Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, November

28, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Question of Privilege

(continued)

Hon. R. Kahlon: I rise on behalf of the Premier to respond to the question of privilege put forward

by the member for Kelowna-Mission.

I'd start by reading the member's comments into the record again. She said in a video:

"We're careful not to oversupply certain markets." I can't think of any other way

to interpret what the member was making reference to. I don't know many British Columbians

who are worried about oversupply in housing right now.

[1:35 p.m.]

Additionally, the member accused the Premier of deliberately misleading the House.

We believe that's unparliamentary and also completely false, and we believe the member

should withdraw that claim.

I can advise the House that there will be no further submissions on this topic.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, House Leader. We'll be taking this under advisement, and I'll make my ruling

later on.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment

Act.

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

Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 48 — LABOUR STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 48; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

On clause 8 (continued) .

The Chair: We'll call the committee to order. We are dealing with Bill 48.

G. Kyllo: Just before the lunch period, we were canvassing a number of questions with respect

to WorkSafeBC. My question to the minister was with respect to the definition of online

platform workers.

I know that, with respect to the regulations, they're to be developed around the employment

standards branch. The minister has indicated that through regulation, there's a specific

requirement that this particular bill will only impact both ride-hail and food service

delivery workers and not all online workers.

This particular clause, which looks to amend the Workers Compensation Amendment Act,

doesn't have that clarification. I'm just trying to understand from the minister if

that also would be through regulation or whether it would actually be clarified in

the actual Workers Compensation Amendment Act.

Hon. H. Bains: As I said before the break, this

section will amend the Workers Compensation Act,

similar to clause 1, which amends the Employment Standards Act.

This one will define what online platform workers are, through regulation, so it will

apply to the online platform workers, which we are talking about — the food delivery

and ride-hail.

[1:40 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: As I've noted, which is further on, with respect to this particular section, this

section would come into effect by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor.

I just want to confirm that the regulation will be developed to provide that further

clarification before this particular provision would come into force and effect in

the Workers Compensation Act. Hopefully, the minister can just clarify if that's the

correct understanding.

Hon. H. Bains: The WCA will come into effect through regulations, as we talked about, under the Employment

Standards Act.

G. Kyllo: Great, thank you. I appreciate that.

With respect to the impact, and what the workers compensation rates may be, was there

any work undertaken by the ministry, through the consultation process, to establish

or identify what the rate classifications will be, going forward, for the different

classifications of workers? I think we can appreciate that there's a difference between

those that may be driving for ride-hail and those that may be delivering food services

on a bike in downtown traffic.

I'm just wondering. If this is indeed a new category, how does WorkSafeBC establish

what that base rate would be? Has there been any consideration of the impact on that

rate to the costs associated with those that are utilizing these services in B.C.?

Hon. H. Bains: WorkSafeBC is already working with the platform companies. I'm advised that a couple

of companies already are registered with WorkSafeBC. One is in food delivery, and

another is a ride-hail. It is up to the WCB to determine the rate group. If there's

an existing one, they will put them in there.

It's the regular work of WorkSafeBC, just like with any other new employer coming

in and registering their employees.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister share what rate classification would be in place to capture these

single-classification workers working in two different, distinct operations? I would

suggest that for an Uber or Lyft driver or anybody in the ride-hail industry, the

workers compensation cost or claims ratio would be quite different than, as an example,

somebody delivering food in the middle of a city, with lots of traffic, on a bicycle.

I'm just wondering if it's the same classification that would cover those two distinct

classifications of workers or if it's the same one, and if the minister is aware and

can share which rate classification will provide potential protection for those workers?

Hon. H. Bains: That work is left for the WCB. They are experts. They know how to deal with the new

companies coming in, where to fit them. Discussions are already taking place between

WorkSafeBC and the platform companies. They'll determine the rate group and where

they fit in. That decision will be left between WorkSafeBC and the companies.

[1:45 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: I appreciate that WorkSafeBC will largely be doing the work. The minister referenced

two companies, I believe, that already have workers that would be covered under WorkSafeBC.

Can the minister share what rate classification is providing coverage for those companies

currently?

Hon. H. Bains: It's important to know that WorkSafeBC has the authority and has the expertise. They

have the act, and they will be making those decisions, as they have made before. They

may put them in the same or in a different…. I have no clue. This is up to WorkSafeBC.

They have guidelines; they have policies. They deal with new employers, new entrants,

all the time. They may take a look and talk to the company on what kind of work they

do, the risk factors and all that. Those are decisions best left up to WorkSafeBC.

G. Kyllo: It's unfortunate that the minister has, in his own words, no clue. WorkSafeBC is a

Crown corporation that's under the responsibility of the minister. This legislation

puts the requirement and the onus of this classification of worker to now be covered

by WorkSafeBC.

I don't think I have any quarrel with that, but it is important to better understand

that with the implementation of this bill, this particular

section will now require

these workers to be covered under WorkSafeBC. There is a significant number of work

and industry classifications that WorkSafeBC has the choice of moving this new classification

of worker into. Or they may also have the opportunity, maybe, to create a new classification

of worker.

The question is certainly valid, and I hope the minister can provide a bit more concise

information. Will this new classification of worker be slated in and fit within an

existing worker classification? Will it be a new classification? Then the other portion

that, I believe, most employers will be looking for is: what would the cost be? What

is the base rate? Has any work or inquiry been made by the minister to determine the

costs associated with this protection for the workers and what that rate classification

would be?

Hon. H. Bains: I don't like to venture into how WorkSafeBC determines which category a new entrant

could go in. They have their own process. The employers know what that process is.

[1:50 p.m.]

To answer the member, the company that is already in, registered with WorkSafeBC,

is in a taxi service and ride-hailing service, the categories that the WCB has developed.

That's where that particular company is.

Now, where the rest of them will go…. Again, I don't want to leave any impression

here, somehow, that that's where they're all going. That will be determined between

WorkSafeBC and the companies. They are meeting with each other already, so they will

determine whether they go into this particular category, or they may not. I don't

know at this particular time.

G. Kyllo: Thank you. I appreciate the response. That's extremely helpful.

With respect to this classification, taxi and ride-hailing, can the minister share

with this House what the base cost rate is for that classification? Then, further

to that, if the minister can just confirm that this particular company…. Is it only

a ride-hailing service? Are there any companies that the minister might be aware of

that are providing WorkSafeBC coverage for workers that may be delivering for food

services on bikes in the city, as an example?

Hon. H. Bains: I am advised that in 2022, their rate was 1.28 percent, or you can say $1.28 per 100

payroll.

G. Kyllo: Fantastic. Then just a second part of that question: are there any workers that are

currently being provided WorkSafeBC coverage that are in food service delivery utilizing

bicycles? It may sound like a bit of a nuanced question, but I would suspect that

the potential injury and rate classification for those that are riding bicycles in

the city doing food service delivery will be very different and distinct from those

in the ride-hail sector.

Hon. H. Bains: We don't have that information right now, where WCB placed that one particular company.

We could check that out. My understanding is that they put them in the general delivery

category, but we'll check that out for that particular company, if that's what interests

the member.

G. Kyllo: Just one clarification. As this particular

section just specifically references the

online worker….

[1:55 p.m.]

The minister has given confirmation to this House that in regulation, there will be

further definition to restrict the definition of an online worker to relate specifically

just to those in the ride-hail and food service delivery industry.

If the minister can clarify. Because this change is now being pushed over to regulation,

will it provide the opportunity, through an order-in-council, for the minister or

the government to expand the definition, the very restrictive definition, that has

been contemplated here today, which is just for those in the ride-hail and food service

delivery industry?

Does this provision provide the opportunity for further changes in regulation to expand

the definition of online worker?

Hon. H. Bains: The member asked the same question under

section 1, which was for the Employment Standards

Act. The same answer applies here: that right now, we're looking at these two categories

of workers. But it does give us the ability to expand in the future if the government

decides to bring in any other online platform work. If it comes up, we have the ability.

But right now the regulation will be about these two categories of workers.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

G. Kyllo: Of a similar, I guess, vein of questioning from

section 8, does this classification

suggest that online platform workers will enjoy all the benefits other employees enjoy

in B.C. under the Workers Compensation Act?

I know that there has been a discussion with respect to the Employment Standards Act

that there will be, apparently, the opportunity through regulation to restrict some

of the provisions or some of the protections in the Employment Standards Act to provide

some exemptions of those.

I think the minister gave an example on the Employment Standards Act that although

paid sick leave is covered under the Employment Standards Act, it's the intention

currently of this government to not provide that protection to this classification

of workers — likewise with WorkSafe B.C.

Now that this new classification of workers will be covered under the Workers Compensation

Act, is there also any indication or direction of government to provide any restrictions,

or will this new classification of worker be entitled to all of the protections that

are currently provided under the worker compensation protection act?

Hon. H. Bains: Under this clause, these workers will enjoy all WorkSafeBC protection, as any other

workers in this province.

G. Kyllo: That's great to hear. I appreciate that. Can the minister explain or provide some

context into why this new classification of workers will be entitled to all the protections

of the Workers Compensation Act but only select provisions under the Employment Standards

Act?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The difference between the Employment Standards Act and the Workers Compensation Act

is that the Employment Standards Act allows you to create different standards — or

exemptions, you could call it. Already we have a number of exemptions under the Employment

Standards Act. Certain sections of the Employment Standards Act will be "these workers

will be exempted," but under the Workers Compensation Act, there are no exemptions

allowed. These workers will be entitled to all the benefits of the Workers Compensation

Act.

G. Kyllo: In the backgrounder that the minister provided, setting out the work that will be

undertaken in developing the regulations, under the heading "Workers Compensation

Coverage," it indicates that platform companies will be responsible for registering

for coverage with WorkSafeBC and paying premiums, following health and safety rules

to keep workers safe, reporting injuries and diseases and investigating significant

incidents.

It appears it will be a significant undertaking, I think, for some of these companies.

Has there been direct communication with WorkSafeBC and discussion and dialogue about

what will likely entail to be a significant onboarding of additional new WorkSafeBC-eligible

employees, and has there been any consideration to any additional staff resources

that might be required in order to assist with the seamless onboarding of this significant

number of additional workers?

In the news release that the minister initially put out, I believe there are close

to 28,000-plus workers working in this space, so it's a significant number of additional

employees that will now come under WorkSafeBC. I just want to get a bit of a sense

of how involved WorkSafeBC has been in either reviewing their legislation or giving

consideration to the impact that that onboarding will require.

Hon. H. Bains: WorkSafeBC is fully equipped to handle additional employers and employees coming.

They have not told us that they're not capable of accepting these companies and the

employees that come with them, to provide them the coverage. They have known for a

while now that these workers may be coming into coverage for WorkSafeBC, because there

were some questions raised as to why these workers are not in and others are in.

So WorkSafeBC already knows. I have full confidence that WorkSafeBC will have these

employees and the companies come in for coverage without any problems.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the response from the minister.

