Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 8, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 325

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 29 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2023

Hon. G. Heyman

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Emergency Preparedness Week

M. Starchuk

Nursing Week and support for nurses

S. Bond

Aaron Banfield

B. Anderson

Police Week and role of justice system

M. Morris

Museums Week and role of museums

B. D’Eith

Garry Watson

J. Sturdy

Ministerial Statements

Coronation of King Charles III

Hon. M. Farnworth

T. Stone

S. Furstenau

Oral Questions

Government funding for Atira property services

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. D. Eby

T. Stone

Government transparency and conflict-of-interest rules and whistleblower protection

S. Furstenau

Hon. D. Eby

Government funding for Atira property services

P. Milobar

Hon. R. Kahlon

Management of B.C. Housing and termination of board

P. Milobar

Hon. D. Eby

Fire at Winters Hotel and management of B.C. Housing and Atira property services

S. Bond

Hon. R. Kahlon

Management of B.C. Housing and Atira property services

M. de Jong

Hon. R. Kahlon

Reports from Committees

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders

and Private Bills Committee, report on Bill Pr402, May 2023

H. Yao

M. Lee

Representative for Children and Youth Appointment

Committee, May 2023

K. Paddon

C. Oakes

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Representative for Children and Youth

K. Paddon

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

Extension of sitting hours

Hon. R. Kahlon

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023 (continued)

C. Oakes

L. Doerkson

T. Halford

D. Davies

G. Kyllo

S. Furstenau

M. de Jong

M. Bernier

M. Lee

Hon. R. Kahlon

Hon. K. Conroy

MONDAY, MAY 8, 2023

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Bailey: Joining us in the members’ gallery this afternoon from Ottawa is His

Excellency Raúl Fernández, Ambassador of Chile to Canada.

[1:35 p.m.]

He is accompanied by Allan Najum, the consul general of Chile in

Vancouver; and Leopoldo Bustos, the honorary consul of Chile in Victoria. In

addition to meeting with myself, these gentlemen will be meeting with the

Minister of State for Trade, the Minister of Water, Land and Resource

Stewardship and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation.

Would the House please join me in making them most welcome.

T. Halford: Actually joining us on the floor today is Ken Jones. Ken served, as a

former MLA, from 1991 to 1996. He represented Surrey-Cloverdale at the time.

He is now a proud resident of White Rock.

He also served on council in Port Hardy. He is also president of

SmartRail. Ken has done a great job in terms of talking about rail issues in

the Fraser Valley. He is an active member of the Peace Portal Church and,

most importantly for everybody in this House, he is a director of the

Association of Former MLAs in B.C., so he is in charge of membership. Ken

has done a great job in that regard.

I ask the House to please make him welcome.

Also joining us today is a gentleman I’ve gotten to know over the last

couple of years and who I’m proud to call a friend. That is Chris Shields.

Chris is joining us here as part of the B.C. Real Estate Association

meetings. Chris and his husband, Rob, reside in White Rock.

Chris, if you were at the Peace Arch Hospital Foundation gala on

Saturday, was dressed as the Mad Hatter, and actually, he was so well

dressed that people actually thought he was staff. So when he was walking

around with drink in his hand, he was reprimanded until they found out that

he was actually a guest. Chris is also a very active member in the White

Rock Pride Society, and the work that he has done with Ernie and that team

there is absolutely immeasurable.

Chris, thank you for making White Rock what it is — and Ken, you as

well.

I want the House to please make them welcome today.

Hon. D. Coulter: In the gallery today, I have a constituent Ghazaleh Nozamani, and

she’s here with her parents. Ghazaleh is an Iranian refugee. She works the

through the Heat and Frost Insulators Union. She runs a non-profit where she

is looking to house other refugees from Iran in tiny houses on her property.

She also organized the first Nowruz celebration at Yarrow Community

Park.

Ghazaleh is the type of constituent that makes me proud to represent

Chilliwack.

If all of those would give her a welcome to our chamber.

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s with great pleasure that I would like to welcome Waaris Bains

Girn, the nine-month-old son of Naveen and Manjot. He’s very adorable, and

I’m so looking forward to holding him very soon and being one of his

mausis as he grows up.

Welcome, Waaris.

I. Paton: Today, ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to welcome four distinguished

guests from my little town of Ladner. Mr. Jack Bates and his wife, Corrine,

are here. Jack is well known in the farming industry as a dairy farmer,

potato farmer and blueberry farmer. Jack has been on just about every

agricultural board from B.C. all the way to Ottawa over the

years.

With him is Mr. Mike Wolzen and his partner Ruth. Mike is one of the

most philanthropic gentlemen you’ll find in any municipality. Several years

ago we shipped 1,000 bales of hay out of Delta up to the fire-ravaged

Kamloops area, and Mike donated all the trucking, three different loads, to

get all that hay up there.

Please welcome Jack, Mike, Corinne and Ruth.

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s my pleasure today to introduce four members from the Ministry of

Environment and Climate Change Strategy, who have worked very hard on one of

our legislative initiatives in the ministry. Taylor Daniel, David Oberg and

Sasha Clark have provided expert policy analysis advice and support. Behn

Skovgaard Andersen is the director who has kept the team and the policy

development process on track.

[1:40 p.m.]

There are also

a number of other employees in the ministry who worked hard on this

initiative who can’t join us today, but I want to recognize them: Magda

Kingsley, Christa Zacharias-Homer, Josh Nobleman, Christy Mulholland, Kirk

Phair, Dianne McGuire and Josie Beruldsen.

Would the House please join me in thanking these hard-working members

of the public service and making them very, very welcome.

G. Begg: It’s my pleasure today to introduce six members of the Surrey police

service, the new police service in Surrey. They are Rick Stewart, Clayton

Ennis, Ryan Buhrig, Darin Sheppard and the two Jeffs, Jeff White and Jeff

Wood.

Would the House please join me in making them most welcome.

Hon. L. Popham: Next week will be proclaimed B.C. Museums Week.

Today I really had the great fortune of having lunch with the

executive director of the B.C. Museums Association, Ryan Hunt, and the

program manager of the B.C. Museums Association, Lorenda Calvert. We got to

know each other over lunch, and I really felt like we left feeling hopeful

about projects in the future.

So thank you.

P. Milobar: I have a couple of guests to introduce today.

The first is Shirley Henderson. Shirley is a retired teacher who

taught throughout the Kamloops region for many years, with a focus on

teaching students with diverse needs. Shirley is a beloved Matriarch and

grandmother to three grandchildren and two great granddaughters. What might

surprise the government is that I’m actually Shirley’s favourite in-law.

What might not surprise them is that my wife is an only child.

Will the House please give a warm welcome to Shirley.

My other guest is the person who raised those three grandchildren, my

wife Lianne, who also, in that time frame, was operating various businesses

with me. She manages to make going out for dinner very easy when the wine

list arrives, as she’s a level 2 sommelier. She has now changed her focus to

work on call with the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council while also helping care

for those two grandchildren.

Will the House please make my wife Lianne Milobar welcome as

well.

Hon. M. Dean: Today in the gallery is Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth. Everybody here will

know that she is the Representative for Children and Youth for British

Columbia. She is an independent officer of this Legislative

Assembly.

Would you please make her very welcome.

B. Anderson: I have four guests that I’m very grateful to be able to welcome into

the chambers today.

I wanted to start with Elena Banfield, as many of you may know her.

She worked in the Legislature for many years.

Welcome back to Elena.

Beside her is her mom, Judy Banfield, who is also my riding

association president. She worked really hard during my last campaign. We

had a lot of fun together.

I really appreciate everything that you’ve done for me and for

us.

Beside her is Jack Harrison, her partner, who also worked hard on my

campaign. I remember him. He had a special bond with my dog Stella. That was

really lovely.

We also have Kelly Shpeley, who is an artist based in

Nelson.

I just hope that everyone can make them feel very welcome here today.

They’re from the Kootenays. It’s always wonderful to have people here in the

Legislature from the Kootenays. You’ll find out more about the reason why

they’re here today during my two-minute statement.

Hon. J. Osborne: It’s my pleasure to introduce five representatives from the New Car

Dealers Association who are joining us in the gallery today. They are Blair

Qualey, the CEO; Ben Lovie, the vice-chair and incoming chair; James Carter,

the past chair; Darren Johnson, a board member; and Anthony Lunelli, the

current chair.

The association is the provincial industry association that represents

over 400 franchised new car and truck dealers doing business in 55

communities across British Columbia. Members of this association support

over 27,000 family-supporting jobs, and they’re responsible for $15.6

billion in retail sales in the province.

[1:45 p.m.]

They own and manage the Vancouver International Auto Show, and they

have administered the CleanBC go electric rebate program, on behalf of the

province of British Columbia, since 2011.

Today they joined us during the lunch-hour with a wide array of makes

and models of electric vehicles. I want to thank them for being here today,

joining us and being a partner in achieving our CleanBC climate

goals.

Would everybody please help me make them very welcome.

T. Shypitka: There isn’t a day that goes by that I’m not super impressed with the

next generation of British Columbians that are about to enter adulthood.

Today is no exception.

In the gallery today, we have Maylyn Tarves. She’s a grade 10 student

from Selkirk Secondary in Kimberley. She’s joined by her aunt Aimee Morrow

and her cousins Moss and Wavy.

I met Maylyn at the East Kootenay Climate Hub in Cranbrook. Maylyn is

interested in philosophy, music, politics and climate change. She will be

presenting to our caucus today, a little later on this afternoon. She’s

interested in watching today’s proceedings in question period.

Would the House please welcome Maylyn, Aimee, Moss and

Wavy.

Hon. G. Lore: May is Child Care Month. I think we all know that early childhood

educators are the heart of child care. We often talk about child care

spaces, but we’re actually talking about people, skilled professionals who

provide care and connection and learning opportunity to our

littlest.

In the gallery today, we are joined by three ECE students — Alexa

Wakefield, Cadence Landry and Nana Yakimoka; and their instructor Danielle

Davis. I’ll have a chance to meet with them this afternoon.

I’m hoping that the House can help me make them all very

welcome.

S. Furstenau: I have five very special guests today in the gallery from the

Vancouver Foundation Level youth policy program. Jimmy Ho, Adriana Laurent,

Arsh Grewal, Amora Takawira and Elie Lubendo are here to shadow us

today.

Would the House please make them most welcome.

K. Paddon: Today in the gallery, from Chilliwack-Kent, are the co-founders of

Project AIM, Miel Bernstein and Tiffany Francis, as well as their guest,

Laura Clegg from here in Victoria.

Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

A. Singh: I thought I was going to be last. I was going to say saving the best

for last. That’s okay, Mr. Speaker.

Kindness, empathy, compassion and that ever openness to be willing to

be teachable are the qualities that define those people that leave an

indelible mark on all whose lives they touch. Their willingness to learn and

accept new ways of thinking and being is monumentally contagious and makes

those around them better people.

My wife, Katrina, is one of those precious few. She has the enormity

of spirit born in her ancestors on the Isle of Skye. It’s her birthday

today. Please join me in wishing her a happy birthday. Co-là-breith sona

dhut. Tha gaol agam ort .

One more. I rise today also to introduce and recognize Khalsa Aid

Canada. They’re up in the gallery today. They’re a Victoria team in our

Legislature.

Khalsa Aid is a charity that puts the Sikh values of seva , or

selfless service, into practice by providing humanitarian aid to those in

need, whether it be at home, disaster areas, civil conflict zones around the

world. You will find them in refugee camps and in some of the world’s most

dangerous places.

