Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament (2024)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 9, 2024
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 409
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2024
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.
Introductions by Members
Hon. L. Beare: Today I’m honoured to have several guests joining us in the gallery.
We have Marlene Erickson, who is the vice-president of the First Nations Education Steering Committee, FNESC. FNESC works under the direction of First Nations of British Columbia to advance quality First Nations education and is recognized by the First Nations Leadership Council as the lead policy and advocacy body for First Nations education.
I’d also like to introduce Tracey Kim Bonneau, chair of the Indigenous Adult Higher Learning Association. IAHLA represents over 40 Indigenous adult and post-secondary education institutes throughout British Columbia.
I also have the honour to introduce Deborah Jeffrey, who is the executive director of the First Nations Education Steering Committee.
In the gallery is Thane Bonar, director of policy for FNESC.
From the ministry, I also have assistant deputy minister Tony Loughran and Fiona Cubitt.
I recognize all of your leadership and hard work to advance quality First Nations education here in B.C.
Would the House please make everyone feel welcome.
T. Stone: In the gallery today, we have two friends of this Legislature. They are Couns. Daniel Fontaine and Paul Minhas. They have come over for a series of meetings today.
I’d ask the House to please make them feel welcome.
Hon. N. Cullen: It is my distinct pleasure to introduce folks from an excellent partner organization, and I say this across all political lines, I believe, for their outstanding work in protecting watersheds and restoring ecosystems right across British Columbia for many, many years.
We are joined by Sarah Nathan, Andrea Barnett, Matthew Christensen, Matt Wilson, Greg Sawchuck, and Ray Maher, who are all representing Ducks Unlimited, who do fabulous work, I think, in almost all of our communities across B.C.
Will the House please join me in making them feel very welcome today.
E. Sturko: I am very honoured today to have special guests in the gallery Crystal Kenzie, Cindy Zimmer, Susan Becker, Marion Gibson, Alex and Eric Pazder. They’ve each come to the B.C. Legislature today because they’ve lost a loved one to suicide, and they have been advocating for changes to prevent similar suicides, similar tragedies.
Today I’m going to be introducing a private member’s bill that’s meant to address some of the gaps in our Mental Health Act that were identified by these families and others across B.C.
Would everyone please join me in welcoming them to this House.
A. Singh: I’d be remiss if I also didn’t welcome my newest city councillors, Daniel Fontaine and Paul Minhas, to the Legislature.
C. Oakes: It is truly an honour today to introduce into the gallery some incredible trailblazers in the province of British Columbia, builders of the province of British Columbia.
Lisa Scott is joining us from the Construction Foundation of British Columbia.
Antoinette Yap is a red seal millwright.
Robin Hacking is a red seal sprinkler fitter.
Jenny Nadeau works with the Construction Foundation of British Columbia.
And Kate Zantvoort works at the Construction Foundation of B.C.
We don’t have the province, the houses, the construction that we have without incredible, skilled people in this province.
Would the House please help welcome these incredible women to the Legislature.
Hon. M. Rankin: I think it has been often remarked how essential the role of constituency assistant is for the work that we do in this place. They’re often not only our face in the community but our eyes and ears as well.
Today I have three CAs with me who are coming all the way from Oak Bay–Gordon Head for a tour of the building and the like. I want to introduce to the House Eva Thompson, Zachary Gustavson and Juliana Cotacio.
I hope the House will make them feel very welcome.
A. Walker: On the precinct today is the grade 11-12 class from Ballenas Secondary School. Jessylee Spence is their teacher.
I recently had the pleasure of hosting a town hall meeting at this school on the topic of banning cell phones in schools. Little did I know. This was a topic that was of great interest to the students. We had over 100 people show up in the auditorium. Incredible questions, very thoughtful.
I hope that when they do join us in the gallery shortly that everyone can give them a wave. Hopefully, we can give them a good round of applause. They’re just outside the door here.
Let’s make them feel very welcome.
R. Leonard: I know earlier the Ducks Unlimited folks were introduced. I want to reintroduce Greg Sawchuck, who is a citizen of my constituency.
I’ve known him for many decades now. He has been a fierce advocate for wetlands. He belongs to a fish and game club and has done so much restoration work throughout the valley. He was the person who helped introduce me to Stocky Edwards, if you remember, one of our World War II heroes who passed away at the ripe age of 100 a while ago.
I really appreciate him in our community. I hope that the House can really give a big round of applause for a real and true community member who makes our life better.
Thank you to Mr. Greg Sawchuck.
The Speaker: Members, it is my pleasure to welcome some special guests to our Legislature today.
We are honoured to have a visiting delegation from the Scottish Parliament as they celebrate their 25th anniversary and their first official visit to Canada. I had the opportunity to meet with the delegation this morning and look forward to our continued discussion on parliamentary matters over the next couple of days.
I am pleased to welcome the presiding officer, the Rt. Hon. Alison Johnstone, who is leading the delegation, and the following members of the Scottish Parliament: Maurice Golden, Michael Marra and Evelyn Tweed. They are accompanied by Mark Brough, principal private secretary to the presiding officer, and Steven Bell, international relations officer.
Would the House please join me in making our guests feel very welcome.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 20 — FIRST NATIONS MANDATED
POST-SECONDARY
INSTITUTES ACT
Hon. L. Beare presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled First Nations Mandated Post-Secondary Institutes Act.
Hon. L. Beare: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
The First Nations mandated post-secondary institutions provide post-secondary education and training in First Nation communities that helps revitalize First Nations languages and cultures. It helps to address the continued impacts of colonialism and racism and helps address First Nations workforce needs.
First Nations mandated institutes need stable, ongoing funding to continue their important work. So today I am pleased to introduce the First Nations Mandated Post-Secondary Institutes Act.
The introduction of this bill reflects the integral role of First Nations mandated institutes as part of B.C.’s post-secondary education system and provides ongoing operational and capacity funding. The ministry has worked closely with the First Nations Education Steering Committee and the Indigenous Adult and Higher Learning Association on all aspects and development of this legislation.
We will continue to work collaboratively with First Nations and FNESC to implement this legislation. It is an important milestone and a critical step towards reconciliation in the post-secondary education and training sector here in B.C.
The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. L. Beare: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 20, First Nations Mandated Post-Secondary Institutes Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL M208 — MENTAL HEALTH
AMENDMENT ACT,
2024
E. Sturko presented a bill intituled Mental Health Amendment Act, 2024.
E. Sturko: I move that a bill intituled Mental Health Amendment Act, 2024, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for a first time now.
One year ago I introduced the Mental Health Amendment Act, 2023, in the hope that it would prevent suicides by requiring physicians or nurse practitioners to seek further information from a person’s close relative when considering whether to involuntarily admit and treat someone under the Mental Health Act.
In 2024, I’ve added additional amendments to ensure that close relatives are informed prior to their loved one’s release from involuntary care. These amendments will also address circumstances where a patient who is receiving care withdraws their consent for information-sharing, ensuring close relatives are informed when consent is withdrawn and that it’s properly documented on a patient’s medical record.
Since last year, I’ve heard from dozens of grieving families who believe these amendments are needed to ensure people are getting the support that they need. That’s why the Mental Health Amendment Act, 2024, includes changes to both section 28 and section 34. These changes will reflect the need for better communication with close relatives who are providing their continued care in the community.
These amendments recognize that close relatives who provide ongoing support to a family member have the experience of sharing a life with their loved one who is living with a mental illness. They have a wealth of information that can assist in their care. If we want them to continue that care in the community, we need to make them part of the care team.
Tragically, this bill comes in response to advocacy from families whose loved ones died by suicide after not being certified and treated or immediately after their release from involuntary care. I believe these amendments will help to mitigate the risk of suicide and self-harm, and I strongly urge the government to see the importance of these amendments and call the debate of this bill.
The Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
E. Sturko: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.
Bill M208, Mental Health Amendment Act, 2024, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL M209 — BUSINESS PRACTICES AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION
(GREENWASHING
PREVENTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2024
S. Furstenau presented a bill intituled Business Practices and Consumer Prevention (Greenwashing Prevention) Amendment Act, 2024.
S. Furstenau: I move that a bill intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Greenwashing Prevention) Amendment Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.
British Columbians are experiencing the devastating impacts of climate change, more frequent and intense wildfires, flooding, droughts and heatwaves. Climate change severely impacts our health and safety. Burning fossil fuels is linked to 34,000 premature deaths in Canada each year. Just as tobacco advertising was banned because of its impacts to human health, it’s time to ban fossil fuel advertising.
Today I’m proud to rise and introduce a bill that would better regulate false advertising by the oil and gas industry. This bill sets standards that companies must meet to make climate claims. It requires companies to publicly disclose or report information to substantiate these claims, and it increases fines to deter misleading advertising. Misleading advertisements prevent consumers from making informed purchasing decisions.
By enforcing transparency, accountability and stringent penalties for misleading advertisements, this bill would ensure British Columbians have accurate and transparent information regarding the environmental and health impacts of products and services.
I call on this government to recognize the value of this work and hope to debate this bill at second reading.
The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
S. Furstenau: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M209, Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Greenwashing Prevention) Amendment Act, 2024, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE
M. de Jong: The battle at Vimy Ridge took place 107 years ago. The last surviving participants have long since passed on. Some people ask: “Why do we commemorate? Why do we remember?”
I think the answer partly lies in the fact that there is no other event or place, certainly outside of Canada, that conjures up the same sense of Canadianism. Most of us know the raw data: four divisions; 100,000 Canadian soldiers fighting together; and pointedly, 10,600 casualties, dead and wounded.
The British remember the Somme; the French, Verdun; Australians, Gallipoli; but for Canadians, Vimy Ridge, that place where it is said a nation was born, if nations are truly born out of battle. The memorial is a remarkable place. Some in this chamber have been there. I hope everyone gets a chance at some point in their life to see it.
If you do, there are three things that I hope will make an impression on you, as they do on me each time I see them: the memorial garden, where you can sit and contemplate this remarkable place and what took place over a century ago, made possible by a gift from the people of British Columbia, something all British Columbians can take pride in; the memorial itself, containing the carved names of over 11,000 Canadians with no known graves who perished from the earth with no known graves; and then the tunnels, where you’ll find the etchings, the incredibly personal etchings, of young men waiting to go into battle or convalescing or dying.
I think that’s why we remember and why we say: “At the going down of the dawn and in the morning, we will remember them.”
SARAH BECKETT MEMORIAL RUN
R. Parmar: It was eight years ago last week that Langford and the broader West Shore community came together, united by a shared sense of loss and respect. Eight years later, we honour a hero: Const. Sarah Beckett, whose tragic passing has left an indelible mark in our hearts and our community.
Constable Beckett was more than just a police officer. She was a dedicated public servant, a cherished colleague, a beloved wife and a devoted mother. Her commitment to ensuring our safety and her unwavering dedication to duty exemplified the very best of what it means to serve one’s community. It reminded us of the risks that our law enforcement officers face every day to keep us safe.
In the wake of such loss, it is the strength and unity of our community that shines brightest. It’s in this spirit that Constable Beckett’s husband Brad, alongside a dedicated team of supporters, has decided to honour her memory in a manner that reflects her spirit and dedication: the Sarah Beckett Memorial Run.
This annual event, set to take place this year on May 12, is not just a run. It’s a tribute to those who serve and protect us in a concrete way to keep Sarah’s memory alive. The proceeds from the memorial run will go towards initiatives and charities that were close to Sarah’s heart.
This year, as the organizing team sought to secure a tier 1 grant from the city to support the run, they faced some unexpected challenges. Despite the setback, people from all over the south Island stepped up — businesses, community leaders, people from all walks of life — and raised thousands of dollars. I want to thank the Solicitor General for stepping up and providing the tier 1 grant on behalf of the province.
