Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, November 9, 2023
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 360
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
BC Family Maintenance Agency, annual service plan report, 2022-23, revised November 2023 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2023
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: B. Stewart.
Introductions by Members
Hon. B. Bailey: I would like to make two introductions, if I may, today.
First, it’s my pleasure to introduce a team of people who help me do my job every day and make sure I’m fully prepared for speeches and events. It’s no small task. Today we have, joining from my communications team, Caroline McAndrews, our comms director; Scott McKenzie, our comms manager; Angela Soukereff, senior public affairs officer; Tom Laird, Gemma Stroobant and Blaine Willick.
Unfortunately, I have to share that we’re losing one of our team members, Scott McKenzie. Our loss is a gain for Environment, as he’s moving over as director of communications.
I hope the House can join me in making them most welcome and thanking them for their great work.
It’s my pleasure to also introduce Nancy Roper, from Science World — which, of course, is in my riding of Vancouver–False Creek — and who’s in the House with us today. I was able to attend Science World on Saturday as we proclaimed Women and Girls in STEAM Week. Some 300 girls there were doing incredible science experiments, including taking DNA out of strawberries. Science World is a great treasure for our province. They do wonderful work.
Please join me in making them most welcome here.
Hon. G. Heyman: I want to just take a moment to ask the House to acknowledge and to personally thank Sonia Lowe, communications director in the Ministry of Environment.
Sonia has been with government communications and public engagement for 12 years. Tomorrow is her last day in this position in government. She is taking a job with great responsibility in Port Alberni, her hometown, and I wish her all the best.
Tributes
LARRY BLAIN
K. Falcon: Today I rise to recognize the passing of a great British Columbian — someone who is a dear friend to many in this building and who helped contribute to an incredibly great province in the world of infrastructure. Larry Blain was someone we recruited to head up Partnerships B.C. He was the president of Partnerships B.C. for many years and later the chair of the board.
While in cabinet, I had the pleasure of working with Larry as he helped put together private-public partnerships to ensure that we could deliver critical infrastructure, built on time and on schedule. Many of those are now signature projects right across this province: the Sea to Sky Highway, the Canada Line, the Evergreen Line, Port Mann Bridge, William Bennett Bridge, Kicking Horse Canyon, etc.
He was an incredible individual, someone that always had a sense of humour and always had a smile on his face. Later, after he finished his time over at Partnerships B.C., he continued to sit on the UBC dean of arts advisory council and was a really strong advocate for kids with autism, as part of the Pacific Autism Family Centre.
I want to, in this House, express my gratitude to Larry for the incredible contribution he’s made to the province of British Columbia and to let his family know that he was a great British Columbian, a great civil servant and a great friend and somebody who will be missed.
I ask the House to join me in that.
Introductions by Members
J. Rustad: Today in the gallery, we have 59 representatives from the health sector. These are doctors and nurses, chiropractors, naturopaths and many other health care sector workers. They’re here today, of course, watching question period. They’re also here for the introduction of a petition, which I will do after question period, of course, on the Health Professions and Occupations Act.
There are three individuals that I want to be able to highlight here today, starting with Dr Anna Kindy. She is a tireless advocate for the marginalized and stigmatized people from the north Island for over 25 years. She represented Canada in mogul skiing at the Alberta Olympics. In 1998, Anne and her husband, surgeon Peter Oleson, moved to Campbell River and specialized in addiction medicine. I’m also very proud to announce that she is our candidate for the North Island. Would the House please make her welcome.
I should have introduced all three at once. My apologies.
The second that I’d like to introduce is Dr. Marina Sapoznikov, who is going to be our candidate for the Juan de Fuca–Malahat riding. Dr. Sapoznikov, actually, is originally from Russia and emigrated to Israel where she competed her residency. She’s since moved to Canada and since 2004 has been working in rural in-patient, outpatient and emergency care in B.C.
The third that I’d like to introduce is Mike Harris, who, of course, is our candidate for Langford-Highlands. He was our candidate in the by-election and did very well. Mike is an entrepreneur and small business owner with experience in housing, a director of minor hockey, a longtime coach and a proud father and grandfather.
Will the House please make them welcome.
P. Milobar: Today we’re joined in the chamber by the newest member of our LEC team for the B.C. United caucus, Shelley Frost, who comes by way of Kamloops and has acclimated very quickly to the role and is doing great work for a great many of us MLAs. She’s also joined by her friends Kris Baker and Daniel Goyer.
Although I understand it’s their first time at question period, I have very confidently, on behalf of the official opposition, promised that there most certainly will be questions. I do hope it’s a historic day and we actually have answers today in question period.
Will the House please make them welcome.
M. Babchuk: On this exact day in 1992, a bright light was brought into my life at the Kitimat Hospital at about eight o’clock in the morning, my daughter Amy-Lee, one of the most caring, compassionate and creative young women I know, who is also going to bless me with my third grandson in about four weeks, which is very exciting.
We love her very much, and I would love this House to wish my daughter Amy-Lee Babchuk a happy birthday with me.
K. Greene: I am very excited today to introduce my daughter Tilly. She is brilliant and fierce, and I am so proud of the person that she’s growing into.
If you could all make her welcome, I would love that.
Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I have two special guests from the UBCM, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Trish Mandewo and Gary MacIsaac. Trish is the new president of UBCM, and Gary is the executive director.
Trish became the new president of UBCM this year, September 22. She was previously UBCM vice-president and chair of the Indigenous relations committee. She’s also in her second term as a city of Coquitlam councillor.
I look forward to working with Trish and, as well, to continue working with Gary in all the work that they do in representing B.C. municipalities.
Would the House please make Trish and Gary feel very welcome.
M. Dykeman: Joining us in the gallery today are a wonderful family from my constituency, the Waddells — Scott, Jackie and their amazing daughter Megan.
In addition to having a great name, Megan, I’m pretty sure she’s going to have a seat one day in this Legislature. She’s a brilliant and very politically minded young lady. Scott and Jackie are a wonderful business owners in our community and very philanthropic. I’m thrilled that they are going to be coming today and joining the MLA from Langley and me on a tour around noontime.
I was wondering if the House could please join me in making them feel very welcome.
R. Leonard: Today I have two guests in the gallery from home, from Courtenay-Comox.
I want to introduce James Watson, who’s 15½. He has three older sisters. I’m not sure if that’s a challenge or condolence for him. James has a love for skiing at our beautiful Mount Washington and for hockey and joined the Strathcona Bears U18 rep hockey team this fall on defence.
James is taking a keen interest in understanding both our federal and provincial Legislature this year and is looking forward to his first tour here in the Legislature, this beautiful seat of democracy. He’s also here to listen to question period. He says he has confirmed with his dad that this is the part where there’s a lot of banging on desks. That’s something he thinks he should be able to do in his high school class at Mark R. Isfeld. I’m not sure that we’ve been setting a good example here.
Also, James has been volunteering for the B.C. Seafood Festival over the past five years. As people know, the B.C. Seafood Festival is here for us today. He’s here, in particular, as a volunteer with his father, who’s accompanying him, John Watson, who’s been a part of our community for many decades now and is a driving force behind the seafood festival.
May the House please join me in welcoming them here today.
B. Banman: There are actually approximately 20 guests I’d love to introduce, but I will, for time, limit that to four.
I’d like the House to welcome Dr. Stephen Malthouse. He has over 43 years of experience in various medical fields, including family, palliative and emergency medicine. He founded the Canadian Integrative Medicine Association and the Canadian Health Alliance, and he’s an advocate for non-traditional therapies and a member of the B.C. Rising association’s Bill 36 committee.
I’d also like to welcome and introduce Jan Webb — registered nurse, distinguished nursing career of over 40 years on southern Vancouver Island, specializing in acute care and planning discharges for at-risk patients.
Dr. York Hsiang — professor emeritus of surgery and former head of vascular surgery at UBC, distinguished fellow and past president of multiple vascular and ethics societies. He took early retirement due to opposition to mandatory vaccinations.
Lastly, Ingrid Pincott is a retired naturopathic doctor, retired with 33 years of practice, and educator on naturopathic principles and active in the Bill 36 committee as well.
Would the House please welcome these and the 16 others that also are with them and make them feel very welcome in this House.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
OBSERVANCE OF REMEMBRANCE DAY
D. Davies:
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow
old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the
going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember
them.
This Saturday at the 11th hour, the 11th day of the 11th month, Canadians from coast to coast will unite in two minutes of silence to pay tribute to all those who have fallen. We honour their immense sacrifice, and we honour all those who have served.
As we approach Remembrance Day, I encourage all British Columbians to visit a local store, their legion, the mall, to purchase a poppy. Donations that are raised through the poppy campaign go directly to supporting veterans and their families. In wearing a poppy, we demonstrate our unwavering commitment to honour, support and remember our veterans.
On Remembrance Day, I encourage everyone who is able to find a ceremony or a service in their local community to attend, to pay respects and to thank the generations of selfless men and women who have served and who continue to serve in times of war, conflict and peace. Let us reflect on the courage displayed by those who have so courageously fought to keep our country safe and free. These freedoms that we enjoy today were earned through the dedication and the bravery of those who wore uniforms when called upon.
It is important that we do not forget our past. We do not forget those who have come before us. Every day that we wake up in this great nation, we should be thankful for all of those that wear a uniform. Together we can keep their legacies alive in our hearts to ensure that their story lives on for generations to come.
Lest we forget.
RIDGE MEADOWS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
WOMEN IN BUSINESS
CELEBRATION
B. D’Eith: Recently the Ridge Meadows Chamber of Commerce hosted an incredibly successful event celebrating women in business at the ACT Arts Centre in Maple Ridge.
The event showcased the many female-run and -owned businesses in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. It was run by the chamber’s all-female team and CEO, Kristi Maier. Since Kristi took leadership, the Ridge Meadows chamber has made an incredibly valuable and positive impact on the business community. This event is just one of the many things they’ve accomplished recently.
Local businesses were highlighted and also participated in the event. For instance, the Vanilla Bean Bake Shop, owned by Taylor Livesey, provided beautiful and delicious desserts. Sandra Taylor’s Westgate Flower Garden displayed absolutely gorgeous flower centrepieces, and singer-songwriter Ashley Pater performed beautiful music for everyone.
