Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, November 3, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 124

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

4-H Club

M. Dykeman

Kyle Beach and action against sexual abuse and stigma

R. Merrifield

Blood donation campaign by Sikh Nation

H. Sandhu

Seniors housing project in Clinton

J. Tegart

Royal Canadian Legions

R. Leonard

Átl’ k a7tsem/Howe Sound biosphere region

J. Sturdy

Oral Questions

Service model change for children with support needs and

funding for autism services

S. Bond

Hon. M. Dean

K. Kirkpatrick

J. Tegart

C. Oakes

Police actions and oversight and role of Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Farnworth

Service model change for children with support needs and

funding for autism services

S. Cadieux

Hon. M. Dean

T. Wat

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 26 — Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021 (continued)

D. Ashton

Hon. J. Osborne

P. Milobar

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 27 — Election Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 27 — Election Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. L. Beare

A. Olsen

B. Banman

E. Ross

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2021

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: N. Letnick.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: Today it’s my honour to welcome back to the Legislature one of our

own, Bob Skelly, a former Leader of the Official Opposition and a leader of

the B.C. New Democratic Party.

Bob was first elected in 1972 as the MLA for Alberni and served

continuously here in this place until 1988. The B.C. NDP elected Bob as

party leader in 1984. He led the party into the 1986 provincial general

election. After leaving provincial politics, he was elected to the

Parliament of Canada in 1988 for the riding of Comox-Alberni and served

until the general election of 1993, when he was defeated in a bid for

re-election.

He is joined here in the gallery today by his wife, Alex Skelly; his

son, Rob Skelly; his daughter, Susan Ramsay; and her husband, Michael

Ramsay. Their children, therefore Bob’s grandchildren, Sarah-Grace Ramsay

and Heather Ramsay are also here. His eldest granddaughter, Re­becca

Ramsay, is not able to be here today.

This quotation from Thomas Paine — “The world is my country, all

mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion” — has guided Bob, he

tells me, throughout his life.

Please join me in welcoming Bob Skelly and

his family here to the Legislature and thank him for his public service to

the people of British Columbia and of Canada.

Hon. H. Bains: It’s not too often I stand in this House and introduce my family.

After the elections, they tell me: “You’re elected. Go do your work, and

we’re off to our own.”

Today is my lucky day. My oldest granddaughter, Rhianna, is here with

her cousin Rayna. They are part of the program called Take Our Kids to Work.

They think papa still is the hardest-working member of the family, so they

have decided to follow me.

Let me tell you a bit about these two young women. In 2018, Rhianna

and Rayna, along with eight cousins of theirs, started what is called

Cousins Who Care, an initiative where they sought out help for families in

need. Surrey Women’s Centre, which has increased the safety and support for

women and girls who are survivors of violence, as we all know, is reaching

out to family, friends and community for donations.

They have been able to provide Christmas gifts for moms and their

children since 2018, to approximately 40 families per year, purchase and

donate backpacks, lunch kits and school supplies for children in need in

their own communities. I couldn’t be a prouder papa of the type of work

they’re doing.

I’m trying to convince her — both of them, actually — to occupy one of

these seats after their school is finished and their entire education is

finished. I haven’t been successful so far, but after question period, after

they see what we do here, they may change their minds. I’m

hopeful.

Please help me give them a warm welcome and make their trip very, very

enjoyable.

My son is here with them, Kul. He’s here. He brought them here. This

is the guy who was a key member of my campaign team. How could I forget?

Please welcome him as well.

D. Davies: This is why I only bring one guest at a time, so I don’t forget to

introduce them.

[1:40 p.m.]

Also following the Minister of Labour’s points, I don’t often get the

opportunity to welcome family into this place, but today joining me is my

daughter, Hana, all the way down from Fort St. John, selling jewelry to

anybody who is interested. She has her own little jewelry business. Please

reach out. Sunshine Jewelry. That’s her name.

Anyway, would the House please

make Hana feel welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to make an introduction. I don’t

get to do that often. But I’d like to introduce His Worship, Mayor Bob

Simpson of Quesnel, who is joining us here in the gallery. Not only is Bob a

former colleague of many of us in the chamber here today. He’s a friend, and

I really appreciate his insight into forestry.

I want to give him some kudos, because he and his council have done

amazing work at collaborating with Indigenous nations and forestry companies

up in Quesnel. They continue to do really good work in that area. I’m really

glad that he’s here today to talk about forestry with us.

Hon. L. Popham: Well, it is a big day for agriculture today: 4-H is in the House.

We’ve got guests from 4-H. We are also turning our fountain green to

acknowledge the over 1,800 members of 4-H in B.C., the 517 leaders and the

130 clubs around the province.

I have three guests from 4-H joining me here today: Laurie Maloney,

who has been a 4-H B.C. club leader for 28 years; Annalise Steadman, who is

starting her 10th year in 4-H; and then I’d like to give a special

introduction to Sava Bell, who has been a 4-H member for two years and

placed first in the 4-H senior caterer for the 2021 Field to Fork Challenge

for his recipe entry of oven-glazed duck, kohlrabi fries and garden salad.

Welcome to the chamber.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think it’s clearly family day here today. The number of members of

my family who I’ve introduced over the years, I can probably count on three

fingers.

But today is a real special day for two reasons. It’s my first

opportunity to introduce my brother Peter’s daughter, my niece Cameron. It’s

special, too, for another reason, because a short while ago Cameron’s

boyfriend took her to meet his parents.

They’re sitting at the dinner table, and he’s introduced my niece to

them. His father says: “Cameron Farnworth? Are you related, by any chance,

to the Solicitor General?” She goes: “Yes, he’s my uncle.” He’s like: “No

way,” because it turns out her boyfriend’s father was none other than the

MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission.

Would the House please give my niece Cameron a very warm

welcome.

I. Paton: Not to be outdone by the Minister of Agriculture, I’m wearing my green

4-H tie today. Welcome to the 4-H members that are here today. November 3 is

honouring the colour green for 4-H in Canada. And 4-H has a mission

statement to “empower youth to be responsible, caring and contributing

leaders that effect positive change in the world around them.”

As a former 4-H member of the Richmond-Delta Holstein Club and a

leader of the Holstein Club at one time, I’m proud to be a former 4-H

member. Thank you to the minister for bringing it up, and thank you to the

young people that are here today representing 4-H.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have two sets of introductions. First, we have the Cowichan Valley

NDP executive members, who are actually visiting the Legislature today, who

are in the chambers today. Jacob Teufel, Joyce Scott, Cailin Tyrrell, Nancy

Ross and Caiden Tousaw. They look forward to hearing question period. I want

the House to please make them welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

Also in the chambers today, we have some members of the Sikh Nation

blood campaign that are here today. We have Jastej Kaur, Sukhdeep Singh,

Hardeep Kaur, Gurpreet Singh and Bunvir Kaur. All of them were here to

recognize the proclamation of the Sikh Nation blood donation campaign, to be

proclaimed as the month of November.

I just want to say that I think, with all my colleagues, Jastej’s

comments today, her speech today was one of the more powerful speeches I’ve

heard in the chambers, in the Legislature.

So please make them welcome and thank them for their tireless work to

save lives through their blood donation campaign.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Today on the legislative precinct we are joined by my friend and

Member of Parliament representing Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke, Randall Garrison,

a longtime representative of his community and someone representing social

justice and protection of the marine environment. I’m honoured to be his

friend and glad that he is with us today.

Will the House please make him

welcome.

Hon. R. Fleming: I would like to introduce two guests who hopefully are still within

the chamber at this late moment, two very special guests from Emergency

Management B.C. who are here to watch question period today, I think, for

their first time.

One of them is Jordan Turner, communications director with EMBC, who

was integral to the operations of the provincial emergency coordination

centre during the response to COVID and, of course, the wildfire season that

we’ve just survived.

The other is Aimee Harper, who is a senior public affairs officer, who

is relatively new to EMBC but immediately was thrown into the mix to manage

the wildfire season and provide information to citizens during that very

challenging season.

I’m very proud that both Jordan and Aimee reside in the constituency

of Victoria–Swan Lake. I’d like to ask all members of the House to join me,

please, in welcoming them here today and thanking them for their excellent

work, whether it’s managing pandemics, fighting wildfires, floods, you name

it — whatever seems to be coming at increasing regularity to the good staff

at EMBC and these two individuals in particular.

Hon. K. Chen: I just lost a bet to my colleague beside me from Transportation and

Infrastructure. I thought, with the Burnabian family privilege, I would get

an introduction a bit earlier.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Chen: He’s impartial, of course. The Speaker is always impartial.

Today I am really happy to welcome some guests from Simon Fraser

University. As a proud alumni myself and also the local MLA for their main

campus in Burnaby, on Burnaby Mountain, I am happy to welcome the VP for

external relations, Joanne Curry, also Justin Carmichael from government

relations. Joanne and Justin have been a huge help in terms of helping our

local stakeholders and local elected officials and communities to build a

lot of connections with the SFU community and also the university community

on Burnaby Mountain.

I’m also really happy to welcome two student leaders, activists, who

I’ve had the honour to work with during the past year and a half: the

president for the Simon Fraser Student Society, Gabe Liosis, and also the VP

for external and community affairs, Matthew Provost — to welcome in the

gallery today. I am constantly impressed with their ability to engage with

students, community and their activism, passion, advocacy on so many

important issues on education, social justice, environment.

I’m just so glad

to see them here today and, please, ask the House to welcome them into this

building.

R. Merrifield: It was great. You got to stand up so many times this morning that it

actually felt like exercise, so it’s phenomenal. Thank you so

much.

I am so pleased. In fact, I was vibrating with excitement yesterday,

as two of my kids got to participate yesterday and then three of them last

night. As well, my spouse Carlos and two of the kids got to come today.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Carlos, my spouse, and my two kids, Damek and

Connor.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Energy and Mines, again. [Laughter.]

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to welcome Randall Garrison

to the Legislature. He’s the Member of Parliament for

Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke. First elected in 2011, he was re-elected in 2015,

2019 and once again recently, just this year. He was Bob Skelly’s chief of

staff in 1984, and he’s here to join in the recognition of Bob

today.

I also want to introduce, while I’m up so I don’t have to stand up

again, two more people who are friends of Bob Skelly. Hugh Legg worked

closely with Bob in the Legislature and is a close friend. Gerry Scott was

the provincial secretary and executive director and campaign manager in the

1986 provincial election campaign.

Would you please welcome those three guests to the Legislature here

today.

S. Furstenau: I have some royalty to introduce today. The Lady of the Lake program

in Lake Cowichan is a community ambassador and community service program. To

win and become one of the princesses, the young women have to give speeches,

get sponsors, answer questions and write essays.

Today we have the second princess, and her name is Macey Anderson. She

has lived in Lake Cowichan her whole life. She’s a grade 12 student, loves

writing and is looking at journalism as a career path.

