Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 25, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 187

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Professional Governance Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

Bill M207 — Home-Based Craft Food Act

I. Paton

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Collaboration

S. Chant

Earth Day and human relationship with earth

R. Merrifield

BigCoast forest climate initiative

A. Walker

Fundraising activities of Jonathan Yeung

J. Sturdy

Totem pole and ceremony at Tillicum Lelum

D. Routley

Pui Ying Christian Services Society

T. Wat

Oral Questions

Cost of living and affordability issues

M. Bernier

Hon. J. Horgan

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Access to family physicians and role of urgent and

primary care centres

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Access to family physicians and primary health care

services

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

B. Banman

T. Halford

Hon. J. Horgan

Question of Privilege (Reservation of

Right)

T. Stone

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, independent audit report, Ensuring

Long-Distance Ground Transportation in Northern B.C. , November

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Passenger Transportation Amendment Act,

Bill 6 — Budget Measures Implementation Act,

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 12 — Property Law Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. S. Robinson

A. Olsen

M. Bernier

P. Milobar

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Property Law Amendment Act, 2022

Personal Statements

Apology for comments made in the House

Hon. J. Horgan

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Wildlife Amendment Act, 2022

(continued)

Hon. K. Conroy

J. Rustad

E. Ross

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation (continued)

T. Shypitka

Hon. B. Ralston

M. Lee

MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2022

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Heyman: B.C.’s conservation officers are very dedicated public servants, women and

men who care very deeply about protecting our environment, fish and wildlife,

ensuring that our communities and natural environment are safe and protected. They

also play a critical role in educating and interacting with members of our

community.

Today we’re celebrating the 2020 B.C. Conservation Officer of the Year, the

late Sgt. Steve Ackles. Sergeant Ackles passed away in 2021 after a lengthy

illness, but his unmatched dedication to the work and to our province lives on in

his son Kyle Ackles, who followed in his father’s footsteps and became a

conservation officer as well.

I’m very pleased to have Sergeant Ackles’ wife, Sherri, here with us today,

along with their children Kyle and Ashley, and Sergeant Ackles’ mother,

Kay.

Also joining us today is Blake Parker, the 2019 Conservation Officer of the

Year, an exemplary leader who also pursued a career in the COS because of his

father’s work. Blake is here with his partner, Melissa Lagace. Blake is based out

of Fort St. John and is an accomplished officer with extensive back-country and

leadership experience.

Will the members please join me in making our guests very, very

welcome.

Hon. A. Dix: Today in the noon hour, members on both sides of the House gathered in the

Hall of Honour to commemorate Armenian Genocide Memorial Day with the

Armenian-Canadian community in B.C. I’m grateful to the member for Richmond North

Centre and the member for Saanich North and the Islands for also speaking and

joining me, as well as the many members of the Armenian community who came here

and the many members of the Legislature who took part.

As members will know, yesterday was the 107th anniversary of what is seen

as the beginning of the Armenian genocide, the rounding-up in Constantinople, or

Istanbul, of Armenian community leaders and intellectuals. You will know, hon.

Speaker, that over the following eight years, 1.5 million Armenians were killed in

the genocide.

We come together both to acknowledge the legacy of those people and the

legacy of those events, of people killed for who they were, and to acknowledge the

strength and force of the Armenian-Canadian community, which has, I think, over

the last two decades, in particular, changed minds and changed understanding

around those questions.

I want to thank all members of the House. You know that we all joined

together in 2006 as a Legislature to unanimously recognize the Armenian genocide

as a crime against humanity. Its denial is a crime against humanity as well. I’d

like everyone to wish members of the Armenian-Canadian community

welcome.

T. Wat: In the House today is my dear friend and alumnus from the Chinese

University of Hong Kong, Riso Kan, and her better half, Brian Fung. They arrived

from Hong Kong a week ago, and they are visiting our beautiful British Columbia in

preparation for their next

chapter of life in Vancouver.

They are here to learn about our diverse culture, our community and the

business opportunities in Canada. They look forward to contributing to our vibrant

society.

Please join me in welcoming Riso and Brian from Hong Kong.

H. Yao: I want to take a moment to wish one of my constituents, Nicole Lemtke, a

happy 75th birthday. She cele­brated her birthday on April 22, 2022, and

since we had so many difficult years, I really wish her family and friends can

come together and have a really great celebration to celebrate all the difficult

times and all the happy moments as well.

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, we have members of the Vancouver Bubble Tea Festival.

This is their premiere festival this year, and it will be a very fun one. As many

of us know, we love bubble tea in all its different flavours. It will be taking

place July 22 and 23 in Burnaby, Central Park’s Swangard Stadium.

In the gallery today are Eric Yang, founder and chairperson of Vancouver

Bubble Tea Festival; Ruskin Chiang, the vice-chair and also the founder of Dr.

Restaurant Consulting Group; Wayne Hsu, the event director and also the founder of

Kiwi Productions, which specializes in event planning, photography and

videography. He’s a YouTuber, a music producer and also a DJ.

[1:40 p.m.]

Jennifer Chen is the deputy event director. She also founded CLC Global

Consulting and has a mandate to assist corporations, institutes, non-profit

organizations and individuals to create memorable events through creative

lifestyle collaboration.

There’s William Yu, who was executive director of the festival. He is also

the CEO and owner of City Vancouver Academy high school, which is located in

Richmond.

Last but not least, Liga Lin is the director responsible for events

planning, and she is the owner of New Joy Postpartum Care centre.

Would everyone please help me make them feel very welcome.

Hon. J. Osborne: It gives me great pleasure to rise today and virtually introduce and pay

tribute to Mary Toshiko Kimoto. This past weekend Mary attended the 34th annual

general meeting of the Ucluelet and Area Historical Society, where she was

honoured by the society, by Ucluelet and by Ucluelet First Nation community

members for her 34 years of service as a board member and a volunteer.

Her service goes back much further than 1988, when the society was founded.

In fact, it goes back to 1951, when she moved to the west coast with her husband,

Tom, who had been a fisherman until he was forcibly removed during the

Japanese-Canadian internment in 1942. In 1951, the family relocated to Ucluelet.

Since then, she has been an active volunteer, dedicated to ensuring that the

history and the culture of Japanese Canadians in the west coast region is

documented, preserved and shared.

This is critical to the lasting recognition and reconciliation efforts of

her, the society and, indeed, across British Columbia. Mary goes about her work

quietly. She never seeks acknowledgment. Her work continues to this day, in her

100th year. Her friends and colleagues describe her as their matriarch and

inspiration, and she is truly an inspiration to all of us.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Mary and thanking her for her

years of service.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — PROFESSIONAL GOVERNANCE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Professional Governance Amendment Act, 2022.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that Bill 21 be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 21, the Professional Governance Amendment

Act. The bill provides necessary amendments to the Professional Governance Act,

which sets the general parameters for professional governance in British

Columbia, including the establishment of the office of the superintendent of

professional governance.

The proposed legislative amendments included in the bill are based on

operational experience and are necessary to ensure that the Professional

Governance Act functions properly. This includes the option of an external

funding source that can provide the office of the superintendent of

professional governance with appropriate resources to achieve the purpose of

the Professional Governance Act.

Following requirements in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act, measures have been taken in these amendments to ensure consistency

with the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples by confirming that

professional-reserved practices do not impact Indigenous traditional knowledge

and practices.

The proposed amendments also draw from recommendations made in recent

reviews of professional governance models in B.C. health and legal professions

to reflect ongoing development in governance best practices.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Professional Governance 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.

BILL M207 — HOME-BASED

CRAFT FOOD

ACT

I. Paton presented a bill intituled Home-Based Craft Food

Act.

I. Paton: I move that the bill intituled Home-Based Craft Food Act, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a

first time now.

Over the past two years, our province has rallied together in support of

shopping and eating local. More and more British Columbians want to purchase

fresh local food from members of their own community while strolling through

one of our amazing farmers markets. Across British Columbia, we have farmers,

families and individuals who want to foster their entrepreneurial spirit and

start a new business, selling delicious, low-risk food products like jams,

honey, candy, bread, jerky, etc. By selling these food products right from

their own homes and farms, they can earn extra money to support themselves and

their families.

[1:45 p.m.]

If these individuals want to sell their products anywhere other than a

farmers market, however, they are subject to rules and regulations that would

simply not be feasible for a small home operation. This is why I’m

reintroducing the Home-Based Craft Food Act, which I first brought forward

in 2020. The act would allow small home-based businesses to make and sell

low-risk food products by simply obtaining a local business permit and FoodSafe

level 1 certification.

This legislation will open up new opportunities, allowing farmers to

increase their incomes and bolster our province’s food security. By allowing

these microbusinesses to grow and thrive in B.C., we can enrich the food

landscape in this province and collectively enjoy high-quality homemade

foods.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M207, Home-Based Craft Food Act, intro­duced, read a first

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

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COLLABORATION

S. Chant: I’m speaking to you today from the traditional, unceded territory of the

Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish and Musqueam Nations. I gratefully acknowledge the

opportunity to live, learn and work here.

Last week I had the opportunity to meet with the 3rd Seymour

Pathfinders, a group of young women, ages 13 to 15, involved in the Girl Guides

of Canada program. They were working on their Canada Cord Citizenship

Certificate, a component of which was to meet with and talk to a female

politician at the local, provincial or federal level. I felt really honoured

that they chose me.

As we spoke together, I realized that as parents, teachers, guiders,

coaches or any other adults that work with kids, we try to teach, demonstrate

and foster the spirit of consultation, cooperation and collaboration. As the

girls spoke, I saw these characteristics modelled. Yet sometimes as adults,

these skills are lost or subsumed in the effort to get things done.

As a team member on many teams throughout my lifetime, I’ve had the

opportunity to provide feedback innumerable times. Mostly it was because

something needed to change. At some point, I figured out that there was a

significant difference between consultation, cooperation and

collaboration.

In these circumstances, consultation usually meant seeking feedback on

the current state and then validating the current state. Cooperation usually

meant agreeing to do something that was somebody else’s plan, and collaboration

usually meant initial consultation, inclusion in planning and implementing for

a future state and then continuing to work together to ensure the plan is

workable and achieving the hoped-for results. Collaboration takes increased

time, energy and logistics. However, the end product is more satisfactory to

all.

I want to thank the 3rd Seymour Pathfinders for the reminder that

consultation, cooperation and collaboration are lifelong skills that can be

brought to all tables and always are of benefit.

EARTH DAY AND HUMAN

RELATIONSHIP WITH

EARTH

R. Merrifield: A two-minute walk from my front door in Kelowna, I can find fresh air, a

warm breeze, rustling leaves, the crunch of branches underfoot, the view of the

lake, the sights of the valley and the sun on my face. I restore a part of my

soul.

Recently I heard an Indigenous woman speak of how desperately we needed

our earth yet how our earth did not need us. Our need echoes in our search for

the outdoor spaces and the food that it produces for us.

These last few years have taught us how valuable nature is and how much

we rely on it. When we do not care for Mother Earth well, she despairs. We

heard her cries as the heat dried up our plants, how the fires roared through

our forests, how our food supply in the Sumas Prairie was threatened further by

floods and how those flood waters changed the landscape forever.

