Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, February 15, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 267

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Personal Statements

Apology for comments made in the House

J. Routledge

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill M207 — Provincial Symbols and Honours Amendment

Act, 2023

R. Leonard

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Response to Türkiye and Syria earthquakes

G. Chow

Howard Lloyd

S. Bond

Community organizations in Chilliwack-Kent

area

K. Paddon

Farmers and agriculture shows

I. Paton

Regenerative agriculture

R. Russell

Pat Wallace and Cliff Branchflower

P. Milobar

Oral Questions

Comments by MLA for Burnaby North

T. Stone

Hon. D. Eby

Government action on housing

affordability

K. Falcon

Hon. D. Eby

Government policies on fossil fuel industry and

action on climate change

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Hon. J. Osborne

Housing legislation and strata property age

limits

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. R. Kahlon

HousingHub initiative and rental housing

projects

P. Milobar

Hon. D. Eby

Government action on housing

affordability

L. Doerkson

Hon. D. Eby

S. Bond

Motions Without Notice

Membership change to Agriculture, Fish and Food

Committee

Hon. R. Kahlon

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 16 — Powers of Agriculture, Fish and Food

Committee

Hon. R. Kahlon

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 3 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

M. de Jong

Hon. N. Sharma

Hon. L. Beare

B. Banman

Hon. G. Heyman

R. Merrifield

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act

(No. 5)

Hon. A. Kang

M. Bernier

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act

(No. 5)

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. N. Cullen

Personal Statements

Withdrawal of comments made in the House

J. Routledge

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. R. Singh

Hon. N. Sharma

Hon. D. Coulter

Hon. M. Farnworth

G. Chow

Hon. B. Ralston

J. Rice

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2023

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.

[1:35 p.m.]

Personal Statements

APOLOGY FOR COMMENTS

MADE IN THE

HOUSE

J. Routledge: Yesterday in the debate, I made an unfortunate reference to the

Holocaust. I deeply regret it. It wasn’t appropriate, and I sincerely

apologize.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: Earlier today, in the Hall of Honour, we made an announcement on

future forest policy in British Columbia. Two of the participants are here

today, and I wanted to introduce them to the chamber.

The first is Lenny Joe, who is the chief executive officer of the

First Nations Forestry Council. He is a registered professional forester and

a member of the Nłeʔkepmxc First Nation,

actively involved in developing new businesses and opportunities in the

resource sector within his territory as well as throughout Canada and the

world.

I also wanted to introduce another person who spoke at the

announcement, Garry Merkel, who is the co-author of the old-growth strategic

review. He, too, is a registered professional forester and a member of the

Tahltan Nation. He’s been actively involved in building First Nations

governments for decades. His achievements and contributions are numerous,

and I really don’t have time to go into them.

I do want to thank them both for joining our announcement earlier

today, and I look forward to continuing our work to modernize forest policy

in British Columbia.

Will the House please make both of these people welcome.

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today is one of my good friends, Anna Tran. She is a

ray of sunshine to any room that she enters, and I really love her

friendship. We share the same love for warm soup, for food, for cute

animals. She works in the supply chain industry for a Vancouver-based tech

company.

She’s also in the process of making Canada a permanent home through

the B.C. PNP program, and she recently received an invitation to apply for

permanent residence. I’m glad British Columbia can retain such a great

skilled worker like Anna and make B.C. her home.

It is her first time in the Legislature, first time in the gallery

today. Would everyone please make her feel very welcome.

Hon. R. Singh: Today is my husband’s birthday. For many of my colleagues who were

interviewed by Gurpreet, he’s stern, very rigid. It is like people sometimes

worry, going on his radio show. But for me, I can say he’s my strongest

ally, my rock, and I want to wish him a very, very happy

birthday.

Hon. B. Bailey: Earlier this week, our government proudly proclaimed this week as

Chamber of Commerce Week. Businesses have persevered through the challenges

of the last few years, and B.C.’s chambers of commerce have been relied upon

more than ever. They have risen to the challenge and have ensured that our

business communities have stayed strong and resilient.

That is why today, I’m excited to have three leaders join us from the

B.C. Chamber of Commerce. We have Fiona Famulak, president and CEO; Dr. Greg

Thomas, chair of the board; and Alex McMillan, interim director of policy.

I’m looking forward to meeting with them later this afternoon to engage on

how we can work together on shared priorities and continue delivering on the

goals of our StrongerBC economic plan.

Would the members of the House please join me in making them feel most

welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Finance. Sorry. Once a minister, always a minister, right?

Minister of Post-Secondary Education.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m having a lot more fun in this

file, I have to say.

[1:40 p.m.]

I have two announcements. The first one is that apparently, it was a

member of this Legislature’s birthday yesterday. I want to invite everyone

to wish the member for Peace River South….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Robinson: And Peace River North. The Peaces had a birthday yesterday, so I want

to wish them both a happy birthday. It’s just how things roll in the Peace.

There you go.

I also would like to introduce two representatives of UBC’s Alma Mater

Society, Erin Co and Mimi Neufeld, who are joining us here in the chamber.

Erin is AMS’s VP of external affairs and is in her fourth year studying

economics at UBC. She’s talking about perhaps a master’s degree. Mimi works

for the AMS as a policy adviser. I have to say that as the Minister of

Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, their work is absolutely vital

to understanding the experience of post-secondary students.

I know that these two fabulous women leaders have met with the critic

across the way, and they had a really good conversation. They met with

myself and the Premier and other MLAs in this chamber, and I want to thank

them for their work in presenting ideas and solutions. That is an invaluable

experience for all of us.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

B. Anderson: Joining us in the gallery today are several of our staff from

government caucus.

We have Laura Parent, a research and communications officer; Devon

Leathwood, a research and communications officer, originally from Kaslo,

which is in my constituency; Arjin Toor, a research and communications

of­ficer; Chelsea Williams, a research and communications officer;

Cailin Tyrrell, a research and communications officer; Astra Lund-Phillips,

a research and communications officer; Maddie Field, a senior research and

communications officer; Reece Avila, a communications assistant; Hannah

Harris Hope, a legislative assistant; and Cindy Tomnuk, an office

coordinator.

Thank you so much for all the work you do and welcome

today.

Hon. L. Popham: I have some ministry staff here who are in this chamber today. We have

Jen Goad, Roger Tinney and Liz Deom. They are here specifically to watch a

very, very interesting private member’s bill get tabled.

M. Dykeman: I just wanted to take this opportunity to wish a very special

constituent a happy 100th birthday. Penny Schafer today turns 100, and she

volunteered for the Langley Meals on Wheels program for over 40 years,

delivering her very last meal at 95 years old in our community.

She wasn’t able to make it over here but is watching at home, and I

was wondering if the House could please join me in wishing her a very happy

birthday.

R. Leonard: I would like to introduce a number of folks who have travelled down

from the Comox Valley for this auspicious day.

I would like to first introduce Mike Trask, who was a draftsman and a

surveyor and the discoverer of the elasmosaur dinosaur in 1988, along with

his daughter Heather. Along with him is Pat Trask, his twin brother, who is

the curator of natural history at the Courteney and District Museum; Deborah

Griffiths, the executive director and curator of the Courteney and District

Museum; and Dan Bowen, who is the chair of the B.C. Paleontological Alliance

and the chair of the Vancouver Paleontological Society. I’m very excited

that they are here today to witness this day.

I also want to say thank you very much to all the support staff. Their

names have already been mentioned: Cindy Tomnuk, Laura Parent, Hannah Harris

Hope. It’s been an exciting ride getting to today, and I’m very

excited.

May the House please join me in welcoming them all to the gallery

today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M207 — PROVINCIAL SYMBOLS AND

HONOURS AMENDMENT

ACT, 2023

R. Leonard presented a bill intituled Provincial Symbols and Honours

Amendment Act, 2023.

R. Leonard: I move that a bill intituled Provincial Symbols and Honours

Amendment Act, 2023, of which notice has been given in my name on the

order paper, be introduced and read for a first time.

[1:45 p.m.]

In 1988, a landmark paleontology find was discovered in my riding

near the Puntledge River. Mike Trask and his daughter Heather unearthed

what we now know to be an elasmosaur fossil that is over 80 percent

complete. This great elasmosaur was the first of its kind found west of

the Canadian Rockies. The elasmosaur is a marine reptile dinosaur that

is approximately 80 million years old and speaks to the remarkable

ancient ecosystems that covered the land that we now know as

B.C.

In 2020, another elasmosaur was found by Pat Trask, and it

continues to be a source of research and fascination for paleontologists

and researchers young and old.

In 2018, the province of B.C. ran a public input session so the

people of B.C. could choose a fossil to be a provincial symbol, on the

recommendation of the B.C. Paleontological Alliance. The elasmosaur won

with a significant margin. This bill seeks to complete this work and

name the elasmosaur as B.C’s. official provincial fossil.

Fossils are a part of our heritage, our culture and our identity,

and this bill will recognize their importance to British

Columbia.

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M207, Provincial Symbols and Honours Amendment Act, 2023,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

RESPONSE TO

TÜRKIYE AND SYRIA

EARTHQUAKES

G. Chow: We all know the earthquake that struck the Türkiye and Syria

region ten days ago killed more than 40,000 people. The toll will no

doubt rise as rescue efforts continue. Here in British Columbia, we are

very proud of the Burnaby urban search and rescue team, who travelled to

Türkiye a week ago to help. They returned home yesterday to a hero’s

welcome at the Vancouver International Airport.

Burnaby is your hometown, Mr. Speaker. We’re all very proud of

Burnaby and the search and rescue team.

On February 7, Canada announced $10 million in humanitarian aid to

the Türkiye and Syria earthquakes. However, the Canadian government will

also match eligible donations by individuals to the Canadian Red Cross,

to a maximum of $10 million. The cutoff day for this matching is next

Wednesday, February 22. If anyone plans to donate to Canadian Red Cross,

it would be great to do it by next Wednesday.

If you’d like to donate certain goods, such as sleeping bags,

tents, flashlights, headlights, sanitary wipes, baby formula and

bottles, children’s and adult diapers, you can drop off the items in

Vancouver at 580 Industrial Avenue near Science World or go to

#helpturkeyvancouver. This is a warehouse being set up by the Canadian

Turkish Educational and Cultural Foundation, the Turkish Canadian

Society and the UBC Turkish Student Association. Here the volunteers

collect, sort and package the items for air shipment by Turkish

Airlines, under the supervision of the Turkish consulate in

Vancouver.

People in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview, if they like, can

drop off goods for donation at my constituency office for the Turkish

organizations to pick up. The situation in Türkiye and Syria earthquake

zone is dire, and I encourage all of us to help any way we

can.

HOWARD LLOYD

S. Bond: Howard Lloyd served as the Social Credit MLA for the riding of

Fort George in the 31st Parliament, from 1975 to 1979.

[1:50 p.m.]

Howard was born in Turtleford, Saskatchewan, and was the fourth of

12 children. His family moved to Prince George in 1940, and Howard

described that trip. “After tuning up our old 1929 Nash, we hooked up a

homemade trailer, packed our belongings, camping supplies and food, and

we left for Prince George.”

