Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 4, 2023

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 298

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Wilfred Douglas Matthew

Hon. B. Ma

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

O’Rourke Family Estate winery

N. Letnick

Zappone Manor seniors housing project in Cloverdale

M. Starchuk

Thomas William Haydon

I. Paton

Green Shirt Day and organ donation awareness

R. Leonard

Citizen of the Year Award recipients in Prince George

S. Bond

Richmond Cosom floor hockey

H. Yao

Oral Questions

Affordable housing targets and construction of new units

T. Halford

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Regulation and oversight of addiction treatment facilities

A. Olsen

Hon. J. Whiteside

Government action on women’s transition housing

R. Merrifield

Hon. D. Eby

Government action on affordable housing

E. Ross

Hon. D. Eby

T. Shypitka

T. Stone

L. Doerkson

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, Governance of the Diversity and Inclusion

Strategy for the Public Service , March 2023

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Election Amendment Act, 2023

Hon. N. Sharma

M. de Jong

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour (continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (continued)

E. Ross

Hon. J. Osborne

T. Shypitka

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2023

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. P. Alexis.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

T. Wat: In the gallery today, we have a newcomer from New Zealand. We have

Lingfeng Zhang. He’s visiting the Legislature for the first time. Lingfeng

Zhang has settled down in my beautiful riding of Richmond North Centre, and

he’s planning to start his business here in our province.

Would the House

please make him feel very welcome.

D. Coulter: I notice in the gallery today are my friends from CUPE B.C. We have

president Karen Ranalletta, and she’s joined by Martina Boyd and David

Fleming.

I’d like the House to welcome them today.

Tributes

WILFRED DOUGLAS MATTHEW

Hon. B. Ma: Simpcw First Nation lost a dearly beloved Elder last week.

Well-respected throughout the community and the North Thompson Valley,

Wilfred Douglas Matthew lived his entire life on Simpcw First

Nation.

Better known as Willie to all those who knew him, he was a

forestry man and a family man, who was happiest surrounded by the people

he loved.

He worked hard to provide the best life possible to his entire

family, driving daily on some of the most demanding roads, and

instilling his family values and work ethic into his sons, who he was so

proud of.

Born on March 8, 1954, Willie passed on March 28, 2023. He is

survived by his wife of 42 years, Cindy Lee, his sons, Chuck and Geoff,

and his grandson Waylon Douglas.

Will the House please join me in offering comfort to his family

and community during this difficult transition into a post-Willie

world.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

O’ROURKE FAMILY ESTATE WINERY

N. Letnick: I think everyone in the House would agree that British Columbia is

the best wine province in Canada, correct? [Applause.]

And within the province, that the Okanagan is the best wine region

in the province, correct? [Applause.]

The applause is getting narrower and narrower.

And the best wine region in that region is Kelowna–​Lake

Country, correct?

Interjections.

N. Letnick: I should have quit while I was ahead. The Health Minister is

agreeing.

[10:10 a.m.]

I rise today to celebrate the O’Rourke Family Estate winery

located in the heart of Kelowna–Lake Country. The winery has been named

one of the world’s top Chardonnay wine producers after their 2020

Chardonnay was given top honours in front of a panel made of

international judges. The competition took place in Burgundy, France,

where the O’Rourke’s wine was one of 530 entries and was the only

Canadian winery to be recognized in the top ten. I’m proud today to

stand here and recognize this great winery located right here in British

Columbia.

The food located in my region is truly exceptional and is very

deserving for this recognition. The O’Rourke property sits on more than

300 acres with over 110 of those dedicated to the vines.

The winery is currently closed to the public until 2025 due to an

expansion project that will see the creation of an underground cave

network, sensory tasting experiences, on-site accommodations and even an

event space with multiple dining options. The future is very bright for

the winery, and I look forward to visiting them in the

future.

That’s a hint to the O’Rourke family.

Once again, I would like to congratulate the winery’s proprietor,

Dennis O’Rourke, and the winemaker, Nikki Callaway, for their incredible

success in representing Canadian wines on the world stage.

ZAPPONE MANOR SENIORS HOUSING

PROJECT IN

CLOVERDALE

M. Starchuk: A new seniors affordable housing project is opening up in

Cloverdale. Zappone Manor, named for lifelong Cloverdale resident Bruno

Zappone, will be located near the downtown Cloverdale core.

Bruno passed away in 2021. He was a longtime volunteer, past

Cloverdale chamber of commerce president, volunteer firefighter,

heritage supporter and champion of all things Cloverdale.

This new apartment building project has been in the works for

several years but because of a funding shortfall and increases in costs

for everything related to it, the project had been stalled. That was

until the provincial government stepped in to provide more than $6

million to get it going again. This was announced just over two weeks

ago by the Minister of Housing.

Zappone Manor will replace a 50-unit residence that was several

decades old and was ready to be torn down. The new build will add

another 39 units for a total of 89 units. Zappone Trucking was actually

used to build this structure many years ago.

The five-storey building will have mostly studio apartments with a

sprinkling of one-bedroom suites. The residents will remain in their

rooms while it’s under construction, and then they’re just going to have

to walk across the parking lot to the new place.

Columbus Homes and the Senior Citizens Housing of South Surrey are

working with the government to deliver homes that will provide an

affordable place to live for seniors in need.

I remember the meeting that I had with Mike Garisto, president and

chief operating officer of Columbus Homes Surrey, to provide him with

the good news and how stunned and full of gratitude he was with. He said

that if building permits come through on time, they’ll get the shovels

in the ground early fall of this year.

To have the excavation done and the concrete foundation poured

before winter is a major feat because Cloverdale is basically on clay.

If there’s a delay in the permit approval, they’ll have to wait until

spring of 2024 to start the project.

Fingers are crossed that there aren’t any delays in the permitting

approval process.

THOMAS WILLIAM HAYDON

I. Paton: I rise today to honour Thomas William Haydon, a member of my Delta

South constituency who passed away at the age of 36 after a courageous

battle with pancreatic cancer.

He was honoured just a few weeks ago at the Fallen Firefighters

Memorial, and I want to continue to honour his legacy as he was an

outstanding member of my community.

Tom was originally from Saskatchewan, from a farming family who

farmed over 10,000 acres of mixed grains and canola. Tom moved to Ladner

as a kid but would return to the love of his family farm in Saskatchewan

almost every fall to help with the harvest. Growing up in Ladner, he

developed a keen love of the outdoors. He loved fishing, boating,

camping, hunting, and playing sports.

As a kid, he started playing lacrosse with our local Delta

lacrosse club and quickly started to excel at that sport. He made his

way up through the ranks of Delta lacrosse and became a captain of the

Delta Junior Islanders lacrosse team at age of 18. After graduating

junior, he got drafted by the Burnaby Lakers senior A and played in the

Western Lacrosse Association. He then came back to Ladner and played for

the Ladner Pioneers, helping the team win the national title and the

prestigious Presidents Cup in 2004.

Tom continue to be part of the lacrosse community during his

20-year legacy to the sport, coaching his son Eric and later becoming a

coach with the Pioneers until his illness.

[10:15 a.m.]

A journeyman welder by trade, he joined our esteemed Delta

Firefighters Local 1763 and served our community bravely. He loved being

a firefighter and quickly earned the respect of his peers. Tommer was a

good firefighter and was eager to learn and share his knowledge with

other probationers on the job. Tom was a true leader.

Tom was also a family man. He met the love of his life, Roberta,

quickly fell in love, and together they created a beautiful family with

three kids: Eric, Isabel and Luke.

On a personal note, as a strong, strapping teenager, I hired Tom

to work on my farm on several occasions. Man, could that boy throw hay

bales.

As a tribute from friends, an annual memorial award has been

created that reflects his career as a firefighter. It comes with a

$2,500 scholarship that is presented to a Delta lacrosse player who

demonstrates some of Tom’s wonderful qualities.

I had the absolute privilege of watching him grow into the man he

became, serving our community with dedication and heart.

Tommer is greatly missed, and his legacy will live on in Delta

South.

GREEN SHIRT DAY

AND ORGAN DONATION

AWARENESS

R. Leonard: April is Organ Donation Awareness Month. This Friday, April 7, is

Green Shirt Day, inspired by Logan Boulet, the 21-year-old Humboldt

Bronco who lost his life in the tragic bus accident in 2018 along with

15 others.

Logan had a coach and mentor who was a registered organ donor.

When he died in 2017, Logan saw how that selfless act resulted in six

people’s lives being saved. Logan was inspired to register as an organ

donor by the powerful act of generosity of his mentor, and Logan’s own

selfless act saved six other lives.

His parents began Green Shirt Day to honour their son, resulting

in thousands of people around the world registering for organ donation.

And 1.58 million British Columbians have registered their organ donation

decision.

But know this. You are more likely to need an organ transplant

than to become a donor, as the circumstances for organs to be donated

are very narrow. Only about 1 to 2 percent of deaths in hospital occur

in a way that allows for organs to be donated, including that all

life-saving efforts have been taken and there is certainty that the

person will not survive.

Last year 159 deceased donors and 74 living kidney donors provided

465 transplants — 25 hearts, 101 livers, 54 lung and 288 kidney

transplants.

My brother is one of those recipients, a man who was at end-stage

lung disease a year ago. He is not only alive but reinvigorated to live

life to the fullest. It is difficult to describe the hardship of knowing

someone died in order for you to live, but it makes the gratitude for

this gift immeasurable.

Be inspired. Take two minutes to register as an organ donor. Visit

transplant.bc.ca.

CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD RECIPIENTS

IN PRINCE

GEORGE

S. Bond: In March, the Prince George Community Foundation was excited to

host the return of the Citizen of the Year celebration event. The

foundation honoured recipients in two categories, lifetime achievement

and the Annual Difference Maker Award.

The recipients of the Lifetime Achievement Award — Steve Hamilton,

Dave King and Mary Teegee — were recognized for at least ten years of

volunteer service in Prince George and for showing exemplary leadership

through their volunteer and philanthropic work.