The first princess is

Megan Rowbottom. Her dad grew up in Lake Cowichan and her mom up-Island. She

always dreamed of being a Lady of the Lake. Her grandmother was a longtime

president of the legion. She looks to her future in fine arts and visual

arts and illustration.

Mariah Segee is the Lady of the Lake this year. She has lived in Lake

Cowichan her whole life. She’s very athletic — figure skating and hockey —

and looks forward to studying science and then becoming a brain

surgeon.

Accompanying the three princesses is former Lady of the Lake Crystal

Bell. She was the Lady of the Lake in 2015 and 2016, also grew up in Lake

Cowichan and is now studying at VIU in Nanaimo in the interior design

program.

It’s been a real pleasure. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for hosting them at

lunch today.

Would the House please make the Lake Cowichan royalty feel very

welcome today.

Hon. M. Mark: Eleven years ago today I was on my way to the Victoria General

Hospital to receive the most exciting news — that I was going to meet

Makayla, my daughter. If you haven’t met her, I don’t know how you could

have missed her. She occupies the room. All of the members that have

children can appreciate how challenging it is to say goodbye and how amazing

it is to get home, and that reunion.

Please, will the House join me in wishing my daughter Makayla a happy

birthday.

Mr. Speaker: Any further introductions? [Laughter.]

We enjoyed it.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

4-H CLUB

M. Dykeman: As the minister mentioned, the B.C. Legislature fountain will be

lit up green today in cele­bration of Show Your 4-H Colours Day.

It truly is an honour to rise today to speak about this important

program. As a 4-H leader for over ten years and a 4-H parent of two

children who started as Cloverbuds when they were just six, it truly is

a privilege to stand in the Legislature today to speak about this very

important and wonderful association.

Show Your 4-H Colours Day is an annual celebration of 4-H which

takes place across Canada. Every November, 4-H members, leaders, alumni

and supporters don their 4-H green to spread awareness of this fantastic

youth program, as well as the important contribution 4-H’ers make to

Canada and the globe.

But 4-H is not just about agriculture. With proud and deep

agricultural roots, 4-H projects range from gardening, dogs and crafts

to cattle, swine and poultry. Having started in Canada over 100 years

ago, 4-H remains one of the most highly respected youth organizations in

Canada, with over 23,000 youth members ages six to 25, 8,700 volunteers

in 1,800 clubs across Canada, with B.C. alone having over 2,000 members,

more than 550 leaders and 139 clubs.

[1:55 p.m.]

Each day members learn valuable skills like communication,

planning, public speaking, recordkeeping and responsibility, just to

name a few.

As youth around the world pledge their head to clearer thinking,

their heart to greater loyalty, their hands to larger service and their

health to better living for their club, their community, their country

and their world — a pledge which represents pride in their heritage and

the importance of their legacy — I can say that the 4-H youth are sure a

service to the world and contribute positively in all that they

undertake.

I encourage all to check out 4-H in their community and to learn

about how much fun you can have while acquiring new and important

skills, while bettering your community through service.

KYLE BEACH AND ACTION AGAINST

SEXUAL ABUSE AND

STIGMA

R. Merrifield: Last month I, along with many other hockey fans across North

America, was both shocked and moved when Kyle Beach revealed that he was

the John Doe named in the report investigating the Chicago Blackhawks

sexual assault scandal.

Having grown up in Kelowna, Kyle was drafted to the NHL in 2008,

but his future changed in 2010 when he was sexually assaulted by a

coach. Not only was Kyle assaulted and threatened physically, but the

coach also threatened his career to keep him silent. In an interview

with TSN, Kyle remarked on the days following the abuse saying: “To be

honest, I was scared mostly. I was fearful. I had my career threatened.

I felt alone and dark.”

Kyle reported the incident, but nothing happened. All the while,

his abuser remained free, given the option to resign without having to

face real accountability. But when Kyle stood up, when he told his

story, he created space for all those who have ever been in a similar

situation to also tell theirs. Kyle demonstrated his immense courage,

opening himself up to public scrutiny about such a traumatic experience,

all with the goal of bringing true accountability after so many

years.

His story is powerful, and simply by sharing it, he has helped to

break down the stigma and shame for others who have been subjected to

abuse. His bravery has caught the attention of those in Kelowna, this

province, this country and the world. I want him to know that we stand

with him.

We are proud of you, Kyle, for speaking out about this

injustice.

I hope today that Kyle’s story will inspire us all to stand up

against harassment, assault and abuse in all of its forms. Silence makes

us complicit, but standing together becomes our collected

strength.

BLOOD DONATION CAMPAIGN

BY SIKH

NATION

H. Sandhu: I would first like to open up with the traditional Sikh greeting:

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh .

I rise in the House today to announce the declaration of November

as blood donation by Sikh Nation month. The blood donation by Sikh

Nation blood drive campaign was started by a group of B.C. Sikhs in

remembrance of the 1984 Sikh genocide that took place in India. This

blood drive has gone on to become the largest blood drive campaign in

Canada and the largest member of Canadian Blood Services Partners for

Life program, having saved over 160,000 lives in the process.

This incredible force for good was born from absolute horror. The

first week of November marks the moment in history that haunts the Sikh

community across the world. I am very proud of the efforts, which

started in 1999, by members of B.C.’s Sikh community to respond to such

injustice. They channelled the pain of this utter calamity into positive

force for good and — true to the Sikh value of sarbat da bhala ,

our wellness for the world — and have grown this campaign from clinics

in the Lower Mainland to the rest of Canada and many more countries

across the world.

What began as community-based blood drives in Surrey, B.C., has

blossomed into an annual campaign that draws thousands of donors to

dozens of events across Canada.

As the largest contributor of Canadian Blood Services’

pledge-based Partners for Life program, Sikh Nation has helped to save

more than 160,000 lives to date through it’s annual donation and

support. Last year the group’s efforts, spanning more than two decades,

were recognized by the national Honouring Canada’s Lifeline partnership

award.

[2:00 p.m.]

By introducing new donors and volunteers to Cana­da’s

lifelines, Sikh Nation is helping to build a more inclusive blood system

to meet the needs of patients now and in the future.

Please join me to extend our gratitude to volunteers of the Sikh

Nation blood drive.

SENIORS HOUSING PROJECT IN CLINTON

J. Tegart: As I speak today, seniors in the village of Clinton — I know the

minister across the way will be thrilled — are moving into their

brand-new apartments in a just-completed supportive housing project.

Starting with Rich Coleman, there are a number of people in this chamber

who could rightly stand up and take a bow on both sides of the House and

say they contributed to this exciting day. And I can tell you the people

of Clinton are extremely grateful.

But we all know that projects like this start with a small group

of determined people. They are led by a warrior, and that warrior is

Judy Hampton. From identifying the need, to securing the location, to

planning and design, to working with the contractors, this small but

mighty group worked tirelessly over many years to get to today. No

hurdle was too big, no problem that could not be solved, no detail too

small.

Judy Hampton visited my office every Friday to give us an update

on how things were going. You see, it wasn’t just about the building. It

was about the people. It was about seniors having the ability to age in

place, having the option to sell their home and stay in their own

community, having the comfort and support that comes with close

neighbours. Word on the street is that housing sales have soared in

Clinton, a wonderful side benefit as family homes become

available.

Sometimes, when you sit in this chamber day after day, you wonder

if you ever make a difference. Well, I can tell you that today we have

all made a difference, and I say thank you to everyone who made this

project possible.

We miss seeing Judy every Friday, but she and her team have done

an incredible job.

First stop for me next week is Clinton for a cup of tea with the

seniors at this project.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGIONS

R. Leonard: The poppy campaign has been the responsibility of the Royal

Canadian Legion for 100 years. It’s a long time since those early days

in the aftermath of World War I, the war to end all wars. But the

fallout of conflict continues to this day, and the multi-pronged mission

of the legion continues to be relevant.

There are legions in 1,400 communities across Canada. Branch 17 in

Courtenay, branch 160 in Comox, and Cumberland’s branch 28 continue to

be gathering places. Their trained command service officers, like Bill

Webb in Courtenay, provide assistance to veterans young and old alike,

from programs like Operation Leave the Streets Behind, helping vets find

homes, to filling out forms and helping with appeals.

The legions fundraise for community organizations, and of course,

they conduct Remembrance Day ceremonies, finding ways to remember even

through the constraints of COVID. During Legion Week last month, I had

the privilege to meet Courtenay legion president Gary Flath and Comox

legion president Lynn Edey and past president Gerry Maillet. Their

efforts are legion to serve their community and invite everyone to

join.

The poppy fund itself has resulted in generous contributions to

the Comox Valley hospital foundation, provided service dogs, furniture

for Glacier View Lodge, bursaries. Our legions also distribute gaming

funds to local charities and sports teams.

The times they are a-changing. Anyone can become a member,

military or not. The public is welcome to Comox legion’s newly refreshed

lounge, with a professional chef in their new commercial

kitchen.

Our legions are a place to come home to, to have fun while helping

others, a place to get help and, especially on Remembrance Day, a place

to reflect on the sacrifice of others and the striving for everlasting

peace.

ÁTL’ k A7TSEM/HOWE SOUND

BIOSPHERE

REGION

J. Sturdy: Today I would like to acknowledge the work of all those who have

contributed to the Átl’ k a7tsem/Howe Sound biosphere region

initiative over the past five years — most notably, Ruth Simons, who has

coordinated the project from its genesis.

[2:05 p.m.]

Earlier this fall those efforts were rewarded as the United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization announced that

Howe Sound will become British Columbia’s third biosphere region. This

means that UNESCO has deemed the region a zone of global ecological

significance. Howe Sound will join more than 700 UNESCO biosphere

regions around the world that all make an ongoing commitment to strive

for sustainability.

Howe Sound, or Átl’ k a7tsem in the Skwxwú7mesh language,

covers an area of 2,187 square kilometres from Cypress Provincial Park

along the Howe Sound crest, touching on Pinecone Burke Mountain, the

western edge of Garibaldi Park over to the height of the land of the

Tantalus Provincial Park, down the west side of Howe Sound to

Tetrahedron Provincial Park and on to Gibsons, and encompasses all of

Howe Sound.

The area is renowned for its rich Indigenous culture, biodiversity

and very distinctive fjord geography. Jurisdictions around the globe are

faced with profound impacts of habitat loss and climate change. It’s

hoped that Átl’ k a7tsem biosphere region will be a showcase for

how regional coordination can manage for sustainable, ecological and

human values.

The new designation does not impose any new rules on the region or

its residents, but it incentivizes to collaborate and ensure

conservation, sustainable development, reconciliation, climate action

and associated research, monitoring, education and information

exchanges. It will encourage stakeholders to work together to support

the quality of life through implementation of the United Nations

sustainable development goals, which are designed to inspire a positive

future for both people and nature.

I’m sure the House will join me in congratulating the Howe Sound

biosphere region initiative team on achieving this important milestone

and support them now that the real work is about to begin.