The celebration also highlighted some exceptional women in business, including Jenn Hopcott, from Hopcott Farms; Rebecca Awram, who’s a local mortgage broker; and Donna Telep, with Seville Mortgage Corp. The keynote speaker was Darci Lang, who addressed the many challenges facing women in business and discussed how people can reframe how they look at work, interactions and relationships with others. Her message was focused on empowering women to succeed when facing seemingly insurmountable obstacles.
Speaking of obstacles, businesses face other challenges such as vandalism and property damage. Recently locally owned Once Upon a Tea Leaf was targeted with a smoke bomb. I’m happy to report that owners Cindy Lea and Taryn Stephenson have announced their grand reopening for November 12. This is a real testament to their tenacity and resilience.
Of course, these kinds of senseless acts are exactly why we launched the new small business rebate program — to help businesses recover from vandalism or for vandalism prevention.
It is wonderful to see this packed House. I’d really like the members here to honour our incredible women in business in our communities today.
DIWALI
M. Lee: I rise to recognize and celebrate Diwali, also known as the celebration of lights.
We join South Asian communities across British Columbia. Diwali symbolizes the triumph of light over darkness. Diwali and other related celebrations, such as Bandi Chhor Divas, mark this Sunday, November 12.
In my community of Vancouver-Langara, across Canada and the world, Diwali is a time of vibrant celebration, a festival that illuminates not just homes but hearts. It symbolizes the triumph of light over darkness, good over evil and knowledge over ignorance.
As we mark this occasion, I’m reminded of the diversity of my community. Vancouver-Langara is a mosaic of cultures, each thread contributing to the vibrant tapestry of our shared experience. With its colourful traditions, Diwali resonates deeply with so many in our constituency of Vancouver-Langara, especially in the South Asian community.
Recently the Leader of the Official Opposition, the B.C. United caucus and I and the member for Kelowna West participated in a wonderful gathering at the Fraserview Banquet Hall to celebrate Diwali, the recognition that even the lights that shine in Diwali are more than just decorations. They are beacons of hope, a reminder that even in the darkest of times, there’s always the possibility of light.
As we navigate the challenges in our province, let us draw inspiration from the spirit of Diwali. Diwali is a time of reflection and renewal. Let us embrace the values of compassion, kindness and understanding, building bridges that unite us in our shared humanity. As many this weekend light the diyas and share in joyous festivities, may the spirit of Diwali inspire us to be better neighbours, friends and stewards of our communities.
PHOENIX PAY SYSTEM ISSUES AND
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES
J. Routledge: There’s a long-standing misconception that if you land a government job, particularly a federal government job, you are set for life. Decent pay, promotions, good benefits and a great pension. This misconception has made public employees easy targets for mass layoffs, contracting out and deregulation.
The Phoenix pay system is one terrible example of downsizing gone mad. In 2011, the Harper government hired an outside contractor to develop a new, consolidated payroll system. Hundreds of compensation advisers were laid off and their years of expertise lost.
Since then, 300,000 federal public service workers have been impacted. Some have received paycheques that are short. Some have gone for months at a time without any pay at all. More than 55,800 retirees are still awaiting the termination of their pay files, which means they can’t access their severance or their pensions. Many have experienced debt, loss, bankruptcy, even homelessness.
Since 2016, there hasn’t been one single pay period without significant errors. There are currently more than 450,000 pay issues waiting to be fixed. The backlog continues to grow by nearly 10 percent a year, and the federal government has had to hire back the compensation advisers they fired.
Many of these victims of Phoenix live in British Columbia. They continue, in spite of everything, to serve the needs of our communities. They inspect our food, they process our tax rebates, they warn us about incoming severe weather, they rescue us at sea, and they support the very veterans we will be honouring on November 11. They do these jobs to keep us safe.
They are our neighbours, our friends and our family members, and they deserve better respect from their employer.
REMEMBRANCE DAY AND WAR VETERANS
B. Banman: Today I rise before this esteemed assembly to mark the solemn occasion that touches the heart of every Canadian: Remembrance Day.
At the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month, we will pause in silence to remember the brave men and women who have laid down their lives, for our sake, to keep Canada glorious and free. We will reflect on the sacrifices made during both world wars, Korea, Bosnia, Afghanistan and the numerous conflicts, as well as peacekeeping missions, that are ongoing.
These brave souls, from storming the shores of Normandy to defending the rugged hills of Kapyong, from peacekeeping in the Balkans to patrolling the deserts of Kandahar, have laid a foundation of courage and resilience. Their legacy is carved into the cenotaphs across our vast country, and their memory is carried in the deepest parts of our hearts.
We also remember those who came back bearing the scars of war, both visible and invisible. They carry the burden of their experiences so that the rest of us may live freely. It is right and just, our duty and vocation, to care for these brave men and women to the best of our abilities.
This Remembrance Day, let us renew our commitment to never forget those who have paid the ultimate price and to support those who came home bearing the many wounds of battle. Let us wear our poppies with pride, as a symbol of remembrance and as a beacon of hope, hope in our dark and troubled times. The poppies remind us that out of the devastation of war and conflict, there is always the potential for new growth and peace.
To the members of the Canadian Armed Forces serving today, many of whom are far away from home and their loved ones, we extend our deepest gratitude. By your willingness, dedication, vigilance and sacrifice, our nation is kept safe, and your service is a living witness to the memory of those who have served before you. It honours them, their families and Canada.
On this day, we stand in this Legislature reflecting upon the incredible sacrifices of our ancestors and facing the future determination to uphold the values for which so many have given their lives. May God keep our land glorious and free.
We will remember them.
Lest we forget.
REMEMBRANCE DAY AND
IMPORTANCE OF
PEACE
G. Begg: It is that time of year again where we all come together to celebrate Remembrance Day. We observe this day, November 11, because hostilities formally ended at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918. Countries of the world join each other in two minutes of silence at 11 as a mark of commemoration and respect.
This is truly a day that deserves an observation of many countries around the world. It serves as a reminder of the sacrifices made by brave men and women in the time of war. We celebrate the day to honour and pay tribute to those who selflessly served their countries, protecting the freedoms and values that we all now hold dear.
This day holds deep historical and emotional significance. It has become a symbol of remembrance for those who lost their lives in conflicts throughout all of history. It’s also a way to ensure that the memories of those who fought and died for our freedoms are never forgotten. It’s a time to reflect on the horror of war, the bravery of soldiers and the impact of their sacrifices on our lives. Through ceremonies, parades and moments of silence, we come together to honour their memory and express our gratitude.
This day also serves as a reminder of the importance of peace and unity. It prompts us to strive for a world where conflicts are resolved through dialogue and understanding rather than violence. It encourages us to work toward a future where the sacrifices of the past are not in vain.
As we celebrate and talk about Remembrance Day, we must teach our young ones about the significance of history and the importance of cherishing our peace. It is our opportunity to remind them: never again.
Oral Questions
DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES
AND GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
HOUSING
K. Falcon: The NDP is planning on one of the largest tax increases on new homes in a generation. B.C. already has the highest tax for homes than anywhere else in this country.
In Vancouver, the cost of taxes, provincial taxes on homes represents about $644,000 in the cost of any new home being built. But Metro Vancouver’s recent decision to introduce a new Metro Vancouver regional development cost charge will nearly triple the fees on new homes and only make the existing problem worse.
I have always said in this House…. I keep trying to educate the members opposite that if you want more affordable housing, you have to make it less expensive. So I’ll try again because the Premier has repeatedly refused to answer a pretty simple question.
Will the Premier step up and block Metro Vancouver’s unjust tax increase of up to $24,000 for every new home being built, yes or no?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The trend in this place continues. We never really know where the Leader of the Opposition stands on any issues. Every single day there’s a new issue. Every single day there’s a new position.
In this case, it’s rare that it’s not dictated by the B.C. Conservatives.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Every single housing initiative that we’ve brought forward, they’ve opposed. We said, “Let’s bring back more housing with the speculation vacancy tax” and brought close to 20,000 units back — opposed.
We said: “Let’s build more housing on our residential land. Let’s allow homebuilders, let’s allow people who own properties to be able to build three units on smaller lots, four on larger lots” — opposed.
We said: “Let’s reform the process so that if a community plan is in place, it doesn’t need to go through another lengthy hearing.” They opposed.
Not only that, opposed the $1 billion for infrastructure for local communities, opposed the $500 million to TransLink, opposed the $250 million for the Iona wastewater facility.
What does this Leader of the Opposition believe in? He says: “Tax cuts for developers.” That’s the only thing he has offered this House.
I appreciate that his position has changed so much, so often. We have a year to the next election. I expect it to change many times till then.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
K. Falcon: Always good to get tips from somebody who has absolutely zero experience in the home-building sector.
I’ll try this. Actually, what we’re opposed to are the terrible results that you’ve gotten after seven years of being in government.
Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair.
K. Falcon: Just to remind the Minister of Housing, we now have, after seven years of your government, the most unaffordable real estate not just in Canada — no, that’s not a good enough goal for you — but in North America. That’s your record here in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.
K. Falcon: We now have, Mr. Speaker, the highest average rents in the entire country after seven years of NDP government. So I am not going to take any lessons from this individual or that government, I can assure you.
But I can tell you this. There are groups that are warning that the taxes the Premier is endorsing will add millions to the cost of new homes, cause serious delays — years, in fact — as we hear from municipalities that all these policies that they’re rushing in, in a mad panic, in their last year, to try and pretend that they’re doing something on housing, are creating massive confusion in the residential housing market.
These unexpected delays and indecisions and lack of understanding and clarity are going to cost families lots more as they are delayed in getting projects through the housing approval system. So instead of making housing less expensive, the Premier is doubling and tripling down on new taxes that will only end up being paid by the people that one day hope to put a key in their front door and actually own a home in this province.
Once again, will the Premier, through the minister, make a commitment to stop these punishing charges that are stalling projects, jacking up prices and pushing the dream of home ownership for British Columbians farther and farther away?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Perhaps the member hasn’t been paying attention. People across Canada, across North America are applauding our government for the actions that we’ve been taking.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Member. Member.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate that they have a position today. I also appreciate that position may change tomorrow, and it may change the next day. It may change closer to the election. We’ve seen that trend with everything.
