Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 17, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 229

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Birthday greetings for Mike de Jong

M. Lee

Hon. J. Horgan

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 34 — Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs

Recovery Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. A. Dix

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Clover Clothing accessible consignment store in

Chemainus

D. Routley

COVID-19 impact and support for mental

health

T. Halford

Commemoration of Karl Featherstone at memorial for

fallen firefighters

M. Starchuk

Support for small businesses

T. Stone

Child care in Langley and fee reduction

initiative

A. Mercier

International Day for the Eradication of

Poverty

D. Davies

Oral Questions

Government action on repeat offenders and crime in

communities

K. Falcon

Hon. J. Horgan

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Lee

Government action on climate change and transition

to clean economy

S. Furstenau

Hon. J. Horgan

Hon. G. Heyman

Government action on repeat offenders and crime in

communities

T. Stone

Hon. M. Rankin

E. Sturko

P. Milobar

Tabling Documents

Office of the Ombudsperson, annual report, 2021-22

Civil resolution tribunal, annual report, 2021-22

Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia, annual report,

2021-22

Environmental Appeal Board, annual report, 2018

Reports from Committees

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act Review Committee, statutory review, June 2022

R. Glumac

J. Rustad

A. Olsen

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 28 — Municipal Affairs Statutes (Property

Taxation) Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

A. Olsen

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Municipal Affairs Statutes (Property

Taxation) Amendment Act, 2022

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 29 — Mortgage Services Act

Hon. S. Robinson

P. Milobar

M. Bernier

B. Banman

MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2022

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Chen: I am really happy to welcome a really big group of over 40 delegates

and members from the Sri Guru Ravidass Sabha temple, which we also call the

Gilley temple, in Burnaby, from the Speaker’s riding, here in the House

today.

Many members in this House know them really well. They’re all longtime

community members and leaders. They’re led by their president, Bill Basra,

with many long-serving members, including Mr. Hukam Chand, who is also here

today.

They are here for the celebration of their 40th anni­versary.

Over the past 40 years, they’ve served countless people in our community

with services. They’re not just a place of worship. They really connect

people together through the important work that they do. They also always

welcome you with delicious pakoras and food that we all love. They’ve even

delivered the food, especially during the pandemic, to many vulnerable

families in our community.

I am really grateful to have the opportunity to have a visit to the

temple regularly, with the hon. Speaker, who is also the first South Asian

Speaker in any Canadian parliament, and whom we’re all proud of.

[1:35 p.m.]

One thing I want to say: they’ve always welcomed me and many people,

regardless of our background, our heritage. They’ve always welcomed

everybody to their temple like a family.

I hope the House today will also make them feel very welcome, even

though in question period, we don’t always act like a family. I hope that we

congratulate them on their 40th anniversary and give them a very warm

welcome.

P. Milobar: I have a pair of introductions today. First, we’ve just finished a

meeting with the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association and their

members. I understand they’re having more meetings, both with opposition and

government, today. Will the House please make their delegation

welcome.

Secondly, I know we don’t use introductions to give belated birthdays,

but on October 9, it was my wife’s birthday. Perhaps more to our family, it

was also the day my daughter gave birth to our second granddaughter. Dylana

Kneeshaw and her husband, Jeremy Kneeshaw, welcomed into this world our

second granddaughter in four months now. I’m trying to catch up to the

member from Shuswap in rapid fire, here.

When you have a father who’s a professional musician, you wind up with

a musical name. So named after a song by Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington,

would the House please welcome to British Columbia, Azalea

Kneeshaw.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to join the member for Kamloops–North Thompson in welcoming the

members of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. We have Willy Manson,

Mark Tayler, Heather Elliott, Sunny Lo, Fatima Sa and Andrew

Wynn-Williams.

I really look forward to not only meeting with them again later this

afternoon, but also seeing them later at the reception they’re hosting for

MLAs.

Please join me in welcoming them here today.

A. Mercier: I would just like to give a welcome to Rick Everest from CKF Inc. in

Langley. Rick Everest serves as the director of sustainability for CKF,

which is a food packaging company in Langley. I can say I had the pleasure,

as counsel for Teamsters 213, to sit across the table from them. Now, we sit

on the same side of the table, looking for solutions for families in

Langley.

Will the House please welcome Rick Everest.

C. Oakes: I’m very proud today to have the Alliance of B.C. Students here in the

gallery. Throughout the course of the week, the student associations will be

meeting with members of all sides. I think it’s critically important, at a

time when we have so much opportunity for students in the province, that we

need to be listening closely, that students need to be a part of

consultations and that students need to be heard. I want to thank the

members today for presenting to our caucus.

We will be carrying your voice forward, and hope all members of the

House would please make them feel welcome.

B. D’Eith: It’s not every day, Members, that we get to introduce someone who was

introduced nearly 50 years ago in this House. The person who’s in the

gallery today was actually introduced by the then Premier, Dave Barrett, in

1973. This person also is an alumni of UVic law school, who shares that with

me and, of course, the former minister, Andrew Petter, whom we all know

well. Allan Krasnick is in the House.

Allan is credited with over 17 films and TV shows as either a

producer, crew or counsel. He’s a lawyer with Krasnick and Co. Entertainment

Law. He was really very, very important in the early development of the B.C.

film industry, which is now the third-largest producer of film and

television in North America.

I wanted to thank him and welcome him. Please let’s give Allan

Krasnick a big, warm welcome.

A. Walker: I see that around the corner up there are two good friends and

constituents who have taken the time to come up and visit me today. We have

Mavis Chatters waving to me, and Dave Chatters. They don’t look lost. They

know where they’re going. Mavis is a retired school teacher, and Dave spent

his career in the exciting world of microfiche.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

R. Glumac: I’d like to make an introduction. The last time I made this

introduction it was actually a proposal, but this time I would like to

introduce a new city councillor for the city of Port Moody, Haven Lurbiecki.

Would the House please make her feel welcome.

A. Singh: In the House today, somewhere up there, is Richmond city councillor

Chak Au. This is his fourth term. This will be his fourth term as a city

councillor and four terms as a school trustee. He is joined by his wonderful

wife, Christine Au, and their good friend Brian Lin, who is visiting from

Melbourne.

Would the House please welcome them.

B. Anderson: Today I’m delighted to…. It’s my mother-in-law’s birthday, and we were

able to actually spend some time with her over the weekend, which was really

lovely. We went over to the member of East Kootenays’, and we had a

wonderful meal at the Bowron house. She is incredibly compassionate and

supportive, and I just feel so, so grateful to have her in my

life.

Marian, happy birthday.

Hon. A. Kang: I would also like to recognize that the Alliance of B.C. Students

group is here, and I know that they will be speaking with us tomorrow

morning. I’ve had the opportunity to speak with many of the students as I

visit different post-secondary institutions. Thank you so much for bringing

your voice into the Legislature, and we look forward to hearing from you

tomorrow.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

B. Bailey: I’d like to welcome my cousin, who’s here in the House today. She’s

visiting with a friend from Pemberton, Megan.

Lana Wilson came to us from New Zealand. Like many good New

Zealanders, she worked as a lifty up at Whistler and fell in love with my

cousin Lance, who’s a millwright up there, became Lana Bailey. She’s a

wonderful contributor to our province. She’s an X-ray technician who’s

working here in Victoria, and we’re very lucky to have her.

Please help me

welcome Lana Bailey.

T. Shypitka: Today in the virtual gallery, I introduce the members of this

Legislature to the mourning residents of Fernie who, on this day five years

ago, went through a tragedy that is as impactful now as it was

then.

Five years ago three lives were lost to an ammonia leak at the Fernie

hockey arena. The Minister of Labour and myself represented the Legislature,

and I still thank the minister for his support during that terrible

time.

Let this Legislature share in giving prayers to the city of Fernie on

this sad anniversary and to the families of those that lost lives — city of

Fernie employees Wayne Hornquist and Lloyd Smith, and refrigeration

contractor Jason Podloski of Turner Valley, Alberta.

Hon. B. Ma: I rise today to acknowledge a constituent of my home community of

North Vancouver, Ms. Fausta Saloria Rillorta, who last week turned 100 years

old. Born October 13, 1922, she immigrated from the Philippines over to

Canada in 1979 with her husband and youngest five children and through hard

work, compassion and determination has built a wonderful life for her and

her family, which consists of 14 children and many, many grandchildren.

Would the House please join me in wishing her a 100th birthday.

Happy 100th birthday.

Hon. L. Beare: I have the joy today of introducing my constituency assistant, Gabe

Liosis, who’s seated in the gallery above. We all know the fabulous work

that our CAs do for us, but that’s actually not why I’m excited to announce

his arrival at the House today.

Over this past weekend, Gabe was elected to school board in Maple

Ridge–Pitt Meadows, making him one of the youngest-ever elected officials in

B.C. At 21, he is one of SD 42’s newest trustees.

So congratulations,

Gabe.

[1:45 p.m.]

H. Yao: There’s something magical about October 17 for my family and hopefully

also for everyone as well. I actually have three family members sharing the

same birthday on October 17, so I’ll take a moment to say happy birthday to

my baby sister Jiun-Ni Robertson, my cousin Dr. Jennifer Yao and, of course,

the son of my cousin, Christopher Yao.

Can everyone please just put your

hands together and welcome them and wish them a happy birthday.

M. Lee: Just so there’s no confusion, I do have four intro­ductions or

shout-outs today.

First of all, let me say to Greg from Langford, who I met on the ferry

last night…. As many members who travel on the ferry back and forth, Greg

from Langford certainly is a very passionate follower of what we do in this

House. He knows when Monday morning statements come, and he asked me to

greet him and welcome him to this House in this chamber today.

Will everyone

welcome Greg from Langford? And be forewarned, Greg will follow you and find

you on the ferry because he’s very keen on meeting all members of this

House.

I also wanted to join in welcoming and congratulating Chak Au in his

re-election in Richmond city council.

Chak, you’re a dear friend of the community. You give such great service to the Richmond

community. Thanks for that.

I wanted to join in welcoming the delegation that the Speaker so

graciously hosted today in the Ned DeBeck room for Sri Guru Ravidass Sabha

Gurdwara, celebrating their 40th anniversary. My good friends who were there

as part of the delegation…. Certainly, Bill Basra, the president of the

leadership team; Dr. Jassal; Gopal Ohab, who is a strong friend and

constituent of mine; and Mr. Parma also, who lives very close to my

community office on 40th and Main.

Statements

BIRTHDAY GREETINGS FOR MIKE DE JONG

M. Lee: My last introduction and birthday greeting of some sort. I did get

clearance from my House Leader to do this, because I know that we don’t

indulge too often on honouring members and colleagues in this House on

their birthdays. But this comes from a person who, as we all have…. We

have staff members who work with us both in government, both in our

constituency offices and our comms and our research.

Certainly, all members of this House know what dedication staff

have to us to support us. And I think with those professional

relationships that are generated…. I was contacted by a longtime staffer

of one of our members on this side of the House, the member for

Abbotsford West. She asked me — and I haven’t done this, so again, thank

you for the indulgence here — to bring greetings to the member, and I

think it just demonstrates, as you will see in her message, some of the

kind thoughts about someone we know and love well.

