Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, February 27, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 276

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

Tributes

Robert and Gayle Fearnley

Hon. B. Ma

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill M212 — Buddhist Culture Day Act

T. Wat

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Commercial fishing industry in rural

communities

J. Rice

Hollyburn cabins on Cypress Mountain

K. Kirkpatrick

City Dream Centre Society

M. Starchuk

Cattle ranching and work of Murray and Cheryl

Richards

M. Morris

B.C. Winter Games in greater Vernon

H. Sandhu

Disaster recovery in Fraser-Nicola area

J. Tegart

Oral Questions

Addiction treatment and recovery services

E. Sturko

Hon. J. Whiteside

Addiction treatment and recovery services and media

coverage by Broadbent Institute

S. Bond

Hon. J. Whiteside

Old-growth forest and biodiversity protection and

species-at-risk legislation

S. Furstenau

Hon. B. Ralston

Hon. G. Heyman

Status of Royal B.C. Museum and collections

facility project

T. Stone

Hon. L. Popham

Severance pay to former deputy minister and

appointment to B.C. Hydro board

T. Halford

Hon. D. Eby

Severance pay to former chiefs of staff at

Premier’s office

P. Milobar

Hon. D. Eby

Question of Privilege (Reservation of

Right)

S. Bond

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Real Estate Services Amendment Act,

Hon. R. Kahlon

P. Milobar

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Real Estate Services Amendment Act,

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 7 — Land Owner Transparency Amendment Act,

P. Milobar

Hon. R. Kahlon

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Land Owner Transparency Amendment Act,

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 18 — Appointment of Special Committee to

Review Private Members’ Business (continued)

K. Greene

F. Donnelly

Motion 17 — Addictions care

Hon. R. Kahlon

Hon. J. Whiteside

E. Sturko

Hon. B. Bailey

S. Bond

Hon. S. Malcolmson

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2023

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

T. Wat: Before I make my introduction, I would like to thank the Speaker for

allowing me extra time to do my introduction.

It’s my honour to welcome the largest-ever Buddhism delegation, with

more than 120 members, to our B.C. Legislature today. Only 90 of them — we

are so grateful — could be seated here, and the remaining will be watching

the live stream from the Ned DeBeck Lounge. I guess it’s time that we have

to expand the seats in the public gallery.

Among the delegation are 47 Buddhism masters from 14 different

temples, from different schools of Buddhism from China, Taiwan, Tibet, Sri

Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam and Burma. Please bear with me for naming just one

master representative from each of the 14 temples to show our respect and

gratitude for their visit to this people’s House. They are:

[1:35 p.m.]

Venerable Siriniwasa Kumbalgoda from the Buddhist Vihara Society in

B.C., from Sri Lanka.

Venerable Ashin Ghosaka from the Burmese Buddhist Society.

Venerable Chaowanut Upasamo from the Dhammakaya International

Meditation Society of B.C., from Thailand.

Venerable Sommai Robteck from the Buddhapanyan­untararama

Buddhist Monastery, from Thailand.

Venerable Minh Truyen from Chan Nguyen Monastery, from

Vietnam.

Master Tri Thong from Phap Hoa Temple, from Vietnam.

Venerable Lu Shen Shih from the Potalaka Temple, the Bilingual

Buddhist Association, from China.

Master Shi Xing Wu from Xing Wu Zen Temple Society of Canada, from

China.

Venerable Xin Miao Shih from Fu Hui Temple, from China.

Reverend Grant Ikuta from Steveston Buddhist Temple, from

Japan.

Venerable Gyatso Khechok Rinpoche from the Land of Compassion Buddha,

from Tibet.

Venerable Khenpo Choeday from the H. E. Palyal Lha­tul Rinpoche

Buddhist Society, from Tibet.

Venerable Lama Tenzin from KKC Niguma Meditation Centre, from

Tibet.

Venerable Tsengdok Rinpoche from the Tsengdok Monastery Canada, from

Tibet, organized today’s largest-ever Buddhism delegation.

Last but not least is Master Diana Ko, founder and president of Bai

Gong International Buddhist Society.

The 14 Buddhism masters will perform a dharma blessing ceremony at the

Hall of Honour later in the afternoon to bless all MLAs and all the staff

working in this historic building and their families to make sure they lead

a happy, healthy and safe life so that we all can deliver the best services

to British Columbians.

The purpose of the delegation’s visit is to raise awareness about the

Buddhist universal teachings of generosity, compassion and selfless

contributions and services. Could you help contribute to building a

stronger, fairer and more inclusive province and country?

Please join me in giving the biggest round of applause to this

Buddhism delegation.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member of the opposition. Let me take the opportunity

on behalf of the government caucus, as the Premier of B.C., to welcome the

largest Buddhist delegation to our House of parliament.

It is a great celebration to have you here today. This is your place.

This is the place of all British Columbians. The message of compassion and

generosity that Buddhism brings to the world is one that I’m sure you’ll see

on display today in question period as we ask each other questions and give

answers. [Laughter.]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: There’s an example right there.

I want to say thank you so much for coming to visit us, and welcome.

On behalf of all the government caucus, we hope you come and visit again.

Welcome to Victoria.

L. Doerkson: It gives me a great sense of pride today to introduce to you all a

woman who, for 2½ decades, has given me so many opportunities of joyous time

together. She is an incredibly kind, generous being, but she is a fierce

advocate for the underdog.

She’s an RN. She works in Prince George at the cancer centre. She’s my

daughter Miranda Doerkson, and she’s an incredible woman.

Would you please welcome her here today.

S. Furstenau: Just on behalf of the B.C. Green caucus, I also want to say welcome to

the Buddhist delegation here today.

It’s a delight to see all of you in the gallery, and we look forward

to seeing the ceremony this afternoon. Thank you so much for

coming.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Today I have some very special guests joining us here in the chamber.

First off, my fiancé of six years, six years engaged. Our kids are getting

sick and tired of waiting for us to get married. In fact, they’re now

starting to get married before us.

First off, my son Kye married his wonderful wife, Enya. They eloped

after Christmas. I didn’t even get invited, on the record.

Now, in the chamber, we have my stepdaughter Paige and her wonderful

fiancé, Lloyd Flay. They are flying out of here tomorrow morning to get

married in Las Vegas by Elvis.

Just a heads-up to everyone here that I am also going to Las Vegas, so

no questions for me on Thursday.

H. Yao: I also want to take a moment to welcome all the Buddhist delegates,

especially all of you who have been doing a phenomenal job promoting

inclusivity, diversity and humane treatment of animals. Thank you so much

for your teaching.

I also want to take a moment to say welcome to Lina Liang from Xing Wu

Zen Temple Society. I know she used to be a Lions Club member as well. I

especially want to welcome her as well.

Hon. A. Dix: As you know well, the Hospital Employees Union are fierce advocates

for health care workers and for public health care. We’re honoured to have

in the gallery Meena Brisard, their secretary–business manager, and Caelie

Frampton, their director of communications.

I wish everyone in the House to give them a great welcome.

S. Bond: I want to update the House. Last week I introduced the House to Joel

Ewart, who was a member of the Team B.C. wheelchair basketball team. I am

thrilled to tell you that for the first time in Canada Games history, Joel

Ewart and Team B.C. won gold at the Canada Games in P.E.I. They defeated

Alberta 79 to 32.

Congratulations to Joel and Team B.C.

Hon. M. Dean: Recently it was the birthday of retired leading bandsperson Bud

Kellett. He actually turned 102 years old. He’s the oldest living member of

the Naden Band of the Royal Canadian Navy.

Would everybody please send him many happy returns.

Tributes

ROBERT AND GAYLE FEARNLEY

Hon. B. Ma: I rise today on behalf of both the member for Vancouver-Kensington

and myself to honour the lives of Bob Jerningham Fearnley and Gayle

Elizabeth Fearnley.

I didn’t have the privilege of knowing Bob when he served as city

of North Vancouver councillor for 15 years, between 1996 and 2011. But

that is not to say I didn’t know Bob when he served our community,

because even after he was no longer a councillor, he stayed extremely

involved and committed in our community. He often referred to himself as

a forever-recovering politician. In his work as councillor, he is known

for his role in developing the Lons­dale Energy Corp., the city of

North Vancouver library, the North Shore’s drug policy and much, much

more.

He was also a doting husband and father. Born on April 29, 1953,

Bob was killed in a residential fire on February 9, alongside his

daughter Gayle Elizabeth Fearnley, who had celebrated her 29th birthday

just weeks prior. She brought light into the lives of everyone who knew

her, and she had her whole life ahead of her.

Bob and Gayle leave behind their wife and mother Via, as well as

their sons and brothers, Paolo and Bob Jr.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

K. Paddon: I would invite everyone to please make welcome my guest today, Marlon

Hall. He is here from the Chilliwack Chamber of Commerce. He was director of

the year, so kind of a big deal. As well, he is with Metric Civil

Contractors Ltd.

Would the House please join me in making Marlon very

welcome.

N. Simons: I just noticed in the gallery a couple of residents of the qathet

regional district, Dr. David and Janet May. It’s always nice to welcome

constituents to this place.

It’s quite a bit of a trek, but I welcome you to the chamber, and I

hope you enjoy your visit. I look forward to speaking to you

later.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M212 — BUDDHIST CULTURE DAY ACT

T. Wat presented a bill intituled Buddhist Culture Day

Act.

T. Wat: I move that the bill intituled the Buddhist Culture Day Act, 2023,

of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be

introduced and read for the first time now.

This bill proposes a declaration of the first Sunday in May as

Buddhist Culture Day to honour and celebrate the rich diversity of

British Columbia and the many practising Buddhists in the

province.

This day would coincide with the Buddhist celebration of Vesak,

which signifies the birth, enlightenment and death of the Buddha and is

a special time for celebration, meditation and reflection for many

Buddhists across B.C.

Today we are honoured to be joined by a delegation of more than

100 — actually, it’s more than 120 — British Columbian Buddhists from

various backgrounds, including China, Tibet, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Burma,

Thailand, Vietnam and Japan, to celebrate a day where this proposal is

made to the B.C. Legislature.

Their presence here today is not only a testament to the

prevalence of Buddhism across borders but also to the incredible work we

have done so far as a society to achieve such a multi-ethnic and

inclusive province that has embraced those from all over the

globe.

Buddhist Culture Day would acknowledge a large number of

practising Buddhist British Columbians — more than 90,000, according to

Statistics Canada — as well as those that are of Buddhist culture, and

help dedicate a day to build awareness of one of the many components of

our colourful society.

As we do with other faiths, cultures and traditions, I hope this

House supports my call to celebrate, honour and raise awareness of the

Buddhist way of life, cultural identity and religion through the

Buddhist Culture Day Act.

Mr. Speaker: The question is the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

T. Wat: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M212, Buddhist Culture Day Act, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY

IN RURAL

COMMUNITIES

J. Rice: Commercial fishing is one of the founding industries of this

province, and its significance can be found painted on the ceilings of

the B.C. Legislature, along with representations of the mining, forestry

and agricultural industries.

The fishing sector is a cornerstone in the economic and social

fabric of B.C.’s coast, and fishing and fish processing is deeply rooted

in our history and our culture. But fishing communities are struggling,

and fishermen nowadays are unfairly portrayed as the perpetrators of all

negative impacts to fish. In fact, many influences, including fisheries

mismanagement, poor policies, warming oceans and habitat destruction all

impact global fisheries.