With the warning signs of climate change all around us, we need to

listen to Mother Earth’s warnings. This Earth Day reminds us that there is much

work to do. The theme of “Invest in our planet” needs to be heard and offers an

opportunity for all to look at what we can do, on an individual level as well

as a collective society. We need to continually move forward to a more

sustainable tomorrow and work for a better future for all. Our earth is

groaning, and we need to pay heed.

[1:50 p.m.]

I leave you with the words of Emily Dickinson in her poem “Nature Is

What We See.”

Nature is what we see,

The hill, the afternoon,

Squirrel,

eclipse, the bumble-bee.

Nay — nature is Heaven.

Nature is what we

hear,

The bobolink, the sea,

Thunder, the cricket.

Nay — nature is

harmony.

Nature is what we know,

But have no art to say,

impotent our wisdom is

To her simplicity.

BIGCOAST FOREST CLIMATE INITIATIVE

A. Walker: It is my pleasure to recognize Mosaic Forest Management, which, like

many B.C. leading companies, has committed to playing their part to fight

climate change.

Their recently launched BigCoast forest climate initiative will conserve

some of B.C.’s oldest trees, while helping meet the ambitious greenhouse gas

reduction targets set out in CleanBC. By deferring the harvest of 40,000

hectares of old forests on private land throughout Vancouver Island, Haida

Gwaii and coastal British Columbia for the next 25 years, and potentially

longer, Mosaic is helping capture and store more than ten million tonnes of

carbon.

The impacts of climate change are all around us, and it is important for

all British Columbians to work together. This is a great example of how B.C.’s

private forest owners can play an important role in achieving the targets laid

out in the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030.

I want to highlight the BigCoast forest climate initiative’s commitment

to working with First Nations to confirm the most important ecological and

cultural sites and their commitments to using part of the proceeds from the

sale of carbon credits to support Indigenous protected and conserved areas,

IPCAs, and to support research of the Pacific Salmon Foundation to help salmon

and their ecosystems adapt to climate-related challenges across coastal British

Columbia.

Forested watersheds are the connections between land and sea. They are

an integral part to the health and sustainability of many different types of

B.C. wildlife. This initiative by Mosaic is an innovative example of how a

private company can benefit communities, the environment, First Nations, all

while maintaining their place in a highly competitive forest

industry.

Will the House please join with me in recognizing the work of Mosaic

Forest Management and their innovative BigCoast forest climate

initiative.

FUNDRAISING ACTIVITIES OF

JONATHAN

YEUNG

J. Sturdy: Today I’m pleased to recognize Jonathan Yeung, a young man living in

West Vancouver–Sea to Sky who’s been finding creative ways to raise money to

help those in need since he was all of seven years old.

Jonathan’s first charitable action was working to raise funds to provide

meals to some of Hong Kong’s poorest residents, before he and his family moved

to Canada in 2016. With the onset of COVID-19, Jonathan decided he wanted to

support the exhausted front-line health care workers.

He started by using his $70 life savings to purchase healthy snacks and

electrolyte drinks for the team at Lions Gate Hospital. Through his efforts to

promote the fundraiser, he reached out to the community and sponsors and was

able to expand and maintain the snack drive for over a year, all to the benefit

of health care workers.

Ahead of Christmas 2020, Jonathan and a friend started a toy and tablet

drive for children being treated at B.C. Children’s Hospital, children who had

been isolated or were being isolated due to COVID-19. Through their efforts,

they managed to collect 159 tablets, over 1,000 toys and $14,000 in

donations.

Thanks to his leadership and community outreach, Jonathan and his team

repeated the toy and tablet drive in 2021 with even more impressive

results.

On behalf of this House, earlier this year I was privileged to present

Jonathan with a British Columbia Medal of Good Citizenship. His growing list of

accomplishments, his drive to serve his community and contribute to the

betterment of society, at the ripe old age of 12, is truly an inspiration.

Certainly Jonathan is a leader of today and clearly a young man to keep an eye

on.

I’m sure this House will join me in recognizing Jonathan and thanking

him for being such a remarkable citizen of British Columbia.

TOTEM POLE AND CEREMONY

AT TILLICUM

LELUM

D. Routley: I am very pleased to be able to speak today and share with the members

an experience I had last Friday in Nanaimo, when I was invited to a ceremony

honouring a new totem pole at the Tillicum Lelum Friendship Centre.

[1:55 p.m.]

This was the most moving ceremony, as this pole is standing in honour of

missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. It’s a beautiful pole of an

Indigenous matriarch blanketed in white, with a copper pin joining the blanket

— the pin signifying the possession of knowledge and wealth and the wealth of

knowledge — standing with an eagle above her head, lifting her spirit into the

world to which she has gone and out of the suffering.

It was so moving to attend this ceremony. I was invited by a most

wonderful person, Order of B.C. recipient Grace Nielsen, an absolutely

spectacular person, who has done so much for urban Indigenous people through

the friendship centre but also firsts throughout B.C. She established the first

dedicated Indigenous health centre, the first Indigenous adult basic education

program and the first Indigenous traditional Elder and youth housing project in

B.C.

It’s with such honour that I was able to attend this ceremony. Grace is

a most wonderful person. The power of the ceremony was great, but it was like a

roller-coaster ride, with a physical wave through everyone as we watched

several female eagles circle over the ceremony, chased by a few hawks. This was

a most moving celebration.

I would like to thank Grace Nielsen for her many contributions to our

province and to the urban Indigenous population of Nanaimo.

Thank you, Grace.

Thank you, Tillicum Lelum.

PUI YING CHRISTIAN SERVICES SOCIETY

T. Wat: One of the things we, as British Columbians, pride ourselves most on is

our diversity. I’m pleased today to recognize a community organization for its

role in promoting multiculturalism in the greater Vancouver area.

Since 1992, the Pui Ying Christian Services Society has enriched people

and community by educating and promoting Canadian and Chinese culture. I just

learned that my colleague from Vancouver-Langara…. His children are also

studying in the Pui Ying Christian Services just now.

Through the Chinese language program, Pui Ying serves 1,000 families

across 21 Chinese schools in Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam and Richmond. As a

mother and grandmother, I greatly admire Pui Ying’s mission. I know how

important it is to ensure our children learn their heritage language and

develop cross-cultural skills.

I would also like to commend Pui Ying for their dedication to welcoming

lessons in art, music and wellness, Pui Ying helps newcomers settle and thrive

in our community. This not only helps newcomer adults improve their

communication skills but also supports a greater sense of belonging. I’m very

thankful for the role Pui Ying has played in nurturing a harmonious,

multicultural community.

Mr. Speaker, 2022 marks Pui Ying’s 30th anniversary of promoting

Canadian economy and culture, both locally and internationally, and there is

much to celebrate. Please join me in extending a warm congratulations to the

Pui Ying Christian Services Society and a sincere thank-you for everything they

are doing for us.

Hon. J. Horgan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: It doesn’t seem like two years has gone by since the scrum of the earth was

here to ask us questions as we walked down the hallways, yet here they are, back

again. The press gallery here, resplendent in their denim and other accoutrements,

have brought their cameras, have brought their microphones.

All of us, all 87, are on point at any moment of the day, and I think

that’s good for democracy. It’s good for the media, and it’s good for all of us as

individuals.

Be wary, people. They’re out there. They have cameras. They have recording

devices, and they’re coming for you, each and every one of you.

The other introduction I want to make, as exciting as it is to have the

media back in the Legislature…. I was on my way to our caucus briefing before

question period, and I came upon a father and his son, who were excited to be here

in Victoria, at the provincial capital.

[2:00 p.m.]

His name is Duncan. He’s turned ten years old, and dad said, for his tenth

birthday, he could come to Victoria. Now, that in and of itself is not such a big

deal. But he came all the way from Kingston, Ontario.

We talked about young people who have got their eye set on better community

service and working to make life better for all of us. I’m pretty confident that

Duncan could be on that list.

Would all of you please make Duncan and his father, from Kingston, Ontario,

very, very welcome.

Oral Questions

COST OF LIVING

AND AFFORDABILITY ISSUES

M. Bernier: Look, life has never been more expensive in British Columbia. People

deserve better than what we seem to have, under the Premier’s secret plan. I’m

not sure what he’s doing here to work on inflation, but costs in B.C. are

higher than ever.

The latest inflationary data shows that things are getting even worse,

not better, here in British Columbia. With the cost of living now…. It’s jumped

up almost 6 percent over last year. So while the Premier seems to have no

problem solving the inflationary problems for himself and cabinet with a

$40,000 raise, he’s doing nothing right now to help the people who, in British

Columbia, are suffering with all these extra costs.

This is what the Premier said last Thursday. “The Minister of Finance

has been directed by me to look at efforts to bring forward initiatives to

assist with inflation. Well, we’ll see how that goes.” That sure doesn’t sound

very much like a commitment from this Premier to do anything. I’ll give the

Premier another chance.

What is the Premier going to do now to address the inflationary costs

that are hurting people in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the question from the critic from Peace River

South.

Our objective as members of this House is to make life better for our

constituents. We’ve been, of course, doing that, Mr. Speaker, as you know,

since 2017, when the first order of business was to do away with tolls on

bridges that were put in by Kevin Falcon at the time.

The second thing we did was fix the dumpster fire at ICBC. That led to

not one, not two but three rebates to policyholders as well as a 20 percent

reduction in costs. It’s not just the travelling public that have benefited

from these policies. The aforementioned medical services premiums are gone

completely. They do not exist in British Columbia.

Kevin Falcon indexed them annually so they would go up year over year

over year. That was their solution to inflation — to introduce an inflationary

tax on regular people. We’ve done away with all of that.

We’ve reduced costs for child care. We brought in a child opportunity

benefit. I appreciate that the grandmothers…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order.

Hon. J. Horgan: …and -fathers on the other side…. They’re past their child-raising

years. As grandparents, they will know that their children are ecstatic to have

access to a child opportunity benefit. They can raise their kids here in

British Columbia with $1,600 more in their pockets.

Again….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Clearly, international inflation is a hot-button issue for the members

from Surrey. They must be just crestfallen that the people that they represent

no longer have to pay tolls to drive around in the Lower Mainland.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Peace River South, supplemental.

M. Bernier: A non-answer from the Premier on what’s affecting people today right now

— a 6 percent increase in inflation. The Premier said that the minister was

going to work on something, but we don’t know what that is — obviously, a

secret plan from this Premier.

Look, house prices have gone up $600,000 under this Premier’s watch.

Renters are paying $3,000 a year more under this NDP government — still no

renters rebate.

While the Premier, again, has no problem giving a retroactive pay

increase for himself and cabinet, $40,000, think about this. Nearly half of the

people in British Columbia are only $200 away from not being able to pay their

bills every month.

The NDP took care of themselves, but they weren’t able to take care of

the renters with a renters rebate. They’ve done nothing to lower housing

prices, which they promised to do. Now it looks like they’re just going to

skirt over and do nothing to help with the inflationary pressures that are

hitting the people of British Columbia today.

Will the Premier be more specific about now, what he’s going to do now?

