Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Monday, November

6, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Dix: We're joined in the House today by members of the Hospital Employees Union, who are

here for today's executive meetings. I believe they'll be meeting, also, with members

of the Legislature, so I wanted to introduce them.

[1:35 p.m.]

This is a list. I'm making up for three weeks of no introductions: Barb Nederpel;

Meena Brisard; Betty Valenzuela — hi, Betty; Bill McMullan; Charlotte Millington;

Donovan Adlam; Talitha Dekker; Chris Batting; Ola Burgon; Bonnie Hammermeister; Scott

McKay; Diane Tomei; Baljit Sandhu; Barb Shukin; Monica Thiessen; Lisa Crema; Angela

Sharf; Karen McVeigh; Maria Lugs; Louella Vincent — hi, Louella; Phil Henderson; Ian

Smith; Cora Mojica — hi, Cora; Lynn Serhan; Christine Edgecombe; Darlene Bown; Lisa

Kreut; Seyda Yalcin; and staff Lynn Bueckert, Michael Old, Caelie Frampton, Kim Chartier

and Michelle Fournier.

I wish everyone to make them very welcome here.

Hon. J. Brar: I would like to welcome some very special guests today from B.C. Wood, representing

the fast-growing mass timber industry of B.C. B.C. is a North American leader when

it comes to building with mass timber. B.C. leads Canada, North America with over

370 mass timber buildings that have been completed or are under construction.

B.C. Wood, the people sitting up in the gallery, have played a significant role to

promote B.C.'s mass timber nationally and internationally.

We are joined today by Ken Kalesnikoff, CEO and president of Kalesnikoff Lumber; Andrew

Stiffman, director of design and construction of Kalesnikoff Lumber; Mike Marshall,

partner and CEO at Kinsol Timber; Steven Stevenson, partner and COO at Kinsol Timber;

and Peter Dickson, president at FraserWood Industries; and my friend Brian Hawrysh,

CEO at B.C. Wood Specialties Group.

I would like to ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

H. Sandhu: I have two introductions to make. All members of this House agree and recognize the

important, integral part of our MLA staff at our constituency offices and at the Victoria

office.

Caitlin has been an incredible part of our MLA office here in Vernon-Monashee, and

she works so hard to serve the people of Vernon-Monashee. Caitlin's partner, Justin,

is equally amazing and supportive of this work, and he's always willing and eager

to help us.

On Saturday, Caitlyn and Justin got married. We witnessed their beautiful vows at

an amazing venue at the Paddlewheel Hall in Vernon. Seeing these two amazing people

getting married was such a beautiful, fun, colourful and spectacular moment where

we celebrated the love of these two amazing people who like to give to the community.

I loved meeting with their wonderful families and friends.

I encourage all members of this House to please join me in congratulating Caitlin

and Justin and extend our best wishes for their married life.

Congratulations and many best wishes to Justin and Caitlin.

My second introduction. I also want to join the Minister of Health to welcome my great

Hospital Employees Union friends. I admire their work.

In my household, we have three HEU members — very proud members. I want to welcome

them to the Legislature. I wish I was there to welcome them in person, but due to

other commitments, I couldn't be there. I not only welcome them; I want to thank them

for the incredible work they do under my sister Barb Nederpel's leadership.

Would the House please join me once again to thank them and welcome them to the Legislature.

K. Greene: I have with me today two guests from Pathways Clubhouse in Richmond, executive director

Dave MacDonald and projects manager Esther Ko.

Pathways Clubhouse does incredible work in our community, making a pathway from mental

illness to mental wellness, everything from back to work to help with finding housing.

They are an incredible resource connecting so many important agencies and even businesses

in Richmond. We could not be the community that we are without them.

On behalf of the MLA for Richmond-Queensborough, MLA for Richmond South Centre and

myself, I wanted to say thank you very much.

Please make them welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

J. Tegart: I have two guests in the House today from the community of Merritt. Both were in the

education field, and Wendy is currently serving on Merritt city council. Please help

me welcome Wendy and Lloyd Charney to the precinct.

R. Parmar: I had the great honour of having a good friend from the district of Sooke join me

for lunch today. We had a great conversation about the important things happening

in the district of Sooke. He asked me not to introduce him in the House, because he's

a guy that likes to be in the back, but no way was I going to let that happen.

It's such an honour to have a good friend of mine from the district of Sooke. Brian

Butler owns and is president of Butler Concrete and Aggregate. He's involved in development

in terms of building housing, is involved in the arts all across the region and is

just a gem of a person, someone who creates good-paying jobs for people in Sooke and

is there whenever the community needs him.

Will the House please welcome Brian Butler to the precinct here today.

I. Paton: Today I have two guests in the audience that have a direct connection to the Delta

Hospital Foundation. I'll get to them in just a second.

On Saturday night, we held our annual Delta Hospital Foundation gala at Tsawwassen

Springs in Tsawwassen, and 350 to 400 people attended. We raised a record just over

$1 million on Saturday night for Delta Hospital Foundation.

My shout out is to my wife Pam, who's chair of the hospital foundation and, as the

minister likes to call her, the MVP, the most valuable Paton.

In the audience today, sitting up, is Mr. Larry Hagan, who is on my wife's board of

directors for the Delta Hospital Foundation. He's here with his friend Fred Collier.

Please make the two of them welcome this afternoon.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the gallery today is an amazing team from the Ministry of Housing. They've been

working on cutting-edge policy work when it comes to small-scale, multi-unit; our

work around zoning; all legislative reforms. They're an incredible group, and I want

to welcome them today.

We have Stanislava Dymnikova, Avery Kelly, Hollie McKeil, Julia Meyer-MacLeod, Eric

Nicholls, Matthew Smith and Sarah Greer.

I hope the House can please make them very welcome.

B. D’Eith: Today I just wanted to rise to congratulate my former CA, Alysa Huppler-Poliak, who's

now joining Inclusion B.C. She did such an amazing job as my CA.

Welcome today Christina Sherm, who's joining as a new CA, to join Sunny Schiller and

Tara Cooke as our CAs.

Hon. L. Popham: Everybody has guests in the chamber today. It's a popular day to be visiting this

fine House. I have three guests here.

The first one is Heather Stretch, one of the partners in an incredible business on

the Saanich Peninsula called Saanich Organics, actually in the home of the MLA for

Saanich North and the Islands, so I'm introducing his constituents today.

Her son is joining her here, Walker Leatherman, and a student from Lyon, France. We

have 16-year-old Matthieu Allard, who's joining us on an exchange with Stelly's Secondary.

We had lunch downstairs, and it was just really great to catch up. We don't often

have time to do that in these jobs, but it was really great to see them today.

J. Sims: About eight months ago, my 40-plus-year-old son told me that he had fallen in love,

and three months later, he went off and got married to a woman I had never met. Well,

last Wednesday we had the pleasure of welcoming Charliz to Canada, to B.C., and into

our home. Having spent the weekend with her, I now know why she is the love of his

life and why he fell in love with her.

Please join me in welcoming my new daughter, Charliz.

[1:45 p.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 45 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 4), 2023

Hon. N. Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I'm pleased to introduce Bill 45, the Miscellaneous Statute Amendment Act (No. 4),

2023. This bill amends the following statutes: the Community Charter; the Vancouver

Charter; Professional Governance Act; Insurance Corporation Act; Insurance (Vehicle)

Act; Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act; Water Users' Communities Act.

I'll be pleased to elaborate on the nature of these amendments during the second reading

of this bill.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 45, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023, introduced, read a first

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

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

IRANIAN SENIORS CLUB AND

IMMIGRANT LINK CENTRE SOCIETY

F. Donnelly: I rise to speak about the Iranian Seniors Club and the Immigrant Link Centre Society,

two organizations doing important work in my riding.

Recently Iranian Seniors Club members were in the Hall of Honour for a powerful "Woman,

life, freedom" performance, an unwavering testament to the spirit of Iranian women

in pursuit of equal rights and freedoms. Event organizers Mojgan and Melody brought

together a talented group of Iranian artists who performed in front of the Premier,

MLAs and their staff. There were three performances: a solo dance by Melina, a group

dance by Zara, Aida, Behrang and Melina and a musical performance by Amir, Naghmeh,

Ramin and Fariborz.

Melody spoke about the recent Nobel Peace Prize winner, Narges Mohammadi, a powerful

Iranian voice fighting for justice in Iran. Zan zendegi azadi.

Earlier this fall I spent a morning with the Immigrant Link Centre Society. I rode

in their food truck with Igor, who, between food pickups, told me the story of ILCS

fast friends and started volunteering their time, energy and money to help other newcomers.

I was moved to see the impact this group has in our community.

Sixty newcomer families receive food each and every day. Their network of 300 volunteers

contribute 18,000 hours annually, rescuing food from 17 grocery stores. The food is

picked up, sorted, boxed and redistributed to 3,500 low-income immigrants. They've

diverted over a million kilograms of food from the landfill. They reduce greenhouse

gasses and provide training for newcomers. I learned so much that morning — how Igor,

Reihaneh, Ali, Melody, Young, Basem and others are feeding families and doing good.

At a time when there's so much strife in our world, it's heartwarming to know the

Iranian Seniors Club and the Immigrant Link Centre Society are making our community

a better place.

B.C. LIONS AND

CFL WESTERN DIVISION FINAL

T. Stone: Today I stand to recognize and celebrate the success of a B.C. institution. Playing

in front of a packed house this last Saturday, our beloved B.C. Lions roared to victory

in what was a fantastic game, beating the Calgary Stampeders 41 to 30.

Now, not only did this victory serve as a mighty show of strength, avenging a recent

loss to these, our eastern neighbours, it also secured the Lions a spot in the western

division final, set to take place this coming Saturday.

In just a few short days, the Lions will face off against the Winnipeg Blue Bombers

at their home field in Manitoba's capital. It's a long-awaited rematch after the team's

hard-fought game during last year's western division final. It's a chance for the

Lions to wipe the slate clean and show Winnipeg what they're made of.

Fans from across the province, from Surrey to Prince George to Kamloops to Nanaimo,

look forward to an intense and exciting game as these top-ranked teams battle it out

for the coveted opportunity to play the eastern division winner for the Grey Cup on

November 19 in Hamilton.

As the Lions, led by their talented quarterback, Vernon Adams Jr., prepare for this

Saturday's game, I know that they know that they're in the thoughts, and have the

support, of everyone in this chamber. Indeed, all British Columbians are with them.

We are proud of all that they have achieved this season and can't wait to watch what

will surely be an incredible game.

I know I'm looking forward to it, and it's one of those few, rare occasions when I'm

actually quite happy to root for the team wearing orange.

[1:50 p.m.]

B.C. Lions, all of B.C. is cheering you on, sending our very best as you face your

rivals this weekend with sights on punching your ticket to the Grey Cup championship

game.

Kick some Winnipeg butt.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN

AND GIRLS IN STEAM

R. Leonard: This week is a celebration of women and girls in STEAM, and it's a time to encourage

more to join the STEAM train, to break through the barriers to women's success in

science, technology, engineering, arts and math.

Our government is committed to increased opportunities early in girls' education,

in K to 12, and in pursuing their post-secondary education and in their careers.

We're partnering with industry to give thousands of women and other underrepresented

people a chance to join in tech or tech-enabled roles and give thousands more the

chance to improve their tech skills and knowledge.