As we prepare for this year’s Sarah Beckett Memorial Run, let us remember the reason we run. I encourage everyone to participate, whether by running, volunteering or simply being there to show your support.
Let’s move forward with love in our hearts and determination to make a difference, just as Sarah did every day of her service.
ROLE OF FAMILY MEMBERS IN
MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS
SERVICES
E. Sturko: Aaron Sanio was brilliant, creative and devoted to his friends. He was a father, and he was loved deeply by his family. Aaron was treated and released from Lions Gate after being admitted involuntarily during a mental health crisis. Aaron’s dad, Michael Sanio, called the hospital eight times during Aaron’s five-day stay, trying to speak with someone on the care team about his son’s history.
Michael wanted to share information about his son. He wanted to express that his family believed that Aaron needed to stay in the hospital for a longer period. But no one directly involved in Aaron’s care returned his call, and only a few days later, Aaron died by suicide on June 15, 2021.
James Zimmer was a loving brother and son. He was also a kind-hearted carpenter who dreamt of supporting people like himself who were struggling with mental illness. James had always willingly gone to the hospital, and he consented to notify his family of any plans to discharge him.
On February 9, 2023, James took his own life, hours after being discharged from the Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria, his family unaware of his whereabouts. They had not been notified.
The families of Aaron Sanio and James Zimmer have to live on without their loved ones, wondering: what if? What if Michael Sanio was able to speak to Aaron’s care team? What if Royal Jubilee had contacted James’s sister? Sadly, there’s no way to know. But what we do know is that for many people living with mental illness, family members play an integral role in providing support in the family home or in the community. In many cases, this includes assisting with managing health care needs.
Recognizing that families and close relatives play an integral role, we must work together to strengthen communication and circumstances of mental illness where there’s a history of suicidal ideation, self-harm, serious deterioration or risk of harm to others.
Working with families and close relatives, we have the opportunity to improve care for people living with mental illness and to save lives in B.C.
WILDSCAPING OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD
SOCIETY AND BIODIVERSITY
RESTORATION
J. Routledge: Wildscaping Our Neighbourhood Society wants to transform Burnaby North back into a more biodiverse environment. They remind us that our beloved community is built on the stumps of an ancient forest and that the remaining forest is being choked by a variety of invasive plants.
The Trans Canada Trail runs through Burnaby North along the Burrard Inlet. It’s estimated that more than 50 percent of the adjacent forest has been taken over by invasive species.
The people of Burnaby North are rightly proud that we create homes for thousands of working people, as we’ve done for generations. We’re also proud of our network of parks, where we can recreate in so many different ways. However, the impact of relentless human activity here and elsewhere around the world has come at the expense of biodiversity. What we know now is that biodiversity maintains life on earth. Humans depend on it for the food we eat, the medicines that cure us and the materials that shelter us.
Wildscaping Our Neighbourhood Society is taking the lead to restore biodiversity in Burnaby North. They are proposing that the city convert a corner of our abundant green space into a biodiverse park by replacing the grass with flowers, trees and shrubs that attract birds, butterflies and bees. They envision a winding trail with benches and signage. They also organize neighbourhood work parties to remove plant invaders.
Authorized by the city of Burnaby, neighbours are gathering on April 21 to uproot English ivy, blackberry bushes and other invasive plants along the Trans Canada Trail and place them on tarps for the city to pick up later.
I’ll be there, and if you can join us, please remember to bring good leather gloves, rain gear and sturdy boots.
CONSTRUCTION MONTH AND
WOMEN IN
TRADES
C. Oakes: April is Construction Month in British Columbia. It is a time that we celebrate the important contributions that this industry makes to our province.
Joining us in the gallery today are women who are tearing down walls and building opportunities through mentoring other women’s journeys into the trades. This province is full of talented, skilled women who shatter glass ceilings in traditionally male-dominated fields. Particularly in the trades, there have been some improvements in the number of women entering this field. However, there is much more work to do.
One way the province can support this is by removing the policy barriers that exist in the K-to-12 public education system to ensure dual-credit programs are offered everywhere. Another way government can support is through our post-secondary institutions, because offering a trades program is a little different than offering an English program.
We need to look at a funding model that ensures trades programs are offered regionally and in a consistent manner across this province.
We can also increase the number of people in trades through introductory programs that provide an overview of the various trades, with wraparound supports geared to increasing support for people in underrepresented groups to enter a career in trades.
Lisa Scott, a trailblazer in my riding, is with us today. I want to recognize the work she is doing with the All Girls Trades Camp for girls ages ten to 13 and the Indigenous trades camps she is coordinating across this province. I’ve attended some of these camps and have witnessed firsthand the incredible impact it is having in people’s lives.
As we celebrate Construction Month, let each of us lend our voices to elevating the importance of a career in trades.
PRIDE EVENTS IN SURREY
M. Starchuk: A rainbow community was activated in Surrey due to the banning of books in 1997. The first Surrey Pride event was August 1999 at Sullivan Hall. The group was met with nothing but discrimination from the right, and they realized how important it was to continue with the rainbow community events.
The original Out in Surrey was co-founded by Linda Rennie, Darlene Trewen, Rob Loewen and Martin Rooney. Surrey Pride Society was officially registered as a non-profit society in British Columbia in 2012, and Martin Rooney has been the president for the past five years.
The Surrey Pride Society has been collaborating with many community leaders and businesses to identify safe spaces for their community to gather and establish equity and equality for their marginalized and sometimes under-siege community. This coming June 22 they’ll be celebrating the 25th anniversary festival on the plaza in front of city hall and expect more than 5,000 people to attend.
All of this leads me to the second annual “So You Think You Can Drag?” contest. Five community folks will be competing in a non-political forum to see and find out if they can drag this Saturday. Funds raised for this event go to the Surrey Pride Society to fund their community outreach events and the winner’s charity as well.
For those that are wondering why this is my topic today, well, you’re looking at the hunka hunka burning love, Ember Sparks. I’ll be performing in a sold-out ballroom at the Guildford Sheraton to Wynonna Judd’s version of Elvis Presley’s “Burning Love.”
If anyone would like to e-transfer their donation, Ember Sparks is willing and ready to accept all of your donations, which go to the Surrey Fire Fighters Charitable Society.
Thank ya. Thank ya very much.
Oral Questions
CLEANBC GO ELECTRIC PROGRAM
OPERATIONS AND GRANT
APPROVALS
T. Stone: Gas prices are set to skyrocket to $2.30 a litre. B.C. indeed has the highest gas prices and the highest gas taxes in North America. Instead of giving drivers relief, the Premier is intent on increasing the carbon tax to 38 cents per litre and handing out carbon tax kickbacks.
Yesterday the Energy Minister claimed: “We have strict agreements with MNP.”
My straightforward question to the Premier is this. Will he release a full, unredacted copy of the MNP contract here today?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. Of course, this House takes this matter very seriously. We all do. We know that grant programs have to be fair to all applicants. And the public needs to know. They need to have confidence that these programs are being managed in the people’s interest.
That’s why all the information that we’ve received to date will be sent to the Auditor General and will be reviewed by an independent office so that a fair and independent review of the entire situation can take place and we can get to the bottom of this. We know that’s what British Columbians want. We know that’s what has to happen. And that’s exactly what will happen.
The Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.
T. Stone: The minister took this so seriously that she did nothing when these allegations were brought forward to her office a month ago. She did nothing when the opposition asked questions on this matter last week. She didn’t even recuse herself last week when she voted against referring the matter to the Auditor General to look into a program that’s at the centre of the scandal for which she is responsible.
Let’s be clear. Every step of the way, this government’s mantra is: “What can we get away with?” Every motivation of this government is to deflect, distract and engage in full-on damage control, because they finally got caught and they finally got called out for their carbon tax kickback scheme.
Now, the minister has known about these allegations since February, and it’s only because of massive and building public pressure, largely on social media, that the NDP have been dragged, kicking and screaming, to do the absolute minimum.
Now, yesterday the minister said that MNP doesn’t actually make the final decision and that MNP’s role is actually just purely administrative. If indeed that’s the case, then there’s actually no reason not to release the contract.
Again I’ll ask to the Premier, and it’s a very simple question: will the Premier release the full, unredacted copy of the MNP contract here today?
Hon. J. Osborne: Again, to repeat what we talked about yesterday, we’ve received different information at different times. Last weekend we received information that raises serious questions, further questions. We know that it has to go to the Auditor General. That’s what’s taking place here, so that an independent and a fair review can take place.
At every step of the way, when information was brought to us, we made the best decisions with the information that we had, information that was supplied to us by Edison Motors, by conversations with MNP. Not information that came from anywhere else, including from the other side of the House.
The right thing to do is to leave this in the hands of the Auditor General.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Osborne: He is the person who will take all of the information, all of the facts, who will produce an independent and fairly produced report for British Columbia.
M. de Jong: Well, apparently, that was the right thing to do as of yesterday.
My question is for the Attorney General. We have heard…. The House has heard from her colleague, the Minister of Energy, that she received information nearly two months ago that, if true, constitutes a serious breach of the public trust, perhaps involving millions of dollars.
Yesterday, in one of the more breathtaking examples of flip-flopping that we have witnessed in this place, the Minister of Energy conceded that she had received information that justified an independent examination, review, inquiry into this matter, which begs the question of what the minister has been up to the last six weeks since she originally received the information. These are allegations of breach of the public trust that flow directly to the Minister of Energy’s office.
The question to the Attorney General is: has a special prosecutor been appointed, and if not, why not?
Hon. J. Osborne: Again, these are allegations that have been raised about MNP’s role in two specific programs. My office has acted with all of the information we’ve had at the time that we’ve received it.
When we received new information this weekend, again, it raised serious questions. These are questions that make it appropriate for the Auditor General to undertake the review. That’s why we’ve asked the Auditor General to do that. In addition, we’ve asked the comptroller general to do the same, to ensure fairness for everybody.
Grant programs have to be administered fairly. The public needs to know that public funds are being managed in the public interest. That’s why we’re going to let the Auditor General do his work. We’ve asked that it be done as expediently and as quickly as possible. He’s going to undertake that work, and he’ll report.
Interjections.
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
He’ll undertake that work, and he’ll do so in a way that is fair, in a way that is independent of this House, with all of the information that is provided to him in his office, and he will report back to British Columbia.
The Speaker: Abbotsford West, supplemental.
M. de Jong: The opposition is asking relevant questions about allegations that the government has finally conceded warrant investigating, after denying that for an entire week.
The opposition puts the question to the member of cabinet who has responsibilities for upholding the administration of justice, and the Government House Leader points to the very minister whose conduct is being called into question as the appropriate person to answer the question. That is absurd. It’s why people are doubting the judgment of many members of this government.
The office of an independent prosecutor was created to address just these kinds of circumstances.
I’ll ask the Attorney General again. In fulfilment of her duty as the chief legal officer in the government, knowing what she knows, having heard what we have all heard about what has taken place here — the involvement of the minister’s office, the information that has been received, the allegations of breach of the public trust: will she confirm for the House that a special prosecutor has been appointed, and if not, why not?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.
Let the minister start first, please, Members.
Minister.
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, the member reminds the House that these are allegations. These are serious allegations that have been made about the administration of a grant program. That’s why….
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
Shhh, Members.
Hon. J. Osborne: These are allegations regarding the role of MNP in the administration of two specific grant programs. That’s why we’ve directed the Auditor General to undertake the review. The Auditor General can, as he sees fit, broaden that review as required. That’s entirely his right. If he decides to do so, of course, the government will support that. It’s important that the integrity of his process is maintained.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, shhh.
Hon. J. Osborne: Our priority is supporting the Auditor General’s review.
GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT OF
GRANT
PROCESSES
S. Furstenau: Over the past week, this House has had to devote a significant amount of our time to dealing with a potential issue with a grants program run by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.