The minister had shared previously, I believe in his second reading remarks and then

also in his commentary yesterday, about the right of these workers to choose association.

I'm just wondering: will the minister confirm whether there is any direction of this

government or this ministry with respect to restricting the choice of these workers

to choose the union of their liking or their choosing for representation, or is there

a desire for this subset of new classification of workers to be covered under a single

representative body?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: That question doesn't fit here under this clause. But anyway, I can assure the member

and everyone who is listening that there is no restriction on these workers or any

workers to join the union of their choice. That is their constitutional right to association

under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and they have freedom to choose that. If

these workers choose to go and join a union of their choice, they have every right

to do that under our labour code. Right now what we are talking about is workers compensation

coverage.

G. Kyllo: I do appreciate the response from the minister.

The reason I felt why it warranted the question is that we do know that with respect

to community benefits agreements, there has been a choice of this government to preclude

that choice of representation. As we know with many of the horizontal construction

projects on Highway 1, the Pattullo Bridge replacement project, some of our vertical

construction projects, Cowichan Hospital and BCIT, the government is taking away that

choice and restricting the opportunity for workers to have their union of choice to

represent them.

The Chair: Could you please show the relevance to the clause, Member.

G. Kyllo: Thank you very much, hon. Chair.

It is certainly not reflective of this clause, but I do appreciate the minister providing

that clarity for this House. It certainly, I think, opened the door for further commentary.

Clauses 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

The Chair: Members, you've heard the motion.

Division has been called.

[2:10 p.m. - 2:20 p.m.]

Members, we're voting on the motion to rise and report Bill 48 complete without amendment.

Motion approved on the following division:

yeas — 76

Alexis

Anderson

Ashton

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Bernier

Bond

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chen

Chow

Clovechok

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Davies

de Jong

Dean

D'Eith

Dix

Doerkson

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Furstenau

Glumac

Greene

Halford

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Leonard

Letnick

Lore

Malcolmson

Merrifield

Milobar

Oakes

Olsen

Paddon

Parmar

Paton

Phillip

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Ross

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Shypitka

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Walker

Wat

Whiteside

Yao

nays — 2

Banman

Rustad

The committee rose at 2:22 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 48 — LABOUR STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 48, Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[2:25 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 45 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 4), 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 45; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:26 p.m.

The Chair: Members, we'll recess until 2:45.

The committee recessed from 2:26 p.m. to 2:57 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 42.

The Chair: All right, Members. We'll get this committee into session. We are a committee looking

at Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023.

We are currently on clause 42, with clauses 1 and 2 currently stood down, so we will

start with the clause 42 discussion

Hon. N. Sharma: I just want to make sure I introduce the team that's going to be joining me here today.

I thank them for their work. We've got Barbara Carmichael, my Deputy Attorney General;

Gabriel Hill, Meghan Will, ADM; and Sarah Petrescu. I want to thank them for joining

us.

I also have an amendment to clause 42 that I'd like to pass up and distribute, if

you take a recess to take a look at it.

The Chair: So just to confirm, the minister is moving the amendment?

Hon. N. Sharma: That's right. Moving an amendment.

The Chair: We need those words on the record.

We will distribute the amendment to everybody, and we'll take a recess while we do

that.

This committee is now in recess.

The committee recessed from 2:58 p.m. to 3:04 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. We will draw this committee back to session. Thank you for your

patience as the proposed amendment was distributed to all members that needed it,

including those online.

We're going to have to do that again, because the first part of this meeting didn't

broadcast, apparently, on Hansard .

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to reintroduce my team, because they didn't make it on Hansard beforehand. I want to thank Barbara Carmichael, Deputy Attorney General; Gabriel

Hill; Meghan Will; and Sarah Petrescu.

As mentioned before, and I'll put it again on the record this time, I'm moving an

amendment to clause 42. This is in line with the Premier's recent comments related

to this.

[ CLAUSE 42, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text

as shown:

Commencement

42 This act comes into force on the date of Royal Assent.

Commencement

42 The provisions of this Act referred to in column 1 of the following table comes into

force as set out in column 2 of the table:

Item

Column 1

Column 2

Provisions of Act

Commencement

Anything not elsewhere covered by this table

The date of Royal Assent

Sections 1 and 2

By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council ]

[3:05 p.m.]

On the amendment.

Hon. N. Sharma: Although I'm sure we will get into detail as we go through clauses 1 and 2, and the

intent of the two sections that we'll be debating today, we want to make sure we get

it right. I know that the Premier and the Minister of Housing will be further discussing

with people regarding these two. This amendment would make it so that these two sections

would come into force only by regulation.

M. de Jong: I have a couple of preliminary comments, and I want to preface my preliminary comments

beginning with this point: these are not directed at the Attorney, and they are certainly

not directed at the staff that are accompanying her today. They are most assuredly

not directed at the Chair. I want to assure you, Hon. Chair, that that is also the

case.

We are in the final days of this legislative session. We have seen unilateral manipulation

of the

schedule of this House on a scale that I haven't seen since the mid-1990s.

We were told about 40 minutes ago that the government required a 15-minute adjournment

because, apparently, with only four bills left on the order paper, no one thought,

least of all the Government House Leader, that Bill 45 was coming up for debate, and

we might need to have some people around to address the debate needs of Bill 45.

We have sat here for almost 40 minutes doing nothing. How are people supposed to have

any confidence in this institution, let alone the government, when something as basic

as sequencing legislation can't be dealt with?

I mean, things happen. Don't get me wrong. I understand that there can be unanticipated

interruptions. We're in the final days of the session. The Government House Leader

comes in here with regularity and tells us we're going to be sitting to this hour

and that hour and this day and not that day. This is remarkably…. This is a new standard

in a lack of professionalism. Yes, it's bothersome.

I have great respect and appreciation for the schedules that members of the executive

council hold. Their time is very valuable. They have responsibilities that extend

right across the province and sometimes beyond that. But other members of this chamber

have schedules as well, on the government side and on the opposition side. This government,

this House Leader and, I'm going to say, this Premier ,because he's the guy giving

the instructions to the House Leader, don't seem to care about that. Apparently, it's

just about what's convenient for them, and everyone else can play along.

Here we are, and then I suppose…. Well, I'm going to say this. I don't actually think

the Attorney…. She may or may not want to respond to this. I rather suspect that she

was told, at the last minute, that she was going to come in and deal with this

section

of the bill because it's not within her area of direct responsibility. It's a Municipal

Affairs amendment — Community Charter, Vancouver Charter. I'm prepared to accept that

she has been placed in a very difficult position.

So we wait, and the first thing that happens when we're set to drop the puck and get

the game underway is that the government comes in and says: "Surprise, surprise. We

have an amendment." Apparently, it's an amendment that stems from something the Premier

said last week.

Now, is that respect for this chamber? Is that respect for the work? The Attorney

is going to tell us, I'm sure, about how this is a laudable amendment and deserves

our consideration and deserves our support, but apparently no one thought it was important

enough, after the Premier made his comments, to actually prepare the amendment and

stick it on the order paper so that someone could have more than five minutes to consider

it.

[3:10 p.m.]

If the government is intent upon conveying to British Columbians that it is incapable

of administering, in an organized fashion and a professional manner, the affairs of

the province, by God, they're doing a good job by how they are mismanaging this place.

That is overwhelmingly the message that is being sent.

I'll end where I began. I don't actually blame the Attorney General — and certainly

not the Chair. I suppose there is a collective responsibility on the part of the executive

council. There is certainly a responsibility of the House Leader and the Premier,

who, together, are supposed to be able to manage this place and who have taken upon

themselves to unilaterally manage it.

The last thing I'll say is this. There are members in this House who know that not

so long ago there was a line of communication between the House Leaders, the Leader

of the Third Party, my friend from Kamloops. Something really novel used to happen

around here. People would talk. They'd actually discuss what the needs…. How do we…?

We all have this collective responsibility. We're not the government on this side

of the House, but we recognize that we have a responsibility not just to be obstructionist

but to be constructive and to facilitate the workings of this chamber. That only works

if there's a willingness to talk, and there doesn't seem to be. So much of this would

be avoided if there was just a conversation.

My friend the Opposition House Leader said yesterday…. The Government House Leader

now, three times in a row, comes into this House, tables changes to the

schedule that

people in this place are supposed to rely upon and doesn't even dignify the chamber

with an explanation for why. "I call the motion. Vote on it."

There are times when governments have to take unilateral measures if the opposition

is being obstructionist. If that's the case the Government House Leader wanted to

make — the official opposition or the Third Party or the Fourth Party is obstructing

the passage of legislation — then say so. He can't say that because that's not what

has been happening. Apparently, it's just more convenient for the Premier and the

Government House Leader to do it their way and to tell everyone else how it's going

to be.

That brings us to the amendment. And I'm sorry. Now my rant changes a little bit.

I'm afraid it does get directed at the Attorney because she is now the sponsor of

the

section and the amendment.

The Attorney, in introducing the amendment here a few moments ago, said: "We want

to make sure we take the time to get it right." You know what? That's a pretty darn

good argument for not introducing the

section in the first place. If you don't think

you got it right…. Do you know what the time-honoured means for dealing with that

is? You get rid of the section. You vote against the section. You say: "We may not

have got this right. We're going to vote against it, and we'll bring it back. We're

going to be here in three months, and we'll try again."

I heard the Premier's comments. Now I see the amendment, five minutes ago. It's like

this Robespierre moment, where municipalities are the poor bugger getting put in the

guillotine. The Premier said: "Yeah. Look, I know it's kind of uncomfortable for you.

I know there's this really sharp knife hanging above you, but don't worry. I promise

not to push the button until you're feeling good about it."

[3:15 p.m.]

I mean, it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous.

Well, we'd best start with the questioning. There are two parts to the question. One,

of course…. And this is what's so bizarre. We're dealing with an amendment to a

section

that the government acknowledges is incorrect, is flawed. So I'm not actually sure

how we have the conversation, because if the Attorney thinks that the opposition is

going to be satisfied and say, "Actually, you know what? That makes it better. We

will leave it to you. We trust you. We trust you to make whatever changes are necessary

or talk to people that you need to talk to…." No, that's not how this works.

We need to talk a little bit about

section 1 itself. Then we'll have to do that again

when we actually get to clause 1. The proposition here is, having been told by the

Premier that we don't think we got it right, the government is now asking for the

House to trust it to get it right at some point in the future but with precisely the

same language, which is a remarkable proposition by any stretch.

Who asked for clause 1? Who asked for it in the first place? Why don't we start there.

[3:20 p.m.]

D. Davies: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Davies: As I walked in here moments ago, I looked up into the gallery. To my surprise, some

folks from Fort St. John or the Cecil Lake area have appeared in the gallery, unbeknownst

to me. I don't often see people that just arrived.

Would the House please make welcome Franz and Maya Wenger. They are obviously down

here, and I hope to connect with them later on.

Welcome.