The Leader of the Opposition was in favour of us taking action for the Surrey police transition until the B.C. Conservatives decided they were against it. Then they switched their position.
They voted in favour of harm reduction measures until the B.C. Conservatives said: “We’re against it.” Then they changed their position. Safe consumption sites, the same thing.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.
Members, no side commentary, please.
Members, the minister has the floor.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Fifteen years telling us how great the carbon tax is. Fifteen years telling us. Then the B.C. Conservatives come out and say, “We’re against it,” and then all of a sudden, he’s against it.
Let me tell you one thing. The member for Peace River South…. When the B.C. Conservatives were raising this issue four years ago, do you know what the member said? He said: “Reducing the carbon tax is a valid thing to say, but can you explain what services you’re going to cut to make up for the $5 billion shortfall? Can the B.C. Conservatives plan a deficit budget?”
They have to answer these questions now.
POLICE INVESTIGATION OF
DRUG USER
ORGANIZATION
M. de Jong: My question is for the Attorney General, and it relates to the police investigation that we now know is taking place into the activities of the Drug User Liberation Front. That’s an investigation, of course, that relates to allegations of illegal drug trafficking, tracing significant amounts of public dollars used to acquire and distribute cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines.
The investigation stems from funding approvals made by at least three ministers in the government. I’m going to come back to the absurdity of the comments we’ve heard about when the government learned or purported to learn about this. I’ll come back to that in a moment.
My concern right now is: given the kinds of comments we have heard from members of the government sympathetic to the activities of the Drug User Liberation Front, the direct involvement of members of the government, will the Attorney General agree that when the report to Crown counsel that will emerge from this police investigation is presented to a prosecutor for consideration of charges, it cannot possibly be a prosecutor within the government and within the Attorney General’s Ministry?
Will the Attorney General confirm that a special prosecutor has been appointed, and if not, why not?
Hon. N. Sharma: I’m not going to comment here in the House on any form of investigation the police are doing, and the member knows that’s not an appropriate forum for this conversation.
What I will say is that I find it really troubling that the opposition is politicizing an issue that’s costing 13,000 people to die in British Columbia to this day. The opioid crisis is hitting communities across this province. That they would use this issue to make cheap political shots is shameful.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Members, calm down. Calm down.
Member, supplemental.
M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair. I don’t know that I have ever heard an Attorney General make the observation that it is inappropriate for an official opposition to pose questions about criminal activity in the province of British Columbia.
You know, we are confronted by the absurdity of members of the government saying: “Oh, we only learned about this last month.”
The Attorney was the Chair of a committee that over a year ago, heard evidence: “DULF is buying drugs from the dark web, having them checked, boxing them up and letting people have them.” It’s absurd what the government is trying to peddle in terms of what it knew and when.
My question, again to the Attorney. The office of special prosecutor was created specifically for the purpose that the public could have the confidence, in circumstances where there might be a reasonable perception of bias — investigations involving people within government, involving politicians — that someone would come from outside of the ministry, and it has happened frequently, to be appointed to make a decision around charge approvals.
Again, my question to the Attorney: has a special prosecutor been appointed in this case, and if not, why not?
Hon. N. Sharma: I did chair the Select Standing Committee on Health. It was a committee that was called upon by the member for Prince George–Valemount, by the Leader of the Third Party because thousands of people in this province are dying by the toxic drug supply.
We took our job seriously. I’m proud of the work we did across parties. Very rarely is there a space in this building where we work across party lines to come up with resolutions.
Every member, including the member for Surrey–White Rock, including the member for Peace River North, showed up to that committee open-minded, understanding what people are experiencing and feeling in this province, and people on the front line that were giving us their thoughts about what they thought…
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Member.
Hon. N. Sharma: …the government should do to address this crisis.
We gave recommendations to that government. Thirteen thousand people have died in this province from this issue.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Member.
Hon. N. Sharma: Again, I find it shameful that they’re using the work of that committee for two political points.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Member.
Member for Surrey South, please be careful in your comments.
Member for Abbotsford West, supplemental.
M. de Jong: I actually don’t doubt that members of the committee took their duties responsibly, took them seriously. I am certain of it. I am certain of it.
I’m asking the Attorney General to take her responsibility today seriously, to discharge her responsibility today as Attorney General. The Crown Counsel Act empowers her, in circumstances where it is abundantly clear that there might be, reasonably, a perception of bias, to ensure that a special prosecutor is appointed. Not only does she avoid answering that basic, fundamental question; she demeans it by suggesting that it is somehow inappropriate.
Third time — I’ll give her the chance. Has the special prosecutor been appointed to oversee the charge approval process in this matter, and if not, why not?
Hon. N. Sharma: I will comment again that I’m not going to speak in this House about criminal proceedings or investigations that are happening. The member knows that this is not the forum for that.
I will say again that I find it troubling that when we are doing work in this House that is listening to British Columbians and understanding their perspectives to solve very important issues that are happening in this province, that side wants to politicize it. That side wants to make it about very cheap political shots instead of saving lives in this province.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, shhh.
CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM AND
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT
MINISTRY ACCOUNTABILITY
A. Olsen: As the result of a B.C. Supreme Court decision, the Ministry of Children and Family Development has a policy for new mothers who have had their children removed and taken into care to accommodate the breastfeeding of those babies. It’s a compassionate policy that allows a mother and a newborn child to bond — essential first moments that can never be recovered if they are stolen from the mother and their baby.
The minister has continued to repeat her commitment to keeping Indigenous mothers, children and families together. And this week I read yet another story from the unrelenting IndigiNews reporter Anna McKenzie about a child, two days old, taken from her mother, Chelsey Woodward, in Surrey, and sent to a home in Langley.
The mother does not have a vehicle. The breastfeeding is not being accommodated, even with a remarkable network of individuals and organizations mobilizing for Chelsey and her child. More of the same cruel punishment from this minister for this mother and her child.
To the Child Development Minister, when is this minister going to demonstrate that she actually cares about the well-being of Indigenous mothers and their newborn babies?
Hon. M. Dean: Thank you so much to the member for the question.
We know that it’s absolutely vital for babies to be able to be breastfed wherever possible, and the ministry makes every effort to make sure that is accommodated. We know that benefits the attachment and the bonding between the infant and the mother, and every effort is made to make sure that can be accommodated.
A lot of changes have been made in the ministry in order to make sure that Indigenous families are kept together wherever that is possible and that steps are taken to make sure that close relationship and bonding and that sense of belonging is nurtured, because we know that leads to the best outcomes for children and families.
Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.
A. Olsen: Whenever possible. Human rights, whenever possible, for this minister? Honestly?
Whenever possible. That’s not what the court said. The courts didn’t say: “Whenever possible.” That’s what the minister is saying.
I’ve heard how exasperated front-line MCFD workers are with their leadership, expressing that they’re tired and frustrated. This ministry needs new leadership.
This ministry spends $135,000 per child, per year on those children in care — apparently not enough cash for this mother to get a ride to her child so they can experience what the courts say is a human right, an unbreakable bond between the mother and their baby.
This B.C. NDP minister, this Premier, the backbench, like the last, is propping up a child welfare system that has destroyed families yet somehow, even with the blinding spotlight on this minister, her deputy minister, the ministry continue to deliver those stories to question period. It feels like they actually revel in this attention.
To the minister responsible for the well-being of the most vulnerable children and families in this province, when is she going to do the honorable thing, fire her deputy minister and then step down?
Hon. M. Dean: I absolutely understand the passion and the question from the member. We know that for far too long, this ministry, and the colonial system of government, has been over-intrusive in the lives of Indigenous children and youth and families and has caused harm and intergenerational trauma.
Since 2017, our government has been committed to addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous children and youth in care. We know that leads to poorer outcomes, so we have changed legislation. We have changed policy. We have invested in the budget of this ministry.
Last year unanimously in this chamber, we passed historic legislation to support Indigenous communities exercising their inherent jurisdiction over services for children and youth and families. We’re investing in young people transitioning into adulthood and leaving the government care system. We have harmonized rates so that kids who are able to stay with close family or with community are able to be supported the same way as kids coming into foster care, preventing more kids coming into foster care.
We actually now have the lowest number of kids in care in over 30 years and Indigenous kids in care in over 20 years. I know there’s a lot more work to do, and we’re absolutely committed, and I am driven to making sure that we make those improvements.
IMPLEMENTATION OF
HEALTH PROFESSIONS LEGISLATION
AND CONSULTATION BY GOVERNMENT
J. Rustad: Today in the gallery with the health care workers who are here…. They represent the backbone of our health care system. They have spent decades serving patients, serving their community and caring for the people in their communities.
Many of these health care professionals have taken time away from serving their patients to be here today because they feel that it is that important. They’re concerned about health care. They’re concerned about the fact of their shortages in staffing. They’re concerned about the ER closures. They’re concerned, quite frankly, about the loss of freedom in health care, and they’re concerned about the medical tyranny that this government is putting on the control of health care in this province.
The question that I’m proud to be asking here today, on behalf of thousands of health care workers across this province as well as on behalf of the members that are present today from the Canadian Society for Science and Ethics in Medicine, to the Premier: will you acknowledge the feedback from thousands of health care workers from across this province who are asking you to pause on the Health Professions and Occupations Act and return to the drawing board, or do you intend to continue down this path of medical tyranny?
Hon. A. Dix: The Health Professions and Occupations Act was passed by the Legislature.
It was the result of years of consultation. First, consultation leading to the Cayton report. Then unprecedented consultation with all parties in the Legislature. Then unprecedented consultation with Indigenous people. The vast majority of that consultation took place with health professionals.
It had record hours of debate in this Legislature, 47 hours of debate, and as the member will know, it was supported at second reading by the Conservative Party’s House Leader, who spoke in favour of it in the debate, including the important issues of transparency, which it provides for patients.
We are implementing the Health Professions and Occupations Act, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Fourth Party, supplemental.
J. Rustad: It is sad the way this minister portrays this act and what it is doing in terms of health care in this province.
