'm going to be talking more about these two incredible people in my member's statement

a bit later. But will the House please make them feel very welcome.

[10:10 a.m.]

For those of us on this side of the House, this question period and this session mark

the end for one of the one of the hardest-working staffers on this side of the House,

and that's Peter Dalla-Vicenza.

He's a senior research and communications officer with the B.C. NDP caucus and a reporter

turned political staffer who spent the last 20 years supporting NDP governments in

Manitoba, Alberta and now here in British Columbia. I think all of us have been touched

by the incredible work that he and his team do.

I hope all of us will recognize him for, again, the incredible work that he's done

over his career and wish him all the best in his retirement.

T. Halford: I want to welcome home a South Surrey-based fighter who went and competed in Fort

Worth, Texas at the 16th World Wushu Championships. That is Joseph Piccolo and his

coach, known in our community as master Mostafa.

Joseph won second place in the men's sanda division in the 90 kilogram category. This

is actually the first time this has been done in Canadian history.

I want to congratulate him on this historic achievement.

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I have my entire team from the Municipal Affairs minister's

office: my chief of staff, Thuy Pham; my senior adviser, Jocelyn Fan; executive assistant,

Nick Hsieh; administrative coordinator, Ngaire Lord; and administrative assistant,

Don Privett.

I love coming to work every day, because I get to see them and work with them. They

have been a real support, not only as colleagues and partners but, as well, just like

a family.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Tributes

GORDON GIBSON JR. AND HARBANS BHULLAR

K. Falcon: I'd like to make two acknowledgments.

The first is all of us serve here as MLAs, and we're privileged to have the ability

and the right to do that in our free and democratic society. I want to recognize a

former member who's no longer with us, and that's Gordon Gibson Jr.

Gordon Gibson served with distinction on behalf of the entire province of British

Columbia. He was first elected in 1974 in the riding of North Van Capilano. He was

a party leader of the B.C. Liberals up until 1979.

He was also chair of the Citizens Assembly that our prior government put together

that, for the first time, allowed randomly selected citizens to come together and

make a recommendation as to what kind of electoral system we should have. Although

the public ultimately decided not to go with the recommendation, the very fact that

that trust was put in the hands of regular citizens could not have happened without

Gordon Gibson Jr.'s leadership.

He was also a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and wrote a number of books about

governance and was awarded the Order of B.C. I want to recognize his contribution

to the province.

Secondly, I'd like to also recognize the passing of a woman named Harbans Bhullar.

This is a classic immigrant success story. Came here in 1956. Husband died at much

too young an age, and she was raising several children on her own. As a single mother,

that's always hard to do. All of her children excelled and served with distinction

in their various endeavours.

One of them, Tarsem, or Tony, Bhullar actually served in this Legislature for four

years. It's another example of how immigrants have enriched our society, and I want

to just make a notation that we thank her for the great contribution she made to our

province.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Robinson: Today, we have in the gallery a whole crew from my ministry. The Post-Secondary Education

and Future Skills Ministry has joined us here today, and I would like everyone to

please give them a very warm welcome.

These are the folks that do so much heavy lifting on behalf of British Columbians

everywhere.

S. Chant: I have two guests here today that I'm very, very pleased to see. They're both from

Capilano University. They work with the students union there.

Manpreet Kaur is the vice-president external, and she's also the chair of the Alliance

of B.C. Students. She does a lot of work both listening to students around the province

and bringing their concerns when they come and talk to us here to advise us of how

it's going in the post-secondary world and to let us know their concerns so that we

can listen and help.

With her is Josh Thomas, who is the director of policy and campaigns with the Capilano

University Students Union. Josh has been there for quite some time and has been a

really strong and effective mentor and guide for the students who come into the student

union and are learning the role of representation and advocacy.

[10:15 a.m.]

I'm very glad that they're both here, and we're going to hopefully be doing some visiting

during today. I hope when I arrive at your offices, it's fine to have a quick visit.

R. Merrifield: Well, this morning I have the privilege of having two of our city of Kelowna staff

members here for a visit this morning for coffee but then also here in the gallery

this morning.

As we know, the city of Kelowna punches above its weight, and it wouldn't be possible

without the extraordinary staff members. I'd like to introduce to us all, Axelle Bazett,

who is the intergovernmental relations manager, as well as Michelle Kam, who is the

grants manager and here for some visits and meetings today. Would the House please

join me in welcoming them.

I also have one more and that is that I'd like to introduce Ryan Painter, who is also

here this morning for a meeting. I just wanted to welcome him to the House.

H. Yao: I think we all can agree that as MLAs, we have bosses back at our constituencies.

They work hard, they help us do casework and often manage our schedules, in order

to ensure that we do not miss any important appointments.

Today I want to ask the House to welcome my three CAs who are here: Amy Li, Robert

Chuand Rishika Selvakumar. They are here, they are here listening, really watching

QP, so hopefully we are all on our best behaviour.

Please join me in welcoming them here in the chamber.

B. Banman: I think in this House we can all agree that the heavy lifting is done by staff. Our

team is small but mighty, and one of the very important parts of our team is actually

up in the gallery today. I would like this House to welcome Hannah Driedger.

I appreciate you, and on behalf of my leader and myself, we just want to thank you

and wish you a very merry Christmas as well.

B. Anderson: I know everyone in this House is excited that today is the last day of session. I

am particularly excited, as I get to go home tomorrow. It should take me about 12

hours, and I get to celebrate my partner's birthday this weekend.

Happy birthday, Paul. I love you, and I can't wait to be home with you and the dogs.

C. Oakes: I forgot one other individual today. Joining Fred and Anna today is John Heffren.

I, too, would like to acknowledge all the student representatives here today. They're

doing a great job with advocacy. We appreciate all the work that they're doing.

Would the House please make all the guests welcome.

Hon. G. Lore: I'm really pleased today to introduce Dr. Azin Nasseri. He is the executive director

of the Vancouver Island Counselling Centre for Immigrants and Refugees. He's a clinical

counsellor with a PhD in international psychology from the Chicago School of Professional

Psychology, with a special focus on psychological trauma.

VICCIR, the Vancouver Island Counselling Centre for Immigrants and Refugees, is an

incredible organization that provides counselling and support that is trauma-informed

in language and culture for newcomers in B.C.

They continue to step up in my community and across the region to provide support

to people displaced by war and violence, including from Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan,

Iran and more.

Will the House please make this incredible individual feel very welcome.

R. Russell: I think we all have people back home that are real champions for community. One of

those for me is on the precinct today. Dan Macmaster is a forester for Osoyoos Indian

Band and is also a leader in the community forest sector. He's somebody I'm proud

to call my friend. We all know how much toll that takes.

A belated birthday wish to his partner, Elly. I may have witnessed him receiving a

Forester of the Universe Award this morning. I’m not entirely clear on that, but please

make him feel welcome.

Thank you, Dan, for all you do for our community.

[10:20 a.m.]

H. Yao: I also want to take, today, a great opportunity to wish Lao On Hing a happy 75th birthday.

I know Lao On Hing has been in Hong Kong for 60 years as a tailor, and I also know

he's the father of one of my staff members.

For him to raise such an exceptional staff to support us and support our community,

I want to say thank you and happy birthday.

G. Chow: I'd like to welcome the Seaquam senior boys volleyball team from Delta to the Legislature.

The team won the bronze medal two weeks ago at the South Fraser Championship and earned

a spot to compete here in Oak Bay at the B.C. High School Boys Provincial Championship.

The top 16 teams in the province, out of a total of 75 teams, are competing this week

in Oak Bay.

The Seaquam team is led by head coach Leanne Chow, who happens to be my daughter and

who teaches at Old Yale Road school in Surrey. With her are three assistant coaches

— Ryan Blandford, Alex Lam and Nathan Yang; as well as two parent sponsors, Doug MacKenzie

and Melanie Funk.

There are 11 members in the team. They are Luke, Alex, Tim, Will, Saagar, Jjay, Lynden,

Loreno, Brendan, Mattias and Tariq.