What direction has he given the Minister of Finance, and what will British

Columbians see that will help them today?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I know that this is a fact-free zone when it comes to the

official opposition. They know full well the compensation rates have not

changed at all in British Columbia. They’re the same now as they were

before.

They’re the same now as they were before.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate that’s difficult for them to understand.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate that they would prefer to rely on stunts from the Preston

Manning era, rather than good government. Fair enough.

I commend them to review a book written by one of their former

colleagues, George Abbott, who talked about the yanking back and forth of tax

policies that was under the watch of the other guys, all for a stunt. Instead,

we’re focusing on people.

I absolutely understand the challenges and the hardships that people are

facing as we come out of a pandemic that constrained economic activity across

not just the province but the country and, indeed, around the world.

Only B.C. Liberals would be so filled with hubris that they would think

that British Columbia is the only place that’s experiencing inflation right

now. It’s not. This is a global phenomenon…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …that does not require the narrow thinking of B.C. Liberals but

expansive thinking like that on this side of the House, focused on making life

better for people rather than scoring political points with

misinformation.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please. When a question is asked, the other side listen. When

the answer is given, the other side listen. Let’s pay attention to each

other.

P. Milobar: Here in 2022, when people are faced with $200 left in their bank account

and not being able to pay their bills, the Premier had no problem rushing his

retroactive pay, which, in fact, will see a cheque in his bank account long

before any relief is seen for people with their rebate cheque around the price

at the pumps. The Premier has repeatedly promised to make life more affordable,

but he just simply hasn’t.

Under the NDP, housing and rents are up at record levels. The cost of

gas has doubled. In fact, gas is around 50 to 60 cents more expensive in B.C.

than it is in Alberta, where it gets shipped from to B.C. The cost of groceries

is up almost 20 percent. On Thursday, the Premier said: “The minister has been

working on inflation initiatives for months, and will continue to work on it

for the days ahead.”

Working on it. No actual solution and no deliverable. There are families

who don’t know how they’re going to pay for their groceries tomorrow morning,

yet the Premier and this government are dragging their feet trying to bring

forward any actual meaningful results for people.

Will the Premier be clear? What is he going to do about inflation, and

when will they actually do it?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I know that the members do understand — I actually do think they

understand — that this is a global issue. There are many people around the

world in many jurisdictions around the world that are worried about rising

costs for necessities like food and housing. It’s especially hard on people who

are struggling. There’s no doubt about that.

The federal government and the Bank of Canada have the tools to combat

inflation directly, and our government has always been committed to reduce

costs for British Columbians. We’re going to continue to do that very important

work.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemen­tal.

P. Milobar: Well, there are jurisdictions around the world and around this country

that are actually trying to take meaningful action at the same time.

The fact is that life has never been more expensive as it is now under

this NDP government. People are paying more for everything. Beef and butter are

up 32 percent. Fresh vegetables are up 24 percent. And gas — almost 70 cents

more a litre under the NDP.

While the NDP cabinet has had no problem acting very quickly to give

themselves that raise — a retroactive raise, I might add — the Premier refuses

to even say when he will help British Columbians. In fact, this is what he said

last week. This is how little urgency they have on this subject. This is what

the Premier said last week: “I don’t want to say we’ll have something to say in

a few weeks, because then the questions will start tomorrow.”

People need help now. They need answers now. They don’t need to wait a

few more weeks to maybe, possibly, find out the government is going to have

nothing to say.

Again, what is the Premier going to do, and when is he going to do it?

People are $200 away from not paying their bills every single month. They can’t

wait.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, instead of giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large

corporations, we’ve been using that money to help average British

Columbians.

[2:10 p.m.]

We have a child opportunity benefit, up to $133 a month in people’s

pockets; and $500 off of their car insurance, on average, after we cleaned up

the dumpster fire.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: And you know what’s going to happen this year?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. S. Robinson: This year, by the end of the year, a 50 percent reduction in child care

fees, which is huge for families.

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS AND ROLE

OF URGENT AND PRIMARY

CARE CENTRES

S. Furstenau: The family doctor crisis in our province is top of mind for a lot of

people right now. There are 900,000 British Columbians without primary care.

Those who are with it are finding their access increasingly cut back, and 40

percent of British Columbians are afraid of losing their family

doctor.

This government has opened 27 urgent and primary care centres as their

solution to this crisis. They’re quick to open them, but many lack funding

plans and adequate staffing. They’re open limited hours. They fill up quickly,

and there is gatekeeping over who can use them. They’re meant to deliver care

for people who are in urgent need. They are demonstrably not the solution for

the family doctor crisis. The minister said as much on CBC radio last week when

he said: “While urgent care is important, the key thing is to build access to

primary care.”

My question is to the Minister of Health. We hear that there have been

one million visits to UPCCs, but there are two other numbers that are essential

for understanding the complete picture. How many of those million visits were

to access primary care, and how many people have been turned away from

UPCCs?

Hon. A. Dix: Since 2018, the government has pursued a primary care plan, which seeks

to reform primary care in our province by building team-based care in every

part of our province. The principle initiative has been what’s called the

primary care network, which supports existing primary care providers and

expands their capacity to attach — in other words, to serve more patients in a

longitudinal way over a number of years and visits but also to provide better

access to urgent care.

So 54 primary care networks, which represent the lion’s share of the new

staff that have been added, which is 950 across British Columbia…. Yes, 27

urgent and primary care centres have served over one million people. During the

pandemic, those urgent primary care centres were essential in British Columbia

because of the absolute transformation of our primary care system that happened

on a dime in 2020. They have played a central role.

They’re not the only part of the plan. We have added new community

health centres. We’ve added new residency positions. We’ve added dramatically —

I mean dramatically — three times the number of nurse practitioners serving in

primary care than have ever served before. This is an effort to do that. We

have to continue to do that, and we will.

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

S. Furstenau: I think there’s an interesting trend that we see with this government,

particularly when it comes to health care, which is a lot about the inputs but

not much about the outcomes.

We have gone from 700,000 unattached patients in this province to

900,000 unattached patients. We’re hearing doctors talk about leaving their

practices because the burden on them is too great when they’re dealing with

fee-for-service and having to run a small business in addition to caring for

their patients.

I applaud the minister’s sense of urgency, but I think what we have to

start measuring are the outcomes. I didn’t get an answer to my question about

how many people have been turned away from UPCCs and how many people that

visited UPCCs were actually accessing primary care.

My question, again, is to the Minister of Health. How many British

Columbians have been attached to a family doctor through a visit to an urgent

and primary care centre?

Hon. A. Dix: The member speaks of outcomes. I’d just say this. This is a

transformation that’s occurred on fee-for-service. In addition to that, we have

added the number of APP doctors, alternate payment doctors, in the amount….

It’s 15 percent a year in each of the last three years — 15 percent a year. We

are transforming the system.

[2:15 p.m.]

The member is right. This is primarily a fee-for-service system, unusual

in Canada — that 80 percent of primary care billings are fee-for-service. That

has happened over time, over multiple governments. That’s where we are today —

80 percent.

During the pandemic…. Talk about the response of the primary care system

and the response of the government. In 2018, there were over 16.5 million

primary care visits. In 2021, in the full year during the pandemic, there were

18.43 million.

Now, that was a dramatic increase, but it hides the real story, which is

that we had to and family doctors had to, on a dime, change the system such

that there were over 647,000 virtual visits in 2018 and 13 million virtual

visits in 2021. This transformation has happened, and it has had a significant

effect, including on patients, many of whom struggle with the lack of in-person

visits.

This has been an extraordinarily challenging time, and I want to

acknowledge the exceptional work done by family practice doctors and others.

But in that context, the million in-person visits at UPCCs have been incredibly

valuable, and I don’t think that criticizing them is the right approach. They

are part of the answer. No one ever said that they were the whole answer. I

don’t agree with that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: At a time we needed more in-person visits, we delivered a million

through UPCCs. That was important, and I want to thank everyone in the system —

doctors, nurse practitioners, health authorities and the Ministry of Health —

for the work they’ve done together to serve people in the most difficult of

times.

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS

AND PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

SERVICES

S. Bond: We need to be very clear about something. No one in this House is

criticizing the unbelievable work of health care professionals across British

Columbia. No one.

To the minister’s point about what’s dramatic, here’s what’s dramatic.

Nearly one million British Columbians do not have access to a family doctor,

and somehow that’s acceptable to the minister. British Columbians want a

relationship with a family doctor. It is shocking to think that, in British

Columbia, one in five British Columbians — a number that has, by the way,

dramatically worsened since 2017 — have no family doctor.

The minister tells them to go to a walk-in clinic. Well, guess what we

discovered. This week we discovered that British Columbia has the worst wait

times in Canada at walk-in clinics. The average in Ontario is 15 minutes. It is

two hours and 41 minutes in the Premier’s backyard. At 8:20 this morning, every

single urgent and primary care centre in Victoria was already at capacity and

not taking patients. The only walk-in clinic left had a four-hour-and-30-minute

wait time. This is simply not good enough in British Columbia.

The minister can spout numbers all he wants. What British Columbians

want him to do is work to ensure that they can have a relationship with a

family doctor.

What exactly is the Premier going to do about the fact that one in five

British Columbians have no access to a family doctor or are waiting hours in

line at walk-in clinics?

Hon. A. Dix: There were a series of statements said by the member. I was referring to

the criticism of UPCCs, not of health care workers, for members of the

opposition. She made a series of statements that she put in my words that I’ve

never said and that I don’t believe. I’m not sure if that’s helpful to the

debate, frankly. I just disagree with it. I just say that frankly to the

member.

What I would say is that what is required in our primary care system is

significant reform. We have, in B.C., an unusual primary care system. We have

one that is more fee-for-service than anywhere else. We have more people coming

to British Columbia than from anywhere else. And how have we responded? We’ve

responded with a very significant investment in team-based care such that there

are 950 more people working in primary care networks, 300 of them in urgent and

primary care centres across the province to provide more service to

people.

[2:20 p.m.]

We’ve just been through a more than two-year pandemic, so far, that’s

changed primary care more than any other part of health care, more than acute

care and more than long-term care, in fact. We are working our way through

that. I would say that, in that period, we’ve added more than 600 family

practice doctors. We have the largest family practice residency program in

Canada. That’s because we added 60 new positions since 2017.

We have to continue to do this work together, because I agree. Access to

longitudinal care, particularly for those with chronic diseases and those who

are older, is absolutely critical. That’s a priority for this government. It’s

been a priority for me from the beginning, and it continues to be

now.

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

S. Bond: Well, the minister makes it sound like he just figured this out

yesterday. This is a two-term, half-decade government.

British Columbians are concerned. In fact, many British Columbians feel

hopeless that they will ever have the ability to have a family doctor under

this government’s leadership. People feel hopeless.

Let’s listen to the words of Jacqueline Brand, who said: “I don’t have a

family doctor anymore since the James Bay clinic closed. I am 73 years old. I

need my prescription filled. I need it soon, and I don’t know where to

go.”

Here’s what we do know: one in five British Columbians do not have a

family doctor. The minister says: “Go to a walk-in clinic.” They wait for

hours. Our numbers are the worst in the country.