Howard was well known for his career in the forest industry. He

started his career in sawmills, then roadbuilding, then skidding logs,

created Lloyd Bros. Lumber Co. with his brothers and then, in 1960,

started Howard Lloyd Logging, which was a stump-to-dump operation. In

1970, Howard and five other logging contractors started the North

Central Plywood Veneer Mill.

In 1972, with the support of his wife and family, Howard entered

the civic political arena and served as a Prince George alderman from

1972 to 1975. He also served as a director for the regional district of

Fraser–Fort George.

In 1975, when NDP Premier Dave Barrett called a snap election,

Howard decided to make the move to provincial politics, and he was

elected as the Social Credit MLA for the Fort George riding.

Howard Lloyd passed away on December 27, 2022. He is survived by

his wife, Margaret, his children, his grandchildren and

great-grandchildren.

Howard and Margaret said: “Prince George has always been a

wonderful place to live, enjoy the outdoors and raise a family. We have

many good friends and the support of a large family. We wouldn’t trade

that for anything.”

Howard, we want to thank you for your contributions to our

community, our region and our province, and we send our caring thoughts

to Margaret and the entire family on Howard’s passing.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS IN

CHILLIWACK-KENT

AREA

K. Paddon: I am very happy to be able to rise to share a little bit about

some of the organizations serving Chilliwack-Kent that make such a

difference in our community.

Each quarter, I have the privilege of hosting a non-profit Zoom

round table, which is very well attended. These meetings have been

occurring since the start of 2021. Our conversations have included how

to make the sector stronger, local and provincial needs, innovative

solutions and networking opportunities that allow all of us who serve

our neighbours to better understand what is available and what is

needed. We welcome others from Chilliwack and Kent to join us in the

collaborative work.

I want to thank the current and former Parliamentary Secretaries

for Community Development and Non-Profits for their participation and

support of this table and the important conversations happening

there.

I will take the rest of my time to share my thanks with as many of

the participants as I can name that help to make our community a better

place: Chilliwack Arts Council, Chilliwack Youth Health Centre, Creative

Centre Society for Mental Wellness, Chilliwack Bowls of Hope, Chilliwack

Community Services, Chilliwack Learning Community Society, Chilliwack

Animal Safe Haven, Circles of Support and Accountability, Futurepreneur,

Community Futures Fraser Valley, Streams Foundation Canada, Chilliwack

and District Seniors Resources Society, Agassiz-Harrison Community

Services, Ann Davis Transition Society, Agassiz-Harrison Museum, Medal

Rose Society, Chilliwack Healthier Community, Stó:lō Community Futures,

Chilliwack Citizens for Change, Kindness Chain Chilliwack, Chilliwack BC

SPCA, Pearl Life Renewal, Salvation Army Chilliwack, Chilliwack School

of Performing Arts, Chilliwack Society for Community Living, Fraser

Valley Imagination Library, Chilliwack Pride, United Way, Chilliwack

Hospice, Branch 295 Royal Canadian Legion, Chilliwack Independent Film

Festival and Sardis Doorway.

I’m hoping I’m not missing any.

Thank you to all of my friends, to all of you who serve our

community, for your voices and your advocacy.

FARMERS AND AGRICULTURE SHOWS

I. Paton: I’m happy to rise today on February 15 to celebrate Canada’s

Agriculture Day. Canadians from coast to coast come together to

celebrate the food we love and the people who produce it.

Canada’s Agriculture Day is an opportunity to express our

gratitude to farmers for their dedication and hard work. Regardless of

weather conditions and challenges, they continue to provide us with

nutritious and safe food.

We have certainly seen our farmers in B.C. overcome a lot in the

last few years — floods, fires, avian influenza, mudslides, the rising

cost of feed, fuel and fertilizer. The list goes on.

It was so fantastic to see such a great turnout of farmers and

community this year at both the Pacific Agriculture Show in Abbotsford

and the Island Agriculture Show in Cowichan Valley. These events have

come back bigger and better than ever, with thousands of farmers,

exhibitors and vendors coming together from across the province to share

knowledge, learn about the latest trends in agriculture and talk about

various issues that are top of mind, going into the 2023 growing

season.

[1:55 p.m.]

At the Abbotsford show, I had the great honour of meeting with

farmers from around the province. At this event, the B.C. Agriculture

Council honoured five leaders in B.C.’s agricultural community. Dairy

farmers Hallie Jacobs and Jimi Meier were honoured with the champion of

agriculture award for their support during the November 21

floods.

They also honoured longtime dairy farmer Ben Brandsema with the

excellent leadership award for being a pioneer in organic dairy farming

here in B.C., and Michelle Johnsrude of Chilliwack was awarded the

agriculture in the classroom outstanding teacher award for engaging

children at several levels, including growing food.

Lastly, they gave special recognition to the Ministry of

Agriculture staffer Lonny Steward for his knowledge of the various

agriculture support programs offered by the province.

This month I also went to the Vancouver Island agriculture show,

which is the only agriculture trade show now serving the food and

farming community on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands. It was a

great show.

These shows are so important because they bring to­gether

the current issues in farming with the equipment, research, vendors and

suppliers to support farmers and farm operations in B.C. We have a great

farming community in B.C., and I was grateful to see the ag community

come back together again, getting ready for, hopefully, a successful

2023 season.

REGENERATIVE AGRICULTURE

R. Russell: It’s a perfect segue from the member for Delta South.

It’s my pleasure to stand today to share some gratitude and

exciting vision that was released at that same event, the Pacific Ag

Show, particularly coming under the Ministry of Agriculture with the

contributions from farmers and ranchers, industry innovators,

organizations and academics from across B. C. around agricultural

technology and regenerative ag.

If we think about a Venn diagram of agricultural technology and

one of sustainable and regenerative agriculture, the interface of those

two is where this group operates. They have been working as the

minister’s advisory group on regenerative ag and agritech at an

incredible pace over the last three-quarters of a year or so. I have

been enormously impressed with the work that they have

delivered.

We talk in this place a lot about opportunities for transition and

the province’s enormous potential to be leaders in creating real jobs in

the transition space to meet our climate commitments. Regenerative ag is

a perfect example of how people out in rural communities, with their

hands in the dirt and with cowboy hats on their heads, are actually

delivering those jobs that we need in terms of a sustainable shift in

terms of our employment.

As the Business Council of B.C. states in their B.C.’s Low

Carbon Advantage Plan , “the time is now for climate jobs and

our future,” and we are in a moment of “significant opportunities to

advance B.C.’s. economy and corresponding high-wage jobs in rural and

urban B.C. while furthering objectives on global climate change and

Indigenous reconciliation.” That’s exactly the space this operates in as

regenerative ag and the opportunities that it presents.

I won’t be as effective as the member for Chilliwack-Kent, but I

will try, in 15 seconds, to go through some of the names to recognize

them: Glen Lougheed, John Church, Jacob Beaton, Avi Gill, Karn Manhas,

Sylvain Moreno, Sean Smukler, Mike Bomford, Eva-Lena Lang, Abra Brynne,

Mark Smith, Jason McNamee, Heather O’Hara, Wade Clifton, Mickey Aylard,

Tristan Banwell and, last but not least, Michelle Koski.

PAT WALLACE AND

CLIFF BRANCHFLOWER

P. Milobar: “Just remember, all fish die by the mouth.” That was the first

piece of advice I received as an elected official. It certainly was not

the last piece of advice I would receive as an elected official from a

dear friend and colleague, Pat Wallace.

Unfortunately, on the weekend, the community of Kamloops, province

and country lost Pat. Pat was a true community icon in Kamloops. A lot

of times we say that about people, but Pat really was. It was not just

her elected work that she did on behalf of people for over 30 years in

Kamloops; she was a great community advocate, and she was a true mentor

— not just the politicians, but by people trying to get ahead in life,

people that needed help, people that needed advice. Pat was always

there.

You always knew where you stood with Pat. She didn’t always agree

with you. She certainly didn’t always agree with me, but she always made

sure that you were listened to, and then she stuck by her

convictions.

[2:00 p.m.]

If you could convince her otherwise, you were on a winning side of

an argument more often than not around the rest of the council

table.

Unfortunately, as news of Pat’s passing was becoming more broadly

known in the Kamloops community, we discovered that on the same day, at

the same age, we also lost a former long-serving mayor of Kamloops,

Cliff Branchflower. Cliff had served eight years as the mayor. Pat was a

councillor with them then. They also served on council together in the

’80s. In fact, my father was on some of those councils with those

two.

Cliff, again, was a tireless advocate for our community. They were

both made Freeman of the City at various stages of their post-political

lives. They both did a tremendous amount of work in our communities.

Again, Cliff was somebody that really stuck by the courage of his

convictions. It didn’t matter what your point of view was as long as you

could be sure that you had thought it through. Always somebody that was

very strong in his faith, in his religion, Cliff lived every day the

same way in terms of that.

On behalf of the broader Kamloops community and this chamber, I

just send our deepest condolences to all of their families in the

Kamloops area.

Oral Questions

COMMENTS BY MLA FOR BURNABY NORTH

T. Stone: Yesterday, in this House, the member for Burnaby North, whom the

Premier appointed as Parliamentary Secretary for Labour, once again made

highly offensive comments, some of which she has apologized for, none of

which she has withdrawn. It is never acceptable to make the comparison

she made between the role and speech of the opposition and the horrors

of the Holocaust.

Furthermore, her disparaging remarks about our democratic process

and her belittling of the official opposition for doing our

parliamentary job in holding government accountable were entirely

unacceptable.

What makes this situation even more egregious is that members of

the Premier’s cabinet and his caucus, including the Minister of Social

Development and Poverty Reduction and the Minister of Land, Water and

Resource Stewardship, actually applauded her prepared remarks and even

encouraged her to continue speaking.

British Columbians find the comments made by the member for

Burnaby North extremely hurtful, and they need to know that the Premier

of British Columbia condemns them. My question for the Premier today is

will he do that today and unequivocally condemn these words and actions

and demonstrate that such behaviour has no place in his caucus, this

chamber or our political discourse?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. The comments were not

acceptable. The member knows they were not acceptable. She has

apologized, and she will be withdrawing them in this House.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

HOUSING

AFFORDABILITY

K. Falcon: My thanks to the Premier for doing the right thing there. I

appreciate that, and I applaud it.

On another note, once again, we see a huge gap on another issue

between what the Premier and government are saying and the terrible

results that British Columbians are seeing when it comes to government

and their outcomes. Never has this been more true than in

housing.

Six years of NDP action on housing have produced the worst results

in the country. The average home in Vancouver will now eat up 96 percent

of a typical family’s income if they wanted to purchase a home, making

it the least affordable housing market in the country.

Sadly, it gets worse than that. We actually have the most

unaffordable housing in North America according to a recent report from

RBC that points out that a family now needs, in Vancouver, an income of

over a quarter of a million dollars just to afford a home in that city.

If you’re a renter, you’re also worse off than anywhere else in the

country, because rents are up over $4,000 per year under this NDP

government.

To summarize, after six years and two election campaigns promising

more affordable housing, NDP housing policy is an absolute abysmal

failure by every metric. Given this Premier’s own disastrous record as

the Housing Minister, can anyone possibly believe that doing more of

these NDP government policies are ever going to actually provide the

relief on housing prices and sky-high rents that British Columbians face

every single day?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member, the Leader of the Opposition, for the

question.