The issue only came to light because of a business that was willing to put the public interest before themselves. We are fortunate to have this company in our province. Not every industry has this, and not every grant administrator is as blatant as MNP appears to have been.
Even more worryingly, this government had many opportunities to investigate. Edison Motors and the three opposition parties provided time and space for this government to prove that they were taking this issue seriously, but at every point the government was adamant about not investigating, until the public pressure became impossible to ignore.
My question, hon. Speaker, is to the Premier, because this is a question of leadership. The public has a right to know if government grants are above reproach. To this end, will he direct his ministers to review all grant programs and present a report to this Legislature?
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.
Again, we do have allegations about MNP’s role in two specific programs, and that’s why the Auditor General is going to undertake an independent and fair review. If he sees fit…
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member.
Hon. J. Osborne: …he can expand that as needed, Mr. Speaker, and we will await that direction or intention that is put forward by him. Right now we want to maintain, of course, the integrity of this process in an independent office. We want to ensure that our priority remains supporting the review.
I encourage anyone who has information they want to share with the Auditor General to do so, because we have to get to the bottom of this. We have to make sure that these programs are fair to the applicants that are applying for funds to do incredible technological innovation here in British Columbia, these home-based companies that deserve our support. That’s why we have to get to the bottom of it.
The Speaker: Member, supplemental.
S. Furstenau: I asked a question to the Premier. I asked the question of whether he would direct his ministers to review all government grant programs, because we’re at a time when the public has some pretty serious and pretty valid questions about how decisions are made with public money, who gets that money and whether those processes are trustworthy.
I didn’t ask the question to the Minister of Energy and Mines, who failed to ensure that the grant program out of her ministry was trustworthy, despite being presented with evidence that it is not.
I asked the Premier a question about leadership in this government, and I am going to ask it again. Will he direct all of his ministers to review government grant programs in their ministries and present a report to this Legislature that will be visible to the public, as one necessary step to beginning to restore public trust in how money is granted by this government?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members. Members.
Members, it’s the tradition of this House that of the executive council members, whoever has chosen to answer the question can answer that.
The Minister of Energy and Mines will now answer the question.
Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, since the beginning, we’ve taken action with the information that we’ve received about these two specific grant programs — which is why, when we had new information presented to us this weekend, we felt that the questions being asked are so serious that they do deserve an Auditor General’s review. That’s what’s taking place.
That review is about these two specific programs. If the Auditor General wants to expand the review, it is entirely within his purview. If the member has information that she wishes to share, I’d encourage her to do so.
Of course, this is incredibly serious. We need to make sure that these processes are fair. We need to make sure that the public trust and the confidence in the way that public funds are administered is the number one priority. That’s why…
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Osborne: …this independent and fair review by the Auditor General’s office is the right thing to do. It is what’s going to take place to answer these questions.
CLEANBC GO ELECTRIC PROGRAM
OPERATIONS AND GRANT
APPROVALS
B. Banman: This NDP government is a government in crisis. B.C. has an affordability crisis. We have a housing crisis and an addiction crisis. We have an education crisis and a health care crisis. We have a carbon tax crisis. We have an antisemitism crisis in the Premier’s office. If that’s not enough, we have a corruption crisis.
This NDP government and the NDP Premier are embroiled in a corrupt scandal alongside cabinet ministers and the consulting firm that this Premier allowed to take dirty dollars and kickbacks from CleanBC grant money, dirty dollars from CleanBC grant money. B.C. taxpayers did not consent to this April 1 carbon tax increase, but if you’re going to take money from them by force, 20 cents out of every single litre, is it really too much to ask that their money not be extorted by NDP consultants and grifters?
My question to the Premier, although I know he won’t answer. Why is this NDP government afraid to call for an RCMP investigation? What are the secrets they are hiding?
Hon. J. Osborne: One place I agree with that member on is the fact that the public trust is paramount. That’s why it’s so important to get to the bottom of questions about the administration of these two grant programs.
These programs are administered by a third party. It is not uncommon for third parties to do so. In fact, they’ve done it for other governments across this country. They’ve done it for previous governments here.
Having the answers so that people know that applicants are being treated fairly…. They are able to have confidence in the system that everybody is getting a fair shake when they go and apply to government for money to support some really exciting programs — programs that maybe the member won’t exactly support, because I don’t even know if he believes in human-caused climate change or understands that it’s incredibly important to support these B.C.-based companies in the work that they’re doing.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, shhh.
Members, the minister has the floor.
Hon. J. Osborne: The allegations about the administration of these grant processes are the heart of the matter in this review. Should the Auditor General choose to expand that review, he can do so. We’re going to get to the bottom of this. We know how important it is, and we’re going to continue this work and allow the Auditor General to do his work.
The Speaker: House Leader of the Fourth Party, supplemental.
GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
AND CREDIT
RATING
B. Banman: You know, never one to miss a day, today this NDP Premier has managed to stumble into yet a new crisis. Thanks to a fresh downgrade from Standard and Poor’s, B.C. now has, on top of every other crisis, a credit crisis. The largest credit institutions in the world have taken a look into this Premier’s mismanagement of taxpayer dollars, and they think he cannot be trusted.
British Columbia is spending an extraordinary amount of money to get less and less and less for everyday hard-working people. Life under this NDP Premier…. You work hard. You pay more to get less, and his friends and consultants pay themselves more and more with your tax money.
We truly live in a bizarre world where…
The Speaker: Question, member.
B. Banman: …the artists of the flip-flop are accusing this government of flip-flopping.
The Speaker: Member, question, please.
B. Banman: Question to the Premier. Credit rating firms are losing confidence in your government. What new actions will you take moving forward to ensure less taxpayer money is wasted and extorted by this NDP government and its consultants and its grifters?
The Speaker: Thank you, Member, for being so soft-spoken also. Thank you very much.
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. I’m happy to talk about it, because B.C. continues to be an economic and fiscal leader in Canada.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member.
Hon. K. Conroy: Our debt-to-GDP ratio is one of the lowest in the country, and our interest bite is the lowest. Actually, last month — the member must have missed this — Fitch Ratings confirmed B.C.’s AA-plus rating with a stable outlook, recognizing our solid position for long-term growth.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. K. Conroy: S&P notes that we are making capital investments, and they point to those investments as a change. They changed the rating, and we knew that there could be a rating change because of…. You know, there’s a slower global economy, inflation. There are a number of issues.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
Hon. K. Conroy: They did comment on our building. What we know, and what we’ve been telling investors, is that we inherited a deficit of infrastructure when we formed government.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Okay. Shhh, Members.
Members will come to order. Members.
The minister will continue.
Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The members are obviously out of touch, because we have had to build hospitals. We have had to build schools. We have had to build roads. We have had to make housing a priority because of what we inherited.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, you are wasting very precious time. Members, come to order. You are losing time in question period.
Minister, conclude, please.
Hon. K. Conroy: We will continue to move forward with the credit ratings we have. We recognize that there’s a global slowing economy, and it is affecting jurisdictions right across the country. But I will say that Fitch has reaffirmed their credit rating for us.
DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM
AND ILLICIT DRUG USE IN
HEALTH CARE FACILITIES
S. Bond: Another day, more stories from nurses about the crisis of open illicit drug use in our hospitals.
This unprecedented chaos of drug use didn’t just happen. It’s happening as a direct result of deliberate NDP policy choices. The shameful thing is that courageous nurses came directly to this minister, but he did absolutely nothing, day after day after day, until, of course, the issue was raised here. Then he must have gotten a call from the Premier’s office, because he came up with his so-called solution of a task force.
Well, I can tell the minister that no task force is going to make nurses feel safe, and it certainly won’t end the chaos of the NDP’s decriminalization experiment.
Why won’t the Premier do the right thing today and prioritize the safety of nurses and patients over their failed decriminalization experiment?
Hon. A. Dix: With respect to ensuring that hospitals and acute care facilities are safer, we’ve taken very specific action. I just want to highlight some of those things.
Not yesterday, or the day before yesterday, but years ago, nurses, members of the BCNU, members of the Hospital Employees Union, members of the HSA came to us and asked us to take action on security in hospitals. They said that privatized security staff were not sufficiently trained to deal with the situation in hospitals. So what did we do?
We restored the occupational health and safety organization, which had been cut by the previous government, the one that was working on the safety of nurses. They cut it in 2010, when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Health. We restored it.
We have put in place a relational security model that is trained by Switch B.C. — in other words, overseen by nurses — to improve the quality of security in hospitals. That’s 320 people hired in a year, just like we said we’d do. We’re going to continue to listen to nurses, to meet with nurses and to work with nurses and other health care workers, health sciences professionals and others to ensure that they are safer in hospital.
We have set records in the past year with recruiting nurses, records in the last year in recruiting doctors. We, of course, have to retain them by ensuring that our health care facilities are safe and good places to work, and we’re going to continue to work to do that.
The Speaker: Member, supplemental.
S. Bond: Well we should be clear what this minister and Premier put in place are specific policy choices that are causing rampant illicit drug use in hospitals across British Columbia. In fact, nurses are instructed to distribute burner kits, crack pipes and lock boxes to store their drugs, drug paraphernalia and weapons.
We should be clear. This minister is facilitating the illicit use of drugs in hospitals across British Columbia. He can shake his head all he wants, but nurses across this province are telling him, are telling us and are telling British Columbians: it has to stop. It is his decision that is making this an unsafe place for workers in British Columbia, straight up.
Perhaps the minister would like to hear from the president of the B.C. Nurses Union, when she talks about decriminalization. Here’s what she had to say: “Before, there would be behaviours that just wouldn’t be tolerated. But now, because of decriminalization, it is being tolerated.”
The minister, the Premier made the decision to use decriminalization as a dangerous experiment. It is time for it to end. Will the minister do the right thing today and cancel this experiment?
Hon. A. Dix: British Columbia, since 2016, has been in a public health emergency with respect to overdose. We know of the thousands of people who have died, and we know that action needs to be taken. That’s why, in every area of mental health and addiction care, unprecedented action has been taken. Often that action, including in this case, was spurred by support from all parties in the Legislature, for issues such as decriminalization.
We’re going to continue to act, both to protect people and to address a toxic drug emergency that has had a profound effect on family members, on communities, on friendships, on health care workers and on nurses. It’s why we have worked so closely with the BCNU on these very issues of decriminalization over the past number of years, as we work with the opposition and others.
We are going to continue to do that work, to ensure both that we address this tragedy, this damaging fact of the toxic drug emergency, and as well, that we ensure that people in our health care facilities and elsewhere are safe.
DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM
AND IMPACT ON
COMMUNITIES
R. Merrifield: The Premier has blatantly ignored repeated warnings for over a year. Yet here we are, with undeniable evidence of taxpayer-funded drugs going directly into the hands of drug dealers.
Prince George RCMP have the clearest evidence possible of the NDP’s taxpayer-funded drug crisis. They witnessed the exchange of these drugs from users to dealers right outside a pharmacy.
But this isn’t a one-off event. Shocking Health Canada data reveals more than a 300 percent surge in hydromorphone seizures, and the Auditor General issues scathing audits exposing the NDP’s glaring oversight failures.
What will it take for this Premier to end the NDP’s taxpayer-funded drug trafficking and disastrous decriminalization experiment?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. What she describes is what the police are doing in our province.
They are taking this issue particularly seriously. That’s why they have investigations. That’s why they launch criminal actions against those who are trying to divert from not just safe supply but the general supply, in particular.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. M. Farnworth: They’re doing their job, and that’s what we’re glad to see. We should not see any diversion, but we know that it does happen. And what’s….
Interjections.
The Speaker: Member, please.
Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: The only gagging that’s taking place is that opposition every time they see a poll that shows them going from opposition status to third party after the next election.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Thank you, Members. Shhh. Calm down, Members.
Members, it’s almost over. Calm down.
Minister, please.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I was asked a question. I was giving a serious answer. Then one of them decides they want to heckle.
