Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 4, 2023
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 298
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Auditor General, Governance of the Diversity and Inclusion Strategy for the Public Service, March 2023 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2023
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: Hon. P. Alexis.
Introductions by Members
T. Wat: In the gallery today, we have a newcomer from New Zealand. We have Lingfeng Zhang. He’s visiting the Legislature for the first time. Lingfeng Zhang has settled down in my beautiful riding of Richmond North Centre, and he’s planning to start his business here in our province.
Would the House please make him feel very welcome.
D. Coulter: I notice in the gallery today are my friends from CUPE B.C. We have president Karen Ranalletta, and she’s joined by Martina Boyd and David Fleming.
I’d like the House to welcome them today.
Tributes
WILFRED DOUGLAS MATTHEW
Hon. B. Ma: Simpcw First Nation lost a dearly beloved Elder last week. Well-respected throughout the community and the North Thompson Valley, Wilfred Douglas Matthew lived his entire life on Simpcw First Nation.
Better known as Willie to all those who knew him, he was a forestry man and a family man, who was happiest surrounded by the people he loved.
He worked hard to provide the best life possible to his entire family, driving daily on some of the most demanding roads, and instilling his family values and work ethic into his sons, who he was so proud of.
Born on March 8, 1954, Willie passed on March 28, 2023. He is survived by his wife of 42 years, Cindy Lee, his sons, Chuck and Geoff, and his grandson Waylon Douglas.
Will the House please join me in offering comfort to his family and community during this difficult transition into a post-Willie world.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
O’ROURKE FAMILY ESTATE WINERY
N. Letnick: I think everyone in the House would agree that British Columbia is the best wine province in Canada, correct? [Applause.]
And within the province, that the Okanagan is the best wine region in the province, correct? [Applause.]
The applause is getting narrower and narrower.
And the best wine region in that region is Kelowna–Lake Country, correct?
Interjections.
N. Letnick: I should have quit while I was ahead. The Health Minister is agreeing.
I rise today to celebrate the O’Rourke Family Estate winery located in the heart of Kelowna–Lake Country. The winery has been named one of the world’s top Chardonnay wine producers after their 2020 Chardonnay was given top honours in front of a panel made of international judges. The competition took place in Burgundy, France, where the O’Rourke’s wine was one of 530 entries and was the only Canadian winery to be recognized in the top ten. I’m proud today to stand here and recognize this great winery located right here in British Columbia.
The food located in my region is truly exceptional and is very deserving for this recognition. The O’Rourke property sits on more than 300 acres with over 110 of those dedicated to the vines.
The winery is currently closed to the public until 2025 due to an expansion project that will see the creation of an underground cave network, sensory tasting experiences, on-site accommodations and even an event space with multiple dining options. The future is very bright for the winery, and I look forward to visiting them in the future.
That’s a hint to the O’Rourke family.
Once again, I would like to congratulate the winery’s proprietor, Dennis O’Rourke, and the winemaker, Nikki Callaway, for their incredible success in representing Canadian wines on the world stage.
ZAPPONE MANOR SENIORS HOUSING
PROJECT IN
CLOVERDALE
M. Starchuk: A new seniors affordable housing project is opening up in Cloverdale. Zappone Manor, named for lifelong Cloverdale resident Bruno Zappone, will be located near the downtown Cloverdale core.
Bruno passed away in 2021. He was a longtime volunteer, past Cloverdale chamber of commerce president, volunteer firefighter, heritage supporter and champion of all things Cloverdale.
This new apartment building project has been in the works for several years but because of a funding shortfall and increases in costs for everything related to it, the project had been stalled. That was until the provincial government stepped in to provide more than $6 million to get it going again. This was announced just over two weeks ago by the Minister of Housing.
Zappone Manor will replace a 50-unit residence that was several decades old and was ready to be torn down. The new build will add another 39 units for a total of 89 units. Zappone Trucking was actually used to build this structure many years ago.
The five-storey building will have mostly studio apartments with a sprinkling of one-bedroom suites. The residents will remain in their rooms while it’s under construction, and then they’re just going to have to walk across the parking lot to the new place.
Columbus Homes and the Senior Citizens Housing of South Surrey are working with the government to deliver homes that will provide an affordable place to live for seniors in need.
I remember the meeting that I had with Mike Garisto, president and chief operating officer of Columbus Homes Surrey, to provide him with the good news and how stunned and full of gratitude he was with. He said that if building permits come through on time, they’ll get the shovels in the ground early fall of this year.
To have the excavation done and the concrete foundation poured before winter is a major feat because Cloverdale is basically on clay. If there’s a delay in the permit approval, they’ll have to wait until spring of 2024 to start the project.
Fingers are crossed that there aren’t any delays in the permitting approval process.
THOMAS WILLIAM HAYDON
I. Paton: I rise today to honour Thomas William Haydon, a member of my Delta South constituency who passed away at the age of 36 after a courageous battle with pancreatic cancer.
He was honoured just a few weeks ago at the Fallen Firefighters Memorial, and I want to continue to honour his legacy as he was an outstanding member of my community.
Tom was originally from Saskatchewan, from a farming family who farmed over 10,000 acres of mixed grains and canola. Tom moved to Ladner as a kid but would return to the love of his family farm in Saskatchewan almost every fall to help with the harvest. Growing up in Ladner, he developed a keen love of the outdoors. He loved fishing, boating, camping, hunting, and playing sports.
As a kid, he started playing lacrosse with our local Delta lacrosse club and quickly started to excel at that sport. He made his way up through the ranks of Delta lacrosse and became a captain of the Delta Junior Islanders lacrosse team at age of 18. After graduating junior, he got drafted by the Burnaby Lakers senior A and played in the Western Lacrosse Association. He then came back to Ladner and played for the Ladner Pioneers, helping the team win the national title and the prestigious Presidents Cup in 2004.
Tom continue to be part of the lacrosse community during his 20-year legacy to the sport, coaching his son Eric and later becoming a coach with the Pioneers until his illness.
A journeyman welder by trade, he joined our esteemed Delta Firefighters Local 1763 and served our community bravely. He loved being a firefighter and quickly earned the respect of his peers. Tommer was a good firefighter and was eager to learn and share his knowledge with other probationers on the job. Tom was a true leader.
Tom was also a family man. He met the love of his life, Roberta, quickly fell in love, and together they created a beautiful family with three kids: Eric, Isabel and Luke.
On a personal note, as a strong, strapping teenager, I hired Tom to work on my farm on several occasions. Man, could that boy throw hay bales.
As a tribute from friends, an annual memorial award has been created that reflects his career as a firefighter. It comes with a $2,500 scholarship that is presented to a Delta lacrosse player who demonstrates some of Tom’s wonderful qualities.
I had the absolute privilege of watching him grow into the man he became, serving our community with dedication and heart.
Tommer is greatly missed, and his legacy will live on in Delta South.
GREEN SHIRT DAY
AND ORGAN DONATION
AWARENESS
R. Leonard: April is Organ Donation Awareness Month. This Friday, April 7, is Green Shirt Day, inspired by Logan Boulet, the 21-year-old Humboldt Bronco who lost his life in the tragic bus accident in 2018 along with 15 others.
Logan had a coach and mentor who was a registered organ donor. When he died in 2017, Logan saw how that selfless act resulted in six people’s lives being saved. Logan was inspired to register as an organ donor by the powerful act of generosity of his mentor, and Logan’s own selfless act saved six other lives.
His parents began Green Shirt Day to honour their son, resulting in thousands of people around the world registering for organ donation. And 1.58 million British Columbians have registered their organ donation decision.
But know this. You are more likely to need an organ transplant than to become a donor, as the circumstances for organs to be donated are very narrow. Only about 1 to 2 percent of deaths in hospital occur in a way that allows for organs to be donated, including that all life-saving efforts have been taken and there is certainty that the person will not survive.
Last year 159 deceased donors and 74 living kidney donors provided 465 transplants — 25 hearts, 101 livers, 54 lung and 288 kidney transplants.
My brother is one of those recipients, a man who was at end-stage lung disease a year ago. He is not only alive but reinvigorated to live life to the fullest. It is difficult to describe the hardship of knowing someone died in order for you to live, but it makes the gratitude for this gift immeasurable.
Be inspired. Take two minutes to register as an organ donor. Visit transplant.bc.ca.
CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARD RECIPIENTS
IN PRINCE
GEORGE
S. Bond: In March, the Prince George Community Foundation was excited to host the return of the Citizen of the Year celebration event. The foundation honoured recipients in two categories, lifetime achievement and the Annual Difference Maker Award.
The recipients of the Lifetime Achievement Award — Steve Hamilton, Dave King and Mary Teegee — were recognized for at least ten years of volunteer service in Prince George and for showing exemplary leadership through their volunteer and philanthropic work.
Steve Hamilton has supported the revitalization of the Spruce City Wildlife Association as a volunteer director, three terms as president, growing membership numbers from 30 to more than 200. Under his presidency, about $1 million has been received in grants and donations for their facility.
Dave King has been a volunteer with the Caledonia Ramblers for 48 years. Since then, King has maintained existing trails, built new ones and led hikes all over the region. One of King’s greatest achievements was helping create the Ancient Forest Provincial Park and building the foundations of the boardwalk to make the site more accessible for all visitors.
Mary Teegee is a relentless advocate for human, Indigenous and women’s rights and has served on provincial, national and international committees. Teegee represents B.C. on the board of First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, is a steering committee member of the First Nations Early Childhood Development Council and has been a member of the provincial Minister’s Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women.