Debate Continued

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

I think we would all share the view, in this House…. Everybody's goal is to get people

to alternative shelter and housing. That has been the goal of this government. That's

the reason that we've been taking unprecedented, very quick action to make sure that

our system responds to the challenges faced.

Unfortunately, since COVID, across the country, we've seen a rise in encampments,

including in British Columbia. I think probably not a day goes by that members in

this House don't hear from either people that are concerned about unhoused populations

and where they're living or municipal leaders that are asking for a partnership with

government to figure out how to move people along into the spectrum of housing that

we have available in this province.

That is the reason for this particular amendment as a suite of actions that we're

taking as a government. What it does is…. It will provide clarity for people that

need it to determine how we move people through the spectrum of housing that we have

in this province.

M. de Jong: I'm trying to discern…. There was the kernel of an answer. I think the Attorney was

trying to leave the impression that, perhaps, municipalities asked for the clause,

clause 1, which is the subject of clause 42. If that is so, which municipalities asked

for clause 1, which is the subject of clause 42?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: It wasn't a particular municipality that asked for these specific amendments.

What these amendments are in response to is the rise of municipalities, like I mentioned

before, asking for and wanting a government response on encampments. They are part

of a suite of things. The point of these amendments is to provide clarity to courts

when they are weighing a municipality's enforcement of their bylaw provisions and

to help provide that clarity when it comes to the part of this decision-making.

This was a decision of government to take these steps.

M. de Jong: In fact, put another way, no municipality asked for this. In fact, municipalities

are now pointedly asking for it to be completely withdrawn, not just suspended, whatever

the heck that means in the context of legislation. It's a fascinating term. The Attorney

will appreciate, from the point of view of legislation…. It is vague at best.

I know that there are other members who would like to engage the Attorney on the specific

question of the amendment. I am going to cede my place, for the moment, to allow them

to do that and come back in a happier disposition in a few minutes.

M. Lee: As my colleague the member for Abbotsford West just indicated….

Certainly, I would ask for the Attorney General to confirm that the purpose of the

amendment that's being proposed to clause 42 is in response to what the Premier has

indicated recently. It is directing the Housing Minister to delay the implementation

of the bill to give the province more time to consult with local municipalities.

"This gives us some time to work with municipalities about their concerns," the Premier

said in what is referred to as an unrelated news conference in Victoria. This was

reported back on November 23, five days ago.

It was on that same day that the UBCM had put out their statement asking the province

to withdraw Bill 45, not suspend its application. Delay the implementation of sections

1 and 2, as this proposed amendment is setting out.

Has there been consideration at all about the statement and position that Coun. Trish

Mandewo, president of the UBCM and a councillor with the city of Coquitlam, has stated

on behalf of the UBCM on November 23? Did the government consider the specific request

that Bill 45 and this legislation, which are clauses 1 and 2 of Bill 45, be withdrawn?

[3:30 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. N. Sharma: To the first part of the question, I think the member across quoted the Premier and

what he stated publicly about the reasons and the changes we make. To that question,

yes, this amendment is in line with what the Premier was asking there. I said this

before, but I want to start again, answering the second part of his question, by saying

that the Premier's sincere comments are comments that are reflected in all our government,

including by the Minister of Housing.

We want to work with UBCM. We want to work with municipalities to help them address

the challenges that they are facing in their communities. We want to work with community

organizations that are dealing with unhoused people and helping them to face their

challenges. It was a sincere commitment on his part and, I know, of the Minister of

Housing, to meet with UBCM, to continue to understand the scope of what their concerns

are and how they could be listened to in the context of the need.

I will say that this government believes there is a need for clarity when it comes

to the law, how courts are determining alternative shelter, and how to move people

along into the spectrum of housing. There are different opinions of how we get there.

We as a government are committed — and I know the Minister of Housing and the Premier

are — to meet with people to understand their perspectives.

[3:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate the Attorney General's response.

The proposed amendment to clause 42 is still not meeting what UBCM is calling for,

which is an outright withdrawal of these clauses. It is striking to me that the UBCM

has chosen to make such a clear, unequivocal statement to our province, to this provincial

government and this Premier, and that this government is ignoring the request. We

have seen, time and time again by this government, with this Premier, overreach by

the provincial government into the jurisdictions of municipalities.

Our colleagues, the members for West Vancouver–Capilano, for Kamloops–North Thompson

and others, are in the other chamber debating with the Housing Minister, continuing

on Bill 44. We hope to get to Bill 46 and Bill 47 as well.

We know that in the clean economy town hall, on November 23, the Premier indicated

that the purpose of this new legislation is to identify "what standard cities have

to meet, in order to…decamp an encampment." We see this in all our communities: the

need for adequate shelter space for those unhoused members of our communities, with

supports.

What this amendment fails to recognize is the fact that the nature of clauses 1 and

2 of Bill 45 goes to the jurisdiction of the province versus municipalities and that

the responsibility for creating shelters lies solely with the provincial government,

not municipalities. The minister responsible for that is not even present in this

chamber. He's not even in position to respond to our questions. I think it's obvious

that that's the case, because he's the member, the minister of the Crown, the member

of this cabinet who tabled this bill.

The Chair: I would remind the member that we do not indicate who isn't in the House.

M. Lee: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just think it was pretty obvious that…. Well, let me just

say this: the Minister of Housing is not standing up in this chamber to respond to

our questions about this core issue. I think that's a fair statement.

Coming back to the jurisdictions between the province and municipalities, I know that

as recently as this June of 2023, the Premier entered into a memorandum of understanding

with the city of Prince George. In the recitals to that memorandum of understanding,

the province is to "recognize the role of the province of B.C. in providing support

for housing; health care, including mental health and addictions care; and the corresponding

role of local governments, including the city of Prince George, in supporting the

fulfilment of that mandate by the province of B.C."

I say that because it underlines my statement that it is the responsibility, the mandate,

of the province of British Columbia to provide support for housing, health care, mental

health and addictions care, and further — as in the recitals to this MOU: "Through

B.C. Housing, provide oversight and support in the development of shelter spaces,

temporary and permanent housing options."

[3:40 p.m.]

This is the responsibility of B.C. Housing, not municipalities. This is the responsibility

of the minister responsible for Housing, not municipalities. So when the UBCM is asking

the province to withdraw this legislation as it applies to municipalities in clauses

1 and 2 of Bill 45, they're asking because it's not even their jurisdiction.

What this provincial government is doing is thwarting the ability of municipalities

to seek injunctions to deal with their communities, to those encampments in Prince

George, in Vancouver. So this amendment ignores both the position of the UBCM and

continues to demonstrate the overreach by this government into the jurisdiction of

municipalities.

I ask the Attorney General: this clause will have…. What is the intention of government

at this point in time to so-called consult with municipalities now, when they're putting

forward legislation that provides already for that jurisdictional overreach? What

is the intention of government to consult at this point?

[3:45 p.m. - 3:50 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Just getting back to it. Sorry for the delay, to the member and the Chair.

I'd start by saying yes to the member's point. It's the provincial mandate to provide

housing and supports for people, but we know that we can't do that alone. We need

to work with the municipalities to either support locations of shelters or to help

us with those shelters. It's part of the partnership we need to have across this province

to address challenges in community.

The question that the member asked was about the consultations. I think he quoted

the Premier well when he talked about the intent of what we will be doing going forward.

The intent is to educate on our intention, bringing these two clauses forward, so

they understand our concerns and what we're trying to address, and listen to the concerns

of other parties related to these provisions.

M. de Jong: I have a question, and I'm going to ask it because it's going to serve as a good reminder

to me as we go forward. My sense is that the Attorney General herself was not involved

directly in the preparation of either the amendment that we are dealing with or clauses

1 and 2, although they do appear in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act that

she tabled in the House.

My understanding is that it was not the Attorney who guided these through the legislative

review process. That was done by others within the government. Is that a fair statement

on my part?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, that's true.

M. de Jong: I'm not sure whether to pose this as a question or to simply make the statement. Maybe

I'll make the statement, and the Attorney can choose to reply or not.

It strikes me as unfair — perhaps unfair to the Attorney; certainly unfair to members

of the chamber and to the public at large — that the government would ask someone

who has not been involved in the preparation of legislative instruments that can have

profound consequences going forward…. They would vest responsibility for defending

those provisions and answering questions about those provisions in someone that wasn't

involved.

I'm not sure if that is a purposeful thing. As I say, I think it's unfair to the Attorney.

More importantly, I suppose, it is unfair to those to whom the government is obliged

to provide background rationale and answers.

I'll make the statement, and if the Attorney has a response, fine. Otherwise, I'll

move on. What are people to think? We're dealing with an amendment where the Premier

has acknowledged we didn't get it right. That, in and of itself, is rather extraordinary.

[3:55 p.m.]

Then the responsibility for explaining the admission that the government didn't get

it right is assigned to someone who wasn't at all involved in the preparation of the

instrument.

Is that supposed to show respect for this assembly and this committee and the public

to whom these provisions will apply? I think not.

I, again, have said some things. The Attorney — I'll give her a chance to reply if

she wishes. If she doesn't, I'll move on.

Hon. N. Sharma: The member has expressed his opinion of who can or can't answer questions related

to this miscellaneous statute, in these particular sections, and I want to assure

him that I'm fully capable of answering the questions on behalf of government with

respect to these sections.

Moving along, I wanted to just correct that I did not say that the Premier said he

didn't get it right. What I said was that the Premier said that there's a need for

further engagement and discussion to make sure that we're hearing from partners and

so that people can understand the intent of it. I think the member across read the

entire quote from the Premier, so I'll leave it at that.

M. de Jong: I suppose, in fairness, having asked the previous question, I should ask the minister

to clarify, on the record, which minister did prepare the amendments containing clauses

1 and 2 and, presumably, the…. Was it the same minister, then, that prepared the amendment

we are dealing with now?

Hon. N. Sharma: It was the Minister of Housing.

M. de Jong: Minister of Housing both for clauses 1 and 2 and for the amendment to clause 42?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes to all three.

M. de Jong: Was the Premier's office at all involved in the preparation of the amendment that

is before the committee now?

Hon. N. Sharma: The amendment was based on the direction of the Minister of Housing based on the Premier's

comments.

M. de Jong: So to be clear, the amendment that we have before us is the product of the Housing

Minister's

interpretation of what the Premier said at a public event. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: This was a thoughtful decision that was made by the Minister of Housing after meeting

with stakeholders like UBCM and speaking with the Premier with respect to the amendment

that sits before us.

M. de Jong: Okay, sorry. So there's an additional element now. Is this amendment the product of…?

I was led to believe that this was the product of the statement made by the Premier.

The Attorney is now saying that the decision to make this amendment, though, may have

been the result of the minister responsible for housing deciding to go this route

on his own? Or was there a conversation between the Minister of Housing and the Premier?

Hon. N. Sharma: I'm sure the member would expect that as housing is a top priority of this government,

the Premier and the Minister of Housing are talking to each other quite a bit. But

of course the Minister of Housing is also talking to stakeholders in community and

constantly in dialogue with important partners like UBCM.