First Nations make up the vast majority of commercial fishermen on

the north and Central Coast and Haida Gwaii, and they rely on good

stewardship for food, social and ceremonial purposes as well as

income.

[1:50 p.m.]

Every year fewer rural fisherman can go commercial fishing. Older

fishermen who want to retire from fishing find that they can’t sell

their licences at a reasonable price. Younger fishermen can’t afford to

buy in to the more lucrative fisheries, primarily owned by multinational

corporations. The cost to buy a licence or quota is in the hundreds of

thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

Northern and rural shoreworkers are also seeing processing move to

the Lower Mainland or to Asia. However, globally, fishing is

increasingly providing more value to communities, even though we may be

catching less fish.

Independent fish harvesters need protections to rebuild the

backbone of the rural middle class along our coast. We can promote

policies that support local fishermen to benefit from B.C. resources and

shoreworking employment in coastal communities with adjacency policies

like those found in the forestry sector. Rural community benefits can be

achieved through offering fishermen or communities control over access

to fish.

While there may be limited awareness of commercial fishing among

the general public, it remains a mainstay of rural coastal economies,

many of which are First Nations communities that have lived and fished

the coast for millennia.

HOLLYBURN CABINS

ON CYPRESS

MOUNTAIN

K. Kirkpatrick: This fall I had the pleasure of touring the Hollyburn cabins way

up on Cypress Mountain with the Hollyburn Ridge Association president,

Jackie Swanson.

Our adventure started at the Nordic parking lot on Cypress Park,

where Jackie gave me a brief history of the cabins. We then hiked into

the Nordic ski trails, which probably wasn’t that far, but it felt like

we went a really long way. The snow hadn’t fallen yet, or otherwise

snowshoes and cross-country skis would be the only way to access these

cabins.

The first cabins were constructed in the late 1920s by

Scandinavian immigrants to support the newly established Hollyburn

Pacific Ski Club at First Lake. By 1930, there were over 200 cabins on

the mountain in this vibrant ski community. It’s like stepping back in

time. The cabins have no power, no services and largely no access roads.

Those using the cabins actually have to carry everything in with them

when they access them.

Over the decades, the existence of the cabins on Cypress Mountain

has not been without controversy, which is why, in 1973, cabin owners

concerned about the future of these heritage cabins and their cherished

cabin community formed the Hollyburn Ridge Association. Their goals were

preservation, encouragement of recreational use and public access and

their desire to negotiate with all levels of government, when necessary,

to save these important cabins.

Today Jackie reports there are 108 active cabins, 104 in the

district of West Vancouver and four on B.C. Parks land.

If you have an opportunity to come up onto Cypress and see these

wonderful cabins and enjoy some great history in the district of West

Vancouver, we invite you to do so.

CITY DREAM CENTRE SOCIETY

M. Starchuk: A number of weeks ago I had the opportunity to tour City Dream

Centre. I had met with the foun­der of City Dream Centre, Loretta

Hibbs, in my office a few weeks prior to that, to hear the dream. When I

heard that, I knew I had to go tour the building and their thrift

store.

City Dream Centre’s mandate is to bridge the gap between

homelessness, addiction, prison and poverty to

self-sustainability.

Their adopt-a-school program works closely with local schools and

school districts to provide support to high-needs schools, including

food security support; 3,500 wrapped Christmas gifts every year; mobile

dental care; preteen mentoring programs helping equip at-risk kids

against gangs and traffickers; hygiene packs for grade 6 and 7 students,

including feminine hygiene products, 1,800 packs delivered twice each

school year; new and used school clothing; annual back-to-school events

with 1,000 backpacks; free kids’ haircuts; produce bags; free family

clothing; and other kids activities.

Their education programs are parenting, boundaries and anger

management. They’re taught in local recovery homes, shelters and both

provincial and federal prisons, helping to reunite families.

City Care Dental is a three-chair mobile dental unit bringing

much-needed care to kids in their adopted schools, as well as seniors

and other needs kids in the Lower Mainland. Some of these kids as young

as four have never seen a dentist in their entire life. These mobile

units will reach out there to give them the dental care that they

need.

[1:55 p.m.]

Looking forward to the dream, they’re looking at low-income

families who are struggling to pay high rent and food costs and age kids

out of foster care. Their goal is to provide housing, food and child

care for up to the years, while assisting them to complete

post-secondary certificates or diploma programs that will improve their

self-sustainability.

I want to make sure that everybody here understands that City

Dream Centre is actually a dream for the future of the people inside the

city of Surrey.

CATTLE RANCHING AND WORK OF

MURRAY AND CHERYL

RICHARDS

M. Morris: Murray and Cheryl Richards raise cattle northwest of Prince

George. This winter Murray feeds close to 200 pregnant cows, 165 calves

from last year, 30 replacement heifers and eight registered bulls. He

uses some of the 1,800 round bales of hay and 300 bales of silage that

he and Cheryl spent 18-hour days baling last summer.

Murray’s animal husbandry skills, developed over a lifetime of

raising beef, are put to the test every day. Forty new calves have

already been born, and they’re expecting another 145 — no small feat in

February, with the blizzards and cold weather we’re

experiencing.

This Monday over 30 centimetres snow fell in a few short hours,

temporarily diverting his time helping Cheryl get the truck out of the

yard and out to the highway, pulling neighbours out and plowing

driveways. By the end of last week, temperatures had plummeted to minus

40 with the windchill factored in.

But calves don’t wait. Murray makes routine checks every two hours

around the clock, managing only 14 hours of sleep in the last five days.

Besides checking on new calves, he must keep water troughs open from

freezing up, provide extra bedding for calves and even bring the odd one

into the House to warm up with blankets and the heater and a tablespoon

of raw honey.

He’s had to extract four calves so far this season. Again, not

unexpected, as over the years, he has learned to expect that about 5

percent of birthing cows need assistance to deliver their calves. Some

calves need help to start nursing, and he and Cheryl provide bottle

feeding or stomach tube feeding to those calves three to four times a

day.

Murray and Cheryl wouldn’t have it any other way. They understand

the critical role farmers play in maintaining and enhancing food

security in our province.

There are hundreds of families across the province who are doing

the same thing, and we are most appreciative for all that they do for

us.

B.C. WINTER GAMES IN GREATER VERNON

H. Sandhu: I am super excited to share that in 23 days, 15 hours and two

minutes, amazing and welcoming people in my spectacular constituency of

Vernon-Monashee will welcome athletes, coaches, parents, families and

guests from across the province for the upcoming B.C. Winter

Games.

It is a great source of pride that the 2023 B.C. Winter Games will

be hosted in my home region, greater Vernon. We have been eagerly

awaiting these games after they were postponed in 2022, due to the

pandemic. Now the games are finally happening from March 23 to March

For most of these athletes, these games will be their first

experience competing in a multisport environment. For others, these

games are an important journey towards national and international

competitions. I applaud every athlete for their perseverance, patience,

passion and dedication to their craft.

It is vital to remember that behind every youth there is a

supportive family, flexible educators, mentors and fantastic coaches. To

all of you, I want to extend my gratitude.

I am so grateful to all the sponsors and incredible volunteers who

have been selflessly donating their time and energy for the last two

years. Volunteers are involved in every aspect of planning the games.

The board of directors said that as many as 2,000 volunteers will be

needed to host the B.C. Winter Games. To those interested in helping, I

encourage you to all please sign up on the B.C. Games

website.

These games will generate great social and economic returns,

foster community connectedness and provide a boost to our tourism and

business sectors.

I encourage all members of this House to cheer for all the talent

at the upcoming B.C. Winter Games and also to come join us to cheer them

on in person, if you can, and see what wonderful offerings

Vernon-Monashee has to offer. We’ll welcome you with open

arms.

[2:00 p.m.]

DISASTER RECOVERY IN

FRASER-NICOLA

AREA

J. Tegart: I’d like to take a little time and give the House an update on my

riding post-disaster. You could rightfully ask which disaster, as we’ve

had wildfires, atmospheric rivers, floods and landslides.

Please know how much we appreciate the work and the commitment of

those on the ground doing their best to assist in the recovery efforts.

But I think we all have to acknowledge that a great many people get left

behind as time goes on.

All the major routes to the interior of B.C. run through my

riding, and the atmospheric river left no road un­touched. Along

Highway 8, ranchers experienced wildfires, floods and landslides, all

within one year. People lost their properties. The provincial supply

routes were seriously affected, and people became aware of just how

vulnerable we are as a province. Wildfires burned hectares of land and

burned the village of Lytton to the ground. Volunteers stepped up to

support, and on top of all this, we were still dealing with

COVID.

Much attention and announcements from government and media in the

first few months, but now, 12 to 24 months later, roadwork closures and

single-lane traffic continue. The residents of Lytton are nowhere near

to be coming home. Ranchers affected by wildfires, flooding and

landslides struggle to get assistance. Merritt residents are still

displaced due to the atmospheric river over 12 months ago. Community

leaders are often overwhelmed trying to assist their residents and

community.

What is clear to me and to everyone who has been affected by the

disaster is we’re not prepared to deal with these catastrophic events.

There is so much to be learned and so much more work to do.

The constituents of Fraser-Nicola ask you to learn from us, and

please, please do not forget us.

Oral Questions

ADDICTION TREATMENT

AND RECOVERY

SERVICES

E. Sturko: In 2018, the B.C. Centre on Substance Use released a report called

Strategies to Strengthen Recovery in British Columbia . It

offered a plan for a recovery-oriented system of care, but the NDP

government rejected this work led by Dr. Evan Wood, even scrubbing the

report from the centre’s website.

Tragically, over 8,900 people have died of drug toxicity since

then.

To the Premier, why did the NDP government reject the 2018 plan

and deny thousands of people struggling from addiction with the critical

help that they need?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I thank the member for her question on a topic that I know is of

great concern to everyone in this House, to all British Columbians and

to everyone in our communities. Indeed, our government, since 2017,

through our ten-year roadmap, articulated in the Pathway to Hope, has

been building out an integrated system of care for people who are

struggling with substance use.

That has involved ramping up of treatment beds. We have built over

360 treatment beds. We now, in the prov­ince, have over 3,200

treatment beds for people struggling with substance use. In every

respect, across the entire continuum of care, we are building out

community counselling services.

We are investing in child and youth mental health. We are

investing in treatment and recovery. We know how important it is, and we

are going to stand with British Columbians on their individual paths to

recovery.

Mr. Speaker: Member, for a supplemental.

E. Sturko: I thank the minister for the response. It is unfortunate that over

11,000 people have died and that the rollout of beds really equates to

the nearly six years that this government has been operating…. That it’s

really only added three treatment beds a month in British

Columbia.

Alberta successfully implemented a recovery-oriented system of

care and drastically reduced the number of deaths based on the same

report that this NDP government rejected.

[2:05 p.m.]

The Premier could look to Alberta to see what B.C. could have

achieved if this government had acted on the 2018 report. But when I

attended the recovery conference in Calgary last week, with experts and

ministers from across the country, nobody from this government was

there.