The Annual Difference Maker Award was presented to Patti Perrault, who has been bringing community night markets to Prince George for years. Each market has been well attended and has seen as many as 150 vendors participating.
Congratulations to each of these very deserving award winners. We want to thank them for their contributions to our community and our region.
RICHMOND COSOM FLOOR HOCKEY
H. Yao: Imagine a room filled with wild fans who can barely restrain themselves in their seats while watching every move with aah, every play with ooh and every goal with resounding cheers. Now imagine that very same hockey game held at a local school, where players are adorable little kids and the fans are poster-waving parents. That’s what happened during the Richmond Cosom hockey match final and what it was like.
The Richmond Cosom Floor Hockey Association has been serving the Metro Vancouver area, specifically Richmond, for over 40 years. Richmond Cosom hockey emphasizes fun, healthy competition, good sportsmanship and, most importantly, safety.
The association is always trying to find ways to ensure that the six-month league is affordable, accessible and inclusive for adults and children six years and up. Girls and boys play co-ed through all and in separate divisions. Each team plays one game per week and practices once per week.
In an effort to be affordable, accessible and inclusive, Richmond Cosom Floor Hockey creates a community where friendships are formed, skills are honed, bodies are exercised and, most of all, a sense of belonging is developed.
The whole association is run by volunteers. Therefore, I especially want to take a moment to express my gratitude to all the volunteer executives who made Richmond Cosom hockey possible. Piradeepan Uthayakumar, president; Farhaan Khan, vice-president; Nicole Nagra, referee-in-chief; Thomas Steeves; registrar and treasurer; Eliza Ko, secretary.
Tombert Chen, Mites division coordinator; Greg Daniels, Junior Squirt division coordinator and head of disciplinary committee; Jade Liggat, Junior Squirt division coordinator; Larry Knurik, Senior Squirt division coordinator and director of digital media; Anita Chan, Bantam division coordinator.
Doug Taylor, equipment manager; Olivia Lai, gym coordinator; Vincent Li, webmaster; Tamara Steeves, webmaster and social media; Nancy Jung, grants and sponsorship director; Juergen Wuerthwein, evaluation director; Adam Kierszenblat, head coach; Evan Li, jersey and medal coordinator; and Helena Mung, assistant.
Please join me and thank all the volunteers for making Richmond Cosom hockey possible.
Oral Questions
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TARGETS
AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
UNITS
T. Halford: The Premier’s failed ten-year housing plan was scrapped yesterday and replaced by a refresh strategy that many are finding to be completely anything but refreshing. It was more of a desperate attempt to fudge the numbers and hide his own abysmal record.
With now a throwback to the 1990s, the NDP has opted for a fudge-it-budget approach to their housing strategy. The reality is that this two-term, six-year NDP government has only managed to deliver a mere 7 percent of the NDP’s 114 promised homes. I round it up to be charitable. And we now have the highest housing prices ever in the history of this province.
This Premier, as we all know, was Housing Minister for two years. How can anyone trust a Premier who is so willingly, blatantly fudging numbers when it comes to hiding his own housing strategy?
Mr. Speaker: Members, be careful about the language that you portray in your question.
Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. I think, when I talk to British Columbians, if there’s an issue that’s front and centre for so many people, it’s the fact that they’re looking for a home and they can’t find one they can afford, whether they’re looking for one they can buy or they’re looking for a place they can rent that’s close to work, that’s good for their family, that’s good for their personal needs. It is one of the major challenges we face in B.C.
The member knows the reason why. There’s a massive increase in our population in the province. We set a record last year, a 60-year high. This year, in the first two quarters, we were breaking last year’s records.
All these folks need a place to live, so our ten-year housing plan is about bringing on more homes faster. I’m thrilled that we’ve delivered 42,000 units. Without our government’s policies, 42,000 people would not have homes.
As just one example of the kind of housing that the members won’t count when they analyze our numbers, student housing…. We know why that is. When they were in power for 16 years, they built 130 student housing beds. They don’t count student housing as housing. We do.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Shhh.
Members. Members.
Hon. D. Eby: It’s in our numbers, and those are some of the 42,000 people who are housed because of our policies.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.
T. Halford: Let’s be clear. After six years and two election campaigns promising housing affordability, the results are the highest housing prices and the highest rents this province has ever seen. It’s a fact.
What’s also a fact is that you now need to earn over $270,000 to be able to afford a home in Vancouver. That’s a fact.
Renters are paying over $4,300 more a year under this NDP government. That is a fact.
Instead of getting housed, people are getting hosed by this Premier and this NDP government, and it’s completely unacceptable.
My question to the Premier is a direct one. Will he accept responsibility for manipulating the numbers of his housing plan and admit that he has absolutely failed in every measure possible, when it comes to housing affordability, that his government has promised?
Hon. D. Eby: We’re talking about the 42,000 people who are now living in homes. They wouldn’t be living in without our government’s interventions. About 20,000 of those people are living in homes that used to be vacant under the policies of the previous government. It’s shameful.
When we were in opposition, we stood up again and again, and we said: “Why aren’t you taking action on absentee investors in our housing market that are leaving homes vacant, using homes as safe deposit boxes?”
They didn’t take action. We did. We brought in the speculation and vacancy tax. Twenty thousand people housed, at least, as a result.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.
Hon. D. Eby: In my constituency, previously empty mansions under the other government are now filled with students from UBC that are renting those places.
When I look at what we’ve done and when I look at what they did, I know we’ve got a lot more work to do, but we’re definitely on the right track, because we’re prioritizing housing for people…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: …not for speculators and investors, which was the number one priority on the other side of the House.
M. Lee: It’s clear from this Premier that after six years of this government, the results are just not there. The NDP has failed to meet their 2017 election promise to build 114,000 additional homes. Only 15,000 homes have actually been built by this government.
While the Premier manipulates and overstates the numbers in his housing plan, the real-world situation is getting worse, with the highest housing prices in North America here in B.C.
CMHC says that B.C. needs to build 570,000 more homes by the end of this decade alone. But instead of trying to actually build those homes, the Premier has opted to engage in creative accounting. Fudging the numbers to cover up the reality is unbecoming of a Premier, but it’s consistent with how this Premier operates.
Given the Premier’s blatant distortion of the numbers, and his track record as a failed Housing Minister, how can British Columbians have any confidence in his latest housing plan?
Hon. D. Eby: I know the member knows the history of the B.C. Liberal government, when they were in power, on housing. It wasn’t enough for tenants that their rent increased by inflation. The B.C. Liberal government added another 2 percent increase on top of that.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: When we got rid of that, we saved tenants…. Families are saving, on average, $2,500 a year.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members will come to order, please.
Let’s listen to the Premier.
Hon. D. Eby: But we know we have to bring more housing on. Populations go up because of our government’s success bringing on jobs and economic activity in this province, some of the lowest unemployment rates in the history of the province right now in British Columbia. People are coming here because it’s a good place to live. They see our child care program, and they’re coming here.
Yesterday’s plan is all about bringing on more homes faster to respond to that — more townhomes, duplexes and triplexes — by increasing the ability for people to build, with the same process as the most expensive housing, the single-family home. They can now build, with the same process, more attainable housing for people.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, please.
Hon. D. Eby: Making it more possible for people to have a secondary suite, making it legal for them to have a secondary suite in our province. Speeding up permitting so that housing can be built faster. More homes and services near transit that people who actually use transit can afford to live in, because we’re buying not just the footprint of the station but the whole area around the station.
There is so much work that is underway. The plan takes it to the next level. I’m excited about it, British Columbians are excited about it, and I wish the opposition would support this kind of initiative. And I really wish that when they were on this side of the House, they would have started this work.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Langara, supplemental.
M. Lee: Well, the Premier continues to go on at great lengths to pad the numbers, and he continues to do that here in this chamber. But the reality is that things are getting worse, not better, for renters and homeowners.
So far in 2023, total new home registrations have plummeted 25 percent compared to 2022. The minister’s own briefing notes reveal that 70 percent of purpose-built rental construction actually results in the demolition of existing buildings: “The number of units completed does not equate directly to an increase in the total stock of rental housing. Very often rental buildings are demolished.”
Will the Premier own up to these backward steps in housing supply, or will he find another way to fudge those numbers too?
Hon. D. Eby: CMHC, the federal government agency that monitors housing, issued a rental market report, 2022. It says as follows. The increase in purpose-built rental units in greater Vancouver “represents the highest annual increase among available records since 1990…. The increase results from the elevated number of new rental units started over the past few years now coming to market. Rental starts surged 43 percent year over year over the first three quarters of 2022, meaning completions of new rental supply will be significant in the years ahead.”
Metro Vancouver, in their data report, December 2022: “Rental construction is at a 20-year high after more than a decade of historically low levels.” When? In the early 2000s, hon. Speaker.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT OF
ADDICTION TREATMENT
FACILITIES
A. Olsen: I think there’s a broad agreement in this chamber on many issues, and one of those is the need to increase access to addiction treatment centres. I’ve heard, and our technical staff have heard, many firsthand accounts from families on how deeply broken our current system is.
Private facilities charge $20,000 per month without any oversight from this government. The private mental health and addictions facilities are completely unregulated, leaving desperate families vulnerable. If you want trauma counselling, it’s an extra $375 an hour. Family support groups, there are payments of up to $6,500 up front.