Having an official fossil, B.C.'s elasmosaur, is an inspiration to pursue STEAM. Found

in our proverbial backyard, as are other fossils in other regions of B.C., fossil

hunting is accessible. It promotes curiosity, hands-on learning, exploring and using

tools, honing observation. What an exhilarating experience of discovery awaits the

patient fossil hunter.

This spring Comox Valley high school grad Sophia Vaillant, a maker and a change-maker,

was awarded the $70,000 TD Scholarship for Community Leadership. This self-described

former token girl in STEAM took her experiences in traditional, competitive, male-dominated

robotics and created what she's called the Zenius Labs, an 80 percent girl collaborative

of STEAM student inventors. She's produced a 3D-printed hospital training tool called

the cric, saving our hospital 12 grand.

She embraces sewing and design and loves theatre, all employing STEAM in different

ways. She says: "STEAM will always be a part of how I think and create."

What a role model for other girls to find their own way to have it all with STEAM.

FRASER CANYON HOSPITAL

NURSE EDUCATION PROGRAM

J. Tegart: I rise in the House today to honour the Fraser Canyon Hospital in Hope, which has

implemented the rural emergency competency education pathway program and is the recipient

of an Above and Beyond Innovators Award.

In order to improve our health care crisis, we need innovative ideas that can improve

the quality of care being received in our hospitals. That is exactly what this program

has done.

The Fraser Canyon Hospital recognized the need for specialized education for nurses

in the emergency department but, due to vacancy rates, could not afford to train those

nurses off site. Instead, this program was created to bring the education to the nurses.

The program participants were paired with mentors, many of whom volunteered their

time and even came out of retirement to assist. The skills taught during this program

led many to feel more confident in their abilities and prepared to handle whatever

case might walk through the hospital doors.

Since the program's implementation, the vacancy rate for registered nurses has improved

by 50 percent. Even with that fact, two full-time positions were added. Not only that,

but staff satisfaction and workloads have improved in areas that are critical to ensure

staff retention.

Thanks to the important work of several individuals who come from across Fraser Health,

rural health care has a new basis so that our small communities can still receive

the health care they deserve. This program is the first of its kind in Canada, and

I look forward to seeing how these amazing and innovative individuals can help shape

rural health care for the rest of Canada.

Congratulations on your award, and thank you for the work you do.

[1:55 p.m.]

SURREY FIRE FIGHTERS

CHARITABLE SOCIETY

J. Sims: In 1994, the Surrey Firefighters Association founded the Firefighters Charitable Society.

With the support of the city and the Surrey fire service, the society has been working

to support Surrey's children, youth and families.

This past weekend, along with several of my colleagues, I had the pleasure of attending

the Surrey Mayor's Evening of Giving. Over 900 community leaders and businesses came

together to support the Surrey firefighters society. Tickets were sold out in 24 hours.

With a fundraising goal of $500,000, they surpassed that goal, raising over $532,000.

Surrey firefighters have raised over $1 million so far this year. Thank you to the

mayor and council, to Saverio Lattanzio and all of the firefighters as well as the

community for making this year's gala a success.

Funds raised through the society stay in the community. Examples: $2 million to the

B.C. Professional Fire Fighters burn fund. $1.6 million to the nutritional snack program

in Surrey schools — this year alone, $500,000. Every penny is spent on food because

the rest of the work is done by volunteers. And $1 million to the Surrey Memorial

Hospital children's programs.

These donations are a tiny snippet of what this incredible group has accomplished

in our community. This year alone, half a million dollars has gone out to many, many

charities on top of what I mentioned.

This organization supports the child development centre, provides many school bursaries,

has made a capital pledge to the new hospital in Cloverdale. They support food banks.

The list goes on, as they support 50 organizations.

We in Surrey are very fortunate to have such dedicated firefighters who volunteer

year-round to make our community better. They are the red engine that keeps on giving

— on and off duty, 365 days a year.

KELOWNA GENERAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION

AND VIRTUAL HEALTH CENTRE INITIATIVE

B. Stewart: In recent times, the Interior region's health care system has encountered its fair

share of challenges, marked by persistent disparities in the urgent demand for innovative

solutions to elevate the quality of patient care.

Closer to home than you'd think is the most ambitious fundraising campaign in KGH

Foundation's history, a bold commitment to raise $40 million to support the change

needed right here at home. Together we will catalyze our community's ability to drive

health care forward and provide for the most urgent needs of the people who live in

the interior of B.C.

Today I'm pleased to share with you that the Kelowna General Hospital Foundation has

received a $5 million donation from Mr. Jim Pattison, a timely contribution as we

work to address the health care issues that our region has been grappling with. This

generous donation will be dedicated to the establishment of a pioneering virtual health

centre in the Okanagan focusing on the unique health care needs of rural, remote and

Indigenous communities.

With the health care disparities in mind, this new centre will provide innovative,

research-based solutions to address the health care challenges faced by these underserved

communities.

The importance of this initiative cannot be overstated. It signifies a significant

step forward for those who have long faced barriers to accessing quality health care.

It holds the potential to not only transform the health care landscape of the Interior

but also inspiration for regions grappling with similar health care disparities.

We are deeply appreciative of the generosity of Mr. Jim Pattison and the Jim Pattison

Foundation. Their commitment to health care innovation will undoubtedly make a lasting

impact, not only in our region but far beyond.

The future is looking brighter as we embark on a journey towards a more equitable

health care system for all residents of the Okanagan and neighbouring areas. Let's

all help the KGH Foundation reach its goal.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON CARBON TAX

AND SPENDING PRIORITIES

S. Bond: Across Canada, NDP leaders from Manitoba to Alberta and even the federal NDP all support

cutting carbon taxes on home heating, yet this NDP Premier stands alone, stubbornly

refusing to give people relief. Under his watch, British Columbia has become the most

unaffordable province in the country, tightening the NDP's middle-class squeeze.

[2:00 p.m.]

British Columbians now pay the highest gas prices and gas taxes in North America.

Why won't the Premier give people a break at the pump and cut the NDP's crushing taxes

on fuel and home heating?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

There is no doubt people need help with costs, but the B.C. United plan is just the

wrong approach. We can look to Alberta to see that the B.C. United leader's approach

to cutting gas taxes is only going to subsidize oil companies, instead of helping

people.

In fact, when Alberta introduced a similar cut, Jason Kenney admitted that oil companies

had hiked prices, and they had wiped out any savings. This is not an approach that's

going to help people.

They do have a plan. It's going to cost $5 billion. Where's that money going to come

from? The B.C. United leader's plan doesn't help people with gas prices. It subsidizes

big oil, and it's going to cost people more in service cuts and higher costs, like

ICBC.

This government will stay focused on supporting people to make the changes that they

want to, keeping costs down across all facets of their lives.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: We're going to stand up every day and push this government to provide relief for the

people of British Columbia. To claim that tax relief doesn't actually help British

Columbians is absurd, a blatant attempt to dodge and deny relief to people.

Let's listen to expert analysis from Prof. Trevor Tombe. It shows: "Full pass-through

is crystal clear in the data when Alberta dropped its gas tax" — crystal clear. Gas

in Calgary is 50 cents cheaper than in Vancouver, yet this NDP Premier clings to debunked

claims, preferring weak excuses and political games over giving relief to British

Columbians.

How much longer will the Premier ignore the facts and deny people a break at the pumps

and on home heating?

Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, the gas prices are hitting people. They're hitting families hard, and that's

whether you're going to work or you're driving your kids to school. It's just about

getting around in rural communities, especially. That's why this government has taken

action to reduce costs for drivers — reduced ICBC premiums by an average of $500 a

year, plus multiple rebates for people; and a significant increase to the climate

action tax credit, which puts the majority of the carbon tax right back into people's

pockets.

The B.C. United leader's plan is going to give a subsidy to oil companies. It is not

going to help people with gas prices. It's going to cost people in other ways. We're

going to continue to be here to support people.

P. Milobar: Well, if the minister would bother to go to the BCUC website that was set up to actually

track gas prices, she would see that when the gas prices in Alberta started to go

back up after the tax was removed, in B.C. they actually went up by twice as much

in that same time frame, with the same taxes in place.

It had nothing to do with taxation. It was the market fluctuating with the price at

the pump. That is why we have committed to remove that 14½ cents a litre.

As families cancel travel plans — unaffordable, highest gas prices and gas taxes in

North America being the cause — the NDP are jet-setting around to Geneva. Just this

summer a six-person NDP delegation flew out, including an administrative assistant

and a ministerial aide for a minister that wasn't even there.

Details on the full costs actually remain hidden for the rest of the delegation, but

we do know the Attorney General alone racked up $2,700 in per diems. That's $360 a

day. While over half of families are $200 shy of not paying their bills every month,

this government felt that was appropriate.

How can the Premier be so out of touch, approving a $360-a-day meal allowance for

an Attorney General, when families back home can't even get a break from this government

on home heating or gasoline taxes?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: There was a time when the members opposite actually readily admitted that putting

a price on carbon was the most effective way to change behaviour and ensure that we

took action on climate change. Climate change impacts that we are now seeing around

the province are impacting industry, impacting agriculture, causing flooding, causing

drought, causing $1 billion in wildfire damage and more. The story goes on.

The opposition likes to say that this government won't give British Columbians a break.

Well, what does saving people $140 a year on hydro bills amount to?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. G. Heyman: What does reducing child care costs by up to $900 a month amount to? What does reducing

ICBC rates by $500 a year, an action that the opposition continues to oppose, mean,

if not giving British Columbians a break? The list goes on.

Let's look at what the opposition did in government. They simply cut services, raised

fees and cut taxes for those at the top, the top 2 percent.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, when the Environment Minister got up, I had hopes he might be standing up to

release the transparency report on the emissions in British Columbia that he hasn't

reported on yet. I guess he doesn't want to admit that emissions, under his watch,

are going up in B.C.

We're talking about removing 14½ cents at the pump immediately for British Columbians

so that they can have some affordability at the pumps, just like they do in Alberta,

or removing the carbon tax on home heating. British Columbians are deciding right

now between gas and groceries.

The Attorney General and her entourage, however, were deciding between steak and lobster

in Geneva. There was no pre-trip announcement, no mention of B.C. on the agenda, no

details on what was achieved during the Geneva jet-setting — nothing. Nobody has even

tried to explain why six taxpayer-funded emissaries were needed instead of only two

or three. Despite this, the Geneva jet-setting junket was greenlit by the Premier

himself. His signature is actually on the travel authorization form.

Again, why is this out-of-touch Premier approving a Geneva jet-setting trip for NDP

elites while single mothers in British Columbia agonize over how much gas to put in

their car and whether or not they can afford food at the grocery store?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member opposite may want to focus on the carbon tax. I'd prefer to focus on the

many, many, many…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. G. Heyman: …measures this government has taken to reduce costs for British Columbians, to improve

services for British Columbians.

As for emissions, emissions in British Columbia have gone down since 2017, and they've

gone down measured against 2007. Between 2007, when they were on this side of the

House, and 2017, when they were replaced…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: …emissions went up. We're turning the corner, despite the population of British Columbia

going up significantly.