In commemoration of Sikh Heritage Month last month, Khalsa Aid’s food

drive across the province collected over 38,000 meals’ worth of food aid,

which was delivered to local food banks and shelters in Port Alberni,

Nanaimo, Victoria, Lower Mainland and Kelowna.

We have joining us in the gallery today Jatinder Singh, Gobinder Singh

Gill, Bhupinder Singh Dhindsa, Gurinder Singh Banwait, Kamaldip Singh Rai,

Rinjit Kaur Rai, Ominder Singh Dhanota and Meenu Kaur.

Please welcome them.

J. Rice: My introduction today is of Shemar, who’s at home in Prince Rupert but

will be watching.

Shemar, for his birthday, received his very first manicure and

pedicure. He turned eight, and this put a huge smile on his face.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t received as well at school.

[1:50 p.m.]

In solidarity, many of my colleagues here, over two dozen, including

many of my male colleagues…. We painted our nails. Our message to Shemar is

that anyone can paint their nails, and they deserve to feel safe going to

school doing so.

All the best for Shemar.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 29 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. G. Heyman presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Environmental Management Amendment

Act, 2023.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 29. This bill proposes a series of

amendments to the Environmental Management Act, to uphold the

polluter-pays principle. It represents the first phase of the public

interest bonding strategy, an initiative that my ministry began in

Development of this bill included consultation with Indigenous

peoples, industry stakeholders and the broader public. Consultation

highlighted the need for statutory improvements to ensure that owners of

large industrial projects, not the public, are bonded so that they pay

the full cost of environmental cleanup, even if their projects are

abandoned.

This bill will deal with abandoned and contaminated sites by

making it clear that industry cannot abandon their facilities and

cleanup obligations, by enabling government to require decommissioning

and closure plans for prescribed industrial facilities and the authority

to require financial assurance and cost recovery tools for cleanup. This

will complement the Contaminated Sites Regulation in place

now.

The bill will lessen the financial burden on taxpayers, enhance

economic opportunities for site redevelopment and protect human health

and the environment. The enabling amendments will be implemented through

regulations that we intend to engage on and consult on, moving

forward.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 29, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2023, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK

M. Starchuk: Emergency Preparedness Week takes place annually to encourage

people to take three steps to better prepare for an emergency: know the

hazards, make a plan, and get an emergency kit.

Knowing the hazards refers to the conditions where you live and

the types of emergencies you could be faced with. As an example, those

living in the Interior may be exposed to heat, fire and floods more

often than people on the west coast of Vancouver Island, who are adding

tsunami to their list of hazards.

You’ve got to make a plan. Emergencies can be very stressful. An

emergency plan is your guidebook on how you and the people you live with

will respond more calmly. Involve everyone in your home in creating the

plan so that each person knows what to do, where to go and whom to be in

contact with. Practise your evacuation plan regularly.

Of course, get an emergency kit. Emergencies can happen at any

time. You could be at work, on a trip or at home. It’s essential to be

prepared for whatever and wherever you may be. If you can become

self-sufficient for three days or more, then the first responders who

are out there doing their jobs can direct emergency resources to those

who are in greater need.

Following an emergency, you may need to either stay at home with

your emergency kit or leave immediately with a grab-and-go bag. If

you’re staying at home, you’ll need an emergency kit. You want to gather

enough supplies to be self-sufficient for two weeks.

Make sure, if you have pets, that you take them into consideration

and have supplies for them as well. Re-evaluate and update your kit

annually, to match your needs as they change.

Make a grab-and-go bag. It’s a good idea to have a grab-and-go bag

at your home, in your car or vehicle and in your workplace. A

grab-and-go bag may contain a small first-aid kit, flashlight, mobile

device charger, backup battery source, cash, small bills, medications, a

three-day supply of food and water, and a whistle, to name a

few.

Remember: if you fail to plan, you’re planning to fail. Everyone,

please, please be prepared.

[1:55 p.m.]

NURSING WEEK AND SUPPORT FOR NURSES

S. Bond: This week is National Nursing Week. Today and every day we should

reflect on the tireless work, dedication and personal sacrifice of the

nurses in our province and beyond.

Whether they work in hospitals, long-term care or clinics, public

health or correctional facilities, nurses provide essential care and

support to patients and their families, other health care professionals

and each other. Nurses are there for us during the most challenging

times of our lives. Not only do they care for our physical needs, but

they provide comfort, encouragement and hope. This often comes with

significant personal sacrifice and impacts.

All of us recognize the critical role that nurses play as members

of our health care teams, and we must do everything possible to ensure

that they have the resources and support that they need. Nurses work

long hours in stressful situations. We need to listen to their concerns

about being overworked and undervalued.

Their job is to provide care even during the most challenging

times. Our job is to listen, learn and respond to ensure that nurses are

valued, included and provided with safe and healthy working

conditions.

None of us will ever forget the images of nurses going to work

during the pandemic so that we could stay home. Gowned, masked, wearing

visors with their names on them to try and reduce anxiety for patients,

day after day they did their jobs on our behalf. Our family and so many

others experienced that firsthand.

When we could not be there with our loved ones, nurses were there.

For that, we will always be eternally grateful.

The theme of National Nursing Week 2023 is “Our nurses, our

future.” As we celebrate their contributions, let us also commit to

doing our part to ensure that we recognize the critical role that nurses

play as part of our health care system, today and in the

future.

AARON BANFIELD

B. Anderson: Aaron Banfield, a compassionate and experienced medicine person

who practised acupuncture, massage, yoga and qigong, led the

revitalization of a defunct chapel into a dedicated and active sacred

space for all at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital.

The space was designed to produce peace of mind and heart where

people of all beliefs and practices feel welcome, and which functions as

a well-resourced facility for the activities that contribute to the

spiritual well-being of the hospital community. Aaron wanted the space

to be used for prayer, yoga, meditation or any other spiritual practice

that will promote psychological and emotional well-being. The sacred

space was Aaron’s final project, a final gift to his

community.

Aaron grew up in Nelson, and after studying and practising

acupuncture and other healing techniques in Victoria, he returned to the

Kootenays. In June, his doctors told him there was nothing more they

could do to stop the cancer he had been living with for the past three

years.

In Aaron’s words, he responded to the news by walking off the

battlefield. He stopped fighting cancer and started celebrating life

instead. He wholeheartedly accepted his death and was determined to live

his final months in a state of great joy and aliveness, as well as

peacefulness and acceptance. Aaron updated the community about his

personal journey through videos. He spoke with great wisdom, serenity

and humour.

A few weeks ago at the age of 41, he said his final

goodbyes.

Aaron was very close with his mom and sister, Judy and Elena

Banfield, and is missed by many others, including his stepfather, Jack

Harrison, and countless friends, family, former patients and community

members.

I want to thank Aaron for his teachings, his dedication to his

community and his final project, a sacred space at the Kootenay

Hospital, where he was a palliative care patient in the end stages of

cancer.

Even as Aaron was dying, he was teaching so many people what it

really meant to live and to give back to his community.

[2:00 p.m.]

POLICE WEEK AND

ROLE OF JUSTICE

SYSTEM

M. Morris: Next week is National Police Week.

Police agencies in B.C. are advocating for a more collaborative

approach and a more integrated effort amongst all police services,

social agencies and our justice system in providing a modernized

approach to public safety. They spend their days focused on the very

small percentage of our populations who are the worst-behaved citizens

in our communities — people who commit such unspeakable acts against

others that the average person cannot begin to comprehend and people who

lie, cheat, steal and take advantage of the vulnerable.

They do this under the rigours of a strong constitution, the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and complex technical investigative

requirements. They do this with compassion, empathy and

professionalism.

But they can’t do this by themselves. They need the support of our

justice system in keeping violent, prolific offenders in jail. They need

our justice system to recognize that violent offenders who continually

reoffend with increasing violence and who continually demonstrate

complete disdain for police and our justice system cannot be measured

solely against the Charter provision of being considered innocent until

proven guilty.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 2022 decision, R. v

J.J. , says in part that “an accused is not ‘entitled to have

procedures crafted that take only (their) interests into account.’” The

decision goes on to say that crucially, “fairness is also assessed from

the point of view of the complainant and the community.”

I hope our justice system in B.C. keeps these words of this

decision in mind and considers the safety of our officers in their

deliberations respecting bail for violent, prolific

offenders.

On behalf of all of us in this House, I wish to thank all police

officers and support personnel for their role in keeping our province

safe. We want to ensure that all police officers return home safely to

their families every day.

MUSEUMS WEEK AND ROLE OF MUSEUMS

B. D’Eith: I rise in the House today to acknowledge B.C. Museums Week, which

is taking place May 14 to 20, 2023.

As was mentioned earlier, Ryan Hunt and Lorenda Calvert are here

from B.C. Museums Association. The BCMA will lead this week of

celebration, and it’s about the importance of museums, art galleries,

historic organizations and cultural centres that protect and tell our

province’s stories.

The theme of B.C. Museums Week is “Museums change lives,” which

points to the power these institutions have in telling our diverse,

collective story and the impact that story has on changing

lives.

Our government values the people who do the tremendous work in

these amazing museums and cultural institutions, sharing our stories and

connecting people. It heightens our understanding and appreciation of

how diverse cultures, traditions and histories within B.C.’s

multicultural society contribute to the strength of our

province.

Museums Week is a great opportunity to promote learning that will

foster dialogue between cultures and allow for a respectful exchange of

knowledge and ideas, all of which supports our goal of creating a

province that is accepting, welcoming and inclusive.

It’s also an opportunity to advance our understanding of truth and

reconciliation. Museums and other cultural institutions are uniquely

positioned to support our government’s commitment to advance

reconciliation, including actions related to protecting and promoting

Indigenous language and cultures, as well as repatriation of cultural

belongings.

In acknowledgment of B.C. Museums Week, BCMA will offer online

content highlighting the role of museums and cultural institutions as

places of learning and as economic drivers in our arts, culture and

tourism sectors, boosting the prosperity and social well-being of

communities in B.C.

I ask the members of the House to join me in recognizing B.C.

Museums Week and encouraging people in their communities to take time to

visit these incredible museums, art galleries, historic sites and

cultural centres throughout the province.

GARRY WATSON

J. Sturdy: When you think about Whistler — about what sets it apart, about

what makes it unique — you’re probably thinking about things that Garry

Watson had a hand in envisioning or a hand in administering or a hand in

persuading.

Garry Watson, one of Whistler’s founding fathers, died this past

April at the age of 89.

It’s no surprise to Whistlerites that the legacy Garry leaves

behind after more than seven decades of calling Whistler home is matched

only by the global reputation of the community that he helped envision,

create and steward.

[2:05 p.m.]

The bold vision for what Whistler was to become began, for Garry,

with a climb up what was then called London Mountain in 1961.

Over the years, Garry played many roles — as an alderman in the

first council, as the chair of the planning committee seeking to bring

the ’68 Olympics to Whistler; guiding the team that persuaded the

province that the crazy idea of building from scratch a destination ski

resort managed through local governance was a good idea — something

almost unthinkable in today’s world and certainly no small task then, as

there were strong competing interests in private landowners, whose

preference was a series of independent developments on their own

properties strung out along the highway.

Fortunately, Garry Watson and Al Raine and others, whose vision

was inspired by walkable and intimate European ski villages, were

successful in locating a town centre between Whistler and Blackcomb

mountains. B.C. is certainly better for it.