In fact, when the Premier was asked about this issue last week, what did

he do? What he typically does. He blamed Ottawa. It is long past

time….

Interjection.

S. Bond: The Premier can laugh and shake his head. It is not funny to the one in

five British Columbians who can’t access a family physician. He should check it

out in his own backyard, as recently as this morning, when they couldn’t get in

to an urgent primary care centre.

When is the Premier going to do the work that is necessary to ensure

that British Columbians have hope that, someday in this province, they will

have access to a family physician — or have to wait for hours in line at a

walk-in clinic?

Hon. A. Dix: Again, the point the Premier was making was a point, by the way, that

his predecessor had made with respect to the Canada health transfer. It’s a

point that has been made that the decision of the federal government, which is

a unilateral decision in 2016, to fix increases in the Canada health transfer

well below the rate of inflation has an impact on health care everywhere in the

country. The Premier is leading the effort nationally on behalf of British

Columbians and people across Canada. There is a role for everyone in that

process.

When I became Minister of Health, 83 percent of primary care billings

were fee-for-service in B.C. The number was 46 percent in Ontario. That

requires a change. It requires a change because the fee-for-service model,

which supports volume, doesn’t reflect the needs of the increasing complexity

of patients. I know the member knows this. We’ve talked about it many times,

we’ve discussed it many times, and she has made the point many

times.

How do we address this? We address this by building out team-based care

— 950 new FTEs, full-time people, in primary care networks across B.C. We do it

by adding new models of care, including community health centres and Indigenous

and First Nations–led health centres in British Columbia. We do it that

way.

We do it by training and having more residency positions. And we have.

We do it by moving from last in Canada in nurse practitioners to the

fastest-growing place, the centre, of nurse practitioner primary care in the

country. That’s how we do it. We do it by building out team-based

care.

This was a significant issue when I became Minister of Health. We’ve

just had a two-year pandemic that was profoundly affecting primary care, and

we’re continuing to work at it with our partners in the system: doctors in

British Columbia, health professionals in British Columbia and communities in

B.C.

B. Banman: B.C. has the longest wait times in the country by far. Ontario has

figured it out. Their wait time is 15 minutes.

Interjections.

B. Banman: The opposition can think that’s funny. I don’t think people standing in

lineups for hours think it’s funny.

B.C. was the only province to see an increase. The wait times are now up

over 50 percent on this NDP watch.

[2:25 p.m.]

Wait times are skyrocketing, clinics are shutting down, and doctors are

leaving their practices. We have a system that is under crisis underneath this

NDP government.

In Maple Ridge this morning, the Cottonwood Medical Clinic was at its

capacity, and a clinic just down the street had a wait time of three hours and

30 minutes. Willowbrook medical centre, in Langley, had a

six-hour-and-30-minute wait time. That’s not acceptable under anybody’s

watch.

Why, Mr. Premier, have you abandoned people to hours-long wait times to

get the medical attention they deserve?

Hon. A. Dix: I’d remind members of the House that there is an important aspect to

episodic care that we have to address. We have, in part, done that by adding

those million visits to urgent and primary care centres in B.C., including one

in the member’s area, in the member’s hometown, which has had — I have to tell

him — a significant and profound and positive effect on people in Abbotsford

during the pandemic.

In respect to the survey that he cites, it’s a partial, not a

comprehensive, survey and by a private company. Fair enough. I think people

are…. This is my view always: any significant wait for health care is too long

for me. It’s why we’ve done surgical renewal on surgeries. It’s why we have a

primary care plan. It’s why we’re supporting long-term care. It’s why we’re

adding residency positions. It’s why we’ve significantly increased, almost

doubled, the number of nurse practitioner positions in the province, including

those working in the member’s constituency.

It is a challenge for people in B.C., the question of a family practice

doctor, particularly in circumstances where their doctor is aging out and

retiring, and those people who’ve been with that doctor for 20, 30, 40 years

find themselves without a family practice doctor. That’s why we are responding

in the way that we are.

T. Halford: Dr. Tahmeena Ali was named B.C.’s Family Physician of the Year in 2020.

She provides incredible care to the people of South Surrey. Now she says she’s

at a breaking point, and every day she says she’s on the cusp of quitting. “We

are hurting in family medicine, and this community is hemorrhaging members

daily.”

Instead of blaming the federal government, will this Premier stand in

this House today and commit to do something and get British Columbians, the one

million British Columbians who are today without a family doctor, the care that

they desperately need?

Hon. A. Dix: I think it’s fair to say that the Premier and the government will

continue to lead the country with respect to the Canada health transfer. I

don’t think that is inconsistent. That is one aspect of how you deal with

challenges with respect to primary care.

How do we do that? We add primary care networks and team-based care, 950

new FTEs. That’s significant. We significantly increased the number of nurse

practitioner positions. The creation of nurse practitioner positions was the

work, on the government’s side, of George Abbott, when he was Minister of

Health. It was the work at that time. But when I became Minister of Health, we

were last in Canada in terms of the number of nurse practitioners working.

We’ve profoundly changed that. That’s how you do it.

In South Surrey, in Cloverdale, there’s a nurse practitioner–led clinic.

That’s how you do it. You build primary care networks. You build opportunities

for people who work, and you increase the number of residency positions in

family practice.

Now, there are challenges. The fee-for-service system for new entrants

into the field who generally want to practise medicine and don’t want to run

small businesses is a challenge. Our existing system is generally based on

that, and the new entrants in the system don’t want to do that as much, meaning

that they are and tend to be much more attracted to hospitalist positions or

alternative payment situations.

Those are issues that we have to work on with family practice doctors in

B.C., including Dr. Ali, to ensure that they are supported in the outstanding

work they do in communities.

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

T. Halford: The minister’s words are not met by action from this government, from

this Premier, and we see that day after day. Every member of this House is

getting the letters, the emails, the phone calls, the visits, saying: “We need

help. We do not have a family doctor. We need support.”

[2:30 p.m.]

Every riding is getting those calls. The minister can dismiss them. The

minister can rattle off numbers. At the end of the day, a million British

Columbians are without a family doctor, and that is unacceptable.

Dr. Ali says: “Our cries are not being heard. Family medicine is

hemorrhaging. We are an endangered species, and without us, the primary care

system is going to fall apart.” A system that the minister spent most of this

question period talking about. This doctor is saying it’s at critical mass, and

this minister continues to dismiss these issues.

In Surrey, 13 walk-in clinics are full by 10 a.m. Thirteen walk-in

clinics are full. If you want to take your child to get support because you

don’t have a family doctor, you can’t visit that walk-in clinic if you’re not

there by 10 a.m. This minister thinks that this is acceptable, this day in this

province — a million people without a family doctor.

When will this Premier step up in this House and give British Columbians

the assurance they need that they will be supported by a family

doctor?

Hon. J. Horgan: I just want to correct some misstatements by those on the other

side.

First and foremost, there is one person that’s working 24 hours a day to

improve health care for people in British Columbia, and it’s the Minister of

Health. Everybody knows that.

Secondly, at no time have I blamed the federal government.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: They don’t want an answer, hon. Speaker, because they are part of the

problem. That’s why.

The opposition characterizes cooperative federalism, making our country

work by ensuring that there’s adequate….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: Do you want to hear it, man? Do you want to hear it, or do you just want

to hear your voice? Why don’t you go in the bathroom and talk to yourself in

there? You don’t want to hear answers in this place. Seriously.

The Canada health transfer is fundamental to health care in British

Columbia. It’s fundamental, and it has been for generations.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: Do you really care, or do you want to hear yourself? Do you want a

headline, or do you want action?

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The bell ends the question period.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, seriously.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition will come to order.

The House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 2:33 p.m. to 2:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Calling the House back to order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, I think the question period is over.

I’m so disappointed in all of you. During the question period, I have

repeatedly said: “Please listen to the question and listen to the answer.” Once

that’s over, don’t make it personal. Let’s behave like adults,

please.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nechako Lakes. What was your point, Member? You are just

challenging the Chair?

J. Rustad: My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to….

T. Stone: Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

T. Stone: Thank you. I reserve my right on a point of personal privilege.

Tabling Documents

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

Ensuring Long-Distance Ground Transportation in Northern

B.C.

[2:35 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: I call third reading of Bill 13, Passenger Transportation Amendment

Act.

In

Section A, I call Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 13, Passenger Transportation Amendment Act, 2022, read a third time

and passed.

Hon. L. Beare: I call third reading of Bill 6, Budget Measures Implementation

Act.

BILL 6 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT,

Bill 6, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2022, read a third time and

passed on division.

Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 12, Property Law Amendment Act,

[2:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 12 — PROPERTY LAW

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 12;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

The Chair: We’re dealing with Bill 12, Property Law Amendment Act,

I’ll call on the minister to introduce staff and any opening

statements.

On clause 1.

Hon. S. Robinson: I do have staff here with me for this committee stage of debate as we go

through line by line and

section by

section of this bill.

On my right is Renée Mounteney, one of my many capable ADMs. I have Joey

Primeau here on my left, and behind me is Tiffany Norman, to help us as part of

this discussion. They’ve been working really hard to put this together to make

sure that we have another tool to help folks who are looking to purchase a

home. I’m really grateful for their hard work on this matter.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to go clause by clause on the Property

Law Amendment Act.

Just a question with respect to the consultation that was underway on

this bill, announced last fall. Why did the government announce this

legislation before completing that consultation?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question.

It’s really important, I believe, and we believe, that we move quickly

on this matter. It’s urgent, given the level of activity in the market and the

challenges that we were hearing from consumers around what they were forgoing

in terms of making sound decisions based on all of the information.

The BCFSA is currently undertaking a broad consultation on a number of

current consumer protection issues, including the parameters for the creation

of this protection period. They’ve been given very focused parameters so that

we can do this simultaneously and be efficient. I know that the member,

certainly his colleague the Leader of the Third Party, had talked about

efficiency and the importance of consulting as well, so we’re trying to do both

at the same time. We are doing both at the same time, because we do think it’s

important that we move quickly.

If we had done this in a more linear fashion, it would take us that much

longer, and in the meantime, people — the outcome is the people — would

continue to be challenged. We felt it was important to do both and to do it

simultaneously.

A. Olsen: If it was based on urgency, why didn’t the government start the process

last spring or the previous fall? I mean, the measure has been available to the

government for the last three to four years at least, and the housing crisis

that British Columbians are facing is not a new issue. So if urgency is the

reason for putting the legislation out in front of the finishing of the review,

why wasn’t the review started months, or maybe a couple of years,

ago?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to share with the member that we have been acting

as quickly as we can when these issues were raised to us by the mortgage broker

community. So as these things were coming forward, we certainly were hearing

more stories about blind bidding. They were sharing stories with us around

consumer protection. So we moved quite quickly to identify how we can best move

forward, and we put that out in November as we were doing these more generic

conversations and acting as quickly as we could.

M. Bernier: Does the minister have the report yet from the BCFSA, from the

consultation period?

Hon. S. Robinson: No, not yet.