The RBC report that he references is an important one. We know

that British Columbians are struggling, across the province, with

housing affordability issues. It doesn’t matter if you’re trying to get

into the housing market or if you’re trying to find a place to

rent.

That’s why our government has taken unprecedented action to

address this issue — from the very most affordable housing for people

living on disability, on social assistance, social housing, opening

thousands of units across the province to expansion into doing work on

middle-income housing for people who otherwise earn a decent income —

through the HousingHub initiative.

The member knows that the RBC report talks about rising interest

rates and the impact that has had on British Columbians in terms of the

affordability of their mortgages, which is devastating for many

families, and the impacts of global inflation that have been felt here

in British Columbia, impacting our construction market.

We are taking on the housing issue head-on. The member may not

recall, but when they were on this side of the House and we were on that

side of the House, we insisted, over and over, that they take action on

housing affordability. They said: “Don’t worry. The market is going to

take care of it. Don’t worry. The market is going to take care of

it.”

When we had a bill in front of this House — on the fact that we

added 100,000 people to this province last year, a record growth in our

population, placing a strain on housing — to compel municipalities to

build the housing that we need, the opposition voted against it before

they voted for it.

They need to figure out what they would do on housing. We know

what we’re going to do on housing, which is everything we can to ensure

affordability for British Columbians.

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

K. Falcon: Well facts and results matter. The fact is that when I was in

government, the average price of a townhome in Surrey was $450,000.

Today it’s over $1 million, after six years of the NDP government. A

great result.

The clock is ticking, and we’re almost at the end of the Premier’s

vaunted 100 days. Instead of better results, what do we see? Nothing but

vague announcements and press releases. In typical NDP fashion, none of

these announcements come with any targets or any timelines.

The only progress I’ve actually seen is the Premier acknowledging

their ten-year housing plan has failed in less than five years. Instead

of recycling that plan for the spring, we now understand they’re kicking

it over to the fall session.

Apparently this Premier needed to hire a high-priced consultant in

the form of the former mayor of Victoria, Lisa Helps, who, to the best

of my knowledge, had disastrous outcomes in housing policy in Victoria

and, as far as I can see, hasn’t spent five minutes in any significant

portfolio in the private sector — certainly not in housing, not in any

other sector that I can identify.

Now, after six years, the current Housing Minister says: “In two

years, we are not going to solve the housing crisis.” Eight years of

excuses and delays are unacceptable.

Given this Premier’s and government’s track record, given his own

track record as Housing Minister creating the most unaffordable housing

in North America, will he at least acknowledge today that what they have

been doing has produced none of the results that everyday British

Columbians would expect and demand from a government that repeatedly

makes the promises?

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

British Columbians. Ensuring they can find an affordable place to live

is important not just for them; it’s important for businesses in our

province that they can find the employees they’re looking for. It’s

important for communities that are trying to grow.

We announced $1 billion to support cities across the province with

the growth they’re seeing and to ensure that they’re able to support the

additional housing that we need. This is vital. We have to get homes

built. We have to increase that housing supply.

The member is mistaken if he thinks that British Columbians don’t

remember their time on this side of the House — vacant homes, unused,

held by investors. We brought in the speculation tax. Do you want to

know how many homes that brought back? So 20,000 vacant homes held by

investors.

The member on that side of the House….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I want to hear him stand up and say that he wouldn’t repeal that

tax. He has spoken out again and again against that tax that opened

vacant homes for British Columbians to be rented to them. Does he stand

for investors, or does he stand for British Columbians looking for

affordable housing?

His government…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …helped create that housing crisis. Then he went to profit from it

in the private sector, and now he’s back.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON

FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY

AND

ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

S. Furstenau: For decades, First Nations and old-growth advocates have called

for change to how forests are managed in our province. For the last

several years, those calls have been echoed by three MLAs in this House

— my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, me and the MLA for

Prince George–Mackenzie.

We’re delighted that the Premier has worked with Garry Merkel and

the First Nations Forestry Council to implement transformative policies

in the forest sector. We applaud this government for finally recognizing

that until the laws and regulations are changed, we will see business as

usual. Protecting biodiversity and forestry is one part of the equation

in addressing the climate crisis.

The second

part is to stop emitting and to stop organizing our

economy around industries that are harming the planet and us. As Garry

Merkel said today: “If you don’t take care of the land, it will end up

killing you.” The Premier stated in an interview last fall: “We cannot

continue to expand fossil fuel infrastructure and hit our climate

goals.” I agree.

My question is to the Premier, and I urge him not to use CleanBC

as a shield. A climate plan is meant to get us to lower emissions, not

defend the growth of the fossil fuel industry. Can the Premier assure

British Columbians that B.C. will not approve any more fossil fuel

infrastructure?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for her question and her sincere concern

about climate change.

I will say, however, that when our government devel­oped

CleanBC with the members of the Third Party and when we presented

CleanBC to British Columbians as a comprehensive plan and roadmap to

reduce emissions in communities, in homes, in industry and in

transportation, we didn’t develop that to be a shield. We developed it

to be a solution to the climate crisis that we all face.

I’ve said in this House many times, and my colleague the Minister

of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation has said the same thing. We

have a plan in the roadmap. We have a clear commitment to emission

reductions of 33 to 38 percent in the oil and gas sector. We have a

clear commitment to reductions in other industries. We have a clear

commitment to reductions in transportation and in communities and

buildings.

We are working hard to develop the specifics with all stakeholders

that have an interest, to show British Columbians, over the next months,

exactly what steps we’ll take to put the roadmap on track to meet our

targets.

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

S. Furstenau: I guess I appreciate the Minister of Environment answering the

question I put to the Premier and doing exactly what I asked him not to

do, which was use a climate plan as a shield.

CleanBC accounted for half of LNG Canada’s phase 1 emissions. Half

doesn’t even account for all of phase 1 emissions. The B.C. government

has long insisted emis­sions from LNG somehow will fit into B.C.’s

climate targets, but the Premier, the Minister of Environment and

members of cabinet know — they know — that phase 2 of LNG Canada does

not fit into CleanBC, let alone the other four LNG projects that are

currently being proposed in this province.

This government uses CleanBC as a way to insulate themselves. It

must come to an end, because decisions need to be made that shape the

future of this province and this planet that we all live on. Having

airbags in my car does not make it safe for me to drive off a cliff.

Having a climate plan does not absorb a massive increase in greenhouse

gas emissions. It doesn’t work that way. We need a paradigm shift in our

energy sector if we have any chance of meeting our targets.

[2:15 p.m.]

My question is to the Premier. When can we expect the Premier to

make a clear commitment to British Columbians that there will be no new

fossil fuel infrastructure projects in this province?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. I reiterate my

colleague’s comments. We have always been clear that any LNG development

must fit our conditions, and that includes our climate

commitments.

Beyond that, in the future ahead of us, the plans we have, the

policies we have, is the action that we’re already taking. Let’s not

forget the broken system of fossil fuel subsidies the old government

refused to take a look at or take any action on. We’ve tackled that

royalty system head on with the first comprehensive review in nearly 30

years, ensuring that it fits with our climate goals and that it provides

a fair return to British Columbians.

As a result, we eliminated the largest fossil fuel subsidy in

British Columbia. As a result of this, we can redirect that funding into

programs that help heal the land and support a clean energy future. This

is what the member is talking about: our clean energy future.

This work hasn’t stopped. The Premier has directed me in my

mandate letter to be looking at other subsidies and how we can direct

that into that clean future.

I know the member is passionate about this, and I expect her…. I

want her to continue to bring that passion, in the way that we all have,

to collectively work together towards our climate

commitments.

HOUSING LEGISLATION

AND STRATA PROPERTY AGE

LIMITS

K. Kirkpatrick: The Premier hasn’t just failed to help middle-class families with

housing; for Razan Talebian and her husband, they have made it worse.

This is a young couple. They are expecting their first child. But

instead of helping them find a home, this Premier has handed them, in

essence, an eviction notice. It is the exact opposite of what has been

promised by this Premier and this government.

As a direct result of the chaos that has been created through the

Premier’s legislation, their strata, like many stratas across British

Columbia, has now voted to make their building 55 plus, forcing this

young couple to sell their home once their child is born.

Just last month, the Premier was asked directly about stratas that

are voting to convert to 55 plus, and he said: “It’s not really a

loophole. This is potentially actually good news.”

To the Premier, how many families are being evicted because of

this ill-thought-out Premier strata chaos, and why should Razan and her

husband lose their home just for starting a family?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, it’s a difficult situation for this family. It’s a

situation that doesn’t happen very often, but when it does, it’s a

major, major concern.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: When the changes were made, it was to ensure that we have more

units coming online for people to rent, young people wanting an

opportunity to be able to rent into buildings.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister will continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Part of the work that we’ve done…. We’ve taken advice, and we’ve

taken advice from the seniors advocate. The seniors advocate urged us to

ensure that 55 plus would remain available for buildings. It’s in line

with the human rights code.

What I don’t understand from the B.C. Liberals…. Is this the

policy they’re proposing — that they’re going to eliminate 55 plus? Is

that the solution they’re suggesting here? It’s something that’s been

recommended by the seniors advocate. We put that in place.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: When they refer to a loophole, are they suggesting that they would

be eliminating 55 plus?

[2:20 p.m.]

HOUSINGHUB INITIATIVE

AND RENTAL HOUSING

PROJECTS

P. Milobar: Let’s look at some other failed housing initiatives that this

Premier has brought forward. We’ve just heard the example around the

stratas. The Premier can try to pretend otherwise, but he knows that his

much-touted HousingHub model has been a massive housing flub, in

fact.

We’ve raised concerns before about the Olympic villas in Merritt,

which received a $17 million low-interest loan from this government. The

response from the Premier didn’t quite like those questions being asked,

so instead we got sent a letter that only can be summarized as

admonishing and somewhat trying to intimidate any future questions

coming forward.

More important than that, what this letter actually did…. It

committed in black and white, signed by the Premier, then the Housing

Minister, that the most expensive rent in that housing project was going

to be $1,650 a month. It says it right on page 3. You can imagine the

shock when we read in the news that Olym­pic villas is now

charging $2,400 a month for rent, more than $750 a month more than this

Premier promised in writing would happen.

It begs the question not only why did the Premier spend the 17

million of tax dollars this way, but why has there been absolutely no

oversight on these types of projects to deliver what they’re actually

supposed to be delivering?

Hon. D. Eby: This member stood up in this place and made some very serious

allegations about this particular project previously. I wrote to him, as

Housing Minister at the time, and I explained to him how every single

thing he said in this place was incorrect — completely wrong. He said

that we were subsidizing and that there was no increase in affordable

units in the Merritt area as a result of the loan.

He was wrong then, and he’s wrong again today. We subsidized 45 of

75 units, and those 45 units are part of the HousingHub

funding.

Now, it’s quite possible, for the remaining 30 units, that the

rents are up. We’ve seen significant inflation. But for the HousingHub

commitment, it was for 45 of 75 units.