Would the House welcome them and wish them luck in the championships.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

GRANDCHILDREN

G. Kyllo: Well, grandkids, the next generation, truly are God's greatest gift. My lovely wife,

Georgina, and I have been blessed with 12 grandkids. The best

part is that our four

daughters and their families all reside within about 15 minutes of our home in Sicamous.

Georgina is affectionately known as Nanny and undoubtedly is all of their favourite

person, and I'm just referred to as Pops or, as the kids oftentimes like to teasingly

refer to me, as Popsie. Okay. I get it. It may not be quite the coolest handle that

I might have desired, but I do want to get their names on the record.

From oldest to youngest, we have Maya, Eve, Kylie, Siddhalee, Nova, Nolan, Hannah,

Journey, Adison, Harvey, Sawyer and Noah.

Now, hon. Members, I turned 55 this year, and I'm very proud to profess that I'm doing

my best to not act my age. I must admit that being active and involved in our grandkids'

lives makes it increasingly easy to do just that. Nothing like the presence of a gaggle

of grandkids to remind us not to take ourselves too seriously.

Near any activity is greatly enhanced in the presence of grandkids, and Georgina and

I are increasingly finding ourselves changing our lives and our activities in order

to ensure that we can spend as much time as possible with the grandkids.

My favourite time of year is definitely Christmas, the Christmas season. As we look

to leave this House and head back to our home ridings, I hope that all members are

able to surround themselves with family and friends and, for those that have the fortunate

opportunity, with their grandkids.

It is certainly worth repeating. Grandkids are truly God's greatest gift.

HUMANITARIAN WORK BY BOB BECKETT

AND MISSIONS TO UKRAINE

R. Parmar: Over 600 days ago, Russia began its unjust and unprovoked war on Ukraine. In Langford,

in my community, retired fire chief and humanitarian extraordinaire Bob Beckett began

the important work that he's been doing for over 30 years of supporting communities

and always thinking globally.

Bob has had a history of over 30 years of outreach and visiting communities as a humanitarian,

whether that was building new schools in Haiti, being there in Bosnia, bringing a

used fire truck to Mexico or being there just days after 9/11 in the United States.

Bob, since the war began, has led three missions to Ukraine, with the last one just

returning last week.

I had the honour of joining Bob on one of his humanitarian missions to Ukraine just

this past February, and I can share with you and all members of this House that it

was an incredibly moving experience.

[10:25 a.m.]

I had the honour of participating in some FaceTime calls with Bob and the team just

in the last couple of weeks, as they were delivering some incredibly important initiatives

and experiences and supports and services to people in need.

I want to acknowledge the accomplishments of this team and what they were able to

do in their last mission: $50,000 donated to a hospital for medical supplies, two

large diesel generators to keep students warm and out of the dark as their schools

were impacted by power outages, $10,000 towards an orthopedic drill, $32,000 fundraised

for a new school bus.

Really the icing on the cake, and what I'm most looking forward to, is welcoming four

students from Ukraine, four different communities, to the Sooke school district as

part of an international experience next year.

I hope the House will join me in acknowledging Bob, but also his entire team: Stew

Young, the former mayor of Langford; Bruce Brown, former staff sergeant with the West

Shore RCMP; Brendan Strain from CTV News , who's captured all of these tours; as well as Christine Lervold from the Sooke school

district.

On behalf of all of us, I want to thank you for everything you've done to help the

people of Ukraine.

CHRISTINE SINCLAIR

T. Halford: I rise today to celebrate a true Canadian icon. That icon is, of course, somebody

that has inspired British Columbians and Canadians across this nation. That is, of

course, Christine Sinclair.

Soccer fans, including myself, eagerly anticipate her final game with Canada's women's

national soccer team on December 5. Emotions are running incredibly high.

Now, I will tell you this. I remember my dad taking me to go see Wayne Gretzky as

a kid to make sure that I actually was able to see one of the greatest. I know families,

including myself, on December 5 will be doing that. I'll be doing that with my kids

to make sure that I, along with 40,000 other people, am witnessing the final

chapter

in one of our most storied careers of women's soccer.

Christine Sinclair's trailblazing journey from the fields of British Columbia to becoming

the highest-scoring player in international soccer history, encompassing both men's

and women's games, is nothing short of extraordinary. Her dedication, skill and leadership

have not only propelled her to greatness but have elevated the status of women's soccer

on the global stage.

I'm sure many of us fondly recall watching Sinclair fight for the Canadian team's

historic gold medal win at the Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympics.

Her contributions go beyond the field. They inspire young athletes across our province

to dream big and pursue their passions with unwavering determination. Recognizing

this profound impact she has made on our community, B.C. Place will be renamed, rightfully,

Christine Sinclair Place for one day on December 5. It will be a moment cherished

by soccer enthusiasts, British Columbians and Canadians alike.

The significance of Sinclair's retirement extends beyond this game. It resonates the

values of perseverance, excellence and the pursuit of one's dreams.

May her retirement be as remarkable as her storied career.

ACHIEVEMENTS OF

CRESTON VALLEY RESIDENTS

B. Anderson: Today I want to talk about some of the incredible talent in the Creston Valley. Creston,

for those of you who haven't been there…. When you're coming down Kootenay Pass, it

opens up, and it is absolutely spectacular. But that is not what makes it so special.

It is the people.

I'm sure many of you know that The Great Canadian Baking Show , season 7, just ended, and Loïc Fauteux-Goulet, who is a teacher from the Creston

Valley, was the winner of season 7.

Interjection.

B. Anderson: Yes, so a big round of applause.

I know that I myself really hope I get to meet Loïc and his partner, Alison. Apparently

his love for baking started as he started to design elaborate birthday cakes for her.

I think it's a really special story of some of the talent in the Creston Valley.

We also have Jayli Wolf. She is a singer, songwriter, filmmaker, poet and a member

of the Stó:lō First Nation. She grew up in Creston and now lives in the Kootenays.

She debuted as a solo artist in 2021, winning CBC's top ten Canadian songs. She is

also a Juno nominee and Contemporary Indigenous Artist of 2022, and recently she was

just featured on the big screen in Times Square.

[10:30 a.m.]

Erin Harris is co-owner of Kootenay Meadows. They produce milk and cheese on their

farm. If you ever get to go visit, those are some of the happiest cows you'll ever

see. It's an organic farm, and they produce really incredible products.

Erin was chosen to be on season 2 of Farming for Love , which will also get to showcase the beauty of the Creston Valley.

We wish Erin all the best.

I just want to thank all of the really incredible, talented people in the Creston

Valley for everything that they do to make the place so special.

IMPORTANCE OF DEMOCRACY

AND ROLE OF MLAs

S. Furstenau: As world leaders meet for COP in Dubai and the Legislative Assembly rises for 2023,

it's an opportunity for all of us to reflect on the state of the world.

We're in a period of change and uncertainty, of increasing inequality, of fragmentation

and division. At times like this, our imperfect but hopeful form of organizing ourselves

— where we aim to give equal voice to the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor,

where we aim to find consensus and work together — is more important than ever.

than accuracy, aims to divide us and to distract us from focusing on the issues that

matter. At times like this, democracy can feel fragile. Across British Columbia, across

Canada and, indeed, across the world, we see the re-emergence of fascism and populism,

of people who would do anything or say anything for power, no matter the harm that

it causes to people and institutions.

As members of this House, we will spend the next two months spread across British

Columbia, talking to the people about the work we have done over the last two months,

seeking their views on what we should do with the remainder of the electoral term.

It's an opportunity to reconnect with what has brought us to this House, to make ourselves

accountable to the public and to reconfirm our commitment to the fragile democracy.

I wish all members the best for this holiday season, and I hope all have an opportunity

to reflect, to remember and to recommit to upholding the values of British Columbians.

HOLIDAY SEASON AND EVENTS

IN CHILLIWACK-KENT AREA

K. Paddon: Today marks the last day of the fall session and, for so many of us, the beginning

of celebration season as we return to our ridings just in time for the business of

holiday preparation.

In Chilliwack-Kent, last week marked the start of our season of celebration as my

team and I hosted a 2023 wrap-up party at our community office.

