Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Rosalyn Bird.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Adrian Dix: Today, April 30, is Journey to Freedom Day, which marks the contributions of the Vietnamese-Canadian community and the journey that many of the community took in dangerous circumstances to flee Vietnam and come to Canada in the wake of the Vietnam War, which ended 50 years ago today.

We had — I want to thank members on all sides of the House for participating — a very moving event today in the Hall of Honour. It’s my honour to welcome some of our many, many guests, our 100 guests, today.

That included Andy Pham, who’s a Vietnamese community and industry leader who spoke today so eloquently; Edison Tran, who’s a Vancouver entrepreneur and past vice-president of the Vietnamese Professional Association of B.C., who gave a guitar performance today; Ken Do of the Vietnamese Veterans Association.

Also, Vieng Phavongkham, the president of the Laos Community Association of B.C.; Nguyen Hanh “Winnie” Cao; Tammy Dao from the Lac Viet Public Education Society; Hop Van Phan from the Vietnamese Association for Cultural Preservation; and Tri Duc Dang from the Vietnamese Air Force Association of B.C.

Thank you to all members for supporting this important day today.

Please welcome all our guests from the Vietnamese-Canadian community, from the Laotian-Canadian community and from the Cambodian-Canadian community here to this House.

Rob Botterell: I am honoured to welcome to the House today a constituent from Salt Spring Island, Olivia Hayne

April is National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Month. Olivia is here today as a volunteer with B.C. Transplant.

When Olivia’s brother Alistair tragically passed in 2017, his family knew that organ donation was the right thing to do, and he ended up saving the lives of five people. Since then, Olivia and her parents have been dedicated volunteers with B.C. Transplant, sharing Alistair’s story and encouraging others to consider registering as organ donors.

B.C. Transplant will be in the library today between two and 3:30. I welcome and urge my colleagues to visit and meet with Olivia and other volunteers.

Thank you, Olivia and B.C. Transplant, for the important work.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: Visiting the Legislature today are guests from the Barrick mining association. They are Christina Erling, vice-president of government affairs; Kerri Harmati, mine manager; and Allison Brown, group director, reclamation and closure.

They’re here to watch question period, particularly. That’s their key interest. The mining sector is usually quite…. They are kind of trained to hear high noises, so that will be okay with them.

Barrick mining association is a major global mining company. I will ask the House to please make them welcome in this House.

Anna Kindy: I’ve got two introductions to do.

I’d like to introduce Rob MacNeill, one of the program directors at Robron Centre, an alternative high school; as well as Christine Johnson, a teacher there; Nicole Girard; other staff members; and nine students.

Welcome.

I’d also like to welcome the British Columbia Public Service Employees for Freedom. President Philip Davidson is now doing a law degree.

As well, the United Health Care Workers of B.C. The president is Jed Ferguson.

Both are registered not-for-profit societies in B.C. They are about informed consent, medical privacy and bodily autonomy. There are 14 of them today, including Terri Perepolkin, a health care worker who lost her job.

Welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: We’ve got representatives from the city of Prince George joining us in the House today — Coun. Garth Frizzell; Coun. Kyle Sampson; Coun. Susan Scott; their city manager, Walter Babicz; as well as senior adviser for intergovernmental relations, Catharine Sikobe.

I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Prince George the last few months, and I’m really pleased to be able to meet with representatives from Prince George to talk about forestry. I know many members on both sides of the House will have an opportunity to meet with these councillors and their team.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Kiel Giddens: The Minister of Forests just beat me to the punch, but I’d really like to welcome the delegation from the city of Prince George that was just named the northern capital. I want to thank all members and ministers who have met with them in their time here, and I want to thank them for the great meeting we had yesterday as well.

Could the House please give them one more round of thanks for all they do for the city of Prince George.

Jessie Sunner: It’s always a good day when you get to introduce friends in this House. Today I’m honoured to welcome my campaign manager extraordinaire, Jasmeet, who also works for the Minister of Labour; along with her partner, Anmol, and her mother, Sharon. This is her first time visiting this House. Maybe this is the visit that will make her finally get her Canadian citizenship after 32 years of being in this country. That’s what we’re hoping.

If the House could please join us in making her feel very welcome.

Linda Hepner: I would like to acknowledge Ms. Walser’s grade 5 class in my riding from the Surrey Christian School. They are learning about government, and the entire class has been doing a virtual tour of our building.

Please join me in welcoming them to what government looks like on a daily basis.

Hon. Diana Gibson: As was mentioned, it’s a real privilege to be able to introduce friends and family to the House, and today I have with me three family members who I have the honour and privilege of introducing.

I’ll start with my father because it’s his 85th birthday.

Interjections.

Hon. Diana Gibson: I know.

He’s been a real inspiration to me. He’s a professor of engineering management and taught me a lot in my life.

My mother is also here, who is also a professor, in health and health science, and a former nurse and also business owner, author.

My aunt, as well, Sheelagh Whittaker, who’s here, is another inspiring family member who was actually the first woman CEO of a company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Thank you for the warm welcome.

Pete Davis: I just wanted to echo the Minister of Mines, as well, by welcoming Barrick Mining Corp., I guess Barrick Gold Corp. now.

I had a great meeting this morning.

Thank you guys so much for coming.

We look forward, on this side, to making sure that mining stays a vital part of the economy here in B.C.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I just wanted to bring the House’s attention to a new docuseries, which is atypical as an introduction in this House, but this is a docuseries called Wildfire, and it follows the B.C. wildfire service in a five-part series.

It was created by two of my constituents, actually some people I grew up with — Simon Shave and Clay Mitchell, along with Kevin Eastwood. It showcases firefighters from my constituency and also from many of yours.

I hope that we all have time to be able to review this. It shows the bravery of our B.C. wildfire service firefighters. I am so grateful for their service and also for the documentary makers.

Will the House please give a round of applause for this documentary.

[1:45 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld: I don’t see them in the gallery today, but I would like to welcome to the precinct the executive of Tourmaline Corp., the largest natural gas producer in Canada. We had an excellent opportunity to exchange some great ideas and talk about some of the fantastic resources of the beautifully clean natural gas that we have in this province.

Susie Chant: I am very honoured to welcome the incredible staff and volunteers, as have already been referenced, from B.C. Transplant to the Legislature today.

As national Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Month ends, we recognize the power of donation to save lives. In 2024, 481 British Columbians received a second chance thanks to 118 deceased donors and 90 living donors and the dedicated health care teams who make transplants possible. Some of the volunteers with us today are transplant recipients and donor family members, powerful advocates for the life-saving work that they do.

I invite all members to stop by the Legislative Library this afternoon, up until about 3:30, after question period, to learn more about the impact of organ donation in British Columbia.

As an aside, my husband was an organ donor for bone marrow a number of years ago to a young mother of two small children. Those children are now in college, and their mom is cheering them on. It’s really important.

Thank you for making them feel welcome.

Gavin Dew: I’d like to acknowledge someone who is not in the chamber today, and that is my wife, Erin. Today is our eighth wedding anniversary, and instead of taking her out for dinner, I’m going to be here in this House doing estimates and committee stage debate on Bill 7.

I just want to state for the record that I love you, I miss you, and I’ll see you soon.

Darlene Rotchford: I would like to welcome a resident of View Royal, from part of my constituency, Steve Farmer. Steve was diagnosed with hepatitis C at the age of 46 and received a liver transplant on New Year’s Day 2005. His transplant has given him time to be a dad to his two daughters, and the highlight has been being able to see them both grow and be married.

Steve has also competed in several Canadian Transplant Games and won many medals, including last summer in Ottawa. Steve has been a longtime volunteer with B.C. Transplant, sharing his story and inspiring people to register their decision on organ donation.

Can the House please welcome him.

Rohini Arora: I just want to welcome Daniel Heo, who is my new constituency adviser, and I was hoping to have a line of sight on him.

He is absolutely amazing. I’ve known him since 2021. This man makes incredible bagels, fresh, and brought them into the campaign office regularly. Suffice it to say, I don’t know what I would do without him, bagels and all.

Statements

Lions Bay Rainforest Racers
and Remembrance of
Barbara and David Enns

Jeremy Valeriote: Tens of thousands of people took part in Vancouver’s Sun Run on Sunday, among them my constituents the Lions Bay Rainforest Racers team, who are admittedly not in the building but are watching from home.

This year, 42 members came together to remember Barbara Enns, one of the founders of the team, and her husband, David. Barbara and David died tragically last December when their home was destroyed by a landslide.

I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations and appreciation to the Lions Bay Rainforest Racers team.

Introductions by Members

Paul Choi: I am excited to welcome my friend to the House today, Linda Li, and her two sons, Henry Wong and William Wong.

She was a candidate with us for Richmond-Bridgeport, but more than that, she’s a pillar of community in Richmond. She served with the Richmond Chinese Community Society and the Richmond Hospital Foundation. She is a prominent business owner as well.

If I can just ask the whole House to give a very warm welcome to the three of them.

George Anderson: I would like to recognize someone very special in the Legislature today, and that is my friend Linda Campbell.

Linda has dedicated her career to public service, bringing wisdom and compassion to everything that she does. Moreover, she has a remarkable ability to get things done. It’s a skill that I try to borrow whenever I can. Unfortunately, it has mixed results.

[1:50 p.m.]

Her presence today is a reminder of the many unsung heroes who serve not for recognition but out of love for their community and country.

I hope that the House will give Linda the most warm welcome.

Thank you, Linda.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects
(Streamlined Permitting) Act

Hon. Adrian Dix presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act. Bill 14 would establish the B.C. Energy Regulator as the primary permitting agency for renewable energy projects and major transmission lines, allow the B.C. Energy Regulator to establish a new rigorous regulatory framework for renewable energy projects, and allow for the exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act for wind power projects and the North Coast transmission line.

I’d like to inform the House that the government considers this bill a matter of confidence. B.C. has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to become a world leader in clean energy production, and we must take every action possible to see that all British Columbians benefit from this opportunity. Renewable energy projects are urgently needed to provide affordable, clean power, create jobs and diversify our economy, especially during this period of global market uncertainty.

We need to build. We need to build to support our economy. We need to build to fight climate change. We need to build to secure our energy sovereignty. Bill 14 will assist us in this task.

I am proud to move first reading.

The Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Adrian Dix: 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.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Principles and Values of
Sikh and Filipino Communities

Rohini Arora: It is the last day of Sikh Heritage Month, and I would like to wrap it up by lifting up the Sikh community and values and the connections with the Filipino community and how our communities have come together during this significant time of grief.

Both Filipino and Sikh values place a strong emphasis on community support and collective well-being. At the heart of both traditions is the idea that caring for others is not just a choice or a responsibility but a source of happiness.

In Filipino culture, this is seen through the concept of bayanihan, where people come together to help one another, especially in times of need, whether it’s moving a house, responding to a natural disaster or supporting a neighbour in crisis. Filipinos naturally unite in solidarity.

Similarly, in the Sikh community, the principle of seva, or selfless service, encourages individuals to help others without expecting anything in return. One of the most visible examples that we know of is the practice of langar, the free community kitchen found in every gurdwara, where anyone, regardless of background, is welcome to a hot meal.

Both cultures also value hospitality, generosity and compassion, often sharing food and resources with neighbours and strangers alike. Community gatherings, religious events and festivals often become opportunities to support those in need.

Another important similarity is how both cultures mobilize so quickly during emergencies. Whether through church groups, organizations like Filipino B.C. and Mabuhay House, barangays or Sikh aid organizations, these responses are often grass roots and driven by a deep sense of duty and empathy.

After the tragedy at the Lapu-Lapu Day festival, the Sikh community rose to action to feed families, including Guru Nanak’s Free Kitchen and Khalsa Aid, and stand behind them during a time of unimaginable grief. In both communities, the belief is clear. When one person struggles, the whole community must step in.

This shared commitment to uplifting others is a powerful connection between the Filipino and Sikh way of life. What an honour, and what a way to honour Sikh Heritage Month than really, truly live our values.

[1:55 p.m.]

I want to extend my most sincere condolences to everyone affected by the tragic events of Lapu-Lapu Day celebration.

To the Filipino community: we stand with you, and we love you.

The Speaker: Members, try to keep your two-minute statements within two minutes’ time, please.

Asian Heritage Month and
Contributions of Asian Canadians

Hon Chan: I will try my best, hon. Speaker.

May marks Asian Heritage Month. As we step into May, it is a time to honour and celebrate the contributions of Canadians of Asian descent, those who have helped build this province and who continue to shape its future.

British Columbia is home to one of the most diverse populations in the country, with deep-rooted Asian communities whose presence dates back to more than 150 years ago. From early Chinese railway workers and Japanese fishermen to South Asian farmers and Filipino caregivers, Asian Canadians have long been the backbone of B.C.’s economic, cultural and social life. Their stories are one of resilience, sacrifice and strength. These communities have experienced exclusion, discrimination and hardship. However, they have stood strong and made this province better for everyone.

Today Asian Canadians are leaders in every field. From education to business, from health care to public service, their impact is not only seen in our cities but also deeply felt in our neighbourhoods.

I want to especially recognize the work of SUCCESS, led by CEO Queenie Choo. This long-standing community organization has helped tens of thousands of newcomers build their lives here in B.C. Their tireless efforts over the past 50 years have empowered generations of Asian Canadians and have brought communities closer together.

I also want to highlight the enormous contribution of the Filipino community, one of the fastest-growing communities in British Columbia. From health care workers and caregivers to educators, business owners and artists, the Filipino community exemplifies compassion, dedication and service. Their presence has enriched every corner of our province.

Asian Heritage Month is more than a celebration. It is a recognition of the history, sacrifices and leadership of Asian Canadians. It is a reminder that the story of British Columbia is not completed without them.

Let us honour these contributions not only in May but each and every day of the year.

Traditional Chinese Medicine

Paul Choi: I rise today to recognize and celebrate the upcoming fifth World Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture Culture Week, starting on June 21, hosted by the Home of Canadian Traditional Chinese Medicine Society, founded by Dr. John Lee and Dr. Rong Gang Li in partnership with the Canadian Community Service Association.

Traditional Chinese medicine, or TCM, has profoundly contributed to our society by treating diseases, combatting pandemics, supporting rehabilitation and preserving health and well-being. Rooted deeply in the tradition of Eastern Asian philosophies and culture, TCM emphasizes health cultivation and life fulfilment.

This special week of celebration provides a meaningful opportunity for British Columbians to discover more about TCM’s immense value and engage in cultural exchanges to foster mutual understanding between diverse communities. Activities will include ceremonies, roundtable discussions highlighting B.C.’s accomplishments in TCM, educational programs on health preservation, cultivation lectures and engaging tai chi exercise led by esteemed TCM masters and renowned scholars.

I invite all members of this House and the public to participate and learn about the remarkable wisdom and practices of traditional Chinese medicine during this important culture week.

For more information, please go to wtcmaw.events.

Organ Donation

Á’a:líya Warbus: April is National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Month, and I want to take a moment to honour the life-changing gift that organ donors give to others. It’s an important and selfless act that has the power to transform lives. Organ donation is one of the impactful acts of humanity that simply cannot be measured.

In 2024, 481 people received organ transplants. Out of those transplants, 118 were made by deceased donors and 90 by living donors. Each of these people ensured that a loved one or a stranger could have another chance at living a full life.

[2:00 p.m.]

Joining us here today is one of my constituents from Chilliwack–Cultus Lake. Krista Winnig is a volunteer with B.C. Transplant and has personal experience with organ donation. Her sister is an organ donor. I too can relate on a personal level. My cousin donated a kidney to a close loved one, and this improved her standard of living and created an unbreakable bond between them.

Organ donation truly can have a life-altering effect on families across British Columbia and the country. Statistically you are more likely to need a transplant than you are to become an organ donor. That’s what makes these acts of generosity so extraordinary. They offer hope when it’s needed most.

Today I want to thank those who’ve already made the decision to give. Your compassion has given others the chance to heal and continue to be with the ones that they love. As B.C. Transplant says: “It only takes two minutes to save a life, but the impact of that decision lasts a lifetime.”

This is work that deserves the continued support of all elected members in the House, and together as British Columbians, we must ensure organ donation continues to enrich and save lives.

To those who have passed but left a piece of themselves behind: your thoughtful acts have saved and improved the lives of so many. We honour your memory and sacrifice today.

Food Security in Burnaby

Janet Routledge: Burnaby is experiencing a food security crisis. Consider this. The number of people using the Burnaby food hubs, or what we used to call food banks, has more than doubled since 2021. An estimated 4,000 people are now using food hubs every week. Twenty-three percent of all the food collected by the Greater Vancouver Food Bank is distributed to Burnaby residents, and more and more recipients work full-time but can’t afford basic living expenses.

This pressure on the food hubs themselves is overwhelming. They each have to find their own supply of protein and fresh vegetables. While some hubs are run by a paid coordinator, others are run entirely by volunteers. It takes 40 to 60 volunteers at every location for a full day once a week to prepare and distribute food boxes.

While this crisis is unprecedented, so too has been the response. Last November the city of Burnaby adopted a food system strategy. Implementing the strategy is an advisory table composed of community food organizations like the Burnaby Neighbourhood House. City staff and food security experts are also at the table.

The strategy addresses the entire food system: growing, harvesting, processing, packaging, transporting, distributing, preparing, marketing and consuming.

The goal is to ensure that all people have food choice and access to culturally appropriate food, that food is grown and made locally, that food is affordable to produce and to purchase and that production is connected to local businesses, is sustainable and resilient, and is ethical and socially just.

Food brings us together; so does this initiative.

Contributions of Rob MacNeill
and Operation Pegasus

Anna Kindy: I want to introduce Rob MacNeill. He’s a 25-year veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, an avid skydiver, jumpmaster, skydiving instructor.

Rob is a selfless man. He has deep passion for helping people, including at-risk kids as well as veterans and first responders who suffer from PTSD and anxiety.

He runs the Operation Pegasus Jump, an event that began in July 2022 aimed at supporting veterans and first responders dealing with PTSD and other mental health issues. The event uses skydiving, which serves as a platform for veterans to connect, challenge themselves and share their stories in a supportive environment.

Recently a police officer involved in a shooting last year came to the program. He is now back at work. Ten officers from the Vancouver police force have now registered for Operation Pegasus.

In 2016, Rob was sought out to start a trades program. He started the program in his garage with 14 youths. These 14 youths were high-risk, struggling and not successful in the traditional school environment. Rob took these young people and started teaching industrial sewing.

[2:05 p.m.]

After six months, he was approached to run his program through Robron, an alternative school option offered in Campbell River. The program has grown and is well known in Campbell River. He offers the programs to all the schools and teaches sewing to as young as grade 4.

Along with sewing, his students have gained access to Rob’s vast knowledge and passion in skydiving, rigging and parachute-packing. DND in Comox hires Rob’s students to pack chutes. The students also pack chutes for Operation Pegasus. On his team of students, Rob has the youngest parachute-packer in Canada, who now has her own business. She also teaches at Rob’s program and mentors new students coming in.

Rob has opened the door for so many young people, and he supports them every step of the way. He has managed to link at-risk kids with role models — for example, veterans, police, first responders — with his Pegasus jump program.

Rob, thank you for caring so much and making a huge difference in so many lives.

Oral Questions

Call for Public Inquiry into
Mental Health Care System

Elenore Sturko: The mass murder of festival attendees in Vancouver over the weekend has had a profound impact on our province. But this is not the first time there have been serious injuries or deaths involving people with severe mental illness in our province. We heard multiple examples yesterday — and, frankly, for years — of severely mentally ill people failed by this government who go on to cause harm or deaths or who themselves become victims of violence.

We need an immediate public inquiry. If the Premier is concerned about tainting the future trial related to this weekend’s tragedy, the inquiry could focus on all those other incidents. As a province, we cannot wait.

My question to the Premier is: will the Premier do the right thing and announce a public inquiry into mental health care in B.C. today?

Hon. David Eby: There are a number of pieces in the member’s question I want to address.

First of all, with respect to the incident at the Lapu-Lapu Day festival, the mass murder, it was just that. It was a mass murder by a man who decided to drive his vehicle through a crowd. We don’t know why yet. It will be tested at the criminal trial and ultimately, perhaps, at a public inquiry, but we will get British Columbians those answers.

Vancouver Coastal Health tells us he was under active treatment. They tell us he was compliant with his medication. They tell us that there was no indication that he was violent. That will all be tested by cross-examination, perhaps twice. I’ll ask the member and others to reserve judgment about what happened and let that process play out.

For mental health broadly in the province, do we really need an inquiry to tell us what we know we need to do, which is open more beds, provide more care, provide more interventions in communities? Because that’s what we’re doing — 140 more hospital beds across the province. We’re opening, across the province, intensive involuntary care beds for people struggling with mental health, addiction and brain injury. Interventions in communities. Additional ACT teams. Working with experts in the field like Dr. Daniel Vigo.

There’s an aspect of the member’s question that I do want to address, the Mental Health Act itself. We announced today that we’ll do a review and modernization of the act to ensure it meets the expectations of British Columbians. We’ve held off on that because of a court challenge to the act and the forced treatment provisions. We’re defending the act. We think we need those forced treatment provisions. But the moment we’re in, we can’t wait. We need to act.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Elenore Sturko: Yesterday the Premier stood on the steps of this place and said that if he didn’t get the answers from court, he would call a public inquiry. Now he stands in this place and says: “Why do a public inquiry if we already know what to do?” If the Premier knows what to do, why is he not doing it?

Yesterday I received an email from the parents of a young man who had mental illness. He was under the care of a mental health team, and he had been deteriorating for two months before he was murdered, stabbed to death in an altercation.

His parents believe a lack of services and his deterioration contributed to the circumstances that led to his murder. His parents said the mental health team did not check in on their son with proper frequency and effectiveness or verify his medication.

[2:10 p.m.]

They said: “No one listened to us. Our son was miserably failed. His death could have been prevented.”

Will the Premier do the right thing by this family and countless other families, families that are impacted by the failures of the mental health system under this Premier and this government, and call an inquiry into our system today?

Hon. David Eby: I’m sure the member didn’t do it intentionally, but she conflated my answer.

On the issue of the mass murder at the Lapu-Lapu festival, British Columbians deserve answers. Why did this happen? If they don’t get the answers from the criminal process, we will call a full public inquiry. I was very clear about that in my first answer and clear again now. We will get British Columbians the answers, because I want the answers. British Columbians want the answers. I know the member wants the answers too.

In terms of the broad array of issues, in terms of people struggling in our streets, in our communities, in terms of people needing additional supports, attending at hospitals…. And it’s not just mental health; it’s other aspects of health care too. Why we’re expanding hospitals, why we’re expanding beds across the province, why we’re expanding assertive care teams…. We know what to do there.

Now the member has raised a very important issue today again, and in her private member’s bill, about the role of families. How can families be more involved in the care, in particular of adult children that are struggling with mental health and addiction? This is exactly the kind of issue that a review of the modernization of the Mental Health Act can address, and we’re doing that work.

Police Investigation of
Lapu-Lapu Festival Attack
and Comments by Premier

Steve Kooner: Yesterday, during the question period, the Premier commented about this past weekend’s horrific tragedy and on the suspect. “He is rightly charged with murder. He is facing a criminal trial. I hope he is convicted. I hope he spends the rest of his life behind bars.”

Yesterday at a press conference and in the House, the Premier said that he didn’t want to comment on the case because he didn’t want to interfere in the police investigation.

To the Attorney General, can she please confirm whether or not the Premier’s comments yesterday meet the definition of interference in a police investigation?

Hon. David Eby: The member is again doing what the first member did, and I’m sure unintentionally. He is conflating my very specific remarks about a public inquiry where we call people to testify, force them to testify about the incidents at the Lapu-Lapu festival. That could compromise the criminal investigation into that mass murder. We won’t do that.

My own opinion is that this man should be tried, should be prosecuted, should be sentenced for the rest of his life to prison for murdering children and seniors and others. That’s my opinion, and I’ll be blunt. I think that’s the opinion of British Columbians across the province. But it’s up to the criminal courts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby: It’s up to the courts. They will do that work, and we’ll let them do that work.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Steve Kooner: With all due respect, I did not refer to a public inquiry. I’ll read the quote again. “He is rightly charged with murder. He is facing a criminal trial. I hope he is convicted. I hope he spends the rest of his life behind bars.”

While we hold strong opinions to what we want to happen to the perpetrator, we don’t want to interfere in a police investigation.

To the Attorney General, does she agree that the head of this government publicly declaring his own preference regarding guilt, innocence and sentencing before a police investigation is complete constitutes interference?

Hon. David Eby: I don’t know what to take from this. One member is completely willing to try and convict the care team that was following this individual.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, let the Premier finish.

Hon. David Eby: To speculate about what happened until the information is in….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. David Eby: I raised this yesterday. I think it’s critical that the facts have a chance to come out. The one person that it is unambiguous about what they did, the individual who drove a vehicle into a crowd of British Columbians….

The opposition can’t bring itself to say that is murder, that he should be tried and convicted. Well, I’m sorry. That’s my opinion. And if the member wants me to apologize for that, I never will.

[2:15 p.m.]

Government Action on Climate
Change and Emissions Reduction

Jeremy Valeriote: The 2024 climate change accountability report was released yesterday.

I’ll start by saying I’m grateful for the transparency. This caucus and many British Columbians are frustrated that we are not on track to meet our climate targets. It’s my job to convey the anguish and anxiety felt by my constituents on this.

A failure to meet legislative targets in any other area would bring harsh criticism, and this is no different. Climate inaction means British Columbians will pay a much steeper price than any carbon price can inflict: infrastructure damage, health consequences, societal insecurity.

This work is going to be hard, and I sadly acknowledge we’re in a lull on prioritizing this existential issue of our time. It’s difficult to lead the way when popular sentiment works against our long-term responsibilities.

My question is for the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. How can this House and this government inspire British Columbians to see climate stabilization as a populist collective effort and give government of any stripe the support and authority to accelerate the energy transition we all know we need to make?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Thank you to the Leader of the Green Party for the question.

Just in this period since the election, we’ve announced ten renewable energy projects and today introduced legislation to ensure and help ensure that those projects are built. We will be doing more on this question in the future. I think it’s a singular and remarkable effort to respond to our economic development needs and our climate needs, to link them together and to build everywhere in British Columbia, and we’re going to do it.

Since the election, we’ve introduced new regulation on methane where we’re leading Canada, indeed leading the world: a 43 percent reduction in methane emissions in the oil and gas sector. The industry deserves some credit for this, as well, I would say. We are going to meet our targets for 2030.

Do we have more work to do? You bet we have more work to do. That’s why we’re reviewing CleanBC programs to ensure that we work towards reducing emissions in British Columbia — that we do that, that we make it a priority and that we do it linked to the affordability of people in our province and linked to the clean economic growth we need to do to create jobs everywhere in B.C.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote: One of the areas where we have a lot of work to do is emissions from transportation, which are up 18 percent since 2007. This figure is bound to go up with the repeal of the consumer carbon price. The underlying reason is no mystery. In my riding, there’s no public transit between Whistler and Vancouver, despite it being a key commuter and tourist corridor. Commuters across B.C. spend too much of their days stuck in traffic for hours because public transit is inadequate or nonexistent.

I appreciate the effort on wind energy, but our concern is that this government is ramping up clean energy that fossil-fuel-export enterprises can use to greenwash their dirty operations. Every dollar of subsidy to polluting industries is a dollar not spent building public transit. A low-carbon economy that benefits British Columbians in the long term has a higher return on investment for these public dollars.

What is the minister’s plan to reduce emissions in the transportation sector?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I just disagree with the characterization of the member, and this is a good debate to have. When you produce clean energy, and then you do it again and again, you build out on the extraordinary opportunity for clean energy — on projects, by the way, that are 51 percent owned by First Nations. You are making a transformational decision about the economy, and we have to continue to do that.

There is no other option to do that, and it benefits our economy, creates jobs and builds public support for action against climate change. You bet we support this. I hope all members of the House will support this, and we’ll be testing that in a coming debate in the Legislature.

With respect to transportation initiatives, B.C. has the lead in Canada in transition to EVs. That’s because of the work of a lot of people, including new car dealers, including environmental leaders. We’ve got to continue to drive in that direction. We have some of the most significant transit projects being built in Canada right now, under the leadership of my colleague, the Minister of Transportation.

We need more transit, you bet. We’re building more transit. We need new EVs on the road. We’re building it. It means the electricity we make in B.C. replaces the gasoline we import to B.C. This is good for our province.

We support CleanBC, and we’re going to continue to act on climate change.

[2:20 p.m.]

Involuntary Mental Health Care
and Conditions for Persons
in Corrections System

Brennan Day: Both sides of this House agree that mental health is in crisis in this province. Last week this government proudly announced nine involuntary care beds at Surrey Pretrial and triumphantly declared that progress. Let’s be clear. Nine beds isn’t progress; it’s a band-aid.

Even Dr. Daniel Vigo said: “Prior to the beds opening, people who required involuntary care while in jail had to wait in segregation for weeks.” Weeks in solitary confinement, while in mental health distress — that’s not care; that’s cruelty.

Can the minister confirm that people elsewhere in this province are not being held in solitary confinement, awaiting mental health care?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question, talking about the very important interventions and action that this government is taking to support people who need a very special kind of care.

We have Dr. Vigo working with us as a chief scientific adviser. His work has helped us to identify a very small group of people who suffer from concurrent disorders — substance use, complex mental health challenges, often acquired brain injury — and who need these supports. It is so important, whether this person is in a correctional facility or outside, that they get it.

That’s why we’ve made the commitment that we have. That’s why we’re building and have opened ten beds at the Surrey Pretrial Centre. That’s why, next month, approved homes at Alouette and Maple Ridge will open for people outside of the correctional centre.

That’s why we’ve made the commitment to continue to build out this system, so that people, rather than being held in solitary confinement, get the care that they need before they can be released back into the correctional facility population or, if being released or out in the community, get the support that they need.

We know that more needs to be done. We’ve made the commitment. We’re acting, we’ve opened beds, and we’re going to do more.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Brennan Day: Respectfully, I don’t believe it’s a small number. That is not the experience in communities across British Columbia.

To the minister, how many people are concurrently being held in segregation while awaiting involuntary care, and when will this minister commit to funding enough beds across the province to make this cruel practice obsolete?

Hon. Josie Osborne: One of the most important things, I think, that we are all seeing is how we have to approach this work with compassion and with dignity, ensuring that people are safe in our communities and that people who are experiencing these disorders are safe as well.

For too long, there has been a cycle of moving between the criminal justice system and out into communities, with people not getting the care that they need. The humane thing to do, the right thing to do, is to provide supports for these people.

That’s what we’re doing through involuntary treatment. That’s why we opened these ten beds at Surrey Pretrial. We’re going to continue this work. We, as a government, have recognized how important that is to do. That’s why we have Dr. Vigo working with us. We’re going to continue to do that.

As I said, we’re going to expand this system of care so that people get the compassionate, patient-centred care that they need.

Mental Health and Addiction Services
Facility Proposal for Okanagan Area

Gavin Dew: I think we can definitely all agree that it has been too long. For years, municipalities and community groups in the Okanagan have been forced to pick up the slack and take the blame for this government’s failed addiction and mental health policies.

There is a regional consensus around the need for a facility like the Red Fish Healing Centre, which is a proven model to provide mandatory compassionate care for people in need, but people in desperate need of help are still waiting, and our communities are still bearing the brunt of it.

Will the Premier commit today to fast-track this project?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

The Red Fish Healing Centre has presented an opportunity to give people the compassionate care that they need, under the very specialized guidance of teams of mental health professionals, of psychiatrists, of people who work with them to help recover from severe substance use addictions combined with mental health challenges.

[2:25 p.m.]

I’ve had the opportunity to visit the facility and see the incredible care that’s being delivered there. We’ve made that commitment to continue to expand those services and more to ensure that people get the care they need, not just that type of specialized care but all through the continuum of care that is needed, from early intervention right through to the kinds of treatment and recovery services that are needed, the aftercare, so that people can return to their homes and return to their communities.

We are not shying away from this. We never will. We are going to continue, and we are going to continue to work hard at it.

Access to Mental Health and
Addiction Services in Northern B.C.

Claire Rattée: Northern B.C. has the highest rates of suicide in the province, nearly double the national average and significantly more than any other health authority in British Columbia.

Families are losing loved ones because basic mental health care simply doesn’t exist in northern B.C. In my riding, a psychiatrist only comes a few times a year, and it is a long wait to see a counsellor.

Will the Health Minister commit to at least one full-time psychiatrist in Skeena by the end of 2025?

Hon. Josie Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

I appreciate the many opportunities that she and I have had to discuss the inequity of services for people who are living in the North and the need to expand those services to rural and remote communities.

I couldn’t agree more. We know that it’s very difficult for people to navigate the mental health system and that people who live in the North and live in smaller communities experience that to a greater degree. That’s why action is needed, and I completely agree.

It’s why we’ve been expanding crisis teams across B.C. It’s why we’ve established telephone lines for people to be able to get access. It’s why we have invested in crisis counselling and counselling supports, low-barrier counselling. In fact, last year over 29,000 people accessed our programs in counselling. Over half of them were accessing mental health supports for the very first time.

We are going to continue to invest in the mental health care system, and we are going to continue to expand access to those supports, including in the member’s own riding.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée: I’ll take that response as a no, then. We still don’t get access to a psychiatrist in Skeena. Clearly, this government doesn’t grasp the gravity of the situation in B.C.’s north.

Mental health challenges are the precursor to many of the problems that are devastating our communities, particularly addiction. Thousands of British Columbians have been seeking treatment voluntarily, and they cannot access it. It’s enough excuses.

I’m hoping the Minister of Environment, the only NDP MLA in the North, can talk to her colleagues down south and finally get some action for the people that are in need in northern B.C.

Hon. Josie Osborne: I welcome a conversation with any MLA from any riding to talk about the supports in their communities.

The member talks about the importance of being able to gain access to mental health supports early. I want to talk specifically about one particular program that this government has established and invested in, and that’s the early psychosis intervention program. This is so important for youth to be able to access. I’m going to tell a story about a young man, Cameron Webster.

Cameron Webster was a typical teenager. He was into sports. He was a competitive boxer. When he was 19 years old, he began to experience auditory hallucinations and paranoia. His parents took him to the hospital. He was diagnosed with psychosis. He became a client of Island Health’s early psychosis intervention program. A year later he was also diagnosed with a schizoaffective disorder.

He says that the time he experienced in psychosis, with psychosis, marked the hardest part of his life, but it gave him a new direction in life and compassion for others. Now, today…. He went on to study mental health and addictions locally, at Camosun College. He works as a peer support worker in the same program that he used to attend.

That is a guiding light in the kinds of supports we need to continue to expand for youth, for teenagers, for adults, and it’s the work that this government is so deeply committed to doing. We are going to continue to do this work because we know that people need the care when they need it, where they need it and that is what we are going continue to do.

[2:30 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: We’ve just heard from the Minister of Health, but respectfully, my colleague is not from Vancouver Island.

Yesterday the Premier told this House that the government is making very good progress on psychiatric care in northern B.C., yet today patients in crisis continue to be released prematurely, directly risking community safety and safety to themselves. The only secure forensic care for a potentially dangerous patient in a community like Terrace is 12 hours away in Kamloops, if there’s a space even available.

The Premier talks about meetings and special advisers, but Northern Health needs more than promises. They need secure psychiatric care beds immediately. The city of Prince George supports the petition for better psychiatric care in Northern Health.

I’ll ask the Premier again, while the city of Prince George delegation is here in this House today. When will the government move beyond meetings and platitudes and actually deliver secure psychiatric hospital beds that northern communities desperately deserve?

Hon. David Eby: I thank the member for his advocacy for his community. I suspect he’s aware that our work there goes well beyond meetings and conversations. I look forward to being able to update him very soon.

We’ve been working closely with the city of Prince George, with Chief Dolleen Logan, with mental health specialists at the local hospital on adding additional beds. I look forward to sharing more information soon.