The member…. I asked him to apologize, actually, to the developer

of the project, who worked closely with the province to deliver

affordable housing in the Merritt area that was badly needed. I don’t

think that ever happened.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, shhh.

Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

P. Milobar: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s simply not the case. The Premier does not want to back up his

own letter. “Affordability in these units is ensured for middle-income

households in Merritt for a decade, at least.” That’s his words, not

mine. He signed the letter. At the very end of it, he says: “I will

leave it to you to consider appropriate next steps.” Well, that’s the

next steps. Here we are today.

The problem with the $17 million low-interest loan is it didn’t

stop with the rents being $750 a month more than they were supposed to

be. In fact, if you’re looking for a housing project, you might want to

check out Expedia or Airbnb. This is where this so-called affordable

housing project is now listed, as vacation rental, for the low, low,

bargain price of $250 a night or $8,000 a month in Merritt.

It’s no wonder this Premier is so quick to try to not have any

more questions answered, because it’s not just this project. It’s a wide

range of them.

Again, why is this Premier’s $17 million so-called affordable

housing project being listed on Airbnb for outrageous prices that

actually have rents $750 a month more? Where is the oversight of B.C.

Housing? I guess we know why there’s a forensic audit going

on.

Hon. D. Eby: I know it’s a frustration for renters across the province when

they see badly needed rental housing that rents out on short-term rental

websites like Airbnb. That’s why we’ve been working with UBCM and why

we’ll be introducing legislation to address that very serious issue the

member has raised.

I think it’s really important to recognize that in communities

like Merritt, they’ve been struggling to get purpose-built rental

housing constructed for a long time. The HousingHub project is about

encouraging developers to build that housing and addressing some of the

interest rate pressures that we’re seeing that could cause them to pull

back from building that purpose-built rental housing.

The results are in. Purpose-built rentals under our government,

2022, 14,546 units.

[2:25 p.m.]

Under the B.C. Liberals, 2012, 1,948 units. That’s up 650

percent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: Now, I am glad that the member brought that to my attention.

Absolutely, we will look into that issue. But when you look at what we

have done in relation to bringing on new housing across the

province….

Hon. Speaker, I acknowledge we’ve got a lot more to do. But from

student housing, they built 130 units; we built 7,700 beds. Housing

starts….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members, please.

Hon. D. Eby: Housing starts. When the Leader of the Opposition was the Finance

Minister, 27,465. Housing starts 2022, our government, 46,721, up 70

percent.

There is a difference between their approach to housing and ours.

Theirs is about speculators and investors. Our side is about housing

British Columbians.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

HOUSING

AFFORDABILITY

L. Doerkson: Well, sadly, the answers that we’re receiving today are of

absolutely no comfort to the residents of this province dealing with the

rising cost of our housing. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it

comes to the housing flubs, unaffordable projects.

Take the Carrington View Apartments in West Kelowna, for example.

The NDP promised they would cost no more than $1,590 per month to rent,

but today they’re listed for a whopping $2,100 per month and up. That’s

an increase of more than $500 monthly.

How can British Columbians have any faith in the Premier’s housing

promises when he continues to fail to deliver on even the most basic

commitments?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m happy to look into the member’s allegations. I’ll say this. We

have allegations often raised by the opposition, especially on the

housing file, and we look into them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Continue.

Hon. D. Eby: We look into them, and we will address them if they need to be

addressed. That’s how our government works. But I do want….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I do want to underline the difference in our approaches. We just

announced a $500 million fund to buy up rental buildings where tenants

are at risk of eviction and, potentially, homelessness. The reason we’re

doing that is there were these big corporations called real estate

investment trusts buying up these properties, doing these superficial

renovations, evicting people, increasing rents. The behaviour is

decreasing affordability and hurting British Columbians.

Now, there’s a reason, I think, that British Columbia should know

there’s a difference between this side of the House and the B.C.

Liberals. That is….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: The member says…. The member wants to talk about his experience

with housing. He engaged….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Members, please. Be quiet.

Hon. D. Eby: He thinks this activity is great. He thinks it’s wonderful. The

reason he thinks it’s great is that it’s exactly what he did in Calgary

and Edmonton. You don’t need to take my word for it. Take his word for

it.

Talking about his work with a partner: “We together set up a joint

venture and started acquiring apartment buildings in Calgary and

Edmonton and renovating them, fixing them up and then selling them

off.”

S. Bond: One thing we know for sure: there is only one speculator that

leads a party in this House. It happens to be the person sitting in the

Premier’s chair, who managed to flip his condo — for quite a substantive

profit, I might note.

[2:30 p.m.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Only one….

Members, let the member ask a question. One at a time.

Obviously….

Members.

The member will continue.

S. Bond: I’m happy to point out that that occurred just before the

speculation tax was actually enacted here in British

Columbia.

Let’s also correct the record, for the Premier’s sake, on a few

things. First of all, we spent $5 billion on housing, while this

Premier, as the Housing Minister, promised to build 114,000 affordable

homes. Guess what. Twelve thousand are open today out of those

114,000.

By the way, student housing doubled under our government. The

Premier might….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Members. Members.

S. Bond: The Premier might think that’s funny, but what we know British

Columbians understand…. Six years, two terms, and under this Premier’s

leadership as the Housing Minister, it has been nothing but an abysmal

failure.

Let’s just do a quick

summary for the Premier. His housing flub

rents are turning out to be hundreds of dollars a month more expensive

than he promised. De­velopers are getting millions of dollars to

list affordable housing on Airbnb. The strata chaos caused the eviction

of young families because of this Premier’s half-baked legislation. The

Housing Minister had to delay his recycled housing plan until the fall,

just adding to a pile of broken promises. It is absolutely no wonder

that middle-class families in British Columbia have zero faith in this

Premier to deliver on a housing promise.

Will the Premier just get up today and finally admit that he is

part of that problem when it comes to the affordability crisis, and it

has exploded under his watch?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked. Let’s hear the answer.

Hon. D. Eby: You know, I’m pleased to hear that the member was excited about

doubling the amount of student housing from — what? — I guess 65 to 130.

We built 7,700 student beds.

We do have a serious housing issue. We have created an economy

that works for everybody, that’s attracting people from other provinces,

from other countries around the world in record numbers — 100,000 people

last year. We’re setting records in the first two quarters of this year

because people are excited to live in B.C. But we have to build housing

for them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, don’t get excited, please.

Hon. D. Eby: I make absolutely no apologies for changing strata rules to make

sure that people can rent out vacant units. That’s an important thing.

When you have a housing crisis, every single scrap of housing

counts.

But I do take some exception to the member’s suggestion around

speculation in real estate. I mean, their Housing critic flipping

houses. The Leader of the Opposition…. I want to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Your time to ask questions is over.

Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: Like so many British Columbians, when my wife went back to school,

our family sold the condo to help pay for her tuition. We used that

condo when our first child was born, when I was working here, so that we

had a place where she and our new baby could be while I was working as

an MLA. That’s the condo flipping that they’re talking about, just so

we’re clear.

But here’s the condo flipping, here’s the apartment building

flipping that I’m talking about. The Leader of the Opposition, in his

own words: “So we went in there, and we acquired some cool buildings and

did some renovations. I still own some of my inventory from way back

when, and it performed very well over the years. I refinance it all the

time. It’s been great.”

[2:35 p.m.]

We do have different perspectives on our side of this House and

that side of the House. We stand up for renters. We stand up for people

looking for affordable housing. We stand up for people with decent jobs

looking for a place to live.

We will keep doing that work. We’ll hold municipalities to

account. We will hold investors and speculators to account, short-term

rental companies to account. We’ll do that work. The other side needs to

figure out what they would do.

[End of question period.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I seek leave to move a motion to change the membership of the

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food.

Leave granted.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, can we have some quiet, please?

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO

AGRICULTURE, FISH AND FOOD

COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Kahlon: By leave, I move:

[That Coralee Oakes replace Ellis Ross as a Member

of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and

Food.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 16 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 16 — POWERS OF

AGRICULTURE, FISH AND FOOD

COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 16, which outlines the terms of reference for the

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food, of which notice

has been given in my name on the order paper.

[That the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food be

empowered to examine carbon sequestration and related technology in

British Columbia’s agricultural sector and make recommendations with

respect to:

1. Opportunities to increase carbon content in agricultural

soils in British Columbia.

2. Supports for British Columbia’s agricultural technology

sector as they relate to carbon sequestration.

3. Supports and incentives for encouraging the use of

made-in-B.C. agricultural technology innovations to enhance carbon

sequestration.

That, in addition to the powers previously conferred upon Select

Standing Committees of the House, the Select Standing Committee on

Agriculture, Fish and Food be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers

except the power to report directly to the House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is

adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following

Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. conduct consultations by any means the Committee

considers appropriate;

d. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and,

e. retain personnel as required to assist the

Committee.

That the Committee report to the House by February 29, 2024, and

that during a period of adjournment, the Committee deposit its reports

with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may

be, the Chair present all reports to the House.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call committee stage debate on Bill 3, Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 3;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: All right, Members. Let’s call this committee into

session.

M. de Jong: I see the Attorney sitting all by her lonesome self over there,

and a myriad of staff, but I think I indicated that my question on the

first clause would be procedural in nature.

I just wanted to ask this. What has been done here I think makes

sense. The OIC is dated, which this clause 1 refers to, April 12, 2022.

The Statute Revision Act that we are relying upon….

I suppose, just to put on the record, this is a mechanism that was

created to correct, by regulation, typographical errors,

cross-referencing errors that someone, usually leg. counsel, comes

across.

The OIC that made this correction is dated April 12, 2022. The

Statute Revision Act, in

section 12(2), says that: “Unless confirmed by

the Legislature, corrections made by a regulation under this

section

cease to have effect after the last day of the next session of the

Legislative Assembly after the regulation is made.” Would the time for

this legislative correction to have been made have been the fall

session? Has a gap inadvertently been created?

The regulation was done in the spring, April 2022. The House then

adjourned and came back for a sitting in the fall. Is the regulation

still in effect or…? Because the Statute Revision Act is pretty specific

about when the correction must come before the House.

Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question. I’m going to get some information for you

on that.

Can I just ask for a five-minute recess?

The Chair: Okay, the request has been made for a five-minute recess. I

think the expectation was it would be an easier question, but

there’s going to be some staff coming that we will need.

Okay, so we will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 2:43 p.m. to 2:47 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to give thanks to the member for the question. I want to

give him a full answer, and I’m asking to stand the clause down for now.

After, we’ll go on to

section 2.

The Chair: We will be standing down clause 1 and, I believe, now moving

on to clause 2.

Clause 1 stood down.

On clause 2.

Interjection.

The Chair: Sorry, I believe….

If you’d like to, yes. Before we move on, we will recognize

the minister for introducing the staff, and moving from

there.

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the member for allowing me some

opening remarks here. I’d like to give a detailed description of where

we’re at today, which will help formulate the member’s

questions.

To begin, I do want to acknowledge the staff that I have here with

me. We have CJ Ritchie, the associate deputy minister and government

chief information officer; Charmaine Lowe, assistant deputy minister of

corporate information records management office; and Colleen Rice,

executive director, strategic legislation and policy branch.

