Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, October 26, 2023
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 348
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
B.C. ferries commissioner, annual report, fiscal year ending March 31, 2023 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2023
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: L. Doerkson.
Introductions by Members
Hon. N. Sharma: I’d like to extend a welcome to the board of directors of the British Columbia Notaries Association.
In attendance today are Daniel Boisvert, board president and city of Delta councillor; Morrie Baillie, board vice-president; Jackie Tait, board secretary and treasurer; Brendan Rothwell, director; Cam Sherk, director; Kate Roome, director; and Chad Rintoul, chief executive officer and town of Sidney councillor.
It’s the role of B.C. Notaries Association to advocate, educate, promote and support notaries throughout British Columbia and work collaboratively with my ministry to increase access to justice and legal services. I thank them for their work.
N. Simons: I think we’re on introductions right now.
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
N. Simons: Yeah, it’s so early in the roster. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It’s a distinct pleasure to introduce and welcome to the House Judy and Jeannine Bousquet, who join us from the beautiful harbour city of Nanaimo.
Would the House please join me in making them welcome.
S. Furstenau: I just want to extend a special welcome to Kate Roome, who is here from Duncan with the B.C. Notaries Association. Kate is a constituent and a hard-working notary up in Duncan.
Would the House please make Kate feel most welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
DESERT HILLS FARM MARKET
J. Tegart: As we celebrated Agriculture Day this week, it seems appropriate for me to talk about an incredible business in my riding that grows food and feeds the world.
Desert Hills farm in Ashcroft is known across the province for the quality of their produce. They are living proof that you can grow just about any crop in Ashcroft — with a seed, add some water, some natural sun, a farmer and voila. You have melons, peppers, onions, potatoes, cauliflower, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, tomatoes, carrots, apples and pears. The list goes on and on.
This year Desert Hills added over 80 ice cream flavours to their menu. On a hot summer day, there is nothing better. I have to admit the ice cream selection is one of the main reasons my grandchildren like to go to the farm.
This past summer Desert Hills found itself with a challenge. They had produce that did not fit the size requirements for their main retailer, so they put a message out on Facebook that they would be giving away 50,000 pounds of cantaloupe to whoever came to the farm to pick it up. They encouraged people to share the produce with friends, neighbours and their local food banks, and the cantaloupe was gone in a weekend.
Next came 65,000 pounds of onions. Same scenario — lineups of cars, people taking food home and sharing it in neighborhoods and with their food banks. This is a farm that lost crops to flooding, to smoke damage and wildfire, but their generosity continues.
I’d like to say thank you to the Desert Hills farm, to the Porter family and their staff. We appreciate your generosity and the work that you do to feed us all.
COMMUNITYVOTES CHILLIWACK
COMMUNITY RECOGNITION
AWARDS
K. Paddon: Well, it’s that time again where I rise to share all about the incredible people in Chilliwack-Kent.
Recently, many of my favourite service providers, businesses and organizations in Chilliwack made the award list for CommunityVotes Chilliwack. CommunityVotes Chilliwack is an online award where the community nominates and votes for the best in Chilliwack in dozens of categories.
We both know, hon. Speaker, that I only have two minutes and that the ASL interpreter only has two hands, so I will share only some highlights from the list. Buckle up. There are a lot of awesome organizations in Chilliwack, my friends.
Let’s start with a little entertainment. The platinum prize for theatre goes to Chilliwack Cultural Centre, followed by Secondary Characters and the Chilliwack School of Performing Arts, who earned a silver place in addition to their gold standing in the performing arts category.
It’s no surprise to me that the top prize in the college and university category went to UFV, with a gold place going to ElderCollege.
Chilliwack’s favourite non-profits, undoubtedly a tight race in Chilliwack, were Chilliwack Hospice Society, Wilma’s Transition Society, Tydel Foods and Chilliwack Pride Society.
You may recognize some names in the outstanding community organization category, where it was Chilliwack Hospice with platinum, Chilliwack Community Services with gold, Chilliwack Pride with silver and the fantastic Stó:lō Youth Services to round out the group.
The top votes for community groups were Chilliwack Community Services, Chilliwack Jets Junior A hockey and the Chilliwack Community Arts Council.
For restaurants, there are many categories. Overall, Farmhouse Brewing took the platinum prize, followed by a gold for Shandhar Hut and a silver for the Little Beetle bistro.
In the category of farmers markets, first place went to Yarrow Farm Market followed by Hofstede’s Country Barn and the Downtown Chilliwack Community Market.
Finally, to finish off with some ice cream, the platinum prize holder is Banter Ice Cream, with a gold for Kent’s Ice Cream and Mighty Moose Ice Cream with silver.
There it is. The smallest of highlight reels from the CommunityVotes Chilliwack awards.
Thank you for your attention.
Please join me in congratulating those I listed and those I couldn’t for their excellence.
WEST COAST TRAIL
T. Stone: Imagine, with me, the iconic scenes of the west coast. The morning mist blanketing rugged coastlines, the monstrously huge trees, the creeks, canyons, sandy beaches, the sometimes eerie and always stunning beauty of our temperate rainforest.
This summer I had the privilege of spending seven days traversing this incredible terrain, tackling the essential B.C. experience of the West Coast Trail from Gordon River to Pachena Bay. The last week of July my wife, Chantelle, and I packed up everything we would need on our backs and headed into the wilderness, with our friends Marie-Helene and Justin, for one of the most physically and, sometimes, mentally challenging experiences of our lives but also one of the most rewarding and, certainly, amazing for the soul.
As we trekked along the 75 kilometres of trail with 40 pounds of gear on our back, we were tested by over 100 ladders, fast-flowing waters, deep mud and even, one day, over 55 millimetres of rain in four hours. We were also treated to meaningful connections with so many people from around the world that we met along the trail, stunning views and diverse wildlife — orcas, seals, sea lions, sea wolves, bald eagles and bears.
The West Coast Trail is, indeed, one of our province’s most iconic back-country trails. It’s also a living piece of B.C. heritage, as it follows routes used by First Nations since time immemorial.
Huu-ay-aht, Ditidaht and Pachena villages and camps were established in the region long before European ships ever sailed through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. As the number of ships on our coast increased, so did the number of shipwrecks, giving this place the infamous title of Graveyard of the Pacific. Over the last century, it was given other names, including the West Coast Telegraph Line and the west coast lifesaving trail.
Today the trail welcomes and challenges thousands of adventure seekers every year, testing their mettle and giving them an experience like no other. It’s indeed a B.C. treasure and one that I am so immensely thankful to have been able to witness firsthand.
FOSTER CAREGIVERS FOR
CHILDREN AND
YOUTH
K Greene: October is Foster Family Month. Let’s all take this time to recognize and thank foster parents, who provide safe and loving homes to children and youth who need a supportive place to live while they’re temporarily unable to live with their own families.
Fostering a child or youth can be an incredibly rewarding life experience. It’s a unique opportunity to have an impact on the life of a child or youth in need of support, an impact that can last a lifetime.
Foster caregivers are there for children and youth in difficult circumstances, providing a home that is inclusive and understanding. A nurturing environment is so important for the developmental needs of young people, and the effort and patience that caregivers put into creating that space is deeply and gratefully appreciated.
We also want to recognize the love and dedication of extended families and kinships that have opened their doors to support the needs of their loved ones to ensure that the children they care for continue to be connected to family, community and culture.
While the individual circumstances of foster caregivers, extended families and kinships may vary, they all share a common goal of making a positive difference in the life of a young British Columbian in need. I offer this quote from Tonia Christle. “You might be temporary in their lives. They might be temporary in yours. But there is nothing temporary about the love or the lesson.”
On this 33rd Foster Family Month, I want to express my deep appreciation and gratitude for all those who have answered the call to step forward and help a child or youth who needs a safe and supportive home.
If you are interested in caregiving, please reach out to the B.C. Foster Parents Association at bcfosterparents.ca.
SAANICH PENINSULA HOSPITAL
FUNDRAISING EVENT
A. Olsen: Saanich Peninsula residents have long fought to preserve our community hospital. For many of us, it was where our family members were born, and it is where we’ve said our last goodbyes.
The hospital supports more than 30,000 households on the Saanich Peninsula and the southern Gulf Islands. Over the past 35 years, the Saanich Peninsula Hospital and Health Care Foundation has organized more than 30 fundraising drives, collecting nearly 88,000 donations and raising more than $75 million to upgrade and modernize our hospital. The work includes 12 major renovation and construction projects and hundreds of pieces of invaluable life-saving equipment.
This summer, when the emergency room was forced to close in the evenings, I heard from the residents on the Saanich Peninsula renewed vocalization about the positive feeling we have for our hospital. That is why when the Saanich Peninsula Hospital and Health Care Foundation hosted its annual gala fundraiser this past weekend, for the first time, at the Mary Winspear Centre, the community showed up to return the support the hospital provides for us.
This year the generous people of the Saanich Peninsula donated a record $619,000 for the latest fundraising campaign. Chaired by the one and only Dr. Ambrose Marsh, the fundraising goal is $15 million to renovate the 50-year-old acute care unit. If you’re interested in supporting the campaign, visit sphf.ca.
Finally, I must raise my hands in gratitude to the retired CEO of the foundation, Karen Morgan. Karen is retiring again, this time from her role as the interim executive director of the Shoreline Medical clinic.
Thank you, Karen, for your powerful service in health care on the Saanich Peninsula.
Welcome, Heather Edward, the new executive director of the Shoreline Medical clinic.
HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.
LHATS’AS?IN MEMORIAL DAY
J. Phillip: Today I’d like to acknowledge in the House that October 26 is Lhats’as?in Memorial Day. It marks 159 years since five Tsilhqot’in Chiefs were wrongfully imprisoned, tried and executed in 1864 after accepting an invitation to discuss a peaceful resolution to the Chilcotin uprising. Lhats’as?in, the head war Chief, was hung in 1865.
Today is a day of remembrance for the Tsilhqot’in National Government and for all British Columbians. It’s an opportunity for us to reflect on and redress government’s tumultuous relationship with the Tsilhqot’in Nation during the Chilcotin uprising and the unjust actions that government took, which resulted in the unwarranted deaths of six Tsilhqot’in leaders.