Oral Questions

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND FUNDING FOR AUTISM SERVICES

S. Bond: Yesterday the Minister of Children and Family Development said she

wouldn’t be listening to the opposition, and that’s her prerogative. But

what she does have a responsibility to do is to hear the concerns of

thousands of anxious and upset parents from across British

Columbia.

Parents like Jennifer. Families like Jennifer’s. Jennifer is from

Surrey. She says:

“My 14-year-old sister Jenibelle is diagnosed with autism spectrum

disorder. I have spent years finding the right people to support my

sister, and to know that all this is being taken away is insulting. No

loving big sister can let her little sister say goodbye to all the

wonderful people on her service team, knowing that the amount of

regression that our family will see in Jenibelle will be heartbreaking

and downright unethical.”

That is Jennifer’s story. That is Jenibelle’s story. It’s not the

words of the opposition. Those are not my words.

Will the minister stand up today, speak to Jennifer, to Jenibelle

and their family, and explain why she has made the decision to claw back

essential funding that Jenibelle needs and deserves?

Hon. M. Dean: This is not a clawback. I can assure families like the family that

has been mentioned this morning that services will be available to all

children and youth who need them across the province in their

communities, and services will be available based on need. They won’t be

locked behind a diagnosis. We have three years to support families in

transitioning. We will do everything we can to make sure that that is a

success.

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

S. Bond: The minister may have convinced herself that this is not a

clawback, but let’s look at what’s happening here. Parents, thousands of

them, across British Columbia receive support. They get to decide how

best to support their families and their children. This minister has

decided that that is going to change. That, to the minister’s answer, is

defined as a clawback. What they have now they will not

receive.

They will not have the ability to make decisions for their own

children, to retain the connections that they have put in place. Megan

Kane from Coquitlam wanted the minister to know about the impacts of her

decision on her 4-year-old son. She writes:

[2:10 p.m.]

“My son is just about the happiest, sweetest, most loving little

person you could ever possibly imagine. At the time of his diagnosis, we

were terrified, blindsided and completely unsure of what the future

might hold. With the October 27 announcement, we have once again been

plunged into fear and uncertainty.

“It is abundantly clear from the minister’s canned, repetitive

answers that the decision to abolish autism funding was made rashly and

without regard for the children it will impact and the consequences for

thousands of families. This announcement has retraumatized families, and

the way it was done was unimaginably cruel.”

Again, those aren’t my words. The minister can ignore mine. She

can dismiss the comments of the opposition, but she can’t dismiss the

comments of Megan about her four-year-old son.

Will the minister once again stand up, and would she give those

parents some hope that she will reverse the decision that she made,

because it had zero consultation with the very families that it will

impact?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s very important to

listen to families. I want to reassure this House that there are no

clawbacks in the new system that will be delivered,

whereas in 2001,

when the opposition became government, they gutted my ministry. They cut

$15 million from services for children and youth with support

needs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Dean: They cut child protection by $185 million and $34 million from

youth mental health.

Our government makes different choices. We invest in children and

youth. We have increased the budget for children and youth with support

needs every single year since 2017.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Listen to the answer, please, Members.

Hon. M. Dean: We’re continuing to invest, and as we deliver the new system,

we’ll be able to serve not just children and youth with autism but

children and youth with other diagnoses and other developmental delays

as well — with Down syndrome, with brain injuries. Not just children

with autism, but they will still receive services according to their

needs.

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

S. Bond: I’m not sure the minister has any idea of how the words that she

says in this House every day, the impact they have on those families. To

be perfectly clear, the model that thousands of parents are standing up

to defend, I would remind the minister, was a model created by the

former government in significant consultation over a period of years in

order to deliver it.

Interjections.

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

S. Bond: The minister talks about listening to families. Perhaps she should

have thought about that before she made the announcement, because

AutismBC has clearly said this minister did not talk to them about

decisions that are going to change the way service is provided to their

children.

The uncertainty isn’t just for a short period of time. Let’s drag

out that process for three years while these families try to sort out

what’s going to happen to them.

Here’s what else Megan had to say.

Interjections.

S. Bond: The members can heckle across the aisle. These are the words of

thousands of families across British Columbia who woke up one morning to

a surprise announcement from this minister that turned their lives

upside down.

Here’s what Megan had to say: “The choice that you have made to

target the province’s most vulnerable children also extends to the

thousands of female service providers who run their own businesses. The

blatant lack of community consultation and critical thought that went

into this decision would be laughable if it wasn’t so utterly

devastating. Going after disabled kids, mothers and female business

owners is appalling.”

Interjections.

S. Bond: The members opposite can groan all they want. Those are Megan’s

words and the words of thousands of British Columbians. They may want to

dismiss them, but members of the opposition will not do that.

Interjections.

[2:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, order.

S. Bond: So a simple request to the minister. She has a chance today to do

the right thing. She could stand up and give those families the respect

they deserve by reversing the decision and making a commitment to talk

to families in British Columbia before she alters the services that they

have been providing to their children for years.

Will she simply do the right thing today?

Hon. M. Dean: I will reassure families today that we are listening to them. We

have been listening to them. We will continue to listen to them. We will

deliver services for their children throughout the province.

I hear from lots of families who say they don’t know where to find

help. They can’t navigate help, and they don’t have the capacity to set

up a suite of services for their child and youth….

Interjections.

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

Hon. M. Dean: We will create a system that is a safety net for families so that

they will be supported in creating and co-designing those services for

their children. On a day-to-day basis, I know that families have

scrambled to put together those services, so we will continue to support

those families as we implement the new service framework.

We’re putting children and youth at the centre. We make different

choices. We’re investing in children and youth. And I will inform all

members of this House: please inform everybody in your communities that

we are opening up consultations in November and December, and we invite

everybody to join us.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Dean: And more, we will be continuing discussions, and I invite

everybody to join us.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m sure every member of this House and every member on the other

side of this House has heard these same stories from these same parents.

So saying that we’re saying something that you’re not already hearing is

surprising.

Stella is one of many autism service providers who have contacted

me and are worried about how therapies will be handled. She writes: “I

was blindsided by this announcement and am very concerned with the

proposed changes. Under the hub system, parents no longer get to choose

their own therapist, and there’s no guarantee that each child will

receive an adequate amount of funding on therapy. I’m horrified these

changes have been made without consulting families or service providers

first.”

Will the minister please reverse her decision to remove the

ability of parents to decide on care?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. In the new system, what

families will be able to do is, as soon as they identify that there’s a

developmental delay or they have a concern about their child, they’ll be

able to walk into a centre, get connected straightaway with a key worker

and then work with that multidisciplinary team. There’ll be a

physiotherapist, occupational therapists, speech therapists, mental

health clinicians. So they will be co-designing the plan of services for

their children and youth that will be continually under

review.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Dean: I can tell you, as someone who has worked in the field for 30

years, that we know that we serve children and youth better with

multidisciplinary teams with no barrier to access to services and

putting children and youth at the centre so that we make sure that we

help them thrive and flourish and that we set them on a successful

pathway.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: I do agree with the minister that children and youth have to be at

the centre, but those parents have to be there as well. That is,

however, not what the hub system is doing.

Koryn Heisler from North Vancouver says: “What I’m failing to

understand is why the government needs to take away a model that is

working for families of children with autism in order to support all

children and not build upon the existing system. I’m a parent to three

children, two of whom have autism diagnoses. We feel like we’re swimming

with our heads just above water, one wave away from drowning. Taking our

supports away would be pushing us under the water.”

Why is the minister doing this to Koryn?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: We’re not taking supports away from children and youth. We’re

making choices to invest even more in children and youth. We’re building

a system. We’re actually creating a safety net for children and youth,

and we’re reducing barriers. We’re not locking services behind two years

of waiting for a diagnosis. We’re delivering those services there and

then.

Many families with children and youth with autism tell us they

can’t find services. The pandemic has really highlighted for us how

fragile those services are, that families weren’t able to receive them

during COVID.

I’d like to quote from Tracy Humphreys, founder and chair of

BCEdAccess: “We have such a large community of families who have kids

with all different kinds of disabilities, and for many of them, they’ve

never had access to any funding through the children and youth with

support needs program with MCFD, and they are thrilled.”

J. Tegart: Meng Dong is a mother attempting to provide for her son with

special needs while living with a life-threatening illness. She may die

before the rollout of the new hub system and wants to know that her son

is protected when she is gone.

She says: “This new system throws us into an unknown world again.

To make things even worse, I might not be able to help him through this

transition. This change makes my efforts turn to nothing. I’m so

worried.”

Why is the minister clawing back the funding that Meng depends on

to provide services for her son?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question.

This is not a clawback. As I said earlier on, it was that side of

the House that gutted my ministry 20 years ago. Our side of the House

has made choices investing in children and youth. The budget for

children and youth with support needs has gone up every single year

since 2017. We just announced $10 million in the At Home program for

essential equipment like wheelchairs and lifts. That program had not

seen an increase in 20 years.

We understand the struggles that families are experiencing, and we

understand that the pandemic has made that even worse. We’re here to

help. We will help all families make the transition

successfully.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Fraser-Nicola, supplemental.

J. Tegart: Stacy Swanson has two children, one with a full diagnosis on the

spectrum and another on the wait-list. She says: “How the heck are we

able to support our children in succeeding if we cannot afford to pay

for supports and therapies with our providers that we have built a

trusted relationship with? Our government is failing many, many

families.”

Can the minister tell Stacy why she’s clawing back her

funding?

Hon. M. Dean: This is not a clawback. We are building a system. It is a safety

net for all children and families.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Dean: It’s informed by the voices and experiences of families across

British Columbia, plus advocates, plus service providers. Plus, the

Representative for Children and Youth has written multiple reports

recommending that our province has a needs-based system to deliver

services to children and youth with support needs. The reason for that

is because it meets their needs better, earlier, and that means that

they have a much more successful future and they thrive and they fulfil

their potential.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we heard the question already. Please, let’s hear the

answer.

Hon. M. Dean: Even this Legislature has a Select Standing Committee on Children

and Youth and did a report and heard from families around the province

with neurodiverse children about how we only have a patchwork of

fragmented programming at the moment and there should be a needs-based

system in place.

[2:25 p.m.]

C. Oakes: Deirdre has two children diagnosed with autism. She says: “The

government cannot take away my children’s funding to give support to

others. They need to create supports for those without a diagnosis, but

they can’t take away my children’s support.”

Will the minister tell Deirdre why she’s clawing back her

children’s funding?

Hon. M. Dean: Well, our government has made different choices. We are investing

in children and youth. We have invested in children and youth with

support needs since forming government in 2017. In every single budget

since 2017, we have increased funding. In 2019, we increased ongoing

funding for respite by $6.3 million. Budget 2021 included a $13 million

increase, which included $2 million for deaf and hard-of-hearing

children’s programs, which is the first time in ten years that that

program had received any inclusive funding.

We’re also investing $10 million in the At Home program for the

medical benefits, which is including wheelchairs, special devices that

help children get by on a day-to-day basis.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order.