A huge thank you to my team, Jennifer and Lorna, for making it happen, and to all

the guests who took the time to be there to enjoy the hot chocolate bar, treats and

great conversation.

An extra special thank you to local artist Nina Kroeker for sharing her paintings

with us. She's on Instagram. There are cows. It's worth checking out.

As we leave this busy season, I'm excited to jump into the spirited sprint of the

next few weeks. This Saturday is the Rotary Christmas parade in Chilliwack. For those

who can't make it, it will be livestreamed on chillTV. They also have a Rotary Christmas

show available online that is lots of fun, and I'll be sharing it on my page.

Anyone looking to get into the Christmas spirit can check out Christmas lights at

Cultus Lake or in Harrison Hot Springs. Just be sure to bundle up.

I'm looking forward to picking up some special treasures at the G.W. Graham Secondary

free Christmas market on December 7. All products are made by students.

Between now and December 25, I will be a grateful guest at the Chilliwack and District

Seniors Resources Christmas luncheon, the Streams Foundation Canada community holiday

celebration and the Christmas lunch program with our Rotary, just to name a few. I'm

looking so forward to spending this time with people at home.

Although I couldn't possibly choose a single favourite event, I am especially looking

forward to joining the mayor of Kent, Sylvia Pranger, for the CPKC Holiday Train and

to seeing all the kiddos bundled up and excited about the train, the lights and the

music. There's more that will be going on, too many great times to name. I'm so grateful

that I get to celebrate with friends, businesses, organizations and my neighbours.

To my community, I will see you soon.

To my colleagues, all of the staff, Hansard, our ASL translators, the entire Legislative

Assembly team — through the Speaker, of course — I wish you all a very merry Christmas.

Oral Questions

CARBON TAX AND COST OF LIVING

K. Falcon: After seven years of this NDP government, British Columbia is now recognized as the

most unaffordable province in the entire country.

[10:35 a.m.]

Highest housing and gas prices in North America. Highest average rents in the entire

country. Grocery prices going through the roof. And a Premier and government that

celebrate the fact that they've more than doubled the carbon tax and are planning

to triple it over the next six years.

But worse, when every other Premier in the provinces answered my call to eliminate

the carbon tax on all home heating fuels, including, by the way…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Falcon: …the NDP Premier of Manitoba and the NDP opposition leader in Alberta, only this NDP

Premier stood up and said: "No way, no how."

Well, let me tell you…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let's listen to the question.

K. Falcon: …our plan for immediate relief includes permanently eliminating the provincial fuel

taxes, saving British Columbians up to 15 cents a litre in gas. It includes stopping

the NDP's relentless carbon tax hikes, which are hurting families at a time they can't

afford to hurt anymore; removing the carbon tax from all home heating fuels; scrapping

the cost B.C. plan, which their own numbers show will reduce family incomes by an

average of $11,000 a year; and reducing grocery bills by making transportation costs

more affordable with lower fuel prices and eliminating carbon tax.

My question for the Premier is this. Why does the Premier stubbornly ignore the plight

of British Columbians who are struggling each and every day in the most unaffordable

province in the country?

Hon. D. Eby: This is the last day of session. I want to thank all members. I know you put in long

days and that we've had debate on important bills.

It's been a helpful session, I think, to really illustrate the differences in the

parties. We have seen, in this session, the Leader of the Opposition and the BCUP

party stand up and vote against literally every single housing affordability initiative

that this government has brought forward.

Now, there is one more opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and

vote for housing that's near transit, that people who actually use transit can actually

afford to live in. I hope he takes the opportunity, because what we're hearing from

British Columbians, what we're seeing come in, correspondence from British Columbians

— maybe I'll read just one — about the challenges they face….

One of the major challenges is the affordability of housing. I cannot understand how

that member can stand up and say he's for affordability and then vote against literally

every single affordability initiative.

One letter from April. This is to the Minister of Housing: "Good evening, Minister.

We wish to extend our gratitude for the opportunity to attend and speak at the announcement

of small-scale and multi-unit housing regulations. As you're aware, we've been advocating

for this within our neighbourhood, in our city. We deeply appreciate your dedication."

A letter from Althea: "I want to thank you for the hard work you've been putting in

on building more housing for the people of British Columbia. As a renter in Victoria,

my husband and I struggle with the cost of housing, especially housing near good transit."

"Hi, Minister Kahlon. I feel it was important to express my support, as these policies

often receive push-back from the different sectors, and I wanted to try to counteract

that with my voice" — from Costanza.

I could go on. I hope I have the opportunity to.

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

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON HOUSING

AFFORDABILITY AND CURRENT ISSUES

K. Falcon: The problem is that their so-called hard work has actually got us the most unaffordable

housing in North America. Not just Canada; they stretch higher. North America — imagine

that.

Actually, it's interesting that the Premier reads out some letters and some comments.

Well, I'd just like to quote a great former Premier of British Columbia, Mike Harcourt.

His comments about the bills that you introduced include "a blizzard of arbitrary

measures," "arbitrary, top-down changes," "setting aside years of local and regional

infrastructure and service plan." And this is my personal favourite: "providing a

field day for land speculators."

That's actually what other people are saying. Perhaps the Premier should listen to

a lot of people who have a lot of experience and understand what's happening.

I've said from day one that we must hold governments and politicians accountable not

for what they promised, not for the announcements and photo ops but for the results

they actually get for British Columbians. Right here, instead, we've got a Premier

that focuses on big and shiny announcements to distract the public.

Why would they? Well, health care — worst outcomes we've ever seen, sending patients,

amazingly, down to the United States to get basic cancer care. Housing — as I said,

the most unaffordable in the country. Gas and rent — highest in North America. Not

very good results. Crime — well, under the Premier's catch-and-release program, we've

got chaos and disorder on our streets.

Again to the Premier, when will the Premier stop scrambling for big and shiny distraction

announcements and focus on getting actual results for British Columbians?

[10:40 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I'll just remind the Leader of the Opposition that when he was on this side of the

House, his government funded 140 units of student housing in 16 years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Shhh.

Members. Members.

Members, it's a two-way street, please. If you want to hear the question, we also

have the responsibility to hear the answer, please. Okay? Thank you.

Hon. D. Eby: I saw them take credit for Brock Commons at UBC. They funded less than 4 percent of

that 400-unit project. They took credit for funding 400 units. We're building 8,000

units of student housing. We've increased our own targets to 12,000. That's just one

example.

I heard the member mention Mike Harcourt. I love Mike; he's a fantastic guy. He's

an adviser and a mentor to me. He's a leader of our party, and Mike bought a piece

of property in Vancouver. He tore down a single-family house, and he built a duplex.

Now, what's the problem with that? The problem is that the duplex cost $4 million.

He had to hire an architect to do it, and he had to go through lengthy processes to

do it. The problem is that we can't have duplexes just for the rich. We have to have

affordable, middle-income townhomes, duplexes, multi-unit construction for everybody.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Members. Shhh. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: Hearing from the member for Abbotsford West about property speculation is a bit rich.

If the member wants to get into….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Member for Abbotsford West, there's no need to, please.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: No, he has the floor. No.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Member, you are wasting your own time.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, keep talking. We'll wait till you are finished.

Hon. D. Eby: Now, there was a Delta city councillor last night that stood up and spoke out, despite

his historic affiliation with the BCUP, Dylan Kruger. He said: "Big problems need

big solutions. Kudos to the province for listening to voices of housing advocates

across Canada and getting this done. This legislation removes arbitrary barriers to

new housing supply in local neighbourhoods. No more time capsules. Let communities

evolve."

Then Simrath Grewal tweeted Dylan and said: "Dylan and I have been friends for years,

so I'm going to share some advice with #bcpoli that I give myself, usually in retrospect:

I should listen to Dylan more."

I think we should all listen to Dylan. We should be advocating for more housing for

British Columbians that they can actually afford. I hope the member votes for the

transit-oriented housing, because it will ensure people who use transit can actually

afford to live close to transit.