M. Bernier: My question kind of goes, then…. Well, first of all, if there’s so much

urgency — and the minister is making decisions unilaterally, it sounds like —

why did we even have to go through a consultation period? Why did she even ask

the BCFSA to give recommendations, if the minister already seems to have her

mind set on what direction she’s going?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The consultation is really about the details of how this can be

implemented to maximize success. It’s not about whether or not to do

it.

It’s a good idea. It’s a good policy piece to do it. The consultation is

about what the parameters are that would make this a successful policy piece at

the end of the day so that the consumers can get the information they need

while also respecting the needs of sellers. It really is about finding that

balance. The member and I have had conversations about that historically,

around finding balance. The consultation is about what the right balance is to

achieve success here.

M. Bernier: It’s an interesting answer from the minister. It makes me want to

understand what kinds of terms of reference were given to the Financial

Services Authority to even look at. It sounds like the minister has directed

them to say: “Regardless of whether you think it’s a good idea or not, we’re

doing it. Regardless of whether this will work or not, we’re doing

it.”

My question, then, to the minister is: was the BCFSA given any autonomy

at all, any freedom at all, to come back with recommendations of whether this

is a good idea or not? Or were they directed through some form of terms of

reference, through the work they have to do, to not even consider whether this

will help the situation — in fact, they’re just going to come forward with

implementation recommendations, rather than a process — whether it’s worthy at

all?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said before, the BCFSA is currently consulting not just on this

buyer protection period but also on a number of consumer protection issues. We

tasked them to look at the blind bidding system, which has its other additional

complexities, but we also asked them about mandatory inspections, about what

that would look like and what would need to happen in order for that to be

considered, and we asked them to look at any other consumer protection ideas or

suggestions from the various stakeholders.

[2:55 p.m.]

This is one piece, and there may be more. We’re waiting to see what’s in

that report that would tell us what other steps government might need to take

in order to make sure that consumers had the tools that they needed, to make

sure that they could get all the information necessary before they made the

most important financial decisions of their life.

M. Bernier: With all due respect to the minister, it sounds like the urgency was

more from the minister to come out with an announcement, not actually to try to

address the issue. If it was addressing the issue, we would have waited for

this report, if it’s that important, to make sure we’re doing it right to begin

with.

I’ll get into some more details later on with specific questions under

clause 1 here, but it’s so open-ended. It’s all left to regulation. The

minister herself has said in some of her media scrums that the reason is

because they don’t have the information. They’re waiting, and that’ll be coming

at a later date — possibly this fall, possibly later — with recommendations

around how the legislation will actually shape up through

regulation.

It brings us back to the whole point. If it’s so urgent…. Yet it’s not

urgent, because nothing is happening now other than a piece of legislation on

the floor to debate that is legislation of maybes. What consultation did the

minister actually do? We’ve heard from so many people over the last little bit,

since this has been presented in the Legislature, who are, in their own right,

experts in the field around housing, around affordability, around real estate

who have come out and said this isn’t going to work.

In fact, they’ve come out with other pieces of recommendations. There

have been white papers from the Real Estate Association. We know from the

minister’s colleagues that they’ve all stood in this House and basically said

that real estate agents are part of the problem. They’ve basically said that in

the House. Maybe that’s why the minister is not listening to them.

I’m kind of curious, then. Before they presented this in the House,

which, again, is one page of all “maybe at a later date,” what consultation and

what groups did the minister meet with to help formulate this? Because there’s

no detail.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question, but I have to say there’s a real

contradiction in how he’s asking it. He’s saying hurry up and slow down at the

same time. We’re dealing with urgency, which I think it requires. I think, as

the member rightly acknowledges, it needs consultation as well.

It’s based on the fact that we were hearing from the mortgage broker

community. We were engaging with BCFSA about what they were hearing. We were

seeing in the media, and I know the members were seeing this as well, where

people were being challenged by major purchases they were making, sometimes

sight unseen, without any inspection, only to discover that because they

weren’t putting any conditions on their offers because they felt that was the

only way they could participate in negotiations….

Really, it’s creating more and more challenges for British Columbians.

It’s with that in mind that we said, “Okay, where can we start?” recognizing

that this is perhaps a beginning and that there might be more.

[3:00 p.m.]

We, in consultation with BCFSA, said, “Well, we can start here,” and

continue to engage to see what more might need to happen and how this can be

implemented in a way that it works, keeping in mind all the various component

parts of these kinds of transactions.

It’s with that in mind that we’ve brought this piece forward. There is

more to come, because we know that there might be more that makes sense for us

to do in order to help consumers in this very difficult time.

P. Milobar: Well, in fairness to my colleague from Peace River South there, I think

he was more trying to state to the minister that the minister is rushing in

legislation that has absolutely no detail in it whatsoever and, at the same

time, saying that there’s no detail because there’s a wait for a report. So

that’s where the two don’t necessarily line up.

Based on past practice of this government — we saw it with the FOI

legislation that just recently was rushed through the House with zero detail,

everything left to regulation and, then, orders-in-council signed very quickly

after royal assent — there starts to be a cynicism that builds, not just within

opposition but within the general public.

Can, I guess, the minister confirm, then, that if the reason there’s no

detail in this legislation is because we’re waiting for a report…? Is the

minister saying, then, that 100 percent of that report will actually result in

regulation? Or is the minister reserving her right to pick and choose whatever

that report says, what she feels might be palatable to implement or

not?

Hon. S. Robinson: The report will inform details of the regulation. Again, I think it’s

important to acknowledge that the market itself is dynamic. It changes over

time. Sometimes it’s hyperactive, and sometimes it has slower periods. So it is

also important to think about…. In terms of regulation, it permits government

to be responsive to any changes in the market as well. That’s also part of the

consideration.

P. Milobar: There’s no detail in a bill — that is what the minister is saying —

because we’re waiting for a report. But the minister reserves the right to

politicize the future regulations for this topic. So why not detail in this

report, then? Why is there not a first step of regulation in this bill, which

could always be amended in the future, if it’s going to be political

decision-making that is the ultimate decider of what the regulations will

be?

It is not the report that everyone’s waiting for, based on that answer;

it’s actually the minister and cabinet’s decision on what the regulations will

be. The report is but one piece of input. There’s already been lots of other

types of input.

As we saw with the FOI bill, just commentary in the media was enough for

the Minister of Citizens’ Services to hang her hat on, saying she had consulted

during the course of the bill moving through the House.

[3:05 p.m.]

There are only so many different ways you can put the regulation in

place between cooling-off periods, length of time, those types of things. There

are just so many ways. That’s it. Those have been discussed.

Why is there no detail in this bill, if what the minister’s answer was

just that it’s still going to be political decision-making as to what the

future rules will be like and not actually the recommendations in the

report?

Hon. S. Robinson: I was listening very carefully to the line of questioning from the

members. It sounds like they are wanting to, I guess, relitigate or go back to

second reading debate of the merits of this bill. We finished that debate, and

we are now in committee stage, which is to go line by line. I have staff here

eager and ready to answer any questions that they might have on this

bill.

M. Bernier: As the minister well knows, second reading is an opportunity where

people can put their opinions on the floor. It’s not, per se, a debate about

the issues.

It’s line by line at committee stage, which we are doing now. It’s also

a time, in committee stage, to hear from the minister the intent of why this

was brought forward, the intent of what the legislation will do, the reasoning

why the minister has left out any detail. That’s what we do in committee stage.

That’s the important part of the work that we’re doing right now and expect

some kind of respectful response from the minister to that end.

The minister, about three weeks ago, said publicly…. That was shortly

after this bill was tabled. The minister did say, where she was waiting for a

report from the BCFSA, that that information was going to help shape the

information and the details through regulation that they would do

afterwards.

I asked the minister, when I first got in, if she’s seen that report

yet. Three weeks ago she said she was going to get it any day. Does the

minister have it now, and if not, when is she going to be receiving

it?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct. I think that it was before we broke for the

two-week break. I have not seen the report yet. My understanding is that they

finished their consultation at the end of February. They’re putting their

reports together, and I am hopeful that I will see it shortly.

M. Bernier: Well, it just goes back to the whole point that I think we’re trying to

make here. The minister tries to say how urgent this is. This is the largest

investment somebody is going to be making in their life, possibly. We want to

make sure we have the rules, regulations, in place to help to safeguard that

investment.

A lot of decisions through regulation will be based, supposedly, on a

report that the minister is waiting for that now for two, three, four, weeks is

going to be expected any day. We still have a month left in this

session.

[3:10 p.m.]

It begs the question: if it’s so important to ensure that we get it

right, why was the minister so rushed to put a nothing bill on the floor with

no information when it’s going to be based on, in her own words, a lot of the

regulation based on the information through this consultation? Pragmatically,

you would think that the logical course of action would’ve been to wait for

that report, frame up proper legislation respecting the House, here — that we

would have details — not only this House but for the public to know what

they’re expecting to come forward from the government.

The minister herself has even said that now a lot of this regulation

might not happen until this fall. The minister has said that on record. She can

correct me if she wants to, but the minister has said in the past that it could

be as late as this fall before they get to the regulations on this bill to

actually change things. So that means that we could’ve even brought it forward

this fall, in the session that government would hold, with the actual

information.

Again, I just have to ask the minister, then, I guess, the easy

question. Are the regulations in here going to be based on the report that

comes from the BCFSA? If so, why didn’t she just wait?

Hon. S. Robinson: As we have said before, the report will inform details of the

regulations. We’ve been very clear about that, specifically thinking about the

number of days to be permitted for right of recission. Should there be a

penalty? What kind of penalty? Those are very specific details that we’ve asked

BCFSA to go out and consult on so that that helps to inform

regulations.

Also, this is new legislation. It’s important to also recognize that

there needs to be an adaptability, I guess I’ll call it, for these regulations,

making sure that as things change and as the market changes, it has the ability

to reflect the changing market — so again, regulation.

[3:15 p.m.]

The member knows full well that if you’re wanting to change legislation

— getting it in the docket and getting all of the work done — you’re not as

responsive. It’s very, very difficult for government to be responsive when it’s

written in the line of legislation. So this means, I believe, that it’s better

legislation to have the ability to do some of the specific details by

regulation.

I also need to acknowledge, and I know that the member would appreciate

this, that the housing market in Peace River will be different than the housing

market here in the capital region. So once again, looking to make sure that we

can tailor some of this is also going to be part of the thinking that we asked

the BCFSA to look at.

I look forward to seeing that report and making sure that we can, again,

deliver something for people who continue to be challenged and that consumers

have the prevention that they need. There might need to be additional

legislation. I’m not saying that this is the end. There might need to be

additional legislation based on the report and helping British Columbians who

are participating in the market.

A. Olsen: It seems like the more efficient approach would be to wait for the

report to be tabled, gather together all of the actions that need to be taken,

put them together in a piece of legislation and then offer them to British

Columbians to be able to review the actions that are being taken. That would be

a way for British Columbians to understand how their government is actually

addressing the housing crisis.

Creating an enabling piece of legislation that has literally nothing in

it other than to give the government powers — to extend to the government

powers that it currently doesn’t have, with no substance whatsoever — is not

actually showing British Columbians how this government is intending on fixing

the housing crisis. In fact, what it’s doing is creating more confusion about

what the impact of these changes could be.