[4:05 p.m.]

I think the direct line that he's trying to make between one aspect of this is not

really the way decision-making or thoughtful decisions are made. It's definitely a

collaboration and speaking with many people.

M. de Jong: I'm not trying to draw any lines or connect any dots. I'm just trying to figure out,

in part, why we saw the amendment five minutes before this debate started, as opposed

to, if it was something that was decided upon a number of days ago, why we didn't

have the benefit of seeing that placed on the order paper, as is normally the case.

Was the decision to amend clause 42 in this manner made today? If not today, when?

Hon. N. Sharma: The Minister of Housing became aware of concerns last week. In consultation with the

Premier, the amendment was drafted and tabled today.

M. de Jong: Well, let's talk about the amendment to clause 42.

What do we know? We know that the government introduced a piece of legislation, Bill

45. It contains clauses 1 and 2, which have elicited a very negative response from

the very partners that the Attorney has indicated are fundamentally important in dealing

with this terrible, terrible situation that homeless people are confronted by and

the communities in which they live without homes.

That happens. Communities, via their body, the UBCM, communicate their very serious

concerns. The government, no less the Premier, says: "Okay. We purport to understand

that there are concerns. We want to have an opportunity to consult." One has to conclude,

therefore, that there were virtually no consultations around these provisions prior

to them appearing in Bill 45.

I suppose, more importantly, with respect to clause 42 and the amendment that has

been tabled today…. It is difficult to read that amendment and not interpret what

is trying to be done this way.

[4:10 p.m.]

That is the government — and because he was directly involved, I'm going to say the

Premier — saying to communities: "We understand you have some concerns. We're going

to talk to you. We're going to consult with you." That's the term we frequently hear.

A genuine consultation, I should think, involves some prospect of change. Once concerns

are relayed, there is some prospect that those concerns will be taken account of and

will influence, in some tangible way, the legal instrument that is being considered.

Can the Attorney confirm…? That's not the case here. There is no prospect under this

amendment that any change could occur to either clause 1 or 2. There is no opportunity

for a community or communities or UBCM to influence the substantive content of those

clauses. All this is purporting to do is delay the inevitable — and not even to a

specific time or date but to the whim of the government and, presumably, the whim

of the Premier.

I'll ask that as a question. Given the nature of the legal instrument we are dealing

with here, the amendment to clause 42, as it relates to clauses 1 and 2…. Is there

any prospect whatsoever that the contents of clause 1 or 2 could change in any way

at all?

Hon. N. Sharma: We as a government are very focused on addressing the challenges of housing in this

province. I say that because…. This is an important part of all of the work we're

doing. I could list all of the parties we're constantly consulting with — and the

Minister of Housing is — to address that. I think it's important to note that. We've

been taking unprecedented steps, in many ways, to address that challenge for people.

To the member's specific question…. I know that the member is very well versed in

the way the functioning of the Legislature works and how we pass legislation. It's

always possible to make amendments to legislation before or after them being enforced.

What we heard from the Minister of Housing — and what's expressed in this amendment

— and from the Premier publicly is a genuine expression of a need to work with our

partners to understand the intent and the purpose of the legislation and to understand

what we are seeking. That is clarity when it comes to decisions that are focused around

moving people from encampments and what actions are considered by courts to inform

what a common understanding of meeting people's basic needs is when it comes to that.

I'm happy to get into that when we get into the content of the sections.

[4:15 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I think in the unusual circumstance that we find ourselves in with this bill and this

amendment to the commencement clause….

It's always important for the government and the minister to be straight and forthcoming

with members of the committee and, ultimately, with the public. I think that is doubly

so in circumstances where the Premier has said to not just any group but a group that

represents the vast majority of British Columbians by a local government….

The Premier has said, "Well, we want to work with you, and we want to hear your concerns,"

deliberately leaving the impression that there is a mechanism by which those concerns

might be taken account of. That's not the case here. That is most pointedly not the

case. The government…. This amendment does no such thing.

If the Attorney's words were to be taken at face value and full value, the mechanism

would be the one that this House traditionally employs in the rare circumstance that

governments, and governments of all political stripes, discover or acknowledge that

something has gone sideways. They withdraw the section. The way they withdraw the

section is…. They vote against it. That's the mechanism for withdrawing the

section

in this chamber.

For the Attorney to stand up and say, "Well, legislation can always be amended," is

disingenuous. That's not the impression the government and the Premier are trying

to leave with members of the UBCM. The Premier has gone out of his way to say, "Well,

we want to have a conversation with you to better understand your concerns," deliberately

leaving the impression that the government might respond to that by changing some

of the provisions, when it's clear the government has no intention whatsoever of changing

one word in clauses 1 and 2.

I would hope that the Attorney would acknowledge that. She actually, in an earlier

statement, I think, was pretty candid about what the objective is here — I wrote down

the phrase — with respect to the amendment to clause 42. She said the government wants

some time to educate as to what the objectives are.

That's interesting. I suppose that is a function that governments can undertake, but

that's a lot different than consulting. Educating about what the government's objectives

are is a lot different than saying to elected community leaders, "We're going to sit

down and have a consultation with you," suggesting that there is some actual opportunity

to influence the legislative outcome. That pointedly and obviously is not the case

here.

I'll ask the Attorney again to confirm that the way this amendment is intended to

operate is….

Whereas under the original provisions of clause 42, clauses 1 and 2 would

come into effect at royal assent — which, I presume, is going to happen in a day or

two, I guess on Thursday, around four o'clock, we're told….

The effect of this amendment, if it passes, is that clauses 1 and 2 would not come

into effect when the rest of the bill comes into effect upon royal assent but would

then come into effect some time of the government's choosing, by order-in-council,

whenever the Premier and the minister and the government and the cabinet decide.

[4:20 p.m.]

It might be next week. It might be next month. It might be next year. Have I properly

captured the practical effect of the amendment before us?

Hon. N. Sharma: I will confirm an understanding of what this amendment does, which is that it delays

these two sections. So they would not come into force until a later date.

I won't prejudge the discussions that the Premier and the Minister of Housing will

have with parties that they are going to be engaging with over the latter time, but

that is the effect of these amendments.

S. Furstenau: The official opposition has brought up the communication from UBCM, but there are

at least two other bodies that have communicated with this government about this legislation.

On November 21, there was a letter addressed to the Housing Minister from Marie-Josée

Houle, the Federal Housing Advocate. In this letter, she wrote: "I write to you today

to express my concerns with amendments to the Community Charter and the Vancouver

Charter that define availability of shelter for the purpose of enforcing a bylaw against

a person who is sheltering at an encampment."

She also included a report with the letter that she sent and requested that the government

not move forward with these amendments. Why is the request from the Federal Housing

Advocate not being considered?

To further what the official opposition critic has been raising, this amendment does

not do the things that anybody is asking for. This amendment just makes it invisible

for the public as to when the legislation actually passes. But it doesn't address

the many, many concerns that have been raised about these two clauses and, therefore,

is not really responding in good faith to the very serious concerns that have been

raised about these two clauses.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for raising that. There is an acknowledgment by the Minister

of Housing and the Premier of the concerns raised by the Federal Housing Advocate.

I'm informed that the Premier and the Minister of Housing will be meeting with the

Federal Housing Advocate shortly. The purpose of these amendments is to give time

for that to happen.

But I want to say that given the differing views and perspectives we have on this,

we, as a government, do see the need for there to be a legislated common understanding

of what meets a person's needs when local governments are making decisions with respect

to moving people from encampments.

S. Furstenau: I would suggest, humbly, that these clauses don't achieve that outcome, given the

amount of concern that has been raised across the board.

In addition to the letter from the Federal Housing Advocate, there was another letter,

on November 21, to the Premier, to the Attorney General and to the Minister of Housing.

It's signed by over 155 advocates, lawyers, professors, community members and people

with lived experiences, and none of them are asking for an amendment to delay when

these clauses become law.

This letter says:

"We urge you to remove the harmful and, in our view, unconstitutional provisions dealing

with 'reasonably available' alternative shelter from Bill 45. Signatories to this

letter are a diverse group of community workers, volunteers, activists, legal professionals,

academic researchers and others who work with and for precariously housed people,

including those living in tent cities, to advance their rights and dignities.

"We are united by a commitment to a human rights–based approach to tackling Canada's

housing crisis. Bill 45's provisions on reasonably available alternative shelter are

inconsistent with the eight principles of rights-based treatment of tent city residents

set out in A National Protocol for Homeless Encampments in Canada , as identified as a policy standard by the federal housing advocate."

Have the Premier and the Attorney General and the Minister of Housing also agreed

to meet with the 155 signatories of this letter?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for raising that letter. I know that the Minister of Housing

and the Premier, who received the letter, value that feedback when it comes to addressing

the housing crisis. But actually, the particular challenge of getting people into

better housing, which is all of our goals…. I know that they will be responding to

that along with meeting with the federal housing advocate.

The specific purpose for this amendment today is to allow the Premier and the Minister

of Housing to do further discussions with community organizations.

S. Furstenau: I think it really is important to acknowledge that passing an amendment that says

that sections 1 and 2 will come into effect by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

is not the same as responding and listening appropriately to the concerns — the many,

many concerns — that have been raised about these clauses. The intent is to continue

to pass the clauses as they stand.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

So how does this create the space for authentic dialogue about the content, impact,

intent of these clauses when it's being made very, very clear with this amendment

that the intention is to keep the clauses as they are but just delay when they're

passed, buy some time?

Again, I'll repeat, to make it much harder for the public to know when these clauses

get passed because it's signed off behind a closed door — that's not the kind of governance

that I think we should aspire to in here. It's not, especially when it comes to legislation

that has impacts on the most marginalized people in this province.

I concur with the member for Abbotsford West. I think there's a way out of this today,

and I think it can actually solve a whole bunch of problems because we have a ton

of legislation to get through before the end of day Thursday. I think the government

is sincere in its desire to see us not invoke closure on legislation in this session.

It would be a nice change.

The solution is to vote against these two clauses and then do what the Attorney General

says is her intention and the Premier's intention and the Minister of Housing's intention.

Live up to that intention. Have the conversations; have the consultations.

When we get to debating, actually, clauses 1 and 2, there are a lot of very significant,

very serious questions to be answered, everything from "How does this align with this

government's commitment to DRIPA?" and "What does this say about this government's

respect for the courts?"

[4:35 p.m.]

I would hope that what I think is reasoned debate here about where we're at with this

legislation, a Premier who acknowledged last week that, "Oh, we might have gotten

ahead of ourselves," and a path forward that doesn't dismiss the very legitimate and

very sincere concerns that have been raised by UBCM, by the Federal Housing Advocate,

by 155 people signing on this letter, by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs….