ENERGY REGULATOR AND ENVIRONMENTAL

COMPLIANCE OF GAS PIPELINE PROJECTS

S. Furstenau: The oil and gas industry must just be loving these debates, since none of us are talking

about their record-breaking profits and the damage they are doing to the climate.

The Coastal GasLink pipeline project, for example, has been a nightmare from the beginning:

SWAT teams removing Indigenous people, predominantly Elders and women from their land

at gunpoint, the cost ballooning from $6 billion to more than $14 billion, construction

permit violations that killed fish and their habitat and more than $800,000 in fines

in non-compliance. With Coastal GasLink, there is a dangerous pattern of lax oversight

that puts public safety and environmental protection at risk.

We can look to the B.C. Energy Regulator for this. The regulator is both a one-stop

shop for all approvals and in charge of keeping companies in line with the laws. In

B.C., that energy regulator has an abysmal record of upholding their own laws.

My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Is the minister satisfied with

the B.C. Energy Regulator's compliance and enforcement of the Coastal GasLink project?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you very much to the member opposite for the question. I know she understands

that I, and we, take compliance with environmental regulations and legislation extremely

seriously. Our goal, of course, is to minimize impacts on the environment and to ensure

that projects are moving ahead in accordance with the conditions of their assessment

and in compliance with all of those laws and regulations.

The B.C. Energy Regulator works closely with the B.C. environmental assessment office.

They conduct inspections and they issue orders where necessary. If the orders aren't

complied with, additional orders are issued and escalating administrative penalties

are possibly levied, sometimes definitely levied.

Between the two regulators, more than 600 inspections have taken place to date. They

share responsibilities on the project. The two agencies are in regular contact with

each other.

It's important, I think, for everybody to understand that regardless of the tool that

is used, the focus is always on ensuring that the problems get resolved. That means

that not every issue meets the specific standard of noncompliance, but the agencies

work with the workers on the ground to resolve the issues as they arise.

That is my expectation. That is the Minister of Environment's expectation, and that

is what we are seeing.

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

S. Furstenau: I'll take that as a yes.

The Coastal GasLink pipeline has been an unmitigated disaster, and yet, it gets worse.

From a government whose Premier said before he became Premier that we cannot build

any more fossil fuel infrastructure and meet our climate goals, there are already

more pipelines that have been approved and waiting to be built, including Pacific

Trail and Prince Rupert gas transmission project. Before this government entertains

more pipeline construction, they must address the failures of the regulator.

Reports from the Prince Rupert gas transmission project show the proponent conducted

poor archaeological work, placed the pipeline right-of-way through old-growth deferral

areas and will cross countless salmon-bearing streams in the Skeena and Nass watersheds.

We already saw the damage of Coastal GasLink to Wet'suwet'en territory, and now we're

preparing for more damage from more pipelines, emitting more emissions when we are

in a climate emergency.

My question is to the Ministry of Energy and Mines. Setting aside the insanity of

building more fossil fuel infrastructure, what does the Minister of Energy and Mines

say to British Columbians who have no trust that the B.C. Energy Regulator will ensure

that laws, regulations and conditions will be upheld during the construction of the

Prince Rupert gas transmission pipeline?

Hon. J. Osborne: Well, once again I have to confirm that we take this issue of meeting the requirements

of environmental regulations and legislation extremely seriously. It is what British

Columbians expect when projects like this, if a project like this takes place….

As I've explained, the environmental assessment office and the B.C. Energy Regulator

take those obligations very seriously. They conduct the inspections. They issue the

orders where they are necessary. The environmental assessment certificate, of course,

comes with a number of conditions that must be met, as the permits from the B.C. Energy

Regulator…. Those conditions must be met as well.

We were talking about Coastal GasLink. Since February 2022, more than $800,000 in

fines have been issued to Coastal GasLink because it shows that we must continue to

take environmental protection extremely seriously. It's why we have brought in additional

enforcement to Coastal GasLink. It's the same type of expression of a commitment that

we would show to any future pipeline.

The member opposite is right to demand high environmental regulations. We take this

very seriously. Those standards are high, and we're going to continue to meet them.

HOUSING DENSITY

AND ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION

J. Rustad: I appreciate the B.C. United supporting the Conservative position on the carbon tax,

but that's not where I want to go with the question today.

I'd like to talk for a second about the virtue-signalling that this NDP government

is doing. I'll give you an example of that. In Surrey, they promised to get rid of

portables. What we've seen is a growth in portables, double-deck in portables and

now washrooms being added outdoors so that students don't even have to experience

a real school but just their temporary schools.

Now we're hearing the same approach on housing. What we're seeing with this government

is saying that they're going to have up to four quads on housing units. Lots of people

would like to like to celebrate the fact that there could be more housing, but here's

the challenge. There is no plan whatsoever for parks, for playgrounds or, for that

matter, even something as basic as plumbing and meeting those needs.

[2:15 p.m.]

The real issue that the mom has is parking. There is no plan whatsoever with this

government's approach to increase housing to deal with parking. Can you imagine? I

walk down the streets in Vancouver, or streets in communities around this province,

and they're jammed with cars. They want to quadruple the number of families living

there with no plan for parking and no plan for transportation.

The question to the Minister of Housing is: what is the plan to deal with the congestion

of transportation, the inability for parking, or will they just simply blame community

for not meeting their needs?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I thank the member across the way for his question.

No doubt, I think, at least three parties in this place can agree that housing is

a crisis, and we need to find innovative solutions for more housing to be built. I'm

not entirely sure of the Conservative Party's opinion on how to get housing built

in communities, but I can say to the member that the premise of his question is incorrect.

We laid out in part of our legislation, and on the day we announced it, that if a

home is being built and it's not close to transit, yes, we believe the parking needs

to be there. We believe there needs to be a parking spot for a unit that's being built.

So the member is incorrect in his question.

What we said, though, is as we get closer to transit, that requirement goes down.

We want to encourage people to be able to take transit, and we know that people want

to take transit.

The member's question I think is ill-informed.

We have said there is a path forward for more housing options to be available. We

have people right now thinking about leaving this province because they can't afford

to find a place here. We have to find ways for housing to be built and it to be affordable,

and this plan does that.

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

J. Rustad: Well, the Housing Minister and I will obviously have to disagree, because when I talk

to moms that are struggling today to find parking, it's unimaginable what will happen

when you have four times that many families living in the same area, in terms of being

able to have parking.

I want to ask the minister this question. Both sides, the official opposition and

the government, like to talk about Taylor Swift, and that sort of thing. I can tell

you the mom that has to deal with the day-to-day costs of groceries and the day-to-day

costs of fuel in the tanks and inflation, with rent increases, mortgage rates with

interest rates going up — they're not concerned about that. What they're concerned

about is being able to get their kid to the hockey practice.

I know the minister himself has had experience in terms of sports, so maybe the minister

can answer this question.

What is he going to say to the mom when he gets all this increase in housing and the

inability for parking and the congestion of getting around…? What's he going to say

to that mom when they need to take their twins to hockey and carry their hockey bags?

Is he going to say to take transit, or is he going to say: "Sorry, you're just not

going to be able to do that, because you don't have the mobility that you need and

the freedom of movement in this province"?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I agree with the member on one thing. We shouldn't be spending our time talking about

Taylor Swift and where the Swifties will stay when they are coming to Vancouver for

a concert. Again, I think wisely, that question was not asked today.

I'll say to the member that I'm not sure about that one mom that he spoke to, but

I will say that we speak to families all the time. We speak to young families all

the time, and they tell us that they need more housing options available to them.

When a single-family home comes down, and only a single-family home can be built,

that just makes it too unaffordable for too many people to afford.

Although I appreciate the premise of the member's question, I reject it because part

of our plan lays out that if you're building a fourplex or a threeplex and you don't

have access to transit, we believe that you need a parking spot per unit that is being

built. But as you move closer to transit, people are making a choice to be able to

use that transit, and the requirements should be less.

I appreciate the member raising the question about housing, but I think the number

one priority for us and the number one priority I hear from moms, single moms, is

about affordable housing, not a parking spot they need for their kids' hockey practice.

[2:20 p.m.]

FOOD COSTS AND

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES

T. Halford: As the Premier fuels inflation with a record $6.7 billion deficit, the NDP's middle-class

squeeze tightens, and the food bank demand has surged by nearly 60 percent.

In March alone, 60,000 children in our province had no alternative but to rely on

the food bank. Meanwhile, the Premier approves $360 worth of daily expenses for meals

in Geneva.

We have called for immediate relief at the grocery store, including cutting the fuel

tax and eliminating the carbon tax on ranchers and farmers.

Will the Premier cut taxes on groceries and rein in the NDP's extravagant Geneva meal

expenses, or will he allow the lines at B.C.'s food banks to continue to grow at record

paces?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We all want people to have access to nutritious, affordable food. The hit that has

been caused by the impact of global inflation has been extremely hard for people around

the world — global forces beyond our control.

What we can control, though, are income supports in people's pockets, which is why

we have increased the minimum wage, why we've increased social assistance rates, why

we've invested in child care. In relation to food security, our support for food emergency–serving

organizations, food banks across the province, is unprecedented.

Together with the Agriculture Minister and the Premier, in March, we announced an

unprecedented $200 million of investment in food security, both on the growing side

and the food provision side. We're working with food banks across the entire province

to invest in food security infrastructure and direct service provision in order to

contend with the terribly increased cost of food right now.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

T. Halford: This minister uses the word "unprecedented" in this House. Right now what's unprecedented

is the number of people that are relying on the food bank, 60,000 kids using the food

bank. That is unprecedented, and that is unacceptable.

For this minister to sit here and use terms like that is inexcusable. We are seeing

record surges of nearly 60 percent, 60,000 kids relying on the food bank.

What do we see? We see, on the weekend, Colleen Sparks from the Mustard Seed in Victoria

saying: "We have families that are coming in that probably would never have used the

food bank before."

Dual-income families are using the food bank. British Columbians in every single province

are record numbers at the food bank right now. We are talking about relief at grocery

stores, and this minister does a victory lap on food banks.

When will this Premier wake up and listen and provide British Columbians the relief

that they deserve?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The impact of global inflation on the price of food is something that is hitting everybody

very hard, vulnerable people especially. It is the terribly increased impact on food-serving

providers. The cost of food has diminished food donations to food banks, and there

are more people lining up over the cost of food.

We cannot control the prices at the grocery store, but we can control investing in

people's direct income, and we can invest in food-serving organizations, food security

organizations. That's why we're the first place to invest in school food programs.

That's in our budget.

That's why we funded and asked the First Nations Summit to distribute on our behalf

the First Nations well being fund. That's why, through our Agriculture department,

we're investing in Indigenous food sovereignty. That's why the United Way is implementing,

with us, $7½ million in direct food support to food hubs. That's why, through Food

Banks B.C., we're funding $15 million to support food bank organizations across the

entire province, to be able to help with the exact kind of support that the member

is requesting.

That's what we do. We invest in people, and we're going to keep doing it.

COST OF LIVING AND AFFORDABILITY

ISSUES AND GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES

R. Merrifield: Well, the minister speaks of global inflation, but for ten out of the last 15 months,

B.C. has outstripped Canadian average inflation, which means you're not doing a great

job. Families can't even afford the essentials anymore under this NDP government.

[2:25 p.m.]