Today I acknowledge the difficult history of the mistreatment and misrepresentation inflicted on the Tsilhqot’in Nation. I also recognize the work that we are doing to right the wrongs of the past. In 2014, British Columbia exonerated the six Chiefs and began the process of healing with the Tsilhqot’in Nation.
Today the Tsilhqot’in National Government and the Williams Lake mayor and council are commemorating the 159th annual Lhats’as?in Memorial Day by hosting a ceremony at the site of the hangings of the five Chiefs in what is known as downtown Quesnel.Today the Tsilhqot’in National Government and the Williams Lake mayor and council are commemorating the 159th annual Lhats’as?in Memorial Day by hosting a ceremony at the site of the hangings of the five Chiefs in what is known as downtown Quesnel.
Our government is committed to continuing the reconciliation journey with the Tsilhqot’in Nation, and we will continue to work to build a secure and more just future for us all.
limləmt. Thank you.
T. Halford: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
T. Halford: I just got tipped off that my two boys are going to be subjected to question period in their class at Semiahmoo Secondary, I think, so hopefully, they will be proud of dad and everybody in this House.
I ask the House to please make Semiahmoo Secondary welcome online as they take in the next half hour.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO
DRUG USER
ORGANIZATIONS
K. Falcon: For weeks now, including as recently as Monday, we’ve raised the serious concerns that we have about the NDP government’s contribution of $1.2 million in public funds to the Drug Users Liberation Front and the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, VANDU, as part of the NDP’s taxpayer-funded drug trafficking.
Now tax dollars given to them by the NDP enabled the Drug Users Liberation Front to buy heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine from organized crime on the dark web. Today we now learn that the Vancouver police have raided the NDP’s taxpayer-funded Liberation Front and made arrests.
My question to the Premier is this. Will the Premier take full responsibility and accountability for the NDP’s taxpayer-funded drug trafficking and ensure his government’s absolute cooperation with the ongoing police investigation?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. As the member knows full well, the contract that the group that he is talking about was awarded by Vancouver Coastal Health for the testing of drugs for overdose prevention and assisting people and helping people in preventing them from dying. In no way, shape or form were any of those funds intended for the purchase of illegal drugs, and the member knows that.
As well, police are conducting and have conducted an investigation which has led to the arrest and warrants for individuals. Those who break the law are held accountable, and that’s exactly what is happening.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
K. Falcon: Well, Vancouver Coastal Health is an arm of the provincial government. And it is this provincial government, through…. The reckless, irresponsible decriminalization efforts have resulted in these kinds of events taking place.
Now, when confronted about the issue this week, the Premier, unbelievably, said: “It’s unfortunate, because they were providing essential, life-saving work.” This is incredibly dismissive of taxpayer-funded drug trafficking and the harms that are caused by buying illegal drugs from the dark web, a haven for organized crime, gangs and drug cartels.
Does the Premier, and this government, stand by his earlier comments as an adequate justification for the NDP’s involvement in such illicit activities?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll repeat again for the member. What the Premier was talking about and what the health authority was doing with the contract was to save lives. Supposedly, that’s something that the opposition wants to see happen. A contract was given to the organization the member is talking about to save lives, to test drugs, to prevent overdose deaths. It was not, in any way, shape or form, for taxpayer money of any kind to purchase illicit drugs, and the member knows that.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member knows that.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, please.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The Vancouver police department has been investigating, and they have made arrests and issued warrants. That’s what happens when you break the law.
This government fully expects, when a contract is awarded for a specific purpose — in this case, to save lives, to prevent overdoses — that the terms and conditions of that contract are followed.
When they weren’t and the government found out, the contract was immediately cancelled.
Anyway, the police have been investigating, and they have enforced the law of the province of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: Official opposition leader, supplemental.
K. Falcon: This is incredible. We have a situation where they refuse to acknowledge the problem. They take the word of the people that are involved in the drug trafficking over the opposition who raised this issue weeks ago…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let’s hear the question.
K. Falcon: …and try to diminish the fact that this is dangerous, illegal and harmful activity, because they apparently think the people involved are good people. Well, I’m sorry, but buying drugs from the dark web, supporting organized crime, is not life-saving work. It actually puts police and the public at risk.
Does the Solicitor General really believe that British Columbians are blind to the reality of what you are doing and who you are supporting and the fact that we have to have the police raid and arrest people before you finally realize it’s the wrong thing to do as part of this reckless decriminalization program of your government?
Hon. M. Farnworth: What I’ll say to the Leader of the Opposition is this. British Columbians are not blind to the almost 14,000 people who have died because of the toxic drug crisis in this province. The public of British Columbia wants government to do everything that it can to work to save lives, and that’s exactly what’s been happening.
As the member knows, the contract was for drug testing. And to somehow suggest that government authorized or wanted funds to go to buy illegal drugs is just straight nonsense, and they know it.
I’d like to finish just with a quote…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …from the Vancouver police department, who made the arrests and issued the warrants: “While we support progressive drug policy and believe harm reduction strategies reduce the number of lives lost due to drug toxicity, we are steadfast in our insistence that all strategies be fully compliant with the law. Anyone who ignores the law or fails to obtain proper legal exemptions should expect to be the subject of enforcement action.”
That’s exactly what should happen, and that’s exactly what this government supports.
E. Sturko: I feel absolutely outraged, and I’ll tell you why. It’s to hear that this government is saying, “We have to do everything that we can,” because they’re trying to save lives, and that would somehow justify supporting organizations that are putting money and guns into the hands of people that kill British Columbians through gang activity. And you know what? It doesn’t matter whether the government money…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
E. Sturko: …was used to purchase those drugs or whether it supported a building or their staff or anything else. Surely in the province of British Columbia, there are other organizations that are not buying drugs on the dark web that you could have funded.
In my community of Surrey, people are murdered as a result of drug trafficking — Paul Bennett, a nurse, murdered in his driveway, an innocent bystander, because of organized criminals. And this government supported DULF to the tune of $200,000, putting that money potentially into the hands of murderers. You should be ashamed.
Let’s make one thing clear. The Premier subsidized an organization that not only used cryptocurrency to buy illegal drugs off the dark web; they funded an organization that was openly bragging about it. Think about that.
There is no way that this should come as a surprise to the Premier. The Premier has ignored, dismissed and hand-waved this issue, and now there’s a criminal investigation.
Will the Premier order a forensic audit of the government’s funding to VANDU, to DULF and to other organizations that are involved in criminal activity and funded by the government?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, I can tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that when they sat on this side of the House, they funded VANDU.
Let’s be clear. What occurred was unacceptable and illegal. When this government found out, the contract was cancelled.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The police did their investigation, as they should, and have made arrests according to the law. That’s what we expect to happen. Let’s also be clear that we have worked with health authorities. We’ve been working with public health officials in working to do everything we can to prevent toxic overdose deaths in this province.
Some 14,000 people have died in the toxic drug crisis in this province. The funding through Coastal Health to this organization was for the testing and the prevention of overdose deaths. That’s what it was for, and nothing else. That’s what happened.
We need to continue our work to ensure that we’re doing everything we can to prevent overdose deaths, but we will continue to make sure that it is done legally.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey South, supplemental.
E. Sturko: I want to apologize. I think that you might have heard me using some unparliamentary language. But this is extremely upsetting, knowing the impact of drug trafficking on communities across British Columbia.
It’s also extremely hard to believe that this government would not have known that this was taking place, considering that the BCCSU and UVic were actually assisting in this project at DULF. These are organizations working very closely with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.
This should not be a surprise, and they were bragging about it for almost two years in the media. It’s either wilful blindness, or it’s ignorance.
Will the Premier commit today to an audit, yes or no?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I take issue with the member’s statements that this government is not concerned about organized crime and drug trafficking. This government has done more investment in fighting organized crime and drug trafficking than that side of the House ever did when they sat on this side.
Whether it’s working with the federal government to get additional funding to fight organized crime, or it’s putting in place a forensic lab to identify firearms and crack down on illegal firearms coming into this province and this country…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …this government continues to work with police agencies, government agencies at the federal level, Border Services to do everything we can to deal with organized crime. That’s one of the reasons. Not only do we use civil forfeiture but unexplained wealth orders to strengthen the tools that police have, to be able to crack down on drug traffickers and organized crime. We will continue to do that.
FEDERAL FUNDING AND ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS IN HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM
S. Furstenau: On Tuesday, we asked the Minister of Health what he’s doing to not only recruit but retain nurses. Although this health care system is failing to create the conditions needed to retain nurses, it has been great at hiring and retaining corporate and executive staff.
We are encouraged by the bilateral agreement between B.C. and the federal government to support health care in our province, but there are concerns that these funds will be spent on administration, rather than on the systems and people in need.
To the Minister of Health, can he assure the people of B.C. that all of the money transferred will go to improve front-line health care delivery, rather than administration, and that there will be complete transparency on how that money is spent?
Hon. A. Dix: Indeed, we have a bilateral agreement with the federal government for the next three years.
Of that money, $200 million this year, $250 million next year and $300 million the following year will go to support our nurse ratio proposal, which we worked on together with nurses across British Columbia. Another $246 million of that money will go to the continuing support for mental health and addiction programs that are so important in this time when so many people are at risk in this province for both mental health and addiction issues.
The amounts are detailed in the agreement, and they support the government’s initiatives to hire front-line health care workers, of which we’ve set records this year and will continue to set records, I believe, in hiring new people. That includes doctors, nurses, health science professionals and health care workers.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
S. Furstenau: There has indeed been record-setting spending.
From 2016 to 2017, the Ministry of Health spent $1.42 billion on administrative costs, $288 per person in B.C.
In 2022-23, that spending skyrocketed to $3.26 billion, $603 for every person in B.C., yet the population of B.C. only increased 10 percent during this time. Health administrative costs have more than doubled, with executives at the top being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, while nurses in Prince Rupert are having to use the food bank because they can’t make ends meet.
One in five British Columbians do not have primary care. We have a shortage of over 5,000 nurses in the public system. ERs are closed more and more regularly. We are sending cancer patients to the U.S., yet administrative spending in this province has ballooned.
How can the minister justify the massive expansion in ministerial and administrative spending in health care while British Columbians are languishing?
Hon. A. Dix: These things are actually measured by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. B.C. has some of the lowest administrative costs in the country for health care, and that share of administrative costs, which is measured every single year as a share of health care expenditures, has gone down since I’ve been Minister of Health.
We have been investing record amounts in front-line health care workers. We have 5,221 net new nurses this year. We’ve set records for surgeries and for diagnostic testing. I think the health care system has led us through very challenging circumstances in two public health emergencies.
I would note, for example, that amongst those administrative costs are the amounts spent on PPE in our health care system — which is vitally important and, as everyone knows, increased dramatically during the pandemic because of international conditions — but I don’t apologize for spending money on PPE to keep health care workers safe.
CARBON TAX AND COST OF LIVING
J. Rustad: Over the last number of weeks, clearly this NDP Premier doesn’t want to talk about the NDP’s assault on the rights of parents and the innocence of our children. He doesn’t want to talk about the assault on private property rights and hard-working British Columbians. Yesterday he refused to talk about struggling farmers going broke because of this government’s policies.
Perhaps this NDP Premier will talk about his government’s punishing carbon tax.
Will the Premier admit that this NDP carbon tax is taking more than $3 billion from British Columbian families, getting them less at the pumps, driving up inflation at the grocery store and adding to the cost of every new home built in this province?
Hon. G. Heyman: What the member fails to note is that British Columbia’s economy has been transforming significantly as a result of the carbon tax, brought in by the party that he was once part of when it sat on this side of the House. It has put British Columbia in a good position to fight climate change, which over 70 percent of British Columbians believe is a pressing crisis.
I know the member fails to recognize that climate change is human-caused. I know the House Leader of the Fourth Party says he needs more information about climate change, but the carbon tax has made a significant difference in British Columbia emissions. Other jurisdictions are struggling to keep up with us.
With our government, the principles of the carbon tax are that we give back to low and middle-income British Columbians. By 2030, 80 percent of British Columbians will get the climate action tax credit, and a significant majority of them will get more back in the tax credit than they pay in carbon tax. I think that’s the right path.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Fourth Party, supplemental.
J. Rustad: Well, half the people in this province are struggling to put food on the table, and the consumption of fossil fuels per capita has gone up at the same rate as the rest of the country, so I don’t quite understand what this minister doesn’t get about the failed carbon tax.
Quite frankly, enough of the deflection from this NDP. For every voter that our party is taking from British Columbia from the defunct B.C. United party, we are also taking one from the NDP party. British Columbians want change. They’re done with politics as usual, and they’re done with being taken advantage of by a government that asks for more and more and delivers less and less to everyday hard-working people.
Why has this NDP government abandoned hard-working, blue-collar voters, and when will they slash this punishing carbon tax so that everyday workers can afford to live?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, we’ve canvassed this issue many times in this House. I get it. The member, the Leader of the Conservative Party, doesn’t believe climate change is real. He says he’s going to scrap the carbon tax.
He says he’s going to scrap the carbon tax, says that climate change is maybe real, maybe not, I’m not sure. While he was sitting on the other side, with the B.C. United forum of the B.C. Liberals, he supported all those measures, clapped and spoke at any opportunity he had about how great they were. So, as much as we don’t know where the B.C. United stand on issues, I really don’t know where the Leader of the Fourth Party stands on issues either.
LYTTON FIRE RECOVERY PROCESS AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENTS
L. Doerkson: Residents of Lytton are already devastated and without homes for 848 days.
They now face astronomical fees related to archaeological work. They are saddled with mandatory archaeology costs of up to $22,000 plus daily monitoring fees of $6,000 per property per day. These are costs that insurance doesn’t cover and that the government has frankly failed to fund.
Why hasn’t the government provided provincial support for these significant expenses?
Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. In fact, the government has provided to the village of Lytton $57 million to assist in the recovery. Of that, $23 million has been targeted to archaeological debris removal and other parts of the recovery that’s required.
As I said, two days ago, or as I said yesterday, but the day before, I spoke with the mayor of Lytton. She made some suggestions about how we might move forward more effectively. We’re considering those, and we expect to move forward.
Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.
L. Doerkson: It has been, of course, 848 days, and many of these residents have not been funded in any way. Lytton residents are getting a tab for $22,000 monitoring a ditching trench. Another resident got a quote for $6,000 per day. These are astronomical fees, especially when the government hasn’t made it clear whether or not people will actually be permitted to rebuild on these sites.
Why on earth should residents in Lytton pay daily fees of $6,000 for archaeological monitoring, especially when the government has failed to offer clear timelines and there is no guarantee they can even build on their own property?
Hon. B. Ralston: Again, in the conversation with the mayor of Lytton, what she did tell me is that the first building permit for a new house was issued just very recently. There are approximately 20 homeowners who plan to build, and progress is being made. There’s a temporary police station there, and the rebuilding effort is continuing.
I’m optimistic. I share with the mayor her optimism about the recovery process in Lytton.
M. Lee: Let’s be clear. It’s been 848 days, and not a single home has been rebuilt in Lytton. Some residents have actually died waiting to get back and rebuild their homes. The lack of timelines and certainty from the government at this stage can only be described as de facto expropriation.
Is there a plan for compensation?
Hon. B. Ralston: I would think the opposition critic for Indigenous matters would have some sensitivity when understanding the important archaeological work that is taking place at the site.
This is a site that has been inhabited by Indigenous people for approximately 7,000 years. The old village was built upon that very site. So when it came to recovery, the archaeological work that became apparent was much more than people anticipated. That took time. And that is acknowledged. It is very frustrating for the residents.
Nonetheless, the process is moving forward. A building permit was issued for the first house, and there are more that are coming forward very shortly.
Mr. Speaker: Vancouver-Langara, supplemental.
GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENTS
M. Lee: This is the sort of dismissive attitude that we hear from this government. They’re out of touch.
These issues aren’t just about Lytton; they matter all over the province. Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities are being kept in the dark when they deserve clarity from this government.
Greater Victoria has thousands of lək̓ʷəŋən sites. Imagine a home in Central Saanich or Oak Bay burns down and needs to be rebuilt.
Can the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation tell us if residents of Oak Bay would face the same uncertainty, red tape, huge costs and endless delays?
Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you very much for the question.
The steps under the Heritage Conservation Act are clear, and that’s a legal obligation that a property owner is obliged to take measure of.
Again, I would think that the member would support those measures in the Heritage Conservation Act given that on occasion, even in habited areas where building took place long ago, there are undiscovered archaeological remains which appear during the rebuilding process.
That is the law. Those steps are taken, permits are issued, and ultimately, a building permit is issued.
HERITAGE CONSERVATION ACT
TRANSFORMATION
PROJECT
P. Milobar: Well, it’s no wonder there are such delays in the heritage branch processing archaeological permits, because the minister in charge two years ago, in his mandate letter, was instructed by the Premier, with the Heritage Conservation Act, to do a transformation project. And it was very clear: the timeline was that was supposed to be done by the fall of 2023.
It is the fall of 2023. Two days now we haven’t had one hint of that coming forward by the minister’s answers.
When can the minister deliver the update on the historical transformation mandate project that was in his mandate letter?
Hon. B. Ralston: The Heritage Conservation Act and potential revisions to it are the subject of intense and detailed discussion between ourselves and rights and title holders, the First Nations Leadership Council, and that process is ongoing.
I’m optimistic that the result will be the legislative change that I was directed to lead and expect to lead very shortly.
GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENTS
T. Stone: There is currently a backlog of 11,000 permits and a 255-day average wait time for archaeological permit processing through the arc branch. Frankly, this is unbelievable, considering this government has grown the size of government by 137,000 positions in six years.
But the government also demands that individuals navigate a bewildering 42 steps, from permits and forms to committees, just to find out if they’re even going to have the possibility of rebuilding on their land. The experience in Lytton has been massive costs, delays and uncertainty.
Does the Premier recognize the implications for people who want to build homes all over the province, considering the significant fees and massive delays related to archaeological work on their properties?
Hon. B. Ralston: To return to Lytton and the challenges there, because I think it’s an example of the challenges faced by the Heritage Conservation Act…. Indeed, we do understand the pressures that have been faced by citizens seeking to rebuild their homes in Lytton.
We have provided… I gave a number of $23 million. It’s to the village, who have selected an archaeological contractor. They are administering those funds in the archaeological work that goes forward.
We are in discussions with the village of Lytton — not all of that money has been expended — about how we might use that money to further assist residents of Lytton in the recovery process.
Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.
T. Stone: Only the NDP would say that they’re making progress against the backdrop of residents at 848 days since their village burned down, and nobody has been able to move back and begin the rebuild process.
The fact of the matter is that there has been a complete lack of transparency from this NDP government. We know also that behind closed doors, the government continues to make plans that will inevitably affect every homeowner in this province. Here’s the bottom line. People want to know that their rights matter, they want to know that their properties matter, and they want to know that their homes matter.
When will the Premier pull back the curtain and be transparent about the process and timelines to be informed about artifacts discovered on their properties, and will the NDP government fully compensate those impacted by outrageous fees related to the discovery of artifacts on their properties?
Hon. B. Ralston: The government is leading a transformational process of the Heritage Conservation Act. There is intense interest among Indigenous people and their organizations and their representatives in this process. That process is continuing. I expect to bring that forward shortly, and I’m sure that the opposition will be very pleased by the results of that process.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Hon. N. Sharma: I have the honour to present the annual report of the British Columbia Ferry Commission for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.
A. Olsen: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
A. Olsen: Just as he’s walking out the door, I want to acknowledge Chad Rintoul, who is the CEO of B.C. Notaries and, as well, a councillor in the town of Sidney. It’s great to see him here again in the gallery.
Could the members here make him feel welcome.
Hon. B. Ma: I seek leave to make an introduction as well.
Leave granted.
Personal Statements
MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION
Hon. B. Ma: Now that I have that leave, I have to admit that it’s not quite an introduction, more of a brief comment to the House.
I’m sure everyone has noticed I’ve been getting a little round lately. As my pregnancy has progressed, it has been making some basic things more challenging — walking, talking, breathing. I just want to acknowledge that I know the political sphere is often very cut-throat, but I’ve been incredibly grateful for the kindness, patience and support of all members of this House, as well as all the staff of the Legislature, who have really been just quite supportive during this time of growing life.
I wanted to take a moment to just say how proud I am of how the Legislature has evolved to better support people from all walks of life and different life and family circumstances so that we can better represent the people of British Columbia.
I need to acknowledge that a lot of that progress comes from the women who have worked and served in this place over time, from Kate Ryan-Lloyd being the first woman to serve as Clerk of the Legislature; to women like Michelle Mungall and Jenny Kwan; to Linda Reid and Christy Clark, who have raised babies in these hallways; to every single woman who has served and continues to serve in this House for your leadership and for how you’ve moved the dial forward for all women in British Columbia.
Of course, it’s not just about the women in the House. It’s also about the men that you have positive influences on, and all the men positively influenced throughout the House as well. I’ve definitely seen an evolution through time — an evolution that, I think, we can all be very proud of.
The reason why I’m making this statement today is because, as things get more difficult, this will likely be my last day physically in the Legislature for the remainder of the calendar year.
I want to thank my critic from Cariboo-Chilcotin for his patience and understanding on that. I know it’s not the same, asking questions of someone over the screen, but the virtual option, the hybrid option that we’ve developed here together over the last few years, is also another incredibly important tool to making service in the Legislature more accessible to a wide variety of people and to people under different life circumstances.
My gratitude to the Speaker, to our House Leader, to the government Whip for allowing me to do this, and for all of the work and support that I have received from everyone in this House. [Applause.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, on Bill 35, Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.
In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole debate on Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act.
In the third House, committee room C, I call Committee of the Whole debate, Bill 33, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 35 — SHORT-TERM RENTAL
ACCOMMODATIONS ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 35; J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 11 a.m.
The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We are dealing with Bill 35, the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act.
Clause 16 approved.
On clause 17.
K. Kirkpatrick: When we were on clause 13, the minister suggested I move some of those questions to clause 17. I’m just going to go back in my book here for a minute.
What consultation did the minister undertake with companies like Airbnb about the feasibility of ensuring compliance with this measure?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Staff did engage some of the larger platforms regarding this section. Concerns around how, I guess, Quebec had approached this had come up in the conversations, and we tried our best to accommodate the issues that they had raised about Quebec in our legislation.
K. Kirkpatrick: What are the consequences for failing to comply with this requirement?
Hon. R. Kahlon: In event of non-compliance, the legislation includes several enforcement mechanisms, including compliance orders that can be filed in the B.C. Supreme Court, administrative monetary penalties and injunctions.
Clause 17 approved.
On clause 18.
K. Kirkpatrick: We’re talking about compliance, so some of these questions can kind of fit into any of these clauses here.
Could the minister explain the role of municipalities versus the role of the province with respect to enforcement and recognition of non-compliant listings.
It’s unclear to me kind of who’s in charge of what and how you’ll work together, how government will work together with the municipalities.
Hon. R. Kahlon: The provincial statute will require short-term rental platforms to enable and display local government business licence numbers. It requires hosts to display this number in addition to a provincial registration number.
Local governments may send notice of failure to comply with business licence requirements to platforms and hosts. They will also be able to require a platform to cease providing services to non-compliant hosts. If the bill passes, further details about the process will come through regulation.
K. Kirkpatrick: I know UBCM was in favour, in part, to the legislation — not all of it, but to the legislation being put forth.
Was there consultation done with the municipalities in terms of the sharing of those responsibilities? It sounds a bit like the province is downloading kind of the heavy lifting in terms of compliance as opposed to doing it themselves.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I wouldn’t agree with the frame of that. This is, first off, something local governments have been asking for. This legislation, essentially, makes it easier to enforce the short-term rental rules that they have in place. I would not, in any way, characterize this as downloading in any way.
K. Kirkpatrick: So for clarification, each municipality would have some kind of relationship with each one of the platforms that is operating in that community. We keep using Airbnb. It’s like the Kleenex of short-term rental.
The platforms themselves, the multiple platforms themselves, would be dealing with multiple jurisdictions and multiple people in terms of taking down listings.
So it’s not a centralized director or registrar they’re dealing with; it’s all the municipalities individually.
Hon. R. Kahlon: They have the power now to do that. What this legislation does is help ensure that their rules are being followed. Local government could ask the platform to remove a listing, for example. If, for some reason, it didn’t happen, they could come to us through this legislation, and we have tools to make sure that it happens. But our expectation is that the platforms will respond to the local government’s request.
K. Kirkpatrick: So just to clarify that this isn’t necessarily a streamlining of this process. This is an additional layer of the process of enforcement.
Hon. R. Kahlon: This is a step to ensure that there are teeth to a request that local government has. So if a local government wants something done, it’s not something that can be easily shrugged off or moved to the side of the desk.
If the local government feels that it’s not being taken seriously, they now have a mechanism. These are powers that they have been asking for, local governments. It gives them the ability to enforce the local bylaws. This is supporting their work but giving them some strength to make sure that the rules are being followed.
K. Kirkpatrick: Is the minister…? I don’t know if the word is “sure of.” But has he consulted with municipalities that maybe don’t have this kind of regulation in place now and haven’t been doing enforcement and haven’t been…? Do they have the capacity to be able to now work within the new legislation?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Local governments that have bylaws and rules in place will be able to continue to enforce them. Communities that don’t have a bylaw now — this is the floor — will be doing that, so it could be in various ways.
You may have a local government that doesn’t have a bylaw, but they get, I don’t know, complaints about somebody doing a short-term rental in their neighbourhood. They’ll be able to check with the data set to see if that in fact is registered, and then we as the province will be able to take steps.
K. Kirkpatrick: The question is really about capacity and, I guess, standardization as well. So some of those communities, their capacity to actually have the staff and the people in order to do this…. If they don’t have it now, they’ve got to build up that capacity by springtime when this comes in.
I believe there’s some flexibility, from what the minister said, in terms of how that will be done. Will there be a standardization?
I want to make sure I’m explaining this right. I know that the legislative framework has to be abided by, but will there be a standardization of how each of those communities will actually undertake the monitoring for compliance to ensure that? You know, if some aren’t really doing it, how will government actually know that the rules and regulations aren’t being monitored in a certain community?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Communities that don’t have bylaws, we’re not asking them to do anything more. The communities that have bylaws will be able to continue to enforce them. They’ll have an ability to go directly to platforms. Those that don’t, we’re not asking them to do anything more.
We talked, I think yesterday or the day before, about different tools we have to be able to check to see if those that are registered on sites have the correct registration number. So we’re going to be able to validate ourselves.
We’ll be building some mechanism through digital tools, etc., to be able to ensure that most people that are marketing themselves on these platforms are following the rules, but we’re not requiring local governments that don’t have bylaws to build a new team and do all these things. That is not something we’re asking. It’s only for those communities that already have it, they now have that relationship, because that’s, I think, something important for many of them.
But we, through our enforcement team and other mechanisms, will be able to address the communities that don’t have that.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Minister, for the answer.
A moment ago, I understood that government’s role, the province’s role, was not administrative but more kind of at a higher level, but the municipalities themselves would be responsible for searching out and finding non-compliant listings.
Now what I’ve just heard the minister say is that those municipalities that don’t already have something in place are actually not going to be expected to do anything more. But I understood that they would be required to do something more, which is actually abide by this legislation, which means they are responsible for finding those listings and contacting the platform. So that is additional work and an additional need for that municipality to undertake.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Communities right now that have bylaws in place are struggling to enforce them, so this supports them. Communities that don’t have bylaws in place, there’s no additional requirement of them, because those that don’t have the additional bylaws will be able to enforce that through the tools that we’ll have through enforcement mechanisms.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I am still fuzzy on who’s doing what and who’s got responsibility, because what I’m hearing the minister say is if they don’t have the tools to do it, the province will step in and provide the tools to do it.
One more time at this question, and then I’ll move on to a different line of questioning. I still need some clarification on who’s doing what.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I apologize if I maybe confused a little bit with my answer.
I’ll try to reframe the answer, which is, regardless if they have a bylaw or not, we will monitor and investigate both hosts and platforms to ensure compliance with the legislation and regulations. Regardless if they have a bylaw or not, we’ll do that. We’ll issue compliance orders to persons who have contravened the legislation or regulations. We’ll seek injunctive relief or compel persons such as platforms to comply with legislation and regulations. Regardless if they have rules or not, we will do those things.
We heard from the platforms that the manual approach that some jurisdictions use is challenging, so we’ll digitize that process to make it much easier for both sides — us to monitor, and them to monitor as well. We’re doing that regardless of whether they have bylaws or not.
Now, some communities are going to have bylaws that are higher than what we said, so that’s what I was trying to imply — that if they’ve got rules beyond what we have, they have the ability now to enforce that directly with platforms, but this is going to be the minimum we do for everyone across the province.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’m still fuzzy, but I’m going to move on to the next line of questioning here.
There will be some non-compliance. I mean, we know there’s going to be non-compliance. Starting in May, when this comes in, if somebody books on a platform after that time and it’s a non-compliant listing but it hasn’t been recognized as non-compliant yet, are refunds guaranteed for people who accidentally book non-compliant listings? Have Airbnb or the platforms committed to ensuring those people get their money back?
Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s our understanding that most of the platforms have policies in place that if the host cancels in advance, the guest receives a full refund. Of course, it’s up to hosts and platforms to ensure that they’re following their rules, but my understanding is most of the platforms have that rule already.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’m presuming that these hosts wouldn’t be cancelling, because they are operating in a non-compliant way.
The scenario I just asked is kind of future-focused. The scenario I’m hearing from people right now that they’re very concerned about is somebody’s having a wedding next summer, and 50 of their closest friends and relatives are coming. They’ve already booked. They’ve got Airbnbs booked for June or July or whenever that wedding is.
What is going to happen to those Airbnb listings and to those people who are relying on those accommodations to be able to have their wedding? They’ve already booked, but by the time of the booking, it is now a non-compliant booking.
Hon. R. Kahlon: So there’s a three-part answer. One, I think this is why it’s going to be so important for the platforms to follow the rules, because there’s a real reputational risk if they don’t of a situation like the member described.
The second is an important note for anyone watching right now, which is, if you have an event, it’s important to ask your host if they’re compliant, because if the host is not compliant, the host has to cancel the event so the refunds can be issued. People shouldn’t cancel it until the host tells them that they’re not compliant.
Third is when the registry is fully up, the platforms won’t be able to have a listing on there without getting from the province a registration number. That will preclude people from going to the platforms and setting up their listing without having a proper registration number from the province. That’s what the registry will help us do.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’m sure if there’s anybody watching right now that has a wedding booked for the summer, they have no idea what they’re able to do now.
This registry is coming in, or the act is coming in, right before summer. We’re in October right now. People don’t usually wait till the very last minute to set up their wedding and spend their thousands of dollars with their event planner.
The question is: if the wedding or if the event is booked now, and the Airbnbs are booked now, and they’re compliant today under the communities’ regulations, but they become non-compliant when this legislation comes in, so that by the time the wedding is happening, these are now non-compliant Airbnbs, will they be…?
I mean, whether the host notifies them or not, the platform may notify them. Government may notify them. What happens? Do they no longer have accommodation for the wedding that they booked in June?
Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s very simple. Maybe I’ll simplify it even more. If you’ve got a booking, you should contact your host to say: “Is the host compliant with the rules on the date that we have set up?” It’s a simple question to the host, because the host will know, after May 1, if it’s a principal residence or not.
Of course, hotels and motels and others are excluded from this. So venues would not be part of this. But if we’re talking about just a person’s accommodation, they should just contact their host and say: “Are you compliant to the law of the date that we’re coming to book”? Because if the host is not, they must notify the person, which means the person gets a full refund.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
Holy smokes. I bet there’s a lot of people out there right now who are really, really worried about that. It would have perhaps made sense to bring this in after the summer season so that people could actually make appropriate plans, because those people may be getting married the next summer, and then they can plan their wedding around the fact that they already know at that point that they can’t stay in these Airbnbs.
But if people have planned on bringing families in…. I know, because people have already contacted me on this exact issue. They’ve got families coming in. They’ve rented homes. Now we’re being told, after they’ve booked the wedding, that they either have to move their 50 family members or 50 guests into an expensive hotel, which may not have capacity anyway, or they can’t have people come to their wedding.
I’m understanding that that is what the minister is saying. They’ve booked while it was compliant. When the actual booking takes place, now it’s not compliant.
Can I ask the minister to perhaps suggest to these families and people getting married what they should be doing?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The rule for principal residents comes in on communities over 10,000 in population that have a vacancy rate below 3 percent. My message to families that may have bookings, in particular after May 1, which is more than six months away, is to contact your host to ensure that they’re compliant with the rules that are being discussed right now.
K. Kirkpatrick: Oh my goodness. So people book their…. They wait for six months, and then they book their wedding for next summer? These have been booked for years. The Airbnb has probably been booked for six months. Or they’re not going to….
Wow. Okay. This is something I hadn’t even anticipated until people started contacting me in a big panic about this. I thought: “Surely that can’t be the case.” But it does appear to be the case. There are going to be a lot of wedding planners upset right now across British Columbia.
That’s all I have to ask.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I think it’s important to remind folks that communities under 10,000 in population, smaller communities, are not impacted by this. Tourism-dependent communities are not impacted by this.
It’s also important to note that many communities had principal residence requirements already in place. I certainly hope that hosts that had their properties on platforms check to ensure whether the principal residence requirement was, in fact, a rule in their community, because many of those communities, of course, had principal residence requirements anyway.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you again to the minister.
So what we’re saying to those people who have chosen their wedding event to be in a community that’s larger than 10,000 people, that currently doesn’t have restrictions in, is that they should intend to move that event to a community with less than 10,000 people instead.
Hon. R. Kahlon: The message to communities and folks that are looking to do that is that short-term rentals will still be available in communities. Short-term rentals are still available in communities.
What we’re saying is complete homes that are desperately needed for people in communities, communities that have vacancy rates that are so low that people are struggling to find housing — that the housing for people in our communities needs to be a priority.
K. Kirkpatrick: Yesterday when I asked the minister if he could tell us the percentage of the Airbnbs available currently that are in principal residences and that are not in principal residences, the minister did not have that number.
Continuing to say that Airbnbs will still be available can mean nothing, because we have no idea if there are five in a community or 500 in a community. I don’t think that is an answer that is accurate and really means anything, because we have no idea what the data is behind that.
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the example the member gave of five to 500, it still means that there are short-term rentals available in communities — even in that example.
We know a lot of folks have short-term rentals. They have a place, have an extra suite, and they have a garden suite where there are short-term rentals available. I think that’s important to note — that there will be.
We need to prioritize housing for people in our communities. We know more and more people are finding it challenging to find housing. Of course, that’s why we’ve taken this step with this legislation.
M. Bernier: I wasn’t going to speak until, you know, listening to these unfortunate answers from the minister that really don’t give any concrete answers or supports, I think, for the people that have these concerns.
We’ve seen people, as the member on our team has highlighted, who have already started making bookings. The minister continues to stand up and say: “Don’t worry. There will be availability for short-term rentals.”
I’ll give him another opportunity. He’s had 24 hours now to get the research done and find out, because he was unable to give an answer yesterday. This question can go away very quickly. Can the minister stand up and give us exact numbers then, for these communities that are going to have short-term rentals, of how many there will be?
Then we can stand up with the member, united, to say: “Don’t worry. You won’t have to cancel anything because there’s an abundance of short-term rentals after this legislation passes that will still be available.” Can the minister give us direct numbers today?
Hon. R. Kahlon: As I mentioned to the member, there are several studies out there that have indicated that there are more than 16,000 units, complete homes, that are being used as short-term rentals.
There’s lots of research from local governments that have shown that the numbers are increasing dramatically year over year, meaning more housing that is needed for people in our communities is shifting to these platforms.
If the members need me to explain to them the challenge that communities are facing…. I mean, surely they’ve talked to local governments who are telling them that this is a major issue. I certainly know that the member across the way has heard from other communities who say: “This is growing and growing every year in our communities. We have no way of managing it. We need the province, desperately, to step up in a big way to support us on this.”
Yes, we’re prioritizing the valuable housing stock that we have for people in our communities. Yes, there will be short-term rentals available in communities. Yes, we’re going to need more hotel capacity.
Vancouver has indicated they have 1,100 hotel rooms in the queue. Victoria has indicated that they have significant numbers.
We can do this all day long, and I’m happy to do it. But I think it’s important to note that the reason why we built in the time till May 1 was to ensure that those that had bookings had time to be able to adjust accordingly.
M. Bernier: What we’re looking for from the minister is not just hypotheticals. We’re not just looking for maybes. This is a very specific piece of legislation that people in the province have concerns about because this government is unable to give them direct answers to the questions that we’re asking. That is the challenge here.
My colleague said an example of five to 500. It could be zero spaces available in a community.
Is the minister actually willing to stand in the House today and say to the people of British Columbia: “Do not worry. You will not have a problem next year. The booking that you have will be fine”?
I know he’s going to stand here and say: “No, you have to do your due diligence and follow up.” They made bookings in good faith, based on the rules of the day, and the government is coming in now afterwards — right before summer, right before graduation, where people from my community are going to Kelowna, to Vancouver, to get ready for their children’s graduations and have started booking short-term rentals for those. We’ve talked about weddings.
Here’s a thought. Is the minister willing to say they will grandfather, then, anybody who’s made a booking already to date, based on good faith, online — what they’ve done…? Will they be grandfathered and not penalized when this legislation gets rammed through by this government?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The member used Kelowna and Vancouver as examples. Kelowna had a principal residence requirement in place already, before this legislation. The member mentions Vancouver. They have a principal residence requirement right now, already, before this legislation comes.
What we’re saying with this legislation is that now, those local governments who have been saying to us, “We can’t enforce our bylaws. We’re struggling to enforce the rules we’ve been putting in place,” have the ability to be supported in that.
I appreciate the member giving me examples, and I’m giving him real, concrete things that are already rules in place. Surely, they would agree that if communities have bylaws in place, then everybody should be following those rules.
Now, I’ve said already, also, that there are multiple studies that have shown a very significant amount of housing stock that is now going towards short-term rentals, not available to people in our communities. So 16,000 is what we’ve seen in studies.
Just to put that in context, when the other side was in government, they were building roughly about 3,000 to 4,000 purpose-built rentals a year. Okay. You can do the math to say: “What does that 8,000 mean?” It would have taken at least two years, maybe more than two years, to build the amount of purpose-built rentals under the record that they had during that time.
We’re building 14,000 a year, purpose-built rentals. It shows that there’s a significant shift in that direction. Now, we can go about this all day long, and I’m fine to do that.
The core question that my friend across the way asked was that the rules come in place on May 1. So people who have bookings past May 1 should check with their hosts to ensure that they are compliant with the rules.
A. Walker: I want to thank the minister for his lenience as we debate clause 18 here, allowing for a fulsome conversation. There are significant impacts in communities like mine that are tourism-dependent. It’s good to have an opportunity to ask those questions.
I want to clarify to the minister, who mentioned that communities less than 10,000 won’t be impacted. Of course, Qualicum Beach will be. There will be some. If there are people watching, I just wanted to make sure that clarity was there.
I appreciate the powers this grants to local governments. The regional district of Nanaimo, a few years back, had a challenge. They had a complaint in a short-term rental. They took it to court. The judge was, I think, a neighbour — or possibly, I don’t know the details — and had to recuse himself from the decision. It ended up costing taxpayers in my community a lot of money.
This power, this clause, will enable local government to enforce the bylaws they have. So it’s appreciated.
The concern I’m hearing from that same local government, though, is that they don’t want to be responsible for enforcing this. I’ve heard some back and forth, and I appreciate the clarity. I’m looking….
If a local government, through policy, dictates that they will rely on the provincial enforcement of this, will that be sufficient to ensure that the rules are followed in our communities?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I believe that communities that don’t have bylaws in place will see a benefit from the legislation that we have and the level of enforcement that we’re going to be able to do.
When the registry is up, it’s in the interest of the platforms, given there is a requirement for them to play ball, essentially, and for the host as well. Given that both have responsibility, I feel way more confident that the rules will be followed in communities.
Even communities that don’t have the bylaws in place may identify, through a party being thrown every night at a house…. That happens, and certainly, I’ve heard from some folks in regional districts where they know of the house that’s having a party every year. They may not have a full bylaw, but they may be able to come to us and say: “Hey, this is a site that there are events continuously happening at. Can we verify through the data whether they are on a short-term platform, etc.?”
Yeah, there’s going to be greater ability for rules to be followed through the system, the legislation and the registry that we’re bringing on.
A. Walker: I guess the clarity that I’m seeking is probably not needed. As in the regional district of Nanaimo electoral areas, this won’t even apply for the time being until they proactively request…. I’m just concerned with communities in my constituency. Their bylaw is stretched. They have a bylaw in place. I just want clarity.
Can these communities rely on the province to enforce the provincial component, not the local bylaws but the provincial components…? Can they direct complaints to the province if the need comes up?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. The answer is that local governments, regional districts, can come to us to enforce what we, within the provincial rules, are putting in place. So they can come to us.
Now, what we heard from mayors…. For example, Mayor Alto, when we made the announcement, said: “The bylaws are stretched because they’re having difficulty enforcing their rules.”
This will alleviate pressures from them because a lot of the rules that we have put in place with this legislation…. That requirement on their bylaws won’t be as heavy. The investigative requirements won’t be as heavy, because we do a lot of that with the legislation that we have here.
A. Walker: I fully recognize that the registry will eliminate most of these complaints. I guess I’m hearing from the minister that if a complainant comes to a local government bylaw enforcement and says, “I have this concern”, a local government could then refer that complainant to the provincial authorities to investigate that complaint.
It may violate the local government bylaw. But it obviously would violate the intentions of this act. So just for absolute clarity, is that something that a local government, through policy or otherwise, could expect to do?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I just wanted to confirm before I gave the answer. First off, I think if there’s just a noise complaint, that’s the bylaw’s responsibility. I just want to make sure that’s clear.
Now the premise of the question is: if there’s a complaint that is made to bylaw in a community, do they need to investigate if that’s a short-term rental or not? And the question is…. Through our data sharing, they’re going to have data already on what the short-term rentals are in their community, so they’re going to be able to verify it.
If they believe it’s illegal…. Say they don’t have a bylaw, right? They don’t have the bylaw capacity. They’re going to be able to come to us and say, “In our data, it doesn’t show as a short-term rental, but we believe it’s being operated as one,” and we’re going to be able to take that step for communities that don’t have bylaw.
A. Walker: That clarifies the question I had.
I guess the one last question is: can the minister describe any proactive enforcement that we’ll take in communities related to potentially unregistered short-term rentals across our communities?
The Chair: I wonder if the member could repeat the question.
A. Walker: Certainly. I’m just wondering what proactive enforcement will take place that’s not complaint driven, related to non-conforming short-term rentals.
Hon. R. Kahlon: The proactive tool here is that the platforms won’t be able to list a property that does not have a provincial registration number. That in itself is a major deterrent.
If a host decides to try to do that, there’s now, with legislation, a requirement from the platforms to ensure that it has it. A data-sharing agreement between us and the platforms and data sharing available for local governments to ensure they know what’s happening in their backyard — so both.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:54 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 the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of the Whole (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 31 — EMERGENCY AND DISASTER
MANAGEMENT ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 31; S. Chant in the chair.
The committee met at 11:04 a.m.
On clause 47 (continued).
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act.
L. Doerkson: Yesterday we were beginning to talk a little bit about the emergency management planning by local authorities. I know that we have discussed this a little bit under definitions, but I do want to get a few points clarified, starting with a point that we were chatting about yesterday, which was timelines. I just want to clarify that.
What I heard was that we would expect to see a what-we-heard report in early spring of 2024 with respect to the public commenting period of the next couple of months and that we might see regulation coming by the end of 2024.
Then, beyond that, I was interested in the timeline for local authorities to produce their plans and be ready to respond to the government.
Hon. B. Ma: I don’t know that I had specified spring or fall, end of 2024 or so forth, but a timeline of the type that the member has described is, I would say, generally reasonable. In early 2024, we expect to issue a what-we-heard report. At that point, we would connect with opposition members for an engagement, as I committed to yesterday.
The intention is to deposit a completed regulation within the calendar year of 2024. We haven’t been quite that specific. It depends a lot on our development process and the speed at which we are able to work with First Nations on various collaborative development processes as well, because we will be working with First Nations on that.
In terms of the timelines for local governments to come into compliance with that regulation once it is deposited, that is also dependent on what we hear from local governments through the consultation period.
L. Doerkson: Thank you, Minister. There could be some time passing between completion of those reports — certainly, completion of the regulation. Will there be any requirements for any of these plans in the interim?
Hon. B. Ma: The current Emergency Program Act already requires the local authorities to have emergency management plans. In the interim, those emergency management plans would continue to apply, as per the transitional provisions of the act.
L. Doerkson: That’s exactly where I intended to go to this morning. I want to understand, in a more fulsome way, how these new plans will be improved.
I want to introduce some numbers. I had a number of calls last night with respect to a few different regional districts. In 2017, the Cariboo regional district had one person in emergency management; in 2023, they had five.
Their fear is that because of what may or may not…. We’re not clear 100 percent yet what will be expected for regional reporting and different types of emergency management plans or, in this case, risk assessments. That’s their biggest concern. They’re not sure how many more people might be required to do this work.
I guess the real question is: how will the new plans differ, and how will they be better?
Hon. B. Ma: Emergency management plans under the Emergency Program Act are primarily focused on the response aspect of emergency management, whereas the new emergency management plans that will be required under the EDMA will focus on all four phases: preparation, mitigation, response and recovery. It does include risk assessments as well.
I will note that we’re getting quite close to the sections that provide detail on what is required in them. In sections 51 and 52 — we’re very close — we can go through those in detail when we get there as well.
L. Doerkson: Yes, we’ll certainly get there, as well, for sure.
Just one last question, and then I think my colleague will have a question or two on this clause. We talked a little bit about funding yesterday. That’s why I was outlining those numbers, because honestly, regional districts, local authorities are not in a position to simply increase their budgets. That is, at the end of the day, their biggest concern.
The minister mentioned a couple of different funding opportunities that have been introduced. I just want to ask one more time: is there anything else contemplated to help not just our local authorities but First Nations as well, which really do not have the resources?
Before the minister answers that, there’s also concern around the skill set required and actually finding people. I know that we’ve talked a little bit about potential compliance and those types of things, and we’ll get into that. But there is a general sense that the ask just may be too much for many of these authorities to complete this work.
So one, funding. What else might be contemplated outside of funds? Two, what would the minister suggest with respect to filling these positions, to do what will be, clearly, an abundant amount of work?
Hon. B. Ma: With the caveat I provided yesterday that I’m unable to provide funding commitments during debate on EDMA, given I would not be able to precede Treasury Board processes and other financial processes of government in the House, I can say that the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, speaking on behalf of the B.C. government on our approach to emergency management, recognizes it’s far more cost-effective for us to be investing in the preparation and mitigation phases and the development of good, strong, emergency management plans ahead of time than to only be focused on response.
In the absence of the efforts to support local governments and First Nations in preparing and mitigating that work and doing the work to put together risk assessments and supporting strong emergency management plans, we end up paying for the response to emergencies on the back end anyway.
Right now the way that emergency management is funded in British Columbia, aside from the funds that I indicated yesterday and some of the other financial supports that we provide along the way, is that during an actual emergency response, the province opens up its wallet and basically pays for all of the incremental and additional costs that local governments and First Nations incur during an actual emergency. That cost can be an order of magnitude more than if we were to invest up front.
So we recognize the value of providing that kind of support up front in order to reduce the cost and resource draw for all levels of government, including local governments, during an actual emergency. I guess I want to state for the record that that is the principle that we are operating under, and while I cannot commit dollar values today, it’s certainly our intention to make that case.
I would also offer that we are taking a look at what kind of provincial supports can be provided that are non-monetary. How much can the province provide that would actually help local governments in their own risk assessments more locally and in the development of their emergency management plans?
That means the development of provincial guidance that local governments can draw upon to adjust for their more specific purposes. It includes the development of the disaster and climate resiliency risk assessment that will effectively draw upon all of the technical data that is already available, largely, on how climate change is going to interact with various hazards and apply them to British Columbia in a way that is more accessible and understandable to a greater variety of people.
We’re hoping to be able to interpret it so that it’s more useful, basically, so that you don’t need an entire team of engineers to understand what you’re reading. We’re hoping for the first iteration of that work to be released in the spring of 2024 and then for more regional information to be available in 2025. If we’re doing that groundwork as a province, then it reduces how much further local governments will need to go to apply it to their own specific municipal circumstances.
We are also investing in lidar, as I mentioned before: high-quality elevation data that can be used to support flood risk assessments and other hazard assessments. That information will be public. We are looking at doing much of that centralized or provincewide work, which then can be used to feed into communities’ emergency plans.
To the member’s last point around skill sets…. It’s a very good point. It is something that we are aware of as well. The reality is that there are very few people who are trained in emergency management. I’m aware of a specific program at Royal Roads University that really trains in emergency management, but largely, our emergency management professionals fall into the role through other pathways.
It’s a relatively new field to have so many professionals required in it. It is something that the ministry is turning its head towards, thinking about what kind of training would be helpful, not only to local government employees but also to provincial employees. We’re seeing extreme climate events resulting in emergencies far more frequently now than before. Certainly, there’s an intention to try to build up competency overall. So I think that that’s a really good point that has been raised by the member and that we’re also alive to.
L. Doerkson: I’m glad that the minister has at least contemplated the idea of funding or support staff. This brings up a question — I don’t know that it was fully answered from previous days: what is contemplated as far as staffing levels in this ministry?
It would be amazing if the province is able to help local governments in that way. Of course, there are a few local governments out there. So I’d be very interested in getting a bit of clarity around what may or may not happen within the ministry as far as staffing levels in the coming couple of years.