These are legitimate and important concerns. To pass the clauses with the amendment

of, "Well, they won't pass immediately, but we'll just sign off on them by order in

cabinet," is unfortunately adding to the growing narrative about how this government

treats the Legislative Assembly, how the government looks at its relationship with

local governments and how this government is choosing to interpret DRIPA.

There's an opportunity here to say, "Actually, yeah, we are going to listen," because

a legitimate case has been made. Now, it's a strong enough case for the Premier to

say: "We're going to make an amendment." But the amendment doesn't change the thing

that people are concerned about, which is the language of these clauses and the implications

for people and communities.

My question to the Attorney General is: would she consider taking the advice of two

opposition parties and hundreds of people as well as organizations that this government,

I expect, wants to continue good relations with in this province and stand down these

two clauses and vote against them?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I just wanted to go back to what the purpose of the sections that we're talking about.

I know we're speaking about an amendment to clause 42.

The proposed amendments to the Vancouver Charter and the Community Charter are — in

the context of court actions to move people from encampments — to provide clarity

as to what places people may stay overnight, how they can have access to a washroom,

showers and a meal every day, and to ensure that places are staffed. These are very

important aspects of what we would want a shelter to have if people were staying in

it. It's not everything that we want, but it sets criteria for a person's basic needs

and how they're met.

The purpose of this legislation is to provide a set of criteria for when local governments

go to the courts to move people from encampments. Actions to consider as regards shelter

are informed by a common understanding of what a person's basic needs are. I think

we just have to start from understanding that there are a lot of challenges that communities

are facing, and I think what both members are raising, from different parties, are

the different perspectives that are out there with respect to how we understand this

issue and how we meet a person's needs in shelters.

What the amendment does: here, in moving forward with this, it allows us to have those

conversations. The Premier and the Minister of Housing have committed to doing so

in a very transparent manner. As I mentioned, they are meeting with the Federal Housing

Advocate. They will be responding to the concerns that are raised, so that we can

come to a common understanding of how we address this challenge.

S. Furstenau: That doesn't quite answer the question I asked. I think, again, the nub of this is

that nobody has asked for a delay for these clauses to be passed. What has been asked

for, over and over again, has been to stand down these clauses and to do the proper

consultation that should have been done before these were introduced.

[4:45 p.m.]

I don't think that the Attorney General's intent that she just stated…. I don't question

that, but I do, as do many, many others, question that these clauses are going to

achieve what she has stated she wants to achieve with this.

I think that it is entirely legitimate to raise the questions that have been raised.

Just right off the top of my head….

The Attorney General says: "Well, we want to make sure that shelter is defined as

being within a certain location and having showers and facilities." Okay. So what

about people that have, for example, been told that they're not welcome in that shelter?

The shelter is there, the facilities are there, but there are people who, for any

myriad of reasons, can be banned. Or people for whom going into that shelter would

be a traumatizing experience because of their time in residential school. It reminds

them of that experience. Or a person that doesn't want to go into that shelter because

they were sexually assaulted in that shelter.

When it's raised with a human rights lens…. What is completely absent from these clauses

is that human rights lens.

Then, on the other hand, the concerns raised by the UBCM about the fact…. Municipalities

are desperately trying to handle the situation of a growing number of homeless people

in this province –– a responsibility, by the way, that belongs to the provincial government

–– year over year, more and more people without homes and municipalities without the

funds and the resources to address this and then feeling, as they've expressed, that

their hands are being tied.

There appears to be nobody that's happy with these clauses. The ability of government,

at any time, to say: "Okay. Yeah. We're listening. We hear you…."

I think about my time at local government and being able to come back to the table

and say: "You know what? I heard from a whole bunch of constituents on this issue.

I'm going to bring it back. We're going to talk about it again, and we're going to

change our mind." That's the capacity and power and ability that government has.

Nobody is trapped in this moment. Nobody is forced to do anything. In fact, the Attorney

General has every ability to say: "Yep. We're going to listen, for example, to the

First Nations Leadership Council."

They put out a press release on November 28, "First Nations Leadership Council Calls

on B.C. to Defer Amendments to Bill 45; Urges a Human Rights Approach to Encampment

Legislation." "The First Nations Leadership Council supports the growing calls from

advocates to pause omnibus Bill 45 pertaining to encampments. The legislation proposes

amendments to the Community Charter and Vancouver Charter, including

definitions of

'reasonably available' shelter, which municipalities will be required to prove before

seeking a decampment injunction."

Grand Chief Stewart Philip, UBCIC president, stated: "Local legal advocates have raised

concerns that the province's encampment response fails to take a human rights approach

in the proposed legislative amendments. While Minister Kahlon may have intentions

to protect encampment residents, the legislative amendments and B.C.'s definition

of 'reasonably available' do not go far enough to protect some of our most vulnerable

members of society and must not be pushed through." Grand Chief Stewart Philip.

Again, will the minister take into consideration this government's commitment to DRIPA?

The fact that we have the First Nations Leadership Council stating very clearly….

They are asking this government to back down and not pass these clauses. There's an

opportunity for that to happen. It's an ending that, I think, everybody would applaud.

It's leadership. It's leadership to say, as the Premier did: "Oh, we might have gotten

a little ahead of ourselves."

[4:50 p.m.]

Today the leadership can be shown of, like: "Yeah, we don't have to use this power

that we have as a government because we have a majority. We don't just have to use

it for the sake of using it. We can step back. We can listen."

If we carry on with this, there will be a lot of listening that happens on these clauses,

or the Attorney General and this government can say that this is what responsive,

democratic legislators do. They listen, and they don't always have to say: "We have

this power, and we're going to use it."

Again I'm wondering, given the press release from First Nations Leadership Council:

will the Attorney General consider voting down these clauses so that we can get on

to other legislation today?

The Chair: Of course, we're speaking about the amendment, but I understand that the amendment

does connect very directly to other clauses. I appreciate the member's attempts to

keep it focused on the amendment. Thank you.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I think we can all acknowledge the concerns that the member raised. I appreciate the

perspective and the feelings that the amendment before us today, with these sections,

doesn't go far enough, but it is an acknowledgment from the Premier and the Minister

of Housing of these concerns and a transparent and open commitment publicly to meet

with people in terms of understanding those concerns and thinking about this.

The reason that these are part of our bigger housing plan…. I want to put them in

context of our policy of housing, which has had a lot of consultation and discussion

with various groups across this province. We have to keep in mind that this is part

of a spectrum of steps that you take for people.

We know that there's a rising challenge in communities when it comes to encampments.

We know that there's a rising challenge and a challenge of government to make sure

that people have the options that they need when it comes to shelter and housing.

Those are two challenges that we all face, including municipalities across this province.

If we can get somebody into the first step, which is an agreed-upon understanding

of a shelter that meets the basic needs of a person, the provincial policy kicks in,

which sets out the spectrum of housing available. A person can be assessed based on

their needs and provided with the level of housing that is appropriate to keep them

We know that encampments can become dangerous for people. I think that there is an

acknowledgment by this amendment that we want to work and understand people's perspectives

after this. But it is also part of the context of our bigger work in terms of moving

people into a different spectrum of housing in our province.

S. Furstenau: The amendment doesn't actually achieve what the Attorney General is suggesting because

if the clauses are passed as they stand, then what's the point of listening and consulting?

The legislation is being passed.

To achieve what the Attorney General indicates she and the Premier and the minister

want to achieve, which is to have what, I hope, would be authentic dialogue and consultation

and conversations about these amendments, then the way to achieve that is to vote

against these clauses and to have those conversations and bring back legislation that

meets the expectations and outcomes as a result of those conversations.

[5:00 p.m.]

But to pass the amendment that just delays when these clauses come into force starts

the conversations and those consultations off on a very bad foot because the end is

already determined.

How does the Attorney General, again, meet the expectations, for example, of DRIPA,

by going into conversations with the conclusion already in place?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I'll start by saying that I know that the Premier and Minister of Housing, when they

did and analyzed these sections, did not feel like we were getting ahead of ourselves

when it comes to the need for clarity, when it comes to the type of basic needs that

are met by shelter — that there's a gap in the law — and the understanding and the

common understanding with respect to that. So I think we step into that with that

underlying desire to bring that through legislation.

I know that the Premier and the Minister of Housing are committed, and they've publicly

said so at a meeting with people. I mentioned before that the Federal Housing Advocate

is concerned or has raised concerns. I can't prejudge or predetermine what the outcomes

of those discussions will be, but I know that they will be open to any amendments,

if needed, at that stage.

S. Furstenau: The problem is that the outcome is being prejudged if we pass these clauses. That

really undermines the circumstances — the trust and the relationship that go into

these conversations.

I have another letter here from today. Again, it's from First Nations Leadership Council.

It's signed by Cheryl Casimer, Robert Phillips, Hugh Braker, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip,

Chief Don Tom, Chief Marilyn Slett and Regional Chief Terry Teegee.

Just to read into the record, again, a few things that have been raised in this letter:

"While we applaud the decision to defer this important legislation, we are concerned

that B.C. is preparing to proceed with an amendment to Bill 45 which would incorporate

the concept of reasonably available alternative shelter into existing legislation

without meaningful discussions with rights holders and without the consideration of

incorporating the First Nations Leadership Council's concerns. As stated in our June

1, 2023, meeting with Minister Kahlon, the province of British Columbia and, in particular…"

The Chair: Please watch the names, Member. We just don't use members' names.

S. Furstenau: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

"…the Ministry of Housing placed significant demands on the FNLC through seeking input

on an array of legislative and policy amendments in an effort to align with the Declaration

Act. To the FNLC's continued frustration, the incorporation of our feedback is largely

vacant from ministerial decision-making with respect to housing.

"Further to this point, the FNLC asserts that despite being involved in the engagements

that took place, the province must not employ the narrative that the FNLC was consulted

in any way on the proposed legislative amendments under Bill 45.

[5:10 p.m.]

"While we recognize the ministry's effort to establish tools to ensure that the dehoused

have shelter, we also note that this legislative amendment has the capacity to implement

legislative safeguards to protect the dehoused population from municipal injunctions

to undertake decampments.

"A valuable opportunity exists to ensure that those safeguards uphold the United Nations

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the human right to housing. We

urge the Ministry of Housing to defer the amendments to Bill 45 until further meaningful

engagement and co-development of the amendments have taken place. We would like to

meet as soon as possible to further address to identify a meaningful path forward

that is premised on a rights-based approach to this legislation."

I've asked the question a few times, but I'll ask it again. To proceed at this point,

how does this align with this government's stated commitment to DRIPA, particularly

given this letter from the First Nations Leadership Council?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for raising that letter. I also just received that letter.

I'm told that it just came in this afternoon. I would expect that the Premier and

the Minister of Housing have also just received it.

First of all, the member asked about our commitment to UNDRIP and implementing DRIPA

in this province as it relates to housing. I know that we could canvass all the steps

that we're taking, and I think, as a government….

Interjection.

Hon. N. Sharma: Yeah. I think, generally, our commitment is strong when it comes to working with FNLC

and putting the money, including capacity funding, to help us engage with First Nations

across the province.