It’s not fair treatment. Private treatment centres charge thousands of dollars to keep a revolving door open. People depend on coming back twice or three times, four times more, exploiting this government’s failing mental health supports for British Columbians.
My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. When will she regulate private addictions treatment facilities?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I thank the member for the question. I think this issue has certainly come to the fore over the last number of years.
We know that when we formed government in 2017, we did inherit a system in which the recovery house sector had been deregulated by the previous government, and that allowed for a proliferation of operators that were functioning under a very loose set of rules and standards.
We have moved to correct that situation. We brought in a more clear set of regulatory standards in 2019, along with a more structured approach to the per diems, and increased the per diems so that we could ensure there is a higher standard of quality and of services that British Columbians can expect from these facilities. We know there is more work to do, and that work is underway.
I am very grateful for the work of organizations like BCARA, the provincial body that represents recovery houses, who is an important partner in the work that we are doing to ensure that we have appropriate standards across the recovery home sector.
Mr. Speaker: House Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
A. Olsen: I recognize the environment, the landscape that existed at the time that this government took office. However, it has been several years since then, and as we are working to expand access to addictions treatment, it should be that good regulation is what the expansion of those services is built on. That should be the first bit of work. We’ve heard dozens of horror stories from families that have experienced the revolving door that I explained in the first question.
We’ve also heard that public facilities aren’t much better. Those public centres don’t offer trauma counselling. It’s up to the patients and families to seek out and pay for. One mother described the facilities as “warehouses,” because it’s basically the only place for her daughter to lay her head at night — no mental health care, no addictions care, drug dealers around the facilities, allegations of sexual assault in the centres, sexual abuse.
To the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, will she agree to undertake an audit of all of our provincial addictions treatment facilities to understand exactly where we stand in this important industry?
Hon. J. Whiteside: One of the important measures that we have taken with respect to the regulation of the recovery home sector — which is an important part of the treatment and recovery landscape in our Pathway to Hope plan, our ten-year plan for addressing mental health and addictions in the province — is to ensure that we have a robust approach not only to regulation but to enforcement, so we’ve increased the number of officers in the health authorities who are responsible for inspecting and enforcing the regulations across that sector.
That work is happening at the same time as we are having conversations with that sector about improving the regulatory framework they’re operating under.
I do think it’s important to reinforce that we have a continuum across which we are working in this area. We have health authorities who are delivering services. We have beds delivered through the Canadian Mental Health Association in B.C., which is a very important partner. We have announced a $1 billion investment across all of the work we need to be doing in this sector to do some of the very work that the member has referenced.
I am happy to hear particular examples or particular concerns that the member has to follow up on. But there’s no question that we have made strides in opening hundreds of treatment beds, in doing more work with respect to the regulatory framework and the enforcement of those regulations, increasing counselling services, investing hundreds of millions of dollars across all of those services.
Of course, there is more to do. That’s work that we are committed to engaging in.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
WOMEN’S TRANSITION
HOUSING
R. Merrifield: Back in 2018, the NDP promised to deliver 1,500 homes for women fleeing domestic violence, but they haven’t delivered on that promise.
A year ago the Premier repromised to fix this lack of action when he was in Housing estimates, saying: “…personally, I would like to see us make more progress in the women’s transition housing fund” and that 155 units are open. “I’m working…to ensure that the transition housing fund is meeting the needs of the sector.”
Since that time, we’ve learned that the Premier managed to open just 33 homes. All the while, rates of intimate-partner violence have skyrocketed. Amy FitzGerald of the B.C. Society of Transition Houses says that they are very concerned about the lack of results, given the increased rates of intimate-partner violence that they see in B.C.
Will the Premier explain to transition housing providers like Amy and to all the women and children that they serve why he is trying to fudge his housing numbers instead of delivering results that matter on promises he made?
Hon. D. Eby: I take the member’s critique seriously. This is a category where I wish we had been able to open more units.
We are working aggressively on the issue of gender-based violence. We have a gender-based violence action strategy. We’re working closely with agencies that support women fleeing violence. We know that housing availability generally is a huge issue for women fleeing violence. When we open more housing, when we make housing more affordable and available for people, it means they can leave abusive relationships. It means there’s a place they can go.
I take the member’s critique seriously. We’ve got more work to do. I don’t pretend our government is perfect in every category at all, but I do assure the member on the other side and all British Columbians that we take this issue profoundly seriously.
Housing is one of our key priority issues, especially the availability of housing for women that are fleeing violence, for other marginalized groups, for Indigenous people in the province and, as part of our housing plan yesterday, concern about people who earn a decent income that are just looking for a reasonable place for their families to live.
This is a multifaceted housing strategy. We’re going to redouble our efforts, and 42,000 people in this province at least have new homes because of our government’s policies. But we know we’ve got a lot more work to do.
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
E. Ross: The NDP housing promise was to build 114,000 units — build. Now of the 40,000 units that the government takes credit for, 25,000 of those were already built. Some of those were built back in the ’80s. You go further back, maybe the ’70s or ’60s, and maybe you can accomplish the 114,000 units that you promised back in 2017.
It wasn’t just these numbers that the Premier managed to fudge. In his housing plan yesterday, he announced a $40,000 forgivable loan for homeowners while offering only a meagre $400 rental assistance for renters. That’s a pitiful $1 a day for renters, an insult for families who are struggling afford the $3,600 per month average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Vancouver, and that’s only if you qualify.
In my own community of Terrace, the average cost of rent has gone up $350 a month under the NDP. Why is the Premier blatantly discriminating between homeowners and renters and perpetuating inequality by providing renters with only $1 a day?
Hon. D. Eby: Sometimes I feel like I’ve stepped through a portal into a parallel universe when I hear the members on the other side saying that they’re concerned about the issues of renters. I can’t tell you…. I’m sure members across this place stood in opposition again and again on the issues…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.
Members, please.
Please continue.
Hon. D. Eby: …faced by renters, rent evictions and basic due process at the residential tenancy branch.
I mean, is the member seriously pretending that the B.C. Liberals would have ever considered a grant for renters in this province? Are you kidding me?
Speaking of support for families, an average family…. The numbers are publicly produced and available. Under our government’s policies, an average family with two kids earning $100,000 used to pay $7,473 in taxes. They now pay $4,948. That’s a 34 percent net reduction under our government.
Families earning $80,000 have seen a 56 percent reduction. Families earning $60,000 have seen a 99 percent net reduction. Families earning $30,000 used to pay $177 in taxes. Now they get $2,565 back in their pocket.
T. Shypitka: Well, we’ve heard a lot of NDP math here today. It’s absolutely astounding: 114,000 affordable homes were supposed to be built. That promise was never met — full stop. There’s no getting around that with, even NDP math. The Premier’s attempt to fudge his housing numbers and cook the books at B.C. Housing is insulting to families in the East Kootenays.
I received a letter from Dayleen Bybee from Kimberley, who learned that she was losing her rental unit. Dayleen says: “I am a newly single mom with two teens. Instead of being carefree teens, they will both have to have jobs and contribute to household expenses if we have any hope of not being homeless. Who can afford a $500,000 home as their first home? What is going to happen to the next generation of children?”
Can the Premier tell Dayleen why he is more focused on fudging the numbers in his housing plan instead of delivering results for her and her kids?
Hon. D. Eby: I mean, the concern raised by that MLA about this constituent is exactly why we’re doing the work on housing. I share that concern.
Are kids going to be able to stay in their communities? Are seniors going to be able to stay in the communities where their connections are? Can we provide affordable, attainable housing for people who earn decent incomes? Can we address homelessness by bringing on more housing generally and addressing social housing? That is exactly what this plan is about.
I know the members on the other side. This is politics. They are here to oppose. But sometimes partisans, when they leave this place, look at things objectively. I have a quote from Mark Marissen….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Speaker, I have a quote from Mark Marissen on this housing plan: “Will study more, but what we’re seeing here so far is excellent news.” I know that families are struggling. I know that members….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Members on both sides.
Hon. D. Eby: I’ve got two pages of quotes. I’m happy to provide lots more. Keep asking the questions.
It’s a great plan. I know families are struggling. My colleagues know that they’re struggling. We’re working every day for them, something that the other side never did.
T. Stone: The Premier talks about a parallel universe. He should look in the mirror. The number one promise that his government made in two elections in a row was to make life more affordable and housing more affordable. The exact opposite has happened.
Come on. We’ve got the highest rents ever in British Columbia’s history, yet he stands up here and touts all this progress that his government is making. We have the highest housing prices that we’ve ever seen in the history of this province, and he stands up with a smile on his face and tries to tell British Columbians: “Don’t worry. Life is getting better, and we’re working hard.” This is a terrible plan, and their results are terrible.
Now I want to ask about a senior up in Kamloops. Maybe he will get a serious response from the Premier to this question.
Howard Druskee is a Kamloops senior who’s been living in the family home of his parents for 50 years. His parents both passed away years ago. After his brother died, he expected to pay a modest fee to put his own name on the title. But despite no exchange of funds, this government is demanding that Howard pay over $20,000 in fees and property transfer tax. That’s outrageous, particularly for a senior without a large income who has complicated health issues that include heart surgery, and so forth. This is a significant financial burden for him.
Now Howard has attempted to plead his case to this NDP government, citing exemptions for transfers between related individuals that he believes should also apply to siblings. But his appeals have fallen on deaf ears as the government continues to demand, again, over $20,000 in fees and property transfer tax. In Howard’s words: “I feel like they put the boots to me.”