I want to ask.… Today at noon we will have health care professionals out on the back steps of the Legislature. The Conservative Party will be out joining them to talk about this issue and to talk about health care in this province.
I invite all members to come out and to hear their words, to hear what they will be presenting. They believe passionately in this. They disagree with this minister, particularly in this heavy-handed and tone-deaf approach as we’re even hearing here in the answer today.
My question, quite frankly, to the Premier is: during the government’s so-called consultation process that the minister just outlined, why were so many non-disclosure agreements signed with British Columbia’ health care boards? What is it that this minister is hiding from health care workers?
Hon. A. Dix: The Health Professions and Occupations Act was the result of unprecedented consultation, including, and very significantly, consultation with opposition parties that were involved in its development. The Legislature is responsible for the law, but everyone was involved in its development.
One of the really important principles for all members — the member from Cowichan, the Leader of the Third Party; the member for Kelowna–Lake Country represented their caucuses in those discussions — was the importance, also, in a time that we had the In Plain Sight report, of consulting with Indigenous people.
Not only was there unprecedented consultation with the broader community, with health professionals, with opposition parties and a very significant debate in the Legislature, but there was significant consultation with Indigenous people that is reflected in this act. I think it’s an extraordinary thing.
The member asks about noon today. At noon today, I’ll be with ambulance paramedics. We have 1,000 more full-time ambulance paramedics in B.C. than we had in 2017. We’ll be expanding services, including in the member’s riding, this afternoon to ensure that people in British Columbia, especially in rural communities, get support for health professionals.
We have added more nurses, more doctors than all the other jurisdictions in Canada in the last several years. In the last Canadian Institute for Health Information report, we added 6.7 percent more nurses. They went down in Alberta. We in B.C. support our health professionals, support science and support our provincial health officer.
PRIMARY HEALTH CARE IN VERNON
S. Bond: I well remember the 47 hours of debate where this side of the House stood up and opposed the bill.
We did it in appropriate ways. We voted against it. I would point out that the member, who just got up and spoke, did not speak at all to the bill when it was in the Legislature. It’s important to set the record straight.
For 17 months, we have been calling for an all-hands-on-deck approach, including the return of unvaccinated health care workers, to align with the rest of North America in our province. Yet this NDP government stubbornly refuses and continues to fail in addressing a worsening health care crisis.
I’ll bring this situation to the minister’s attention. He knows well that the doctors at Vernon Jubilee Hospital have actually issued a public warning: “With the planned closure of Vernon’s last remaining walk-in clinic…120 patients per day will now be left with limited options for…their primary and urgent care needs.”
How on earth can the Premier or this minister possibly defend the NDP’s new normal, which includes having no walk-in clinics in Vernon?
Hon. A. Dix: I believe, and I say this respectfully, the member was mistaken.
All members of this Legislature voted for Bill 36 at second reading in a standing vote. I don’t say that to be critical. I just say that so that we all understand the record equally.
The official opposition supported the requirement for vaccination. The Leader of the Opposition clearly stated his support for that initiative. Members of this House will note that we were the only jurisdiction to implement that. It was called for by the opposition before we did so.
We were the only jurisdiction to succeed in doing it. Others attempted to. We did it because of the priority we have given to protect vulnerable people in our province.
With respect to Vernon, we continue to work with the walk-in clinic to make a significant series of offers of support to that clinic. In addition to that, we added an urgent and primary care centre in Vernon, which has seen 77,000 visits since opening. We also have, in Vernon, a primary care network, and we’ll have more opportunity to talk about that on the next supplementary.
Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.
S. Bond: The minister completely ignores the fact that under our watch, we actually significantly expanded health care capacity, including Polson Tower in Vernon. Under this minister’s watch, what we’re seeing is him overseeing the closure of clinics and shrinking capacity.
In what has become absolutely routine for this minister, yet another group of emergency room doctors have sent a letter. They have taken the extraordinary step of having the courage to speak up and send letters to this government. They released a public letter warning that the ER cannot manage the overflow of 120 additional patients every single day once the walk-in clinic shuts its doors.
Dr. Chris Cunningham, who runs the soon-to-close Sterling walk-in clinic, said this week that he has been met with total silence from IHA and the Ministry of Health since September. Even worse, despite appealing to the NDP MLA for Vernon-Monashee this midsummer, the doctor’s calls have gone unanswered. “I have not heard from her since.” So much for being in dialogue and trying to solve the problem.
How can the minister, day after day, stand in this chamber and defend the NDP’s new normal of a health care crisis, which is actually seeing patients finding worse outcomes every single day in this province?
Hon. A. Dix: To correct the record again, in contact, meeting with Dr. Cunningham, September 24. Most recent meeting with doctors at the clinic, November 3. As part of the ministry’s effort to keep the clinic open….
Interjection.
Hon. A. Dix: This is the answer to the question, hon. Member. I’m happy to do so.
We have already offered bridge stabilization funding that was accepted in February and in August for this clinic with a total of $76,000.
In addition, the following solutions were outlined and rejected. The longitudinal payment model with a grace period until March 31, 2024 — offered and rejected. Ministry of Health walk-in clinic stabilization contract, March 31, 2024, offered and rejected.
The Shuswap North Okanagan primary care network, was created by this government, remember? In 2009, they were promised by a previous Minister of Health a primary care network. They delivered none. The Shuswap North Okanagan primary care network, offered a same-day access contract and extended hours….
Interjection.
Hon. A. Dix: Not us.
Something led by the division of family practice with Vernon physicians, if we want to talk about that, offered and rejected. The stabilization offer is still on the table.
We are going to continue to work to expand health care services for people in Vernon. I’m telling you the person who’s advocating most for that is the member for Vernon-Monashee.
G. Kyllo: The reality is that there’s a severe health care shortage. Nurses are stressed out, burnt out, unfilled shifts. We have emergency rooms being closed. Mental disorder claims for the health care sector are up 500 percent. One hundred twenty patients a day will be without any options.
In July, a Vernon walk-in clinic was where my constituent first heard the chilling words “invasive stage 2 breast cancer.” Post-operative care has also been an absolute nightmare, a 17-week wait for radiation therapy.
Cancer is a disease that cannot wait, but my constituent’s critical radiation therapy is delayed well beyond the recommended life-saving, four-week window.
Can the Premier possibly defend this NDP new normal of a total lack of access to basic health care in our province?
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for his question. The member knows that when people bring matters to my attention, I always respond to those issues and always respond to individual issues that are brought by members of the opposition because of my respect for that process.
Obviously, with respect to Vernon, we have made significant investments in primary care. In Vernon, there wasn’t an urgent and primary care centre before. There is now, 76,000 visits. It’s one of the most popular urgent and primary care centres in all of British Columbia.
There’s a primary care network, something the previous government failed to deliver, for the people of Vernon. They promised it, and they delivered zero. With respect to what we’ve done in Vernon, the Shuswap North Okanagan primary care network has received approval for an operating budget of $12.8 million for 75 FTE clinical resources.
Primary care networks across B.C. have added 1,600 health care workers to our province. We’re going to continue to invest in a public health care system that responds to the needs of people and supports our health care workers.
I met with all of those doctors in Vernon at the Vernon Jubilee Hospital when I was there in the summer, and I’m going to continue to work with them to find solutions to all of the issues for the people of Vernon and everywhere else.
[End of question period.]
Petitions
J. Rustad: I rise today to present a petition. This is on behalf of the 17,500 signatures that we presented last spring. These are thousands more petitions in the form of postcards that will be going to every member in this Legislature.
The petition is an effort that was led, of course, by many of the front-line health care workers, the doctors, the nurses, chiropractors and many others that are so concerned about the new legislation that is going to be implemented this year.
D. Davies: On behalf of Jason White of Fort Nelson, the residents of Northern Rockies request a carbon tax refund or removal on home heating. We have 200 signatures, which is significant for the small town of Fort Nelson. The request is based on economic factors — long, cold winters forcing people’s dependence on natural gas and diesel for heating.
Tabling Documents
Hon. N. Sharma: I rise to table the 2022-23 annual service plan report for the British Columbia Family Maintenance Agency, revised November 2023.
This 2022-23 annual service plan was publicly released on August 30, 2023. However, due to an administrative error, the incorrect years’ financial statements were appended to that report. I table this report today which appends the correct years’ financial statements for the year ending 2023.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call continued second reading of Bill 46, the Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023.
In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 41, Forests Statutes Amendment Act.
In the third House, committee room C, I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 43, money judgment enforcement act.
D. Clovechok: I’d just like to call a brief recess while we get prepared for the bill.
Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for five minutes.
The House recessed from 11:08 a.m. to 11:14 a.m.
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 46 — HOUSING STATUTES
(DEVELOPMENT FINANCING)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023
(continued)
Deputy Speaker: We’ll call the House to order.
D. Davies: I’m happy to continue my remarks from last day on Bill 46, the Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act.
I’m going to start with the one line I think everyone has mentioned. It’s been mentioned in this House numerous, numerous times over the past few years. It’s a really simple concept. If we want to make housing more affordable, we need to make it less expensive. It is that easy of a concept to work toward affordable housing solutions in British Columbia.
However, what we have seen this government do is the opposite of that, with fees and costs and taxes. Red tape, barriers, on and on and on are being added to the upfront costs of homes that we so much need to be building in this province. It is mind-boggling that the very simple concept of making the cost of building a home, bringing down the cost to purchase a home, is not being followed by this government.
Bill 46 is one such piece of legislation, as I remarked yesterday, that adds more costs up front. Of course, these costs…. Some of them are on the amenity cost charges, where now we’re looking at….
I guess a concern in the bill is that the list is inconclusive. We’re not really sure what it’s going to look like. But the costs now will be put onto a home to cover community and youth or seniors care centres, recreational or athletic centres, libraries, daycare, public squares and meeting places, down the path of policing.
When we start looking at those, you are going to be adding tens of thousands of dollars to the upfront costs of building a home. This is a theme we’re seeing around this government introducing legislation to try and improve things. But it’s, again, the results that we’re seeing at the other end — fail after fail after fail.
And we’re hearing it. Recently, like just in the last couple of days, talking to some builders…. We’ve seen a fury of housing legislation come forward, lots of it not necessarily lined up.