Overdose Prevention Site at
Langley Memorial Hospital

Harman Bhangu: This government talks about action, but every day things in this province just get worse. Yesterday a constituent of mine sent me a video of a drug tent that is set up once again outside of Langley Memorial Hospital. This tent was set up 50 yards away from a long-term-care home for seniors.

I asked the minister in February to take care of this, and she said: “We expect health authorities, whose jurisdiction it is to enforce this policy, to do that work.” She promised me it would be dealt with. Here we are over two months later, and this problem still persists.

When will this minister act and get rid of the drug tent outside of Langley Memorial Hospital, where families go to visit their loved ones?

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member refers to Surrey Memorial Hospital, a place that has episodic….

Interjections.

Hon. Josie Osborne: The member mentioned Surrey and mentioned Langley. I’ll talk about Langley.

Overdose prevention services are an important part of the continuum of supports that are provided to people, that help separate them from the toxic drug supply, keep them alive and give them access to people to talk about the supports that they need.

I’ve spoken in this House many times before around the work that we’re doing on overdose prevention services, ensuring that we are working with health authorities under the policies that are provided and also updating that guidance and policies for health authorities to ensure that people are kept safe — staff and workers, volunteers at these services, the people around in communities as well.

I’ll have more to say about that soon.

Community Safety and Involuntary
Care for Mental Health Issues

Trevor Halford: The Premier today, yesterday…. He has talked about getting answers. The problem with that is that British Columbians have been looking for answers for years, not just since the tragic events that took place on Saturday. It’s been years.

We’ve seen Constable Yang lose her life. We’ve seen, in White Rock, somebody stabbed to death on the White Rock promenade. We’ve seen an elderly senior have their door kicked in at midnight and beaten half to death, and then hours later we’ve seen an RCMP officer almost have their firearm taken from them and have to have a physician choke that individual out.

These cases aren’t new to this House. The problem is that the answers the Premier has been giving in this House aren’t new either. The only legislation that we’ve got to deal with any of these issues has come from this side of the House. This side of the House has put that forward. We’ve had a Premier and a government campaign, not one election but two elections, in terms of involuntary care and involuntary treatment, and nothing.

[2:35 p.m.]

My question to the Premier is this. Will he stand up today and take responsibility for the utter failure that we are seeing in every corner of this province regarding mental health and regarding keeping our communities safe? Will the Premier take the leadership and the responsibility that he has failed us to get this done?

Hon. David Eby: I appreciate the member’s passion about the issue. It’s important to have safe communities, but it’s important to be accurate as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. David Eby: The government has put in place new directives for physicians and nurses across the province about involuntary care for people struggling with mental health and addiction.

We have expanded ACT teams across the province. These are teams that go out and assertively provide mental health care in the community — 34 across the province, in communities right across British Columbia.

We have new crisis response teams that are a nurse and peers who go out to take the load off police, respond to mental health issues and provide care to people so police can focus on fighting crime.

We are building 140 additional mental health beds at hospitals. We opened ten new beds just the other day at Surrey Pretrial, the beginning of a series of beds targeted at people struggling with mental health, addiction and brain injury.

Members are asking serious questions. I am providing serious answers about the action the government is taking, and we’re not done. We’ve got more to do. The good news is that we’re seeing crime rates come down in the province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the question was asked. Let’s hear the answer. There’s no need to interrupt. Please.

The Premier will continue.

Hon. David Eby: We know we’ve got more to do, but we also know that these interventions are working. We’re going to keep working until every single British Columbian is safe in every community in this province.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Elenore Sturko: I rise on a point of order. I’ve never in this place made a statement that I wanted to convict mental health care teams, such as was characterized by the Premier, and I’d ask him to withdraw.

Hon. David Eby: I was using a metaphor to refer to the member’s speculation about the teams, but I accept that she has not made that statement and withdraw it.

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: I have the honour to table two registrar of lobbyists reports: determination decision 24-03, Paul Rasmussen; and reconsideration decision 24-03, Paul Rasmussen.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call Motion 19 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 19 — Appointment of
Special Committee to Review the
Lobbyists Transparency Act

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move Motion 19, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which appoints a special committee to review the Lobbyists Transparency Act.

[That a Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists Transparency Act be appointed to review the Lobbyists Transparency Act (S.B.C. 2001, c. 42), pursuant to section 11.1 of the Act.

That the Special Committee have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. conduct consultations by any means the Special Committee considers appropriate;

d. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and,

e. retain personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House by May 4, 2026, and that during a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee be composed of the following members: Steve Morissette (Convener), Rosalyn Bird, Paul Choi, Kiel Giddens and Harwinder Sandhu.]

The Speaker: Members, you heard the question.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I call Motion 20 on the order paper.

Motion 20 — Committee of Supply
and Committee of the Whole
to Sit in Three Sections

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move Motion 20, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which rescinds the sessional order adopted by the House on March 12, 2025, and replaces it with a new sessional order establishing Section A, Section B and Section C.

[That the Sessional Order adopted by the House on March 12, 2025, enabling concurrent proceedings of the House, be discharged.

And that, for the remainder of the current Session:

GENERAL

1. Certain proceedings of the House may be undertaken in three sections, designated Section A, Section B and Section C, to be subject to the rules that follow.

2. Section A and Section C sit in such committee room as may be designated from time to time, and Section B sit in the Legislative Chamber.

3. Section A, Section B and Section C be authorized to examine all Estimates, and for all purposes be deemed to be the Committee of Supply, and that the Standing Orders relating to the consideration of Estimates in the Committee of Supply and to Committees of the Whole House be applicable to such proceedings, save and except that, during proceedings in Committee of Supply in Section A and Section C, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

4. Section A, Section B and Section C be authorized to consider bills at committee stage after second reading thereof, and for all purposes be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole House, and that the Standing Orders relating to the consideration of bills in a Committee of the Whole House be applicable to such proceedings.

5. Estimates or bills may be considered in the order determined by the Government House Leader and may at any time be subsequently referred to another designated Section, as determined by the Government House Leader in accordance with Standing Order 27 (2).

COMPOSITION

6. The Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole or their designate preside in Section A and Section C.

7. Section A and Section C consist of 12 Members, not including the Chair, being six Members of the B.C. NDP Caucus, five Members of the Conservative Party of British Columbia Caucus and one Member of the B.C. Green Party Caucus.

8. The Members of Section A be: the Minister whose Estimates are under examination or who is in charge of the bill under consideration and Rohini Arora, Hon. Ravi Parmar, Janet Routledge, Harwinder Sandhu, Amna Shah, Amelia Boultbee, Gavin Dew, Steve Kooner, Lawrence Mok, David Williams and Rob Botterell.

9. The Members of Section C be: the Minister whose Estimates are under examination or who is in charge of the bill under consideration and Hon. Adrian Dix, Stephanie Higginson, Hon. Sheila Malcolmson, Steve Morissette, Hon. Niki Sharma, Heather Maahs, Macklin McCall, Larry Neufeld, Ian Paton, Donegal Wilson and Jeremy Valeriote.

10. Substitutions for Members of Section A and Section C be permitted with the consent of the Member’s Caucus Whip.

11. Section B be composed of all Members of the House.

DIVISIONS

12. When a division is requested in Section A, the division bells shall be rung four times, and the division shall proceed in accordance with Standing Order 16.

13. When a division is requested in Section B, the division bells shall be rung three times, at which time proceedings in Section A and Section C shall be suspended, and the division shall proceed in accordance with Standing Order 16.

14. When a division is requested in Section C, the division bells shall be rung five times, and the division shall proceed in accordance with Standing Order 16.

15. If a division is underway in Section A or Section C at the time that a division is requested in Section B, the division in Section B be suspended until the completion of the division in Section A or Section C.

REPORTING

16. At 15 minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of Section A and Section C shall report to the House.]

The Speaker: You have heard the question.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the supply estimates for the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. When they finish, I will call, at this point, Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

Then in Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 7.

[2:40 p.m.]

The House in Committee, Section B.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Housing and Municipal Affairs
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order, and we will call on the minister to read the vote.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,513,975,000 (continued).

The Chair: We’re contemplating questions, of course, today on the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just want to make an opening comment.

First, I wanted to recognize the students that are here from McRoberts Secondary. Hopefully, you’re enjoying your visit to Victoria and enjoying the travel around the Legislature. Your MLA that represents you is not in the chamber. I’m not supposed to say that, but he’s not, so I’ll do that. On everyone’s behalf, I want to welcome you.

We’re having a debate about the budget for the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. We have an exchange, and people get to ask me any questions about our budget and where the money is going and what’s happening in different communities throughout the province.

I hope you enjoy the debate, and thank you for coming. Hopefully, one of you will be down here someday in the future as an elected official.

I also see Coun. Kyle Sampson here from Prince George.

Nice to see you.

We’ve done a lot of work, I think, between Prince George council and our ministry and our team to ensure that we have a lot of housing coming on pretty quick in Prince George. I want to welcome him here and thank him for being here.

I look forward to the exchange today.

The Chair: Welcome, everyone, to the Legislature.

Tony Luck: I’ll just start off where we left off yesterday. I’m going to have some questions that weren’t asked yesterday, but we’ll just fly at it here.

For the first one, though…. We just had a bill presented yesterday, Bill 13, with a whole lot of changes to the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter. My question will go around that, especially in this time of challenging finances for the municipalities and everything. And maybe we need to look at….

[2:45 p.m.]

The Community Charter was last updated in 2003. In the meantime, there have been a lot of band-aids applied to it. The question would be: given the evolving needs of municipalities, when does the ministry plan to initiate a comprehensive review and update of the community and Vancouver charters to better support local governments in addressing contemporary challenges that we’re experiencing today?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member not talking about the legislation, but I can say to the member that’s something we do all the time. Usually in each session — and not only in our time in government; you’ll see that in previous governments as well — there are constant changes happening to the Community Charter, constant changes happening to the Vancouver Charter. It is very much a living document, I guess you can say, because the needs change.

I would say that we engage regularly with UBCM, with different local governments to identify challenges to the city of Vancouver, in particular with the Vancouver Charter. Where we can make those changes, we certainly bring them into the House. I appreciate the member noting that we have changes for those happening right now in the chamber at this time.

Tony Luck: I appreciate the answer on that, Minister, and recognizing that….

I think what I’m hearing out in the communities is that there are other communities — some of them are maybe surpassing the size of Vancouver and everything — looking for their own charters maybe somewhere down the road.

We’re just wondering if there would be, some time in the future, recognizing some of the things that need to be done in modernizing it…. I know we’re putting band-aids on it constantly, but what I’m hearing out there is that a complete rewrite or a complete sit-down to look at this would be really, really important as we move forward.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are a couple of first general comments I’ll make.

The Vancouver Charter has challenges. In fact, the work the city of Vancouver has been doing has actually been shifting to better align with the Community Charter because of the complexities. It comes with additional complexities because anyone that, for example, wants to build a home in Vancouver has to understand the Vancouver Charter. It’s a whole different animal, so to speak.

What you end up seeing are homebuilders that will build in Vancouver but won’t build in other communities, or they build in other communities, and they won’t build in Vancouver just because of that complexity. We’ve been trying to do work to better align the two to ensure that there’s a balance. Something that was created uniquely for the city of Vancouver over time has been evolving to become something that is similar with the Community Charter. It’s ironic that’s happening.

Now the member may be referring to Surrey, because Surrey did say that they want to consider their own charter. I met with the mayor and their staff to discuss specific issues that they had and that they thought would be better for them with their own charter. At that time, there weren’t the specifics. We’ve asked them to provide us some information of what they think that could be. My understanding is that they’ve just provided some preliminary information to us now. We’ll explore that.

My view is that if there’s something that the community needs in Surrey or another major community, Burnaby, it may be something all communities need. So we’ll look at that, we’ll analyze it, and then we’ll assess whether that’s something that’s unique or whether that’s something that we should consider for all communities.

Tony Luck: One last comment on that. We’re a party of efficiency over on this side of the thing. It certainly, after your comments, would make sense; let’s consolidate this and bring it in because it would take a lot of confusion out for the builders and citizens and all that and even new councils that get elected and everything have to understand their charter. So it might be worthwhile to look at that, moving forward.

I’ll leave it at that for now, and thank you, Minister, for answering that question.

What I’d like to move to now…. A couple of questions.

As you know, in 2021, an atmospheric river disaster exposed serious weaknesses in the Fraser Valley flood protection system, never mind in a couple of other communities, especially the one that I live in up in Merritt, many of which are governed by outdated, underfunded local diking authorities.

A 2022 report estimated that over $4 billion is needed for dike upgrades, pump station replacement and resilience retrofits. To cite public expectations of urgent investments, the pace of construction and planning has been slow, with multiple levels of government blaming each other for jurisdictional holdups. Local governments report no clear provincial lead agency while the province has publicly shifted responsibility to local diking authorities.

[2:50 p.m.]

My question to the minister would be: why is the province taking so long to appoint a dedicated coordinated agency or provincial flood infrastructure lead for the Fraser Valley, despite repeated calls from the municipalities and First Nations for a one-stop approach to this issue?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the question and the concern.

I’m well aware of that because I was watching it very closely when we had to deal with the atmospheric rivers south of the Fraser. I can tell the member that this question is better for water, lands and natural resources because that’s within their ministry’s portfolio.

Tony Luck: Yeah, fair enough on that. But this reaches into the municipalities, and they’re the ones that are asking for that as well. Just a couple more questions, then, to help them understand where we’re at with that, especially when we’re in the budget, and if there’s money allocated and allowed for that.

What percentage of the estimated $4 billion flood infrastructure needed in the Fraser Valley has been committed or spent as of 2025?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I can share with the member infrastructure dollars that we’ve shared with communities, but this is very much in the water, lands and natural resources department. There was, I believe, a flood mitigation strategy that’s being developed by that ministry. You know, they’re the leads. They’ll have more information.

If the member wants to talk about infrastructure generally, I’m happy to talk about it. But if it’s specific to floods, it is very much in a different ministry.

Tony Luck: All right, infrastructure. What is the current state of the Barrowtown pump station, and are upgrades being prioritized, given its critical role in protecting Sumas Prairie?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, it’s not our ministry, but I appreciate the member putting it on the record that he raised the questions.

I do believe, a few years ago, that the Emergency Management Ministry provided approximately $50 million to the pump station. I’m trying to share a number that may not be exact, but it’s in that ballpark, because it was EMCR that did that and not Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Tony Luck: We’ll just ask one more question around that, because this is to do with intergovernmental disputes and that.

Will the ministry confirm if any of the funding delays are due to intergovernmental disputes over jurisdictions? How does the government intend to break the cycle of jurisdictional finger-pointing and the need for us to work together to get these things put together?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, because this is EMCR, it’s better situated for there. But I can just share with the member that I do recall that there are always disagreements, not only in this, but with many issues, as you can imagine.

With this specific issue, I believe it was 2005, from my memory, approximately around there, when Gordon Campbell was the Premier. Then there was a shift for who was responsible for this. There was a major shift. So there are disputes since then on who is responsible and why and who should be responsible.

[2:55 p.m.]

Again, it’s not my ministry that’s leading it; it’s EMCR. But to the member’s question — are there disputes? — there are lots of disputes on different issues.

Tony Luck: I appreciate the honesty there around there being some cross-ministry situations there. But we certainly like to get the answers, especially in this time of floods and things that we’ve been experiencing in the province. So I appreciate that.

We’ll move to another topic here that’s been raising a lot of hackles and a lot of questions. The Sen̓áḵw development is a major residential and mixed-use project led by the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation in Vancouver, as you know, adjacent to the Burrard Bridge and Vanier Park. Notably exempt from local municipal zoning and planning processes due to its status as Indigenous reserve land, the project has drawn attention and controversy over its scale, density and limited consultation with municipal authorities.

Questions persist around the province’s role in the project, specifically on whether public resources or taxpayer support were extended to the project, either directly or indirectly. There are concerns about transparency regarding public funding, infrastructure costs and lost municipal revenues, particularly given the project’s exemption from standard development cost charges and transfers. I’m hoping the minister can help me on a couple of questions here that we’ve got around that project.

For the first one, can the minister confirm explicitly what role, if any, the provincial government played in facilitating or supporting the Sen̓áḵw development project, either financially or logistically?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll make a couple of comments on this.

First, we need housing. It’s a consistent conversation that happens. I recall a famous quote from a person who said: “What do we want?” They said: “Affordable housing.” They said, “Where do we want it?” and then no one spoke. It’s a real challenge for us because we consistently know we need housing, but nobody wants that housing near their backyard.

I’m generally supportive of any opportunities there are, especially Indigenous-led, especially the opportunity to actually have affordable housing in Vancouver, where it’s needed.

The member’s question was what financial investments we have in that project. We don’t have any. Our ministry does not. It’s possible that MIRR may be involved somehow with the project, but certainly not the Ministry of Housing.

Tony Luck: Thank you, Minister.

I don’t think we’re worried about the low housing costs. It seems it’s the double standard that’s being done here, waiving of DCCs, bylaw exemptions, municipal zoning exemptions. I think that’s the concern about a lot of people here, that that’s happening on.

Can this minister talk about that and why that has been allowed in this particular project or any project like that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think the member knows this. There are often DCCs waived, there are often fees waived, and there are often parks waived. I certainly hope that folks that are raising concerns are not doing it because it is an Indigenous-led project. It’s unlikely that it is, but I certainly hope that is not the case. It does happen.

Often developers come forward, or not-for-profits come forward, and say, “Can you waive DCCs so that the project can be viable or, in some cases, be more deeply affordable?”

From a B.C. Housing perspective, we’re constantly going to communities to say: “We’ll build affordable housing if you come to the table with some relief in those things.” So that’s a city of Vancouver question. Of course, the federal government is the entity that has invested significantly in that project.

Tony Luck: Yeah, I don’t think it’s coming from any position except that some groups get things waived, especially when it comes to zoning — upzoning, downzoning, whatever the case is. So they’re just concerned about that piece of it. I don’t think it’s anything to do with any group or any of that in particular. That’s not what I’ve heard.

I was recently at a dedication in Merritt for a new Indigenous seniors housing project that when I was on council, we approved, so we were quite happy to do that. I was at the open house the other day. It was amazing — 59 units.

This is just about what we’re doing with the municipal zonings and bylaws and things like that. Are we slowly creeping them down or whatever? I think there’s a concern about that.

Beyond direct funding, were any provincial resources, such as technical expertise, land transfers, expedited permits or legislated exemptions specifically provided to enable the rapid advancement of this project?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware. Because we don’t have a direct investment in that project, it’s very unlikely that we would be involved in any way. The federal government is involved, so they may have supported.

I would say that MST — Sḵwx̱wú7mesh,xʷməθkʷəy̓əm — have a very, very sophisticated development arm. In some situations when we’re building Indigenous housing, we may need to be involved in some way or another, but when you have nations who have development arms as thoughtful and as big a player as them…. They’ve got their own teams, I’m sure, that can handle all that work.

Tony Luck: A little further into that, could we find out what are the estimated total public infrastructure costs, including roads, transit access, utility connections, sewage and water, imposed on the city of Vancouver and the province due to the Sen̓áḵw development?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I understand Mayor Ken Sim was here earlier. I should have brought him in with me for estimates.

Most of those infrastructure pieces are for the mayor and the city, and we haven’t gotten, or I certainly haven’t gotten, any correspondence to say: “Can you support us with infrastructure for these things?” It is very much a conversation between the city of Vancouver and, in this case, the folks that lead the development.

I would say it’s not often, when you have a unique development come forward, where local government would come to us and say: “Can you provide us infrastructure just for that?” So I can’t provide the member with that answer.

Tony Luck: Has the province conducted or reviewed any fiscal analysis estimating how much property tax revenue the city of Vancouver and the province will forgo annually due to the special Indigenous reserve tax status granted the Sen̓áḵw development?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Our ministry doesn’t have that. It’s possible the Ministry of Finance might have information around tax measures and potential dollars coming in or not, but it’s not something our ministry has.

Again, thank you to the students from McRoberts.

Safe travels. Enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you for coming today.

Tony Luck: Given the unique financial and regulatory arrangements for Sen̓áḵw, does the ministry consider this project to represent a successful housing model, and is the province actively pursuing or facilitating similar projects elsewhere in the Lower Mainland or throughout British Columbia?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If the question is, “Do we believe that housing in partnership with Indigenous communities, with First Nations, is something we want to pursue in the future?” the answer to that is: absolutely, yes. We think there are enormous opportunities to partner, to build affordable housing with Indigenous communities.

In fact, if you look at BC Builds, we have a project in Cowichan, a BC Builds project where the nation is bringing land and we’re bringing financing to bring more attainable housing to the community. We have an attainable home ownership program that we’re moving forward with MST on Heather Lands. We’re constantly having discussions with different nations about housing opportunities across the province.

Tony Luck: I’m just finding my next sheet here. I’m sorry. Well, we’ll go on to the questions on here.

The governance controversies in Metro Vancouver during early 2020 have highlighted long-standing inefficiencies, redundancy and costly bureaucratic overlap among multiple municipal governments in British Columbia.

I’ll prewarn you that this’ll be a bit of a sensitive topic here for many municipalities, but studies from other jurisdictions indicate consolidation can streamline governance, reduce administration redundancy and significantly ease taxpayer burdens by standardizing municipal tax rates and service deliveries.

[3:05 p.m.]

Despite the clear advantages, the ministry appears unwilling to explore or to transparently discuss the potential benefits of municipal consolidation in Metro Vancouver or elsewhere around the province. Does this ministry…?

Given the high-profile governance controversy that engulfed much of Metro Vancouver recently, has your ministry initiated or conducted any comprehensive studies on the viability and taxpayer benefits of consolidating municipal governments in the Lower Mainland or elsewhere in the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If the member is asking, “Are we planning on merging communities?” the answer is no.

We do support communities that want to explore that. For example, Saanich and Victoria recently just had a people’s assembly where they wanted to engage with citizens about how they should move forward as two communities. It was actually recommended by the people’s assembly that they move forward with a merger, so to speak, to create efficiencies.

We helped fund that at the request of Victoria and Saanich, but in the end, those two communities need to go back with the report to their communities and make some decisions, and then we’ll look at it from there.

Tony Luck: To the minister: can you explain why this government would prefer to maintain the status quo of fragmented, high-tax municipal bureaucracies rather than consolidating governance structures that could demonstrably reduce tax burdens for British Columbians around the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s why we provided Saanich and Victoria $250,000 for them to put an assembly together to look at that question, and that report encompasses some of that. So that would be an example of where we do that.

Of course, we’re not going to force Vancouver and Burnaby and New West to become one, but if those communities came forward…. I hope no reporter is listening to this, saying the minister is suggesting that, because I’m not. I’m using a hypothetical. Now it’s going to be in a tweet, going out in an attack ad in moments.

Hypothetically, if those communities were interested in that, we would certainly support facilitating that conversation, but we do leave that discussion to the communities to find the efficiencies on that space.

Tony Luck: One last one on that one. Can the minister confirm, yes or no, whether the ministry has undertaken research comparing the average property tax burdens faced by homeowners in different municipalities across British Columbia, and if so, will you publicly release that comparative tax analysis, and is there a benefit to communities consolidating their efforts?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I was just confirming with the team. We have no studies on looking at merging communities right now that I’m aware of.

Tony Luck: One last question on this one, then I’m going to turn a bit of time over to my colleague here.

[3:10 p.m.]

Given the clear taxpayer frustration surrounding uneven and rising municipal tax burdens, what measures, if any, has your ministry taken to ensure municipal governments operate efficiently, transparently and with full accountability to taxpayers?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We canvassed this part yesterday.

A major step we took was around creating an ACC tool. Local governments now have been using a process referred to as CACs, and often that’s negotiated in closed doors. It creates a lot of doubt from the public because it’s not as transparent a process. The questions are always raised: “Well, did this developer help support this local government and that’s why they’re getting something lower? Why did this person get charged more?”

In order to, I say, depoliticize some of the decisions on housing, we need to create systems that create more transparency and more information up front. It’s good for the homebuilders to know, up front, their costs so it’s not changing on them.

It’s good for the elected officials to be able to clearly say to their community: “We’re going to build X, Y, Z. It’s in our bylaw, and this is how much it’s going to cost each development to get to that.” I think it’s just better for us as a society to streamline. That’s why we made those changes in legislation last year, and communities now have some time to create their ACC tools.

As we move to, by the end of this year, all communities having updated their OCPs, their official community plans, to 20 years of housing need, what we’ll see is less need for public hearings, less need for public to be engaged, again, because that engagement will happen regularly every five years, and the community gets to decide where they want the housing. It also means that the ACC tool will be important for amenities.

We’re doing a lot of work to create more transparency, more clarity for local governments all the time.

Tony Luck: I do have a follow-up from the minister’s answer there.

I’ve been on council before, and I know how much we do not like public hearings. However, they are an important piece of the transparency for the people in the community.

Is this ministry, under municipal affairs, looking at other ways to make sure that they are more transparent, to be more transparent and be able to have those conversations with the public on an ongoing, regular basis?

Even in Kamloops at this particular time, they’re struggling with having public hearings as well. It’s really important that we’re able to keep that piece for the public so that they’re able to come and see what’s happening within their community.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it’s vitally important that communities are engaged about how they grow. Where is the housing going to go? Where are the parks going to be? Where are the amenities going to be in the community?

Our view is that when you have an official community plan being developed, that is the ideal time to engage the entire community on what the community should look like, where the housing can go, so moving away from site by site but moving to a more holistic approach where the community decides together where they want that.

What I’m hearing from local governments since we made the changes that we made last year, which was no public hearings for any project that already meets the test of what a community has decided on in their official community plan, is that more people are engaging right now in their official community plans. I think that’s healthy for democracy, where the community comes together and says: “This is where we want housing. This is our plan for the next five years.” It creates more certainty for people who are building homes.

It’s better for council, because then if a project comes, there’s an understanding that we had that conversation, so we’re not having the same conversation when we create the official community plan that we’re having when a specific project comes forward.

Often what ends up happening, and the member will know from council days, is that people that live just near it will say: “We don’t want that house here.” Then the next project comes, and the people nearby say: “We don’t want that.” But when the community as a whole had decided that that’s where the housing should be….

Basically, what I’m getting at is that the public engagement piece is very important, but when we decide where the housing should go and parks should go and how the community should grow, that should be the plan until the community comes together again to do that, and that will now be required every five years.

[3:15 p.m.]

It was certainly frustrating for a lot of communities, because there were communities that didn’t have a plan updated for 14 to 20 years, so nobody knew what the rules were. Nobody knew where you could build. Now, requiring it every five years, as we have with legislation, it means the community will get a chance pretty much every election cycle to be able to say: “Let’s relook at this. Let’s figure out where we want that housing.”

Tony Luck: Yeah, I understand that. Then the public hearings…. But the OCPs are…. Two things.

One, it’s hard to get public engagements. I’m really happy to hear that the minister is feeling confident that there’s more public getting engaged with this. But so many times, we’d go to a public hearing, and they’d say: “Hey, we never heard anything about the OCP.” Well, it can be up to a two-year process. That’s one of the things.

The other thing is it’s very, very expensive to do, especially in smaller communities that are struggling to get their infrastructure needs and everything done in their own community. When I got elected in my community, the OCP hadn’t updated for about 15 years, so I fully sympathize and understand that. But boy, once we tried to get it implemented and going, we got push-back. So I’m really happy to hear that.

What my question would be around that is: will the ministry be able to help those smaller communities that now have to update that OCP on a regular basis in a five-year plan — to help them out financially? Especially, like I say, the smaller ones — 2,000, 1,500 residents. It’s hard to do that considering all the other things that they have to do in that community as well.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s comments.

We provided, last year, $51 million for local governments for capacity dollars to do this work, to update their OCPs, to make the changes. We also have provided additional dollars, actually, through UBCM for streamlining processes and permitting. We are supporting communities with capacity dollars. We know that’s needed.

In fact, we’re going further. What we’ve said to local governments, and I think it ties to what the member was asking earlier, was instead of every community doing their own report and doing their own assessment, we have funded through UBCM peer support groups so that local governments could come together and say: “Why don’t you do a study on this, and we’ll piggyback. And we’ll hire a consultant to do this work, and we can do it together.” We’ve seen a lot of communities take up on that.

Of course, Metro Vancouver has some advantages because of their scale, where they’ve been able to move forward, but we have seen other communities — the CRD, etc. — that have taken the opportunity to work together and share learning as they go forward.

Tony Luck: I’ll take leave at the moment, but I reserve the right to come back to any questions. I’m going to turn a bit of time over to my colleague. She has another meeting to run off to, so if she can ask a few questions. please.

Kristina Loewen: I wasn’t quite ready for that, but here we are. It’s all good.

In February, our local team of MLAs held a round table in Kelowna Centre that was focused on homelessness and how to support the vulnerable in our community. We had a wide range of community members present, including many from non-profit supportive housing and various shelters and organizations. At this session, and in many other conversations, both private and public, the question of the Residential Tenancy Act comes up. Specifically, why does the Residential Tenancy Act apply in supportive housing situations?

The issue is that those administering programs in B.C. Housing facilities are unable to evict problem tenants. This comes at the expense of more vulnerable residents and their quiet enjoyment at times. This comes at the expense of the neighbours who actively see illegal activity happening. Program administrators are frustrated, seeing that they have almost no recourse with the problem tenants under the current Residential Tenancy Act.

Will the minister consider evaluating the RTA and its effect on supportive housing?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the question. It’s a good question. It’s a conversation we’ve been having with supportive housing providers for some time, since I actually became the Minister of Housing. I think there are a couple things that I need to clarify though.

The RTA always applied. It wasn’t something new that we added where the RTA applied. The RTA always applied, but a lot of supportive housing providers were operating in that grey space where there were things happening, but they did fall under the RTA, and cases were coming forward.

What we did was we made changes that allowed supportive housing operators to implement additional measures. We had heard from a lot of our providers that they wanted to have guest policies tailored to their specific housing site and to be able to do wellness checks. Those were the changes that we made.

Also, those practices previously were not allowed. They were under the RTA. There were people operating in the grey space, often because they were working with folks who were vulnerable, and there were different scenarios they had to deal with. The change we made was to give them the ability to do wellness checks and to give them the ability to monitor who’s coming in and out.

That being said, we have heard from some supportive housing operators who say: “Well, there are still some challenges for us.” I can share with the member that there are three things that we’re doing to address it.

One, we have a staff and workplace safety working group, of WorkSafeBC and B.C. Housing, that can help find opportunities to improve worker safety — the safety for people that are working there. That’s vitally important. It can be a difficult place, for some, to work.

Second, we have a working group with law enforcement that is looking at supportive housing, how we improve safety and how we improve security.

We also are providing webinars with all of our providers, so that we can address any issues that they may have with the RTA and try to help navigate those challenges as we go forward.

Work is ongoing. In the end, we want to make sure that the people that are working there are safe, that the people living there are safe and that the people in the community are safe. The ability for us to have wellness checks and put in guest policies so that we can ensure that people are not just coming in and out — those were important measures that we needed to put in place. That’s why we made those changes in 2024.

[3:25 p.m.]

Kristina Loewen: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I understand that you’re working with a lot of different moving parts, and it’s complicated. There are safety issues, and I can appreciate that. I appreciate, as well, that you’ve put some things into place.

It does seem like there’s still a problem. People in Kelowna Centre who are working on the front lines have been asking me to push for more reform with the Residential Tenancy Act and how it is applied in these situations.

I’m asking the minister today: will you commit to a full evaluation and full public report on the intended and unintended consequences of having the RTA, in effect, in this scenario?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: As I said to the member, we continue to have conversations with supportive housing providers. As you can imagine, there are varying opinions from provider to provider. Some providers believe there are not enough rights for tenants. Some believe that there are not enough rights for them.

We believe we’ve struck a balance with the changes we’ve made. We believe that wellness checks need to happen. We believe that providers need to be able to monitor who is coming in and out and when. That’s why we made those changes.

The differences that we have in opinion are not whether those things need to happen. But some believe that the RTA didn’t apply to them before, and the reality was that the RTA applied to them before. There were cases that came forward to the RTA from people that were in supportive housing and were successful. So that’s why we just…. The only change we made was in that space, to clarify what can be done and what can’t be done.

I can share with the member that these conversations are ongoing. I can also share with the member, and hopefully the member can share with those concerned citizens that raised this, that we actually have cases where supportive housing has evicted people for safety. So a system is available and has worked.

If there are unique challenges, we are going to continue to try to find a pathway forward that can find a balance between making sure people that work there, that live there are safe but also has some respect for the people that are living there as well. We need to make sure both are respected.

Kristina Loewen: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I totally agree. It’s a hard balance to strike. I see that too. You have my support, my respect and my collaboration.

I was going to ask about housing only versus housing first. I understand the idea that if you house a person who’s in addiction or struggling with health or mental health, that that’s an important first step — that ultimately, it is cost effective, and it serves as a foundation for healing.

As I’ve been discussing this with the boots on the ground — those running the outreach programs, those running the supportive housing units — I’ve discussed and discovered a lack, a lack of forward movement and support for those in these facilities, a lack of services. I have been told explicitly that what was meant to be housing first has, somewhere along the lines, turned into housing only.

I will mention that I’ve noticed one thing that’s not lacking. That is that supervised sites are supplied, including dedicated outdoor spaces for inhalants and indoor spaces for injectables.

My question to the minister is: where are all the supports, the healing programs, counselling, career skills, resume help, budget skills, cooking classes, just to start with? And how is the Ministry of Housing liaising with the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction? If not, how and when can we meet in committees?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team and I were just chuckling because I’m wearing my Kelowna socks right now, so it’s just timely with the Kelowna MLA asking questions.

Let me start by saying that we get a lot of requests, as you can imagine, from supportive housing providers that always want more dollars. They always want more people. They always want more things. That’s just something we grapple with. With every ministry, with every program, there’s always a demand for more. I just should acknowledge that off the top.

Every single supportive housing operation that we have has similar pieces in it, supportive housing services to do room decluttering, life skills, community information and social programming, education, employment life skills, case planning, residence assessments, help to get IDs and income assistance, two meals per day, 24-hour staff coverage. Ministry of Health comes in with mental health supports.

I think Kelowna, since we’re speaking about Kelowna, specifically…. I think the member shared yesterday some of the successes we’ve had with the HEARTH units that have come down in Kelowna. It’s pretty remarkable, I have to say. I’m actually really proud of the work that’s been happening in partnership with Kelowna, because all these things are being tracked.

For example, within not even a full year of those units on the ground, we’re able to assess each of those things that I highlighted to see how people are making progress. They use goals, trying to achieve certain goals. They’ve got 94 goals achieved for personal development, so that’s people taking the steps to obtain their IDs and services.

We’ve had — I can share this with the member if the member wants it in writing; I can do that — 89 goals achieved for financial well-being, 74 goals achieved for mental health and substance use, and 39 goals were achieved for employment. That’s either finding a full-time job or some sort of employment program. You know, it’s remarkable.

I believe there’s a number of what percentage of people or how many people have moved to the HEARTH sites into either rental or connected with family, and it’s a remarkable number. I believe it’s over 55 people that have moved into the supportive housing site, have gotten through their life goals and have been able to reconnect and re-establish with community in a bigger way.

You know, it’s a model of success. We always need improvement. We’re always looking for ways to improve that, but there is a lot of progress happening there.

Kristina Loewen: That’s great. There definitely still seems to be a lot of frustration around supportive housing. I’m just going to say that because in Kelowna Centre supportive housing has taken up a significant amount of my time as MLA.

I’ve had feedback from residents, neighbours and the community at large in regard to current supportive housing as well as new projects coming along. Most of the feedback has been, you guessed it, negative.

Now, I’m going to temper that with saying that I do think that supportive housing is needed, and I do think that the people of Kelowna Centre really do understand that people need to be housed. They really do have a lot of care and compassion in general. Kelowna is a very generous community.

[3:35 p.m.]

Where they struggle is when they see residents loitering, littering, attracting drug dealers — allegedly, let’s say — in their neighbourhoods, next to parks where children play, shopping and the like.

Where we question the current government’s planning is: why are we spreading supportive housing out into so many different neighbourhoods? We don’t think this should be a normal part of every neighbourhood.