Again to the Premier, why has this NDP government failed to

prioritize critical treatment and recovery services for nearly six

years?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I think there is no question that British Columbians understand

that when we talk about the dramatic toll the toxic drug poisoning

crisis in this province has taken, the work we are doing with respect to

harm reduction is absolutely critical in addressing that. We know we

have to keep people alive in order to connect them to treatment. I have

heard that time and time again from people with lived experiences. We

have heard that from the families who have had loved ones who have

died.

With respect to our achievements, I do want to talk about the work

that we did, from 2017 to 2019, ramping up harm reduction interventions,

ramping up treatment supports, ramping up an anti-stigma campaign that

all contributed to dramatically reduce the mortality rate —

dramatically. In 2019, we saw a dramatic reduction…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …in the number of people who died due to toxic drug poisoning,

demonstrating that the work that we had laid out in our plan was

working. That is the work that we are going to continue to

do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Whiteside: We are going to continue to work hard with front-line providers,

with our partners in health authorities, with physicians, with community

partners to regain the ground that we lost due to the COVID

pandemic.

I will say that when it comes to where good ideas come from, there

are good ideas coming from all over the place. I was very pleased that

staff from the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Please continue.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I was very pleased that staff from the Ministry of Mental Health

and Addictions were able to take

part in the conference that occurred in

Alberta so that we can take those learnings as well.

ADDICTION TREATMENT AND RECOVERY

SERVICES AND MEDIA

COVERAGE

BY BROADBENT INSTITUTE

S. Bond: What the minister failed to recognize is that every single day in

British Columbia, we hear from families who have loved ones who want and

need access to treatment. Here’s the reality. They simply cannot get it.

That’s the reality.

I’m relieved to hear the minister say that they’re willing to look

at good ideas, because that is exactly what we and the Leader of the

Opposition are suggesting. We need to see a dramatic shift in this

province that will prioritize treatment and recovery. What did this

minister say when we outlined a plan that would do just that? It’s

nothing but a distraction.

Even more concerning is that the NDP’s ally PressProgress — which

is financed, as I know the Premier knows, by the Broadbent Institute —

is spreading harmful and offensive claims that addictions treatment is

“not really medicine.” PressProgress and the Broadbent Institute are

even attacking recovery experts and pushing theories that “addiction

treatment represents a tip of the spear on privatized medicine.” That is

harmful, it is offensive, and it needs to stop.

Will the Premier do the right thing today and publicly denounce

these harmful and offensive attacks on addictions treatment?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I thank the member for her question. I do want to also thank the

member for her work on the select standing committee. I think that was

an important example of what British Columbians expect from all of us in

this space, given the unprecedented nature of the public health

emergency that is the toxic drug poisoning crisis in our

province.

What I would say is that we are taking our advice from experts, as

we have always done. The work that our government did in the ’90s on

this file, the work that we have done from 2017 is informed by

experts.

[2:10 p.m.]

It’s informed by the remarkable people who work in our health

authorities, the addiction medicine specialists, the folks in public

health who are supporting the harm reduction strategies to try to keep

people alive, to try to keep people alive who are struggling with a

condition that is a chronic and relapsing condition, as we all know — a

chronic and relapsing condition that may require many, many tries at

treatment before they are successful.

We have to be there for people all the way through the continuum,

all the way through their path. Our path is absolutely supported by a

$55 million investment in integrated child and youth teams, which are

going to help pull together mental health supports, health authority

supports, mental health and addiction supports to support kids in

schools. That is the work that we are absolutely laser-focused on, hon.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: While I appreciate the minister’s comments about the work of the

Health Committee, what we would have preferred to see instead of a

motion, which is going to potentially take up time in the Legislature,

is an action plan that takes up the recommendations that were made by

all parties in this Legislature.

I can tell that the minister was uncomfortable talking about the

Broadbent Institute.

Well, the Premier can’t claim ignorance when it comes to that

organization. He only needs to consult with his top political adviser,

Matt Smith. Smith’s immediate past job, before joining the Premier’s

office last fall, was, to quote his résumé, to provide “fundraising

advice for the Broadbent Institute.” The government’s news release

announcing Smith’s appointment even quoted the Broadbent Institute as

endorsing him.

It is so upsetting to see someone who is basically running the

Premier’s office doing nothing about the attacks on treatment and

recovery providers.

Today the Premier has the opportunity to do the right thing. First

of all, adopt the Better Is Possible plan and take a stand against the

attacks that are being made on treatment and recovery

providers.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I have to say…. We do have a plan, and we’ve been executing that

plan. We’ve been taking action on that plan since 2017. We have been

making substantial investments of hundreds of millions of dollars in

treatment.

We all agree, in this House, on the importance of connecting

people to the services that they need.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. J. Whiteside: That is why we have opened, last year alone, 105 treatment beds,

which have already helped 624 people. We have new out-patient withdrawal

management services….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, hold it.

When the question was being asked by the member for Prince

George–Valemount, the other side was very courteous. They listened to

the question. Now let’s provide the same courtesy to hear the answer,

please.

The minister will continue.

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

We have new out-patient withdrawal management services across the

Interior Health Authority and new treatment and stabilization beds in

places like Kamloops, Kelowna and Lillooet. We have new sobering beds in

Port Hardy. We are making strides every day to ramp up services,

including upstream for children and youth, for adults accessing

counselling programs. We know we have to act across the entire

continuum.

There is no dispute, on this side of the House, about the

importance of treatment and recovery on that spectrum. It is not helpful

to try and create divisions where, in fact, there are none. We have a

plan, which we will continue to work with. We are very, very grateful to

work with all parties to make progress on this very pressing issue for

British Columbians.

OLD-GROWTH FOREST AND

BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION

AND

SPECIES-AT-RISK LEGISLATION

S. Furstenau: Thousands of people gathered here at the Legislature on Saturday,

including Neil Young, to show their support for old-growth protection in

B.C. While this government has made some important changes, old-growth

trees continue to fall, and the situation is dire.

[2:15 p.m.]

The spotted owl population, a species dependent on old-growth

forest, is down to just one bird left in the wild — one bird. Logging

continues in spotted owl habitat, and 448 cutblocks were recently

approved or await approval by this government in spotted owl

habitat.

This government approves logging while breeding spotted owls in

captivity to prevent them from going extinct. It’s not unlike shooting

wolves to save caribou while continuing to destroy caribou

habitat.

The federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven

Guilbeault, is now recommending an emergency order to protect spotted

owls because B.C. is not stepping up. If approved, this will be the

third time in Canadian history where an emergency order has been issued

to protect an endangered species.

This isn’t the first time the federal government has had to step

up to correct this government’s failures. They stepped in to protect

caribou, to protect wild salmon and to monitor Teck’s environmental

disasters along the Elk River.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

S. Furstenau: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. When will he commit

to implementing biodiversity legislation?

Hon. B. Ralston: Protecting and promoting the recovery of threatened species in

British Columbia is a top priority for this government. We’re doing

everything we can to help spotted owls recover, including running the

world’s only captive breeding and release program for this

en­dangered species.

We’ve protected more than 281,000 hectares of spotted owl habitat,

an area equivalent to 700 Stanley Parks. This is enough to support a

future population of 125 breeding pairs. In addition, we have put in

place additional deferrals in two Fraser Canyon watersheds, the Utzlius

and Spuzzum watersheds, to help protect spotted owl habitat and ensure

no logging takes place in these old-growth forests.

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

S. Furstenau: Wow. We are down to one bird in the wild, and this government

thinks that that’s something to celebrate as a success story. That is

astonishing.

It wasn’t the question I asked. I asked the question to the

Premier — whether there would be biodiversity legislation or

species-at-risk protection legislation.

In fact, work on that legislation started in 2017. It was promised

by this party, in the 2017 election, that they would introduce

species-at-risk legislation, and the work started. The people that were

working on that legislation were told to stop working. I’m very curious

to know who told those people to stop working on the legislation, which

was promised by this government to the people of British

Columbia.

My question again is to the Premier. Will he commit to introducing

biodiversity legislation? It’s not like we’re debating any other

legislation in this House right now.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. As I’m pretty sure the

member knows, when we began working on, at that time, species-at-risk

legislation for B.C., the first thing we did was begin a series of

consultations with First Nations, who very quickly made it clear to us

that they needed to be involved in the development and discussion of the

legislation at every stage of the way.

My colleague the Minister of Forests has talked about the work

that we’ve done, in partnership with the federal government and First

Nations, with respect to deferring logging in the old-growth habitat

while we await the results of a captive breeding program and ensure that

we can protect spotted owls.

Of course, there are many species. That is why we entered into, at

the same time we made the agreement with the federal government, the

negotiation of a nature agreement, a comprehensive nature agreement,

with the federal government by which we could take steps to deal with

ecosystem integrity.

[2:20 p.m.]

Again, we are working with that, as we should, with First Nations

around the province to ensure that it is government to government to

government and that we get it right.

Our government has committed to implementing all of the

recommendations of the old-growth strategic review. That includes

enacting biodiversity legislation. That is being done and worked on by

my colleague the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship in

conjunction with First Nations, as we must and as we should.

STATUS OF ROYAL B.C. MUSEUM

AND COLLECTIONS FACILITY

PROJECT

T. Stone: The Cowichan Hospital replacement project is already well over

three years behind schedule, and it’s a shocking $850 million over

budget.

Mr. Speaker, if you thought that this boondoggle was bad enough,

last week we heard the NDP express only a half-truth with respect to the

current proposed cost on the Royal B.C. Museum’s warehousing facility in

Colwood. Instead of that facility being $46 million over the initial

budget estimate, which the NDP would have British Columbians believe,

the actual budget is now nearly double that. Costs have ballooned to a

staggering $93 million over budget, and it’s two years behind schedule.

They haven’t even broken ground and started construction on this project

yet.

Headlines are already proclaiming the return of NDP fudge-it

budgets, and we haven’t even made it to the budget tomorrow.

My question is this. If the NDP are applying this level of spin to

the museum boondoggle, how can British Columbians have any trust in

tomorrow’s budget numbers?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. I can tell the member that I was very

happy about the announcement last week. It means we’re ready to move

forward, break ground this summer and get a very important building up

and going to house our over seven million artifacts and shared history

of British Columbia.

In July 2020, the original budget came out. I will admit that

there was an increase. That was also revealed in an announcement that

came out. I don’t expect the member to follow along on budget

announcements. I can say that 2½ years ago we were asked to go back and

find energy efficiencies, to use the lens of CleanBC to come back with a

very sustainable plan. We did that.

The announcement last week was a reflection of the cost of doing

business these days, which I am sure the members understand. We have now

landed on a fixed-price contract with two excellent companies, one a

Canadian firm that is known for its sustainability design and an

architect firm from Vancouver that is also well known for its

sustainability.

From this project, we will not only protect our shared interest in

seven million artifacts. We’re also going to find that about 1,000

direct and indirect jobs will come of this, and we have room for 25

years of growth.

On this side of the House, we believe that protecting our shared

history is important. I would hope that the other side would as

well.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, Mr. Speaker, only the NDP would call a $100 million cost

escalation on a project a sustainable plan, a sustainable plan for a

project that nobody asked for and that nobody wants. And $100 million

more than the original budget.