The goal of this amendment, and why we’re here today, is to

restore coverage of the act to the independent officers, which were

inadvertently omitted by a drafting error during the restructuring of

the bill in February 2021. Clause 2 will address that error that was

introduced into the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act in

2021 due to the inadvertent and unfortunate effect of excluding most of

the records of the independent officers of the Legislature.

Independent officers of the Legislature include the Ombudsperson,

Auditor General, Human Rights Commissioner, Information and Privacy

Commissioner and several other important oversight offices. A draft of

this amendment was provided to the Information and Privacy Commissioner,

who is supportive of the amendment.

[2:50 p.m.]

To begin, I’d like to provide some background and context to the

error that we are here to fix.

Section 3 of the act is an introductory

section which specifies what records the act applies to and, in some

cases, how the act applies to that record.

For background, the act has always applied to the records of the

independent officers of the Legislature, but it did so in a very

specific way. For example, the access-to-information, or FOI, provisions

of the act only applied to the administrative records of the officers,

not their operational records. In other words, the records relating to

an independent officer’s investigations or audits were not covered by

FOI, but the officer’s HR and finance records were covered.

As part of the 2021 amendments,

section 3 of the act was

significantly restructured to provide better clarity on the application

of the act. Paragraphs were reordered, so that the application of the

act to employees was in one paragraph, the covered records in a second

paragraph, and the records excluded in a third paragraph, for

example,

While this restructuring did provide better clarity and brought

all the application-related provisions into one

section of the act, it

also unintentionally disrupted the specific manner in which the act

applied to the independent officers. As part of the reordering of

section 3, introductory words like “subject to” were dropped, which had

the unintentional effect of excluding all the independent officers’

records of coverage by FOI, rather than just their function-related

records.

To correct this error, Bill 3 will reinstate this clarifying

language, clarifying that despite the exclusion of the independent

officers’ functional records from FOI, other provisions, such as

privacy, whistleblowing and offences still apply to these records. The

correction will also ensure that FOI once again applies to the

administrative records of the independent officers — the goal being to

restore coverage of the act to the independent officers to what it had

been before this error was introduced in 2021.

With that, the member and I always love our quality time together

here in the House, and I am happy to take any questions the member has

on restoring the coverage to the independent officers.

B. Banman: As I said to the minister once before, if this is quality time, we

need to have, probably, a better definition of what “quality time”

actually is.

I always do enjoy being given the opportunity to ask the

minister, as the opposition, on behalf of the citizens of British

Columbia….

In part, what the minister has put forward to clean up is actually

why we do ask questions: to look for errors and/or omissions that were

not intended and were overlooked. I do thank the minister for clarifying

that. That’s very helpful.

One of the questions I have and that has been of concern is with

regard to disclosure if it is outside of Canada. I’m going to read it,

section 33.1. Personal information may be shared outside of Canada if

it is in accordance with the regulations set by the minister.

Would the minister care to share what those regulations would be?

What penalties would be involved in case it was disclosed

inappropriately? Could she share that, and what the amounts of those

penalties could amount to?

[2:55 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I thank the member for the question. I want to reference the

member…. The very simple answer to this question is that these

subsections that the member is referring to applied before the act was

amended in 2021 and are not being amended or changed now, so that

coverage still remains. What we are doing is restoring coverage to the

independent officers.

The member and I are going to have ample opportunity coming up in

estimates to spend hours and hours of more quality time together, where

those kinds of questions are appropriate for discussion. This amendment

is discussing the return of coverage for the independent

officers.

I do look forward to a very spirited debate with the member during

estimates on this.

B. Banman: I noticed that in one of these, one of the updates is to ensure

that information released through an FOI does not reveal that a child is

in care or who made the report for the protection of that child. I would

think both sides of the House would agree on that, or did I read that

wrong? I may have read that wrong.

The one question I do have…. Really, it’s housekeeping. I don’t

have a lot really for you, which you’ll be happy to know. The

legislation also adds a new section (4.1), which says that the sections

above apply to public bodies. Would the minister be so kind as to give

an example of a few of the public bodies that would be included in

that?

Hon. L. Beare: Thanks to the member for the question. The Auditor General for

Local Government — that office was shut down, so we have inserted this

clause to make sure that the records are available through FOI that are

being held at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

B. Banman: I understand the look I got from the minister earlier, and I do

apologize. In my haste on the notes, the FOI with regard to children

actually applies to the Attorney General, not to the…. But it is within

FOI.

As I said before, this is simple housekeeping. At this time, I

have nothing further, and I look forward to long, lengthy debates when

we get into estimates. I do appreciate the minister’s time.

Hon. L. Beare: I thank the member for the question. I always look forward to our

great conversations.

I will ask for a five-minute recess while we reset to another

ministry in the next….

Oh, you’ve got to do your passing. Sorry.

Deputy Speaker: I do have to ask if people want to pass this clause.

Clause 2 approved.

Deputy Speaker: We will take a short recess as we reset for the next minister.

Let’s say, hopefully, two minutes — a two-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:04 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We will now resume the committee

meeting.

Hon. L. Beare: We ask to stand down the other clauses and move to clause 11, for

Health.

The Chair: So standing down clauses 3 to 10?

Sorry. I see the member for Abbotsford West.

M. de Jong: Sorry. I think the minister just requested….

If you go back to the second reading remarks that led to this bill

being referred here, as I always do on these bills, I laid out for the

Attorney General specifically the questions we were going to ask. The

Attorney General responded with thanks and said the ministers would be

here to answer those questions.

There are only four of them. It’s a 16-section bill, and somehow

this seems to elude the government to be in a position to answer some

basic questions about a piece of legislation that they have

introduced.

We actually want to do the work. The next

section is section….

We’ve already stood one

section down. We’re now on

section 3. We’d like

to get to work doing the bill.

Is the minister going to be here or not to answer the

questions?

Hon. L. Beare: Absolutely. The minister is going to be here and looking forward

to the spirited debate. If the member would like to continue at the

moment, we can go at clause 11, if we would like to stand down 3 to 10.

Happy to go on clause 11 at the moment.

M. de Jong: The opposition consents to the passage of clauses 11 and

Clauses 3 to 10 inclusive stood down.

Clauses 11 and 12 approved.

Hon. L. Beare: I ask for a five-minute recess.

The Chair: We will be in recess. We are just waiting for the ministers

responsible. This committee is in recess.

The committee recessed from 3:13 p.m. to 3:15 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll draw the committee back into order.

Hon. G. Heyman: I look forward to taking questions on our clauses in the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. My apologies for the crossed

signals about being up here in time.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

R. Merrifield: What kind of offences or penalties currently exist under the

Ecological Reserve Act?

Hon. G. Heyman: Just for clarity, we are on clause 4 now. Yes.

The answer is there are currently no penalties other than what we

could achieve by going to court. There are no administrative monetary

penalties currently, which is why we’re bringing this amendment

forward.

R. Merrifield: So then, understanding that there are no current penalties, what

are some of the kinds of penalties that will likely be forthcoming under

the new

section of “administrative penalties”? I’ll just tag this onto

this question in the interest of expediency: what kind of dollar

amounts, then, will be considered as penalties?

Hon. G. Heyman: The monetary amounts will be established by regulation, and that

will follow some consultation. They will address unique circumstances

that may exist with respect to the particular offences. For instance,

we’ll look at whatever financial benefit might have been obtained by

somebody who violated or trespassed.

We also want to make sure the administrative monetary penalties

serve as an adequate deterrent. We will use, generally, as a model other

scales of administrative monetary penalties that exist under other

pieces of legislation — for instance, the Environmental Management Act —

but ensure that they’re tailored to the kinds of circumstances that

would occur in terms of violations of the act that we’re concerned with

here in parks and ecological reserves.

[3:20 p.m.]

We will, of course, as I said, be consulting about that as they

are in development before finalization.

R. Merrifield: If I’m to understand, currently these vio­lations would be

pursued through the courts or through the legislative bodies. My

question to the minister is: how many court cases would currently be

underway in any given calendar year, and for what amount of claim would

those be currently underway for?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s a difficult question to answer because there were no court

cases in 2022 or, as far as we can recall, in 2021. There have been some

back in time, but the reason that there aren’t a lot is because the test

to go to court is very different.

As the member for Abbotsford West, I’m sure, will know, for Crown

prosecutors to agree to proceed with a charge, there has to be a

reasonable or high likelihood of success, and the court tests to be

successful in a prosecution are high, much higher than they would be for

an administrative monetary penalty. That is why administrative monetary

penalties are widely used for offences under a range of acts. Of course,

we won’t be removing the ability to go to court, but it will be reserved

for truly serious cases and offences.

R. Merrifield: To the minister: how many, then, of these administrative penalties

would you be expecting to be given in a calendar year?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: There are very few violations under the Ecological Reserve Act

because there are fewer of them. There are more under the Park

Act.

I think something like 100 violation tickets were issued last

year. We would expect the penalties to be far, far fewer than that,

because in many cases, the ticket is appropriate as a warning, there

wasn’t significant damage, and people who receive the ticket get the

message. We also expect that the fact that penalties are an option that

people could now be subject to will give, hopefully, some people pause

to think about whether it’s worth taking the risk for some financial

advantage that they could lose, plus.

Generally we would expect…. It’s hard to put a number, but it

would certainly be significantly less than half of the 100 number that

applied to tickets.

R. Merrifield: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Given that this is

meant to be a deterrent, what sort of awareness or education campaigns

will be undertaken or are being planned to make the public aware of

these new penalties that will be able to be rendered?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: In answer to the member, the penalties for which administrative

monetary penalties would apply are already offences, and they’re already

known. As we’re developing the penalty schedule, of course, we’ll be

consulting.

Among those who will be consulted significantly would be permit

holders and stakeholders who regularly use parks and conduct activities

in parks, some of which could result in a potential violation. This is

primarily the target audience, and we will certainly let them know of

the existence of the provision for penalties.

We probably will do some very small public awareness campaign as

part of an announcement, but we’re not planning a major, wide campaign.

We don’t think one is necessary, because this would primarily be

directed at people who hold park use permits or do some form of

permanent activity within the park.

Obviously, one of the things that we’re trying to prevent is

people who conduct economic or industrial activity adjacent to a park

and who may transgress the borders of the park. But on a case-by-case

basis, we would want to make sure they’re aware of what the boundaries

are, what the offences are and the penalty schedule.

R. Merrifield: What would be the amount of expected penalties that would be

coming in? Could the minister tell us what the moneys in the park

enhancement fund, which these penalties will be going into, will be

spent on?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The money that would go into the park enhancement fund would be

used to defray any expenses involved in enforcement. That monitors and,

in some cases, will lead to penalties. It can be used to repair any

damage or remediate any damage that has been done.

We don’t expect that there will be leftover funds after that, but

the changes to the bill do not prevent money collected from being used

for any other purposes that the fund can be used for, which is,

essentially, to enhance park facilities.

R. Merrifield: I’d love for the minister just to briefly talk through a little

bit on the compliance agreements.