Hon. B. Ma: I’m unable to predict the outcome of Treasury Board deliberations, so unable to predict the future. However, what I can offer is how we have been growing over the last year, since the ministry was created, and where our priorities would be in terms of growth in the future.
In terms of incremental needs and growth in the future, we would certainly be taking a look at…. As the implementation of the EDMA comes in, which will be phased in over time, for local authorities and the province as well, we would be taking a look at that and seeing where those additional resource requirements are. I would say that we would have an early emphasis on the consultation and coordination pieces and the Indigenous agreements aspects of the EDMA.
In terms of growth over the past year, in the last fiscal budget, EMCR was able to secure an additional $85 million over three years to expand the foundational capacity for the ministry to provide better and higher-level service to local authorities and First Nations. We also created a new disaster risk management division. That division is largely responsible for some of the risk assessment work that I had described earlier.
We have expanded the permanent complement in our recovery team, the post-disaster recovery team. That team was previously largely funded out of a statutory appropriation, which meant that the staff members would be temporary. We would hire them for a specific emergency, and then we would have to let them go afterwards, when the statutory appropriation authority ended.
That, of course, is not good human resources and doesn’t help the province build competency and institutional memory over time. It wasn’t a very effective way to support communities that are struggling to recover themselves.
We also expanded our strategic partnerships branch. That is the branch primarily responsible for Indigenous partnerships. Over the last year, since the Ministry of Emergency Management was created — with the mandate to become more adept at supporting communities through all four phases of emergency management, and based on our mandate to recognize First Nations as equal partners in emergency management — the areas of growth were our disaster risk reduction division, our recovery team, our strategic partnerships branch, overall staffing to provide a higher level of service to First Nations and local authorities.
We added additional staffing to the disaster financial assistance branch to support that recovery process as well.
L. Doerkson: Just a quick follow-up on that. Did the minister say $85 million to be split over three years, or is the funding $85 million per year?
Hon. B. Ma: The budget is usually presented in three-year increments, so it’s $85 million over three years total.
L. Doerkson: Just a quick follow-up question on a comment that the minister just made a few moments ago with respect to lidar. I think the minister said that we are currently investing in lidar. I just wondered who “we” is. Is that the ministry? Is that the province?
Hon. B. Ma: To confirm, the provincial government is making that investment. What I’m currently unsure of is which ministry the money flowed from. But yes, it is the provincial government.
L. Doerkson: Just in light of time, would it be appropriate to ask for clarity about which ministry that’s going to fall into? Maybe it could be a written response later, if that’s all right, which ministry it’s going to fall into and how much of the province might be affected by that lidar.
I did know that that work was going on, but I didn’t understand whether it was happening in this ministry. You’re saying it is not.
Hon. B. Ma: We have confirmed that the investment was made out of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship. The intention is to obtain lidar data for the entire province, although it will take a number of years to complete.
L. Doerkson: Perfect. Thank you, Minister.
I have one more question. This is just basically a better understanding of the term “local authority.” I should have asked this earlier in definitions, but I did not. I just want make sure that we’re talking about the same thing when we talk about local authorities that will be made to complete certain tasks.
Is there anything outside of regional governments that we would commonly expect to share that same common definition? By outside of local governments, I’m referring to other authorities, perhaps ambulance or RCMP or Interior Health or any of our health authorities. Would they be expected…?
I can appreciate that some of that would fall under critical infrastructure, I would assume. But I’m just wondering who else might fit that definition.
Hon. B. Ma: In the legislation, the term “local authority” applies to municipal governments, regional districts, modern treaty nations, such as the Nisg̱a’a Nation, and treaty First Nations. However, the Nisg̱a’a Nation and treaty First Nations are carved out under subsection (5) of 47.
The other organizations that the member has listed mostly fall under public sector agencies, which are covered under section 46. They are asked to do similar things as local government authorities, but they are categorized differently.
M. Lee: Just on clause 47. In reference to a response to my colleague here, the minister made reference to a further consultation process with First Nations and Indigenous governing bodies in respect of the regulations.
As we noted between committee sessions, the original listing of the consultation process, who was consulted with, from the first day of committee stage…. The minister’s team is still working on it. I look forward to seeing that.
Just in terms of the consultation process, in respect of regulations to come…. The minister referred to that and, certainly, to needing to get the input of First Nations in terms of the process under which those regulations would be considered.
Can I ask the minister: what is the expectation that the minister has in terms of the timing around that consultation process with First Nations?
Hon. B. Ma: All regulations will be developed in consultation and cooperation with First Nations. The process for regulation development will follow the interim approach set out by the Declaration Act Secretariat. The timing for regulation development is still being determined, although we do anticipate our priority regulations to be developed over the next year or so.
We have already began discussions on how that process and that engagement will take place with First Nations. As an example, we’re preparing to hold workshops on the local authority and post-disaster financial assistance regulation with First Nations in November and December. We would then return to rights and title holders with a consultation draft shortly thereafter and go forward from there.
M. Lee: I appreciate the overview by the minister as an indication. Is it the expectation, as well, by the minister that those rights and title holders, First Nations, that did not participate, in the 2022-2023 period, in that second stage of consultation, principal consultation, on Bill 31…?
Will the ministry be picking up additional engagement, let’s say, with those First Nations that may not have been parties to the consultation draft in that first or that second period?
Hon. B. Ma: It’s hard to speak on behalf of First Nations as to which First Nations will want to participate. But invitations are issued to all First Nations regardless of whether or not they participated in consultations around the EDMA itself.
M. Lee: Just in terms of the language around 47(5), it provides that the minister may request that the Nisg̱a’a Nation or treaty First Nation do what is set out in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of clause 47. Under what circumstances would the minister make this request?
Hon. B. Ma: This clause is in section 47. The opportunity to request the Nisg̱a’a Nation or a treaty First Nation to generate risk assessments or emergency management plans…. Having the clause in here respects the government-to-government relationship, but it can provide consistency if needed. That’s why the clause is in there.
An example of where this clause might be used is if there was a regional plan being developed and we required an emergency plan from a modern treaty nation in order to be integrated into the regional plan to avoid gaps.
That being said, our understanding is that the modern treaty nations already have emergency management plans in place. But that could be contemplated as an example of when that clause might be used.
M. Lee: Was there, in terms of the drafting of this bill, then…? In terms of 47(5), was it considered to have alternative wording that would have provided, if a treaty First Nation has a risk assessment or emergency management plan in place, that that be shared with the local authority or with the ministry?
Hon. B. Ma: Certainly, if a modern treaty nation had risk assessments or emergency management plans that they willingly wish to share, there’s no obstruction to that in the EDMA.
This particular clause is consistent with…. This particular clause around the ability to request but not necessarily require a modern treaty nation to provide these…. Pardon me, it actually doesn’t say to provide the plans but rather to “do one or more of the things” described under section 47. It’s consistent with what was agreed upon with modern treaty nations during our co-development process.
Clauses 47 to 50 inclusive approved.
On clause 51.
L. Doerkson: I just want to start here. I do want to spend a little time on this clause, just understanding what might be before — I think we just talked a little bit about this under 47 — regional districts and local authorities, etc., that will obviously have to provide quite a bit of information.
But I wanted to start with the term “vulnerable.” If I could just get a better understanding of what the minister would describe. Now, I can appreciate that it does talk about individuals, animals. I’m guessing that there are certain categories that the minister would identify as being vulnerable.
I guess a bit of a second question to that point is: would there be…? Would that be noted as sort of a plan over and above this? In other words, if it was, for instance, unhoused people in our communities, would there be expectation that there would be a plan for that group of people specifically?
Could “vulnerable” also be seniors’ lodging or housing, or people that don’t have transportation? I just want to understand that term and what might be expected.
Hon. B. Ma: I think that there are two concepts that are relevant to the member’s question: one being the vulnerable person, animal, place, thing or so forth; and then there’s the concept of intersectional disadvantage.
Under subsection (1), when we’re referring to “vulnerable,” we’re primarily here referring to geographic proximity to a threat. So you’re more vulnerable if you’re closer to the wildfire or the interface than someone else.
Under subsection (b), it does open up the opportunity for prescribed characteristics, which means that regulations could be made to add to this definition in the future. However, without that regulation, it’s really right now about physical, geographic location.
Then the concept of intersectional disadvantage would be characteristics. I think the member probably knows what it means, but examples could be people who are Indigenous, people who are homeless, people who have a disability. It could be seniors with a disability or so forth.
In answer to the member’s question around whether or not a separate plan would have to be made, the answer is no. Rather, it is required for a plan-maker to consider these aspects in the development of their plan.
As an example, if a community knew that they had a high proportion of people with disabilities who use wheelchairs or seniors who use wheelchairs, then taking that into account in the development of their emergency management plan might look like ensuring that their emergency service reception centre had a ramp for wheelchair users. That’s the kind of consideration that that would need to happen.
Noting the hour, I move 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 the Whole House
BILL 33 — PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT,
2023
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section C) on Bill 33; J. Sims in the chair.
The committee met at 11:13 a.m.
On clause 1.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 33, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act.
P. Milobar: Sorry. I thought the minister would open, so I’m just getting my papers organized here.
Just a couple questions on section 1. I’ll just maybe preface all my questions ahead of time to the minister. Throughout today, I’m just going to be seeking some clarification pieces, but there are also some potential typos and/or wording errors that I want to make sure compare to the legislation that’s existing that’s getting amended. It’s in that spirit that I’m trying to get to the bottom of things. It’s not that we’re opposed to the bill by any means.
I’m wondering, on clause 1, if the minister could provide an estimation of how many variable life benefit plans will be offered as a result of these changes.
Hon. K. Conroy: I’d like to introduce who’s with me. That’s all I’ll do for an opening. I have Joey Primeau, the senior executive director of policy and legislation division, and Cynthia Callahan, director of pensions and commercial financial corporate sector policy branch.
That’s a difficult question to answer. We won’t know. It’s going to take over a year to implement the legislation. It is voluntary, and it’ll depend on the defined contribution plans and whether they come on board.