My question to the Premier is this. Why is the Premier choosing to squeeze every last penny that he can from a gentleman, a senior who has health challenges, who simply wishes to stay in the place that he’s called home for over five decades?
Hon. D. Eby: I’m happy to look into the case the member raises. It sounds very concerning to me. In terms of his introduction to the question of what has our government done around affordability, for some reason, I’m reminded of what we’ve done on ICBC.
We took a Crown corporation that was losing more than $1 billion a year, putting pressure on government finances….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.
Hon. D. Eby: Unsustainable. We’ve turned it into a Crown corporation that’s delivered savings of about $500, on average, to B.C. families, and we’ve frozen rates for two more years. I think that’s pretty good.
Now, to the member’s point, we’re seeing global inflation. We’re seeing rising interest rates. We’re seeing rising food costs all around the world.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: As a government, we’re not going to be able to solve all those problems, but we are able to support people with the costs of daily life wherever we can. That’s the work we’re going to continue to do, including supporting MLAs like the member when they raise cases or concerns of their constituents. Happy to look into them and see if we can assist.
L. Doerkson: Certainly, these comments have been raised before, and they will continue to be raised in the future. The fact is, housing is a colossal mess under this two-term government. The Premier has a consistent pattern of manipulating and failing on housing.
In Parksville, B.C. Housing falsely claims that the supportive housing residents being evicted are offered alternative housing. Residents are saying that’s just not true. One resident, Dan Hogan, says: “I’m a pensioner, and I don’t feel I should be treated like garbage. I paid my taxes when I was working. Why do I have to put up with crap like this?”
The Premier is neglecting the housing needs of seniors right across this province. Eileen Batty is a senior from Williams Lake who writes that she can’t keep up with the dramatic increase in housing costs: “Clearly, the provincial government is not supporting seniors. Seniors are in need of support. They need it now.”
Will the Premier explain to Dan in Parksville and Eileen in Williams Lake why he is more focused on fudging the numbers of this housing plan instead of delivering results to the seniors of this province?
Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Please continue.
Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. This is a serious issue. A lot of seniors are facing massive pressure around housing right now, the member’s constituents among them. Seniors, families and young people starting their lives need a decent place to live and need a place they can afford.
This is an issue for our economy provincially, when employers are looking for workers, and they can’t find a place to live close to work. This is an issue for quality of life. It’s an issue for women’s safety, as the member has raised. It’s an issue for the health of seniors, being able to live in the communities where they have social connection — so they can stay in their homes for longer, so they can get home care. You need a home.
For all these reasons, we put this plan together. We started the work in 2017 and delivered 42,000 homes for British Columbians, expanding the plan now to do even more work, because we know more work has to be done.
Housing is under huge pressure with our population growth. We’ve got lots of work to do. That’s why, from city councillors to homebuilders, non-profit organizations and just individuals interested in the housing issue, they are celebrating this work, because they know it’s going to make a difference.
That’s what we’re all about: delivering for British Columbians every day. This whole team here is working for British Columbians over time. We’re going to keep doing that work every single day.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Auditor General’s report, Governance of the Diversity and Inclusion Strategy for the Public Service.
Orders of the Day
Hon. L. Beare: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 11, the Election Amendment Act.
In committee room A, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Labour.
In committee room C, I call the continued debate on the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 11 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2023
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 10:57 a.m.
The Chair: The committee will recess for two minutes.
The committee recessed from 10:57 a.m. to 11:02 a.m.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re in committee on Bill 11, Election Amendment Act, 2023.
I’ll ask the Attorney General if she has some opening comments and would like to introduce staff.
Hon. N. Sharma: It’s my pleasure to introduce the team that’s with me here today: Anita Nadziejko, director of policy and legislation, and Tarynn McKenzie, senior policy analyst. They’re both from justice services branch.
On clause 1.
M. de Jong: Welcome to the minister and her staff colleagues from the ministry. As I’ve done on some of the previous legislation we’ve been considering in the committee, I thought I would spend just a couple of minutes asking a few general questions before we get into the details, section by section.
In this case, what I wanted to first ask the Attorney to do, for the committee’s benefit, is explain the genesis of the bill. It appears, on the surface, to be largely the result of work undertaken by the Chief Electoral Officer, who has prepared two reports recently and on an ongoing basis is charged with the task of ensuring that elections in this province are conducted fairly and efficiently.
With the advent and evolution of technology, that requires some constant adjustments. The last election took place in unusual circumstances, as it related to the COVID pandemic and the more limited opportunities people had to move about in the province.
But maybe the Attorney could provide the committee with a summary of — to her mind, at least — the genesis of the bill and the provisions contained therein as it relates to the work of the Chief Electoral Officer.
Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question. I’ll start by saying that in the context of our Election Act, the electoral process is constantly being updated and recommended. Recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer flow to us, and we evaluate and make changes. As the member articulated, elections are a constantly evolving process with different pressures and needs and digital tools that are present.
The first changes we made were in 2017, further changes in 2019, and now these ones in particular. Generally, our process is that we receive recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer. We communicate with them in identifying the highest-priority changes that are needed.
In the context of the changes that we have before us, the highest-priority changes that were recommended or talked to were identified through the conversations with the Chief Electoral Officer and were really meant to focus on how to get us prepared for the next election. There are things that I’m sure we’ll go through very particularly that are about that.
And in particular, these changes are based on two reports that were identified, but I’ll just list them for the record. One was called Digital Communications, Disinformation and Democracy from May 2020, and the next one was Recommendations for Legislative Change, May 2022. These were reports from the Chief Electoral Officer.
M. de Jong: As part of the preparation process for the legislation…. I’ll come back to the request-for-legislation exercise in a moment. For now, what I’m curious about is as legislative counsel are undertaking their work as a result of the instructions they receive, presumably via a request for legislation, what kind of ongoing involvement is there on the part of the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of reviewing the results of that work, the drafting? What kind of opportunity or engagement is there on the part of the Chief Electoral Officer prior to the final product, which reveals itself in Bill 11 being tabled in this Legislature?
Hon. N. Sharma: The answer, in a general term, is it’s an ongoing discussion with the Chief Electoral Officer. So as I mentioned before, prior to the RFL, it would be a conversation about priority recommendations leading up to what’s contained in the RFL. Then after that, it’s an ongoing discussion with the Chief Electoral Officer, including reviewing consultation drafts, reviewing drafts, and of course, appropriate confidentiality agreements are signed in the context of draft legislation. So really, it’s a constant communication.
M. de Jong: And would the Chief Electoral Officer have seen Bill 11 in its entirety prior to it being tabled in the House?
Hon. N. Sharma: After the LRC stage, they wouldn’t have seen it until it was tabled. Prior to that there would have been consultation drafts that were exchanged.
M. de Jong: Did the Chief Electoral Officer…? What I take from that answer is that the Chief Electoral Officer would have seen a draft copy of the bill in the form that it went to the legislative review committee. Is that correct?
Hon. N. Sharma: Yes. They saw a consultation draft right before it was taken to LRC.
M. de Jong: Did the Chief Electoral Officer provide written comment to the Attorney at that time?
Hon. N. Sharma: Elections B.C. did provide written comments to our team. This is, again, the stage before it entered LRC when it was a draft consultation, the consultation draft.
M. de Jong: What form did that commentary take? Was it verbal? Was it written?
Hon. N. Sharma: Written.
M. de Jong: Is that written commentary material that the Attorney is prepared to share?
Hon. N. Sharma: The answer to that question is no because it was under the confidentiality agreement that we had with Elections B.C. and the Chief Electoral Officer in the consultation process.
M. de Jong: Two things that I would say. I presume the confidentiality agreement of which the Attorney is speaking is one designed to ensure that the draft legislation remains protected and is not released prematurely.
The other point I would make is that a number of other statutory and legislative officers — I’m thinking, for example, of the Information and Privacy Commissioner — when legislation is presented that touches upon their key enabling legislation, have initiated the practice of not just penning a review but ensuring that all members of the Legislative Assembly and, indeed, by extension, the public, are aware of their views. I think the Attorney has seen evidence of that in the past.
I don’t think the Chief Electoral Officer has chosen to pen a letter of that sort but apparently has provided commentary to the Attorney and to the ministry outlining his views and any concerns he might have about the legislation.
I understand that’s the case, but it would seem the Attorney’s view is that she is either unwilling or unable to provide that information to the committee.
Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by saying that once this bill has been tabled — so, now — of course it’s open, as the member suggests, for the statutory officer to make public comment on their views of what’s contained in the public bill.
But it’s also a very normal and important part of legislative drafting that there’s privilege and confidentially associated with the drafting of legislation. That’s part of the normal process.
M. de Jong: Well it’s obvious that the actual drafting, of course, takes place ultimately by legislative counsel.
It would be helpful for this committee and the House to know at the time it is considering legislation that is the product of work by a statutory officer — in this case, the Chief Electoral Officer — the degree to which, if at all, the statutory officer harbours any concerns or reservations about the contents of the bill. We don’t know that, and it sounds like we won’t know that, and we’ll proceed accordingly. But I think that is unfortunate.
Can I ask…? The Attorney has referred to the two reports and made the comment, confirmed that the contents of the bill are drawn largely from those two reports. Are there any substantive provisions in this bill that are not drawn from one of those two reports?
Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by saying that the process we undertake is very open and public. It starts with two public reports from the Chief Electoral Officer that are open to everybody. It finishes at this side, once it’s tabled, with an openness for the Chief Elector Officer and Elections B.C. to make public comment, if they wish, on the bill before them.