DISCLOSURE OF

HOUSING LEGISLATION INFORMATION

S. Bond: Seven years and two elections, and B.C. has one thing that we are 100 percent certain

of — the Premier failed to read that out of his yellow folder: The Premier has actually

managed to attain the most dubious distinction of having the least affordable housing

in North America.

That is fact, and that is on this Premier's watch. In the face of over 500 announcements

by the NDP, what are we seeing? Housing prices are going up, and housing starts are

taking a nosedive.

This government released a flurry of bills this session, yet they refuse to release

critical information. We've actually heard from Jens Von Bergmann, the very person

who did the government's own modelling, who says they have been silenced by non-disclosure

agreements. In other words: "No, you can't talk about that." Not only can we not finish

the debate on the bills; apparently you can't talk about the work you've done for

the government.

A straight-up question to the Premier. He could say yes today. Will he do the right

thing and remove the non-disclosure agreement so that British Columbians can understand

exactly what this government based this legislation on?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: There has been lots of discussion on housing, as there should be, because we know

that there are many people struggling to find homes in British Columbia. We have said

that many times. We have heard that from people in our communities. That's why we've

taken the significant efforts that we have to ensure that we can get that housing

built in our communities.

I've shared with the members that the economic analysis will be released publicly

so that everyone can see the impacts of the legislation changes that we've made. But

you know, the member says to take his word for it.

Neil Moody, the CEO of the Canadian Home Builders, said: "The legislation introduced

today will make it easier and more predictable for…B.C. homebuilders to work with

local governments to speed up the approval process and increase the variety of housing

choices in our growing neighbourhoods."

Not only the homebuilding community thinks this is going to help us get more housing;

environmental groups who are advocating for more healthy, vibrant communities…. The

organization Happy Cities said: "To solve the housing crisis, we need a provincewide

effort to build more diverse housing options, both market and non-market. Legalizing

multi-unit housing everywhere is an important first step to creating healthy, walkable,

connected and resilient communities."

That is what we're fighting for, and we're going to continue to do that work.

Interjections.

COST OF LIVING AND BASIC INCOME

PANEL REPORT IMPLEMENTATION

S. Furstenau: I was so enraptured with the debate there.

The cost of living is soaring in this province, and people are slipping closer and

closer towards homelessness every day. More than 100,000 households in B.C. pay more

than 50 percent of their income on rent and utilities. This is a crisis-level amount.

In my riding, people with developmental disabilities and low-income seniors are being

forced into homelessness. Food banks are increasingly serving people who are working

full time and still can't make ends meet. How is this government responding to this

crisis? Inadequately, to say the least. A new approach is needed.

The basic income expert panel made it clear that the current social assistance program

in B.C. is punitive and ineffective. It traps people in poverty, rather than lifting

them out.

My question is to the Premier. Has this government implemented any of the recommendations

from the 2020 Basic Income Panel report?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question.

It was the agreement between both the Green Party and the NDP in the historic Confidence

and Supply Agreement that initiated the Expert Panel on Basic Income. It is a rich

document that is being implemented across government in many pieces, particularly

in its basic conclusion on raising income assistance rates for the people most in

need. It was the very first thing that this government has done. That's why we've

increased income assistance rates five times, after them having been frozen for a

decade under the previous government.

Many of the recommendations have been built into the extensive public consultation

that we were legislatively required to do in order to update our second poverty reduction

strategy. We'll be bringing the results of the poverty reduction strategy into this

House in the spring, and I believe the member will see many of the recommendations

that remain of the expert review report embedded in that work.

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

S. Furstenau: Unfortunately, in this province, we have a poverty-increasing strategy that seems

to be underway. People are, more and more, falling into deeper and deeper poverty

in this province, and the social assistance program forces them into stigma and shame.

It treats them as though they don't deserve to get assistance. It makes the hurdles

and the hoops that they jump through almost impossible for so many people. They often

give up in despair. This government has failed, and more and more people are dying

of poverty and inequality.

They have had years to act with the urgency that this crisis requires. Instead, they

provide one-off cheques, insufficient rebates and flashy announcements. For a government

that's supposed to care about people, why have they continued to fail to make a fundamental

difference in the lives of people who need it the very most?

My question is to the Premier. When will his government fully implement the recommendations

for basic income for women fleeing violence, for youth aging out of care and for people

with disabilities?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: That British Columbia was the last place in Canada to have a poverty reduction strategy

was something that we remedied when we first formed government. We have been implementing

across government, from investments in child care to minimum wage to unprecedented

investments in affordable housing, not to mention increasing income assistance rates

five times already, doubling the senior supplement, and much more to do because absolutely,

the impact of global inflation has hit people very hard.

I want to also, though, say how important our investments in employment have been

for me, because my ministry funds it in cooperation with the federal government, to

be able to visit, for example, commercial truck driving training programs in Prince

George to meet two women, Jordan and Amanda, who were funded to leave their homes

and families to get new training, to then have the training, the course paid. They're

now both commercial truck drivers in the north, something that is badly needed.

That is embedded into our income assistance program too. That's something that the

basic annual income panel asked us to do. That's work we're doing right now, and we

will continue.

CARBON TAX AND COST OF LIVING

J. Rustad: We're hearing a lot about affordability today, but the carbon tax is one of the pieces,

I think, that strikes at the heart of many people. As we see from polling, the majority

of people in this province want to get rid of it.

The carbon tax, when you're filling up a tank of gas of 60 litres, equates to about

$16 when gas is at $2. Just to put that in perspective of what that means for British

Columbians that are going to Costco, that's the equivalent of buying two rotisserie

chickens.

Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians are struggling just to put food on the

table. They're struggling with the difference between being able to afford food or

gas. They're flocking to food banks as prices continue to rise.

Perhaps to the Premier: can you explain why these families are struggling to make

ends meet, and will he commit to getting rid of the carbon tax that is taxing two

chickens out of every family's pot every single time they go to fill up the tank of

gas?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. This is a challenging issue.

How do you discuss sensible climate policy with a member that doesn't believe that

human-caused climate change is real? How do you discuss how to address this issue

of our forests burning, our rivers drying up, the pine beetle overwintering, the atmospheric

rivers, farmers struggling with drought, with a member who thinks that carbon dioxide

is not a pollutant?

How do you have a sensible discussion about how British Columbia shows climate leadership

and seizes the economic opportunities like the 450 family-supporting jobs in Maple

Ridge at the new battery plant or at the refinery in Prince George, Canada's first

renewable diesel facility? How do you have a sensible conversation in this place when

the member doesn't even believe that climate change is real?

His opinion is that we should do nothing on climate. And that opinion, despite the

fact that it got kicked him out of the BCUP caucus, is now the official position of

the BCUP as well — that we shouldn't take climate action.

I see that he's an influential guy…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …but if your opinion is that we should take no action on climate change, then you

really do need to explain the impact on British Columbians of fire, of drought, of

flood that are costing literally billions of dollars to taxpayers here in this province,

right across Canada and around the world. Why would you abandon our climate leadership

position? Why would you abandon our economic growth? And frankly, how can you justify

your position on climate change?

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

J. Rustad: I find it incredible that this Premier actually believes that taxing people into poverty

can change the weather. I mean, seriously, how can anybody take this government's

position seriously when that's what they believe? But you know what, Mr. Speaker?

The NDP used to be the party of the working-class people.

Interjections.

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

J. Rustad: They used to be the party of the working-class people. As a matter of fact, I think

it was Tommy Douglas who once promised a chicken in every pot. And here we are. The

Premier is standing up, defending a tax that is actually literally taking two chickens

out of every family's pot every time they fill up this tank of gas.

[10:55 a.m.]

Will this NDP Premier please explain to British Columbians, when they're living paycheque

to paycheque…? What are they supposed to do when they have to put food in the pot

and when they're waiting for the end of December to just get their carbon tax rebate?

Hon. D. Eby: The member stands up and pretends to be interested in affordability. He's also voting

against our housing initiatives to provide affordable housing for British Columbians.