Two questions to the minister. Why every neighbourhood? What is the plan for frustrated neighbours who feel they’re getting the runaround when they contact local authorities about some of the issues around the neighbourhood?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It is an interesting conversation. If you hear from the city of Vancouver, they would argue that too many people are in one neighbourhood, and that it should be more distributed.

I think, it’s important for folks…. Well, first off, the research shows that when people are in a community, they’re more likely to actually integrate in the community as they get their supports and services. If you move people into, and I know the member is not saying this, more of a ghettoized environment where they’re isolated from everyone else, the chance of success is less.

Our goal, ultimately, is to have people integrate. I fully get it. If people see people loitering outside and some people get frustrated, I get that. I acknowledge that people have sometimes concerns around seeing people that they normally didn’t see in their community. Those fears — they’re genuine, and I get it. I’ve never said to anyone that I discount their fears. I understand.

I also know that if they’re sleeping in the park or if they’re sleeping behind the local business or in front of the local business, that also has challenges. That also has safety concerns. Our view is it’s better to get people indoors, because we’re seeing the success. In fact, 66 people, the latest number I have, out of approximately 110 people have moved in and moved out.

We’ll continue to work with our providers, work with the community on how we can address some of those concerns. In some sites, we don’t get many. In some sites, you get a little bit more.

That said, we need housing. What we do is we go to local governments and say: “We know there’s a problem. We need housing. Where can we find housing? Where can we find land?” And we go to where there are opportunities. Of course, we have to rely on our local government partners to support us in that, and that’s the work we continue to do in communities throughout the province.

Lastly, I’ll say that there are communities that historically have said: “We don’t want any.” The ironic situation is that many of those communities, over time, come to the point to say: “We realized that doing nothing was not an option.”

Maybe I should give a shout-out to my critic, because my critic was the mayor of Surrey. That was the very conversation, debate, that was happening in the community, where there were many people saying: “We don’t want supportive housing. We don’t want that in our community.”

It did take courage to say to people that we do need to support people. We need to make sure that these people that live in our community, grew up in our community…. They deserve to have those same supports. I take my hat off to any mayor that has been in that situation, because it’s not easy. You get lots of those concerns, but we have to do the best for people as we can.

There are a lot of local governments that are doing that work, so I want to acknowledge that as well.

Kristina Loewen: I’ll just ask one more question that is in regards to the good-neighbour policy. I know one of the supportive housing units had that in their documents, but it doesn’t seem like it ever really got off the ground. I’m not sure why that was. I know everything, time and money, is short and staff is short and whatnot, but I think we could do more to engage with the neighbourhood and even encourage some of the residents to contribute to the neighbourhoods that they’re in.

I know Freedom’s Door is a great example of that in Kelowna. They’re a private facility. They have their guys go and clean up the neighbourhood, and the neighbours don’t seem to have a problem with them. I’ve never heard from a single neighbour near Freedom’s Door complaining, but I have heard of complaints from some of the government-funded supportive housing.

I’m just wondering if there’s room to act there and how we can collaborate for that kind of positive, forward movement.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team is just trying to pull that information.

I can share with the member that in a lot of the supportive housing sites that are purpose-built, we are trying to create space internally so that people can gather and have a bit of a living room where they can build those connections. It’s not possible, depending on lot size, in every location. But where it is possible, we’ve been doing that, and we’ve seen some success.

I do believe the member sent me correspondence on this maybe in the last six months, but maybe not. I recall seeing correspondence from Kelowna from a resident that was concerned about people gathering outside.

The challenge is…. It’s not a prison. We can’t keep people locked inside. They need to be able to go out. In fact, it’s important for us and for them that they do, that they reconnect and they’re able to go to the shops and do these things, because that’s a life skill that will help them take the next step.

As far as the need for communities to be able to raise concerns and the tables that we’ve created, I’m assuming, because the team was just looking at…. Is the member referring to the Stephen Village supportive housing site? Is there a specific site that the member is referring to?

Kristina Loewen: I would rather not be specific today, if that’s okay, but there definitely have been some concerns raised about specific sites.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, I appreciate the member raising the concerns, and perhaps we can connect offline to identify where those challenges may be and look to see how we can improve that.

[3:45 p.m.]

Tony Luck: First of all, I want to clarify right now. I’m going to be bringing some questions up around the ALR. This has nothing to do with my comments in regard to getting any land out of the ALR or anything to do with that or our party’s position. I just have some questions around that, especially when it comes to housing, because there is such a demand for housing. Many factors play into the cost of housing, the availability of housing and that kind of thing.

I’d like to preface this with a little story before I get started. I’m giving something away now. I was born in 1955. At that particular time, there were one million people living in the province, and there was about 5 percent of the land available in the province at that time for development. Lots of space at that time, no problem at all.

Let’s move the clock forward 70 years. Six million people in the province today. Same amount or less land available for development now, because over that period of time, the ALR was introduced into that 5 percent of the land.

One of the challenges we have around housing costs is land costs. We know that, especially in the Lower Mainland and throughout the valley and everything here. To the minister: what are we doing to secure more land in the province so that we have more land available, especially in rural communities?

Kamloops is out of developable land. Kelowna is quickly getting out of developable land. That’s a lot of small communities in our area, yet there’s this edict and demand that we must build more housing. I know some communities, even in the Lower Mainland, that are surrounded by ALR land. They seem to think that the edict is still there for them to build all this housing. They can’t expand. There is no land to do it. It’s one-third of the cost of residential housing.

What is this ministry doing about getting available land to build on?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I was chuckling not because the member raised how old he is, but I was chuckling because every year in estimates, the faces may change but the same question comes.

The ALR is nothing within our ministry, so we don’t have control over the housing policies on agricultural land or decisions around the agricultural land, whether it pertains to housing or pertains to any topic. All of that is with the Ministry of Agriculture.

It is interesting because this question comes up, but it is outside of our space and policy work. I can’t provide the member with any specifics on that.

Tony Luck: I understand that, and it is probably in the agricultural piece, or whatever, but it is an important component because the agricultural land has been locked away and isn’t available for house building. So there is a little bit of overlap that we perceive here.

Can this ministry confirm that it hasn’t conducted or commissioned any economic analysis on the direct impact of ALR policies on housing affordability, particularly assessing if the ALR could be driving rents and home prices up by 20 to 40 percent, or any other less restrictive scenarios in there?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware of any. I can share with the member that even when we brought in rules around small-scale, multi-unit and transit-oriented development, we excluded agricultural land from those pieces.

Tony Luck: Has this ministry explored policy alternatives or introduced flexible measures within the ALR to allow controlled and sustainable residential development, more for the families that are already living there, allowing them to build more residential on their property? We know in some areas of the province, they’re very strict about this, even to build a second dwelling on some of those properties — on large properties.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, these questions are all for the Ministry of Agriculture, because we have no policy levers over the agricultural land in our ministry.

Tony Luck: One of the challenges I’ve been finding as I’ve been rolling around my riding and visiting individuals…. There are some challenges that some of the ALR is coming out of the ALR. It’s being transferred to other groups, and it’s being used for housing, industrial purposes and that.

Do we have any policies that are going to be worked around those kinds of exemptions that are being extracted on this agricultural land at this particular time?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Often, we’re getting requests for projects that could go, but there are agricultural land–related items to it. We don’t have any policies that we’re exploring or any levers that we have. It often has to go to the ALC for their decision. They’re independent, and that’s where the decisions are made.

I can’t provide any more answers on any agricultural land questions, unfortunately.

Tony Luck: Yeah, I can understand that. We’ll have to pursue that in a different slant, because we will need to talk about that with the Agriculture Minister and the ALC, I believe.

Let’s go back to one of our favourite topics here in the Lower Mainland, the North Shore wastewater treatment plant. I know the hairs on your back just stood up. Anyway, the North Shore wastewater treatment plant project stands as a devastating example of government mismanagement, reckless spending and profound lack of transparency under the current provincial administration.

Originally budgeted at roughly $700 million, this project has ballooned dramatically, to close to $4 billion, a staggering increase that defies any reasonable accounting standard. This has been going on for some time, of course.

Given the ongoing negotiations between Metro Vancouver and the terminated contractor of the wastewater treatment plant, what specific steps has this ministry taken to ensure that taxpayers will not be deprived of critical information due to any non-disclosure agreement or other secrecy provision that may be signed between the contractor and Metro Vancouver?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member, I know, knows that Metro Vancouver is governed by elected officials, who will be going to the public for their own mandates. And they’re responsible for their decisions they’ve made.

I, too, have concerns around the project. I have spoken about that publicly. I can share with the member that there is a review happening, and we are observers. Part of that review is to ensure that there is transparency, to ensure that it’s being done aboveboard. The people that they’ve brought in appear, by all standards, to have all the skill sets to be able to do that.

There’s litigation happening, so there’s going to be lots of sensitivities around what information is gathered and what can be disclosed to the public. I think that’ll be a challenge for Metro Vancouver, because you don’t want to compromise that lawsuit. The lawsuit itself is a major concern. It’s a major, major concern. How it got to that point is a major frustration.

I share the frustration the member has around that project. That said, I do believe Metro Vancouver is taking the right steps. The mayors are taking the right steps to put a team in place to do the reviews, and our observer will continue to monitor that as they move forward.

Tony Luck: I think it’s been mentioned a number of times that you would never get the fox to audit the henhouse. I think that’s exactly what’s happening in Metro Vancouver, and it’s been called upon many, many times to have a completely and totally independent review of Metro Vancouver, their accounting practices, and the way they let contracts out there.

We know…. I think the minister is hiding behind the fact that this is the government that gives the rules and the rights for municipalities and regional districts to operate. So I’m asking again: why does the minister not call for an independent review? He has the legislation. He has the power to do it, and this should be done.

We should not be allowing the fox to decide who is going to audit the henhouse. Can we please get a commitment out of this minister that this will be done?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: As I’ve said previously to the member, Metro Vancouver is responsible for the decisions that they make. They are all elected officials.

They’ve brought a well-respected retired judge to come in and oversee the terms of reference. They are going to take the step to put a team in place that will do the review. We have an observer that will be ensuring that there is transparency, that they’re looking at all the elements that need to be considered. At some point, when that is done, they’ll have to share that with the public.

[3:55 p.m.]

Given that there’s litigation happening, they’re going to have to be sensitive about what information gets shared until that legal action has been taken. Again, that’s Metro Vancouver. They’re the leaders in this space, and this is their project that they have to continue to advance.

Tony Luck: Yes, we know it’s Metro Vancouver, but they are there at the behest of the provincial government.

There is legislation in the Local Government Act that allows this government, this Premier, to demand an independent review of Metro Vancouver — not that they should be looking at, once again, the foxes auditing the henhouse. We can’t have that. To get the real numbers and the real things that we need to do and how we need to fix Metro Vancouver and the governance model there, we need to have an independent review.

I’m not the only one. Many, many independent groups are calling for an independent review that has been requested by the provincial government to make sure this is a standoff situation where we’re not getting friends of the family doing the auditing or anything like that.

Can we get a commitment of this government that they will bring in an independent review to get this thing done properly?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: As I’ve said already, but I’ll say it again, Metro Vancouver took the right step of doing a review, not only on the project but also around the governance. The member may not trust the people they have put in place. That being said, we have a retired judge, a well-respected judge. We have Peter Milburn, who is very well respected, doing some of that work.

We talked about efficiency. If there is a review happening, and there are people in place to do that…. We have observers, and we have a retired judge sitting there. To do another one on top of that at the same time — that’s not efficient in any way.

I think we need to let this process unfold, and we have an observer that will be monitoring and ensuring that there is transparency in the process.

Tony Luck: What specific oversight processes or legislative frameworks does this government have or intend to put in place for the future to ensure Metro Vancouver and other regional districts and authorities cannot conceal critical details about project failures and cost overruns behind NDAs or other restrictive agreements in the future?

This has been a blight on many communities. I’ve had some regional districts and cities call me up and say: “Hey, we’re not like them.” What can we do to make sure that we’re going to have a standard practice across the board within the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are standard processes for local governments, and we canvassed this yesterday. They’re required to have audited statements. They are required to be aboveboard, and they do. I don’t want anyone watching today to think that our local governments are just running wild and are not accountable to the public. They are.

To the member’s other question, it’s possible, through the governance review, that there are additional measures that come out of that review as recommendations from the experts that have been brought in. But we’ll wait until that time before we discuss what next steps can be taken.

Tony Luck: I remember asking this House specifically a number of months before this audit and this internal review was put in place: why didn’t the government at that particular time do the audit?

We’re not asking them to do a second one or an overlap one. The provincial government, under their legislation, should have taken this upon themselves to do it right, to make sure it got done. It doesn’t only have to be done right; it has to look like it’s being done right. There are many people in this community that are concerned about the process.

Why did this government hesitate to implement its own internal review of the process over at Metro Vancouver? Why did it wait until Metro Vancouver implemented a process? It should have been done by the government.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I do recall the member asking that question. I do recall myself giving that answer. Since he’s asked the same question, I’ll provide him the same answer, which is that Metro Vancouver is a board of all elected officials who are responsible for the projects that they bring forward.

I had raised concerns, like my friend across the way had raised concerns, and Metro Vancouver responded, I think, with the appropriate measure. They brought in a retired judge so that there was clear transparency about how they were going to move forward. The judge put the terms of reference in place. They brought very respected people, independent people, to come in and do that work.

That’s the same work we would have done if we had come in. We would have brought somebody like a retired judge in. We would have brought some experts in. The work is happening, and Metro Vancouver is paying for it, because it’s Metro Vancouver’s responsibility, and we have an observer overseeing it.

I appreciate the member is going to ask the same question that he asked then, and I gave him that answer. Unfortunately, it’s the same question now and the same answer again.

Tony Luck: Given the government’s stated commitment to transparency over the last number of days, will you release all provincial documents and correspondence related to the government’s involvement in the wastewater treatment project, including its decision-making around financial interventions, oversight responsibility and discussions about an NDA, if you have done one at this particular time?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We haven’t been involved in this project. I mean, the member could always go through FOI, and he’ll get information. But likely, if the member wants information, he’ll have to FOI Metro, because we have no involvement in the projects Metro Vancouver advances.

Tony Luck: Okay.

The initial contractor involved in the North Shore wastewater treatment plant fiasco is responsible for massive cost overruns and significant project failures. The contractor’s partners and its front companies are now actively bidding and working on critical provincial projects, including the Pattullo Bridge replacement, Broadway SkyTrain expansion, the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain extension.

Can you explain how a contractor so clearly associated with severe management failures continues to secure such major government contracts as we move forward?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’re debating the estimates of the Ministry of Housing, and I can confirm to the member that we don’t have any contracts with that company at this time.

Linda Hepner: I’m going to move the questioning into the partnership model.

B.C. Housing delivers most of its social and supportive housing by contracting operations to a network of non-profits, as we discussed yesterday a little bit. I think I was told, rounding it up, around 800 of those.

Many of those, or most of those, do not own the buildings they manage, as the minister described yesterday. B.C. Housing, via the Provincial Rental Housing Corp. or another government entity, does. Yet these societies are entrusted with millions in annual subsidies and property stewardship and often hold the keys to even tenant placement and eviction processes.

There is no public-facing regulatory or accountability dashboard outlining how much each of these receive, manage or deliver annually, unless I get that really special flow chart going. Despite managing billions in provincial housing assets and operating budgets, many of these societies function outside of the reach of the Auditor General, FOI or PAC-level scrutiny.

[4:05 p.m.]

My questions, and I have a few here…. Firstly, could the minister confirm that B.C. Housing has entered into a contractual relationship with an organization known as Renewal Development?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This sounds familiar. It was unfortunate that in the election, the opposition used this to try to smear me, to smear my family. It’s unfortunate that the line of questioning continues, but I’m happy to engage, because there’s nothing there.

B.C. Housing does not have a contract with Renewal. We provide money to different organizations, as the member mentioned. But in this case, I think the member is referring to a local First Nations community, which is looking to bring housing into their community. They may have a contract with Renewal, but B.C. Housing does not have one directly.

Linda Hepner: My apologies to the minister. I, quite frankly, had no idea Renewal was in any way related to the minister or had anything to do with it at all, nor do I recall that during the election. It was in no way meant to be offensive. It was to try and determine…. We knew Renewal Development had something to do within the B.C. Housing conundrum of suppliers or operators, and it is not a registered company.

What I was trying to get to is: who is Renewal, and what do they do? What I’m hearing the minister say is that they have something to do with an Indigenous housing project.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s comments. The member may not be aware of the smears. I think the late Premier Horgan used to say that it’s the kids with the short pants in the basement.

That being said, I’ll just say again that there’s no contractual obligation directly with B.C. Housing with Renewal. The member may want to look up the website to see what they do, but we don’t have one.

Linda Hepner: Can I just move on, then, forward, to some questions regarding Atira and how much total funding has been directed to Atira Women’s Resource Society? I’m not sure if the minister will have the numbers from 2018 to 2024 across all B.C. Housing programs, but that is a number I would like to know.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team is trying to go back and find the dollars that went to Atira.

I did share, I think, on the record yesterday that we’ve taken several steps with Atira since our reports have been taken. I believe five sites have been taken and given to other not-for-profit providers. The team will try to dig those numbers up and get them to the member.

Linda Hepner: I’d like to see or hear of that information. once you have gathered it.

Has Atira submitted any audited financials for each of the last five years at all?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We have financial audits up to 2023, and we expect the 2024 one this summer.

Linda Hepner: Up to 2023, and you expect 2024. Is that what the minister has defined? Okay.

This may be a difficult question, but is the minister satisfied that Atira continues to provide value for money, in light of the findings from the Ernst and Young forensic audit?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s important to note that Atira is the largest provider of supports to women, vulnerable women in particular, in the province. Again, I highlighted steps that we’ve taken — the five sites in particular that we’ve now moved to other not-for-profit providers.

If the question from the member is do they provide a good value, I say yes, they provide amazing value. They support vulnerable populations that desperately need supports, so they’re important.

The people that work there, the people who are providing the day-to-day supports, are some of the best people that you can find anywhere in this space. Although there are challenges clearly identified from a few years ago from the leadership, in no way do I believe that’s reflective of the people that work there day to day and support vulnerable people.

We are not there yet with Atira. We are making progress. There’s a whole host of items that we’ve been able to achieve with them, but we still have more work to do.

The team continues to meet with Atira. Essentially, it’s a new board over there. There are a few people that are remaining. They have, clearly, new leadership coming in. We have some more work still to do, but we’re making some progress.

[4:15 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: Thank you to the minister for that information.

It’s certainly not lost on me the good work that needs to be done relative to support for the women. I’m pleased to hear the minister say that they’re working on ensuring that Atira provides the best service possible.

It would be helpful if the minister were to tell Atira that they should publicly provide their financial statements, which they have not done since 2021. I hear the minister say that Atira has provided, to his offices, up until 2023, but I believe, especially given the scathing remarks by Ernst and Young, that those financial reports should be available, publicly and online, by Atira.

I would ask if the minister is prepared to suggest to that supplier that that happen.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you to the member for bringing that to my attention.

Certainly, I believe that should be transparent, and it should be on their website. We will be following up with them.

Linda Hepner: I wonder if the ministry could give me some understanding of how many sites are owned by the Provincial Rental Housing Corp. My apologies if I should know that, but, quite frankly, I didn’t even realize that B.C. Housing had their properties through the Provincial Rental Housing Corp.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team is just going to pull up that number. I can share with the member that the amount of units is over 21,000. We’ll get the number of buildings momentarily.

Linda Hepner: That’s 21,000, Minister?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, we have just under 2,000 sites, and we have just over 21,000 units of housing.

Linda Hepner: Is this the same entity that also owns the SROs and the hotels that are bought by the ministry?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, that’s correct.

[4:20 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: Can the minister tell me what the charges or the mortgages are, or total, on these sites?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s a challenging number to pull, for the member, because we have a lot of active sites under construction. They’re all in construction phases, so they are construction mortgages. They’re in different stages.

The team will try to get some numbers, but, as you can imagine, it’s a bit moving, given that we have so many projects under construction as well, on property that’s owned by the PRHC.

Linda Hepner: I will jot down that that number will be provided. I would expect, through the Ministry of Housing, you know how much money the provincial agency representing all these properties has to pay out every year, in order to do your budget.

At the same time, I wonder if the minister could provide who the mortgage holders are.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: While the team is pulling up the number, perhaps we can continue, and then we’ll get the number for the member.

Linda Hepner: While we’re waiting for that number, I’ll give you, Minister, probably an equally difficult number to come up with right away but one that I hope that we could expect to hear from.

What is the weighted interest rate and the remaining amortization on the mortgages for the portfolio of properties that are owned by the Provincial Rental Housing Corp.?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team will pull that number as well for the member. If there are more specific numbers the member would like, maybe the member can just share all of them with us.

The team can just pull all of them for you, and then we can continue our discussion.

Linda Hepner: That kind of information will be valuable, so I’ll just wait and get all of it at the same time.

What I’m trying to get at is: is it reasonable and feasible for the taxpayers to be providing all these housing units in supportive housing that we all need? I want to measure that with: who has the mortgage? When do the taxpayers get the mortgages on their land back, in terms of valuation? That’s sort of where I’m headed with the question, if that helps provide all of the information that I’m looking for.

I’ll move on to sectorwide oversight. If the minister could advise how many of B.C. Housing’s current non-profit operating partners have failed to publish audited financial statements in the past two years.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All the numbers the member is requesting are in the audited financials of B.C. Housing. If the member would like, we can get a printed copy of all the audited financials for the member.

Or we can just send you a link. If the link is easier, we can send that, but all that information is in that.

Also, the second question the member asked was around how many not-for-profits have not provided us their financial audits for this year. The number is 184 providers, but they still have some time. They’ve got a few months to still provide us that. They’re going through that work, and we expect that they will all have their financial audits to us within the time that they’re required to do so.

Linda Hepner: The actual question was: how many have not provided or have failed to provide an audited statement in the past two years? I’m not sure that the answer the minister gave was relative to just this last year.

[4:35 p.m. - 4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Sorry, we were trying to communicate to the team that leads this, and we got them online. So 184 providers — I apologize; when I said that, I thought the member was asking for just 2024, but the member was asking for who is, essentially, two years out.

The answer is that we’ve got two tiers of providers. For anyone that has $1 million or more, we consider them bigger, and there are none outstanding, aside from Atira.

There are some smaller providers that are below the $1 million threshold. Often they don’t have their own financial teams. They don’t have their giant structures for accounting. Of those teams, there are 39. Our expectation is that they will provide those.

We do put measures in place for those smaller ones that haven’t done that. They can’t access the renewal fund. They can’t access a whole host of resources until those audited financials come. It’s only the small ones; the bigger ones, besides Atira, have all reported.

Linda Hepner: Thank you to the minister for that.

Does B.C. Housing require third-party audits for any non-profit partner receiving more than $5 million?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, the audited financials are done externally, and it is something we require. As I shared with the member, we’re not aware of any of the larger providers that have not had their audited financials for 2023, besides Atira.

Linda Hepner: I wonder if I could ask the minister whether or not the ministry conducts regular financial or operational audits of these societies, and if so, how frequently?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If there is a concern that we have, certainly, we would do that. That’s what happened with Atira when information was brought to our attention.

At the time, it was the Premier who was the Minister of Housing. When information was brought to his attention, he immediately took steps to address it. We have the ability to do such things. Certainly, I’d be using it if I had something that was concerning to me.

Linda Hepner: I’d like to understand “value for money” better. I wonder if the minister can define for me how B.C. Housing defines “value for money” in its contracts with non-profit housing suppliers and operators.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you, team.

We use a program framework as a kind of benchmark of what we want to see from the providers, and we do assessments every three years, a full review. We often are engaging with not-for-profits that are operating, depending on the type of housing, on concerns that we may have or concerns that may be raised by local government, to assess whether they’re following that.

I’ve asked the team to get the member a copy of the framework so that she can assess those benchmarks we use.

If I can ask, Chair, can we do a short break so the team can get some water?

The Chair: Minister, we had just contemplated that ourselves. We will stand in recess until five o’clock sharp.

The committee recessed from 4:49 p.m. to 5 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll call this chamber back to order, where we’re contemplating the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Linda Hepner: I think the minister described that the value for money that B.C. Housing uses is similar throughout the multitude of contracts that the ministry deals with. Could I just get some clarification that I understood that correctly? I wasn’t really looking for what the ministry puts in contracts; I was looking for whether B.C. Housing has a direct definition of “value for money,” since they do so many subcontracts.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The framework is actually B.C. Housing’s framework; it’s not the ministry’s. Hopefully. that answers the question.

Brennan Day: Nice to see everybody here this afternoon.

The Braidwood Road shelter project at 925 Braidwood Road in Courtenay has undergone cursory public consultation and seems to be proceeding, despite significant concerns from the neighbourhood, including but not limited to two provincially funded daycares within 100 metres of the site and Glacier View alternate school, which deals with very vulnerable children within a couple hundred metres of the school.

The Comox Valley RCMP, while conveniently located next door, have significant safety concerns for their civilian 911 staff and RCMP staff, and they have actually included, in their budget, substantial perimeter security and fencing, because of the proposed project. In addition, the Ministry of Transport has access issues to the ministry-designated roadway to which this project is adjacent.

I understand that this facility is desperately needed in the Comox Valley, and we will not litigate the certain amount of NIMBYism that is always going to accompany these projects and the stigma that they bring.

With the surge in the unhoused due to rapidly escalating costs, can you confirm what funding for this project is in the current budget, what that number is and what the anticipated annual operating budget is for this facility?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate that this is the first time the member and I get a chance to talk.

Nice to meet you across the way.

This project, specifically, has had a long history, as the member is probably aware. I spent a lot of time up in the community trying to work with council, many Saturday meetings, Sunday meetings, to try to help identify locations. The member is probably aware that there were concerns with the shelter that exists now in town. It wasn’t purpose-built, so it had specific challenges that local businesses were struggling with. A lot of people were flowing outside, and that had impacts on the local economy.

It was important for us to find a location where we could build out housing for the vulnerable populations and where there was space for us to do that. I can share with the member that we looked at 40 properties with the city to try to identify one.

We were close at one point. Aat a council meeting, I guess, it was raised, about a specific location that we were looking at, that that was a preference. Then the price for us to acquire that suddenly went up, dramatically, so we had to walk away from that.

We’ve got this site that we’re engaging with right now. The annual operating budget will be approximately $6.2 million, and, of course, that has shelter and supportive housing on site.

Brennan Day: We know that the ministry continues to contract non-profits. We have some fantastic non-profit operators in the Comox Valley that are currently looking after the Connect Centre, which is a problem temporary site that was opened several years ago under this government.

The sales pitch with B.C. Housing for these SRO beds always revolves around wraparound supports and the engagement with Health around those supports. They don’t ever seem to accompany it in any meaningful way. We see this time and again. We’ve also seen security funding issues and a bit of buck-passing between Health and Housing on some of these projects.

I’d like to just elaborate how, for the record, that consultation is done. I question why Health isn’t brought into that conversation earlier, to make some commitments.

I’ve recently reviewed the tender and the RFP for the operation of this site. It doesn’t specify any minimum staffing levels.

That seems to be a question mark that I would love to see cleared up, and I’m happy to see you take it on notice. I do think that’s important to know. My support of our non-profit operator largely hinges around what these wraparound supports and staffing levels look like, so that we don’t have another repeat.

[5:10 p.m.]

I guess the question, more simply, is: how much funding per SRO shelter bed is allocated in this year’s budget for those wraparound supports?

Can you please clarify for the record — so that we know who to talk to going forward, because this is a problem in many communities — whether it’s the Ministry of Housing that we should be complaining to when these wraparound supports don’t show up, or whether it is the Ministry of Health? We know there are staffing issues across the board, but we’d like to make sure we take those concerns to the appropriate ministry.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. We had just canvassed this. Our sites all provide some level of support, such as supports around life skills, community information, case planning. There is 24-hour staff coverage. There are two meals per day.

On the member’s question around health supports, the member could always come to us, and we’re happy to either provide an answer or direct the member to where they need to go.

I can share that with all our supportive housing sites on the Island, we’ve got a really good relationship with Island Health. They’ve been really responsive. If the member wants examples, he can see what’s happening with the tiny homes at the Village in Cowichan.

Campbell River is another site where there was a lot of apprehension from council to have supportive housing units. They just recently came back and said: “Maybe we can have more.”

Of course, there are always going to be issues. I appreciate that. If there are, our ministry is a good place to come for that.

Brennan Day: Thank you, Minister, for clarifying that. I’m sure we will be having some meaningful discussions around what that might look like as this project proceeds.

I will now pass it back to my colleague to continue with her questions.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, my office is available. Of course, during the hearing process, there are always concerns, but if we are successful and able to continue to operate, that will have a big impact on the member’s community.

The member is free to reach out to us, and we’ll try to provide information to him.

Linda Hepner: Thanks for reaching out. That’s always valuable — to have that direct one-on-one.

Just going back to the earlier questions that I had, I’m wondering if the minister can provide any per-unit, operating-cost breakdown to groups like Atira, PHS or Lookout and those supporting housing projects — whether there’s a per-unit cost breakdown.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: B.C. Housing’s per-unit benchmark averages to about $2,493.

[5:15 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: Do you know whether or not B.C. Housing, Mr. Minister, has ever terminated a non-profit partner due to underperformance or financial mismanagement?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, we have. Our first approach, always, is to try to get compliance and to try to get to the bottom of it, because we don’t want to disrupt the people we serve. That’s always the number one goal.

But we have. We’ve taken back sites. We’ve taken back properties. We’ve distributed that work to others. Yes, that does happen.

Linda Hepner: I’m wondering. This is my final performance question. Has the ministry considered creating an internal performance scorecard or accountability dashboard for non-profit operators that would be made public, so that we could all have a better understanding of how we’re measuring performance on these very expensive contracts and subcontracts?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We don’t have a dashboard. That, essentially, is a name-and-shame type of exercise. If we hear concerns, we investigate. If they’re found to be, in fact, a challenge, then we have steps that we can take in order to address that.

Linda Hepner: I think if you create at least a performance scorecard, you’d have some understanding of whether or not they’re performing in the way that not only the minister but the public would expect.

I would put to the minister, perhaps, of looking at an internal scorecard — which, in my local government experience, is often done with respect to outside contractors. I would suggest that the minister at least take that under advisement.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Every three years we do a full operational review, where we assess the providers. If they’re not doing what was required of them as part of the contract, then we have the ability to change directions.

Linda Hepner: Moving on, I wonder if the ministry has yet received any report relative to the West Vancouver situation and the adviser on the Bill 44 issue.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m advised that the ministry has received a report. They’re analyzing it at this time. They haven’t seen what’s being recommended, but when I do get it, I will be making that information public.

Linda Hepner: Perhaps the minister could provide that to the critic, as well, so that we can better understand what the advice from the third-party adviser is.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s a fair request. When we make it public, we’ll make sure that the critic has a copy. Of course, we’ll be sharing it with local government as well.

Linda Hepner: We are approaching the June 30 deadline to amend the existing community amenity contribution approach. That has a very direct impact on local government revenue.

Now I’m speaking very specifically about the Surrey situation. As I understand it, there are in place currently some CAC agreements, for instance, that are in-stream, and if they were to be displaced, we would, as a city, lose something like $250 million.

A report recently went, and I saw it, from Surrey council asking the minister…. I believe the mayor has written a letter as well, but I’ll just quote quickly because it’s in front of me.

“The housing legislation enacted by the province since 2023 has provided municipalities new and updated land use planning and development finance tools. The interaction of the various tools with Surrey’s unique context has created unintended consequences for the existing amenity financing framework.

“Surrey staff are recommending a strategy to limit the impact of amenity revenues, including a request to the provincial government to set a deadline of June 30, 2028, for necessary changes to zoning bylaws, to then allow all those in-stream applications to complete under the current zoning bylaw while proceeding with updates with respect to the new applications.”

I believe the primary concern is, of course, collecting those funds that have already been agreed under CACs, and they’re in-stream.

How will the minister respond to those unintended consequences, certainly in Surrey but, I’m assuming, more likely in other communities as well?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes. I’ve in fact received that letter, and it’s something that I’m actively considering.

[5:25 p.m.]

Linda Hepner: I’m very sorry, but I didn’t hear what you said last — something that you were considering to respond to, or that you’re agreeing to?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: No, I received the correspondence, and it’s something that we’re considering at this time. I can’t give the member an answer on what will happen, but we are considering the request.

Linda Hepner: Okay, thank you.

I think that it’s incumbent on us to realize sometimes what are unintended consequences through on-the-ground realities. That would be an enormous amount of money for a city or for any community to lose. I expect there are others that have already established CACs.

I trust the minister will look at that with a very serious lens and understand how critical it would be to local governments, which have very few ways of getting money, as he knows. That’s why he brought in the ACCs, in order to better supply opportunities for local governments. I leave it to the minister for that.

I’m going to move on to BC Builds and ask a couple of questions. I know that has recently been launched, only a year ago, but I’m wondering how many units have begun construction or been completed under BC Builds to date. How does the progress compare to the promised units over five years? I’m assuming that that’s measuring where we are now and where we want to be.

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We have made significant progress. We’ve got about 684 units under construction already, and I’m confident we’re going to reach our five-year goal at this trend line. We’re seeing a lot of local governments come forward, First Nations come forward.

I can share with the member that we’ve got a project in Gibsons under construction, Whistler, city of North Vancouver….

[The bells were rung.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Everybody in this building is traumatized by bells.

The Chair: Just pause for a moment, Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Sure.

I was saying that Abbotsford, Cowichan, Prince Rupert and a project on the UBC endowment land, so a considerable amount of projects in a year that are already under construction.

Linda Hepner: For whom the bell tolls, we never know, do we?

Interjection.

Linda Hepner: It tolls for thee, exactly.

What is the total cost to taxpayers for BC Builds, including the $950 million in provincial grants and any additional operating funds?

What is the province’s financial exposure on the $4 billion low-interest financing if some projects default or face cost overruns?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The total commitment from us was $950 million. We have access to a $2 billion fiscal agency for loans.

The member suggested our ongoing subsidy for operating. We don’t provide subsidy for operating for BC Builds. All the projects are owned not by B.C. Housing. They’re owned by other entities. So if there were a situation, we would be first in line to access what is owed to us.

Linda Hepner: Can the minister explain the repayment terms for BC Builds loans? Specifically, what happens if a developer cannot pay a B.C. building loan?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We provide a construction loan, and when the builder completes a project, then they pay us out.

I suppose if a builder had issues, we would go through a normal process. We would require the builder to…. If there’s an issue, then we would have to go through the normal process of finding another builder to come in and complete the project, etc. But at this point, the team is not aware of any projects that have challenges.

Linda Hepner: Are the builders that are doing these projects for the ministry required to provide any letters of credit or insurance, or are we just on a wish and a prayer hoping they continue to be financially viable or stable?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I mean, we go through the same full process anyone would: review pro formas, full underwriting. We ensure that the loan doesn’t go above the project. There’s a whole host of measures.

Part of the review is their capital, their equity, of the builder, before we decide on who is going to be taking the project on. So there’s a full risk analysis done before a builder is chosen to take those projects on.

Linda Hepner: Okay, except that the risk analysis…. How you do that risk analysis is of interest to me, so perhaps offline the minister and I could have a chat about that?

Defining middle-income beneficiaries, I was surprised to see that the income threshold was as high as up to $190,000. So how many British Columbians do you expect to qualify?

[5:40 p.m.]

Is there a plan to ensure those units go to those who truly cannot afford market housing? At $190,000, on this side of the House, we would be in the low-income section.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it’s important, because the member and I haven’t had a chance to talk about this program before, just to put it in context. B.C. Housing has traditionally been in the space of providing more subsidized housing, ongoing subsidized housing. This is closer to market. It’s still below market, but it’s closer to market.

Although there’s no ongoing subsidy for operating, we’re still trying to meet that need of just higher than where B.C. Housing has traditionally provided housing. You could call it workforce housing. Some people call it workforce housing. That’s what we’re trying to target.

For example, the city of North Vancouver — when they came forward first with their land, they were very much targeting people that are working at the local hospital, someone that’s working as a nurse or a health care professional. They know they need to attract that workforce, so they’re trying to make sure there’s housing available for that type of workforce in their community.