“Today I want to honour and celebrate your birthday. You are a

determined and dedicated individual to all those around you, which is

clearly validated by the loyalty of your community electing you for such

a long time as their leader, someone they have put their trust

in.

“Over all those years, you remain a humble servant to the people, a

role model to the inspiring youth of the future, a friend and confidant

to people like myself, sharing your wisdom, experience and knowledge.

You have given hope to many, and those hopes became reality. You have

given people validation that generated confidence and given people

kindness in spades.

“Having worked in legislative buildings over the years in any and

all government administrations, having a young protégé who has always

admired you for your humour, tact and being unselfish and

unrighteousness, regardless of how high or low the portfolio you were

given, never allowing the power of being a politician to change your

personality, you remain grounded and, more simply, always a person, with

your pickup truck and your flashy Miata.

“People like you are far and few between. I wanted to do something

special for you on your birthday and realized that that would be a very

difficult thing to do.”

So here we are.

Will all members of this House please join me in

wishing the member for Abbotsford West a very, very happy

birthday.

Hon. J. Horgan: You might think I’m getting up to comment on Greg from Langford.

But in fact, I’m getting up as the young protégé — younger than the

Government House Leader in any event — to offer on behalf of all of us

on this side, all of us and even some of us over onto the other side our

heartfelt happy birthday to someone whose been here since, well, forever

— forever in my experience, in any event. It is rare that we get the

opportunity to humanize our activities in this place.

[1:50 p.m.]

I want to thank the member for Langara for doing just that.

Talking about Langford and the member for Abbotsford West in the same

breath is something that I’ve never done until right now. I thank you

for the opportunity.

To you, if no one’s listening, Mike, happy birthday.

Introductions by Members

T. Halford: I just want to welcome, from Toronto, Forrest Parlee and his son James

to the House today for question period.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — OPIOID DAMAGES AND

HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Hon. A. Dix presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs

Recovery Amendment Act, 2022.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery

Amendment Act be introduced and read a first time now.

In August 2018, our government announced it had commenced a class

action lawsuit against more than 40 different manufacturers and

distributors of brand name and generic opioid medications in Canada. The

legal action seeks the recovery of health care costs incurred as a

consequence of those companies’ actions to market, promote and sell

opioids as products they claimed were less addictive, less subject to

abuse and diversion, and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal

than other pain medications.

These opioid products have, to so many in our province, caused

great harm and resulted, of course, in enormous costs to our health care

system in terms of emergency response and services in our communities,

in hospitals for treatment, and for ongoing outpatient care and mental

health and addiction services.

The Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act was

introduced and passed by this Legislature shortly after the commencement

of the proposed class action and allows the government to prove its

claim by relying on population-based evidence, thus allowing the

litigation to proceed as efficiently as possible. British Columbia’s

legislation is achieving its intended purpose, and certification of the

class action is expected to occur in 2023.

This bill makes a few minor amendments to strengthen the act by

extending its application to other categories of defendants, including

directors and officers of these corporate entities; clarifying the

formulae for calculating the market share of defendants; and allowing

the federal government contributes funding to B.C.’s health care

system.

I move first reading.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that Bill 34 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 34, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act,

2022, 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)

CLOVER CLOTHING ACCESSIBLE

CONSIGNMENT STORE IN

CHEMAINUS

D. Routley: Today marks the beginning of Small Business Week, a time when we

celebrate local businesses who are, in fact, the backbone of our

communities.

I would like to share the story of Clover Clothing, a very special

consignment store located in Chemainus. Owners Bronwyn Berg and Hal

Bennett met six years ago in a chance encounter involving a wheelchair.

You see, both had experienced life-changing events that had resulted in

each of them needing a wheelchair. And because custom-built chairs take

a while to build, they both ended up sharing the same loaner

chair.

Bronwyn spotted Hal one day in the loaner chair and approached him

and said: “Hey! You’re the guy who keeps stealing my wheelchair.”

Shortly afterwards, they fell in love and moved to Chemainus to start

their life together.

As a lifelong thrift store shopper, Bronwyn soon realized that

many thrift and consignment stores were not accessible to people who

used wheelchairs, and the idea of opening their own consignment store

was born. Not ones to back down from a challenge, they pursued this

dream even in the face of a global pandemic, opening their space in

early 2021.

They thrive to be accessible to people with disabilities, both

financially and physically. They chose a location in the Chemainus

Public Market, which has a flat entrance, automatic door openers and an

accessible bathroom. Then they added a wheelchair-accessible change

room. Clover Clothing continues to grow and has recently added a

selection of new clothing to their consignment store.

[1:55 p.m.]

Clover Clothing is a shining example of the perseverance and

dedication that we look to celebrate during Small Business Week. I want

to thank Bronwyn and Hal for their dedication to meeting the needs of

people in our community by ensuring that their store is open and

accessible to everyone.

Bronwyn schooled me. She said that much of her life has been like

wandering through a world of doors with no doorknobs, and she’s doing

everything she can to change that in Chemainus with her small

business.

Thank you, Bronwyn and Hal.

COVID-19 IMPACT AND

SUPPORT FOR MENTAL

HEALTH

T. Halford: World Mental Health Day took place last Monday, October 10,

raising awareness and mobilizing efforts in support of mental health.

The focus this year is on making mental health and well-being for

everyone a global priority.

People around the world have been affected by the COVID-19

pandemic through a variety of short-term and long-term stresses. Whether

it’s the worry around protecting oneself and loved ones from the virus,

the temporary isolation from friends and family members at the time

during the pandemic, or the financial impacts on business owners

struggling to get by or on the workers facing lost jobs or reduced

hours, we have all been impacted in different ways.

Through 2022, we also got hope. We have been able to reconnect

through the return of many public events in our communities, providing a

tremendous boost to our spirits.

Through the pandemic, it’s had many negative im­pacts. It

has also reminded us of how much we value one another and the importance

of looking out for each other — not just our family, not just our

friends, but also our neighbours, our co-workers. That’s why it’s so

important that we do look after those in British Columbia who continue

to struggle and have a hard time finding hope, because hope is

there.

Let’s all make a point of reaching out to someone, whether it’s

through a phone call, a quick visit or a check-in. Sometimes the

smallest act can make a big difference, and sometimes the smallest act

can just be listening. Let’s all work together to ensure that people

have access to timely mental health supports, no matter where they live

in British Columbia, whether it’s in urban centres or in smaller rural

communities.

Let’s all make mental health and well-being a priority for us

all.

COMMEMORATION OF KARL FEATHERSTONE

AT MEMORIAL FOR

FALLEN FIREFIGHTERS

M. Starchuk: Karl Featherstone was a paid on-call firefighter with the Lake

Country fire department when he passed away October 11, 2020, due to a

heart attack as a result of his work as a firefighter.

Last month, on September 11, I attended the Canadian Fallen

Firefighters Memorial where family members and current and former Lake

Country firefighters were there to see Karl’s name unveiled on the

Canadian firefighter wall. Fire department members from Kelowna,

Kamloops and Lake Country made the journey to Ottawa to be there to

support the family during this extremely emotional event. Joining Karl’s

partner, Bryanna, were Karl’s parents, Lynn and Bill, along with her

brother, Ben.

I had assisted Bryanna with the navigation through WorkSafeBC and

the public safety officer benefit process and only had the opportunity

to hear a few of the great stories about Karl.

Along with his family, 12 other coworkers shared the Karl stories

with me that weekend. Those that were in attendance were Lake Country’s

fire chief, Darren Lee; Deputy Chief Penner; Lieutenants Bloomer and

Gregory; firefighters Ghanda, Drinkwater, Matsuda and Bauld; who were

joined by Lake Country alumni, firefighter Young, now in Kamloops;

firefighter Turcotte, now in Kelowna; and D.C. Follack, from

Kelowna.

Karl was a woodworker extraordinaire. Tables, cabinets, fireplace

mantels — those are some of the things that people spoke of, and some of

those things are in a fire hall to be preserved forever. More so, the

talk was about his dedication to his family and to his community. It

takes a certain kind of person to jump out of bed in the middle of the

night to drive to a fire station to respond to a person in

need.

To Karl’s five-year-old son, James, and their four-year-old

daughter, Natalie, your father was one of a kind — talented, caring and

kind, qualities to be reflected on as often as possible. I didn’t have

the opportunity to shake your dad’s hand and say, “Thank you for

everything you did,” but I will cherish the stories passed on to me from

those I met that weekend, those who respected and cared for Karl the

most.

SUPPORT FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

T. Stone: This is Small Business Week, a celebration of B.C.’s hard-working

entrepreneurs and the many people they employ in our communities. Small

businesses, in­deed, are the backbone of our economy, providing

important goods and services and contributing to the vibrancy of our

neighbourhoods.

[2:00 p.m.]

While many of us make the point of buying local, our small

businesses are facing numerous challenges to remain viable. Many of

these businesses continue to struggle to recover from the impacts of the

pandemic. Revenue losses were staggering for some business owners,

forcing them to lay off staff or reduce their hours.

Speaking of workers, many of B.C.’s small businesses are trying to

cope with a growing labour shortage that has made it difficult to

maintain their usual levels of service.

Rising costs remain another huge concern for small business

owners, whether it’s the high rate of inflation, skyrocketing rents and

fuel costs or the taxes that chip away at their bottom line. I was

pleased to see some recent changes made to the unnecessary taxation on

the unused airspace above some business establishments — a good idea if

I ever heard one.

We all want our local businesses to not only survive these

challenges but to thrive. We all benefit when our small businesses are

successful. These entrepreneurs not only contribute so much to our

economy, but they employ our family members, friends and neighbours.

They are indeed the heart and soul of our communities.

This Small Business Week and beyond, I hope we will all make it a

priority to buy local and support these very important establishments in

each of our communities.

CHILD CARE IN LANGLEY AND

FEE REDUCTION

INITIATIVE

A. Mercier: Langley is a growing and vibrant community, and with SkyTrain

coming, more and more young families are choosing Langley as their home.

I see it every day when I go down to the park with my daughter and my

young son and my wife, the number of young families that are moving and

choosing Langley as their home.

Well, we’ve got good news, because child care is more important

than ever for families in Langley. Relief is coming for working families

on child care costs. Starting December 2, we’re cutting child care fees

for families in B.C. by as much as $550 a month.

People are struggling right now. We know that. Costs are going up.

I see it in my own life when I go to the grocery store or I fill up the

tank. This cut will put up to $6,600 back into the pockets of parents in

Langley who have kids in child care.

As the father of two kids under five, I know how incredibly

important child care is and what a significant benefit it is to parents.

I know the stress of not having it, of trying to figure out who goes to

work, and the positive impact it has on children. And the best part:

parents don’t have to do anything to apply for the fee reduction. We are

working directly with the child care providers, and over 96 percent of

eligible licensed providers in the province are participating in this

fee reduction. Parents will see it, come December.

This builds on the work we’re already doing in Langley on child

care, on the $2.3 million that we have invested reno’ing the Douglas Rec

Centre to create 74 new child care spaces, along with the recreation

centre, where I know folks in Langley and parents in Langley like to go

for Roaming Rascals. That will build 74 new spaces, including

before-and-after care, to help working parents so that they can get to

the jobsite and so that they can come home and spend time with their

families.