Hon. M. Dean: As we begin our implementation of the framework, we will make sure

that we invest in delivering those services and creating a successful

system.

POLICE ACTIONS AND OVERSIGHT

AND ROLE OF MINISTER OF

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

A. Olsen: I’ve received hundreds of emails over the past summer about our

provincial police service and accountability. The emails are largely in

response to acts of police aggression that we’ve seen in British

Columbia. I think that all the members of this House have seen the

horrifying.

I’ve heard from many British Columbians a deep concern that in

some cases, our provincial police service is acting unlawfully. Many

people I’ve spoken to are demanding accountability from our provincial

government.

There’s a great deal of confusion about what the Minister of

Public Safety and Solicitor General’s responsibility is with respect to

our provincial police service, in part because the minister himself has

said he does not direct the police. But the police have to be

accountable to someone in British Columbia.

My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General. What are the minister’s responsibilities with respect to the

provincial police service in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. As the member will

know, the Solicitor General is responsible for, for example, overseeing

the Police Act in this province. What he should also know is that

politicians — and in particular, the Solicitor General — do not direct

police in terms of how they operationalize the issues that they are

dealing with.

There are complaint processes in place. If people want to or are

concerned about police actions, they can follow those. Those complaint

processes are there in legislation. In fact, in a number of cases, they

are being acted on.

I can also tell the member, because he will obviously refer to the

court case, that that again is also under review, under appeal at this

particular point in time. That will continue. But there are numerous

mechanisms, whether it’s the Police Complaint Commissioner or the

independent investigations officer, that deal with actions of police. If

he wants a briefing, I’m more than happy to have my ministry give him a

briefing on that.

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

A. Olsen: I didn’t talk about the court case or the court action.

We have been seeing increasing RCMP aggression across the province

in recent years. We’ve seen numbers of incidences, increasing

incidences, in all parts of the province, frankly, over a number of

resource development issues. The reality is that as part of the

provincial police services contract, the minister has a responsibility,

within the objectives, to set objectives, priorities and goals of the

provincial police service.

[2:30 p.m.]

My question is to the minister. Has the minister made clear within

those objectives, priorities and goals that are in his direct

responsibility under the provincial police service agreement that the

provincial police service must respect the freedom of the press and the

civil liberties of British Columbians?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We fully expect the police to respect civil liberties, and they

have a very difficult job. As we know, there are processes in place,

procedures in place, protocols in place, and if individuals are

concerned about actions of the police, they can take those

protocols.

We have seen significant demonstrations and protests. Police deal

with very difficult situations. We have seen where the police have had

to deal with, in the case of one protest area, having to assist in

removing more than five tonnes of garbage, much of it including human

waste left behind by protesters. That has been part of the challenge

that they have had to face.

We have seen situations where police have been confronted by

individuals who have brought a urine-soaked bag full of candies to the

police — a ten-year-old girl, accompanied by parents, who went up to

police at a protest and gave them a urine-soaked bag.

As I said, the police have a very challenging and difficult job to

do. They do it to the best of their ability. If there are issues, there

are processes and protocols in place that people can follow, and they

do.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND FUNDING FOR AUTISM SERVICES

S. Cadieux: Well, the minister can try to deflect, but the language she is

using — “transitioning” — means moving to a different state. That means

not doing the same thing we’ve done before. That means clawing back

choice from parents.

Melissa Crowhurst says: “I have three severely autistic

children….”

Interjections.

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

S. Cadieux: Let me start again there. Melissa Crowhurst says: “I have three

severely autistic children and an excellent team of therapists and

service providers. Moving to a situation where we have no control over

who provides services will set us back. Listen to the people who are

living this life. We are the experts.”

The minister is ignoring the voices of those who have direct

experience with autism. Will she listen to Melissa and stop the

clawback?

Hon. M. Dean: I want to take this opportunity to reassure families across

British Columbia that we’re building a system that is much more

responsive to the needs of children and youth with support needs. We

know that when a child needs help with speech or with language or with

their behaviour or with hearing, they can’t afford to wait for a delay.

If you have a three- or a four-year-old and you’re a concerned parent,

you can’t wait two years for a diagnosis, until they’re five or six, and

they haven’t received any services in that time. It’s imperative that we

deliver the services to children and youth when they are

needed.

We are building a system. We’ve been listening to families. We’ve

been listening to advocates. We’ve been listening to service providers.

We’ve been hearing from them that currently we only have a patchwork of

fragmented programming that’s locked behind a diagnosis. So many

families have been talking to me, and I’ve worked in this sector for

over 30 years. I saw the horrendous impacts of the cutbacks here in my

community, where I was serving and running services for over 10

years.

I know that the system needs to change, so we have been listening.

We’ve been listening to service providers, and we created the framework

also on the basis of recommendations from the Representative for

Children and Youth and recommendations from a select standing committee

of this Legislature, with members from both sides of the House on

it.

A framework that is needs-based is what families have been crying

for. In fact, we’ve been told by advocates that families have been

begging for this ministry to do something different in this area to

better meet the needs of children and youth with support needs. We are

committed to serving these children and youth and to helping them thrive

and setting them on a successful pathway.

S. Cadieux: Nobody is arguing that there are families who need services who

don’t have them today. But you don’t serve them better by taking away

the supports that currently exist for the families that do. It sounds to

me, from that answer, like the minister thinks she knows better than

families.

[2:35 p.m.]

Karissa Crawley is a parent with a disability and the mother of a

son with autism. She says: “My family has spent years finding the right

service providers for my son, and it will be catastrophic to our family

to disrupt the people and therapies we have put in place. My son, who is

already struggling, will have the rug pulled out from under

him.”

Why is minister pulling the rug out from families like

Karissa’s?

Hon. M. Dean: Nothing is more important to this side of the House and to my

ministry than the health and safety and well-being of all of the

children and youth in our province.

Over the past few years, we have seen, and there has been a

spotlight shone on, the problems with individualized funding. I’ve heard

from so many families that they can’t even get individualized funding

until they wait a couple years for a diagnosis. When they receive the

funding, then people who have two jobs, people who have an elderly

family member to care for, people who have several children that they

need to be…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Dean: …taking care of, don’t have the capacity or the time to be

building a team and case managing services.

They don’t need to, because we can build a system and build a

safety net for those families as well. So even if you receive a

diagnosis, even if you’re able to get services, families scramble to

make sure that that service system is in place. Most parents tell me

that they really struggle with doing that.

Then the pandemic hit. What that showed to us was that with

the…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. M. Dean: …individualized funding there was no accountability. So the

services just went away. Even families who have a good system of

supports and services for their children and youth…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. M. Dean: …had no services because of the pandemic.

So we’re going to build a system that will support all children

and youth and create a safety net for children and youth that will meet

their needs and that won’t be locked behind a diagnosis.

Mr. Speaker: Richmond North Centre, I will allow one question.

T. Wat: Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the minister has been hearing so many stories in the last 30

minutes, and I think that up to now, the minister has not responded to

the concern and frightened thinking of all of the parents.

Let me quote a couple more stories for the minister. Hopefully she

will respond to the parents, not us — not the opposition but the

parents.

Tamsyn is a parent of three children with special needs. She says:

“We have spent years building relationships with our service providers,

and it would be harmful to take those relationships away. I’m also very

concerned that while the number of disabilities to be supported will be

increasing, there’s no talk of increasing the funds to support

them.”

Well, I don’t have time to tell many stories, but there’s another

one that I have to tell the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Ask the question, Member.

T. Wat: Jessica Taylor is the mother of an autistic child.

Mr. Speaker: Just ask the question.

T. Wat: She says: “My son is making so much progress, and now it’s going

to be stripped away. The hubs won’t work for him. This change will take

away all support for my son. Please don’t take away support from

families who desperately need it.”

Will the minister listen to parents like Tamsyn and Jessica, or

will she claw back support from the children?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. Thank you to everybody

for giving voice to families from across British Columbia.

As I said, I’ve been in service for over 30 years. I have worked

with many, many vulnerable families. I do believe that it’s very

important to hear their voices.

We need to be moving forward with this implemen­tation.

We’re listening to families, and we will continue to listen to families.

We have been listening to families about the services for their children

and youth with support needs since 2019. We will continue to do

that.

[2:40 p.m.]

We listened to them during COVID when they asked us for emergency

measures because of a global pandemic that impacted them being able to

support their children and youth. We’re continuing, for example, with

flexibility around respite, because that was something that was asked

for as an emergency measure. We’re now making that permanent.

As we move forward with the next stages, we will continue to

listen to families. In fact, I will have many opportunities in November

and in December, when it will be my pleasure and honour to listen to

families from British Columbia, to hear their expertise and their

experience, and to be able to take that into account…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Dean: …as we move forward so that we can be as successful as possible

for all children who need our services in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 26, Municipal Affairs

Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 26 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 26; R. Leonard in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will go into recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:43 p.m. to 2:48 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

On clause 26 (continued) .

D. Ashton: Yesterday we finished up with the first question of public

hearings. My second question is: what is the intended effect of this

change that is taking place?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The ultimate outcome that we are intending here is to speed up the

development approvals process for local governments, especially to get

British Columbians into more homes more quickly. By repealing a local

government’s authority to waive the requirement to hold a public hearing

on a proposed zoning bylaw when it is consistent with the official

community plan, it effectively removes a process step. In other words, a

local government would need to opt in to a public hearing rather than to

have to opt out of having a public hearing.

D. Ashton: Are there any public consultations that are public hearings while

official community plans are being updated, specifically in this

circumstance?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, that is indeed the case. There is public consultation in the

official community plan approval process. That is true for all local

governments, with the exception of the city of Vancouver, to which these

amendments do not apply, in which case public consultation takes place

in the zoning or rezoning stage.

D. Ashton: Would this

section enable approval of individual projects if they

were consistent with the OCP?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. The approval process would remain just the same for any

individual project, with the exception that if the rezoning application

is consistent with the official community plan, a public hearing would

not need to be held.

D. Ashton: I need to talk locally for a minute. Zoning allows multifamily

homes and multifamily residency. A process has taken place where this

was developed in the OCP. The government, through B.C.

Housing….

It’s not a loaded question. It’s just a question that I would like

an answer for, and I know that the citizens of Penticton are going to be

asking this when this new portion of the law comes in.

So multifamily residential is approved. And supportive housing,

which we all need in our communities…. We all know that. Would that

qualify for not having to have a public hearing? You have multifamily

homes, multifamily residential, multifamily supportive housing. Would

that qualify under the auspices of the current government, and

specifically the ministry, for not having a public hearing?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the clarity in the question there. In the particular

case being described, if multifamily housing is consistent with the OCP,

then yes, the local government could go through its approvals process

without a public hearing. However, should they choose to do that — to

not have a public hearing — they are required to provide public notice

to the community, prior to first reading, so that the community is aware

of what is proposed to take place. Even if it is consistent with the

OCP, they will need to do that.