I assume he's got some kind of a position about the floods and the forest fires and

the impacts we're seeing in British Columbia and around the world as we set record-high

temperatures — about what British Columbia should do about that or how we embrace

opportunities like hydrogen battery manufacturing, other clean economy. It's just

hard to know what it is.

He stood on this side of the House supporting the carbon tax every single day as a

B.C. Liberal before he flipped over to that side. If it was a good idea when he was

over here, why is it suddenly a bad idea when he's over there?

We're returning carbon tax revenues back to British Columbians to make sure that they're

supported around affordability. But what we can't do is give up on climate action,

pretend that climate change isn't real, cover our eyes and our ears and insist that

now is not the time, because now is the time.

British Columbia will continue to lead on this, and we will be the party that stands

up for climate action and affordability and housing, and it is the only option for

British Columbians if they want action on this.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON REPEAT

OFFENDERS AND CRIME IN COMMUNITIES

M. Lee: Yves Castonguay is a prolific offender with 150 convictions, including 50 property

crimes, 24 crimes of violence, anti-Asian hate graffiti, public incitement of hate

and three dozen breaches. He recently added to his criminal record by brazenly robbing

the Granville Street London Drugs in downtown Vancouver and threatening staff. Within

48 hours of his crime, he was back at it, breaking into an apartment building on West

8th and Cambie. Then he was caught on camera in yet another break and enter.

Time and time again, it's the same story of this Premier's catch-and-release regime,

until this prolific offender escalated to violence, pulling a knife and breaching

his probation. This week we found out the consequence of his string of thefts, threats,

break-ins and violence: he got one day in jail. Just one day.

When will this soft-on-crime Premier finally admit that his catch-and-release regime

has utterly failed and start treating all crimes seriously, with real consequences?

Hon. N. Sharma: Everyone deserves to feel safe in their communities. As a government, we've been taking

specific and direct action on repeat violent offending in this province.

We have the strictest bail policy in Canada. We've been advocating and taking a leadership

role across this country because we see that the Criminal Code needs to be changed

around repeat violent offenders so that communities can feel safer and so that courts

have the tools necessary to keep repeat violent offenders off the street.

I'll continue my advocacy. I'm told that that bail reform passed in the Senate yesterday

and the day before. It's now before the House. This government will continue to push

for the federal government to pass that bail reform so we have better tools for repeat

violent offending.

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT PORTABLE USE

E. Sturko: The NDP promised to eliminate all portables in Surrey in four years, but instead,

they've done the exact opposite. We now have more portables in Surrey than ever before.

Double-decker portables are on their way, and kids are already forced to use portable

toilets.

Now Surrey schools are considering more drastic and desperate measures. A survey presented

to parents outlines disruptive options such as uprooting students to other districts,

dividing the school day into shifts and abandoning traditional classroom learning.

My question is to the Premier. How can he excuse his abject failure to deliver on

his promises to parents, and will he outright reject these extreme options that are

putting incredible stress on Surrey families?

Hon. R. Singh: Thank you to the member for the question. I'm really glad that the member opposite

is asking about Surrey, because while they were in the government, they were not looking

at the needs of Surrey.

[11:00 a.m.]

We know that Surrey is the fastest-growing community. In the last four years while

they were in the government, there were zero schools built in Surrey. But we as a

government are doing things differently. Since 2017, we have invested $700 million

in school capital.

Interjections.

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

Continue.

Hon. R. Singh: We have six new schools, seven new additions, and we are building more schools. At

the same time, I understand the growth that our communities are facing. And it is

not just Surrey. It is many other communities, like Langley, Sooke, many other communities.

And we as a government are committed to look at those needs.

That's why we are coming up with innovative ideas. Just last week I announced the

new way for how we can bring more classrooms to our school communities. We are looking

into prefabricated classrooms, looking at different ideas, and we will keep on working

with the school districts to resolve this issue.

SEARCH AND RESCUE TEAMS

J. Sturdy: NDP red tape is creating a crisis among search and rescue teams across this province.

Initially given two weeks to agree to yet-to-be-written regulations, the deadline

hastily extended last night, the NDP's top-down approach threatens the ability of

SAR teams to respond to emergencies this winter.

and bureaucratic interference in volunteer rescue operations. The bottom line is if

they don't sign on by the government's arbitrary deadline, they can't be deployed.

Why is the Premier compromising SAR teams readiness, and will he stop the overreach

and let critical volunteer teams operate without the strong overreach of the government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. What I can assure the member is that this government

remains committed to working with search and rescue teams to ensure that they have

the tools that they have done. That's why this government took the unprecedented step

to ensure long-term, sustainable funding for search and rescue teams across the province,

the first of its kind in this province and indeed the country.

That's why we will continue to work with search and rescue teams to ensure that they've

got the tools that they need and that we work and will address their concerns.

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

MINISTRY UPDATE TO

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

T. Stone: After seven years and two elections, B.C. has the least affordable housing in North

America.

We have the highest gas prices, the highest gas taxes. The cost of groceries is through

the roof, and cancer patients are being sent out of the country by a health care system

in collapse.

The Premier loves to admit how bad things are but never seems to fix it. It's the

political equivalent of letting the dishes soak and claiming you were going to get

to them eventually.

Well, Premier, we don't want bright and shiny announcements. We want results. That's

why I was looking forward to an update from the Select Standing Committee on Public

Accounts in monitoring the results achieved by this government.

My question is to the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Has

a date been set for MCFD to appear before the committee to provide an update on the

status of implementing recommendations from the report on oversight of contracted

services for children and youth in care?

P. Milobar: Unfortunately, the government might not like the answer. Well, they probably do like

the answer that will be coming.

[11:05 a.m.]

On November 6, the Public Accounts Committee received a report of an update from the

Auditor General on that date with unanimous support of both government and opposition

members. We agreed that we would call back MCFD to explain to the committee why zero

of the four recommendations that were levelled by the Auditor General back in 2019,

three of which actually deal with Indigenous youth in care, had not been actioned

at all.

Unfortunately, at last night's meeting, on November 29, the government members decided

that we don't need to hear from MCFD and have them explain why there has been zero

action taken on the audit results for Indigenous youth in care.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let's hear the answer.

P. Milobar: It's troubling, because the government does, obviously, control the committee with

their numbers. Despite pleas from the opposition members to still hear from MCFD on

the public record and have the public be informed of what is actually happening in

an agency that we've heard repeatedly, through this session and by multiple other

reports other than the Auditor General, is failing to meet the basic needs of youth

in care, especially Indigenous youth in care.

Unfortunately, at this point, although we had MCFD engaged to present to the committee

at the end of January, and although preliminary dates were already found in the calendars

to make that happen, the government last night, in another act, frankly, of making

sure there's not transparency in this place, decided that Public Accounts can no longer

do the most basic work they do, which is actually scrutinizing the progress of audits

by agencies within the government.

Unfortunately, to the member's question, there is no date to hear from MCFD on their

utter failure in regards to youth in care and Indigenous youth in care. This government,

frankly, does not want to have any discussion around those failures.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. N. Sharma: I have the honour to present the annual report on multiculturalism for 2022-23.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, shhh. We have more business to do in the House, Members.

Attorney General, could you repeat, please?

Hon. N. Sharma: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the annual report on multiculturalism for

2022-23.

Hon. B. Bailey: I'm honoured to present the InBC Investment Corp.'s annual legislative report for

the year 2022-2023.

It has been a busy year for InBC, during which time they developed their investment

policy statement, which guides their decision-making and ensures that they strike

the careful balance between economic, social and environmental impacts.

As of March 31, 2023, InBC committed a total of $35 million in capital, which has

been followed since by $19 million in recent months.

Hon. N. Sharma: On behalf of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, I have the honour

to present the 2023 Climate Change Accountability Report , as required by the Climate Change Accountability Act.

This report is a cornerstone of our transparency and accountability on climate, as

it provides a full accounting of government climate action spending and results.