They’ve got C-SPAN in their community. So they were thinking: “Okay, C-SPAN is looking for workforce. People are travelling long-distance. Maybe we can try to attract that type of workforce with this housing.”

That’s who this type of housing is for. So $190,000 is on the high end, but if you’ve got a firefighter and a nurse and they need a three-bedroom, this fits. It’s a program that’s just above…. It’s kind of middle-income families. Of course, if you’ve got a single person, there are units that are below; $190,000 is on the higher end.

The rents will vary from community to community. That’s just a general threshold we use for the program. But if you’re in a community…. For example, in Cowichan, and I think the member knows, the rent will be totally different than what it will be in Langley city or what it will be in North Van, in the city there.

Hopefully, that explains the thresholds and how they were set.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for that information. That actually does help. I understand the difficulties in some areas. Particularly in the Lower Mainland and in some areas in the Interior, as well, it’s more difficult to find housing that meets the needs of middle-income earners and double earners.

How many private developers and builders have agreed to participate in BC Builds so far, and what has been the feedback that you’ve received from the development industry? I’m really looking to understand the uptake and whether or not the industry thinks this is a program they want to be wholeheartedly participating in.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’ve actually seen a lot of interest. Just so the member is aware, the process is that we put up land on the website and different builders, whether they’re not-for-profit or private, can bid. We go through a pretty extensive process. Whoever’s land it is, is at the table with us.

The most recent one, for example, was Sun Peaks. We had one in Kamloops. We had nine bidders for that. There’s a lot of interest. There’s a lot of interest, in particular, right now, because some folks have their own projects that they’re maybe not pencilling, and they want to keep their crews working. They see an opportunity to keep people working and, at the same time, see a bit of a return.

Linda Hepner: That actually leads me to the next question. It was whether or not what we’re doing here, or what the government is doing here, could crowd out or disincentivize private rental developments.

Are you analyzing that at all? How will the ministry ensure that it doesn’t undermine the other market projects that we seriously would like to have done that are not government-led?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’ve seen no sign of that at all. In fact, the biggest request we get is folks in the private sector saying: “I’ve got land. Would you want to partner to do that?” We’re not in that space, because we’ve got a lot of local governments and First Nations coming forward with opportunities, and we’re exploring those first. So there has been no indication that what the member described is actually happening.

Lorne Doerkson: I want to ask a couple of questions about a few different properties in Cariboo-Chilcotin, specifically in Williams Lake. I’ve given the ministry a bit of a heads-up with respect to one of the properties. I want to better understand, really, the relationship of the ministry with the property owner, which is the Hamilton inn. Time is obviously of the essence here, so I’m hoping to ask a couple of questions in one.

What I really want to understand better is what the current relationship is, because I know that relationship over time has changed and that it may be a temporary unit that we’re using now from the province’s side.

I also wanted to understand what the average amount of occupants is nightly in that facility, and I wanted to better understand when this tenancy or this agreement may come to an end in Williams Lake.

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I really appreciate the member just sending the questions to the team so that I can put this on the record.

The member has highlighted some concerns around the site that exists there, and we, too, have some concerns. It was a hotel not really meant for this purpose, but we needed the capacity to be able to support people.

The member is aware that on First Avenue, we are currently renovating a site. We expect in the next approximately two months to have that renovation complete and to move people from the hotel to the renovated site. At that point, we will be ending the relationship with the hotel. The First Avenue site will have, essentially, unit-for-unit space over there.

It is busy. It is at capacity. But we do see the ability to have a better site that’s better suited to this population within the next two or three months.

Lorne Doerkson: I just wanted to get a little bit of clarity around capacity. I asked, in my first question, what the average nightly amount of visitors are to that facility, and I’d like to get clarity around that if I could.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Right now at the hotel, we have capacity for about 20. It’s busy. It’s busy every day. The new site will have capacity for 40. It gives us additional capacity in the community.

Lorne Doerkson: Maybe I’ll try not to beat around the bush here. I want to better understand that capacity number, because it really goes to other questions.

What I’m really trying to understand is that the minister just suggested that there were about 20 people staying there per night. It’s my understanding that there might be as many as 40 rooms in that facility. I’d be very interested in knowing how many rooms are actually available to us.

Also, I would be very interested in knowing what the monthly cost is for renting the Hamilton Hotel in Williams Lake.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’ll pull up the exact number for the member of how much we pay for the lease.

The member is correct. The original agreement was for 40 units in that building. Because of some challenges, that was reduced to 20. The member could be correct that we have 20 spaces, but there still may be 40 people there. It’s possible that the owner of that site is renting out the other 20 units in the community.

[5:55 p.m.]

Our lease is now for 20 units of it, until such time as the other units are done, and then our lease will end.

I’ll get the member the exact number.

Lorne Doerkson: I would definitely like to get clarity on that because it’s my understanding that we are renting the full facility. Certainly, the owner shared that with me approximately a year ago or so.

At that time, it was really thought that we had about 40 units, but because of some pretty severe damage to some of the units, they were no longer liveable. I have a number of concerns around that because we do have a facility that obviously has the ability to provide more capacity for our community, and we still see people unhoused in our streets, of course. To add to that, which is where we’re going to go next, is the new shelter that is being built.

There are a number of concerns, obviously, in Williams Lake. Certainly, our community has expressed those through a number of different meetings, whether that be last week, where we had an emergency meeting regarding crime…. Crime is extremely serious in our downtown core.

O.K. Tire last week had a break-in through the front door. Somebody stole a vehicle out of the shop bay and drove it through the back door. We had Sandtronic broken into just a couple nights ago. This is a computer store. The local tea shop has had serious damage. All of this is happening almost weekly in our community, and it’s become very serious.

The reality is that now we’ve taken the Hamilton, which has been a mainstay for housing for a number of years in our community, and we’ve changed that model to go to build a shelter downtown in what was the old Elks Hall. I want to better understand why that decision was made.

I’d like to understand what the cost is around the new shelter that is being built in the Elks Hall. How much is that? What does the contract look like going forward? What was the reason for leaving the Hamilton Hotel and moving to the new location?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question again. I was in Williams Lake and met with the mayor, council and staff. It was made clear to me that the Hamilton Hotel was not working.

The member is correct; we have an agreement for 40 units. There’s also an agreement that when we vacate, the units will be in decent shape for the owner. We have 20 that are occupied, and 20 are being fixed up, so that when we leave in a couple of months, we are contractually meeting our obligation to the owner of the hotel. The new site is $1.2 million to fix up, and it’s about $2 million in annual operating. It’s going to have capacity for 40.

When we met with the mayor, council and staff, they made it clear that this was the location that was better than any other location. First off, there are not many options in the town. The member knows that. There are not many options. I suspect that even finding a constituency office might be tough in that community. We were directed to the site as possibly the only option that was available. We’ve taken that advice to move in that direction.

Now, there are some benefits of this site, certainly, as compared to the other site. We can put some better safety measures in place on the site. We were just canvassing the need for a supportive housing site, how important it is to have common areas within a building, so that people can congregate inside, as opposed to having to meet out in the living room out front. This new location allows us to do that.

There will be better measures in place that will, I hope, address a lot of the safety concerns on the new site that we simply could not do at the hotel, given the layout of that structure.

Lorne Doerkson: I appreciate the answer from the ministry, although it does bring up a number of other questions. I’m grateful that the minister is able to confirm that we are or have been for the last number of years obligated to 40 units. However, because those units have been harmed in some way, we have only been able to use 20 of them.

I guess my next question is a fairly simple one. Does B.C. Housing manage Jubilee House in Williams Lake?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, it is contracted under B.C. Housing.

Lorne Doerkson: I appreciate the answer. I was wondering if the ministry could tell me what the average capacity is there nightly. Also, if I could understand, how many units are available to us there as well?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are 33 spaces at this site. This is not a traditional supportive housing site. This is a legacy site from 2010, a legacy program since 2010, and it’s right now being operated by CHMA.

Lorne Doerkson: I was hoping to get the average occupancy rate per night.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s not a shelter, so it’s not a drop-in or drop-out.

Lorne Doerkson: I appreciate that it’s not a nightly rental or a nightly housing supplier; but just the same, I’d like to know how many people are living in that facility, or how many of those units are being used today.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The team is just contacting the manager in the region to get a number for the member.

Lorne Doerkson: Time is running out for me here, so I’m going to move on to potentially one last question. I’d appreciate if the ministry could provide that information to me outside of this time, if that’s possible.

I’m very concerned that we would have, potentially, two facilities in Williams Lake that have not been at capacity, as the minister suggested. At capacity, to me, means we have 40 units. I can appreciate there has been some damage, but then I think there’s probably an obligation somewhere along the line that the province will have to repair those anyway. I’m just not certain why there haven’t been steps to repair them and to use that capacity.

I’m concerned with Jubilee in the same way now. Granted, it may have changed in the last little while, but I do know that there has been an opportunity for more capacity there as well.

I guess why I’m afraid or, certainly, concerned is that we haven’t been using the capacity that we have available to us. We have tents in the park. We have them in the River Valley Trail. We have crime that is rampant in downtown Williams Lake. And now we’re building a new shelter. While I would enjoy terribly an hour to ask questions on that itself, I’ll pass on that for right now.

The minister referenced talking to city council. Trust me when I say this. I speak to city council very often, and I have a very good relationship with most of the council. The question is not so much around…. That conversation has come up in this estimates conversation.

The fact that we need housing is not up for question, but it’s always a question as to where. I think the biggest challenge around that is we don’t provide enough safeguards around these housing complexes that we create, whether they’re shelter or whether they’re the Hamilton inn. I think that’s the biggest concern that residents have.

I can assure you that the past Housing Minister actually set up a temporary shelter at what was the longhouse in Williams Lake. I can tell you that I took chili on Christmas Day to that longhouse to give a bit of a gift to the residents, and I was embarrassed because the senior citizens of our community had taken up fresh apple pies and everything else. Our community wants to support these folks. The fear is that there are no safeguards around these facilities.

Now, I can appreciate at the Elks Hall there’s now a fence going up around it, and there are some other things. But can the minister clearly explain to me and to the residents of Williams Lake what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that our downtown core is not seeing the level of crime that we are facing right now?

[6:15 p.m.]

We’ve had, certainly, assaults. We’ve had all kinds of broken windows, all kinds of crime. And honestly, the residents are very frustrated by that. I want to get a clear understanding of what the minister’s plan is to provide some safeguards around this new facility at the Elks Hall and what other ministries this ministry might be cross-pollinating with to create those safeguards.

I can’t say this enough. I think that the residents of Williams Lake are very, very supportive of trying to create an avenue for the unhoused to be warm and dry, particularly on those 25-below nights. None of us want to see people on the streets when it’s that cold.

I think the government owes the residents of Williams Lake and, certainly, Cariboo-Chilcotin some sense of security around these projects wherever they may end up in our community.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s advocacy for his community, and in no way would I suggest that he doesn’t care about the residents of vulnerable people in the community. But the member surely knows that if we don’t have these spaces, the people will still be there. They’ll be in tents. They’ll be in the park.

It’s not the housing that’s the problem; it’s the lack of housing, I assume, that’s the problem here. We need to find ways to get more housing opportunities available for people. Hopefully we’re in alignment there.

What I’m hearing are concerns about the First Avenue site.

No? Okay. Not hearing concerns about the First Avenue site. But more about what measures we’re putting in place. I highlighted a few of those. The member mentioned the fencing is going up and that we’re creating common spaces inside for people to gather. That site will have the ability for storage, for people to have storage so that they’re not hauling things around. And of course, we’re going to continue to monitor the safety piece of it.

I’m happy to be in contact with the member when that opens up, and there are issues that arise in the community, because we want the same thing. We don’t want violence in the community. We don’t want there to be people homeless. We want to find a way for folks to be able to get indoors and get the supports that they need. I’m happy to work with the member to try to get those measures in place in his community.

Lorne Doerkson: Just to clarify a couple of points with respect to capacity. I do not feel that we’re using what we have now properly, and frankly, I certainly am supportive of any kind of housing that would take people off the streets. I’m certain that the minister heard those words. I’m not pushing back on that. In fact, I’m encouraging.

My concern is that this doesn’t create…. I think the minister explained earlier that we have 40 units available at the Hamilton inn. We have 33 at the Jubilee. Now albeit that’s not a nightly space. However, the new shelter has only 30 spaces.

Overall, we’re in a different situation with respect to capacity again. Our capacity is actually going down.

Interjection.

Lorne Doerkson: Forty? Okay, I thought you said 30. Okay, thank you.

So now we’re going to have 40 in a shelter. Now, I guess, again, going back to the concern about that…. I want to make it very clear to the minister, I’m not against housing in our community. Certainly, I don’t want that to be suggested. What I want to explain is that there is significant crime around our downtown core, and that is what the breaking point is for our community and for our members, certainly those folks.

I’m excited about the idea that we may have some housing. I hope that we use it to its capacity, because the reality is I don’t feel that we’re using our housing in a way that we’re taking advantage of the full capacity.

[6:20 p.m.]

I think that B.C. Housing, along with other ministries, certainly owes the residents of Williams Lake an assurance that we are going to not have that crime that has developed around that location now just simply move downtown. I mean, it’s all downtown, and the minister has been there, but that is what the real concern is around these housing projects.

I will leave it at that. Hopefully, the minister or the ministry and I can have further conversation on this. This is a very serious topic in our community. It has been for a number of years, and it’s going to continue to be.

Thanks for the time to Surrey-Serpentine, and thanks for the warning that I’ve got a thread on my jacket, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’ll certainly be following up with the member on new developments, and I hear the concern. We, too, want the same thing. We, too, want people to be housed. We, too, want people to feel safe in their community. We’re all trying to get to the same place. If the member wants to work together, that’s something we’ll certainly take him up.

Perhaps, what I can say is that when the first site is close to being opening, perhaps we can set up a time for the member to go out, having a walk through and have a look through the facility and get an understanding of what’s happening as well.

Lorne Doerkson: I would be very grateful for that, and I appreciate the offer.

I’ll definitely take you up on that, Minister, and thank you very much for the opportunity.

Thanks again, Surrey-Serpentine.

Linda Hepner: I just have a couple of questions before I turn it over to another colleague who has questions as well. I just want to finish up on BC Builds and understand the performance metrics that the ministry will be using to evaluate BC Builds.

I know we’ll have a per-unit cost, but I’m assuming that we’ll have something else, as well, that the government will commit to regular public reporting, including the budgets, the actual costs, the timing, the efficiencies, whether or not it’s meeting those timelines.

Can I just get some assurance that the minister is putting that under advisement in consideration in their BC Builds metrics?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We provide, with all of our housing projects, a lot of information about each project — how much we’re spending, etc., timelines. When do we expect it to get online? When do we expect construction to start? When will it be complete?

With BC Builds, it is new, but we will be making that information available publicly.

Linda Hepner: Thank you to the minister for that.

Can I ask if the ministry is aware of what’s happening with the Site C housing and where that housing may ultimately end up or if there is any provision in the ministry’s consideration that that could be useful in some other arena?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There are some initial conversations happening with B.C. Hydro. I can’t say anything concrete at this point, but B.C. Housing is having early conversations with them about it.

Linda Hepner: So then the rumour that that housing would be going to the landfill would not be correct at all, right?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Energy may have an answer of what they have decided or they haven’t decided. All I can say is that B.C. Housing has just recently met with B.C. Hydro, and it did not appear to us that there was any decision on putting any housing into the landfill. If there was a decision, they wouldn’t have met with us.

Linda Hepner: I think it’s incumbent on the minister and the ministry to…. If there is some usable housing that we could even use for some shelter or some temporary shelter or some homeless options, we should exhaust all of those before we see that disposed of in any way. My encouragement would be that the ministry take a look at where that lies in terms of other ministries, and say: “Hey, maybe we can have a conversation here before we throw the baby out with the bath.”

Finally, I have a question regarding landlord rights. This is happening not only in my own riding but throughout the province, and I’m getting more and more calls as the housing critic that landlords have no rights. They can’t do the single occupancy, short period of time, short-term rentals, which they would prefer to do because the tenants have destroyed their properties on occasion. Now when they have long-term tenants, they can’t easily get them out because there are so many restrictions.

Is there any intention of examining how, other than through the tenancy branch, which has been so far fairly laborious for landlords at least…? Is there any intention of making sure that those who are good landlords and want good tenants, and we all want that, that when they don’t have a good tenant, there’s some mechanism of support for those landlords to not have something that is so cost-prohibitive for them in terms of correcting their private property once they ultimately do get someone to leave? Oftentimes that takes a year.

I’m just looking for some ministry comment around if they recognize the problem and if they’re looking at any avenues of relief.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: If the member is getting calls, you can imagine how many I get from both landlords and tenants. In the role that I am in, you make no one happy. Any changes that are towards landlords, the tenants are upset. Any changes the other way, and the sky is falling.

[6:30 p.m.]

Our focus has been on two parts. I acknowledge that certainly, when I became the Minister of Housing, our wait times were way too long. In fact, there was a time, when I first started, that our wait times were 12 weeks for unpaid rent. As everyone can say, that’s unacceptable. Not only us; it was across the country.

One of the first things I was able to do, thanks to the Premier, was secure financial support to increase the amount of adjudicators at the RTB. Before the election, we brought in legislation to reform how appointments are made at the RTB, so we cut a lot of red tape.

I’ll give the member an example, because the member wasn’t here. When a case came forward, we were required to have, by law, an adjudicated time set aside. If the issue got resolved, we would lose that time, but we wouldn’t know till that time.

We made a lot of legislative changes. I can share with the member that we went from 12 weeks for unpaid rent to now having decisions within three weeks. We have some of the lowest wait times in the country now because of the investment and also because of the changes.

Just to show you that there’s no winning, I met with landlord and tenant groups, and they were complaining now that decisions are happening too fast, and they don’t have enough time to prepare for hearings because it’s happening too fast. So I had to chuckle, because there’s no winning. When it’s too long, everyone complains, and now it’s happening too fast.

We also just made some recent changes. The member is probably aware. Some of the recommendations actually came from the landlord rights group. One of the changes is now we will be publishing monetary decisions on the RTB website starting in June so that any landlord or tenant that has a monetary order…. It can be seen publicly. So I think that’s an important measure.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

We have increased the threshold for keeping property on hand from what was $500 before. So if anybody left stuff that was $500 or above, the landlord had a responsibility to keep it for 60 days. We moved that threshold to $1,000 and reduced that time to 30 days. Of course, if it’s ID, etc., individuals’ IDs, those things still need to be protected. It’s important, those kinds of measures. Those were two important changes that we made.

We also have introduced…. There was legislation introduced called the Money Judgment Act that was right before the last election. That’s targeting the ability for landlords or tenants to recoup their dollars in a more effective way than going through the court system, which can take a long time.

All the key areas that were recommended to us by landlords, by tenants, by the landlord rights groups — we have addressed almost all of those issues. The only issue that we respectfully disagree is lifting the caps for rents to go as high as they want. That was a request, and that’s not what we’re doing. We’ve got a cap in place.

The second request was to not require bailiffs when a court’s judgment needs to be taken forward. I have highlighted that that is not within the control of the ministry. We cannot direct the courts to use police or security. The courts decide what they want, and the courts have decided they want to use bailiffs. It’s a conversation the AG can have with the courts, but it’s not something the government can fix.

All the other measurements that have been highlighted we’ve taken steps to address — reduction of wait times, more balance and fairness.

The member will also know that during the peak of the challenges we were dealing with, we had, for personal use, moved from two months to four months. And the reason why we did that was that the fastest increase in homelessness was among seniors, and we were seeing more seniors showing up at shelters.

What seniors were telling us in particular, through the seniors advocate and through other reports, was that when they got evicted, they just did not have enough time to be able to find another place that they could afford. By having that period so short, they were often finding themselves in homeless situations, so we moved it to four months.

Now, as vacancy rates go up, with the changes we just made, we’ve reduced that to three months. And if the vacancy rates continue, then we can go back to a different number. But it was important for families, and also, it was a challenge for young families.

[6:35 p.m.]

We heard so many young families who said: “We just got evicted. Somebody said they need the space for themselves. Our kids go to school in this neighbourhood. We can’t find a place. Now we’ve got to figure out where we’re going to move our family, where the kids will go to school.” And the time frame for all of that was too tight. That’s the rationale for why the changes were made.

Again, we’ve made a whole host of changes to create more balance. I’m really proud of the team at the RTB for seeing the reductions that they’ve seen. Regular hearings went from 18 weeks to 5½ weeks. We publish this data every month, so that people can see. I believe we’re within service standards for every single item — for phone call wait times, for unpaid rent.

One of the measures that we did last year also was to expedite cases where there was unpaid rent. If a person was not paying rent, we knew that there was a high chance that those cases would go in favour of the landlord.

So what we did was that we said, “Why don’t we just move those up in the front of the queue and just address them right off the bat?” It went from 12 weeks’ wait to now having decisions within three weeks — again, all trying to create that balance, all trying to show that we can move in that direction.

In fact, I had met with, just before the election, the minister from Ontario, who has a massive crisis of landlord-tenant disputes and wait times. They were asking us what we have done to get our times to where we’re at, and we were sharing information. There’s still always more work to do, but we have taken substantial steps to be able to address this challenge.

Linda Hepner: Thank you, Minister, for the comprehensive analysis. It would actually help me if I had something written out so that I could define how many steps you have already taken relative to that issue, because I do get a lot of complaints.

I certainly understand that the minister has got a tough balancing act, but landlords right now are feeling that they don’t want to rent their properties. That’s not a place that’s going to help any one of us, when we’re trying to create housing and not make those units that are available no longer available because they’re afraid someone’s either going to wreck it or not pay.

Thanks for the information. If I could have it in written form so I can sing that same song, it would be very helpful, if that would be agreeable.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Chair, we will get the member the service standards that are set, and where we are within the service standards. We will get, for the member, all the recent changes that have been made as of late, and we will get that all, via email, as soon as we can.

Linda Hepner: I’m just wondering. I’ve had a question regarding what process is in place to confirm that those who are being evicted for family moving in have actually been displaced for that reason. I’ve had exactly the opposite question asked of me last week, so I do understand the two-edged sword here. If the minister could give me some analysis on that process.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That is a serious concern for many who have been living in a home for a long time, when someone says, “Hey, I need it for personal use.” You know, they leave there and are then finding a place to rent for substantially higher. Then they find out that in fact, it wasn’t for personal use. They’d just wanted them out because they wanted somebody else, to get a rent.

That happened a lot. There are a couple of reports that came out last year highlighting that personal-use eviction was one of the leading causes of homelessness. That’s alarming for all of us.

One of the things we did was, as I shared, during the peak, the lowest-vacancy-rate period, we moved the time from two to four months. We also changed the rules to say that if you are caught, you’re paying, I believe, 12 months of lost paid rent.

[6:40 p.m.]

We’ve also launched a digital portal. What we often heard from tenants was that they didn’t have any information about what’s happening and what the process is. A digital process allowed us to do two things.

It made it easier for landlords to actually serve a notice. If they did need it for personal use, they were able to use a digital portal to put some information in and get some information to be able to share. It also gave the potential for a tenant to get some information that they may need to ensure that it’s being followed properly. And it gave us the opportunity to actually track how often it’s being used.

We’ve had a lot of success from that. We’ve actually seen a lot of decrease of people using personal use because now there are more measures in place. One of the things, using that, is that you have to, essentially, sign a waiver saying that you’re doing this in a just way. We continue to track that issue.

It was a bigger issue when we saw a rapid rise in rents because people saw an opportunity to evict somebody. I’m not saying everybody. I just want to make sure that’s clear. But some, certainly. It’s a challenge when you’re trying to balance the needs of someone who’s got a home, who genuinely wants to do that, to someone who’s abusing the system.

I’m hoping that the monetary orders being public now will help deter that type of activity. I’m hoping that it will also ensure that for example, if a tenant is going to a place, and they lose their deposit, and the deposit is not being paid back, and then they go and go through the process, that will be on there as well.

This was an important piece. I heard from tenants, saying: “I wish I had known this landlord has this history.” And I hear from landlords, saying: “I wish I knew the tenant has this history.” So I think by posting that information, that will be an important step. We are putting some provisions in place for where there are cases of domestic violence, etc., so that that information is not public to make sure that people are protected.

Back to the main point of the question, which is yes, we need to continue to have those measures in place to protect people from people that use that clause to unjustly move people out of their homes.

Rosalyn Bird: I’d like to change topics for a little bit and talk about the short-term-rental registry. The province launched the short-term-rental registry to help families find places to live. On the website, it indicates that registration fees will support short-term-rental enforcement programs and help to ensure that homes are being used for people living and working in B.C.

Can the minister explain to me what the rental enforcement program is, and how many people will it be employing?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member was asking…. I don’t want to give a long answer for a question the member is not interested in, so is the member wanting me to walk through how the short-term-rental enforcement is going to happen, going forward?

[6:45 p.m.]

If so, the member can let me know. I can kind of walk through the whole thing. But if the member just wants to know how many people, I can tell the member that we have a compliance enforcement director, and they have seven staff.

Rosalyn Bird: The reason I’m asking about the rental enforcement program….

There is an indication on the website that you have a provincial compliance unit. Is that part of the rental enforcement program? The director and seven staff — is that compliance unit included?

You’ve got two listings on your website, so I’m trying to figure out if they’re two different organizations or if it’s one, and one falls under the other.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’ve got two different units. One is associated to the RTB and making sure that there is compliance around landlords and tenants. And yup, there is another unit that’s short-term-rental-focused.

Rosalyn Bird: Are the employees that are going to be part of the rental enforcement program going to be public service employees, or has that been contracted out?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All of these are public servants. There’s no outsourcing for this.

Rosalyn Bird: Are you aware of or are you able to provide what pay level the employees would be at?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All of it is done through the public sector classifications. We have one band 4 director, one AO 21, two people that are AO 24, four that are at AO 118. The member can find all the wage classifications online. I can share….

The member is okay? Okay. Thank you.

Rosalyn Bird: That number of staff, the director and the seven staff, as part of the rental enforcement program — does that also include, or are they doing the work at, the registry itself? How many employees are you expecting or projecting to need, say, over the next six to 12 months as the registry rolls out?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: For both the enforcement and the registry, there are 25 employees, and the budget is about $3.6 million.

Rosalyn Bird: Once the registration is up and running — the fees are starting to be collected in May and June, in that time frame, and people are already registering — can you elaborate?

If the fees collected are more than the operation and the management of the program itself, where are those moneys going to be used? Will they be earmarked for housing projects, which is what this program was initially set up to help with, or will those moneys be going back to general revenue?

[6:55 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’re still at the estimates phase, so it’s hard to know exactly the revenue we’ll get. That said, any additional dollars would, in the immediate, go to general revenue. But it would give us an opportunity, after one year, to assess the amount needed to operate the system, compared to what we expect, in dollars, to come.

Those things can fluctuate, right? We see over 20,000 units this year. We could see less next year, or we could see more. Because we’re still in it, it’s hard to know exactly, but it’s something for next year’s estimates, for sure, that we’ll be considering.

Rosalyn Bird: To the minister: can you confirm whether this registry is intended to be temporary, until the housing crisis has been met, or is this a registry that you intend to keep indefinitely?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, it’s important for the member to know that UBCM requested us to create a provincial, ongoing registry. Local governments were having major challenges with two things: (1) not getting accurate data and not knowing exactly what is happening in their communities and (2) not being able to actually enforce their rules.

What we’ve seen are two things. Since our registry has come online, we’re seeing a significant increase in compliance to local government bylaws and to local government permitting. In some communities, when we shared preliminary numbers, there were in the 50 percents of people that actually registered with the local government compared to those that were operating on different platforms. So we are going to expect to see better compliance.

We may even see, in fact, a lot of local governments move away from their own systems, because our provincial registry does pretty much what they need to do with enforcement, etc. Our projected expectation is that it’s in the budget, and it’s ongoing.

We may get to a place where, as the Premier highlighted…. The legislation states pretty clearly that if communities have a two-year average of more than 3 percent vacancy rate, they can opt out. We may get to that point — hopefully; that’s a healthy thing — for communities to be able to get that vacancy rate and have the ability, if they choose so, to opt out.

That will affect the numbers. If we get to a place where there are not many communities left, that’s a different consideration. But at this point, this is an ongoing program.

Rosalyn Bird: Could I request clarification on the comments that you just made, Minister? Are you indicating that various villages and/or cities or areas have an opportunity to actually opt out of the registry?

The Chair: Member, just a reminder that those questions should come through the Chair, please.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: My comment is that under the legislation around short-term rentals, communities have the ability to opt out of principal residence requirements if their vacancy rate is above 3 percent for two consecutive years.

Rosalyn Bird: That is not the understanding that I’ve received from the office. Can we get clarification of that? My understanding is, whether there is a primary residence or you are exempt in a primary-residence area, that you still have to actually register through the short-term registry.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Correct. I think I’m correct, and the member is correct. If you’ve got a vacancy rate at 3 percent, you can opt out of principal residence requirements, but if you do have a short-term rental still in your community, you’re still required to register.

That’s important for local governments. I’ll give an example. If you have a community that does not have a bylaw system at all — and you’ve got, right now, an operator, someone that’s running short-term rental in your community — if the local government has an issue, there’s no way of them enforcing anything on that property unless they use our portal.

It’s important for the registry to happen because local governments can use the portal to notify a landlord. Often what happens is that people don’t even know who the landlord is, and it’s always a challenge to figure that out. Now you can use the portal to send a direct message to the owner, the landlord of the unit, and also, if it needs to be amplified, use the same portal to send a direct message to the platform, for removal of a listing.

The member is correct, and I think my statement was correct as well.

[7:00 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: The provincial principal residence requirement is intended to be a floor or minimum standard for regulating short-term rentals, according to the website. This statement would imply that there is going to be further regulation coming for short-term rentals. Is that actually the case?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll share an example with the member. Victoria has rules that are above and beyond what the province has set. They don’t allow short-term rentals in ADUs, so that’s what’s being referred to here. There is a base, but local governments, if they choose, can go above and beyond and have additional measures if they feel it’s appropriate for their community.

Rosalyn Bird: The STRA indicates that hosts and platforms are required to register annually. They are also required to pay unit fees per year. Is this going to be indefinite, or is this just going to be for the next few years until you have a good grasp on the registry?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The fees to the platforms are a yearly fee. For a platform that has more than 1,000 units, it’s $5,000 a year. For a platform that has less than 1,000 units, it’s $600 a year.

Rosalyn Bird: So the hosts are going to also be required to pay fees annually through the registry?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s correct. There’s a smaller fee for hosts, and there’s a larger fee for the platforms. If you have a short-term rental in a property which you live in, it’s $100 a year. If you have a short-term rental that you do not live in, so it’s a complete home, it’s $450 a year. If you are a strata hotel, the entire strata hotel fee is $600.

Rosalyn Bird: This has been an ongoing challenge in my riding, Prince George–Valemount. We are a resort municipality, so I’m going to ask a few more questions. These are questions that I’ve been challenged with over the last few months and that have gone back and forth. Some of those questions have been directed to the ministry’s office, but the answers haven’t been completely clear.

How were short-term-rental hosts notified?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Perhaps the member can clarify. Notified of what?

Rosalyn Bird: Notified that they needed to register on the short-term-rental registry.

[7:05 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The platforms shared with us information about anyone that has listings on their properties. We sent three emails to every unit or every host. We sent one physical letter. The platforms also sent multiple notifications to all of their hosts on their site. Of course, we did public awareness and paid media advertisement around it as well.

Rosalyn Bird: If I understood you correctly, it was the actual platforms that had to notify the hosts that they had to register on the short-term-rental registry, and there was notification sent by email and by letter form. Is that correct?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll just repeat it again. The platforms were required last year to share with us, the government, emails and home addresses of anyone that’s a host, so we have that information. The province sent three emails to hosts. We sent one physical mail to everyone that was sent to us from the platforms. The platforms notified people that list on their properties as well.

Rosalyn Bird: Thank you for the clarification. The reason I was asking the question specifically is that I have a number of short-term rentals in my riding that did not receive notification and are very confused about that.

The reason I was…. I’m going to go back to the platforms themselves. Which platforms did the ministry or is the ministry working with in regards to the short-term-rental registry? Are we talking about Booking.com, Airbnb, VRBO, Expedia, Trivago, Marketplace, Kijiji, UsedVictoria?

The Chair: Just a warning that we’re going to call a recess here shortly, after the minister answers this question.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s an extensive list. There are 69 platforms across the province that are registered. Marketplace is not one of them because Marketplace doesn’t actually do transactions. But there are 69.

Perhaps it might be easier if I just send an email with the…?

Perhaps we can have dinner for five minutes or ten minutes, and then we’ll come back and I’ll be able to share that with the member.

The Chair: Minister, we gave 15 and it took 20 last night, so we were going to try ten tonight and aim for 15 — so 15 sharp.

This House will stand recessed. Thank you very much.

The committee recessed from 7:09 p.m. to 7:21 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

The Chair: Thank you, everybody. We’ll bring this chamber back to order.

We are discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs today.

We’ll turn to the minister for a comment.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We were just touching on the 69 platforms. We’re going to just check to see if I can share all 69 platforms. I’ve just got to check legally if I’m allowed to share all the names.

I can share with the member that all the majors — Airbnb, Booking.com and Expedia — are the biggest players. They’ve all got more than 1,000 listings. Those were the three that provide us the majority of the hosts’ information, email addresses, etc.

Rosalyn Bird: Is there a plan in place or a process for the short-term rentals that were not given notifications that they had to register on the registry?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, everyone can still register, and we still are getting registrations coming in. The challenge is that you can only directly communicate to those that you know that operate, that are there. We’re doing that. A lot of it requires the media. A lot of it comes through some of the paid advertising we’ve done. So we’re doing everything we can to reach as many people as possible.

Rosalyn Bird: What is the incentive for large platforms like Booking.com or Expedia or even smaller platforms to participate in this process? They have to pay a large fee.

No disrespect, but there are approximately 28,000 short-term rentals across this province. I find it hard to believe that one director and seven staff are actually going to be able to manage that amount of administration between themselves, so the opportunity for people to participate and continue to do short-term rentals is very high. I’m just curious what that looks like for the ministry.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it goes to the question I was asking earlier. If the member wants me to give an overview, I’m happy to do that.

First off, platforms are required by law. This was part of the deliberations when the legislation came in last year. We’re not asking for goodwill from the platforms. This is a requirement for them to participate.

This is a fundamental challenge that local governments struggled with. They were all relying on goodwill, hoping that the platforms would listen. Vancouver had an agreement with some of the large platforms but rarely got the complete information. No other community had that. So that was the reason why local governments asked us to create a provincewide registry.

Now with our registry that’s launched, every single platform, by law, must show a provincial ID of every listing that they have on their website. In order for them to have a provincial ID, they must register through the province.

Local governments benefit because they’re now going to have exact information of what’s on there. Anyone that….

[7:25 p.m.]

Well, platforms. If platforms are caught with listings that don’t have a provincial ID, there’s a significant fine associated with it, not just a one-time but an ongoing fine. Hosts that don’t comply have a fine associated with it as well. So there are enforcement tools in place.

We have already over 20,000 hosts that have already registered and fairly good compliance from the platforms, I have to say. I’m confident that we’ll be able to enforce the measures.

Because the listings are online, we are able to scan digitally to be able to see what listings are there, see if there are multiple numbers. We’re able to, very importantly, share that data, because of the legislation, with the Ministry of Finance, which has its own registry that was designed after some of the money-laundering issues that we had in the casinos.

They have information about who owns what property, whose principal residence, who has got investment properties, and more importantly, who owns the properties, not just numbered companies but actual names. So that is an important link from a money-laundering perspective that I think is an additional benefit to the entire operation that we have.

The teams investigate, maybe, perhaps, through complaints that may come. They also can identify through different systems if there’s an inappropriate ID that comes of display. So there’s a whole host of ways for them to be able to do that.