I would note that there are several — in fact, many — local

governments that do undertake pre-approval consultation processes. So

again, prior to a rezoning appli­cation coming to the council

table or the regional district board table, they may work with the

applicant or the developer to have those consultation processes. I would

also note that local governments can still opt in to having a public

hearing.

What is key to these amendments is that the decision lies with the

local government. They know their communities best. They will know what

particular applications they may like to still hold a public hearing on

because it is, perhaps, contentious or it is large in nature, and they

feel that it’s most appropriate to have the public hearing.

Then finally, I do want to note that in the development and

approval of an OCP, of course, community consultation must take place,

and a public hearing is held on the official community plan itself. The

community can remain engaged and aware and still have the input into

decision-making processes that are held by their local councils or

boards.

D. Ashton: Who is responsible for determining if a bylaw is consistent within

the OCP, as described in paragraph (2)(a)?

Hon. J. Osborne: Publicly elected bodies are best placed to consider the many

objectives and the policies that are set out in their official community

plan and to decide whether a particular zoning bylaw is consistent with

the OCP. I would note that the amendment is similar to the existing

authority to waive public hearings, which means that local governments

already have experience in determining whether an amendment is

consistent with their OCP.

Over the years, there are decisions that are made by local

governments that have already been exposed to judicial review. There

have been a number of cases that consider or challenge bylaws on the

basis that they’re not consistent with the OCP. So case law indicates

that municipal councils and regional boards can determine consistency

based on a reasonableness standard. That means, in other words, that

local governments have a fair amount of discretion in determining

whether or not a zoning bylaw is consistent with their OCP.

A judicial review remedy would still be available after these

amendments as proposed, if passed — even if a bylaw is passed without a

hearing — on the basis that a hearing was actually required.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister. What would happen if there were a

disagreement about the validity of this

section while it was being

applied? Recourse is a better tack.

Hon. J. Osborne: A bylaw stands until it is challenged. In this case, a judicial

review remedy will still be available, even if these amendments are

passed.

D. Ashton: Does the minister know how many local governments are expected to

avail themselves of this

section by bypassing public hearings? I’m just

curious. In the discussions, in the consultation that took place….

Posi­tive, negative, leaning to which direction? If a number was

available, it would be greatly appreciated.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: First, just a reminder that these proposed amendments are a direct

response to calls from UBCM and the other stakeholders, including local

governments, that participated in the development approvals process

review.

Second, these amendments apply to all local governments across

British Columbia with the exception of Vancouver. So that is local

governments that cover 88 percent of the province’s

population.

The initial feedback, the early feedback, that we’ve had from

local governments is that this is being favourably received — the

proposed changes. It’s positive, and they’ve indicated a willingness to

try them out. That being said, we know that the impact of these

amendments is going to vary from community to community. There will be

some early adopters who will try it first, and there will be many

others, I think, who will wait to see how it goes.

It’s possible, also, that a local government could choose to apply

this to a certain category of bylaw amendments — for example, carriage

houses or secondary suites — as a way of trying it out.

In the end, again, we hope that this is picked up and used by

local governments as a way of building homes more quickly and more homes

for British Columbians.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister for that answer and bringing up housing.

It fits right in. Does the minister, through her ministry and/or local

government that she’s talked to, have any projections on how this will

impact housing supply?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you, again, for the question on how this will impact housing

supply in British Columbia and what kind of increase in housing supply

we might be able to see.

While I can’t give you a precise answer or predict the future, I

do know that we will be closely monitoring the use of this tool and

receiving feedback from local governments and from the development

sector as to how it is going.

We know there are hundreds of public hearings that are taking

place across British Columbia and, again, that local governments have

asked for a tool to help speed up their approvals processes. Even a

small savings in time of not needing to advertise a public hearing, hold

a public hearing — which in some instances can take a matter of not only

hours but, in fact, even days — equates to a savings in money, which

will reduce the price or cost of housing and, again, speed up the

delivery of housing.

I do want to note a comment that was provided to us by Jill Atkey,

the CEO of the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association. In speaking about

the amendments that are proposed in this bill, not only on the public

hearings but also on the development variance permit delegation of

authority, she noted that the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association

encourages all municipalities to use their new powers and to consider

seriously whether public hearings are necessary for affordable housing

projects that are consistent with community plans. These actions alone

have the potential to save as much as one year in the development

process.

Again, with the intention here of speeding up and streamlining the

development approvals processes, we hope to see a significant increase

in housing and get British Columbians into those homes

faster.

D. Ashton: The Vancouver Charter — does it have a parallel process, or are

they looking at a process that would expedite the process of developing

homes in the specific area that the charter encompasses in the Lower

Mainland?

Hon. J. Osborne: The city of Vancouver is not included in these amendments, as the

member notes. So what changes are intended in the city of

Vancouver?

First of all, I want to be clear that the province is partnering

with all local governments, including the city of Vancouver, to get

homes built faster for people in their communities. This bill is an

important step to give local governments more tools to streamline their

development approvals processes. But the Vancouver Charter is different

and distinct from the Community Charter, of course. It sets out a

planning and land use framework that’s different than that used under

the Local Government Act.

For example, Vancouver already has broader abilities to delegate

to staff than other local governments do. The Vancouver Charter doesn’t

require public hearings for official development plans, which is their

equivalency of an official community plan in another local government.

As a result, this means that public hearings take place — they’re

required — at the rezoning stage. So this might be the only opportunity,

in that case, for the public to provide input into a proposed land use

change.

The city and the province are working closely together to support

their plans to speed up their development approvals processes. I would

note they have received a $500,000 grant through UBCM, but from the

province, to support and streamline their development approvals

processes. They are developing an interactive digital development

application tool.

That’s a project that is aimed to accelerate efforts to modernize

their permitting and licensing services and increase the efficiency of

the development approvals process, which would enable their staff to

have more timely and accurate, predictable and consistent experiences

for everybody who participates in the planning approvals processes in

Vancouver.

[3:10 p.m.]

Beyond just that, though, the provincial staff, my staff at the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs, will continue to work in partnership with

the city of Vancouver to examine other ways that we will be able to

support them, and there will be more to come.

D. Ashton: Thank you. I really appreciate it.

I’m finished with

section 26, and no further questions until

section 30.

Clauses 26 to 29 inclusive approved.

On clause 30.

D. Ashton: If a public hearing is not held, are there any other means that a

local government may use to inform the public or to get input — i.e.,

feedback from the public?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, there are a number of ways that the public will still have

the opportunity to comment on a proposed zoning amendment or a zoning

bylaw. If a public hearing does not take place, local government will be

required to give public notice before first reading takes place. This

effectively backs up the ability for the public to be aware of a

rezoning application and to make comment.

The regular avenues for public comment will still be open, of

course, as they are on any proposed local government decision. That

might include writing letters to council, emailing members of council,

talking to them. But as I mentioned before, local governments are more

and more undertaking pre-approval consultation processes — working with

a developer or a proposed homebuilder or property developer to consult

the community.

We will be providing guidance and best practices to local

governments — provided that these amendments pass, this bill passes — so

that they can continue to do their good work in consulting and listening

to members of their communities.

D. Ashton: Thanks to the minister, and I have no further questions until

section 36.

Clauses 30 to 35 inclusive approved.

On clause 36.

D. Ashton: What impact will this legislation have on variances?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question. On development variance permits and

the new tool that would enable local governments to delegate minor

development variance permits to their staff for decisions….

[3:15 p.m.]

Again, this is in response to recommendations that came from the

development approvals process review and the request of local

governments and those in the development community and other

stakeholders involved in the provision of housing and advocacy for

housing to enable local governments to streamline and speed up their

approvals processes.

Specifically, what this will do is enable local governments to

delegate, by bylaw, the power to issue development variance permits for

minor variances in certain circumstances. These are specified in the

legislation. They include zoning bylaws that respect siting and size and

dimensions of building structures and permitted uses; off-street parking

and loading-space requirements; the regulation of signs; screening and

landscaping to mask or separate uses or preserve, protect, restore and

enhance the natural environment; and a provision of the Local Government

Act prescribed by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So

this specifies what must be included in a bylaw.

Again, the local government must pass a bylaw that will describe

the minor development variance permits that would be delegated to staff.

It would give staff the power to issue those DVPs, I’ll say for short,

primarily. What would be included in that bylaw are the criteria that

would be used to determine whether the proposed variance is minor and

guidelines that the delegates, staff, must consider in deciding whether

to issue the development variance permit.

Again, this is a tool that local governments can use to speed up

their approvals processes, handing over minor decisions — which do get

into the system and create delays — that, as deemed by those who have

been engaged in this process, would help speed up that

process.

D. Ashton: Does the minister have a view of what is appropriate and minimum,

maximum when it comes to the scope of this? Also included in that

question: is the minister contemplating any regulations or issuing guide

policies to help municipalities come to terms of the upper and lower

limits of possibilities?

Hon. J. Osborne: The question around effectively defining what minor variances

are…. The proposed legislative amendments already provide limitations on

what can be considered minor. I’d note that this does not include things

like density or use or subdivisions, but is the list that I read off

before around siting, size and dimensions of buildings, off-street

parking, regulation of signs — that list.

It is up to the local government to determine, through a bylaw,

what they define as a minor variance. That’ll be based on the unique

needs of their community. Based on the consultations that we’ve

undertaken, examples of potential minor variances might include a

reduction in sideyard setback or changing the dimensions to a sign or

the height of a fence.

The proposed amendments will require the local government to

develop guidelines that will help their staff to issue these minor DVPs.

These requirements really provide local governments with flexibility in

determining what constitutes a minor variance and then guiding, again,

the staff to exercise that power to issue the DVP.

I would note, too, that the council and board oversight always

remains that of delegated decisions. Again, this would be done by bylaw,

so this would be faced with the public scrutiny and the opportunity for

public to have a comment there too.

The member also asked around regulatory-making powers. The

amendments do provide a provision to prescribe by regulation. As we

monitor how this is implemented and used, should we choose to add a new

tool or area of minor development variance permits, then that would be

able to be done through regulation.

[3:20 p.m.]

D. Ashton: Madam Chair, I’m fine with clause 36. My next question is on

clause 37.

Clause 36 approved.

On clause 37.

D. Ashton: Why is notice not required if a delegate issues a development

variance permit — i.e., somebody that has been delegated at a municipal

hall? Why is notice not required for that variance permit?

Hon. J. Osborne: The question is around why no obligation to give notice. That is

because the local government will already have gone through the exercise

of adopting a delegation bylaw that includes the criteria for what is to

be considered minor.

Now the powers will be delegated. The authority will be delegated

to staff. So if a proponent comes forward to the local government office

and makes an application, it’s covered under that bylaw. The public will

have an opportunity, of course, to comment on the bylaw if the local

government chooses to adopt one, and that’s the best opportunity for

them to have their perspectives shared and known then.

D. Ashton: I have no more questions on clauses up to and including 42, but my

peer has questions on clause 43.

Clauses 37 to 42 inclusive approved.

On clause 43.