The collections building was supposed to cost $177 million, and it

was supposed to be completed by next year, 2024. As I said a moment ago,

it’s already nearly $100 million, or 52 percent, over budget, and

construction hasn’t started. Meanwhile, downtown, here in Victoria, the

museum has been half gutted for 15 months since the government abruptly

closed down Old Town and the entire third floor. British Columbians

deserve better than a half-empty museum in Victoria and an empty field

in Colwood.

My question to the Premier is this. When will the Premier admit

that the collections facility is a complete and utter boondoggle? When

will he scrap this project and instead do a modest upgrade of the museum

across the street, including the reopening of Old Town and the entire

third floor?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I do have a different opinion than the member. I think

people do want us to be able to house our seven million artifacts of

shared history and protect that.

I think British Columbians understand that for the past many

years, there’s been great concern about the archives and the fact that a

lot of our really important documents are stored under sea level. That

is not ideal, and we risk losing these important documents of our

history.

I’m not sure the member also understands the scope of what we’re

talking about. This building out on the West Shore will be an amazing

place, not just for storing our seven million artifacts. But there are

opportunities for education, K through 12. There are post-secondary

educational activities. There will also be incredible research

opportunities. This will be something that we will see international

visitors come for.

These seven million artifacts are very diverse. They go from an

11,000-artifact collection from Emily Carr, but we also have an

incredible amount of other types of artifacts. The member might not know

this, but we do have an artifact called Buster. This is a Ferrisaurus,

otherwise known as the iron lizard of the Sustut River. It is the first

unique species of dinosaur found and identified in British

Columbia.

Those are things we need to protect, and we need to be able to

show British Columbians what they have.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Members. Members. Members.

SEVERANCE PAY TO

FORMER DEPUTY MINISTER AND

APPOINTMENT TO B.C. HYDRO BOARD

T. Halford: When the Premier made changes to his office, Lori Wanamaker, the

Deputy Minister to the Premier, was paid a $600,000 severance. On the

same day, she was appointed to B.C. Hydro. That now pays $93,000. This

isn’t severance. It’s double-dipping.

Will the Premier personally take responsibility for his decision

to hand out an obscene severance to have that person employed in the

government on the same day?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s an honour. I just crossed the 100-day threshold as Premier of

this province.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, please.

The Premier will continue.

Hon. D. Eby: I just crossed the 100-day threshold as Premier of this province,

and it’s been a great honour every single day. I see it as a privilege

and opportunity to deliver for British Columbians on health care, on

housing, on public safety and a clean economy that works for

everybody.

Making sure that we have a strong team at B.C. Hydro. It’s hard to

think of a more important time for B.C. Hydro, frankly, when we’re

facing a climate crisis, a need to electrify our economy; when we’re

looking at the economic advantages that B.C. has around the ability to

deliver firm power and reduce emissions by electrifying people’s homes;

switching from fuels that contribute to climate change, but also

industry; and driving industry by delivering affordable, reliable

power.

Having Lori as chair of the board is going to be critically

important. She served under both sides of this House. She started in the

Office of the Auditor General. She was deputy at the Ministry of Finance

for many years. She is an accountant. She is an exceptional leader, and

I am so glad she’s agreed to take on this job.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey White Rock, supplemental.

T. Halford: For the Premier to get up and speak about his 100 days…. It’s been

100 days of hot air for British Columbians.

Now, to the Premier….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh. Members.

T. Halford: A bit sensitive.

To the Premier, there is a difference between severance and

double-dipping. Lori Wanamaker collected the mas­sive severance

but continued in a job paid for by taxpayers. The Premier handed out

$600,000 of severance with one hand, while giving a job with the other,

all on the same day.

How does the Premier justify this outrageous so-called severance

for someone who did not even leave the government?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the opportunity to run through a few of our

accomplishments as a government in the first 100 days.

I’m sure the member was watching as….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.

Members. You asked the question. That’s enough.

Member for Abbotsford West, please.

The Premier will continue.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m sure the member was watching as we announced $400 million for

the first phase of a ten-year cancer plan, faster treatment for British

Columbians across the province, including regional cancer centres in

Nanaimo and Kamloops.

I’m sure the member was watching — well, in fact, he was here —

when we passed legislation setting targets for local government, when we

announced a half-billion-dollar plan to protect tenants in low-cost

rental housing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m sure the member is well aware, on public safety, when we

established peer response teams to take the pressure off police to

respond to people in mental health crisis; teams of prosecutors, police

and probation officers around repeat violent offenders; and when the

federal government agreed with us that they needed to change the rules

around bail to protect communities.

I’m sure he was watching when we had $180 million for a

manufacturing fund for a clean economy and when we added 100 jobs back

to the mill in Crofton that was closed.

Just this weekend — the second affordability credit for B.C.

residents for up to $410 per family, and $500 million to stabilize B.C.

Ferries fares in the face of rising costs.

I know the member knows we have legal obligations around severance

that we have to meet when people leave government. I know he knows that

B.C. Hydro is independent of government, and it’s good that it works

that way. But we have those obligations.

I’m so glad that Lori agreed to take on this vital job as chair of

B.C. Hydro, because to deliver on things like this, to continue to

deliver, we need leaders like her chairing that board, not political

appointments like they did every single time they had the

chance.

SEVERANCE PAY TO FORMER

CHIEFS OF STAFF AT PREMIER’S

OFFICE

P. Milobar: Let’s be clear. The cancer announcement was actually part of the

2020 election promise by the former Premier and was actually supposed to

be fully implemented by now. So in the NDP land, I guess taking three

years to start a ten-year plan is considered a success, as people are

waiting for cancer treatment, of all things.

Our Cowichan hospital that has been delayed, and now is over twice

as expensive as when it was first announced, is considered a success by

this government. Our collections building that’s $100 million over

budget and delayed is considered a success, and now we have the Premier

trying to deflect away questions about severance. It seems that money is

never an object when it comes to this Premier’s office.

We have the $600,000 of severance, which also triggered a new

government job on the very same day. We have the former chief of staff,

Geoff Meggs, walking away with $340,000, and then we have Amber Hockin,

an NDP insider who accepted the job as this Premier’s deputy chief of

staff but resigned very shortly afterwards and explained a payout of

$190,000.

Now, she resigned, and in her resignation letter, she stated that

she wanted to “move onto another

chapter in my life, one that is filled

with grandkids and hobbies.” No one can fault someone for that, but it’s

a resignation after only a few weeks on the job.

Can the Premier please explain why that still triggered a $190,000

severance payment?

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows we have legal obligations in relation to

personnel. We meet those legal obligations, and all policies are

followed.

[End of question period.]

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

S. Bond: I rise on a point of personal privilege, based on remarks made by the

Minister of Forests.

[2:35 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call committee on Bill 8, intituled the Real Estate Services Amendment

Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — REAL ESTATE SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 8; J. Tegart in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: I’ll call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill 8,

Real Estate Services Amendment Act, 2023.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I just want to recognize the staff, the folks that are here,

supporting me today, covering for the Minister of Finance for

this.

[2:40 p.m.]

We have Renée Mounteney, who is the ADM of policy and legislative

division. We’ve got Tiffany Norman, who is the executive director of

financial and corporate sector policy branch. We have Derek Moryson, who

is the policy and legislative analyst.

I look forward to the exchange.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the House Leader for taking over for the Finance

Minister today. Although this, on the surface, seems like a housekeeping

bill, it started to concern us in opposition when what we thought would

be fairly straightforward questions in committee stage turned into quite

long, repetitive speeches by government — especially members of cabinet

that repeated similar themes almost word for word — which would lead me

to believe that there was some sort of background briefing or overview

of what this bill should be spoken to, from a government point of

view.

One of the main pieces kept getting repeated was that this bill

will change the language back to how it was pre-2016. Now, we’ve gone

through and through. We can find, in the Real Estate Services Act, which

this bill is amending, an amendment made with some repealing that was

done in 2016. However, those were for sections 131 to 137, which, by our

reading, have absolutely nothing to do with the foundation, given that

the foundations are sections 90 to 98.

Can the minister provide us with a cabinet document, an

order-in-council, a piece of legislation or something that changed in

2016, that all of these statements were being made and connected

to?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. I think he knows that I

can’t give him any cabinet documents.

I can share with him that in 2016 there were some changes that

happened around the Real Estate Council. In fact, when those changes

happened, there were more government appointees that were put in place

at that time. Because there were so many government appointees put in

that place at the time, that brought it into the GRE.

These changes now, with the changes that we’ve made here, with

this piece of legislation, would pull it back outside of the GRE. I hope

that answers the question that the member had.

P. Milobar: No, it doesn’t. My understanding is that we’re dealing with the

Real Estate Foundation, which is very specific in its language. There’s

other language around the Real Estate Council. I understand that in

2016, the Real Estate Council had changes made to it.

I can’t see where any of the sections in the bill, the Real Estate

Services Act, have changed from sections 90 to 98, which are the ones

that are specific to the Real Estate Foundation. Those would have been

the ones, I thought, that would have changed in 2016.

Again, I’m not asking for confidential cabinet documents, but if

it was an order-in-council, surely that must be public. If it was a

piece of legislation that had amendments in it, surely that must be

public.

We simply cannot find either that would relate to anything to do

with sections 90 to 98. Given that this bill deals with sections 91 and

93 and that all the discussion is around changing the language back to

pre-2016, one would think that the

section 91 language must have been

changed in 2016.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: When the changes happened to the Real Estate Council in 2016,

those changes impacted the foundation, because the council was able to

appoint an additional member. So it impacted the foundation.

Staff have shared this with me, and I’ll just share it, read into

the record:

“Prior to 2016, three foundation board members were appointed by the

government, and four members were non-government appointments. Of

non-government appointments, one appointment was made by the Real Estate

Council of B.C., a self-regulatory organization. In 2016, the former

government replaced the entire council with government appointees,

making the council a government entity. Because of this change, the

council’s foundation appointment became an indirect government

appointment, and the foundation became part of the GRE.”

P. Milobar: I’m sorry. The changes in

section 91(1) in this bill are only

changing (e); they’re not changing everything.

I read 91, the most current copy of it, which was amended in 2021,

when the previous Finance Minister was actually in government and more

government members were added to the committee. These are her words from

second reading — the former Finance Minister, who actually amended this

legislation in 2021: “How can we get the most out of this incredibly

important organization that has been shackled by a piece of legislation

that was written in 2016?”

When you read the versions of the Real Estate Services Act, the

previous versions, and then the current version…. First off, I’ll read

the most current version. This 91: “

(1) The board of governors of the

foundation consists of the following individuals: (

a) one member

appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; (

b) one member

appointed by the British Columbia Real Estate Association; (

c) one

member appointed by the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia; (

d) one member, not licensed under this Act, appointed by the minister;

(d.1) one or 2 members, appointed in accordance with the regulations, if

any.”

[2:50 p.m.]

That was actually added in 2021 under this government. Then, “(

e) the minister or another member appointed by the minister,” and (

e) is

what’s being removed here today. None of the others are being removed or

reworded. Again, where is the written change? What was brought forward

to this chamber in 2016 to change any of 91?

Hon. R. Kahlon: To the member’s question, in 2021, when the Real Estate Council

was dissolved, that impacted 91(a), because that appointment was no

longer there because we had dissolved the council, but that was the only

change at that point.