I can assure you that letters like this are taken very seriously. I know that the

Premier and the Minister of Housing will be responding and meeting with respect to

this letter. I don't have a response right now, as it was just received.

S. Furstenau: I'm specifically asking about aligning to DRIPA in this very specific case, of these

clauses but also this amendment. This letter is very clear, as the Attorney General

has it in front of her, that First Nations Leadership Council in no uncertain terms

are stating that the process that has gotten us to this point does not meet their

expectations.

Again: "We urge the Ministry of Housing to defer the amendments to Bill 45 until further

meaningful engagement and co-development of the amendments have taken place." That

would be showing the commitment to DRIPA and the commitment to the relationship with

FNLC that members of this government like to hold up all the time.

But actions mean more than words. The action now would be to stand down and have these

conversations and not proceed with voting on this amendment and voting on these clauses.

That would be showing that this government and this minister are taking this letter

seriously. Is that the course of action that we can expect now?

The Chair: A request for a short recess, so we'll do a biology break, if that's all right, for

the House. We'll be back in five or ten minutes at the most. Thanks, Members.

The committee recessed from 5:20 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: I have to call the committee back to order.

Hon. N. Sharma: The government is committed to the interim approach when it comes to developing legislation.

But I want to acknowledge that this piece, along with some of the other housing pieces,

had an accelerated timeline. We want to make sure we're addressing the needs and the

crisis of housing in our communities and the challenges of the community.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I spoke with the Ministry of Housing. They are committed to meeting with FNLC in response

to the letter that was raised today. I just had that conversation. If there are amendments

needed, we're open to amendments.

Just to say that we do see that there is a need to step into this area of law to provide

clarity for courts and local governments when they're adjudicating the questions,

which are often before courts, related to alternative shelter, what's available and

what basic needs are. We see the need to step into that space legislatively. We are,

with this amendment on timeline, going to be meeting with partners to make sure we

have those discussions.

The Chair: Leader of the Third Party.

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to the chair.

Still not quite answering the question about how, specifically, these concerns that

have been raised about the co-development of legislation, which is a commitment this

government has made that did not get followed in this….

These clauses, even before they've been passed, have not created a sense of certainty.

They've created a lot of confusion and uncertainty. They also don't address what the

Attorney General mentioned at the outset of her comments. They don't address the urgent

need for housing for people. They don't achieve that.

Delaying the passage of amendments to Bill 45 so that this government can actually

meet its commitment that it made under DRIPA and meet its commitment to its relationship

with the First Nations Leadership Council doesn't delay the government in any way,

shape or form from doing what it actually should be doing, which is massively scaling

up available and affordable housing for people.

These clauses don't make a single unit of housing available to people who need housing

— not one, not a single unit. So passing this legislation now, passing these amendments,

doesn't achieve the stated goal of this government on housing.

It does achieve, perhaps, harming the relationship that they have with the First Nations

Leadership Council, with the federal housing advocate, with over 150 people who have

signed a letter raising very serious concerns. It undermines the trust and relationship

that really should be foundational in how government operates.

It seems that moving forward with this amendment and, then, with these clauses actually

could cause more harm than good. Why not demonstrate the government's commitment in

the interim and focus on actually getting affordable, accessible housing to people

as opposed to putting in place these clauses?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I agree with the member and with the fact that what is needed in this province is

an investment of money into housing.

We are doing that. We have put in unprecedented amounts — $12 billion — to deliver

homes for people. It's a $4 billion over three years commitment. That includes housing

on all spectrums. It includes shelter, supportive housing, middle income, across the

range. So we don't disagree with that action. I think we're taking very unprecedented

and quick action on that front.

I want to just clarify that these particular amendments to the charters are not about

building housing. They're about providing clarity when it comes to the enforcement

of provisions under the code, which local governments often do when it comes to encampments.

We know, upon review of decisions that have been before the courts, that there…. We

feel there's a need for clarity when it comes to understanding what the basic needs

are of individuals, understanding that in the scope of a larger housing policy that

moves people from encampment to shelter to permanent, more supportive or whatever

their spectrum of needs are when it comes to housing.

This is part of our bigger work when it comes to that. It is important but not everything.

S. Furstenau: I know that we're going to…. We're still on the amendment, and it's important to remember

that. The amendment offers an opportunity for the Attorney General to, potentially,

change course. If we do get to the clauses….

There have been significant concerns raised about the language in these clauses not

meeting a basic human rights lens. I've already raised a few examples of that.

The reason why I've come back to the First Nations Leadership Council is…. The overrepresentation

of Indigenous people, when we're talking about people who are unhoused in this population….

Indigenous people are severely overrepresented.

[5:40 p.m.]

One of the concerns that has been raised about the potential impacts of these amendments

is…. For example, there is a shelter space available, and an unhoused person who has

survival supplies — a sleeping bag, a tent, maybe a tarp — is made to go into a shelter,

but they are not allowed to bring their supplies with them because there's a restriction

on the supplies, on the amount of materials that any one person can bring into a shelter.

Whatever is above and beyond that is taken away.

On the next day, there might not be that shelter space, but now the materials that

a person had to be able to survive in the cold…. They no longer have those materials,

which can lead to what is widely recognized as survival crime. We perpetuate an ongoing

kind of cycle, and it's a cycle of harm.

I just had an email come in. Right now in Cowichan, we do not have a cold weather

emergency shelter. I don't know if anybody has been outside the last few nights. It's

cold. It's going well below zero where I live. Wake up in the morning, and there is

a thick layer of frost everywhere. There are hundreds of unhoused people who don't

have access to any warmth, any shelter from that cold.

The Attorney General says there are unprecedented investments. We hear this a lot.

We hear this so much, but things are just continually getting worse. A lot of those

investments don't seem to be resulting in tangible, actual outcomes. In fact, and

the Attorney General knows this well, in my community, it has been a herculean effort

by the mayor of Duncan and the Cowichan Housing Association to ensure that there is

housing for 34 people. At every turn, they've come up against barriers and resistance,

from B.C. Housing, to keeping that village site going.

The unprecedented investments aren't working. We see, year over year, the number of

people without housing increase. We see, year over year, the number of affordable

units in this province decrease. The head of the Co-operative Housing Federation of

Canada said that B.C. has 100,000 affordable housing units at risk of being removed

because of the market, which is what's happening in the other House, the debate over

whether the market will solve this. The market is not going to solve this

We have three decades of federal and provincial governments failing to invest in social

housing, and we are now paying the price for that. We're not paying for it in this

room, but people in our communities who don't have somewhere to live are paying the

price of that failure to invest. Now the response is a couple of clauses that put

those people at potentially more harm, and the people that this government has committed

to working with, the First Nations leadership, are saying, in no uncertain terms,

that the good-faith working relationship has not been held up on the side of the government.

It's really important to parse this out from: "Oh, we're doing a whole bunch of things

to solve the housing crisis in this province." On the ground, in every one of our

communities, that crisis is only getting deeper.

[5:45 p.m.]

We're only seeing, over and over again, all the reasons why shelters can't be opened

and village sites can't be supported. Affordable housing, the supportive housing in

Cowichan: the construction stopped. It's sitting there. Nobody is doing the building.

It just stopped in its tracks. It was supposed to open a year ago.

It's not just in the relationship with the First Nations Leadership Council that we're

not getting the outcomes that, we keep hearing from this government, they're committed

to. I've asked a number of times, and I'll ask it again, and then I'll turn it over

to the critic for the official opposition.

There's nothing that prevents the Attorney General and the government at this point

from taking a step back. Passing this legislation is not going to produce housing

for people. We're agreed on that. Passing these clauses is not going to make a material

change in the conditions that people are experiencing, that our fellow citizens are

experiencing, in this province in the thousands. Passing these clauses isn't going

to solve anything in this moment or in the months ahead.

Choosing to not pass them, choosing to step back and say, "We don't have to exercise

our power in this moment. We can take a beat, and we can do the things that we say

we're committed to doing, primarily in this case: to work in good faith with the First

Nations Leadership Council to actually make that commitment meaningful," is what we

have the choice to do here today.

I think it would be celebrated. I think it would be seen as a show of the kind of

leadership that we need in this province right now, the kind of leadership that we

see in our communities from First Nations all the time, a leadership rooted in humility,

a leadership rooted in service, in focusing on what we owe to the people in our communities,

a leadership rooted in relationship and trust-building. We could have that. We would

celebrate it.

This was exactly what we needed to see from a government that says these things that

they're committed to: to show it today. Otherwise, if we proceed, it's going to be

a story that is being repeated way too many times. It's a government that says these

things, and they show something very different. It would be really comforting to a

lot of people, but most importantly to First Nations leadership, that their words,

the commitment they've made to work in good faith with this government, are going

to be matched by this government.

I will pass things back to the member for Abbotsford West for now on the amendment,

but we get really stuck in this place on the political games, on winning and losing

these political battles: "We can't let the opposition win because then we're not winning

our political battle." We lose sight of the work we're doing. We lose sight of the

fact that we have to be working in good faith, and we have to show that we take this

burden and this responsibility really seriously. It's not a game, it's not a political….

[5:50 p.m.]

I'm standing here hoping for an outcome that we can celebrate. I think we can get

there. It just takes a recognition of the kind of leadership that moves us from this

place of "Don't budge, because that shows that you're strong and powerful" to "It's

okay. It's okay to take that beat." And it's okay to step back and to be committed

to doing the things that you say you're committed to.

M. de Jong: I've been listening carefully to the exchange between the Attorney and the Leader

of the Third Party. It has caused me to think of a possible approach, a possible solution,

that I will advance here momentarily. But I'll ask a few questions first to clarify

my own thinking on this.

I think what the Attorney is detecting in the questioning from the Leader of the Third

Party and the questions from the official opposition representatives is a suspicion

that, by virtue of the mechanism the government has chosen to employ in amending the

commencement section, the amendment before the House right now, the commitment to

genuine consultation, genuine engagement, is not quite as sincere as perhaps people

would like or are being led to believe.

We have the leadership council now. We have the federal representative on the housing

file. We have the body that represents hundreds of communities across the province,

all saying — and, to be fair, some of them have different reasons for saying it —

that clauses 1 and 2 are misguided, are problematic and are not going to address,

in a responsible way, the general issue of homelessness and the specific issue around

the statutory provisions dealing with encampments.

The Attorney and the government come before the House and say: "Well, no, what we'll

do is that we'll postpone the implementation of those problematic provisions. We acknowledge

that you have these concerns. We will postpone, because we want to engage with you."

But by virtue of the instrument they're using, they are saying: "But that engagement

will take place, quite frankly, with you sitting beneath the sword of Damocles, and"

— to mix the metaphor — "we'll decide when to bring the hammer down, which we will

now be able to do with the stroke of a pen by OIC."

The signal that sends is precisely the opposite of the definition of meaningful consultation

that I think most people would accept. Sometimes governments are their own worst enemy.