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR

THE ERADICATION OF

POVERTY

D. Davies: Today, on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, we

reflect on the progress that we have made as a total, entire community

to end poverty. We must also acknowledge the significant amount of work

that remains to be done to improve the well-being of all people in

British Columbia.

This year’s theme is “Dignity for all in practice.” This important

message embodies the idea that every human being deserves dignity as a

fundamental right. Today many individuals across Canada who live in

poverty are denied their dignity and are continuously

disrespected.

The silent and sustained violence of poverty is a result of

decisions and inaction that disempower the poorest and most marginalized

in our societies and violate their fundamental rights. Such harms

increase social exclusion and structural discrimination, which are just

a few ways that make it harder for people to escape poverty.

Poverty in British Columbia is high. One in ten residents are

living in poverty. Those who receive assistance to afford daily

necessities are left with annual incomes of less than 50 percent of the

poverty line threshold. To combat this, we must invest in our resources

that create jobs and generate provincial revenue so that we can improve

on and invest in our social services to help individuals and families.

These jobs and a strong economy also help lift communities and people

out of poverty.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’d also like to take a moment to thank the many people and

organizations across our province, like Jeff Leggat, who tirelessly

advocate for not only persons with disabilities but people living in

poverty across British Columbia and, indeed, Canada.

An inadequate standard of living is a cause and result of

injustices and inequality. This day honours the millions of people

suffering from poverty and their daily courage. We must recognize the

essential solidarity and shared responsibility that we all hold to

eradicate poverty and combat all forms of discrimination.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON REPEAT

OFFENDERS AND CRIME IN

COMMUNITIES

K. Falcon: People across this province are fed up with an NDP ideology that

puts the rights of violent repeat criminal offenders over the rights of

communities to feel safe.

We saw this again on Saturday, when the NDP mayor of Vancouver was

kicked out by voters tired of seeing violent repeat offenders facing no

consequences. That happened despite the former Attorney General and

likely the next NDP leader publicly endorsing Kennedy Stewart and, in

fact, spending the weekend door-knocking in an attempt to maintain the

status quo.

Well, the public finally had their opportunity to pass judgment on

the former Attorney General’s failed ap­proach to keeping our

streets safe, and boy, did they ever.

In light of that repudiation…. If they’re not going to listen to

the opposition, will the NDP Attorney General listen to the voters and

get rid of the former NDP Attorney General’s failed catch-and-release

policies, which are resulting in streets that are not safe, and finally

implement policies that put the public’s right to safety before a

criminal’s right to reoffend?

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the Leader of the Official Opposition wants to keep a

bumper sticker going. He would also know that voters repudiated the

former Solicitor General in Langley quite decisively over the weekend.

Nobody on this side is suggesting that has anything to do with the

policies that are largely driven by Supreme Court decisions, again,

which members on that side of the House know.

We have been working diligently to try and make the best of a bad

situation, which we inherited, quite frankly, from the former Solicitor

General and the former Attorney General. No policy change has happened

in the past five years — none, zero — except for our efforts to try and

make the best of a bad situation.

I know my two colleagues will be answering the rest of the

questions. I did not want this place to be sullied, quite frankly, by

comparing what happens in a municipal election, where 37 mayors were

defeated in big cities and small cities right across British Columbia….

This is for us to all figure out. To tie it to a public policy question

is absurd, and the member knows that.

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

K. Falcon: Well, that answer is part of the problem. It demonstrates exactly

the problem we have. The Premier might call it a bumper sticker, but let

me tell you. The peo­ple who are being assaulted don’t consider

this a bumper sticker.

We’ve got the former Attorney General, who’s going to be the next

NDP leader apparently, who spent five years doing nothing and finally,

under pressure, appointed two consultants to tell him how to do his job.

Then we get the current Attorney General flying to Ottawa with the

Solicitor General and pretending that there’s suddenly concern about a

bill that, while the current Attorney General was an MP in Ottawa, he

said didn’t go far enough on being soft on criminals. He couldn’t

support it because it wasn’t soft enough.

Well, let me tell you. Just this weekend, in Vancouver alone…. The

Vancouver police department received 1,500 calls. They were calls for

assaults, weapons, property offen­ces. We saw someone brutally

stabbed. We saw a man that was shot in the chest with a crossbow. We saw

a woman on the corner of Pender and Cambie sucker-punched in the face,

for no reason, by a random stranger; and yet another violent and random

assault in Chinatown where a 93-year-old gentleman, who had lived there

for over 30 years, thrown to the ground, with a broken hip.

[2:10 p.m.]

These are not bumper stickers. These are British Columbians that

are saying that the failed approach that this government has taken,

being soft on crime, is failing communities. That was the message that

was sent in every community across this province.

Enough is enough. Will this Attorney General end his predecessor’s

catch and release and finally put in policy changes that put public

safety first?

Hon. M. Rankin: First of all, I want to express compassion for those people who

are the victims of the random street offences that the hon. member

referred to. It’s simply unacceptable that this would happen in a

civilized society. We’re going to get to the bottom of it.

We went not to Ottawa, as the member asserted, but to Halifax —

the Public Safety and Solicitor General and myself. I’m very proud to

announce that we secured a national commitment to address repeat

offending.

What became clear when we talked to the other Attorneys General

from other provinces and territories is this is a national problem. It

is not limited to British Columbia at all. It was Manitoba and Ontario

that spoke passionately in response to our interventions — governments,

of course, that are a different stripe than ours. But we are united in

trying to get the attention of the federal government to step up, and

I’m confident that they will.

M. Lee: Well, the response from the current Attorney General, as far as we

know and what we saw, was that the Minister of Public Safety and

Solicitor General and this Attorney General went across this country to

Halifax to secure another meeting. We need action now. We need a

government that will take responsibility for community safety, not shift

blame to others. That’s all we hear from this government.

This government needs to recognize that the former Attorney

General’s soft-on-crime approach is not working. Vancouver’s Chinatown

is being torn apart by violent, random attacks, enabled by the former

Attorney General’s catch-and-release system.

The latest victim is a 93-year-old man who has lived in Chinatown

for 30 years and now lies in the hospital with a broken hip. And now we

learn that two dangerous prolific offenders have again broken bail, one

who viciously assaulted a longtime Chinatown security guard and another

who attacked an 87-year-old senior in Chinatown with bear spray. This

prolific offender has already breached probation 14 times but was given

bail and sent back into our community.

This lawlessness and chaos must end. When will this Attorney

General stop the catch-and-release system so residents will be able to

feel safe in our community again?

Hon. M. Rankin: I agree with the member for Vancouver-Langara. We need action now.

We are not shifting blame to others. We started this process of

engagement with the Urban Mayors Caucus of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. M. Rankin: We took their concerns to the Attorney General of Canada, and he

agreed that action was needed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, presumably the opposition will understand that we

cannot change the Criminal Code in a day. They will understand that we

need federal action, because that’s a federal area of responsibility.

And they will understand that we need funds to do the kind of things

that are necessary to deal with not just the crimes, which are horrific,

but with the causes of those crimes. We want to be tough on both crime

and on the causes of crime.

That requires spending money and a considerable in­vestment

in social programs. To make real change, we need a prolific offenders

management program, which reduced recidivism by 40 percent in one

year.

What did the opposition do when they were in government? They cut

that program.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order.

Hon. M. Rankin: We need complex care housing for people. We have done 20 new

facilities where 500 people and more are currently housed. More is

needed. We accept that.

We need community transition teams so that those who come out of

correctional facilities are looked after for at least 90 days now, so

they can find their way to the community without becoming repeat

offenders.

[2:15 p.m.]

We need to spend funds, and we need federal government help to do

that. The government’s action in cutting programs savagely doesn’t give

them credibility when it comes to dealing with the causes of repeat

offenders.

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

M. Lee: Well, I think we have agreement in this House. People need action

from this government now. With respect to the current Attorney General,

the concept of action now is not months and months and months of

talk.

Read the LePard-Butler report. It sets out that policy directives

can be given from government to the B.C. Prosecution Service. That’s

what we’re calling for. We are calling for those policy directives from

this government to keep repeat offenders off the streets. That’s an

action this government can take today.

People are feeling scared and vulnerable in our neighbourhoods in

the face of the former Attorney General’s soft-on-crime approach.

Communities like Vancouver’s Yaletown and Chinatown do not need more

doubling down on failed NDP policies. Under the NDP, Vancouver has

become the anti-Asian hate crime capital of North America, fueled by

false political narratives and scapegoating by the former Attorney

General.

NDP social justice activists have even called for small businesses

to be boycotted when they plead for more help. Activist groups like the

former Attorney General’s own Pivot Legal are attacking business owners

in Chinatown for merely calling for more police so they can feel safe

again.

When will this NDP government stop ignoring our demand for basic

public safety and restore law and order in Chinatown?

Hon. M. Rankin: There’s no question that the member is correct in saying people

deserve to feel safe in their community, whether it’s Chinatown or

anywhere else in this province.

We have 500 Crown counsel who are doing their job every day under

the law. The notion of a directive is something that has been discussed

in the past and is under consideration, but I point out to you that that

has to be….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. M. Rankin: I would, of course, hope the opposition understands that that

directive has to be compliant with the Criminal Code of Canada and with

the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To simply wave a magic wand and say,

“This is it,” when we have people on the ground, Crown counsel, every

day doing their job, under the leadership of someone who was appointed

under the leadership of the former government, who we have enormous

confidence in…. They are doing their job.

The things I spoke of to deal with the causes of crime, the root

causes I referred to earlier, require social investment. That is why we

went to the federal government and are going to be working with them to

get the funds we need to do more in that area — something the former

government did little or nothing about.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

AND TRANSITION TO

CLEAN ECONOMY

S. Furstenau: We do, indeed, have a lot of overlapping emergencies in this

province. I’d like to take a small inventory of what’s happening right

now, under this government’s watch.

A gas pipeline is being drilled under a sacred river.

Pri­mary forests are being cut for pellets to be burned. Old

growth continues to be logged. Work is underway for more LNG

development. Meeting with oil and gas lobbyists happens as many times as

80 times a month.

We have a future of more fracking, more drilling and more

pipelines, and this government has made it clear that it has no interest

in actually transitioning our economy. You can see the evidence in the

budget. The evidence is in the expected growing revenue from gas and in

the billions of subsidies to the LNG industry. CleanBC is and will be

used like a smokescreen, while the public chokes on actual smoke from

wildfires burning right now, and we are in the driest 90-day period in

Victoria’s history.

To the Premier, how does he justify expanding fossil fuel

development in a climate emergency?

Hon. J. Horgan: Certainly, we have experienced unpre­cedented wildfires over

the past five years. That’s public record.

[2:20 p.m.]

We are working diligently on CleanBC as something that we worked

with the former leader of the Green Party to bring forward. I’m very

proud of the work of the Minister of Environment and the former Green

caucus in being able to do that.

These are very challenging times, not just for British Columbia

and Canada or North America but globally. By Christmas, there will be

eight billion souls on this planet, and we have to have a plan that fits

into what the rest of the world is doing. That’s why we’ve been working

as best we can with the federal government to make sure that, as British

Columbians lift their weight, others do as well.

The member will know, if she’s been paying attention, that the oil

and gas subsidies she referred to have been eliminated by the Minister

of Energy. He’s happy to give her a briefing on that if she missed

it.