Steve Hamilton has supported the revitalization of the Spruce City

Wildlife Association as a volunteer director, three terms as president,

growing membership numbers from 30 to more than 200. Under his

presidency, about $1 million has been received in grants and donations

for their facility.

Dave King has been a volunteer with the Caledonia Ramblers for 48

years. Since then, King has maintained existing trails, built new ones

and led hikes all over the region. One of King’s greatest achievements

was helping create the Ancient Forest Provincial Park and building the

foundations of the boardwalk to make the site more accessible for all

visitors.

Mary Teegee is a relentless advocate for human, Indigenous and

women’s rights and has served on provincial, national and international

committees. Teegee represents B.C. on the board of First Nations Child

and Family Caring Society of Canada, is a steering committee member of

the First Nations Early Childhood Development Council and has been a

member of the provincial Minister’s Advisory Council on Aboriginal

Women.

[10:20 a.m.]

The Annual Difference Maker Award was presented to Patti Perrault,

who has been bringing community night markets to Prince George for

years. Each market has been well attended and has seen as many as 150

vendors participating.

Congratulations to each of these very deserving award winners. We

want to thank them for their contributions to our community and our

region.

RICHMOND COSOM FLOOR HOCKEY

H. Yao: Imagine a room filled with wild fans who can barely restrain

themselves in their seats while watching every move with aah, every play

with ooh and every goal with resounding cheers. Now imagine that very

same hockey game held at a local school, where players are adorable

little kids and the fans are poster-waving parents. That’s what happened

during the Richmond Cosom hockey match final and what it was

like.

The Richmond Cosom Floor Hockey Association has been serving the

Metro Vancouver area, specifically Richmond, for over 40 years. Richmond

Cosom hockey emphasizes fun, healthy competition, good sportsmanship

and, most importantly, safety.

The association is always trying to find ways to ensure that the

six-month league is affordable, accessible and inclusive for adults and

children six years and up. Girls and boys play co-ed through all and in

separate divisions. Each team plays one game per week and practices once

per week.

In an effort to be affordable, accessible and inclusive, Richmond

Cosom Floor Hockey creates a community where friendships are formed,

skills are honed, bodies are exercised and, most of all, a sense of

belonging is de­veloped.

The whole association is run by volunteers. Therefore, I

especially want to take a moment to express my gratitude to all the

volunteer executives who made Richmond Cosom hockey possible. Piradeepan

Uthayakumar, president; Farhaan Khan, vice-president; Nicole Nagra,

referee-in-chief; Thomas Steeves; registrar and treasurer; Eliza Ko,

secretary.

Tombert Chen, Mites division coordinator; Greg Daniels, Junior

Squirt division coordinator and head of disciplinary committee; Jade

Liggat, Junior Squirt division coordinator; Larry Knurik, Senior Squirt

division coordinator and director of digital media; Anita Chan, Bantam

division coordinator.

Doug Taylor, equipment manager; Olivia Lai, gym coordinator;

Jung, grants and sponsorship director; Juergen Wuerthwein, evaluation

director; Adam Kierszenblat, head coach; Evan Li, jersey and medal

coordinator; and Helena Mung, assistant.

Please join me and thank all the volunteers for making Richmond

Cosom hockey possible.

Oral Questions

AFFORDABLE HOUSING TARGETS

AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW

UNITS

T. Halford: The Premier’s failed ten-year housing plan was scrapped yesterday

and replaced by a refresh strategy that many are finding to be

completely anything but refreshing. It was more of a desperate attempt

to fudge the numbers and hide his own abysmal record.

With now a throwback to the 1990s, the NDP has opted for a

fudge-it-budget approach to their housing strategy. The reality is that

this two-term, six-year NDP government has only managed to deliver a

mere 7 percent of the NDP’s 114 promised homes. I round it up to be

charitable. And we now have the highest housing prices ever in the

history of this province.

This Premier, as we all know, was Housing Minister for two years.

How can anyone trust a Premier who is so willingly, blatantly fudging

numbers when it comes to hiding his own housing strategy?

Mr. Speaker: Members, be careful about the language that you portray in your

question.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. I think, when I talk to

British Columbians, if there’s an issue that’s front and centre for so

many people, it’s the fact that they’re looking for a home and they

can’t find one they can afford, whether they’re looking for one they can

buy or they’re looking for a place they can rent that’s close to work,

that’s good for their family, that’s good for their personal needs. It

is one of the major challenges we face in B.C.

The member knows the reason why. There’s a massive increase in our

population in the province. We set a record last year, a 60-year high.

This year, in the first two quarters, we were breaking last year’s

records.

[10:25 a.m.]

All these folks need a place to live, so our ten-year housing plan

is about bringing on more homes faster. I’m thrilled that we’ve

delivered 42,000 units. Without our government’s policies, 42,000 people

would not have homes.

As just one example of the kind of housing that the members won’t

count when they analyze our numbers, student housing…. We know why that

is. When they were in power for 16 years, they built 130 student housing

beds. They don’t count student housing as housing. We do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Shhh.

Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s in our numbers, and those are some of the 42,000 people who

are housed because of our policies.

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

T. Halford: Let’s be clear. After six years and two election campaigns

promising housing affordability, the results are the highest housing

prices and the highest rents this province has ever seen. It’s a

fact.

What’s also a fact is that you now need to earn over $270,000 to

be able to afford a home in Vancouver. That’s a fact.

Renters are paying over $4,300 more a year under this NDP

government. That is a fact.

Instead of getting housed, people are getting hosed by this

Premier and this NDP government, and it’s completely

unacceptable.

My question to the Premier is a direct one. Will he accept

responsibility for manipulating the numbers of his housing plan and

admit that he has absolutely failed in every measure possible, when it

comes to housing affordability, that his government has

promised?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re talking about the 42,000 people who are now living in homes.

They wouldn’t be living in without our government’s interventions. About

20,000 of those people are living in homes that used to be vacant under

the policies of the previous government. It’s shameful.

When we were in opposition, we stood up again and again, and we

said: “Why aren’t you taking action on absentee investors in our housing

market that are leaving homes vacant, using homes as safe deposit

boxes?”

They didn’t take action. We did. We brought in the speculation and

vacancy tax. Twenty thousand people housed, at least, as a

result.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: In my constituency, previously empty mansions under the other

government are now filled with students from UBC that are renting those

places.

When I look at what we’ve done and when I look at what they did, I

know we’ve got a lot more work to do, but we’re definitely on the right

track, because we’re prioritizing housing for people…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …not for speculators and investors, which was the number one

priority on the other side of the House.

M. Lee: It’s clear from this Premier that after six years of this

government, the results are just not there. The NDP has failed to meet

their 2017 election promise to build 114,000 additional homes. Only

15,000 homes have actually been built by this government.

While the Premier manipulates and overstates the numbers in his

housing plan, the real-world situation is getting worse, with the

highest housing prices in North America here in B.C.

CMHC says that B.C. needs to build 570,000 more homes by the end

of this decade alone. But instead of trying to actually build those

homes, the Premier has opted to engage in creative accounting. Fudging

the numbers to cover up the reality is unbecoming of a Premier, but it’s

consistent with how this Premier operates.

Given the Premier’s blatant distortion of the numbers, and his

track record as a failed Housing Minister, how can British Columbians

have any confidence in his latest housing plan?

Hon. D. Eby: I know the member knows the history of the B.C. Liberal

government, when they were in power, on housing. It wasn’t enough for

tenants that their rent increased by inflation. The B.C. Liberal

government added another 2 percent increase on top of that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: When we got rid of that, we saved tenants…. Families are saving,

on average, $2,500 a year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members will come to order, please.

Let’s listen to the Premier.

[10:30 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: But we know we have to bring more housing on. Populations go up

because of our government’s success bringing on jobs and economic

activity in this province, some of the lowest unemployment rates in the

history of the province right now in British Columbia. People are coming

here because it’s a good place to live. They see our child care program,

and they’re coming here.

Yesterday’s plan is all about bringing on more homes faster to

respond to that — more townhomes, duplexes and triplexes — by increasing

the ability for people to build, with the same process as the most

expensive housing, the single-family home. They can now build, with the

same process, more attainable housing for people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. D. Eby: Making it more possible for people to have a secondary suite,

making it legal for them to have a secondary suite in our province.

Speeding up permitting so that housing can be built faster. More homes

and services near transit that people who actually use transit can

afford to live in, because we’re buying not just the footprint of the

station but the whole area around the station.

There is so much work that is underway. The plan takes it to the

next level. I’m excited about it, British Columbians are excited about

it, and I wish the opposition would support this kind of initiative. And

I really wish that when they were on this side of the House, they would

have started this work.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Langara, supplemental.

M. Lee: Well, the Premier continues to go on at great lengths to pad the

numbers, and he continues to do that here in this chamber. But the

reality is that things are getting worse, not better, for renters and

homeowners.

So far in 2023, total new home registrations have plummeted 25

percent compared to 2022. The minister’s own briefing notes reveal that

70 percent of purpose-built rental construction actually results in the

demolition of existing buildings: “The number of units completed does

not equate directly to an increase in the total stock of rental housing.

Very often rental buildings are demolished.”

Will the Premier own up to these backward steps in housing supply,

or will he find another way to fudge those numbers too?

Hon. D. Eby: CMHC, the federal government agency that monitors housing, issued

a rental market report, 2022. It says as follows. The increase in

purpose-built rental units in greater Vancouver “represents the highest

annual in­crease among available records since 1990…. The increase

results from the elevated number of new rental units started over the

past few years now coming to market. Rental starts surged 43 percent

year over year over the first three quarters of 2022, meaning

completions of new rental supply will be significant in the years

ahead.”

Metro Vancouver, in their data report, December 2022: “Rental

construction is at a 20-year high after more than a decade of

historically low levels.” When? In the early 2000s, hon.

Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT OF

ADDICTION TREATMENT

FACILITIES

A. Olsen: I think there’s a broad agreement in this chamber on many issues,

and one of those is the need to increase access to addiction treatment

centres. I’ve heard, and our technical staff have heard, many firsthand

accounts from families on how deeply broken our current system

is.

Private facilities charge $20,000 per month without any oversight

from this government. The private mental health and addictions

facilities are completely unregulated, leaving desperate families

vulnerable. If you want trauma counselling, it’s an extra $375 an hour.

Family support groups, there are payments of up to $6,500 up

front.

It’s not fair treatment. Private treatment centres charge

thousands of dollars to keep a revolving door open. People depend on

coming back twice or three times, four times more, exploiting this

government’s failing mental health supports for British

Columbians.

My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

When will she regulate private addictions treatment

facilities?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I thank the member for the question. I think this issue has

certainly come to the fore over the last number of years.

[10:35 a.m.]

We know that when we formed government in 2017, we did inherit a

system in which the recovery house sector had been deregulated by the

previous government, and that allowed for a proliferation of operators

that were functioning under a very loose set of rules and

standards.

We have moved to correct that situation. We brought in a more

clear set of regulatory standards in 2019, along with a more structured

approach to the per diems, and increased the per diems so that we could

ensure there is a higher standard of quality and of services that

British Columbians can expect from these facilities. We know there is

more work to do, and that work is underway.

I am very grateful for the work of organizations like BCARA, the

provincial body that represents recovery houses, who is an important

partner in the work that we are doing to ensure that we have appropriate

standards across the recovery home sector.

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

A. Olsen: I recognize the environment, the landscape that existed at the

time that this government took office. However, it has been several

years since then, and as we are working to expand access to addictions

treatment, it should be that good regulation is what the expansion of

those services is built on. That should be the first bit of work. We’ve

heard dozens of horror stories from families that have experienced the

revolving door that I explained in the first question.

We’ve also heard that public facilities aren’t much better. Those

public centres don’t offer trauma counselling. It’s up to the patients

and families to seek out and pay for. One mother described the

facilities as “warehouses,” because it’s basically the only place for

her daughter to lay her head at night — no mental health care, no

addictions care, drug dealers around the facilities, allegations of

sexual assault in the centres, sexual abuse.

To the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, will she agree to

undertake an audit of all of our provincial addictions treatment

facilities to understand exactly where we stand in this important

industry?

Hon. J. Whiteside: One of the important measures that we have taken with respect to

the regulation of the recovery home sector — which is an important part

of the treatment and recovery landscape in our Pathway to Hope plan, our

ten-year plan for addressing mental health and addictions in the

province — is to ensure that we have a robust approach not only to

regulation but to enforcement, so we’ve increased the number of officers

in the health authorities who are responsible for inspecting and

enforcing the regulations across that sector.

That work is happening at the same time as we are having

conversations with that sector about improving the regulatory framework

they’re operating under.

I do think it’s important to reinforce that we have a continuum

across which we are working in this area. We have health authorities who

are delivering services. We have beds delivered through the Canadian

Mental Health Association in B.C., which is a very important partner. We

have announced a $1 billion investment across all of the work we need to

be doing in this sector to do some of the very work that the member has

referenced.

I am happy to hear particular examples or particular concerns that

the member has to follow up on. But there’s no question that we have

made strides in opening hundreds of treatment beds, in doing more work

with respect to the regulatory framework and the enforcement of those

regulations, increasing counselling services, investing hundreds of

millions of dollars across all of those services.

Of course, there is more to do. That’s work that we are committed

to engaging in.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

WOMEN’S TRANSITION

HOUSING

R. Merrifield: Back in 2018, the NDP promised to deliver 1,500 homes for women

fleeing domestic violence, but they haven’t delivered on that

promise.

[10:40 a.m.]

A year ago the Premier repromised to fix this lack of action when

he was in Housing estimates, saying: “…personally, I would like to see

us make more progress in the women’s transition housing fund” and that

155 units are open. “I’m working…to ensure that the transition housing

fund is meeting the needs of the sector.”

Since that time, we’ve learned that the Premier managed to open

just 33 homes. All the while, rates of intimate-partner violence have

skyrocketed. Amy FitzGerald of the B.C. Society of Transition Houses

says that they are very concerned about the lack of results, given the

increased rates of intimate-partner violence that they see in

B.C.

Will the Premier explain to transition housing providers like Amy

and to all the women and children that they serve why he is trying to

fudge his housing numbers instead of delivering results that matter on

promises he made?

Hon. D. Eby: I take the member’s critique seriously. This is a category where I

wish we had been able to open more units.

We are working aggressively on the issue of gender-based violence.

We have a gender-based violence action strategy. We’re working closely

with agencies that support women fleeing violence. We know that housing

availability generally is a huge issue for women fleeing violence. When

we open more housing, when we make housing more affordable and available

for people, it means they can leave abusive relationships. It means

there’s a place they can go.

I take the member’s critique seriously. We’ve got more work to do.

I don’t pretend our government is perfect in every category at all, but

I do assure the member on the other side and all British Columbians that

we take this issue profoundly seriously.

Housing is one of our key priority issues, especially the

availability of housing for women that are fleeing violence, for other

marginalized groups, for Indigenous people in the province and, as part

of our housing plan yesterday, concern about people who earn a decent

income that are just looking for a reasonable place for their families

to live.

This is a multifaceted housing strategy. We’re going to redouble

our efforts, and 42,000 people in this province at least have new homes

because of our government’s policies. But we know we’ve got a lot more

work to do.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

AFFORDABLE

HOUSING

E. Ross: The NDP housing promise was to build 114,000 units — build. Now of

the 40,000 units that the government takes credit for, 25,000 of those

were already built. Some of those were built back in the ’80s. You go

further back, maybe the ’70s or ’60s, and maybe you can accomplish the

114,000 units that you promised back in 2017.

It wasn’t just these numbers that the Premier managed to fudge. In

his housing plan yesterday, he announced a $40,000 forgivable loan for

homeowners while offering only a meagre $400 rental assistance for

renters. That’s a pitiful $1 a day for renters, an insult for families

who are struggling afford the $3,600 per month average rent for a

two-bedroom apartment in Vancouver, and that’s only if you

qualify.

In my own community of Terrace, the average cost of rent has gone

up $350 a month under the NDP. Why is the Premier blatantly

discriminating between homeowners and renters and perpetuating

inequality by providing renters with only $1 a day?

Hon. D. Eby: Sometimes I feel like I’ve stepped through a portal into a

parallel universe when I hear the members on the other side saying that

they’re concerned about the issues of renters. I can’t tell you…. I’m

sure members across this place stood in opposition again and again on

the issues…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Members, please.

Please continue.

Hon. D. Eby: …faced by renters, rent evictions and basic due process at the

residential tenancy branch.

I mean, is the member seriously pretending that the B.C. Liberals

would have ever considered a grant for renters in this province? Are you

kidding me?

Speaking of support for families, an average family…. The numbers

are publicly produced and available. Under our government’s policies, an

average family with two kids earning $100,000 used to pay $7,473 in

taxes. They now pay $4,948. That’s a 34 percent net reduction under our

government.

[10:45 a.m.]

Families earning $80,000 have seen a 56 percent reduction.

Families earning $60,000 have seen a 99 percent net reduction. Families

earning $30,000 used to pay $177 in taxes. Now they get $2,565 back in

their pocket.

T. Shypitka: Well, we’ve heard a lot of NDP math here today. It’s absolutely

astounding: 114,000 affordable homes were supposed to be built. That

promise was never met — full stop. There’s no getting around that with,

even NDP math. The Premier’s attempt to fudge his housing numbers and

cook the books at B.C. Housing is insulting to families in the East

Kootenays.

I received a letter from Dayleen Bybee from Kimberley, who learned

that she was losing her rental unit. Dayleen says: “I am a newly single

mom with two teens. Instead of being carefree teens, they will both have

to have jobs and contribute to household expenses if we have any hope of

not being homeless. Who can afford a $500,000 home as their first home?

What is going to happen to the next generation of children?”

Can the Premier tell Dayleen why he is more focused on fudging the

numbers in his housing plan instead of delivering results for her and

her kids?

Hon. D. Eby: I mean, the concern raised by that MLA about this constituent is

exactly why we’re doing the work on housing. I share that

concern.

Are kids going to be able to stay in their communities? Are

seniors going to be able to stay in the communities where their

connections are? Can we provide affordable, attainable housing for

people who earn decent incomes? Can we address homelessness by bringing

on more housing generally and addressing social housing? That is exactly

what this plan is about.

I know the members on the other side. This is politics. They are

here to oppose. But sometimes partisans, when they leave this place,

look at things objectively. I have a quote from Mark

Marissen….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Speaker, I have a quote from Mark Marissen on this housing

plan: “Will study more, but what we’re seeing here so far is excellent

news.” I know that families are struggling. I know that

members….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Members on both sides.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve got two pages of quotes. I’m happy to provide lots more. Keep

asking the questions.

It’s a great plan. I know families are struggling. My colleagues

know that they’re struggling. We’re working every day for them,

something that the other side never did.

T. Stone: The Premier talks about a parallel universe. He should look in the

mirror. The number one promise that his government made in two elections

in a row was to make life more affordable and housing more affordable.

The exact opposite has happened.

Come on. We’ve got the highest rents ever in British Columbia’s

history, yet he stands up here and touts all this progress that his

government is making. We have the highest housing prices that we’ve ever

seen in the history of this province, and he stands up with a smile on

his face and tries to tell British Columbians: “Don’t worry. Life is

getting better, and we’re working hard.” This is a terrible plan, and

their results are terrible.

Now I want to ask about a senior up in Kamloops. Maybe he will get

a serious response from the Premier to this question.

Howard Druskee is a Kamloops senior who’s been living in the

family home of his parents for 50 years. His parents both passed away

years ago. After his brother died, he expected to pay a modest fee to

put his own name on the title. But despite no exchange of funds, this

government is demanding that Howard pay over $20,000 in fees and

property transfer tax. That’s outrageous, particularly for a senior

without a large income who has complicated health issues that include

heart surgery, and so forth. This is a significant financial burden for

him.