In answer specifically to the question that the member raised, all of the changes that were in this report that are substantive are based on recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer.
M. de Jong: It’s fair to say, then, that we — the committee, the House and, indeed, the government and the minister — attach great importance to the two reports and the contents of those reports.
Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, and that goes also into the selection of the priority items in the reports — in particular, through our discussions with the Chief Electoral Officer, what was important to implement before the next election.
M. de Jong: Can we just take a moment now, as we have on previous pieces of legislation. I’ll preface my remarks by again assuming that with respect to the RFL process, this is legislation…. Or the development of this legislation is something that this Attorney General inherited. I don’t expect it…. Well, I’ll ask the question whether she was the person that signed off on the RFL that ultimately gave birth to Bill 11.
Hon. N. Sharma: It was not me; it was my predecessor.
M. de Jong: The Attorney anticipated my next question, and that is: who did sign off on the RFL? It would be helpful to know that.
Hon. N. Sharma: It’s the now Minister of Indigenous Reconciliation and — I’m missing the other R — who was the Attorney General at that time, who signed off on the RFL.
M. de Jong: So the RFL was signed off during that period of time when the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the member for Oak Bay, occupied the role of Attorney General. Is that correct?
Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.
M. de Jong: Let’s start with the May 2020 report Digital Communications Disinformation and Democracy, which contains a number of recommendations, six specifically.
We’ll deal with a number of those as they appear in the context of the bill and have influenced some of the provisions of the bill. There is one, however — well, two, actually, but one that doesn’t fall into that category — and that is the second recommendation, recommendation 2, headlined: “Discourage foreign and out-of-province interference.”
The first question I’ll ask the Attorney is to confirm…. My reading of the provisions of Bill 11 leads me to the conclusion that the bill at no point and nowhere seeks to address recommendation 2, discouraging foreign and out-of-province interference.
Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question. It is unusual to comment on things that are not included in a bill. The member’s question is about something that wasn’t included; it’s not about the content of the bill. That being said, I think it’s fair for me to comment on the question, for the record.
There are a few elements to this, and one is that the perspective that needs to always be held is that the changes we made in 2017 and also the disinformation amendments in this bill do strengthen the protections of our electoral system — in 2017, when it became big money in politics, and this one, disinformation. That includes foreign actors that would be stepping in, potentially in a way that leads to disinformation in election in the prescribed forms.
Another thing I want to add is the prioritization that was done on what was included in this particular piece of legislation was done with the Chief Electoral Officer — and particularly, as I mentioned, what could be put into this legislation for it to be ready for the next election and operational.
What I mentioned before…. We’re constantly evolving and responding to changes. At that time, Elections B.C. had advised there had been no significant documented foreign interference in B.C.’s provincial elections, but they have the authority to investigate and enforce Elections Act transgressions in the areas that are currently being highlighted in the federal context.
With that advice and that prioritization, we focused on the changes that are before us, including disinformation, which was seen as a big priority, and the changes to vote in ballots and all those other processes.
But it’s always an evolving process, changing our elections. I think we’ve shown that over the years — that we’re always open and willing to make the changes that are necessary to strengthen our democracy.
M. de Jong: In page 12 of the report that we’ve already, with the Attorney’s assistance, established are one of the two guiding documents for the creation of Bill 11, the Chief Electoral Officer says this: “The Election Act does not currently prohibit foreign entities from registering as third-party advertisers, and the sources of funding used to sponsor election advertising are not fully transparent under current legislation. This increases the risk of foreign and out-of-province third parties influencing B.C. elections.”
Does the Attorney agree with that?
Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by just reiterating what I said previously, which is that the Chief Electoral Officer advised us at the time that there has been no significant documented foreign interference in the provincial elections, and that’s what we used to guide us in the particular recommendations. We moved forward in this expedited way to get ready for the next election.
That being said, to the member’s point, we take every recommendation that the Chief Electoral Officer has given us, including the one identified in recommendation 2. And we’re always looking at ways to improve the elections, like we did with third-party advertising, which is subject to the requirement to disclose who sponsored the advertising, to adhere to strict expense limits and to file disclosure statements after an election. We’ll continue to look at ways to strengthen our elections.
M. de Jong: The Chief Electoral Officer also advises as follows in the same report at the same page:
“Third-party advertisers that sponsor election advertising with the total value of more than $500 are required to file a disclosure report with Elections B.C. but are only required to open a separate sponsorship account if they receive more than $10,000 in contributions. To register with Elections B.C., they must only provide a British Columbia mailing address, which can be a PO box. These requirements may allow foreign and out-of-province entities to indirectly or anonymously fund third-party advertising.”
Does the minister agree with that statement from the Chief Electoral Officer?
Hon. N. Sharma: My response is the same as my previous one, which is that we take all of the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer seriously. The legislation we’re talking about today that’s before us is what we prioritized with advice from the Chief Electoral Officer of what to act on right now. But we’re always looking at recommendations that he provided us and thinking about how to improve the election.
M. de Jong: With the greatest respect, I haven’t asked yet about the recommendations.
I have asked the Attorney whether she agrees with the synopsis of the risk that the Chief Electoral Officer has laid out in the report that she has acknowledged represents the foundational basis for the legislation before us.
I haven’t asked her about the recommendations. Happy to hear that she takes recommendations seriously. I’ve asked her whether she accepts as accurate the risk laid out by the Chief Electoral Officer.
Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll say that, again, we’re talking about, unusually, things that are not within provisions or clauses of this legislation, so I believe that my opinion of whether or not something that’s in a report that’s not before this Legislature in this way is not really relevant to the clauses that we’re talking about.
I will say, as I mentioned earlier, that the Chief Electoral Officer informed us that there was no significant foreign interference in B.C.’s election so far, but we are always looking at the advice and the recommendations and the commentary in the reports of the Chief Electoral Officer and considering if we need to make more changes.
M. de Jong: I am somewhat surprised and somewhat disappointed by the response from the Attorney General. I would have thought that, engaged in a process that is designed to protect the integrity of our electoral system, dealing with legislative amendments the Attorney has already very fairly and openly acknowledged are based exclusively — that’s why I asked her the question — on recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, that it is entirely appropriate as part of this exercise for the Attorney to offer her views on whether or not the risk identified by the Chief Electoral Officer to foreign interference in British Columbia elections is accurate or not.
I can’t think of another forum that it would be as important and as appropriate for the Attorney General to render that opinion. She is the Attorney General in the government. She and the government get to establish priorities. They have decided, as is evidenced by the contents of Bill 11, not to proceed with the recommendations that flow from what the Chief Electoral Officer has said.
What this committee is entitled to know, in my respectful opinion, as part of this broader conversation, is whether or not the Attorney General and the government accept as accurate the risk laid out in the report that forms the foundation for the legislation before this committee.
I’ll read one additional passage from page 12 of the report, where the Chief Electoral Officer says: “Overall, 77 percent of spending by third parties was from the sponsor’s own asset. This creates an opportunity for foreign and other improper funding.”
The Chief Electoral Officer, throughout those provisions, and there are a few more that I haven’t read, paints a worrisome picture about the risk potential for foreign interference in our elections. It is a topical issue in this country. This Legislative Assembly has recently experienced something akin to foreign influence and foreign interference.
Again, I’m going to ask the Attorney General. I’m not sure what other form she would deem more appropriate than this to articulate whether she accepts as accurate the risk identified by the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to foreign and out-of-province interference.
Hon. N. Sharma: Again, the specific context of foreign interference and provisions related to that are not in this bill, and they’re not what’s being debated or what’s properly before the House. I believe we’re on clause 1.
What I will say is what I said earlier. The Chief Electoral Officer articulated that, in his view — he’s best placed to oversee the elections; we give him that authority — there was no significant foreign interference in the election. So what we focused on for this bill was a prioritization of the provisions. We worked with him to make the changes that you see before you.
The Chair: Before recognizing the member, I’ve given a fair bit of latitude on clause 1, which is quite normal within debate of a bill. I would remind members that we’re debating the bill in front of us.
M. de Jong: Helpful.
I was grateful to the Attorney for establishing, early in these discussions, the central role played by the two reports that she read into the record as forming the foundation for what is before us in Bill 11.
I was grateful to hear her comment that, to her mind at least, there are other provisions in this bill that we’ll come to and that she believes addresses, in some kind of a meaningful way, the question of foreign influence, although that’s something we’re going to explore, because I’m not sure I agree entirely with her. Of course, the guidance from the Chair is always very, very useful and important.
Can I ask the Attorney, with those thoughts in mind, how she defines “foreign interference” in the context of the Election Act?
Hon. N. Sharma: There is no definition of “foreign interference” before us in this whole section, clause 1.
I would say that it’s unusual to ask me to give a definition of something that’s not defined or not before the discussion in the bill. What I will say is that we take the guidance from the Chief Electoral Officer, and like the report, it shows up in actions. Then you legislate based on a response to that. For example, what is before…. The bill right now is for disinformation. “Actors for disinformation” are defined as people or organizations that spread disinformation.
In that context, whether it’s a foreign actor or a local actor, if they are spreading disinformation, it’s defined broadly enough, as people and organizations, to cover that. I guess I’ll leave it there and hope that we can get to the definitions in the clause.
M. de Jong: Well, to put this in context, a key feature of a report that the legislation is based on….
The minister, in earlier comments, explained that, in her view, the question of foreign influence is dealt with somewhat in the provisions of the bill. All I have done is ask her to define for the committee what, in her view, constitutes foreign influence of the sort that we should be worried about and that the Chief Electoral Officer is obviously worried about.