When we start seeing all of these changes and these recommendations and this bureaucracy and the amount of regulation that these bills leave open, contractors and builders across the province of British Columbia are almost at the point of throwing the towel in because of the uncertainty. They’re not even sure how all of these….
We’re looking at five or six pieces of housing legislation just in the last few weeks — big pieces of legislation. Communities and municipalities haven’t even had the chance to digest how these are going to impact, nor have contractors and developers.
When we add that onto the plethora of other things that this government has done to make this province not very attractive to do business in, to build in, to invest in, we are going to start seeing a lot of licence plates heading elsewhere. That heading elsewhere is to other jurisdictions, other than British Columbia, whether it be Alberta or beyond.
That’s a real worry when I think about my own kids and where they’re going to grow up or raise their families. They’re certainly not going to be able to afford a house here, under the current projections, in the Lower Mainland, even here on the south Island. We’ve already seen the number: 78 percent of our young people in British Columbia have given up hope of ever owning a home. That’s absolutely shameful.
There was a time not so long ago, even when I was younger, certainly for my parents, grandparents and beyond, that you got out of school and you started building toward that dream, that hope of owning a home. That has been snuffed out by this government, especially when you’re looking at a single-family home in the $2 million range in the Lower Mainland. As I said yesterday, when I was a young person, in my mind, two million bucks…. That’s where the movie stars lived when I was younger: a $2 million home. Now a $2 million home hardly gets you anything in Vancouver. It hardly gets you anything in most of the Lower Mainland.
How can we, and how can the government, continue to throw these exorbitant fees, taxes and red tape in front of this and discourage people from building homes to alleviate a problem that we know we have, of not enough homes? I don’t understand how the government is thinking, how this improves for someone moving into home ownership in this province.
We are already the most expensive jurisdiction on the continent. We heard that today during question period. It doesn’t matter if you’re looking at fuel costs, groceries — they’re all connected, of course — post-secondary education. The list goes on and on. That list, after Bill 46, of new taxes and fees that this government has imposed on British Columbians — 30 now — is adding to that fire of making things completely unaffordable. This one is a direct hit on that dream of a young person of ever, ever owning a home in British Columbia. It’s shameful.
I think the government needs to go back to the drawing board, look at their housing strategy and align it with what people really need, with what young people need, with what British Columbians need. I’m absolutely shocked. I will say this again to the members across the way: if you are going to build affordable housing, you need to make it cost less to build.
B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure for me to rise on Bill 46, the Housing Statutes Amendment Act. I think that this is an important piece of legislation. It’s important because it’s part of the narrative. I think we’ve been seeing piece after piece of legislation coming into the House about housing, not as one complete package but as little snippets. It’s kind of what’s going on, and this piece is particularly concerning.
I think housing affordability is in front of every person’s mind in British Columbia. It’s our job in this House to ensure that we do everything possible to lower the costs. We must ensure that nobody has to choose between affording gas or groceries or paying their rent or mortgage.
After seven years in government, two elections and three Housing Ministers, the situation is that the plan now is obviously very reactive. It is not something that is stitched together. It’s not the same as what was announced in 2017: “We’re going to build 114,000 new homes in the next ten years.” That was the story. I think only about 15 percent of that number has been achieved. I know they will say differently, but anyway, the numbers will speak for themselves.
I think this legislation we’re talking about, Bill 46, is ultimately going to continue to worsen affordability. It’s going to increase housing costs. The amenity cost charges is an interesting kind of approach. Having read a little bit about the purpose in the bill, it’s really to help in funding some of the infrastructure that is going to be sadly lacking. It’s going to add to costs.
As the official opposition, it’s our role to critique legislation and to hold this government accountable, especially on issues as important as housing. Plain and simple, this legislation is out of touch with the needs of British Columbia. This bill codifies a new taxation power on housing projects at a local level — amenity cost charges, in addition to expanding development cost charges.
I wanted to see, in my own community, the city of Kelowna, what they actually have. This is something for which there’s a long list. I had no idea that there were so many. I’ve heard about DCCs, CACs, other charges that have been added in the city of Kelowna. I just want to read out some of the charges. As a developer, if I were considering redeveloping a particular lot within the city of Kelowna…. There are different areas, depending on the densification.
Anyway, the development cost charges currently include:
Parks improvement and storm drainage — the taxation assist factors are also being reviewed.
Storm drainage utility — a utility similar to water and wastewater utilities, where service properties pay for storm drainage services.
Parcel tax — a tax applied to parcels that benefit from the provisions of service. Local area services, and we know if we want curb and gutter or sidewalks put in, that’s one of the things that we would do — a tax or charge that benefiting specific property owners pay for service upgrades, which I just mentioned.
Fees and charges — potential increases to the set of fees and charges collected from those who benefit from the use of the service as per the rate established in the fees and charges bylaw.
Community amenity contributions — amenity or financial contributions provided by property developers to pay for the impacts of growth on the services when city council grants development rights for individual units or floor area through rezoning.
One thing that I did see here is density bonusing. I like that because it’s an incentive. If you do get the benefit of building more units, which this legislation, Bill 46, is entirely about, it’s “intended to provide options for the developer to build either to the base density or a higher level of density….” Essentially, it’s the incentive that I think is one of the things that we haven’t heard in any of the pieces of legislation about housing that we’re talking about.
Under the amenity cost charges, we don’t really know what the amount is going to be. It’s spelled out, in the city of Kelowna’s website, exactly what those charges are. This amenity cost charge is in addition to some of those.
There are also an infrastructure levy, long-term capital borrowing, provincial and federal grants. This is the overview of all the options they have in the city of Kelowna.
Let’s just talk about what it costs. We heard today in question period that the cost, before you even start doing anything on a piece of land in the city of Vancouver, is close to $650,000 for a single-family home. That’s a lot of money. That’s the starting point, before you’ve paid for the land or built anything on it. It’s no wonder that a starter home is $2 million in Vancouver.
How are we going to get around that? Where’s that money going to? What’s it funding? The back side of this is: how is that money being used in terms of the cities and operations? What is it going to? For everybody that’s a taxpayer, although it is transparent in the budget, when it comes to the amenity cost charges under Bill 46, what are the charges going to be?
In the city of Kelowna, just to give you an idea, just for roads…. I’m going to give you a couple of examples here. A single detached residential at 15 units per hectare — I know that in here it talks about a much larger number as to what they want — in Kelowna, it varies, depending on where you are in the city, from $27,352 for a single home down to a low number of $11,903.
If you move up, they have different rates: 35 units per hectare, 85 units and then greater than 85 units per hectare. That ranges, in that case where you’re in the most dense area, $16,745, down to a low of $7,287.
The reason I mention those numbers is the fact that in this situation, where we’re talking very high density — we’re talking about up to six units on a particular large lot, maybe more — just in terms of that, you can see what type of contributions are being collected, etc. Now, where is that money going to go?
We know that there are, we’ve heard, all sorts of deficiencies in terms of water, sewer, parking, those type of things. I don’t know exactly how the money is going to be spelled out to be used under the amenity cost charges. But it is an additional charge that’s going to be charged on housing.
In the city of Kelowna, if you build a carriage house, which is just the simplest, like an addition, you’d have to pay as much as $10,349 to add that house just as part of the DCCs. And that’s only for the roads. Water, wastewater trunk lines, wastewater treatment plant and parks — there’s a charge even on that carriage house of up to $8,337. So by the time you’re finished, you’re going to be north of $20,000 just to have the permit to build a carriage house at the back of your property.
There are a lot of these charges. It’s very confusing, and it’s no wonder…. I mean, people seem to think that it’s the developer or the people that are actually building these — that for some reason, because of these high costs — that they’re making unbelievable profits. The reality is that we know that the cost of building materials has skyrocketed. The cost of labour…. I mean, look, we’ve got…. Well, with this, we’ve got 30 new or increased taxes in the province in the last seven years — 30. And this one is not necessarily going to be inexpensive.
That’s one of the reasons why the cost of building, whether it’s through the step code, where you have to have triple-glazed glass, you have to have different insulation ratings…. These are all adding to the cost of why it is that things are so expensive.
The density is a good part of this. That’s not the problem. The real problem is that at the end of the day, the end user is the one that has to fund this. So honestly, I just don’t know how it is that the government sees that extra taxes are going to help make housing more accessible or affordable. The densification is part of the solution, but somehow, we have to take the costs…. The costs have to go down.
I couldn’t help but think of…. Years ago, I used to work in the mortgage business. Mortgage rates were a whole lot different than they are today. In those days, they were only 10¼ percent. That was a good deal. I can remember my dad telling me he had a mortgage with CMHC at about 6 percent. I thought, “Oh my goodness, I’ll never see a 6 percent mortgage in my lifetime.” Little did I know that rates would go as low as they have. They’re back up to, when I was checking yesterday, around 7 percent on just a standard mortgage with TD Bank or whatever.
I think the thing about it is, we’re talking about…. I was having a conversation with my colleague from the Cariboo about a home in Williams Lake and what an average price would be. He said about $500,000. In Kelowna you probably would get into a home or something to start with at around $1 million. In Vancouver, we hear the number is $2 million. That’s a lot of money.
I’m just going to tell you…. If you were the buyer, and let’s say that you had, I don’t know, enough cash to put a down payment in Kelowna. Where would you get $400,000? I have no idea. But at the end of the day, a $600,000 mortgage over 25 years, which is standard, and one of the things that….
It’s funny that the federal government came to the table. They used to have these 30-year mortgages. Having looked at the amortization schedules on mortgages over 30 years, frankly, it’s the never-never plan. You will never pay back that money. It’s such a small amount that’s going to principal. But they reduced it to 25 years. So at an interest rate of 7 percent, that’s going to cost $4,202 per month. It’s what the average homeowner that takes out a $600,000 mortgage…. I mean, if you had the down payment, it doesn’t sound so bad. But how many homes are we talking about that are in the Williams Lake price range? Not many.
I think that one of the things that we’re talking about is that we quickly forget…. This is why, in Bill 46, it’s important. This is adding to the cost of what people actually have to pay out. And it’s no wonder that costs are going up.