In fact, it’s irresponsible for the members. I think the minister knows

this, because I think that the minister probably, when the B.C. NDP was on this

side of the House, had a similar perspective about the enabling powers that

former governments were requesting.

Perhaps the minister can talk about how it is that…. I’ll put it this

way. Even the Minister of Citizens’ Services had floated a number when we were,

last fall, talking about the cost that information is going to be to British

Columbians now. The Minister of Finance hasn’t even floated numbers for British

Columbians to be able to knock around on the tennis or the pickleball court. We

can’t even have that debate. We have no idea what the substance of this is

going to be.

Perhaps the minister can talk a little bit about how it is that, from

her former perspective on this side, we are to do our job to understand exactly

how this is going to have an impact on the housing market and on British

Columbians. The minister is quick to say that this is the largest single

investment that British Columbians are going to make. So in other words, this

is the single most important piece of legislation that’s in front of this House

right now.

We, on the opposition benches, have no way to say to British Columbians

that we can contextualize the impact that’s going to have on that investment,

whether you have made it or whether you are fixing to make it. How does the

minister suppose that we are to scrutinize a bill that has no

information?

And just have the temerity to ask us…. On behalf of all British

Columbians, by the way, our job in opposition is to test the elements of this

legislation and make sure that it’s resilient enough to be able to survive

those tests. That’s our job. How does the minister propose that we do that,

having no details in this bill?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: You know, I listened carefully to the member’s question. I want to

correct something for the record. We never said that this would address housing

affordability. This is a consumer protection piece of legislation.

Consumers — and we’ve been hearing this, particularly from the mortgage

brokers — were making more and more decisions to forgo any conditions on their

purchase. There were stories that we were continuing to hear — I’m sure the

member has heard from his constituents as well; I was hearing it in my

constituency — where people were feeling pressured to put in offers without

conditions and making purchases without having the time they needed to get

inspections and such or financing. That was creating significant hardship. So

this — I want to be really clear — is a consumer protection piece.

The other thing I think is really important — and again, I’m sure I can

have a debate with the member just on this — is we don’t have to let the

perfect be the enemy of the good, as the member proposes.

Again, I think…. And the member across the way is laughing. Taking a

phased approach allows us to support people sooner than doing nothing at all

while we continue to study.

I’ve listened carefully to how the members opposite…. I appreciate this.

I appreciate the frustration. I’m not saying I don’t appreciate it. I do. If

government says, “We should study something,” they then get frustrated, because

we’re not taking action. Now we take action, and they’re saying: “You should

study something.”

What we’re doing is taking action, and we’re studying it simultaneously.

We know that there’s more to do. That’s why we tasked the BCFSA to do more than

just take a look at how many days should be considered as part of the

rescission. There is a right of rescission that currently exists with REDMA,

the piece of legislation. So there’s a basis, a starting point, on what kinds

of penalties should exist should someone act on the right of rescission. That

work is being done.

While they’re doing that, we tasked them to do more, to get more

information, so that we can do more as we learn more from the report. This

won’t be, necessarily. the last piece that we do, but it is certainly the first

piece, with potentially more to come. I know that the member appreciates that

making change can happen over a phased period, with a phased approach. That’s

the lens that we’re acting on.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s interesting. In early days of this, it did sound very much

like statements from government were that legislation and cooling-off periods

were going to be coming to address affordability and housing prices. That tune

has changed. Fair enough. The minister has started to use consumer protection

as the reason around this.

I guess the question just goes to why the need, then…. The minister

actually touched on this in an earlier answer about the difference between the

real estate market in Peace River South versus other areas of the province. But

she also referenced that things ebb and flow in real estate markets.

The other piece of it is that a lot of times, people are selling and

buying out of two different regions in the province. So one would think that

cohesive rules would actually be a good thing, since we’re supposed to be one

province.

If this about consumer protection, can the minister explain why this

legislation, then, contemplates and gives her the ability to have different

levels of consumer protection depending on where you live in the province? Why

should someone in the Metro area be provided potentially stronger consumer

protection than someone in Peace River South? Why should one British Columbian

have higher levels of government consumer protection than others on the largest

purchase of most of their lives — all words and phrases that the minister has

touched on to this point of this debate?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think that the member knows full well that it’s the market activity

and the pace of market activity that dictate how consumers might need some

additional support around protection.

For example, when the market isn’t that active — isn’t as active as

we’ve seen — there actually is the space to put conditions in on offers and

have them considered. That permits anyone who puts an offer in to get the

inspections. I think about my kids and them wanting to be able to own a home. I

want them to do their due diligence. I think as parents, we want our kids to be

able to have the space to do the due diligence necessary to make sure it’s a

purchase that works for them.

In some markets, there may not be that level of activity. So the market

itself provides the opportunity to do the due diligence. Having said that, the

legislation doesn’t require regions to be considered. It’s not a requirement in

the legislation. But we’re anticipating that could be something that may need

to be looked at.

Again, I expect we’ll see that in the report, whether or not that needs

to be a consideration. But this is a large province, and there could be very

different kinds of activities or different paces of activity in the housing

market, depending on where you are in the province, and it might be something

that may need to be considered. Again, it’s not in the legislation, but it’s an

opportunity that we could have, through regulation, to address.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member, I just would like to remind members to

focus your questions on clause 1 as we debate this bill.

M. Bernier: Chair, thank you for the guidance. All of our questions, if I can say,

will probably be around clause 1, because it’s really the only clause of any

substance in this bill. We’ll make sure, with that guidance, that our questions

will be framed accordingly within that.

Clause 1 talks about — the entire bill is talking about — the

regulation. The minister herself just said that she doesn’t know because she’s

waiting for a report, which, I think, goes right to the point that we’re trying

to make.

If it’s so important, and this government and the minister don’t know

what they want to do because they’re waiting for a report, a report that the

minister has acknowledged numerous times now that she could have any

day….

I do find it quite astounding that, kind of like my colleague from

Saanich North and the Islands alluded to, we’re debating a piece of legislation

with no information. This makes it very hard when the minister wants to — I’m

sure in good faith — stand here and have the whole House support this bill. It

makes it very difficult when it’s hard to get any answers to some of the

details.

I want to go back to…. I didn’t get a clear answer earlier from the

minister, and it really comes back to the whole idea of the BCFSA and the

report that the minister is saying will help frame some of the regulations at a

later date. Was the direction given by the minister, then, to the BCFSA to

consult on whether or not the right of rescission was even a good idea? I asked

this maybe in different words earlier and didn’t get a straight

answer.

Was the BCFSA allowed to look at that? And, if so, what if they come

back and say it’s not a good idea, or were they barred from even having that

recommendation back to the minister?

I just want to get a better understanding of what the BCFSA’s role, I

guess, is in recommendations. As I alluded to and talked about earlier, as many

others have…. A lot of professionals in the sector have said that maybe this

isn’t the right approach.

[3:30 p.m.]

I’ll get to some quotes and some ideas from the minister later, but what

if the BCFSA themselves say: “Hey, there is a better way to do

this”?

Hon. S. Robinson: They were asked to look at the parameters of a right of rescission. I

just want to remind the member that there is already legislation — REDMA, the

Real Estate Development Marketing Act — that’s been around since the early

2000s. I was trying to get which year. It’s 2004, 2003 — somewhere in there.

There is already a right of rescission. It already exists here in British

Columbia.

They were also asked to look at other consumer protection ideas that

have come up, like blind bidding, so we can get even more information out of

them. Again, there might be some opportunity to do even more work on this,

going forward.

M. Bernier: Again, it goes back to, I would argue, a rushed piece of legislation

with no detail. I’m still waiting for information that’s going to come any day

now.

The minister has brought up a couple of times the whole concept and the

issue around blind bidding. Can she point to me in the legislation where it

talks about blind bidding?

Hon. S. Robinson: It doesn’t talk about blind bidding. As I mentioned to the member, we

asked BCFSA to get more information from the industry partners on what that

would — could — look like and to do a bit more digging into that. It’s an idea

that has been, I’ll say, floated around by different industry participants, and

we know that there may be some opportunities to continue to deliver on consumer

protection. So that’s why we tasked them with doing more research.

Again, I think taking a phased approach to consumer protection is the

right approach. I mentioned again we already have legislation that has a right

of rescission, and we’re building on that. If we need to do more as a

government, we’re prepared to do that.

M. Bernier: In clause 1 here, under

section 42, it talks about that the right of

recission will be looked at, the seller, within a prescribed number of

days.

[3:35 p.m.]

What’s the minister thinking? What is the prescribed number of days?

This goes back to the point that we have a piece of legislation with very

little detail that she wants us to support in this House. Can she give us an

idea?

Again, the member for Saanich North and the Islands talked about how

other ministers have floated out numbers. We found out afterwards how that all

worked out. So if there is a written notice of recission on the seller within a

prescribed number of days, what days is the minister thinking of?

Hon. S. Robinson: When I referred to REDMA earlier, I thought it was really important to

understand some of the context in which we were looking at when we were

bringing this legislation forward. REDMA has seven days of recission, so

that’s, just again, to provide some context.

BCFSA has gone out, has been consulting with various component parts of

different industry members, different parts — whether it’s mortgage brokers,

real estate industry, other folks in the industry, the inspectors and others.

They’ll come back with a recommendation. That is what I expect.

M. Bernier: I hate to flog the dead horse, as they say, but here’s another perfect

example. Very simplistically, we could have waited those few days that the

minister keeps talking about. Instead of the legislation reading a “seller

within the prescribed number of days,” it could very well have said “seven

days,” if that’s what they’re thinking of, if that’s what the direction is

going. At least it gives the buyers and sellers in the province of British

Columbia an understanding of where this government’s head is at, on any

issue.

It’s very difficult, again, to be able to go out and show this to

anybody who’s looking at purchasing a house and say, “Here’s the information

that will help you in your decisions,” because everything in this legislation

says: “Coulda, woulda, shoulda, maybe.” It doesn’t actually have

detail.

In saying that, and the minister referenced them a little bit as well,

there are, at last count, somewhere in the vicinity of about 25,000, I believe,

real estate agents in the province of British Columbia. Because there were some

concerns, they put together, I would argue, a very well-thought-out white paper

— 50, 60 pages long, with their own pieces of recommendations and concerns with

this legislation, which they’ve put out for this minister and this government

to consider.

We’ve already heard from a few of the minister’s colleagues in this

House that they were not looking at that white paper at all. They’re

self-interested, as real estate agents, and they’re not worried about

inflationary costs or costs going up on housing because they make more money.

That’s what this government has said.

I’m just curious if the minister feels the same way as her colleagues

who have stated those facts in this House and publicly. Or is she actually

considering any of the recommendations that the real estate association has

brought forward to try to help in this area?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: When we tasked the BCFSA to do this consultation, that meant all the

various component parts of the industry. That meant the legal community, real

estate academics, inspectors and appraisers, mortgage brokers, the financial

institutions, consumer advocacy groups, as well as the real estate industry,

the associations and boards.