What is the process for entering into a compliance agreement? Is

it just offered automatically, as an option, if a person or corporation

has received an administrative penalty? Is it something that has to be

pursued by that person or corporation through legal representation? Or

will these compliance agreements be just offered? Then also, how are

they going to be able to be amended or extended due to extenuating

circumstances?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: We would be unlikely to. In fact, I can’t actually think of a

circumstance where we would seek out a compliance agreement.

But if we

have found an infraction and issued or are considering a penalty and the

offender comes and says, “I have a plan to fix the damage that I caused.

I regret it. Here’s what we will do at our cost,” and that fixes the

problem, we would consider that. That’s why the clause is in the

act.

Clauses 4 and 5 approved.

On clause 6.

R. Merrifield: The minister has already mentioned some of the offences or

penalties that are currently under the Park Act in terms of violation

tickets that are issued — approximately 100 a year.

Perhaps the minister could offer what kinds of penalties these are

right now. Are there any new ones that would be forthcoming under the

new

section of administrative penalties? Just what sort of dollar

amounts are we looking at on these?

Hon. G. Heyman: Currently, under the Park Act, tickets can be issued in a value

that ranges from $58 to $575. That would cover things such as illegal

fires or illegal camping. What the changes will allow is administrative

monetary penalties to be applied to those violations.

Again, the

schedule of that would be set through regulation

following consultation. It will also allow the application of

administrative monetary penalties to failure to comply with the term and

condition of a permit in the park or an order. I’ll use as an example

illegal logging or harvesting of firewood.

Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

Clauses 13 to 16 inclusive approved.

Clause 17 approved.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I’d like to call for a five-minute recess.

The Chair: We’ll be in a five-minute recess — five min­utes

precisely.

The committee recessed from 3:42 p.m. to 3:44 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

On clause 1 (continued) .

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for the question. I have an answer for

him right now.

Interjections.

Hon. N. Sharma: I can’t use my phone…. I don’t have it printed off. This is my

first time in committee. I apologize.

The regulation was made April 12,

Section 12 of the Statute

Revision Act gives until the last day after the next session for

confirmation. This is the next session, so we have until May to

confirm.

Clause 1 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:45 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 3, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L. Popham: I call committee on Bill 6.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING ACT

(N o . 5)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 6; J. Tegart in the

chair.

The committee met at 3:49 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: I will call the committee to order. We are dealing with Bill

Hon. A. Kang: I’d like to first thank members of the opposition for this to be

very interesting conversation on my very first bill as the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

I’d also like to introduce the staff that I have with me here

today: my deputy minister, Okenge Yuma Morisho; the executive director

of the policy, research and legislation branch, Kara Woodward; and, as

well, the manager of the policy, research and legislation branch,

Danielle Lukovich.

[3:50 p.m.]

I’d also like, once again, to thank the member of the opposition

for being here today.

M. Bernier: I’ll thank the minister as well. I thank the minister’s staff.

They probably are going to spend more time walking in and sitting down

in the chamber than they actually will spend in answering questions, but

I think it’s just important. The minister, I know, in her opening

comments on

section 2 highlighted, basically, the need for this piece of

legislation.

As mentioned, I’m filling in for my colleague from Penticton, on

his behalf, just making sure that we cover this off. Again, I just thank

the minister.

Just quickly looking through the bill, obviously there’s nothing

in here that’s contentious. If I understood the minister correctly in

her opening remarks, and I’ll give her a chance to clarify, it sounds

like this piece of legislation had been canvassed with the local

governments in the area. There were no objections, I believe. I’d also

thank the minister’s staff for the quick briefing that we had on

this.

Maybe the minister can just clarify for the House. This is

obviously a request, ask, need of the federal government for this piece

of land, understandably — an extension, as we’ve talked about. But if

she can confirm just the quick process of the need for that and then the

requirements of consulting with local governments and First Nations. Was

that all met before it was brought to the House?

Hon. A. Kang: Yes. It was a requirement of the federal government.

As well, we did consult with local government, the regional

district of Okanagan-Similkameen, and there were no objections. As well,

we did consult with the 21 area First Nations, through notification

letters explaining the proposal as well as by follow-up emails and

follow-up phone calls.

The First Nation that was cited as having primary responsibility

for the territory overlapping with the St. Andrews development

identified the White Lake area around the observatory as a highly

significant cultural area. They expressed support for restrictions on

development on the White Lake area and interest in future engagement on

outcomes.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Bernier: When we talk about the termination of this — again, thanks to the

minister for the briefing from her staff — it was explained that through

this piece of legislation, in this

section here, I guess, and as we’re

going forward with these changes, it won’t have to come back for

legislative extensions at the end of 2034, because we’re doing a

ten-year extension and future extensions will be able to be made through

OIC from future governments after 2034, if that’s correct. Did I

understand that correctly during my briefing?

I see a nod from the minister, so she doesn’t have to get up. I

just wanted to make sure that we got that on the record for

that.

Through that, one question I have is: what if there are

technological changes? How is that thought through? Obviously, this

piece of legislation is around protecting a zone around the federal use

of that land there, and it’s because of the interference that could come

through technology. What if technology changes over the next ten years?

Is there a chance in here for zoning changes through the regional

district? Is it going to be requiring a legislative or OIC change for a

different buffer zone?

Obviously, I’m trying to understand this, if the minister can

appreciate, not understanding the full use of that land and how the

federal government uses it in this observatory. Just trying to cover

that off. What if changes are needed in the next ten years? How does

that process work?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: The regulation for radio frequency interference is within the

jurisdiction of the federal government. So we are taking cues from the

federal government, and we feel that perhaps ten years allows them time

to look and see what they need to make changes to.

We do encourage the federal government to explore new or existing

mechanisms to more effectively manage RFI levels, both regulatory and

non-regulatory. Technology has already changed significantly since a

land use contract was created in the 1970s, with our microwaves and our

cell phones and our TVs.

This is an imperfect tool, but it is the only local government

land use tool that limits development, which means use of technology by

humans, over the long term.

Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Kang: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:58 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING ACT

(N o . 5)

Bill 6, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 5), reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L. Popham: I now call return to debate on the throne speech.

[4:00 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. N. Cullen: By the clock, I’m continuing on from yesterday’s interrupted

conversation with respect to my response to the Speech from the Throne. For

colleagues that weren’t here, it was somewhat of a disjointed affair as I

tried to be respectful of the Chair and the end of the day and the

proceedings that we follow towards the end of the clock.

I had outlined, just very briefly, the perspective of those of us that

come from the northwest, which I represent as the representative for Stikine

in this place. I try to consistently take that lens and apply it to the

goings-on of this august chamber, which can feel very far away, as you would

know as well, Madame Speaker, from some of the smaller, more remote

communities that some of us represent. Yet what does happen in this place

has an inordinate effect on the lives of British Columbians in both big

cities and small.

The throne speech, again, as I started to talk about yesterday, was to

take a snapshot of a moment in time, which they always do — where we are as

a province — as well as, importantly, lay out some steps and priorities that

the government has identified. The moment in time, of course, is — I know

we’re all tired of talking about it, but it’s not tired of us — coming out

of the global COVID pandemic and all of the many effects that that had upon

us as a society and our economy, certainly our health care

system.

I was very encouraged to see moves by our government to enhance,

particularly, rural and remote health care supports, getting more teachers

trained, more doctors trained and facilitating the ease with which those who

are qualified to practise medicine, to be nurses in our province but live

and were born away, their ability to come and practise medicine and health

here. I don’t know what, in my region — I don’t know about yours, Madam

Speaker — we would do without foreign-trained doctors and nurses. That’s

been many years now.

Yet our wait times, coming into British Columbia in particular, are

not amongst the best. It takes very long. In a sense, we are in a

competition with other jurisdictions — other provinces, certainly, but other

countries around the world. When the United States, the U.K., Australia and

others have a third or two-thirds the wait time that we do in order to apply

and then come into our country and practise the professions that they’ve

trained in, we lose out. People move on. They don’t wait.

With respect to…. The other aspect is being in such an inflationary

environment. Global inflation has caused the price of just about everything

to go up. Certainly, when a family goes to the gas station to fill up to be

able to move around, buy food, the cost of living has incrementally and

consistently been on the rise.

The capacity for people to refinance their mortgage, to get a first

mortgage, and the price of borrowing, affects and cascades not just for

those in the housing market but right across industry and businesses. The

cost of raising money has become more expensive for the individual and our

economy.

[4:05 p.m.]

I was looking at inflationary rates in the U.K., which are just a

little north of 10 or 11 percent right now. Ours was hovering just a little

bit above about half that, which is still impactful, but we know this

phenomenon has happened, of course, in poorer countries around the world, to

devastating consequences. We have impacts here. It is always good and

prescient to look around the world to see what that impact has.

The cost-of-living piece I want to speak to in a minute, because in

the throne speech, we talk about some of the measures that have been done

and some of the measures British Columbians can look forward to.

I had a moment. My ICBC renewal came through the other day, just last

week when I was home in Smithers, where I live. I opened it up, and I don’t

know about you, Madam Speaker, but there have been many times in my life

where opening up a thing like a car insurance renewal is done with some

dread to see what my new assessment is, because it’s going to be more, going

to be expensive, and it’s going to be painful.

I, in a sense, didn’t have to look at the figure because I knew what

it was going to be, once I remembered that the rates had been lowered and

then frozen for not just this year but for next year as well. That’s real

money and consequences for people who are trying to make ends meet, that

there’s some, at least in this small way, certainty over what the cost of

living is going to be with respect to ensuring their vehicle or their kid’s

vehicle to stay on the road.

We know — well, we know; I’m not sure all British Columbians know —

that this government brought in the largest tax cut, I believe, in our

province’s history, for the middle class when we eliminated MSP premiums.

Again, reflecting and not paying attention enough, I suppose, when I got a

strange letter from MSP on something else, it had an invocation of some past

traumas, I suppose, where I thought that immediately I needed to phone to

find out what I owe.

It sounded quite daunting, and I phoned and said: “How bad is it?”

This is going back a year now. The very nice woman on the other line…. She

has a terrific job now, I think, because what she says each and every day

is: “Oh no, you don’t owe anything on your MSPs. You’re fine. We were

adjusting for your address, just making sure that your address is

correct.”

What a wonderful job to have — to help confused people like me who are

phoning out of fear, suspecting that there’s some great bill and pain

coming, and being able to say: “No. A decision was made. In order to have

the health care coverage that you need, it has been covered through your

basic taxes.” And we move on from there.

We know the other measures, the affordability measures, when it comes

to removing the tolls, when it comes to child care…. I did a quick bit of

math, and I think this is important, thinking about this direction next for

the government. The average family of four living in the northwest where I

live, with one child in child care, was saving just a little north of

$14,500 a year, this year and every year, because of decisions that were

taken in this place, that were taken by the previous Finance Minister and

this government and cabinet.

That’s $14,500 after-tax money, which, as you know, if it were given

in wages or was in a direct cheque, it would be much, much higher. And

$14,500 for the families I know is an enormous difference in terms of the

options and the choices that are available to families, because you’re not

as close to the wire as you ought to be.