P. Milobar: Well, thank you. I’m just going to spell it out for the minister,

I guess. The confusion comes in that with the filibuster by the

government on a housekeeping bill, the frustration is that this is where

people are supposed to be able to understand in the public what actual

actions this bill will meaningfully take or not.

The problem we’re having right now as opposition is we tried to

facilitate getting to this stage quickly, and the government chose to

put up speaker after speaker and minister after minister, one of which

was the former Finance Minister, who kept talking about how this will

get the foundation unshackled from government, because it’ll be back to

pre-2016 wording.

[2:55 p.m.]

There are only two clauses that this bill is amending, and I don’t

see anywhere where clause 91 is back to pre-2016 wording. Can the

minister confirm that the government MLAs and ministers that repeatedly

talked about going back to pre-2016 wording was not an accurate

statement on their part as it relates to clause 91?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m glad we’re able to have this exchange, because it’s good to be

able to get into this legislation and talk about the importance of

it.

I’ll read into the record what I’ve already shared with the

member, which is that prior to 2016, three foundation board members were

appointed by government, four members were non-government appointments,

and one appointment was made by the Real Estate Council of B.C., a

self-regulatory organization.

In 2016, the former government replaced the entire council with

government appointees, making the council a government entity. Because

of this change, the council’s foundation appointment became an indirect

government appointment. The council was now an agent of the Crown, and

the foundation became part of the GRE. That’s why this is an important

piece of legislation.

P. Milobar: Well, I have one copy of the bill. Again, one would think that a

complete replacement of clause 91 and the membership would be considered

a consequential amendment to this bill.

If you go to the back of the version that I have, it’s not listed,

no consequential amendments. This version that I have is an older copy

than the other one staff provided me. It’s: “The board of governors of

the foundation consists of the following 5 individuals: (a) 1 member

appointed by the real estate council; (b) 1 member appointed by the

British Columbia Real Estate Association; (c) 1 member appointed by the

Real Estate Institute of British Columbia; (d) 1 member not licensed

under this Act, appointed by the minister; (

e) the minister or another

member appointed by the minister.”

That was the first version I was working off of, trying to figure

out the impact of this change to the legislation. It seemed to match up

because there was (

e) and (e).

Then staff found me the newer version that’s based on the 2021

changes, which again has the repeal in 2016 as a consequential amendment

for sections 131 to 137. No mention of anything being done to

section 91

in 2016 whatsoever in the consequential amendments. Again, one would

think a complete restructure of a board….

The reason I raise this is that the composition of the board has

always had, by our reading, a member appointed by the British Columbia

Real Estate Association, and that’s not by the minister, and a member

appointed by the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia, and that’s

not by the minister. The whole board has not always been appointed by

government, by our reading.

It gets back to the statements made by government members in this

House around putting this language back to pre-2016. Since the minister

can’t provide the date that that would have happened, I fail to see how

something as simple as moving (

e) out requires a legislative change, but

the full restructure of this board between the years, apparently, of

2016 and 2021, when the former Finance minister suddenly added more

members to the board, all of those require legislative change. But

somehow between 2016 and 2015, the whole board was completely

reworked.

Now this amendment that only deals with (

e) is taking us back to

pre-2016 language. Again to the minister: can he explain or can he at

least acknowledge — we’ll be generous with the characterization — that

government members all misspoke when they were speaking on second

reading about this bill taking the language back to pre-2016?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member taking the time to listen to my colleagues

talk about the importance of this bill. They would be correct in saying

that this takes it back to function where it was prior to 2016. On the

changes, I’ve laid out how that would be the case, several times. I can,

if the member wants me to, repeat it again.

P. Milobar: Well, the member for Surrey-Panorama: “This bill will now read the

way it did before 2016” — back in 2016. Making it a government reporting

entity. And: “…the previous government’s tenure was switched over in

terms of the composition, back in 2016.” That was the Minister of Water

— and the former Finance Minister, and member after member.

They obviously had very similar, if not word-for-word, speaking

points around 2016. The point being, and the reason I’m taking time on

this, is the government chose to fill the air time with a lack of

legislation for us to work on, repeating things that actually weren’t

really accurate. It’s troubling, especially when it’s Ministers of the

Crown, because that’s what the public’s perception of this

is.

A lot of the narrative in second reading was around a grand

unshackling of the Real Estate Foundation, because they’d been shackled.

Apparently, removing (

e) out of the board will unshackle this

foundation. I want to be clear: on our side, we agree that the Real

Estate Foundation does great work. They do great philanthropic work. We

don’t take issue with any of the members on the board whatsoever. We

recognize their skill sets. They’re on the board legitimately and should

be there, and the members of their subcommittee should be

there.

The questions I’m asking have absolutely nothing to do with them

on a personal level, but the statements made by government members are a

little shocking, in terms of how the government controls the existing

system, has too tight of a grip and has shackled the foundation from

doing the great work they do.

Can the minister confirm that with the change in clause 1, none of

the internal operational structure of the foundation will change in

terms of how they select their own leadership on their board, how they

deal with their subcommittee work or with any of those structures? So

the board will still be able to select their own chair? The board will

be able to select their own subcommittee chairs and things of that

nature?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I will re-emphasize to the member that when my colleagues

say that this legislation will take the function back to pre-2016, they

would be correct. What I also will say to the member is: yes, the

foundation can choose their own chair.

[3:05 p.m.]

What he probably heard from several of my colleagues — I can

repeat it again — is that the foundation came forward with many

challenges with being in the GRE. They had some challenges around

funding and programming issues. They had stakeholder engagement

challenges. They had obstacles with Indigenous relations and engagement

with Indigenous communities.

So this change helps them be able to be even greater and serve the

province in a better way, which I think the member and I can agree

on.

P. Milobar: Again, we will probably each start off our questions and answers

the same way. I’m reading from Hansard , so the minister can say

that I’m interpreting what his colleagues said, but I’m not. I’m reading

from Hansard . The member for Surrey-Panorama said: “This bill

will now read the way it did before 2016” — “read the way,” not be

interpreted, not function like. Many other members said

similar.

But 91 is the focus of clause 1, and 91 is removing (

e) and

substituting the minister or another member appointed by the minister to

now be: “one member appointed by the British Columbia Non-Profit Housing

Association.”

Under the current legislation and board makeup, there’s one member

appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, essentially the

minister. There’s one member not licensed under this act appointed by

the minister. There are one or two members appointed in accordance with

the regulations. Those are both by the minister. Then there’s the

minister or another member appointed by the minister. That’s the one

that’s being replaced and changed out through the Non-Profit Housing

Association.

I’m just at a loss, given that the minister currently could

appoint one, two, three, four, five members of a seven-member board, how

the minister now appointing four members of a seven-member board

completely unshackles this board.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll repeat this again, but I’ll say it maybe in a different way,

which is that prior to the changes we’re making in this legislation,

four out of the seven members were government appointed. The change

we’re making here makes it three out of seven, which allows it to come

out of the GRE.

[3:10 p.m.]

For example, “one member appointed by Lieutenant Governor in

Council,” that’s (a); “one member, not licensed under this Act,

appointed by the minister,” that’s (d). Then under (d.1), it says “one

or 2 members appointed in accordance with the regulations, if any.” One

is appointed by UBCM, and one is done by the minister. So three

appointments of the seven are within government, and four are

outside.

P. Milobar: Now, again, there was a lot of talk about the great unshackling

that this change will create and the ease of getting grants, which would

happen.

I can understand that perhaps maybe some outside foundations or

that might be concerned with it being a government reporting entity. I

can understand that.

Can the minister please maybe illuminate us on what government

members, in their speeches, would be referring to when they say “get

government grants from government”? Has the government been refusing to

provide grants to the Real Estate Foundation because they’re a

government reporting entity?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think my colleagues were probably referring to the fact that

now, by being outside of the GRE, it provides two important pieces. It

allows the foundation now to have more flexibility, so money can be

spent not in one fiscal year, but it can be spent over multiple years.

know the member will know about that. He’s been the critic for Finance

for a while. Also, a lot more flexibility in administrating grants to

other organizations.

P. Milobar: Maybe I shortened the quote up a little too much for the minister,

to be fair. So I’ll read the full sentence of the quote to maybe provide

the full context, because I was sitting in here when it was said: “I

want to speak about how having the Real Estate Foundation of British

Columbia unshackled and able to work in partnership and get grants from

government….” Now, those were the Minister of Advanced Education’s

words, who was previously the Finance Minister who actually amended this

legislation in 2021, who actually oversaw the Real Estate Foundation up

until she was no longer the Finance Minister.

One would assume that as chair of Treasury Board, Finance Minister

and overseer of the foundation, she would know whether or not it was

becoming a problem getting government grants.

Again, was the government withholding grants to the Real Estate

Foundation because they were a government reporting entity? And if so,

which grants?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, I’m glad my colleagues found this change to be

important, because it is important for this foundation and the work they

do.

I’ve already highlighted for the member some flexibilities that

come with not being in the GRE. Surely, he can appreciate the ability to

take dollars year over year. Surely, he would appreciate the ability to

be more flexible about how grants are administered. There are important

pieces for the foundation there that will help them better serve the

public.

That’s what my colleagues are very happy about. Certainly, I’m

happy about that as well.

P. Milobar: Can the minister confirm…? Again, there was a lot of discussion

about the great work the foundation does, and this side doesn’t take

issue with that. It was around the whole watershed program.

[3:15 p.m.]

Could the minister confirm two things: that the watershed program

was a large grant from this government and that it is money that will

spend several years for the foundation to distribute?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The grants the member is referring to would come from Water, Land

and Resource Stewardship. It might be a question you can canvass in

estimates.

P. Milobar: The only reason I ask that question is the minister tried to make

it sound like the only possible explanation. When the former Minister of

Finance says that it would enable the foundation to get grants from

government, she must have been referring to multi-year grants, because,

of course, that makes it easier to get a year-over-year grant. Yet the

same grant the members from government filibustering this bill were

referencing is a pretty significant grant that’s doing great work out

there. But it’s not all spent in one year. It’s going to last a few

years.

I’ll move on, in the interests of time. The minister said that

there will be no change to the internal board structure in terms of how

they select their leadership. So again, I’m just curious. There was a

lot of commentary around the unshackling and government oversight.

There’s the government reporting side of the comments. But there was

also government oversight and control comments of the unshackling from

various government members that happened in their filibuster speeches as

well.

I’m wondering. I’m not sure…. I recognize this is the minister

substituting for the minister. Currently the chair was voted to be the

chair by the board, and that’s a government appointee person. All of the

vice-chairs of the various committees are voted for by the committee,

and they are people that were appointed by the government.

In fact, on the Indigenous Advisory Committee, be­cause we

heard a lot about how this will free up work with Indigenous

communities, is actually the president of the NDP. I’m just wondering if

any of this legislation is actually going to significantly change the

government oversight or overview, given that the government seems to

have a pretty strong hold, and the board seems comfortable with that in

terms of the people that are in different roles. They selected them.

They agreed with them.