P. Milobar: Then in section 1, under the definition changes for pension, it appears that the definition of “pension” in the existing act is being repealed, which has an (a) and a (b) in it, and being replaced by an (a), (b) and (c), which is all fine and understandable, except for at the end of (c). It says “whether or not the pension is continued to another person; and….” Then there’s nothing after “and.” So I’m just wondering — and what?
Hon. K. Conroy: That happens a number of times. It’s not part of the amendment. It’s a part of the clause.
P. Milobar: I’m sorry. I don’t understand what that means. It’s not part of an amendment. It’s not part of a clause. The (c) ends with the word “and,” but there’s nothing following. So I don’t know what and…. And people will no longer have a pension? And people will have twice as much of a pension? What follows “and,” or is it not supposed to be there?
Hon. K. Conroy: In this circumstance, the “and” is for the (e). So it’s “and (e) by adding the following definitions….”
P. Milobar: Well, that’s adding variable…. That’s adding completely different definitions, I guess. I don’t see that in the previous part of clause 1, where…. So I guess the question I have then is: since it’s in bold, is the minister saying that the final copy of the new piece of legislation will not show “and” once it goes to print? So it doesn’t need to be removed at this stage. It’s just a placeholder word, for lack of a better term.
Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, the member is correct.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
On clause 4.
P. Milobar: This seems to be changes to the conditions in which unionized multi-employer pensions can allow employees to join their plans. I’m just wondering if any and, if so, which unions requested this change.
Hon. K. Conroy: The change was requested by the advisory — on behalf of the plans, not by the individual unions. Changes can involve up to 100 collective agreements and 100 different unions.
P. Milobar: Thank you for that. Was there consultation, then, done with the broader labour sector and unions? If so, what was the feedback on this clause?
Hon. K. Conroy: No. The amendment provides options for plans that are unable to track employee earnings to comply with the PBSA. Those employees that work for more than one employer under a collective agreement are the ones that are affected. Some plans have, as I said, up to 100 collective agreements. This was a way of tracking the employees’ earnings.
Clause 4 approved.
On clause 5.
P. Milobar: This is around the employees’ notice being given around the contribution increases “in accordance with a method for determining increases in member contributions…” and what happens if a member “…does not, within the prescribed period after receiving that notice, elect in the prescribed manner not to be subject to the increase described in the notice.”
I just want to confirm. If I’m a member of a plan, and the plan gets hold of me and says, “We’re going to increase the contribution limits,” what happens? Does that mean that that member, as long as they meet the timeline…? If they say, “I don’t want my contribution to increase,” what happens at that point?
Hon. K. Conroy: The member would opt out, and their contributions wouldn’t increase.
P. Milobar: Obviously, this process of notifying and having a contribution increase is effectively similar to what would be considered a negative-billing option if you were with a cell phone provider or a cable company when they say: “Respond by this date, or your rate is going up.”
Hon. K. Conroy: It’s an automatic feature. It’s a default to support financial interests because it’s accepted, it’s general practice, that people procrastinate on issues like this. If they don’t do anything, then their pension contributions would automatically go up, as would their pension.
P. Milobar: What are the notice requirements, then, under this clause, in terms of ensuring that the funds provide notice in good faith in terms of timelines? Does it have to be registered mail? Is it simply saying: “Well, we sent you an email. It may or may not have gone to your spam folder.”? What are the notice provisions for the fund?
Hon. K. Conroy: It would be prescribed in regulations.
Clauses 5 to 9 inclusive approved.
On clause 10.
P. Milobar: Again, this might be nothing, but language can matter in terms of what actually gets removed or not. So this amendment says: “Sections 70 (1) (c) (i) and 72 (1) (a) and (3) are amended by striking out ‘or (3).’”
When I go to 72(1)(a) and (3), the language actually does say “or (3).” When I go to 70(1)(c)(i), it actually…. At the very end is the only place there would be a (3), and it is actually “and (3).” So I’m just wondering the significance of why — if the proper one is actually being removed in 70(1)(c)(i).
Hon. K. Conroy: It is correct. It says: 70(1)(c)(i), and (i) just says to cross out “or (3).”
P. Milobar: Well, I understand that, but when I go to the act, Bill 38, the 2012 Pension Benefits Standards Act, which appears to be what we’re amending with this piece of legislation here, when you read the current act that’s being amended and go to 70(1)(c)(i), it reads: “section 57 (4) (b), (c) or (d), 79 (1) (a) (i)...” and (3). It doesn’t say “or (3).” So the language in the bill that is being removed says “or (3).” And when you read 72(1)(a) and (3), it very clearly, in this current piece of legislation, says “or (3).”
On the other piece though, when you actually read the piece of legislation, it’s “and (3).” I just want to make sure that we just don’t need to make a quick amendment to be removing “and (3)” in 71(c)(i) instead of “or (3),” because “or (3)”…. That phrase, together, does not exist.
Hon. K. Conroy: We think the member has Bill 38, which he referred to, and this is Bill 33. This is the defined Pension Benefits Standards Act, so we’re referring to Bill 33.
P. Milobar: Bill 33 is supposed to be amending Bill 38, 2012, the Pension Benefits Standards Act, as I read it in this. That’s why I’m just making sure I’m reading back to the proper clause. At the very beginning of Bill 33, it’s a section of the pension benefits standards 2012, so that’s what I’ve printed off, and that’s what we’ve been working off of for all of these to this point.
I’m making sure that I’m reading the right copy of the existing legislation that Bill 33 is amending. In this right now, if you go to section 72 of the existing legislation and you read 1(a), it very clearly says “or (3).” When you go to (3) on that, it says “or (3)”, which is what the amendment that we’re dealing with in clause 10 is supposed to be doing.
When you read 70, though, however, 1(c)(i), it ends with “and (3)” not “or (3)”. Again, I warned the minister at the beginning of this, it was going to seem nitpicky, but I’m not trying to be nitpicky in the least. I’m just trying to make sure we actually have not an error that’s hanging out there, because an “and” or an “or” can make a substantive difference, and I want to make sure we’re actually removing the right piece.
I’m not sure if the staff are looking at the same copy of the legislation that we’re amending in the current act, but we appear to be trying to remove something that doesn’t actually exist in that section instead of what I think the intent to remove was.
Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify for the member, the 2012 Pension Benefits Standards Act was amended in 2014, and section 70(1)(c)(i) was amended at that time.
P. Milobar: Okay.
Then can I get clarification that other than section (1), which was being amended very clearly in the version of 2012? I don’t understand why we’d be amending 2012 if there’s a more current legislation in 2014, but that’s what Bill 33….
When I read Bill 33, “His Majesty, by and with the advice and the consent of the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia,” enacts the following: “1 Section 1 (1) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, S.B.C. 2012, c. 30, is amended….”
Now I’m hearing that we’re actually…. I should have been doing my research comparing language from a version of 2014, not 2012, as was indicated at the very first sentence of this bill.
Hon. K. Conroy: I’ll try to clarify this. The current Pension Benefits Standards Act is on B.C. Laws online. But the bill that the member is referring to, Bill 38 of 2012 — it was amended in 2014. We’re thinking that the member doesn’t have the amended portion of Bill 38, 2012, which is now where we’re amending it.
P. Milobar: Well, thank you for that. I guess I’m just wondering how we’re reasonably supposed to know, other than the very opening sentence, we’re working off of a totally different….
If a piece of legislation was created in 2012 and then was amended in 2014, those definitions would then still need to be amended, whether it was the 2012 version or the 2014 version, because technically, that ’14 would be the most current version. So we amended definitions of a 2012 version, and then I don’t see where it would lead me as the critic to know that we’re now working off of the 2014 version.
We purposely pulled off and printed off the 2012 copy, which, again…. The first sentence says that’s what definitions are being amended and things of that nature, despite the fact there was even more current amendments made to this piece of legislation in 2014, is what I’m hearing. It makes it a little difficult, then. I don’t know what to say other than I guess I don’t really have questions because all my questions are based on the document that the government told me they were amending.
I guess we’ll just have to trust, despite the fact we actually have some amendments that the government has had to catch on their own, that everything else is written accurately in the amendments in this bill.
Hon. K. Conroy: Trying to explain it and make sure that we get this clear. What it is, is on the laws website, the Queen’s Printer website, it would put all the amendments in for the appropriate bill. I mean, there’s Bill 10 that was done in 2014. That is a clause that the member is referring to, which would….
So the actual changes to the bill are based on the actual laws that are published on the B.C. Laws website.
P. Milobar: I do understand that. But again, in the sections and the clauses we’re dealing with, the only specification at this point is the 2012 version. At no point up to clause 10, which we’re dealing with, do I see 2014 referenced. I do see amendments made later on in the bill to a 2011 version and the 2014 version, but I don’t in clause 10 and leading up to clause 10.
The only reference is actually 2012. If we go to the Family Law Act…. It’s updating the 2011 Family Law Act. Later on in the bill, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act is 2014. It’s specified there which act it’s actually amending. The only reference to any amending on this one, this bill, in terms of this section of the bill, the Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2023, is to the Pension Benefits Standards Act of 2012.
I guess my question would be…. Given that we’re close to having a break for lunch anyways…. If the minister could confirm what versions I should be looking for, for the various other sections.
Until we get into those ones that I mentioned, I would suggest we could take a break for lunch, and I will get staff to pull me those other versions that I should be working off of for these clauses. Trying to guess, without this piece of legislation telling me where I should be looking, will be a little difficult.
Hon. K. Conroy: The drafting approach is to refer to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, under the SBC 2012, in referring to the B.C. Laws consolidation. I suggest the member look on the B.C. Laws consolidation.
P. Milobar: I’m truly not trying to be difficult here. The wording I’ve provided the minister, which I’m questioning, the “or” or the “and,” in my version exists, and it seems like it doesn’t exist for them.
The minister just referred me to go pull back up the 2012 version, and that’s what I’ve been asking questions about. But earlier they were saying 2014.
Is the minister saying the 2012 version should have 2014 amendments on it? That seems to be completely backwards to how a calendar works.
Hon. K. Conroy: I’ll just add…. It’s a 2012 act, with the amendments consolidated. That’s how it’s referred to through legislation. That’s how the drafters refer to it.
I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:43 a.m.