What’s clear…. The police are doing their job. They do it every day.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, let the minister conclude his answer, please.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll conclude by saying this. The former Solicitor General, who is the former Solicitor General, knows that under no circumstances does the Solicitor General direct the police in how they do their job or, for that matter, in what they report.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, we call second reading of Bill 16, Housing Statutes Amendment Act.
In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we call Committee of the Whole on Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act.
In the Birch Committee Room, we call Committee of Supply on Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, followed by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 16 — HOUSING STATUTES
AMENDMENT
ACT, 2024
(continued)
Deputy Speaker: All right, Members. Let’s begin with the continued second reading debate on Bill 16, Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2024.
Seeing no further speakers, does the Housing Minister wish to close debate?
Hon. R. Kahlon: With that, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting after today.
Bill 16, Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Bill 14, Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2024.
BILL 14 — TENANCY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT,
2024
Hon. R. Kahlon: I move the bill be now read a second time.
I’m here today to talk about the proposed amendments for the provincial tenancy legislation that will deliver on our government’s commitment to homes for people, to improve security for tenants, to help ensure landlords are able to evict bad tenants in a timely way.
We know that chronically low vacancy rates are a major contributor to bad-faith evictions. Through recent legislation, our government has taken bold steps that, over time, will increase housing supply through additional density and quicker approvals at the municipal level and by putting short-term rental units back into the long-term rental pool.
With this bill, we are addressing the immediate needs of tenants. Data suggests B.C. tenants are far more likely to experience a no-fault or bad-faith eviction than any other province. Anecdotal evidence suggests that bad-faith landlord-use evictions are frequent in areas where rents have risen rapidly over the past few years.
Our government made significant progress on bad-faith evictions in 2021 to stop landlords from renovicting tenants by requiring them to get permission from the residential tenancy branch. But we’ve repeatedly heard from our tenant stakeholders that more work is needed to stop landlords from evicting tenants under the pretext that a landlord or family member will move in, only to flip the unit back onto the market for a higher rent.
This bill takes a new approach to that issue. One reason is that unlike renovictions, many personal occupancy evictions are in good faith, and we aren’t trying to get in the way of honest landlords who are ending a tenancy in a basement suite for their own use or for a child as a place to live in while they’re attending university. Our government recognizes that small landlords are an important part of the market, and they need to be able to take back a rental unit for their own personal use.
The second reason is that timely and accessible dispute resolution is critical to a healthy rental market. This bill will avoid undoing the significant progress our government has made to reduce hearing wait times and improve RTB services to the tenants and landlords of this province.
This bill will enable a transparent process for ending a tenancy for personal occupancy, which will be done through an online portal. When ending a tenancy in good faith, this will help ensure that notices are properly completed and that the landlord knows the rules for ending the tenancy before giving notice.
To address bad-faith evictions, it will allow the residential tenancy branch to track personal occupancy evictions and conduct compliance audits to make sure that landlords are following the law. Those who don’t may face an administrative monetary penalty.
The bill also includes options to increase the residential tenancy branch’s oversight in the future if the desired effect is not achieved.
This approach will be combined with better deterrence by allowing bad-faith compensation and administrative caps to be increased through regulations. Since 2006, administrative monetary penalties have been capped at $5,000 a day, which is not enough to deter bad-faith evictions.
Increasing administrative penalty amounts will also benefit landlords. Higher caps will help deter tenants from maliciously destroying a landlord’s property or defrauding a landlord of thousands of dollars of rent.
The bill would also provide the authority for prescribing additional grounds for evicting a tenant for a cause or in an emergency. We hear from landlords that they want more ability to evict problematic tenants, those who repeatedly contravene the act or those who create health and safety issues for the landlords or other tenants. This bill will allow us to address those challenges and further support landlords as well.
For tenants, we’re taking several actions, including for families who rent, by preventing additional-occupant rent increases for someone who is a minor.
We have heard stories of landlords who increase rent, sometimes by hundreds of dollars, just because the tenant had a baby. We’ve also heard stories of landlords giving notices to end tenancy for personal occupancy in purpose-built rentals, sometimes more than once in the same building, only to see the units come back onto the market at a higher rent. We’ve heard about landlords who are bullying tenants into moving out by giving invalid eviction notices after eviction notices.
This bill will prohibit ending tenancy for personal occupancy in purpose-built rental buildings with five or more units. It will also make it clear that the branch can levy an administrative monetary penalty against landlords who give frivolous notices to end tenancy and that tenants can seek compensation from the landlord.
Finally, this bill will require landlords who end tenancy for landlord use to use or occupy the rental unit for at least 12 months, up from the six months. To give tenants more time to find a place to live when they are evicted for personal occupancy, this bill will increase the notice of requirement to ensure that tenants have more time to find an additional location to live.
With that, I look forward to hearing from my colleagues across the way.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.
I am pleased to rise today and speak in this important debate. We’re speaking about rights for tenants, and we know that this is so important, especially in the housing crisis and the market that we have today.
Housing remains top of mind for every British Columbian, and we need to ensure that we are making the correct decisions here in this House for those who live here now, but also for those who live here in the future and for those who want to live here.
Everyone in this chamber knows that we need to build more housing, but after seven years and two elections, the NDP has failed to keep up with the requirements and the needs of our community. The province needs a better housing plan than what the NDP is offering.
Now, rather than repeat everything that British Columbians already know about the poorly planned NDP housing policies in this province, I want to talk, initially, a little bit about empathy. It’s important in this context, because we’re going to be talking about tenants’ rights. I hope that the Speaker will indulge me a little bit, but I can promise I will land the plane back on Bill 14.
Tenants are vulnerable today in this market. Tenancies, by their very nature, are insecure. Tenants are often at the whim of the decisions of other people. Things that happen in somebody else’s personal life may certainly have an impact on your own tenancy. Sometimes you must settle for housing that is not appropriate because it’s the only housing that’s available or settle for housing that is not appropriate because it’s all that you can afford.
With the average price of a one-bedroom here now in Vancouver landing around $3,000, and the gut punch of the cost of living, as we’ve seen since the pandemic, British Columbians are struggling, and tenancy insecurity is simply one more stress.
It’s one of the base stresses and concerns that we have as human beings. We have to have safe, affordable housing. I’m sure, again, that by the very nature of this legislation, there is some NDP communications person hovering over their keyboard and watching Hansard right now, waiting for me to say something that they can spin into their message that our party does not support tenants and does not have empathy for the precarious position that many of them are in.
Now, I’ve been a tenant on and off over the years, and I remember…. It was a while ago, not too long ago. I was a single mom. I had a child, and I had a pet, which you know continues to actually make things more difficult, and it was a struggle. One time, when I finally found something, which required me to drive 45 minutes each direction so that I could keep my child in her same school, I think by the time I was there and unpacked and was moving around my living room furniture, they’d already listed the home for sale.
Certainly, we need to provide security. We need to provide, also, for children. We have to think about that. If we’re constantly moving or if we’re forced to live in places away from where our child has developed community, it can be very difficult.
Then, my landlord decided to keep my damage deposit for some fictitious reason. After what seemed like forever, I got a hearing at the RTA. They ruled in my favour. But then the property management company said: “Oh, too bad. The owner moved to the U.S. Now it’s up to you to have to collect those funds.” Well, I, as most British Columbians, hardly had the time or the capacity to be chasing this woman down.
This is only one story of many that I’ve had in housing insecurity in my life. But I am very alive to the fact today that I’m in a place of privilege because I do own a home now. It’s not lost on me. I’ve not forgotten what it was like for me when my housing was more precarious. I think sometimes we do get detached when our situation, our life changes, and we become in a place where those aren’t our daily concerns anymore. We do become a bit detached from that.
But most people don’t. Most people have a lot of empathy. They’ve got children, family members and other people who are experiencing this very difficult time and trying to find housing. When I’m stressed or upset about something that’s happening in my own life, I try and remind myself that whatever it is that’s happening with me, I have housing. And that pales in comparison to many of the challenges and issues that other British Columbians have.
My friend from the Green Party yesterday…. We weren’t sure which bill he was speaking about. I know the Speaker corrected him because he was speaking about something related to tenancies while we were speaking about a different bill. The issue with that is that this is yet another piece of what appears to be kind of disparate legislation but is actually related to other bills that we’re talking about.
I think the fundamental challenge and issue here is it makes it very difficult for us to talk about housing policy in a cohesive manner when you continue to have small and very important pieces of legislation coming in, but coming in in a way where there’s confusion in terms of how they’re all going to marry and work together.
I do feel it’s like with this NDP government, sometimes somebody thinks of something in the middle of the night that they forgot to put into a different piece of legislation, and then suddenly we have another piece of legislation rather than looking at the totality of the crisis.
Much is done without proper consultation. Because of that, I would just look at the NDP has started to pedal back the short-term rental legislation because they failed to consult on it. It had major unintended consequences. In moving to the plain here, I mean, we are having trouble keeping them all straight — Bills 35, 44, 46, 47, 15, 16, 14, and yesterday was 18. And we still have another month left before we get to the end of this session.
In official opposition, we just simply don’t have the same resources that government has to be able to allow us to research and go into detail, particularly when we’ve got multiple pieces of legislation being introduced within days of each other or sometimes even on the same day. Perhaps, I wonder if that is the NDP housing strategy.
B.C. is in a housing crisis, and government has reacted too slowly. This legislation that’s come in is important legislation. It does good things. We compliment government that there are some pieces in there that we’ve been asking for that are very, very important.
Yet it’s not enough to actually resolve the crisis. And then when asked to account for this lack of action or success on this housing file, the Housing Minister in this government likes to blame the previous government. Well, I mean, no government is perfect. That’s for sure. But the crisis has happened under this government’s watch, and it’s gotten progressively worse over the last seven years. If the NDP thought it was so bad seven years ago, then why wasn’t something done before ten months prior to the next election?
This government has had the keys to the bus now for seven years. In fact, this morning there was another announcement, which was a good announcement. It wasn’t enough, but it was another good announcement this morning that there are going to be increases to the Safer B.C. to support our seniors, although the average rent has risen by $500, and they’ll only be getting a fraction of that rent increase.
One thing I think is, and coming back to Bill 14 here, disappointing and unhelpful is that this government has created this narrative or tried to create friction between those who own and those who rent. This is at the same time as we’ve lost that or they’ve taken away the dream of home ownership for many people. This doesn’t help the crisis. This dissuades people from participating in the solution.
A few weeks ago more than 200 upset landlords, which were representing the secondary rental sector…. The minister did acknowledge the importance of this sector as one of the biggest providers of actual affordable rentals for British Columbians. But over 200 of these upset landlords gathered outside of the office of the minister in Delta for a rally. Now, that rally was in support of a B.C.-based petition launched in October 2023, and those landlords in attendance believe the current tenancy laws are being abused by problematic tenants.
Let me just temper this by saying that we may agree or we may disagree on this, but the fact is that people are concerned about this. They believe that the current set of rules and regulations are outdated and that these regulations and the increased protections are discouraging potential and existing landlords from renting out viable spaces.
Whether you agree or disagree with these landlords’ concerns, the concerns are something that this government needs to be aware of in how it’s implementing legislation and how it’s consulting or not consulting on legislation to make sure that we’re bringing people along so that we understand the needs for these changes.
Again, these drip-by-drip pieces of legislation are causing more anxiety from tenants, but also from those people who want to be tenants. They certainly want to be tenants, but they’re scared to be tenants. Stories abound about landlords losing their homes because it takes so long to get a hearing at the RTB for non-payment of rent. We’re not talking about displacing people because of a renovation or personal family wants to move in. This is for non-payment of rent, and these folks can often not pay their mortgage because they’re relying on that, if we’re talking about maybe a secondary suite in someone’s home.