We have had to issue some fines. Now, this is prior to the registry. The registry, obviously, takes our enforcement to another level, but previous to that, it was very much complaint driven. We’ve had cases where individuals were identified to have multiple properties and not principal residence. When the issues were highlighted, they took their properties down off the listings, and then a few weeks later put them back up and, of course, we monitor these things.

There’s a whole host of ways that investigations could happen, but to the members’ main question, the registry allows us to scale it to another level. The database system or the portal system allows us to efficiently communicate between local government, host, platform. The province can connect with host and platform in a very efficient way with some timelines of when listings have to come down. So it just raises enforcement to a different level.

Rosalyn Bird: What was the rationale that was used when you determined that resort municipalities would not be exempt from the registry? Those areas are designated areas for tourists. They are areas that are highly popular across the province. Of course, one of the primary reasons people go there is because there are lots of accommodations.

There have been restrictions that have been put in place now. A lot of the operators in these types of areas, because they’re small villages, small towns, small businesses that are family owned and operated…. I wouldn’t disagree that the province is definitely benefiting from the registry. However, I would disagree that…. It is not in the benefit for the small operator that is being forced to use the registry.

So how are you anticipating…? What was the consultation that was done between various ministries when looking at the registry and the impacts on not only small business but on tourism across the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: When this legislation was brought forward, there was extensive consultation. It was a recommendation that came from UBCM. They also did consultation. We engaged with tourism-dependent communities. We notified them all that we were moving in this direction. Many communities reached out to have one-on-one meetings with us.

I think everyone benefits. If you’ve got a community that’s a tourism-dependent community and you’ve got a property that continuously has large house parties and everybody else is annoyed, how are they going to address that if they don’t have a registry? They can ask the platform if they will, out of their goodwill, take action.

But we’ve seen in community after community that it hasn’t been effective. So now that they’re registered, they can use the portal and a message gets sent directly to the platform.

[7:30 p.m.]

There’s a level of compliance that wouldn’t have existed without the portal. The consultation was extensive. We didn’t get to this in just a few weeks. This was years of advocacy from local governments for the province to bring something in with teeth so that they could ensure that housing was prioritized for people in our communities.

Rosalyn Bird: Hosts that do not comply will have their listings taken down on May 1 and have future bookings cancelled starting June 1. So for those smaller operators that did not get notification, and there are a number of them in my area, what is going to happen with the tourists, particularly the ones coming from out of country, who arrive to find that they don’t have any accommodation bookings this summer when they’re visiting from out of country?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It takes ten minutes for someone to register. Folks can do that fairly quickly. The platforms will have their APIs up and running by June 2. So we expect that if there’s someone not following the rules, within a couple of weeks there will be requests for a takedown.

Again, the system is designed in a way that we first want to urge compliance. We don’t want to go straight to enforcement. So if the member has folks that haven’t registered, it’s a ten-minute process, and folks should be encouraged to register.

Rosalyn Bird: I don’t disagree with anything that you just said, but I can’t encourage somebody to register if I don’t know that they’re operating.

That is actually my concern, particularly in these smaller communities where people aren’t necessarily advertising on some of these bigger platforms. The reason I have a number of these questions is because this has been brought up over the last few months in my particular riding.

I’m going to repeat a question that I asked earlier because I am concerned about it. If the ministry put out notification through the platforms that they were aware of because the platforms had indicated who was and who wasn’t renting, but they did….

Actually, I’ll ask a clarification question. Did the ministry reach out to municipalities and/or villages to ask them to provide also a list of small renters or small, short-term rentals in their area so that everybody that they were aware of would actually receive official notification?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I say this respectfully to the member, if there is a host that hasn’t registered, say as of June 2, when the platform notices that there’s no provincial ID number, they’re going to notify them and say: “You’ve got a listing here, but you don’t have a provincial ID number. Can you share that with us?” At that point, they’ll realize that they perhaps didn’t know that they needed to get it, and then it’s a ten-minute process.

It should be fairly easy for anyone that has a listing on a platform. The platforms are going to know right away who doesn’t have that, because they’re not allowed listing it, and they’re going to want them on the listing. They’re just going to send them a notice to say: “You don’t have a provincial ID. Here’s what you need to do. Ten minutes. Register and you’re on.”

There is a lot of time. We did send a notice to all local governments that the registry was coming. We didn’t ask them to notify us, but there was an opportunity for local governments to notify people in their communities if they chose to do so.

I appreciate the member’s concern that a host may not know today, but they are going to know when the platforms come back to them and say, “You have no provincial ID,” and suggest to them: “It takes ten minutes to go online. You’re going to get a provincial ID and use that to put all your listings up.” There are many opportunities for that to happen.

[7:35 p.m.]

Rosalyn Bird: I do actually have a property in my area. They are renting a small number of cabins. They advertise on their own website. Of course, they did not receive a notification. They were given information through the registry when they called that they had to both register as a host and as a platform.

My question is: if you have a small independent operator that is now required to register as a host and as a platform, are they going to be required to follow all of the same reporting requirements as any of the larger platforms?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Could I suggest to the member that if they’ve got a unique situation like that, the member share that information with us now or after, and we can have our team reach out to help them navigate the process? Many operations that are really small in nature can also get exemptions, but we need to understand the model that is there, and we can help them out.

Rosalyn Bird: The registry has communicated that Airbnbs are single-room units, so they don’t meet the definition of a dwelling, but they are required to register and to pay a $100 fee for a shared home. Operators in my area have been told they have to pay a $100 fee per room within that home.

For example, if I have a primary residence and I am renting six rooms in my house, I will be required to pay $600 per year, of course, plus the service fee of $1.50. Can the minister confirm that for me, please?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I’ll repeat what I previously said. If the member has an operator in the community that has unique challenges, we can have the STR team reach out and figure out what it is, because we’re talking hypotheticals.

If there are six units, then it’s $100 per unit. But again, we’ve had some small platforms that operate in that type of environment get exemptions. We can go back and forth, but if the member wants to help these folks, the best thing to do is have our team connect right after this and meet with them directly to figure it out.

Rosalyn Bird: Just to go back to the $100, you actually had said earlier that the $100 fee was for a household. If we could actually get full clarification on that, whether it’s $100 per room or if it is $100 per shared household, that would be greatly appreciated.

Moving on to a different type of…. Well, same topic, different question. I had asked the office what the difference was between a hotel-motel with a kitchenette and a purpose-built STR. I was told that motel-hotels cannot be occupied as a principal residence, which, based on a number of the conversations we had yesterday, is interesting because there are a lot of people living in hotels currently.

How is the province able to use hotels for short-term supportive housing, yet private property owners and investors that have built and have purchased purpose-built short-term rentals prior to the registry…? Why are they being penalized?

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There is information about definitions around hotels and motels on the STR website. Is there something specific the member would like to know?

Rosalyn Bird: I have an example, actually. There is a building here in Victoria — the minister may or may not be aware of it — called the Janion building. It’s just to the left of the Johnson Street Bridge actually. It’s a beautiful old stone building with a glass-and-steel frontage that has been added to it. That building was purpose-built as a short-term-rental building. The idea behind…. There are a number of them around the province, but that one happens to be here in Victoria.

Those buildings were built prior to the registry being implemented, and they were built for a specific purpose. A lot of those buildings, particularly the Janion…. Companies and/or individuals have purchased those units to come into town and work for weeks at a time so that they don’t have to have a hotel. They were never intended and/or built for somebody to live in on a permanent or long-term basis, similar to a hotel type of situation.

A lot of money was invested in, well, that particular building and a number of those types of buildings around the province, and owners are now losing money and having to sell units, but they’re challenged in selling those units because the majority of people are not going to purchase them at the purchase price they’re being offered at because they’re not designed to be lived in permanently and full-time.

I’m trying to understand what the premise was or the understanding. Why would we as a province be penalizing people that have spent a significant amount of money and invested in a particular type of housing, whether you call it permanent or not permanent, in this province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We canvassed this legislation at great length when it was introduced, but I’ll just say to the member: how does the member know that those units are not able to be lived in long term?

Rosalyn Bird: Whether they can or cannot be…. I mean, I can live in a hotel room for a long period of time also, but it says right on your website, right on the registry, that a hotel room is not considered to be a permanent-residence living space.

If you build something that is of the same square footage, and you build it intentionally that it be used as a temporary space, and that was part of the building model and part of the building plan, I don’t think those individuals that purchased those units for that opportunity should be penalized.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I will ask the question: how does the member know that those units cannot be lived in long term? I say that with all seriousness, because there are people that live in that building long term. In fact, many of those units went on rent for long term. So it’s a genuine question for the member. What assumptions are being made to assume that those units can’t be lived in long term?

Rosalyn Bird: I’m not making those assumptions at all. I will actually ask a different question.

Based on the question that you just asked me, are you intending to have the hotels you have purchased around the province register on the short-term-rental registry?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: They’re classified as supportive housing, so it’s a different situation.

[7:45 p.m.]

It doesn’t actually make any sense in the context of what we’re discussing. The government owns those units. They’re for vulnerable populations — to get them off the street, to get them wraparound supports. They’re not being operated for tourists coming to British Columbia. So I’m not quite sure of the relevance of the question.

Rosalyn Bird: We will have to agree to disagree on this point. There are a large number of British Columbians across this province that are losing substantial amounts of money in investments because they bought units in a building that were intended as short-term rentals and that are no longer being allowed to be used for that.

As of May 1, 2024, short-term-rental hosts were required to display a valid business number on their listings where a business licence is required by the local government. Platforms will also be required to enable the posting of this business licence number.

Many smaller communities, many in resort municipalities, are not given business licence numbers that are now necessary to be posted on the advertising platforms. How is the ministry addressing these types of challenges with online platforms before the deadline dates are met?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m just presuming that the member is heading to the question around what was canvassed with the member from Kelowna yesterday, which is when a business licence is required.

For example, in Kelowna where a business licence was just required and people need to register, what we’re accepting for the registry is proof of application. We can do the check later to ensure that the application went through and that the local government approves the business licence.

Rosalyn Bird: In Valemount, for example, if you are operating a small business that has an Airbnb — I can think of a particular property — and some cabins on it, there is not a business licence per se given out for that particular operation. But on the registry, it is required that that actual licence number be added to the platform drop-down list, and there’s no ability to do that if you don’t have it.

There are concerns for people in these smaller communities that don’t have that particular number that if it’s not on the platform, because they don’t have anything to put on the platform, their listings are going to be cancelled.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That portion is only for communities that have business licences, that they issue business licences. For example, in Surrey, they issue a business licence, so people put the number in, but in Valemount, if there’s no business licensing regime, then they don’t need to put that in.

We have information for our validation of which communities require a business licence and which ones don’t, because the local governments have shared that information with us, so it should not be an issue.

Rosalyn Bird: I appreciate that information. My concern is how will the platform know to notify the registry to confirm that this particular community doesn’t give out these types of licence numbers?

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It doesn’t involve the platforms at all. Our system already has a capacity built in for when people put their address in to identify whether the specific property is in an area that has a business licensing regime.

If someone, for example, in Victoria registers on our registry and they don’t put a business licence in, they will be notified: “You are in a community that requires a business licence, and you need to contact your local government to get it.” In the case of Valemount, a person would register, they wouldn’t put a business licence in, and it would go through without a notification.

Rosalyn Bird: I just want to clarify. I’m looking at the platform requirements currently. I want to make sure that I’m understanding this correctly so I can tell my constituents that this is the case.

In the platform requirements overview, it actually indicates that short-term-rental platforms operating in B.C. are required — there are a number of requirements, nine in total — to include a number of pieces of information. The one that’s third from the bottom says “business licence number.” That is a requirement on the platform when you go to register your short-term rental.

My concern is that if that information is not provided, and the platform does not reach out to the registry, there is going to be an issue with bookings or something being cancelled. I just want to clarify.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member.

Again, it’s the same answer as I provided, which is that our registry has, by address, an automatic system that notifies people if they’re in an area that requires a business licence.

In Valemount, if the member is saying that there’s no business licence regime in the community, then they don’t need to put a business licence number in. The system automatically notifies them if it’s required. If I were in Victoria and I’m putting my information in and I don’t put a business licence in, the system will right away notify me because I’m listing a property in Victoria that requires a business licence. That’s the difference between the two.

Rosalyn Bird: Just to go back to the same sort of question, slightly different: the platforms are required to share information about short-term-rental listings directly with the province. Platforms are required to provide two types of reports to the province on the 15th of each month via the STR data portal. They have to provide a monthly data and a monthly takedown report.

Was the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner consulted as to what information would be appropriate to collect by the ministry?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, it was, but we are heading way into relitigating legislation that was passed in this House some time ago.

I want to try to answer as many questions from members as I can, but I’m hoping we can concentrate on the estimates here instead of going back to something that was probably one of the longest debates of legislation, certainly, that I’ve been part of in the previous government.

Linda Hepner: I’m just going to ask a couple of questions as we move closer to our midnight hour here.

[7:55 p.m.]

One of them, I know, is contentious because it’s…. The minister himself has spoken about how difficult it is, and I have personal knowledge of that from local government, to find a spot for shelters and housing. It’s difficult to find places for permanent shelters.

There is one that is probably now on the minister’s top-of-mind list, and that is the one that is creating a lot of dissension in Burnaby at 3020 Gilmore Diversion. It is next to a casino and a bar, and there is a lot of angst amongst residents there who are in a retirement home that it could not be a less appealing choice for a shelter.

I’m just wondering if the minister can let me know what processes are in place for selecting sites for permanent shelters and supportive housing, because at first blush, this certainly does not seem to me to be conducive to people who are already addicts and suffering from various addictions — to be right next door to a casino and bar.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I know the member was a mayor and had to make some tough decisions about where to put folks. We have similar challenges in all communities.

I would just say that we’ve been having lots of discussions with communities around needing to step up and do a little bit so that some communities don’t have to do a lot. This was a preferred location for the local government, from all the locations that we were able to come up with as options.

We are engaged with local government, and I appreciate that any time a shelter has come into place, any time there’s supportive housing, it comes with some concerns. We certainly will mitigate those concerns as best we can and monitor how that goes as we go forward. It’s something that we’re in continual conversations with the city of Burnaby on.

There’s a shortage of shelters and supportive housing in Burnaby. The mayor and council are well aware of the challenge. This opportunity came available for us. From all the options, this was the best option that we could come up with.

Again, my commitment to the mayor and council and community is that we’ll continue to monitor that site to see if there are in fact issues. Any time something new comes into the community, I appreciate that it raises some anxiety for people.

Linda Hepner: Thank you for the comments, Mr. Minister, but I’m wondering if there is an analysis that is made to say: “We have these kinds of shelters or this kind of housing that we need to provide. These people are very vulnerable. Let’s not put them immediately too close to a school. Let’s not put them close to a casino. Let’s not put them close to a bar.”

I’m just wondering what the measurements are. I certainly can commiserate that there’s no easy solution. I faced many of those same decisions. But there are generally criteria where you say: “These are no goes, and these are possible.”

I would like to know from the ministry: what are the criteria for no goes?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This is an office and industrial area. I appreciate that, I guess, not far from there, there are some people that live there as well.

I will just share with the member — actually, I am sure the member knows from her time in Surrey — that there are supportive housing and shelters near bars. If the concern is that it’s really close to a casino, that’s a different conversation. Perhaps there are issues being raised by the casino that they don’t want people in the community nearby them, but we’ll have those conversations.

Again, I’ll go back to the comment I made earlier, which is…. You know, there’s the chant, “What do we want? Housing. Where do we want it?” then silence. We have to find places. This was, from all the options that we could find, the most reasonable for the local government.

[8:00 p.m.]

My commitment is that we’ll continue to monitor it, but there are a lot of people struggling in Burnaby. I’m actually saying hats-off to that community for saying: “Yes, let’s do something for people.” We’ll continue to work with them as we go forward.

Linda Hepner: I’m just conscious of the time. I know I have a lot more questions to go through.

I’m going to skip to home ownership for a moment and the fundamentals of home ownership, as opposed to rental, because I know that the ministry has focused a lot on rentals and people becoming perpetually indebted to government to supply housing for them as a tenant.

I’m wondering if the minister can confirm what percentage of British Columbians are homeowners and can clarify whether or not the ministry has set more explicit targets for initial benchmarks to increase home ownership rates in B.C., as opposed to people having to rent their homes.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: A lot of the programs that we do through B.C. Housing are focused on rental because we want to keep the land. We don’t want to just sell the land.

We also invest a lot in co-op. We’ve got new co-ops opening up, which are popular in many communities, and we certainly will be looking to do more of that.

We have the attainable home ownership plan or partnership that we’re looking to roll out on Heather Lands. That’ll be an opportunity, on leased land, for home ownership.

If the member will look at the changes we made around allowing fourplexes or six units near transit, that’s really what we’re getting at. We’re trying to get at the opportunity for people to get into home ownership. That entire home is not affordable for young families, but if that home can be broken up into two or three units, it becomes more attainable because the prices are lower.

We are trying to target the opportunity for people to get into home ownership. It means easing restrictions. It means making it easier for someone to build a triplex or a fourplex, maybe just as easy as it is to make a very large single-family home, because we know that large single-family home is not attainable.

Now, it is attainable for some. I certainly have said this on the record many times: if people still want the single-family home, then the market will continue to deliver it. But for a lot of people, they can’t afford that single-family home, and we need to make it flexible enough, our rules flexible enough, so that homebuilders can look at the market and meet the market’s needs.

We are doing a lot to enable home ownership — we do believe it’s critically important — through some government programs, cutting red tape so that we can get more of these homes built in our communities. I think we need to create that pathway.

Finally, I’ll say that for a lot of people, they don’t want to own a home. They’re happy renting, and there’s nothing wrong with that as well.

Sheldon Clare: Airbnb owners who’ve been in discussions with me have expressed concerns about how decisions were made in the budget that affected their businesses.

I wanted to ask the minister: what was the nature of commitments made to the motel/hotel industry regarding Airbnbs which led to that type of business being shut down? Did these commitments have anything to do with any major sporting events that were happening?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This legislation passed a long time ago. I’d like to focus on the estimates. There are a lot of things that the Housing Ministry does. Perhaps we can continue to focus on that.

If the member is making an accusation of some sort, he should just say it. He’s a straight shooter, so if he’s saying that there’s something, I’d like him to say it.

[8:05 p.m.]

In fact, I’d like him to come outside in the hallway and say it publicly, because suggesting that there are some sort of nefarious actions being taken, I think, is a little bit inappropriate.

Sheldon Clare: I was making no accusation, Minister. I was asking a question.

Harman Bhangu: My question to the Minister of Housing: is the minister aware of the $50 million grant funding request made by the Vancity Community Foundation to his ministry on November 29, 2024?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question.

I’m not aware of it, but my team says that there has been a request come from Vancity. But I haven’t had a chance to explore that at all.

Harman Bhangu: Is the minister aware that his chief of staff met with Vancity about the funding request on December 13, 2024?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware that this request was something that Vancity met with my chief of staff on. I’m not sure how the member knows that it’s about this topic. My staff informed me that the request came just to them now, but I’m not aware, no.

Harman Bhangu: Is the minister aware that Nicola Hill, principal of Nicola Hill Strategies, registered to lobby the Ministry of Housing on behalf of Vancity?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I’m not sure. No one has lobbied me from Vancity, so I’m not aware of that.

Harman Bhangu: Is the minister aware that his sister’s government relations and lobbying firm claims to work with Nicola Hill and lists Nicola Hill as a collaborative partner on the lobbying company’s website in the section titled “Our team”?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware if they’re still working together, I’m not aware of any meeting, and I’m not aware of any requests. I have no idea what the member is referring to.

Harman Bhangu: After your sister Parm Kahlon’s collaborative partner registered to lobby your ministry for Vancity about the $50 million funding request, is the minister aware that multiple senior officials in Ministry of Housing met with Vancity about the funding request?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not aware of any meetings. I’m not aware of any requests except for what my staff has just informed me.

Harman Bhangu: Was the minister or his staff aware of those meetings between Vancity and the Ministry of Housing officials?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I just notified the member on the record that I wasn’t aware of any of those meetings. In fact, I wasn’t even aware of a request until the member asked and my staff just notified me then.

Harman Bhangu: Has the Minister of Housing or his staff had any communications with Nicola Hill or Parm Kahlon about Vancity Community Foundation in the last six months?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: No, I have not.

Harman Bhangu: Have Ministry of Housing officials briefed the minister or his staff about the meetings with Vancity or the funding requests from Vancity or any other information related to the funding requests?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We get lots of funding requests. I was not made aware of it. In fact, my team just notified me that they got a letter requesting funding, but I had not been notified of that previously.

Harman Bhangu: Is the minister aware of the nature of financial arrangements between his sister’s firm, Core Firm, and Nicola Hill Strategies Ltd.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not, but I’m well aware of conflict-of-interest rules. If the member has an allegation he wants to make, it’s a good place to take it to.

[8:10 p.m.]

I will just notify the member that he has made some borderline slanderous comments in the past, and I’ve always referred them to go to the conflict commissioner. In fact, the opposition has made accusations in the past, and every single time it goes to the conflict commissioner, it gets ruled against.

So if the member has something that he’s concerned about, I believe the commissioner is the place to go.

Harman Bhangu: Is the minister aware that Opreet Kang, who co-founded lobbying company Core Firm with his sister, is on the board of Vancity Credit Union, which is connected to the Vancity Community Foundation?

The Chair: Member, I will just warn that we are here to discuss Vote 33, so I hope we’ll get there soon.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, I just want to echo that as well. We’re here to debate the estimates.

If the member has concerns, I welcome him to take them to the conflict commissioner. That’s the appropriate place. I’d like to focus on the estimates at hand.

Harman Bhangu: Is the minister aware of other lobbyist registrations made by Nicola strategies to directly lobby the Ministry of Housing?

The Chair: We’re going to try to get back to Vote 33, but does the minister have a comment on that?

Thank you, Members.

Linda Hepner: I’m going to talk about skilled trades and the shrinking construction industry and the fact that in March of this year, B.C. experienced a 30 percent decrease in housing starts. Vancouver recorded a 59 percent decrease, driven lower by decreases in multi-unit starts.

The critics are pointing to various policies, and we’ve had those discussions around some of the regulatory restrictions that I believe are fuelling some of the non-construction projects. We’re seeing local governments get lots of approvals, but we’re not seeing, particularly, a lot of building permits.

I’ll use the city of Surrey, because that’s the one I know best. For all of the housing units they have approved this year, there are 44,000 that have not taken out building permits. I know there is a decline in the actual construction. A lot of that will have to do with workers, but much of it has to do with policies and where we are financially and economically in this province and some of the regulatory streams that are holding it back.

If I could ask the ministry how they can claim success on housing and infrastructure while we’re simultaneously seeing a declining construction workforce that is clearly now insufficient to meet our building needs. Because the workforce has declined, the construction and skilled workers have declined as well.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It certainly is a concern that we’re working on. I think the member knows that skilled-trades training specifically is in a different ministry.

At a high level, I’ll make a comment, which is that there are three things. One, scaling up skills training opportunities, which we’re doing as a province. The second important piece is using provincial nominee and other avenues for immigration for skilled trades, which we need. And third is supporting the prefabrication and manufacturing space and increasing that capacity.

Part of the changes we’ve made, in particular around small-scale multi-unit…. The reason why it’s important, the reason why I think it’s going to help us address the challenges we’re dealing with, is that the skilled trades that are required for some of the high-level, the high-rise construction, are different than the skill sets that are required for more of a small-scale multi-unit housing. There is capacity in the system for housing in that space. That’s why it’s important for us.

We are going to have to move to prefabrication. It is part of the future. It is something that we’re already doing some work on. The federal government has made a commitment to help expand prefabrication as well.

[8:15 p.m.]

That’s why I’m really excited about the opportunity with mass timber as well. Not only does it help us use B.C. forest products to get more value, but it also can be done faster. It can be done more sustainably, and it can be done with less people on site, because a lot of the work happens off site. You’re creating good manufacturing jobs, and you can assemble locally.

It’s a multi-pronged approach, but if the question is specifically to the trades-training piece, it’s better situated for the minister that is responsible for that.

Linda Hepner: Over the last decade, B.C. has witnessed an unprecedented escalation in construction costs, far outpacing normal inflation rates. According to Altus’s cost guides, hard construction costs for high-rise condos have increased approximately 71 percent; low-rise condos surged by over 120 percent; and institutional facilities, such as schools and hospitals, rose nearly 50 to 54 percent.

By contrast, general consumer inflation rates during that same period averaged slightly lower — significantly lower, in fact, 20 percent, according to the Bank of Canada.

Minister, with those construction high-rise buildings, low-rise buildings, schools and hospitals all increasing at rates much higher than inflationary rates, has the ministry ever conducted or commissioned an internal assessment measuring how the myriad new building regulations, industrial carbon pricing and labour policies directly increase the construction costs in B.C.?

If not, could you give me an indication of whether or not that would be something that you would look at favourably?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Any analysis on labour shortages, etc., would be done by a different ministry.

We are always assessing costs for housing. Some of the biggest costs are waiting and waiting for approvals. We know that there are communities that could take a couple of years, and some take up to seven or eight years, and all of that has a cost. That’s been our focus — to reduce the waiting, reduce the uncertainty so that projects can move on to construction quickly.

Of course, we continue to look at the building code to find more efficiencies and ways for housing to be built faster.

Linda Hepner: Well, from my 35 years of experience in local government, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything take that many years, that the minister had. I’m glad I worked in a place where, certainly, that length of time did not happen.

I wonder if the minister could provide to me a better understanding of the consultation that has gone on relative to housing construction, generally, not just social housing, but explain how often or how frequently the ministry engages with organizations that are more dealing with private construction.

[8:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Nice to see Councillor Sampson again. He’s loving question period and estimates.

Nice to see you.

B.C. Housing meets with industry quarterly, and my ministry meets with different stakeholders within the construction community very regularly. In fact, I meet with stakeholders from the construction and home-building community very frequently. It is part of normal business practice for our ministry to be engaging with them on a whole host of issues.

The Ministry of Finance also engages with the home-building industry, and the Minister for Post-Secondary Education also meets with the construction industry.

Linda Hepner: I just need to follow up on that, then. I’m wondering if the minister has ever directly reviewed the developers’ financial pro formas or sat down with private sector developers to understand why financing market-driven housing projects has now become so increasingly untenable.

I met recently with large contractors in the Fraser Valley. They described it to me and said: “I would wish that every planner and everyone involved with housing could just sit down and let me go through a pro forma for holding property, for paying interest, for the regulatory hoops we have to go through at every level.”

I’m not specifically saying only at the provincial level, but at the cost escalation of product and policy. I’m just wondering if our ministry or the minister’s staff have actually sat down and said: “Okay, run me through a pro forma, and let me understand what the hiccups are and why we aren’t getting the private sector investment in housing that we should.”

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, I’ll start by saying that the last four years have had some of the highest housing starts in the history of this province since we started collecting data in 1955. That said, there are some new challenges.

First, yes, of course we meet with industry representatives. I meet with homebuilders all the time, who tell me the challenges they’re facing right now. In particular, there are now some additional challenges. Most of their concerns are around DCCs and Metro Vancouver fees — the impacts of that in the future and for their pro formas. The next biggest one is time and delays, and how long it takes to get approval and go through the process.

So, yes, and then if you add….

[The bells were rung.]

There we go. Oh, man, these bells just keep coming.

As I was saying before the bells started ringing, the last piece that is a new challenge for homebuilders is the fact that rents are starting to come down, and homes are not selling at the prices that their pro formas were under.

On one side, it’s positive for renters, who are seeing rents come down, and for people who are buying homes, to see those prices come down. But for those that bought land at a higher value, with the projections to sell things much higher, it’s making it challenging for them. Often what we hear from them is: “How do we lower costs? Can you get rid of the development fees? Can you get rid of time?” As the rents are going down, they need to make sure their pro formas work.

So I get the concern. In one way, our success is leading to new challenges. Those are the conversations we’re having.

[8:25 p.m.]

Again, there are a lot of folks in the home-building community that were really happy with the negotiated agreement that we had with Metro for the two-year instream protection and moving DCC payments to the end, in order for them to unlock the $250 million for Iona. That’s going to help a lot of projects. Our move to have 20 percent accessibility — that adaptability, as opposed to 100 percent — obviously, will make a big difference.

We’re always looking at cost pressures, given that we’re in an environment where there’s supply and rents are coming down and the new prices are…. It’s good for young families that are trying to get into the market and that are seeing it head into a place that’s more affordable, but I do appreciate and acknowledge that there are some additional challenges for homebuilders.

Quite frankly, the flipping tax that we introduced does benefit the people who are actually building homes. The other concern I hear from a lot of them is: “Why should I even build homes when folks right now just buy land and continue to flip it and make so much money, and we’re stuck with it at the end at a really high cost, because our business model is to actually build homes?”

There are a lot of folks in the home-building community that actually really like the flipping tax because they see this as an opportunity to discourage that type of activity, so that they can actually get land at a more reasonable price so that they can build housing.

That’s probably a longer answer than the member wanted, but I’ll just end. Yes, of course I meet with homebuilders all the time, go through pro formas and hear about the concerns that they have.

Claire Rattée: I’d just like to start out by saying thank you to the minister. I know that yesterday when we were asking some questions, I mentioned that my office had an email in for a couple of weeks now about a specific issue. We did get a response today, so I appreciate that.

I do have some more questions about it though. The response really didn’t fully help me to understand the situation. As I mentioned yesterday, I have a constituent. They make just under $17,000 a year. They’re on income assistance, and they live in a B.C. Housing building in the community of Terrace. Obviously, their rent is controlled through that. My concern for this constituent was that his rent was increased quite significantly, about 40 percent, and that he was not informed of that, and then was facing eviction.

Based on the email that my staff received today, essentially, my understanding is that the rental portion of the income assistance cheque was increased from $348 a month to $498. Now, I’m assuming that that’s obviously the reason that his rent was increased. And I can understand that if it didn’t affect the rest of his income, perhaps he’s not completely understanding that his cheque increased. I totally get that. That’s fair enough. I will follow up with him to confirm that his cheque was actually increased.

The place that I take issue with it is that this particular individual is saying that they were not given any notice that the rent was being increased. Now, the issue here is that…. My understanding, through this email, is that the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction pays the rent on behalf of this constituent to B.C. Housing. Apparently, it’s this constituent’s responsibility to inform that ministry that their rent has increased so that they can then transfer the correct amount of money to B.C. Housing.

As I stated yesterday, this individual has severe, complex needs, a complex traumatic brain injury. At the very least, he’s saying he was not aware that his rent was being increased, and it wasn’t until he was in arrears of $375 and was facing a ten-day eviction notice that he actually received an email and then went to go fight it. Clearly, he is not completely understanding the situation here.

My question to the minister is: does he believe that this is an acceptable practice for B.C. Housing? On the one hand, I don’t understand why we are duplicating this kind of work, when they’re two ministries that should be able to communicate.

I’m assuming that this is a very common issue throughout the province. We have a lot of people who are on income assistance and that that rent portion is getting put specifically to B.C. Housing. I don’t understand why that’s not something that the ministry can handle. I’m sure there are many people that struggle with managing their finances in those positions.

Why is it that this individual wasn’t given notice until it was at the point where there was a $375 arrears and a ten-day eviction notice?

[8:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We are straying way away from estimates.

I’ll give a short answer to the member. The member said: “Your office reached out a couple of weeks ago.” I think the 23rd was when the email came in, so that’s a week ago. I know it’s not a couple of weeks ago, but I just want to make sure. We do respond pretty quickly, and it wasn’t a couple of weeks; it was a week. But a week is long when a person is struggling. I appreciate that.

There are a lot of details here that the member shared that are different than our understanding of it. So instead of having a conversation on the record and Hansard, because it’s a vulnerable individual, perhaps it’s a conversation we can have offline.

Of course, we want to try to help individuals navigate any challenges. People are paying shelter rates, and there are some complexities that come with that. So if the member is okay, that’s a conversation offline as opposed to here.

Claire Rattée: I’m fine having that conversation offline, but I do wonder if I can get a response about whether or not that’s a policy that’s been looked into.

I understand that this might be straying a bit off estimates, but I do think it’s a fair question of trying to understand why those rents aren’t just paid directly to B.C. Housing, why that would be that particular individual’s or any individual’s responsibility to then inform that ministry that their rent has increased when this is something that’s being dealt with entirely through government ministries.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll just say that when we provide…. I’m not talking about this specific person, just generally. When we provide people that support, they have the option, especially because it’s shelter rate, to either have it paid directly to the landlord, in this case, or they take the responsibility themselves. They take that money, and then they pay it. If an individual takes the responsibility to take the money themselves and pay it, and information isn’t made clear that the amount that’s being shared, there’s a problem there.

You know, we are talking about accountability. We’re talking about people, when they get money from government, that it’s going to the right place. I’m sympathetic to people who are struggling, but we have to have accountability.

That’s what this process is about. I’m being asked questions about which stakeholder gets what money and what they are using it for. So I’m accountable to people in this place. When we provide an individual with money, we have to ensure that it’s going to the appropriate place.

Again, I don’t want to go too much into it here. I appreciate the member’s question and just want to focus on the estimates, if we can.

Claire Rattée: I understand that. I do think that there is a little bit of a discrepancy here, so I’m happy to try and deal with this outside of estimates, if we can organize a meeting at some point to talk about it a little bit further.

One thing I would like to ask about then, in a similar topic, I suppose, but in a general sense…. One of the issues that arose out of this is that this specific unit…. This is the Willows building in Terrace. The way it was categorized in the email was that it’s not a building that is meant to accommodate people with complex needs, essentially. There was no extra level of support involved.

I’m curious if the minister can talk about how many units, how many buildings there are in the northern British Columbia region that are equipped to be able to give extra supports to people, for example, that have traumatic brain injuries, people that are struggling with learning disabilities, things of that nature. Do we have any kind of housing available for people in the northern region that does assist with that through B.C. Housing?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: These buildings that are being mentioned…. I shared yesterday with the member the units that we have, so I already have shared that on the record.

My understanding is that these units the member is referring to is…. It’s a below-market rental, so it’s a rental unit. I think I shared that information yesterday with the member, but if there’s something more specific, I’ll try to get the team to get it.

Claire Rattée: I’m just trying to get a better understanding of what kind of housing there is available in the northern region through B.C. Housing. So I understand that this is below-market rentals, but the email that I received insinuated that there were other types of housing available through B.C. Housing. This just wasn’t one of those units.

I’m just trying to get a better understanding of what type of housing B.C. Housing does provide. Is there housing available for people with complex needs, and do we have any of that in the northern region?

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: For 3219 Eby Street, Terrace and District Community Services Society, there are low-income family homes that are underway. We’ve got 2801 Kenney Street, Ksan Society, which is 39 underway. We’ve got Stone Ridge Estates; there are 45 low-income family units there.

We’ve got the Lammas multi-family apartments that have 22 units that are in progress. We have the M’akola on Lazelle Avenue — 47 units that are open now. Then we’ve got women’s transition housing units.

Claire Rattée: Sorry, I think that maybe my question is not being well understood, because it sounds like those are still just below-market housing units.

I’m just curious. Is there something other than just below-market housing units and, I guess obviously, SROs and things like that that B.C. Housing provides? The insinuation in this email was that there are units throughout the province that would provide an extra level of care to people with complex needs through B.C. Housing.

I’m assuming that means assisted services for people that need it, whether it’s, as we mentioned before, a traumatic brain injury or a number of other scenarios such as a learning disability. I’m just trying to have a better understanding of what kinds of units B.C. Housing actually provides. Again, if there are those types of units, do any exist in the northern region?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I shared this yesterday; I’ll share it again. There’s Mumfords Lodge, which is supportive housing. It’s got 19 units. There’s Sonder House, which is supportive housing, where there are 52 units that are available to the people in the community.

And again, if it’s a specific to the case, it’s better offline.

Claire Rattée: I’m curious if the minister can help me to understand, when we’re looking at SROs and things of that nature throughout the province…. I know we talked a bit about wet versus dry facilities yesterday. I’m wondering if there is a way for the minister to provide what the ratios of wet versus dry are in the province so that we have an understanding.