We’ve all heard the statistics. Canadians are…. This surprises us, I

think, about ourselves, but we are a heavily indebted nation. Our current

debt rate, the individual debt rate we carry as Canadians, is far higher

than our American, British or French counterparts, yet we sort of see

ourselves as small-c conservatives when we think about money — that

Canadians are not high risk-takers, not heavily indebted people. But the

fact of the matter is that’s not true, and we know there’s a very large

number of Canadians that are living within a very short amount of money and

time between where they are now and bankruptcy.

We know that one of the most effective things we can do as government

is look at the real-life costs that people are facing, be it child care, be

it premiums they’re paying for medical insurance, for car insurance and a

toll every day as you try to get to work and trying as best as we can to

control what we can control.

I’m reminded of the prayer. I thought it was an Irish prayer. The

Irish — we like to take credit and claim for most anything that we think is

thoughtful. But it is an invocation, to say: “Lord, grant me the strength to

accept the things that I cannot change, the courage to change the things I

can and the wisdom to know the difference.”

I thought it was an Irish prayer and invocation because that’s what my

grandmother used to tell me, and she was very, very Irish — that we need the

courage to change the things we can. It takes a lot of grace to accept the

things that we can’t, and then it’s the distinction of the difference

between those two categories.

[4:10 p.m.]

I think sometimes we look at government, those of us that operate

within the political sphere and those of us in our communities that look to

government for solutions to our challenges in life. It’s important to make

the distinctions.

What is it that we can actually control, and then what decisions do we

make about that? We can’t control all the housing supply, but we can

certainly bring much more supply into the market. We can’t control all the

cost-of-living issues, we can’t control inflation, we can’t control the Bank

of Canada and what interest rate they set, but we can control things that

exist within the power of the provincial government to do, to try to lower

the burden on people. I thought that was a very consistent theme in the

throne speech, which is important because that’s the time we live in right

now.

The second important context that I think the throne speech talks

about — I heard the Premier mention it just earlier today — is the threat or

concern of recession, of the significant slowdown, again caused by many

factors, many of them global in nature, and the economy slowing down and

there being less opportunities.

I don’t know about you, Madam Speaker, in your constituency, but one

of our greatest challenges right now…. This is somewhat of a unique context

in time. I’ve been in politics some time, and this is not typical. It’s been

the labour shortage that has been the pressing concern for many of the

businesses that I talk to on main street — just being able to find staff,

qualified and otherwise; just people, bodies.

A constant and curious question that gets raised is: where did

everybody go? What happened? There are so many fewer people willing to fill

the positions, right across the employment spectrum, from folks pouring

coffee to designing architectural plans and everything in between and

around.

There are recessionary fears right now that affect the way our

government is perceiving what comes next. There are a couple of choices when

one sees a slowdown, perhaps less job opportunity or less revenue coming in

to people or to government. Our choice, which was a very consistent choice,

I would offer, when we were facing the threat of the early days of the

pandemic and throughout….

The choices are to either withdraw — where the government pulls back,

does less, spends less, becomes very insulated and insular — or to affect

what we can affect. We saw — with, I believe, the highest per-capita rates

of support to small businesses in the country, which came from this

government in B.C. — that the effect was positive.

We supported chambers of commerce. We supported town councils and city

councils right across because we wanted them to be able to keep their lights

on when their doors were closed. Small towns were not able to receive the

normal taxation and revenue because they didn’t want to tax their residents

if they were about to lose their jobs.

We knew, from businesses to small communities to our health care

system, that we had to invest. We had to place a bet to say that this was a

wise use of the public resources that we collect, the public money that we

collect. “We are going to protect ourselves as best as we can, allow people

to stay home five days of sick leave.” All of the different measures we took

in COVID.

We now look towards the threat of global recession. The estimates are

changing. I think this might be…. They’re always changing; they’re

economists. They’re always advising the government. They’re always in the

newspaper. If you want three opinions, you ask two economists. The changes

of how bad or, if a recession is coming, how deep it will be, have been

shifting, and they’ve been shifting for the positive, generally speaking.

That’s good.

But it’s also prudent to look around the world and to see, perhaps,

demand dropping off — demand for things that we produce as British

Columbians — and being cautious about that and saying: “All right, what do

we need to do?”

Shoring up our manufacturing base. Making sure that we’re investing in

training dollars. Continuing to invest in health care and child care and

mental health supports and policing. Continuing to try to make our

communities even more vibrant than we found them. I saw the tradition of

that being consistent in the throne speech that I watched.

I would add — this is more on a personal level — that I think that

along with those other inflationary and potential recessionary thoughts,

there’s been the long-standing and jealously guarded tradition of greed.

Some have taken advantage of the notions of inflation and just simply jacked

their prices.

The reason I know that all of those exorbitant prices that we’re

paying in the grocery store and at the fuel pump are not all associated to

more expensive, broken supply chains is because we’re now seeing the profits

recorded, because they’re publicly traded companies, of the major food

companies, of the major oil and gas companies. They are doing very, very

well, historically well.

[4:15 p.m.]

That frustrates me as a British Columbian. When peo­ple say,

“Why are the prices so high at the pump?” some portion of that pie, some

amount of that, is just rent and revenue-taking of extreme levels, and it

frustrates me because this is something we can’t control provincially. This

is a federal concern. We seem to have, as a country, turned a blind eye to

that opportunism. It’s really hurting families. We’re doing what we can, as

a province, but we do need our federal cousins to look at it in a much more

serious way.

There are other aspects of the throne speech that I think are

important for us in the northwest. One was a larger frame, which I was very,

very encouraged to see, which was the notion of a rural strategy from this

government. I think having a strategy that’s very explicit to rural British

Columbians is important, because some of our needs, absolutely, are shared

across big cities, in suburbia and into small towns. But there are also some

things that are somewhat unique in terms of the challenges and opportunities

we have as rural residents.

The cost of travel to medical appointments. I don’t know if you’ve had

this experience. I hope you haven’t, Madam Speaker. Certainly, people in

your life and people in my life have had to travel great distances for the

very, very basic medical appointments that in the city might be a SkyTrain

trip or a quick jump in the car or a taxi. For many of our rural residents,

it could be many, many hours. Many hours, and it’s expensive not just in the

getting there but potentially staying overnight.

We have issues of street disorder that look a little different, I

think, in small towns. I was very glad to see the government announce a

significant amount of money — $100 million, I believe — for policing, with a

focus towards rural British Columbia. We know, and I mentioned this in the

first segment of my throne speech, that small communities do struggle. It’s

a small tax base.

Policing is very expensive. We have estimates that putting an officer

on the street in some of our northern towns runs a municipality somewhere

around $160,000 per offi­cer. That’s incredibly difficult on a

municipal budget. I’ve seen some municipalities where the budget line for

policing is 40, 45 or 48 percent of their total budget — just policing,

nothing extra, not roads and maintenance and other things that the

municipality has to spend on.

I was so grateful to see the announcement, from the new Minister of

Municipal Affairs, of $1 billion with no significant strings attached,

significant strings in terms of accountability and good prudence and

accounting and all of the rest but to allow the communities in this province

to access funds that they would not otherwise.

The notes that I’ve been getting from mayors, particularly in the

North but around B.C., because I know many of them, are notes of surprise,

questions of, “Is the money real? How are we going to see it?” and of

course, all those good questions that mayors ought to ask.

We know that on the issues of street disorder, we see Vancouver making

some significant investments, which we encourage, in terms of hiring more

street nurses, mental health workers and some police. We know, and I heard

this report from one of our cities just the other day, that out of all those

calls of street disorder on our streets, in that city at least, 6 or 7

percent of them actually required the accompanying police

officer.

The others, the vast majority, needed a mental health worker. They

needed somebody in support — an addictions counsellor, somebody to help the

person get off of the state of affairs they were in, where they were causing

such disturbance and violence. Frankly, when we talk about violent

offenders, repeat offenders, we also know we’re talking about a very small

segment of even that population, which is a small population in and of

itself.

I was encouraged to finally hear our federal cousins talk about

changing bail requirements, which started with one intention:

overrepresentation, particularly, of Indigenous people in our prisons, a

good intention. The solution was a bit blunt, I would argue, and had

unintended consequences, which we’ve asked Ottawa to reconsider.

Now, we’re not in question period, so I have the liberty of just

saying that without having somebody yell back that we’re blaming others.

This is not a blame game. This is a fact and a reality that we see in the

evidence. We have given Crown some new directions, just with respect to

their behaviours.

We absolutely need our federal counterparts to do their

part in terms

of bail reform and investments in mental health and all the rest that we’ve

talked about, to make sure that our streets become that safe place that they

need to be for everybody, including people who are homeless, people who are

struggling with addictions. It is no more safe for them than it is for

anyone else.

I want to speak a small moment, because I know I only have a couple of

minutes left, with respect to the need our province has for and the

incredible benefit we have received from immigration over the

years.

[4:20 p.m.]

I am a son of immigrants. I am first-born of my family here. We have

never regretted, particularly in terms of taking in refugees from war-torn

countries…. This is of constant preoccupation as the war perpetrated by

Putin in Ukraine continues with just disastrous consequences, I would argue,

for both sides, particularly for Ukrainians and on the Russian people for

being a part of this horrendous act.

We as British Columbians have seen our communities stand up and

welcome in Ukrainians and continue to see support from our provincial

government to the various Ukrainian communities and agencies that have done

so much. We lifted up the settlement agencies, particularly in the Lower

Mainland and here on Vancouver Island.

I want to say this small point to those that live in small-town

British Columbia. I just spoke to somebody in Haida Gwaii whose community

had accepted Syrians and Ukrainians and who was just reflecting back, as a

Haida, on how much richness this brought and how many incredible stories

that they were hearing and knowing how, over the last couple of years, their

community has been enhanced by this. In one of our most furthest-flung

communities, quite beautiful in just about every other way….

A part of our rural strategy has to be that — to allow the richness

and diversity that is Canada to be a greater part of rural British Columbia,

because we know we are made better. We know the diversity allows us to see

different worldviews. That entrepreneurial spirit that immigrants have

brought to this country over many generations is something that, maybe even

to our homegrown younger generations, is a nice lesson too, because we

struggle sometimes with our homegrown entrepreneurial spirit.

I mostly wanted to say that with immigration levels setting around

500,000 a year by the federal government and B.C. needing approximately one

million new people to fill jobs over the next ten years, a preponderance of

people are coming to this province. Building the housing for them, having

the services in place, making sure their credentials are qualified and that

they can do the work they’re trained to do is something our government is

very focused on.

I very much appreciate your time and attention, Madam Speaker, to my

response and the House’s attention, as well, and the opportunity to take

this and speak on behalf of the people of Stikine, one of the most beautiful

ridings in our province.

Personal Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS

MADE IN THE

HOUSE

J. Routledge: This morning I rose to apologize for a remark I made yesterday in

debate, and I neglected to with­draw the remark.

I withdraw it now.

Debate Continued

Hon. R. Singh: It is such an honour to stand up in the House today and talk about our

throne speech. I’m very proud to be the MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers, but

this is my first time speaking as the Minister of Education and Child Care

as well, so very deeply honoured. Before I start, I just want to thank the

constituents of Surrey–Green Timbers for giving me this honour since

Also 2017, I just want to…. When we formed the government in 2017, we

put people — not just the people of Surrey–Green Timbers or Surrey but the

people of British Columbia — at the forefront. Every decision, every

investment that we have made is thinking about the people and the

communities that have been needing the resources.

