Third Session, 42nd Parliament (2022)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, March 31, 2022
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 177
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2022
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.
Introductions by Members
G. Lore: I have quite a few introductions to give today. Today is Trans Day of Visibility, and in the name of visibility, we have more than 35 members of the two-spirit, trans and non-binary community, as well as allies, joining us today. I really appreciate the opportunity to make a few introductions.
I’m going to start with Alyx, an incredible community organizer, parent and friend. They founded an organization that offers connection and support for gender-diverse kids and their families. They were recently awarded the Lieutenant-Governor’s Silver Medal for their master’s thesis on the importance of centring the voices of trans youth in their own care. Alex is joined by their wonderful partner, Amy, and their children, four-year-old Arden and four-month-old Juna.
A welcome, also, to Dr. Aaron Devor, who holds the Chair in Transgender Studies, the first research chair of its kind, and who also leads the Transgender Archives at the University of Victoria. Fun fact: the research chair was established by a generous donation from Lt. Col. Jennifer Pritzker, the world’s first trans billionaire.
Next, I’m thrilled to introduce seven-year-old Zoey, who is an adorable rascal and an avid reader and writer. She absolutely has something to say if you are stuck in a world that does not include her. She is here with her parents.
We’re lucky to have a few members of the public service here with us. Sofie Grahn is a senior policy analyst with the Ministry of Education. We have Liz Boychuk, who was recently on the subcommittee for EDI with B.C. prosecution service. Julian Paquette is with government communications.
I’d like to recognize Jade Ashbourne, who is a senior ministerial adviser to the Minister of Finance. Adam LynesFord is a senior ministerial adviser in Housing.
Joining us is also a group representing QMUNITY, including Anoop Gill, who is co-executive director of the organization, and Michael Robach, who has been instrumental in organizing events and opportunities to connect today.
Also joining us are Ali Blythe, Hannah Brown, Cameron Chevier, Sansal Gumuspala, Jamey Jesperson, Griffin Nesbitt, Eli Verdugo, Alivia Wong, Hope Warren, Wren Hawke Smith, Kai Jacobsen, Esther Suwannanon, Yahlnaaw and Ace Mann.
Lastly and importantly, it’s important for all allies to show up. So I’m so glad to have my daughter, Eve Lore, here, one of the littlest allies in this work.
Thank you for the chance to introduce these wonderful folks and the many others who are here.
M. Dykeman: I just wanted to take a moment to wish one of my constituents, who I know will be watching at home, a very happy birthday. This gentleman has let us know by email three times that it’s his birthday tomorrow, and I think that he’s going to be testing whether I remember that. So I figured I should get some evidence.
Could the House be join me in wishing David Lyons-Black a very happy birthday.
S. Bond: Today I’d like to welcome two very special guests to the gallery, Kyle and Griffin Granger. Kyle is the husband of one of our exceptional research officers. We are very lucky to work with Jen Wizinsky every single day. She is bright, hard-working, and she’s fantastic at what she does.
Today we’re happy to welcome Kyle and Griffin. Griffin, who is just six years old, is their oldest child, and today is his first time watching question period in person.
I’m told that while Griffin is, of course, excited to be visiting here, his absolute favourite thing to do besides playing hockey is to explore the beach by their home looking for all kinds of creatures. And I should tell members he is very proud that he just lost his first tooth.
We are delighted and very happy to welcome to the House today Kyle and Griffin Granger. Please join me in making them feel very welcome.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I have a couple of introductions to do today. The first is that I want to wish a happy belated birthday to our emergency management B.C. communications director, Jordan Turner, who does an amazing job for me and is here in the gallery watching things today, as opposed to being in my office.
I’d also like to make, for tomorrow, a happy April Fool’s Day birthday to my executive assistant, Melissa Meyer, who is also here today. She gave me a note of all the great things to say that she does, but time is short, so I will pass on that.
Finally, I would like to say a farewell to someone who has done an amazing job for me since I became Solicitor General in this ministry, and that is my communications director, Caroline McAndrews. She has done just a terrific and outstanding job. Caroline, I just want to thank you for all the work that you’ve done. I’m really sad that you’re leaving my office, but I know you’re going to do a great job in your next position.
Thank you, hon. Speaker. I’d just ask the House to wish happy birthday to my two staff and to thank Caroline McAndrews for the wonderful job that she’s been doing for me.
L. Doerkson: It’s certainly a pleasure this morning for me to be able to introduce a good friend of mine, Walt Cobb. He is a long-standing mayor of Williams Lake. He has sat on far too many boards and committees for me to list here today, but it’s safe to say that he’s done some incredible good for Cariboo-Chilcotin and specifically for Williams Lake. He’s done thousands of hours, and I mean that, of volunteer work and has likely cooked more pancakes than anybody in the chamber today. Please welcome to our chamber Mayor Walt Cobb and a past MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin.
Thank you for joining us today.
S. Furstenau: I’m really delighted to introduce Darya Kudruavtseva. She is in the gallery today. She’s here to shadow me. She was here a couple of weeks ago. She’s 15 years old, turning 16 next month. She’s a high school student at Claremont high in grade 11, and she’s doing a film project about women’s strength that she hopes to have screening in Sidney in May.
I will invite all of the members to look for that potential screening of Darya’s first — I expect — of many films. She’s applying to film schools in Canada and the U.S. She has absolutely found her passion, and I’m delighted to have her here today to shadow. We will be coming to see you, Mr. Speaker, and asking you about the mace.
A. Singh: Tomorrow, April 1, will be my father, Jagdish Singh’s, 81st birthday. Dad was born in 1941, in Chak 235, Lyalpur, Punjab, in what is now Pakistan. After the partition, at the age of six, he, along with over one million other refugees, fled on foot to a new life in India.
In his 20s, he moved to Bangkok and then Hong Kong, where he took on whatever employment he could — security guard jobs, an interpreter at the courts, and finally, a clerk at a travel agency before he went on to start his own travel and cargo agency.
I remember vividly going with him to work and sleeping under the stairs of a building where he worked as what they called a watchman. Simpler times. As Bob Dylan would say: “I wish, I wish, I wish in vain that we could simply sit in that room again.”
He eventually started his own small travel agency, Maharaja Travels, which grew to be wildly successful. He was known for his immense generosity in the Indian community in Hong Kong, and as a result, everybody called him Maharaja, which means emperor.
He lives with me, and although much of him has been taken by Alzheimer’s, that kindness and that smile still shine just as strong as ever.
I ask this House to join me in wishing him a very happy and healthy birthday.
R. Merrifield: Every once in a while, you get to meet someone who absolutely changes your life. Jody Cleland is my constituency assistant, and she is certainly that person. She is extraordinary in how she serves the residents of Kelowna-Mission.
It really feels like I’ve known Jody for a lot longer than the year and a half that we’ve worked together. I actually met her husband, Jordan, first — Burma-Shaving during the campaign. He told me the story of how he had worked in politics and how he had campaigned for a leadership candidate in Alberta.
What I found particularly interesting in his story was that the other campaign at the time was run by his wife, Jody. Well, sure enough, the front page of a googled Edmonton Journal actually showed them back to back and told the story: a husband and a wife working as two campaign managers of opposing candidates. Well, the best man and the best woman won, because Jody’s candidate won in that race and went on to become Premier of Alberta, and Jody served as a ministerial assistant for many years.
Fast-forward to today. I pulled from a few emails that I’ve received about Jody. She’s called a miracle worker, tenacious, kind, responsive. She has listened to thousands of constituents and tried to help every last one of them. While speaking to one of them after Jody had worked with him, he referenced her as somewhat of a counsellor, as she had worked through the issues that he was facing.
She is loved by our seniors — as she will help them with access online or filling out forms — but, moreover, loved by our community. An example of that love: we’ve even had someone walk into the office with a tear-stained face because someone was finally able to help them. She is truly amazing. I am blessed to work alongside her in the constituency.
Today she is joined by her husband, Jordan, who was not the successful campaign manager in the leadership race, and her amazing future politician daughter, Grace.
Please, would the House join me in welcoming them.
Hon. K. Conroy: I’d like to introduce who’s joining us in the gallery today, Megan Hanacek. She is the CEO of the Private Forest Landowners Association. She’s also a registered professional forester and a registered professional biologist with over 20 years of experience in B.C. forest management, and she sits on our Minister’s Wildlife Advisory Council.
An interesting fact about Megan for those of you who are fans of the TV show Alone. Megan survived in the Patagonia wilderness for 78 days before tapping out in the final episode of the History Channel’s hit reality TV show Alone. She was one of the longest-surviving Canadian cast members to be featured on Alone — someone you don’t want to mess with.
Great to have you here.
Can you all join in welcoming her.
S. Chandra Herbert: I wanted to join my colleagues in welcoming our guests here for Trans Day of Visibility. It’s incredible. You belong here. Some of you are friends that I’ve known for…. I guess it’s over 12 years ago when we first met, working to add gender identity and expression to the human rights code, so it’s so good to see you here today.
I want to make a special mention of QMUNITY. For those that don’t know, its location is in my constituency, 1170 Bute Street; however, they have a provincial mandate. If you need to up your queer competencies, learn how to be better employers or better representatives, learn to reflect the true diversity of your community or just update some terminology, they are a great resource. I can’t recommend them enough for your education and for the betterment of our province.
Thank you to all of our guests for being here today.