Reports from Committees

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT PROVISIONS

REVIEW COMMITTEE

G. Chow: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Review Provisions

of the Public Service Act.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

G. Chow: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

G. Chow: I move adoption of the report. In doing so, I would like to make some brief comments.

As this House will recall, amendments were made to the Public Service Act in 2018

that gave the Merit Commissioner the mandate to review the just cause dismissal processes

of public service employees to ensure they are consistent with government's required

practices, policies and standards. The Public Service Act requires a one-time review

of these changes five years after they came into force — in other words, a review

in 2023.

This review was undertaken by our committee. This work included receiving input from

key stakeholders and the public.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to the

organizations and the individuals that took the time to participate.

[11:10 a.m.]

Our committee heard that the provisions in the act related to dismissal process reviews

are working as intended and that the Merit Commissioner's work has contributed to

improved just cause dismissal practices.

Our committee agrees that dismissal process reviews provide important independent

oversight of government practices to ensure just cause dismissals are handled appropriately

and that the related provision of the Public Service Act should be maintained. The

committee also made nine recommendations to address specific concerns raised by the

Merit Commissioner and to increase timeliness, transparency and fairness throughout

the just cause dismissal investigation process.

On behalf of the committee, I wish to thank the Merit Commissioner, the Public Service

Agency and the Ministry of Attorney General for their continued work supporting dismissal

process reviews.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all committee members for their thoughtful

contribution and discussion during this review. In particular, I'd like to thank the

Deputy Chair, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, for his collaboration.

On behalf of the committee, I would also like to acknowledge and extend our appreciation

to Legislative Assembly staff in the Parliamentary Committees Office and Hansard Services

for their support. It was great teamwork. Members did the talking, while staff finished

the work.

M. Morris: I echo the comments made by the Chair.

My colleague from Abbotsford West and I sat on this committee. The professionalism

exhibited by the presenters that we had certainly helped us in arriving at the decision,

and the collegial working relationship that we had amongst all committee members,

of course, went a long way.

For the great support from the Clerk's office and the staff that supported us on this

endeavour, thanks very much.

M. de Jong: Just very briefly, in echoing the Chair and the Deputy Chair, the committee heard,

I think, very helpful submissions that lead logically to the conclusions.

We also heard from a witness. I think the committee acknowledged that the area…. A

former employee demonstrated great courage in coming forward and providing to the

committee a perspective on processes that exist that I will say — these are not the

committee's words — have not served her well. Embedded in the body of the report is

a suggestion that this House, at some point, may wish to expand the work of a committee

to review circumstances such as the one faced by the witness, a dismissal without

cause that was not covered within the mandate.

I'm very grateful that the committee had an opportunity to hear from the witness.

It took great courage for her to come forward and present her circumstances, very

personal circumstances, in that setting. I commend the committee and thank the committee

for giving her that opportunity — and the Chair and the Deputy Chair for giving her

that opportunity — to present those facts and those circumstances to the committee.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Legislative Assembly Management Committee

report 2022-23.

Questions of Privilege

T. Stone: Yesterday I reserved my right to a point of personal privilege, and I wish to address

that here today. This is in relation to comments made by the Government House Leader

yesterday in this chamber that I believe misled the House.

Yesterday the Government House Leader moved a time allocation motion under Standing

Order 81.1. His exact words, as captured in Hansard , were: "I rise today in my capacity as the Government House Leader to move a time

allocation motion. Under Standing Order 81.1, we have tried to reach an informal agreement

on the allocation of time for the business of this House with three distinct opposition

House Leaders as well as an independent member. However, we are unable to reach a

consensus."

[11:15 a.m.]

Furthermore, he said: "It is with this understanding, and in accordance with Standing

Order 81.1, that I am compelled to bring forth a time allocation motion. This motion

is intended to ensure that we're able to effectively carry out the business of governing

in our responsibility on this side of the House. It is a tool to manage our time efficiently

and to ensure that all items on our agenda receive the attention they deserve and

they are not obstructed."

I will now make a few initial points for context. First, it is absolutely the right

of the Government House Leader to move a time allocation motion. We take no issue

with that.

Next, we understand both the intention and the practical application of Standing Order

81.1(2). It says:

"A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, has stated that an

agreement could not be reached under the provisions of section (1) of this Standing

Order in respect of proceedings at one or more stages of a public bill, may propose

without notice a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or

hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at one or more stages of a

public bill. The motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment. Any

proceedings interrupted pursuant to this

section of this Standing Order shall be deemed

adjourned."

My concerns do not relate to what Standing Order 81.1 actually says. My concerns do

not relate to the Government House Leader's right to move a time allocation motion.

However, I do believe that in moving the time allocation motion, the Government House

Leader misled the House in his comments, as captured in Hansard , as follows.

First, with respect to the first part of his comments, he said that he had "tried

to reach an informal agreement on the allocation of time for the business of this

House with three distinct opposition House Leaders as well as an independent member.

However, we are unable to reach a consensus." Those are his words in Hansard . This is not true. It did not happen.

While I don't speak for the other opposition House Leaders, I will say…. At no time

prior to moving the time allocation motion did the Government House Leader engage

with me to inquire about any options for our consideration or the official opposition's

intentions as related to the prioritization of our time on remaining bills before

the House.

One would think this would be a prerequisite for constructive, respectful interactions

between House Leaders seeking consensus. To suggest that we were unable to reach a

consensus is a fabrication, as that would imply there was an actual conversation to

reach an informal agreement on the allocation of time for the business of this House.

Secondly, with respect to the second part of his comments, he indicated that he needed

to move forward with time allocation as "a tool to manage our time efficiently and

to ensure that all items on our agenda receive the attention they deserve and they

are not obstructed." This is also a misrepresentation of the very situation the Government

House Leader said is driving his need to use time allocation.

Time allocation is needed to manage our time efficiently. An objective observer would

not look at the Government House Leader's management of House business and conclude

that responsibility for what has been an absolutely sloppy, poorly managed and, indeed,

inefficient use of time in this Legislature falls anywhere but at the feet of the

Government House Leader this session.

The Government House Leader has continued his practice of introducing significant

legislation with only weeks left of debate time, instead of having legislation on

the order paper much earlier in the session schedule. Jamming the opposition with

significant bills and then being criticized for asking too many questions doesn't

allow for an efficient management of time. I suppose this was marginally better than

having no legislation introduced for the first two to three weeks, as was the case

during one of the sessions last year under this Government House Leader.

Earlier this week Bill 45 was called in this chamber with five minutes of notice to

the opposition. We were told the appropriate ministry officials were being tracked

down. After wasting 40 minutes of time, finally, the Attorney General and the ministry

staff made their way into the chamber. Was that an efficient use of time?

The

schedule of hours has been routinely manipulated by the Government House Leader.

A few more hours here and there. At the same time, the Government House Leader only

opened one House yesterday. No Douglas Fir Room. Was that an efficient use of time?

Leaving four major housing bills to the dying days of this session. Was that an efficient

use of time, when the Government House Leader is also the Housing Minister?

Eight government bills have had to be amended by the government due to errors. Is

that an efficient use of this chamber's time?

Ramming through four major housing bills that contain sweeping changes which will

receive minimal scrutiny, debate and accountability. Does this reflect the opposition

or the government not ensuring these government bills receive the attention they deserve

and not obstructing them?

Through all of this sloppiness, the official opposition has cooperated. We have given

not the slightest hint of belligerence. We have shown up to do our jobs. We've supported

some of the government bills this session. We've opposed many others. We've even tried

to constructively amend and improve legislation. This is not obstruction.

[11:20 a.m.]

The problem has been a total lack of timely and good-faith communications from the

Government House Leader. It has certainly not been consistent with the relationship

the opposition has enjoyed with previous Government House Leaders, regrettably.

It is for all of these reasons noted above that I believe the Government House Leader

misled the House yesterday in his comments when introducing the time allocation motion,

and I believe that he needs to retract his comments and apologize for misleading this

House.

A. Olsen: Yesterday, I rose….

Mr. Speaker: Member, is this your point of privilege that you are tabling, or are you responding

to…?