Bill, a constituent, writes: "One would think that getting a raise at work would allow

for some disposable income. This is the farthest from reality. It doesn't even cover

the increased cost of fuel, let alone the rising cost of everything else. Now, more

money is going out each pay period than coming in." This is the reality of the NDP's

middle-class squeeze.

Meanwhile, the Premier signs off on a $360-per-day meal tab for the NDP in Geneva

— which, amazingly, no one has gotten up to actually address.

As families like Bill's struggle, how can the Premier justify the NDP's Geneva jet-setting

instead of giving families a break on home heating and gasoline?

Mr. Speaker: All comments through the Chair, please.

Hon. K. Conroy: I think we all recognize in this House that global inflation and high interest rates

are squeezing household budgets in the province, right across the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. K. Conroy: Instead of giving high tax breaks to the very wealthy in this province, we are actually

taking action to help people with costs, and we are doing exactly that with our B.C.

family benefit. This summer we permanently boosted the B.C. family benefit up $250

for families with two kids, and we added $500 for a top-up for single parents because

we recognize how difficult it can be.

That is affecting 75 percent of the families in our province. It's benefiting them,

and we have heard from parents about how important this is.

I talked to Charla Huber, a parent who said: "I've always been my daughter's sole

supporter. Having access to supports like the B.C. family benefit was so important

to us in the earlier years and helped ease the financial stress as a single mother.

The extra money has gone a long way in helping me get to the place I am today and

build a good life for me and my daughter."

We are going to continue to support people. We are not going to make cuts to services,

and we are not going to increase taxes to ordinary British Columbians.

T. Stone: What we've heard here today is reflective of a government that is increasingly out

of touch with the realities of British Columbians struggling. They're struggling.

I hear laughs on the other side. Like, how pathetic can that be?

There are British Columbians that are making the painful choice every single day about

whether they put fuel into their vehicle, put fresh food on the table for their kids

or pay their heating bill. Those are the choices that British Columbians are making.

The minister stands up and says, "Oh, you know, we provided a $200 credit here and

a $500 credit there" after they've increased taxes — 29 new and increased taxes.

We have other ministers touting enhanced supports for food banks. Maybe it would be

good if you recognized that British Columbians would like to go into a grocery store

and actually buy healthy food for their kids and for their families, but the reality

is that 50 percent plus of British Columbians are $200 away from not being able to

make their monthly payments. That's the reality.

Now, we heard about Bill a moment ago, and Bill's story is not unique. It's the new

normal under the NDP. In fact, an additional 32,000 British Columbians are now forced

into juggling multiple jobs, thanks to the NDP's middle-class squeeze. The only thing

growing under the NDP is the bloated size of government, with 121,000 more public

sector positions over the last five years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

T. Stone: Now, that compares to only 22,000 private sector jobs that have been created under

the NDP over the last five years. I know the government doesn't want to hear this.

The NDP has created one private sector job for every five public sector jobs in the

last five years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Let's hear the….

T. Stone: My question is this. Why…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: Why does the Premier prioritize record-breaking expansion in the size of government,

inflationary deficits and Geneva jet-setting over giving people an actual break on

their fuel and their home heating bills? Answer that question for us today, will you.

Hon. K. Conroy: If you want to talk about out of touch, let's talk about a former government that

cut services to people, that cut nurses, that cut teachers, that cut supports to doctors

in this province. I'm talking about services that people rely on in this province.

Interjections.

[2:30 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: He talks about the public sector like it is some bad thing. It's terrible that we

are increasing public sector workers in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: Let's talk to some of the people in the gallery today to see if they're upset about

increasing the public sector.

Let's talk about the HEU members that had their wages cut, that had their benefits

cut and that had their employment cut by the members opposite. Thousands of women

had their jobs cut because people….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. K. Conroy: They wanted to give tax cuts but not to ordinary British Columbians. They gave them

to the top 2 percent in this province.

We are increasing employment in this province. In fact, there were more private sector

jobs increased in the last year than there were public sector. The member has his

facts wrong.

What's incredibly frustrating is the lack of attention to what these people are saying

about supports for people. We on this side are going to continue to support people.

We are going to continue to ensure people are getting the services they need. We are

going to continue to ensure that we are not increasing taxes for people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, shhh. Shhh.

Hon. K. Conroy: We are actually cutting taxes. We are not going to cut taxes for the top 2 percent

in this province. That is what we are not doing, and that is something the opposite

would do.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Conroy: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I'm pleased to present reports for the

fiscal year ended March 31, 2023, on all amounts borrowed by government and all amounts

loaned to government bodies. These reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing

activity in fiscal '22-23.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call second reading for Bill 42, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 3), 2023.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 38, International

Credentials Recognition Act.

In the third House, Committee C, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 40, School

Amendment Act, 2023.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

[2:35 p.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 3), 2023

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that Bill 42 now be read a second time.

This bill includes amendments to the Supreme Court Act and consequential amendments

to other acts to change the name of the office of the master of the Supreme Court

of British Columbia to associate judge.

Masters are judicial officers who preside at judicial hearings and chambers on applications

on a wide variety of matters, including family, civil and foreclosure matters. A total

of 15 masters sit in the court locations throughout this province.

These amendments will have no impact on the role of the masters. We all know that

titles are important symbols. These amendments, at the request of the court, are consistent

with our work on reconciliation and will introduce a title that is more descriptive

and neutral, that does not carry the same connotations of hierarchy and dominance

and that better reflects the court's principal role in the justice system today.

The bill amends the Low Carbon Fuels Act to support the implementation of the low-carbon

fuel standard and avoid unintended impacts.

First, the changes revise the scope of the low-carbon fuel requirements to allow for

inclusion rather than exclusion of non-transportation fuel uses.

Second, they lessen the impacts on remote and rural communities through the jet fuel

low-volume supplier exemption.

Third, the amendments support producers and importers of low-carbon jet fuel by allowing

a renewable fuel target of zero percent for specific years before increasing the renewable

fuel target.

Fourth, they will ensure that fuel volumes are reconciled in a manner that maintains

the integrity of the LCFS by revising provisions for exporting fuels from British

Columbia.

Fifth, amendments are being made to the transitional provisions to avoid unnecessary

regulatory burden.

This proposed amendment to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act is to modify

the boundary description of E.C. Manning Park. The proposed amendment will remove

one hectare from the park adjacent to Highway 3. This amendment is to enable the replacement

of the Snass Creek and 19 Mill Creek bridges by the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure. These bridges are nearing the end of their serviceable life and require

replacement to maintain the safety and reliability of the Highway 3 corridor.

The Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and the Residential Tenancy Act amendments

will provide efficiency and speed in all phases of the residential tenancy branch's

dispute resolution process by allowing more flexibility around the procurement requirements

established by the legislation currently. The RTB wants to be able to deliver a full

spectrum of dispute resolution services to improve overall service delivery and reduce

hearing waiting times.

Some of the amendments include introducing other means of dispute resolution, such

as facilitation; providing decisions orally, rather than in writing, in certain circumstances

outlined in the regulation; refusing or dismissing applications up front where they

have no chance of success rather than at the hearing; moving various provisions from

the acts to the regulations to allow greater flexibility and to support innovation

at the RTB — for example, rules around the service of documents. These changes support

the ministry's mandate commitment to ensuring the timely resolution of landlord-tenant

disputes as well as government's commitment to improving wait times at the RTB.

Next, three initiative trust acts will be amended. Between 2004 and 2006, the province

created and capitalized three regional economic trusts through legislation — the Northern

Development Initiative Trust, the Economic Trust of the Southern Interior and the

Island Coastal Economic Trust — to stimulate economic activity in the distinct regions

of British Columbia.

On March 29, 2023, government announced an additional $30 million contribution to

the trusts in support of regional economic development. Each of these trusts will

receive $10 million to invest into their regions.

This bill is required to raise the cap on the provincial contributions within each

respective trust act by $10 million to enable the ensuring capital transfers. In addition,

the bill will introduce some secondary amendments to the acts, clarifying the rule

of third-party contribution arrangements, updating the purpose of regional accounts

and other minor administrative updates.

Finally, this bill provides amendments to the Local Government Act. Earlier this year

new notice requirements for municipal tax sales were established. This amendment clarifies

one part of the required content of the notice which outlines the amount a property

owner must pay to avoid a property from proceeding to a tax sale.

M. de Jong: I understand that the topics the Attorney and I discuss aren't frequently the most

entertaining in town. I do think we have rules around quorum, and I wouldn't want

us to be in violation of those rules.

[2:40 p.m.]

Do we have quorum with the online participants? Thanks.

That having been cleared up, let me say that the…. I think this is the third time

this year that we have seen a miscellaneous statutes bill — Bill 3 — and it is not

uncommon for the government of the day to present collections of legislative changes.

They are introduced by the Attorney General.

The practice is to make some general comments during second reading and then facilitate

passage into committee, where more detailed questions can be asked about the individual

components of the bill. In this case, the individual components are not necessarily

related in any sort of thematic way to one another.

I can assure the Attorney that that is the practice the official opposition, at least,

intends to follow with respect to Bill 42, with this exception. I think the bulk of

the bill is dedicated to provisions dealing with the residential tenancy branch and,

to a lesser extent, the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act. Even in second reading,

the official opposition is going to want to draw some attention to the difficulties,

the problems, the challenges that people face dealing with that particular branch.

It is something that has been drawn to the government's attention now for most of

the duration they have held office. The official opposition and, more importantly,

people, I think, are becoming somewhat impatient with a situation that is not only

not improving; in many cases, getting worse. But I'll come to that in a moment and

go through, quickly, a few of the parts and try to alert the Attorney to where some

questions may arise.

Part 1 deals with the Attorney General amendments and, in particular, the renaming

of the masters. There will be a few questions, not many, about…. The Attorney, I think,

answered one of those questions, confirming in her second reading remarks that there

are no jurisdictional changes and that this is a change in title only. We'll confirm

that at the appropriate time.

The second part of the legislation is dealing with the low-carbon fuel standards.

The stated intent there to lower the average carbon intensity of fuels and increase

the adoption of low-carbon fuels is clear and, I think, one that has attracted, over

the years, fairly widespread support, certainly in this House.

The question, though, in presenting these amendments will undoubtedly be: what kind

of progress is being made, and what are the objectives with respect to the amendments

before us today? As has been pointed out numerous times of late, it is one thing to

not just issue a press release but present legislation. It is another to candidly

and accurately and forthrightly disclose what the impact of those amendments, those

provisions, have been and are intended to be, going forward.

To the Attorney's colleagues, who undoubtedly are sitting in their offices riveted

by the conversation we're having today, they should take note — and the Minister of

Energy and Mines — that there will be some questions there.

Similarly, in the realm of environment and climate change, there is an adjustment

to a park boundary. I don't imagine that that is going to generate a lengthy list

of questions. I do note that…. By the way, no one, I think, is going to quarrel with

the idea that park boundaries should be adjusted to accommodate the replacement of

a bridge. I think we're talking about a hectare here.

I do note that when it is government infrastructure that needs to be accommodated,

these amendments tend to flow fairly expeditiously.

[2:45 p.m.]

When it might be other infrastructure, transmission-related infrastructure, I have

noted, particularly with the present government, far greater reticence around making

what would seem to be a commonsense adjustment to accommodate. Again, not likely to

be a lengthy series of questions, but some questions nonetheless.