It’s not really a trick question. What, to her mind, would constitute foreign influence in a B.C. election?
Hon. N. Sharma: I’m happy to repeat my example of before.
An example of this bill is…. If it’s a person or organization that is spreading disinformation in the particular categories that are defined here, whether that’s a foreign actor or a local actor…. If it was a foreign actor, it would be a foreign body trying to spread disinformation in our elections. This bill will provide the Chief Electoral Officer with better tools to enforce and prevent that interference with our electoral process.
M. de Jong: Well, that’s interesting. What that answer tells me and, I think, the committee is that as long as a foreign actor isn’t spreading disinformation, their attempt to influence the outcome of an election in B.C. is fine with the minister. Have I understood that correctly?
She has focused, in her response, entirely on misinformation, which puzzles me. The answer suggests that unless a foreign actor is disseminating misinformation, the minister is just fine with their participation and attempts at influencing the outcome of an election.
Hon. N. Sharma: Of course, nothing I said will have made anybody come to that conclusion, except for the member.
I’ve never said that. What I’ve said is…. We worked with the Chief Electoral Officer to prioritize what should be contained in this bill and what we see before the House so that it can be in place prior to the next election. What was identified by the Chief Electoral Officer was disinformation as something that was an important thing to cover, along with the other changes you see in the bill. We are always thinking about how to strengthen our elections in B.C.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the chair.
The committee met at 11:02 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.
On Vote 38: ministry operations, $21,489,000 (continued).
G. Kyllo: At the conclusion of my questions yesterday…. I had asked a number of questions of the minister, including, as the minister was explaining the triage work that was undertaken to determine claims that are brought forward to the employment standards branch, the criteria, and if there was any decision-making matrix that was utilized in order to better identify those claims that might be expedited.
One of the questions I asked yesterday was: in the case of hardships…? An example is where, maybe, a single parent has been wrongfully terminated from employment and is looking for severance pay. In those instances where there’s financial hardship borne by the worker, is there any work undertaken by the employment standards branch to actually advance those claims?
I’m just hoping the minister might be able to provide a bit more context and detail.
Hon. H. Bains: As I mentioned yesterday, before closing, the employment standards branch is an independent statutory decision–making authority. They develop their own criteria to make the system as efficient as they can and provide the service that they are set up for, for those who seek their assistance.
My staff reached out to the employment standards branch and put those questions to them, as the member has asked. He asked that again today.
The triage process. This is what we were given. The employment standards branch first reviews the complaint to ensure it falls under the Employment Standards Act. If not, they recommend the person to another agency or the appropriate agency. Then the complaints are triaged based on the host of factors related to the complexity and the urgency of the situation — I think we canvassed that yesterday a bit — and the vulnerability of the complainant. I think we talked about that yesterday.
Urgency may include the financial situation of the employer. For example, the employer is closing or closed. How do we recover the wages owed to the employees? I think those come into play.
The vulnerability of the complainant would include, for example, when they’re only paid cash, minimum wage, no pay statements or they rely on the employer for housing. Those are the kinds of vulnerability of the employee. Then the higher precarity or the vulnerability prioritizes the complainant and is reviewed against other vulnerable complaints. I’m also advised that the majority of the complainants state that they are in financial hardship when they submit.
That’s the nature of the complaints. That’s how the complaints, once they come through their door, are triaged.
G. Kyllo: Just as a follow-up to that, it sounds like there are certain criteria that are assessed in determining the complexity of the claim. From what I’m hearing from the minister, largely, it would be the staff who would determine the order in which these claims are actually addressed. I see the minister shaking his head.
Can minister just confirm that the criteria and the triaging of those claims provides, basically, the opportunity for staff to determine the order in which these claims are actually advanced within the employment standards branch?
Hon. H. Bains: The answer is yes.
G. Kyllo: Okay. So there doesn’t appear…. Or certainly, the minister has not shared any decision-making matrix that provides finality to the determination on where claims actually go. The concern we have, or I certainly have, and I’m sure many British Columbians and workers across the province would share, is that the employment standards branch is failing to anywhere closely meet their mandate, which, as we set out yesterday, is having 85 percent of claims actually remedied or coming to final conclusion within six months.
The minister indicated that last year’s performance level was 20 percent. I received a significant number of letters from claimants expressing that very same concern. They’re indicating that even though they have significant financial hardship — a single parent, making application to the branch, being told that it would be 12 months before there’s any action on her claim….
This is extremely concerning. The minister has indicated that staff have the ability to take the vulnerability of different claimants into consideration in determining when those claims might be actually advanced and these workers might see some remedy or some resolution. But it appears to be quite arbitrary.
I appreciate that the employment standards branch is independent. However, as the Minister of Labour, who has responsibility for the employment standards branch, when you have an organization that is failing to the level of the employment standards branch, only achieving 20 percent of a target which is set at 85 percent, I’m assuming that the minister must have considerable concerns and, I would hope, would have a better understanding of what has been undertaken within that organization to address that huge backlog.
The number that the minister provided yesterday was 4,534 individuals. Just think about that: 4,500 individuals that have sought out the support of the employment standards branch to have their concerns remedied, to try and find resolution, and there are 4,500 sitting there that haven’t even had their claims addressed yet at this point.
The minister indicated yesterday that there’s a wide, varying degree of claims that come forward. Some would be, I guess, minor in nature, some more complicated or more complex. Is the employment standards branch tracking those that are deemed to be relatively minor in nature or fairly simplistic to find resolution to, and those that are more complex?
Hon. H. Bains: Look, I think we canvassed this issue at great length yesterday. I think there’s a clear expectation from me, from my office, that the complaints that come to the employment standards branch must be dealt with in a timely fashion. We are moving in that direction.
I laid that out yesterday — how we’re doing it and what some of the reasons are for the long lineup of complaints there. We knew when we made those changes. I’m so proud of the work that we’ve done to improve protection for the workers in this province, especially those who are non-union and who depend on the employment standards branch for help when they need it.
When you look at extending the recovery period from six months to 12 months, that is a huge support for those people, and it’s a disincentive to employers. There are a few bad employers out there, we know, and they’re taking economic advantage over good employers. We want to stop that. This will go a long way to stop that. They cannot see that I was able to pay less wages than my competitors under the law, therefore I could out-compete them. We need to take that disincentive…. It wasn’t happening under the previous government’s watch. We’re doing it. So we’re proud of that.
We got rid of the self-help kit because that was discouraging people to file complaints. The numbers are clear indicators. From 11,000 down to 4,700 clearly shows that the workers were not filing complaints because they gave up on the system. We’re proud that we have done that.
We also changed the model of investigation, every complaint, so that if a dollar is owed to a worker under the law, that dollar is recovered and paid to the dollar, not 75 cents, not 50 cents as was the case before that. We’re proud that we’ve done that.
We added more resources. We knew that this will add more work to the employment standards branch, so right off the bat, we were giving them $14 million over three years, which means we added resources to provide the services that those workers need.
Everything was moving quite fine until COVID hit us. That wasn’t planned by this government; that wasn’t planned by anybody else. It just came. The whole world was impacted by COVID and the pandemic. That’s when the lineups started to grow larger. You know why? There were additional demands of the employment standards branch, because now the employer was in a situation where they had to close the operation. Under the Employment Standards Act, they have to pay severance if they fail to give them notice. Many of those employers were in that situation.
We have provisions in the Employment Standards Act for, if the employer and the workers together come to the employment standards branch and ask for the variance on those 13 weeks, a temporary layoff. And we’ve done that. That required additional resources — we went through it yesterday over and over again, but the member keeps on asking the same question — and that added to the workload. That wasn’t anticipated work. As a result, the lineups started to grow longer.
Again, we didn’t stop. We knew that the employment standards branch needed resources and that those workers needed to have their applications heard in a timely fashion. So we went through the contingencies. We provided contingencies for the first year and for the second year, to add more resources. We didn’t stop there either. Then we knew that there could be some permanency to the demand — more so than we anticipated, even though COVID has kind of been left behind.
Now we are giving $12 million more, to add more resources to the employment standards branch so that they can hire more resources. It’s because our goal, our government’s goal and my colleagues’ goal, is to make sure, for those workers who rely on employment standards — they are some of the lowest-paid workers, and they are most vulnerable in our society — that their complaints are heard in a timely fashion and investigated in a timely fashion and that justice is delivered to them. That’s what our goal is, and we’re going to get there in the way, in the direction we’re going.
I think the member continues to ask for those smaller details on the employment standards branch as an independent body that makes their own decisions and on how they are run. I don’t run that operation; no minister does. It is their responsibility. The director understands their responsibility. The director understands how to find efficiencies.
We ask, through my staff, all the time: “Is there more to be done to find some more efficiencies?” They continue to transform, and I’m so proud of the work that they are doing to help all those vulnerable workers that come through their doors. Of course, more work needs to be done. Of course, we need to get rid of the lineup of the complaints.
You know, there two things. One, that we are proud to say: “We are standing on the side of the workers.” We respect the work that they do, and we make sure that their complaints are heard in a timely fashion. The second thing is we are providing resources to the bodies that provide them those services, so that those services are provided to them in a timely fashion.