A. Olsen: I rose as well.

Mr. Speaker: That's fine. But let's deal with the first one, and he will respond. Then we will

take yours. It will take only a minute or two.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised by the opposition and Third

Party member. Let me explain the facts.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I rise to respond to the official opposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, finish, please.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me explain the facts. Consensus using time allocation will require all three opposition

parties, plus an independent member, to agree to an informal time allocation. This

is a high bar to meet, and I respect that.

Yesterday we were able to reach the Fourth Party House Leader, who said they do not

agree with this approach and would not support it. Clearly, with one dissenter, consensus

on an agreement would not be met with all the parties.

I stand by my statement and actions. I acted in the best interests of the House and

the people of British Columbia to ensure timely passage of the bills that were before

us.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members. The Chair will take this under advisement.

Now we move on to the House Leader of the Third Party.

A. Olsen: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a point that the minister responded to both, yet

I was not able to provide my comments to the initial response.

Yesterday I rose on my right to raise a point of personal privilege. I wish to address

it now. Yesterday the Government House Leader said: "I rise today in my capacity as

the Government House Leader to move a time allocation motion. Under Standing Order

81.1, we have tried to reach an informal agreement on the allocation of time for the

business of this House with three distinct opposition House Leaders as well as an

independent member. However, we are unable to reach a consensus."

The Government House Leader misled this House. He did not try to reach an informal

agreement on the time allocation for the business of this House.

It should be known that throughout this session, communication has been chaotic and

infrequent between House Leaders. It is the role of the Government House Leader to

manage the business of government. So the Government House Leader has a role of convener,

because the government creates the agenda. From the beginning of this session, the

Government House Leader never created space for the opposition House Leaders to properly

manage the House — quick phone call notifications, pleasant, but not really collaborative.

The Government House Leader was unavailable for our standing meeting on Monday and

was unavailable for the House Leaders' lunch that was hosted earlier this week, on

Monday. There was no direct communication from him the next day or the next day. I

had to go to his office to try to meet with him, and the only time we had available

was five minutes before we entered the chamber, in here, where I was handed the motion

for closure, for time allocation.

Frankly, partisanship among House Leaders needs to be muted. Along with the Speaker,

the Clerk and their teams, the House Leaders need to work together to effectively

manage this democratic institution. Currently, there is a reeking toxicity and a deeply

unfortunate state of affairs in the way that this House is managed. We've said it

multiple times, and it came to this.

My colleague the member for Cowichan Valley and I enjoyed regular, respectful House

business meetings with the former Government House Leader.

[11:25 a.m.]

No matter the politics in question period, the member for Port Coquitlam was also

able to have House management meetings about the activities of this place. With the

current Government House Leader, that has never been a priority for him.

I am only saying this publicly this way because the Government House Leader stood

in here yesterday and told British Columbians that he attempted to "get an informal

agreement" from me on time management and time allocation. He was closing his own

legislation, bills that he and I had fiercely debated. He did his job as Housing Minister.

I did my job as critic.

But as Government House Leader, he faced a dilemma in the management of this House.

All of his legislation…. Extend the session or shut it down. Again, two sessions in

a row, this Government House Leader has chosen to shut it down. That's the debate.

That's the democracy. Our democracy is being actively eroded and undermined.

This administration consistently chooses to drop massive legislation in November:

forest bills in '21, a health bill in '22 and housing bills here in '23. They give

little time for the public to understand it, and then they shut it down. They rally

their majority, who stand every time, no matter what.

Yesterday morning we were notified by the Government House Leader's office that Bill

45 was no longer being debated, and the Government House Leader had decided to shut

down the Douglas Fir Room. He was reducing the debate to just this chamber. The Government

House Leader delivered his closure motion to us in the side room off the hallway.

If we are under such a time crunch, why are we reducing the number of rooms that we

are working in?

Yesterday I raised the point in the debate on Bill 46 that it's actually policy that

is under a different ministry. It is only a choice of government to have the Minister

of Housing shepherding through a bill about the Local Government Act. It's a choice

of government that is a totally inefficient use of time and necessitated his motion

to shut this debate down. Yesterday, the Speaker read Standing Order 81.1, time allocations,

into the record: "A minister of the Crown, who from his or her place in the House,

has stated that an agreement could not be reached." It goes on, but that's where I'll

end the quote.

I suppose the Speaker may rule that all the minister of the Crown needs to do is state

that an agreement could not be reached. A reasonable person, and those watching Bill

44, know that we had a long conversation about "reasonable" — the word. In a democratic

institution, a reasonable person would expect that an informal agreement had been

discussed, that time management was discussed as well. Well, it hadn't. There have

been zero conversations with all the House Leaders. There was no space given at any

time throughout the week.

Prior to the fiasco in here yesterday, frankly an embarrassment, I was already activated,

and anyone in in the hallway saw me. I was being told, while being handed the motion

to close, that the Conservatives didn't agree, so therefore, we couldn't get agreement.

Then for him to stand in here and tell the public that I was being unreasonable….

That must not be allowed to stand.

I act honourably in this place. I deeply respect the role of the Speaker in both my

culture and in this House. Respect the Speaker; respect the House.

Everybody watching closely knew that this Government House Leader was backing further

and further into a corner all week. It's important context for this. All week, he

had a choice. Unfortunately, he has decided, again, not to collaborate and put some

construct time around the debate, but to shutter the people's democracy. No opportunity

for me to talk to the House Leader of the Fourth Party. He and I actually have a productive

relationship when it comes to House Leader business, because it's strictly non-partisan.

[11:30 a.m.]

This is less about the minister's need to only state that an agreement could not be

reached, because that's not what he said. What the minister said is that he "tried,

but was unable to reach an informal agreement." That might be semantic for people

watching and for the people of this House, but for reputation and integrity and dignity,

it's not semantic. It's real. I'm not an unreasonable person, especially if you actually

try, and that did not happen in this case.

Functional, respectful House management is the responsibility of the Government House

Leader. He has not tried. He advanced a fallacy that it was I or my opposition House

Leader colleagues who were acting so unreasonable that he wasn't even able to get

an informal agreement.

There needs to be reconciliation. There needs to be an intervention. This is not just

the fall session of 2023. This is the spring session of 2023. This is the fall session

of 2022. This is 100 percent of the sessions under this new Premier, shuttering important

debate, shuttering the people's House because of unfortunate conversations that this

Premier and that Government House Leader don't want to have.

When I have to stand in here and defend myself as being a reasonable person, I find

it offensive.

I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, that you intervene in this situation and that you reconcile

this so that spring of 2024 isn't a fiasco as well.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to rise and respond to the question of privilege raised by the Third Party

House Leader.

Let me explain the facts. Consensus using time allocation requires all three opposition

parties, plus an independent member, to agree to any formal time allocation. This

is a higher bar to me, and I respect that.

Yesterday we were able to reach the Fourth Party House Leader who said that they do

not agree with this approach and would not support it. Clearly, with one dissenter,

consensus on an agreement would not be met with all the parties. I stand by my statement

and my actions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I act in the best interests of the House and the people of British Columbia to ensure

timely passage of the bills before us.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members. The Chair will take it under advisement and will get back to the

House later on.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call third reading of Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 3), 2023

Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2023 read a third time and

passed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 47, Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented

Areas) Development Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 45, Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act.

[11:35 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 47 — HOUSING STATUTES

(TRANSIT-ORIENTED AREAS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 47; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 11:36 a.m.

The Chair: I'll call the committee to order. We're dealing with Bill 47, Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented

Areas) Amendment Act, 2023.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to start by acknowledging the amazing team here with me and around me and folks

sitting in another room who have done a lot of incredible work to ensure that this

important piece of legislation is before us.

I want to recognize them, because when I've talked to a lot of folks at a gathering

the staff had a couple of weeks ago where they celebrated much of the work that the

staff have been doing, what I heard consistently from them was that they wanted to

do work that was meaningful, that would change communities. This piece of legislation

does that very thing.

I'm really proud of the work they've done. I want to recognize them, and I look forward

to the exchange.

On clause 1.

P. Milobar: I just was going to start with a comment or two, and then I'll actually turn the floor

over to my colleague from Richmond North Centre.