Now, I am sure that these incidences are few and far between, but they have become, for lack of a better term, the poster child, that do tend to scare people out of the secondary rental market. And you bet there are bad landlords out there. We’ve all heard about them; we’ve all seen them. And we need renters protected.
Because of this kind of narrative that has been built and, in particular heightened over the last seven years that you’re a bad landlord or you’re a bad tenant, it has hurt the relationship between landlords and tenants. That’s disappointing, and it doesn’t help us to encourage more housing. Without a significant increase in housing supply, demand is going to continue to be an issue. Prices are going to continue to rise.
What does Bill 14 do? Bill 14 aims to amend the existing landscape of tenancy laws in the province. There’s a lot of complexity here, and when we were getting our bill briefing, as in many bill briefings, when questions were answered, it’s “in the regulations.”
We are really going to be looking, when we’re in committee stage on this, to find out: what are the details here, and how are these things going to work? Certainly, some of them, on the surface, sound positive, and some we have some concerns about.
The immediate changes it seeks are to prohibit personal occupancy evictions in purpose-built rental buildings with five or more units, extend the landlord’s required occupancy period following an eviction for the purpose of personal use from six months to 12 months. Fair, I understand that. It should have an impact on frivolous evictions. Upon royal assent for this bill, further prohibitions will be a prohibition on rent increases for additional occupants who are minors and penalties for those who attempt to do so, to increase those rents.
We are very happy that government has now listened to us and made this change. In fact, just over a year ago, in question period, I asked this very question. I had heard from a woman called Victoria Walsh, who was expecting a child, and she said that the last thing she expected was a crippling 20 percent hike in rent. But that’s exactly what happened under this government.
Victoria was outraged. “My baby shouldn’t be treated like a roommate. I feel it’s very unfair. Twenty percent is just not a reasonable increase. It’s way too much.” She said to me that despite her plea for help, the only response from the Housing Minister was to merely shrug his shoulders and say that that rent increase is permitted; there’s nothing he can do.
That example was provided to government over a year ago, and despite multiple pieces of legislation — I’ve lost track of the number. In the meantime, this has taken this long to address. We knew that as the market was becoming more difficult for tenants, this was becoming a substantive issue that we just simply hadn’t seen before. So why didn’t we do something to address it sooner?
There’s also going to be a stringent ban on landlords issuing frivolous notices to end tendencies, which is good. But we don’t know what that means until we actually see the regulation. By regulation, expected by this summer, there will be a mandate on the use of a web portal for landlords to generate notices to end tendencies for personal occupancy.
On the surface, that sounds good. Any opportunity where we can try and streamline things and manage some data…. Government needs to have a better understanding of what are the issues that are happening, and sometimes having a portal or a place where information come together will be helpful with that. We’re not sure how all this information will be used, but it is an opportunity both for landlords and for tenants to self-educate as they go through that process. Hopefully, that will resolve some of the misunderstandings and challenges that occur when there are evictions happening, regardless of what those evictions are for.
There is going to be an increase in both the notice period for eviction for personal use and the tenant dispute period. What I’ll say on this is I do have a concern that the tenant dispute process can be used in other ways, other than what we’re just talking about in terms of ending a tendency for personal use.
Again, I’ll talk about nonpayment of rent. If you’ve got a renter who is simply not paying rent and there are no other extenuating circumstances, you can put a landlord in a very, very difficult position because they are relying on that rent. I’ve heard stories of people not being able to pay their mortgages and having to pay these additional fines because they’re not getting rent paid. The tenant dispute mechanism can be used as a tool to actually drag that process out even longer for the landlord, and it can be very problematic if we’re moving from two months to four months.
I understand the spirit in which we want to increase that period of time, but I certainly hope government has given consideration as to the impact that it will have. When we look at personal use, we’re also referring to sales of homes.
If you are selling your home and you’ve got a tenant in your secondary suite, you need to actually have a sound agreement for sale that has the subjects removed, which makes sense to me. But then from that point on, an additional four months…. That may be challenging in terms of the respect of the ability to sell homes. People need to sell homes for many different reasons and many different circumstances.
Concern that might be raised if we think about unintended consequences…. Someone may leave a unit empty. A tenant may move out, and rather than re-rent it, if they’re thinking about selling in the next year or two, they may simply not re-rent that suite because of the concerns about the difficulty of actually selling that home.
Mr. Speaker, we look forward to the ability to ask more detailed questions in committee and thank you and the minister for the opportunity to speak about this. I hope that I didn’t speak too shortly for the minister, as I see he may be waiting.
The Speaker: We’ll just take a short recess. I understand there are people on their way who also want to speak to this, so we’ll be back shortly.
This House is in recess.
The House recessed from 11:31 a.m. to 11:37 a.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Deputy Speaker: All right, Members. Let’s call this House back into order. We’re here with Bill 14, Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2024.
I really appreciate the patience with members.
A. Olsen: I thank my colleagues for taking a few minutes.
Continuing from yesterday. The advice predicated on this idea is that as a result of renters’ own failure to become a homeowner, they do not deserve to have a nice, safe and secure home to live in because they have not been successful enough to deserve it. It’s an example of how far apples can fall from the tree. I felt sad knowing that the fate of non-homeowners was in the hands of a government that has been informed by these advisers with this socioeconomic philosophy.
I know the Minister of Housing was sensitive to my characterization of his approach to housing policy. He suggested that I was name-calling when I described the government’s policy as orange-tinged Thatcherites. But we know his response was a self-defence mechanism to factual analysis. It’s clear for everyone to see that the housing policy that has been brought forward by this government has been formed by a neo-liberal political philosophy that comes from Thatcher and Reagan. It has deified the housing market, created a golden calf. This bill is yet another example of that.
This minister’s mass upzoning last fall was entirely market-based — entirely market-based housing. No controls requiring the development of rentals. No protections against predatory real estate investment trusts. No protection for renters who will face renovictions and demovictions followed by dramatic rent increases as a result of those changes. Wholesale abandonment of local democracy and good planning.
BC Builds is focused on household incomes of $84,000, mostly producing at- or near-market product. The market rate is already well above what is affordable for many British Columbians.
There is no indication from this government that they are concerned that the past 40 years, the market economics downstream from Thatcher and Reagan, are a problem.
Instead it’s like we’ve learned nothing from that time and the solution is to turn to economists from the same theoretical school whose philosophy is responsible for breaking the social fabric we have relied on since the Second World War and whose advice is to blame those who cannot afford the market for their own failure to effectively pull up their own socks.
I think my comparison landed so squarely because the minister and his colleagues have told a different story about who they are, fashioning themselves more in Dave Barrett’s school of political and socioeconomic theory than Thatcher’s.
Jeremy Withers published an important article called “Addressing the Rise of Investor Ownership of Housing” a couple of days ago in Perspectives, a piece that the more academic B.C. NDP members, in their former iteration, as a providential social democratic institution, would have paid close attention to.
He wrote: “Ownership of housing is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of wealthy Canadians, fostering a worsening status quo for everybody else.”
Withers goes much further, though. The housing market challenges we are facing are not just the result of wealthy people or people who arranged their birth in the correct generation. Quoting Smith, et al., Withers continues: “‘As housing wealth slips from the hands of home occupiers into the portfolios of individual and institutional rentiers,’ the 21st century appears set to return to levels of inequality reminiscent of those of the 19th century, ‘wherein most households rented their homes and owned nearly nothing else.’”
Folks, we’re moving into a dark time in this province. The B.C. NDP’s housing policy changes have seeded those storm clouds.
My friends on the political right are going to roll their eyes. I’m, again, deliberately quoting from an article that comes from a self-described democratic socialist agenda — deliberately quoting, though. I’m holding a mirror to the government and its 50-plus members to look into, to see themselves honestly, not as the social democrats they believe themselves to be but as the prototypical neo-liberals that they despise.
The political philosophy they are legislating is far from the social democratic values they purport to hold. The agenda they have aligned themselves to really doesn’t like poor people. It believes that, at birth, everyone gets the same pair of socks. Some of us pull them up, and some of us choose to let them slouch. They believe everyone is given an equal shot, and some just choose to be economic losers who want a free ride. Like I said, it’s a dark and disturbing time.
As Gordon Hoekstra recently reported in the Vancouver Sun, Vancouver housing is “in a full-blown crisis.” In the last quarter of 2023, Vancouverites with a median income needed 106 percent of that income to afford home ownership, 80 percent in Victoria.
Hoekstra writes: “Especially in Vancouver, you need to have a significantly high income or be able to make a very significant down payment to afford a home.” Quoting RBC chief economist Robert Hogue, who said: “It does restrict the pool of potential buyers. It’s not that those who are priced out completely give up on their home ownership dreams. But for now, they are being pushed to the sidelines and could potentially stay there for an extended period of time.”
UBC’s Sauder business school economist and architect of the report that justifies the Housing Minister’s housing policy changes last fall, Tom Davidoff, said: “It has gotten worse, and it keeps getting worse.”
Perhaps when interest rates come down, British Columbians will get the relief. Not so quick, according to Davidoff. “If rates come down, prices will probably rise dramatically. It’s kind of one-sided.”
Deputy Speaker: If I might ask the member to relate this directly to Bill 14. It would help. This is relating to the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, as opposed to for purchase, which is what we were discussing yesterday. That would be appreciated. Thank you.
A. Olsen: Mr. Chair, I’m talking about housing policy in this province. Home ownership and renters are inextricably linked in a housing policy.
I’m not talking about a different kind of policy here, Mr. Chair. I’m talking about housing policy. Just because this government has decided to fragment our housing policy into 15 different bills for us to debate at different times over different sessions does not mean that the housing policy in this province is disparate.
To continue to be interrupted when I’m talking about important housing policy and the impact on the people…. It’s unbelievable to me, frankly.
Deputy Speaker: Member, this bill is Bill 14. As is the tradition in this House, we speak to the content of bills as they come forward.
I appreciate the wider context, and I’ve certainly been giving the member much leeway to speak to the wider context. I would just ask the member to consider Bill 14, the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, and to draw his comments towards this bill.
A. Olsen: Regarding Bill 14. Davidoff said: “If rates come down, prices will probably rise dramatically. It’s kind of one-sided. I would have expected the large increase in interest rates to lead to a big reduction in price, but it just hasn’t happened.” Davidoff’s expectations are not materializing. His analysis is missing something.
For those who are inclined to shift to the comfortable refrain that we just need more supply then…. I agree, partly. The problem is much deeper than that. While I appreciate the sentiment is borne of frustration…. Getting governments motivated on supply is an important start. However, there are dangerous repercussions that you will see emerge when we fail to add definition to the supply that we are creating, when we fail to act intentionally in this House.
Reflecting on Bill 14. I know that what I’m about to say runs counter to the urban myths that the housing affordability crisis is primarily needing a supply-side solution, the urban myths perpetuated by the private sector development industry, which have effectively permeated this public narrative. I’m bound to sound like I’m uttering madness. I can assure you it’s not madness.
Withers provides data to back up the claim that since 2022 there has been a noticeable housing supply gap. Prior to that, the evidence shows that “Canada-wide there appears to be no connection over the past two decades between the escalation of home prices and declines in the availability of housing.”
He continues:
“Far more needs to be done than simply slowing population growth and building market housing faster, if Canadians want to see housing affordability return to levels enjoyed by earlier generations. Policies aimed at increasing the number of market-rate homes per person…cannot be trusted to address Canada’s growing array of unmet housing needs. A more targeted approach is required, identifying and supplying the types of housing we need and restricting the speculative demand we do not need.”
It takes a far more nuanced and thoughtful approach than the one that our B.C. NDP Premier and Housing Minister are prepared to take to create a program that actually identifies and supplies the types of housing we need and restricts the speculative demand we do not need.
Remember the bold claim I made last fall that this government wasn’t trying to solve a housing crisis. They are trying to solve a harmful political narrative germinated by their buddies in the private sector development industry. For the time being, this government has placated much of the political anxiety. However, solving a housing crisis requires interventions at specific locations in our housing ecosystem.