[10:50 a.m.]

Now Howard has attempted to plead his case to this NDP government,

citing exemptions for transfers between related individuals that he

believes should also apply to siblings. But his appeals have fallen on

deaf ears as the government continues to demand, again, over $20,000 in

fees and property transfer tax. In Howard’s words: “I feel like they put

the boots to me.”

My question to the Premier is this. Why is the Premier choosing to

squeeze every last penny that he can from a gentleman, a senior who has

health challenges, who simply wishes to stay in the place that he’s

called home for over five decades?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m happy to look into the case the member raises. It sounds very

concerning to me. In terms of his introduction to the question of what

has our government done around affordability, for some reason, I’m

reminded of what we’ve done on ICBC.

We took a Crown corporation that was losing more than $1 billion a

year, putting pressure on government finances….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: Unsustainable. We’ve turned it into a Crown corporation that’s

delivered savings of about $500, on average, to B.C. families, and we’ve

frozen rates for two more years. I think that’s pretty good.

Now, to the member’s point, we’re seeing global inflation. We’re

seeing rising interest rates. We’re seeing rising food costs all around

the world.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: As a government, we’re not going to be able to solve all those

problems, but we are able to support people with the costs of daily life

wherever we can. That’s the work we’re going to continue to do,

including supporting MLAs like the member when they raise cases or

concerns of their constituents. Happy to look into them and see if we

can assist.

L. Doerkson: Certainly, these comments have been raised before, and they will

continue to be raised in the future. The fact is, housing is a colossal

mess under this two-term government. The Premier has a consistent

pattern of manipulating and failing on housing.

In Parksville, B.C. Housing falsely claims that the supportive

housing residents being evicted are offered alternative housing.

Residents are saying that’s just not true. One resident, Dan Hogan,

says: “I’m a pensioner, and I don’t feel I should be treated like

garbage. I paid my taxes when I was working. Why do I have to put up

with crap like this?”

The Premier is neglecting the housing needs of seniors right

across this province. Eileen Batty is a senior from Williams Lake who

writes that she can’t keep up with the dramatic increase in housing

costs: “Clearly, the provincial government is not supporting seniors.

Seniors are in need of support. They need it now.”

Will the Premier explain to Dan in Parksville and Eileen in

Williams Lake why he is more focused on fudging the numbers of this

housing plan instead of delivering results to the seniors of this

province?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. This is a serious issue. A

lot of seniors are facing massive pressure around housing right now, the

member’s constituents among them. Seniors, families and young people

starting their lives need a decent place to live and need a place they

can afford.

This is an issue for our economy provincially, when employers are

looking for workers, and they can’t find a place to live close to work.

This is an issue for quality of life. It’s an issue for women’s safety,

as the member has raised. It’s an issue for the health of seniors, being

able to live in the communities where they have social connection — so

they can stay in their homes for longer, so they can get home care. You

need a home.

For all these reasons, we put this plan together. We started the

work in 2017 and delivered 42,000 homes for British Columbians,

expanding the plan now to do even more work, because we know more work

has to be done.

Housing is under huge pressure with our population growth. We’ve

got lots of work to do. That’s why, from city councillors to

homebuilders, non-profit organizations and just individuals interested

in the housing issue, they are celebrating this work, because they know

it’s going to make a difference.

That’s what we’re all about: delivering for British Columbians

every day. This whole team here is working for British Columbians over

time. We’re going to keep doing that work every single day.

[10:55 a.m.]

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Auditor General’s report,

Governance of the Diversity and Inclusion Strategy for the Public

Service.

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 11, the

Election Amendment Act.

In committee room A, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply

for the Ministry of Labour.

In committee room C, I call the continued debate on the Committee of

Supply for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 10:57 a.m.

The Chair: The committee will recess for two minutes.

The committee recessed from 10:57 a.m. to 11:02 a.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re in committee on Bill

11, Election Amendment Act, 2023.

I’ll ask the Attorney General if she has some opening comments

and would like to introduce staff.

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s my pleasure to introduce the team that’s with me here today:

Anita Nadziejko, director of policy and legislation, and Tarynn

McKenzie, senior policy analyst. They’re both from justice services

branch.

On clause 1.

M. de Jong: Welcome to the minister and her staff colleagues from the

ministry. As I’ve done on some of the previous legislation we’ve been

considering in the committee, I thought I would spend just a couple of

minutes asking a few general questions before we get into the details,

section by section.

In this case, what I wanted to first ask the Attorney to do, for

the committee’s benefit, is explain the genesis of the bill. It appears,

on the surface, to be largely the result of work undertaken by the Chief

Electoral Officer, who has prepared two reports recently and on an

ongoing basis is charged with the task of ensuring that elections in

this province are conducted fairly and efficiently.

With the advent and evolution of technology, that requires some

constant adjustments. The last election took place in unusual

circumstances, as it related to the COVID pandemic and the more limited

opportunities people had to move about in the province.

But maybe the Attorney could provide the committee with a

summary

of — to her mind, at least — the genesis of the bill and the provisions

contained therein as it relates to the work of the Chief Electoral

Officer.

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question. I’ll start by saying that in the context

of our Election Act, the electoral process is constantly being updated

and recommended. Recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer flow

to us, and we evaluate and make changes. As the member articulated,

elections are a constantly evolving process with different pressures and

needs and digital tools that are present.

The first changes we made were in 2017, further changes in 2019,

and now these ones in particular. Generally, our process is that we

receive recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer. We communicate

with them in identifying the highest-priority changes that are

needed.

In the context of the changes that we have before us, the

highest-priority changes that were recommended or talked to were

identified through the conversations with the Chief Electoral Officer

and were really meant to focus on how to get us prepared for the next

election. There are things that I’m sure we’ll go through very

particularly that are about that.

And in particular, these changes are based on two reports that

were identified, but I’ll just list them for the record. One was called

Digital Communications, Disinformation and Democracy from

May 2020, and the next one was Recommendations for Legislative

Change , May 2022. These were reports from the Chief Electoral

Officer.

M. de Jong: As part of the preparation process for the legislation…. I’ll come

back to the request-for-legislation exercise in a moment. For now, what

I’m curious about is as legislative counsel are undertaking their work

as a result of the instructions they receive, presumably via a request

for legislation, what kind of ongoing involvement is there on the part

of the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of reviewing the results of that

work, the drafting? What kind of opportunity or engagement is there on

the part of the Chief Electoral Officer prior to the final product,

which reveals itself in Bill 11 being tabled in this

Legislature?

Hon. N. Sharma: The answer, in a general term, is it’s an ongoing discussion with

the Chief Electoral Officer. So as I mentioned before, prior to the RFL,

it would be a conversation about priority recommendations leading up to

what’s contained in the RFL. Then after that, it’s an ongoing discussion

with the Chief Electoral Officer, including reviewing consultation

drafts, reviewing drafts, and of course, appropriate confidentiality

agreements are signed in the context of draft legislation. So really,

it’s a constant communication.

[11:10 a.m.]

M. de Jong: And would the Chief Electoral Officer have seen Bill 11 in its

entirety prior to it being tabled in the House?

Hon. N. Sharma: After the LRC stage, they wouldn’t have seen it until it was

tabled. Prior to that there would have been consultation drafts that

were exchanged.

M. de Jong: Did the Chief Electoral Officer…? What I take from that answer is

that the Chief Electoral Officer would have seen a draft copy of the

bill in the form that it went to the legislative review committee. Is

that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes. They saw a consultation draft right before it was taken to

LRC.

M. de Jong: Did the Chief Electoral Officer provide written comment to the

Attorney at that time?

Hon. N. Sharma: Elections B.C. did provide written comments to our team. This is,

again, the stage before it entered LRC when it was a draft consultation,

the consultation draft.

M. de Jong: What form did that commentary take? Was it verbal? Was it

written?

Hon. N. Sharma: Written.

M. de Jong: Is that written commentary material that the Attorney is prepared

to share?

Hon. N. Sharma: The answer to that question is no because it was under the

confidentiality agreement that we had with Elections B.C. and the Chief

Electoral Officer in the consultation process.

M. de Jong: Two things that I would say. I presume the confidentiality

agreement of which the Attorney is speaking is one designed to ensure

that the draft legislation remains protected and is not released

prematurely.

The other point I would make is that a number of other statutory

and legislative officers — I’m thinking, for example, of the Information

and Privacy Commissioner — when legislation is presented that touches

upon their key enabling legislation, have initiated the practice of not

just penning a review but ensuring that all members of the Legislative

Assembly and, indeed, by extension, the public, are aware of their

views. I think the Attorney has seen evidence of that in the

past.

I don’t think the Chief Electoral Officer has chosen to pen a

letter of that sort but apparently has provided commentary to the

Attorney and to the ministry outlining his views and any concerns he

might have about the legislation.

[11:15 a.m.]

I understand that’s the case, but it would seem the Attorney’s

view is that she is either unwilling or unable to provide that

information to the committee.

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by saying that once this bill has been tabled — so, now

— of course it’s open, as the member suggests, for the statutory officer

to make public comment on their views of what’s contained in the public

bill.

But it’s also a very normal and important part of legislative

drafting that there’s privilege and confidentially associated with the

drafting of legislation. That’s part of the normal process.

M. de Jong: Well it’s obvious that the actual drafting, of course, takes place

ultimately by legislative counsel.

It would be helpful for this committee and the House to know at

the time it is considering legislation that is the product of work by a

statutory officer — in this case, the Chief Electoral Officer — the

degree to which, if at all, the statutory officer harbours any concerns

or reservations about the contents of the bill. We don’t know that, and

it sounds like we won’t know that, and we’ll proceed accordingly. But I

think that is unfortunate.