Is it about 50-50? Are there more wet, more dry? I’d just like a rough ballpark of what that percentage looks like.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I committed to the member yesterday that we would get that information, and the team is compiling it to send over.

Claire Rattée: So there isn’t even a rough estimation, just in any sense, that we can have about…? Just to kind of give an idea. I’m just curious. Is it roughly 50-50? Is there a significant amount more of one or the other? I feel like that’s something that we should be able to at least estimate.

I’m not holding you to a number. I understand that it’s a lot of data to go through, but I would assume that the ministry would have a rough idea of how common one is versus the other.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s a little challenging. I don’t want to give a rough number because we’re in estimates, and we’re supposed to be giving exact numbers. It’s probably better if we get that entire list for the member.

In some projects, we’ve got 20 units that are wet and then a completely separate space that is dry, so that’s the complexity of breaking it out. But I commit to the member that we will provide information.

Claire Rattée: My understanding, then, is you’ll even have some buildings where there will be some units that are wet and some units that are dry within the same building. Is that correct?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yes, we could have a building that would have a separation between floors for wet and dry. That does exist. Sometimes it’s just complete separation of buildings where it could be wet and dry. So yes, those are different models that we explore.

[8:40 p.m.]

As I mentioned to the member, when we approve supportive housing sites in communities, we sit down with our CAC partners at the community access table, and what we do is we assess what the needs are. If there is a need for dry, we then have flexibility — not in all facilities, but we try when we can — to be able to create separation, so that there are those opportunities.

Claire Rattée: Sorry. My last one just before I hand it back to my colleague here.

Just so that I understand really clearly, once I do get that breakdown of where all of these facilities are throughout the province…. When we’re talking about wet versus dry facilities, I just want to make sure I know what the classification is. Somebody could still be on an OAT therapy, I’m hoping, and be in a dry facility. Is that correct?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I want to give a specific answer, but because we’re so late in the night, the team that does this, because it’s a very specific question…. They’re not available right now.

Perhaps when we get back, because we’re doing many more hours still, this can be one of those things we’ll try to get an answer for.

Linda Hepner: Thank you, and it is, indeed, late.

I’m going to close my comments with respect to federal funding and a new Prime Minister.

I’m wondering whether or not we can get a commitment from the minister to table a complete and prioritized list of housing programs and projects, from the most sensitive to the least sensitive, that clearly identify the most dependent on federal partnership and funding, now that we have a government in place — the efforts that the minister will be making to ensure that list is available and that he’s working on that with the new Prime Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’m not entirely understanding the question. I’ll try to give an answer, which is that our priority request of the federal government is infrastructure. It’s more money for Indigenous housing, especially on reserve, because that’s the responsibility of the federal government, and we’ve been funding more on-reserve housing than the federal government has been, and it’s shameful. So those are some of the top two asks.

We’ve also asked them to support us in SRO redevelopment, because we believe that what is a challenge on the Downtown Eastside is a national challenge. It’s not just a B.C. challenge.

Those are some of the top three priorities, but if the member wants something more, I’m happy to try to provide it.

Linda Hepner: I’ll just finish up with the build Canada homes initiative that Prime Minister Carney recently announced as he was running for election. What specific implications, positive or negative, do you foresee for British Columbia’s housing agenda on that build Canada homes perspective and how that may or may not help us?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Well, in B.C., we launched the rental protection fund. A few months later the federal government decided it was a great idea and launched the national rental protection fund. We did set housing designs, and a year later the federal government decided that set housing designs was a good way to go. We launched a mass timber action plan, and now they have it in their platform to have a mass timber action plan for the country. We’ve been doing work on prefabrication, and now the federal government….

We launched BC Builds, and then they decided to launch Canada Builds. I could go on. I would say that I don’t know enough about what their new vision for Canada Builds is, but it sounds awfully like BC Builds.

We’ll wait to see what the details are. I don’t know the details, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s very aligned. The reason why I wouldn’t be surprised is that we hear from local governments across the province that they’re super excited about this. They’re desperately trying to attract workforce, health care workers, people who work at the local government, and they see this as an opportunity to unlock that potential in their community.

So we will see. We’ll see what the federal government tells us their program is, and I’m sure we’ll find a way to align it.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee will stand adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:45 p.m.

The House resumed at 8:46 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply, Section B, reports progress to the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

George Anderson: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Jessie Sunner: Section C reports progress on Bill 7 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Lisa Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 8:47 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

On Vote 34: ministry operations, $75,134,000 (continued).

Scott McInnis: I’m going to try and stay as organized and as categorical as I can here with my questions, but just keeping an eye on the time and out of respect to the ministry, I’ll try not to jump around as much as I possibly can here this afternoon.

I just want to start on page 114 of the 2025 budget document, specifically under Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. The year to date, December 21, ’24-25, we have a report of the budget of $84 million and an actual of $264 million, which is a variance of $180 million.

Would the minister be able to answer for what reasons such an overage of expenditures occurred in the last budget year, please?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question. The discrepancy is related to timing of when the ministry receives revenue recoveries related to our revenue-sharing program.

If the member looks across that line on the same page, you will see that the full-year accounting reflects that the budget and the forecast are equal at $160 million.

Scott McInnis: A lot of words to say between my riding and the ministry.

Thank you to the minister for that answer. Could the minister please describe for the record in as much detail as possible: what is a foundation agreement? What is a reconciliation agreement? What are the differences and similarities between the two?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The ministry uses the term “reconciliation agreements” to cover a broad range of agreements between the province and First Nations.

Foundation agreements are one type of reconciliation agreement. It’s a term that we use for an agreement that lays the foundation between the province and a First Nation for a reconciliation journey together, typically focused on mutual interests. As the member knows, we have a number of foundation agreements all within that broader category of reconciliation agreements.

I’ll leave it there for now.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that.

Just for the record, could we get numbers on how many foundation agreements the province has currently signed and how many, right now, they’re in active negotiations across the province for?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’ll begin by just clarifying that a foundation agreement isn’t a distinct category of agreements; it’s part of the name.

[3:00 p.m.]

I can give you an example of two relatively recently concluded foundation agreements. One is the Lake Babine foundation agreement, a tripartite agreement signed in 2019. Then of course, as the member knows, the shíshálh foundation agreement, which was signed in 2018 and renewed more recently in 2024.

Again, the ministry works with First Nations on a range of agreements. Often the name comes later in those discussions and negotiations, so I can’t speak to how many agreements with “foundation agreement” in the name are in the works. But we’ll point the member toward those two examples.

Scott McInnis: In comparing some of the various agreements that the province is entering into with nations…. I understand the treaty process is quite long and complicated. Is the province encouraging communities to enter into various agreements, such as foundation agreements, as opposed to formal treaties? Who gets to make that decision? Is it the nations who approach the province or the federal government, potentially, with that ask, or is it the province who makes that suggestion to the various communities?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The province works with First Nations to implement various approaches to reconciliation. We work with First Nations as they seek their own pathways to self-determination and economic prosperity and reconciliation. Whether a First Nation is seeking a comprehensive treaty or another form of agreement, the goals are the same: achieving lasting reconciliation with First Nations in a manner that creates tangible benefits in communities and recognizes rights and title.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that.

I guess my question is, then: why are we having these various agreements signed as opposed to going down the road of these formal treaties?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Comprehensive reconciliation agreements and other forms of agreements generally adopt incremental approaches to reconciliation of rights and title. These incremental approaches can provide upfront benefits that create meaningful change in communities, all while allowing the First Nation to work on complex governance and jurisdiction and title issues over time.

The province views non-treaty agreements as opportunities to pursue the same outcomes as a treaty with First Nations that aren’t in favour of the treaty process. However, non-treaty agreements can also contribute incrementally toward comprehensive reconciliation through a treaty.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister. I think that was answered at the end. Just to be clear, various reconciliation agreements could be a step towards a formal treaty.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that.

What measures are in place that the government has to track and publicly report on the financial performance of reconciliation-related agreements?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Of course, as a public body, we issue financial statements every year. In addition, I’d direct the member to the ministry’s annual service plan. Every ministry puts one out. The service plan includes accountability and reporting measures. It’s publicly available, and I’m happy to answer specific questions on the service plan, if relevant.

[3:10 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Minister. I may come back to that, if time permits.

Within foundation agreements — or reconciliation agreements, more generally speaking — could the ministry please describe for the record what exactly consent-based decision-making means when we look at these various agreements?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The idea of consent agreements is about shared decision-making jurisdiction with Indigenous governing bodies. The ministry works with First Nations to develop consent-based decision-making processes in our agreement-making with them if the context and subject matter of the decision is appropriate.

Scott McInnis: What content would the ministry deem appropriate for that explanation that was given?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Choosing to move forward together with First Nations on shared decision-making is a way that we build a stronger B.C.

Over the past two years B.C. has announced mandates to negotiate joint and consent-based decision agreements with the Tāłtān Nation and the ʼNa̱mǥis First Nation. B.C. also signed two consent-based agreements with the Tāłtān Central Government under section 7 of the Declaration Act for the Eskay Creek and the Red Chris mines. These shared decision-making agreements were in relation to environmental assessments for major mining projects in the case of Tāłtān and a forest landscape plan in the agreement with ʼNa̱mǥis.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Scott McInnis: That’s a tongue twister, I know. Thank you, Chair.

In that language, is there a difference between joint decision-making and consent-based decision-making for any of these agreements?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Shared decision-making is a general term that can describe a number of ways that First Nations and the province can work together to make decisions.

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act enables the province to enter into joint or consent-based decision-making agreements with an Indigenous governing body. In a joint agreement, the provincial statutory decision–maker and Indigenous governing body make decisions together.

Under a consent-based agreement, both the province and the First Nation must approve a project before it can proceed, in recognition of the First Nation’s right of self-governance over lands and resources in its territory.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that clarification.

Just using the Tāłtān as an example, there has been some phenomenal work happen in the North with the Tāłtān and the agreements that have been in place there. But just under the use of consent-based decision-making…. Whether it comes to permitting, environmental assessment, reclamation decisions, etc., under a consent-based agreement with the Tāłtān, things could not proceed unless they gave consent to that to proceed. Is that correct, what I’m hearing with consent-based decision-making?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Under section 7, agreements such as Tāłtān…. Both the province and Tāłtān need to approve the project. For that consent to be given, the process must allow for a meaningful deliberation and consideration by Tāłtān to enable an informed and thoughtful decision, just as the province does. In fact, we think that working in partnership with Tāłtān on these section 7 agreements will create stronger decision-making, possibly including ways to move these major projects faster.

I understand that Tāłtān Nation and the environmental assessment office, along with the Ministries of Mines and Environment and the proponents, have been working closely together on these environmental assessments to ensure the reviews are robust, efficient and timely. Our government, Tāłtān government and B.C. have a strong history of shared decision-making, and the consent agreements for both projects are rooted in this history and the province’s respect for Tāłtān as a decision-maker.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Speaking hypothetically for a second, if there was potentially a resource project on the table in a section 7 agreement and a nation did not approve that project and perhaps thought that proper consultation did not go through, would then the stalling of the project…? Would the province ever consider overruling a nation in order to move a project forward?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’ll start by answering just to say that a lot depends on the design of the agreement and the strength of the partnership. Section 7 agreements set out criteria. They provide an understanding of the decision-making process. They provide opportunities for third parties to be effectively heard, and if people disagree, they can challenge a decision. They’re judicially reviewable.

The Declaration Act decision-making agreements help address the legacy of colonialism by allowing the province to work shoulder to shoulder with Indigenous peoples on decisions that affect them.

[3:30 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: In a case where there is no formal agreement in place between an Indigenous governing body and the province, who ultimately has the final say when specifically referring to a resource project as to whether that project would proceed or not?

Hon. Christine Boyle: In the absence of a formal agreement, the province works closely with the nation. We follow common law and laws of general application. The province is expected to consult and cooperate in good faith when considering decisions that may affect Indigenous peoples.

There may be occasions when a disputed project goes forward, and there may be occasions when a project doesn’t. Each project is unique, with many factors that go into the decision-making process. Engaging with First Nations on proposed activities in their territories from the beginning of the development process ensures that everyone knows from the get-go what is expected.

Scott McInnis: It sounds a little bit subjective. I just wonder: is there a rubric or a set of criteria as to when a project would move forward without consent-based agreements between the province and Indigenous governing bodies and when it wouldn’t?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Just to reiterate, we follow the common law. In a number of Supreme Court of Canada cases, the courts have been clear that the government’s duty to consult and accommodate arises from section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. That’s our framework. The specifics of each decision determine the nature and approach that we take to engagement.

Scott McInnis: Just using the example here, the government is going to be fast-tracking quite a few wind energy projects across the province. I believe they all are shared ownership with First Nations. However, they are bypassing the proper environmental assessments to do these projects.

If a nation were to come forward and have issue with the dismissal of the environmental assessment and hold the project up, would the government then move forward with the project anyway?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Each project is different, but questions related to wind projects and the Environmental Assessment Act should be directed to my colleagues in Energy and Climate Solutions as well as Environment and Parks.

Scott McInnis: I just want to ask, related to the new court-implemented mineral claims consultation framework, did the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation have any involvement in facilitating a conversation between the Minister of Mines and local nations for engagement and consultation on the creation of the MCCF?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I have had no direct involvement in the file. My team advises that the MCCF rests with the gold commissioner and the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals and would encourage you to direct further questions there.

Scott McInnis: Just on that same note, is there any money within the budget of Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation to provide resources to local nations to deal with the mineral claims that are now going to be piling on their desks for approval? Is there any money that comes out of this ministry to support that process?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Last year we administered $500,000 to support First Nations consultation on the mineral claims consultation framework.

Scott McInnis: Specifically now that the MCCF is in place, my question was around whether this ministry is going to be providing support to many local nations that are already overstretched with their human resources departments, some of their expertise within the employees at the various band offices. My question actually was around….

[3:50 p.m.]

Moving forward in this budget, does the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation have any budget line items to help support the facilitation around the expertise of making sure that those claims are then approved?

Hon. Christine Boyle: As the member knows, the mineral claims consultation framework has only been active since the end of March. We look forward to hearing from the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals about the ongoing needs of First Nations to process the mineral claims applications, and that will determine further capacity needs.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister.

Moving down the road, I think industry partners, whether it’s AME or whoever else, plus nations, do anticipate quite a backlog on this. So if there is difficulty for, especially, some of the smaller communities to work through some of these mineral claims that are coming into their offices, will this ministry commit to supporting them with additional resources to make sure that this is done in a timely manner?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: With respect, the question is a bit premature with respect to our involvement. We look forward to hearing from our colleagues in the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals about what the needs may be.

Misty Van Popta: Thank you to my colleague for allowing me a couple minutes here to discuss a local issue for me.

The qʼʷa:n̓ƛʼən̓ First Nation is situated on a little island, a two-lane, 25-second bridge ride away from Fort Langley. Separating the reservation land and Fort Langley is the Bedford Channel, the ancestral fishing grounds of the qʼʷa:n̓ƛʼən̓ First Nation.

Over the past few years, the qʼʷa:n̓ƛʼən̓ has lost access to their boat launch due to the silt buildup in the channel. The November 2021 atmospheric river event exponentially compounded this problem. The dramatic increase in silt has also affected the water temperatures and the depth of the channel, which have affected the fish habitats that they rely on for food and ceremonial rites.

On the opposite side of the reserve is the Fraser River. The boat access there has resulted in frequent vandalism and theft, and many members now choose not to have their boats in the water at all.

A few years ago the federal government withdrew responsibility and maintenance of rivers, and to date, that gap in care of our rivers has not been mandated in any provincial ministry. As such, now my local First Nation has lost access to their ancestral rights.

On top of that, a year and a half ago the channel was the scene of a tourist breaking both legs, jumping off the local Haldi Bridge and into the murky shallow waters below.

To put it lightly, the channel must be dredged, and fast. It has not been dredged since 2007.

The Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship has been attentive to helping the qʼʷa:n̓ƛʼən̓ shepherd the permit process to make sure that the qʼʷa:n̓ƛʼən̓ does not miss another very slim dredging window. However, even if and when a permit is attained, the question of funding is the next big hurdle.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

Municipalities do not have responsibilities of rivers. First Nations do not have responsibilities of rivers. When the federal government relinquished responsibility of rivers, they went to the province.

[4:00 p.m.]

The township of Langley has already fronted and approved pre-work, reports and consultant costs, but the Bedford Channel dredging project has been estimated to be $2 million to $6 million, based on 188,000 cubic metres of material to be removed from the channel. They applied for flooding and emergency grants after the 2021 atmospheric river event but told they didn’t qualify.

I have inquired with Water and Land for funding, and they were unable to give any funding channels either.

The municipality stepped up to support the qʼʷa:n̓ƛʼən̓ First Nation with funding for pre-work and consulting, but so far the province has not. Surely the province would not expect a small First Nation to burden millions of dollars just to access their boat launch for food access.

Can the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation please answer the following. Why, when negligence of responsibility has resulted in direct effects to a local First Nation’s ancestral rights, are they not willing to help fund remediation of the problem, and will this minister now commit to helping the qʼʷa:n̓ƛʼən̓ First Nation?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I want to thank the member for the question. It’s an important local issue, and I know what a strong advocate the member is in her local community.

This is an important question for the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, and I would encourage you to direct your question there. But again, I empathize with the situation and appreciate it being raised.

Misty Van Popta: I have, and I have discussed it with them. There’s no mandate in anybody’s portfolio to fund dredging, so I’m asking each ministry individually to come up with a solution. It’s not in their ministry mandate as of yet.

Sheldon Clare: When I was out campaigning before the election, I had the opportunity to knock on every door of the Nazko First Nation band. One of the issues that was raised with me quite clearly by the chief and band councillors out there was the issue of a culvert about four kilometres east of the Nazko reserve on the Snaking River. The band members and the band council and chief are concerned that the culvert that is on this road does not allow for the easy transit of fish from one side of the road to the other.

Now, while this may appear to be something that the Ministry of Transport would look at, this is really quite clearly a First Nations issue. The chief and band council very much want to know if the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation will be looking to replace that culvert with a bridge so as to allow the easy transit of fish, which is an important staple food of the Nazko First Nation band.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, I want to recognize that it’s an important local issue, and the member has been a strong advocate.

Within this government, the responsibility for Indigenous relations, for partnership with First Nations, is a whole-of-government responsibility. It’s held by every ministry. It’s referenced in every mandate letter.

Respectfully, it’s a question for the Ministry of Transportation, which also has a responsibility to be working with nations to address these important issues that again I thank the member for raising.

Sheldon Clare: Thank you to the minister for her answer.

I wonder if the minister could clarify the intersection of First Nations Financial Management Board work with the province’s reconciliation initiatives and opportunities to support the work of the financial management board through collaboration and provincial policy.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The First Nations Financial Management Board is a federal body established under federal law. They provide important supports for First Nations, supports under federal jurisdiction, and we always welcome collaboration and strategic partnerships with First Nations themselves, Indigenous organizations and the federal government.

I’ll leave it there.

Scott McInnis: I want to go into a line of questioning around the shíshálh foundation agreement updates, if I may, just to clarify a few things. I do appreciate the ministry inviting me to a couple of briefings that took place around that when I was new in the role of critic for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I do really appreciate that reach out to me.

Just to clarify a couple of things on a timeline here. It was publicly disclosed in January 2025 that the shíshálh foundation agreement update had been shared with the public, but there was a little bit of confusion about, actually, when that agreement was officially signed. I believe it was sometime in August.

Could the minister just confirm, actually, when pen went to paper to sign the updated foundation agreement with the shíshálh Nation?

Hon. Christine Boyle: As the member likely knows, in 2018, the shíshálh Nation in B.C. made history by signing the province’s first comprehensive reconciliation agreement, a long-term, phased agreement focused on government-to-government relations that recognize inherent rights and title. The renewal was signed in August 2024 and announced January 29, 2025.

Scott McInnis: August 2024. Can we get an exact date for actually when that was officially signed?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The agreement is posted and publicly available on our website and is dated August 16.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Just looking to inquire as to why the agreement was officially signed on August 16 but not made publicly available until January 2025. Could we get an explanation from the ministry as to why it took several months to make that very, very important foundation agreement update public?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The foundation agreement continues the implementation of the 2018 foundation agreement. The foundation agreement renewal was announced as soon as we could after ministers were sworn in and briefed and we could prepare a joint announcement and shared celebration.

As I’ve said before, we acknowledge that we could have found a way to announce the renewal before the election. My commitment is to provide more timely information about these types of agreements to support public confidence in the work that we’re doing together with communities, First Nations and non–First Nations alike.

The foundation agreement renewal clearly outlines our commitments to engage with local governments and other partners as we move forward over the next five years of the agreement.

Scott McInnis: Maybe one more question, if I may, before we head to break.

I hope the ministry understands that there’s a lot of frustration around this foundation agreement update, for several reasons, one of them being why the ministry could not make this announcement public when they had five weeks between the signing and the drop of the writ. You know, people can’t help but speculate that potentially, because it was not extremely popular in the local community, this would have changed the outcome of the election.

I want to strongly encourage the ministry — because they don’t necessarily have a reputation right now of being open and transparent publicly with some of these agreements — that in the future, when something is signed, they ensure that there aren’t five months between the signing of an agreement…. I understand there was an election period in there, but again, we had November, December and some of January to make this public.

Because of the communication I’ve had with people on the Sunshine Coast about this, who are extremely frustrated that they feel like it was kind of done behind closed doors and held from the public, using the timeline of five weeks between sign and writ drop, that shrinks dramatically. It does have the appearance of being hidden from the public.

[4:25 p.m.]

Again, there’s a little bit of confusion around what the final number was, as far as cash transferred to the shíshálh Nation as part of the foundation agreement. I believe, during the first briefing that I had, it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million, and then in the most recent public engagement process that happened online, it was $78 million. I’m just hoping that the ministry could confirm what that final dollar amount was that will be transferred during part of this updated foundation agreement.

Hon. Christine Boyle: The agreement renewal has committed $79 million over five years to support shíshálh Nation’s work in a number of initiatives.

These include $47.58 million over five years for economic development; $15 million to support the construction of a cultural centre; $8.83 million over five years for agreement implementation and further negotiations under the agreement; $2.27 million over five years for environmental and cultural restoration work; $1.85 million to implement and further develop water infrastructure initiatives on shíshálh lands; $1.6 million over five years for cultural and language revitalization; up to $710,000 over four years toward a collaborative monitoring and enforcement program in the shíshálh swiya; $500,000 to carry out environmental and ecological studies; and $200,000 for infrastructure to support cultural initiatives.

The Chair: At this time, the committee will take a five-minute break.

Those of you that are switching over, thank you very much, and hopefully, I will see the next crew at 4:32. If you folks can be back in your seats for 4:32, I’d appreciate it.

The committee recessed from 4:28 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, let’s call this committee back to order. We are considering the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Scott McInnis: So $79 million in the foundation agreement over the next coming years. Is that a hard cap on that $79 million?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The agreement clearly commits up to $79.4 million, as I outlined in the previous answer. In section 9.2, the agreement also commits to seeking $25 million in provincial funding for shíshálh Nation to address shíshálh Nation housing needs. shíshálh and other First Nations are eligible to apply for other provincial funding sources in other ministries. The agreement doesn’t stop that from happening.

[4:40 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: I appreciate that clarification.

With the $79.4 million…. As we know, building costs go up by the month. So when we’re looking at $15 million allocated for the creation of a cultural centre, when tenures go out and things like that and the cost all of a sudden becomes $23 million, what then will happen? Will the shíshálh Nation be on the hook for the difference, or will they be able to approach the province to make up those lost funds, potentially?

Again, with the agreement for $15 million when it was actually signed in August, until now…. I’m sure the design for the cultural centre they want to create…. I’m sure those costs have gone up. Is there a way or a clause within the agreement that they can seek additional funds specifically for the creation of that cultural centre?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I appreciate the member’s concerns about escalating construction costs as we look to build appropriate First Nations infrastructure across the province. The agreement allocates $15 million for the cultural centre, as stated, and we’re not contemplating further funding.

Scott McInnis: Just to clarify, was the $79.4 million or that chapter of that money…? Is that in the 2024-25 budget, or is it included in the ’25-26 budget?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is a five-year agreement. The agreement has a funding schedule included, which is part of the publicly available document. The funds are allocated in line with the schedule. The member will see, under section 14.2(a), the $15 million allocated for a cultural centre is “payable as soon as practical after the effective date,” the language in the agreement, and the payment was scheduled for the 2024-2025 fiscal year.

Scott McInnis: Just clarifying the numbers here as part of the foundation agreement update. Was it six square kilometres of Crown land that was transferred over to the shíshálh Nation as part of this agreement?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The province has committed to returning a total of six square kilometres of Crown land. That includes identifying one square kilometre of provincial Crown lands within the shíshálh swiya to be transferred to shíshálh for cultural use purposes, and another five square kilometres of Crown lands within the shíshálh swiya to be transferred for economic development purposes.

As we begin to identify Crown lands for potential return, the province and shíshálh will engage with local governments and interest holders in the area and consider other nations, groups and the public when making these decisions together.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Six square kilometres is roughly 1,500 acres, just shy of 1,500 acres. Will the province be doing kind of a market assessment of the value of that land and disclosing that publicly when it is actually officially transferred over to the shíshálh Nation?

[4:55 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Section 3.9 of the agreement outlines that the province and shíshálh will conclude a land transfer agreement to enable the transfer of the cultural and economic lands. That land transfer agreement will contain detailed information as to the lands. These land transfer agreements don’t typically include the assessed value of the land, but they do include detailed maps.

Scott McInnis: I think it’s reasonable to expect that when 1,500 acres, thereabouts, of quite valuable land in this province is transferred from, essentially, all of us publicly to a nation, there is a commercial value put on that land as far as what it would sell for on the open market.

Is that a plan of foundational agreements, moving forward, that the actual value…? I do think it fits into article 28 of DRIPA as well, that the actual value of the land being transferred is disclosed publicly so the public knows how much Crown land, the value of it, is being transferred to a nation in this specific case or others.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’ll just say I really appreciate the member’s perspective on this matter, and we’ll take it under advisement.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister. I just think it’s very important in this spirit of transparency, as we move forward in reconciliation, when we have land transfers, that it is publicly disclosed what the value of public land is that’s being transferred over to nations in reconciliation agreements.

With that, and I don’t want to assume that I already know the answer, but when the specific land is being assessed for transfer to the shíshálh Nation, will there be a timber appraisal? Will there be any under-surface mineral value assessed, anything like that? Just value-added pieces, except for the land itself, that will be disclosed as part of the transfer to the nation.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: A number of appraisals and evaluations are undertaken as we work through the land identification process, and then the actual transfer of lands is undertaken by the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

Scott McInnis: Again, I think as we’re looking at transferring public land…. I’m just doing a quick calculation with my colleague, who’s the Forestry critic. When we’re potentially looking at 1,500 acres, there could be $10 million to $15 million worth of timber on this land.

I just think it’s good practice that all of this is publicly disclosed as part of a total value, as far as the land transfer is going — not only to the shíshálh foundation agreement but any agreement, moving forward. I think it’s the government’s responsibility to do its due diligence and add the value of the land being transferred onto the final foundation agreement numbers, moving forward.

I just think the public would really appreciate that, whether it’s WLRS, forestry or Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I think that would go a long way with public trust in the process of being very, very transparent. I just want to make a note of that on the record.

As part of the foundation agreement update, there was a lot of language around exclusive decision-making for the shíshálh Nation. I just want the ministry to elaborate on what, exactly, exclusive decision-making within this agreement means, not only for members of the shíshálh Nation but non-Indigenous people who live in the region as well.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: An exclusive decision-making agreement would recognize the jurisdiction of shíshálh to make decisions in relation to a specific topic, with the province stepping back from the decision-making on that topic. This agreement will have a defined geographic area and agreed-to principles that guide the decision-making. Legal standards of accountability and transparency and procedural fairness would apply to decision-making.

As an example of exclusive decision-making in other agreements, one example is First Nations decision-making on wildlife harvesting for their members. We will engage with local governments, stakeholders and the public on these decision-making agreements.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that. Just to clarify, will any exclusive decision-making agreements or authority have any effect on non-Indigenous people on the Sunshine Coast when we’re talking about land laws, finances, private property and resources?

Hon. Christine Boyle: We have not yet proposed topics for an exclusive decision-making agreement, but B.C. and shíshálh are committed to developing decision-making processes that are predictable and transparent. Fairness, process, transparency, clarity and engagement are critical parts of any consent-based decision-making agreement. We are jointly committed to engaging the public and local governments and stakeholders before an agreement is finalized.

Scott McInnis: Thank you, Minister.

Will local government and the public also be included in the discussion around the creation of this exclusive decision-making authority with the shíshálh Nation as well? To what extent will they be included?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, we are committed to engaging with the public on this work. The foundation agreement renewal clearly outlines our commitments to engage with local governments and other partners as we move forward over the next five years.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

[5:15 p.m.]

Regarding the foundation agreement and the Sunshine Coast regional district, to what extent were they included in the formulation and creation of this foundation agreement?

Hon. Christine Boyle: As the member knows, this is a renewal of the 2018 agreement. We’ve been engaging with the regional district and the local government on implementation since that time. As this is a renewal, we will continue engaging with local government and the regional district as we move forward.

Scott McInnis: Thank you to the minister. I’m just hearing a little bit different from local government that they weren’t included as much as they feel like they should have been in this process. Between August 16, 2024, and when the agreement was officially announced publicly in January 2025, how many times did the province engage with local government, and were they made aware of this agreement — specifically, the Sunshine Coast regional district?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: As the member knows, much of the period stated was interregnum, during which government wasn’t holding meetings in the days leading up to the announcement on January 27. Specifically, the province met with the regional district.

More recently we’ve done further public outreach, including two very well attended public webinars and a commitment to post answers to questions asked publicly. We appreciate our relationship with the Sunshine Coast regional district and the ongoing relationship and work together.

Scott McInnis: Thank you for that, Minister.

Just to confirm…. I understand there was a period between September 21 and, let’s call it, early December when the cabinet was sworn in, etc. Between that time, this very, very significant and important — which the ministry has acknowledged — foundational agreement update had been put in place since August 16, and the regional district did not know about it.

Is that what the ministry is saying?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: As I’ve previously outlined, this agreement is a renewal of an existing agreement.

I just want to say personally, having spent six years in local government, I believe deeply in the importance of that local voice and am really glad to have relationships with the Sunshine Coast regional district and beyond to ensure those voices are incorporated. The last five years have seen a lot of engagement with the Sunshine Coast regional district on this work.

I wanted to share a quote from Alton Toth, the chair of the Sunshine Coast regional district, who said: “This update to the foundation agreement is a tremendous step forward for the shíshálh Nation when it comes to self-determination and reclaiming rights that were previously suppressed. The Sunshine Coast regional district is honoured to work with the nation on numerous projects and services on an ongoing basis.” The quote continues: “We look forward to strengthening these partnerships and exploring new opportunities as we continue our shared journey toward meaningful reconciliation.”

[5:30 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: I do want to ask a few more questions about that, specifically, but unfortunately, I’m getting really short of time here, which is a little bit frustrating because I have a lot of material to get to here. I feel like, as we move forward, this ministry definitely needs more time allocated to estimates because it’s extremely important.

When we’re looking at final decision-making authority over dock management on the Sunshine Coast, who has that authority in the region?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’ll just answer simply by saying that questions around dock management would be appropriately directed to the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Just to advise the committee that division has been called in the Birch Room, and that does not affect our work here.

Scott McInnis: Just going back to the number of $79.4 million over five years. How did we come to that number? How did the government come to that number? Did they present an offer to the shíshálh? There was a counter-offer in negotiation? What was the criteria or — again, I use this word as a teacher — rubric that was used in order to determine that $79.4 million was a fair number?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The province and shíshálh Nation have been working together for many years. We signed the original foundation agreement in 2018. This renewal was the next step, and the continued work with the shíshálh Nation will benefit the whole region economically, culturally and environmentally.

The province and First Nations have done a tremendous amount of work together since the NDP formed government seven years ago. Our framework for these efforts continues to be the Declaration Act action plan.

We know the old way of doing things — uncertainty and fighting in courts and endless delays — doesn’t work. So we continue to work on reconciliation and are committed to this work in a way that supports communities and brings people together.

As I’m sure the member can understand, I’m not in a position to publicly discuss the deliberations that led to the agreement, but the agreement is the outcome and public record.

Scott McInnis: Thank you for that, Minister.

I think this is extremely important. As the province enters into other reconciliation agreements, there has to be some sort of standard or framework or baseline that they work off of as far as what kinds of numbers they’re using when negotiating those agreements.

Can the minister provide any insight to the public as to what kind of criteria, again, that they use, or did they just kind of pull numbers out of somewhere and present offers to nations?

[5:35 p.m.]

I could see other nations that feel like, whether it’s based off the number of members in their community, etc., whether that’s the metric that’s used…. There has to be some sort of foundation to make it fair and equitable for others that are seeking similar reconciliation agreements.

Hon. Christine Boyle: As I’m sure the member can understand, there are a lot of considerations that ultimately inform the components of the agreements that we enter into.

[5:40 p.m.]

Every First Nation is different, and every relationship with each First Nation is different. So the province works with First Nations to advance reconciliation pathways that work for them and for B.C.

Scott McInnis: I’m just a little bit confused here that the government has varying relationships with different First Nations. When we’re talking about reconciliation agreements, are these considerations made public? We’re spending public money here — tens of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases — and transferring vast amounts of public land.

I think it’s fair that the public understands what the criteria are for the transfer of public money to various First Nations in these agreements. I feel like the minister is avoiding this, which leads the public to believe that these numbers are just kind of made up from various scenario to various scenario.

If I was a nation and I entered into a foundation and reconciliation agreement with the province, I would also want to know what those standards are. So if there are standards and they’re not public, would the minister at least let us know, or if there are these standards and they are public, could we get some more information on them, please?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I want to assure the member that the province has guidelines, policies and parameters that guide our negotiations. I’m sure the member can also understand that negotiations require a certain degree of confidentiality. But these policies and criteria have been in place for several decades under many previous governments.

Scott McInnis: Again, are these criteria public knowledge? I guess I’ll try it again here with this question. Is it publicly available that people can see how these agreements are formed and based on what criteria?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The simple answer is that no…. The agreements are public, but as I’m sure the member, again, can understand, our negotiation mandates are confidential to protect the public interest, just like any business or government-to-government negotiation would be.

[5:50 p.m.]

Scott McInnis: Okay. When we’re discussing land transfers, as well, as part of these foundational agreements, is that criteria made public as to various agreements, various nations, and what — sorry to say it again — that rubric is for the size and the scope of the land that’s transferred to nations during those agreements?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I thought it might be helpful to outline some of the general process for land transfers. The first step is identification of general areas of interest between the First Nation and the province, and then identification and assessment of third party interests. Following that, government seeks to resolve those third party interests and then can enter into a land transfer agreement. We then take further technical steps as required, including surveys and any studies required as part of returns.

Once all of those issues and requirements are resolved, we can move to transfer lands. I also want to note that, as the member may know, we only transfer private fee simple lands on a willing-buyer, willing-seller basis.

Gavin Dew: In Budget 2024, over a year ago, the government promised to establish an Indigenous loan guarantee program to allow First Nations to take equity positions in projects. Conservative or right-of-centre governments in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario set up such programs years ago, and the federal government made a similar announcement in their 2024 budget.

We know the federal program is up and running, even though it is much larger and, in fact, was doubled from $5 billion to $10 billion. Why was the federal government able to stand this up so quickly, and why is B.C. taking so long?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I thank the member for the question. It is a question that should be appropriately directed to the Minister of Finance.

Gavin Dew: I am a little confused. My understanding has been that that program was being administered jointly between this ministry and Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation, but that may be confusing.

Taking into account that this is around Indigenous consultation for that program, my understanding is that several Chiefs have reached out to Premier Eby and Minister Bailey requesting opportunities to discuss the proposed loan guarantee program as well as current equity opportunities their nations are actively considering. To date, those requests have gone unanswered.