G. Kyllo: Well, hey, the stark reality — and it’s not my numbers; it’s numbers that are reported directly by the employment standards branch — is that workers are not getting action, and they’re not getting service in a timely fashion. They’re not. The target for service delivery is to have 85 percent of claims remedied within six months. The performance in this last fiscal is 20 percent — less than a quarter of attaining their target. That’s an absolute failing grade.
The minister talks about disincentives. I’ll tell you that disincentive is when an individual worker calls the employment standards branch and they’re told it’ll be 12 months before somebody is actively working on their file. That is a disincentive to even bother contacting the employment standards branch. It’s an absolute failing by this minister with respect to the workers that are not getting action on their claims.
Now the minister indicated that I’m asking trivial details. These questions are extremely important. The minister referenced yesterday a backlog of 4,584 claims. I think it’s a fair question to ask: how many of those claims are deemed to be minor in nature, or relatively simple to find conclusion to, and how many are complex?
With 80 percent of claims taking longer than six months, I’ll add to my question about the complexity and the numbers. It’s to also have a look at the 80 percent of claims that are not being addressed within six months.
How is the employment standards branch tracking those 80 percent of claims to determine in what timelines those clients or those workers may find resolution? Is it nine months? Is it 12 months? Is it 18 months? Is it 24 months? It’s incredibly important.
If a worker feels that they’ve been wronged by their employer and they’re making contact with the employment standards branch, they want to have certainty on (1) when their file is going to be actively looked at, and (2) when they might see some actual resolution to their claim. I hope the minister can provide a bit more detail, because this is incredibly important to workers who are currently not getting the service that they deserve.
Hon. H. Bains: I think what I can give the member is: I’m advised that it takes about 139 days to assign a complaint to an officer. Then, as we have canvassed before, it depends on the complexity of the complaint.
I was just reminded. It could be one person phoning about his or her issue — not being paid — and then when the investigation starts, it could be that there are a whole lot of other people in that operation that are in a similar situation. Then it becomes a very complex and very long process in determining the time it will take. That’s why it’s very difficult to put exact timelines as the member may want to know.
That’s the nature of complaints that come your way. On the surface, it may look very simple: file a complaint about lost wages, overtime. Then, through investigation, the officer could find that there are 20 other employees in a similar situation.
That one complaint, which originally was thought to be simple, now is very complex. Then with the investigation and working with the employer to get the information about all of the other employees, it will take a long time. I think it’s a quite complex situation out there. It’s not easy to give some of the information that the member is asking for, on the finer details.
G. Kyllo: Certainly, the more I listen to the responses from the minister, it appears quite arbitrary with respect to the timing and the certainty that I think workers are deserving. The minister has indicated that that they’ve even lowered their targets for service delivery.
We’ve seen a continual deterioration of the service delivery of this organization, which was only 73 percent in ’19-20, 47 percent in ’20-21 and 57 percent in ’21-22, further declining to 20 percent in this last fiscal. The minister seems to have accepted continued poor delivery by this organization by reducing the expectation level, not at 85 percent.
You would think that the funding would be provided, that work would be undertaken in order to get back on track to continue to meet the service objectives of this organization at the 85 percent level. But no, the minister has reduced the expectation, his expectation, of this organization to only 50 percent for next fiscal, ’23-24, and then further — still not achieving the target the year after that. It’s taking a full three years to get anywhere close to meeting the service delivery.
The minister says that he’s on the side of workers. Workers are not being provided the service that is expected of this organization, which is under his watch. He indicates that he has concern for them, yet there’s a disincentive that we’re seeing, by workers that are continually denied and by delayed justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.
I have correspondence from individuals that have contacted the employment standards branch, which has indicated that it will be upwards of a year — not 139 days, as the minister has referenced, but upwards of a year — before anybody is actively working on their files.
The minister’s own expectation of this organization: “We’ll give you three years to get back on track.” Well, for three years, we’ve seen successive erosion of the service delivery at the employment standards branch. The minister’s expectation: “Take your time. We’ll give you three more years to get there. Here’s an extra $12 million or $14 million. Don’t worry about meeting your service targets. It’s not really a big deal. We’ll get there three years down the road.” It’s offensive to workers.
The minister talks about some of the most vulnerable and the lowest-paid workers in the province that seek to find resolution to challenges they may have with their employers, to seek out the advice and the support of the employment standards branch, and their delayed access to service.
I appreciate that the employment standards branch may have some challenge upon themselves, but they’ve been failing, consecutively, for the last four years. It has gotten progressively worse under this minister’s watch, despite throwing more money at it. In the current budget, with the significant amount of additional spend, he seems to be giving them a pass and saying: “Look, we’re going to give you three years to actually get back to the service level requirements that you’ve actually been obligated to meet for the last four years.”
To the minister: I asked some very specific questions. We know that if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. Data drives decisions. I asked a few specific questions about a decision-making matrix when a call comes in, and I appreciate….
The Chair: Through the Chair, please.
G. Kyllo: Yes, through you, hon. Chair.
Absolutely, these are complicated files. I appreciate it’s not easy, but I would assume — I can only hope — that within the organization, they have identified, over the last number of years, a way of actually tracking the complexity of files and providing some level of certainty to workers, when they call into the office, to actually have some idea of when their claim is going to actually be reviewed by an officer and when they might find some resolution.
The minister referenced a whole series of different considerations that they undertake in determining the triage, including what he determined is the complexity of the claim, the time sensitivity. He expressed concerns over employers that may be becoming insolvent.
I asked a question about hardship. The minister referenced a few other indications around vulnerability. But where you have a single parent….
This is just one of the examples that I have in front of me. A single parent has been denied pay. She was terminated and denied severance pay. She reached out to the employment standards branch. She needs money to make rent and to put food on the table for her children. She was told it would be 12 months before an adjudicator is actually working on the file.
There was a second call from a constituency office to the employment standards branch just to make a general inquiry about timing. They were told: “Our backlog right now is approximately 12 months before we would be actively working on the file.” The minister is sharing very different information.
Now, I don’t just have a single example. I’m waiting for a consent letter, where I can hopefully bring this constituent’s name directly to the minister to find out. I have information that is very different from the spin that the minister is sharing with us today.
Can the minister provide any further details with respect to the 80 percent of claims that are currently not being achieved within the six-month requirement, which is set out in the performance standards — those 80 percent that are not currently meeting that target? What is the timeline expectation for those 80 percent of the claims to actually find resolution, whether that’s six months, nine months, 12 months, 18 months, two years?
I think it’s important for British Columbians to have some kind of an idea, when they do contact the employment standards branch, one, when they’re going to actually hear from an adjudicator, somebody that can actually work on the file. Second to that is when they might find a resolution.
I’m not seeing any information provided in the service plan. The minister has yet to share with this House any information around what that timing might actually look like.
Hon. H. Bains: The question the member is asking…. Let me try one more time.
Yes, I think the member…. What’s concerning was that he’s trying to put his words in my mouth. None of that is true. I have said right at the outset that I’m really concerned. My colleagues and my government are concerned that there is that that lineup of claimants that is that long, that it takes that long.
It is concerning to us. That’s why we’re adding resources, first through contingency, now with permanency — permanent funding available to us — so that we can provide them resources and then they could deal with those claims that are complaints and that are in the lineup. That’s our goal, and we’re going to get there.
You can’t just do it overnight. We just got the funding. Now they’re in the process of hiring support staff. They will be coming in, and they will be dealing with those complaints as we go forward.
The member’s specific question about 80 percent that are not meeting the target of 180 days…. Again, they’re quite finer details that the member wants to get to. But you can’t, because it could be 182 days for some of them, it could be 200 days for some others, and there are some cases that are lingering on for two years plus because of the complexity.
An employer had declared bankruptcy. Now they’re in collection and went through the whole process of making a determination of how much money they owe to each individual. There are a number of employees there, dozens of employees involved in some of those cases. They’re trying to locate the employer. How do we collect that money? That takes a long time because they have declared bankruptcy. What are the other tools available to the employment standards branch officers to collect money and go after the owners?
Those types of claims take much longer, so you can’t average it. The average could be changed in one year. If one of those claims is resolved, the average will come way down. But if there’s another claim that will take just a dollar, the average will go much higher. So there’s no average. It could be 182 days. It could be, you know…. Depending on the complexity, it could take longer.
G. Kyllo: Look, I was not seeking any average; I was asking for some certainty. I think that workers that are sitting waiting in queue for their claims to be heard will also be looking for some indication on how long it might take to have these claims find final resolution.
I appreciate that things change and that a claim may come in that on the surface level may look relatively minor or relatively simple, and that could change as the investigation undertakes. But I would certainly still hope that the organization has some form of evaluating what the potential time claim is, putting an estimation on it.
The minister indicated in our conversations yesterday that a claim may come in where an employee potentially has not been paid for overtime hours, and that could be maybe an hour or two phone call. It might be remedied with the employer within a couple of days. So I’m assuming that the organization, because of the time that it’s been in existence, has tracked a statistical analysis on the types of claims and determined what the average hours might be for a claimant that might be calling in with concerns on not being paid overtime versus an employee that may be calling in having a claim about not being paid for severance.
I’m sure that this statistical analysis must be undertaken by the organization, and they must have — or I certainly would hope that they have — some form of rigour around the system. But what we’re hearing from the minister….
Maybe the employment standards branch is not sharing the information with the minister. Maybe the minister has not asked these detailed questions to actually find out why they are continuing to fail in the service delivery. But it appears to be quite arbitrary in the manner in which they actually assign claims.