Garry leaves one of the richest contributions any British

Columbian, indeed any Canadian, can make. He was able to move his

community from a local vision to a place deserving of an international

reputation. He always had an idea to share, the drive to push these

ideas into reality and the time to support and mentor, always with the

community’s interests at the forefront.

Thank you, Garry, for your unwavering commitment, for your

contribution to the community’s evolution and for the difference you

make to how we experience where we live, work and play every

day.

Ministerial Statements

CORONATION OF KING CHARLES III

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would like to recognize that we are gathered on the territory of

the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, the

Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

I rise today to acknowledge the coronation of Their Majesties King

Charles III and Queen Camilla. Today marks the first time that the House

has gathered since Their Majesties’ coronation.

On Saturday, May 6, millions of people around the world watched as

King Charles III made his way to Westminster Abbey, following in the

footsteps of monarchs over the last millennium, including his mother,

the late Queen Elizabeth II.

In 1953, the world watched the Queen’s coronation, the first to be

televised in black and white. In 2023, the coronation was not only

watched on colour TVs but broadcast for the first time to people

watching on smartphones and laptops around the world.

For a ceremony steeped in tradition, there were a remarkable

number of firsts. Women ordained as Anglican bishops stood alongside

male counterparts. Hymns and prayers were read in Welsh, Scottish

Gaelic, and Irish Gaelic. Leaders of Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and

Sikh faiths took

part in the ceremony. It was a 21st century coronation,

reflecting the diversity of the country and the Commonwealth in which

King Charles reigns.

For Canadians, this marks our first new head of state in over

seven decades. People gathered in our nation’s capital and at events

across the country. In this province, there were tea parties, tree

plantings and concerts. There was a reception at Government House hosted

by the Hon. Janet Austin, B.C.’s Lieutenant-Governor, and for two

nights, our Parliament Buildings were lit up in royal emerald green.

We’ve also updated the Great Seal of British Columbia so that the

province’s official documents, certifications and proclamations will

look a little different.

King Charles III is no stranger to our province. In fact, he has

visited British Columbia a total of six times. During this time, King

Charles has learned, in his words, about “the darker and more difficult

aspects of our shared past,” marked by colonialism and the lasting

devastation of residential schools.

His Majesty has also been here for many of British Columbia’s

milestone moments. He was here for Expo 86 to cut the ribbon on Canada

Place and ride the new SkyTrain. King Charles and the queen consort made

their first visit together to our province in 2009 in advance of the

2010 Olympics.

Here in Victoria, Their Majesties attended a Remembrance Day

service at Christ Church Cathedral before visiting CFB Esquimalt to mark

the 100th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Navy.

Over the years, the face of King Charles III has become a familiar

one to Canadians. His trips to British Columbia have created lifelong

memories for many and continued building his legacy of service. Many of

the causes close to the King’s heart are shared by the people of our

province — a deep commitment to public service, modelled by the late

Queen Elizabeth II; protecting and preserving our natural environment;

and supporting the education and empowerment of young people. I have no

doubt that in the years to come, the king will continue his steadfast

service to his country and the Commonwealth.

[2:10 p.m.]

On behalf of the Legislature and the people of British Columbia,

we extend our sincere congratulations to Their Majesties on their

coronation.

Long live the King.

T. Stone: I’m very pleased to rise on behalf of the official opposition and

to respond to this ministerial statement.

I do so on the territory of the

lək̓ʷəŋən, the Songhees and

Esquimalt people.

On behalf of the official opposition, it gives me a great deal of

pleasure to rise today to share a few remarks, as Canadians joined

others from around the world this past weekend to mark the coronation of

His Majesty King Charles III.

Many British Columbians stayed awake through the wee hours to

watch Saturday’s ceremony, the formal confirmation of King Charles III’s

role, taken on after the passing of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, last

September.

Viewers enjoyed the typical pomp and circumstance of such an

event, but there was one overarching theme that I think we can all

relate to, and that’s the notion of service. This, indeed, is the legacy

of the late Queen that her son, King Charles, continues to carry forward

today.

As his son Prince William noted, the King has been a strong voice

for the environment over the years and has supported disadvantaged youth

to realize their dreams. Prince William also shared how his father has

always understood that people of all faiths and all communities deserve

to be recognized and celebrated.

King Charles has a strong connection to British Columbia, having

visited our province six times. He has been here for big moments in our

lives like the opening of Expo 86, the world’s fair that put Vancouver

on the map as a global destination. He has delighted in some of the

lighter activities B.C. is known for like skiing at Whistler with his

boys, sharing laughs and taking in the beautiful

surroundings.

While we celebrate the new king and his fondness for our province,

we also acknowledge an opportunity to reflect on our relationship with

the Crown. As he said last year: “To unlock the power of our common

future, we must also acknowledge the wrongs that have shaped our past.”

There is a lot of work to be done, and there is hope the King is eager

to modernize and bring positive change to that relationship.

Still, we are all drawn together by the shared value of service.

Each of us in this chamber is here to serve our community, and the

communities we represent are filled with dedicated individuals and

volunteers who also work to make life better for those around

them.

Today in the United Kingdom, people are taking

part in the big

help out to mark His Majesty the King’s coronation. Thousands of

organizations are getting together and offering up opportunities for

citizens to make a real difference. It can be something as small as

checking in on a friend or a family member, or something much bigger,

like picking up a hammer to help with a volunteer building

project.

Today and every day we encourage British Columbians to think about

the ways, big and small, that we can make a difference in our respective

communities, not only to continue this legacy of service that is being

carried forward by King Charles III but because it’s the right thing to

do for the benefit of those around us.

As I close my remarks, I congratulate and send very best wishes on

behalf of British Columbia’s official opposition to his Majesty King

Charles III, to Queen Camilla and to the entire royal family on this

most historic occasion.

S. Furstenau: I rise to respond to the ministerial statement from the Solicitor

General and also to respond to the comments from the House Leader of the

official opposition.

I very much appreciate the comments on tradition and the official

opposition House Leader’s comments on service. I think, in moments like

this, as we have seen in these comments, it is an opportunity to reflect

on important questions.

We are in an institution, right now, that emerged out of a

resistance to absolute power in its earliest incarnation. The

Westminster parliamentary system gave voice to powerful and wealthy

landowners, and over time, those voices have widened and these seats

have come to be occupied by people who represent a widening spectrum in

our society.

Today our parliamentary democracies are meant to raise up the

voices of people, all people. Over the course of hundreds of years,

democracy and its institutions have been in a state of transition —

never static, even though it often seems that way. We are connected in

this building, in this institution, to the coronation of King Charles

III this last weekend.

On behalf of the Third Party caucus, we stand to commemorate his

coronation. We carry on our work in a parliamentary democracy with the

King of Canada, and we can continue to look to the ways in which our

democratic traditions and actions and institutions can best reflect the

vision that we have for the future of our democracy and its

institutions.

[2:15 p.m.]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT FUNDING

FOR ATIRA PROPERTY

SERVICES

K. Kirkpatrick: This Premier buried a BDO audit of Atira that was already underway

when he didn’t like the results. It was covered up, and it was

cancelled.

In fact, the Premier ignored the warning signs of financial

mismanagement, and he went much further and actually tripled the funding

for Atira. It happened on his watch. No other housing provider

experienced such a massive increase in funding under this

Premier.

Why did the Premier choose to triple funding for Atira despite

numerous red flags, warnings and even clear evidence of financial and

organizational mismanagement?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. The BDO report that the

member refers to was initiated under the previous administration and

covered their time in government. Now, I’ve been accused of a number of

things in this House, but covering up mismanagement that took place

under the watch of the previous government is not one of them. That’s a

new one.

Within 120 days of being sworn in as Housing Minister, I directed

staff to undertake a review of B.C. Housing that led to the report that

was released today. I spoke to it in the House today. I’m happy to take

questions from members on that issue.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: I would just like to remind the Premier that it was the B.C.

Liberals that instigated the BDO audit of Atira in 2017. The Premier and

the NDP cancelled it, covered it up and then tripled Atira’s

funding.

After six years and two terms of this NDP government, housing and

homelessness have never been worse, as we all know. Nowhere is it more

evident than in this report released today, explosive and scandalous

mismanagement of B.C. Housing. But at every turn, this Premier has

sought to avoid accountability and, in fact, conceal his disastrous

record overseeing B.C. Housing.

The report highlights that financial reviews, again, of Atira,

were stalled after 2020, right when this Premier was the Housing

Minister and, during that time, again, tripled the funding of

Atira.

When will this Premier acknowledge his direct responsibility and

his direct accountability for the mess that happened under his watch at

B.C. Housing?

Hon. D. Eby: The member correctly notes that the BDO report, as I understand

it, was commissioned by the B.C. Liberal government into activity that

took place under their watch as government. I understand that the

member’s accusing me of burying that information about what happened

while the B.C. Liberals were in government.

Well, when we had the ICBC report about the B.C. Liberals’ time in

government, we released it. When we had the money laundering report

about the B.C. Liberals’ time in government, we released it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Please continue.

Hon. D. Eby: And with respect, as soon as there was an indication, when I was

Housing Minister, that there was an issue, I reached out to my colleague

the then Minister of Finance to ask the comptroller general to initiate

a forensic investigation of B.C. Housing.

I share the member’s concern about the spike in funding at Atira

during the pandemic. I do not, and did not as Housing Minister, direct

funding to any particular organization. Those were recommendations that

came to government from B.C. Housing. The issue in this report that we

released today is that those recommendations were tainted by the fact

that the CEO was interfering in a way that he shouldn’t have by

circumventing the conflict-of-interest guidelines.

Now, that is a serious issue. I agree with the member about that.

To that end, for the first time in 30 years, this government has

released, fully, the report of the forensic investigators so that this

House, on both sides, and the public can see what was happening so that

they know that we’re taking action on this.

T. Stone: Well, the Premier continues to pretend that everything is fine,

but he actually buried the warning signs while tripling funding to

Atira. This happened while he was the Housing Minister. Let me say that

again. He buried these warning signs, this BDO report, and then, at the

same time, he tripled, the Premier tripled, Atira’s funding.

[2:20 p.m.]

He buried the 2018 BDO audit that showed warning signs of

financial mismanagement — frankly, a report that nobody would have known

about if it hadn’t been leaked by a whistleblower.

Under the Premier’s time as Housing Minister, “B.C. Housing’s

financial reviews of Atira have been substantially delayed. The most

recently complete financial review was for…2020.” That’s on page 7 of

the report released today.

He also tried to hide the E&Y report by quietly posting it on

a website over the Canada Day long weekend and then firing the B.C.

Housing board on a Friday evening, claiming at the time that it had

nothing whatsoever to do with “wrongdoing.”

Why did the Premier triple the funding to Atira without any proper

oversight?

Hon. D. Eby: To the member’s question, this government has more than tripled

the funding for housing that took place when those guys were sitting on

this side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The Premier will continue.

Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Speaker, thank you.

We are in a housing crisis. I agree with the member. It is

concerning that it was particularly Atira that saw the spike in funding

recommended by B.C. Housing to this government, which we did fund during

the pandemic to respond to encampments — to get people inside, to get

services to people during the COVID pandemic. The concern is that, as

the report outlines, the CEO at B.C. Housing was taking active steps to

circumvent conflict-of-interest guidelines and interfere in those

decisions at the staffing level of B.C. Housing.

I share the member’s concern. That’s why we released the report —

so that the members could all see it and so that we could ensure

accountability for B.C. Housing, for government as a whole and to make

sure that everybody in the House is on the same page on where we’re

at.