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

S. Furstenau: Good to have a little bit of patronizing response there. The

subsidies that I’m referring to are the $6 billion that were given to

LNG Canada as a giveaway package in Bill 10 under this government. Those

have not been eliminated. Those subsidies exist to prop up that

industry, when we should be transitioning to clean energy in this

province. Those are the subsidies I’m talking about, and I don’t need a

briefing on those.

This government doesn’t seem to know an emergency if it hits them

like a ton of bricks, except if a climate activist runs to be leader of

the party. They’ll respond to that like an emergency.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let’s hear the question.

Members. Members.

S. Furstenau: Stifling democratic debate in their own party, allowing old growth

to continue to be logged, pointing fingers, subsidizing oil and gas —

anything, it seems, but take the actual and urgent steps to move us away

from a fossil fuel–based economy.

Again to the Premier, atmospheric rivers, heat domes, droughts,

wildfires, species collapse — lifting our weight in B.C. seems to mostly

be about lifting our emissions. What will it take for this government to

treat climate change like the emergency that it is?

Hon. G. Heyman: What it takes for this government to treat the threats of climate

change as the emergency that it is, is our commitment to each other and

to the people of British Columbia to make the slow, everyday, steady

progress in every area of society — whether it is energy, whether it is

transportation, whether it is buildings and communities — to work with

local governments to bring down emissions steadily.

It’s to ensure we protect vulnerable people while we do that, with

the sorts of supports we see through the climate action tax credit, as

well as incentives, rebates and support to transition their homes to low

carbon and clean energy and their transportation through investments in

public transit, through acceleration of active transportation

initiatives, as well as supporting zero-emission vehicles.

There is so much that we have done; there is so much more to do.

It’s contained in our CleanBC plan, which also addresses reducing

emissions from the oil and gas sector by a minimum of 33 percent by

2030. We’re getting on with the work.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON REPEAT

OFFENDERS AND CRIME IN

COMMUNITIES

T. Stone: Well, British Columbians don’t believe the Attorney General’s

false indignation when he blames Bill C-75 for the chaos in our streets.

The Attorney General should remember his own words, requiring “that the

least onerous form of release be imposed is a good thing.”

Now, when the AG said these words, he was speaking for all of his

federal NDP caucus colleagues at the time. Guess what. Several of those

colleagues are now colleagues with him, and they serve here in this

chamber today: the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

They all are here and serve with this Attorney General. They can remind

the Attorney General of what he said, what his words were, because they

agreed with him that Bill C-75 was too lenient at the time.

[2:25 p.m.]

The impact of the NDP’s soft-on-crime approach is being felt by

all British Columbians, notably police officers on the front lines. As

Chief Mike Serr, of the Abbotsford police, said: “They put our community

in harm’s way, despite multiple arrests and multiple charges, and

they’re out in the streets before our members have even finished the

paperwork. Bluntly, I’m mad about it.”

Simple question to the Attorney General: when will the NDP keep

making people safe the number one priority and end the lawlessness and

the chaos which is gripping communities all over British

Columbia?

Hon. M. Rankin: I think it’s really important that we put the emphasis on the

things that need to be done to address the conflict, rather than simply

calling out each other. I actually voted against that bill, in case the

member didn’t notice. In any event, I did work in the Justice Committee

to try to improve it.

That’s not the point, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Shhh.

Hon. M. Rankin: The point is that all the Attorneys General of Canada, all the

Solicitors General and Public Safety Ministers were united in saying

that there were unintended consequences of Bill C-75 as regards repeat

offenders with these random street violence situations. Every part of

the country made that point to the Attorney General of Canada, who

listened.

Now, it’s important we focus on the things we can do, and not just

with Ottawa’s hoped-for funding that we will need but with what we are

doing already. We’ve brought back the prolific offender management

program. We have created peer-assisted care teams — the number one

recommendation of the experts that we appointed — which will provide

civil-led response to people who are in drug crisis or who have mental

health issues. We’ve got them rolling out in Victoria and New West, and

there’ll be one in the North Shore this fall.

Complex care housing is identified as an essential part of the

solution, and we have provided, as I said, $164 million in Budget 2022

to create 20 new facilities, where over 500 people are

housed.

Finally, it’s important that the new community transition team

expansion will help people who are leaving penal institutions to reduce

the chances of reoffending. For 90 days, they’ll be given wraparound

support. All of those concrete steps are there to ensure that our

streets are safer in the future. We’ve got lots more to do, but that’s,

I think, a significant commitment we’ve already made to address this

problem.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, let’s be clear. While the Attorney General stands here and

says, “Oh, British Columbians, I want you to know that I voted against

Bill C-75,” the other part of that story that he’s not being honest with

British Columbians about is that…

Mr. Speaker: Member.

T. Stone: …he’s not telling British Columbians that the reason he voted

against it was because it wasn’t lenient enough. It wasn’t lenient

enough; it wasn’t soft enough. That’s why the Attorney General voted

against it at the time, along with his other caucus colleagues who were

there with him.

Now, the lack of action on the part of this government is

breathtaking. There has been an explosion of violent crime and social

chaos as a result of the former Attorney General’s catch-and-release

system. Last week, Sergeant Steve Addison, of the Vancouver police,

said: “Without a doubt, it’s the worst I’ve ever seen.”

British Columbians deserve to be protected from violent prolific

offenders who assault but then are quickly released, only to assault

again, hurting more and more innocent people, innocent victims like the

young woman from Coquitlam who was struck in the head with a hammer

while walking down the street with her friends. The prolific offender

responsible for this vicious hammer attack has been in and out of the

former Attorney General’s catch-and-release system and was released just

days before this attack on this young woman.

What is it going to take for the NDP to take real action to

protect people from relentless, violent, random attacks? When will the

NDP end the former Attorney General’s catch-and-release

justice?

Hon. M. Rankin: It was the Attorneys General of other provinces — like I

mentioned, Manitoba and Ontario, in particular — who said that the

consequences of Bill C-75 and later Charter cases like Zora were not

intended. They are taking the kind of steps that we are taking, that I

mentioned in my last answer. To suggest that there’s a lack of action on

our

part is simply not credible.

[2:30 p.m.]

The hon. member referred to a chief of police. I’ll refer to

another, Victoria police chief Del Manak, who said in response to the

reinstatement of the prolific offender management program that the last

government cut that the program was a success. When it was in effect,

Victoria police were at the table with Corrections and social workers to

discuss how each individual offender would fit into the community. When

people were going to be released on conditions or had finished their

sentence, the prolific offender manager group would come together. We

actually had a say in discussing each individual case.

Rob Farrer of the National Police Federation also said that all of

the parties coming together and figuring out a model is absolutely

necessary. One of the things we’ve called for — that would be

Corrections, police, Crown, different ministries, mental health, social

development, everybody coming together to figure out a best practice and

move forward.

Those are the things we’re reinstating, among many other measures,

to make a real difference on the streets of communities, large and

small, across our province.

E. Sturko: This government has failed to take action in a timely manner. They

have had months to take action. In fact, they heard from the B.C. Urban

Mayors Caucus more than half a year ago about the issue of prolific

offenders. They’ve had months to secure a meeting with the government to

discuss Bill C-75 regarding bail. Every day they waited to take action,

on average four people were assaulted, randomly attacked, just in

Vancouver alone. With four random assaults taking place just in

Vancouver every day, that’s 40 innocent victims that have been assaulted

since this House rose ten days ago.

I have had to personally talk to people as a police officer in

Surrey and tell them that the person that hurt them, the one that

upended their lives and filled them with fear, is back out on the

street. And time after time, violent, prolific offenders with lengthy

criminal records are being released into the community to

reoffend.

A prolific offender who had been charged with hitting a

19-year-old student over the head with a pole and shouting racial slurs

at her — despite the efforts of police, he was released last week. This

is a violent, prolific offender who has 30 convictions — 30 convictions

— for assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats.

So when will this Attorney General get serious, please, and put

the public’s right to safety over a prolific offender’s right to

reoffend?

Hon. M. Rankin: The incident that the hon. member for Surrey South recounts is

horrific. We have spoken with the Urban Mayors Caucus before going to

meet our counterpart in Ottawa. We have had enormous support from them

as we’ve gone about this work.

When I personally met Attorney General Lametti, I had the letter

from them, the report from the urban mayors, and discussed it with them.

We are going to brief them in light of the success we had just last

week. Again, we’re working closely with them because we accept that

there’s a partnership between local government and the province. And we

need a partnership as well with the federal government, and that is what

we are achieving. We’re going to ask for continued support in a number

of ways.

Crown counsel, no matter how many they are, no matter how

competent they are, are subject to the laws of the land, and we can only

ask them to do what the laws require. And if those laws need to be

changed, that is exactly what we’re going to do. I wish we could wave a

magic wand and have Parliament make those amendments right now. But if

the hon. member is suggesting the Crown ought not to follow the law —

I’m sure she’s not — we cannot and will not do that.

What we are going to do is provide the supports that are needed to

be tough not only on crime and continue to prosecute but also tough on

the causes of crime.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Rankin: I should point out that we have increased, since we became

government, the budget of the Crown counsel office by almost a third. In

the last year of the former government’s mandate, the increase in budget

was less than 1 percent.

P. Milobar: Well, what this Attorney General fails to realize is we keep

asking them to bring in directives, which they are allowed to do, which

they can control, and they could have taken action ever since C-75 came

in. But this Attorney General doesn’t want us to actually know what he

said about C-75. He said it was too strong. It wasn’t lenient enough for

prolific offenders.

[2:35 p.m.]

He was more worried about the prolific offenders then than he was

about the public. The former Attorney General for the last five years

was of a similar mind. In fact, what he said in 2011 about the vaunted

prolific offender program was the same thing. This is what he says: “We

have serious concerns with the results of this program and are

continuing to investigate the aggressive policing tactics.”

Any day now, he is expected to be the next leader/Premier of this

province, and we’re supposed to believe that the prolific offender

program is going to continue on for any length of time, when you have a

current Attorney General who thinks C-75 was too lenient and a former

Attorney General who thinks the prolific offender program was too

aggressive. In the meantime, we have people getting assaulted, randomly,

daily — unprovoked strangers attacked, every single day.

A prolific offender attacked a 70-year-old stranger from behind,

punching and kicking him. And 45 minutes later, he approached a woman

from behind and punched her in the face. But he wasn’t done there yet,

sir. No, no, no. Then, an hour-and-a-half later, he stabbed another

woman. Quite an hour-and-a-half for that prolific offender. Two days

after, a 54-year-old woman suffered serious injuries, after the same

prolific offender attacked her in a violent home invasion.

This side of the House doesn’t think these are bumper stickers. We

don’t think the former Attorney General’s soft on crime approach of

catch and release is a bumper sticker. We’re with the public that want

to feel safe in their own communities, in their own homes. When is this

Attorney General going to take actual, meaningful, lasting action to

protect people versus the criminals?

Hon. M. Rankin: The incidents the hon. member refers to are horrible. Nothing

more, nothing less. My heart goes out to the victims of those

crimes.

In respect of the prolific offender management program, we have

committed publicly to fund that program, something that we needed to do

since the last government cut it, despite its 40 percent success rate.

That is something that will continue. That is what we’ve

announced.

This is a serious problem that sloganeering is not going to solve.