S. Chant: I’m very excited to welcome a couple of constituents from my riding, whom I don’t see very often here, which is very exciting to me. From North Vancouver–Seymour, I’d like to introduce Grace Smith, who works as a consultant with IBM, and Peter Smith, who is the principal engineer with Amazon. They are in the gallery today to watch us debate.
T. Shypitka: If there’s one thing I learned a long time ago, when speaking about your spouse, it’s better to be proactive than reactive. My wife, Carrie, the love of my life, is going to have a birthday on Saturday. Unfortunately, I won’t be there, so I wanted to wish her a happy birthday. I won’t tell you, actually, how old she is, but I can say she’s a lot younger than me. That’s a good hint.
Anyways, would the House please recognize her birthday and celebrate with me.
R. Leonard: I’d like to introduce to the House Nina Usherwood and Rosalind Humphreys. This year they’re celebrating 20 years together with a renewal of their vows.
I’ve met them because they are very strong advocates in our community, and they’re very involved in issues around health and justice. It is a real demonstration of the strength of their relationship, that shines through in all that they do. More than you belong here, we are honoured to have them as part of Courtenay-Comox.
Please let the House welcome them and help them celebrate 20 years together.
Hon. M. Dean: Today I’d like to just say a big thank you to Kirsten Lauvass. She’s been my communications director’s support for well over a year. It’s been really super to work with her, but she’s leaving tomorrow.
Would the House please express their appreciation for her service as well.
D. Coulter: I just realized it’s my baby brother’s birthday tomorrow. I didn’t get him a gift. He’s an actuary in Boston, and you’d never know he’s my baby brother. He looks much older than me. But he is very passionate about bouldering and sailing, and we’re very proud of him in my family.
Would the House please clap for my brother Christopher Coulter for his birthday tomorrow.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 17 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT,
2022
Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2022.
Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce Bill 17, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2022. This bill amends the following statutes: the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, the Ministry of Energy and Mines Act, the Offence Act. This bill also makes repeals and consequential amendments to other statutes.
I’ll be pleased to elaborate on the nature of these amendments during the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.
Mr. Speaker: So that was the question.
Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
INTERNATIONAL TRANSGENDER
DAY OF
VISIBILITY
T. Stone: Today marks the International Trans Day of Visibility, an annual celebration of trans pride and awareness. This day celebrates the members of the transgender, gender-diverse and two-spirit community, highlighting their contributions to society in addition to raising awareness of the unacceptable discrimination they continue to face worldwide.
It’s important that trans people are empowered to celebrate who they are and that we all voice solidarity with the trans community. We must recognize the pressure many trans and non-binary people face to conform and change, and acknowledge the courage it takes to live authentically.
This day is about understanding how living openly as your true self is something that many of us take for granted. Often for trans people this is difficult and even dangerous. Increased positive visibility of trans people in our communities, media and public life brings awareness and changing attitudes, and this is key to securing their fundamental rights.
How can we in this House play a role? Well, one way is through the Creating Connections campaign which is once again being launched by the Rainbow Health Cooperative. It is designed as a pay-it-forward system where the organization drops off for each MLA a small package containing information on the transgender community and a trans flag. You’re encouraged to take this package and pass it on to a person in your constituency you would like to build a connection with.
This is a great opportunity to provide visibility to the transgender population, and I encourage every member of this House to participate in this campaign.
G. Lore: I, too, rise to recognize International Transgender Day of Visibility, and I stand as an ally with the honour of celebrating our peers, colleagues, friends and family.
Let me start with Jamie Lee Hamilton, an outspoken activist for sex workers and Indigenous women. In 1998, she dumped 67 pairs of stilettos in the front of city hall demanding attention for the dozens of sex workers who were missing in the Downtown Eastside. She was also the first youth in Canada to start medical transition and the first out trans candidate to seek public office.
Last year Blake Desjarlais became Canada’s first openly two-spirit Member of Parliament. Just last week Niis Mious, a Nisg̱a’a two-spirit person, was awarded the Medal of Good Citizenship for their work to create food security for Indigenous families based on cultural understanding, consistency and trust.
At the University of Victoria, Dr. Aaron Devor holds the world’s first Chair in Transgender Studies and set up the Transgender Archives. This year the archives celebrate their tenth anniversary, upholding a commitment to research and community-building for and by trans and non-binary, two-spirit and other gender-diverse people locally and globally. I encourage everyone to check out their community stories online to learn more.
I also want to encourage everyone to participate in #YouBelongHere, an advocacy campaign by QMUNITY, B.C.’s queer, trans and two-spirit resource centre.
I would also like to recognize all the peer supporters at Trans Care B.C. who help people access the gender-affirming health care they need and deserve.
I want to lift up B.C. lawyer Adrienne Smith, whose work and advocacy protects the human rights of trans people.
Two-spirit, trans and gender-diverse people are amazing. May we all learn something from their courage to be themselves.
As anti-trans laws that endanger trans people and trans families and deny health care for trans kids continue to be introduced and passed in other jurisdictions, we must recommit to work here in B.C. and beyond so that the need to be courageous is replaced with ease, love and celebration.
AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER AND
PACIFIC AUTISM FAMILY
NETWORK
K. Kirkpatrick: This Saturday marks World Autism Day, and today I’m honoured to speak about the work of Wendy Lisogar-Cocchia and Sergio Cocchia, who dedicate much of their energy supporting families and autistic people.
As opposition critic for Ministry of Children and Family Development, I have learned a great deal about autism spectrum disorder, particularly in recent months since government announced the change to the autism funding model.
Autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, is a developmental condition that impacts typical brain growth, affecting individuals very differently. Common characteristics include difficulty with communication, social interactions and repetitive patterns of behaviour. The word “spectrum” refers to the wide range of symptoms and severity. Each child is unique, and intensive treatment can have positive impact on autistic children.
Enter visionaries Wendy and Sergio, who, as parents of an autistic child, founded the Pacific Autism Family Network. Their first location, called GoodLife Fitness Autism Family Hub, opened its 60,000-square-foot facility in 2016, with a mandate to serve the lifespan needs of individuals and families affected by ASD.
When a diagnosis of families of autism is made, families often need help navigating therapies and supports to determine what is best for their own unique child. The Pacific Autism Family Network provides a reliable, one-stop-shop source of information and help.
This includes assessment, therapy, education and support services and programs. There are clinics, classrooms, spaces for autism organizations, video conferencing and so much more.
In closing, I would like to thank and to celebrate my constituents Wendy and Sergio for their dedication to the autism community, their philanthropy and for creating such a meaningful organization to help those with autism have a happy, meaningful and rich life.
GOOD CITIZENSHIP MEDAL RECIPIENTS
CHRISTOPHER HORNER
AND BEVERLY LORE
J. Rice: I’d like to recognize two Haida Gwaii heroes and recent Medal of Good Citizenship recipients.
gudangaay k’uuk ahl iiwaans, Christopher Horner, takes on many roles in his dedicated service to the community of Masset and surrounding communities. As the Elders Centre coordinator, he provides supports for Elders and adults with ability challenges while overseeing the food bank program for all communities on the north end of Graham Island. As pantry coordinator under the Local Food to School program, Christopher teaches life skills and incorporates client participation in greenhouse and community gardens. He’s also involved in the Warrior Program, where he facilitates mental health wellness programs for youth and adult men.
The Bayview Market has operated for more than 60 years as a local grocer in rural and remote Port Clements. Owner-operator Beverly Lore and the Bayview are icons of community spirit. Beverly sponsors community, sporting and church events and has helped purchase playground equipment for Port Clements children. At the peak of COVID-19, Bev and her family were providing free delivery service not just for Port Clements residents but to other communities up and down, all over Haida Gwaii.
There are no pharmacies in Port Clements, so the Bayview serves as a prescription pickup location. Prescriptions are delivered to the store, where they are held for residents to claim. This valuable community service allows vulnerable people to live in their home community longer.
In the very early days of COVID-19, Bev set up a handwashing station outside her store, complete with warm water. Her community spirit shone through this dark time as she provided lyrics for people to sing while they washed their hands.
The Medal of Good Citizenship celebrates British Columbians who have acted in a particularly generous, kind or selfless manner for the common good, without expectation of reward. Recipients Beverly Lore and Christopher Horner exemplify these qualities, and I want to thank them for their selfless service.
CANCER AWARENESS AND DAFFODIL MONTH
S. Furstenau: Cancer is a thief. It robs us of the people we love. It robs our health, our limbs, our dreams, our futures. Twenty years ago it robbed my family of two people, left us without the joy of being with them, of sharing with them. It robbed their grandchildren even the opportunity to meet and know them.
In April 2001, my father, Peter Furstenau, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. The cancer moved so quickly, we didn’t have the chance to start potentially life-saving therapy. He died October 16 of that year, one week before his 62nd birthday. As we all tried to navigate through the deep fog of grief, cancer came again. My dad’s partner of over two decades — my stepmother, Patricia Lloyd — was diagnosed with large cell lung cancer in January 2002. Six months later, on June 7, she died. Pat’s daughter Jessie was 25.
Peter and Pat were vibrant, extraordinary, beloved, wonderful people. Both were working at Malaspina. Pat was a director of the library, overseeing the redesign, and dad was teaching statistics and psychology. His stats students were so grateful to him, they wrote him a song on the last day of class.
I miss them. I wish that they could have met their grandchildren, my children, Peter and Eleanor, and Jessie’s children, Avery and Smith. I wish I could seek their wise counsel, their support. I wish I could soak in their generous and abundant love.
Tomorrow is the start of the Canadian Cancer Society’s Daffodil Campaign for Cancer Awareness Month. Two in five Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer. But the work of researchers is creating a bulwark against the thievery of cancer.
The Daffodil Campaign also supports the programs that provide comfort and connection to cancer patients and their loved ones.
I am so deeply grateful for the counselling that I was able to access through the B.C. Cancer Agency in the wake of the life-altering loss that I and my family experienced 20 years ago.
RAMADAN
A. Singh: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for her statement.
This weekend over two billion people in the world will begin the celebrations for Ramadan, the Muslim holy month. This includes many of my constituents in Richmond-Queensborough, including those that attend the Richmond Jamia Mosque and the Az-Zahraa Islamic Centre, who will, after two long years of the pandemic, be able to celebrate openly and safely with their community sisters and brothers.
Ramadan is one of the holiest months of the year for Muslims. Muslims commemorate the revelation of the Quran and fast from food and drink during the sunlit hours as a means of drawing closer to their higher power — to God — and to cultivating self-control, gratitude and compassion for those less fortunate.
Ramadan is a month of intense spiritual rejuvenation, with a heightened focus on devotion, during which Muslims spend extra time reading the Quran and performing special prayers. Those unable to fast, such as pregnant or nursing women, the sick, elderly people and children, are exempt from fasting.
This year the month-long fast of Ramadan begins around April 2 or 3 and will end around May 1 or 2. Muslims fast from predawn to sunset. It’s a fast of between 11 and 16 hours, depending on the time of the year, for a period of 29 to 30 days. Ramadan is a time to train both physically and spiritually. This is time for self-reflection, spiritual improvement and as a means to grow as an empathetic member of society.
In addition to the personal aspects, Ramadan is also a highly social time, as Muslims invite each other to break their fast together and meet for prayers at the mosques. Many mosques hold daily community dinners, where Muslims can break their fast together.
Charity and social responsibility are also an integral part of Islam and are magnified during Ramadan. Many mosques host open houses for their friends and neighbours of other faiths to join them for the fast-breaking dinner, or Iftar, at the end of the fasting day.
I would ask that this Legislature join me in recognizing this special day and month for many of our fellow British Columbians.
Oral Questions
AFFORDABILITY ISSUES
AND REBATE FOR
RENTERS
S. Bond: The Premier rose in the Legislature earlier this week and said: “I don’t understand this affordability stuff.” Well, that certainly explains a lot.
British Columbians are paying the highest gas taxes in North America, and they’re going up, with the Premier doing nothing. Housing prices are skyrocketing, but the Premier’s affordable home promise is going to take 100 years to complete. Rents have gone up 20 percent in Vancouver in the last six months alone, yet nothing has been done about his promise of a renters rebate.
While it’s clear — and the Premier admitted it here in the Legislature — that he doesn’t understand affordability, could he possibly tell us why he has failed to keep a five-year promise related to a renters rebate?
Hon. B. Ralston: It’s interesting to hear the members on the other side and their new-found concern for the struggles of ordinary people. When they sat over here, they gave tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent and made everyone else pay for it. MSP premiums doubled. ICBC car insurance rates went up over 30 percent.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. B. Ralston: Roads and bridges were tolled. Their government created the housing crisis by putting speculators and developers ahead of people. Here on this side, we’ve continued to reduce costs for people as we invest in the services that they count on.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, please come to order.
Hon. B. Ralston: The new ICBC rebate, thanks to our work to fix ICBC. The child opportunity benefit, up to $2,600 a year for a family with two children. Reduced child care costs. Lower car insurance. Ended MSP premiums. There are many more, but I’ll wait for the supplemental to list those.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, it’s a question period, not a comedy show. Let’s be quiet.
S. Bond: Well, apparently, while the minister yesterday missed the question by a mile, he’s no better today when he got up and was given a chance. He absolutely missed the entire point of the question for a second day in a row. Wow. Let’s try it again, and let’s hope this time we get somebody who actually understands the importance of the renters rebate to get up.
It’s easy for the Premier to actually stand in the House and say he doesn’t understand the affordability stuff. It’s even more so after he gave himself a $40,000 raise. But British Columbians struggling with higher gas prices, higher transit costs, higher grocery costs…. You know, to the members opposite, British Columbians do understand the affordability issue.
Jennifer Bradshaw of the volunteer advocacy group Abundant Housing Vancouver is clear that help for renters is needed now, as the market only gets worse. “Low-income renters should really have those sorts of supports, and that should have happened much more quickly.”
While the Premier may not understand affordability — he admitted it here in the Legislature — I think he should understand keeping his word to British Columbians.
It’s been five years. Where is the renters rebate?
Hon. D. Eby: I want to thank the Minister of Energy, who clearly saw my first reading speech and thought he would step in to assist. Obviously, not my best day in the Legislature. Let’s try to turn it around here.
The Minister of Finance is working on the renters rebate. That policy work continues. It’s an important issue. I thank the member for raising it. But it’s also important to recognize what we have done to keep rents down. One of the things we did was we got rid of the additional 2 percent that got charged every year to renters. That’s saving families thousands of dollars. But it’s important to recognize that those are families that are already in rental housing. There are a whole bunch of people who are looking for rental housing.
The member quoted Abundant Housing, and I agree with the advocates in that group that believe we need more housing. That’s why I’m really proud that in our first three years, our government registered more rental units for construction than the old government did in the previous decade.
More than 53,000 new homes were registered last year. That’s the highest ever since B.C. Housing started collecting data in 2002. And we turned 18,000 empty condos into rented homes, thanks to the speculation tax, which, by the way, they voted against and opposed.
TAX ON SALE OF USED CARS
P. Milobar: Despite the Premier’s elections promises of no new taxes, there are now three new taxes being brought in by the NDP this budget. No wonder he says he doesn’t understand this affordability stuff, because he also doesn’t understand how to keep a campaign promise.
The Premier is going to tell you now what your used car is worth. If you happen to get a good deal, well, too bad for you. The Premier is going to tax you on the higher amount that he feels your car is worth because, as some of his members have alluded to, apparently you’re a tax cheat if you find a good deal on a used car.
The budget document on page 91 was very clear that the people hurt by this change are “more likely to be low- and middle-income” people.
Again, why is the Premier going after low- and middle-income people who are just looking for a good deal on a safe used car?
Hon. S. Robinson: Well, PST has always been payable on privately purchased new and used vehicles. That hasn’t changed. In fact, post HST, it was Kevin Falcon who chose to apply PST to used goods in this province. Yes, I have to inform the House of that truth.
However, I think it’s important to really understand…. I’m really pleased to hear that the member opposite actually read the budget document. But if he turns to page 159, he will see table A4.1, “Net provincial taxes since Budget 2016.” What do we find?
Well, what we find is that if your family net income is $30,000, back in 2016, you were paying $177 in taxes. Now, actually, it’s $1,442 back in your pocket, as a result of the decisions of this government.
If your family net income is $60,000, you used to pay $4,238 a year in taxes, in 2016. Now you’re paying $1,539.
Let’s take it up another notch. If your family net income is $100,000, you were paying $7,473 in 2016, and now you’re paying $5,658.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear the question please, Members.
TRANSIT AND COMMUTING COSTS
P. Milobar: If you happen to be in those income brackets and live in the Finance Minister’s riding, you’re paying an extra $4,500 a year to rent because you can’t afford to purchase either. That’s under this government’s watch that that’s happened.
It makes no sense that a Premier who “doesn’t understand this affordability stuff” gets to decide what a good deal on a used car is. It’s not just used cars, though. The cost of transit is scheduled to go up. The cost of getting from Surrey to Vancouver is rising to $185 a month. The cost of gas is still the highest in North America. In fact, these rising commuting costs are a direct result of the Premier removing the revenue neutrality to the carbon tax.
How much longer is it going to be for commuters — whether it’s a car, bus or SkyTrain — to see some actual real help in this affordability crisis from this government?
Hon. S. Robinson: No doubt it continues to be challenging for British Columbians during these very challenging times coming off of COVID, and certainly what we see happening in Ukraine has added increased pressures for sure.
I think it’s really important to recognize, if we hadn’t taken the actions that we’ve been taking over the last five years, just how much harder it would be for British Columbians. Remember tolls? They’re gone now. They’re gone. MSP premiums. They’re gone as well. Thanks to the work of my colleagues on either side of me, ICBC now not only is in the black but we’re giving rebate cheques to drivers.
Free transit for children under the age of 12. If I might read into the record that what means…. For a whole lot of families, the family vehicle is the bus. It is the bus. We’ve heard from Bikram, who lives in Vancouver with two children. This is what Bikram had to say about what it means to them to have free transit for their children.
“For a working family like ours, free transit for kids under 12 is such a big help. This year we would have spent around $1,400 on transit passes for our two young sons. We can certainly put those savings to good use. We rely heavily on public transit in our day-to-day lives. We use public transit to visit our families and take the kids to the various activities, like skating, swimming, soccer and Kumon. Both our children will absolutely benefit from free transit, and so will our family.”
CONSULTATION ON SPRAYING OF
GLYPHOSATE ON FIRST NATIONS
LANDS
A. Olsen: Yesterday we celebrated the tabling of the Declaration Act action plan. We’ve repeatedly committed to repairing the legacies of colonialism, to upholding Indigenous rights, including their rights to their territories — rights to fish, hunt, gather medicines and foods unencumbered.
This week Angelina Hopkins Rose from St’át’imc Nation was in the news. Hopkins Rose is calling on the government to pause a proposed land management plan to spray glyphosate and other poisons in the unceded territories of the Stó:lō the St’át’imc, the Nlaka’pamux, Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh First Nations. Hopkins Rose’s activism has been successful. This weekend my constituency office — actually, our constituency offices — received over 2,000 emails on the issue.
The management plan in question takes effect tomorrow and will have these carcinogenic chemicals sprayed broadly across their land — lands where Indigenous peoples regularly harvest berries and other traditional plants and medicines. Hopkins Rose is saying there was not nearly enough consultation with Indigenous peoples on this management plan.
My question is to the Minister of Forests. In keeping with our commitments under the Declaration Act, will the minister pause the spraying of glyphosate set to begin tomorrow, and order a consultation with Indigenous peoples that have been affected by this?
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question.
I’ve done a lot of research on this. We’ve also been…. There are questions about glyphosate use in forestry, and the effects of glyphosate on human health have been really extensively reviewed by international regulatory agencies, including Health Canada, with the conclusion being that exposure to glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic or general toxic risk to humans. It remains an important tool for establishing conifer or conifer-deciduous mixed stands and ensuring future timber supplies.
That said, the use of this herbicide in B.C.’s forest sector has declined significantly in recent years, as foresters use a variety of approaches to manage competing vegetation, including manual, mechanical, burning, biological and herbicides. The glyphosate use in forestry has to comply with B.C.’s Integrated Pest Management Act, and steps have to be taken to minimize impacts on environment, including in fish-bearing streams.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.
A. Olsen: My question was about whether or not engagement with Indigenous nations, as we celebrated — quite intensely celebrated — yesterday…. Allowing non-members onto the floor of this Legislature to speak is a substantial thing.
According to the plan, B.C. Timber Sales will be permitted to spray. Whether they’re spraying less now than they have in the past makes little difference. The fact of the matter is that they’re going to be allowed to spray glyphosate and other poisons for the next five years.
These poisons will be used to kill salal, mushrooms, Indian hellebore and berries — thimbleberry, raspberry, salmonberry, red elderberry, huckleberry, blueberry, ocean spray. These are all species that are unwanted, apparently. Unwanted by whom? I don’t think they’re unwanted by the bears, but they’re certainly not unwanted by Indigenous people, who have been picking and harvesting these as staple food sources for thousands of years.
Ocean spray, as an example of the connection that I want to make here…. Ocean spray, as my uncle J,SIṈTEN talks about, is the sign of Saanich summer. When the ocean spray starts to bloom, and we can smell that beautiful scent throughout our territories, we know it’s time to go out and engage our fishing in the summer in the Gulf Islands.
These are species that are unwanted, yet Indigenous people have been using them, species such as ocean spray, to be able to understand how to live properly in our territories. These will just be wiped out with the spraying of glyphosate.
My question is to the Minister of Forests. Does the minister believe that the rights of Indigenous peoples to harvest traditional plants are outweighed by the ministry’s interests to maximize harvest volumes by the spraying of glyphosate?
Hon. K. Conroy: I respect the member asking the question and his considerable knowledge on Indigenous peoples’ culture. I respect that there have been changes in this Legislature.
We are working with Indigenous people. In fact, under the B.C. Integrated Pest Management Act and the B.C. Integrated Pest Management Regulation, the use of herbicide and products in forestry for vegetation and invasive plant control requires authorization by way of registering a pest management plan, which requires First Nations and public consultation — but First Nations consultation. That is something that we take seriously.
Every year a notice of intent has to be submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, with detailed treatment maps. Again, that consultation with First Nation is required.
There has also been new technique on using superior orchard seed, improved nursery techniques, fast-growing seedlings and well-timed planting so that we can improve plantation survival in areas of high vegetative competition. That’s reducing the amount of herbicide used for plantation management.
I visited the plantation, the centre, in Vernon recently and saw the work that was being done on this, the considerable work being done to try to improve the seeds that we are using right across the province to ensure that we can use less herbicide when it comes to making sure that we are investing in our forests. But also, it’s very critical that they also consult with Indigenous nations, which is part of what the act is about.
PROPERTY TAXES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
AND SPLIT
ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL
T. Stone: The Premier says he just doesn’t understand “this affordability stuff.” But I’ll tell you this: many small businesses in this province understand the affordability crisis. The NDP have failed to act on the skyrocketing property taxes on unused airspace over the heads of small businesses, and this is forcing many of these small businesses to either raise prices or to shut down for good.
That’s hurting popular restaurants like Red Burrito on Lonsdale Avenue, which is closing down after a decade and a half of being in business. They closed because they were faced with steadily rising costs and a shocking 15 percent increase in their lease costs, driven entirely by property taxes.
Now, the Minister of Finance could act to protect local businesses and the people who enjoy them by enacting split assessment.
The question to the Minister of Finance is this: how many businesses will close down or raise their prices before the NDP take action and throw a lifeline to these struggling small businesses?
Hon. S. Robinson: We’ve certainly, through the pandemic, witnessed the challenges of many small businesses. That’s why our government has been there right from the beginning, making sure there were supports available to small businesses, making sure that they had the ability to keep their doors open. Many of them have been certainly challenged by a whole range of challenges as a result of COVID — everything from accessing labour, dealing with the changing requirements that were recommended by the provincial health officer.
I have to say that with the supports we’ve provided, many businesses have been able to keep their doors open. We recognize that it continues to be a challenge, and that’s why we’re going to keep being there for business.
That’s why we continue to have a pandemic and recovery contingency available for this next budget, because we know that we’re not through this yet and that we need to continue to be there for businesses and for people and for communities.
Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.
T. Stone: Well, this is nothing new to this minister. This issue was first brought to her attention nearly five years ago as the issue was building, and it’s gotten worse and worse and worse. We’re talking about a lot of small businesses that have been struggling because of skyrocketing property taxes on the unused airspace over their heads. It’s happening in communities all over the province, including in the Finance Minister’s community of Coquitlam.
The good news is that the work is already done. The working group consisting of a whole bunch of local governments, the UBCM, the chamber of commerce, CFIB, have all come together, and they proposed this split assessment solution as an optional tool that local governments could use. Many of them have said they would use it.
What did the Finance Minister do when she was the Housing Minister back in 2020? She brought in a permissive tax exemption tool. Do you know how many local governments…? She said this would be the silver bullet that would provide a tool for local governments. Do you know how many local governments have used this tool in the last two years? Zero. Not a single one. They continue to call for the split assessment tool.
I’ve introduced a private member’s bill. It’s sitting on the order paper. I’ve introduced it five times now.
Fraser Young of Lift Breakfast Bakery in North Vancouver says costs are forcing him to raise prices on his customers. “Everything is up. Nothing is down.” Everyone but the minister — business groups, local governments, the UBCM — agrees on this split assessment solution. It’s all drafted. It’s all ready to go. Businesses are being caught with these massive increases in the unused airspace over their heads.
Will the minister either embrace the bill that’s on the order paper or write her own bill, implement a split assessment tool so local governments can do what they want to do, and that’s provide much-needed support for struggling small businesses in their communities?
Hon. S. Robinson: We know that many small businesses that pay property taxes under their commercial lease are struggling when there are unexpected spikes in their taxes. We also certainly heard from UBCM, which was very divided. They were very divided on the member’s proposal. In fact, Cariboo regional district, Whistler, Lantzville — they were against it. So for the member to suggest that the UBCM supports it is actually not quite accurate.
Now, we did take a look….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Members, let’s listen to the answer.
Hon. S. Robinson: Clearly, they’re not interested in what we’ve done, Mr. Speaker, because they keep heckling me. But if they’re interested in hearing what I have to say, I’m pleased to stand on my feet and continue with my response.
We did take a look at the member’s private member’s bill. It is too broad. It does not take into account the significant consequences to the entire tax system, and it is not going to give the small businesses the tax break that they need.
That work is being undertaken as we speak. We continue…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. S. Robinson: …to consult with local governments.
It actually isn’t five years. It’s actually two years. It has been two years during a pandemic that we’ve continued to do the work. We have dedicated staff who are continuing to work with local governments, with the UBCM, to make sure that we find the right path to make sure that it works appropriately, the way it’s intended.
CHILD CARE FEES AND SUBSIDIES
FOR CHILD CARE
PROVIDERS
R. Merrifield: Just like renters, commuters and small businesses, parents and child care providers are also finding out that the Premier doesn’t understand the affordability stuff.
Jennifer Ratcliffe is the owner of Pebble Lane Early Learning in Surrey. She says: “Promises and agreements are not kept. Most recently the 2022-23 funding for many daycare owners has been delayed. The funding directly affects staff, families and, most of all, the children. How can we continue to depend on a government that chooses to ignore the owners and make light of our parents’ concerns?”
Tomorrow is April 1. Will the minister stop making excuses and deliver the funding?
Hon. K. Chen: I thank the opposition member for the question.
I reiterated this yesterday. No timeline has been missed. We’ve been working hard with providers to make sure we can continue to pass on savings to families and parents and ensure stability for providers too.
I would like to take this opportunity to inform the member opposite that yesterday staff has looked into all the cases that the members opposite have raised in question period. We learned that three of the providers have received approval or temporary approval between March 23 and March 28. Another provider has received confirmation on March 29, the day after they completed their application. The remaining provider was contacted on March 24, and until now, staff has not received a response.
We share the same goal of ensuring providers are receiving the support they need to pass on savings to parents. We want to work with providers to make sure savings are passed on to providers. If the opposition member has any cases or scenarios, again, I encourage the opposition to work with us to bring forward the cases so we can look into them and make sure that providers will get the savings and that parents will have the stability.
To date, my understanding is that all completed applications have received approvals, and all the remaining ones are either receiving temporary approval or have been contacted by staff. We are committed to continue to work with parents, as we have been, and providers to ensure that we can pass on savings to parents. I hope the opposition member can work with us and bring forward the cases that you’re raising instead of creating unnecessary fear and division among parents and providers.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
AFFORDABILITY
ISSUES
M. de Jong: I got a call yesterday from a constituent. He’s one of these constituents — I think we probably all have them — who actually watches question period. He doesn’t get to watch it live. He watches the late-night version of question period.
Here’s what he said to me. He said:
“It’s the applause. It’s the applause that I hear from the government that drives me crazy, because it feels like they’re mocking me. I don’t understand why they’re applauding. Are they applauding the fact that yesterday, when I went to fill up my car, it cost me $60 more than it used to, and that’s going to translate into $2,000 more per year? Are they applauding the fact that my wife, who relies on a transit pass, is now going to have to pay more, and that’s going to cost us hundreds of dollars a year?
“Are they applauding the fact that the used car we were hoping to buy is now going to cost more because of tax policies introduced by this government? Are they applauding the fact that the shopping cart full of groceries that used to cost us $250 now costs us over $400? Or maybe they’re applauding the fact that our rent” — his and his wife’s rent — “has gone up over $3,300 per year.”
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, please.
M. de Jong: Are they applauding the fact that despite the ending of COVID-related restrictions, for all of the reasons, and more, that he just alluded to, they won’t be going on a vacation? They’re not going anywhere this year. That’s what he said.
He said: “When I hear them applaud, it feels like they’re mocking me.” He said this. “You don’t actually have to be on the Academy Awards to be publicly slapped in the face when you hear the government applaud.”
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
M. de Jong: Would the Premier…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Question, please.
M. de Jong: …explain to my constituent, and the millions of British Columbians who are facing the same challenges, why he and his colleagues applaud their absolute refusal and inability to address, in a meaningful way, the crisis of affordability facing so many British Columbians?
Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate hearing the member’s commentary about the challenges that some British Columbians are indeed facing. I think it’s really important to recognize that there have been some significant changes that we have made over these last five years. That has made a difference in people’s lives.
When you take a look at the fact that if you’re a family earning $80,000 of family net income, your taxes back in 2016 were $5,637 and now they’re $3,342, that’s a significant difference.
I also think that over the last five years, if we hadn’t made the changes that we have made, people would still be paying MSP premiums. They would be paying sky-high ICBC bills. They would be paying interest on their student loans. We got rid of interest on student loans.
They would be getting paid one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada. That’s no longer the case, because they’re getting the highest minimum wages right now. That makes a difference for British Columbians. The average B.C. family would also be paying $1,000 a year more on rent, if we hadn’t taken the measures that this government took over the last number of years.
Finally, I think it’s interesting that when we formed government and the commitment was to fix ICBC and there was a lot of work to do to fix that dumpster fire, Mr. Falcon, the Leader of the Opposition, thought that the ICBC rebates were stupid, little cheques.
Well, those stupid, little cheques are paying the bills for British Columbians. We’re going to keep working every day to address affordability for British Columbians. That’s what we have been doing since we formed government in 2017.
[End of question period.]
Question of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)
A. Olsen: I rise to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege relating to the Minister of Forests’ comments about glyphosate.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate, Bill 12, Property Law Amendment Act.
In Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Minister of Agriculture.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 12 — PROPERTY LAW
AMENDMENT ACT,
2022
(continued)
Deputy Speaker: All right, Members. I’d like to get second reading underway.
P. Milobar: I’m happy to rise and continue with my comments on Bill 12, the Property Law Amendment Act. Yesterday I was touching on the problematic way this bill has been brought forward. Really, it’s a bill that leaves, quite literally, everything up to regulation afterwards. There’s no clear direction forward with this bill.
We’re not sure what the actual state of play will be for people, moving forward, as they’re trying to buy or sell real estate. In fact, most experts agree that a cooling-off period, especially if it’s of any significant length of time, will actually put pressure to increase prices on housing and not bring stability and affordability into the equation.
I can only surmise that the minister has come to a place to agree with that assessment, given that the comments of the minister in the media after this bill has been introduced has been much more about consumer protection, as opposed to driving down the cost of housing or bringing affordability into the equation.
Now, consumer protection on a wide range of things, I think, is always a good goal to strive for, but when it’s a bill that has absolutely no detail on how that regulation will actually protect the consumers, that is a big problem.
We saw that with the Minister of Citizens’ Services, with the Freedom of Information Act, in this chamber. This government has lost all credibility when they bring forward bills that rely solely on regulation after the fact, and the bill is strictly a concept paper. They will call it enabling legislation, but really, it’s a concept paper versus an actual, true piece of legislation for people to look at.
When we look at what happened with the Freedom of Information Act changes, there was a statutory committee that was struck that was supposed to actually do the work to advise this chamber and the minister on what changes should happen. Instead of letting that committee do its work, the minister spent days upon days evading questions and not providing any clear answers, letting the House be told that regulation would be done after and, in fact, would come after a lot of consultation.
Well, a lot of consultation turned out to be 15 minutes and a paper signed in the back hallway after the debate ended. That’s why the credibility, when the government brings forward bills like this now, moving forward, is completely shot, because we know that the BCFSA has to bring forward a report that will actually be the basis for what these recommendations are.
We won’t see that report for the next little while. The minister refuses to say when exactly it will be done and when it will be released publicly. Will it be released publicly before regulations are made or after the regulations are made? We don’t know. It starts to become problematic, because the concepts in the bill have huge flaws in them.
Will people have the ability to sign off and waive their right to the cooling-off period? We don’t know. That’s left to regulation. We don’t know if the purchaser, on a piece of legislation that’s designed to protect them, will still have the right to just waive that right, sign it and say they’re done. They don’t want a cooling-off period.
If they refuse to complete the sale near the end of the cooling-off period, is there a holdback of funds? Is there some other deposit that is defaulted? We don’t know. That’s left to regulation sometime in the future. How many days will they have to decide to try to arrange for things like financing and home inspection in their deal? Well, we don’t know. That will be left to regulation.
Now, in the briefing, we were told that the U.K. model is one example out there. The U.K. model takes around 16 weeks. Deals fall apart all the time, and it’s a mess. So we have somewhere between one day and 16 weeks that could be at play on the cooling-off period, because we just don’t know. That was the answer given by the ministry staff in the briefing.
All the questions we asked…. As much as the professional public service was trying to do their best to answer our questions in the briefing ahead of this debate, their answers were: “Those would be good questions for the minister. We can’t answer that.” Because they don’t know.
Why the rush? Why the rush on a bill that has a concept about regional differences being in it? Why should people in the Lower Mainland receive one level of consumer protection if they’re purchasing a house, and this bill provides the opportunity and the ability for people in the Peace country to have a totally different set of rules that they have to go by? You’re either protecting the consumer, or you’re not.
If there are regional differences, how is that going to work when someone is selling in Vancouver, trying to move into the Peace region or into Kamloops or into Kelowna or Prince George or vice versa? It happens all the time. They have one cooling-off period in one region of the province, at one of the houses that scenario is tied up in, and a completely different one. How can you close on a house if you don’t know for sure yours is sold?
It’s going to create a mess. It’s going to create a mess, because there’s complete uncertainty about what the regulations will be. This is a bill that has one clause, essentially, in it. That clause says: “Stay tuned. Everything will be left to regulation.” But we know, just based on the track record of broken promises that leaving things to regulation — “trust us; we’ll deal with it in the future” — leads to a bad outcome.
We were elected; 87 people were elected to this chamber to reasonably represent the interests and the views of the citizens of British Columbia. Those five million people expect that we are debating and looking into and scrutinizing legislation that has even the slightest bit of detail to it — that we can actually make informed debate and an informed vote on their behalf. They bestow that honour on us every four years — unless, you know, when the Premier decides to call snap elections. But generally speaking, every four years.
It’s a serious responsibility we have been tasked with, and this government has chosen time and again to present bills to this House that leave everything to regulation. We saw it with sick pay, and what happened? This week alone the corrections to the sick pay legislation had to happen, which we warned about when we were debating it in this House because there was a lack of detail.
The minister waved off all concerns and said: “Don’t worry about it. We’ll capture all that in regulation.” Regulations get announced. We point it out then. “Don’t worry about it. We’ll fix it if it becomes a problem.” Guess what. It became a problem within two months of the regulation being out.
The stubborn adherence by this government to continually do this is remarkable. It shows a complete, ever-escalating arrogance that only the government side must know how government works and how process and procedure works. “Don’t worry about it.” They’ll take care of it. Time and again, that has proven to be false.
If you look at what’s happening with the FOI right now and the committee that’s doing the work after the fact and the commentary being presented to that committee, that bears it out as well.
Now we have Bill 12. This has perhaps the least amount of detail of those other two bills I talked about. It’s not trending in the right way. Government is actually trending to make things even more secretive. It’s like they said: “Oh, well, we got given a national award.” A national award from the journalists across this country — normally, governments are pretty proud of that. But this award was for being the most secretive government in Canada. How sad is it that they seem intent on being a repeat winner? That’s what this government seems to think qualifies as good governance in the province of British Columbia.
We get presented with a bill that, quite literally, says everything will be left to regulation once we get a report in the next week or two. We’re here until the first week of June. What would have been the harm of delaying this bill at a minimum until we could see a bill that had some framework of timelines, of penalties, of potential penalties based on a report?
By the minister’s own admission, the intention is to have the regulation in place by summer. So it sounds like they’ve either got the report already and just don’t want to tell us, or they’re fully expecting to just implement the report’s recommendations as quickly as possible. Either way, why do we not see that reflected in this legislation?
It is simply inconceivable that you could ask people in a heightened real estate market right now to have any faith in what’s going to come out of this when everything gets dismissed out of hand. The real estate association comes out with a 57-page white paper of suggestions and recommendations, researched with data to back it up, on how to get to some of the concepts that this bill has purported to try to solve. What was the answer from this minister on that white paper? It was dismissed out of hand within the hour.
We know those recommendations aren’t going to be acted upon in terms of regulation that could come into this bill after the fact. But again, we don’t know. This is supposed to protect consumers. Well, a lot of people purchasing a house are also, at the same time, trying to sell their house. This doesn’t provide any certainty for that. In fact, it’s going to start to have a ripple effect, especially…. And it’s not uncommon for the first offer to fall through on a house.
When asked, the only thing the staff could say with certainty at our briefing was that a new cooling-off period would take effect for the second person making an offer on that house. Is the cooling-off period five, ten days?
If it’s ten days, that means the second person now has ten days to walk away from the deal. If you wind up getting into a situation of a third, you, as a homeowner, could be sitting there trying to sell your house so you can move and make an offer on something else, or you have to keep walking away from your deals as well, as the deals on your home keep falling apart due to no fault of yourself.
The minister can’t even be bothered to tell us the number of days that the cooling-off period will be. And why is that important? If the premise is so that you can get financing, and if the premise is so that you can get a home inspection, I have news for the minister. Banks — if you haven’t already been preapproved, you’re going to be hard pressed, for the average person, to get an approval through in five business days.
Home inspection? Good luck finding somebody that’s going to show up, do a proper home inspection, properly get the report done to you and back in your hand so that you can do proper due diligence in five business days. That’s assuming it is a five-day window. We don’t know what the recommendation will be.
We don’t know what the bill will say, ultimately, moving forward. That’s all being left for people to make a decision in a back room. And by people, I mean cabinet. We saw how well that worked out with FOI legislation. The cabinet didn’t even meet. They couldn’t have. The document was ready to be signed as soon as the debate was over in this House — 15 minutes after debate was over, it seems. Regulation on this bill, the actual details of this bill will not happen until long after this bill has been debated and rammed through by this government. It’s completely unacceptable.
It’s completely unacceptable there’s even the concept of regional differences. We don’t have regional differences for consumer protection if you’re going to buy a stereo. We don’t have them when you go to buy a car. Consumer protection in B.C. is consumer protection. How are you supposed to buy or sell a house in one region that has a completely different cooling-off period timeline than the jurisdiction you want to move into or out of? It makes absolutely no sense.
Why is there a heightened need for protection for people if there are ten bidders on a house, as there are in the Lower Mainland, versus five, which is quite common in Kamloops, versus two at the same time in Dawson Creek or Fort St. John? It’s still pressure on the consumer, according to the minister. The fact there’s even the concept of that in this flies in the face of the minister saying this is about consumer protection for all.
The fact there’s no certainty or clarity about waivers being signed or not is shocking — the fact that we don’t know if you can just sign away and say: “That’s okay.” What if…? Let’s just say it’s a five-day cooling-off period. You, as the purchaser, choose to not have a home inspection done. Is it mandatory? Well, we don’t know. What if you want one, but you can’t get one arranged in that five days? We don’t know.
Again, too much is left to people guessing what is in this. It’s not an appropriate way for legislation to move through a chamber where there are 87 people tasked by the public — the five-million-plus people that live in this province — to properly scrutinize and properly understand what the motivation of government is and, more importantly, what the rules will actually be that people will operate under on any given topic in this province.
We will have a lot of questions at committee stage on this bill, and I fully expect the minister to do like the Minister of Citizens’ Services: keep insisting it’s all going to be decided later after consultation. I hope there’s actually some time after consultation, and it’s not 15 minutes after we pass this bill.
A. Olsen: I appreciate the opportunity to offer some of my initial thoughts on Bill 12, the Property Law Amendment Act.
Unfortunately, it’s pretty difficult to actually have any kind of informed debate on this bill. Basically, other than the pieces of paper that have been put in front of us with a couple of clauses, the content of this bill doesn’t exist. The important pieces, the information that will impact the public, will all come later. It will all come after this debate has been adjourned. I fear that even in committee stage we’re not going to have the details that I think the public in British Columbia deserve from their democratically elected institution.
As I have, unfortunately, continued to repeat in this House, the process in this chamber is an important one. This government and previous governments — this government is the one that I’m focused on now — have found a way around the process, a way to skirt the democratic process that this chamber is supposed to function on. By offering only enabling legislation, by offering a few pieces of paper that give the minister and the cabinet the power to fill in the blanks later, there’s no opportunity for the public to understand what it is that their elected officials, their elected representatives, are actually debating.
That’s a big problem in a democracy. It’s supposed to be all out in front of the public. The members of the opposition are supposed to be given the benefit and the opportunity to be able to challenge the notions that the government is putting on the table to create a law. That’s our job. Essentially, the government has taken that away from the members of the opposition to be able to do their job on behalf of the people of this province. It’s called Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Our job is to challenge and to test the laws that the government has put on the table, and we’re not able to do it.
It was good of the Ministry of Finance to offer us a briefing, although it was 30 minutes when, frankly, we could have been doing literally anything else and would have got more information about this bill. I felt for ministry staff. I felt for ministry staff. Frankly, it was embarrassing for them to not be able to do their job either. All of the decisions that are going to be made in this bill were political.
Therefore, the civil servants who are there to serve the public in a similar way — to administer the work of the politicians — couldn’t even answer the questions. You could see the challenge that they were put in as I and the other members of the opposition were there to ask important questions so that we could have an informed debate in this House and that this debate could be about the bill rather than about the erosion and undermining of our democracy.
If the government wants to continue to put this kind of enabling legislation on the order papers for debate, and they really want me to continue to have to stand for the next three years and talk about how they’re wilfully undermining and eroding our democracy, then fine. That’s the effect of this enabling legislation and the process that this government has undertaken. The public will have no deeper understanding of a new law in this province after this debate is over, because it’s all going to come later in regulation.
Question after question, in committee stage, to the minister will be responded to…. This is a prediction of mine. “That’s going to come later in regulation. We’re engaging in a public consultation process.”
Again, we’ve put the legislation out in front of understanding the public consultation that’s currently underway by the Financial Services Authority in this province — or is done, or is not done, or might be done, or is close to being done, or something. Something happened. We don’t know, and we’ll find out later.
All we know right now is that the people’s government has gone to the people and said: “Give us the power to do this thing. We’re not going to define it clearly. We’re going to give you some vague understanding of what it might be about, but we’re not going to give you the details. You just have to give us the power to do it.”
As the minister said in the press conference last year, announcing the cooling-off period — which has now been rebranded; it’s now called the homebuyer protection period — this is the largest investment that British Columbians are going to make: a new home or the next home.
Their elected officials are given no information on the details of that, no understanding of how aspects of this bill are going to interact with each other and no ability to test the minister on the details. Well, it’s a farce. It’s making a farce of this House. It’s making a farce of this chamber. It’s making a farce of our process.
I’m part of that Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson was mentioning just a few minutes ago. That’s a tough committee to be on right now because, frankly, the legislative changes came last fall, before the committee had a chance to review the legislation.
Last week Sean Holman — who, this House knows well, is a fairly well known political scientist and journalist who studies democracy — made a presentation to the committee. He quoted Ralph Nader, who said: “Information is the currency of democracy.” I ask the members in this House: is that what we have here? Do we have information? Do we have democracy?
I think that where you have the absence of information is where you have the absence of democracy. The opposite must be true, if we accept Ralph Nader’s comment. Clearly, I think that one of the differences between a democratic and an autocratic government is the control and flow of information and the amount of confidentiality and secrecy, compared to the openness of the debate, the openness of information and the flow of information.
There is no information about this bill. We know that the government wants to do something about the ability to rescind an offer once a person puts that offer on the table. We have no idea of how long it will be allowed. We have no idea as to the abilities of waivers. We have no idea about how it is going to interact with other offers that might be on the table. We have no idea of how it is going to impact the sale of a home if the purchaser is also the seller of a home that they’re living in. We have no clue.
As Ralph Nader said, if information is the currency of democracy, and you have an absence of information, then you have an absence of democracy. That’s what this is: an absence of democracy.
Holman continued that access to information is “about whether we have enough information to make the rational and empathetic decisions expected of us in a democracy during this new age of disaster.” Well, I think a lot of people in the province — millions of people in this province — would characterize the situation in our real estate market as a social disaster and as an economic disaster.