Again, I go back to my earlier comments. We’re not taking issue

with any, and that’s why I’m not naming names. We don’t take issue with

any of them on a personal level or a skill set level. But it seemed

interesting that the government members were talking about this

oppressive government oversight yet, at the same time, having a board

structure and a subcommittee structure that is very heavily weighted

with government oversight and connections.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ve said this multiple times. I’ll say it again. Currently four

of the seven members are from government. Three are not. With this

change, three become from government and four become

independent.

[3:20 p.m.]

The core of the member’s question, I think, is: with these

changes, might the current structure change? Of course. Of course it

could change. There’s going to be an additional person outside of

government coming in, and they can decide whether they want to change

committees or if they want to change the chair of the

committee.

P. Milobar: Again, these are all in the context of 91(e), which is putting a

member of the Non-Profit Housing Association on the foundation, which we

don’t object to.

I’m quoting now the member for Stikine. “That structure has its

pros and cons, I suppose. One of the pros is that it gave government a

great deal of influence as to who sits on the board, which allows the

government to appoint a number of directors, have much more involvement

on the day-to-day workings of the foundation.” They’ll still have that

because none of the actual operational side is changing, according to

the minister.

Then, later on, this same minister, in his second reading — not

this minister but the minister I’m quoting — says: “There’s one small

change that allows us to make sure that there is a strengthening,

particularly of First Nations’ participation, in how the foundation

operates. That’s addressed in Bill 8.”

Can the minister or his staff point me to either the amendment in

clause 1 or clause 2 that specifically increases, by way of legislation,

the involvement of First Nations in the foundation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m sure my colleagues were referring to the fact that the B.C.

Non-Profit Housing Association, which now has a seat, has stated very

clearly that they are committed to reconciliation. They support the

foundation’s interest to have a board that reflects more diverse

perspectives with respect to real estate.

P. Milobar: I do applaud the minister for doing his level best to try to

defend the overstatements by his colleagues repeatedly on a filibuster

on a bill. I guess my hope out of all of this…. I’m not trying to

filibuster a bill that actually is fairly straightforward to

read.

My point over this last 45 minutes or so, given that we only have

motions to debate this afternoon, or discuss, and not legislation, was

that there’s a danger when government starts to filibuster what are

housekeeping bills — and what the opposition has acknowledged are

housekeeping bills and is supportive of — because this is the stage that

the time would be better spent actually asking those questions and

digging in to find out the ins and outs, the intricacies of how it will

actually impact the real world.

The repeated statements, though, frankly, that I was hearing as I

listened to the debate were getting more and more frustrating because it

was painting a very inaccurate picture of what this bill actually

does.

[3:25 p.m.]

This bill, as we all know, has only two clauses being amended,

removing some language and switching out one person. Yes, it results in

it not being a government reporting entity, but it’s fundamentally not

going to create the atmosphere that we are being led to believe with the

comments, let alone the utopia that some in government were painting

that the foundation’s work was going to do.

They do great work. But in the expectation, if you listen to what

some of the speeches were, they’re the next to cure the most incurable

disease known to man, based on the work of the foundation, because of

all the great works they do. It was getting to that level of

discussion.

Frankly, it was a bit of an affront to how this place is actually

supposed to work. People expect a lot more accuracy in statements coming

from government members, let alone ministers of the Crown, let alone

ministers that previously used to have this file and actually amended

this bill in 2021.

With that, Madam Chair, I’m probably out of questions. It is

straightforward. I’ll have no questions on the other clause or on the

commencement date.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m sorry the member is frustrated. I think he knows, all members

of this place know, that we’re all elected here, sent by the people of

our communities, to speak to bills. Everyone has the right to speak to a

bill. Certainly, that’s what my colleagues were doing. I think it’s

important work.

Again, I appreciate us being able to go through, in more detail,

some of the pieces the member wanted to canvass, and I thank him for a

good exchange.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — REAL ESTATE SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 8, Real Estate Services Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call now committee on Bill 7, the Land Owner Transparency

Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — LAND OWNER TRANSPARENCY

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 7; J. Tegart in the

chair.

The committee met at 3:29 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: I call the committee to order. We’re dealing with Bill 7, the

Land Owner Transparency Amendment Act, 2023.

Member for Kamloops…. North Thompson.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know our ridings are light-years

apart, in the geographic sense.

[3:30 p.m.]

In keeping with the spirit of the minister’s opening comments on

this bill, which were that it’s a bill to address minor legislative,

interpretive and technical issues, I only have, actually, one or two

quick questions, and possibly only the one.

My understanding is that this is an update to errors that were

found with the first Land Owner Transparency Act, to correct. That’s

understandable, a new piece of legislation that might have the odd error

in it.

Was there any push from any law enforcement agencies or any of

that type of enforcement side of the equation, either federal or

provincial or municipal, that asked the government to make these

changes, because they were finding that they were unable to proceed with

any money-laundering types of investigations or prosecutions — eventual

prosecutions, hopefully — because of the language that now needs to be

changed not existing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I’ll start by saying this legislation, the Land Owner

Transparency Act, was historic when it was introduced, the first of its

kind in Canada. I know that certainly, on our side, we’re very committed

to addressing money laundering.

When we brought the act in there were significant changes. We are

now seeing in practice that act working. What we have identified are

changes that will help the act better perform as was intended when it

was brought in so that we can be more efficient in the work we do and

get the outcomes that we want.

P. Milobar: I have no other questions on the bill.

Clauses 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

The Chair: We will take a short, less than five-minute,

recess.

The committee recessed from 3:34 p.m. to 3:38 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:39 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — LAND OWNER TRANSPARENCY

AMENDMENT ACT,

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 7, Land Owner

Transparency Amendment Act, 2023.

Bill 7, Land Owner Transparency Amendment Act, 2023, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call continued debate on Motion 18.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 18 — APPOINTMENT OF

SPECIAL

COMMITTEE TO REVIEW

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

(continued)

K. Greene: It’s my pleasure today to speak to Motion 18 here on the

territories of the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, the

Songhees and Esquimalt nations, on whose territory I’m very grateful to

be at and whose connection to the land continues today.

Motion 18, to appoint a special committee to examine the use of

private members’ time, is something that I’m very strongly in favour of.

This committee is going to make recommendations for improvements to

things like private members’ bills and private members’ motions. It will

conduct a review of both of the elements of this time that we have and

report back to the House.

I think it’s very important that that report comes back as soon as

possible. That is reflected in the language of this motion. The Special

Committee will report back to the House no later than October 5, 2023.

This signals how important this work is. It tells us that the work that

happens as private members is important and is part of functioning

democracy. A lot of business happens here at the Legislature. We find

that we’re often short on time. Efficiency and reviewing that efficiency

of private members’ time is something that is definitely

needed.

The motion to review the private members’ time really cuts down to

the question of: what is the highest and best use of this time? Because

our time is limited, we want to make sure that we are doing the best

that we can for the people of British Columbia while we’re here. What

does highest and best use mean? It means that we have a scarce resource,

and that is time. There are lots of philosophers who have spoken at

length on how important time is. There are also some things in economics

that speak to this. Being a former student of economics, the quote

“maximize your utility” is something that comes to mind. That means

getting the most out of the resource that you have.

Motion 18 recognizes the scarcity of our time. The committee is

going to find ways to optimize the use of that time. It’s been a long

time since we’ve had a meaningful review of private members’ time here

in the Legislature. For those who are watching, perhaps you’re not

aware. Every Monday morning we have two hours set aside for private

members’ time, which is the business of private members — those who

aren’t in government cabinet.

Currently, the first hour is for private members’ statements.

Members can choose a topic of importance to them. Maybe it’s local.

Maybe it’s a personal passion. But it’s something that’s important for

us to hear about here in the Legislature. Then in the second hour of

private members’ time, we have a private members’ motion. It is

de­bated. It can get a little testy, as I’m sure folks here in the

chamber can attest to. But it clarifies the values that are held by

members here and the priorities that are held by parties. It doesn’t

enact changes in legislation. But it is an important way to describe to

people what it is that we are prioritizing and working towards in

government.

This motion for a special committee is important. There are

diverse communities that are represented here in this chamber. We have

people of diverse ethnic, gender, religion and all kinds of different

backgrounds. Everything that you can describe, we have it represented

here.

[3:45 p.m.]

We also have diverse backgrounds. What have people done before

they ended up here? We’ve got nurses. We’ve got tech entrepreneurs. We

have farmers. We have lawyers. That’s just on our side of the House. I

know the other side is represented in all different areas as well.

Hearing from all those diverse voices in private members’ time is really

important. This committee is going to ensure that we are optimizing this

really important resource we have, time, but also the diversity of

voices we have here, so we can better represent the communities that we

come from.

I’m very sure that the other side has thoughts and opinions on

what private members’ time should look like, as well as the Third Party.

I’d love to hear their input. I think that hearing from all of these

different perspectives and then knitting them together is something that

is going to be part of the fundamental work of this

committee.

The special committee is going to review the private members’

time, and it’s really good that it is, because the Legislature does some

of its very best work in committee. I know that there have been a number

of instances where we’ve had heated debates on things like privacy or

health and were able to discuss those in committee in a way that is not

as combative as it is often here in these chambers.

People ask me sometimes about question period and whether that’s

reflective of the work that we do here as elected members of

communities, and I have to say that when we are in committee, we do some

of our best work. We have conversations that are open, and we are

listening, and we are collaborating to get to a destination that works

well for the people of British Columbia.

In those committees, we get to talk about what’s important. We get

to talk about our priorities. Then all these diverse voices that are

here in this chamber, our backgrounds, whether it’s your personal

background…. As a woman, I have a different background than, perhaps,

the other members that are from Port Coquitlam. It’s interesting that we

can also have different backgrounds on our work experience. Then all of

those things can come together, and in the committee, they can mesh, and

then we can get a better result as a result.

I just want to say that I am very grateful that I am elected to

these chambers, and that’s because of the support of the residents of

Richmond-Steveston. The people of Steveston have very, very diverse

backgrounds. They come from all corners of the world. I am so proud of

the way that my community comes together. I know that everybody here is

impressed by their community and proud of the work that the people

do.

I think that when we have this committee, when we are looking at

private members’ time and making it better, we’re respecting that

commitment to the people in our different regions, respecting the

diversity of the people across this province. I know very much that our

ridings are full of very different people with different priorities, but

often those priorities are the same. We are different, but we are more

the same than we are different.

By reviewing and making recommendations about pri­vate

members’ time, the special committee is going to be ensuring that all of

these voices are being heard. All of these different communities are

going to be better reflected in the work that we do here.

The special committee in this Motion 18 is going to be empowered

to hear from the public, from our communities, from academic

institutions, people who have studied this for many years, stakeholders.

They’re going to have options to provide input to the special

committee.

In the committees, like other committee work that I’ve undertaken

— I know other members have as well — we get to have dialogue with

people that are presenting. We get to ask questions and hear from people

that are truly experts and people who are just very interested in making

democracy better.

By reviewing private members’ time, the work of the special

committee is really an opportunity to improve demo­cracy. We can

look at other jurisdictions. We can see what’s working there and,

importantly, what is not working. I, unfortunately, know that there are

a number of democracies that are faltering, and perhaps, understanding

better the pitfalls is a really good way of making sure that we don’t

repeat any of those.

[3:50 p.m.]