I would imagine that all of those organizations brought forward their

ideas, their recommendations, their suggestions, not only on this but on the

other pieces that we asked for, so that we would have a robust, full picture

and could, once we had that report, move forward on the

recommendations.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the answer from the minister that they’re consulting all

these groups. What is the minister going to do, then, if the recommendation

comes back unfavourably, that this is the wrong approach?

Hon. S. Robinson: The BCFSA was asked to consult on the parameters of a protection period.

I expect that that will be part of the recommendation in this report — as well

as other opportunities for continuing to build out on any other consumer

protection measures that we ought to consider.

M. Bernier: I’m really troubled by that answer.

What the minister…. It sounds like she is now confirming in this House

that it doesn’t matter what anybody says. They’ve got their mind made up. It

doesn’t matter if all of the supposed experts in the field look at this and

come back and say: “This is the wrong approach. It’s not going to work. It’s

not going to help consumer protection. It might make things worse. It might

increase the prices of housing.”

The BCFSA, according to the minister, has been tasked to do all this

consultation, the minister has just said, with all of these experts and

association groups in the province on their opinions. If I understand the

minister correctly — she has the right to stand up after me and tell me I

didn’t hear correctly — what the minister just said is that they are not

allowed to come back and say that this is the wrong approach.

What, basically, the minister is telling every single group in the

province is: “It doesn’t matter what you think. This is what we’re doing, so

now tell us how you would like it shaped. Don’t tell us it’s not going to work.

Don’t tell us if it’s the right approach, because we’re not changing our

mind.”

My question to the minister was: what if they come back and say that

this is the wrong approach? I understand the minister just said: “Well, they

can’t say that, because we’re not going to allow them.” Did I hear the minister

correctly?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Not at all. I do want to say and read into the record again what we have

been hearing from these very professionals that we are consulting with. Andy

Yan, who’s an urban planner and director of the city program at Simon Fraser

University, one of these academics, said on March 29: “I think it’s a good idea

around protecting consumers on the biggest purchase for most of their

lives.”

We’ve already heard from one. Helene Barton, the executive director of

B.C.’s Home Inspectors Association, said: “After the last heated real estate

boom, in 2016, I received countless calls from disappointed purchasers who had

skipped the home inspection. Major and costly issues such as structure, mould,

leaking roofs and unsafe electrical became apparent after taking possession of

their new homes.”

She goes on to talk about a family that was absolutely devastated. She

points out: “We hope this new legislation will ensure the same protections to

home buyers in any market conditions.” We’ve already heard from them that

they’re very supportive of this legislation.

Finally, I will share one more group: Paul Taylor, the president and CEO

of Mortgage Professionals Canada. This is what he had to say: “Without a

structured, short cooling-off period to withdraw from an offer that, on

reflection, the seller is unable to realistically manage, and now with a

legally binding agreement in place, often long and complicated legal processes

are required to exit the transaction.”

He went on to say: “Mortgage Professionals Canada is supportive of a

short cooling-off period to avoid exactly these difficulties. We certainly are

supportive of the legislation and the opportunity to create some additional

protections for would-be homebuyers.”

We already have heard, from significant parts of the industry, that they

are supportive of this.

I really look forward to getting back to the legislation that we have

here before us on a line-by-line — to get through that this

afternoon.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the minister’s eagerness to rush through this. She wants to

rush the legislation in here. But we have a job to do, not only as opposition

on behalf of the people but, I think, for everybody — for the different

associations and people that the minister just referenced.

I’d love to go line by line, in great detail. Maybe I will do that in a

moment, because I’d love to hear some answers from the minister on some very

specific details that are not in the legislation. With the last answer that the

minister just gave….

I referenced, again, the 25,000 real estate agents who work every

region, every riding in this province. The white paper and the recommendations

that they’ve been giving, I’m told, not only to the minister, but to the BCFSA,

are that this is completely the wrong approach. The cooling-off period may lead

to frivolous offers. It may lead to multiple bids. It may lead to not solving

any of the issues that the minister is talking about.

In fact, even though the minister said that this bill has nothing to do

with affordability, this approach, a lot of people are saying — in the emails

that I get from some of the same professionals that the minister has referenced

— may actually increase the cost of a house, putting more pressure on the same

people that the minister says we’re trying to help.

The minister says that it’s not about affordability, that it’s about

consumer protection. I’d say that we need to be looking at both. Will the

minister acknowledge, then: will this bill increase, decrease or do anything at

all for the price of a home for people in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, we’ve canvassed this. I’m happy to repeat it, because the

member…. This has been designed as a consumer protection piece of

legislation.

[3:50 p.m.]

We have heard from numerous component parts, representatives of

different parts of the industry, about the value that they see in having a

consumer protection period of some size, to provide those who are making an

offer the opportunity to get all the information they need to make a good

decision.

I know that the members opposite would agree that getting a home

inspection is a good thing to do. It’s a wise thing to do, and making sure that

they have the time to do that is an important piece of making this kind of

exchange work for people.

It is with that in mind that we are bringing forward this legislation,

because it’s important that we do that. That’s what the intended purpose is of

this piece of legislation.

M. Bernier: Again, I think it’s important to acknowledge, then….

First of all, I think all of us want to ensure that we have proper

consumer protection. That’s just a given. But my question to the minister is:

is she bringing forward a piece of legislation that has no detail, that’s all

at a later date, that’s about consumer protection, that may, according to many

of the professionals in this sector…? They’ve said that this piece of

legislation could increase the price of housing in the province of British

Columbia.

We’re already talking about the fact that house prices have gone up over

$600,000 in the last few years on the average home. We’re now looking at almost

$2 million for a home. Of course, we have to look at not only consumer

protection but the affordability indexes as well.

I’m a little concerned by the minister’s answer, if she’s saying that

they’re only worried about consumer protection, and if the prices of houses go

up because of this bill, so be it. That’s not what we’re looking

for.

My question was: is the minister willing to say that house prices are

not going to go up? I know she can’t answer that. I know what her answer will

be. The whole point is we have people who have warned us that this approach may

be the wrong one. It’s also very concerning that the minister has said that

they’re not going to consider some of those warnings that have been given

already.

Maybe a simple — hopefully, simple — question to the minister, then.

Since all of their eggs are in a basket of a report coming from the BCFSA, it

appears, is the minister willing to stand up today and say that as soon as she

and government get that report, they will table it in this House?

Since it’s the most important piece of legislation to help affordability

and consumer protection, since it’s something that is for the largest

investment, as the minister keeps saying, for people in British Columbia, they

should have a good understanding of what kinds of ideas and recommendations

were put forward. Will she table the report as soon as she gets it?

Hon. S. Robinson: It is my understanding that the BCFSA will be making this report

public.

M. Bernier: Can the minister give me a timeline, then, once she receives that

report, of when we expect to see the regulations announced publicly?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is an important piece of legislation. Of course, the regulations

that go with it are critically important to our government, because we see the

impact of a very active housing market on consumers, and we said that we would

move as quickly as we can on this. So we’ll be moving very quickly on

this.

I forget. There was a second part to the question. I apologize. I’m

trying to track too many things. If the member wants to ask the other part of

his question, I’m happy to receive it again.

M. Bernier: I know. I’ll just keep flying these at the minister.

The main crux of this…. I’m looking for a little bit more specifics, as

well as, I think, the people who are talking about making the largest

investment in their personal life, more than likely….

The minister says they’ll move quickly. What does that mean? The

minister has been on record in the past saying it could be this fall before

regulations come forward. I’m just trying to get a better understanding of what

the public can expect.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member getting up on his feet again and reminding me of

some parts of his question.

Again, I will say…. I know the member is not going to appreciate this. I

hope he can appreciate this. Depending on what the recommendations are, it will

depend on how quickly staff can work. But I have staff keyed up ready to

receive the report, to analyze the report, to bring forward the regulations

that are important to make this piece of legislation work.

Again, we know that consumers do need the space to get all the

information. I can’t imagine anybody in this House not appreciating how

important that is and wanting British Columbians to have the information they

need to make these sorts of decisions. As soon as we get the report, we’ll

certainly have staff keyed up and ready to go to deliver on the

regulations.

M. Bernier: Appreciate that. I don’t mean to smirk when I’m asking this next

question, though.

You know, it’s interesting to hear. I appreciate the minister saying

that the BCFSA themselves will be releasing, publicly, the report, which we

would hope and assume. I’m looking for the minister’s support on that — that

that would go out right away, not after decisions are being made.

My comment and my question, I guess, to the minister, again with

respect…. We’ve seen what’s happened in the past with some of her colleagues.

Has the minister already received any briefing notes on this on a decision that

government has decided to go to? Has she signed off on any possible decision

notes? Do they already have some predetermined ideas of where they’re going on

these regulations, or are they holding off completely until they have the

report from the BCFSA?

Hon. S. Robinson: There have been no decision notes, no briefings. I do want to assure the

member that I ask at least weekly: “When can I see the report?” Just last week

I was told it was in draft form at this point, but I haven’t seen it. I look

forward to getting it soon. I wish I had more specific details for the member.

I had hoped to have received it before the end of this month, but at this point

I haven’t received it.

M. Bernier: In clause 1 here, under

section 43…. The minister will be happy if I’m

referencing something very specific here. I’m a little worried, though, about

the lack of answer I might get.

section 43 that is being added here in the regulations for

section

42, under clause 1, it’s a list of things where it says that the minister,

through Lieutenant-Governor order-in-council…. We know how that works, but for

those watching, that basically means cabinet decides at a later date

regulations and will sign off on it behind closed doors. I don’t mean that

sarcastically. That’s just the system of how order-in-council works.

As a former minister, I’m not saying it’s never happened in the past.

The regulations can be changed in cabinet, and that’s how the system works

sometimes. Typically, though, there is at least some information that’s shaped

around that.

[4:00 p.m.]

When we look at the list of mays…. I say that because in

section 43

being added, it’s all “may make regulations.” There is quite a list here that

has been put forward — almost ten here, I think. But there are some

that….

We talk about prescribed number of days, rescission. There is nothing

really detailed in here, but I’m trying to get a better understanding of what

government’s intentions are.

I’ll look at (c), for instance, respecting an amount to be paid by the

purchaser or seller for the right of rescission. It, basically, is talking

about a penalty. So if somebody makes an offer or multiple offers on homes, and

then all of a sudden pulls out, for whatever reason, there may or may not be

penalties. That’s the way I’m reading this.

I think most people in this House who have been blessed, fortunate

enough, to purchase a home, know how the process works around putting on

subjects and the removal of subjects in order to finally have the legal

document, once subjects are all completely removed, to purchase the

home.

In this case it sounds like there may or may not be penalties associated

for somebody if they use the right of rescission or if they back out or if they

put multiple bids. The minister, I think, has acknowledged in the past that

that may or may not happen, where people could put in multiple bids.

What’s the government’s thought process then? What are they

contemplating for a penalty? When would a penalty be actioned on, and what kind

of dollar amount would a penalty look like?

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Welcome to the chair, Madam Chair.

One of the things that we did was…. We looked to other jurisdictions

that have something like this in place — Australia, in particular. Australia

has the requirement that if you exercise your right of rescission, you do

forfeit some of your deposit, which, of course, the intent is to diminish

frivolous offers, as the member has noted. BCFSA, of course, will be providing

advice on what that ought to look like.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister. Kind of along the same thoughts of a

penalty.