Part 5 relates to the trusts — the Islands, Northern and Southern Interior Trusts.

Similarly, I hope the Attorney's colleagues, the minister responsible for the trusts,

will understand and anticipate the likelihood of questions rooted in the support for

the stated increase. I think $10 million increases are being allocated to these funds

that I say, somewhat immodestly, predate this government and were established by a

previous government.

There will be questions seeking, again, some manner of disclosure and commitment from

the government as to what the objectives are and what the government hopes to achieve

by the expenditure and allocation of these additional moneys to the development trusts.

That's contained in

part 5 of the miscellaneous bill before us.

I skipped over

part 4, but let me return to that now. It does, as the Attorney has

correctly pointed out, relate to amendments to the residential tenancy branch, which

the Attorney tells us are intended to enhance the ability of the branch to deal with

disputes and some alternate means of settlement. So that's fine. There will be an

exploration of that at the committee stage, and the Housing Minister will need to

be available and to anticipate those questions.

But it takes place against the backdrop of what has been an absolute failure to provide

a mechanism for the timely resolution of disputes involving tenants and landlords.

I won't suggest that there haven't been other times in the province's history where

this has been a challenge, because there certainly have been. I'll be the first to

acknowledge that. But it has gotten steadily worse.

I suppose one could say: "Well, if the only impact of that steadily worsening situation

were some folks grinding their teeth and being frustrated, as bad as that is,"— some

might say; not I, by the way — "well, that's just the way it is." But this steadily

deteriorating, worsening of the situation is having a dramatic impact, in my view,

on the availability of rental accommodation.

We have gone way beyond: "This is just an inconvenience." And it is more than just

an inconvenience. It is resulting in very purposeful decisions being made by people

who might otherwise make available rental accommodation, to have those people say:

"Well, we're not going to do that. We're not prepared to roll the dice and get into

the mug's game — the rough justice, if you can even call it that — that the residential

tenancy branch represents."

It's easy in this place. There are a couple of things that I have observed over the

last few years. This government certainly brings a bias in how it regards the relationship

and the dynamic that exists between those who rent accommodation and those who own

it.

By the way, I use that word "bias." There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that

one looks at a situation through a particular lens and is influenced by that. It's

not always a bad thing. It is important, however, to recognize and acknowledge where

that bias exists.

[2:50 p.m.]

What I have to say firstly is that, repeatedly, one is left with the impression that

this government believes the only people that are in the business of making rental

accommodations available are large, faceless, nameless corporations. And it's just

not true.

I would have thought that a government that purports to be so focused on the challenge

people are facing securing appropriate housing for them and their families would understand

that so much of the rental accommodation that is available, so many people, families

are now securing that rental accommodation from other families in basement suites,

in carriage house suites, located on a family's property.

The ability to do that obviously makes that rental accommodation available to the

renter, but in many, many instances and, I would say, as interest rates have steadily

escalated, that is one of the reasons that landlord family is able to stay in that

home. Now, the landlord, in that case, is a family that is struggling to stay in their

home, probably struggled to acquire that home and will most assuredly be struggling

when their mortgage comes up for renewal and their mortgage payments go up.

All of that factors into the decision that they make to bring in another family or

someone to rent on their property, in their home.

There are members of this House on both sides…. One of my colleagues I think is going

to quote at length from one of the government members who has made this, I believe,

accurate observation: those families that do own a home, who have in the past made

the decision to make a portion of that home available for rental accommodation, are

increasingly saying no. They're saying no as a direct result of the experience they

have had — the negative, in some cases, horrible experience they have had — with the

residential tenancy branch .

It's perhaps one thing to say, if you're one of those big, faceless, nameless corporations

and you have a tenant in one of your buildings, and the residential tenancy branch

is operating away in conjunction with the residential tenancy legislation, where it's

virtually impossible to have a tenant who is behaving contrary to the law, contrary

to any sense of respect for the property, but there's very little you can do about

it and nothing you can do about it in a timely way. That's one situation.

Surely this government understands that that is a situation that now confronts families

who have invited someone to rent within their home, who've got someone in their finished

basement or in a carriage home who's engaging in activities that no one would want

to take place in that home or damaging the property. It is virtually impossible for

that family to do anything about that and certainly impossible to do anything about

it in a timely way.

[2:55 p.m.]

No one seems to want to acknowledge for a moment the incredible financial pressure

that family is under when maybe six months, maybe 12 months, maybe 18 months later,

the residential tenancy branch finally gets around to issuing an order — which by

the way, they still have to enforce, which could be another six months — and then

that family goes down into that basement and is confronted by $40,000 worth of damage.

There just doesn't seem to be a willingness on the part of the government to acknowledge

that there are two parties to this relationship, and neither one of them is evil.

As has been said here before, the vast majority of people who rent accommodation,

are tenants, are good people. They're good families. There's a very small percentage

that cause grief, and the same can be said of landlords — and those families that

choose, because they want to or by necessity, to invite folks into their home as tenants.

But they're not going to do it, and they are choosing not to do it because of the

failures of the residential tenancy branch and, by the way, amendments to the law

that the government has made.

Because if you're a family with a couple of kids upstairs, you don't want to take

the risk. The fiscal consequences are huge for that family, but they don't want to

take the risk of creating a situation from which they can't escape, where in some

cases, they believe the safety of their family might be put at risk.

The other bias that I have to say I have seen arise time and time again from the government

benches is even this notion that someone that has a home and chooses to buy a second

home and make it available for rent — that for some reason, that's a bad thing and

that's a bad person.

Look, now I have to reveal my bias, because I've done that. So 30 years ago, 20 years

ago, my now wife and I and a friend…. We bought some homes, condominiums, and — in

a couple of cases for 30 years and in the other two cases for 20-plus years — they

were rented out to tenants. Good people. Some were there for a long time. Some were

there for a shorter period of time. I think, over the years, we spent tens of thousands

of dollars making sure the appliances were up to date, painting the places and keeping

them in good order and attracting good tenants.

People who have done that are increasingly being made to feel like they're doing something

wrong. Just the other day the Premier was up in question period, and I heard the comment.

This is a partisan place, and God knows I've got a thick enough hide to not get too

worked up about what gets said in here. He referred to a former Finance Minister who

had owned some properties. I knew who he was talking about. But I don't know what

the point of that was. I mean, I know what the point was. The point was to say there's

something wrong with that.

We housed people for 30 years, 25 years. We sold them. It's a typical story, right?

People have done that, and families do that.

[3:00 p.m.]

It's pretty easy for us who have pensions. Some of us have pretty nice pensions coming

out of this place if you're here long enough. But when I started practising law, I

didn't think I was going to have a pension. I didn't know I was going to be here.

I didn't know I'd be lucky enough to be here.

Yet people who have their own businesses don't have a pension. What they might be

able to do is buy another property and make it available for rental. I thought we

liked that. I thought that today, amidst this crisis, we'd think that's a good thing.

So why are we vilifying those people and those families who do two things? They try

to provide for their own retirement, and they make homes available to others.

But they are increasingly choosing not to do it. The reason, a big reason, for why

they are choosing not to do it, is because of the mess that exists at the residential

tenancy branch.

I think my colleague, in a moment, is going to talk about — and will certainly, in

committee stage, ask about — the 50 percent unfilled vacancies that exist.

You can't promise society, and you can't promise to people — tenants and landlords

— that you're going to have a dispute resolution process. You can't create legislation

that requires consistent and constant reference to this dispute resolution mechanism

and then not have it staffed to accommodate the volume of traffic that your legislation

is creating. That's what's happened. The government has created, legislatively, this

huge increase in volume without creating the means by which it can be dealt with.

They have done so against a backdrop, as I say, of a bias that consistently says that

landlords are the problem. To be sure, sometimes they are, but sometimes they're not.

If you keep telling people, as members of the government have over the last number

of years, that people who buy a home to make it available for rental accommodation

are bad, well, they'll stop doing it. If you create a dispute resolution process that

makes it impossible for someone to protect that asset, they will stop doing it.

That's why, for a change, on this bill, I've taken a little bit more time and have

tried to signal to the Attorney, and through her to her colleagues, that when we do

get to committee stage, the Attorney will probably be able to go to her office for

a few hours while her colleague deals with some questions on that particular part

of the bill. Along with some of the other legislation, obviously, dealing with housing,

it is going to generate a fair bit of interest and engagement on the part of the opposition.

Those were the comments I wanted to make. I will end where I began, by alerting the

Attorney to the fact that we'll certainly be facilitating movement of the bill into

committee stage, where all of these issues can be canvassed in significant detail.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill 42, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 3). Thank you to the Attorney General for bringing this act forward.

[3:05 p.m.]

As has been canvassed to some extent, this legislation covers a variety of pieces

of laws that are being updated here: the Supreme Court Act; to change some of the

definitions and some of the titles within the act; Low Carbon Fuels Act, to institute

an expansion of the low-carbon fuel standard; and, as the member for Abbotsford West

just outlined to some extent, changes to the Residential Tenancy Act and the Manufactured

Home Park Tenancy Act.

I'm going to go into some detail in my comments with respect to the development initiative

trust acts that are in

section 5, as was previously noted.

I just wanted to, I think, make a couple of comments with respect to what the member

from Abbotsford West was just talking about. First, I think that it's important to

acknowledge that the goal of the changes — and we'll see if they will be achieved

— is to reduce the wait times at the residential tenancy branch, increasing flexibility

and giving the RTB some more flexibility on how it conducts its hearings. But the

ultimate goal, I think, is trying to reduce hearing wait times.

When you take a look at what's happening with the changes to the Manufactured Home

Park Tenancy Act, I think it's important, at this stage, that we also ask some questions

at the committee stage for this part of the bill. I've heard from members of my community,

my constituents who live in manufactured home parks, some 900 of them across the province,

that they don't feel the type of security that people in homes they've invested in

and invested parts of their lives in should feel. They were hoping, back in 2018,

that the rules would tighten, but they have not.

I think that it's important to recognize that manufactured home parks are a viable

housing solution for many people in this housing crisis. Many of the people living

in manufactured home parks in my community are seniors living on a fixed income. Tenuous

housing situations for them make them feel even further vulnerable. I think that it's

important that we understand just whether or not the provincial government here has

listened to the advocates and the people representing those who live in manufactured

home parks, or if we've yet again made amendments without achieving that level of

security.

I think that it's important just to respond to some of the comments that were made.

Interesting that the member for Abbotsford West started talking about the residential

tenancy branch by talking about bias, and in particular, talking about the bias that

he's identified within our current B.C. NDP government. Doing so, I think, demonstrated

very clearly a bias of his own.

For the last number of decades, the narrative has been constructed around renters

as being the lower-class citizens in our community and that that the pursuit of home

ownership had created classist tiers in our society. I'm going to talk about this

later, when it comes to Bill 44.

I remember, when I got elected to Central Saanich council, how there were rules that

basically, you couldn't have renters in neighbourhoods if the landlord didn't live

on the property with the tenant. Of course, the premise behind those kinds of laws

was based on the fact that if you just left the neighbourhood to the renters, to the

tenants, it would fall into disrepair.

Back in 2008, when I was sitting around the council table — in fact, in the community

that I grew up in — those were the narratives that were emerging. I think that it's

important to also recognize and acknowledge the burden that the secondary market landlord

carries in our society of carrying the mortgage and buying the house and being able

to do that.