We are with the public. We are going to take the steps with our

municipal and with our federal partners to get it right for British

Columbians. That’s exactly what we’re doing.

[End of question period.]

S. Chant: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

S. Chant: Today we are very lucky to have a group of students from the Alliance

of British Columbia Students who are visiting from colleges and universities

around B.C. Among them are representatives from Capilano University, which

is found in North Vancouver–Seymour.

May I please introduce, first off, Aryanna Chartrand, who is the chair

of the Alliance of B.C. Students. She is the vice-president external of the

Capilano Students Union, and she’s an early childhood educator. Josh Thomas

is also here. He’s our director of policy and campaigns with the Capilano

Students Union. The student delegates that are here are Karandeep Sanghera,

Manpreet Kaur, Niko Williamson, Maia Lomelino and Alok Singh.

I hope that the House will make them very welcome, and I’m very glad

to see them here.

Point of Order

Hon. M. Rankin: Point of order. I would ask the member for Kamloops–South Thompson to

withdraw his remarks, the unparliamentary language accusing me of

dishonesty. I think that is unparliamentary and ask you to make a

ruling.

T. Stone: I withdraw.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour of tabling the Ombudsperson 2021-22 annual

report.

Hon. M. Rankin: I have three reports to table. The first relates to the annual report

of the civil resolution tribunal for ’21-22.

Secondly, I have the honour to

present the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia’s annual report

for ’21-22.

Finally, I have the honour to present the ’21-22 annual report

of the Environmental Appeal Board.

[2:40 p.m.]

Reports from Committees

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

REVIEW COMMITTEE

R. Glumac: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee

to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for

the third session of the 42nd parliament, entitled FIPPA for the

Future , a copy of which has been deposited with the Office of

the Clerk. I move that the report be taken as read and

received.

Motion approved.

R. Glumac: I ask for leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

R. Glumac: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make a few brief

comments.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act makes

public bodies more accountable to the public and protects the personal

privacy of British Columbians. It provides a right to access certain

records and personal information held by public bodies; outlines rules

for collecting, using and disclosing personal information in the public

sector; and provides for independent review and oversight.

The committee’s report, FIPPA

for the Future , makes 34 recommendations aimed at ensuring the

act remains both strong and relevant today and well into the coming

years. It also recognizes the fundamental importance of citizens’ access

to public records and their right to privacy, both pillars of our

democratic system. A key theme in the report is a call for a cultural

shift within public bodies toward increased transparency and openness.

This includes proactively releasing all records unless there is a

defensible ground for withholding them.

As we move towards this culture of transparency, the report

includes several actions that can be taken immediately to improve the

effectiveness of the freedom-of-information system. The act’s privacy

provisions must also keep up with a changing world and, in particular,

with emerging technologies. These technologies pose enormous

opportunities for improved efficiencies and service delivery, but they

also need to protect the personal information of British

Columbians.

Finally, the report recommends strengthening the authorities of

the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who needs to be able to

effectively investigate concerns and advocate for a stronger

access-to-information and protection-of-privacy regime. Taken together,

it is the committee’s hope that its recommendations will promote

increased trust in our public institutions. I would like to take the

time to express the committee’s sincere appreciation for everyone who

took the time to provide us with input.

would also like to thank all committee members for their commitment and

contributions to our robust debates throughout this process. In

particular, I would like to recognize the Deputy Chair, the member for

Nechako Lakes, for his support and assistance.

As members of this House are no doubt aware, there’s also a

considerable amount of work behind the scenes to support a committee. On

behalf of the committee, I would like to acknowledge and extend our

appreciation to the Legislative Assembly staff.

From the Parliamentary Committees Office, thank you to Jennifer

Arril, Karan Riarh, Darryl Hol, Jesse Gordon, Mary Newell, Emma Curtis.

From IT, thank you to Darren Parfitt. And from Hansard Services, thank

you to Amanda Heffelfinger; Billy Young; and the entire Hansard

broadcasting, transcribing and publishing teams.

J. Rustad: I’d like to add a few comments with regards to the report. First

of all, I want to thank the Chair from Port Moody–Coquitlam. He did a

great job in leading us through this. As you can imagine, a committee

like this was not easy with the variety of opinions that were on there,

especially in light of the work that was being done after the bill had

been modified in the fall, which put the committee in a very challenging

position. But I want to thank him for the work that he’s

done.

As well, I want to thank all the committee members for their work

going through this, as well as, of course, the Hansard staff. I think

this is the 14th committee or thereabouts that I’ve chaired or deputy

chaired, and they’ve always done such a great job in supporting our

committee work.

And of course, to the people that presented to our committee, took

the time — they’re passionate about freedom of information. They’re

passionate about what needs to be done. I really appreciate them taking

the time to bring that information forward to us.

[2:45 p.m.]

As you can imagine, this report was a report of consensus on all

sides in terms of the report coming forward, but that doesn’t

necessarily mean we agreed on everything. There are many things we had

disagreement on that we did not include in the report, and that’s fair.

That’s how these reports go in terms of the work that needs to be

done.

But the committee heard a variety of presentations from a large

spectrum of people that came in. There was one of the themes, I think,

that came through just about all of the presentations, which is that the

presenters also didn’t think that the introduction of fees was a great

idea. That was referred to, often, as being a toll on freedom of

information. That, of course, wasn’t something that we could agree on in

terms of how that works, but that was one of those things that,

unfortunately, was brought forward before the committee had the

opportunity to really do its work.

I also understand, you know, in terms of the fee, that governments

need money. Government needs money in terms of the process and the work

that’s being done. The amount of FOI requests continues to increase

within government. The amount of time it takes continues to expand. So

there is this steadying need that the public has for information — and

agree that the presenters felt that it was wrong that this fee should be

in place as a barrier associated to it.

But I want to touch on just a couple of little parts of

presentations — one in particular because it came from my riding. The

Construction Association raised a very interesting problem from a tenure

that was put forward in my riding. The tenure, of course…. People put a

lot of work and effort into it, a lot of expense, putting in time,

putting in bids, and the tenure was pulled without any explanation and

then was reissued, virtually unchanged, forcing companies to go through

the process again.

And all of this, of course, was done behind a veil of secrecy in

terms of how that process unfolded. That led to a lot of frustration and

anger, and it’s this kind of thing that…. You know, they put forward a

freedom-of-information request and the process seemed to be blocked in

terms of being able to find out why this had gone on.

But I don’t want to go on and talk at great length about all the

presentations, of course. Sufficient to say, the frustration that was

expressed by the Construction Association was expressed by many of the

people who came and presented.

We even had requests from some groups that called…. There’s a real

challenge with what was referred to as serial FOI requesters, which is

obviously…. You know, you get these problems with people just coming in

requesting information on everything. And how can we deal with that? We

had the range of that to what Sean Holman said, which was that there

never seems to be a stable world without freedom of information, and

that governments believe decision-making needs to be made in

secret.

On that point, I actually agree with Mr. Holman. Governments and

most parties believe in operating in the shadows. They have a desire to

be able to spin information rather than to have the full facts and data

out in front of the public. And it’s not just a problem in British

Columbia. It’s a problem, really, for democracy across many

jurisdictions.

To that end, one of the critical themes that I believe was in this

report, which I was very pleased to see, was the fact that we need to

have this increasing movement towards proactive disclosure. We live in a

very different age of technology today than what we lived in when

freedom of information was first introduced in B.C. The technology

exists today to be able to move vast amounts of data into the public

realm. After all, this is public data.

It’s not right that the public should have to pay to have access

to their own data. I believe the default, quite frankly, that we should

be working towards is to see that the commissioner’s job is to be able

to tell us what we cannot provide rather than to have to look at things

from a perspective of what should be provided.

By doing this, by having more proactive disclosure, we would

eliminate the need for all this costly and timely work that is being

done right now on FOI requests. It would also eliminate the need for

fees, or should I say tolls, and it would lead to a new era of democracy

in B.C., where transparency and accountability are real and not just a

slogan.

[2:50 p.m.]

It’s unfortunate that most governments, historically and current,

are not really interested in that. But my hope is that, one day, British

Columbia will see past the politics that we have around this that are

done in secrecy and lead to this new standard of open and transparency,

which could set a standard for good governance to, really, quite

frankly, democracies around the world.

A. Olsen: I would like to thank both the Chair and the Deputy Chair, who

spoke before me. As well, I’d like to thank the staff and the presenters

to the committee, the committee members and the staff, both in the

Legislative Assembly and in Hansard. I would just like to acknowledge, I

think, the incredibly challenging situation that our Chair was put in,

in having to chair this Special Committee to Review the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

I’m a strong proponent of committee work. It’s some of the most

productive and collaborative work that happens in this democratic

institution. Despite the good work of this committee, the government’s

actions last fall tainted the work of this report. The committee

consistently heard frustrations about the freedom-of-information system.

It’s expensive; it’s slow. The culture of secrecy in our institutions is

resulting in the public losing trust in their government.

On March 6, Sean Holman, from the University of Victoria, framed

the importance of free public access to their information like

this:

“Freedom of information is not just a legal mechanism that permits

access to government records. It is a statement about what kind of

society we want to live in…. We are increasingly turning citizens’ right

to know into the government’s right to say no to legitimate requests for

information.

“If the public cannot access the information…in an increasingly

uncertain…world, they will look to other forms of…control. They will

look to conspiracy theories…to extremist ideologies.”

By this definition, this B.C. NDP government is increasingly

regressive. Despite empowering the committee to examine, question and

recommend improvements, their actions seem to reflect a different

priority: their own pursuit to consolidate and protect power. A few

weeks after this committee was directed to do this work, the Minister of

Citizens’ Services tabled some of the most substantive legislative

changes the act has seen in a decade, ultimately undermining the good

work and good public process of the committee.

Right now there is waning public confidence in democracy. In a

time of growing fear and misinformation, in a time when people are more

likely to believe in conspiracy theories and less likely to trust their

government, this assembly needs to be held to a higher standard. The

truth needs to be readily accessible and available.

The committee heard repeatedly that we need to em­brace a

culture of transparency and take an open-government approach. Through

the process, we heard about frustrations created by the

freedom-of-information system. Accessing public information can be

expensive, and people frequently experience long delays in getting the

information they request. There were few positive comments about the

current user experience. A majority of the participants complained about

the addition, last fall, of an application fee, further limiting free

access to their information.

I was excited by the idea that this institution might one day

embrace open government and a culture of institutional transparency. The

current gatekeeping of public information is unnecessary, and cabinet

secrecy only breeds mistrust and misinformation. The committee heard of

how our government can achieve open government by more aggressively

adopting publication schemes to proactively disclose far more public

information.

It’s time for the cabinet ministers to emerge from the shadows. We

know that the rapid development of technol­ogies such as

artificial intelligence in decision-making means we need a more serious

and detailed approach than tinkering around the edges to make it more

expensive for the political opposition to dig up dirt. We need to reform

our thinking, from the regressive approach embraced by this current

government to a progressive vision embracing open government.

The committee work summarized in this report was both necessary

and futile. It is necessary to update deficient legislation, and despite

the changes to the act last fall, there’s still a long way to go — as we

heard from numerous people who presented to the committee. But it was

also futile, in that we faced time constraints and legislative changes

that limited and undermined our work.

[2:55 p.m.]