I’m hoping that I can get a better understanding of why government has delayed the development of the program and why it is not engaging directly with First Nations leadership to ensure it meets their needs and timelines, which…. I assume that consultation and engagement would fall under the ambit of this ministry.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I can confirm that the program isn’t jointly administered. As previously stated, reconciliation is a cross-government responsibility, and the responsibility for this initiative is being led by the Ministry of Finance.

Gavin Dew: Notwithstanding the responsibility for administering the program, I would still like to talk about the principles around the program, which I think are certainly relevant and applicable to the ministry and are certainly an important part of building relationships and advancing economic reconciliation.

With that in mind, my understanding is that the B.C. loan guarantee program has been, or will be, designed to support only new projects and exclude existing assets. For example, that would mean a new project, but that would exclude an existing asset, like a pipeline. Given the principles of self-determination and economic reconciliation, how does the B.C. government justify limiting First Nations’ ability to access support for equitable participation in projects of their choosing, whether those are new or existing projects?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again I will restate that partnerships, relationships with First Nations, reconciliation, including economic reconciliation, are a cross-government responsibility, as outlined in every minister’s mandate letter. The detailed questions about this initiative are for the Ministry of Finance.

Gavin Dew: I certainly will ask detailed questions about the administration of the initiative around any financial aspects in Finance estimates. But at this point, I still do think it’s very relevant to talk about the economic and relationship-building and reconciliation elements of the program.

Certainly, in the context of the federal loan guarantee program, there was extensive debate over whether or not existing assets should be included, and ultimately, the federal government did determine that existing assets would be included.

The broad strokes of that debate and conversation were that it would be rather paternalistic for the government, whether that be federal or provincial, to tell First Nations what they can and cannot or should and should not invest in, and that that was both paternalistic and also not fiscally smart in that existing assets are far safer investments versus the higher risk of new project development.

Again, I’m really just trying to understand the philosophical approach the government is taking. I’m not looking for details on the financing. I’m looking to understand, with clarity from the minister, whether, as and when this overdue program is eventually brought forward, existing assets will be covered or not.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I will again reiterate that program design and implementation of this program is being led by the Ministry of Finance. Again, I’m not sure what the member might be misunderstanding here, but in this government, every ministry and every ministry mandate letter holds responsibility for reconciliation. It is a whole-of-government approach, so not all things related to Indigenous peoples and reconciliation are led by my ministry.

In the case of this particular initiative, as I have said numerous times now, the work is being led by the Ministry of Finance, and that is where these questions should be directed.

Gavin Dew: I fully recognize the approach of a whole-of-government approach. I’m surprised that on this key project, this key initiative, that has been discussed extensively over the last year and that has been canvassed widely, First Nations leaders are waiting for clarity. It’s really just kind of shocking that Chiefs are reaching out to the Premier, reaching out to ministers, and they’re getting no response as to what’s happening on this, particularly in light of the overall context in British Columbia.

In April, Fasken reported that between 2022 and 2024, 111 Indigenous communities across Canada acquired equity stakes in infrastructure projects and that B.C. was the third-highest province in terms of Indigenous equity participation despite the absence of a formal program. So there’s a lot of appetite here. There’s a lot of discussion happening around this in and around Indigenous communities, and there is a very robust debate happening as to whether or not existing assets should or should not be included.

[6:10 p.m.]

There are some very profound philosophical and financial and policy realities around this, including but not limited to the fact that smaller, less wealthy communities that may have less project development capacity are more likely to benefit on a risk-adjusted basis from rate-regulated assets than from new projects that are more complex and higher risk.

I’m really, again, not looking for details on program design. I’m not looking for any of that. I really do hope the minister can provide us with some level of understanding as to whether this program that was committed to in the 2024 budget (1) has actually moved forward in any material design, because I cannot hear any indication that it has; and (2) I’m looking for even a philosophical statement of belief as to whether or not existing projects, existing assets should be covered in the scope.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I am pleased to hear the member’s detailed interest in this topic. The member and I have been having interesting philosophical discussions on a wide range of topics since we were both in student politics 20 years ago. I look forward to continuing that, but again these specific questions are for the Ministry of Finance.

Scott McInnis: I know my time is just about up before the Third Party does have their time. I just want to thank the minister and their staff for the debates on this very, very important work. I know, on behalf of the official opposition, that we want to work all together across party lines to advance reconciliation in the most meaningful ways possible.

Again, thank you all for your time and for the answers to the questions.

Rob Botterell: I really appreciate the opportunity to raise some questions related to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation — very near and dear to my heart.

I’d have to say that this is the most important ministry in government. It has the most important role in government right now, leading us through a period of reconciliation with nations across the province. In that work, there can never be enough attention paid to taking the time to get it right and working tirelessly to make amends for over 150 years of history that we need to move beyond.

My questions tonight are intended to sort of explore the vision for the ministry and the minister’s vision for the next four years. We have a real opportunity here to make some major progress. With that in mind, I’ll raise some questions.

[6:15 p.m.]

The first question arises from the fact that Indigenous governments in this province continue to face significant barriers in delivering key services and supports in their communities. This largely stems from the lack of adequate and diverse revenue to Indigenous communities in comparison to other local governments in the province.

My question is: can the minister speak to their plan to ensure Indigenous governments receive stable, reliable and diverse streams of revenues sufficient to support their governing capacity beyond just this fiscal year?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I just want to start by saying…. I see that some folks have left the room, but I wanted to thank the members of the official opposition for respectful questions and discussion on what I agree is a very important topic for us all.

We’ll welcome and move on to questions. The question just asked…. As part of implementing the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples…. As the member knows, we’re working toward a future where Indigenous governments can fulfil their responsibilities, care for their people and manage their territories in ways that reflect their values. This will involve co-developing a new principled fiscal framework with Indigenous peoples based on the recognition of Indigenous rights.

The fiscal and economic context has certainly changed since the co-development process began over two years ago, but First Nations have been clear that the projects that will help us diversify the economy need to be developed in partnership and include principled revenue-sharing frameworks that support both Indigenous and provincial governments.

We remain committed to continuing this important work in a way that responds to the current pressures while meeting our commitments in the Declaration Act action plan.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

There’s a long history in this province that has evolved through numerous court cases in terms of consultation with First Nations on issues that relate to potential infringement of rights and title and accommodation. In that respect, it’s very important to ensure we don’t produce a burden of consultation on Indigenous communities.

I know recently there’s been consultation in my riding, as an example, in relation to dock management plans, and there’s been consultation in relation to Islands Trust policies and statements.

[6:20 p.m.]

The reality is still, for many nations, that they have a huge stack of referrals or consultation letters, and don’t…. It can be overwhelming to provide a reasonable response in the time required.

The question I have is: can the minister speak to this government’s plan to reduce the administrative and financial burden on Indigenous communities, to ensure they have the proper resources to actually participate meaningfully in consultation?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks for the question.

The province has a responsibility to consult with First Nations when making decisions that may affect their rights, and how we satisfy this responsibility is generally through consultation. Decision-making agreements can also address these responsibilities, where there’s an approach that’s agreed upon by the province and a First Nation.

The province supports nations in consultation processes in a number of ways. This can include agreements such as strategic engagement agreements and consultation process agreements that provide funding to nations for participation that’s structured consultation. Funding may also be provided for specific contexts or projects, such as the EA process.

Rob Botterell: In this province, we have started down the path of shared decision-making. We can see it arising in a variety of contexts, both in terms of the composition of local government decision-making bodies — for example, the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district…. We can see it evolving in different ways tailored to the environment and the needs and wishes of nations and governments in particular parts of the province. It’s a lot of hard work to build that shared decision-making, and we really need to get it right.

[6:25 p.m.]

Coming back to something I’m fairly familiar with, in terms of my riding…. There are over 20 nations within my riding, and there are also a variety of governance issues. One of them is — I’ll come back to it — dock management and the approval of docks, and so on. The work that’s taking place on that is an example of an area where there could be shared decision-making. But what we’ve seen through the events of last year at Pender Harbour is that you can really run into some difficult relationship-building issues.

My question is…. I’m of the understanding that the ministry is committed to pursuing shared decision-making opportunities consistent with DRIPA and other policy and legislation. How will this ministry equip First Nations with the capacity and financial support to actually participate meaningfully in the development of those shared decision-making processes and the consultation that goes along with that with those impacted, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous?

You can’t get it wrong, so I’m curious about your assessment of how we properly provide the capacity for that.

Hon. Christine Boyle: I want to start by stating that, again, as the member knows through his extensive work in this area, I appreciate that building capacity takes time and often isn’t a linear process. We enter into shared decision-making through agreements, and those agreements include capacity funding intended to enable a First Nation to meaningfully participate in that shared decision-making process.

[6:30 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act has been celebrated as an important framework for reconciliation, and certainly, my understanding is that it was passed unanimously. However, sometimes it doesn’t feel that way, and certainly, certain members have called for DRIPA, as it’s come to be called, to be repealed.

Can the minister speak to the status of the Declaration Act secretariat and whether this government is continuing to support full implementation of DRIPA?

[6:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The secretariat was established in Budget 2022. The mandate of the secretariat is to help advance section 3 of the Declaration Act. Its core functions are to provide guidance on consultation and cooperation and consistency of laws, to develop processes and measures to support the alignment of laws, to inform government’s legislative agenda and to serve in an interlocutor role.

The secretariat has been actively involved in supporting the province to pass priority legislation. I’m happy to give a few examples of recent and relevant amendments, which include the Anti-Racism Act; the Child, Family and Community Services Amendment Act; the Emergency and Disaster Management Act; the School Amendment Act; the Health Professions and Occupations Act; and the Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act.

As I know the member is aware, the Declaration Act remains in every mandate letter, and this government is fully committed to advancing meaningful reconciliation through the implementation of the Declaration Act.

Rob Botterell: Could the minister clarify — and thank you for the answer — what amount of funding is in this year’s budget in relation to implementation of DRIPA?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thanks again for the question.

Members can find this on page 130 of our budget. The Declaration Act secretariat’s net budget is $4.5 million. The reconciliation transformation and strategies division budget is $3.6 million.

Those are just two of the focused pieces within my ministries working on implementing the Declaration Act, but the work of implementation of the Declaration Act is woven through every budget, every ministry and all through government. I can’t give a more fulsome number than that except to point to the specific pieces within my own ministries.

[6:40 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: At the heart of the work that we will collectively do over the next three, four years is building an approach to what some view as a contentious aspect of DRIPA, which is the application of free, prior and informed consent. This becomes particularly contentious at times when we’re in more of a setting or a part of the province where there are extensive private land holdings.

It would be helpful to hear the minister’s vision and the government’s approach to the principle of free, prior and informed consent. What’s the vision for how that would be administered in various parts of the province?

Hon. Christine Boyle: Free, prior and informed consent is about engaging with First Nations on proposed activities in their territories right from the beginning.

The Declaration Act gives us more tools to get to an orderly, structured and transparent process for working with Indigenous peoples towards decisions that affect and that benefit everyone. This can help us move away from conflict and drawn-out court cases and uncertainty and move forward with collaboration and respect. Engaging First Nations early on creates opportunities for Indigenous peoples, industry, businesses, communities and families everywhere.

It’s this government’s clear understanding that respectful partnerships foster predictability, good jobs and opportunities, while protecting the environment and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples.

We know that there are complexities in moving this work forward, and we’re committed to addressing those complexities and doing that important and sometimes challenging work in partnership with First Nations. That’s the work that we have together — and a clear commitment to do it.

Maybe, also, can we have a break? Five, ten minutes would be great, if that’s okay. Thank you.

The Chair: The committee will now recess for ten minutes. I have 6:44 on my watch. I’d like to see everybody back at 6:54, please and thank you.

The committee recessed from 6:45 p.m. to 6:55 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, we will call the committee back to order. We are considering the estimates of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Rob Botterell: The work that is underway to build frameworks to deal with free, prior and informed consent and to build shared decision-making has to be tailored and is tailored to the particular circumstances and parties involved.

At the nub of it, we all want consensus, and it’s just like here in the Legislature. Wouldn’t it be great if we all had consensus? Sometimes we do, and it’s quite exciting. But then other times, we don’t. In this House, we have protocols and approaches, policies, orders, votes and even division bells that ultimately lead to a decision being taken.

My question is: what is your government’s approach when the parties involved can’t reach consensus, where the nation and the resource company, or the nation and the local government, or the nation and the province can’t reach consensus?

An additional complication, as we know, is that a particular decision may involve four or five nations that, just like local governments, don’t always agree. There’s that complexity.

The question really is: what is your government’s approach when the involved parties cannot come to a consensus?

[7:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, thanks for such a good question.

The truth is, of course, that we don’t always reach consensus. But our goal is to achieve free, prior and informed consent on matters that impact First Nations’ rights and interests in B.C. Where that can’t be achieved, we rely on a variety of tools, mediation, dispute resolution and negotiation.

The province’s section 7 agreements to date and those that will follow are a high-water mark with respect to achieving free, prior and informed consent. They build a strong and transparent process, they set out criteria, they provide an understanding of the decision-making process, and they provide opportunities for third parties to be effectively heard.

As stated, if people agree, they can challenge a decision. They’re judicially reviewable. That’s our approach to sound decision-making made together to make the province stronger, and we’re committed to doing that work in partnership with First Nations.

Rob Botterell: There’s no questioning the commitment of the government and the minister to use every tool in the toolkit to try and reach consensus. But at the end of the day, if consensus can’t be reached, how do you go about deciding or establishing the ultimate decision?

[7:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, a really good and meaty question.

It is a case-by-case basis. The work that we do includes assessing the perspective of the First Nation whose rights may be impacted; assessing the discussions that we’ve had with them and the efforts that have been made to work together, and assessing the legislative and regulatory context around the decision and our agreement and relationship context. Then, subject to all of that context, including whether we have a shared decision-making framework in place, we would get to a decision.

Again, I’m not trying to be evasive, except to reiterate that it really is a case-by-case basis. All of those factors and relevant contexts come into the decision.

Rob Botterell: To the minister: thank you for the answer to the previous question.

With your announcement of $36 million in new funding for Indigenous language revitalization and preservation in this budget, can the minister describe the plans for this additional funding and how it will be directed?

[7:10 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, really glad to get this question, an exciting part of this budget.

To support First Nations languages, heritage, arts and culture programming, B.C. announced $15 million per year in Budget 2025 for the First Peoples Cultural Council. This includes $12 million per year dedicated to addressing the growing demand for language revitalization and will provide critical jobs for speakers, particularly Elders and First Nations women.

Since 2018, B.C. has committed $136 million to support First Nations languages, arts, cultural heritage and traditional knowledge.

The question gets into some of how we do that work, so I wanted to highlight some of the targets from the First Peoples Cultural Council, which are also in the service plan.

The first target is creating 3,300 new speakers through the mentor-apprentice program. The second is documenting all languages in B.C. on FirstVoices.com, a resource I really recommend checking out. The third target is training 1,400 people in arts, language and heritage revitalization. The fourth is creating comprehensive language revitalization plans in partnership with nations for what that long-term work, that they’re leading themselves, looks like. And the fifth is supporting skilled jobs in community. The target is 4,500 skilled jobs in community through that permanent and ongoing funding.

Rob Botterell: The election federally is over, and now we know who the next Prime Minister is going to be, Prime Minister Carney. We also know that the Prime Minister has demonstrated a real commitment to tackling both Trump and issues more generally.

What steps are you and your government taking to engage with the federal government in relation to Indigenous issues and Indigenous funding now that we actually know what government we’re dealing with?

[7:15 p.m.]

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Again, thanks for the question.

B.C. and Canada both have roles to advance reconciliation with First Nations, Métis and Inuit people in Canada, informed by the division of powers between governments. Like B.C., Canada has legislated the United Nations declaration of Indigenous peoples under the federal United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

As part of that work, Canada has developed an action plan consisting of 181 action plan measures to implement the UN declaration. Nineteen of those action plan measures reference B.C. or provinces and territories more generally. In addition to that, many issues central to the negotiation of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements fall under provincial jurisdiction, most notably those including Crown land and resources.

In relation to the last question, I also wanted to mention that we’ve heard concerns about decreased federal funding levels for First Nations language programs. As I previously mentioned, B.C. remains committed to supporting First Nations to revitalize language and cultures as part of our ongoing work to implement the UN declaration and create tangible improvements in the quality of life for Indigenous people.

Now that the election is done, we’re looking forward to engaging with Canada on the language funding piece, as well as on a whole range of really important shared pieces of this work.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

In the time I have, I will see if I can cover two more questions.

Indigenous children and youth continue to be disproportionately represented in the child welfare system. While strides have been made to restore Indigenous peoples’ rights to care for their own children, this must also be met with appropriate funding to remedy underlying systemic issues.

I can speak from personal experience on behalf of clients who, when I was practising law, actually sadly found the federal government more responsive in this area with funding and additional funding. It was always a challenge to get the B.C. government to the table to provide funding that would balance the federal funding.

[7:20 p.m.]

I would like to ask if the minister could speak to any funding in this budget to support Indigenous jurisdiction, culturally relevant services and preventative measures in the child welfare system.

Hon. Christine Boyle: This is such an important question. It is a question best directed to MCFD. But I appreciate it being asked, and happy to see it directed there.

Rob Botterell: This will be my final question.

Over the 25 years I’ve spent prior to becoming an MLA — practising law, representing First Nations and local governments on a range of issues with the B.C. government, a range of ministries, different political parties, different governments — it has always been my experience that the public servants in the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation — it’s had a lot of names over the years — have always ended up playing a critical role as advocates within government.

I just want to express my appreciation for the professionalism, skill, drive and purposefulness of the public servants in your ministry who have devoted, many of them, as much time as ten, 15, 20 years to advancing the interests of First Nations in this province, acting as an advocate within government. There is such a wealth of knowledge and experience in your ministry.

The question I’d like to ask is: how do you see that role playing out over the next three or four years? I can think of issues like, in our cooperation agreement with the government, protection of Fairy Creek. In many other areas, your public servants have a valuable role to play in supporting other ministries that are dealing with issues where they don’t have the depth of experience in forestry or child welfare or other areas.

While I totally understand your point about “that’s not my issue; ask the other minister,” I would like to ask, and I’ll make it short, just what your vision is for the role of your ministry in supporting other ministries as they tackle complex issues.

[7:25 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I appreciate the question and the comments.

I do just want to start out by also recognizing the incredible work of a really incredible staff team across the ministry and the Declaration Act secretariat, a number of whom are here in person today. But as you say, a really amazing team who hold important relationships and are so dedicated to this work, and I feel really lucky to get to do the work alongside them.

My vision for this work is reflected in my mandate letter very clearly, which outlines a number of important pieces that relate to the member’s questions, one of which is that, through the Declaration Act secretariat, a central agency for this work, we lead work with the Attorney General to ensure alignment of B.C.’s laws with the rights of Indigenous people and lead work to review and update the Declaration Act action plan by 2027 for the next five-year period.

My mandate letter, as well as the mandate letters of other ministries, really speaks to this being an all-of-government approach.

[7:30 p.m.]

Mine specifically outlines the collaboration required to do this work in a meaningful and impactful way, including, for example, working with the Parliamentary Secretary for Anti-Racism Initiatives on anti-Indigenous racism, working in cooperation with the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship to continue to develop and implement approaches to accelerating agreed-upon land transfers that enhance First Nations community and economic development.

So while I have redirected a few questions to the specific ministries that lead them, I do want to assure the member that my team is supporting this work across all ministries as well as working to build that capacity.

My personal vision is that we move beyond denial and denialism of basic human rights and move toward one of affirmation of human rights, and I look forward to working with the member and with all those in the House who are willing to get to that point.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

Once again, thank you to all of your staff, who do a great job and have been a huge support in moving reconciliation forward.

You gave great answers to great questions. Thank you.

Dallas Brodie: I have a question. Page 220, schedule D, of the budget has set aside $30 million for the acquisition of land and other assets for future final agreements. I have several questions relating to that. That’s on page 220.

The first question is: what lands? The second one is: what assets, what agreements and which First Nations?

[7:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The line item being asked about is related to the acquisition of land and other assets for future final agreements. Financing transactions for land transfers allows the ministry to prioritize private land purchases over the three-year plan as part of treaty or other agreements.

As part of Budget 2025, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation has, as outlined, an annual appropriation of $30 million. This is an envelope to provide for future land transfers. I want to remind members that the province only includes private fee simple lands on a willing-buyer, willing-seller basis. At this point, nothing has been authorized by government as part of this envelope for this fiscal year.

Dallas Brodie: Just to confirm on that, it’s not even identified which First Nations this money would be transferred to, the $30 million. It has not been earmarked for any one agreement or one First Nation. Is that right? It’s just an envelope, so not earmarked for anything.

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, that is correct. It’s an annual envelope that is drawn down, subject to government decisions and authorities.

Thank you for the question.

Dallas Brodie: My next question is referring to page 224 of the budget, which is the estimated consolidated revenue fund operating result, general fund. Total general fund revenue has only increased 2 percent year over year, from $64.9 billion to $66.4 billion.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has seen a decline in its budget — because that’s a small increase, 2 percent — of $228 million down to $142 million. These are rounded down or up. The Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness has seen a reduction in its budget from $466 million all the way down to $125 million. Then your ministry sees an increase, which is quite a sharp increase, from $160 million all the way up to $187 million.

My question to you, Minister, is why is your ministry getting such a significant increase at a time when there has only been a 2 percent increase in the overall funds available and other ministries have had such sharp declines?

[7:45 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m going to give you a summary answer and then go into a few more specific details.

The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation’s budget is funded to match signed agreement costs and adjusts along with our commitments. MIRR’s 2025-26 budget, as stated, is $186 million. This is a $26.8 million increase from the previous year. It includes dedicated and dependable funding, allowing us to meet our commitments, continue to work in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples and to effectively deliver our mandate.

It also includes new stable funding for the First Peoples Cultural Council of $15 million a year, as well as $8 million of an annual increase for the fiscal relationship agreements with modern treaty Nations to participate in co-management of land and resources in their treaties and additional payments related to liquefied natural gas revenue sharing.

I’m happy to break that down even more specifically. MIRR’s 2025-26 budget, as stated, is $186 million, a 16.8 percent increase, which is because of a $16 million increase in the ministry operations vote and a $10 million increase in the treaty and other agreements vote. This is how we’ll break down the votes as we get to it shortly.

A $7,000 increase to the Declaration Act secretariat and then a $200,000 increase to planned returns in the first citizens fund special account, and, as stated, a $15 million increase to provide stable funding for the First Peoples Cultural Council and First Nations languages, arts and heritage programs. A $700,000 increase to support the shared recovery wage mandate. All of this is public, of course.

So $400,000 in incremental funding for the First Peoples Cultural Council and a $30,000 net decrease to the minister’s office.

Dallas Brodie: This is obviously a huge amount of money in the B.C. budget. I’m just wondering. How does your ministry measure or gauge the success of these programs? What are the deliverables that you look at to see whether the taxpayers’ money being spent is yielding the results that taxpayers should see? How do you measure that?

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m very happy to get to speak to this question. I’ll first say that the ministry has a service plan, of course, that is publicly available and contains goals, measures and outcomes for the work that we do. The First Peoples Cultural Council, as a Crown corporation, also has a publicly available service plan with goals and measurable outcomes.

Much like those, the Declaration Act annual report includes measurable actions and outcomes. I wanted to give members some more details in case they haven’t had the opportunity to read it. Section 4 of the Declaration Act requires the province to develop and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the UN declaration in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous people.

The province’s Declaration Act action plan was released on March 30, 2022, as a five-year, cross-government plan to support the UN declaration in B.C. The action plan includes 89 tangible, achievable cross-government actions in the areas of self-determination and self-government, rights and title, ending anti-Indigenous racism and enhancing social, cultural and economic well-being.

The action plan was developed through two years of intensive engagement, helping to ensure it reflects the priorities of Indigenous people in B.C. Each ministry in government works in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples to deliver on their specific actions.

[7:55 p.m.]

Section 5 of the Declaration Act requires regular reporting to the B.C. Legislature to monitor progress on the alignment of laws and the action plan in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples. It includes tabling an annual report by June 30 each year.

Available on the Declaration Act website, the 2023-24 annual report details progress made on 60 actions either underway or completed in the first two years of the Declaration Act action plan as well as work to align provincial laws. This includes housing and infrastructure, economic development and job creation and new ways of achieving certainty, especially related to the sustainable development of natural resources. More will follow this year as work continues in consultation and cooperation.

Again, I just thought I would give some specific examples of this work. The Declaration Act secretariat has worked to support ministries to achieve legislative alignment with the UN declaration.

This has included amendments that support Indigenous peoples in exercising their jurisdiction over child and family services through the Child, Family and Community Service Act, as well as amendments to strengthen consultation, cooperation and consent on adoption placements for Indigenous children through the Adoption Act.

Amendments that uphold First Nations jurisdiction over education, including enabling First Nations to certify and regulate teachers in their own schools.

Amendments that added a non-derogation clause to the Interpretation Act, which makes it clear that provincial laws uphold and do not diminish the rights of Indigenous peoples as outlined under section 35 of the Constitution Act.

Amendments that added Indigenous identity as a protected ground under the B.C. human rights code, which will help all of us to combat anti-Indigenous racism and protect Indigenous peoples from discrimination.

Amendments that have taken a significant step to dismantle systemic racism and discrimination faced by Indigenous, Black and people of colour through the Anti-Racism Data Act.

And amendments that recognize Indigenous peoples’ inherent rights to self-government as they relate to emergency management through the Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

Again, all are in publicly available documents and reported out publicly on an annual basis.

Dallas Brodie: My next question relates to the government transfers for the fiscal year that ended March 31, 2024. These are the details of payees who received $25,000 or more from your ministry.

There are some significant payments to law firms. The largest one is to Gowlings law firm in the amount of $105 million. There’s a payment to another law firm, much smaller but still very significant, Callison and Hanna, barristers and solicitors, for $15 million. The first one is $105 million to one law firm and $15 million to another law firm.

My first question is: what was this money for? I have more questions relating to these payments, but that’s my first one.

[8:00 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: These are payments made to law firms, sometimes in trust, related to implementation of agreements or government commitments to be released as certain conditions are met. As I’m sure the member is aware, this is a common practice.

Dallas Brodie: Following on in this, what is the total amount of money estimated to be transferred to law firms, accounting firms and consulting firms in the upcoming fiscal year? It would be great if you could please separate out these amounts by category. We’ve got law firms, accounting firms and consulting firms that are being paid out of your ministry.

[8:05 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: The ministry doesn’t have contracts with accounting firms. In addition, we don’t hire lawyers. The Ministry of the Attorney General hires lawyers, so that question would be best directed to them.

The ministry’s budget for consulting services is $1.8 million on the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation side and $253,000 for the Declaration Act secretariat.

Dallas Brodie: Coming back to this, when the funds are transferred to…. You’re saying that your ministry does not hire any law firms directly? Is that right? Your ministry doesn’t have a budget for that?

Hon. Christine Boyle: That is correct. We receive our legal services through the Ministry of the Attorney General, and all external legal services are operated through that ministry.

Dallas Brodie: These are the government transfers for the fiscal year under March ’24. It’s quite a long list of transfers that are made to bands. I’m sure you’ve seen this before.

These transfers start at the level of $107 million going to one First Nation, and then it goes down to $61.9 million, $50 million, $48 million, $45 million, $44 million, $37 million, $37 million, $31 million, $28 million, $28 million, $27 million, $27 million, $17.9 million, $15 million and $14 million.

[8:10 p.m.]

This is a very long list of payments. I would like to know what these payments are for and on what basis these are allocated. Some First Nations get…. The Saulteau First Nations get $61.9 million, and then other First Nations end up getting…. Well, let’s just go to any other one, $575,000.

How is this list…? How are these numbers arrived at?

Hon. Christine Boyle: The information that the member is referencing is for public accounts for the prior year, and we’re in estimates for the 2025-2026 fiscal year.

Dallas Brodie: Is the minister saying that these kinds of payments won’t be made in the upcoming year? You’re talking about the upcoming year, and this is last year’s payments, so will similar payments be made in the upcoming year?

[8:15 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, payments will go to nations based on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements, including revenue-sharing agreements. These come from across ministries, but I can speak to our specific budget for this year, which is $31.6 million for ministry operations and $478 million for treaties and other agreements.

Dallas Brodie: There is a great disparity in the amounts being received by the First Nations. Some are receiving $61.9 million, and the First Nation at the bottom of the list is receiving $10,000. What is the measurement used to determine which First Nations get these huge amounts and the ones that get just a very paltry amount compared to the others?

[8:20 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: I’m not sure the exact document that the member is looking at. It’s not our own estimates. If it is public accounts, then I’m happy to provide a bit of an explanation.

Payments are made in accordance with agreement obligations. Public accounts reports at a summary level by recipient — again, a signed reconciliation agreement, revenue-sharing payments. These are also not necessarily all made by MIRR, so I can’t provide further information.

Dallas Brodie: What is the total monetary value of all cash, land and other transfers to Indigenous peoples that are estimated for the upcoming fiscal year?

Hon. Christine Boyle: I will reiterate that our budget for this year is $31.6 million for ministry operations and $478 million for treaties and other agreements. I can’t comment, of course, on the budgets of other ministries.

Dallas Brodie: Is the minister aware of how much money is being transferred from other ministries going towards First Nations issues, or is it that you have your budget for your ministry, but you must be aware of other ministries who are also allocating parts of their budget towards First Nations matters, given that it’s your portfolio? Maybe you don’t. I’m just seeing if you know what those amounts are.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Reconciliation is an all-of-government responsibility. So no, I don’t have all of that information.

Dallas Brodie: But as a follow-on to this, that is the amount of money being spent just on consultations. So you have the total amount that you’re transferring to Indigenous peoples, but do you know how much will be used during consultation, specifically earmarked for consultation with the government?

[8:25 p.m.]

You’re transferring money to First Nations for them to pay for consultation to argue back against the government. How much are we paying to the First Nations so they can use it to consult back with you?

Hon. Christine Boyle: As I’ve said, reconciliation is a whole-of-government responsibility. All ministries have consultation obligations and sometimes provide capacity funds to First Nations to support meeting our constitutional obligations to consult under section 35 and the Declaration Act. I don’t have those specific numbers for each ministry.

Dallas Brodie: I’m getting to the end here, I promise.

Where is the money coming from for the agreements that you negotiate? Whose budget is this coming from? Which budgets and where? Can you direct me to where it is in the book, where the money is coming from to negotiate these agreements?

You are negotiating these deals on behalf of the province. It’s a top priority for your government. You must have the money allocated.

The Chair: Member, I just would like to remind you that your questions and comments should be directed through the Chair.

Dallas Brodie: Through the Chair, yes.

Chair, these deals are being negotiated by this ministry on behalf of the province, and it is a top priority for the government. The ministry must have the money allocated and earmarked for negotiating agreements for the upcoming year. How much is being set aside for this?

How much is going to be coming from your ministry, then, to negotiate these agreements?

Sorry, through the Chair to the minister.

[8:30 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: Given the late hour, I’ll direct the member to pages 129 and 130 of our estimates budget document, as well as page 50 of the supplement to the estimates, which has further details.

Dallas Brodie: My last question is around the shíshálh band situation. The foundation agreement renewal with the shíshálh band signed by the province last year included commitments of transfers worth $79 million over five years.

Where specifically are these funds identified in the budget estimates, and how much of them come from your ministry?

[8:35 p.m.]

Hon. Christine Boyle: In relation to the shíshálh Nation foundation agreement renewal, we have approval to provide this funding out of general government revenue for the amounts required for this fiscal year.

The Chair: You promised you would be done soon. I’m teasing.

Dallas Brodie: This is my last question.

My final question is…. If each of the 204 First Nations were receiving $79 million over five years, that would be about $16 billion. Has the ministry estimated what the total value of transfers to First Nations will be from all ministries beyond the coming fiscal year?

Hon. Christine Boyle: No.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Yes, thanks. I’ll be brief, but to thank members for respectful dialogue on what we all recognize as very important shared work in our province and, again, to thank my terrific staff team, both who are here and who do this work day in and day out with an incredible level of thoughtfulness and dedication and bring that to partnerships that are strengthening our province for everyone who lives here.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and all members. Seeing no further questions, I shall now call the vote.

Vote 34: ministry operations, $75,134,000 — approved.

Vote 35: treaty and other agreements funding, $105,204,000 — approved.

Vote 36: Declaration Act secretariat, $4,574,000 — approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

There is one more motion.

Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Christine Boyle: Thank you, hon. Chair.

I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members.

This committee shall now stand adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:38 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization
(Tariff Response) Act
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act, to order.

On clause 8 (continued).

Kiel Giddens: Welcome back, everyone, to Bill 7 debate. We’ve had a little bit of a break, but nice to see everyone again — in smaller quarters today, but we’ll make do.

We’re on clause 8, which deals with immunity, so we’re still, obviously, on part 2 of the bill. I’m wondering, maybe just to start off the discussion on this, if the Attorney General can briefly describe why this section is actually included.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Welcome back, everybody.

The reason for this provision specifically is because through the procurement directives, we’re directing government policy towards GREs — so outside of government.

With that, and in discussion as we were rolling out these procurement policies, it felt important that there be some kind of immunity provided to these bodies that enact our government procurement policies, to make sure that if they are acting in compliance with the directive, it recognizes that it might conflict with other obligations of the organization or any individual but that we would offer them that type of legal protection.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for beginning the discussion there.

Just in sort of trying to ascertain the need for immunity overall, I’m wondering if the Attorney General could provide a scenario where this would be necessary — an example or two that would actually help to describe for the public what this provision is trying to do.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I guess the clearest example that I could provide is let’s say that the organization that is now subject to a procurement directive has their own rules around procurement duties, like mandate items — it could also be legal duties — that might actually conflict with their procurement directive. In that scenario, we want them to abide by the procurement directive. But if there are any legal issues that might arise from that, then we’re also giving them protection from them.

Kiel Giddens: In that example used, would that apply in the case of a procurement directive being used on, say, a prime contract in a major project, if that was a procurement directive that was prescribed?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: As an enabling piece of legislation, it enables the crafting of a procurement directive to whatever that situation is. In that assessment, you could take into account different versions of procurement, how an entity operates in the world and what that would mean.

Yeah, there’s a potential for it to apply to a situation that the member is referring to. Then we also had, I think, a lengthy conversation about procurement. It might have been on clause 1. I don’t remember. It was about viability and how there would be risk assessments, and it would be a matter of understanding what’s viable and what’s not.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for the acknowledgement. I think that’s part of the scenario I’m trying to understand.

I guess I worry about a situation where businesses may get into legal challenges over contracts subject to a procurement directive. As I described, probably, in those discussions when we were way back in clause 1, I previously worked in construction, major project development, with complex prime contractor relationships.

These are situations where government and Crown corporations also enter into these massive prime contracts. There are subcontracts that fall under this. Many different types of businesses would fall under this prime contract. They’re very important, but they’re complex, and they’re subject to significant litigation.

In the case that I’m familiar with and what I worked in, there were multiple lawsuits, multiple situations where disputes between a prime contractor and project owner…. In this case, I’m trying to ascertain if the government is the owner or if a Crown corporation is the owner. The same thing, where multiple disputes are occurring…. I’m trying to understand where businesses will be impacted by immunity.

With that, I wonder if the minister can explain how these businesses that could be included under procurement directives, under a prime contract or some sort of contract scenario, could seek remedies if they suffered damages due to government action but immunity is applied under clause 8(1). I just wonder if those businesses that may suffer damages — what’s their recourse?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The first thing to remember in the kind of complicated environment that the member is talking about is that, yeah, there often are projects where there are multiple lawsuits related to contractual terms and prime contracts, subcontracts. I understand, with major projects, that can be a big thing with many components to it.

This is only around procurement, so it narrows it quite a bit. Once you’re already in that narrowed field, what we would say is that if an entity that we’ve given a procurement directive to abides by that procurement directive and through that procurement process has had some liability incurred where a business is trying to seek damages, then the province would step in.

We would essentially immunize the entity for abiding by our procurement directive and take it on as a province. That’s the protection that we’re offering them, and that’s how it would show up. That’s under clause 9.