Again, as I shared earlier, the information that I’m hearing from constituents is much different than the story that the minister is sharing with us.
With respect to the 80 percent of claims that are not being completed, or remedied, within the expected six-month time frame…. For those other 80 percent of claims, can the minister share how many are anticipated to be resolved within three months, six months, nine months, 12 months?
I would only hope that the employment standards branch has some form of evaluating those 4,538 claims that are sitting there. Obviously, they’re not all complex; they’re not all minor. There must be a mix in between. They must be undertaking some manner to try and identify or at least provide an estimation to the minister as far as how long it might take to get that backlog cleared and to get back on track.
I’m still extremely concerned that the minister is not expecting the employment standards branch to be back on track within six months or nine months or 12 months. It appears that he’s giving them upwards of three years in order to remedy the situation they’ve found themselves in.
Hon. H. Bains: I answered that question already, in my last answer. It was the same question. I thought I gave a pretty good, detailed answer, but the member doesn’t seem to accept that. Fair enough. But we also….
Interjection.
Hon. H. Bains: I want to say…. You know, the member sometimes…. I’m good with the member asking all these questions, because this is the process we go through. But the member also should look in the mirror and talk to at least some of the members of his caucus who were there when they made those changes.
The backlog was sitting there. The backlog was sitting there because workers would not have the opportunity to file complaints — knowing it’s going to go nowhere, knowing that they have to go and deal with those employers who have denied them their basic rights in the first place. So they refused to file complaints.
We inherited that system. We are trying to fix all the roadblocks that the previous government put in the pathway to justice for these workers. Slowly, we’re removing them. We have removed most of them. Of course we need to have more resources. But then COVID also didn’t help the situation.
First, all those complaints that were sitting out there start to come in now, knowing that their complaints will be heard. Second, COVID hit us unexpectedly. So there are additional demands from the employers and from the workers, so we have to dedicate a number of resources to deal with those. Those were time-sensitive situations. So we did that.
We’re so proud of the way we handled the situation during COVID, overall, and specifically in our ministry. Workers were able to stay connected with the employer. Employers were able to get extensions on their requirement to pay severances.
I think it was a win-win situation. That added to the lineup in the complaint system. And we’re fixing it.
It’s not acceptable to me that it takes that long for a complainant to come in and have that complaint investigated and dealt with — not acceptable to me at all. That’s why we’re adding resources. That’s why we’re saying that, over time, we are going to get to where complaints are dealt with in a timely fashion.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES
AND LOW CARBON INNOVATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:04 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.
On Vote 23: ministry operations, $118,408,000 (continued).
E. Ross: We finished off yesterday’s estimates talking about the Blueberry agreement. I was talking about the capacity, especially in light of the agreements that were signed that relate almost to co-management that actually leads to a decision being made by the minister — and government, for that matter.
In looking at the numbers, the $200 million figure jumped out. This will be two questions in one. Could the minister kind of describe whether or not the $200 million is the total sum of the moneys in these agreements, or is there more money to be accounted for? Since it’s a capacity-related agreement, does the minister anticipate that this will be almost like an infinite type of funding mechanism in terms of this co-management arrangement between the government and the Blueberry First Nation?
Hon. J. Osborne: The $200 million that the member is referring to is specific to a restoration fund for healing the land. This is an amount that will be committed to by June 2025. It will be co-managed together between the Blueberry River First Nation and government through the creation of a Blueberry River restoration society.
In addition, like above and beyond the $200 million, the agreement entails the receipt of $87.5 million to Blueberry River First Nation as a financial package over three years, with an opportunity for increased benefits based on PNG revenue sharing and provincial royalty revenues in the next fiscal years. The capacity funding that the member is asking about is embedded within that $87.5 million. It’s not infinite or unending funding.
It’s important to note that we have also committed to a three-year review of the implementation agreement, in which a number of the elements of the agreement could be considered. That would include capacity funding and revenue sharing.
E. Ross: I guess the three-year review will actually talk about whether or not to continue the relationship, because I don’t see the First Nation funding its own capacity in relation to the ongoing co-management of the resources, whether we’re talking about restoring the land or forestry or mining or LNG.
In terms of this three-year review and in relation to the work leading up to it, I did read the agreement itself. There’s a lot of redaction, a lot of blacked out areas. I was kind of curious about: when does the annual report come out in terms of the progress of this agreement going forward, and which ministry will present it? Will that be the Energy minister, or will that be the Indigenous minister or the LandWRS minister?
Hon. J. Osborne: There’s no annual report that’s required as a condition of the agreement, as the type that I think that the member is referring to. However, there is a commitment to an annual meeting between the Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation minister and the Chief of the Blueberry River First Nations. That’s detailed in article 7.15 of the agreement, which I know the member has seen and has in front of him, and that entails discussing the progress on planning and on PNG rules.
In addition, the next article, item 7.16, describes a three-year review that I previously spoke to, and this is a broader review to evaluate the progress of the oil and gas provisions, for example, like the effectiveness of restoration and the status of economic benefits, things like that, that are detailed through subsections (a) through (k).
E. Ross: I should have been more clear in my question. I was thinking more of a review in terms of the taxpayers’ dollars, in terms of money going out versus money coming in, in terms of revenues. But I’ll leave it at that.
Given this agreement is actually in an area where B.C. does have gas fields and resources and given the fact that we now have an approval for LNG Canada, a massive LNG export facility, as well as Cedar LNG, which has a smaller scale…. We also have the Nisg̱a’a Ksi LNG project in the works.
Is it the government’s expectation that all the natural gas will continue to flow from the Peace region for these export facilities, and if so, is it also the expectation that the gas that will flow from these export facilities will have competitive rates?
Hon. J. Osborne: First, I’ll note again, as I did yesterday, that we are at record high production of natural gas in the province and that we’re exporting about 80 percent of this already outside of the province. We have a framework that’s been developed with the Blueberry River First Nation and with other Treaty 8 Nations that respects treaty rights. It accounts for cumulative effects, and it creates more certainty and predictability for industry.
There are market decisions about agreements between producers and export facilities. That being said, we know that LNG Canada has joint venture partners that have holdings in the Peace River area and have those agreements in place.
We saw very soon after the environmental assessment certificate for Cedar was approved, that they signed a deal or an agreement with ARC Resources, another producer in the Peace River region. It is, I think, logical to assume, and certainly our expectation is, that we’re going to see continued agreements of this nature in place.
I do want to note, of course, they are commercial arrangements that are undertaken between private companies. What we’ve done is set that enabling environment and a market-competitive environment. I think we’ll be watching to see, for example, as Cedar progresses toward a FID, what arrangements that they make.
E. Ross: I’ll leave that subject. I’ll walk away from that subject now.
On to an international topic. We understand the Premier is going to do a trade mission to Japan. There are no details in it, but I’m assuming that the Premier will actually go there to advocate for natural gas and possibly ammonia being exported from B.C. shores.
My question to the minister: is the minister going to join the Premier on his trade mission to Japan, and is one of the purposes for this Japan visit to advocate for LNG exports coming from B.C., as well as ammonia exports coming from B.C.?
Hon. J. Osborne: Yes, the member is absolutely correct. A trade mission to Asia is being planned, including my participation in it. He asked specifically around the interests of Japan in particular, and their interest in our low-carbon-intensity energy products. That’s exactly correct.
Japan has been a long-standing partner. In fact, Mitsubishi Corp. is one of the joint partners in LNG Canada, of course. It’s important to build on those relationships and create new opportunities. Amongst some of the purposes of the mission would be to open new market opportunities and develop new relationships. We need to promote our B.C. business advantage and highlight our trade and diversification strategy, which of course lies under the purview of the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation.
Further, I think there’s a real opportunity to further B.C.’s reputation for climate leadership and sustainability and promote continued the trade and investment advantages and opportunities we have here in B.C., to promote our strong ESG credentials to Asian public and private sector partners and stakeholders, and advance some of those strategic trade and investment relationships to really strengthen B.C.’s economy in key sectors.
I think that if the member has further questions and wants more details, the trade mission is still being planned. Certainly, there might be an opportunity to take some questions to the Premier’s estimates as well.
T. Shypitka: Just to follow up on that, I heard the minister say low-carbon-intensity products, but I never heard anything about LNG. I never heard anything about ammonia. I never heard anything about what the member actually asked. I guess, back to the minister: will there be a focus on liquefied natural gas as a low-carbon-intensive product, as it’s made here in B.C., and ammonia?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you for the question. Just clarifying. Yes, again, we do know that Japan wants those B.C. low-carbon-intensity products. Those could include liquefied natural gas, ammonia and other natural gas liquids. I’m certain that that will be a topic of discussion.
T. Shypitka: It’s just important to find out where government is going and what direction they’re heading. Yesterday we talked about the excitement around hydrogen, for example. The minister talked about being excited — I think that was the word she used — on the industry and on all the intake that applicants or proponents are bringing forward.
The news release that came out indicated, I think, 50 hydrogen projects that this ministry is excited about. I guess the question to the minister is: what type of hydrogen projects are we talking about? Do they include fossil fuels?
Hon. J. Osborne: I think the simplest way to answer this is to say that the focus of our hydrogen strategy is low-carbon-intensity hydrogen, whether from electrolysis or derived from natural gas in the 50 or so projects that we are aware of or that we know are underway. There are both within that.
Interjection.
The Chair: Could you repeat, please?
Hon. J. Osborne: Within the 50 projects that we are aware of that are underway or are being proposed, there are both types within that.
Madam Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.