Believe me, I know of what I speak. It is the nature of that amendment. You've heard

members of the opposition now. The Attorney has heard members of the opposition advocate,

cajole and plead for a different approach that would send an entirely different signal.

[5:55 p.m.]

Let me ask this, before I make my pitch on this. The Attorney has acknowledged receipt

of correspondence. She has referenced the concerns expressed by the Union of B.C.

Municipalities. She says: "Well, I'm assured by the Premier and the Housing Minister

that we're going to engage. We're going to talk to them."

What's the timeline around that? What do the Attorney, the government, the Premier,

the Housing Minister…? What's the

schedule for that engagement? I mean, are we talking

about a meeting next week? Are we talking about a series of meetings over the course

of the next…? We've got the holiday season intervening.

The minister is saying to us: "Calm down. There is going to be meaningful engagement."

She says "meaningful consultation." I have difficulty with the term "consultation"

when the outcome is preordained, but she says there is going to be meaningful engagement.

Over what period of time is that engagement going to take place?

Hon. N. Sharma: I'm informed by the minister's office, the Minister of Housing, that the engagement

has already started. I mentioned the upcoming meeting with the federal housing advocate.

I'm also told that the timeline that they're working with is winter and spring.

Interjection.

Hon. N. Sharma: Winter and spring is the timeline they're working with.

M. de Jong: Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful.

I do appreciate the response. It leads, logically, to this proposition. Well, I should

ask this before I advance what I think is the logical proposition. Is the minister

assuring the committee that under this proposed amendment, the option of enacting

clauses 1 and 2 by regulation…? She is assuring the committee that the government

has no intention of doing that until following the completion of that engagement.

[6:00 p.m.]

She mentioned the spring. I'm not asking her to be a lot more specific than that,

but is that the assurance she is offering the House, that the mechanism created by

this amendment would not be utilized until the completion of that engagement?

Hon. N. Sharma: I am not going to predetermine the outcome or timing related to the Premier and the

Minister of Housing's engagement.

Obviously, timelines change. But I will say before the House that this is a genuine

commitment on their behalf to do that engagement. Those are the rough timelines of….

Obviously, it will go as it goes.

M. de Jong: I'm not trying to trip anyone up here. What I am trying to verify is…. I think the

Attorney confirmed it again that what's contemplated is a measure of engagement that

stretches through the next period of months into the spring, sometime in the spring.

Then this is key that…. Already she's heard the opposition question the sincerity

of an engagement process with a preordained outcome, but that is really preordained

unless she is prepared to say that the government would not be exercising enactment

powers until the completion of that engagement process.

I hope she is prepared to offer that assurance. Otherwise, the engagement is even

less meaningful than it would otherwise be.

Hon. N. Sharma: What I would expect and I'm assured would happen from the Premier and Minister of

Housing is to have fulsome engagement and make a determination based on that.

[6:05 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Okay. Well, I want to take the minister at her word, given on behalf of the government,

that that is so. But if it is so, then here's what strikes me as odd about the government's

reluctance to follow the suggestion that it has heard from the Leader of the Third

Party and from the official opposition.

This House reconvenes in two months. I just don't know what the government is surrendering

by doing what is traditionally the case when circumstances like this arise — eliminating

the sections through the mechanism we have in this chamber to do so, which is to vote

against it, embarking upon the engagement, but this time embarking upon the engagement,

as the Leader of the Third Party has said very eloquently, where the notion that the

outcome has already been determined, which clearly it is here.

This is not a question of what; this is a question of when. I mean, we might as well

call it what it is. The amendment is not a question. The conversations won't be with

interested parties, with the leadership council, with the municipalities. It won't

be about what; it'll be about when. That's how it is structured. And unless the government

has discovered some mechanism that I'm not aware of, in order to change the substantive

language in the clauses affected, they would have to come back to the Legislature

in any event.

I think what the Attorney is confronted by is a perplexed opposition that says…. The

House is adjourning in a couple of days. We're back here in two months. You say you

want to go have some meaningful engagement consultation. We are led to believe that

the government recognizes there are issues with the sections, to the point where the

government says: "We're telling you, we're promising, we're pledging, not to enact

them now."

If the sections were eliminated by the mechanism we have, which is to vote against

them, the government has the option two months and one week from now to simply reintroduce

them. I'm not advocating that, by the way, but they have that option. The government

has that option. I'm curious to know, from the Attorney General, what it is about

the scenario that I've just laid out, which arises out of the conversation that I've

witnessed here today, that strikes her and the government as unreasonable.

Hon. N. Sharma: Because we're on this particular clause 42, we haven't been able to get into the substantive

part of what we're proposing. I've talked a little bit about the purpose the government

has in bringing forward these changes in terms of providing clarity in the law with

respect to a pressing challenge that a lot of communities are facing right now with

respect to encampments and supporting unhoused people.

What the amendment on the particular clause we're talking about does is give the Premier

and the Minister of Housing time to do what the Premier expressed, to understand our

joint pressing challenges and come to a mutual understanding with the parties that

have raised concerns about this.

[6:10 p.m.]

I have no doubt, and I know that they are committed to doing that work with the meetings

that they're going to be setting up for the next couple of months.

M. de Jong: All right. Well, I am more perplexed now than I was a few moments ago, because the

Attorney has just stood up and tried to make the case for urgency. Yet we just learned

— and I take the Attorney at her word on behalf of the government — that the two clauses

that this amendment pertains to aren't intended, on the strength of the word of the

Premier, to be enacted until the spring. So eliminating them and allowing the conversation

to take place in a really meaningful way, without this shadow of a preordained outcome

hanging over them, compromises nothing.

If, at the end of the day, the government comes away from those conversations and

says, "Well, we have heard; we've listened, but we are still convinced that this is

the proper approach," early in the February session, it'll reintroduce. I mean, whether

it's a miscellaneous statute…. You know, there's an argument that says this should

have been in a miscellaneous statute amendment act, but we won't get into that here.

We've got enough on our plate right now.

The government has every available option early in the session to simply reintroduce

the sections as they are. Again, I'm not advocating that, but the government would

have that option. On the strength of what the Attorney has said to the committee,

I don't know what the government is surrendering, except, perhaps, if the offer to

engage is not as sincere as the Attorney and the Premier and the Housing Minister

would like us to think.

Otherwise, they are surrendering nothing by utilizing the mechanism we have in this

committee to eliminate the sections, allow the conversation to take place and then

move accordingly, by either reintroducing these sections — I hope that's not the case

— or, what I hope is the case, reintroducing something that has taken into account

the basis of the conversations they've been having with the leadership council, with

UBCM, with federal people.

You see, given what we have learned from the Attorney, it actually increases one's

suspicion that there is a less than sincere commitment to engage with people and listen

to their concerns. I thought, when the Attorney disclosed to the committee that discussions

would take place through the next few months and into the spring, that the solution

was an obvious one.

I'll ask again. I still haven't heard what it is about the scenario or the option

that I've laid out that somehow compromises the government's freedom to act or its

timeline to act.

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: As I mentioned earlier and previously in the discussions about this, the intent and

goal of government with bringing this forward is about seeking clarity on a particular

area of law that is before the courts. There is a sincere desire — and it's expressed

by not only the statements that the Premier has made, the Minister of Housing, the

meetings that they're having actively and are planned and also what I am portraying

here — to engage with the people that have expressed their concern to us and to use

the time.

I don't want to predetermine what those discussions lead to. We just received a letter

today that I'm sure the Minister of Housing and the Premier will be addressing and

responding to. But there is a need for us to move forward when it comes to clarifying

law and to understanding people's perspectives on that. We'll be doing that, I think,

in a sincere way. I expect that the Premier and Minister of Housing will be meeting….

I think they've already started scheduling those meetings with people that have reached

out to us.

M. de Jong: All right. Well, I have another suggestion because I'm alive to the fact, and I think

members on the opposition side, the Leader of the Third Party, are alive to the fact,

that the Attorney — it sort of goes with the territory of being the Attorney General

— has been thrust into the position. She is quite capable and is answering the questions.

The request that we are making is perhaps one that she is not in a position to respond

to on the fly, on her own, involving, as it does, no less than the Premier and the

Housing Minister. But given what she has said, which I and, I think, other members

of the opposition accept, that there is an intention to carry on these discussions

through the winter and into the spring, I wonder if….

We've had a few stops and starts, not the Attorney's fault, through the afternoon.

I wonder if the Attorney might be receptive to the idea of recessing just a few minutes

early and posing the questions to her colleagues that the Leader of the Third Party

and I have posed, to see if there might be a willingness on the part of government

to entertain a slightly different approach.

I don't think it compromises the government's freedom to act in any way, shape or

form but would go a long way, as the Leader of the Third Party has already indicated,

to demonstrating the sincerity of the approach the government says they want to take

to this issue.

That's merely…. I'm not sure it's an offer, but it's a suggestion, maybe for the sake

of five or ten minutes, if the Attorney believes that would be helpful. I understand

it's not a decision she's likely able to make on her own. I don't mean that disrespectfully,

but it involves other ministries. But if there is a chance that anything we have said

this afternoon resonates as being reasonable and might change the government's mind,

then I think it's worth taking a bit of time to do so.

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I've, I think, already laid out the government's approach with respect to this legislation

and the amendment that I've brought forward. I don't think there's anything further

to recess to discuss.

M. de Jong: Well, I'm going to express disappointment, obviously.

"Struggle" is not the right word. We engage in this chamber. Sometimes the discussions

get a little heated. There's a passion. I thought the exchange today was pretty reasoned

and rooted in a desire to find a reasonable way forward.

I wasn't, actually, even asking the Attorney to answer. I was merely suggesting that

it might be worthwhile to take a few moments to consider, with her colleagues who

have direct involvement in the file…. Apparently, that is not necessary, not required

and not going to be taken advantage of.

I think that's unfortunate. It does send a signal. I need to tell the Attorney. It

sends a very negative signal and one that I think the government will come to regret

as the weeks, months and years unfold ahead.

I have registered that disappointment. Out of fairness, I should probably afford the

Leader of the Third Party, to the extent that she has thoughts on the matter, to register

those thoughts on the record, as well, before the break.

S. Furstenau: I was in the UVic education program many years ago. There was a seminar on how to

work one-on-one with students. The seminar had a little booklet, and you made your

way through the booklet. On the very last page of the booklet, in huge font, it said:

"Above all, be sincere, whether you mean it or not."

I put up my hand, and I asked the instructor. "How do you be sincere if you don't

mean it?" They acknowledged: "Hmm. Maybe we didn't word that in a particularly appropriate

way."

In the exchange between the member for Abbotsford West and the Attorney General….

I'm just going to, as he did with me, say what I heard. The Attorney General indicated

that the sincere intention is to engage in sincere consultation and conversations

through the winter and into the spring.

The critic for the official opposition pointed out that we're back here in February,

which is pre spring. We have only a few short months before we're all back here together,

unless there's an election. I can't imagine that happening between now and February.