Why are groceries going up? Well, the trucks that are driving along and currently paying all the taxes, the carbon tax that’s set to double in the next seven years…. It’s $65 a tonne today. The increased costs that the driver or whoever is filling those trucks, etc., is going to be added on, etc. We know that equation.
But the point I’m really getting at is: you have to stop somewhere. You can’t keep adding costs. If you do that, you basically price everything out of the market, and people just, frankly, give up, and it’s no wonder.
I was looking at another calculation. The average rent in Vancouver is about $3,000 a month. And I’m thinking: what type of income would it take for an individual…? I remember rental rates when I moved to Calgary in the ’70s. You know, we split an apartment, and it was $170 a month furnished. But today, I mean, at $3,000, if I split that with somebody, I’d still have to come up with an income level to pay for my share.
If I’m using the same principle, 30 percent gross debt servicing ratio — 30 percent — then I should be…. Essentially, I’d have to make $52,000 a year just to be able to afford that $3,000-a-month apartment, sharing it with somebody else. So two incomes of $52,000 — we need over $100,000 of gross income to pay for that rental apartment.
How many jobs are out there that are paying $52,000 a year? Frankly, I don’t know. I mean, I think that…. It’s no wonder that people are tough or that they find themselves in a situation where they’re sharing a couch or they’re couch-surfing or staying with family or whatever it is. The reality is that things are out of balance here.
Hon. R. Singh: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. R. Singh: I just see a group of students here. They are from H J. Cambie Secondary School. They have just joined us, along with their teacher, Alyssa Wood.
Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
Debate Continued
B. Stewart: Getting back to Bill 46, it’s all about the costs. It’s insanity. We can’t keep going around, where we keep adding costs to it. Cities like the city of Vancouver, which has just added these new tripling development cost charges…. It’s going to amount to an extra $24,000 on a single-family home, already on that $650,000 that we’ve heard about — all the servicing costs that the city expects.
You know what? We’ve got to stop this treadmill. That’s where this bill should not be supported. This is not the right approach. If it was an incentive-based system, maybe it would give people the ability…. Give them a break, and give them some reason to densify their lot. Instead of having one home, let’s put five or six units on there, or whatever, whether it’s even a carriage house. But we can’t keep kind of adding to the costs of this.
Anyways, if I was a single person trying to afford that rent of $3,000, I’d have to be making $62.50 an hour. I’m not certain how many jobs are $62.50 an hour.
The government…. You know, they talk about housing. I mean, these are all ideas. I could see us sitting around a round table and ideas…. But the ones that we’ve got to put into action — we’ve got to get results. The situation is that if we want more housing, we have to make it more affordable. It can’t just keep driving up the prices, as we’ve seen. It just continues. It’s circular, and it’s not going to help anybody get into housing.
The real…. I would say that this bill, passing it on and stuff like that, is the wrong way to go.
We talk about the cost of the servicing. I mean, they’ve put out a number of $51 million for…. I don’t know how that number was arrived at. I could see it if it was billions, not millions. But the fact is that’s what type of servicing is going to be needed out there.
I think I read this morning that the federal government has perhaps even suggested it might put some money into British Columbia, and the province is considering even putting legislation to block that money from going to homeowners. If that really is the case, we’ve lost the plot here.
I kind of think that if this is really great legislation, why aren’t the government members standing up and speaking to this — about how great these charges are going to be? Well, they should. They should get up and defend it. I mean, the ministers got up and introduced the bill.
These charges bring back a tolling system of sorts. I think you might remember that back in 2008, there was a toll on the Coquihalla. I happily paid it every time I drove by trucks and whatever. But we took that toll off, and I know that the government took the toll off the Port Mann Bridge, which they…. I’m not certain it was constructed properly, but these are a form of tolling on these developments or whatever. The fact is that it’s not any different.
The money has to come from somewhere, but the idea that it’s hidden, and it’s incestuous…. I read out that long list from the city of Kelowna about all of the charges that they have. I’m sure that if I dug deep enough into the city of Vancouver, I could find out where that $650,000 comes from.
Anyways, due to this Bill 46, a new home built next to provincial highways and interchanges could also face another tax, which could be to do with the fact that with the control that the government brought in with Bill 16, essentially around transit infrastructure, they want densification. Totally agree with that. That’s a good thing to strive for.
But are there going to be additional charges just because they now have the authority to go in and maybe expropriate, do whatever they have to do? If it’s a new subway station or for a SkyTrain or whatever, well, then it makes perfect sense. They’re putting in government dollars, and they should be able to do that.
The bottom line is what we don’t want is…. We don’t want the transit infrastructure, highways, etc., just because within 800 metres of the centre line on Highway 97 running through Kelowna, all of a sudden we’ve got a charge. I know that the Speaker has many highways running in her…. And 800 metres pretty well takes in virtually every town or community that we live in.
I kind of see this as backdoor legislation. We’re not getting the full picture. We know that we’ve got increased densification that’s mandatory now. The zoning approvals, etc., have been taken away — no public hearings — and now we have these extra cost charges or whatever, which is, kind of, maybe an explanation of how everybody is going to fund this.
I look forward to the fact that…. This is not well thought out, and I hope that we get a chance to maybe make some amendments to this to make it thoughtful and really come up with solutions that are going to help increase the housing stock without driving the prices through the roof, which it already is. We’ve got to find a way to do that.
Adding more costs to the construction of homes is counterproductive to our goals in this chamber, because we want to create housing. I don’t think you’d have any opposition from anybody in this House. But unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from this government.
In seven years, what are the results? Have we got more housing? Is it healthy in terms of that? It’s unaffordable. There’s not enough of it. And Bill 46 just doesn’t deliver the results that it needs to deliver in terms of what people are looking for.
With that, I will let the next speaker take over. As I say, welcome to hear from the government side about what they think about Bill 46.
N. Letnick: I’d like to thank, also, the previous speaker from Kelowna West. He’s very familiar with construction, having constructed wineries around the world.
I’m going to come from a different perspective. I bring to the conversation a little bit of knowledge on home construction. Before becoming an MLA, I was president of a non-profit housing company. We built over 200 entry-level housing for first-time homebuyers, and we sold them at 25 percent below market. Very successful. We are proceeding with a project in Kelowna under the same kind of conditions.
What I’d like to do is talk a little bit about the bill in general, to start with — go through some of the specific clauses that I would encourage government and the minister to have a look at. In this place, we obviously know the bill will pass; government has a majority. And usually, opposition amendments don’t go very far. But if the government chooses to bring in some amendments, that, of course, would go a long way in making the bill better, from my perspective.
The bill itself is trying to achieve, I believe, a goal of everyone in this Legislature, as the previous speakers have said, about increasing the supply of housing that’s affordable to British Columbians, including housing that’s rental and housing that’s owner-occupied. But we must, I believe, look at the bill and say: is it going to help with that goal, or make it worse? As the previous speaker has made a good case, and other speakers have as well, adding amenity cost charges to a development only increases the price of that development.
Now, it’s a choice between adding the cost charges to the development or, in other words, to the homebuyers or renters, because they, at the end of the day, have to pay the price. The developer is not going to pay it. They’ll only temporarily pay it and pass that on to the renters or the buyers. So it’s a choice between them paying for it, or the city, the municipality or the regional district paying for it — in other words, making all taxpayers in the area pay for it — or some other level of government, the province or federal government.
As we frequently say, at least on this side of the House, there’s only one taxpayer. Someone’s going to pay for it.
I think the best way to make sure that we can increase the supply of housing that’s affordable is to lower the cost of building the housing. That includes not only land costs but also construction costs, where possible, and, of course, taxes and charges. This flies against that. This legislation is not conducive to lowering the cost of housing — rental or owner-occupied housing.
I would suggest that it be better slated with a little more expansion in some of the clauses to make it passable. As it is right now, I think it’s too narrowly focused on increasing the cost of housing instead of trying to find a way to lower the cost of housing.
My colleagues have already said that we have some of the highest rents in the country — $3,000 a month in Vancouver. A townhouse is up 33 percent to $1 million. A single-family home is now approaching $2 million. The Premier could have the opportunity of blocking Vancouver’s tripling of development cost charges, but so far, no action on that.
I think we’ve made a pretty good case that what’s happening right now in B.C. is not conducive to lowering the cost of housing, with all these development cost charges and these amenity charges. Instead of increasing taxes on housing, we should step to the plate and look at infrastructure funding and jump-starting the development of new homes.
At this point, I’d like to go over some of the clauses in the bill, because those clauses, if amended, would provide some opportunity to meet the goal of reducing the cost of housing.
The first piece that we need to look at, when you’re looking at the cost of housing, is the cost of land.
Land costs on the construction of a new home or a new project are the first piece that developers, whether they’re developing a single carriage home or multi-family, large complexes…. The land cost is the first cost.
In particular, I want to maybe grab the attention of the Finance Minister on this one, because this is within the realm of the Finance Minister to repair. If you are a person with land and you want to help a nonprofit, for example, develop the land for nonprofit entry-level housing, when you transfer the land to the nonprofit, the nonprofit has to pay property transfer tax.
When the nonprofit then builds the units and sells those units to first-time buyers, as long as the threshold is met — it is, I don’t know, around $500,000 these days, but what can you buy for $500,000? — there’s no property transfer tax being transferred there, but there is a property transfer tax from the landowner to the developer which is not waived.
So, essentially, all these first-time buyers, if they could find a home for $500,000, still have to pay property transfer tax.
Interjection.
N. Letnick: You would like me to continue later? Okay. So I’ll reserve my place.
Deputy Speaker: We have an introduction, I think.
N. Letnick: Oh, is that what this is? Somebody behind me, obviously.
A. Singh: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
A. Singh: House, I have the great privilege of welcoming grade 10 students from H.J. Cambie school, which is in my riding. They’re here, looking at our incredible building and finding out all the things that we do here. I also want to recognize Mr. James Lo, Ms. June Sanders and Ms. Alyssa Wood, who have been so kind to bring them here.
Would the House welcome them, please.
N. Letnick: The Minister of Finance has given me the sign that maybe the Speaker is about to walk in. And look at that. There is the Speaker, so I will reserve my place, but I’ll wait for the Speaker to sit in the chair.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
N. Letnick moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
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. K. Conroy moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 41 — FORESTS STATUTES
AMENDMENT
ACT, 2023
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 41; S. Chant in the chair.