Withers continues:
“There is, of course, a harrowing deficit of certain types of housing across Canada, above all, housing affordable to lower-income communities. As Whitzman’s 2023 report for the federal housing advocate emphasizes, ‘the fact that the vacancy rate for low-cost rentals is zero to 1 percent in most major Canadian cities suggests…a focus on supply, either new build or acquisition to maintain affordability, will be necessary to address homelessness and core housing needs.’
“Supply-side interventions to speed up development and increase allowable densities can and should play an important role in addressing these unmet needs. However, as Whitzman’s report rightly stresses, it’s imperative these interventions are firmly grounded in supply targets specifying the type and depth of affordability actually needed and the policies and partnerships required to build or acquire them.
“As we will see below, a huge share of newly built housing will likely be bid up and bought out by wealthy investors in the absence of more targeted government interventions.”
I’ll preface the next comments I make with the acknowledgment of the rental protection fund. This program falls into the purchase-to-maintain-affordability stream. It’s 500 million precious dollars. It is a critical measure from Budget 2023 that, unfortunately, Budget 2024 did not increase.
With the scale of displacement of renters that will likely occur in the coming months as a result of the housing legislation that is in front of us, if the housing policy from last fall is successful, as the Housing Minister hopes, then the budget of the rental housing protection fund will be remarkably insufficient in actually protecting the number of affordable rental units that we need.
One thing we know for certain is that new builds are not affordable. With the cost of land, construction and profitability for the developer, new units will look more like the one that Chrystia Freeland was standing in when she claimed that she and her B.C. NDP partners were making housing more affordable again. That makes protecting as many good-quality, lower-cost rental units mission-critical.
Some of the members in here will have been forced, through House duty, to listen to me go on at length about the desperate need to address the core housing need — and that it will not be met by leaning on the neo-liberal economic philosophy that if we build enough supply for wealthy people, eventually affordability will trickle down to everybody else. That’s just not the experience that we have had, is it?
While we need to increase supply generally, and we urgently need to charge up some types of supply if we don’t, it could drive up the cost of housing for everybody.
As was made crystal-clear during the debate last fall, the B.C. NDP Housing Minister argued repeatedly against supply specificity, stating: “Requiring a level of housing affordability and the new density he was creating would hamper development.”
Deputy Speaker: The member is going way off of what’s in this bill. The bill is the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2024. He has been given considerable leeway. I would just remind the member again, we are here to discuss this bill.
A. Olsen: He got it almost right. It would hamper profits to developers.
Withers focuses on the demand-side influences of the dramatic decoupling of the cost of housing from the broader economic reality. He describes how the loosening of mortgage rules increases the ability for people to access more cash debt, which is linked to increasing home prices as competitors bid each other up.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
This is our liberalized market system. It is a laddering effect, with lenders and regulators also playing their role in driving house prices up. This fires up the market into a frenzy, and all those behaviours lead to what Withers calls “a housing finance feedback loop.” And he notes: “As the years that followed have…painfully clarified, the decoupling of prices and incomes can be further extended by another factor: rising demand from rich housing investors.”
A. Olsen moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. N. Sharma moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 3 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2024
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 3; R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:10 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2024, to order.
On clause 2 (continued).
P. Milobar: Picking up where we left off yesterday, to clarify what I’m getting at: is the government, essentially, with this proposal, just trying to backstop $1 billion worth of equity investment?
In other words, it could be $10 million here, $20 million there. They’re writing, for lack of a better term, a government guarantee to backstop the borrowing, and it’s up to $1 billion worth of equity value. Or is it that it’s the carrying costs of $1 billion to the books, and it would be a much higher value of equity that’s actually being backstopped?
Hon. K. Conroy: We’re backstopping the loan itself. If it defaulted, we would pick up the interest on the loan.
P. Milobar: Thank you. That makes it clear.
Part of the reason I was asking was — obviously, with the backdrop of what we just saw today with S&P and the credit downgrade — that I was trying to figure out what the overall exposure to government would be in potential debt liability that would be taken into account.
It sounds like that’s capped at $1 billion, but there are, as I referenced yesterday, 204 First Nations in the province, and $1 billion doesn’t actually go very far when you’re talking equity stake, into projects. How is the government planning on deciding who actually qualifies for this program when applications start to come in?
Hon. K. Conroy: We are co-developing a framework with First Nations right across the province, and through that, there will be a process developed.
It’s important to note that we’re not allocating money to each First Nation. What we’re expecting is for nations to come by themselves to look for equity funding or equity support. Or there could be a group of nations coming forward, a collective of First Nations, that might be looking at a project. We’ll be looking at the projects on a project-by-project basis.
Again, the process will be developed with First Nations and also with Canada — we are expecting Canada to come on to be a partner — and with industry. We’ll be consulting with industry as well. I just want to remind the member that industry asked for this as well. Industry is very interested in this. They want to get involved with First Nations, and recognized that First Nations didn’t have the ability to go and borrow money without someone backstopping. So we’re doing that backstopping for them. It will be done with industry as well.
P. Milobar: I was only using the 204 as a reference, basically, to highlight that likely, at some point, winners and losers are going to be picked with programs or projects. When I read the back of this bill, it appears that this becomes law on royal assent. So the lack of detail at this point is, frankly, a little bit surprising. I think that will lead to further frustration.
We’ve been watching, in the last week and a half, in real time, what can happen unfold when government money is at play and people can apply and try to access government grants, government backstopping or government help for their various projects. There needs to be an adjudication done of those applications. There then needs to be a final determination.
Will the adjudication be done by government, or will it be done by a contracted company, as we’re seeing unfold with the Minister of Energy and Mines right now and the debacle that’s happening with the go electric program under CleanBC? Or will it be kept internally, and will that adjudication happen strictly within ministerial responsibilities within the government?
Hon. K. Conroy: I do want to remind the member that there was a lot of discussion with First Nations about this. They’re very happy about this because they see this as a way of moving forward to be able to invest in projects across the province, especially projects that are on their traditional territories, in collaboration with other companies.
We’re in the process of developing the framework. There are developing policies on assessing the programs and how it’s all going to work. But the member needs to know that all the program is under the oversight of Treasury Board and cabinet. That work will be done through the Ministry of Finance. We’ll develop the framework of policies, which is started.
We want to be thoughtful with this. We need to take the right time to make sure that we’re doing this right. This is a significant initiative not only for the province but for First Nations in the province, and also for other companies in the province that want to develop partnerships with First Nations. We want to make sure that we get this right.
P. Milobar: Just maybe to be clear for the minister, I’m not taking issue with the program itself whatsoever. I think it’s a good initiative for Indigenous nations to be able to try to advance economic opportunities in their own area. B.C. United has come out with very similar statements in Prince George, long before the budget came out, on a very similar program, at the Natural Resources Forum in January. So it’s not about that. It’s about trying to find out how this is actually intended to work with the government.
The question was actually: is the government intending to use outside consultants to adjudicate the process of deciding who actually gets money out of this fund, or the backstopping out of this fund for their equity play, or not?
We’re seeing, with the Energy and Mines Minister play out right now, the significant concerns and problems, to the point that the government literally had to do a 180 degree turn yesterday in real time, which is unprecedented in this place, to suddenly agree to an Auditor General review, versus Thursday saying no Auditor General review was needed or warranted, and saying the same on Wednesday and not wanting to answer a question on Tuesday.
The question today, to this minister, is really around the process of this. Will the adjudication and the handling of the decision-making be 100 percent internal to government, or is it the government’s intention to go down the same road as we saw the Energy Minister go and hire outside consultants to adjudicate this program?
Hon. K. Conroy: As the minister has said, she got new information on the weekend which led to the changes this week. I think that should be on the record.
I also have said that we are developing the policy. We will look at what’s going to work best for this initiative with Indigenous nations, with industry, working together to say: what is going to work best? We want to make sure we get it right, and that’s the way it’s going to be done.
P. Milobar: Again, then, we are faced with the situation where you have a nation wanting to get an equity stake. The ministry yesterday used a mine as an example, probably a very relevant example when you consider you’re going to have mines or oil and gas or forestry being the predominant land-based–type uses that would require larger equity stakes to try to buy into a part of a project. Those projects typically go out and find equity partners to fund the operation of whatever project it is they’re working on.
What is the intention of government, then, if you have one nation saying they want to buy an equity stake in a mine that’s working through its permitting stage and a neighbouring nation saying they don’t want that mine to proceed? Which nation’s opinion will the government take as the reason to advance or not advance backstopping an equity play on a project?
Will it be that it has to have unanimous support of neighbouring nations, especially in areas where there are conflicting opinions about whose territory the mine or the natural resource project is actually located in? If the project traverses across many different jurisdictions, in the case of a pipeline, how is the government setting out to actually decide whether or not that’s a make-or-break feature of this program?
Hon. K. Conroy: I want to thank the member for the question because these are good questions, and they’re all questions that are going to be developed as part of the framework. They’re the policies that are going to be looked at to make sure that we’re working in collaboration with First Nations and industry to make sure that we’re doing it right.
P. Milobar: Well, again, this becomes law on royal assent, so I think as much clarity as we can actually have today really would be helpful.
I think there are a lot of nations, as the minister rightly has pointed out, that will be very interested in this and want to get the ball rolling, and although it may seem like a year from now that the $200 million would really come into play for next year, by the time this budget has passed and that, we’re talking a few short months. These are usually equity decisions that take months upon months.
You know, April 1 next year will be here before we know it, and you could have a lineup out the door if people wanted to access that $200 million right off the hopper, or at least a portion of the $200 million.
It is troubling that there’s not more certainty as to how some of these issues will be at play. Will oil and gas projects be eligible under this fund? There’s a lot of concern around emissions and profile, emission profile and GHG profiles, so will there be a particular type of industry that just will not be entertained by government, or is it that any and all industry or any and all equity type requests will be considered by government?
Hon. K. Conroy: Again, those are all policies that we’re going to be developing in collaboration with First Nations and industry. I also want to point out that if you look on the budget on pages 62 and 63, there’s a topic box which actually lists all the things we’re going to be looking at.
It’s up to the nations to come to us and say what they’re interested in getting involved with what kind of projects they want to be involved in. It’s self-determination by nations, and we will be working with them and with Canada because Canada very much needs to be a part of this as well. So we will be working all together on the policies as part of the framework and moving forward.
Again, it’s the nations…. It’s part of the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. It’s not up to us to tell them what projects they need to be involved in. It’s up to the nations working together with industry as well as with Canada. And it’s also…. I mean, people still have to follow the laws of the province and would be guided by the laws that we have in place.
P. Milobar: On part (4) of clause 2 it says: “Treasury Board may direct that the balance of the special account be reduced by an amount equal to any part of the balance that Treasury Board considers is not required for the purposes of the special account.”
Is that to mean that although, in theory, right now Treasury Board would appear to have $200 million next year to access, Treasury Board could decide that in fact they only need $100 million and decide to reduce that down, regardless of how many applications may or may not be out there?
Hon. K. Conroy: The loan guarantee is what the member is referring to. That doesn’t change. What does change is…. This money is about the $10 million. And Treasury Board…. What that clause says is that it has the ability to balance the revenue based on the needs of the account as it’s utilized. Treasury Board has oversight as to what’s spent and what’s coming in and out. TB, Treasury Board, actually will be monitoring this.
P. Milobar: Just to be clear, the special account starts with $10 million this year, but then it is projected to have another $200 million added next year and for each of the five years. I thought the intention of this section was the $200 million a year. Can I get clarification, then, on the $200 million a year for five years that the minister has been talking about?
Hon. K. Conroy: The $200 million is a loan guarantee. It’s got nothing to do with spending. It’s underwriting a loan. The only time it becomes to do with spending is if they default on the loan. Then it does. Otherwise, we’re not spending money.