Can I ask…? The Attorney has referred to the two reports and made

the comment, confirmed that the contents of the bill are drawn largely

from those two reports. Are there any substantive provisions in this

bill that are not drawn from one of those two reports?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by saying that the process we undertake is very open

and public. It starts with two public reports from the Chief Electoral

Officer that are open to everybody. It finishes at this side, once it’s

tabled, with an openness for the Chief Elector Officer and Elections

B.C. to make public comment, if they wish, on the bill before

them.

In answer specifically to the question that the member raised, all

of the changes that were in this report that are substantive are based

on recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer.

[11:20 a.m.]

M. de Jong: It’s fair to say, then, that we — the committee, the House and,

indeed, the government and the minister — attach great importance to the

two reports and the contents of those reports.

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, and that goes also into the selection of the priority items

in the reports — in particular, through our discussions with the Chief

Electoral Officer, what was important to implement before the next

election.

M. de Jong: Can we just take a moment now, as we have on previous pieces of

legislation. I’ll preface my remarks by again assuming that with respect

to the RFL process, this is legislation…. Or the development of this

legislation is something that this Attorney General inherited. I don’t

expect it…. Well, I’ll ask the question whether she was the person that

signed off on the RFL that ultimately gave birth to Bill 11.

Hon. N. Sharma: It was not me; it was my predecessor.

M. de Jong: The Attorney anticipated my next question, and that is: who did

sign off on the RFL? It would be helpful to know that.

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s the now Minister of Indigenous Reconciliation and — I’m

missing the other R — who was the Attorney General at that time, who

signed off on the RFL.

M. de Jong: So the RFL was signed off during that period of time when the

Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the member for Oak

Bay, occupied the role of Attorney General. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.

M. de Jong: Let’s start with the May 2020 report Digital Communications

Disinformation and Democracy , which contains a number of

recommendations, six specifically.

We’ll deal with a number of those as they appear in the context of

the bill and have influenced some of the provisions of the bill. There

is one, however — well, two, actually, but one that doesn’t fall into

that category — and that is the second recommendation, recommendation 2,

headlined: “Discourage foreign and out-of-province

interference.”

The first question I’ll ask the Attorney is to confirm…. My

reading of the provisions of Bill 11 leads me to the conclusion that the

bill at no point and nowhere seeks to address recommendation 2,

discouraging foreign and out-of-province interference.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question. It is unusual to comment on things that

are not included in a bill. The member’s question is about something

that wasn’t included; it’s not about the content of the bill. That being

said, I think it’s fair for me to comment on the question, for the

record.

There are a few elements to this, and one is that the perspective

that needs to always be held is that the changes we made in 2017 and

also the disinformation amendments in this bill do strengthen the

protections of our electoral system — in 2017, when it became big money

in politics, and this one, disinformation. That includes foreign actors

that would be stepping in, potentially in a way that leads to

disinformation in election in the prescribed forms.

Another thing I want to add is the prioritization that was done on

what was included in this particular piece of legislation was done with

the Chief Electoral Officer — and particularly, as I mentioned, what

could be put into this legislation for it to be ready for the next

election and operational.

What I mentioned before…. We’re constantly evolving and responding

to changes. At that time, Elections B.C. had advised there had been no

significant documented foreign interference in B.C.’s provincial

elections, but they have the authority to investigate and enforce

Elections Act transgressions in the areas that are currently being

highlighted in the federal context.

[11:30 a.m.]

With that advice and that prioritization, we focused on the

changes that are before us, including disinformation, which was seen as

a big priority, and the changes to vote in ballots and all those other

processes.

But it’s always an evolving process, changing our elections. I

think we’ve shown that over the years — that we’re always open and

willing to make the changes that are necessary to strengthen our

democracy.

M. de Jong: In page 12 of the report that we’ve already, with the Attorney’s

assistance, established are one of the two guiding documents for the

creation of Bill 11, the Chief Electoral Officer says this: “The

Election Act does not currently prohibit foreign entities from

registering as third-party advertisers, and the sources of funding used

to sponsor election advertising are not fully transparent under current

legislation. This increases the risk of foreign and out-of-province

third parties influencing B.C. elections.”

Does the Attorney agree with that?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by just reiterating what I said previously, which is

that the Chief Electoral Officer advised us at the time that there has

been no significant documented foreign interference in the provincial

elections, and that’s what we used to guide us in the particular

recommendations. We moved forward in this expedited way to get ready for

the next election.

That being said, to the member’s point, we take every

recommendation that the Chief Electoral Officer has given us, including

the one identified in recommendation 2. And we’re always looking at ways

to improve the elections, like we did with third-party advertising,

which is subject to the requirement to disclose who sponsored the

advertising, to adhere to strict expense limits and to file disclosure

statements after an election. We’ll continue to look at ways to

strengthen our elections.

M. de Jong: The Chief Electoral Officer also advises as follows in the same

report at the same page:

“Third-party advertisers that sponsor election advertising with the

total value of more than $500 are required to file a disclosure report

with Elections B.C. but are only required to open a separate sponsorship

account if they receive more than $10,000 in contributions. To register

with Elections B.C., they must only provide a British Columbia mailing

address, which can be a PO box. These requirements may allow foreign and

out-of-province entities to indirectly or anonymously fund third-party

advertising.”

Does the minister agree with that statement from the Chief

Electoral Officer?

Hon. N. Sharma: My response is the same as my previous one, which is that we take

all of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer seriously. The

legislation we’re talking about today that’s before us is what we

prioritized with advice from the Chief Electoral Officer of what to act

on right now. But we’re always looking at recommendations that he

provided us and thinking about how to improve the election.

M. de Jong: With the greatest respect, I haven’t asked yet about the

recommendations.

[11:35 a.m.]

I have asked the Attorney whether she agrees with the synopsis of

the risk that the Chief Electoral Officer has laid out in the report

that she has acknowledged represents the foundational basis for the

legislation before us.

I haven’t asked her about the recommendations. Happy to hear that

she takes recommendations seriously. I’ve asked her whether she accepts

as accurate the risk laid out by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll say that, again, we’re talking about, unusually, things that

are not within provisions or clauses of this legislation, so I believe

that my opinion of whether or not something that’s in a report that’s

not before this Legislature in this way is not really relevant to the

clauses that we’re talking about.

I will say, as I mentioned earlier, that the Chief Electoral

Officer informed us that there was no significant foreign interference

in B.C.’s election so far, but we are always looking at the advice and

the recommendations and the commentary in the reports of the Chief

Electoral Officer and considering if we need to make more

changes.

M. de Jong: I am somewhat surprised and somewhat disappointed by the response

from the Attorney General. I would have thought that, engaged in a

process that is designed to protect the integrity of our electoral

system, dealing with legislative amendments the Attorney has already

very fairly and openly acknowledged are based exclusively — that’s why I

asked her the question — on recommendations from the Chief Electoral

Officer, that it is entirely appropriate as part of this exercise for

the Attorney to offer her views on whether or not the risk identified by

the Chief Electoral Officer to foreign interference in British Columbia

elections is accurate or not.

I can’t think of another forum that it would be as important and

as appropriate for the Attorney General to render that opinion. She is

the Attorney General in the government. She and the government get to

establish priorities. They have decided, as is evidenced by the contents

of Bill 11, not to proceed with the recommendations that flow from what

the Chief Electoral Officer has said.

What this committee is entitled to know, in my respectful opinion,

as part of this broader conversation, is whether or not the Attorney

General and the government accept as accurate the risk laid out in the

report that forms the foundation for the legislation before this

committee.

I’ll read one additional passage from page 12 of the report, where

the Chief Electoral Officer says: “Overall, 77 percent of spending by

third parties was from the sponsor’s own asset. This creates an

opportunity for foreign and other improper funding.”

[11:40 a.m.]

The Chief Electoral Officer, throughout those provisions, and

there are a few more that I haven’t read, paints a worrisome picture

about the risk potential for foreign interference in our elections. It

is a topical issue in this country. This Legislative Assembly has

recently experienced something akin to foreign influence and foreign

interference.

Again, I’m going to ask the Attorney General. I’m not sure what

other form she would deem more appropriate than this to articulate

whether she accepts as accurate the risk identified by the Chief

Electoral Officer with respect to foreign and out-of-province

interference.

Hon. N. Sharma: Again, the specific context of foreign interference and provisions

related to that are not in this bill, and they’re not what’s being

debated or what’s properly before the House. I believe we’re on clause

What I will say is what I said earlier. The Chief Electoral

Officer articulated that, in his view — he’s best placed to oversee the

elections; we give him that authority — there was no significant foreign

interference in the election. So what we focused on for this bill was a

prioritization of the provisions. We worked with him to make the changes

that you see before you.

The Chair: Before recognizing the member, I’ve given a fair bit of

latitude on clause 1, which is quite normal within debate of a bill.

I would remind members that we’re debating the bill in front of

us.

M. de Jong: Helpful.

I was grateful to the Attorney for establishing, early in these

discussions, the central role played by the two reports that she read

into the record as forming the foundation for what is before us in Bill

[11:45 a.m.]

I was grateful to hear her comment that, to her mind at least,

there are other provisions in this bill that we’ll come to and that she

believes addresses, in some kind of a meaningful way, the question of

foreign influence, although that’s something we’re going to explore,

because I’m not sure I agree entirely with her. Of course, the guidance

from the Chair is always very, very useful and important.

Can I ask the Attorney, with those thoughts in mind, how she

defines “foreign interference” in the context of the Election

Act?

Hon. N. Sharma: There is no definition of “foreign interference” before us in this

whole section, clause 1.

I would say that it’s unusual to ask me to give a definition of

something that’s not defined or not before the discussion in the bill.

What I will say is that we take the guidance from the Chief Electoral

Officer, and like the report, it shows up in actions. Then you legislate

based on a response to that. For example, what is before…. The bill

right now is for disinformation. “Actors for disinformation” are defined

as people or organizations that spread disinformation.

[11:50 a.m.]

In that context, whether it’s a foreign actor or a local actor, if

they are spreading disinformation, it’s defined broadly enough, as

people and organizations, to cover that. I guess I’ll leave it there and

hope that we can get to the

definitions in the clause.