The committee met at 11:12 a.m.
On clause 38 (continued).
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 41, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2023, to order.
Hon. B. Ralston: Prior to beginning questioning again, I did want to report to the committee on the question about the forest operation maps, which I said I would get an answer for.
Let me just say this. The mapped information must be publicly available for 30 days. The term is three years. It will be viewable online, and it will be held in the platform for an additional five years. I hope that’s a satisfactory answer.
M. Morris: Looking at section 52.04(2)(b), it speaks to an applicant for a cutting permit being required to provide information, plans, studies or analyses that the minister considers will assist him in making these decisions.
I’ll go back. I’ve already mentioned some of these hydrological studies. There are ongoing science reports and various reports, and I know government has also implemented a number of watershed assessments throughout the province, in different areas. Are these the types of reports that the minister will be looking at as a requirement under these applications that are being filed?
Hon. B. Ralston: I just want to make sure that it’s understood that while the language is “the minister,” it’s typically the minister’s delegate. I don’t sit at my desk with a big stack of files and check off individual applications. I don’t think I would be able to get through them all.
The reason for this provision is that some representatives of industry — not all, but some — are reluctant to provide the cutting permit issuer with information that must be prepared under the Forest and Range Practices Act; for example, a site plan — which may be requested, and some contractors will refuse to provide that — engineering reports or wildlife reports. This gives the authority to the issuer to request those reports to consider prior to making a decision.
M. Morris: That was one of the specific reasons why I’m asking the questions, because I’m aware of a lot of those situations. I assure the minister, having been in a minister’s chair before, that I know the act refers to the minister doing all these things. But if it wasn’t for the staff that’s behind you and every other minister we have, there’s no way in the world we’d get through those papers. So I completely understand that.
A lot of times I have gone and requested various licensees’ information on their calculations for ECAs, equivalent clearcut areas, information on different things happening within the operating area. Of course, they provide the reason that it’s proprietary, and they won’t release it any further than that. I’m also troubled that they don’t release the information to the ministry, as well, that’s trying to control that.
Subsection (3) requires that the information required under sub (2)(b) must be prepared by a person with qualifications specified by the minister. So in this respect, is the minister looking at hydrologists, wildlife ecologists, habitat specialists? Or is he looking at a contracting firm that might employ those people? How specific are those directions going to be?
Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, there will be a requirement that the professional who’s preparing the report be a registered professional — for example, an engineer, a biologist, a forester, the typical range of professional qualifications that would be expected in order to give a professional opinion.
M. Morris: Thank you for the answer.
This next one deals with 52.05. I’ll address some of it here. But I know 52.05, under this particular clause that we’re on, was also amended in the next clause and then re-amended in the clause after that. I’m not sure what the reasons were for that.
It states in 52.05, under this particular clause…. It says: “The minister must refuse to issue a cutting permit (a) if the minister determines that, taking into account the prescribed matters, issuance of a cutting permit would compromise a prescribed government objective….” Those are the objectives under the planning regulations, I’m sure, unless there are some other ones out there.
I know recently that the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation was amended to remove the off-ramp clause, I used to call it, in there that they must do all these great things to deal with wildlife habitat and riparian areas and other things unless it affected the amount of timber available for harvest and whatnot. That clause was removed. It was amended here a little while ago.
What I’m curious about, though, is that…. Is it my understanding that that clause is still applicable in four stewardship plans that have yet to expire? And how many of those four stewardship plans are there, or is that being completely removed from all four stewardship plans and is no longer an issue, is no longer something that’s considered?
Hon. B. Ralston: I want to deal with just the interpretation of subsection 52.05(a) that was the initial part of the member’s question. The second part perhaps we can deal with in the subsequent section.
The language that’s there already really repeats the language that exists in the Forest Act with some slight grammatical changes. This authority has only been used once, in 2018, to justify the refusal of the permit. It established a government objective of “ensuring that BCTS,” which is B.C. Timber Sales, “generates adequate cost and price information and data respecting the harvest of representative Crown timber through the planning, development and auction of the authority to harvest timber in BCTS operating areas.”
There has been a problem, and the member may be familiar with this, where BCTS has done some of the preparation, built the roads, and then someone else will come in and make an application for a cutting permit, and there hasn’t been the discretion to refuse that application. So this will give the authority to the issuer to refuse an application in those circumstances.
Perhaps the member could repeat his other question, and we can try to deal with that.
M. Morris: I’m aware of those kinds of situations as well. What I’m curious about is the removal of that clause without unduly affecting the amount of timber available for harvest. It was repealed from the regulations recently, but in my understanding, it’s still applicable to the existing forest stewardship plans until they expire. So I’m wondering if that is the case.
How many of those forest stewardship plans are in existence today, and how long are they lasting before that clause no longer applies?
Hon. B. Ralston: The existing language in the plan would apply unless the plan is amended or is replaced by a new stewardship plan or a forest landscape plan.
In terms of the number of forest stewardship plans, that’s not available right at the moment. We’ll get that information for you. Also, I think I acknowledged the member’s question about the duration of these forest stewardship plans and will endeavour, is insofar as it’s possible, to get that information to you as well.
M. Morris: I think I understand that that clause still applies to the existing forest stewardship plans unless they have been amended, which probably many of them haven’t been with respect to that part of it. So I’ll appreciate hearing back on that information, when the minister provides it.
In the same area, the issuance of a cutting permit would compromise a prescribed government objective, and the government objectives, I’m assuming, are all the objectives that are listed under part 2 of division 1 in the planning and practices regulation. The government objectives set for soils, for timber, for wildlife, for water, fish and wildlife and biodiversity within riparian areas — are those the objectives that this section covers as well?
Hon. B. Ralston: The focus of the cutting permit will be a site-specific consideration. I think it’s important to remember that in the planning process, a number of considerations will already have taken place and been prepared in the process of leading up to the application for a permit. The general principle that will guide that discretion is the management and conservation of forests as objectives in that process.
That’s the process. It’s not a new decision. It’s a refinement of the previous decisions that are specific to the site that’s being brought forward.
M. Morris: So 3.1 addresses the management and conservation of forest resources. And we heard yesterday from the minister that this includes all aspects of a forest — biodiversity, hydrology, all those types of things. My question really hasn’t been answered with respect to if the objectives set by government are applicable under 52.05.
When 52.05 refers to a prescribed government objective, are all the objectives under the planning and practices regulations dealing with the riparian objectives, wildlife, water — those kinds of things — part of the objectives that need to be considered under 52.05?
Hon. B. Ralston: Let me try this. The header above this section is mandatory refusal to hear a cutting permit. This is a fairly narrow, circumscribed discretion where the issuer is obliged to refuse a permit. In order to do that, you need a specific regulation, and that one exists. That’s the one that I made reference to in the case of the BCTS situation where there’d been work done and someone came along applying for a cutting permit after, say, a road had been built or something like that.
I just want to emphasize, in what I’m saying here, the fairly narrow focus of this particular section.
M. Morris: This is under the new section 3.1, “Cutting Permits,” and a requirement to obtain cutting permits. We talked about the issuance of cutting permits and applications for cutting permits under 52.04 and the mandatory refusal to issue a cutting permit. So what information would the minister have, by this time — mandatory refusal?
It comes before the minister or the delegate, and that person has to take into consideration whether or not issuing the permit would compromise a prescribed government objective.
Bearing in mind all of these prescribed objectives that are listed in the planning and practices regulations, what information would that decision-maker have with respect to a certain area that’s being cut, whether or not it is compromising or has complied with the objective set by government?
I want to get into a couple of other areas there once I hear the answer from the minister.
Hon. B. Ralston: I think the answer is fairly nuanced, but let me try this. This decision in considering an application is the first decision that would be considered. I wouldn’t get to considering the other objectives because the decision-maker is obliged to. It’s mandatory to consider this.
The decision-maker will have the B.C. Timber Sales maps and operation plan. If B.C. Timber Sales has already done some work in the area, then the obligation is to, and the decision-maker is required to, refuse the permit — full stop — at that stage. You don’t get to consider any other objectives in this process in that case. This is the first decision, but the first aspect of the decision. If the applicant can’t overcome that hurdle, the permit is refused.
M. Morris: I know we’re going to be breaking for lunch here.
Basically, I’m getting the picture of a process that is separate and siloed. One particular part of the ministry will look at some of these objectives, and then it goes to the next level. And by the time it gets to this particular stage for mandatory refusal for issuing a cutting permit, a whole bunch of preliminary work has been done.
What I’m hearing from the minister is that the person making the decision on behalf of the minister for this particular section won’t be privy to all these other decisions and what was considered in those other decisions. I guess what I’m reading into this is that this is a critical…. It’s a mandatory refusal to issue a cutting permit. It’s the last step.
The decision-maker has to consider all these other factors to make sure that all the checks and balances have been put in place and everything is done by the time it gets to this particular stage. Maybe something has surfaced indicating that maybe the applicant is deficient in some of these areas here.
Am I reading that right? Is this sort of, basically, how that works? Then we’ll get into some more of that after lunch.
Hon. B. Ralston: The opportunity to make an application for the permit emerges from a planning process which identifies areas where that would be appropriate. But it comes to a single decision-maker, and there is a process. It’s not legally mandated what order they’re considered in, but it’s a logical way to consider the application. If the application fails to pass this test that the application has to comply with, and it doesn’t, it’s mandatory to refuse that permit. So that’s why the decision-maker would likely….
In the decision tree or matrix or however you call it, that would be addressed early on. Then you wouldn’t get to considering the other aspects of issuing and the new discretion that this affords the decision-maker, because it would be basically stopped at that stage. If you can’t pass that hurdle, the application doesn’t go forward. The decision-maker is obliged to refuse it, so the process ends there.
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 43 — MONEY JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT
CONSEQUENTIAL
AMENDMENTS AND
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section C) on Bill 43; J. Sims in the chair.
The committee met at 11:18 a.m.
On clause 1.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 43, Money Judgment Enforcement Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Act.