It's unfortunate…. For those viewers at home, this is Bill 47 that, despite what the

Premier may have been trying to allude to in question period, the opposition has been

very clear we support. The concepts of Bill 47….

We still have some issues with implementation and the ham-fistedness that we've seen

this government do when it comes to housing and implementation of policy. So we'll

certainly have questions on this bill. But with the time allocation rules that have

been brought in by this government and the restriction on length of time for Bill

47, we thought it best….

We do have a couple of amendments. We have an amendment in clause 1. We also have

an amendment in clause 12, the same amendment, but clause 12 deals with the Vancouver

Charter. Clause 1 deals with the Local Government Act.

We wanted to make sure that we could get those on the record, especially clause 1,

first, and then, hopefully, if we get to clause 12 before time allocation is invoked

by the government and debate is cut off with no further questioning of a piece of

legislation, we will get to that.

With that, we thought it best to start off with the amendment that my colleague from

Richmond North Centre has, and we'll see if the government will see fit to agree with

our amendment.

T. Wat: I would like to make the amendment standing in my name. The purpose is to protect

heritage conservation areas such as Chinatown. So my amendment is:

[ CLAUSE 1, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Section 455 of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 2015, c. 1, is amended by adding

the following

definitions:

"transit-oriented area" means an area within a prescribed distance from a transit station , except for an area that is part of a heritage conservation area ;]

On the amendment.

T. Wat: The same wording is going to be proposed by me for clause 12. Given the time allocation,

I just want to put it on record that the same amendment will be applied to clause

[11:40 a.m.]

The reason I am bringing up this amendment is because this morning I received dozens

of emails from residents in Chinatown and also outside of Chinatown about their concerns

that this bill will have damaging effects on Chinatown. Let me just read a couple

of paragraphs from one of the dozens of emails that I received, as I said earlier.

It says:

"I urge the government to stop Bill 47 from decimating Chinatown and the surrounding

neighbourhoods, including Strathcona, Downtown Eastside and Gastown. Chinatown and

its adjacent areas are crucial for low-income residents, providing essential social

housing, SROs and cultural businesses, and serving as cultural and heritage landmarks.

"The city of Vancouver wisely cancelled this upzoning of Chinatown in 2017 to 2018

due to its negative impact on the community, causing inflated land prices, gentrification

and economic displacement. Bill 47 risks exacerbating this issue and causing irrevocable

harm to Chinatown. I implore the government to reconsider and protect these neighbourhoods

from the detrimental results of Bill 47."

The Chair: Copies are being made. We'll just wait for them to come back in for distribution.

We'll take a very short recess.

The committee recessed from 11:41 a.m. to 11:43 a.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: I'll call the committee back to order. I'd like to seek clarification from Richmond

North Centre.

It's my understanding that your amendment is to add on, to the definition of "transit-oriented

area," the words "except for an area that is part of a heritage conservation area."

T. Wat: Yes, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

M. Lee: I wanted to join to speak in favour of the amendment as moved by my colleague the

member for Richmond North Centre.

In response to many of the concerns that we've been hearing with the B.C. United caucus

about heritage areas of the province, including in the city of Vancouver, the member

for Richmond North Centre certainly knows very well the kinds of pressures that are

being placed, for example, on Vancouver's Chinatown.

[11:45 a.m.]

The member for Richmond North Centre also added, to her comments, other areas of the

city of Vancouver for heritage conservation consideration, including Gastown and Strathcona.

I will add to that list certainly the Punjabi Market, where my constituency office

is located, as well as Little Italy and other very important heritage areas of the

city.

This just demonstrates the challenge with the top-down approach that this government

has taken to housing in rushing through these bills and not giving the opportunity

for a full understanding of the kind of importance of integrated planning.

I know the Premier acknowledged in question period in response to the member for Prince

George–Valemount today that even former Premier Mike Harcourt and his colleague, a

former MLA for Point Grey, Darlene Marzari, have very clearly indicated their concerns.

I know that both Mike and Darlene's work for urban planning, including with UBC and

others — Walter Hardwick, for example — the importance of regional planning, local

government planning….

This is where the challenge lies. When we're talking about the importance of heritage

conservation areas, we're talking about having a good understanding, of course, that

local governments have as they continue to revitalize important heritage areas of

the city of Vancouver. As this government knows, Chinatown has been under pressure.

We have seen a great deal of mix of development that Chinatown has been speaking to,

even including getting recognition as a possible UNESCO World Heritage Site.

We know, of course, through the build of the investments around transit, SkyTrain,

the Canada Line, areas that former Premier of this province Gordon Campbell and our

current Leader of the Official Opposition have been integrally involved in, that when

we talk about planning of these transit-oriented developments around transit corridors,

we have to be very mindful of the impact on the heritage parts of our city. The stadium

stop next to B.C. Place is a few hundred metres away from the core area of Tinseltown

and Chinatown on Main Street, on Hastings, on Pender.

This is just an example of the kind of impact that this bill is bringing forward without

consideration that when we're talking about transit-oriented areas, we need to have

this exclusion to recognize the impact on heritage conservation areas as the member

from Richmond North Centre has proposed.

I would also say that with efforts by the local community to support Gastown, again

another example of the heritage there, where we depend on local merchants, business

organization, community members on the growth and the continued sustainability of

Gastown, including with respect to the tourism industry, the cruise ships, we know

that we need to have and maintain levels of preservation of the key heritage areas

around Gastown.

I would also say with the Punjabi Market that we know the revitalization of the Punjabi

Market. I've spoken in favour of this and written letters and been involved very much

with the community efforts, including with local councillors like Pete Fry and the

mayor of Vancouver of course, and others, in terms of the efforts that they see of

revitalizing a very important part of our city.

We know with the 49th station, which is blocks away from my office, and Langara College,

again, the consideration of unthought-through, ill-conceived, top-down approach here

as to the impact on these important heritage conservation areas.

[11:50 a.m.]

I know that as we look at the impact of this bill, we need to consider heritage conservation.

I will also add in terms of the Musqueam peoples in Vancouver-Langara and South Vancouver,

we have very culturally sensitive areas of South Vancouver and Marpole, including

the midden and other sacred grounds. These grounds are actually located right next

to the bus exchange at the foot of Granville Street; the new one that's going to be

built at the foot of Cambie Street, which I'd like to speak to in terms of the impact

on the local community of transit development.

I wonder as to what the consideration and consultation has been around the impact

of transit-oriented area developments, unrestrained. When we define "heritage conservation,"

we include, of course, Indigenous peoples and the territories of First Nations — in

the area of South Vancouver, in my instance. I know and recognize the importance of

ensuring that we have this sort of carve-out: so that we have the ability to ensure

that local governments, First Nations, ethnocultural communities can ensure that their

places are properly cared for.

I will say one more comment. The Filipino community has their memorial plaza underneath

a SkyTrain line. That is currently one of the principal places where the Filipino

community can gather, near the Joyce Street station, Nanaimo Street. It's sitting

right under the Canada Line, the SkyTrain built for Expo 86.

When we talk about the impact of transit-oriented development, I would think that

this government would be very mindful of the impact on those very important heritage

conservation spaces, including that space for the Filipino community in Vancouver.

Little Italy has had a tremendous revitalization, we've seen, with former councillor

Melissa De Genova; Randy Rinaldo, who is vice-president of the Italian Cultural Centre;

as well as Mario Miceli. We've seen enough importance of that cultural centre and

their own development plans as well as the Italian Cultural Centre in little Italy

itself and the impact on Commercial Drive.

These are the kinds of considerations that we'll need to have in ensuring that we're

very mindful when we're talking about a transit-oriented area. I'd certainly encourage

the government to consider this thoughtful and important exclusion to protect heritage

conservation areas.

Introductions by Members

The Chair: Before I recognize the member, I'd like to welcome Madame Vérin's grade 4-5 class

from École Victor Brodeur from Esquimalt.

From us at the Clerk's table, welcome to the chamber.

P. Milobar: I want to clarify. I see the Speaker just arrived. If the other committee room is

ready to report out, I will note the hour, reserving my right, my place, and adjourn

debate.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada