Third Session, 42nd Parliament (2022)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 5, 2022
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 181
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
On the main motion | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2022
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: H. Sandhu.
Introductions by Members
H. Sandhu: I am very excited to finally introduce my whole family, together for the first time since I became an MLA. It took us a lot of planning, between school, university and work schedules.
It may seem like a simple trip from Vernon to Victoria; however, this trip had a little hiccup. My husband ended up in Abbotsford Hospital with an urgent health care issue on our way here. Things are better now, thanks to our health care system. So finally, my family made it. My older daughter, Manreet, my middle daughter, Jasreen, my son, Avishaan, and my husband, Baljit Sandhu, are all here today and absolutely thrilled to be in the gallery.
Last time when we were here, we were as guests of the member for Vancouver-Kensington, when I came to lobby for nurses issues and issues around internationally educated nurses and their credentials. That was in April 2014, so this is their second time to be here.
May I ask the House to please show a warm welcome to my family.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 16 — TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2022
Hon. R. Fleming presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Transportation Amendment Act, 2022.
Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce Bill 16, Transportation Act, 2022. These proposed amendments to the Transportation Act will enable the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, BCTFA, to acquire and improve land for the purpose of facilitating transit-oriented developments.
Transit-oriented development is intended to maximize the amount of residential business and public space within walking distance of transit facilities. This promotes the development of complete, compact and connected communities and housing, served by B.C.’s world-class transit services.
These amendments introduced today will allow us to work with our partners to shape growth along transit corridors to increase transit ridership and to support the province’s CleanBC climate action targets and advance key government priorities such as housing, child care, education, job creation and economic recovery.
Around the world, transit-oriented development has helped cities and regions build more productive economies, improve the quality of life for their citizens and advance significant reductions in per-capita GHG emissions. This bill will help B.C. boost transit-oriented developments in every part of the province.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 16, Transportation Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL Pr401 — SEA TO SKY UNIVERSITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022
J. Sturdy presented a bill intituled Sea to Sky University Amendment Act, 2022.
J. Sturdy: I move that a bill intituled Sea to Sky University Amendment Act, 2022, standing in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.
Hon. Members, the Sea to Sky University Amendment Act seeks to extend the educational purpose tax exemption for local government, schools and rural taxation that was previously granted to the Sea to Sky University, also known as Quest University. It extends the tax exemption for land owned by the university to also exempt land leased for educational purposes by the Sea to Sky University.
At the time of incorporation, Sea to Sky University wholly owned the property, which it intended to use for educational purposes. Today Sea to Sky University leases the land it uses for educational purposes.
The proposed amendment brings consistency with the similar Trinity Western University Act and reflects the intent of the original act — to exempt land used for educational purposes from municipal, school and rural taxation.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: Members, pursuant to Standing Order 105, the bill shall stand referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.
Bill Pr401, Sea to Sky University Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.
BILL M205 — NAME AMENDMENT ACT, 2022
D. Clovechok presented a bill intituled Name Amendment Act, 2022.
D. Clovechok: I move today that a bill entitled the name hyphenation amendment act, 2022, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for the first time now.
I’m pleased to reintroduce the bill that was originally tabled in 2019 by former member of this House and my colleague MLA Mary Polak. I’m honoured to continue her work to bring it forward once again.
The name amendment hyphenation act modernizes spousal name changes by enabling spouses to hyphenate or combine their surnames at marriage. The bill is intended to modernize the province’s outdated name-change process. It would allow married British Columbians to combine or hyphenate their names at no cost, the same way people can freely take their spouse’s names.
This amendment aims to update the current practice which, under section 2 of the act, states that a spouse may only adopt the other spouse’s surname or maintain their current surname. Hyphenation or combination by other means presently requires a formal name change through other provisions in the act. These amendments are modelled on the changes adopted by the province of Ontario.
British Columbians can easily take the last name of their spouse, but those who wish to hyphenate or combine surnames face a costly and time-consuming process. The bill provides a very small and simple change that would have positive impacts for many couples. This bill reflects the realities of the modern family in British Columbia, and I hope the House will consider adopting to modernize an outdated name-change process that disproportionately affects women.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill, intituled Name Amendment Act, 2022.
Motion approved.
D. Clovechok: I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of this House after today.
Bill M205, Name 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)
SILVERSMITH POWER GENERATING STATION
T. Shypitka: On April 5, 1897, exactly 125 years ago today, the Silversmith generating station, originally named the Slocan Star plant, commenced operations, and the town of Sandon became the first fully electrified city in British Columbia.
To fully support Canada’s richest silver-lead producing region in Canada, the Silversmith generating station is recognized as the oldest continuously operated power plant in western Canada and brags one of the world’s oldest alternating current systems.
In 1999, Silversmith became the first federally certified green hydroelectric producer in western Canada, and, during that same year, Silversmith won the prestigious Attractions Canada Award for over 40,000 visitors that tour the plant each year.
In 2002, Silversmith was commissioned into the B.C. Hydro grid, solving some regional quality power problems for B.C. Hydro. In March of this year, Silversmith was officially inducted into the World Hydro Hall of Fame in celebration of its record-breaking performances and superb engineering.
One hundred and twenty-five years ago Silversmith was built and completed in two years, ahead of schedule, and was already operational and being tested when the water licences became available. The good old days. Silversmith predates B.C. Hydro, so saying that this is an independent power producer would be technically wrong, but it shows how important private energy producers are to this province and should be supported as such.
The current owner, Hal Wright, wishes to thank the long list of incredible people, including Eugene Peterson, former plant manager, and Larry Bell, former chairman of B.C. Hydro, and many others who have worked or volunteered over the years at this site and their commitment to preserving this important piece of B.C. history — 24-7, 365 — for exactly 125 years.
I want to thank Hal Wright for bringing this to my attention and allowing me to share this incredible history.
MICHAEL GOLDRICK
J. Routledge: I rise to honour the life of my friend Michael Goldrick. Michael died in Burnaby last December, only blocks away from where he was born 88 years ago.
He received his bachelor of commerce from UBC, his master’s from Queen’s and his PhD from the London School of Economics. Michael spent most of his working life teaching political science at York University in Toronto.
It was his own experiences as a young man that informed his politics. He had been a logger in B.C., a kitchen helper on cross-country trains, and a labourer in the Canadian Arctic, building the DEW line.
Michael understood the struggles of working people. While teaching a course on municipal politics, he was challenged by one of his students to get out of the ivory tower and do politics in the real world. So Michael ran in the Toronto municipal election, and with this student as part of his campaign team, he won. This student went on to earn his own PhD, with Michael serving as a thesis adviser. This student was Jack Layton.
Perhaps Michael’s biggest achievement as an alderman was the St. Lawrence Market housing development. Even in 1972, there was a critical shortage of affordable housing in Toronto. Michael took steps to secure a public land bank and to create dedicated space for affordable housing. The St. Lawrence Market became the single largest redevelopment site in the centre of any North American city in the 20th century.
When Michael retired and moved home to Burnaby, he continued to be a mentor. I’m one of the many he influenced with his deep understanding that politics is a collective action. It isn’t something you do for or to the electorate; it’s something you do with them.
Michael will live on in the countless lives he touched, both directly and indirectly.
QINGMING FESTIVAL
T. Wat: How do you honour your ancestors? Starting today and in the coming days, Chinese communities in British Columbia will come together for the Qingming festival.
According to the lunar calendar, Qingming takes place on the 15th day after the spring equinox, which puts the festival in early April every year. During this time, Chinese families in B.C. will gather to pay respect to their ancestors. In English, Qingming is known as “tomb sweeping day.”
Over the past two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has posed challenges for Qingming gatherings. I am looking forward to this year’s ceremonies, when families can finally gather together in person to reconnect with their loved ones. I, myself, commemorate my late father, my late sister and my late husband in Qingming. But I have also attended many Qingming ceremonies to honour early Chinese settlers in British Columbia.
In both 2016 and 2017, our former government and Premier gathered at Vancouver’s Mountain View Cemetery to honour Chinese ancestors and the community for their contributions to B.C. as part of a Qingming festival ceremony. Chinese Canadians in B.C. have made remarkable contributions to the history, culture and prosperity of this province, often while facing intense racism and exclusion.
As a Chinese British Columbian, I am immensely grateful for their resilience, hard work and advocacy as they paved the way for us today. Today I am proud to honour Chinese–British Columbian ancestors.
Please join me in extending best wishes to all who are showing respect and commemorating their ancestors during this traditional Qingming festival.
CAREGIVERS
H. Sandhu: Today I rise in this House to recognize National Caregiver Day, to honour all of the hard work and dedication that caregivers offer around the clock in our province, in our country and in the world.
Caregivers are the most caring people in this world. They always think about the well-being of people in their care, and they often forget their own existence and needs. Caregivers’ roles are significant, giving over 80 percent of the care when needed, yet they often are unrecognized, unsupported and underappreciated.
We cannot imagine the world and care without caregivers. Often what we see about their sacrifices, dedication and hard work is just a tip of the iceberg. It takes a lot of patience, kindness, care, hard work and dedication to become a caregiver.
While we recognize caregivers today to honour them, we also need to reflect on and create awareness about caregiver burnout. Their work includes many sleepless nights, financial strain and countless unpaid hours without a break. We must always find ways to support them and their physical and mental well-being. If you are a caregiver or know a caregiver, please help to support them and increase awareness of family and friends’ caregivers.
Many caregivers don’t realize that there are resources and supports available. I urge you to go to www.familycaregiversbc.ca or call B.C. caregivers support line at 1-877-520-3267 to get more information.
Please join me to recognize millions of paid and unpaid caregivers in our province and across the country for the selfless, tireless, exceptional care they provide. Let’s honour their vital role.
MARION BREMNER
AND KELOWNA MEALS ON
WHEELS
N. Letnick: Today I would like to introduce this House to Kelowna’s Business Leader of the Year, Marion Bremner, the manager of the Central Okanagan Region Nutritional Society, otherwise known as Meals on Wheels. Marion is a remarkable trail-blazer and has been described as an inspiration to not-for-profit leaders throughout the Okanagan and, dare I say, throughout the province.
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Meals on Wheels has doubled the number of its weekly food deliveries to Kelowna residents. Marion put stringent safety measures in place even before the government declared the pandemic, and they were able to keep seniors safe in their homes.
Of course, the price of gas is causing some difficulty for Meals on Wheels, so anything that any ministers can do to provide grants to this organization would be much appreciated.
Before joining Meals on Wheels, Marion had a long and distinguished career in both business and community involvement. She was the first woman director, in 1978, and then the first woman president of the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, in 1985. She also ran successfully in 1988 for city councillor, and was elected four times for a total of 11 years.
In 1990, she founded Habitat for Humanity in Kelowna and went on to become the first woman chair of Habitat Canada and secretary for Habitat International, representing Canada and building homes with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter around the world. Quite a legacy.
Marion believes that the ability to bounce back from adversity is possible when we cling to our values, maintain a positive attitude and a sense of humour, practise open and honest communication, meet challenges with diverse measures and support and mentor each other and others.
My congratulations to Marion, who has, and I’m sure will continue, to make our community a better place, not only on behalf of myself and my colleagues in Kelowna West and Kelowna-Mission but all the people who live in the Central Okanagan.
VANCOUVER CHERRY BLOSSOM FESTIVAL
B. Bailey: What better way to welcome the onset of spring than to participate in this past weekend’s Cherry Blossom Festival at David Lam Park. This year the event included the Big Picnic, where the participants laid their blankets among the majestic cherry blossoms and enjoyed delicious preordered bento boxes or something from one of the many food trucks.
I personally was deeply moved by the opening ceremony, which celebrated Japan’s original gift of cherry trees to the city as symbols of friendship. Consul General Hatori acknowledged their gift of sakura to the Musqueam, the Squamish and the Tsleil-Waututh Nations.
There was a beautiful gift-giving ceremony where First Nations representatives presented Consul General Hatori with gifts from their heritage, and the consul general shared gifts from Japan. First Nations representatives from each nation joined the consul general in the Japanese kagami biraki, the breaking of the sake barrel to bring harmony and good luck to the event.
What a beautiful and meaningful exchange this was. In fact, Consul General Hatori shared that in his 3½ years as consul general, this was one of his most meaningful days.
It was a pleasure to meet David Lam’s daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter and to participate on a nature walk where a UBC botanist taught us all about the special sakura trees David Lam loved so much.
Congratulations to the wonderful Linda Poole, who founded this festival 18 years ago, to the volunteers, board of director and staff. The mission of the festival is to actively engage the diverse communities through accessible arts and culture that celebrate the transcendent fragility of the cherry blossom, and this was certainly achieved.
As the Japanese poet Issa wrote in 1819: “There is no stranger under the cherry tree.”
Oral Questions
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE
SYSTEM
M. Lee: Last week we were shocked to hear the Attorney General deny the problem of escalating random assaults and prolific offenders. But in community after community across B.C., we are hearing the opposite.
Earlier this month in Victoria, John Dickinson was fatally stabbed outside of a bar by a man already facing charges of attempted murder, assault with a weapon, uttering death threats and assault. But he was out on bail because B.C. Crown counsel agreed to release him on conditions that weren’t followed. As John’s sister says: “It brings into question the justice system, because if they hadn’t released him on bail, my brother would still be alive.”
Why are an increasing number of prolific offenders being put back on the street, where they continue to commit assault, vandalism and even murder?
Hon. D. Eby: I think that anytime there’s a horrific, violent incident in our communities, our hearts go out to those who are affected, whether the victim of crime or their family members and friends.
I think it’s important for us in this House, at the provincial level, to think about how we can work and prevent these kinds of things and respond to them, but it does do a disservice to the public to fail to recognize some of the important policy changes around bail that have been made by the federal government, to blame Crown counsel for implementing the federal law as they have to do, as is their mandate, as they swear their oath to do.
When a Crown counsel is faced with a difficult decision, as Attorney General, I have an opportunity to direct Crown counsel, to overrule them. I do that very sparingly — I know that is the tradition in this place — because I trust Crown counsel to evaluate the facts on a case-by-case basis and implement the federal law.
Now, the member will know, as a lawyer, that there have been two big changes at the federal level. One was Bill C-75, which talked about using a principle of restraint for police and courts to ensure that release at the earliest opportunity is favoured over detention. That is direct from the legislation. There was a Supreme Court of Canada decision called Regina v. Zora, in 2020, that reinforced that. The court was very clear that prosecutors may not use bail as a way to implement criminal punishment — that it must be clear, and it must address the flight risk of the individual.
I’m glad that the member is raising this important issue, but I regret very much that he’s blaming Crown counsel for doing their job of implementing the federal law.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Langara, supplemental.
M. Lee: The Attorney General, as our chief legal officer, knows that he needs to protect and maintain confidence in the administration of our justice system in this province. That is his primary duty.
The bail conditional release indicators that the Attorney General has available to him through the Crown prosecutor’s office, the factors needed to ensure the safety and protection of the public and also maintaining the public confidence in the administration of justice — these are the tools that the Attorney General has available to him. People need to have confidence in our justice system, and people need to feel safe in our communities.
The bottom line is that our justice system is failing to protect the public from repeat offenders. Just this past Saturday in Victoria, a mother and father were attacked while they were walking their infant child in a stroller. The father was beaten on the head, and the mother and child were pushed out into the street.
Families are feeling helpless, and they aren’t getting answers from this government. How many more attacks will it take before the NDP takes action to keep people safe on our streets?
Hon. D. Eby: Well, I heard about that horrific attack as well. Certainly, I know, for all of my colleagues on this side — I imagine, all colleagues from all parties — how devastated we would be if that had been a member of our family. I think about my own family — if that had been my wife and child. It fills a person with anger and rage, and understandably so.
These violent incidents in our community…. We need to respond to them as a government, and we will do so. Ultimately, the police will investigate, the Crown will review and apply the federal law, and an independent judge will make a decision. It’s the way our system works — the way it should work. I have confidence in that system. It is not a perfect system, but it is the best system we have. We will keep working to make it better, hopefully together.
E. Ross: Terrace remains in a crisis over the level of crime, but the Attorney General’s response last week was to pretend there wasn’t a problem: “We’re seeing progress.” That answer was far from the reality that people are experiencing, not only in Terrace, but in all our communities, all across B.C.
After watching a repeat offender walk right out of the store with an entire canoe — packing an entire canoe out of Canadian Tire — Canadian Tire wrote to me: “There is absolutely no reason not to steal — none — because there are no consequences when you do steal.”
This is what the people of Terrace are living with. This is what the businesses of Terrace are living with on a daily basis. Just last week at our local legion, Branch 13, for the third time in two years, there was a fire set — third time in two years — and nothing was done.
My question is to the Attorney General. What will it take for the Attorney General to take public safety seriously and prosecute these repeat offenders?
Hon. D. Eby: Obviously, the member quoted five words from a lengthy answer that I gave him about Crown approval rates. I did not deny that there was an issue in Terrace. In fact, I said, at the end of my answer, that I look forward to working with the member and with the mayor and council to address the issues in Terrace. That’s exactly what I said. The member can check Hansard.
In fact, that’s exactly what happened. I met with the mayor and council from Terrace. I met with the Minister for Municipal Affairs. The member can read the summary of that meeting in the Terrace Standard by the mayor. It was very constructive. She had a sense of hope that we’ll be able to work together to address this issue.
I invite the member to be a part of that solution.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Skeena, supplemental.
E. Ross: You know what? People in my community, in my riding, feel like even if these repeat offenders are arrested, they will be back on the streets to cause more damage, more fear.
As Coun. Sean Bujtas says: “We need to prosecute repeat offenders. We need to get these prolific offenders off the streets of Terrace and have them stop terrorizing our municipality.”
The meetings are great. The words are great. The data is great. But what we need is action. That is what the people of Terrace are looking for. That’s what the people of Skeena are looking for. But the Attorney General is refusing to acknowledge the problem, much less deal with it. I have a letter from a store clerk who writes that there is a man in town who steals from local businesses every single day. There are more offenders like this in Terrace. It’s not just one single person.
My question to the Attorney General. What is it going to take for the NDP to take these random attacks and repeat offenders seriously?
Hon. D. Eby: I stand here. I recognize that there’s an issue in Terrace. The member certainly raised it in the House. I responded then that I look forward to working with him and the mayor on the issue, and the Minister for Public Safety is committed to do the same. He insists the opposite is true. I don’t know why.
What I can say is that there is an issue. Even when someone is sentenced to jail for shoplifting, they will be released, and when they’re released again, in many cases, when they’re suffering from addiction, mental health issues — they’re homeless — these issues will happen again and, in some cases, worse.
Sometimes people go into prison, and they come out worse than when they went in. So for a lot of people, to interrupt this cycle, we do have the opportunity to work together on things like complex care, which is to address the health issue of the person — the addiction issue, the mental health issue, the homelessness issue — that is closely connected with their offending, which makes people in the community feel less safe and makes businesses question why they’re operating.
I’m very excited to work with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions in addressing the core issue that some of these individuals face — not everybody, but some of these individuals — that brings them into contact with the criminal justice system. We’re putting forward solutions. I invite the member to be a part of it. I was very grateful for the meeting with the mayor and council to address those issues in Terrace.
MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORTS FOR
HEALTH CARE
WORKERS
S. Furstenau: I listen with great interest to this conversation and back-and-forth, because I agree that access to mental health care is a significant issue and problem in our province right now.
Health care workers are on the brink of collapse. One-third of health care workers — maintenance, transportation, clerical and other workers — are expected to resign in the next two years, according to the Hospital Employees Union. One-third of nurses are also expected to resign, according to a separate survey in late 2021 from the B.C. Nurses’ Union. And 82 percent of them say that their mental health has worsened during the pandemic.
Thousands of health care workers are considering leaving their profession, in part because their workplaces do not provide mental health supports. Access to counselling, therapy, psychologists is not covered for many. The people who we depend on for care are being left out in the cold when it comes to their own mental health. Mental health care is treated as a nice-to-have, not part of the primary health care for essential workers in this province. They are burnt out, they are overwhelmed, and they’re not being looked after.
My question is to the Minister of Health. What is his ministry doing to increase mental health supports for health care workers?
Hon. A. Dix: This has been, I think it’s fair to say, for health care workers across the system — those who work in primary care, those who work as ambulance paramedics, those who work in emergency response in general, those who work in acute care, those who work in long-term care — an extraordinarily difficult period. That is why, throughout this period, we have taken actions to support health care workers — actions that are unusual in the Canadian context.
For example, all of the steps taken to support long-term care workers — historic steps — including, of course, the unanimous decision by this House to get rid of Bills 29 and 94; the HCAP program which has added thousands of health care workers; and our training programs that have supported health care workers. In addition, health care workers have come together on issues of occupational health and safety, with new programs, a new system that supports those workers.
We will continue to work to support our workers across the community. There is — and I’d be happy to provide the member with a briefing on this — extensive effort being done to support our health care workers, because the member is right. We not only need to recruit a new generation of health care workers, but we need to retain the ones we have. This is particularly true, as some members of the opposition will know, in particular communities. That means supporting them in every circumstance. That’s what we continue to do.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
INCLUSION OF PSYCHOLOGISTS IN
PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
NETWORKS
S. Furstenau: It’s not only health care workers who are, in fact, struggling with mental health and mental illness. One in five Canadians will experience a form of mental illness every year. One in two will experience a form of mental illness by the age of 40. Rates of depression and anxiety are at an all-time high. The number of people dying from a poisoned drug supply has never been higher.
When mental health and mental illness go untreated, people end up in a health care system already overburdened for their unmet needs. This is adding to the burnout that we see in health care workers. It’s costing enormous amounts of money, and it’s not solving the problem. In the summer of 2020, B.C. Green caucus, along with the B.C. Psychological Association, proposed a solution to this crisis: fund psychologists as part of primary care networks.
My question is to the Minister of Health. This minister boasts about opening urgent and primary care networks. When can British Columbians expect to have their minds and mental health treated as part of their health and be provided access to psychologists as a standard part of primary care networks?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: The demand for mental health and substance use services — already enormous before the pandemic hit — has been exacerbated in every way. There is no question. The particular burden on people working on the front line is evident to all of us in all of our communities.
Through every urgent primary care centre, there is access to mental health counselling. Primary care networks have been a great help. We’ve also built, with and for health care workers, two different online platforms — one called Care to Speak, another called Care for Caregivers — both online resources that give access to free counselling.
For anybody working on the front line, know that this whole Legislature thanks everybody for their tremendous work and also that we have counselling, particularly tailored to the particular pressures of the pandemic, available for you.
More broadly, the workplace mental health hub was developed, again, for people during the pandemic at businesses — small businesses, hospitality, tourism — where people have been under particular pressure. That is an important piece of work.
The Psychological Association has recently given us a proposal that does fit, in some ways. with the mandate instruction that the Premier gave me to look at new, low-cost and no-cost ways for people to access counselling. That’s in addition to the 49 community counselling organizations that we are funding. They are connecting thousands of people with additional supports in communities, and we’re grateful to those groups that are connecting people with immediate care.
Along with other proposals that we receive, we’re considering the proposal of B.C. Psychological Association, now that they have given us a specific proposal.
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE
SYSTEM
R. Merrifield: In Kelowna, Dallas Zackodnik was recently attacked on the Kelowna Rail Trail in the middle of the afternoon by two men. The 17-year-old suffered a fractured skull and a collapsed lung.
Dallas works full-time to support himself, and all his possessions were taken in the attack, including his bike, which was found dumped in Mission Creek, along with his shoes and cell phone that were taken. Four months later Dallas says he’s had no justice: “The last few months haven’t been easy and, unfortunately, still no charges on the attackers.”
When will the Attorney General start protecting people like Dallas?
Hon. D. Eby: I’m not familiar with the horrific attack the member describes, where it’s at in the process, if there was a report to Crown counsel or what the decision of Crown was. I can advise the member and Dallas that sometimes there is a delay in laying charges as police assemble their file. We have, from the Supreme Court of Canada again, in a case called Jordan, very strict timelines — I know the members opposite grappled with that as well, when they were in government, all provinces in Canada — to get people to trial.
We need to make sure that the police files are complete and the case is ready to go to trial before the charges are laid. That can result in a delay in charges being approved. I don’t know if that’s the case here, because I don’t know that file, and the member hasn’t brought it to me. I’m happy to speak with her and get details for her and for Dallas.
I know independent Crown counsel are glad to meet with victims of crime to talk them through what the process will be. I’m glad to raise that for Dallas, if he would like that.
COMMUNITY SAFETY
IN VANCOUVER’S
CHINATOWN
T. Wat: Chinatown used to be a place of pride for all of Vancouver, even for British Columbia, but nobody comes to visit anymore, because they don’t feel safe.
Peter Lau has operated a business in the neighbourhood for 46 years and started a petition after a mural and his business were vandalized. Eighty percent of stores have had to add additional security measures, and store owners are having to pay for their broken glass every single day. Graffiti is up by 300 percent, and the Chinatown business improvement association spent half of their budget on security last year.
When will the NDP take their safety concerns seriously and take action to protect this historic community?
Hon. D. Eby: Certainly, I’m personally well aware. I know the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I speak regularly — and the Minister of Public Safety — about how to support Chinatown. The member opposite will know the investments that our government has put into Chinatown, everything from supporting local festivals to get people back into Chinatown.
We know that foot traffic, both from tourists and from people outside Chinatown coming to shop, is vitally important to reducing street-level crime. More feet on the street and more eyes just creates a safer environment for people.
We’re also investing millions of dollars in a beautiful new Chinese Canadian Museum. We’re committed to the success of Chinatown. I was recently downtown with the Chinatown Foundation, opening a massive new housing development, as well as a health care centre for people.
Our commitment to Chinatown is clear. I recently did an interview with Global about an increase in vandalism in Chinatown, committing again to partner with the Minister of Public Safety to address these quality-of-life issues that make people feel less safe.
I look forward to working with the member to address this. With the loss of tourists as a result of the pandemic, the loss of that street traffic, I think there are few communities more affected than Chinatown. As a community that historically has been left to the bottom of the list, ignored and discriminated against, I understand why this weighs particularly on the community and that it feels particularly acute.
We want to support them as much as possible in success. Success in Chinatown is the government’s and the province’s success.
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE
SYSTEM
M. Morris: At a recent town hall on a crime wave being faced by Vancouver, business owner John Clerides described it as: “The worst I have ever seen. Random assaults, window breakage, mass amounts of shoplifting, theft, human defecation, people living on the streets.”
Meanwhile, the provincial government is denying there’s a problem at all. The catch-and-release pattern with the prolific offenders that we see is bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
When will the government listen to the people of Vancouver and actually start prosecuting repeat offenders?
Hon. D. Eby: Again, a member is standing up and suggesting that I’m denying an issue that I didn’t deny. There are issues in downtown Vancouver with the reduction in foot traffic downtown. We’ve seen an escalation in quality of life, minor property crimes, graffiti. Certainly we’ve seen, with people less able to access services during the pandemic, an increase in visible mental health and distress in the community. It makes people wonder what’s happening and feel unsafe.
We have a number of responses on different fronts. The Minister for Public Safety, his staff, addressed an issue with the Vancouver police budget to make sure that resources were available. The Minister for Mental Health and Addictions is opening two complex care sites in Vancouver to provide additional supports to people struggling with mental health and addiction issues.
As far as Crown counsel, I’d invite the member to, certainly, bring forward any information that he has about a concern related to specific cases. I have shared information about Crown counsel’s approaches, as well as significant changes in the federal law, that Crown counsel are bound to follow.
I look forward to working with the member on specific issues he’s identified. I know he’s a former police officer. Maybe he has some insights that would be helpful.
L. Doerkson: We are seeing a surge in crime throughout all communities in Cariboo-Chilcotin as well. Prolific offenders with serious charges are constantly released into our community, with ineffective deterrents to reoffend.
Last weekend search and rescue in Williams Lake was the victim of the loss of an auto extrication vehicle worth more than a quarter of a million dollars. It was stolen from their garage right downtown in Williams Lake.
Our residents demand to know what the government will do to finally address these prolific offenders. Will the Attorney General today admit that there’s a problem and take action?
Hon. D. Eby: In the meeting with Terrace, Mayor Cobb was there from Williams Lake. He and I have had a number of meetings to discuss the challenges that are faced in his community. I know that the Minister for Public Safety has incorporated into base budget funding that was provided to the city as a response to COVID to improve community safety. I know there’s more we can do.
Again to the member, no one is denying that there’s an issue with prolific offenders, especially that are grappling with mental health and addiction issues. Our government is taking a number of important steps in that regard. We welcome feedback from the members about other ways, at our provincial jurisdictional level, we can address these issues.
I think that’s really one of the best ways that we’ll see success on this incredibly challenging piece. I know that the members, in bringing these issues forward, are doing exactly what they should be doing as the opposition, which is raising the profile of issues the government needs to work on.
I can assure that member, as well as all of the members, that we are aware of this issue, that we are working with mayors on these issues. The Minister of Public Safety and I, the Minister for Mental Health and Addiction — we are working on these issues, and we will see progress on them.
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
ACTION ON COMMUNITY
SAFETY
T. Stone: After five years of inaction, businesses in communities all over B.C. are closing. They’re closing because they can no longer take the unchecked violence that’s impacting their customers and their employees.
Random assaults and violence have gotten so bad in downtown Kamloops that recently the McDonald’s closed its doors permanently. The owner of the restaurant says doing business is no longer possible. She said: “It’s for the safety and well-being of our people that we needed to make a change, and McDonald’s Canada saw that too.”
This is but one business among many being so negatively impacted by assaults, violence, vandalism and thefts, both inside and outside of their stores.
My question is this. How many businesses will close before we see action from this government to address random street violence, which is impacting these businesses and indeed British Columbians all across our province?
Hon. D. Eby: Whether it’s fuelled by mental health and addiction issues, whether it’s fuelled by just a profit motive or otherwise, our government has taken a number of steps to address these issues.
I want to identify for the member that British Columbia is not the only jurisdiction grappling with an increase in crime following the pandemic. It’s a topic of study across North America — why we’re seeing escalations in property crime, why we’re seeing escalations in random attacks in many major centres across North America. But what is clear to me is that we need to respond to this with made-in-B.C. solutions, which is why we’re doing things like complex care housing.
Putting somebody in prison for a short term, and then they’re released back into the community, homeless, to repeat the cycle again and again, isn’t going to work to address these issues. Criminal law and prison are part of an array of responses, and we believe that to truly interrupt the cycle for….
I will say that for companies, restaurants — big chains like McDonald’s, all the way down to small ma-and-pa shops — grappling with people who are clearly dealing with mental health and addiction is probably one of the biggest issues I hear about and why I’m so hopeful for the complex care model that we’re launching to interrupt that cycle for so many people.
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE
SYSTEM
P. Milobar: Well, the Attorney General knows full well of the pleas of the victims and their families. They’re wanting the province to accept the fact that they are facing a massive crime problem today.
I would suggest all 87 elected officials here get regular emails, government MLAs as well, about the issues in their communities. But the minister also seems to be ignoring the very statistics in a letter that was provided to myself that shows the number of no-charge recommendations under this government’s watch, from 2017 to 2020, has increased by 45 percent.
No wonder communities are feeling like this government is not trying to do anything to address the street disorder. It has increased no-charge recommendations from 8,600 in 2017 to nearly 13,000 a year under this government’s watch and this minister’s watch. That’s 45 percent.
With the no-charge recommendations increasing to 45 percent under this minister’s watch and crime and disorder on a steady rise, when is this minister going to take action to help communities and neighbourhoods across B.C. start to feel safe once again?
Hon. D. Eby: We did see an increase in the number of no-charge decisions. The member’s numbers are different from those I would present to the House.
I can say that in the year before the pandemic, 84 percent of charges were approved by Crown counsel. In 2020-21, the first year of the pandemic, that went to 77 percent. It is a decrease of 7 percent in charge approvals by Crown counsel in a single year.
There were a number of factors during that year. Bill C-75, which I advised the member about, the R. v. Zora decision about administration of justice offences, definitely factors. The pandemic and the decision by Crown or by judges to release people when they may not have otherwise done so, because there was concern about COVID-19 outbreaks in prisons, and essentially sentencing someone to contract COVID was not something that the courts were willing to contemplate at that time for certain offences, especially people with compromised immune systems and so on, as you often see with people in Provincial Court.
There were a number of factors, but I take the member’s key point that this is an important indicator. I’ll assure the member that I am tracking it and that I have asked Crown counsel to provide me information about why, to the best of their knowledge, we saw that departure from historic trends.
I can advise the member that to the best of my knowledge, it’s not due to any policy change made by the provincial government, as we had a full year of experience under all the policy changes that we made at the provincial level, and this appears to be pandemic-related. But without pre-judging it, we’ll wait for Crown counsel to provide that information to me.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading, Bill 12.
In Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call the Committee of Supply, estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 12 — PROPERTY LAW
AMENDMENT ACT,
2022
(continued)
On the main motion.
K. Kirkpatrick: I’m pleased to rise today to continue debate on Bill 12. I have been very busy this week, and I wasn’t sure I was going to actually have time to prepare for this or read the bill. When I picked it up, I thought this was actually just the preamble to the bill. But it actually is the bill, so it didn’t take me all that long to get prepared here.
This is a bill about nothing. It’s an outline. It’s a sketch. It’s two pages long, and I’ll note it’s also two pages long in 14-point font. It simply enables the minister and cabinet to make all the real and substantive decisions in regulations and take them away from public scrutiny for the sectors to understand, for individual British Columbians to understand.
This government is very good about making announcements without details. When announcements are put forward, when legislation is put forward where all of the substantive information is moved to behind closed doors for cabinet to make these decisions, it causes anxiety and concern in the communities that are impacted.
Remember the Employment Standards Act amendment? We knew it was going to be about sick days. We didn’t know if it was going to be three or five or ten sick days. For a period of time, there was a lot of anxiety in the community, not knowing what they were going to have to budget, what the impact was going to be.
The same thing happened when government introduced changes to CYSN funding, children and youth with support needs. There was a big announcement: “We’re going to make all these changes. But hey, you know what? We’re not going to tell you what those changes are. We’re going to give you a little bit of information, but we’re going to make you guess and try and fill in the blanks.” That is not the right way to make legislation. It is not the right way to treat British Columbians.
There is a lot to be said about what this bill will enable, although it actually doesn’t tell you what it is. There has been no meaningful input from the sector and from British Columbians, no robust sector engagement, before the drafting of this two-page bill. Again, this is the same thing that happened with autism funding — no substantive consultation with those people who will be most impacted by the changes in the legislation.
It can’t be ignored — before moving on with this debate — as well, that we once again find ourselves with an issue of transparency. We see again why this government has been named the most secretive government in Canada by the Canadian Association of Journalists. We cannot forget that we are dealing with a government — we’ve seen this already — taking great strides to strip away transparency and accountability rather than to improve them. What better way to strip away transparency than to not tell people in a public forum what they are doing in one of the most problematic housing markets that British Columbians have ever seen?
With Bill 12, the NDP is asking this House to pass legislation that is entirely made of regulations that only they themselves have seen. It makes us think of when the Minister of Citizens’ Services introduced a controversial Bill 22, which also left details up to regulation. We all know how that has turned out. It is clear that this type of legislation and the process that this government undertakes in bringing legislation forward does not serve the best interest of British Columbians.
As a result of Bill 22, the Minister of Citizens’ Services has completely destroyed this government’s credibility when it comes to what they continue to tell us over and over with this kind of legislation. It’s: “Oh, don’t worry. Just trust us. We know what we’re doing.” But we’ve seen that that isn’t the case, and we can’t trust this government to take policy and legislation that should be open to the public and open for debate and take it behind closed doors.
What is the reason that that is being done? Is there a concern that there’s something wrong with the regulations, that there’s something wrong with the process? Why wouldn’t it be out here and debated, allowing opposition parties to have an opportunity to publicly ask questions?
Making matters worse, when you think about this…. The irony is that government is trying to ram through a bill very quickly, without a lot of information. But we know what this bill is about. It is to allow purchasers to have a period of time where they can do due diligence before they make a commitment, but the government itself is not providing the public or the opposition the opportunity to do due diligence before this bill is voted on. We can’t do due diligence when we don’t know what this bill is about.
These regulations are purported to be based on a report from the B.C. Financial Services Authority that has not even been made public yet. It is unreasonable and, in fact, perplexing that government would ask the members of this House to take a vote on a bill where the BCFSA report is almost about to be made public yet they’re asking us to do this — to vote on something where, if we just waited a little while longer, we might actually have something substantive to be voting on.
Yesterday it was shocking and disappointing to see government members vote down an amendment to this act which was only meant to provide some additional time to see the results of the BCFSA report and to be able to make an informed decision on whether this legislation should pass.
We have to wonder, and media has to wonder, why this has to be rushed through so quickly and why members on the other side of the House did not vote in support of an amendment which was meant to do exactly what they’re saying we need to do — to provide time to reflect upon something and to have time to look at all of the information that should be available — leaving no space for genuine and informed debate. We do really have to ask why.
We should also remember that this seems to be a trend of this government. The FOI act was pushed through, inexplicably, prior to even allowing the select standing committee whose whole purpose was to review the legislation…. Yet without that committee even undertaking their work, this government decided that they needed to pass this FOI legislation right away, without giving the opportunity for informed debate.
This bill is seeking to implement a cooling-off period in the process of buying and selling a home. It is enabling legislation respecting the residential right of a rescission on home sales. The government is modelling this on the Real Estate Development Marketing Act, which is specific to presale condos, but this is a completely different bird. This is not the same kind of transaction.
With presales, you can’t ask for a home inspection, because the building is not there yet — it hasn’t even begun construction in most cases — and purchasers have an opportunity to have clear deficiency inspections prior to closing. There are warranties. These are two completely different things.
Interjection.
K. Kirkpatrick: Yeah, they’re completely different things.
Interjection.
K. Kirkpatrick: Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree with the minister.
The regulations will be determined after the passage of the bill and likely informed by this report, the BCFSA report — which we actually don’t have and which we know nothing about what the context will be.
In essence, what we’re doing here today and what the opposition is doing…. We have an obligation, as opposition members, to be asking questions about legislation, but really, what we’re debating here is the lack of the ability to debate. That is really unacceptable.
Interjection.
K. Kirkpatrick: I’m sorry. If the minister was speaking to me…. I was not sure.
This means the following details and rules haven’t been decided in this House. They’re substantive. They can change the market. They can tilt the market. They can upturn the market, but these are details that are going to be addressed at a later time.
I’ll go through them. I know my colleagues have, in their previous responses in this debate, but I think these are worth repeating and having on record. We don’t know what the prescribed number of days after a sale is going to be where an offer can be rescinded. We don’t know that.
This is substantial. Is it five days? Is it seven days? Is it 15 days? Purchasers are, 90 percent of the time, also sellers. If you are putting some kind of constraint on the front end of a transaction — which is a much larger transaction than simply a purchase transaction — has there been consideration given to the impact down the line in terms of a seller’s ability to then purchase and to close on something?
Is that seller going to have any recourse if they can’t close on their property and they lose their property because somebody has changed their mind — somebody who may not have had true intention to complete that purchase? This government intends to address limiting “waivers of the right of rescission and the circumstances in which that right may or may not be waived; (b) respecting service of a notice of that rescission.”
Will penalties be paid by the purchaser to the seller if the purchaser actually exercises that right of rescission? “…timing of the payment of the deposit under a contract of purchase and sale despite any provision of the contract to the contrary; (e) establishing procedures for the payment of the deposit under a contract of purchase and sale; (f) respecting the return of the deposit paid under a contract of purchase and sale if the purchaser exercises the right of rescission…” and exempting types of property classes and classes of buyers.
What about private sales? Can people opt out of the relationship if they’re not within the MLS market and within the realtor market? Are purchasers and sellers able to waive a requirement, as they can waive the subject and subject removal? Will this be the same thing? How will this be policed? If you have a private sale, is something going to happen in the land titles office that they’re going to validate as to whether something was done?
I know some people in the House have had experience in the U.K. real estate market. There is, I think, a legitimate concern that this bill could have an impact on the process of purchasing homes in British Columbia that is like the system in the U.K., where buyers and sellers are subjected to a conveyance period that is very long and very bureaucratic.
I think, by any measure, the U.K. model doesn’t work. It’s not something to hold up as a model of good real estate practices. It can take upwards of four months to see properties change hands, and you often see deals fall apart.
How can members of the House adequately debate this legislation when it is raising far more questions than it’s answering? This is going to have such a profound effect on the market and on individuals in the market, on all British Columbians. Passing ill-informed legislation can do the opposite of its intention.
For example, is there now going to be an incentive for investors or purchasers to make multiple offers on multiple properties because they know they will not be bound to an agreed-upon sale price or an agreed-upon sale? This has the potential to flood the market with not-genuine offers, where you’ve got somebody who’s making multiple offers so thar they can find the best deal they can. Meanwhile, you’ve got sellers — who have been tied up waiting to find out what’s going to happen — not being able to move forward with their purchase.
There are concerns that a bill like this, without a clear understanding and clear research from the sector — from purchasers, buyers, the BCREA and the real estate boards — that this could actually be more problematic and could drive costs. We know that the lack of affordability for housing in British Columbia is an issue. We’re not debating that; that is a fact. The average housing price is nearly $600,000 more than it was in 2017, more than five years after the NDP has been in government.
For far too many people in British Columbia, they can forget purchasing a home. The ability to find rental and to be able to afford rental is crippling for many families. For their ability to ever even think about moving into purchasing real estate — that dream is a pretty distant one for them. We need to focus on the right things in this market, and we need to desperately see measures which are going to increase affordability in British Columbia. I do not see how this bill, as light as it is, is actually going to accomplish that goal that we’re all working towards.
The average price in British Columbia has surpassed $1.1 million. That’s up 25 percent in the last year alone. It now takes 36 years for somebody, on average, to be able to save, if they have any savings at all, to actually have a down payment on a house in B.C., in Vancouver, according to a national bank report.
We all know these prices are not a Lower Mainland thing. It’s not a Vancouver thing; it’s across the province — Chilliwack, 40 percent increase; Langley, 39 percent increase; Abbotsford, almost a 40 percent increase; Port Coquitlam, 35 percent; Surrey, 34 percent; Squamish, 31 percent.
What does this do? It drives the rental market; it drives scarcity. We desperately need to see true measures that will actually fix the problem. I’m not quite sure which problem, specifically, this legislation is trying to fix, but this bill is not going to do it. It’s incredibly frustrating that this government talks over and over again about affordability, and all the great things they’re doing about affordability. This is not where their time should be spent on trying to address that. This is not going to help.
Has government considered ways that people can get around this? I’m a bit unclear. If we are intending to rewrite contract law, I’d like to understand the obligation of additional monitoring of this. With anything like this, when you bring a new requirement in to do something, you are adding an additional layer of bureaucracy. You’re adding more forms that need to be filled out, and you’re adding something that needs additional monitoring. Who is going to do that initial monitoring, and what will the cost be? As soon as we start adding….
Now we’re trying to increase affordability by adding something that is actually going to cost us money to oversee. What happens in the future — the minister might remember past history — when interest rates rise? When I bought my first house, 11 percent was my interest rate. It was 11 percent. Can you imagine that today? Who would be able to afford it if it was 11 percent? What goes up must come down; what goes down must come up.
We know that we are seeing the impacts of rising interest rates. It would be glorious if that actually had an impact in cooling off the market, and I believe that ultimately, it will. But what happens to this legislation when that does start to happen, when the market does start to shift and we’ve put an artificial impediment into the ability for that housing market to monitor itself?
Now, we know that housing affordability has soared. The province needs more supply. At every stage of the housing continuum, we need more supply. You cannot expect to control prices if you are not keeping up with the demands for housing. This is the demand not just for housing to purchase, but this is for rental housing. It’s rental housing at different income levels. It’s the housing where somebody may move from a rental into an initial small condo. Next, where do they go?
We’re focusing on the wrong thing here. We need to be looking at how we can be creative, how we can think differently about what housing is and what we should be creating as housing. We’re looking in the wrong place here. We’re trying to fix one little thing — and we’re not even sure if that’s what the cause of the illness is — rather than looking at the whole body itself and some creative ways to developing housing in B.C.
Now, you’d think that this government would live up to at least one promise on housing affordability so that they would not have to listen to the opposition continuing to ask about it. What about that twice-promised $400 rental rebate? What about it? I don’t understand why…. This is something that this government ran on. This is something that has not happened, time and time again. I think renters are resenting that, and renters are going to stop believing that this is a government that is looking out for their best interests. So ill-thought-out policy.
Experts have been clear that this kind of legislation will result in further costs, further bureaucracy, longer time to actually be able to…. The longer something takes, the more something costs, and it will be a greater strain on affordability. What we need desperately is a plan to stabilize housing and to create more supply.
Now, I don’t see that in this bill, and I don’t hear this from government. I hear slogans, lots of slogans. A lot of child care slogans. A lot of slogans around how they support vulnerable people in the community, and a lot of slogans about how they’re going to deal with resolving these issues that we’re having in the real estate sector.
As a vegetarian, I don’t often say this, but when you look at something, I can say: where’s the meat here? Where is the meat in this legislation? What are we even debating, other than saying to this government: “This is wrong. This is inappropriate”? It is sneaky to try and put legislation forward without telling us, without sharing with the public and sharing with the opposition what this is really about, what the impact is going to be.
Especially if we’re on the eve of a report that has purportedly been used to inform this legislation, why on earth are we pushing this through right now, without simply waiting for that report to see the light of day so that we can have a more substantive debate about this and so that people can understand what it is that this government is actually trying to accomplish?
Instead of providing reassurances, this legislation is just leaving us with more questions. Why is this NDP government choosing an option that may very well raise prices and not lower them? And why have they decided to go about introducing changes in the least transparent way possible?
As a result, although it’s been very difficult during the debate to actually uncover any information, we do hope, as this progresses through stages, that the minister is going to be willing to provide us with real and substantive answers to questions that this legislation certainly has not answered for us.
T. Halford: I am pleased today to rise to continue debate on Bill 12.
Quite often on my way home, my walk, I call my dad just for a quick talk. It’s something we have done for the last number of years. My dad, as a kid, would always read to us “The Cremation of Sam McGee.” Now, I’m not going to do what my colleague from Abbotsford West did yesterday. My dad’s not on Twitter. He’s not on Facebook. He’s not on any of those things, but he was quite enamoured with the fact that one of our colleagues was able to insert that poetry into a debate. It’s something that was quite amusing.
It was actually quite nice to kind of share that moment with my dad. I then had to walk him through how to get onto Hansard and watch the video and everything like that. So that was about 45 minutes of my life last night. That’s a bit of a glimpse into how I spend my evenings now, bonding with my dad over Hansard.
The legislation before us is somewhat troubling. The minister in cabinet, to make the real decisions and then decide the details through regulations and pull it away from the public scrutiny without any input…. I think that we are, today, discussing a bill that is almost a blank piece of paper. What it contains is, basically, the question: “Trust us now, and we’ll fill you in later.”
I think that is something that we continue…. I know we as opposition — and I have heard from my constituents — struggle with that notion. When members of this House are asked to vote on legislation and represent their constituencies, the constituents, whether they are constituents of opposition members or government members or Third Party members, deserve to know what their MLA is actually voting in favour of or voting against. I think I learned that in social studies in grade 8.
It’s fairly important that we understand the powers that we have in this House, the powers that government has, the powers that executive council has, the powers that reside within the Finance Minister, who is responsible for about $60 billion of public money. That is a tremendous responsibility. It’s one I know that every member in this House takes seriously. I know that the Finance Minister takes it seriously, but credibility does come into question when we are presented with a bill like this that is in essence just saying: “Hey, we’ll fill in the blanks at a later date.”
I think, given some of the examples we have seen in this House, that hasn’t worked out so well. That’s caused some troubling conversations, some angst and issues around transparency and accountability, and I think those are conversations in this House that we want to avoid.
We have an obligation to our constituents, to the people who put us here, that when we are here in the House, working on legislation, working on items that are, at the essence, to make life better for British Columbians, we have to have a full accounting on what that is, what those bills, what that legislation details. I think the majority of the House would agree that we’re not there yet on Bill 12.
We weren’t there on Bill 22, and we saw how that turned out. It was embarrassing. I think it was an opportunity for us to learn. Obviously, we are now discussing a bill, in essence, that has some of the same issues regarding transparency that we discussed before. We have to ask ourselves: is this serving the best interests of British Columbians?
To make matters worse, we’re talking about regulations based on a report from the B.C. Financial Services Authority that hasn’t even been made public yet. We’re hearing that that could happen in short order, but I must ask the government and must ask the minister: if that’s the case, why wouldn’t we give every member of this House that opportunity before we are asked to vote on this piece of legislation? Why wouldn’t we take that opportunity to actually see the report, wait for the report and make sure this legislation is doing what this minister says it’s trying to accomplish?
We have an obligation here not to ram bills through without having informed debate. We don’t want to erode the ability of this House, of the opposition parties, to in fact do their job, to come in here and scrutinize government legislation. I think this bill is a disservice to that purpose.
Here we are. I think all members of this House can agree that we are in an absolute affordability crisis here in B.C. I know the minister talks about it often. The Premier talks about it often. I think every member of this House talks about it often. It has never been worse in terms of affordability for British Columbians than it is today. It’s housing. It’s the purchase price of a house. It’s the rent. It’s the groceries. It’s the gas. It’s everything. Everything is going up. Taxes are going up.
British Columbians are telling us en masse that they can’t keep pace. That’s not breaking news. That’s not something that I’m making up. It’s the fact, as every member of the House is getting these emails. They’re getting those pleas for help, whether it’s a single mom or whether it’s a family.
I have a lot of senior citizens in my riding, and a lot of seniors in my riding — a lot of their pensions are actually the equity of their house. They don’t have a government pension. They don’t have a private pension. Their equity is their pension. That’s what they’re depending on when they move to that latter stage of their life. In my riding, we have a lot of seniors that are on fixed incomes.
One of the things I do here, and I’ve raised it in question period, is the commitment on the $400 renters rebate. Again, that’s something that this government has not been able to action, and we’ve seen it promised in two election cycles. This government can move quickly when it wants to. This bill is evidence of that. It’s moving so quickly we’re not even seeing the report that it’s actually supposed to be based on yet.
When it comes to a renters rebate, we’re okay to tell senior citizens in my riding, who are on a fixed income, who could very much use that $400: “Hold tight. We’re working on it. Not yet. Just wait.”
They’ve been waiting a long time. I think that part of the struggle is that maybe this government just is running out of ideas. Maybe this government is out of touch. I think that humours the Minister of Finance, but to go in White Rock, where we do have a number of seniors that are renting units….
Interjection.
T. Halford: I guess the next piece of legislation the minister’s going to bring in is the free contraception that this government has promised and that they’ve also failed to deliver on. Haven’t seen that yet.
When we’re talking about the bill in front of us, we’re talking about…. It’s funny. I think the minister…. I appreciate the minister in the job that she’s got in front of her and the importance of it, but the job’s got to come with some opposition, some criticism, especially on an item like this, where we are seeing this government struggle, mightily, to actually be relatable to the affordability issues that British Columbians are facing.
It’s not just a problem in my community. It’s a problem in every single community across this province. Every member is hearing this day in and day out.
This bill seeks to implement a cooling-off period in the process of buying and selling a home. More precisely, it’s enabling legislation respecting the residential right of rescission on home sales. In essence, this government is modelling this from the same provision in the Real Estate Development Marketing Act for presale condos. But I think the case has been made many times in this House that that is a completely different transaction.
With presales, you can’t get a home inspection, because construction hasn’t even begun yet. It’s a completely different situation. I think that that clearly illustrates that this government just continues to be out of touch, not realizing the struggles that British Columbians are facing every day.
Interjection.
T. Halford: I take pauses so I can enjoy the witty banter from across the aisle. The Minister of Labour…. Yes, he still will have time to speak, unless he’s…. Maybe he’s writing his upcoming municipal speech. I don’t know. We’ll have to….
Interjection.
T. Halford: Yeah, that idea would…. Well, it would be interesting. Let’s just say that. Yeah, okay, we’ll talk about the minister’s municipal ambitions maybe at a later date. This probably isn’t the appropriate time to be doing that. I don’t think there’s ever an appropriate time to be doing that, actually.
Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder, we’re speaking of Bill 12.
T. Halford: Speaking on Bill 12. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just the thought of the minister making a municipal run has got me flustered.
Let’s talk about the details that are supposed to be coming at a later date on Bill 12. There’s a long list. The prescribed number of days after the sale where the offer can be rescinded? Don’t know. Limiting waivers of the right of rescission and the circumstances in which the right may or may not be waived? Don’t know. Respecting service of notice of rescission? Don’t know. Penalties paid by the purchaser to the seller? Don’t know.
Timing of the payment of the deposit under a contract of purchase and sale despite any provision of the contract to the contrary? Don’t know. Establishing procedures for the payment of the deposit under a contract of purchase and sale? Don’t know. Respecting the return of the deposit paid under a contract of purchase and sale if the purchaser exercises the right of rescission, including exempting types of properties or classes of buyers? Don’t know.
That’s a lot of questions — a lot of important details that I think buyers and sellers, just the general public, would want to know before their MLA would come in here and make an important decision on how they’re going to vote on Bill 12. In all seriousness, I think that that’s a fair expectation from our constituents — that we would come in here and make an educated vote on a piece of legislation and have that full scope, that full detail.
My colleague put forward an amendment yesterday that was voted down. It was something that was easy for the government to actually accept. I think it was something that the public would expect — to say: hey, let’s just wait until we have all of the information. Let’s wait until we have all of the details. I think that’s common sense.
If my child came to me and said, “Hey, Dad, I need 100 bucks to go do something,” I’d say: “Oh, Sasha, what do you need that $100 for?” And she’d go: “Well, I’m not sure yet, but I need it, and I’ve got to have it now. Like, you’ve got to give it to me now. But in a couple of weeks, I’ll have the information. I can tell you more about it.”
Now, I can give her the 100 bucks, and chances are she’s going to probably use it on maybe Minecraft or maybe a Pokémon card. I don’t know. She’s actually a fairly smart purchaser. But I would say there would be an expectation that I would have a little bit more context before I made that decision, to protect my 100 bucks but also to protect her from making a decision when we didn’t have all the facts.
I think that’s what we were trying to do with the amendment, and this minister is basically telling British Columbians: “I know better than you, and I’m not going to wait. I’m going to do it now.” If I was going to run in a municipal election, I definitely would not take that approach. The public is going to want to have a better expectation.
You’re going to work in their best interests. You’re actually going to have all of the information. Disclose it and debate it. Stand by it. Champion it, if you’re that confident in the bill, which I’m sure the minister is. I don’t know about her colleagues, but I’m sure the minister is. Just allow us to have all the information.
We saw in previous legislative sessions, fairly recently, when that didn’t happen, how that worked out: not well. We’ve seen when legislation, sometimes, is not fully done properly, and you have to come back and fix things. I don’t know if we have any recent examples of that by a member of the executive council, where they did a piece of legislation and flubbed it up and had to come back and fix it. Maybe we did. I don’t know. I’ve got to go back and check.
That’s part of the challenge that we have here. Give British Columbians the benefit of the doubt. Give them the respect that when we come into this House and do this important work, no matter the side of the House we’re on, we have the full information.
If this government thinks that it has garnered the full trust of every British Columbian to say: “Hey, don’t worry about it. We’ll take care of it for you. You don’t need to know the details….” I don’t think that was the mandate given to the NDP government in the last election. It wasn’t: “Hey, go do what you need to do. We don’t need the details. We trust you.” Now, maybe that’s the mandate that this minister thinks she has, but I don’t think that’s the mandate that any government has. That’s not how this place is supposed to work.
We saw that fail in spectacular fashion in November. Now we’re running the risk of doing it again, all while we know that if my colleague from Peace River South and the amendment that he put forward…. It actually somewhat protects the government from that embarrassment that we saw.
I think we have an obligation to do better than what we are currently doing. I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation.
E. Ross: It’s my privilege to get up to speak to Bill 12, the Property Law Amendment Act. I would like to say that I truly understand the details of what this bill is, but I can’t, because there are no details in this. Just like many other bills that pass through this House, the details will be left for regulations.
There are a lot of MLAs that have been elected to this legislative House to actually address the details in bills. That’s why we’re here. We’ve got to take a bill from the floor and actually go home to our constituencies — in my case, Skeena — and explain the consequences and what it will mean to citizens of our ridings.
As we’ve heard time and time again here, at least from this side of the House, there are not enough details to describe this to citizens of B.C., much less buyers and sellers, in terms of the housing market, in terms of the housing crisis that British Columbians, especially millennials, are experiencing.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
What’s troubling about this is not only the fact that there are no details of this. What’s troubling about this is that there are no government representatives speaking to this bill. Two government MLAs have gotten up to speak to this bill out of 57 — three if you include the Finance Minister. And that’s who this bill belongs to; that’s who is tabling this bill.
I’m sure the constituents of 55 constituencies would appreciate the details of what this bill actually means in terms of the housing market, in terms of the cooling off and how it actually intends to address the cooling-off period that this bill proposes. But we don’t know.
We don’t know how it is going to address the cooling-off period, because there are no details. This is just a shell of a bill. British Columbians will have to wait until the details are actually covered in the regulations, which I’m assuming are going to follow in the next three months, six months, 12 months. I’m not sure.
I don’t think anybody is sure in terms of that, including the B.C. Real Estate Association, including buyers and sellers of the housing market that actually want answers today.
Noting the time, I reserve my place in this debate, and I move adjournment of the debate.
E. Ross 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 1:30 p.m.
The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED
EDUCATION AND SKILLS TRAINING
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Sims in the chair.
The committee met at 11:03 a.m.
On Vote 12: ministry operations, $2,612,688,000 (continued).
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We’re ready to start another scintillating morning. We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimation of the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training.
I now recognize the member for Cariboo North.
C. Oakes: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We are now moving into questions around the service plan and the budget.
To perhaps set the stage, we all recognize and understand the incredible importance of post-secondary skill training across this province. I think that the one thing that COVID has done, and the pandemic, is really shone a light on the incredible importance of both our universities and our colleges across the province.
I guess, in opening remarks, I would like to provide the minister an opportunity to look at the importance that the sector has, in recognition of the pandemic and, perhaps, provide some insight into why, when you look at the budget, the operating budget for post-secondary education has remained static at such a critical time in British Columbia’s history.
Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member opposite for her question. This is a very, very important question. We do recognize, and I recognize, that post-secondary education is very critical, especially at this time, for British Columbians.
We have recognized that those who have post-secondary training, whether that’s in skills training or a bachelor’s or master’s degree, are more resilient during a pandemic and that they are able to attach themselves to the labour market at a critical stage during any type of economic downfall. They are able to get back with some sort of upskilling or re-skilling.
My ministry has endeavoured to continue to support with economic recovery and with future endeavours and dream jobs of individuals who are looking forward.
Your question, in terms of operations…. Under the NDP government, since 2017, we have increased the operations budget of $546 million, and $170 million of that is in programming.
We have made record investments in targeted skills-training seats in high-demand areas. Some of these training seats are in health, in tech-related sectors, in ECE, in Indigenous skills funds, in short-term training, because we know this is what British Columbians need.
C. Oakes: Seventy-five percent of the funding that Advanced Education provides to the public post-secondary institutions is based on the operating funding that goes to post-secondary education institutions.
When we had the briefing — and I very much appreciate the briefing that was provided by the staff — I asked the question: what was the increase over last year to the public post-secondary institutions for their operating grants? So the increase over last year. The block funding to the public post-secondary sector has been static. There has been no increase to the public post-secondary institutions.
My question is: how do we reconcile the fact…? I asked this question last year during estimates. The public post-secondary institutions are faced with the increased costs of the pandemic. Like so many other institutions and organizations, they’ve had increased costs on ensuring that their….
They had to move to hybrid. A lot of the digitization had to be increased. The cleaning protocols and all of the protocols that were tied to the pandemic increased the costs to the public post-secondary institutions. Last year during estimates, when we asked the question, institutions were expected to take that out of their operating funds in order to fund.
My question is: in light of the fact that public post-secondary institutions have had to take funding out of their operating to cover the costs of COVID, why in this budget this year is there no increased cost for public post-secondary institutions? That is going to impact the ability for them to provide critical training to British Columbians.
Hon. A. Kang: In reference to the increase in our block budget, we have seen an increase due to reflecting the collective agreement for salary, and that’s $10,000,695. So that’s included in the block funding.
I think your reference is to the spending and investments to keep students healthy and safe during the pandemic for post-secondary institutions. Institutions have been able to manage their costs through their reserves, and they’re fiscally great managers of that, and I have trust that they do that.
I also would like to remind you that since 2017, our government has been making very significant targeted investments in our budget in terms of our in-demand jobs and careers, such as health, technology, ECE, Indigenous skills funding and short-term training.
C. Oakes: Let’s take a moment, then, to look back to 2017.
We’ve heard the Premier speak about the importance of training. We’ve certainly heard from ministers and heard from this government the significant importance of training both to support British Columbians and to drive the economy. We certainly know that over the next decade, we’ll have over one million job openings in British Columbia. Now more than ever, it is critically important that we be investing in our public post-secondary institutions and our training institutions.
What I am trying to understand by looking at the finances is that under the block funding formula, the funding has not increased for 75 percent of the funding that goes to public post-secondary institutions. I understand that there’s a portion, 25 percent, for targeted funding, but we certainly understand that, under the labour market analysis that has been completed, it is critically important for us to be investing in our public post-secondary institutions. And again, this funding to public post-secondary institutions has been static from last year.
I understand that there are some additional incremental requirements in this budget, but funds to actually go into public post-secondary institutions to make sure that we’re providing the adequate training is essential.
In the economic development plan that was announced by this government and the Premier, a significant component of an action item for that was the launch of the Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan, which falls under this ministry. Can the minister please provide us with where we can access the actionable item that was identified in the economic plan, the Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan? Where is the plan and the timeline for that plan?
Hon. A. Kang: I just want to begin by correcting the member opposite. We have increased the base, the operating grant of this year. We increased that to reflect the collective agreement. But as well, we have made investments in targeted funding, which will be supporting some of the actions in our action plan, which is your question.
I would like to appreciate the member’s interest in funding for post-secondary institutions. I know you’re very passionate about programs, and I do share that passion as well. But I would also like to remind the member that in 2013, when their side were in government, they cut operating grants by $50 million per year. So that meant that in 2013, there was $50 million less, and in 2014, there was $50 million less. We are working with less, and that’s why it is important that we look to a funding review. We would like to fix the inequities of the past.
Straight to the question of where the Future Ready job action plan is right now, my ministry is working with key partners in the industry, with stakeholders, to ensure that we tailor programs and have good engagement to develop the action plan. This is the Future Ready skills plan.
In the meantime, the immediate workforce initiatives will address urgent workforce challenges. Some of these challenges include the continuation of StrongerBC-funded initiatives with expanded micro-credentials, short-term skills training for in-demand jobs, Indigenous community skills training and education, and targeted training for health and human services. As well, we are investing in more graduate scholarships and internships to support innovation in B.C.
We also know how important it is that we build on the success of investments that we have been doing, and we’ll continue to do that. Last year we provided $41.1 million to support over 2,600 spaces in tech-related programs. This year is the final year of the current expansion, where we will reach $42 million in ongoing funding for 2,900 seats. We are also developing the next expansion of 2,000 new tech seats, as it is outlined in my mandate letter.
We have invested in, and will continue to invest in, graduate student scholarships and internships. Almost $36 million since 2018.
I will have more to say about the status of our programs and funding opportunities for people to re-skill and upskill to meet the jobs of today and tomorrow. I look forward to working with the member opposite on that.
C. Oakes: The Premier, several weeks ago, announced the StrongerBC economic plan, “A plan for today, a vision for tomorrow.” The foundational pillar of the economic plan is understanding the labour market challenges that we have. If you go to page 8, the No. 1 action of this whole plan, which the NDP government has put forward, is training and launching the Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan.
Now, one would suspect that if one was to launch an economic plan based on training, the training component would have been completed first. A whole plan built around understanding the needs of the labour market and the one million job openings over the next decade, built on a foundation of how critically important….
Eighty percent of the population is going to require some kind of post-secondary education. One would have expected that when this plan was launched, which was tied to the training of those one million people and 80 percent requiring post-secondary education, that plan would have been completed.
Again, in order to move this plan forward, it’s critically important…. The launch of the Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow is critical. When exactly will this plan be completed?
Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member for the question. We are in the development and engagement stage with Indigenous partners and sector stakeholders, and this engagement is going to be planned for spring of 2022. Your direct question is when it will be implemented, and it will be implemented this fall.
I want to make sure that we’re clear that we’re not starting from zero. We have a very good foundation that we continue to work on, because we have recognized that we need one million workers in British Columbia. We are working towards that. There are immediate actions we are doing, and we are building on a solid foundation. Our solid foundation is built on economic recovery and the things that we are already doing as we continue to consult, because we want to make sure that we hear the voices of everyone. We want to make sure that we are going in the right direction.
In terms of economic recovery, B.C. continues to lead the country with the highest labour force growth, with 2.5 percent, and highest employment growth, with 1.9 percent since pre-pandemic.
I know we can do better. We’re able to offer British Columbians more opportunity with good post-secondary investment.
We also have good policy leadership as our foundation, and we’ll continue to build on that, such as Childcare B.C. We want to make sure that there are no barriers, that barriers are reduced for parents who want to go back to work. Some of the reasons why people aren’t able to be part of the workforce right now is because of the lack of child care. We are working very hard on that.
As well, our post-secondary system…. We are investing, annually, $118 million in trades training to support 98-plus skilled trades.
As well, we are working on reconciliation. That is why consultation, development and engagement with Indigenous partners is very important. We have a strong network of Indigenous post-secondary institutes that we are investing in as well.
We are also supporting workers. WorkBC centres are investing $272 million annually and job connection infrastructure with $6 million annually. As well, there are three streams of skills-training programs for vulnerable workers, in which we see an investment of $125 million annually, and sector and community labour market partnerships to address emerging workforce challenges with $26 million annually.
So work is on the way. Work continues to be on the way. We are not starting from zero. We are in the middle of our planning and programming, but we will be putting together an action plan that will be supporting all British Columbians for the next ten years.
C. Oakes: Going back to B.C.’s economic plan, “A plan for today, a vision for tomorrow,” that the Premier launched several weeks ago, a critical action was launching the Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan. I heard that the delay of the Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan was because there needed to be stakeholder engagement and engagement with Indigenous communities. Does that mean that this plan that the Premier launched has not consulted with Indigenous people and stakeholders, so that the launch of this was premature?
The foundation of this economic plan was ensuring that we understood the needs of training for people in British Columbia. What I heard is that you’re not releasing the Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan because consultation has not happened with Indigenous communities and stakeholders.
Hon. A. Kang: I just want to clarify. There is no delay on the launch for the Future Ready: Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan. I think what you’re referring to is B.C.’s Economic Plan, which had extensive consultations with all stakeholders. That includes Indigenous stakeholders.
As I have said before, there are actions in my workforce readiness plan that are continuous. There are immediate actions that we are taking right now. What we are doing is consulting further, to make sure that we have the right steps that are needed for our action plan to continue with the ten years that we are looking forward to, to have the right workforce and to have the right supports for the workforce in the next ten years.
C. Oakes: Turning to the words of the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation — I guess it’s a reflection where the minister talked about 2013 — in the words of the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation: “Because we can’t go back to the way things were before. That’s why we’ve developed this plan.” I want to put that oar in the water.
Certainly, the pandemic has changed a lot for British Columbians. “The StrongerBC economic plan…includes a generational commitment to develop the talent British Columbia needs to grow and innovate across our economy.” So the StrongerBC economic plan is to include a commitment to develop the talent — which, one would suspect, would be tied to our public post-secondary institutions and which, one would further suspect, would be tied to investment into our public post-secondary institutions, to develop that talent.
Without the plan to clearly understand what that investment needs to be, I hope the minister can understand the concern, which many people will have, that perhaps the launch of this plan was ahead of what the minister just said. This plan needs to be tied to some kind of investment in our public post-secondary institutions. If we’re looking at two or three years out before we’re going to see the types of investments that we need, to make sure we’re achieving the results of the StrongerBC economic plan, that’s the next election cycle.
We are in year 5 of a ten-year plan in the labour market, and we’re seeing that the labour market is getting worse. We are not seeing any…. We’re waiting on a plan that’s supposed to be tying the Skills for the Jobs of Tomorrow plan to labour, and we have a funding review that has just been announced that’s going to take two years or a year and a half to complete.
I guess, to the minister, how does she reconcile the fact that we need to have investment right now…? In fact, we needed to have this investment in skills training two or three years ago. We’re now looking…. Based on the timelines that the minister has just outlined, we could be waiting a couple more cycles in the budget before we’re going to see any really considerable investment to support building that talent pool that has been identified in the Premier’s and the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation’s StrongerBC economic plan.
Hon. A. Kang: Yes, I would like to make sure that we are clear on the actions that my ministry is doing and contributing. I think the member may have it backwards. The economic plan is a road map for the Future Ready plan, and no one said anything about delaying funding. The plan will be released in the fall, as I have already mentioned.
I also want to emphasize that we have been investing, and continue to invest, as we implement and consult on this plan. Since 2017 until today, we have been investing in health care, tech and ECE seats. In health, we have invested $178.4 million; in tech, we have been investing $155.2 million; and in ECE, we have been investing $36.6 million.
We have been investing. Investment is happening right now, and it will continue to be as well. We do want to reiterate that this development is in the action plan. It’s a new action. So government contributes. It’s not the main, sole contributor of this plan. We will be working with stakeholders, industries, post-secondary and other ministries. We will be doing more.
We are going to be putting people in the centre of our plan, and that’s what we will be doing. We will be consulting, and we will be making sure that we get this right.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.