This is the first time in 30 years that a report has been released

in this manner. We’re proud of that. But we do not accept the conduct

that took place at B.C. Housing. Our work is not yet done. We have more

work to do with Atira, and we’ll do that.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, you’re darn right you’ve got more work to do.

The Premier’s also got some explaining to do. The 2018 BDO report

was buried by this Premier. At the same time as he buries this report,

which only became known to the public because it was leaked by a

whistleblower, this Premier, who was the B.C. Housing Minister at the

time, increases Atira’s funding by triple, from $17 million to over $74

million in 2022. That’s a 335 percent increase in funding. All the

while, he’s become known through the BDO report…. It was made known to

him that there was significant financial mismanagement taking place at

Atira.

As Housing Minister, the Premier also signed off on nearly $400

million in hotel purchases at nearly double their combined assessed

value. But the Ernst and Young report says that several of those hotels

are suspect purchases, like the Buchan and Columbia hotels, because

their purchases didn’t have proper oversight. The E&Y report singles

out Burns Block, a property that the Premier personally celebrated the

purchase of, even calling it “sweet justice” for one of his first files

as a lawyer.

The report said this on page 16 about the funding that the Premier

personally announced: “We were unable to identify a rationale for Atira

being directly awarded the operating agreement for this

property.”

While the Premier has been so deeply and personally involved in

the purchase and operation agreements of these Atira properties, why

should anyone believe that he wasn’t aware of the gross mismanagement at

B.C. Housing that was happening right under his nose?

Hon. D. Eby: It was shortly after I was appointed as Minister of Housing that I

directed staff to hire an external body to come in and review B.C.

Housing. It was that work that led to the report that has the member

asking these important questions here today.

Now, I don’t pretend to know whether the opposition will

understand this. But having stood on the sidewalk….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: Let me finish this sentence. Having stood on the

sidewalk….

Interjections.

[2:25 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: Having stood on the sidewalk while….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the Premier has the floor.

Hon. D. Eby: Having stood on the sidewalk out front of the Burns Block with my

clients, as they were given two hours to clear out their rooms and be

made homeless, as the landlord went to Home Depot to buy plywood and

tools to nail up boards over the front door so they couldn’t return and

then actually sell the building for more money, because it was worth

more vacant than with people inside it…. To see that building come back

into public hands and provide housing for women fleeing violence — that

is, indeed, sweet justice.

But it does not and it cannot ever excuse the activity of the CEO

of B.C. Housing…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: …directly awarding that contract without process. It does not, and

it will not. That’s why we commissioned a report, and it’s why he’s no

longer the CEO.

GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST RULES

AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION

S. Furstenau: Today the government released the Ernst and Young forensic

investigation into B.C. Housing. The report found and uncovered

“significant risks to public funds and serious questions about B.C.

Housing’s financial oversight capabilities.” The report outlines a

pattern of disregard for conflict-of-interest rules.

Now, the government has announced they have responded to the

report recommendations, including actions that they are taking and

others that are ongoing.

It’s clear that the government is taking this report seriously. My

concern is the pattern. We’ve seen, over and over again, rigorous

reviews and findings of crime, misuse of funds and harm to the public

interest on everything from professional reliance to real estate to

lottery operations to MCFD.

To the Premier, this is a pattern, and it undermines the public

trust in our institutions. I heard him speak earlier about how he sees

that that trust is so important. Will the Premier extend the

recommendations of the Ernst and Young report insofar as they improve

whistleblower protection, transparency and conflict-of-interest rules to

other provincial institutions?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. It is an important one.

Public trust in public institutions is important for them to be able to

respond to the challenges we face, everything from the housing crisis to

climate change to the toxic drug crisis. I thank the member for the

important question.

This government has introduced whistleblowing legislation — first

implemented in core government, now going out to health authorities

across the province — and that work is going to continue. In response to

the recommendations from this report, additional whistleblower

protections in place at B.C. Housing…. Absolutely, we’re looking for

opportunities to put this in place at other government agencies and

institutions through the Crown agencies secretariat.

I think that really addresses the member’s question, but there is

one piece that I do want to add, which is when our government sees a

problem and we see an issue, we take action to investigate it and expose

it to the public.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: That, in the short term, can have a negative impact on the

public’s perception of Crown corporations or others, but in the long

term, it’s necessary work to ensure that public confidence. That’s why I

was proud that the Housing Minister made the determination to release

this report in its entirety.

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

S. Furstenau: Indeed, the Premier does have a habit of initiating program

reviews. These reviews tend to result in thorough reports. We tend to

hear about wrongdoing and recommendations for government to work on.

Then we see often in this place, as historically has happened, one side

points at the other and then switches sides, and on we go.

At this point, we’ve seen a lot of evidence that there are

problems widely. We’ve seen evidence of wrongdoing and mismanagement at

the B.C. Lottery Corp., in real estate, in B.C. Housing, MCFD,

professional reliance…. The effects include mining disasters, missing

children, outright crimes. The perception of conflict of interest goes

all the way to the former Premier’s board appointment with a mining

corporation with whom his office had significant dealings while he was

in executive office.

[2:30 p.m.]

Any reasonable person would look at this and see a systemic

problem and one that requires a systemic, all-of-government solution and

a commitment to transparency.

Does the Premier have a plan for proactively improving

transparency, whistleblower protection and conflict-of-interest

safeguards across all government ministries and agencies?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. This is an area where,

certainly, our government shares an interest with the Third Party and,

during our time working together in a minority parliament, brought in

significant reforms around lobbyists, for example, to address some of

these issues.

We have expanded and continued that work through whistleblower

legislation, to make sure that whistleblowers are protected. Integrity

and public trust in government are core, certainly, to this government

and our administration.

I appreciate the member’s attention to that important issue to all

British Columbians.

GOVERNMENT FUNDING

FOR ATIRA PROPERTY

SERVICES

P. Milobar: Earlier today the Premier said that he didn’t involve himself in

the sending of money to certain groups, like Atira, while he was the

Housing Minister. Here’s the problem with that answer. I think it shines

a light on the problem we have right now with how this whole process has

played out.

News flash for the Premier: when he was the Housing Minister, it

was called “minister responsible.” Someone needs to be responsible for

what was going on at B.C. Housing. This Premier simply

wasn’t.

Despite numerous warning signs and a growing body of evidence

pointing to severe mismanagement, the Premier has continued to divert

resources into a failing housing program while covering up the existence

of problems. Under the Premier, the funding for Atira has more than

tripled, from $17 million to over $74 million in 2022. In fact, from

2020 to 2022, mainly the time that he was the minister, it went from $33

million to $74 million — while he was the minister responsible. The

ultimate accountability for these taxpayers’ dollars is with this

Premier.

With the overwhelming evidence pointing to financial and

organizational mismanagement at Atira, how does the Premier justify his

decision to triple funding an organization at the same time that the

financial mismanagement, report after report after report, was being

presented to this Premier?

Hon. R. Kahlon: What’s clear, I think, here is that when the Premier sees

something wrong, he takes action. That’s been a consistent theme for

this Premier. When it comes to money laundering…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, enough.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …when it comes to his work at the Lottery Corp., when it comes to

his work with ICBC, it’s a consistent pattern that he has shown. When he

sees something wrong, he’s a man of integrity, and he takes

action.

Now, we’ve talked about this already, and I’m happy to go through

it again, but we fundamentally disagree with the actions taken by the

former CEO. In many cases, the report lays out cases where the staff

were directed to award certain contracts to Atira, suggesting that

nobody else would have the capacity, without testing the

market.

We think that’s wrong. All the things in this report are just as

alarming to us as they are to the members across the way. That is why it

was vitally important….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: That’s why I felt it was vitally important, for the first time in

30 years, to use

section 25 to make sure this report is available to

everyone. Our goal is to ensure we shine light on where there are dark

places but also to ensure….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member says: “six years.” Can the member tell me one time in

his time, in their time in government, where they didn’t sever

reports…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …where they were transparent with anything that they

did?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, no side comments, please.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Of course we take this work really seriously. That’s why the

report was made public.

[2:35 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

MANAGEMENT OF B.C. HOUSING

AND TERMINATION OF

BOARD

P. Milobar: This Premier’s track record is that he sets out a narrative and

then he takes whatever steps and fixes the rules however he needs to try

to get the result he wants. He has just done it with Bill 26, where he’s

saying the courts don’t matter. It doesn’t matter what the courts say

about Arbutus.

Well, here’s what the Premier had to say in 2022 about the Arbutus

project when those same residents came forward and had concerns about

B.C. Housing. He said: “Oh, this is just another excuse to oppose.”

That’s what he said about the residents of Arbutus when they were saying

that there were problems at B.C. Housing and they didn’t have confidence

in B.C. Housing in the project in their neighbourhood.

In fact, the Premier went one step further in the Vancouver

Sun

article on June 15, 2022. He said: “The changes to the

board are not related to any sort of wrongdoing.” That’s what this

Premier said as he was admonishing a neighbourhood for having concerns

about B.C. Housing in their neighbourhood. Fit the narrative to whatever

this Premier needed for that day and time.

How can the Premier, in light of this 50-page report, still stand

in this House and try to say that the firing of the board had nothing to

do with wrongdoing and wrong actions going on at B.C.

Housing?

Hon. D. Eby: At the time that I received the first briefing about the first

report by E&Y…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Please.

Hon. D. Eby: …I was profoundly concerned about the conduct of the CEO, reached

out to the board, and the board was unprepared to put the CEO on leave

or to fire the CEO. In addition to that, I saw some significant heavy

lifting ahead for the board. This was a housing board, and we needed a

board with experience around organizational transformation.

The member is right. I did remove the board, but it was a

difficult decision.

It’s important to note that there was no wrongdoing on the part of

the board. There wasn’t. These are people of integrity who were doing

their best. We had a disagreement about the best path forward. It’s a

difficult decision, but sometimes in government, you have to make

difficult decisions to replace the board. But I stand by that there was

no wrongdoing on the part of the board.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: The second component is a significant difference between our side

of the House and that side of the House. We believe, I believe strongly

that there’s a housing crisis and that we need to take action to house

people, and that side of the House will take any opportunity to say that

we need to slow down or not take action.

They opposed our housing targets before they voted for them. Now I

hear that they don’t want to build badly needed housing at Arbutus, that

they would rather wait on that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: They’re opposing the idea that people who own a single-family home

should be able to divide that home into two or three units.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh, Members.

Hon. D. Eby: Continually, the consistent theme from the other side is to slow

down, to not take action, that it’s not urgent. I disagree

strongly.

This report today is around ensuring as best we can public

confidence that one, we are taking action to protect tax dollars and,

secondly, that we will do what’s necessary to address the housing

crisis, while that side will take every opportunity to slow-walk

it.

FIRE AT WINTERS HOTEL AND

MANAGEMENT OF B.C. HOUSING

AND ATIRA PROPERTY SERVICES

S. Bond: What British Columbians expect of their Premier is for him to

stand up today and acknowledge that he was the minister responsible

while mismanagement was taking place at B.C. Housing and he did

nothing.

In fact, what he did was attempt to bury that mismanagement. Why?

So he could focus his time on his leadership bid.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Bond: The Premier can laugh all he wants. Let’s look at the results of

his ignoring those damning reports.