Instead of supporting the committee, engaging the public and

offering recommendations to inform changes to the act, the government

decided to intervene mid-process and pre-emptively undermine committee

efforts to satisfy government’s own agenda. As the B.C. Freedom of

Information and Privacy Association said in their presentation to the

committee, increasingly, public bodies have a “culture of secrecy by

default, in which there is a focus on the risks associated with

releasing records.”

This is a dangerous path from democracy to autocracy. In a healthy

democracy, those entrusted with the most power need to show humility in

their service to the people. This report has the consensus

recommendations that were possible under the near impossible conditions

created by this government. It is our responsibility to protect the

integrity of this assembly so it can protect those it

represents.

If this government is serious about democracy and ensuring the

health and well-being of the freedom-of-information system, as they

claimed they were last fall, they will act upon this report with

immediacy. So my question to the government is this: will they commit to

open this act up and implement the recommendations put forward by this

report?

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. S. Robinson: I call continued Committee of the Whole, Bill 28, Municipal Affairs

Statutes (Property Taxation) Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 28 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

STATUTES

(PROPERTY TAXATION)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 28;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:58 p.m.

The Chair: Hon. Members, I just wanted to provide some greater clarity on

a bit of a discussion that was occurring the last time we were here

in committee. I reviewed the practice and precedents of the House

with respect to debate on amendments moved in the Committee of the

Whole.

The review revealed that the practice has been over the years

a little inconsistent. The standing orders and our procedural

authority, Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia,

are clear in their direction that a member may speak more than once

to an amendment moved in a Committee of the Whole. There’d been some

question on that. They don’t have to, but they may.

That said, of course, I would ask, as always, to be conscious

of time and the productive use of this House’s time. Of course, I

retain the responsibility to guide members who may be less conscious

of that with respect to repetition and relevance. So just to provide

that clarity.

We, of course, are now here to discuss Bill 28, and I believe

we were on clause 2 at the time when we finished up last

time.

On clause 2 (continued) .

P. Milobar: While it may sound like it’s some repetition, there are some

important points I think we still need to get a better handle on. One of

the amendments that would have sparked that review — and thank you for

that review, Mr. Chair — was our amendment to try to remove the 95

percent.

Now that that amendment has failed, I just want to get some better

clarification around the 95 percent from the minister before we move on.

After all, this is a legal document once it’s passed, and

municipalities, especially with the massive changeover we’re seeing

across this province, are going to have to work with this document and

land­owners to try to figure out and guide their way

forward.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’m wondering. In regards to the 95 percent land value ratio, can

the minister point me to where there is any accommodation for

interpreting any rounding that may have to happen if it’s not exactly

under 95 percent?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to remind the member that it can be over. I suspect that

his question is on if you’re just under and that that’s really the frame

that he’s coming from.

I want to share with the member and with everyone in the House

that it’s the working group that sat down, took a look and actually

modelled out this 95 percent ratio. They determined that with that 95

percent ratio, you get almost all of the properties that have been

identified for development potential, that have been pre-identified as

being challenged.

If someone falls short of this threshold, because it’s an annual

review, it’s quite likely that the following year, they would fall into

the 95 percent frame if they’re just not there yet. But the initial

analysis identifies that the bulk of the properties that are currently,

right now, facing these challenges would be captured by 95

percent.

P. Milobar: To be clear, then, with this legislation, if your improvements on

the land are 5 percent of the overall assessment, you would qualify. If

it’s 4.9 percent of the overall assessment, you would qualify. But if

it’s 5.1 percent of the overall assessment, you would not qualify,

because there is no mechanism in this bill to allow rounding to get to

the 95 percent.

Hon. S. Robinson: There is no rounding mechanism. I’m sure the member can recognize

there needs to be…. When we work with thresholds, we pick a

threshold.

I also want to remind the member that the following year, given

the appreciation that happens, it is quite possible — perhaps, I would

even suggest, likely — that that would shift so that in the following

year they would benefit.

P. Milobar: I guess the concern is…. This was going to lead into some other

questions around the five-year term that a municipality could use. The

minister had several times referenced other permissive tax exemptions

that are out there. But those permissive tax exemptions — when a city

grants one, for whatever reason they’ve set out — are typically for a

five-year term or a ten-year term. The property owner knows that, and

they can budget accordingly.

[3:05 p.m.]

Most are set up — not all, but most — so that if it’s a ten-year

setup, you get an exemption of 100 percent for the first five years, and

then 20 percent gets added each year over the proceeding five years. So

at year 10, you’ve kind of weaned yourself back on to a full property

tax, and it’s not a big hit to you all at once.

Under this legislation, what it’s sounding like is…. Not only are

you going to be potentially flipping back and forth on whether you

qualify, based on a 0.1 or 0.2 change in a calculation, but also, a

municipality has to review it yearly, instead of just giving a five-year

exemption.

In other words, if a property this year is at 4.9 percent, with an

improvement ratio, they would qualify. They have to reapply next year.

If they’re at 5.1 percent…. Land values and improvement values can

change, and that calculation can change. You’re at the mercy of B.C.

Assessment at that point.

The first year they qualify at 4.9. They think they have,

hopefully, a five-year break on taxes. The very next year, at the last

minute, before tax bills start to come out — they’re only going to find

out, just before the tax season, what their assessment is — they’re

going to find out that they’re at 5.1 percent. Suddenly they’re back to

100 percent of taxation, which got them in trouble in the first place.

Then on year 3, they’re back at 5 percent or 4.8 percent, and they

qualify again. Then they’re back to 5.2, and they don’t

qualify.

Why did the minister not contemplate having a rounding mechanism

to at least try to keep whole those properties that are on the bubble?

More importantly, if a municipality has deemed this to be an area where

they want to see development — the airspace is the assessment problem;

that is where they want to see growth in the next four or five years —

why was there a cap that makes this a yearly application process,

instead of like the other property tax exemptions that municipalities

access and are trusted with, where it gets approved once and it’s for

that certain time frame?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to note, for the member, that municipalities

asked us for structure. They wanted numbers. They wanted a line. That’s

why we worked with them. It’s why we worked with our working group to

look at the properties that are currently recognized to be challenged

with this and identified 95 percent as the right ratio which would work

and capture almost all the properties.

Certainly, in urban areas, the assessment was that all of them are

well over 95 percent. So there’s not really even a question of on the

edges. That wasn’t the case in the analysis that was done.

We also know that historically, assessed land values for highly

developable properties pretty much increase year over year, while the

improvements decrease over time. The member’s example of a

back-and-forth is not likely at all, given historical evidence. It’s

within that frame that this was identified as a good balance.

[3:10 p.m.]

The last comment I will make on this is that every year, for most

permissive tax exemptions, local governments review them. Certainly when

I was on council, every year we would review, for example, faith

communities. Every year it came back so that we could renew our bylaw,

renew our commitment to the faith communities.

This is still part of the routine that local governments have, and

they, too, want to be able to review them every year to make sure that

it’s still doing what it’s supposed to do. So they’re happy to take this

on every year as part of their regular annual work program.

P. Milobar: Well, I think comparing a potential development property and a

developer’s ask of city council to waive significant property taxation,

or a small business owner in the public conversation piece around a

council table — based on my experience — would be dramatically different

than the public conversation and appetite for waiving historical

property taxes that are essentially turned into a rubber stamp exercise

for faith-based groups, as the minister just referenced.

The two are completely different conversations in the eye of a

property taxpayer, who may see a shift in taxes over to their rate

class. The politics of it is completely different. One is long-standing

and, literally, practically year in, year out. If anything, more

churches get added if a new church gets added into your

community.

The minister said that the municipalities were asking for

structures. Were the municipalities…? I will note that the minister,

over the break, the week that we were gone here…. I still haven’t seen

any of the notes from the meetings — not surprised. I guess we’ll still

have to FOI that. But this bill will be long since passed from there, so

on the consultations.

The municipalities may have asked for structure. Did they ask for

one-year-at-a-time approvals as the structure, or did they ask for a

five-year maximum, and the minister has chosen to make it a “year by

year for up to five years” structure?

Hon. S. Robinson: The local governments were keen to review, on an annual basis, the

nature of these properties. For example if, during the year, the owner

of the land demolished the building, and there is no longer a tenant,

they’re technically no longer eligible. So it would be helpful for the

local government to know how things are playing out across their

communities and making decisions accordingly, based on changes that

might happen to the property.

P. Milobar: The minister referenced several times the soon-to-be former mayor

of Vancouver being supportive of this particular bill. He was definitely

not. I read some of his quotes, from the temporary bill the minister

brought in, supportive of the previous bill — that zero municipalities

action on zero properties. So this bill is supposed to be the

replacement for that — that municipalities will assume that there is

going to be action.

Vancouver, according to the minister, is half of the properties.

So I would think that what the mayor of Vancouver’s opinion is on this

would be somewhat consequential, given the fact that they are half of

the properties that would be impacted.

[3:15 p.m.]

Has the minister given any thought at all to pausing this bill? We

could still have it passed long before this House rises at the end of

November. But to be able…. When last we spoke on this, the minister

pressed me and asked me which mayors I spoke to in the middle of a

municipal campaign. That just ended on Saturday.

I guess I would ask the minister: has she given any thought to

pausing this bill to do some follow-up outreach with the municipalities

where we have seen significant change over, not just with mayors but

with councillors on those councils, in municipalities that this would be

impacted on, given that now they can actually see the full context and

writing and nuance of an actual piece of legislation?

You have Vancouver, where Kennedy Stewart will no longer be the

mayor on November 1, and Surrey, where Doug McCallum will no longer be

the mayor. Vancouver, very not surprising — I said that in here — that

an NDP mayor would support an NDP minister’s bill. I guess it wasn’t

shocking to see that many NDP ministers were out door-knocking for Mayor

Stewart, but that’s not the way forward for the next four

years.

We have change in Kelowna. We have change in White Rock. We have

change in West Vancouver. We have change in Lions Bay, Langley, Maple

Ridge — all communities that will likely be impacted with airspace and

this type of potential.

I ask that with sincerity, because the previous bill was not

actioned by any municipality. The only way to have a successful piece of

legislation that will bring true relief to these business owners on

these properties that are being hammered with airspace taxation is to

have a bill that local government will actually action.

Again, this bill would take effect on royal assent. This bill has

areas in clause 2 that may create unease for new councils where they

might want to see things change slightly. Is the minister prepared…? Has

the minister contemplated just putting this on pause for a few weeks so

that those new mayors and councils can be reached out to, have a quick

conversation with them and find out if this is, at least, reasonably

going to be actioned or not?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s concern. But I do want to point out…. He

keeps suggesting, somehow, that because the outgoing mayor of Vancouver

was an NDP MP that somehow he supports everything this government does.

I want to remind the member….

He pointed out that the interim recommendation that we put in the

interim legislation was not supported. So it’s not like we get automatic

support. It’s a bit contradictory to suggest that’s the case when, in

fact, our interim measure was not supported at all by the outgoing mayor

of Vancouver.

I want to remind the members that the work that the technical

group undertook was a technical group with staff in municipalities

around urban centres, including from my community, where the mayor

didn’t change. The technical working group of staff who are familiar

with the issue, who have been around asking for a permanent solution

that allows them to make the choice of permissive tax exemption is what

we’ve been working on for the last two years — 2½, almost three

years.