However, it's important, when we're talking about the residential tenancy branch and

the need for it to be improved and the need for the response times to be improved,

that it not be just from the context of the landlord needing to be able to deal with

their pesky and out-of-control renters — which has been, largely, the stigma context

wrapped around renters for decades — but that in fact, tenants need an accessible,

efficient, well-funded, well-resourced and well-supported residential tenancy branch.

[3:10 p.m.]

I'm thankful that the member for Abbotsford West got there eventually — but very much

delivered only half the narrative. So I thought that some rebalancing needed to happen

in that context, because the residential tenancy branch doesn't just serve landlords,

secondary landlords or even the larger landlords. It represents the tenant as well,

in the discussion.

I think it's also important to recognize that the cultural discussion that's happening

right now is not that owning a second home is inherently bad. It's the impact of turning

housing units into economic units, rather than their primary purpose of homes for

people that they can afford — places that they can afford to live, in communities

near where they work, go to school and do all of those things — so that all of the

stress, tension and anxiety that's created by housing insecurity isn't in the neighbourhoods

across the province. That's what we're talking about.

It's not about taking the stigma of the renter and turning it onto the owner and saying

that they're all good or they're all bad. It is a culture and an economic system that

says that it's okay for us to turn housing into an economic unit, primarily — making

it an inaccessible place for people to live, because they can't afford to be there

and need two and three jobs to be able to live in that space. That's what we're talking

about when it comes to making sure that people can afford to live in the places that

they're in.

When it becomes an investment vehicle, when that's what it becomes, then it's not

about a market of housing people safely and securely in a place that's near where

they work and go to school. It just becomes an investment vehicle. More on that later

— a lot more on that later, as it turns out.

Anyway, I just think it's important also to recognize that the member for Abbotsford

West called the Minister of Housing and said: "Be ready for the upcoming debate."

I think it's important that the Minister of Jobs also be ready for the upcoming debate.

Finally, we're seeing the government fulfil a commitment that they made last fall

to the communities in what's technically called the North Island–Coast Development

Initiative Trust Act. We know it as the ICET on Vancouver Island and in the coastal

communities.

To me, it's inexplicable that this government failed to support communities here on

Vancouver Island, specifically communities that supported them at the provincial level

for decades. It's no secret that Vancouver Island and the coastal communities have

been a stronghold for our government. Yet when the B.C. NDP are on that side of the

House, they wilfully ignore the socioeconomic opportunity that is offered by the North

Island–Coast Development Initiative Act or ICET, as local and community groups affectionately

call the fund, this opportunity.

Our government followed through on the B.C. Liberals' announcement in 2017 to extend

the life of the trust that was created by the B.C. Liberals at the time. But the money

was running out for ICET, so they gave it a $10 million boost, essentially kicking

the can down the road — until now, as it turns out.

Since then, the ICET has been hard at work trying to create a long-term, sustainable

model for itself. Last year, again approaching the can that was just kicked down the

road, the ICET, their board of directors and regional advisory committees — consisting

of mayors, electoral district directors, MLAs and other community members — produced

a vision for government to invest in those communities that have supported them so

strongly.

Our current provincial government, the B.C. NDP, sat on the vision and case for investment.

They sat on the recommendations of the 2022 independent legislative review of the

North Island–Coast Development Trust Act. The review was undertaken by a legislative

review committee consisting of former Saanich mayor Frank Leonard, Sarah Morales,

Wayne Rowe and Judith Sayers, the Vancouver Island University chancellor and president

of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council. It was the third review, as is required by the

legislation.

[3:15 p.m.]

The panel found (1), "The current legislation has worked well, but it's past time

that Indigenous governments be given a defined role in trust governance."

In addition to recommending (2), that the trust work along side by side with First

Nations, they acknowledged (3), that the ICET has played a useful role in economic

development. ICET provides a valuable supplement to any work done of an interwoven

mesh of government and non-government community organizations.

The panel called for the provincial government to (4), "remove the legislative cap

on the provincial contributions and make a significant investment in recapitalizing

the trust." They recommended (5) that the provincial government envision a tripartite

approach between provincial, local and Indigenous governments.

The panel provides (6), useful advice on how to proceed with including and working

with Indigenous nations in the DRIPA declaration act, and (7), they point out a few

other recommendations to update outdated language in the act.

This was a review that was given to the government last year. The independent legislative

review is a year old. It's the latest in a series of reviews, and it forms the substance

of the vision and case for investment that ICET submitted to the government last September.

At that time, the fund had invested more than $56 million into Vancouver Island and

coastal communities. Those dollars leveraged up to $300 million invested in those

communities — a remarkable investment in those communities.

The ICET vision and case for investment outlined (1) a request for $150 million to

"transform the Island Coastal Economic Trust into a permanent environmentally and

socially responsible trust that would be led by and empower First Nations and local

governments to build an inclusive and resilient coastal economy."

Further, they requested (2) that the government work with them and the "50 First Nations

and 35 local governments to create an updated act to reflect the new approach" and

(3) to work toward a full capitalization of $250 million.

There are a few other snapshots that I'm surprised that this B.C. NDP government had

no interest in. Perhaps they've grown too comfortable here on Vancouver Island and

the coastal communities, but communities are frustrated. Community leaders are frustrated.

This government knows that. The "vision to fully engage First Nations and local governments

in co-governance of a regional economic development organization will be the first

in Canada." It seems very much in alignment with the goals of this government.

Next, they will "be the first regional economic trust in British Columbia to develop

and execute a comprehensive environmental, social and governance — an ESG — strategy,

inclusive of Indigenous rights," also in alignment with the principles and the vision

that this government talks about. "The trust will adopt a wellbeing impact framework,

the first for a trust in British Columbia. It will focus on strengthening wellbeing

across the coastal region." Certainly, that would be welcome from our communities

on Vancouver Island and coastal communities.

Finally, and this piece is the piece that I find very hard to digest. The ICET estimated

in their planning that over a 25-year period, the trust would produce nearly a billion

dollars of economic activity on Vancouver Island and the coastal communities with

that initial investment of $150 million.

This was all in front of our government. They had billions of dollars of a surplus

that the Finance Minister shovelled out last spring. It was the perfect opportunity

to deliver the recommendations of the legislative review committee. The door was open

for the B.C. NDP government to finally provide a tangible, long-term benefit to those

communities that have consistently delivered them seats one election after another.

Instead, what those people got were excuses. Now, all the communities of over 5,000

people within the region are facing increased pressure due to the changes in Bill

44, dramatically increasing the density on urban infrastructure, with no potential

sources of revenue to pay for it.

[3:20 p.m.]

Bill 42 is not about community. It's not about building a sense of community. It's

about dramatically increasing the density of residential zones, potentially flooding

communities with new people. It will be up to local government to find resources to

actually build a dynamic culture in their communities.

The funds that have been invested in ICET have been invested in local theatre and

place-making, repairing community docks and building up the arts. These are projects

that help build and maintain a sense of community in the places humans live. This

government has chosen not to invest in that over the long term. They removed most

of the capacity local governments have to capture some revenue in the rezoning of

land, and they provide no support.

Last spring, when this government had the opportunity to make a generational investment

in our communities on Vancouver Island and in coastal communities, they chose to deny,

delay, deflect. They chose to offer full options as replacement funding programs that

are not sustainable, not community-led funds but rather conditional grants that allow

the provincial government to deliver and cut the ribbons.

The three trusts — the Northern Development Initiative Trust, the Economic Trust of

the Southern Interior and the Island Coastal Economic Trust — have been advocating

to the minister responsible, not the Attorney General but the Jobs Minister. Over

the last year, I've heard how challenging it's been to even get a response from the

B.C. NDP government.

Recommendations have been made, clearly articulated by the trusts, their legislative

review committees and their local leaders. Yet when I look at the changes offered

in this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, it's the bare minimum. The Attorney

General moves the cap by $10 million, increasing it. Better than nothing, for sure,

but a long way from creating a sustainable, community-led economic development initiative

co-governed by First Nations and local government leaders.

It is appreciated that the Attorney General is removing references to Olympic opportunities

and pine beetles and replacing it with innovation and technology as has been requested.

But why stop short? Why stop short from enabling a grassroots vision of community

economic development? Why ignore a requirement for the board to prove that they're

working towards sustainability? Why not update gendered language? I get a sense this

B.C. NDP government wants to get this done as quickly as possible, as little debate

on this as possible.

The people on Vancouver Island and in coastal communities who have supported this

government and this political organization for decades need to seriously consider

this slight. This is the thanks that they get. Our effective organizations are kept

on life support because the organizational model doesn't allow for the province to

take direct credit for the accomplishments. It's a petty game. It's one that is apparently

not too low for this government to stoop.

I'll be grateful that the ICET and its sibling trusts across the province will get

a short-term boost of $10 million. I hope that the people on Vancouver Island and

in coastal communities understand that the B.C. NDP government missed a tremendous

opportunity to return to them the long-term investment that many have made in them.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

K. Kirkpatrick: I'm pleased to rise, although painfully, today to speak to the bill before us, the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, Bill 42. Miscellaneous stats bills are generally

not very exciting, but they're very important in terms of the work we do here in ensuring

that our legislative frameworks are functioning well and fairly.

Part 1. The B.C. United Caucus strongly supports initiatives that our province takes

to advance reconciliation, so we're certainly pleased with these amendments to the

Supreme Court Act, replacing the title "master" with "associate judge." It certainly

aligns with the ongoing commitment to reconciliation and is a straightforward and

positive step.

Part 2, Energy Mines and Low Carbon Innovation Amendments. We noted amendments in

the Low Carbon Fuels Act, especially the introduction of limits on fuel exports, the

standards designed to lower the average carbon intensity of fuels, increase the adoption

of low-carbon fuels and promote innovation in low-carbon fuel technology.

It is important to ensure that these results are delivered and achievable, so we are

going to seek some more clarification for that and the purpose on these limits during

the committee stage.

[3:25 p.m.]

Certainly,

part 3, environment, acknowledging the proposed reduction of E.C. Manning

Park to facilitate the replacement of aging bridges — absolutely in favour of supporting

the replacement of or improving infrastructure in British Columbia, especially for

the purpose of ensuring that it is safe and accessible to the people who use it.

Again, while this seems reasonable, we will certainly be canvassing some more questions

as we go through the committee stage. As my colleague from Abbotsford West alluded

to, the area that I would have the most questions and comments on, particularly with

my critic profile, is

part 4, which are the housing amendments.

Opening up the RTA at this point would be an opportunity to address many of the challenges

and issues that we're hearing, both from tenants and from landlords. It's a lost opportunity

that a little more hasn't been done at this point.

I agree also with the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands that there was an opportunity

here to address more of the equity issues with respect to manufactured home parks.

We'll, I believe, in addition to what he will be doing, ask some questions during

committee on that.

I will discuss this section. It enables, in this amendment, the ability of the residential

tenancy branch to implement facilitated settlements, so mediation instead of hearings.

It's a good move and hopefully will allow things to speed up and will allow it to

be done in a more consultative way of working forward. It's also going to provide

a provision for dispute resolution services to be conducted promptly.