I am expecting there will be a budget introduced and all the things that have to happen

next year. I'm pretty much certain we're going to be back here in February.

[6:25 p.m.]

If there's a sincere goal to have sincere conversations and deliberations and consultation

and to bring all that feedback that the First Nations Leadership Council, the Canadian

Human Rights Commission, the federal housing advocate, the 155 signatories to the

letter, the UBCM and probably many others, who have a lot of input on this….

That sincere consultation collides, in what I heard, with: "We have to put clarity

in place." We keep hearing from the Attorney General: "We have to have clarity. These

amendments are about clarity."

I don't know how to align these two things that we're hearing. If the consultation,

the deliberations, the conversations, the dialogue and what is being asked for, the

commitment made by this government, with a lot of fanfare, to co-development of legislation,

particularly legislation that directly impacts Indigenous people — boy, does this

legislation ever directly impact Indigenous people — this would be in the top-tier

category of that kind of legislation.

How does the Attorney General align sincerity in the conversations that are being

promised to be held and the need for immediate action and clarity that these amendments

bring?

Hon. N. Sharma: There has been a lot of talk, in the last little bit, about sincerity and my ability

to answer questions on behalf of government. I would just like to say that not only

is our government sincere in our commitment to housing; the partners that were named,

whether it's FNLC or UBCM, have seen unprecedented action from this government: changing

legislation, putting key investments into place, having co-development, with an actual

piece of legislation that has passed in this House.

If there was a government that was more committed to housing, to UNDRIP and to all

of the things that we need to do to get people housed, I've never seen it before,

and I think most of British Columbia has never seen it before.

I just want to say that on the record, because I think that the dialogue here is missing

what is not only a clear intent but a sincere attempt to make what's right in this

province — what can get people in housing, what can support building of housing, what

can build partnerships. We have put not only our name to that but action to that.

I think that needs to be said. I've seen it, and the partners that were named and

that are raising their concerns have seen it also.

That is why the Premier said recently that we are going to move forward with talking

to people next, as the next step. Meetings are already set up. I've talked about those

meetings at length already. I think that at this stage I would like to get to the

substance of what we're talking about with the clauses. I think that there's a discussion

to be had with all partners about how we address encampments and how we respectfully

treat people in that process, and I'm happy to have that discussion afterwards.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:30 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be recessed until 7 p.m.

The House recessed from 6:31 p.m. to 7:01 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: I'm calling the House to order.

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Conroy: I have the pleasure to rise to table government's second quarterly report, '23-24,

as required by

section 10 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 45 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 4), 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 45; S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 7:04 p.m.

On the amendment (continued) .

The Chair: All right, Members. Let's call this committee into session. We're here with Bill 45,

with a proposed amendment on the floor currently. That's where we were finishing up.

M. Lee: I just want to take the opportunity to respond to the Attorney General with respect

to clause 42 and to follow on the somewhat thoughtful responses from both the Leader

of the Third Party and the member for Abbotsford West and the opportunities that the

Attorney General has not taken up to address the concerns we've been expressing here

this afternoon.

I, though, wanted to just note a couple of things with respect to DRIPA and the correspondence,

statements made by the First Nations Leadership Council.

[7:05 p.m.]

Certainly, members of the government, the cabinet, the Premier and ourselves in the

opposition heard from First Nation leaders and some of the frustration they have,

at the First Nations leadership gathering, that was expressed as to the lack of progress

or the challenges with co-development. This is something that the Leader of the Third

Party spoke to in terms of the comments and concerns expressed by the First Nations

Leadership Council in respect of Bill 45.

I would just note, though, as well…. I want to take this opportunity with the Attorney

General on this bill, because I do think clarity matters, certainly in terms of the

First Nations Leadership Council and First Nation rights and title holders across

our province, in terms of what is to be expected under DRIPA, the commitments that

are made there.

One particular point I'd make to the Attorney General is this. What has changed, of

course, is this Legislative Assembly had adopted the DRIPA act four years ago. That

wasn't in place before four years ago. This was a decision to bring DRIPA in. And

as has been referred to by successive Ministers of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation,

DRIPA is intended to be an interpretative aid, an illustrative aid.

So when we're talking about alignment of laws, the underlying human rights that are

spoken to, including in respect of housing on the lands of First Nations and Indigenous

peoples, there is a need for clarity here. What I'm hearing from government, through

the Attorney General, is that the recognition of the letter they received today from

the First Nations Leadership Council is that there would be some discussions by the

Premier and the Minister of Housing and that this amendment, clause 42, would allow

and enable…. And the word "sincerity," or sincere discussions, has been described.

But I would note that as we've seen with the Mineral Tenure Act review and the Gitxaala

decision, even at the First Nations leadership gathering, the Premier had said something

different in respect of the court's decision. When the lower court decision by Alan

Ross, Supreme Court justice, said that DRIPA is an interpretive aid, not justiciable,

no separate legal rights, the Premier said it is not as simple to say that it is unenforceable.

In fact, the rights documents that inform this incredibly important law are entirely

enforceable.

Now, I haven't had the opportunity, and I don't purport to have that opportunity on

this bill, to dive into that, but I know my counterpart, the Minister of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation, and I will have some discussion about that on a future

occasion. I will say, though, when leaders hear that and then they see this government

proceed as they are proceeding on Bill 45, there does need to be clarity. So in the

context of this bill, I would just ask the Attorney General as to: what was the approach

of this government to its commitments under DRIPA in respect of co-development of

this bill?

I'm not hearing that there was actually any real, true co-development going on. I

did hear the Attorney General in her response earlier say that there was a need to

proceed expeditiously. That wasn't her word but something akin to that. But where

does that leave First Nations, then, with DRIPA? Is that suggesting, though…? Is it

the government's view that DRIPA is illustrative? I don't see, in particular…. Perhaps

the Attorney General can cite which particular articles of DRIPA provide for any higher

standard, let's say, of free, prior and informed consent.

[7:10 p.m.]

What is it exactly the Attorney General is of the view here in terms of what needs

to occur in respect of legislation relating to the nature that's being presented here?

I'd just like to ask her what is going to guide the next level of consultation. I

appreciate that there is going to be discussion, but when we're talking about DRIPA

and meeting the commitments of DRIPA, I need clarity. I'm asking for clarity as to

what that standard is.

Hon. N. Sharma: I have answered a question like this already, but I will reiterate it. We are guided

by our interim approach when it comes to our work with First Nations in this province

and legislation. We acknowledge that this particular piece, along with other pieces

of housing leg., had an accelerated timeline. We received the letter from FNLC today,

and it's in the hands of the Premier and the Minister of Housing also. We will endeavour

to engage with them in response to their concerns that are in that letter. Again,

one of the reasons that the amendment, which we're currently still debating, is on

the floor is to give us the space to do so.

M. Lee: I'm just concerned, like other members here, about the disconnect with First Nation

leaders in our province when it comes to expectation around co-development of legislation.

I can only expect that the leaders themselves are continuing to see what was a core

section in Bill 41, as it was then known, DRIPA, the Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples Act, as to the wording around: "In consultation and cooperation

with the Indigenous peoples in British Columbia, the government must take all measures

necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration."

I know that there's an interim approach, of course. That's what the Attorney General

just referred to as the internal approach. But the internal approach and this interim

approach don't seem to be landing, at least in terms of expectations. I can only take

what I presume the First Nations Leadership Council did as well, given their correspondence

and their statements, that the government took the view that it was not necessary,

given the need to accelerate, which is the word the Attorney General just used, this

legislation.

[7:15 p.m.]

Is the acceleration of this legislation, Bill 45, meeting the interim approach the

government has set for itself when it comes to the implementation of DRIPA?

The Chair: It would help the Chair if members, when asking questions, can make sure to tie them

into the amendment, as we are currently discussing the amendment.

Hon. N. Sharma: Again, I want to acknowledge, as I said before, that the timelines were short on this

legislation and other legislation.

We received the letter from FNLC today. They will know from meetings…. Personally,

I meet with FNLC very regularly about files that I hold, and I know other ministers

hold that same commitment. I can assure them that they will receive a meeting and

a response from the ministers.

M. Lee: Mr. Chair, the reason why I'm taking this opportunity to get some clarity is…. Given

the nature of the communications that were made, given the nature of the amendment,

which doesn't deal with the substance of the concern, at least in terms of even just

consultation and cooperation….

I have an additional question. Just to clarify, again, was the First Nations Leadership

Council or any First Nation informed, notified? That is, again, in itself, a limiting

consideration. But even if I start with just notice…. Was there advance notice provided,

an invitation to be consulted or to discuss the potential change to the Community

Charter and the Vancouver Charter, as is contemplated under this bill? Was there any

of that that happened in advance of the tabling of Bill 45?

[7:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Engagement with FNLC has been ongoing for a number of years related to homelessness

and encampments and general issues related to that. The Ministry of Housing takes

that engagement very seriously, very specifically related to policy objectives of

the province related to encampment. It started in August, and it's noted in the letter

actually that FNLC we received today about responses that they gave to us in October

about that.

We received, also, like I mentioned, the letter today, and we will take that letter

again and continue that engagement. Our relationship with FNLC and First Nations in

this province is about an ongoing dialogue, ongoing engagement, ongoing relationship

building and understanding perspectives and how we can understand them through our

policy development.

M. Lee: Obviously the Attorney General has access to more of that ongoing status of discussions

with FNLC. I think that that's consistent with some of the public statements that

FNLC and Regional Chief Terry Teegee have said, for example, even with the challenges

that they have seen with the Prince George encampments and how they were dealt with,

which is obviously something that this government is trying to address.

The interim approach for implementing

section 3 of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act…. It sounds to me that the Attorney General just described stage 1, which

is policy exploration and establishing some sort of cooperation and consultation plan.

If we're talking about legislation….

I do take the point that the member from Abbotsford West has made, which is that we're

putting aside for the sake of time here why this is finding itself in a misc stats

bill. These are meaningful provisions that are being put forward here for amendments

to the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter in respect of unhoused peoples.

[7:25 p.m.]

If that was the case, then we're dealing with requests for decision, requests for

legislation, legislative drafting and then the parliamentary process. It's these later

stages — stages 2,3,4 and 5 — which we've seem to have accelerated through. We are

certainly in stage 5, introduction of the bill in the parliamentary process, and this

is where the FNLC comes back in. In addition to what the Attorney General has described

in terms of earlier communications and discussions.

I do appreciate, attending as an observer to many gatherings — for the BCFN and First

Nations leadership summit, for example, and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs — that

there certainly is a recognition of the challenge in terms of housing for Indigenous

peoples in our province. That's where I think the difficulty and the challenge is

here as we are pressing on with this amendment under clause 42 — that this government

is choosing to accelerate, even, and bypass, I would suggest….

Perhaps I'll give the Attorney General an opportunity to respond to my concern about:

were the other phases of this interim approach bypassed to ge