I think we’re very, very fortunate to have this opportunity to

make our democracy work better. It’s not every day that an opportunity

like this is available. We need to protect our democracy and strive for

improvement. Being open to suggestions and hearing from people on how to

make it better is very fundamental to improving democracy. Our

government is always looking for ways to make things better and that are

going to help people be better heard.

As the elected member for Richmond-Steveston, which is on the

traditional territory of the Musqueam Nation, it’s important to me…. I’m

here. I’m honoured to be able to support this motion, which creates an

opportunity to increase the functionality of representative

democracy.

Through the work of the special committee, we’re going to get a

report, as I mentioned before. It will be reported to the House no later

than October 5, 2023. That report, as most committees do, is going to be

supported by all parties. So it does have those diverse perspectives

embedded in it, as well as of the public and experts.

The special committee is another example of how our government is

doing business better on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It’s

noteworthy that the special committee will include all parties — like

when our government provided legislative drafting services to opposition

members of the Legislative Assembly. Our government is always looking

for ways to do this important work better.

Motion 18 is going to create a special committee. That’s

wonderful. This report is going to point to ways that we can improve our

democracy here in British Columbia and avoid pitfalls that other areas

may have taken. Those pitfalls might not be apparent to us, but they are

going to be revealed by the committee’s work. That’s why that’s

important.

Ensuring independence and improving government process are what we

do — like fixing the Electoral Boundaries Commission so that they can

work, unfettered, to ensure that every vote in B.C. is equal. This

special committee will be no different. It’s another opportunity to do

things better and to serve British Columbians better.

It’s probably no surprise that I’m enthusiastic about democracy

since I’ve been elected here. I thank the people of Steveston very much

for their trust and support. I’ve worked for them each and every day

since I’ve been elected. I never take for granted the importance of the

work that we do here and the responsibility that we have on behalf of

our constituents and all British Columbians.

Motion 18 is to strike a special committee to review private

members’ time on Monday morning. Two hours doesn’t seem like a lot of

time in a week, but when your weeks are as filled as everyone’s are

here, two hours can be very significant.

I think ensuring we’re doing the best we can in every single part

of the day is really important. It’s a responsibility that we have to

the people of British Columbia — to ensure that we’re reviewing and

implementing change, not just on private members’ time but throughout

government. Where we can make processes better, make them serve people

better, it’s incumbent on us to do that.

In conclusion, I am pleased to support this motion to launch a

special committee to review private members’ business. It has been too

long since private members’ business has been reviewed, and I’m very

much looking forward to hearing the conclusions in the report and to

hearing about the work that the committee is undertaking. I’ll be

following it very closely, whether I’m on it or not, because I’m keenly

interested in the different aspects of the democratic process here in

British Columbia and in Canada. We all are so fortunate to have a

front-row seat to that.

I will take my place, Madam Speaker. Thank you very

much.

F. Donnelly: I’d like to start off by thanking the member for

Richmond-Steveston for her very thoughtful remarks.

[3:55 p.m.]

I’m happy to rise in support of the motion: “That a Special

Committee to Review Private Members’ Business be appointed and empowered

to examine the current use of time for Private Members’ business by the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and other parliamentary

jurisdictions in Canada, and to make recommendations on possible

improvements to the consideration of Private Members’ business,

specifically, Private Members’ bills and Private Members’ motions, in

the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, and that the Committee

report to the House by October 5, 2023.”

I would also like to acknowledge the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-​speaking

people, specifically the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, whose

territories we are on and able to conduct our business.

It’s been far too long since the House has meaningfully reviewed

the time spent here on Monday mornings, known as private members’ time.

Private members’ time is an opportunity for private members from both

sides of the House to raise important issues on behalf of their

constituents and to speak to important challenges facing British

Columbians.

The purpose of this special committee will be to examine how

private members’ time can best serve the needs of people in British

Columbia. Obviously, there are diverse views across the province, and we

believe it’s important to hear from both sides of the House as we hear

from community leaders across the province.

That’s why a committee made up of all parties in the Legislature

is being struck and will include ways for the public and stakeholders to

make submissions. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to consider

this and to give input. I also look forward to hearing ideas from

others, including across the aisle.

The committee can also look at practices in other jurisdictions —

what works and what doesn’t work. I think it’s really important to take

a look at how decisions are made in this Legislature. I think we also

need to consider how decisions are made in other Legislatures, whether

it be in other provinces, our House of Commons, the Upper House in

Ottawa, in other countries like the United States, the U.K., Australia,

New Zealand, in Europe or Scandinavia or any other democratic

institution.

We can learn from those institutions how they make decisions on

laws that govern them, how they set policies that govern their land and

resource use, how they resolve differences and disputes. It’s

instructive to examine how other places make decisions in order for us

to learn, improve and evolve our thinking in decision-making.

I spent ten years in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, three terms

and three very different governments.

I was first elected in 2009, in a by-election, to a Conservative

minority. Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister at the time.

In 2011, I was re-elected, and it was an exciting time for me. I

remember our leader, Jack Layton, took our party, the NDP, to new

heights. Indeed, we became Canada’s official opposition for the first

time in our party’s history. Very exciting.

I will say, on the other hand, that Stephen Harper got his

majority. The Conservatives ruled with a majority government, and they

certainly changed many laws during their time as a majority

government.

Finally, I was re-elected in 2015, which saw the Liberal Party

rise to become, also, a majority government.

Three very different terms. Three very different

governments.

I would like to highlight how laws and the legislative

decision-making process were important in the making of laws in those

Legislatures in those terms.

In terms of laws being changed, one law I remember being changed

under the Harper majority government was the Fisheries Act. The

Conservatives were very exacting in their change. They removed what’s

called a HADD, a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish

habitat, from the law.

[4:00 p.m.]

This had the effect of taking it from being one of the strongest

pieces of legislation in the country to an extremely weakened state of

protection for fish habitat. They dismantled that protection to

facilitate their oil agenda, and they were not shy about that. They told

Canadians that’s exactly what they were doing. They could do that

because they had a majority government.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I’ll also say that Canadians didn’t like that. So in 2015, they

gave Stephen Harper and the Conservatives a resounding defeat. The

Liberals under Justin Trudeau came to power, and they formed a majority

government.

You can see that the three terms of parliament that I’ve served

under were very, very different. First, a Conservative minority, then a

Conservative majority and, finally, a Liberal majority. In each session

of parliament, the committee makeup was very different, even though the

structure was very much the same. Their committee system in Ottawa is

quite different from the committee system here in the

Legislature.

I’d like to highlight how the committee system works in Ottawa as

an opportunity to learn and take elements of what works there and

consider applying it here for some of those members selected to the

committee. In Ottawa, each official party is represented at the

committee table, and each party has a set amount of time to ask

questions during a committee meeting — usually a committee meeting is

about two hours — with witnesses, which all parties agree to. Again,

that’s critically important.

First of all, the Chair and vice-Chair and the members are all

agreed to. Their speaking times are all agreed to; the amount of time

allotted to each party and each side, all agreed to; the witnesses, all

agreed to by all the committee members. There’s a lot of discussion, a

lot of back-and-forth and then eventually agreement.

Each party has a set amount of time to ask a limited number of

questions to key witnesses. Whether it’s government officials or

subject-matter experts or Indigenous knowledge-keepers or industry or

labour reps, they all have an opportunity to provide the committee with

input, providing testimony. Questions by committee members are asked and

answered by witnesses. Witnesses give their answers, and debate occurs

among committee members.

Certainly, depending on the personalities around the committee

table, there is agreement. Sometimes it’s a highly partisan discussion.

Often it is not partisan, and there are good comments back and forth.

There is an opportunity to listen, to learn, on both sides, on all

sides, and it’s critically important. It’s not always unanimous, but

it’s usually unanimous.

That’s an important element, I think, of the work that we do here.

As the member for Richmond-Steveston mentioned, especially in things

that are on television or quite popularized in the media…. Question

period is very dramatic. It’s very confrontational. It’s very

positional. It’s an opportunity for the opposition to try and embarrass

the government or make the government look like it doesn’t know what

it’s doing. For government, it’s an opportunity to try and get its

message out and let the people know what its agenda is and its

objectives are.

[4:05 p.m.]

But in committees, there’s often very…. There’s not as much

attention paid to what’s happening at committee. That’s an opportunity

for both sides, I think, to bring to the forefront, to highlight, how to

make our communities better and how to make the best legislation or laws

that we can. That is, I think, critically important.

Now, the key outcome of committee work is usually the report.

There are all of these witnesses that come that provide key testimony

and key information. I know of many witnesses who have put a lot of time

and energy and effort and finances into the preparation of their

testimony. It’s critically important, and they feel it’s important.

Certainly I, as a former committee member at the federal level, felt it

was very important to hear and to understand their

perspective.

That report needs to reflect that input, that testimony and, more

specifically, the recommendations. I think that’s where it’s key. At the

committee stage, it really is about the recommendations. What is the

committee itself recommending to the government that the government do

differently in terms of affecting its either policy or

legislation?

At committee stage, recommendations are discussed, debated and

voted on. Each member and all parties have an opportunity to participate

and alter the course of legislation and/or policy. Occasionally, the

governing party members agree to the amendments, and then the amended

recommendations are adopted along with the report. This often has the

outcome of changing, sometimes slightly, sometimes significantly, the

legislation or policy being debated.

It’s not a perfect system, but it certainly gives the government a

chance to hear from experts, including different perspectives, along

with the opposition’s point of view. It also gives the opposition an

opportunity to contribute to recommendations and the outcome of the

legislation or the policy being addressed. Again, it’s not a perfect

system, but it’s a good and fair and thorough system. It’s one that I

think we can….

I would recommend and encourage the committee that’s struck here

to take a look at that system. There are many other systems like that.

Can we look at our neighbouring province? Can we look at other provinces

or territories in the country to see how their systems operate so that

we can improve our Monday morning sessions — our private members’

time?

I think that will be a challenge for the committee that’s struck

to do that in a relatively short amount of time, but this is an

opportunity to take the time to review what other legislatures use, and

their way of getting to good decision-making and getting to good

results, because after all, that’s what people want to see. They want to

see our province improve. They want to see the work that their

representatives do reflected in those recommendations in the reports

that we bring forward that actually change the laws of how people in

this province are governed.

I want to finish, Speaker, on mentioning that once the report is

approved and reported on to parliament, it’s then up to the government

to implement the recommendations in the report. The government could

decide not to or they could decide that they’re going to immediately

implement those recommendations. It’s up to the government to do that,

and if you’re a majority government and if you don’t like the

recommendations, you may decide you’re not going to implement those. If

you’re a minority government, it’s a little riskier to do that. You may

risk not being able to hold the confidence of that

parliament.

[4:10 p.m.]

I think it’s important, the role that opposition plays in the

input that’s provided. Certainly, that private members play — it’s

critically important. I believe that a government that doesn’t listen to

the opposition carefully can run the risk of becoming out of touch. That

happens on either side, in any party, in any level, whether it’s local,

provincial, federal. It’s critical, I think, to be in touch with the

people that represent that body. It’s a good idea for all governments, I

think, to be wary of that.

It’s up to us parliamentarians to design the best system we can

and that represents the people that we each represent in our respective

ridings.