As you've heard from those previous, and as we hear every day in our MLA inboxes,

the length of time that it actually takes to have anything dealt with currently at

the residential tenancy branch is very challenging. It has been a big issue, both

for landlords and tenants.

It adds to the fear that some landlords have about how long it takes to get issues

addressed, and it often will leave tenants in a precarious position when they don't

have an opportunity to have remedies for something in a timely manner, particularly

if their tenancy is being threatened or they've got concerns about where they're going

to be living.

While it's good that we're trying to speed up processes in the residential tenancy

branch, not nearly enough has been done, and there could be a lot more to be addressed

in this legislation before us. There were provisions brought in, in 2015 that had

not yet been implemented. This will now fully implement by regulation the director

of the RTB to direct facilitated settlements between parties, mediation. Again, this

is a good step.

But tenants and landlords need better. Both need more protection, and they need more

certainty in terms of tenancies. But the NDP has clogged up the RTB, and rental providers

have been expressing frustration at the current bureaucracy, saying it makes it harder

to provide affordable housing.

When this government talks about the importance of housing…. We all know that that

is just fundamentally one of the most challenging and biggest issues and biggest stressors

for people right now — the need to provide housing. We need to be able to look at

all of the pieces that contribute to a lack of housing.

I think it's naive for us to think, to say, that challenges within the residential

tenancy branch actually do contribute to a reduction in the number of units that are

going to be available for people to rent.

[3:30 p.m.]

Due to the lack of success and the challenges at the RTB resulting from just a lot

of increased regulations and…. To be clear, regulations are important, and we have

to be working to make sure that tenants are safe, that they have safe homes and are

treated fairly. As my colleague said previously, that goes both ways, so we have to

make sure that a pendulum doesn't swing so far in one direction that it actually does

put the housing market off balance, and we really, really need for this to be workable

for everyone.

The NDP's new regulations with respect to RTB and a number of other things have actually

made alternatives like Airbnb more attractive to those people, in particular, who

have secondary suites in their homes and, incidentally, will also be able to continue

to have that as an option. Rather than renting their secondary suite, they still will

have the option of running that as an Airbnb.

I think that we need to make sure that we're incentivizing those homeowners or renters

who have a secondary suite — incentivizing them to have more reasons to want to embrace

long-term tenancies in their homes than they have now when they're competing with

Airbnb.

This has been one of the impacts, or drivers, of a 20 percent increase in Airbnb units

in the last year alone. Clearly, the balance is off. The tenancy branch is very backlogged.

To make matters worse, the minister confirmed in estimates that only half of the full-time-equivalents

promised to be hired at the RTB have actually been brought on board. So a question

is: what is the delay? We know this government is very good at hiring people. So I'm

not sure why we have not been able to meet that commitment to have those roles filled.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Since I began here in 2020, it has been a consistent message that we've been hearing,

and when I was on the Finance Committee — multiple groups coming and saying: "Look,

there are issues with the RTB. It takes far too long." The processes need to be streamlined.

We needed to have more people, and we still find ourselves with those long wait times

and with not enough people being there to actually be able to make things run smoothly.

Ultimately, there needs to be a concerted effort to get this working, not a creation

of more regulations and bureaucracy. We want to remove hurdles both for tenants and

for landlords who want to lease their properties and want to live in those properties.

To exacerbate the issue, the tandem effect of this, so the lack of employees…. And

application volumes are up nearly 22 percent in B.C. A lot of that is because of red

tape and additional requirements and bureaucracy. As I say, regulations are fine,

but it is the application of those regulations and the reporting and the forms and

the process and all of those things that really need to be addressed.

According to the RTB, more hearings and fewer employees have led to wait times being

three times longer than they were in 2020. I mean, that's significant. As I said,

since I began here in 2020, it's been a consistent message that we've been hearing

over and over — that these wait times need to be addressed. Hearing that in that period

of time wait times have actually increased substantially is quite concerning.

I will say…. The member for Abbotsford West spoke a bit about this. I feel that this

government has purposely tried to create friction between those who own and those

who rent. There seems to be this villainization of homeowners and trying to pit them

against tenants.

We see this in the words spoken by the Premier the other day in this House, and the

Minister of Housing. It's really counterproductive with…. When we're trying to deal

with a housing crisis, we need a balanced approach where the needs and realities of

both the renters and landlords are being taken into account.

[3:35 p.m.]

This would really increase those wanting to rent out their basement suites, their

secondary suites. I know this isn't all about simply secondary suites, but they are

such a big and important part of the affordable rental market that I…. It is one place

where we can move some levers, and we can actually see some change there. But the

branch is so imbalanced now that people are concerned about renting out their secondary

suites or the units that they own.

To be clear, there are bad landlords out there, and there are bad tenants out there.

The majority, though, are good landlords and good tenants. So we have to create a

better environment and a more positive environment for people to work together instead

of villainizing each other and, certainly, villainizing someone because they actually

want to rent their home out or they want to rent a unit out — villainizing them simply

for that fact.

We've heard horror stories playing out with landlords not being able to remove their

tenants, having property damage done. There was an example that the MLA for Abbotsford

West provided. These are concerns. They may not be happening across the board, but

certainly they create a narrative in the media that really concerns people. If people

are not seeing and landlords are not seeing that the residential tenancy branch is

there to be effective and efficient and help both parties, it will increase people's

reticence to actually step in to become a landlord.

As the previous member said I would, I'm going to quote an NDP MLA, the member for

Burnaby North. I think she was bang on when she spoke here earlier in October about

empty suites in her community. These issues are across British Columbia, and they're

not just in Burnaby North. But I think her examples were warranted, and we can think

about them. I'll quote her: "It's a poorly kept secret in Burnaby North that there

are a lot of empty suites, a lot of empty suites throughout the neighbourhood, throughout

Burnaby North. Landlords are afraid to rent them out. They're afraid."

Another quote: "There are many working-class, working families in B.C. who are, themselves,

landlords. There is a history in B.C. of working people being landlords…. The current

housing crisis has pitted working people against working people, working landlords

against working tenants, working tenants against working landlords."

I might add, again, that this NDP government seems to have worked hard to pit tenants

against landlords and create this narrative, which is certainly not helpful at all

in trying to resolve a housing crisis.

We're in a housing crisis. Government has reacted too slowly. The results that we've

seen…. We've got the worst housing prices in Canada and North America. So the results

aren't good. We need to make sure that we're using every tool that we can in order

to encourage people and support them to be good landlords.

Families with secondary suites need tenants, and tenants need these families to rent

these suites. It should be a mutually beneficial relationship, and we need to make

sure that what we're doing with the RTB and with the RTA is creating that field where

we can have people working cooperatively together.

So that's that on

part 4, though I will have a number of questions as we go through

committee, obviously.

When we talk about

part 5, "Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation Amendments,"

we support increased funding for the development trusts — Island, northern and southern

Interior — but we also want to emphasize the need to be able to show results and to

be able to work within the needs or work with the needs of those particular communities.

Part 6,"Municipal Affairs Amendments." We appreciate the clarification of the Local

Government Act stipulating that a collector must offer a delinquent property for public

auction. That's a sensible change. It ensures transparency in the tax collection process.

[3:40 p.m.]

This government does not have a good reputation for transparency, so anything we can

do to increase transparency is helpful.

We do look forward to exploring the bill in more detail in committee stage. I think

there's more that could have been done with some of the changes in here. Every time

we open up acts, it's an opportunity to look at all of the issues that can be addressed

and should be addressed, particularly as they relate to the housing crisis that we're

having right now.

I shall take my seat.

L. Doerkson: I appreciate the opportunity to present a few of my thoughts on the topic of Bill

42, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2023.

It's clear from the last number of speeches that I think we will certainly have much

scrutiny under committee stage of the bill and certainly a large focus, of course,

on the tenancy clauses that have been introduced here.

I want to speak to a few of the items throughout the bill. The first one is with respect

to the amendment around the replacement of the word "master" with "associate judge."

And I know that, arguably, there are many times that we spend a lot of time in this

House majoring in minor things, but this, to me, is a major step in the right direction.

I'm thankful for the change.

I know if you spent some time last week at the gathering in Vancouver, our First Nations

are doing incredible work in this province, and I think that they're pleased every

time, frankly, that we make a step in this direction. I'm pleased to see this today.

Certainly, I can be pretty supportive of any kind of a comment or a change like that

going forward.

I do want to speak a little bit about the Manning Park proposal, which we'll see under

this bill. We'll actually see a loss of, I believe, about an acre or so. But I want

to speak to that a little bit and just explain that I'm also in favour of this. I'll

explain why. I really am concerned with access to all of our parks. I understand that

in this case, this is a situation where we're removing this acre of land so that we

can actually repair bridges.

Now, I don't understand all the complexities around that, but I will say that I'm

favourable of it. The reason that I'm favourable of that is that I think we've seen

in other acts and other legislation where we've actually put some of the access at

risk by deactivating roads and deactivating bridges and those types of things. This

act will actually preserve that access, which I think is extremely important.

In Cariboo-Chilcotin, we have, obviously, a number of parks and some beautiful areas

in Tweedsmuir and Ts’ilʔos and in different parks like that. But we have seen deactivation

of roads and bridges in our area. I have a friend who was hurt quite seriously in

a what we refer to as a tank trap, which is a deactivation of a road, where that individual

actually had an accident while snowmobiling and trying to access the back country.

With respect to Bill 42 and making sure that this bridge is repaired and giving access,

I'm certainly favourable. I do know that it's not just access that may be taken away

through different legislation that might be in this House, but we've also lost access

because of certain events on the landscape, whether they be landslides or flooding.

I know that has happened in Williams Lake and, honestly, in this case in Bill 42,

we're talking about repairing a bridge, I believe. But in the case of the River Valley

Trail, I think the government…. I'm grateful to the government and the partnership

with the city of Williams Lake for the repairs that were completed in the River Valley

Trail to bridges where we would have lost all the access into that valuable park area.

I'm grateful that smarter people have taken this out of the park and are going to

take an opportunity to repair that bridge.

[3:45 p.m.]

I do want to talk about what seems to be the hot spot today, and this is the tenancy

branch. While we talk about who we're supporting or who we're not supporting in this

bill, my frustration is that we've had an opportunity on many occasions, in my offices

in 100 Mile House and in Williams Lake, to represent people on both sides of the tenancy

act.

It's frustrating to hear the villainization of landlords. I know that we're very familiar

in Victoria and other areas with large companies that would have an opportunity to

sort of do that commercial residential real estate, but that's not the case, really,

in rural B.C.

I can assure you, while we have obviously represented people on both sides — I know

this from experience of being a landlord of one or two homes, and I know this also

from the rental side as being a tenant — that this act or…. I certainly hope…. And

I'll get to what seems to be the intention of the bill in a moment. But what seems

to be very frustrating is that it doesn't seem to be serving either.

I really hope that, through committee and through different processes, we can improve

this bill to really serve folks. I can tell you right now, in Williams Lake, I have

a perfect example of an elderly woman who has rented her basement suite. For the last

year, she has been stuck in a place. She didn't rent it for any other reason than

really to fight off the cost of living. She's just found herself in a spot where she's

a little bit short at the end of the month, and she's just simply trying to make things

work.

The tenancy went bad, probably about three or four months after these two individuals

went into a contract. For almost a year, she has been trying to have this tenant removed

from her property. During that time, we've seen the RCMP involved. We've got the tenancy

board involved.