P. Milobar: The reason I was asking for the clarification around this is that we just went through, at Public Accounts, the updated Auditor General report. Again, another dissenting opinion by the Auditor General, worried about how the Indigenous revenue-sharing for gaming is showing on the books.
I just wanted to clarify and make sure there’s not just basically, essentially, a holding account for the backstopping that has $200 million a year in cash sitting there. It’s going to be, basically, a paper transaction on the balance sheet showing that there’s a potential liability of $200 million sitting there, but the regular payments for that $200 million of borrowing would be undertaken by the First Nations and their equity share. So I get that. I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.
In terms of part (6), though, it says: “(6) Despite section 72 (3) of the Financial Administration Act, the Minister of Finance may, on behalf of the government, guarantee the repayment of all or part of a loan by a person if the loan is to assist first nations in acquiring equity interests in business organizations involved in projects in British Columbia.”
That all seems pretty straightforward. The minister has that ability. Then it says in (7): “A guarantee may only be given under subsection (6),” which is what I just read, “if prior approval of Treasury Board has been obtained.”
However, if memory serves, I believe it was this minister’s predecessor who changed the rules around who could actually make final Treasury Board decisions on certain situations and enabled the chair or the vice-chair to unilaterally make decisions without Treasury Board approval and basically go back and inform Treasury Board of the decisions after the fact.
Would this type of a decision qualify for that scenario?
Hon. K. Conroy: What the member was referring to was a process called minor minutes to be expedient, and that was for things that are lower cost, things that could be done just to be expedient.
Because of the prominence of this initiative, I believe that all decisions need to go to a full Treasury Board, to have that full discussion at Treasury Board, and that’s the direction we’ll be moving in.
P. Milobar: Well, that’s the closest to a definition that we’ve actually been able to receive. When I questioned at length before, we always got very vague answers of what level of a decision would actually qualify under those provisions, or not, when it was first introduced. So I appreciate the answer there.
In terms of timelines for these provisions, I’m mindful that we are not only up against the clock for noting the hour but also up against the clock for a writ drop. We talked about that in clause 1. We’re all aware what the date of the writ drop is now.
The reality is that government pretty much starts to grind to a bit of a standstill in any government, regardless of political stripe. It’s just fact; it’s how it works. Then it takes a little while to ramp up after an election again, regardless of outcome of the election. There are new ministers and portfolios and all of that.
What is the timeline, given that April 1 is when, technically, First Nations would have the ability, next year, to start accessing this and start asking for approvals? In how it has been laid out by the government, to actually have…. What happens with overlapping claim areas? What happens if one nation wants a project, and the other nation does not want the project?
What happens about things like oil and gas and natural gas projects that would span multiple jurisdictions in terms of traditional territories, where you may or may not have consensus — transmission corridors for hydro lines and energy needs that way? Where you might have a nation that wants the dam, but you have a nation that says, “We don’t want transmission lines,” so you can’t move the electricity anywhere? That’s going to gum up the works on an equity stake in a power production capacity when we’re up against the 2030 deadline and B.C. Hydro’s call for power right now.
How is all that going to be reconciled? What is the timeline between now and, basically, April 1, given that we do have an election almost dead centre of this time frame that I’m talking about?
Hon. K. Conroy: On what the member is asking, again, I’ll say that the decisions that he is referring to are all things that are going to be part of the framework development in collaboration with First Nations, industry and Canada. I have asked staff to move this forward to expedite the development of this in a timely manner.
We know that there are actually projects out there, nations that are thinking: “This is a project that we, potentially, could get the backstopping of the loan for.” There are some; there are not hundreds of them. There are not many of them, in that sense. But we know that we just want to be thoughtful with this. We want to make sure we get it done right. We want to make sure that this initiative is going to support those projects that nations are talking about.
There are all kinds of projects that nations are talking about, everything from power, as the member said, to mining, but also agriculture. I mean, there are a number of different projects that different nations have mentioned that they think would fit in with this initiative. Our goal is to get it done as quickly as we can but making sure that we do it right with the due diligence and consultation that needs to be done as well.
Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
WATER, LAND AND
RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); K. Greene in the chair.
The committee met at 11:10 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates for the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.
On Vote 46: ministry operations, $213,767,000 (continued).
A. Olsen: I have three issues that I’d like to canvass. They’re all three issues that I’ve spoken with the minister on.
One is in regard to the application of the Pender Harbour dock management plan, specifically in my riding, in Saanich North and the Islands. There’s kind of a long history on this. Before it was with Water, Land, it was in Forests. In 2021, a moratorium was placed on new dock applications “within the southern Gulf Islands and southeastern shoreline of Vancouver Island,” identified as the moorage no-application zone. It was extended to 2025.
The Ministry of Forests, where this file resided, stated that exceptions included applications that replaced or assigned existing permission, lease or licensing for private moorage where road access to the associated upland property does not exist. That was in the order-in-council that established the original moratorium. Like I said, there’s a long record of my office advocating to the government to address this issue.
Prior to the moratorium, there were 80 pending dock applications from one company. Some of those applications backed all the way up in the administrative queue for more than seven years. There are over 1,000 docks tenured or in trespass currently in our region.
The current system is actually frustrating law-abiding citizens. They’ve followed the government process and received no decision. Frankly, as I’ve been kind of assessing the situation in our riding, it’s penalizing good behaviour and rewarding bad behaviour and rulebreakers. It’s not that there are no docks going out because there’s been a moratorium; there are just no legal ones.
At first, the ministry explained that the moratorium was the result of the ministry’s inability to process the volume of applications. Some months later, the ministry blamed the delay on consultations with First Nations.
I’ve learned that the province is engaged with my relatives in Quw’utsun’. When I asked the ministry officials, in a briefing, about the process of consultations with the other well-known First Nations who have rights and interests in the territory, it was clear that there were no consultations currently underway with the W̱SÁNEĆ, the W̱JOȽEȽP, SȾÁUTW̱, W̱SIḴEM, BOḰEĆEN, MÁLEXEŁ or our relatives in Lyackson, Stz’uminus, Halalt or Snuneymuxw.
We’re on track for a very messy situation in the southern Gulf Islands and in the Salish Sea. I don’t think the government can afford another Pender Harbour, multiplied exponentially.
This process is not helping the credibility of the province. It’s not honouring the relationship that we have with the public, specifically with the applicants. They don’t necessarily have the right to a tenure or a dock, but they have applied through the legal process, and we expect them to receive a decision within a reasonable time. It’s not helping First Nations or the overall project of reconciliation. In fact, the process is dragging it backward, making First Nations actually the source of the frustration, when the source is a failed bureaucratic process.
I have two questions. I’m going to ask them together.
One, what is the ministry doing to fulfil its commitment to those who have legally applied for a dock, including the ones that were excluded from the original order-in-council, to make decisions on those applications in a timely manner?
Two, I recently met with a newly formed group called the southern Gulf Islanders for collaborative partnerships and reconciliation. They’ve already got 700 members. What steps is the government taking, what steps is the minister taking, to learn from the Pender Harbour experience to create a collaborative, multi-stakeholder table, including rights holders and property owners together, to build relationships and address this in a good way?
Hon. N. Cullen: Thanks to my friend for the question. Some important parts in here, and maybe a part that wasn’t necessarily addressed in the question, which is the origin of the concerns around dock management, broadly.
The Quw’utsun’ Nation has long-standing concerns, as he knows, as a number of other nations do with the historical, ecological impacts of docks within the territories. That’s the origin of a desire to do something new.
There are two areas that we’re talking about, of course. One is Pender Harbour, on which he asked for a bit of an update and some reflections on that process, as well as an update on what’s happening within the Quw’utsun area.
We have an MOU with Quw’utsun, and in that agreement, there is an understanding that other nations can be brought into the process, as is proper. Quw’utsun is aware of that and agrees with that.
We are meeting with the southern Gulf Islanders for collaborative partnerships and reconciliation. I was checking to see if the acronym made something. I don’t think it does. It’s a bit of a mouthful, but good…. A new group, and we’re meeting with them this week.
We are also have made Quw’utsun aware, and they have had conversations. I think the fellow’s name is Rob Botterell, one of the lead voices from that group. He is engaged directly with Quw’utsun, which we think is appropriate. It’s good that all the parties are talking.
Stepping over to Pender Harbour for a moment, some difficult lessons were learned there with respect to how we’re talking to community, how frequently we’re talking to community, what our relationship is there with the nation directly, how are we able to implicate dock owners, the concerns they were raising, and the blowback that can happen, particularly towards First Nations in that regard. That is something my friend knows I’m very keen and aware of as we make efforts around reconciliation and co-management strategies, stock management plans, etc.
When there is push-back, it can come towards government, which is appropriate. It also and too often goes towards the local First Nations, who are sometimes implicated, sometimes not. But because it’s local and these are often small communities that we’re talking about, it can be very painful and intimate, if I could use those terms properly.
We just met with one of the local government groups this morning to find out…. We established a revised dock management plan, which we did with the nation, with shíshálh Nation. We both co-signed on that and released that a number of weeks ago. That has, from some perspectives, and I think many perspectives, greatly helped diminish the temperature that had gotten quite elevated.
We also, in that dock management plan, revised the number of the conditions that were originally proposed. We also established an advisory group and invited local government and interested parties — there are a number of coalition groups — to come to the table. I believe we’ve had three advisory group meetings so far, another at least one or two this week — two this week, and early reports are positive.
We wanted to do some ground-setting, a little historical piece of how we got here and the interests of shíshálh, particularly, and allow them to have that voice in the advisory group, level everybody up to the same understanding and then start to walk forward on what co-management looks like and begin to alleviate the concerns that were raised. We are taking those lessons over to the southern Gulf Islands, absolutely.
The question about illegally applied tenures that were excluded under the original OIC — we’re going to have to get back to the member about that specifically. I’m not as familiar with that part of the OIC and which docks are in there.
I’m just seeing if there’s anything else.
The eventual goal, of course, is where I started: to address those long-standing concerns and impacts about how docks were managed or not managed within British Columbia. When we look to other jurisdictions, and we canvassed this a bit with the official opposition in a previous estimates meeting, in Alberta, Saskatchewan and south of the border, there are much more rigorous dock management regimes than we’ve had in B.C. There are stipulations that are put on docks in other parts of the world that maybe weren’t brought into Pender Harbour, in particular. So we need to level up.
I hope what is a commonly shared interest between all parties is to not impact the environment in negative ways, to have respectful and decent rules and also good decision-making processes that respect the government’s obligations on reconciliation.
In shíshálh, we have a very profound agreement with them, and we need to manifest that. How can we go through co-management, co-decision-making in a good way and an expeditious way so that it isn’t so long to get to these tenures and that we reward good behaviour, to my friend’s point, as opposed to maybe what has been done in the distant past with respect to this issue and a number of other land use issues?
A. Olsen: I recognize by introducing the shíshálh example in here, I invited the minister to focus on that. Where I’d like the focus to be is on the next situation that’s evolving. From the perspective of the riding that I represent, there is a very complex issue evolving in the southern Gulf Islands.
I think that there would be a dramatically different description of the relationships between our families’, Straits Salish and Coast Salish families’, interests and rights in the southern Gulf Islands than the way that the minister described it. There is absolutely no doubt — and with no disrespect to Quw’utsun’ — they have a long relationship right next to us, the W̱SÁNEĆ people. My dad’s name is the name of a leader that comes from the Mayne Island community, S,KTAK. That’s where our family’s root is, neighbouring Galiano Island, which is where our relatives from the north are.
The complexity of this situation cannot be overstated in this situation. The government always leans on shared territories. But in here, the suggestion is that there’s a table with Quw’utsun’, and others are willing to join.