I would remind the Premier that at the Winters Hotel, there was a

fatal fire that killed two people and displaced hundreds of others. That

BDO report this Premier wants to dismiss warned the Premier about the

dysfunction of Atira. It said this, that it led staff to “look for ways

to reduce the pressure on cash flow with other downstream

consequences.”

It should come as no surprise to this Premier that FOI documents

revealed that fire extinguishers at the Winters Hotel were empty and had

not been replaced by staff.

Can the Premier stand up today and explain to British Columbians

why, while he was busy trying to bury the mismanagement at B.C. Housing,

his priority was his leadership bid?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly the fire at Winters Hotel was a tragic event, just an

awful thing for anyone to go through. I know many of the survivors are

in court right now, so I can’t comment too much on that other than to

say that when the Premier saw something that was inappropriate, he took

action.

The reason why you have a forensic investigation released under

section 25, the reason why we’re having this discussion in the question

period is that when the Premier became the Minister Responsible for

Housing, he saw something, and he took the steps to ensure there was

public accountability, that steps were taken to ensure anything that was

found wrong would be addressed. That’s why we’re having this discussion.

To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

Now, we have said, and we’re going to say it again, that the

report that found mismanagement around the conflict of interest is

simply wrong. We’re just as appalled as the members across the way.

That’s why this report being made public was important. The

recommendations that have been made — many of them have already been

enacted. The ones that remain — all will be done by spring

Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, no one believes that about the Premier. Let’s be clear. At

every single opportunity that he had, he avoided taking accountability

for the mess that, let’s be clear, he was responsible for. He buried the

BDO report that outlines severe financial and organizational

mismanagement at B.C. Housing and Atira.

FOI documents show a massive spike in dysfunction and problems at

B.C. Housing. When? When the current Premier was sitting there as the

Minister Responsible for Housing. Guess what happened.

Here’s a quote: “There was a dramatic increase in staff departures

over previous years.” What did the Premier do? Nothing. He downplayed

and, in fact, quietly tried to release that original EY report. When?

Over the Canada Day long weekend. And then fired the B.C. Housing’s

NDP-appointed board on a Friday, even without explanation, except to say

that there was no wrongdoing.

When will the Premier put accountability as a priority? When will

he recognize and acknowledge that this mess at B.C. Housing happened on

his watch?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The fact that there is a forensic investigation report made public

is because of the Premier. The fact is that every time he comes forward

and you see something wrong, there is change that happens when it comes

to money laundering — which, by the way, was buried on the other side of

government. ICBC — which, by the way, had pages ripped out of the

reports made public….

They can talk about this all they want. If they want to talk about

the importance of what’s in the findings, happy to do that. But they are

in no position to talk about anyone’s integrity in this place because

consistently, in government, they showed the exact opposite.

Now the members are talking about the fact that there was some

real, serious mismanagement when it came to breaking the

conflict-of-interest rules at B.C. Housing. We agree with the members.

It’s simply not acceptable. Our goal now is multi-pronged. There are

recommendations in place. Many of them have already been enacted. There

are some that we will be following up and making sure they get done by

spring 2024.

We know that this work is going to be vitally important to be done

not only because we want public accountability of dollars, but we want

to ensure that B.C. Housing can continue to do the work they must do,

which is provide critically important housing for the most vulnerable

people in this province.

MANAGEMENT OF B.C. HOUSING

AND ATIRA PROPERTY

SERVICES

M. de Jong: I’m trying to reconcile what I’m reading in this 50-page report

with what we are hearing from the Premier today. According to the

report: “Our work has uncovered significant risks to public funds

resulting from the manner in which B.C. Housing operates…. Our

observations call into question B.C. Housing’s financial oversight

capabilities and the rigour with which B.C. Housing disperses public

funds.” Further on, the mismanagement has “permeated throughout the

organization.”

[2:45 p.m.]

“The most recently completed financial review was for fiscal year

2020, finalized in August 2022. At least $90 million in public funds was

advanced to Atira between the end of fiscal year 2020 and the completion

of B.C. Housing’s most recent financial review. The financial review for

fiscal year 2020 contained inaccurate and misleading

components.”

Now, the Premier wants to stand here and portray himself as a

hapless victim of the misdeeds of others. But far from addressing this

decisively, the Premier did what he could to downplay the seriousness,

the magnitude, of what we now know to be a serious scandal.

He ignored the BDO report, arguably buried it. When he fired the

entire NDP-appointed board at B.C. Housing, he went out of his way to

make the point that there was no suggestion of any wrongdoing, when we

know that to be fundamentally untrue. Despite all of those warning

signs, despite all of that information, he signed off on tripling the

funding to this very organization.

My question to the Premier is this. Does he understand the concept

of ministerial responsibility? Does he accept it, or is it just a

principle that applies to others, and when will he stand up and take

responsibility for what happened on his watch at B.C.

Housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s tough hearing that question from that member. It’s honestly

tough. I mean, this 50-page report would have been 44 pages if that

member had had this report.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Of course we take this seriously. That’s why, when the Premier saw

what he saw, when he was shown text messages of potential

wrongdoing….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It’s okay, Members.

Opposition House Leader.

Please continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: At the end of the day, when we see an issue, when the Premier sees

an issue, we take action, and that’s reflected in the work that’s

happened here.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL

CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS

AND

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

H. Yao: I have the honour to present a second report of the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills on Bill Pr402, St. Mark’s College Amendment

Act, 2023.

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

Motion approved.

H. Yao: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

H. Yao: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make some brief

remarks.

St. Mark’s College was founded in 1956. The college grants degrees

in Catholic theology at all levels. It also offers a four-year bachelor

of arts degree in theology.

St. Mark’s College is closely affiliated with Corpus Christi

College. Corpus Christi College was founded in 1999, and it provides

undergrad students with the first two years of post-secondary courses in

liberal arts, business and science.

With a view of efficiency and cost saving, the two institutions

wish to legally become a single institution. Bill Pr402, intituled St.

Mark’s College Amendment Act, 2023, seeks changes to prepare for a

merger — namely, to authorize St. Mark’s College to grant associated

degrees under the Degree Authorization Act and to modernize the

corporate power and governance of the college.

The bill also makes other incidental changes to the St. Mark’s

College act.

[2:50 p.m.]

The bill was introduced and read a first time on April 19, 2023.

It was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary

Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. On April 26

and May 4, 2023, the committee met and considered the proposed private

bill, asked questions of representatives of St. Mark’s College,

considered a submission from the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education

and Future Skills and asked questions of ministry officials.

The committee agreed to amend the bill to clarify provisions

related to the power to grant degrees and recommends to this House that

the bill proceed as amended.

As I conclude my remarks, I’d like to thank all committee members

for their engagement in this important process and, in particular, the

Deputy Chair, the member for Vancouver-Langara.

I also want to thank Legislative Assembly staff for their support

to the committee — namely, Suzie Seo, Jennifer Arril, Mary Newell and

Danielle Suter.

M. Lee: I wanted to join the member for Richmond South Centre in

acknowledging the good work of the committee to deal with and address

the need to amend the former motion that was brought forward to meet the

timing requirements of St. Mark’s College, as well with the cooperation

of the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, as well

as to acknowledge and recognize the work of the Law Clerk and

Parliamentary Counsel for their good work and review and bringing

forward a good amendment to this motion.

Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

REPRESENTATIVE FOR CHILDREN

AND YOUTH APPOINTMENT

COMMITTEE

K. Paddon: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee

to Appoint a Representative for Children and Youth. I move that the

report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

K. Paddon: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

K. Paddon: I move that the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a

Representative for Children and Youth be adopted, and in doing so, I

would like to make some brief comments.

When our committee first met in March, we agreed to invite Dr.

Jennifer Charlesworth to indicate her interest in seeking reappointment

for an additional five-year term as Representative for Children and

Youth. Dr. Charlesworth informed us that she was interested.

We then interviewed Dr. Charlesworth and carefully reviewed her

qualifications, experience and work as representative, and concluded

with a unanimous recommendation that Dr. Charlesworth be reappointed as

Representative for Children and Youth.

Our committee recognizes Dr. Charlesworth’s successful first term

as representative. She has brought attention to many important issues

facing children and youth and their families in British Columbia. She

has also been focused on ensuring the work of her office has wide reach

and meaningful impact.

It is clear to the committee that Dr. Charlesworth put

considerable effort into strengthening relationships with the Ministry

of Children and Family Development, Indigenous child and family service

agencies and other important stakeholders.

During her first term, Dr. Charlesworth also implemented many

initiatives to improve the workplace culture at the Office of the

Representative. Committee members appreciate Dr. Charlesworth’s

extensive knowledge of, and passion for, the children and youth-serving

system in British Columbia. Throughout her career, she has demonstrated

a commitment to protecting and advocating for some of our province’s

most vulnerable people.

We are confident Dr. Charlesworth will continue to be effective as

representative while keeping the well-being of children and youth at the

forefront of her work.

Dr. Charlesworth is in the gallery today, and I would like to ask

all members to join me in welcoming her and congratulating her on this

recommendation for reappointment.

On behalf of all the members of the House, I would like to express

our appreciation to Dr. Charlesworth for her continued service to

British Columbians.

All of us in this House know that our work here in this chamber,

and especially in committees, is made possible by the hard work of the

team around us. I’d like to also thank the committee staff team — Kate

Ryan-Lloyd, Jennifer Arril, Darryl Hol, Mary Heeg and Mary

Newell.

I also want to extend my sincere gratitude to the Deputy Chair,

the member for Cariboo North, and all committee members for their

thoughtful contributions and commitment throughout this appointment

process.

[2:55 p.m.]

C. Oakes: I, too, would like to rise and make a few comments on the report

being introduced today.

Before I share a few of my thoughts, I want to express my

gratitude to the committee’s Chair, the member representing

Chilliwack-Kent, for the valuable work she’s been doing to lead this

committee. I also want to extend my appreciation to the other members of

the committee for their participation and contribution.

The report that we are presenting today in the House is the

culmination of work interviews and now reappointment of the

Representative for Children and Youth. I’m grateful for the

conversations that have taken place during these meetings, as well as

the thoughtful questions posed by committee members, as well as the

thoughtful responses provided by Dr. Charlesworth. Their cooperation and

contributions have been instrumental in shaping this report.

During the interview process, Dr. Charlesworth’s dedication to the

welfare and well-being of young people and their families was evident.

This process highlighted the significance of this role in advocating for

and championing the rights of children and youth.

Finally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation, as all

members of the committee, for the assistance in completing this task to

the staff. Their hard work, dedication and patience have been crucial in

ensuring that this report was received today.

I would like to extend our appreciation and thanks to Jennifer

Arril, Darryl Hol, Mary Heeg and Mary Newell for their support

throughout this process.

Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE

FOR CHILDREN AND

YOUTH

K. Paddon: I ask leave of the House to move a motion that Dr. Jennifer

Charlesworth be appointed as Representative for Children and

Youth.

Leave granted.

K. Paddon: I move:

[That Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth be appointed as an Officer of the

Legislature, to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the

Representative for Children and Youth for a five-year term, effective

October 1, 2023, pursuant to the Representative for Children and

Youth Act (S.B.C. 2006,

Chapter 29).]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Motions Without Notice

EXTENSION OF SITTING HOURS

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move:

[That, notwithstanding Standing Orders 2 (1) and 3, the House sit

beyond the hour fixed for adjournment until the question on second

reading of Bill (No. 5) intituled Public Service Labour Relations

Amendment Act, 2023 is put and decided.]