M. de Jong: Well, to put this in context, a key feature of a report that the

legislation is based on….

The minister, in earlier comments, explained that, in her view,

the question of foreign influence is dealt with somewhat in the

provisions of the bill. All I have done is ask her to define for the

committee what, in her view, constitutes foreign influence of the sort

that we should be worried about and that the Chief Electoral Officer is

obviously worried about.

It’s not really a trick question. What, to her mind, would

constitute foreign influence in a B.C. election?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m happy to repeat my example of before.

An example of this bill is…. If it’s a person or organization that

is spreading disinformation in the particular categories that are

defined here, whether that’s a foreign actor or a local actor…. If it

was a foreign actor, it would be a foreign body trying to spread

disinformation in our elections. This bill will provide the Chief

Electoral Officer with better tools to enforce and prevent that

interference with our electoral process.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s interesting. What that answer tells me and, I think,

the committee is that as long as a foreign actor isn’t spreading

disinformation, their attempt to influence the outcome of an election in

B.C. is fine with the minister. Have I understood that

correctly?

She has focused, in her response, entirely on misinformation,

which puzzles me. The answer suggests that unless a foreign actor is

disseminating misinformation, the minister is just fine with their

participation and attempts at influencing the outcome of an

election.

Hon. N. Sharma: Of course, nothing I said will have made anybody come to that

conclusion, except for the member.

I’ve never said that. What I’ve said is…. We worked with the Chief

Electoral Officer to prioritize what should be contained in this bill

and what we see before the House so that it can be in place prior to the

next election. What was identified by the Chief Electoral Officer was

disinformation as something that was an important thing to cover, along

with the other changes you see in the bill. We are always thinking about

how to strengthen our elections in B.C.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LABOUR

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:02 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply,

Section A,

to order. We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the

estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

On Vote 38: ministry operations, $21,489,000

(continued).

G. Kyllo: At the conclusion of my questions yesterday…. I had asked a number

of questions of the minister, including, as the minister was explaining

the triage work that was undertaken to determine claims that are brought

forward to the employment standards branch, the criteria, and if there

was any decision-making matrix that was utilized in order to better

identify those claims that might be expedited.

One of the questions I asked yesterday was: in the case of

hardships…? An example is where, maybe, a single parent has been

wrongfully terminated from employment and is looking for severance pay.

In those instances where there’s financial hardship borne by the worker,

is there any work undertaken by the employment standards branch to

actually advance those claims?

I’m just hoping the minister might be able to provide a bit more

context and detail.

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: As I mentioned yesterday, before closing, the employment standards

branch is an independent statutory decision–making authority. They

develop their own criteria to make the system as efficient as they can

and provide the service that they are set up for, for those who seek

their assistance.

My staff reached out to the employment standards branch and put

those questions to them, as the member has asked. He asked that again

today.

The triage process. This is what we were given. The employment

standards branch first reviews the complaint to ensure it falls under

the Employment Standards Act. If not, they recommend the person to

another agency or the appropriate agency. Then the complaints are

triaged based on the host of factors related to the complexity and the

urgency of the situation — I think we canvassed that yesterday a bit —

and the vulnerability of the complainant. I think we talked about that

yesterday.

Urgency may include the financial situation of the employer. For

example, the employer is closing or closed. How do we recover the wages

owed to the employees? I think those come into play.

The vulnerability of the complainant would include, for example,

when they’re only paid cash, minimum wage, no pay statements or they

rely on the employer for housing. Those are the kinds of vulnerability

of the employee. Then the higher precarity or the vulnerability

prioritizes the complainant and is reviewed against other vulnerable

complaints. I’m also advised that the majority of the complainants state

that they are in financial hardship when they submit.

That’s the nature of the complaints. That’s how the complaints,

once they come through their door, are triaged.

G. Kyllo: Just as a follow-up to that, it sounds like there are certain

criteria that are assessed in determining the complexity of the claim.

From what I’m hearing from the minister, largely, it would be the staff

who would determine the order in which these claims are actually

addressed. I see the minister shaking his head.

Can minister just confirm that the criteria and the triaging of

those claims provides, basically, the opportunity for staff to determine

the order in which these claims are actually advanced within the

employment standards branch?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The answer is yes.

G. Kyllo: Okay. So there doesn’t appear…. Or certainly, the minister has not

shared any decision-making matrix that provides finality to the

determination on where claims actually go. The concern we have, or I

certainly have, and I’m sure many British Columbians and workers across

the province would share, is that the employment standards branch is

failing to anywhere closely meet their mandate, which, as we set out

yesterday, is having 85 percent of claims actually remedied or coming to

final conclusion within six months.

The minister indicated that last year’s performance level was 20

percent. I received a significant number of letters from claimants

expressing that very same concern. They’re indicating that even though

they have significant financial hardship — a single parent, making

application to the branch, being told that it would be 12 months before

there’s any action on her claim….

This is extremely concerning. The minister has indicated that

staff have the ability to take the vulnerability of different claimants

into consideration in determining when those claims might be actually

advanced and these workers might see some remedy or some resolution. But

it appears to be quite arbitrary.

I appreciate that the employment standards branch is independent.

However, as the Minister of Labour, who has responsibility for the

employment standards branch, when you have an organization that is

failing to the level of the employment standards branch, only achieving

20 percent of a target which is set at 85 percent, I’m assuming that the

minister must have considerable concerns and, I would hope, would have a

better understanding of what has been undertaken within that

organization to address that huge backlog.

The number that the minister provided yesterday was 4,534

individuals. Just think about that: 4,500 individuals that have sought

out the support of the employment standards branch to have their

concerns remedied, to try and find resolution, and there are 4,500

sitting there that haven’t even had their claims addressed yet at this

point.

[11:15 a.m.]

The minister indicated yesterday that there’s a wide, varying

degree of claims that come forward. Some would be, I guess, minor in

nature, some more complicated or more complex. Is the employment

standards branch tracking those that are deemed to be relatively minor

in nature or fairly simplistic to find resolution to, and those that are

more complex?

Hon. H. Bains: Look, I think we canvassed this issue at great length yesterday. I

think there’s a clear expectation from me, from my office, that the

complaints that come to the employment standards branch must be dealt

with in a timely fashion. We are moving in that direction.

I laid that out yesterday — how we’re doing it and what some of

the reasons are for the long lineup of complaints there. We knew when we

made those changes. I’m so proud of the work that we’ve done to improve

protection for the workers in this province, especially those who are

non-union and who depend on the employment standards branch for help

when they need it.

When you look at extending the recovery period from six months to

12 months, that is a huge support for those people, and it’s a

disincentive to employers. There are a few bad employers out there, we

know, and they’re taking economic advantage over good employers. We want

to stop that. This will go a long way to stop that. They cannot see that

I was able to pay less wages than my competitors under the law,

therefore I could out-compete them. We need to take that disincentive….

It wasn’t happening under the previous government’s watch. We’re doing

it. So we’re proud of that.

We got rid of the self-help kit because that was discouraging

people to file complaints. The numbers are clear indicators. From 11,000

down to 4,700 clearly shows that the workers were not filing complaints

because they gave up on the system. We’re proud that we have done

that.

We also changed the model of investigation, every complaint, so

that if a dollar is owed to a worker under the law, that dollar is

recovered and paid to the dollar, not 75 cents, not 50 cents as was the

case before that. We’re proud that we’ve done that.

We added more resources. We knew that this will add more work to

the employment standards branch, so right off the bat, we were giving

them $14 million over three years, which means we added resources to

provide the services that those workers need.

Everything was moving quite fine until COVID hit us. That wasn’t

planned by this government; that wasn’t planned by anybody else. It just

came. The whole world was impacted by COVID and the pandemic. That’s

when the lineups started to grow larger. You know why? There were

additional demands of the employment standards branch, because now the

employer was in a situation where they had to close the operation. Under

the Employment Standards Act, they have to pay severance if they fail to

give them notice. Many of those employers were in that

situation.

[11:20 a.m.]

We have provisions in the Employment Standards Act for, if the

employer and the workers together come to the employment standards

branch and ask for the variance on those 13 weeks, a temporary layoff.

And we’ve done that. That required additional resources — we went

through it yesterday over and over again, but the member keeps on asking

the same question — and that added to the workload. That wasn’t

anticipated work. As a result, the lineups started to grow

longer.

Again, we didn’t stop. We knew that the employment standards

branch needed resources and that those workers needed to have their

applications heard in a timely fashion. So we went through the

contingencies. We provided contingencies for the first year and for the

second year, to add more resources. We didn’t stop there either. Then we

knew that there could be some permanency to the demand — more so than we

anticipated, even though COVID has kind of been left behind.

Now we are giving $12 million more, to add more resources to the

employment standards branch so that they can hire more resources. It’s

because our goal, our government’s goal and my colleagues’ goal, is to

make sure, for those workers who rely on employment standards — they are

some of the lowest-paid workers, and they are most vulnerable in our

society — that their complaints are heard in a timely fashion and

investigated in a timely fashion and that justice is delivered to them.

That’s what our goal is, and we’re going to get there in the way, in the

direction we’re going.

I think the member continues to ask for those smaller details on

the employment standards branch as an independent body that makes their

own decisions and on how they are run. I don’t run that operation; no

minister does. It is their responsibility. The director understands

their responsibility. The director understands how to find

efficiencies.

We ask, through my staff, all the time: “Is there more to be done

to find some more efficiencies?” They continue to transform, and I’m so

proud of the work that they are doing to help all those vulnerable

workers that come through their doors. Of course, more work needs to be

done. Of course, we need to get rid of the lineup of the

complaints.

You know, there two things. One, that we are proud to say: “We are

standing on the side of the workers.” We respect the work that they do,

and we make sure that their complaints are heard in a timely fashion.

The second thing is we are providing resources to the bodies that

provide them those services, so that those services are provided to them

in a timely fashion.