Access of information is “about whether we have enough information to make the rational and empathetic decisions expected of us in a democracy during this new age of disaster.” We are dealing with a social crisis in housing in this province.
We have a government that is…. I believe that this announcement last fall was an effort to appear to be doing something. We have a social and economic disaster. I’ll ask the question: does this bill give anybody in this House the ability to make a rational and empathetic decision?
It lacks all of the important information. Even in committee stage, when we have the ability to go into the detail…. Where the comma is placed is as important as the words that are chosen. We see these miscellaneous stats and amendments will move a comma. My former colleague used to talk about commas and apostrophes. That’s the detail when you’re making a law. The difference in a sentence might be where the comma is placed. We have no idea what letters are going to be used, what numbers will be used in this bill. We will not know that.
We will not know that when we get to the end of committee stage, because this government — this Minister of Finance — is explicitly asking us to pass a bill with no information. Is explicitly asking us: “Make an irrational decision.” This Minister of Finance is asking their colleagues in the B.C. NDP government to make an irrational decision, a decision to approve a bill that nobody in this House will have any information about, in a disastrous housing crisis, where people’s lives, their livelihoods, their safety, their security — where everything about their life is on the table.
We have been asked in this House to make an irrational decision to approve a bill that we don’t know the impact that it could or could not have on the people of British Columbia. It really is an offence to this democracy. It is not how the process in this place was designed to work or should work.
Holman continued. Do we want to “cultivate that democracy,” or do we want to “salt the soil of the fact-based communities that we have spent centuries building together”? That is a powerful question that every member of this House is being challenged with, with this Bill 12. Are we going to allow enabling legislation that literally has no substance to it to salt the soil of our fact-based societies?
Democratic societies that are empowered, that exist the way they do today, because of access to information, access to the ability to understand what’s being said, what’s being asked of you and for your ability to make a rational and empathetic decision.
The point Holman was making, the point that needs to be grasped by every member of this House — some of who will stand and vote on this bill without spending any moments considering it, because they are rightfully doing other business…. They have put their trust in the people here that are tasked with stewarding this bill through this House — the minister, the critics in the opposition. They trust us to be putting something of value on the table. Are we salting the soil of our fact-based communities, ones that our predecessors have nurtured and have spent centuries building together, as Holman says.
I understand why a minister may need to put a section in a bill that enables them to do things in regulation. That’s not what I’m talking about here. So if we have speakers coming up saying, “Well, that member from Saanich North and the Islands clearly doesn’t understand how legislation works. Clearly, ministers have to put in enabling sections. Clearly, there’s a need for aspects of bills to be enabling,” that’s not what I’m talking about here. What I’m talking about here is a situation in which we have an entire bill that is enabling — no other information.
One section, a bunch of consequential amendments and emptiness — a void, a vacuum. Nothing. Salting the soil of our fact-based communities. Undermining and eroding our democracy. People have spent decades in this place sitting by, quietly allowing this undermining and erosion to happen. Stunning. It’s stunning.
I imagine that there’s probably going to be division called on this. I imagine that this House will be full. I imagine that everybody will stand and sit when they’re told to stand and sit, and many people in this place will have no idea what just happened.
Interjection.
A. Olsen: I said I imagine. It’s an allegation, sure. It’s also been my experience, repeatedly.
When we take a look at this, the only thing that I will leave British Columbians with is an apology. I’m sorry. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to serve you well today. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to evaluate the details of this legislation, which will have a small or a large impact on the place that you live — as the Minister of Finance said, on the largest investment that you will or you have already made.
I’m sorry. I’m sorry we can’t do our job, because we’re left with nothing, just like the minister’s own staff. Left with nothing to talk about in the briefing. We just ended the briefing. We said: “Well, okay, that’s great. Thank you.” Nothing to talk about. Nothing to talk about. Great.
We can say that we were briefed. I guess the only thing that’s appropriate is to apologize that at second reading, I can’t give you more information about what’s in this bill.
Likely more apologies to come, as we go through the committee stage of this debate and try to get to the details of what’s in this bill and still get no information about how this is going to impact British Columbians and their largest investment that they’re going to make, or that they have made in their homes, in a real estate market that is unattainable and unachievable for many British Columbians and a rental market that is growingly unattainable and unachievable for many British Columbians in a disaster — a social and economic disaster.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
A. Olsen moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND
FOOD
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); B. Bailey in the chair.
The committee met at 11:20 a.m.
On Vote 13: ministry operations, $88,820,000 (continued).
Hon. L. Popham: I think I owe one of my colleagues an answer from yesterday. I’m in receipt of the document that he provided for us. I’ll just read into the record the relevant information that I think he will need and, possibly, mostly will know. But I’ll just clarify.
The carbon tax provides a signal across the market to encourage innovation and support the transition to a lower carbon future. The government recognizes that a balance needs to be found between reducing emissions and sustaining economic development, particularly in the context of agriculture and food security. As such, B.C. offers several carbon tax programs for businesses.
I just want to reflect on how I initially responded. I would expect that the member would especially understand that the carbon tax provides a signal across the market to encourage innovation. I say that because it was this member’s government that brought in the carbon tax and, I think, with the same intent in mind.
That being said, there are things that we have done. Actually, the previous government initiated the greenhouse carbon tax relief grant, which we are continuing on. That specifically addresses greenhouse growers and the carbon tax. Although there’s no carbon tax relief program specifically for the poultry sector in B.C., there are funding options to help B.C. farmers in reducing energy consumption.
I think the most important change that’s been made since the carbon tax was initially brought in was the launch of the CleanBC program for industry in 2019. This program includes the CleanBC industrial incentive program and the CleanBC industry fund.
In support of agriculture climate action, Budget 2022 includes $15 million over three years to support increased beneficial management practice programming. Budget ’22 will include more support for what the BMP program already funds — on-farm practice changes related to energy efficiency and alternative energy that poultry farmers can access. The funding will also support activities that enhance the BMP program, piloting commercialization and on-farm adoption of new agritechnologies, practices and fuel switching that assist the sectors to transition to net zero.
I was just at the B.C. Egg Producers AGM a week and a half ago, and I spoke to an egg producer. They actually have transitioned to solar panels on their roofs and reduced their energy consumption significantly, so there are incentive programs to help do that.
I think the agriculture industry as a whole is very keen on trying to move their businesses forward and to be more efficient to reduce emissions. But we do understand that it’s costly to do so, so we’re trying to provide some of that money to incent them to move in that direction.
D. Ashton: To the minister and to her staff, first of all, thank you for your ongoing emphasis on improving agriculture, speaking from a person that participates in that and loves it — most of the time, except at pruning time.
Hon. L. Popham: It’s a love-hate relationship.
D. Ashton: It is.
Minister, a quick follow up. Her Worship Mayor Toni Boot, from Summerland, Summerland council, administration staff and staff at the municipality of Summerland and, as importantly, if not more, individuals in the preceding area are still curious about the opportunity to develop a food and innovation hub.
I’m doing a follow-up to the letter, and I’m going to thank you on behalf of council for that letter, but is there any additional information available through yourself or through your staff about that opportunity presenting itself in the near future?
Hon. L. Popham: I’m always very happy to have any discussion about the food hubs that are being set up around the province. We have 12 that have been initiated. A couple of years ago, we did start some very interesting and productive conversations with Summerland. There was a bit of a blip on the timeline as things went a bit silent, but I do know that there is passion around making sure that we can find a direction forward, and I know that Summerland is very interested in that.
What I can commit to you today is that we’re going to revisit with Summerland to see where they are. I think a feasibility study has been done, but we’re going to maybe check in to see if that’s still accurate. Then we can have some one-on-one conversations with the member after we do that.
D. Ashton: Thank you. The opportunity does exist in Summerland. We have PARC, the Pacific agricultural research station, and some incredibly talented scientists and technicians up there.
Thank you again. On my behalf and on Her Worship’s behalf, we’ll work hard on our end. We would just ask that the attention be paid to it by the ministry, if at all possible. That was more of a statement than a question.
Next is something else incredibly important in the area. Coming from a municipal government and coming from a regional government, we have looked long and hard for a piece of property for an organics treatment and processing centre. When I was the chair of the regional district, if I remember, we had 23 sites as far as 60 miles away, looking at how we could put this together. It’s taken a long time, a terrific amount of staff time.
A site was found through an opportune moment of a rancher retiring and selling a piece of property. The regional district was able to acquire the property. It has gone through the commission once, and it was turned down. There is an appeal process, and I’m kind of treading around here, around the process, gently.
To the minister and the minister’s staff, there are exceptions that are made. We all know that that happens. This is government we’re talking about, not a private operator or anything else. Government has a lot more flexibility than a person that is trying to do a private for-profit.
The other extreme example in this is that the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen was awarded a substantial amount of money from the Ministry of Environment to help with this process. There’s a fuse lit on that, and that fuse is quickly going to the point where it could expire in the future.
I would just ask…. I do not want to put the minister or her staff in any situation of an answer, because the appeal process is underway, but could attention be paid to this, please? It is very important to the regional district, and it encompasses a lot of municipalities and townships plus the outlying areas.
They have this interest. They want to do it, and it will work. If you have the opportunity, if you’re in Penticton and area, please go up and see how the disposal site is run at this point in time, below it. There is a unique opportunity. Please keep an eye on this for us.
Hon. L. Popham: I’m very glad that the member brought this forward today. I can assure the member that it has the attention of government. The Ministry of Environment, our ministry — we understand the looming deadline on the funding.