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call continued debate on Bill 5, Public Service Labour Relations

Amendment Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR

RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

C. Oakes: I rise to continue debate on the legislation before this House,

speaking to Bill 5, legislation that has very real potential to break a

fundamental and critical relationship between the government and the

people that are charged with the very important task of advising this

government.

Earlier today during question period we heard a couple of

comments, and I think they’re incredibly relevant to the bill that we

are discussing today. We heard from the Minister of Housing earlier in

question period that when the Premier sees something wrong, he takes

action. It’s a consistent pattern. A man of integrity, he takes action

when he sees something wrong. He comes forward and changes things,

because the Premier understands the importance of public

confidence.

[3:00 p.m.]

Pretty significant words. Pretty powerful words when we saw what

happened on the front lawn of the Legislature at lunch where public

members came forward to talk about the challenges that this bill

presents before us, Bill 5, which would invalidate the B.C. Government

Lawyers Association’s attempt to form their own union at the Labour

Relations Board, and instead force them to join the Professional

Employees Association.

Again, putting the Premier’s words back to him of public

confidence, I think it’s incredibly relevant to listen and hear what the

members of the BCGLA are saying. It’s true. If any other employer in the

province of British Columbia tried to curtail the rights of employees to

freely associate and unite in a union of their choosing, it would be

deemed a clear violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms.

What is this government doing? What is the NDP government doing on

this? Well, they’re circumventing an ongoing Labour Relations Board

hearing considering the BCGLA’s certification as a bargaining unit, and

a majority of the civil lawyers employed by the province have signed

cards favouring forming their own union to represent their unique

interests and working conditions as lawyers. But instead, this Bill 5,

which was brought in by the NDP government as an end run that unfairly

directs BCGLA members to join the Professional Employees Association, an

existing union not selected by the BCGLA members.

So again, before this House, here is the opportunity for the

Premier to stand up and do the right thing. When he sees something

wrong, he goes forward, and he changes things. Again, from the Minister

of Housing: “When the Premier sees something wrong, he takes action.”

It’s a “consistent pattern.” A “man of integrity. He takes action.”

Well, I would suggest, based on the evidence that has been presented to

us, that the government indeed needs to take some action on what has

happened.

I think it’s important to hear from the BCGLA president, Gareth

Morley. In his words: “It is clear the government wants to control

things, even if it has to unilaterally change the rules of the game to

win. The employer knows the only way to get what it wants this time is

to change the rules of the game with new legislation.” Pretty contrary

to what we heard earlier in question period about how the Premier likes

to take action as a man of integrity and ensures that we have public

confidence.

I go on with what Gareth said. “We are shocked and dismayed that

the government just won’t listen to reason. The government acknowledges

in the letter we do have the right to bargain our own contract, but the

employer will not allow us to form our own union, even though we have

followed all of the rules under the new certification legislation. That

legislation was passed just last year by this very same government to

smooth the certification process for groups like ours.”

I continue that. “When a group of employees chooses a union

through the process the law sets out, then that employer has to bargain

with their choice. If any…​employer in the province interfered in

a certification application to the Labour Relations board, it would be

an unfair labour practice.”

Important words to hear. I hope that the Premier and the

government is listening. Bill 5 is opposed by labour groups, including

the B.C. Federation of Labour; the B.C. General Employees Union; the

B.C. Crown Counsel Association, which represents Crown prosecutors; and

the PEA — the very union unit the government wants the government

lawyers to join.

In closing, I hope that the government and I hope that the Premier

will take action and listen and do the right thing.

Deputy Speaker: There’s a speaker.

Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

L. Doerkson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was waiting for somebody from opposition

to stand up. Noting the protest earlier today on the front lawn, I

thought that there might be an opportunity to hear from the opposition

with respect to Bill 5, and just hear, I guess, an understanding of why

this bill is coming forth, why it’s coming forth now, and why it’s

coming forth the way it is. I’ll talk a little bit about that this

afternoon.

[3:05 p.m.]

It is, obviously, a privilege and certainly an honour to be able

to speak to anything in this House. Today I’m going to make a few

comments on Bill 5, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act,

2023. I started by saying: why now? We heard today Bill 29 being

introduced. This is, of course, Bill 5, so it’s a ways back.

I guess I’m surprised to see the way that it’s come forth. It came

forth quite some time ago. Now, of course, at the end of the legislative

session, it’s been brought back. Obviously, it’s been brought back for

debate and conversation. My concern about that, frankly, is that I’m

joining the conversation with, well, really, three days left. I suppose,

technically, it would be four in the session. Certainly, you would think

that a bill that would have an opportunity to have such an effect on a

group of people would have a little bit more time to debate.

Now, I can appreciate that we’ve got some extra time today to

debate late into the evening, and I’m sure that we’ll capitalize on that

time, but it’s clear that there is an awful lot of opposition to this

bill. I’m just surprised that the debate has been quite one-sided, other

than hearing from the minister. I’m surprised that the conversation

around Bill 5 has not been on both sides of this House. Genuinely, I

want to understand more about the bill and what the motive is, what the

reasoning is behind this. As I said, it’s meeting with an awful lot of

opposition.

Frankly, we’ve seen other bills introduced in a way that…. I’m not

even sure how we’ll move to committee stage or how long we’ll have to

discuss it. We’ve seen other bills, like Bill 36, that came in late in a

session, has had a profound effect on a lot of people in British

Columbia, or certainly is perceived that way, and we didn’t have ample

time to properly scrutinize that bill.

I think it’s important, that scrutiny, not just for bills like 36

but all of them. It’s an opportunity for us to make this legislation

better. It’s an opportunity for us to be able to compare notes and

improve the legislation, put forth amendments, those types of

things.

For me, I’m shocked, because it’s becoming a bit of a pattern.

We’ve seen it with Bill 36. We’ve seen it with Bill 23, Bill 28,

different bills that have been introduced late in a session, and we have

not had ample time to debate properly, in my mind.

I suppose if I had one question about this, noting the fact that

this morning we’ve got a protest happening on the front lawn of this

Legislature, noting the letters, some that I’ll quote, that have come

from different organizations in British Columbia and, certainly,

throughout Canada, what would be wrong with just pausing for a moment

and taking the summer to properly have conversation with the BCGLA, have

proper conversation and bring it back for debate in the fall?

There would be nothing wrong. There’s nothing that I can see.

Unless somebody from government will stand up and tell me what the

benefit is to pushing this through right now at this point, I just don’t

see it. I think Bill 5 is probably an important piece of legislation,

like anything that comes out of this building and out of this room. But

tell me why we can’t take the summer to spend the time properly having

conversation and move it forth.

I guess the other thing with respect to Bill 5 that I find

shocking is that, in recent history, there has been legislation

introduced in this building that would see single-step certification and

card checks, and that’s been introduced in this House.

Here we have a government, really, imposing a decision that should

be made by the members of the BCGLA. I’ll get to some of those comments

in a moment. But it just shocks me that a government that professes to

represent labour, that professes to support workers, would go as far as

forcing this on any organization.

[3:10 p.m.]

Again, I’m not suggesting that Bill 5 is not important. It just

seems to me that it could wait until the fall. I would hate to see it

forced to closure like we’ve seen with bills like 36, like 23, like 28.

That is not the way to pass legislation in this House. Again, I would

encourage members to stand up.

It’s not just me saying these things either. I want to quote a few

people right now. Gareth Morley, president of the B.C. Government

Lawyers Association — I’ve referred to them as the BCGLA — represents

around 350 lawyers impacted by Bill 5. He said he was informed that the

NDP planned to bring the bill forward for a second reading after

negotiations broke down in mid-April.

This is an interesting quote:

“‘We’re convinced that the bill is unconstitutional, so we’re going

to watch it,’ he told B.C. Today in an interview. ‘Once it’s in

force, we’re going to take legal action in the courts. We’re certainly

open to continuing discussions, and I suggested I’d be willing to talk

to the Minister of Finance or the Premier. They said no to that.’ If

passed, the legislation would make most government lawyers who have

filed to form their own union, members of the Professional Employees

Association.”

And it would, of course, bar legislative drafters from

unionizing.

Well, there are a number of things that are wrong…. Sorry, let me

correct that. The statement is just fine, but the thing that concerns me

about the statement is the fact that Mr. Morley has tried to talk to

both the Premier and the Finance Minister, and they have said no to

that. In my mind, Bill 5 is certainly too important to not be having

that conversation.

I’ll talk a little bit about this further into the speech, but the

other thing that concerns me is the threat of potential litigation. Now,

I’ve heard from other ministers in this House. I’ve heard from

ministers, with respect to things that have come forth to the House,

like Treaty 8, that this is not a way to solve things in British

Columbia, that we do not want to solve these things in a courtroom. And

I absolutely agree. I mean, frankly, the last people that I would want

to meet in a courtroom are 350 lawyers.

I am very worried about the cost that this province may endure to

push this Bill 5 through. And I think it’s important that we note Mr.

Morley’s comments because…. I want to stress the fact that he wants to

talk. He wants to have conversation, and we can do that. We can do it

over the summer, as I said, and bring it back in the fall.

The Attorney General of this province received a letter from the

Canadian Association of Crown Counsel. I was shocked to read their

comments in this letter, but I’ll read them here for you today: “We are

of the view that Bill 5 is both unconstitutional” — which is exactly

what Mr. Morley suggested, but it goes further to say — “and draconian.

First, it imposes a bargaining agent upon employees that is not of their

choosing. Secondly, it circumvents the certification process that was

ongoing before the British Columbia Labour Relations Board. Last, it

completely strips legislative counsel of their right to collective

bargaining.”

Now, in this day and age, and certainly in this session of the

Legislature, I can’t believe that we are going to bring something

forward, a bill that this House will vote to pass, that is being

suggested as “draconian” by the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel.

To me, that’s shocking. I think that we need to hear these comments and

hear them fully and act on them.

The Attorney General has also received a letter. This letter came

from the Canadian Bar Association.

[3:15 p.m.]

I just want to read the first paragraph because it simply says:

“On behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, and our more

than 7,600 members across British Columbia, we are writing to express

our deep concern about unilateral action in the face of an ongoing

process regarding Bill 5, the Public Service Labour Relations Amendment

Act, 2023, introduced on February 9. This action is a further example of

the need for government to better understand the role of lawyers in

government and in our society.”

I absolutely agree, but these are associations representing

counsel from across this country and across this province that are

suggesting that the government needs to better understand the lawyers of

this province, suggesting that the bill itself is unconstitutional and

draconian and, by the same token, suggesting that we are going to end up

in the courts fighting this out. As I said before, it’s not a place to

sort Bill 5 out, and I think there are better ways that we could do

this. Frankly, the cost that could come of that will be just absolutely

staggering.

Again, it’s not just me. The Tyee has reported that one

of the reasons that lawyers are unionizing is to avoid retaliation from

the NDP government. Lawyers were pushed to sign a non-disclosure

agreement about this legislation — more muzzling from a government who

has already shown a habit of retaliating against health care

workers.

I want to speak about that a little bit, because this has happened

in my riding — I spoke about it in this chamber and spoke about it in

question period as well — where I’ve had a doctor that has faced that

action, faced that pressure against the government for speaking out.

That certainly cannot become the norm in this province. I mean, how are

we to make things better, like Bill 5? How are we to make things better

in a health care system where the people involved in the system are

unable to speak freely, unable to share ways to make things

better?

Even PEA says that the BCGLA should not be forced into a union

against their own choosing. Even the union that they’re being forced

into is suggesting that this is wrong, that they shouldn’t be forced.