To pause, as the member suggested, would be, I would offer, a

significant pause, given that they’re not going to be sworn in for three

weeks and then to bring new councils up to speed, in terms of the

hierarchy of things that they need to be briefed on. That would move us

into a spring session, which would then delay another year of relief, a

window being missed by businesses.

So we’re not going to pause. We’re going to keep moving forward.

The staff at local governments…. They have worked with us in partnership

to craft legislation that delivers a tool. Staff do have work to do

around local government tables to bring new councils and new leaders up

to speed on what is a pretty technical piece of legislation. At the end

of the day, our focus is to give a tool that pro­vides relief for

these local businesses, these small businesses.

[3:20 p.m.]

I would hope, and I imagine, that the staff around local

governments — particularly in Vancouver, who have worked closely with us

— understand it and will be able to explain it to a new council. I want

to congratulate the new council and encourage them to take a look at

this and to act as quickly as they can to bring the relief that small

businesses and not-for-profits in communities, particularly in Vancouver

— I know that the member sitting in the chair is very familiar with the

issue — have been asking for.

Again, I want to thank my staff for their diligent work in working

with staff groups all across mostly urban centres in British Columbia to

deliver a tool that would work and to do it as quickly as we can so that

for the 2023 tax year, there is relief in sight for these small

businesses.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the minister bringing this bill forward. We’ve had a

look at it.

Raised to us by one stakeholder was the potential that this bill

opens up, due to many of the leasing arrangements in a situation where

tenants pay the taxes of their landlord. The approach that’s taken, the

concern that was raised by the stakeholder, is that this could

potentially create a tax shield for the property owner. They’re still

benefiting from the elevated, increased value of the land, but now

they’re paying lesser taxes on it because they have created a leasing

arrangement with their tenants that passed that tax down to the local

small business — the mom-and-pop shops.

Could the minister maybe provide a little bit of in­sight?

It was important we ask this question, because I think it needs to be on

the record — the government’s thinking in structuring a bill this way,

recognizing that this is indeed the relationship between tenants and

their landlords.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for Saanich North and the Islands for

asking the question, because it’s been, I guess, sort of a frustration

of mine. The Commercial Tenancy Act is a very, very old act. I don’t

know that it delivers what it ought to. That’s a huge undertaking, in

terms of advice that we got around the risks of going into that act and

what that would look like.

We took the concerns that the member rightly raises and that the

stakeholder rightly raises…. That’s why we’ve limited it to five years,

so that it can’t become the loophole that is being suggested here, so

that’s it’s very time-limited.

And there has to be a business on site. They can’t get this tax

relief if there’s no business on site. If this is developable land and

there’s nothing happening on it, they have to pay the full tax. If

there’s a business on site, they can get up to five years of relief. But

it’s just five years of relief, with the idea that you have to start

doing the redevelopment process.

I’ll just point out for the member that when we did the interim

property tax legislation, we did it with this lease in mind — it’s the

flow-through, so the property owner doesn’t necessarily feel the pain of

sitting on developable land — and the local governments found it

burdensome to have to check everyone’s leases. That became a barrier,

for them, to taking this up.

[3:25 p.m.]

With all of that in mind, thinking about all of these challenges,

we crafted this piece of legislation that took all of those various

elements, so that it made it easier for municipalities to adopt. It

provides them with the opportunity to check it every year to make sure

that these properties continue to serve a public good — which is that

there’s a business, the mom-and-pop shop idea the member speaks to — but

it’s only five years, so that everyone can make their plans accordingly.

They know that there’s a time limit.

At the end of the day, I think every member of this House

recognizes that if a local government has rezoned the land or has done a

neighbourhood plan update — changed it, in some ways, by the OCP, saying

there should be more here — then it is up to the property owner to do

something. If they’re not going to do something, then there’s a price to

be paid for that. They can sit and wait, but there’s an increase in

their taxes. Balancing all of this is what we’ve tried to do

here.

A. Olsen: Just one follow-up. I thank the minister for the response. A

question with respect to that — this may have been answered, and excuse

me if it already has: what type of business in that location is

suitable, in order for that property to be able to comply with these

rules? You can think of all manner of business, from a retail shop all

the way through to just a numbered company, that is located at that

location. Would those two examples — and there are many different

examples — be treated similarly?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know the member, coming from local government, will appreciate

the role that local government has around how they provide a business

licence, for example, to whatever the business is. As long as it fits

within the zoning, for the purposes of this legislation, it just needs

to be a business. It’s not whether or not it’s mixed or it’s light

industrial or commercial. Really, the local government makes that

determination, and for the purposes of this legislation, it’s just a

business.

A. Olsen: I thought I only had one more question. That raises a question for

an area like the southern Gulf Islands, which don’t have business

licensing, as an example, and how we’ve seen a dramatic increase in the

cost of land.

On the southern Gulf Islands, as an example, there’s so

little land that’s zoned commercial or industrial, but they don’t have

business licensing in some of those areas. How does that get

handled?

Hon. S. Robinson: Perhaps I was sloppy with my language. They don’t need a business

licence per se. There just needs to be a business operating there, but I

want to remind the member, and all members of the House, that this

wouldn’t necessarily apply to regional districts. This is for

municipalities.

P. Milobar: I just want to pick back up. I know the member from Saanich North

and the Islands had a few questions to get to another meeting, so I just

want to loop back.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The minister was talking about how it was a technical staff

working committee. Frankly, I’d expect nothing less. That’s typically

what happens, in who municipalities would send and things of that

nature.

But just as the minister referenced in her last answer to me, her

staff has been very integral as well. That’s the way it should be. The

staff are working very hard on the technical, but ultimately, just as

we’re doing right now, elected officials in a municipality are going to

decide whether or not a property qualifies or not by the rules in clause

2, and how they’re going to be actioned, or not.

[3:30 p.m.]

Again, it’s with that backdrop that I was asking about delaying

for a few weeks to try to check in with councils. There are not that

many councils that would be significantly impacted by this legislation.

There are a few. Vancouver has half of the properties, by the minister’s

own calculation. They have a very professional staff, a very large

staff. I’m sure they could brief, and bring up to speed, their council

in fairly short order, just to give them the highlights of a bill like

this.

Not to split a fine hair, but it’s not three weeks before they’re

all sworn in. All municipalities are sworn in, in almost exactly two

weeks, 15 days. It’s November 1. I say that because there is an urgency

of time, but royal assent could happen. It happens several times in a

session — typically, it has, at least under this government. We are

literally talking a few weeks. If mayors and councils won’t have been

briefed on this within that time frame anyways, how are they actioning

their bylaw that they need to action to put this into place?

I’m not talking about jeopardizing the 2023 property tax here. I’m

talking about trying to advance and get some consultation with new

mayors and new councils, through very large areas of this province that

have a significant stake in this, but the minister seems unwilling to do

that.

What I’ll now ask the minister is around clause 2 and some of the

numbers she’s provided to us. Has the minister, with her staff and with

the technical working group…? The previous bill had zero uptake. The

private member’s bill was flatly rejected by the government. Meanwhile,

we have an urgent need to try to get some of this building going and

ease to business owners that are on these upzoned properties with

airspace.

What type of modelling has the minister received, in terms of the

number of units of housing that are tied up — either in the 3,000 lots

in Vancouver that have been identified or in the 6,000 lots,

provincially — that have been identified that this bill hopes to

address? Hopefully, there has been some modelling done, based on OCPs

and densification, of how many housing units are sitting in limbo right

now — that are on chunks of land that could be developed but that are,

for various reasons, not.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to the chair. New glasses?

They look great.

I’d said before, and I’ll just remind members that our best

estimate is that there are about 3,000 properties in the city of

Vancouver alone, and about 6,000 properties provincewide, that are in

this situation. The zoning that currently exists isn’t specific enough

to identify number of units. There’s just not enough detail

there.

I know that the members can say that with 6,000 units, we’re

talking thousands and thousands of potential homes that have yet to be

developed. I would urge those who have the opportunity to do that to use

those lands wisely.

Our ability to actually model and get a number would be

impossible, given the challenges with the level of zoning that has

currently taken place.

[3:35 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Just one more question around the staff be­ing the technical

working group and things of that nature. If it has been a somewhat

purely technical exercise, in terms of professional public service staff

for the province interacting with the professional planners and other

staff within municipalities — them putting their best guess as to what

would be palatable to each of their elected bodies and whether the

vagaries of election cycles and things of that nature…. Most of them are

fairly well experienced and get that.

If it has been somewhat of a much more technical exercise,

especially on all these sections and in clause 2, why is the minister

not willing, then, to release the contents of what that consultation and

work actually was, without the potential of an FOI and massive

redaction, when it sounds like it’s been predominantly technical, not

political, in discussion?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I do want to point out to the member that this has been a

problem that has been around, probably, since 2010, ’11, ’12 — somewhere

in there — that has been raised to the provincial government over time.

So this has been…. Various local governments, regardless — because there

have been many elections since then — continue to struggle with this

problem.

Our interim solution, until we could figure out how to get to this

solution…. I would say that while there wasn’t any uptake, it really

forced a discussion at that very technical level, as the member rightly

pointed out, to figure out…. We all agreed what the problem was that we

wanted to solve, and both the local government technicians and the

provincial technicians sat down to do the work to get us here so that

everyone has been working towards the same direction.

We do have a formal process that is available through a simple FOI

request, and that’s how anyone can access any activity of government —

through a process that has been designed to release information

appropriately. The member…. As I said a couple of weeks ago, I hope they

took us up on that and filed the request so that we can get that

happening and moving as quickly as possible.

P. Milobar: Although I appreciate the minister guiding me towards FOI, it’s

not simple, and it’s not straightforward. Typically, they come with

extensions requested. There is now a fee associated with it. You usually

get pages and pages that have been redacted for no apparent reason,

because you’re at the mercy of whatever

section gets quoted when they

redact it.

The question to the minister was: why the unwillingness?

Government can also proactively release. They don’t need FOI. The

government can choose to initiate. And in an effort of transparency…. I

recognize that that’s not always the easiest thing for any government to

do, let alone the one that’s been deemed the most secretive in

Canada.

But in the spirit of transparency, if we’re talking about truly

just technical back-and-forth discussions over the last couple of years

— while a failed piece of legislation wasn’t being actioned, about its

replacement piece of legislation — why the unwillingness to provide what

was discussed and the various options that were discarded at the

technical level?

Obviously, the minister has made a political decision, but the

public is not having any eyes on that technical decision that led to

this legislation. Again, we can understand a non-disclosure agreement

while legislation is being crafted, but it has now been crafted. It’s in

front of us.

Of course, we want to help business owners, but the implication

for new mayors, new councils and for the rest of the citizens in that

city is a tax shift. We’re simply asking why there’s not better

transparency on the decision-making to get to that enabling of

municipalities to provide that tax shift so that taxpayers can better

understand the logic behind it as well — and, in all likelihood, likely

think it’s not such a bad idea to actually have that happen or

not.

But in the vacuum of that lack of information on clause 2, it

would be much harder for municipal councils to try to explain to their

constituents why they’re going down a road like this. And if they don’t

go down this road, nothing has been accomplished for the help of small

businesses that are facing this airspace increased taxation.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, we’re happy to share the deck that we shared with

stakeholders about the development of this legislation. I can certainly

have that over by end of day today, maybe, depending on when we get out

of here. We can certainly get that over to the members

opposite.