G. Kyllo: Well, hey, the stark reality — and it’s not my numbers; it’s

numbers that are reported directly by the employment standards branch —

is that workers are not getting action, and they’re not getting service

in a timely fashion. They’re not. The target for service delivery is to

have 85 percent of claims remedied within six months. The performance in

this last fiscal is 20 percent — less than a quarter of attaining their

target. That’s an absolute failing grade.

The minister talks about disincentives. I’ll tell you that

disincentive is when an individual worker calls the employment standards

branch and they’re told it’ll be 12 months before somebody is actively

working on their file. That is a disincentive to even bother contacting

the employment standards branch. It’s an absolute failing by this

minister with respect to the workers that are not getting action on

their claims.

Now the minister indicated that I’m asking trivial details. These

questions are extremely important. The minister referenced yesterday a

backlog of 4,584 claims. I think it’s a fair question to ask: how many

of those claims are deemed to be minor in nature, or relatively simple

to find conclusion to, and how many are complex?

With 80 percent of claims taking longer than six months, I’ll add

to my question about the complexity and the numbers. It’s to also have a

look at the 80 percent of claims that are not being addressed within six

months.

[11:25 a.m.]

How is the employment standards branch tracking those 80 percent

of claims to determine in what timelines those clients or those workers

may find resolution? Is it nine months? Is it 12 months? Is it 18

months? Is it 24 months? It’s incredibly important.

If a worker feels that they’ve been wronged by their employer and

they’re making contact with the employment standards branch, they want

to have certainty on (1) when their file is going to be actively looked

at, and (2) when they might see some actual resolution to their claim. I

hope the minister can provide a bit more detail, because this is

incredibly important to workers who are currently not getting the

service that they deserve.

Hon. H. Bains: I think what I can give the member is: I’m advised that it takes

about 139 days to assign a complaint to an officer. Then, as we have

canvassed before, it depends on the complexity of the

complaint.

I was just reminded. It could be one person phoning about his or

her issue — not being paid — and then when the investigation starts, it

could be that there are a whole lot of other people in that operation

that are in a similar situation. Then it becomes a very complex and very

long process in determining the time it will take. That’s why it’s very

difficult to put exact timelines as the member may want to

know.

That’s the nature of complaints that come your way. On the

surface, it may look very simple: file a complaint about lost wages,

overtime. Then, through investigation, the officer could find that there

are 20 other employees in a similar situation.

[11:30 a.m.]

That one complaint, which originally was thought to be simple, now

is very complex. Then with the investigation and working with the

employer to get the information about all of the other employees, it

will take a long time. I think it’s a quite complex situation out there.

It’s not easy to give some of the information that the member is asking

for, on the finer details.

G. Kyllo: Certainly, the more I listen to the responses from the minister,

it appears quite arbitrary with respect to the timing and the certainty

that I think workers are deserving. The minister has indicated that that

they’ve even lowered their targets for service delivery.

We’ve seen a continual deterioration of the service delivery of

this organization, which was only 73 percent in ’19-20, 47 percent in

’20-21 and 57 percent in ’21-22, further declining to 20 percent in this

last fiscal. The minister seems to have accepted continued poor delivery

by this organization by reducing the expectation level, not at 85

percent.

You would think that the funding would be provided, that work

would be undertaken in order to get back on track to continue to meet

the service objectives of this organization at the 85 percent level. But

no, the minister has reduced the expectation, his expectation, of this

organization to only 50 percent for next fiscal, ’23-24, and then

further — still not achieving the target the year after that. It’s

taking a full three years to get anywhere close to meeting the service

delivery.

The minister says that he’s on the side of workers. Workers are

not being provided the service that is expected of this organization,

which is under his watch. He indicates that he has concern for them, yet

there’s a disincentive that we’re seeing, by workers that are

continually denied and by delayed justice. Justice delayed is justice

denied.

I have correspondence from individuals that have contacted the

employment standards branch, which has indicated that it will be upwards

of a year — not 139 days, as the minister has referenced, but upwards of

a year — before anybody is actively working on their files.

The minister’s own expectation of this organization: “We’ll give

you three years to get back on track.” Well, for three years, we’ve seen

successive erosion of the service delivery at the employment standards

branch. The minister’s expectation: “Take your time. We’ll give you

three more years to get there. Here’s an extra $12 million or $14

million. Don’t worry about meeting your service targets. It’s not really

a big deal. We’ll get there three years down the road.” It’s offensive

to workers.

The minister talks about some of the most vulnerable and the

lowest-paid workers in the province that seek to find resolution to

challenges they may have with their employers, to seek out the advice

and the support of the employment standards branch, and their delayed

access to service.

I appreciate that the employment standards branch may have some

challenge upon themselves, but they’ve been failing, consecutively, for

the last four years. It has gotten progressively worse under this

minister’s watch, despite throwing more money at it. In the current

budget, with the significant amount of additional spend, he seems to be

giving them a pass and saying: “Look, we’re going to give you three

years to actually get back to the service level requirements that you’ve

actually been obligated to meet for the last four years.”

To the minister: I asked some very specific questions. We know

that if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. Data drives

decisions. I asked a few specific questions about a decision-making

matrix when a call comes in, and I appreciate….

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

G. Kyllo: Yes, through you, hon. Chair.

[11:35 a.m.]

Absolutely, these are complicated files. I appreciate it’s not

easy, but I would assume — I can only hope — that within the

organization, they have identified, over the last number of years, a way

of actually tracking the complexity of files and providing some level of

certainty to workers, when they call into the office, to actually have

some idea of when their claim is going to actually be reviewed by an

officer and when they might find some resolution.

The minister referenced a whole series of different considerations

that they undertake in determining the triage, including what he

determined is the complexity of the claim, the time sensitivity. He

expressed concerns over employers that may be becoming

insolvent.

I asked a question about hardship. The minister referenced a few

other indications around vulnerability. But where you have a single

parent….

This is just one of the examples that I have in front of me. A

single parent has been denied pay. She was terminated and denied

severance pay. She reached out to the employment standards branch. She

needs money to make rent and to put food on the table for her children.

She was told it would be 12 months before an adjudicator is actually

working on the file.

There was a second call from a constituency office to the

employment standards branch just to make a general inquiry about timing.

They were told: “Our backlog right now is approximately 12 months before

we would be actively working on the file.” The minister is sharing very

different information.

Now, I don’t just have a single example. I’m waiting for a consent

letter, where I can hopefully bring this constituent’s name directly to

the minister to find out. I have information that is very different from

the spin that the minister is sharing with us today.

Can the minister provide any further details with respect to the

80 percent of claims that are currently not being achieved within the

six-month requirement, which is set out in the performance standards —

those 80 percent that are not currently meeting that target? What is the

timeline expectation for those 80 percent of the claims to actually find

resolution, whether that’s six months, nine months, 12 months, 18

months, two years?

I think it’s important for British Columbians to have some kind of

an idea, when they do contact the employment standards branch, one, when

they’re going to actually hear from an adjudicator, somebody that can

actually work on the file. Second to that is when they might find a

resolution.

I’m not seeing any information provided in the service plan. The

minister has yet to share with this House any information around what

that timing might actually look like.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The question the member is asking…. Let me try one more

time.

Yes, I think the member…. What’s concerning was that he’s trying

to put his words in my mouth. None of that is true. I have said right at

the outset that I’m really concerned. My colleagues and my government

are concerned that there is that that lineup of claimants that is that

long, that it takes that long.

It is concerning to us. That’s why we’re adding resources, first

through contingency, now with permanency — permanent funding available

to us — so that we can provide them resources and then they could deal

with those claims that are complaints and that are in the lineup. That’s

our goal, and we’re going to get there.

You can’t just do it overnight. We just got the funding. Now

they’re in the process of hiring support staff. They will be coming in,

and they will be dealing with those complaints as we go

forward.

The member’s specific question about 80 percent that are not

meeting the target of 180 days…. Again, they’re quite finer details that

the member wants to get to. But you can’t, because it could be 182 days

for some of them, it could be 200 days for some others, and there are

some cases that are lingering on for two years plus because of the

complexity.

An employer had declared bankruptcy. Now they’re in collection and

went through the whole process of making a determination of how much

money they owe to each individual. There are a number of employees

there, dozens of employees involved in some of those cases. They’re

trying to locate the employer. How do we collect that money? That takes

a long time because they have declared bankruptcy. What are the other

tools available to the employment standards branch officers to collect

money and go after the owners?

Those types of claims take much longer, so you can’t average it.

The average could be changed in one year. If one of those claims is

resolved, the average will come way down. But if there’s another claim

that will take just a dollar, the average will go much higher. So

there’s no average. It could be 182 days. It could be, you know….

Depending on the complexity, it could take longer.

G. Kyllo: Look, I was not seeking any average; I was asking for some

certainty. I think that workers that are sitting waiting in queue for

their claims to be heard will also be looking for some indication on how

long it might take to have these claims find final

resolution.

I appreciate that things change and that a claim may come in that

on the surface level may look relatively minor or relatively simple, and

that could change as the investigation undertakes. But I would certainly

still hope that the organization has some form of evaluating what the

potential time claim is, putting an estimation on it.

The minister indicated in our conversations yesterday that a claim

may come in where an employee potentially has not been paid for overtime

hours, and that could be maybe an hour or two phone call. It might be

remedied with the employer within a couple of days. So I’m assuming that

the organization, because of the time that it’s been in existence, has

tracked a statistical analysis on the types of claims and determined

what the average hours might be for a claimant that might be calling in

with concerns on not being paid overtime versus an employee that may be

calling in having a claim about not being paid for severance.

I’m sure that this statistical analysis must be undertaken by the

organization, and they must have — or I certainly would hope that they

have — some form of rigour around the system. But what we’re hearing

from the minister….

Maybe the employment standards branch is not sharing the

information with the minister. Maybe the minister has not asked these

detailed questions to actually find out why they are continuing to fail

in the service delivery. But it appears to be quite arbitrary in the

manner in which they actually assign claims.

[11:45 a.m.]