I remember, in 2017, one of the first decisions that came out from

this government was taking off the tolls from the Port Mann Bridge. That is

very, very strongly connected with my community of Surrey, because this is

what we were hearing from people — that this was an undue tax that they had

to pay just because they were living on the other side of the

river.

Along with that, we took off the MSP premiums, which has helped, I

know. I’ve heard a number of stories, like how many communities, how many

people, how many families…. That one act of taking off that tax, taking off

that burden has helped people.

[4:25 p.m.]

This is why it makes me extremely proud to be standing here and

talking about what our vision is for the coming years. What we have been

doing for the last almost six years is extremely important, making life

better for people.

That has been what every member on this side of the House has been

thinking about, how to work towards that. We also know that we have gone

through a number of challenges in the last few years. I really want to thank

everybody not just in this House but all across British Columbia who came

together for us to get through that time. It was a very difficult,

challenging time. Really, I want to raise hands for everybody who came

together during those challenging and difficult times.

Just for the vision ahead, I want to say we started the groundwork in

2017. That’s the work we really want to continue during good times that

people are enjoying, especially when the economy is great, when things are

fine during those times, but also during the challenging times as

well.

We know that what people are facing, the one thing that is on the top

of their minds, is global inflation and affordability. Whenever I go around

and go grocery shopping…. I remember I was grocery shopping in just my local

store in my riding, Fruiticana, which is one of the best stores to get

Indian groceries. I was just buying some vegetables, and I looked at the

price of cauliflower. At that time — this was about three weeks ago — it was

$7 for that small piece.

I just mentioned to the cashier…. I said: “Oh my god, this is so

expensive, right?” There was a person just ahead of me who recognized me as

the MLA. He looked back, and he said: “MLA, time for you to do something.”

He was smiling. He was not accusing us of anything, but smiling. But then it

made me realize how close to people’s hearts these issues are, the

affordability. I just did not have the opportunity to talk to him, because

he left. He picked up his bags and left.

These things matter to people. Little stuff. I know what people are

struggling with. It does not matter what kind of job you’re doing. But it is

hitting us. It is pinching us whenever we are going for grocery shopping.

That’s what our government is really cognizant of. We have put in measures.

We have put in resources for people, especially people who are at the lower

end, who are struggling.

Especially, I really want to talk about our B.C. Affordability Credit

that the new Premier announced when he was sworn in. It landed in bank

accounts at the start of the new year. I think the stats are telling us that

85 percent of British Columbians will benefit from that affordability

credit. I think this means a lot.

Hearing from people, understanding what they are going through and

putting in resources and making an effort to make life a little easier for

them. I think, as a government, we understand, and that’s what we have been

doing for the last six years. But this is what we will continue to do. With

this affordability credit, a family of four will get about $410.

[4:30 p.m.]

Before this affordability credit went out, we had made a lot of

changes. I’ve already talked about taking off the tolls and taking off MSP

premiums, but one of the biggest changes that we have brought in is the

reduction in basic car insurance. That has been…. We have already reduced

the costs, but basic insurance rates have been frozen for another two years.

We have also reduced ICBC rates by an average of $490 a year.

We also received a $100 credit, a reduction of $100, in our hydro

bills, and this went to everybody. Everybody who had a hydro account saw

these changes.

These are a few things, and I really wanted to mention these because

these are the things which are very, very close to people’s hearts. We know

people are hurting, and in every possible way, we are trying to support

them, especially people with families.

I really want to…. I did not get the opportunity to talk to the person

that said to me that it is upon us as a government to do something, the

person I met at the grocery store. But I just want to tell him, and many

others who are listening today, that your government has your back. We are

listening to you, and we are, during these tough times, especially during

this global inflation, standing with you and will be supporting you in every

possible way.

Another very, very important thing I want to talk about is child care

costs. This is very close to my heart because it is part of my portfolio. I

really want to…. I know that my partner in this portfolio, the Minister of

State for Child Care, has already talked about it and is a great advocate on

this issue. But I just want to talk about how much difference, in the last

five years, we have been able to make by creating those child care spaces

and also reducing the child care fees.

In November of this year, we announced our plan for affordable child

care, with which an average family is saving up to $900 per child, per

month. This is one of the biggest things, biggest differences that we have

been able to make in people’s lives.

The reason I said it is very close to my heart…. I came to Canada in

2001 as an immigrant to this country, with a two-year-old son, at that time,

obviously, with a dream of building a new family, a new home for myself and

my young son. At that time, for both my husband…. Obviously, we both needed

to work, but we just could not think of doing it at the same time, because

we did not have access to affordable child care.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

We did not, and as an immigrant I did not have the resources. I could

not afford it. So what we were doing as a family at that time, because we

had to pay our bills, had to pay our rent…. I was working during the day,

and my husband would work during the night, just because we could take care

of our son.

When I see any announcement, although my children are not of the child

care age anymore — Mr. Speaker, yours are — I just feel so happy. What we

had to go through, the struggles that we had to go through, the families,

especially the new families, the new immigrants that are coming and making

Canada, making British Columbia, their home…. They won’t have to go through

this.

We are looking at this from an intersectional lens. It is not just

because you are making more money and you have more access to it that you

will get child care.

[4:35 p.m.]

We want to make child care the core program of our government

services, and that’s the direction that we are going in. I’m so proud of the

work that the previous Minister of Child Care has done in bringing us to

where we are today and the continuous work that I, along with the Minister

of State for Child Care, will keep on doing to make child care affordable

and accessible for everybody, for anybody who has children. If they want to

access the service, they should be getting it.

One thing that is very close to child care is education. As the

Minister of Education and, also, as a parent whose kids have gone through

the public education system, I think really good investment in our education

is key when we are talking about having kids who can do well in

society.

I’m so proud of our government for the historic investment that they

have made in education in all the communities, especially with the influx of

new people who are coming to British Columbia. One of the key attractions

for those people making British Columbia their home is the education system

that we are providing to those children.

I’m so very proud to say that B.C.’s education system is one of the

best five that we have all across the world. I could see it before. My son

went through the public education system. My daughter is still in the public

education system. I could see it.

When I was told that it is one of the top five, it made me so proud.

It’s not just the work that I am doing, the work that I am going to lead. It

is just how important it is for parents like myself, my colleagues here but

also for so many families who are coming here and making British Columbia

their home. We are committed to giving those families, giving those children

a quality education wherever they are living in this province. Whether it is

in the Lower Mainland or up in the North, in the rural communities, this is

our commitment to them.

Another thing that was in our throne speech that I want to touch

upon…. It is not my current portfolio. It was my previous portfolio. I used

to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Anti-Racism Initiatives.

Last year was an historic year for us. We, for the first time ever in

British Columbia, launched our anti-racism data legislation. Racism is a

difficult topic. It’s a challenging topic to talk about, but this is a topic

we really need to take action on.

I’m really proud of what our government has done, having made it a

priority. We know that we are dealing with a number of challenges. I’ve

already talked about the affordability. We are also, especially when the

challenges are up, when communities are struggling….

We saw it during the challenging times we just went through. When

things are going badly, it is like we are always looking to blame somebody

for that. We have seen that in the rise of anti-Asian hate

crimes.

It is also time for us to reflect on our systemic structures, which

are colonial and due to the colonization. A lot of things…. How those

structures are built is creating gaps. They are creating barriers for

Indigenous, Black and peo­ple of colour.

I have always said this, and I will say it again. As government, we

have a moral and an ethical responsibility to tackle racism. I’m so glad

that we are making it a priority. We are making it imperative that,

especially, our government systems have…. When people are accessing our core

services — like health care, like education, like housing — they are not

facing those barriers.

[4:40 p.m.]

It is not an easy task. It will take some time. It is not just

because…. We brought in the anti-racism data legislation last year. We will

be bringing our anti-racism act. It would be the first time in British

Columbia that we will be introducing that, and I have the Attorney General

sitting here. She’s the one that will be leading that file — so very proud

of that.

This is how we want to make our communities inclusive and welcoming,

especially all those people who are coming here with hope, with dreams in

their eyes, and they want this British Columbia to work for them, for their

families. I just want to tell them that, as your government, we are

committed to doing that.

Another thing I would really like to touch upon is housing. I know we

have heard not just in the question period…. We have seen it in the news,

and I personally have heard from a number of my constituents, especially new

immigrants who are moving to this country — the housing crisis that they are

facing.

I would say that I have been…. Although as an immigrant, life was

quite difficult for us to start here. But I’m still very…. I consider myself

extremely privileged to be in the housing market, which is not a reality for

so many of these people.

I have a really good friend who’s doing a very good job and, according

to my standards, making pretty decent money. But Eddy is living in a small

basement, and he’s been living in that basement for the last eight years.

Every time I go and talk to him, whenever we have the opportunity, he always

talks about: “I don’t know how I will even be able to get into the housing

market.” He has children who are growing up, and they need more

space.

For so long, the housing market has worked very well for the

speculators, and it has worked very well for the investors, who have used

the housing crisis to make excessive profits. But it has not worked for the

common man who wants to get into that housing market.

As a government, we have taken important action to deliver the homes

that people need. I really am extremely proud of the work that we have done

in the last few years, especially cracking down on the speculation with the

speculation and vacancy tax, with which we have been able to turn 20,000

empty condos into rental homes. This is something…. I think this is work

that needs to continue, and this is our commitment to British Columbians —

that we will keep on working. We are hearing them.

We are starting to see the results of these efforts, like the 10

percent increase in construction of rental housing this year. This is so

very important. We have also, as government, removed unfair strata

restrictions, so empty condos become rental units for people.

We are also investing $500 million in a new rental protection fund. I

think this is extremely important, especially in the wake of a number of

people we are getting, who are going to come to British Columbia. We know

that more than 100,000 people came to British Columbia last year, and we

know that number is going to exceed in this year.

With that, I also want to talk about the labour shortage that we are

facing. We definitely need more people to come here, and we are very

thankful for all the people who are making British Columbia home.

[4:45 p.m.]

But for a long time, a lot of people who were coming here with the

skills to be able to do the jobs that they had been doing in their home

countries or home provinces before, have been facing barriers. I can say

this.

When I came here, almost 22 years ago, I was hearing from the

immigrant communities at that time that this was a barrier that they are

facing that somehow we, as Canada, really want people to come here and make

their home, but they are not able to get the respect and the dignity,

especially in the workforce. I would say it was more common and more

prevalent in the people coming from South Asian countries and Middle Eastern

countries. This was like a barrier that they faced.

You would think that in the last 20 years, these barriers would be

loosened or these barriers would be reduced, but it has not been the case.

In the wake of the labour shortage that we have, a lot of that has to do

with because we have not been able to get these people who have amazing

skills and amazing qualifications to work in the fields that they deserve to

be working in.

We have heard a number of stories, especially in British Columbia,

that people say that the best way you can find a doctor or physician would

be if you are in a cab, because a lot of times those extremely talented,

professional people have to do these jobs. It’s a sad reality. I would,

again, talk about the intersectional lens in here. It is much more