Under (f), we also…. Still on clause 1, of course, Chair, and welcome.

Under 43(f), it’s talking about the return of a deposit. We all know that when

somebody purchases a home through the real estate agency, when they’re making

the original offer, they’ll have a deposit that needs to be made that is

accompanied with the contractual obligation, typically with

subjects….

In the case that we’re talking about and the concern that the minister

has highlighted…. Rightfully so. I will acknowledge there are times there are

no subjects, which is one of the issues that we’re trying to maybe possibly

address with this piece of legislation. But there’s always, typically, a

deposit.

In here, it talks about the possibility of sometimes the deposit not

being returned or a portion thereof not being returned. Can the minister give

me an example of if somebody is purchasing a home and now, all of a sudden,

their deposit may not be returned to them because of the contract? What would

spark the decision for that not to be returned?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m learning about how Australia does it in different states, and how

they do it. They provide a bit of a model.

This is one of the ways in which to ensure that the seller who, in

receipt of the deposit, doesn’t have to go and find…. If the buyer chooses to

use the right of rescission, they can then use part of the deposit as part of

the penalty so that they don’t have to go and find them to get the fee that

would be associated with using the right of rescission. So this is why it was

built this way. It’s an example of how some parts of Australia use this

model.

M. Bernier: I understand where the minister was going, but that doesn’t quite answer

the question. In the system we have today, people have to put deposits forward.

Typically, in almost every situation, though, that deposit is 100 percent

returned to the person.

If for some reason they do a home inspection and they find out that the

work required to fix up the home is beyond their financial means of what they

expected when they put in the bid on the house…. I think the minister would

acknowledge that’s part of this cooling-off period, allowing for a home

inspection, so if somebody finds out that they’re going to back out of the deal

based on the home inspection.

As the minister knows, a lot of times people would put a “subject to

financing.” They assume they can qualify, but then, for whatever personal

reasons, the banks or the mortgage brokers will say they no longer qualify. So

they have to remove their bid on the house. That subject is not removed, and

the contract becomes null and void.

My question was not so much the technicalities of why we have a deposit.

It’s: what will trigger it? What will trigger somebody who says…? I’m just

going to make numbers up here, an example. If somebody puts down a $40,000

deposit on a house, and then they may or may not….

Let’s say they back out for whatever reason. What triggers all or a

portion of that deposit being forfeited? That could put even more pressure on

somebody. If I was buying a house and I was told you’re now taking a gamble

with a $40,000 deposit — you may not get it all back if you back out of the

deal — isn’t that making it even harder for these people?

My question is more: what is the decision-making, the triggers, that

would come back to a person to say: “Sorry, you’re losing your deposit based on

the decision you’ve made”? What would those triggers be?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is about the right of rescission, not about the subjects. The

member had rightly provided examples of getting financing in order, getting a

home inspection.

The idea is that there will be a window of time in which the buyer can

rescind their offer — can just rescind their offer as they see fit, depending

on whatever their circumstance is. The expectation is that there will be some

sort of fee for doing that in order to minimize the frivolous offers, as the

member said earlier.

Again, the right of rescission is not about subjects; it’s about a

period of time that one has in order to change their mind,

essentially.

M. Bernier: I think the minister needs to acknowledge — and I believe she

understands it — that they’re actually synced. They’re tied together. When you

look at the legislation, the way it has been presented here….

Again, there are not details. The whole point of a cooling-off period

that we’re putting here and a right of rescission, which is, to basically say,

an opportunity to back out of the deal…. There are a multitude of different

reasons why somebody may or may not back out of a deal. In this legislation,

this government has chosen to put in the possibility of penalties, the

possibility of keeping all or part of a deposit.

My question was: under what situation would that happen? The minister

just stood up and said that the whole point of this is to give somebody an

opportunity to back out. But she’s also said that there could be penalties for

backing out.

[4:15 p.m.]

Now, that’s going to put more pressure, some would argue, on whether

they’re going to put in a bid to begin with. This could exasperate or make the

issue even worse, because if I’m a purchaser, I’m going to be very, very

careful now on what offer I put forward, knowing that I may lose all or part of

my deposit or that there may be a monetary penalty to me for doing

that.

The problem that also happens is people…. The whole point is so people

don’t rush in. I get it. But in our market that we have in some parts of the

province right now, that also means that if people are taking a sober second

thought — if I can use that term — before they put in the offer, they’ve

probably missed out, because somebody else has put in the offer and maybe is

not worried about the penalty. Maybe it’s an investor. Maybe it’s a

developer.

That young family trying to start out, who knows that they’ve scraped

and saved for a deposit on a house for the last 25 years, possibly…. We know

how long it takes for some people. It sounds like they could be at risk of

losing some or all of their life savings, which are being put forward for a

deposit on a home.

I don’t think I’m exaggerating on this issue, based on the response I

just got from the minister. Maybe she can clarify for me, because this is very

important. Under what situation would somebody be penalized or lose their

deposit? Not just that they could — what situation would cause that?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We’ve had some interesting discussion about subjects and rights of

rescission.

I want to be really clear. If someone walks away from a deal because

they couldn’t meet the subject — so they build into the deal “all subject to

financing,” and that’s an accepted offer — there is no fee for walking away,

because it was subject to this particular subject. If, however, they’re walking

away because they’re using the right of rescission, which is different…. The

opportunity, for a fee, for doing that is different. For example, you write an

offer.

The member is furrowing his brow, so I’m assuming that it’s not as clear

as I’m hoping. I will try one more time.

If someone makes an offer on a home subject to financing, the offer is

accepted, and then the financing falls through, that’s not exercising the right

of rescission. The subject didn’t materialize. They get to walk away because

the subjects were accepted as part of the offer. If there are no conditions —

there are no subjects — and they exercise the right of rescission within the

prescribed time frame, then there would be, possibly, as we’ve looked at here,

some fee paid as a result of walking away. It’s not about…. The subjects were

built into the offer.

If I could just share with the member, just to give a bit of context

about what Australia has. I think it’s important to understand the scope. In

Australia, penalties for exercising the right of rescission do vary by state.

In Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, penalties

are set at 0.25 percent of the purchase price, so that gives you a sense of

what they’re using. In Victoria, penalties are set at 0.2 percent of the

purchase price, and there are other territories that don’t have a rescission

fee at all.

M. Bernier: I also appreciate the minister highlighting my facial expressions, which

are usually very apparent when I’m thinking and talking.

I do want to understand this a little bit better. The whole point, what

I understood, of the government bringing forward a cooling-off period — you

want to call it right of rescission — was to try to cool down the fact that —

what? — multiple bids, people going in without subjects, people are getting

trapped in a home they should have had inspections on….

That, by the way, would mean that people are actually putting in

subjects. You cannot necessarily purchase a home without subjects and then use

that as a fallback. There is always going to be a subject of a home inspection

or something like that. If there are not….

The minister is shaking her head. I’ll give her a moment in a second. I

do understand that right now, what’s happening is that people are making offers

without subjects. But with the minister’s answer, this doesn’t necessarily fix

the problem, then. If the whole point is to try to encourage people to have

subjects, to have a home inspection, to have the sober second thought…. I’m

wondering if the minister knows where I’m going with this. That’s where I’m

confused with the answer, because she’s saying that people can lose if there

are no subjects.

That’s not going to solve the problem. There are a lot of developers, a

lot of investors and speculators that may go out and say: “I’m just going to

invest or put a bunch of bids on homes with no subjects.” That is cutting out

people, families, who are legitimately trying to get into homes. Those people

need those subjects sometimes.

I think the minister knows where I’m going now. I see her conferring

with her staff.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’ll take another shot at this, because I think I understand where we’re

not syncing. The right to put in subjects, of course, is still there. It has

always been there, and that has been, certainly…. I’m not going to speak for

the member, but I remember my purchases, and that was very important to

me.

[4:25 p.m.]

That is still, certainly, possible. However, we have certainly seen, in

this very active market, where people are feeling the pressure to not put

subjects. So they put in offers that get accepted with no subjects. What this

does is it says you have this period of time to go get the things needed that

you need to get done, like your financing, like a home inspection.

They’re not subjects. They’ve already put in an offer with no subjects.

Having some time to go take care of these things is part of this homebuyer

protection period so that they can get those things done. They could see their

offer through, or they could say either their financing didn’t come through or

they’re not satisfied with the home inspection. It didn’t meet their needs, or

they felt like it was going to require too much more of an investment. They

didn’t have the financial capacity. So they have the right to walk away in the

case where they have put in a no-subject offer.

M. Bernier: What the minister said in a couple of answers ago, though…. But if they

do choose to walk away with a no-subject offer, they could be penalized or lose

part of their deposit. I’m not going to go down that road again, but these are

the concerns, obviously, that we need to flag.

Maybe the minister can explain this. We’re trying to — I, maybe on

behalf of a lot of people in this situation…. How will this actually work on

the ground?

What I mean by that is I’m selling a house. So I’m the seller, not the

purchaser. We need to remember, in today’s market, most sellers are probably

purchasers as well. They’re selling a home and moving into a smaller house,

maybe upgrading to a larger house, moving to a different part of the province.

Somewhat irrelevant for where I’m going on this, though.

The situation we have right now is there are multiple offers. I don’t

see, under this cooling-off period, that the opportunity for multiple offers

changes.

By that, I mean ten people look at a house, nine people make an offer.

What’s stopping the seller from looking at…. Simplistically, I’ll say five

offers come in. They look at the five offers. Four of them have subjects; one

doesn’t. What’s stopping the seller from just now picking that one with no

subjects, waiting the seven days, or whatever the prescribed days…? We don’t

have it in the legislation yet. We just move forward, and the house is sold to

that person with no subjects. Nothing has really changed. We’re just waiting

seven days for the contract to be finalized.

Is that a fair way of looking at this? What are we actually going to

solve with this, if we’re not forcing people to have subjects, which you can’t

do? We can’t force a seller to which offer they’re going to pick. In essence,

it could still be the same situation of somebody putting in a bid, no subjects.

Wait the seven days. It’s all done.

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the member has, in many ways, hit the nail on the head. With 70

percent of offers, which is what we’re hearing now, that have no subjects and

with the people being encouraged by realtors not to use subjects, there isn’t

that opportunity to get that important work done.

What this does is it says that you have time to get your ducks in a row

in order to make sure that this is the right decision for you. In essence, it

creates space for the buyer to get all the information they need to make sure

that it’s the right decision for them.

Right now what’s happening is the seller is picking the no-subject

offer. Everyone now is putting in no-subject offers in order to compete. So in

order to make sure that those who feel pressured to put in no-subject offers

have the opportunity to compete, so that they could get all their ducks in a

row — whether it’s the financing, whether it’s the home inspection — we’re

creating a right of rescission so that they can get that important information

in their hands as they finalize their deal.

[4:30 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Well, since we’re hitting the nail on the head, I think one of things I

just heard from the minister, though, is that it’s not going to solve the

problem, because if people can still put in an offer with no subjects, there is

no obligation from the seller to