Given that there is, most likely, an appeal process in play, I won’t be able to comment on the ALC’s opinion of what’s happening. But I can say that we’re very aware of it, and we’re live to it. But I appreciate the advocacy from the member.
D. Ashton: Thank you, Minister. Like I said, I had to tippytoe around it, as you do, and I fully understand that.
Last but not least, more of a statement. I know your passion for agriculture, and I think people realize that I have a terrific passion for it also. Land size in the Okanagan is difficult, because we’re caught between the lake and ground that, at a certain elevation, is not applicable for agriculture. Agritourism is very important in the Okanagan and, I’ll say, also in the Similkameen area.
I would just hope that the minister and ministry staff would work in hand with the Tourism Minister, because that’s what brings people to the Okanagan. You know, it’s so wonderful. Again, I think, if I remember correctly, our average farm size is about seven and change acres. That’s approximate. Don’t quote me on that exactly. Farmers — whether it’s vintners, etc. — have really reached out and done an incredible job of drawing people in, and it promotes agriculture continually.
I would just ask, again, that the ministry work hand in hand with Tourism, because it’s a booming and blossoming market that we can all work and all be able to show the products that we grow.
Again, thank you to the minister and thank you to her staff.
I. Paton: Thank you to my colleague for those questions. I do have another colleague arriving soon with a question, which is great. Everybody’s very involved with agriculture.
Interjections.
I. Paton: Yeah, I’m just managing. Okay. But I’ll take credit for a great set of estimates this year.
I need it to be known, and I think the minister knows it, my true champion of agriculture in B.C. is for the conventional farmer, the guys and ladies that are out there, day in and day out, that are raising the cattle up in the cattle country — dairy farmers, poultry farmers, people growing vegetables, potatoes — that are actually putting the food on our grocery store shelves that we see everyday — these big bins of potatoes and all the things that are available to us.
That’s who I look out for, more than anything. It’s the big, conventional farmer that’s going through a tough time right now with the price of fuel and the price of fertilizer. It’s just endless what they’re facing with fires and floods and drought and all these different things.
I digress. As we move on to the topic of food hubs…. To me, I’m not really sure how to look at food hubs. It’s a nice gesture; it’s a nice idea. But my question: how many food hubs are up and running right now, 100 percent running? What is the cost to the government of each food hub that has been put together? I think there are 12 of them.
Can the minister tell us if there are actual, conventional farmers — that are growing potatoes, vegetables, milking cows with dairy, raising poultry — that would be using these food hubs, or is it people, city dwellers, that use the food hubs to make a better blueberry muffin?
Hon. L. Popham: I can see a bit of trepidation from the member around the food hub network, so first off, I’m going to invite the member to go on a bit of a tour with me, if he can.
I think if he sees the excitement, from food processors and farmers, around the opportunities that are coming, not just to urban settings but to rural settings, around just the potential that these food hubs are giving to primary growers…. Conventional growers, organic growers — small-scale, medium-scale and even, in some cases, large-scale farmers — develop products that they would normally not have the opportunity to develop, due to barriers of cost of entry as a food entrepreneur, and get these out onto the marketplace.
We offer business supports to make sure the packaging is done properly so that they can be on grocery store shelves. We have food processors that have grown out of the food hub. So it can be a place for them to start and then to move on to create a larger facility, a stand-alone facility that represents their businesses. We also definitely have processors that are happy to be using a food hub, which is a shared-use food processing centre, to get their products into small markets, medium markets and large markets.
You can find these products everywhere — in grocery stores like Save-On-Foods, in Whole Foods, in farmers markets. You can find them in, basically, any town that has a food hub. You’ll start seeing their products filtering out throughout the community. The best part is that that’s not where it stops. They end up being available throughout the province, across Canada and then into some international markets.
The member was wondering how much has been spent and where these food hubs are. We started with one pilot and demonstration food hub in Vancouver. That was an investment of $750,000. That launched in early 2019. There are two food hubs, in Surrey and Port Alberni. Surrey was a $750,000 investment. Port Alberni, which is really….
Surrey is focused on plant-based proteins and jams and jellies, and we have opportunities there to make products for the health authorities, which is a really interesting connection — develop products, through these food hubs, for health authorities — like a raspberry protein drink that’s coming from B.C. raspberries. I think there was development that was being done with someone whom we both know, Rhonda Driediger, and her raspberry crop.
There’s a farmer there that grows specifically…. I think the member will know that if a farmer has a dedicated market to sell into, it’s great for the farmer, because they know what they have to grow. The person receiving the primary product knows what to expect and when to get it.
In that one in particular, there are a lot of products that are created out of onions. One of them is kind of an onion jam. There’s a farmer that is growing on Westham Island who has dedicated their entire onion crop for this facility. So it’s giving opportunities for primary farmers there.
There’s a food hub in Salmon Arm. I was just up cutting the ribbon on that one. That was a $565,000 investment. It tried to launch in 2021. We didn’t have the official ribbon cutting till last weekend. It was fabulous. It’s almost fully subscribed now, with a variety of goods that are being created. One of those goods is a product called Hellish Relish. They’re using primary products grown in the area. There’s also a barley tea that’s using B.C. barley from B.C. barley farmers. It’s creating this very unique tea that’s now available across Canada for online sales.
There’s a food hub in Quesnel. We had an investment of $500,000. That one is set to have the ribbon cutting this fall. It’s had some complications due to just the pandemic and the supply chain.
Many of these facilities order very cutting-edge processing equipment, and there has been a supply chain issue getting that equipment into the food hubs. Once it’s there, they seem to be getting off the ground quite immediately after that.
There’s a Cowichan Valley food hub that’s under development. That’s been an investment of $800,000.
Kamloops, which I also just visited, has two operating facilities — there was an investment of $800,000 — including Gardengate Training Centre and a mobile food-processing unit that’s specifically focused on First Nations goods.
There’s a ribbon cutting anticipated in Victoria, with an $800,000 investment, hoping to open by the end of this spring.
Rock Creek was an $800,000 investment. That one was focused on meat processing.
There’s one in Bowser, a $550,000 investment.
Creston, which I went up and cut the ribbon on recently, was $550,000. Creston is an amazing example of an incredible fruit basket. They didn’t have any processing opportunities — or it was small — for products like cherries that weren’t able to be sold on the fresh market due to damage. We saw through the heat dome, etc., the many challenges that cherries tend to have. They’re using stuff that would have gone to the landfill or a waste pile, creating cherry juice, dried cherries — a whole bunch of incredible products there. I would say that there are conventional farmers using that facility.
Let’s see. What else did we have? Maybe that’s the end of the list for now.
I will say that there’s an absolute connection to conventional farming and the food hubs. It is supposed to be a place for small and medium-sized businesses to scale up and, hopefully, fly on their own, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that some small businesses want to stay there.
I. Paton: A quick question. Then I want to be able to get to my colleagues from Kamloops and from Kelowna. Hopefully, the whole afternoon I’ll have to myself.
Hon. L. Popham: Well, wait a minute. I asked you if you’d go on a tour.
I. Paton: Oh, absolutely. I’d love to check out the latest pumpkin pie.
Hon. L. Popham: That was quite derogatory, but you’re going to be so impressed. You know what? Actually, I’ve got to say….
The Chair: Members.
Hon. L. Popham: I know you’re running out of time. We’re opening one in the Fraser Valley. You must know how important that facility will be in the Fraser Valley after what they’ve gone through.
I. Paton: I understand that there are people that are chefs and sous chefs and all the people that want to make use of these commercial kitchens. But the question is: how many bona fide farmers who have farm status — who actually have an acre, half an acre, 200 acres, who are out there every day in their work clothes producing food — would have time to go and make use of these extremely expensive food hubs? That is my question.
The second question is: how do you know that they’re using B.C. products? How do we know that the food hubs aren’t being used with imported food to make their new recipes?
Hon. L. Popham: There is not an official requirement for the food hubs to use B.C. food, but we are making those connections so people know where to source from. That’s been the biggest problem for small- and medium-scale food entrepreneurs. Where do they access the goods that they need?
You must have heard about a company named Goodly Foods. Have you heard of them? Okay. Well, I’ll explain it on the record.
Goodly Foods is a company that started in a Vancouver food hub. They go around and collect vegetables that they call ugly vegetables. It’s usually stuff that would end up in a waste pile, and it could be from anywhere — anywhere that there’s a grocery store that wasn’t able to sell them in time. They are creating soups and stews, and they started in a food hub.
Interjection.
Hon. L. Popham: Okay. Well, anyway, I’m talking about Goodly Foods.
The most interesting and amazing thing that has happened is that because of our Feed B.C. program, they have been connected to Fraser Health. Fraser Health is now using Goodly Foods’ soups and stews within the health authority. That’s a massive, massive opportunity for farmers in British Columbia, and we see this all over the place.
The health authorities are taking in more and more B.C. products, but they need a place that will be able to make the products that they need. There are lots of food processors of British Columbia. There are lots of them, large scale. This is addressing a different type of food processor, and it’s creating a lot of job opportunities in these hubs, in communities around the province. That’s why we’ve made sure that they’re in urban areas and in rural areas. The excitement around these businesses is quite substantial.
The Chair: Noting the hour.
Hon. L. Popham: We just never have enough time.
Interjection.
The Chair: As per the sessional order.
Hon. L. Popham: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.