P. Milobar: Hopefully the minister will cut me a little latitude here. I have

a few overarching questions around the overall sections of Jumbo. It

just probably is easiest to deal with them all in the front end, and

then we’ll be done with all of those sections.

I’m just wondering if the minister could provide an overview of

which Indigenous nations were consulted about the dissolution of Jumbo

and what those consultations looked like with each nation.

Hon. J. Osborne: Five First Nations were identified to be consulted with and as

having potential interest in the municipality’s dissolution. Referral

letters were sent to the Neskonlith Indian Band, the Adams Lake Indian

Band, the Little Shuswap Lake Indian Band, the Shuswap Indian Band and

the Ktunaxa Nation Council society.

No concerns regarding the dissolution were received. Moreover, as

I think the member knows, the Ktunaxa Nation does support the

disincorporation of the municipality.

[3:25 p.m.]

In fact, the province, through the Ministry of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation and FLNRORD — Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development — and the Ktunaxa Nation and

the Shuswap Indian Band are working together to create an

Indigenous-protected and conserved area in the place of question

here.

P. Milobar: That’s around the dissolution, and then my next question was going

to be, actually, if all of those same bands were consulted around the

Indigenous-protected and conserved area.

Can I just confirm with the minister again. I believe she just

said that the Shuswap Indian Band was consulted by government on the

creation of that protected and conserved area.

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes. The member is correct.

P. Milobar: In the interest of time, I’ll just jump right into it, I guess,

because that seems to create a bit of a problem with the correspondence

that I have from the Shuswap Indian Band and their Chief.

I’ll just read from it: “Shuswap Band was not consulted in any way

on the Jumbo Glacier Resort and was left out completely on the creation

of the Qat’muk Indigenous-protected and conserved area. We only heard

the news of the funding given to the Ktunaxa from the radio report. We

were very disappointed, hurt and felt disrespected that no one from

government took the time to bring us into the conversation before any

funding was given out. We heard that even Oberti, the developer, was

paid out. Shuswap Band has lost a lot due to exclusion of recognition of

our rights and title.”

Can the minister please explain how the minister and government

feels that there was actual consultation, and a Chief, very clearly, as

of October 29, says the exact opposite?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for making me aware of the letter, which I was not aware

of before.

Because this legislation, these amendments, pertain to the

dissolution of the municipality, the work that’s being done on the

establishment of an Indigenous-protected and conserved area is being

done by our colleagues in FLNRO. I’ll make the commitment to follow up,

and follow up with the member afterwards.

P. Milobar: Well, the problem is that the way the letter is framed. It also

says they were not consulted on the Jumbo Glacier Resort. I think we all

should have an understanding, at this point….

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Certainly, I know the minister, as a former mayor, would have had

to send off referral letters. How referral letters, at a municipal

government level….

[3:30 p.m.]

It’s takes a lot of follow-up to have it qualify as meaningful and

attempted consultation, let alone it actually being qualified as

consultation. I don’t think anyone is arguing about the need to take

care of and dissolve the incorporation.

This has been a long-standing project that’s been supported by all

parties in this House, actually, back from its inception, back in ’91,

of an idea. It has had favourable commentary from then Premier Mike

Harcourt, in ’91; then Minister of Economic Development Glen Clark;

Minister Moe Sihota, Environment, Lands and Parks Minister, back in ’91,

speaking favourably of Jumbo. It has had support for the economic

development potential, and obviously that potential was not

realized.

I think the underlying sentiment and feeling from the Shuswap

Indian Band is that they were left out of the governmental side of the

government-to-government discussions because they were actually quite

supportive of the project. They saw the potential around economic

development and economic good that could come for their band if the

project was successful and was able to proceed.

I don’t think there is an argument about the dissolution. The

concern that we’ve heard from the Shuswap Indian Band is that the

reference back was actually from another nation after the park had

already been in the stages of development, with funding attached to it

not from government — not from this minister or from FLNRORD or from

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

So I guess the question really is…. The dissolution is happening.

It’s supported. Is there any work plan…? Are there any steps being taken

by government to ensure that the Shuswap Indian Band is properly

consulted on a government-to-government level, from the provincial

government to the Shuswap Indian Band — not leaving it up to First

Nations to consult with each other, but actually making sure that they

have been meaningfully engaged through this process, as this legislation

is already sitting in front of the House?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: On the subject, again, of consultation with the Shuswap Indian

Band on the dissolution of the municipality, the amendments that are

part of the proposed legislation before us today, I can confirm that on

July 15 a referral letter was sent to the Shuswap Indian Band, that two

weeks later ministry staff followed up to confirm receipt of the

referral letter and that no concerns were received back, no concerns

were identified and received by the ministry.

With respect to consultation on the establishment of the IPCA,

once again, I’d need to refer to my colleagues in the Ministry of

Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development and

get back to the member after today.

P. Milobar: I thought I was done with questions, but this begs, I think, a bit

of a follow-up then. So July 15 of 2021 with a follow-up touch-base on

July 29, and here we are in October. That’s — what? — two or three

months later. Was it of this year that the letters went out, or was it

in 2020?

Hon. J. Osborne: For clarity, that is July 2020.

D. Ashton: My next question would be on clause 48. I’m fine until

then.

Clauses 43 to 47 inclusive approved.

On clause 48.

D. Ashton: The University Endowment Land Act. The minister has new powers.

When would the minister use their new abilities in regards to the

University Endowment Land Act?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: As the member knows, I think, the UEL, the University Endowment

Lands, are not a local government. It is different and separate from

local governments across British Columbia. Effectively, the province is

the local government in the case of the University Endowment

Lands.

The purpose of this particular clause is to provide a flexible

option for public notice in the UEL in a way that is similar to the

Community Charter, the new public notice framework that would be

provided through the amendments proposed elsewhere in this legislation.

Essentially, this ensures that the minister can provide effective public

notice of the minister’s intention to adopt a bylaw.

Further, just to note that the approach to provide at least two

means of publication parallels, again, the changes that are being

provided to other local governments. But because of that unique nature

of the UEL and the fact that the province administrates the UEL, the

requirements or the principles for what the minister must consider when

developing a new public notice bylaw are more explicitly stated at the

outset, as compared to the local governments, who would have the ability

to develop their own public notice bylaw and go through that

process.

D. Ashton: I’m fine until clause 49.

Clause 48 approved.

On clause 49.

D. Ashton: Are the changes in this

section identical to the changes in the

Community Charter regarding notice period?

Hon. J. Osborne: The outcome is identical. However, because the Vancouver Charter

is a little bit older, the wording is a bit different.

D. Ashton: I’m fine until 53.

Clauses 49 to 52 inclusive approved.

On clause 53.

D. Ashton: Are the changes in this

section identical to the changes in the

Community Charter? This is regarding the code of conduct.

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, once again the intended outcome is the same, but because the

Vancouver Charter is an older piece of legislation, it is drafted a

little bit differently.

Clause 53 approved.

On clause 54.

D. Ashton: I have no more questions on any of this.

Before we close this, I would just like to thank the minister very

much for the opportunity. I would also like to thank staff in the room.

The briefings are greatly appreciated and make a huge difference. To

those that aren’t in the room — I think there are some in the back in

the Maple Room — please pass along my regards to them.

It’s always been a pleasure to be able to work with you. Coming

from local government, like the minister and myself have done in our

past, the ministry has been a godsend on more than one occasion. I would

like to say wonderful staff and very enjoyable to work with. Thank you

very much.

Clauses 54 to 57 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: I, too, would like to thank the member opposite, the member for

Penticton, for the incredibly collaborative relationship we have and the

respectful dialogue we’ve had throughout the committee stage of this

bill, and to also thank the other member for the questions and, of

course, my very capable staff for all the support that they provide, not

only to me but to local governments and, indeed, all British

Columbians.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment, Bill 26.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:46 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2021

Bill 26, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I call for debate on Bill 27, Election Amendment Act, committee

stage.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 27 — ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 27; N. Letnick in

the chair.

The committee met at 3:49 p.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. D. Eby: Joining me in the chamber this afternoon are Alayna van Leeuwen,

senior policy analyst, Ministry of Attorney General, and Tarynn

McKenzie, policy analyst, Ministry of Attorney General.

[3:50 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Before we get into the brief discussion on the bill, I thought I

would take advantage of the moment to thank the Attorney General’s

colleague, the Minister of Energy and Mines, who had sent an invitation

to members of the committee and members of the House to attend a

reception for a former leader of the Attorney General’s party, the New

Democratic Party, Mr. Skelly.

It was good to see Mr. Skelly. He led the opposition and the

Attorney General’s party during a fascinating time in the political

history of the province. He looks well and spry and, I think, maintains

a healthy interest in public affairs in this province. I know the

Attorney will extend our thanks and my thanks to his colleague for the

kind invitation to share in the celebration of Mr. Skelly’s return to

these buildings after so many years.

With respect to clause 1, there has been a bit of a long-standing

discussion that transcends this bill — in fact, any particular piece of

legislation — about the circumstances in which something will be

enunciated specifically in the primary legislation in the bill, in the

clause, versus what will be left to regulation and subsequently provide

the flexibility that governments frequently like to have. In this case,

the choice has been made — to be fair, as it was, I think, in the

original legislation — to incorporate a specific amount and then a

mechanism by which that amount may change over time.

Can the Attorney provide any guidance to the committee, to the

House and to whichever members of the public might be watching or

interested around any general rules that might guide both government and

drafters — there may be different interests at play sometimes — about

when an amount will be specified in the legislation and when it wouldn’t

be?

In asking the questions, I’ll offer the observation that I recall,

from my days in another post in this assembly, being alerted to the fact

that the canons of construction, the conventions around construction —

for example, on taxation matters — generally required an amount to be

specified, or a percentage or a specific amount. I don’t know if that’s

the case in circumstances like this, but I hope the Attorney understands

the nature of my question. Is there a set of rules of construction or

guidance that assists in determining when an amount is going to be

specified and when it might simply be left to a regulation?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m grateful to the staff for some insight on this, which I can

share with the member. Under the Election Act in British Columbia…. It’s

a unique statute. The regulation-making authority does not reside with

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or, in other words, cabinet. It

resides with the Chief Electoral Officer. Under the act as it’s

currently structured, only the CEO can make regulations.

[3:55 p.m.]

The member is right that, typically, where you have a fine or a

fee or a subsidy or an amount of money that might change over time, you

would expect to see that in the regulation. But the unique structure of

this act is such that if the Legislature wants to be clear about a

policy direction in terms of an amount, that needs to be in the statute,

because the regulatory authority resides with the Chief Electoral

Officer.

For a matter like this or around a limit on donations, the

political debate is rightly held here and determined here and under this

act, rather than being left to the Chief Electoral Officer.

M. de Jong: That is a helpful reminder. To be clear, then, by virtue of the

construct of the Election Act, the authority vests with the Chief

Electoral Officer, but that authority is limited insofar as the

provisions of

section 215.02, as amended by this legislation, limit that

authority.