I work hard to represent the good people of Coquitlam–​Burke

Mountain, whether it’s fighting for more schools in our growing

community, more child care spaces, more affordable housing, more park

space. These are all things in my community that constituents and people

tell me are critically important. They remind me every opportunity they

get that I should be representing those views.

I bring those views to this chamber. I bring those views to

committee work. I bring those views to private members’ time. I know

each of us around this chamber does the same. I value that input. I

value the perspective that we can get of this entire province in this

chamber.

Again, the opportunity for us to come together through this

committee to develop and hopefully evolve a better two-hour session on

Monday mornings is a critical task and an important one. That’s why I

support this motion. I wish those who are tasked with designing our

private members’ time on Monday mornings all the best with their

deliberations and their recommendations.

With that, I will take my seat.

Hon. B. Bailey: I request we take a five-minute recess.

Deputy Speaker: There’s been a request for a five-minute recess. We will take a

five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 4:12 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: All right, Members, I’d like to call this House back into session.

Of course, I would recognize the Government House Leader.

Oh, sorry. We still have to wrap the debate on…. I guess the

debate didn’t finish on that.

Seeing no further speakers, all those in favour of the

motion.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Now we’ll go back to the Government House Leader.

Apologies.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Mr. Speaker, I call Motion 17 on the order paper.

MOTION 17 — ADDICTIONS CARE

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 17 standing in my name on the order paper:

[That, consistent with the Report of the Select Standing Committee on

Health intituled Closing Gaps, Reducing Barriers , this House affirm

its support for a spectrum of addictions care, such as life-saving harm

reduction measures — including safe consumption sites, decriminalization and

safer supply — and for a rapid, unprecedented expansion of drug treatment

and recovery spaces.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: It’s a real honour to rise in support of this motion and to talk about

what is clearly a critical issue for all British Columbians and, indeed, for

all members of this House.

I do first want to express, on behalf of our government and, I think,

indeed, all who sit in this House, our deepest condolences to those who have

lost loved ones, families, members, friends to the toxic drug poisoning

crisis and want them to know that we stand with them in their grief. To

those British Columbians who are struggling with mental health and substance

use issues: I want you to know that we see you, and we are working hard to

ensure that you have the care and support that you need.

We lost 2,272 people to suspected toxic drug poisoning in 2022. Each

death is a tragedy, and each loss is unimaginable. The poisoned drug crisis

is a scourge, and it is happening across Canada and, indeed, across North

America. It has been made much worse by the COVID-​19

pandemic.

It is, in fact, the toll of the toxic drug crisis that compelled the

declaration of a public health emergency by public health officials in 2016.

It is what compelled our government, in response to that, to create the

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions in 2017 so we could shine a light

on this crisis, so that we could work across government to create

cross-ministry programs and approaches and work to build a comprehensive

system of treatment and care, including integrating mental health and

substance use care into our primary care system.

I want to say that I do know how important this issue is to each

member of this House. We all have our stories and our experiences. We all

have people in our circles, in our communities, who may struggle with

substance use and perhaps underlying health issues. We all feel compelled to

advocate.

There has never been so much investment in resources and services as

there is at this time, and there have never been so many people working to

save lives every day as there are now. Yet, still, the toxicity of the

illicit drug supply is challenging our efforts. While we have been adding

services and supports at an unprecedented level, B.C. is, indeed, facing a

rising tide of need.

We have accomplished much over the last five years. We have increased

counselling services, increased services for children and youth, expanded

treatment beds, expanded harm reduction services. We know that the expansion

of overdose prevention sites has saved more than 7,000 lives, according to

the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. We invest over $2.8 billion in mental

health and substance use care in B.C., and that amount has grown over the

course of our mandate. Yet we know there is more to do.

[4:20 p.m.]

I am grateful for the consensus amongst all parties in this House,

expressed in the 2022 final report of the Select Standing Committee on

Health entitled Closing Gaps, Reducing Barriers: Expanding the Response

to the Toxic Drug and Overdose Crisis — that consensus that we need

to work to build up a system of care and support across the continuum, from

community-based supports to addressing stigma to harm reduction to treatment

and recovery.

That report speaks eloquently to the agony, the frustration and the

hope that British Columbians experience in a crisis that is complex and

constantly changing. The report reflects the recognition of the particular

challenges posed by the fact that addiction affects the heart and the head

and is a chronic and relapsing condition that requires that we meet people

where they are at. This process certainly struck a chord with British

Columbians. The committee heard from 118 presenters and received 881 witness

submissions. I think that we can all agree on this: we need to keep people

alive so that they can connect to care and support.

I hold in my head and in my heart the words of harm reduction and

recovery advocate Guy Felicella, who says so profoundly of his own lived

experience: “I wouldn’t be alive today without harm reduction, and I would

not have the life I have today without my recovery.” I think this sentiment

echoes through so many of the conversations that I have with people in my

community, with front-line care providers, with advocates, with

experts.

Our ten-year plan sets the framework for this work. The Pathway to

Hope is built on four pillars.

The first pillar is improved wellness for children, youth and adults.

The actions that we have taken under that pillar relate to supporting

pregnant individuals and parents with substance use challenges; promoting

early childhood social and emotional development; enhanced programming in

early childhood centres; expanding the Confident Parents, Thriving Kids

program; and expanding Foundry centres. I’m going to talk a little bit more

about our specific work in that area in a little bit.

It has also meant expanding mental health in schools through

establishing our integrated child and youth teams; scaling up step-up,

step-down; specialized care home beds; intensive day programs for children

and youth; as well as creating virtual counselling for post-secondary

students.

The second pillar of Pathway to Hope supports Indigenous-led

solutions. The actions in that regard relate to implementing the tripartite

MOU with the First Nations Health Council, the First Nations Health

achieve progress on the social determinants of health and wellness, so many

of which are at the root of the challenges people and communities experience

with respect to mental health and substance use and which we must address in

a whole-of-government way.

It includes embedding cultural safety and humility across the

provincial system and recognizing that Indigenous people and First Nations

people, in particular, are disproportionately impacted by the toxic drug

crisis.

We are expanding First Nations–run treatment centres and land-based

cultural and healing services as well as supporting the capacity for First

Nations, Indigenous and Métis Nation B.C. to help them in their important

role in this work and supporting First Nations–led primary health care

initiatives, an excellent example of which I had an opportunity to visit in

the Downtown Eastside, the Kílala Lelum primary health care centre for

Indigenous people in that community.

The third pillar is around better care, saving lives; around

addressing substance use, again through that continuum of care. It speaks to

developing a framework for improving the substance use system of care in

B.C., ensuring that we are using the best evidence as we build out that

system; increasing access to evidence-based addiction care; integrating

team-based service delivery to connect people to treatment and to ongoing

recovery.

[4:25 p.m.]

Overdose emergency response — scaling that up, in­cluding

community-based harm reduction services; supporting recovery services; and

very importantly, listening to people with lived experience and embodying

that notion of “nothing about us without us” in the work that we do. In that

respect, we support and take advice from and are very grateful for the work

of the Provincial Peer Network.

The fourth pillar is around improved access and better quality. That

is the work we’ve been doing around expanding access to affordable community

counselling, to team-based primary care with mental health and substance use

professionals; increasing specialized services; enhancing our provincial

crisis line network; the framework and standards to improve care under the

Mental Health Act; implementing peer support coordinators, and I will talk

about peer workers, particularly in respect to Foundry, in a minute;

developing peer support worker training resources, which has been a

fundamental part of the Foundry work; expanding the Bounce Back program; the

Mental Health and Wellness Disaster Recovery Guide ; addressing

workplace mental health; and creating those digital resources that are so

important in terms of providing access for people across the

province.

We are making historic investments in all of these areas, including

mental health and addictions support, including enhancements across the full

spectrum of treatment and recovery. We know that our early work in this area

yielded important results.

In 2018-2019, we ramped up access to community counselling. We opened

more treatment spaces. We expanded harm reduction services. We ran a major

anti-stigma campaign. We did, indeed, shine a light on this issue, and we

saw the result of that in reduced mortality. In 2017 there were 1,495

British Columbians lost to toxic drug poisoning. That number increased in

2018 to 1,562, and in 2019, as a result of all of this work, it reduced for

the first time in years to 987. That is, of course, still 987 souls too

many. But it does show what we can do when we shine a light and harness all

of our resources in this area.

When the COVID pandemic hit, our front-line health care workers were

dealing with two unprecedented public health emergencies, both very

different in scope and nature. We lost ground because of the pandemic, and

we are working hard on all fronts with our community partners, with health

authorities, with front-line providers, with communities of lived experience

to make up that ground. It is because of those strong relationships, because

of that collaboration, that B.C. is actually leading the way on many

fronts.

One of the important developments has been the development of an

approach to safer supply which is, again, about keeping people alive so we

can connect them to care and treatment. B.C. is the first province to offer

prescribed safer supply. This is innovative, and in the context of the

pandemic, it was a very necessary measure.

People have been accessing prescribed safer supply since March 2020,

when the province introduced the first phase of the program. Nearly 1,200

people have accessed a safer supply since we launched the prescribed safer

supply program in 2020.

The second phase of prescribed safer supply is being implemented in

health authorities and through federally funded SAFER program settings. Our

government is in­vesting over $22 million over the next three years to

support health authorities in their important work to support the expansion

of prescribed safer supply. This funding will support the expansion of

existing and the creation of new programs and increase staffing capacity. It

will address robust monitoring and evaluation of the program’s

implementation.

We now have, across the province, over 700 prescribers, including over

100 nurses who have completed the training to prescribe, a first in Canada.

we have another 100 nurses enrolled in that training now. I thank them for

stepping up to do this important work.

[4:30 p.m.]

Decriminalization has been…. Really, we’ve answered a call that has

come from so many partners to apply to the federal government for an

exemption, and we received that exemption to remove criminal penalties for

people who possess small amounts of illicit drugs for personal

use.

The objective, the whole goal of this is around the decriminalization

of people who use drugs. The objective is to reduce the fear and the shame

that keep people silent and that lead so many to hide their drug use and

avoid treatment and support.

As we so eloquently heard from Kathryn Botchford, whose husband died

as a result of toxic drug poisoning, this is a critical step. It answers a

long-standing call from police, public health, front-line providers,

advocates, peo­ple with lived experience and municipalities to treat

addiction as a health matter, not a criminal matter. We know that reducing

the stigma of drug use is a vital part of B.C.’s. work to build a

comprehensive system of mental health and substance use care.

Decriminalization, of course, as we know, became effective January 31.

We’re continuing our work with a broad cross-section of partners to make

sure that police are trained and that front-line health providers are

prepared for this change. Again, I’m very grateful for the agreement of all

parties in this House, through their work on the select standing committee,

with respect to the importance of this step for British

Columbians.

We know as well that overdose prevention sites play a critical role in

saving lives as we respond to the increasing toxicity of the drug crisis. We

have heard from the coroner of the importance of those services. We’ve also

heard about the importance of drug-checking services.

British Columbia has begun to use very innovative, cutting-edge

technology to expand and enhance drug checking as well as developing a free

app called the Lifeguard App that helps save lives by automatically

connecting those people who use drugs to first responders if the user

becomes unresponsive. From May 2020 until the end of December 2022, the app

had been used more than 114,305 times by 16,100 app users. That is, again,

another important way of supporting individuals as they deal with their ow