Again, I mean, this is a government that has professed over and over and

over to be on the side of workers, the side of unions. However, the bill

makes it clear that they are only in the business of looking after

certain groups. That is not fair. It’s not fair at all. This group of

individuals should have the right, absolutely, to unionize, but they

should have the right of choice.

Bill 5 will impact approximately 321 employees in the B.C.

Government Lawyers Association, but I would say that it will impact us

all. It will impact us as taxpayers if this ends up in court. It will

have an impact on all of us, particularly with respect to cost. Under

Bill 5, the only option, of course, will be to join the Professional

Employees Association. Again, I suggest that that’s not fair.

This is a quote by the Minister of State for Workforce

Development, and it came from Hansard . “People have the right

to collective bargaining and to negotiate wages for themselves and to

negotiate conditions.…So we’re…allowing people to exercise their Charter

rights to join a union and to negotiate a collective agreement.” That is

from February 9. That’s the Minister of State for Workforce

Development.

Well, they are allowing them to unionize, but the problem is that

they’re absolutely forcing the union upon them.

Mr. Morley says that his members want their own union, in part

because they want to negotiate contract guarantees protecting them if

they give government advice that doesn’t align with its policy goals.

“We want to make sure lawyers in government have that degree of

independence so that they can tell government something they won’t want

to hear.” That is Gareth Morley’s quote.

[3:20 p.m.]

The quote has so many things in it that worry me. We talked just

moments ago about the fact that health care workers in my riding, and

I’m certain that that’s consistent throughout the province, have on many

occasions started a conversation with me with: “You can use this

information, but please do not use my name.”

I have had a doctor that faced an unbelievable amount of pressure

from Interior Health. Here we have Gareth Morley suggesting that we want

to make sure that lawyers in government have the degree of independence

so that they can tell the government something that they won’t want to

hear. Well, of course they should have that independence. Of course they

should be able to advise. Frankly, it’s probably a good

investment.

The other thing that concerns me about Bill 5 — and it’s another

reason to just stop for a moment, reconsider what we’re doing and bring

it back in the fall — is that neither the BCGLA nor PEA were consulted

on Bill 5 or its implementation. There are no provisions under the PEA

collective agreement which relate to the legal counsel classification.

That is concerning on a gargantuan level. We’ve been told repeatedly

that consultation happens — that it takes place not just on Bill 5 but

all of these bills. Here are two associations telling us that it hasn’t

happened.

This is what the Minister of Finance had to say. “This bill amends

the Public Service Labour Relations Act to implement collective

bargaining rights for government lawyers employed in the B.C. public

service. The amendments enable these collective bargaining rights and

ensure government maintains an appropriate public service bargaining

framework that promotes continued labour stability and controls future

costs.” Well, it does not implement or enable our collective bargaining

rights. It absolutely, unilaterally overrules them.

I would love to know how Bill 5 will actually create labour

stability. That just makes no sense. We have 100 lawyers on the front

steps today protesting. That doesn’t look like a stable workforce to

me.

I am very, very concerned that this bill is not ready to be

passed. The BCGLA — they mentioned it today — did a card check. It’s in

line with the NDP’s legislation that was introduced very recently.

Seventy percent of their members want their own bargaining unit. But

instead of letting their lawyers unionize in the desired manner, this

government is going to simply force it upon them. That is not

fair.

Bill 5 needs to be rethought. We need to stop and take a second

look at this. What is particularly distasteful to me is the fact that

the BCGLA has already been in court and at the Labour Relations Board to

create their own association. Bill 5 effectively performs a complete end

run on those outcomes.

Simply put, the government will make the final decision on this.

Again, that’s not right. We should not be muzzling these lawyers. We

should not be hampering them in the work that they do. After months of

holding this legislation over the BCGLA as a threat during the

bargaining, the government now is trying to simply force this through.

That’s unfortunate, to say the least.

Gareth Morley summed the legislation and the actions of government

up best when he said this simple quote. “This would be appalling for any

government. It is galling from one that claims to respect workers’

rights.”

[3:25 p.m.]

There is a lot of undone work, it seems to me, on Bill 5. It seems

to me that there is an opportunity for members of the government to

stand. We’ve been given some time now today to debate this. I’m very

worried about committee stage. I don’t know how that will possibly

traverse the last three days of this session. But it would seem to me

that we’re going to be short on time there as well.

It would seem to me that we’re going to have a need to ask many,

many questions about this legislation. But more than anything, I hope

that we will hear from members that might be willing to stand up now and

explain why this has to be forced through now, why we can’t do this in

the fall.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to say that I’m grateful to

have the opportunity to speak in this House and speak before you. I

thank you very much for the time allotted to me today, and I would

encourage members from the government to stand up this afternoon and

please explain further why Bill 5 must go forth, and why it must go

forth in this fashion.

If nothing else, I would hope to encourage a pause and encourage

proper conversation between the government and the BCGLA and hope for a

better outcome, one that fits everyone better.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time today.

M. Lee: I rise to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Lee: On behalf of the official opposition, I wish to acknowledge and

welcome and introduce the over 30 lawyers in our gallery who are here to

witness the continued second reading debate on Bill 5 and thank them, each

and every one of them, for the roles that they play as the guardians and

custodians of the rule of law here in our province of British

Columbia.

There are many members that we met with on the legislative lawn over

the lunch hour. Some members are here, and, as I understand, some members

want to be specifically introduced. Before I name these seven individuals, I

would also like to recognize the significant step that members of the BCGLA

have done today in their action taken here in Victoria and in

Vancouver.

For these seven individuals that wish to be named in this chamber, I

recognize the further step that they’re taking by introducing their names.

Specifically, I’d like to welcome, as well, Margo Foster, Jennifer Blood,

Josh Dedora, Caroline Bergeron, Andrea Glen, Stephen Conarroe, and Pamela

Manhas.

Will all members in this gallery in the House please welcome them and

the rest of the gallery as well.

Debate Continued

T. Halford: I rise to continue debate on the legislation before this House

that has unfortunately got us to a point here today. We saw that on the

front steps of the Legislature. I’ve said it before in this House, and

I’ll say it again: it is never the wrong time to do the right

thing.

We have heard the concerns laid out by my colleagues regarding

Bill 5. We continue to hear those today. I think that they’re more than

just.

We have a government that has spent a lot of their time talking

about being on the side of workers, on the side of unions. The issue

with that today, and the contradiction that we’re seeing, is that if

it’s not to the liking of this government, it’s a problem, in terms of

this government will make the decision for you.

We see a case where 70 percent want their own bargaining

unit.

[3:30 p.m.]

We see a case today where this legislation specifically addresses

an ongoing situation involving the BCGLA, a group of government lawyers

that have been in the process of trying to unionize on their own for

some time now.

One of the major reasons — it has been spoken about before — why

they want to do that is because they want to protect themselves. I think

all in this House have agreed that protecting workers’ rights is

fundamental. I don’t think we disagree on that, but the issue with this,

in what we’re seeing here, is that the reason they’re wanting that

protection is in case government advice does not align with the policy

goals.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I think that that’s a form of common sense. I think that that’s

something that the public would accept. I think it’s fair. I think it’s

fair to the workers and fair to us in this House. If that is their

rationale, it should not only be advocated for but accepted.

We’ve seen quotes…. My colleague and friend read into the record,

and I’ll do the same. Gareth Morley, president of the BCGLA, says: “We

want to make sure lawyers in government have that degree of

independence, so that they can tell government something they won’t want

to hear.” I think, no matter what side of the House you sit on, you want

advice that you can depend on. You want advice that is unfettered. You

want advice that sometimes can be contradictory to what your end goal

is.

For everybody in this House, their goal is for the betterment of

their constituents, for the betterment of this province, but sometimes

you may get differing advice on how you get there. I think the arguments

that have been laid out by the BCGLA have been just and rational. I

think a lot of it is based on common sense.

We’ve had large groups come out here in the last number of months.

We’ve had doctors; we’ve had nurses. We’ve got lawyers out there today.

I think what they’re asking for is something that we all agree on,

except for the other side of the House.

The BCGLA did a card check, in line with the NDP’s recent

legislation. Like I said before, 70 percent of their members want their

own bargaining unit. That’s a pretty clear, pretty decisive majority,

but instead of letting their lawyers unionize in their desired manner,

again, we have a government that knows best.

I think this is primarily what is wrong with Bill 5. We’ve got

legislation before us today which basically strips the right of the

BCGLA’s ability to form its own union. They’re only given the option to

join the existing Professional Employees Association. Now, I think the

frustration with all of that is that we’ve seen, with this government,

time and time again, that when they get it wrong, they really get it

wrong.

I think with Bill 5 there’s a large majority that know they’ve got

it wrong with this. That’s a challenge. That’s why we saw the action

that we saw today outside, and we’ll continue to see that.

Many have characterized it as an attempt to muzzle a segment of

our workforce, government lawyers, on the basis that they may not agree

with government policy. When we face these challenges and look at what

the rationale is and what the struggle is, overall, we see the fact that

if you go against this government, particularly on these issues of

unionization, there’s no room for collaboration. There’s no room for

discussion. It’s just force, and in this case, it’s forced by

legislation.

[3:35 p.m.]

I think that’s wrong. By the crowd that we saw out today, by the

speakers that have spoken to this and, perhaps, by the lack of speakers

that have spoken on the government side, I think there is agreement that

this is wrong.

This bill was introduced months and months ago, and we’re on

second reading. That should tell you something about the priorities of

this government on this legislation. We have a gallery full of people

today that probably had something better to do with their time, but they

are fighting for something fundamental. They’re fighting for something,

and they’re fighting for those that are probably coming after them,

people that will be joining later on. They’re trying to make this a

better situation for them. I think they should be commended for

that.

Time and time again we look at areas of Bill 5, and we look at the

challenges. It’s 321 current employees. It’s not a small number. You

look at the sacrifices that these current 321 people have done for their

education. They are serving the public. I think that should be

commended. They’re here to serve the public, but they’re actually saying

something fundamental.

The fact is that they want choice. They want choice in terms of

their bargaining. Like I said,70 percent is a pretty decisive margin

there. This government is saying, no, they know better. We see…. I know

it was read before, but I’ll read it again, a quote from the Minister of

State for Workforce Development, February 9, 2023: “People have the

right to collective bargaining and to negotiate wages for themselves and

negotiate conditions,” so we’re “allowing people to exercise their

Charter rights to join a union and to negotiate a collective

agreement.”

Those are somebody’s words from the executive council, three

months ago. Here we are — May 8, just a couple of days left in the

sitting — and we are debating Bill 5 at second reading. That should tell

you of the challenges that this government has in front of it. They

realize the challenges that are there; I think they realize that they

struggle. The fact is that they’re trying to find a way out, and the

only way out they’ve got right now is that they think they’re going to

jam it through, through legislation.

When you look at some of the issues that have been put forward….

In another quote from Gareth Morley, he says: “We want to make sure

lawyers in government have that degree of independence so that they can

tell government something they won’t want to hear.” Again, it’s

something we’re seeing, a pattern from this government: “If you’re not

on side, you’re offside.”

That’s not very democratic. Like I said, it’s not in the best

interest of the public. What happens then…. If you surround yourself

with people that refuse to give you advice that may be contrarian or may

be outside the box or may not be in line with your political policies, I

don’t see that as a bad thing. At the end of the day, this government is

going to do what it wants. We’re seeing that with Bill 5 today. We’re

seeing that time and time again.