The Chief Electoral Officer does not possess the authority or the

jurisdiction to arbitrarily alter either the amount referred to in

subsection 2(a) — I think the Attorney would confirm — nor does he or

she possess the authority to alter the formula by which future

adjustments are made. If the Attorney could confirm that.

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct.

M. de Jong: Sub (3) of clause 1 in the bill, as I understand it, purports to

change the dates around…. I guess payout transfers is the appropriate

term. Is that a function of just encountering some practical

difficulties around the first of the month? There seems to be a two-week

period. I’m just curious as what gave rise to the rationale for changing

the dates?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two reasons the payment dates, as structured, were set

up to be made on January 1 and July 1. The member will immediately

recognize that those are typically statutory holidays, which brings one

set of challenges that this amendment addresses.

The second is that, in the technical consultations with Elections

B.C., staff were advised that calculating the inflation rate for the

previous year, as well as the payments that were required on a statutory

holiday for payment, was a lot to ask. Simply changing the date to the

15th would enable the time necessary and ease the administrative burden

of Elections B.C. in determining the amounts of the payments — which for

the first of the year would be based on the CPI — as well as the

appropriate amount to each party, depending on the number of

votes.

Those are the two reasons for the shift. I guess I don’t have

anything else to say. I thought I’d have another great insight there,

but I’ll wrap it up there.

[4:00 p.m.]

M. de Jong: With respect to sub (3), I don’t need to pursue that

further.

I did neglect, however, my questions that related to sub (2). I

suppose the follow-up I should ask…. We’ve established, and the Attorney

has helped establish for the committee, that the Chief Electoral Officer

is precluded from making alterations to either the amount in sub (

a) or

the formula for calculating future adjustments. That requires a

purposeful amendment by this assembly.

Can the Attorney simply confirm that it is also true, for reasons

he’s already alluded to, that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is

precluded from altering either the amount referred to in sub (2)(

a) or

the formula for calculating adjustments in the future?

Hon. D. Eby: Stated in the positive, the only way to change the amounts or the

formula is through legislative amendment — through a vote passed by the

majority of the legislators in the assembly. Stated in the negative,

neither Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or cabinet or the Chief Electoral

Officer on their own or in combination can change the amounts of the

formula without a statutory amendment.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. de Jong: I think the Attorney may have heard me refer to this in the brief

second reading exchange. The question that I alluded to was

this.

The decision has been made and discussed at a different committee,

other than this, around continuing the payment of these amounts into the

future or eliminating the time-limited nature of them. But there was

also a review mechanism contained in the original provisions, and the

decision has also been made, from my reading and my understanding, to

eliminate a requirement on the part of the special committee to review,

in general terms, the process by which these payments are made to

political parties, political participants.

Can the Attorney indicate to the committee what the rationale was

for completely eliminating that review function, whether it was after

two years, three years, five years or, I suppose, ten years? It would be

helpful to hear from the Attorney what his and the government’s

rationale for that step was.

Hon. D. Eby: The recommendation of the committee was that annual allowances be

made permanent. The recommendations also included adjusting them by CPI,

which would eliminate the need for future reviews on amounts.

The member will recall that the previous mandate for the review

was whether there should be an annual allowance continued to be paid.

The answer of the committee was in the affirmative and, in fact, that it

should be made permanent.

The second question asked of the special committee was: if an

annual allowance to political parties is to be continued, what should

the amount be, and what should the number of years of the annual

allowance be paid? The answer of the committee was the amounts that are

in the statute amendments in front of us and that it be made

permanent.

There was no recommendation from the committee around further

review. In fact, the opposite — that it be made permanent. I note that

this is one of several reforms around our political donation and funding

system in the province, whether it’s an issue of donation limits or

reimbursements or otherwise. Those changes are part of the legislation

now, and any reforms would be through statutory amendment, not through

review by committee.

[4:05 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I don’t think I take issue with any of what the Attorney has

offered to the committee, except to make this observation that I’d like

him to comment upon. The committee received its marching orders, its

mandate, to address the two questions that the Attorney has referred to.

I don’t think they were asked to include a recommendation around any

kind of a review mechanism, and I don’t believe they offered an opinion

on that matter. I’m surmising from that that the decision around

eliminating any kind of a review mechanism was that of the

government’s.

I’m not intending to be argumentative about this. I think the

Attorney sort of left the impression that this flows automatically from

the recommendation of the committee on the two questions they were

asked. I’m not sure it does. I think the legislation could be faithful

to the recommendation of the committee but maintain a review function

down the road. The decision has been made not to do that, and it seems

to me that that was a purposeful decision on the part of

government.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll note that there was some understanding, I think, at least

among the individuals who provided feedback to the committee, that this

was something that the committee could potentially recommend. The

mandate to the committee was quite broad. They were to conduct a review

of the annual allowance including, without limiting this, a review of

the following — and then the two items that I set out for the

member.

The reason why I believe that members of the public, at least,

were under the impression that further review could be part of this is

that two of the 100 submissions received did, in fact, suggest that

there be a further review down the road, and 98 did not.

Ultimately, all of this truly is the decision of government, but

the decision of government I would express as our wish to implement the

will of the committee as it was articulated in their report, which is

that the allowance be made permanent, that the amounts be set at the

levels that they recommended, that the formula be set as they

recommended. And there was no recommendation from the committee,

although the matter was in front of them through members of the

public.

M. de Jong: I think the Attorney has made his and the government’s position

clear on this. I’ll only offer this observation. The committee, having

been silent on the issue and apparently agnostic on the question of

whether or not to retain an automatic referral for review, as other

pieces of legislation do, particularly those in involving statutory

officers….

My submission to the committee and the Attorney is that there

would have been some merit in these, dare I say, earlier days of a new

regime of maintaining a statutory requirement for at least one further

review period, if not more. It would appear the government and the

Attorney take a different view of that.

Hon. D. Eby: The matter was in front of the committee. We have the

recommendations of the committee. They did not include a review. The

commitment of government was to implement the recommendations of the

committee.

Clause 2 approved.

The Chair: Shall clause 3 pass? Carried.

On clause 4.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. de Jong: No, no, I’m on clause 3.

The Chair: You’re on clause 3.

M. de Jong: Far too enthusiastic guy for the weighty section, clause 3, before

us. Not so fast, Minister.

The Chair: Clause 1 and clause 2 are carried.

On clause 3, Abbotsford West. You have the floor.

On clause 3.

M. de Jong: The provisions are technical in nature. Happily, the explanatory

note is helpful, in this case, for drawing a reader’s attention to

interpreting them and making the point that the Chief Electoral Officer,

when making the adjustment under the formula provided here, is, in the

future, permitted to use the consumer price index prepared under the

Statistics Act, or published under the statistics Canada act, to

determine which consumer price index is applicable for a particular

time.

I’m presuming, by the way, that the Statistics Act referred to

there is the provincial statute, and the Statistics Act Canada would be

the federal statute. If I have that wrong, the Attorney and his staff

can correct me. But why the choice, and what, at a practical level, is

the difference?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised this is a matter of timing. The two different indices

are published at different times. I’m also advised that, typically,

Elections B.C. uses the Vancouver CPI published by B.C. Stats under the

B.C. Statistics Act. The

section gives the Chief Electoral Officer the

discretion, based on the differential timing, to determine which index

the Chief Electoral Officer wishes to use.

M. de Jong: I don’t think this is an issue today, or probably in recent

memory, but we are, of course, hearing speculation about inflationary

trends.

Has there, historically, been much of a discrepancy between either

the provincial or the federal number? That’s not my recollection, but

we’ve come through a period of pretty stable inflationary numbers. The

staff may be far too young to think back as far as I am, but has there

been any time when there has been a signifi­cant or marked

discrepancy between either of the indices that the Attorney has referred

to?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the

section is based solely on the issue of

timing. To the best of staff’s knowl­edge, there is not a

significant discrepancy between the two indices.

That does not mean that there will never be or there has not been,

but we don’t have the information in front of us in terms of historic

rates of inflation between the two separate measurements. We can find

that for the member, certainly, if he’s interested. We just don’t have

it in the House.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:14 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[4:15 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 27 — ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 27, Election Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L. Popham: I call continued debate on Bill 22, committee stage.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 22; N. Letnick in

the chair.

The committee met at 4:19 p.m.

On clause 5 (continued) .

M. de Jong: Welcome back to the minister and her team.

[4:20 p.m.]

I’ve been listening to the discussion around clause 5, and I

thought I might begin by asking the minister to confirm something that I

think is correct, but it influences how I’m reading the act — that is,

of the bill before us, Bill 22,

section 5 and

section 44 need to be

considered together because they both pertain to

section 75 of the

existing act. Specifically,

section 5 relates to and refers us to

section 75 of the act, as amended later in this bill by

section 44. Have

I got the chronology right, in terms of how to read this?

Hon. L. Beare: If I understood the question from the member, it was wondering

whether clause 5 and clause 44 were related. Yes, because clause 44

repeals and replaces

section 75, which we were referring to, and clause

5 relates to that.

M. de Jong: That’s a good start, because that is a precise answer to the

precise question that I asked — that we are, in

section 5, here

considering an amendment that relates directly to

section 75, as amended

later by

section 44 in this bill. Now, I’m hoping that we have similar

success in establishing some clarity, which I think has eluded the

discussion thus far, as it relates to the issue of fees — as touched

upon and relating to

section 75 of the act, which is being amended in

the way we just described.

In the time I’ve been here, the purpose of this committee is to

try and bring some clarity to some of the issues — well, to as many of

the issues as we can — that arise in the course of legislation. There

has, and I hope the minister…. Well, maybe the minister won’t agree. In

one particular area, I am more confused today than I was a week or a

week and a half ago.

[4:25 p.m.]

It relates to this issue of fees and the government, via the newly

amended

section 75 of the act, seeking authority from this committee —

and, ultimately, the House — to make some changes. Of course, the

committee is interested to know what those changes will be, because it

will influence whether or not the committee and the House wish to give

the government and the minister that authority. That, of course, lies at

the heart of the question around what these fees are going to look

like.

I listened to the discussion, and I’ve cross-referenced some of

what I’ve heard the minister say in the past. I’ll relate that. My

recollection is that the first time the minister had anything to say

about this in the public forum, she was quoted in the following way:

“This is a modest application fee for non-personal FOI requests, and

it’s in line with other jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions’ fees range

from $5 to $50. I’m recommending a fee right in the middle of

that.”

I’ll start there. Does the minister stand by that statement? Has

she made a recommendation?

Hon. L. Beare: The legislation we have before us today enables government to

create an application fee. That’s very specifically what this

legislation does. As I’ve also said — and the member will know; I’m sure

he’s done a lot of looking at this — the fee goes through a separate

approval process, and that’s not part of this committee stage and not

something I can discuss here.

[4:30 p.m.]

What I will say is that our government is listening to the

feedback that we’re hearing from across the province because I think

that it is very important to know how people feel and what people feel

is appropriate regarding a fee.