Again, as I shared earlier, the information that I’m hearing from

constituents is much different than the story that the minister is

sharing with us.

With respect to the 80 percent of claims that are not being

completed, or remedied, within the expected six-month time frame…. For

those other 80 percent of claims, can the minister share how many are

anticipated to be resolved within three months, six months, nine months,

12 months?

I would only hope that the employment standards branch has some

form of evaluating those 4,538 claims that are sitting there. Obviously,

they’re not all complex; they’re not all minor. There must be a mix in

between. They must be undertaking some manner to try and identify or at

least provide an estimation to the minister as far as how long it might

take to get that backlog cleared and to get back on track.

I’m still extremely concerned that the minister is not expecting

the employment standards branch to be back on track within six months or

nine months or 12 months. It appears that he’s giving them upwards of

three years in order to remedy the situation they’ve found themselves

in.

Hon. H. Bains: I answered that question already, in my last answer. It was the

same question. I thought I gave a pretty good, detailed answer, but the

member doesn’t seem to accept that. Fair enough. But we

also….

Interjection.

Hon. H. Bains: I want to say…. You know, the member sometimes…. I’m good with the

member asking all these questions, because this is the process we go

through. But the member also should look in the mirror and talk to at

least some of the members of his caucus who were there when they made

those changes.

The backlog was sitting there. The backlog was sitting there

because workers would not have the opportunity to file complaints —

knowing it’s going to go nowhere, knowing that they have to go and deal

with those employers who have denied them their basic rights in the

first place. So they refused to file complaints.

We inherited that system. We are trying to fix all the roadblocks

that the previous government put in the pathway to justice for these

workers. Slowly, we’re removing them. We have removed most of them. Of

course we need to have more resources. But then COVID also didn’t help

the situation.

First, all those complaints that were sitting out there start to

come in now, knowing that their complaints will be heard. Second, COVID

hit us unexpectedly. So there are additional demands from the employers

and from the workers, so we have to dedicate a number of resources to

deal with those. Those were time-sensitive situations. So we did

that.

We’re so proud of the way we handled the situation during COVID,

overall, and specifically in our ministry. Workers were able to stay

connected with the employer. Employers were able to get extensions on

their requirement to pay severances.

I think it was a win-win situation. That added to the lineup in

the complaint system. And we’re fixing it.

It’s not acceptable to me that it takes that long for a

complainant to come in and have that complaint investigated and dealt

with — not acceptable to me at all. That’s why we’re adding resources.

That’s why we’re saying that, over time, we are going to get to where

complaints are dealt with in a timely fashion.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES

AND LOW CARBON INNOVATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); R. Leonard in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply,

Section C,

to order. We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the

estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation.

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $118,408,000

(continued) .

[11:05 a.m.]

E. Ross: We finished off yesterday’s estimates talking about the Blueberry

agreement. I was talking about the capacity, especially in light of the

agreements that were signed that relate almost to co-management that

actually leads to a decision being made by the minister — and

government, for that matter.

In looking at the numbers, the $200 million figure jumped out.

This will be two questions in one. Could the minister kind of describe

whether or not the $200 million is the total sum of the moneys in these

agreements, or is there more money to be accounted for? Since it’s a

capacity-related agreement, does the minister anticipate that this will

be almost like an infinite type of funding mechanism in terms of this

co-management arrangement between the government and the Blueberry First

Nation?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: The $200 million that the member is referring to is specific to a

restoration fund for healing the land. This is an amount that will be

committed to by June 2025. It will be co-managed together between the

Blueberry River First Nation and government through the creation of a

Blueberry River restoration society.

In addition, like above and beyond the $200 million, the agreement

entails the receipt of $87.5 million to Blueberry River First Nation as

a financial package over three years, with an opportunity for increased

benefits based on PNG revenue sharing and provincial royalty revenues in

the next fiscal years. The capacity funding that the member is asking

about is embedded within that $87.5 million. It’s not infinite or

unending funding.

It’s important to note that we have also committed to a three-year

review of the implementation agreement, in which a number of the

elements of the agreement could be considered. That would include

capacity funding and revenue sharing.

E. Ross: I guess the three-year review will actually talk about whether or

not to continue the relationship, because I don’t see the First Nation

funding its own capacity in relation to the ongoing co-management of the

resources, whether we’re talking about restoring the land or forestry or

mining or LNG.

In terms of this three-year review and in relation to the work

leading up to it, I did read the agreement itself. There’s a lot of

redaction, a lot of blacked out areas. I was kind of curious about: when

does the annual report come out in terms of the progress of this

agreement going forward, and which ministry will present it? Will that

be the Energy minister, or will that be the Indigenous minister or the

LandWRS minister?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: There’s no annual report that’s required as a condition of the

agreement, as the type that I think that the member is referring to.

However, there is a commitment to an annual meeting between the Energy,

Mines and Low Carbon Innovation minister and the Chief of the Blueberry

River First Nations. That’s detailed in

article 7.15 of the agreement,

which I know the member has seen and has in front of him, and that

entails discussing the progress on planning and on PNG rules.

In addition, the next article, item 7.16, describes a three-year

review that I previously spoke to, and this is a broader review to

evaluate the progress of the oil and gas provisions, for example, like

the effectiveness of restoration and the status of economic benefits,

things like that, that are detailed through subsections (

a) through

(k).

[11:20 a.m.]

E. Ross: I should have been more clear in my question. I was thinking more

of a review in terms of the taxpayers’ dollars, in terms of money going

out versus money coming in, in terms of revenues. But I’ll leave it at

that.

Given this agreement is actually in an area where B.C. does have

gas fields and resources and given the fact that we now have an approval

for LNG Canada, a massive LNG export facility, as well as Cedar LNG,

which has a smaller scale…. We also have the

Nisg̱a’a Ksi LNG project in the

works.

Is it the government’s expectation that all the natural gas will

continue to flow from the Peace region for these export facilities, and

if so, is it also the expectation that the gas that will flow from these

export facilities will have competitive rates?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: First, I’ll note again, as I did yesterday, that we are at record

high production of natural gas in the province and that we’re exporting

about 80 percent of this already outside of the province. We have a

framework that’s been developed with the Blueberry River First Nation

and with other Treaty 8 Nations that respects treaty rights. It accounts

for cumulative effects, and it creates more certainty and predictability

for industry.

There are market decisions about agreements between producers and

export facilities. That being said, we know that LNG Canada has joint

venture partners that have holdings in the Peace River area and have

those agreements in place.

We saw very soon after the environmental assessment certificate

for Cedar was approved, that they signed a deal or an agreement with ARC

Resources, another producer in the Peace River region. It is, I think,

logical to assume, and certainly our expectation is, that we’re going to

see continued agreements of this nature in place.

I do want to note, of course, they are commercial arrangements

that are undertaken between private companies. What we’ve done is set

that enabling environment and a market-competitive environment. I think

we’ll be watching to see, for example, as Cedar progresses toward a FID,

what arrangements that they make.

E. Ross: I’ll leave that subject. I’ll walk away from that subject

now.

On to an international topic. We understand the Premier is going

to do a trade mission to Japan. There are no details in it, but I’m

assuming that the Premier will actually go there to advocate for natural

gas and possibly ammonia being exported from B.C. shores.

My question to the minister: is the minister going to join the

Premier on his trade mission to Japan, and is one of the purposes for

this Japan visit to advocate for LNG exports coming from B.C., as well

as ammonia exports coming from B.C.?

[11:30 a.m. - 11:35 a.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, the member is absolutely correct. A trade mission to Asia is

being planned, including my participation in it. He asked specifically

around the interests of Japan in particular, and their interest in our

low-carbon-intensity energy products. That’s exactly correct.

Japan has been a long-standing partner. In fact, Mitsubishi Corp.

is one of the joint partners in LNG Canada, of course. It’s important to

build on those relationships and create new opportunities. Amongst some

of the purposes of the mission would be to open new market opportunities

and develop new relationships. We need to promote our B.C. business

advantage and highlight our trade and diversification strategy, which of

course lies under the purview of the Minister of Jobs, Economic

Development and Innovation.

Further, I think there’s a real opportunity to further B.C.’s

reputation for climate leadership and sustainability and promote

continued the trade and investment advantages and opportunities we have

here in B.C., to promote our strong ESG credentials to Asian public and

private sector partners and stakeholders, and advance some of those

strategic trade and investment relationships to really strengthen B.C.’s

economy in key sectors.

I think that if the member has further questions and wants more

details, the trade mission is still being planned. Certainly, there

might be an opportunity to take some questions to the Premier’s

estimates as well.

T. Shypitka: Just to follow up on that, I heard the minister say

low-carbon-intensity products, but I never heard anything about LNG. I

never heard anything about ammonia. I never heard anything about what

the member actually asked. I guess, back to the minister: will there be

a focus on liquefied natural gas as a low-carbon-intensive product, as

it’s made here in B.C., and ammonia?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question. Just clarifying. Yes, again, we do

know that Japan wants those B.C. low-carbon-intensity products. Those

could include liquefied natural gas, ammonia and other natural gas

liquids. I’m certain that that will be a topic of discussion.

T. Shypitka: It’s just important to find out where government is going and what

direction they’re heading. Yesterday we talked about the excitement

around hydrogen, for example. The minister talked about being excited —

I think that was the word she used — on the industry and on all the

intake that applicants or proponents are bringing forward.

The news release that came out indicated, I think, 50 hydrogen

projects that this ministry is excited about. I guess the question to

the minister is: what type of hydrogen projects are we talking about? Do

they include fossil fuels?

Hon. J. Osborne: I think the simplest way to answer this is to say that the focus

of our hydrogen strategy is low-carbon-intensity hydrogen, whether from

electrolysis or derived from natural gas in the 50 or so projects that

we are aware of or that we know are underway. There are both within

that.

Interjection.

The Chair: Could you repeat, please?

Hon. J. Osborne: Within the 50 projects that we are aware of that are underway or

are being proposed, there are both types within that.

Madam Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

Copyright © 2023 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.