The massive challenge is that government knows it has put itself

in a corner. The only way that they can get out of this is through

jamming this legislation through, but I don’t see anybody that has been

outside of this House and that is celebrating Bill 5.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now, I get it that there are probably a lot of people outside of

this House that don’t know what Bill 5 is, but there were a lot of

people on that lawn, at the Legislature, whose lives are impacted by

this legislation, and the people that will come after.

I think that’s fair. I think that there’s an ability here to press

pause and have some reflection on legislation that wasn’t overly

well-thought-out. Obviously legislation that was not done with

collaboration and in a way that, I think, infringes on the rights of

workers, whether they’re in the trades or whether or not they hold a

medical degree or, in this case, a law degree. The fact is that we have

over 300 lawyers that are serving the public of British Columbia. My

colleague from Vancouver-Langara read some of those names into the

record today because they are joining us in the House today.

I think the opportunity for government is to say: “Hey, I think we

might have gotten this one wrong.” I think that maybe the best thing to

do is for us to actually try and sit down and collaborate on a solution

going forward and maybe listen to the 70 percent that wanted their own

bargaining unit.

In my closing remarks, I will say that you sometimes have to back

up what you say. If this is a government that is truly on the sides of

workers, this is a classic case of where there’s an opportunity here to

actually get it right. There is an opportunity here to do the right

thing. There is an opportunity here to reset.

Everything that we do in this House through legislation…. Anything

through communications has a legal lens to it. It’s a case. Every

legislation the government puts forward has that lens on it, and it’s an

important lens.

I think that there is a large feeling of disrespect through this

process. I think that there is an overwhelming feeling of “the

government knows best” in an area where they don’t really know what they

don’t know.

With that, I conclude my remarks, and I will not be

supporting.

D. Davies: I thought maybe someone from the government side might stand up

and speak to this, but no, I guess not. Thanks for the opportunity. It

is important to have the opportunity to speak on Bill 5, as my

colleagues before me.

You know, Bill 5 is not a very big bill. It’s a one-pager that

could have some resounding impacts for many years and generations to

come. I think it is absolutely important and appropriate that we spend

the time here raising the issues, speaking to the concerns that, as my

colleagues have said, a number of times today, as we have folks this

afternoon out on the front lawn…. This isn’t the first time that they’ve

come out.

I do want to…. I’m not going to, of course, rehash all the

comments that my colleagues have made, but I am going to pick just a

couple things from the Environment Minister, who spoke on this. In fact,

I think he might be the only one, other than the minister who presented

the bill, to speak on this.

[3:45 p.m.]

This was following my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson and a

couple of others, the House Leader of the Green Party, making some very

wise, compassionate reasons why this is the wrong way to go for the

government.

Just some of the quotes from the Environment Minister around the

comments that my colleagues are making. It’s “simply untrue.” It’s

“simply not true.” It’s “frankly offensive.” It’s “just simply

inexplicable.” That’s just a few comments on the minister’s statement on

the comments that we, as the opposition, and the Third Party have been

making around how this is not the right way to move forward on this

piece of legislation.

My friend from Surrey–White Rock had stated some great things —

that the government needs to rethink, collaborate, do the right thing.

The right time to do the right thing is right now, and we’re not seeing

that being done. We can probably all predict and hope that government

will have an epiphany between now and when the second reading wraps up

and will vote with us.

Saving that, we are, certainly, going to be looking forward to

committee stage, which will follow this, where we can dive into some of

the reasoning about why the government has chosen, specifically, to go

down this path.

I also want to just bring up a couple more…. Again, I’m not going

to quote everything that the Minister of the Environment stated in his

parts, but…. This is his quote: “And it is just patently obvious to me

that a basic understanding of labour law, the function of the labour

relations board and labour relations in general would be of great

benefit to this debate, but I haven’t heard it until now.”

That very, I guess, paternalistic quote is a slap in the face not

only to the lawyers that are in the gallery joining us today but all of

the lawyers that are standing up for their right, to all of us here in

this chamber that are debating this. To basically say that everything

we’ve said is false…. To me, I find that quite offensive.

The minister also stated: “I would love it if people could focus

on the real issues in this debate and not drag in every story of

perceived slight that the members of the opposition and the Third Party

have about actions of this government, most of which have not factual.”

Again, another slap in the face for something that, very specifically,

this Premier is trying to ram down the throats of the lawyers and

British Columbians in general.

We’ve heard about the pattern of this Premier. I will get into

that here momentarily. And we’ve heard about — and I’ve heard it used a

couple of times in different pieces — the Premier’s very Machiavellian

way of getting his own way. I think I’ve heard it twice today mentioned,

so just for fun, I thought I would read a little bit about

Machiavellianism.

“While the term ‘Machiavellian’ may be inspired by an author from

the 16th century, Machiavellians are common in all kinds of settings.”

In here. “Machiavellianism is a personality trait that denotes

cunningness, the ability to be manipulative and a drive to use whatever

means are necessary.”

[3:50 p.m.]

I’ll just park that there, as I move into the rest of my points,

and I’ll let the thousands of people I’m sure that are watching the

Hansard debate make the connection between my comments and, possibly,

that.

I do want to go back briefly. I forgot to make one little tie-in

to the Minister of Environment’s long diatribe here of saying everything

we’ve been saying and everything the lawyers are saying is wrong. Just

to tie it in…. I know we’ve heard a number of comments already from

Gareth Morley, the president of the BCGLA. But the slap in the face

really does come to the lawyers, who are standing up for their rights.

As Gareth says: “Our members have spoken loud and clear. With a 97

percent mandate of support, our job action committee will start planning

right away to oppose Bill 5, with several tactics being

considered.”

I’m sure that these wise lawyers understand what is being proposed

in this one-page bill that is going to have huge impacts on lawyers and

other people across the province. I also find it quite interesting that

this bill, Bill 5, is coming from a self-proclaimed progressive,

pro-union, pro-workers government.

Interjection.

D. Davies: Oh, sorry, self-professed. Yes, that should be made fairly clear.

It’s self-professed.

But of course, what we are seeing here is anything but, and we’ve

seen this before. We have seen this pattern.

This bill does make very clear that this government is only in

business for looking after their own friends, their own supporters,

their own unions that support them. I think, really, that is a big piece

of what is driving the direction of this decision.

This isn’t a new move by the lawyers, to start this. This has been

ongoing for quite some time. This is about protecting…. When we look at

the professional association, which the government wants to force the

lawyers into, we’re talking a very unique group of individuals that have

been thinking about this for quite some time and saying that it will not

work to be putting some 300 — north of 300 — lawyers that are working on

this right now…. It will not work for them to be put in the professional

association.

As mentioned here a few times, the lawyers actually followed the

NDP’s new law of doing a card check. It was 70 percent in favour of

creating their own bargaining unit, which the B.C. Federation of Labour

agrees is a good thing. There are other unions that also agree. The

Professional Employees Association also agrees that they should have

that ability to join and create their own bargaining unit.

But this seems to be just another attempt by the Premier to muzzle

the government lawyers to stop them from proceeding to create their own

bargaining unit. Bill 5 is another time when the Premier — we’ve heard

the term before — has put his thumb on the edge of the scale to shift

the results to his liking. This is just another example of

many.

[3:55 p.m.]

Making them sign non-disclosure agreements so they are muzzled….

They cannot talk about this. We start hearing over and over again,

whether it’s the Premier sitting now or when he was at the cabinet table

as the Attorney General, that the ability of the Premier to get his own

way, by whatever means, like in Bill 5, is astounding. We saw it when he

created the proportional representation referendum, which we fought on

this side — changed it. Made it fit his narrative. Thankfully, it did

not pass.

Even his own track record in dealing with ICBC…. He knew he

couldn’t win the battles in court, so he proceeded to change the playing

field. Again, puts his thumb on the scale, uses the legislative powers

at his beck and call to make it fit his narrative….

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I interrupt? I think we have an introduction of

students.

D. Davies: I was just getting going, Madam Speaker, but yes.

B. D’Eith: I seek leave to make an introduction. Thank you,

Member.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. D’Eith: In the House today, we have the Garibaldi Secondary grade 9 class with

Duane Kirkpatrick.

Hi, everybody.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Arts and Film, I wanted to say how

honoured I am to have musicians in the House. I really appreciate them all

being here.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

D. Davies: I was actually getting a little excited. I thought the member

for Maple Ridge–Mission was going to stand up and add to the debate,

but I do welcome the school that he did introduce as well. We are

debating second reading on Bill 5, which is what we’re talking about

right now.

I’ll get back into my notes. Even today, talking about

patterns, we had the Leader of the Third Party bring forward, in one

of her questions today to the Premier, calling very clearly the

pattern that the Premier has shown for himself over the last number

of years — including today, when we saw just in this very House the

tabling of the housing report, the audit, and the ability of the

Premier to manipulate the results through what we can do in this

place.

This is where I kind of left off. I was talking about ICBC,

when he had to use his legislative powers in this place to get the

results that he wanted. My colleague from Penticton had some issues

around homelessness and housing in his own riding of Penticton.

There was incredible community pushback. The municipality was

pushing back. Again, this Premier, going around the courts to see

his way through it….

I’ve just talked about B.C. Housing. We are seeing many of

these things coming forward over and over again. I might even call

into the very simple one that started…. Maybe this was his

foundation, his own leadership race. How that was laid out to favour

him using, again, his thumb on the scale to achieve the results that

he wanted. It is quite funny when you go back to looking at the

Machiavellianism, cunningness, the ability to be manipulative, by

whatever means necessary.

[4:00 p.m.]

It really fits on not only Bill 5, but the pattern that we’ve

seen by this Premier over and over again. Bill 5, I think, really

does shred any credibility that the NDP has now when it comes to

free and fair bargaining.

I do understand a lot of this. I’m a union member. Formerly,

I’ve served…. I was a teacher with the BCTF. I drove a ready mix

truck, was a member of the Teamsters. I do understand a lot around

what is happening here. But this is not right what is happening here

today.

We heard the Labour Minister just recently talk about the

importance that…. The NDP love to say this all the time, that the

best place to resolve disputes is at the bargaining table — but only

when it’s convenient for them. Really, the government should be

ashamed. Being as progressive as they self-proclaim, to be bringing

forward legislation like this is embarrassing.

My colleague, as he was summing up before me…. I was going to

say a lot of the same quotes that he said, but I’m not going to

repeat the same quotes, just repeating them over and over again. But

I do hope that this government will reconsider their decision,

because as I said at the start, the right time to do the right thing

is right now. This government does have that opportunity, does have

that ability to make that happen.

With that, I really do hope that the government does change

their course of action — listen to the lawyers, listen to the

members of the opposition, listen to even many of their own unions,

one being the union itself that they’re trying to be forced into —

and make the right decision on this matter.

G. Kyllo: It’s certainly gives me a great amount of pride to rise in the

House today to speak to Bill 5, Public Service Labour Relations

Amendment Act, 2023.

It’s interesting. We talk about public service labour relations.

These are disastrous relations contained within this legislation where

government is taking a high-handed approach to override the rights of

workers for freedom of choice, freedom of association, freedom to

actually choose which union they choose to actually represent

them.

You can’t help but kind of wonder why we are here today with this

piece of legislation. May it be due to strained relations between this

government and the lawyers that actually represent government and

provide legal advice to government?

We have seen time and time again — where the advice that’s being

provided, the advice that’s being sought by government — where this

government continues to lose in courts, whether it’s government’s