M. de Jong: All somewhat interesting, but all not representing a response to

the question I asked.

The specific question I asked was in response to a statement the

minister chose to make. I didn’t make the statement. The minister chose

to make a public statement: “I’m recommending a fee right in the middle

of that.”

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

“Other jurisdictions’ fees range from $5 to $50. I’m recommending

a fee right in the middle of that.” Has she made that

recommendation?

Hon. L. Beare: I stand by my answer I just gave. What this legislation, which we

are discussing before us in this House today…. The legislation gives

government the ability to create a fee. That is what we have before

us.

Any potential fee, as I’ve said, goes through a separate approval

process that is not part of this committee stage discussion. But I do

think it’s important for everyone to know that we are listening to

people, because we think it’s important to hear what people

think.

M. de Jong: But hasn’t the minister just made the point for why these are

important questions for her to answer? The fact that she and the

government have decided to relegate this to a regulation-making

authority means this is the only opportunity this body has to pose

questions about this very matter.

I hope the minister will think about what she has just said. She

has said to the committee and to the House: “We want you to give us the

authority to do something that we will no longer be answerable to this

body for, but I refuse to tell you or confirm what our intentions are

about how to use that power.”

That, with the greatest respect, is ridiculous. Does the minister

believe it inappropriate, in tabling legislation and seeking support and

approval from this body, to create a new regulatory power? Does she

believe it’s inappropriate for the committee to ask her how the

government intends to exercise that power?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I do stand by my answer. The legislation we have before us today

gives the ability to create a fee. That is the discussion for today —

the ability to create the fee. As I’ve said, the fee goes through a

separate approval process that isn’t part of this committee

stage.

I’m very happy to hear the member’s feedback. The member provided

a bunch of feedback back in clause 1. I’m sure the member is going to

provide a bunch more feedback over the next couple of hours. I’m very

happy to hear that feedback from the member and from the public. I do

think it’s important for all of that to be taken into consideration, in

the process that is outside of this committee stage, in setting the

fee.

M. de Jong: Maybe the minister could inform the committee about what she terms

“a separate approval process” for the fee. What does it entail, and is

there a role for this committee to play?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: The member will be very familiar with this process, with his

extensive years on this side of the House and being the Minister of

Finance himself at various points. But in cases such as this, once the

legislation is passed, the regulations follow. So a regulation cannot

officially be set before the legislation is passed and actually gives

the power to create that regulation.

M. de Jong: What I was hoping the minister would confirm for the committee and

people watching is the mechanism by which that regulation is

set.

She’s right. I have some fleeting familiarity with this. It goes

to cabinet. It is approved by the executive council, of which the

minister is a member. Unless something has changed dramatically, there

is no role for anyone other than members of the executive council to

participate in that discussion and the approval of that

regulation.

I suppose I should pose the question. Is there a new avenue

whereby members of the legislative branch of government are now invited

in to discuss and debate with the cabinet the nature of a regulation, in

this case setting the amount of a fee? That would be news to

me.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: So I think it’s really important for the member and for anyone

that is watching today during this debate that…. Our government is

listening. We heard the concerns that the member shared in clause 1 and

in some of the letters. We’re hearing them. We’re reading them as well.

We’re hearing the concerns directly from British Columbians and what

their feedback is, what their input is.

Our government takes that into account. This is important. This is

important as part of the decision-making process. So I think it’s

important for everyone to know that in making those regulations moving

forward, that we are listening and that we will continue to listen to

British Columbians.

M. de Jong: Well, again, with the greatest respect, what people watching this

exchange regrettably are learning is the following. A minister, on

behalf of the government, the executive council, is saying to this

committee and to this House: “We want a new power.” In this case, a

power to charge a new set of fees.

Now, people have views on that. But even before we get to that,

the minister is saying: “We want you to grant us this power, but I

refuse to engage in a discussion about how we might use that power.”

That’s ridiculous, and that’s a kind term. That’s

anti-democratic.

These Journals that are on the wall here, books of

Hansard , are full of exchanges that have taken place in

this chamber where governments of the day have sought regulatory powers.

In example after example, if the minister didn’t table a draft

regulation — and sometimes they did that — they would embark on a

conversation with members of the committee about how that regulatory

power would be…. The government was considering using that

power.

This minister is saying to this committee: “I want the power to

charge a new fee, and I refuse to share any information with this

committee about how I and the government are considering using that

power.” That’s wrong. Everyone understands that the regulation isn’t the

regulation until it’s been signed by the Lieutenant-Governor. That’s not

the point.

The point is, in asking for the new power that these sections

represent and would bestow upon the executive council, it is entirely

legitimate — nay, I would say it is expected — that the minister would

provide the committee, and through the committee the public, with some

indication of how she and the government intend to make use of that

power.

Now the irony is that she had all kinds of things to say a week

ago, or a week and a half ago. he refuses even, for the purpose of the

committee, to confirm what she meant by those public statements. I

talked about what she said on the 18th. On the 19th, she said that we’re

implementing a fee that is “in line with other jurisdictions.” It’s a

“modest fee” and “other jurisdictions have a fee between $5 and $50. I’m

recommending a number right in the middle of that.”

[4:50 p.m.]

Look, if that’s her recommendation, that’s her recommendation. But

the committee is entitled to know that here on the record. That’s an

obligation she has. That’s part of the democratic process. If she’s not

willing to share that information about how her and the executive

council intend to make use of this new power, then they don’t deserve to

have it. But it does speak volumes to the degree to which arrogance

seems to set in when a minister of the Crown says: “I want a power, but

I have no intention of discussing with you how I intend to make use of

that power.” That’s an abuse.

There is this interesting exchange that was reported where the

minister said to a reporter, “B.C.’s fee is going to be decided through

regulation,” and: “I’ve never said $25. I’ve never said that number. I

said that the fee ranges from $5 to $50, and we’ll be looking somewhere

in the middle of that.” To which the reporter replied: “But that’s $25.”

To which the minister replied: “That’s not what I’m

recommending.”

Okay. What is the minister recommending? It’s apparently — she has

said outside of this chamber — somewhere between $5 and $50. She went

further. She said: “The middle of that range, but it’s not $25.” Well,

what is it? What is her recommendation?

In asking the committee and the House to grant her the authority

to charge these fees, does she not feel any obligation whatsoever to

disclose to the committee, to the House and to the public how she

intends to make use of the new powers that passage of this legislation

would grant her? If she doesn’t, that is a sad day in the history of our

parliamentary democracy.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I’ve provided the committee, with this legislation before us here,

how government is considering applying fees. I’ve said, both publicly

and as part of these proceedings, that individuals seeking their own

information would not be charged. I have said to the member in my

previous answers, and I stand by that answer, that the determination of

a fee is set through a separate process. I do stand by those

statements.

M. de Jong: A separate process that excludes the legislative branch, the

public and is conducted behind closed doors. But perhaps more

troublesome, a revelation here today from the minister that she and the

government, apparently, in asking for authority, legal authority, to

embark on the creation of a new set of charges on members of the

public…. She feels absolutely no obligation to reveal in any way how she

and the executive council, the government, intend to make use of those

powers. That is remarkable and remarkably sad.

Before the minister came in, we were dealing with another piece of

legislation, Bill 27. It deals with an unrelated matter involving

election finance. It’s a short bill. But I was sitting here, thinking:

isn’t that interesting. A piece of legislation that involves providing

an allowance, money to politicians, sets out in detail how much that

will be, to the cent, and includes a mechanism for how that amount will

change and go up in the future.

But when it comes to discussing how much money this government is

going to take out of the pockets of citizens, the minister, in asking

for the power to do that, doesn’t want to even discuss — never mind an

amount — even confirm a range. Does she realize how ridiculous, how

anti-democratic, how troublesome that must appear to members of the

public? It’s astounding.

Now, the minister and the government are somewhat the architects

of their own problem here, because had they availed themselves of the

services of the special committee, the minister could have stood here

and said: “Well, you know, we’ve received input from the committee on

this point, and we’ll be guided.” She could have fallen back on that as

an explanation and engaged in a conversation about that. But of course,

they have chosen, as is now all too well known, to sideline the

committee that is charged with considering these matters.

I’m going to ask one more time, I suspect in vain, for the

minister to make it clear. She will, I expect, do this by virtue of

another non-answer. But to simply confirm that today, with respect to

section 5 — and eventually, when we get to, I think,

section 44 — she,

on behalf of the government, is seeking support from this committee to

create a legal power to charge members of the public a fee, but she

steadfastly refuses to provide this committee, and through this

committee the public, with any indication of how she and the government

intend to make use of that newly acquired power.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: The member and I have had a couple of questions on this up until

now, and I thank the member for that question. I know the member knows

that in cases such as this and in legislation like this, once the

legislation is passed, the regulations follow, and we cannot officially

set the fee in regulation before the power is given within the

legislation to actually set it.

I know the member wants to share his views and the concerns of

British Columbians around a potential fee, and I welcome that. Our

government is listening. I am listening. I think it’s very important to

hear that feedback on what a potential fee should be.

I thank the member for his interventions in clause 1 and in

sharing that information. I thank everyone who has written to my office

to share their thoughts, because our government is listening. That will

be taken into account, and I thank you.

M. de Jong: No one is asking the minister to officially set anything. We’re

asking her to confirm and explain remarks she has made in the public

that relate directly to the exercise of a power, a new power, that she

and the government are seeking by virtue of passage of this legislation.

She has, the record will show, steadfastly refused to do so, and that is

a very sad day for democracy.

A. Olsen: Does the minister agree that if the government chose to, they

could set that fee in legislation?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: FOIPPA’s current fee structure is set out in regulations, and a

new fee would be aligned with that approach. The proposed new fee is

also aligned with every other jurisdiction across Canada that has an

application fee, which are all set through regulation.

A. Olsen: I understand how the other fees are established. What I think is

important to acknowledge here is that the context of how the minister

has been answering these questions makes it sound like the fee cannot be

set in legislation. I just want to be clear that the minister is making

a choice to continue this process of setting this fee through

regulation.

What’s important to point out here is that a fee that is set in

legislation requires this House to reconvene to change that. A fee that

is set in regulation only requires the minister to make that change

through an order. I’m just wanting to be clear — the minister is making

a choice to set this fee, this application fee, through

regulation?

Hon. L. Beare: The bill before us is consistent with the current act. FOIPPA’s

current fee structure is set out in regulations, and a proposed new fee

is aligned with that approach. The proposed new fee would also be

aligned with every other jurisdiction that has the application fee set

through regulation.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, shall clause 5 pass?

Division has been called.

[5:10 p.m. - 5:20 p.m.]

Clause 5 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46

Alexis

Anderson

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Brar

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Kahlon

Kang

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Osborne

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

NAYS — 26

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Cadieux

Clovechok

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Tegart

Wat

Wilkinson

The Chair: The committee will go into recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:24 p.m. to 5:29 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Clauses 6 and