But again, nothing has changed around FOI. It went under

development of legislation when the folks on the other side were on this

side of the House. If you wanted to get information about ministry

engagement that has to do with development of legislation, there is a

process to get the notes to get information about what was discussed and

what was decided. That is done through the professional public

service.

It’s not like I get the documents and I get to redact them, and I

think the member knows that full well. It’s professional public service

that has criteria for what’s cabinet privilege. I know that the member

knows that, so to suggest that he doesn’t is, I guess, disappointing.

But that has been the process from when they were on this side of the

House, and it’s a process that continues today.

Having pointed that out, as well, to the member, I know the deck

that we used as we engaged with stakeholders around what we were

planning and what the process is going to look like for getting through

this legislation — we’re happy to share that with the member.

P. Milobar: I’m not going to get in the back-and-forth with FOI law with the

minister, but I’m well aware. I wasn’t remotely trying to suggest that

it’s the minister sitting there with a felt pen redacting. I full well

know that’s not how. In fact, if any minister is doing that, they’re

breaking the law.

Just like when I was the mayor and repeatedly got FOI’d by media

or public or anyone, you send whatever information is requested of all

files, all emails within the date range. If it covered off three topics

within that email, they redact two of the three, and the person only

gets the one topic they actually FOI’d. So I fully understand

that.

My question is about proactive release. The minister could do

that. The minister could proactively release documents. But I take the

minister with her offer to provide a slide deck, at a

minimum.

I would point out…. The minister stood up as the Government House

Leader for this session of debate to bring us into committee stage of

Bill 28. I would note next on the docket is Bill 29, which is also this

minister’s bill, so she and I will be questioning in committee stage of

that bill.

I’m wondering if, with the minister’s indulgence, she would want

to pause the current bill we’re on, Bill 28. It is the government’s

purview to do that if they so wish. We could move on to Bill 29, and

then we could receive the slide deck before we close out debate on this

bill, in case there are questions that arise out of that presentation

that was made to the technical working group.

Hon. S. Robinson: While I appreciate the member’s offer to switch out, I don’t have

all my staff here, and I don’t want to waste the House’s time. We’re

doing this bill right now.

But I also want to point out to the record that there was a

briefing for the member. There was no request at that time for

additional information, anything that was shared with stakeholders, to

help the member prepare for this debate.

So we’ve started this. I think we need to…. We’ve been at this

now…. We started ten days ago. I’m losing track of time, but it’s 12, 14

— well, ten days ago. So I do think we need to move on this and get this

done and continue to move on, as noted in the schedule.

P. Milobar: Well, frankly, we could be through this bill in the next five

minutes if I just stop asking questions on clauses, and that same staff

would have to be here.

[3:45 p.m.]

The minister’s answer that we had a briefing — we asked. We asked

for the information of the consultations on the briefing on the Monday

when this was first presented to this chamber, and the answer from staff

is that they’re not allowed to discuss the consultations. I then asked,

in this chamber, for that information ten days ago, and the minister

refused to provide it. Now, ten days later, the minister’s saying:

“Well, I’ll give it to you, but only after the legislation has

passed.”

There’s not much point seeing what consultation and what the

discussion around the consultation of these various clauses were, after

the fact. That is the problem.

We got admonished by the minister for not talking to mayors ahead

of this legislation coming into committee stage, when they were in their

last week of a municipal campaign that 37 of them didn’t get re-elected

in. They were a little busy to pick up the phone from the opposition to

ask about a bill. We now get told: “Well, this was ten days ago.” Well,

the minister had ten days to decide to give us a slide deck. It was only

ten minutes ago that the minister offered it up.

I’m not asking to overly delay the proceedings of anything in this

chamber. We can go directly to another bill that the Minister and myself

will be literally doing this exact same thing with. It would provide us

time to look at the slide deck that we were told on the Monday: “No.”

That we were told ten days ago: “No.” That we were told ten minutes ago:

“Yes, but only after you have this bill passed.”

So again, I would ask the minister: in the backdrop of all those

times we actually did request this information and were told no by the

government up until ten minutes ago, would the minister agree to pause

this bill? We can move on to Bill 29 while we receive the deck, and then

we can continue on. It does not significantly change the proceedings of

this House at all. At the end point will be Bill 28. Bill 29 will pass

because — hot tip for the minister — she’s got a massive majority. She’s

going to win.

But perhaps we could actually have some transparency for the

public and municipalities as to what they’re going to expect and what

actually went into the development of some of these pieces of

legislation.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question. I’m just talking with staff

about tracking down the very slide deck that we’re talking about. I have

a counter-proposal to the member that we can carry on here. We’re going

to get the slide deck to the member. Perhaps we can take a 15-minute

recess. The member can take a look at it. I’m not sure how the member is

going to debate another bill and still come back to this bill at the

same time.

What I’m proposing to do, as a counter-proposal, is to continue on

asking questions through the rest of this bill while staff identify the

deck. I want to let the member know that the requests that they’d made

in the briefing were for the specific details of the legislation. That’s

not what this slide deck is. It’s a slide deck that was shared with

stakeholders to understand the policy perspective and the challenges

that we were working together to resolve.

I don’t think the member will see that there’s anything in there

that he isn’t already aware of, but given that the member’s wanting to

see how we talked to others about this particular challenge and this

particular problem, and our commitment to solve it in partnership, then

we’re happy to share that deck with the member. We’re just in the

process of tracking it down and getting it to the member. Perhaps we can

take a ten-minute break while the member takes a look at it, and then we

can carry on with the with the rest of the bill, if that works better

for the member.

[3:50 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Yeah, that would be fine.

To be clear to the minister, though — and again, I want the public

to understand — we asked specifically about consultation. We did not ask

about the drafting of the bill. We asked about consultation, and the

answer we got back was that they could discuss the concept of what was

consulted on, but they could not discuss the contents of the

consultation.

That’s why things like the slide deck are important. We are

getting different answers over the space of two weeks here. That’s why

we feel it’s important to get that. So I’m more than happy to take a few

minutes’ break to get that slide deck.

Hon. S. Robinson: While that’s happening, I’m wondering if the member has other

questions through the bill so that we could continue to do this work.

Then once the slide deck is sent…. I have staff actually tracking it

down, because it’s not on anyone’s phone; it’s on a drive.

Perhaps we can continue the work of the House on this bill and

then carry on if the member does have any other questions. Then the

member could ask for the break so he can take a look at the slide deck.

Then, if he has any questions about that, we could carry on.

P. Milobar: Then I will ask the Chair for clarification, because we’re on

clause 2, which is dealing with the Community Charter. I do have some

questions around the Vancouver Charter as well. However, I would hate to

close clause 2 and not be able to come back to it if questions arise

based on the slide deck, because they are two different areas. How would

the Chair like to handle that?

The Chair: Do we have agreement to stand down clause 2 and the ability to

go back to it once the information is shared between the two

parties? Yes? Okay.

Clause 2 stood down.

On clause 3.

P. Milobar: Thanks again to the minister for trying to get that slide deck

here in a timely fashion.

In terms of clause 3…. This is where we get into the Vancouver

Charter. For those viewers at home, the Vancouver Charter is what

Vancouver operates under. The rest of the municipalities in the province

operate under the Community Charter. That’s been a long-standing

provision, so there’s nothing new there.

I’m just wondering. In terms of the overall consultation, then,

changes to the Vancouver Charter are being made. The consultation

happened. Half of the properties are actually in Vancouver, so the

Vancouver Charter will be quite consequential, actually, to these

changes. Was Vancouver…? Did they have a separate parallel consultation

going, in addition to participating in the Metro input into this

development of the bill, or was it all done as one package of

consultation at the same time?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member was just asking questions about the Vancouver Charter

and why it comes up. In some ways, I think I need to explain — perhaps

not to members of the House, but certainly to the public — that

Vancouver has its own charter, which is unique among our municipalities.

So what you’re seeing here is just the parallel shift in the actual

legislation but achieves the same end.

It’s making changes in two different pieces of legislation. One is

the Community Charter, which governs all other local governments, and

the Vancouver Charter is unique to Vancouver.

I want to assure the member that the work — the conceptual work,

the legislative work, the policy work, all of that work that goes into

making these changes — was everyone sitting around the table and working

on the problem and trying to find the solution. Then the actual

legislative drafters, the technicians who use language and are familiar

with language for getting the end result that we want — they have to do

that change in two different pieces of legislation because Vancouver has

its own piece of legislation.

So that’s what this is. It’s the same end but just a different

piece of legislation.

P. Milobar: With those technical discussions, was there any modelling done on

what the potential high or low dollar value of…? In other words, what

would be the maximum amount that Vancouver may have to waive or shift? I

guess not “waive,” because we have to be clear that this is a shifting

of property taxes. Has there been any calculation on what the high and

the low would have been from those technical consultations in terms of

what type of municipal taxes might be involved?

Hon. S. Robinson: Because this is a permissive tax exemption, it really depends on

the local government. Each local government would do their own analysis.

Again, they can apply it to different parts of their community. They

have so many options to choose from in terms of how they construct this

bylaw. That really is up to each local government to do that analysis so

that they understand and can explain to their residents about what the

shift is and how it’s playing out and for what reasons it’s playing

out.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

On clause 5.

P. Milobar: Again, just to get some clarity around some of the consultation

that was done, there was the…. We had an earlier discussion with the

Community Charter not providing five years in a window. Was that

something that Vancouver specifically advocated for? Again, a lot more

interest, frankly, in what Vancouver’s input was and what they asked

for, given that they are half of the properties involved that would be

impacted. So it makes sense that they might have a slightly weighted

voice at the table.

Was it Vancouver that was requesting the year-on-year versus a

five-year blanket, or was that the consensus of the whole

group?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: As I pointed out earlier, this was a collaborative working group

made up of…. Again, I’m just going to call them technicians because of

the technical nature of this legislation. They worked together to come

up with parameters that worked for different kinds of communities, which

certainly were around the table. Vancouver was one, but there were

certainly other communities. They all agreed.

Again, because it’s permissive, there’s a lot of flexibility.

Local governments can make the choices that best meet their needs. That

was one of the things that was requested by local

governments.

P. Milobar: With the complexities of trying to model each city, I can

understand why there wouldn’t be a minimum or a maximum dollar value

attached to some of these consultations. But to be able to bring a bylaw

forward, in terms of how you would like to shift around your tax rates

and things of that nature…. Municipalities and electeds are going to

want to know those values that they’re dealing with.

Under the Vancouver Charter, what would be the expected timeline

that a bylaw…? How far out would a bylaw have to be done, and able to

meet the test, to be able to qualify for the 2023 property tax

year?

Hon. S. Robinson: April 30 is when the city of Vancou­ver has…. That’s their

deadline for getting these bylaws done. May 15 is for all other local

governments.

I would ask for the indulgence of the House, if we could take a

ten-to-15 minute bio break. The slide deck is on its way, and I could

really use a bio break.

The Chair: Okay, we will recess for ten minutes. This committee is in

recess.

The committee recessed from 4:04 p.m. to 4:12 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

P. Milobar: April 30 is when the Vancouver bylaw would have to be in place.

Again,