I guess why this is important is that this bill, under 42, suggests that we'll have

a new dispute resolution that will promptly solve problems. I certainly hope that's

the case, because this poor woman has really run the gauntlet. I do know that in her

case, as was mine…. I absolutely made the decision that I will never rent another

home again. Not, sorry, that I won't rent, but I will not rent any part of my home

again because of the challenges that we have faced in the past.

I know that when this woman is successful…. And she's really seen some pretty serious

things happen with her. She's had threats of a physical nature, which is why the RCMP

were involved. Basically, what she wants is to have control of her home again. And

there has been not a prompt response from the residential tenancy branch, and I feel

very sorry for her. We've tried to help.

She's a perfect example of somebody that was trying to ward off the affordability

crisis by renting out her home and now has found herself in an absolute nightmare

where she's afraid in her own home. I really hope that we'll understand fully how

people are being affected out there.

[3:50 p.m.]

I do know, without question, that when she finally takes the opportunity to clean

up after what's ultimately been quite a bit of damage to her basement, and when she

finally does have this tenant leave the premises, she will never again allow a tenant

in her basement. And that's awful. Had we dealt with that in a more timely manner,

had she not faced the fear that she has faced, I think that we may have another possible

rental in our community. But as it is, we're going to lose that rental.

I do know, also, that Bill 42 will make some changes to the residential act, enabling

the ability of the residential tenancy branch to actually implement facilitated settlements

instead of hearings. Again, I think that we're all pretty interested in understanding

exactly what all of that will mean.

I think we all agree that there are some pretty serious challenges. I mean, obviously,

we're in a housing crisis. At the same time, we're dealing with, obviously, an affordability

crisis. Of course, in my mind, what we're doing at the residential tenancy branch

in not speeding through hearings and not getting some of these things done, really,

is adding to the problem of a lack of rentals.

I honestly believe that I'm not unique. I mean, I had one rental at one point that

had two units in it. Frankly, after a couple of years of renting it, the damages that

were done and the frustration in trying to potentially remove a tenant were too much

for me. I just couldn't deal with it.

I also want to speak on behalf of tenants, because I've certainly been a tenant myself

too. This is exactly why acts like this and changes to the act through Bill 42 are

so important. I have also been a tenant in situations where there were serious items

happening inside the facility that I was renting and, frankly, paying good money for.

You would expect better service from a landlord.

Now, I certainly tried, and I think most people do. I think the member from Abbotsford

mentioned that earlier — that, really, what we're doing is creating rules and laws

for very few people. Most people can work things out.

I really do believe we have to take this opportunity to make Bill 42 very good with

respect to issues around moving through all of the bureaucracy in these departments.

I think, too, that we have to make a commitment at a provincial level. I think it's

important that we make sure that we staff this department properly.

I think that's been an issue, too, as of late. I think that the commitment there is

actually around 50 percent of what the staffing levels should be. I think that that,

too, is creating an incredible backlog of complaints, issues and challenges not just

for tenants but certainly for landlords that are faced with some serious issues.

Again, I can say with confidence that we've seen a lot of these challenges come through

our home or through our business or our offices. We'll certainly continue to advocate

for both sides of the equation. But I certainly hope that we can do our best to make

this a good bill.

I want to talk a little bit about all of our development agencies in this province.

I know that the bill will see some more funds — around $10 million, I believe — moving

forward to trusts like the one that works in our area, which is the Northern Development

Initiative Trust. Hopefully, we can get a better understanding of the numbers and

what we've done with respect to the funding here, because I do believe that these

trusts are a great way to move funds in different regions.

[3:55 p.m.]

I'll speak very highly of the Northern Development Initiative Trust, which is NDIT.

They've done incredible work throughout, certainly, my riding and others. I know that

they work very hard, but the real key to this is that they work at a grassroots level,

so they may be helping to fund building a new deck on the front of the local ski hill

cabin or snowmobile club's cabin or something like that. But it's the number that

I'm a little bit worried about.

Frankly, I think that we could find a way to get more funds into some of these trusts.

I think that it really does pay off in spades to so many of our local groups. I think

the winner really is the taxpayer of British Columbia, but I think it's a great venue

and a great way to get money into our areas.

Again, I'm certain that we're going to have many questions throughout the committee

stage, of course, and there's certainly things that I want to understand better, but

as the member from Abbotsford warned, I think we're all very curious to understand

better the tenancy portion of this bill and get a better understanding of how it might

affect our constituents locally.

It's great to have the opportunity to bring some thoughts from Cariboo-Chilcotin today.

Thank you for your time.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Kelowna–Lake Country.

N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's good to see you in the chair. No doubt you have a lot

of experience with this item, having led a committee not too long ago on the issue

itself — at least part of Bill 42, and yes, that's exactly the part of Bill 42 I want

to speak to.

I, like many in this House, have been a tenant and, like many in this House, am currently

a landlord. Looking at the bill, I'm hopeful that the proposals that are being contemplated

here — as we will canvass, of course, in more detail during committee stage — will

improve the situation for both landlords and for tenants.

I think it goes without saying, but it's pretty clear, that the landscape out there

for some landlords is not very good with bad tenants, and I'm sure the same thing

goes with some tenants with bad landlords. But quite frankly, at my office, I hear

more from the landlords that are having trouble in the current situation with their

tenants and with getting access to timely justice through the RTB.

To expand on that a little bit and on Bill 42, I'd like just to read some correspondence.

I've received many more than this, but this kind of highlights the issue. I'll also

talk about my particular situation, just to give it something a little closer to home

for me. Hopefully, again, that will inform government as they look at what they say

during the committee stage that, hopefully, will address some of these issues. The

challenge, of course, is not to identify people who send these notes in, so I will

look at this as I'm reading it.

Here's somebody who spoke to my CA at the office. They said they have a short-term

rental. The only reason — and this "only" in caps — they've chosen to not rent in

the long term is due to the "injustice towards landlords by the RTB." I'm using the

person's words.

"I've had many nightmare situations where tenants have moved walls, hot water tanks

to install a soaker tub in a bedroom; killed the lawn; dug up the grass to make a

garden in the lawn; moved in animals that wrecked the home; broke appliances with

pure neglect; plugged the plumbing with who knows what down drains and toilets; moved

in more tenants than were disclosed on the agreement; ran an unlicensed daycare and

had toddlers in the home with no diapers, destroying the furniture; moved in an old

fridge to act as an incubator to breed lizards and snakes, brought crickets and rats

into the home to feed the snakes….

[4:00 p.m.]

"My home is now sitting empty because of the inequity of the landlord rights in British

Columbia. You cannot get anyone out of the property, even with proper notice, and

have to give a month's free rent. The only way to remove a tenant is to use the home

for your own purposes, and the tenants have all the rights, in that you cannot move

them out, ever, even for renovations.

"My dealings with the RTB were beyond frustrating. I spent hundreds of dollars and

countless hours trying to jump through the hoops to file the right paperwork, written

the absolute correct way, and provide all the correct documents.

"A smart tenant will drag their feet on signing documents once they are in and have

no reason to be truthful when securing a property. They cannot pay damage deposit,

pet deposits, etc., as they know they can drag their feet for months and months.

"I ended up having to get the bailiff to move my tenants out after they refused to

move. I did find the RTB agents helpful. But the guidelines they had to work with

were arduous, and the paperwork and bureaucracy were overwhelming."

Here's one person that's very hopeful that Bill 42 will address some of the issues

that they are bringing up.

Here's another example.

"I wish to express my concerns regarding the rights, or non-rights, of being a landlord.

I feel the government needs to address the right to live in your own home and ask

why I have to pay a tenant when it's time for them to move out.

"I just recently gave my tenants the proper two months — actually three months — notice

to vacate so that I can move into my own home. I am now faced with being held in limbo,

not knowing when they are moving out and having to give them a month's compensation."

"This needs to be fair for both sides. I think it's time to revisit and revise the

rules to help with the housing situation. I'm not very interested in having any further

tenants, moving forward, if I'm being penalized for wanting to use my own home for

my family.

"Owners put themselves on the line when investing in a home and opening it up to rent

to help to provide a place for someone, only to be slapped with costs when it doesn't

suit the tenant. I have heard so many homeowners say they will no longer rent for

these reasons. It needs to be fair to both sides.

"How many times do tenants leave a home in shambles or disrepair, just to have the

landlord foot the bill? We need more protection for landlords so they are more apt

to rent again. Landlords are required to give more notice than tenants. Why?

"B.C. — revisit and revise these rules so landlords can feel protected when they rent

their homes to renters, and keep it affordable for homeowners."

They're hoping that Bill 42 will do a few things. I'm not too sure it will.

"

(1) Please remove the free rent clause when a landlord gives ample notice — for example,

two or three months — to move out. The tenant pays nothing when they leave a property

on their own accord, nor do they have to give as much notice, so why should we have

to compensate them?

"

(2) Damage deposits need to be allowed to be higher to cover the damages, especially

with rising costs of repairs.

"

(3) Have the act read clearly and in simple terms so we don't need lawyers to understand

it.

"

(4) Allow tenants and landlords to legally amend their agreement to suit both parties.

"We will never solve the housing problem by having such restraints and restrictions

on landlords."

The last one that I will read is actually from someone who works on behalf of landlords.

They've had many, many, many years of experience working on behalf of landlords and

working with the RTB. He says:

"This is a prime example of why landlords are not renting out their properties, which

creates a lack of rental stock. The RTB is clearly not neutral and favours the tenant.

It is not viable to play on a clearly unfair playing field."

This is not the only example of clear bias, which he continues to provide here.

"We have personally experienced a few other cases of blatant favouritism towards tenants.

As landlords, we have followed all the rules. The tenant has major infractions. Many

are safety-related and invalidate insurance, yet we cannot evict the tenant.

"This is on top of limiting our rent increases to less than 3 percent — zero through

COVID — when insurance, repair costs, property tax, utilities etc., increased by more

than 10 percent."

Here's the note in particular about the RTB and one of his clients. He says to them

that he understands their frustration and that the RTB favours tenants and hurts landlords.

Despite the tenants committing the following infractions, the landlord was not able

to remove them in a timely manner. Here are the infractions.

[4:05 p.m.]

"They continued smoke in and around the property, disturbing the family on the other

side of the duplex for several months. They removed the smoke detectors. They installed

a hot plate and toast oven in the basement despite being asked numerous times to remove

them. They have removed doors from bathrooms and disconnected fans in the basement.

They put holes in the walls. They put holes in the doors.

"They got into yelling matches with their neighbours. They smoked weed out of a bong

near the neighbours' children. They attended the landlord's personal residence at

9:30 at night, yelling and screaming, trying to serve them with an incorrectly filed

dispute."

And the last one is:

"They store items around the furnace."

Now, it goes into detail as to how he dealt with the RTB and how it was not fair.

I won't take time, Mr. Speaker, to go through all that, but you can imagine that it

was not what the landlord would deem fair.

Now for the personal story. Some 15 or 16 years ago my wife and I purchased a fourplex.

We purchased a fourplex because we were asked to by the Welcome Inn Society. This

is a society in Kelowna that was helping men, in particular, transition off the street

and stay off the street — so alcohol, drug, not first-stage but second-stage housing