Hon. N. Sharma: I just want to start by thanking my team that’s here, Natalie Barnes and Tyler Nyvall, also, probably, all those people that are watching right now that have contributed to this piece of legislation and the good work they’ve done.
M. de Jong: A couple of things. I don’t know that we are necessarily going to be too long on the bill, but maybe I can take advantage of clause 1 to say a few preliminary things, the first being….
I’m assuming it was unintentional. Sometimes things occur quickly around here.
I hope the Attorney will agree that in the time that she has been the Attorney General and I have been the designated opposition critic, I’ve tried to be…. We won’t always agree, but I’ve tried to be collegial and civil, as I think we always should be around this place.
I was a little surprised and disappointed when, at second reading…. Not that I had a lengthy dissertation in second reading on the bill, but I had stepped out of the House for a moment to deal with a follow-up from question period. When I rushed back in, second reading was over. Now, I understand the Attorney’s remarks were brief, and that’s for reasons that we will discuss, but it did surprise me.
I assume it was unintentional on her part. Not a particularly big deal with respect to this piece of legislation, but that respect we have for one another and procedural respect sometimes…. Well, hopefully, it will flow both ways. There. I’ve said it and got it off my chest.
The general question about the piece of legislation…. We, of course, debated the Money Judgment Enforcement Act several weeks ago. We took a fair amount of time to go through it in detail. I thought it was a good discussion and appreciated the answers from the Attorney and the clarification on some of the points.
It’s not unheard of to have a secondary piece of legislation to deal with consequentials and transitional measures. It is unusual. In this case, we have upwards of, I think, 74 sections.
I’m probably less troubled about the fact that we have a secondary piece of legislation with the transitional provisions and consequential amendments than I am with the fact that….
Maybe it’s my fault. Maybe I’m supposed to ask the specific question, but I don’t recall, at any point in the conversation we had about the main body of legislation, the Attorney offering up that piece of information that there was a secondary piece of legislation, a fairly sizable piece of legislation, that was going to amend a subsequent 74 sections dealing with consequential amendments.
Now, if the Attorney is going to remind me that at some point, that was revealed in the course of the discussion, fair enough. I don’t recall it being said. Again, it strikes me that to facilitate a useful and productive conversation in these forums, there was nothing to be lost or gained by merely pointing out, because surely the Attorney would have known, that there was a second bill dealing with consequential and transitional measures.
Those are my two preliminary matters that I’ll deal with in section 1.
Hon. N. Sharma: I want to start by thanking the member. I do agree that we had a really collegial debate last time and thought it was productive. Just to acknowledge that I was not aware the reason for the member leaving was because he was coming back to speak, or he didn’t have anything to say, given the nature of this being a consequential statute. I just want to say that about the second reading.
With respect to the consequential and transitional provisions, I believe it did come up in debate, but I know that we signalled it, when it comes to the release of this legislation — that there would be consequential and transitional provisions that were, obviously, associated with the big piece of work.
M. de Jong: Well, let’s get to it, then. Thank you for that.
On clause 1, I just want to confirm. We’re dealing now with the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, 56.92. Is it 56.92(3)? Is that the extent of the change? Is that the consequential change that flows from the original legislation?
Hon. N. Sharma: I’m just told by one of my staff that all of the amendments are important. But I think the member does point to the most significant one in this clause, subsection (3), which brings it under the Money Judgment Enforcement Act. That’s correct.
Clause 1 approved.
On clause 2.
M. de Jong: My question for clauses 2 and 3 is the same. So I’ll ask it, and if the Attorney is able to answer, then it will allow us to expedite the proceedings.
When I compared the original 57 and 58.1 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act with what we see here, the substantive change seems to be the reference to a judgment statement, which is a defined term and document that flows out of the Money Judgment Enforcement Act.
So I guess the question is, both in clauses 2 and 3, the inclusion of the…. The purpose seems to be to include reference to a judgment statement in both of those referred to provisions.
Hon. N. Sharma: That’s correct.
Clauses 2 and 3 approved.
On clause 4.
M. de Jong: When I read clause 4, the purpose seems to be to allow the Civil Resolution Tribunal the option of registering orders with the money judgment registry on its own initiative.
I made that as a statement. It’s a question. Am I correct in interpreting the provision in that manner?
Then secondly, is that an option that the Civil Resolution Tribunal presently has under existing enforcement mechanisms?
Well, let me start with those two questions.
Hon. N. Sharma: So yeah, it is at the request of the party, as the member described. The second part of the question was: is that a power that exists already? The answer is no.
M. de Jong: We went through the staged process for a judgment creditor to enforce a judgment registration with the registry.
Is that the usual mechanism for registering? My recollection or assumption, perhaps incorrect, is that it was the judgment creditor who took the step of registering the judgment. This seems to me, then, to be a little bit different in so far as it’s the actual tribunal performing that registration function on behalf of the creditor.
Is there a distinction there, or am I misunderstanding that?
Hon. N. Sharma: This is an example of the approach that we took in setting up the processes and the new powers and procedures to make it easy for a judgment creditor. This is a new ability for them, likely by just a click. If they go to the CRT website, they can request the tribunal, for example, to register it.
It’s to make sure our systems are working together and to have people have access to justice in the systems that we’re setting up.
M. de Jong: Okay. Thank you. That’s helpful.
Just to follow this through, then. I am an individual who has taken a matter to the Civil Resolution Tribunal. I have secured a judgment in my favour, which now creates me as a judgment creditor. I’m at home. I want to register that money judgment with the money judgment enforcement registry. I signal, most likely electronically, the Civil Resolution Tribunal. “Yes, I want to do that.” They do it for me.
Is that the way this is intended to work?
Hon. N. Sharma: That’s correct.
Clauses 4 and 5 approved.
On clause 6.
M. de Jong: Just to confirm, this refers to a certificate for costs. That is a certificate for costs related exclusively to proceedings before the Court of Appeal. Is that correct?
Hon. N. Sharma: That’s correct.
Clause 6 approved.
On clause 7.
M. de Jong: Clause 7 of this bill deals with section 3 of the Court Order Enforcement Act. The main body seems to be contained within sub-subclause 7(b)(2).
What is being changed? What is this amendment accommodating? What is the actual consequential change that is occurring here?
Hon. N. Sharma: This is obviously a consequential amendment that’s necessary, given the new regime we have. What this provision does is to preserve pre-judgment garnishing orders and the ability to do that.
Previously, it was pre- and post-judgment garnishing orders that were preserved. For example, if somebody owed you $10,000, you’d ask a court to take that money and hold it so that it doesn’t go somewhere else. That’s before a judgment; that’s an ability that we want to preserve. But then after, or post-judgment, of course, the whole regime that we have introduced has a whole bunch of tools for that creditor to collect.
Clauses 7 to 11 inclusive approved.
On clause 12.
M. de Jong: Just to confirm, we see lots of regulatory enabling provisions in the original act. I think at one point we commented that there were three pages of regulatory enabling. This is yet another.
To be fair, my recollection of the act is that this regulatory provision was tacked on at the end of part 5. When the provisions of part 5 were deleted, as they are in the previous clause, clause 11, it was necessary to preserve that regulatory provision by creating a separate part 6. Have I got the mechanics correct, of why this sort of orphan regulatory power will exist in the way it does?
Hon. N. Sharma: That’s correct.
Clauses 12 and 13 approved.
On clause 14.
M. de Jong: I understand why the provision is here. I disagree with it, and I’m going to register that disagreement.
Clause 14 approved on division.
Clauses 15 to 26 inclusive approved.
On clause 27.
M. de Jong: Under the Law and Equity Act, section 55 refers to art or cultural objects that are brought into British Columbia for temporary exhibit. Under the provision, they were exempt from seizure.
My question is: after this consequential amendment, can they now be seized?
Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.
M. de Jong: Perhaps the Attorney can just put on the record what the…. I’m not sure I agree or disagree with that. I wanted to verify what the effect of a fairly innocuous-looking amendment might be.
What’s the rationale for that change?
Hon. N. Sharma: The rationale is based on, I think, some of the lengthy discussions we had on the meat of the bill related to what should be an exemption and what shouldn’t when you are somebody who owes money to somebody. It was determined that art shouldn’t be in that category, because it’s not necessary to maintain a reasonable standard of living, as the exemptions that we went over on at length last time.
Interestingly, the provision…. I don’t know the history of it; we’d have to dig into it. But it seems to be potentially related to something very specific at the time. That’s the reason behind the change.
M. de Jong: Let me ask a couple of questions. I appreciate the information and the reply.
Say I’m a judgment creditor, and I’m a contractor. I have done work at the Vancouver Art Gallery. A dispute has arisen. I haven’t been paid. It could be sizable these days. Any kind of renovation or work can run up a sizable chunk of money.
If I wait until the Van Gogh exhibit rolls into town for a temporary showing, as a judgment creditor, can I grab Lilies in the Field? Is that now exigible in ways that it wouldn’t have been under the previous regime?
Hon. N. Sharma: I think in the scenario described by the member, it wouldn’t be a scenario where the Vancouver Art Gallery owned that property. They wouldn’t, I’m assuming, own the Van Gogh that was travelling through, unless they’re purchasing it. But that’s another story. So that wouldn’t fall in the category of this provision.
M. de Jong: All right, it’s a change. I want to just take a moment to ensure that we understand, or at least that I understand the implications of the change.
Let’s take an example, then, of a circumstance where I’ve obtained a judgment against a First Nation for work performed in a contractual relationship.
It may be a First Nation elsewhere in the country. But I have a judgment, and an item comes into British Columbia where I have registered my money judgment. Is that cultural artifact now exigible, seizable?
Hon. N. Sharma: An interesting question.
I think I would start by saying that we talked at length about the regime that’s in place, that is about an enforcement officer coming and determining which types of property the person has. So the judgment debtor…. I’m assuming if it’s something of really important cultural significance, there would be many other ways for them to figure out how to fulfil what they’re due in that scenario and if it’s of cultural importance to that person. I think there is a whole process that we talked about at length last time, about the enforcement officer and how that regime will work.
In the scenario where it’s the only piece of value that that person has and it’s of cultural significance, it may be seized, but whether or not it’s sold is another level of that person being able to potentially pay their debts, in order of recovering it.
I guess with that, I will move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.