Has the minister reached out to the other First Nations that are well known? The list of the First Nations that the Islands Trust, for example, has to consult with I think is an exhaustive list that is very well known and has provided challenges, frankly, for the Islands Trust, just as an example. But there are 14 or so First Nations that have interests and rights, rights and interests, in the southern Gulf Islands area.
To frame it that we’re sitting with the Quw’utsun’ and the others can join us…. Like, have we reached out to the others to say: are you going to join this table with Quw’utsun’? Do you want your own table, and if so, are we going to have 14 tables? If that’s the case, why are we down the road on Quw’utsun’ and not bringing the others along? This is the challenge that is specific to….
The main difference between this issue and shíshálh is that there was a community, and there was shíshálh, and they have every right in that space. The space that we’re talking about is much more muddy than that in terms of the lines and the definitions. Who’s where? Who’s what?
It is a common theme when dealing with consultation with First Nations in the southern Gulf Islands. I raised this with the ministry months ago — weeks ago, maybe, to be fair. There are Chiefs in our riding that are interested in when they’re going to be engaged in this conversation. Is it going to be at the beginning? Partway through? Is it going to be after there’s been an agreement with Quw’utsun’?
If so, they’re working together on a bunch of other initiatives. There are already tables. I gave that information to the ministry. There are already tables that could be leveraged by the ministry, because the relationships are evolving in federal government issues and in other issues.
Now, there’s a group of 700 people that have got together. It is a very complex and a very challenging situation. I’m fearful of the track that we’re on. What I’m hoping is to get an understanding from the minister as to whether or not the other First Nations that aren’t Quw’utsun’ have already been engaged, have already been invited or have maybe already indicated that they would like their own table.
Hon. N. Cullen: I thank the member. One question that…. It doesn’t have to be in this exchange, but I’d be curious as to what other tables he referenced where the southern Gulf Island nations are right now participating. I’d be very keen. He may have referenced that to me or my office, and I apologize if I don’t have that here.
The historical reason why Quw’utsun’ has the agreement…. We’ve just begun. Conversations with them only began a couple of weeks ago. To his question about other nations coming in, beginning, middle, this is just starting. We will reach out to the other nations that are implicated in the southern Gulf Islands and make that invitation in an appropriate way.
I don’t want to say anything about the process. The process has to be what it is, and that’ll be a negotiation. But the notion of 14 tables or…. My concerns around capacity come up immediately. Quw’utsun’ was…. The five nations within that group were the ones that were most vociferous in terms of raising concerns around docks. That is why that was the initial point of contact with respect to the MOU. No other reason. Other nations had different perspectives or had less to say, perhaps. But not casting aspersions. That’s just why things happen sometimes. That’s why this happened. It’s not by any desire to be exclusive. We will reach out to them.
I don’t know if there’s anything else. No, I don’t…. Lessons learned out of shíshálh, but I know it’s a different context. The complexity going into the southern Gulf Islands is more. Yet there may be some important things with respect to the advisory groups and what happens when community groups get initiated and how we make sure that we’re providing as much information as we can to them so that we’re dealing with the same set of facts.
I think one of the challenges we ran into and still continue in some ways with shíshálh, although much less, is that when people start getting their own set of facts and that runs through social media and whatnot — much more challenging to have conversations about the actual implications.
All of this, though, goes back to the original point that there have been long-standing concerns around the environmental impacts upon archaeology around clam beds. I don’t need to read the list to my friend. He knows them better than I ever will. But that’s where this starts.
We need to find a better management strategy when it comes to docks. I hope that’s common ground between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, that protecting the place, caring for the place better than we have in the past is shared. How we do that and how we do that under a DRIPA lens with co-management as a goal — that has got some complexity in the southern Gulf Islands. There’s no doubt.
A. Olsen: Thank you. I’ll just say this before handing it over to my friend here from Parksville-Qualicum.
It’s common ground between myself and the minister for sure in that we need to find a better way to manage docks and that there are absolutely environmental concerns that have been brought up and been raised completely, totally. Clearly, the process, as I’ve understood it over the last seven years, is that the First Nations who stick their hands up in these notification processes are the ones that the engagement starts. So to me, I understand how the government got to where it was.
My concern is…. I’ve raised this issue previously, and I just fear that we don’t lose more ground. That’s the reason why I came to this forum here, because there is a level of organization that’s happening now for people who have got their applications in. Frankly, I think that we can do better than what happened the first time around and come to an outcome earlier than that. So I’ll just leave it at that.
I did have a question about fallow deer, which you’re probably not surprised at, except I’m not going to ask it here. I’m going to send it to you, and hopefully I can get a written response to it. But I want to turn it over to my friend who’s got some time. Thank you for your responses.
A. Walker: I have four sections of questions, and I’m hoping we can get through these before lunch so that we can not have staff have to come back, but I’ll leave that up to the minister here.
My first question is a question from the city of Nanaimo and the regional district of Nanaimo. Harewood Plains in Nanaimo is a very unique ecosystem. We’re blessed in our community to have pockets of Garry oak meadows, and this has been identified as a very special site for the city.
At the March 26 regional district of Nanaimo board meeting, they directed staff to work with the province to see what could be done to protect this property. It represents 85 to 98 percent of the known populations of this bird’s-foot trefoil, but it’s more than that. It’s a Garry oak ecosystem, which is critically at risk, especially in our area.
Looking through the budget, looking through the service plans, looking through the goals of the province, obviously protecting this land is important. The regional district of Nanaimo has made a request to the province for assistance. The question is: what assistance can the province provide in this current fiscal year, recognizing that this land is currently up for development?
Hon. N. Cullen: Of course, the principle of this, I believe, is private land. The principle is willing seller, willing buyer. That’s the foundation. We don’t have any funds right now allocated for this, but our branch conservation lands program is working with the regional district right now to see what’s possible and if there is a future allocation that we can pursue, again under the premise which is it being private lands of interest.
But we have a shared conservation value here. There’s something incredibly rare and important about this particular piece of property, so we’re engaged, as we speak, right now with the regional district and keen to do the work and, if available, find the funds and, if there’s a willing seller, see if there’s a conservation agreement we can come to.
A. Walker: Obviously, there’s a willing desire there but possibly no funds to actually make it happen. It’s one of the frustrations with properties like this. I mean, ephemeral vernal pools…. It’s a very special place, and it’s quite unique.
The second question is regarding the Water Sustainability Act and just, more broadly, some of the goals — whether it’s in the service plan or elsewhere for the measures to ensure that we have water when we turn on our taps.
The city of Nanaimo is showing leadership in our community for planning what that could look like. They are taking the leadership that I would prefer to have seen at sort of a regional district level. The challenge with communities like those that exist in my area is some cities and towns have water, and others do not. They don’t tend to collaborate in a very productive way, and it leads to some disagreements and delays in this process.
The question, I guess, is: what support could the city of Nanaimo expect from the ministry, going through this next fiscal year, as it relates to their planning process? They’re expending significant funds to make this planning possible but knowing that there will be, in the future, some incredibly expensive capital projects.
I’ll roll this up into two questions. What can the city of Parkville expect as far as supports currently and in the future for planning and for the capital? Also, looking through the service plan, there are no performance measures when it comes to this objective to ensure water stewardship from source to tap. What is the ministry doing to measure their own success as we go through to try to preserve and make available water for future residents?
Hon. N. Cullen: On the measures and success, we have the co-drafting and co-management of a watershed security strategy, which is the broader level, not specific community by community, which is where a lot of the science is taking us, because you need to do them both. The co-development and the broader public engagement on the watershed security strategy will also lead to how it is that we measure ourselves against success or impediments with respect to water security at the watershed level.
We work quite closely with Municipal Affairs, which works closely, of course, with municipalities. There was a $1 billion fund that went to all municipalities for planning in general and supports for municipalities. There is also…. EMCR has funding when there are times of drought and crisis that can be made available to local government.
As well, we have a very good partnership with the Agriculture Ministry, which set up a $20 million and then another $83 million fund to work with farmers and ranchers in the broader watershed, to help them hold water back on the land further so that we can move back from scarcity as often as possible. So we have many efforts to help on the question of water, broadly.
We’re feeling that the scale of the project is so large that multiple partnerships, not just within the provincial government but all of those multiple orders of government: local, First Nations…. We are strongly encouraging our federal partners, who have stood up a Canada Water Agency but not a lot of details as to how they’re spending the money, that we would have some great ways for them to distribute money to places like Parksville and Nanaimo and others — the Sunshine Coast comes to mind — and many, too many others in B.C., that are facing increasing worries about reliable water supply.
A. Walker: What I’m hearing is that the city of Nanaimo, which I think has committed close to $1 million in the planning process…. That is something they’re going to bear alone at present.
I’m excited to see the watershed security strategy move forward. I think that’s going to be incredibly useful. The $1 billion that the minister referenced from Municipal Affairs…. Most communities have already allocated those funds. While that does take off pressure from local governments, it certainly isn’t earmarked in any way to water. That is a purview of local government, to figure out where that money goes, and it’s a bit of a challenge.
The agricultural funds…. That funding is not there to ensure that the fish in Englishman River have water but also that the residents have water for their taps.
I’ll flip to my last question first, which is…. As we talk about the watershed sustainability strategy that’s on the way right now, it reminds me of the Private Managed Forest Land Act review that took place many years ago — 2019. That report was made public. It identified many concerns, especially from folks on Vancouver Island, related to the watershed about the impact of the sustainability of logging operations on private land with the confluence of local governments needing access to those watersheds in that water basin.
With the Private Managed Forest Land Act review…. My understanding, talking to the Minister of Forests recently, was that there were no next steps that took place as a result of that. I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because UBCM has made requests of her government to modernize that process. I was punted from Muni to Forests and then to you.
My question is twofold. One is: what is being done with that Private Managed Forest Land Act review? We had thousands of people participate, many concerns were raised, and my understanding is the work is not done.
How is this new water sustainability strategy going to be any different? Having a plan, having a report to point at, where the service plan doesn’t actually provide any tangible objectives…. How is it that we’re going to see any progress on the ground to actually see things move forward?
Hon. N. Cullen: On the watershed security strategy, there’s of course a fund attached to it as well. We have a partnership with the Real Estate Foundation of B.C. We put $100 million aside; they added $5 million. It’s since grown in the time.
We’re looking forward to — hopefully, quite soon, now that they’ve established the funding working group — when they will start to have calls for proposal and actually be doing the work that continues on similar work to the healthy watersheds initiative, which was $57 million.
In terms of the Private Forest Land Act review, part of what is being led by WLRS is in respect to the watersheds and the multiple values that forestry planning can implicate: the economic ones, obviously, in the forest practices, but, also, multiple values like water and the impact that can be had from forestry on water. It’s part of why we’re leading a watershed security strategy: to implicate on land use planning and new arrangements that we recently saw the minister announce, with ‘Namgis Nation and others, the ability to have comprehensive land use planning that takes all the multiple values, some of which my friend referenced, which I think is proper and appropriate.
That’s where the strategy goes. It’s quite imminent. Code drafting takes time, as one would expect. And that’s the right way to do it.
The Chair: Member, we are unfortunately out of time. We are due to report progress to the main chamber. So we will ask the minister….
Hon. N. Cullen: Yeah, I’m just wondering. I believe my friend has one last question. The challenge is, for all the staff that we implicate, to bring everybody back and away from their offices. Is it possible to take the question in good faith, in writing, that we can report back directly? Is that an option, rather than do the hour and a half that it’ll call for one last question? Is that okay?
If that’s okay, then that would be greatly helpful.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Seeing no further questions, I ask the Minister if he would like to make any closing remarks. But it would need to be very brief.
Hon. N. Cullen: Given the time, no.
The Chair: Okay, excellent. Thank you, Minister, and all members here.
Seeing no further questions, I will call the vote.
Vote 46: ministry operations, $213,767,000 — approved.
Hon. N. Cullen: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.