[3:00 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: That’s the immunity protection for those that are entering into contracts under the procurement directives. Can, maybe, the Attorney General just describe why government would need that kind of level? I’m trying to get at what the government is trying to achieve by using procurement directives in this way. Why not use existing tools? Why the existing legislation? Why is immunity, in this case, actually needed?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The whole purpose of this section is to do something quite unprecedented when it comes to directing procurement of all government entities in a certain way — that is, for the reasons that we talked about already, to unlock the ability of us to drive the economy through the money that we spend as a government and these government reporting entities in the community.

Because of that, through this whole part, there is a consistency that is clear — that we can make sure has the legal mechanisms in place to make that clear — and consistent throughout all government reporting entities. That includes the fact that because there are so many with — and we talked about it before — different mandates, different potentially existing policies, we would provide the legal protections for them to fulfil that procurement directive.

An example might be, let’s say, we’re asking a government reporting entity to do a procurement by excluding American. There is a lawsuit that comes into place that says: “Why are you wrongly excluding me from this procurement?” That government reporting entity has done what we’ve asked them to. We as a government would say, “You’re indemnified by that,” and that would be our role to step in on that claim.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for providing that example. I think it helped me to understand what immunity looks like in this situation, but as we’ve talked about previously in the bill, it is broad sweeping. In our estimation, we still think that there is overreach. In asking these questions, it’s trying to get really into the details of what that looks like in practice.

Just to finish up a little bit on the immunity side of things, I want to maybe ask: were there any other mechanisms, from a legal state, considered for some level of protection against legal proceedings?

[3:05 p.m.]

Immunity is not necessarily the only one. For example, was a reasonableness standard considered, rather than full immunity, sort of to balance government accountability and public protection in a different way, I guess?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There is a version of a reasonable standard built into the language of this. You have to read sections 8 and 9 together.

With respect to section 8, you’ll see that in the language that says: “…against a protected person because of anything done or omitted in complying with, or intending to comply with, a directive issued under this.” And then the subsection (2) does have a bad-faith omission for that.

Kiel Giddens: Thank you for the response, to the Attorney General.

Maybe we’ll move to the bad-faith component a little bit more in depth, then. What would be the test for determining bad faith for the purposes of this exception?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Bad faith is a very well-used legal term that has a lot of case law to back it up. Essentially, what it would mean would be dishonesty, fraud or some evidence of an ulterior motive that’s inconsistent with the duties that that person should have been acting with.

Kiel Giddens: It’s used in common law. I don’t come from a legal background, so I appreciate knowing a little bit more about that.

Would that be more of an objective or subjective kind of standard in common-law practice then?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That would be a subjective standard.

[3:10 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: That’s what I thought. Can the minister provide a relevant example of what could be considered an exclusion due to bad faith in this case?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah. There could be any number of examples that would meet a subjective standard, but I’ll give you an example of what is modelled off one of the big cases on this.

Let’s say, instead of following a procurement directive, because of a personal issue with one of the businesses that wanted to bid, you excluded them from that bidding, and it was related to that. It was an ulterior kind of motive that you had, which wasn’t related to the duties that you had or the procurement directive and how you should have been acting. Then that would be an example of operating in bad faith.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the example.

I guess, in using that example, I’m still, in my mind, working through those — a procurement situation and a prime contract situation. Again, that’s still where my head is at. Would there be some sort of an independent process for businesses or individuals to challenge government actions that they deem to be being made in bad faith?

Hon. Niki Sharma: If a business has some claim that they believe alleges that the province acted inappropriately or in bad faith, then the courts are free for them to bring that claim forward. We have a whole legal team in my ministry that responds to any number of claims. We can test them and meet them in court with respect to that.

What this does is it shifts the question of liability to the province instead of on the entity. It doesn’t prevent, doesn’t bar, anybody from challenging the province if they feel like they’ve been wronged for any number of ways.

Gavin Dew: Can the Attorney General expand a little bit? Given the subjectivity of the “bad faith” definition, I can imagine a number of scenarios in which the desire to achieve political objectives could easily blur with what could be defined as bad faith from a legal perspective.

Could the Attorney General help us understand a little bit where those definitions would begin and end, and how the risk of politicization would be mitigated in this context?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just to start off with situating where subsection (2) comes into play. It is meant to cover a scenario where a government reporting entity, where we’ve issued a procurement directive, too, acts in bad faith. Then the province is saying: “Well, we’re not going to protect you if that’s true.” So it’s removed from government. It’s not a government thing. It would be something that the government reporting entity could do, and they wouldn’t be protected from that.

It’s a fact-specific finding. In the example the member raised, if a government reporting entity does do something that that looks like they made a decision on procurement that wasn’t related to the directive — it was related to political motives, or whatever other reasons — then you could see that there could be a claim of bad faith. Then it would be up to the court to decide whether that was made out by the facts. The difference would be that the province would say, in that scenario: “We’re not going to indemnify you for those actions.”

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the explanation.

What I’m trying to get at and trying to understand is how this would function when there was a conflict between a policy or political direction and the fiduciary obligation. For example, in hearing the Attorney General describe her prior example, it would not be a stretch of the imagination to picture a scenario where direction was given by government to take an approach to procurement, and a zealous individual at a GRE interpreted that direction in a way that became overtly political.

Or it became sufficiently political that government deemed it indefensible and chose to cut that individual loose because they had done something that, given the uncertainty around definitions, might have been in the political interests of the government but not something explicitly mandated by government.

I’m trying to understand how this entire piece around bad faith and indemnification actually protects against politicization in procurement processes and strikes a balance in protecting the fundamental interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia, as well as protecting the interests of whistleblowers or of individuals who might, for example, believe they’ve been given a direction by government, then follow that direction overzealously and find themselves becoming Oliver North.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: One of the clear benefits of having it in the legislation before a procurement directive is issued is that it sets a standard of conduct for a GRE that might have a procurement directive issued at them.

I think the member is describing a scenario where it sounds like, in that scenario, the procurement entity would be in breach of the directive but also wouldn’t have the benefit of the immunity provisions in this part and therefore would be liable directly for any breaches that they did in a way that was illegal.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate that explanation.

Let’s just take this a little bit further to a non-hypothetical. What I worry about is that in the course of debate on this bill, there has been an unwillingness to establish clarity around certain areas that could actually be very material here. So I want to lay out a non-hypothetical situation.

Let’s imagine, for the sake of argument, that a GRE that has responsibility for procurement and that has responsibility for doing so through a community benefits agreement or project labour agreement, as was previously flagged…. Let’s imagine that there is someone who is a procurement lead for a GRE and who has heard the direction from government that there is an effort to eliminate American content from procurement.

Let’s imagine that that individual working in a GRE believes they’ve heard that direction loud and clear. And let’s imagine, for example, that they listened to previous debate on prior sections of this bill and didn’t really get a clear answer.

Let’s imagine that, having heard the political direction from this government, they arrive at the conclusion that it is, in fact, problematic that 19 of the labour unions participating in community benefits agreements are headquartered in the United States, and at least one, probably several of them, has donated to Donald Trump.

Let’s imagine, for the sake of argument, that they make a decision around changing the approach to procurement or arbitrarily making decisions within the procurement process which, for example, they believe to be eliminating American content from procurement with British Columbia tax dollars.

Now they find themselves in hot water, and they then turn around and find that there is this uncertainty as to whether or not they are protected, because the political direction issued by government, the policy direction issued by government, is insufficiently specific as to determine whether their actions are in fact compliant. And as we look to subsequent sections, there is obviously this piece, which we’ll get to in the next section, around complying with or intending to comply with.

I’m really just trying to understand how we’re not setting up situations in which we could have individuals acting in good faith — either individuals who simply believe they are following the direction of government or individuals who happen to be aligned with the political direction of government — who take actions that they believe to be in good faith and that are subsequently determined to be in bad faith because government perhaps determines that that individual being seen to have acted in bad faith might save the government’s bacon if, for example, there are legal issues that emerge.

I’m just trying to understand how the content of this section is de-risking things for individuals and is addressing those kinds of conflicts between, again, fiduciary obligations, good faith and individuals trying to understand the actual direction of government when it’s somewhat unclear.

Hon. Niki Sharma: To explain the mechanisms again, and I hope I’m being clear…. I’m being as clear as possible without any political influence in my words. I’m just talking about the way the legislation and the law stand.

[3:25 p.m.]

The way that mechanism would show up to set a standard would be, first of all, through the procurement directive. Once issued, the procurement directive is done by OIC, and it would set out the standard of conduct that we would expect in a procurement way. It would say to the government reporting entity: “Here’s what we want you to do.” Of course, anything related to that wouldn’t be about breaking the law or not abiding by duties. It would just be about directing procurement in a certain way.

Then the next thing is the clear legislative framework that talks about when the indemnity applies or doesn’t apply. You have the procurement directive that’s directing very clearly the conduct that we want them to implement, and then we have a clear legal provision here saying that if you operate in bad faith, you won’t get the protection of the indemnity clauses in 8 and 9. It provides that guidance of how we expect them to conduct themselves.

Gavin Dew: Again, I’m just trying…. I’m not a lawyer. I’m trying to wrestle through an understanding of how this would all play out.

In looking at legal precedents, there are cases like Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. B.C. (Transportation and Highways) that addressed issues around the procurement process and arrived at the determination that integrity of process is paramount and that arbitrary and political decisions should not weigh in.

Again, I’m trying to understand. When the rubber hits the road, how does this stuff actually work? How do we avoid a situation in which, despite the fact that there is an attempt to protect against the legal proceedings, there is a direct incentive for a government that provides a broad but fuzzily defined political direction to hang individuals in GREs out to dry if and when something goes wrong and there is legal risk?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I first want to offer the member kudos in providing case law and a quote from a case. I’m impressed.

Again, the case that the member quoted that talks about the integrity of the process and the paramountcy — all that law applies, right? That’s out there and part of the law of the land.

The way that this would operate, again, is that instead of a scenario of hanging out people to dry, we’re actually giving them clear guidance and protecting them in the case that they operate under the directive and incur any claims against them. So it’s actually the opposite of that.

[3:30 p.m.]

What it also does is provide clear instructions in the directive. We are setting that standard of conduct in the directive and then making sure that they know that if they operate in bad faith, the indemnity wouldn’t apply. The structure of it does provide that clarity to everybody.

I also know that the structures of government will be there, operationally. Any government reporting entity under a procurement directive would have the support of government to help to understand how they’re applying it and would answer any questions.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate that. One day, if I ever apply to law school, I will definitely be putting that kudos from the Attorney General in my application package. Meanwhile, I will probably avoid that for now.

Firstly, thank you for the answer. I do appreciate that; it’s very helpful.

What I’m trying to understand and assess is what the risks are here — recognizing where the Attorney General is coming from, in what she said about not trying to hang people out to dry. The reverse issue is also one where we get into challenges, and we think about protection against legal proceedings for individuals who are complying or intending to comply with directives.

Now, what happens when those directives go sideways and when good intentions turn into abuse? I would remind the Attorney General that the sponsorship scandal federally started as perhaps, arguably, a good-faith effort to ensure the unity of Canada, and it degenerated into a massive scandal that shook the foundations of Canadian politics.

When we’re talking about protections, when we’re talking about direction or when we’re talking about intent to comply, I just want to understand how we are de-risking the possibility what starts as an effort to put Canada first, to put B.C. first, to cut the U.S. out of procurement.

How are we protecting against the possibility that it snowballs into an initiative that becomes politicized and then ultimately finding ourselves in a situation where a year, two years into a program that ultimately becomes politicized, ultimately has the risk of manipulating or influencing procurement processes on a domestic basis then ends in a scenario where potentially that happens? It all goes wrong; it snowballs into a scandal. There is demand for public accountability, but what the government is doing through this is protecting anyone who might have participated in so doing.

I want to understand where those thresholds are and where the guardrails are against this bill being used to create the risk of unaccountable politicization and the use of the public purse as an instrument of domestic politics. You know, it first started as an instrument of defending against America; it first started as an effort at economic stabilization. How are we mitigating against those very real risks?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Thanks for the walk down history lane about the sponsorship scandal.

There are a few ways that there are protections built into this legislation to make sure that we’re over this, enabling a really fair and transparent process. The first one I’d say would be the steps that we talked about the last time we were at committee stage that were about the financial administration, all the acts that still apply to any procurement directive, and we went through that in quite some detail — the kind of the guardrails of the financial accountability and all those systems still being in place through a directive.

The other thing I think it’s important to remember is that the procurement directives aren’t meant to say: “Don’t do procurement in an unfair way.” They’re meant to say: “Do your procurement this way.”

It will be clear in an OIC, which will be transparently out to the public and published, that we’re saying to those GREs: “Here’s how we want you to do your procurement.” Then, again, if there is any bad faith or claims of that — we talked about that already — the indemnity provisions don’t apply.

Two other points that I will make…. One is the enabling…. This is a bill that’s flexible, so it gives the ability to change or alter procurement directives in the future. If there is a scenario where something has gone awry and government wants to fix that, they can issue another procurement directive that makes it clearer. So the flexibility that’s built in for that does also prevent that.

Just a final point saying that nothing about this escapes the government from liability if it acts in a way that’s improper. We are shifting it away from the government reporting entities, if they’re following our procurement directive. But there’s nothing in here about the government not being able to be sued or claims made against it for any improper conduct.

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the answer from the Attorney General.

Respectfully, what I’m hearing is that direction from government can be: “Here’s what we want you to do.” It doesn’t matter whether the direction is positive or negative in the form of “here’s what we want you to do” or “here’s what we don’t want you to do.” Positive direction can be used to reward and punish or to pick winners and losers in procurement.

[3:40 p.m.]

From what I understand, from prior characterizations of the bill made by the Attorney General and by others, the intent, really, here is to punish America, Americans or American companies for the sins of their President. But the same toolkit, the same forms of direction, that can be used to punish America, Americans or American companies can very easily slide into being used to reward and punish domestic actors, domestic companies, domestic individuals involved in procurement, involved in regulation or to pick winners and losers.

It would require a level of naivety not to know that it is eminently possible, for example, for a government to specify a procurement process in a way that picks winners and losers. We spent considerable time and ground going over the fact that in the course of all of these changes, government made choices to seemingly remove any engagement or consultation with open-shop labour from their consultation, from their working groups, from their processes.

We canvassed that issue in quite some depth. It became clear that it was a matter of some discomfort for the government and for the Attorney General. There was no consultation with open-shop labour, so already in the drafting of this bill, government was picking winners and losers in terms of who it deems to be a valid and relevant stakeholder to be engaged in the construction of this bill.

The Attorney General was clearly very uncomfortable discussing the subject of the union dues of Canadian workers rolling up to American head offices and being donated to Donald Trump. Those are political choices. The choice not to engage when it comes to carving out American content, the choice not to engage with the fact that labour workers in Canada are having their dues donated to Donald Trump — that’s a political choice.

That is a choice that is arbitrary, that uses the power of government to engage or to disengage with certain groups. You can see why I would have concerns around the arbitrary use of these powers to reward and punish at a political level not just on a geopolitical international basis but domestically.

Again, having granted itself broad discretionary powers and flexibility, as the Attorney General described it, having significantly reduced oversight and having then granted legal immunity, I worry that this is a recipe for very significant politicization. The risk of politicization or the perception of politicization in procurement processes could have not just the stated international geopolitical aims but also domestic, political and commercial consequences that could either be, again, politicized or could be contrary to the fiduciary interests of the province.

I’m trying, again, to understand those guardrails, and I hope the Attorney General can help me, to illuminate that a little bit more.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have answered this. It’s unfortunate that the member is using this time that we have to go through the content, clause by clause, of this bill and help the public understand it, to make very unsubstantiated and grandiose political claims about our motives. I find it unhelpful.

I have answered this question in detail through clause 7 debate and through clause 8 debate, and I’ve never been uncomfortable answering a question.

Rob Botterell: I have a question I just want to confirm. We had extensive discussion in clause 7 on the procurement framework across government. It’s a comprehensive framework. It’s designed and operated to prevent abuses of procurement along the lines my colleague described. Clause 8 simply deals with providing protection in relation to the exercise of a procurement directive, which is still subject to all of the other regulatory frameworks.

[3:45 p.m.]

My question is: given that this deals with a directive, is it true that if an enthusiastic public servant were to go out and do something political, which my colleague is saying might happen, the rest of the regulatory framework would address that and that that falls outside this directive?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I agree with the member’s characterization.

Gavin Dew: I resist the notion that this is somehow abstract or broad or not directly related to the section here. I think the overall thrust of debate on Bill 7 has really been about power and accountability, and there seems to be a disinterest in engaging with some of the really profound political and legal and philosophical consequences here.

This protection against legal proceedings section has the effect of reducing incentives for internal accountability. It has the effect of increasing the likelihood of risk-taking behaviour on the part of individuals at designated government procurement entities, who might be zealous in their efforts in such a way that advances a political objective if the signal to those individuals is that there is protection against legal proceedings.

There is a very clear, identifiable risk of the domestic politicization of these processes for partisan political gain or simply for values-based political action. You’re reducing the incentives for internal accountability, you’re raising the bar for legal challenges, and you’re creating a situation where plaintiffs must prove bad faith.

I’m really just trying to understand the potential risks here. I fail to understand why the Attorney General does not see the parallel to the sponsorship scandal in that there is now a situation where vast millions and billions of government dollars are going to go out the door through procurement processes, and it would really only take one individual, one bad actor, a handful of bad actors for millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to be misspent, politicized or perceived to be misspent or politicized.

This matter around accountability and around protection against legal proceedings and around the risk of severe politicization is very worrisome. Again, I really want to understand what discussions were had around de-risking that politicization. What discussions were had in development of this bill, and specifically of this section, to make sure that we are not creating a recipe for a new sponsorship scandal at an even higher dollar level?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve already talked quite a bit, in the long number of hours we’ve already debated, on the procurement.

Maybe I’ll ask the member if he can walk me through which sections of the bill, in this procurement part, he thinks would lead to the scenario that he’s describing. I’ve talked through all of the safeguards and protections that actually prevent that from happening. It would be of assistance to me if he could point to the provisions that wouldn’t.

I again say that nothing in ESTRA, or this bill, would take away from the procurement regulatory environment that exists.

Gavin Dew: I don’t think it’s necessary for us to relitigate past portions of the bill. What I’m focused on here is this section, the protection against legal proceedings. There’s a very real possibility of there being…. It need not be a politicization. It could be an individual taking advantage of quickly marshalled procurement directions from government to enrich themselves or their friends. It could be political. It could be any of those things.

[3:50 p.m.]

I fundamentally am focused on the protection against legal proceedings and on the risk that any one of a number of different untoward circumstances could emerge from this very broad bill, which provides a tremendous amount of discretion and flexibility.

What I’m very worried about is that we’re reducing incentives for internal accountability, we are raising the bar for legal challenges, and we are creating a situation where individuals at government procurement entities could very well feel — rightly, wrongly — that there is a lack of accountability for them to push the boundaries of directions provided by government.

I go back to the fact that this is how the sponsorship scandal started. This is what happened. You had millions of dollars that were supposed to be spent on national unity but that found their way into the bank accounts of politically connected firms and individuals. That started with the same kind of language around how, “Nothing untoward is going to happen, and everything is clean here,” and it took down a government and shook the foundations of Canadian politics.

I really think it’s very important that we take this section seriously and that we think very actively about whether these protections are overbroad or reduce accountability, reduce responsibility and empower people or free people to engage in politicization of processes or in the use of processes to enrich themselves.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The member has not provided me with any specific clauses beyond what I’ve already walked through in detail that would lead me to have a different answer than what I’ve had to the previous question, so I would say asked and answered. If we could move on to other questions.

Gavin Dew: I will change the direction of my questions and be very specific. Will the Attorney General commit to commissioning and providing a report on the lessons learned from the federal sponsorship scandal and how they will be applied to ensuring accountability in the context of this overbroad bill?

I think it’s very important that we learn from history in terms of what happens when a government starts allocating funds toward a political objective that is deemed to be non-partisan, deemed to be existential for the country and that has the risk of snowballing into something very serious.

When I see cabinet ministers on the other side of this House snickering and laughing at the idea that we ought to be concerned about accountability, shaking their heads at the idea that their government could ever go awry, well, that really worries me. It strikes me that there’s just a level of entitlement that has set in and a level of belief that they can do no wrong and that anything that is in the pursuit of their political or policy objectives is acceptable.

That’s the exact kind of thinking that got us into this overbroad power grab of a bill that was systematically pushed back on by just about every stakeholder in the entire province. That’s why they’re sitting here chastened, with a watered-down version of their bill that’s still overbroad and with thousands and thousands of people that have lost trust and confidence in this government as a result of their overbroad Bill 7’s assault on the basic fundamental tenets of democracy and accountability.

I would ask the Attorney General again. Will she develop and table a report on how the lessons of the sponsorship scandal are being applied to making sure that appropriate safeguards are enacted around these procurement powers to make sure that there is neither politicization or personal enrichment happening and that there is due and appropriate accountability accompanying the kinds of powers that are created by Bill 7?

The Chair: Member, I’m unclear how your line of questioning specifically relates to this section.

Gavin Dew: I’d be very happy to outline that. Again, one of the main issues that happened with the sponsorship scandal was that there was a feeling of impunity. There were well-connected political insiders who were benefiting from dollars being dispensed in the name of national unity, and when all was said and done, there was a considerable legal and political fallout in which there were questions and uncertainties around accountability.

That particular scandal led to extensive reforms in Canadian politics. It led to extensive changes in a whole bunch of different legal structures around politics and around procurement, and it had very, very material consequences. I don’t see any indication that the Attorney General or that this government remembers those lessons or has learned from those lessons.

[3:55 p.m.]

Since there is an ambivalence and a disinterest and body language that suggests that this government doesn’t take that inquiry seriously, I really do hope the Attorney General will commit to take that walk down memory lane and to go back and review the lessons of the sponsorship scandal in a real and serious way and to bring back and table a report on how the lessons learned will be applied to making sure that we don’t see the same kind of abuses and the same kind of consequences and the same kind of lack of accountability that we saw all those years ago with the sponsorship scandal.

Again, I think that relates very directly to this section around protection against legal proceedings and around questions of the definition of bad faith, questions around language involving complying with or intending to comply with directives.

I really just hope the Attorney General will take this question in the good faith with which it is offered and provide us with some understanding of what, if any, conversation was undertaken in the development of this bill to make sure these kinds of protections were put in place. And if in fact there were no such conversations, I certainly hope that they will be undertaken and that we’ll see some report on how those safeguards are going to be enacted.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I find it surprising that the member is asking about me conducting a review in British Columbia of something that happened in another province when I was 13 years old. But here we are.

I would just say no. If the member wants to point to any scenario in the decades-old sponsorship scandal that he brings up, where there was something related to clause 8, specifically regarding statutory immunity provided through a procurement directive, it would make that issue, which happened decades ago, relevant to this matter.

The Chair: I’m actually going to call a five-minute recess, and then we will come back.

The committee recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.

[Darlene Rotchford in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 7 back to order.

Steve Kooner: Before I start, I’d like to say thank you to the Attorney General and the staff. They’ve been fairly patient with us while we try to understand this bill and the different clauses and while we try to provide information to the people that are listening at home. So thank you for that.

I’d like to go through the actual clause in terms of the wording. Basically, going to clause 8, it states: “Subject to subsection (2), no legal proceeding for damages lies or may be commenced or maintained against a protected person because of anything done or omitted in complying with, or intending to comply with, a directive issued under this part.”

[4:05 p.m.]

My question specifically is to no legal proceeding. Can the Attorney General elaborate on the definition for “legal proceeding”? What exactly are you referring to? Are you referring to Supreme Court actions, notice of civil claims, Provincial Court actions, notice of claims, arbitrations, contract disputes, ongoing contracts, some people trying to get certain remedies or doing set-off clauses in contracts?

I’m basically trying to get the meaning of the legal proceeding in this particular clause.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Important to read the two words after that. It’s “no legal proceeding for damages….” It’s any proceeding that is won for damages that would be brought up.

Gavin Dew: I’ll return to my previous line of question and discussion, and that is the sponsorship scandal. The Attorney General seemed to believe that the learnings from the sponsorship scandal had no bearing on this situation and was looking for some direct comparables.

I will draw to her attention that coming out of the sponsorship scandal was the Federal Accountability Act of 2006, as well as public works contracting reforms, significant changes that reduced discretion in spending and that increased whistleblower protections. A whole bunch of changes were made to federal procurement accountability and oversight that actually went in the opposite direction of what Bill 7 is doing.

In fact, I would specify that at that time, in the context of the sponsorship scandal, you had legal proceedings, you had the ability to have legal proceedings, and that led to accountability. In fact, specifically Chuck Guité, the senior bureaucrat overseeing the sponsorship funds, was actually charged and served jail time. That was a pretty high level of accountability that occurred as a result of the sponsorship scandal, and I would be totally clear that this particular section actually removes that accountability.

The reason why I bring the sponsorship scandal forward is that what we have is a reduction in accountability in a situation where vastly more…. Millions and millions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, are actually being exposed to the risk of politicization or misuse.

It appears as if Bill 7, rather than having learned the lessons of the sponsorship scandal, is actually pulling in the opposite direction, again creating less accountability, less transparency, more latitude in spending, less clarity in terms of contracting and actually, again, diminishing both accountability and the perception of accountability in such a way that those hard-earned lessons of 20 years ago seem forgotten.

The minister seems to think that’s ancient history, but as a lawyer, I would hope that she would recognize that our laws are built on a foundation of things that happened in the past. Reforms that happened 20 years ago matter today, and Bill 7 is undoing those reforms that happened as a result of one of the most egregious political scandals of the 21st century.

Hon. Niki Sharma: What we just heard was a misunderstanding of this clause and how it provides…. Again, I didn’t see a clear link between that scandal that he’s mentioning and what we’re doing here.

I would just say that I think the misunderstanding is rooted in what section 8 actually does, which is not anything to do with criminal charges or helping or making people avoid criminal liability if that exists. It is related to legal proceedings for damages. It’s a very specific thing that we’re talking about and is not related at all to what the member is talking about.

Point of Order

Rob Botterell: Madam Chair, this deliberation is off topic. The legislation that was in effect during the sponsorship scandal is federal legislation. We are not here today to evaluate the effectiveness of federal legislation. We are here to look at clause 8.

[4:10 p.m.]

We had an extensive discussion of clause 7 and the regulatory framework, in particular subclause 7(2), where there are extensive safeguards in place in British Columbia that apply to procurement.

Clause 8 deals with…. The provisions still apply to the directive except in limited circumstances of damages related to a legal proceeding where the protected person does something in bad faith.

I submit that this line of questioning by my colleague is not on topic for clause 8, and to the extent that parts of it may be, I respectfully suggest that the Attorney General has answered in detail, either in clause 7 or clause 8, so I would see this as not on topic.

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

Gavin Dew: I’m not a lawyer, but there’s one sitting next to me. My understanding is that we’re in Canada here, and that when we don’t have court cases in British Columbia, we look to other provinces and to federal cases, Supreme Court cases, for precedent. I’m simply looking for precedent to quit cases and issues that have proceeded elsewhere.

I would also say that if there is a situation where there is an abuse of this process, it is highly likely that legal proceedings for damages may very well proceed in parallel or become precedent to a criminal case proceeding. There’s a high likelihood that if there was some form of abuse of the system…. It’s very likely that both forms of proceedings might very well move forward. So I really see this as being highly relevant.

I really do think that, again, a lot of the time these kinds of major scandals don’t start with criminal charges. They start with administrative processes. They start with an individual whistleblower spotting something that just doesn’t seem quite right, spotting an impropriety in procurement, spotting an issue.

Again, I just come back to the fact that there is a significant overlap there. If there are abuses here, we want to make sure they’re protected. I am just absolutely gobsmacked to hear the Attorney General reject as ancient history a pretty earth-shattering political scandal that divided our country 20 years ago, as if that doesn’t have relevance. Take into account that, in several ways, this is a more escalated version of that situation.

In that instance, we were talking about, frankly, chump change compared to the millions and billions that are likely to flow through procurement under the rubric of the powers enabled by section 7. So the quantum of dollars is dramatically larger. And I would argue that Canada’s place in the world is a dramatically larger situation than the issue of national unity that was playing out at that time.

We’re talking about a Team Canada situation. We’re talking about the same basic conversation. This government likes to wrap itself in the flag and talk about Team Canada. Guess what. The sponsorship scandal started with people wrapping themselves in the flag and talking about Team Canada.

Being on Team Canada does not excuse creating conditions where procurement can be abused or politicized and reducing accountability that could well end up leading to criminal charges if there are abuses.

I would ask the Attorney General again. Will she in fact develop and table a report on lessons from the sponsorship scandal?

A Voice: We’re on a point of order.

Gavin Dew: Are we on a point of order?

Well, in that case, I’m pretty darn sure that what I’m talking about is pretty darn relevant. I’ve just outlined exactly why, and I’d like to continue talking about it.

The Chair: I’ve heard both members.

[4:15 p.m.]

I do believe at this point that the line of questioning is now at risk of becoming repetitive, so I think we perhaps should pursue another line of questioning.

Debate Continued

Gavin Dew: Very well.

Given that the Attorney General seems satisfied that all the right protections are here and that there is no possibility of things going wrong, I wonder, if there were to be a procurement scandal that emerges from this, in much the pattern that I’ve described, would the Attorney General waive her own protection against legal proceedings?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I don’t have any protection under this provision.

Gavin Dew: Very well. Having determined that, fair. If there is, in fact, a major procurement scandal, on the order of the sponsorship scandal, that plays out as a result of the unchecked powers created under Bill 7, will the Attorney General resign?

The Chair: I will call that question out of order in terms of relevance.

Steve Kooner: Going back to clause 8, we were just talking about the definition of “legal proceeding,” and the Attorney General was kind enough to provide an explanation for the definition there.

Going further, subsection 8(2)(1) “does not apply to a protected person in relation to anything done or omitted in bad faith.” And the definition for protected person is up in sub 6(b): “a person who is a member, director, officer or employee of a government procurement entity.”

Now, I know that the phrase is referred to in here — protected person. But in clause 8, in regard to clause 6…. I’m just wondering why there was a whole bunch of different classes, such as member, director, officer or employee, when you’re talking about all these different entities, and they all seem to be part of the government procurement entity. I just have a query here in terms of this.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The reason behind the definition of protected persons being so broad was to make it clear that if any of those — member, director, officer, employee, any of the ones listed — were operating in accordance with the procurement directive and not in bad faith, they would be protected. It’s likely that they have other protections that they could avail themselves of that are to do with other laws and, potentially, insurance, but we just wanted to make it really clear.

[4:20 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I had a follow-up question to this. It specifically refers to “member, director, officer or employee,” and it seems to be an exhaustive list where it doesn’t say “and any other person.”

Can the Attorney General elaborate further on whether this is an exhaustive list? If it’s not an exhaustive list, why did the last term not say “and any other person”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The policy behind that was to try to make sure we were capturing everybody that might be involved in the work of procurement. It is an exhaustive list. “Member, director, officer and employee,” really does include anybody that we could contemplate that might be involved in the actual act of doing the procurement.

Steve Kooner: What if there was a situation…? Sometimes in employment situations, there are people that are employees, but then there are subcontractors, independent operators…. So that comes to mind. If this is an exhaustive list, how does that apply to, say, an independent operator?

Hon. Niki Sharma: A few answers to this. First of all, I would say it’s unlikely that a contractor or a subcontractor would be the entity that does procurement or has a role in procurement. But if it was the case, then there would be a contractual relationship between the two parties, and that would be an opportunity through that contractual relationship to help clarify any indemnity provisions that were provided through that contract to that entity.

The next thing would be that because it’s written pretty clearly in the legislation, it gives every government procurement entity an opportunity to design their affairs in a way that would make sure that they can avail themselves of the indemnity provisions, so that “member, director, officer or employee” is involved in procurement.

Steve Kooner: Just a follow-up to the situation of an independent contractor, independent operator or subcontractor, if you will. What was mentioned was that there may be a contract between the general contractor and the subcontractor or the employer and the independent operator. But there’s nothing in this legislation that says there has to be an actual provision of a contract between an independent operator.

How does that independent operator get protection if a certain entity does not provide a contract to that individual?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Can we just get some clarity on the member’s question a bit? We’re trying, before we answer, to understand what role the independent contractor might be playing in procurement or the procurement directive before we can formulate an answer.

Steve Kooner: The question goes directly to government procurement entity. The definition of a protected person includes a member, director, officer or employee. I was told that this is an exhaustive list, so my question was: what if there’s an independent operator?

Sometimes the lines aren’t very clear between employees and independent operators. It comes up on a regular basis with employment standards whether that person was actually an employee or they were an independent operator. And sometimes there isn’t even paperwork. Somebody could be doing the exact same duties of whatever an employee has to do but they could be considered an independent operator. They could be on a contract but there’s no written contract.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: My answer from before stands. I think the member is talking about independent contractors and employees, and there are a whole bunch of ways that an independent contractor could be doing actual employment. That’s a factual analysis of whether they land on either side.

I would say that scenario is unlikely and then even more unlikely without a contract. If you were going to ask somebody to do something that’s as big as participate in procurement for an organization, it’s likely to be an employee.

Let’s say there’s a scenario that there’s no contract, as the member describes, and they’ve also been asked to do something related to procurement. In the event that there is an action for damages, a legal proceeding against that organization or individual, that’s the scenario we’d have to play back. Then they could countersue the organization, which in that case would get potentially the indemnity of these provisions or a provincial role in that. It would backtrack itself.

For that scenario to happen, there would probably have to be multiple examples of bad business practices, of doing those kinds of things without a contract, which I would say in the environment of government reporting entities, which are organizations that are under a lot of rules with their reporting, would be unlikely.

[4:30 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Now that we’re on this point about employees and independent operators, another situation that comes to mind is that you often see unpaid workers or, let’s say, volunteers or interns. They may be involved in making certain decisions. I know in the legal profession we have articled students. Articled students are not lawyers, but they make certain decisions on certain cases.

If you had such a situation as a volunteer or an intern…. I don’t know if it’s possible to have an articling student in this situation, but say there was something like that. How would they be treated?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It starts with the thing that I already talked about, which is that it’s very clear in the legislation who we’re providing that protection for. I think when you do this kind of thing with indemnity, you do want to be certain.

In effect, we’re setting a standard there. We’re saying: “If you’re going to have people do the procurement directives, don’t make it be people like volunteers or independent contractors. This is how we’re assuming you’re going to conduct yourselves if you want the protection.” I think that also is a level of protection in itself. But the principles that I talked about before would apply.

In events that are unlikely, government procurement entities…. We’re not aware of any that would have scenarios where employees wouldn’t be doing…. If they were not employees and they were still doing important work like procurement or participating in a procurement process…. We can’t imagine a scenario where that would be true, but in the event that that did exist out there, then my previous answer about the steps that could be taken applies.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that answer. That flows to my next question here.

The Attorney General mentioned something about a certain standard that these government procurement entities should know about, and if they follow that standard, they stay out of trouble.

That leads to my next question. It has to do with knowledge of this particular provision, because this talks about protecting certain people that are in a prescribed class.

The next question goes to consultation. The Attorney General mentioned that she is not aware of any government procurement entities that would have independent operators and all that. In my mind, it brings up the issue of consultation, whether there has been consultation had with all these government procurement entities and people that are going to be expected to carry out provisions and that may be looking for protection against legal proceedings.

What has been the level of consultation in regard to this particular section so that the relevant entities know what protections there are?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve talked about the consultation quite a bit, about what led to this bill, so I’m not going to go over that again. But I think we have to remember that this is an enabling statute. It enables the government to do certain things. One is to issue a procurement directive.

When it decides who to issue the procurement directive to and how to issue it, that’s the opportunity for consultation for that particular GPE or that sector or however the enabling powers are set to be used.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for that answer.

I understand it’s an enabling statute and enabling provisions. I understand that at the point when a government procurement entity gets involved, they would probably learn about this process. Would the effort be on the government side to kind of train these government procurement entities to make sure they understand the proper parameters, if you will, of these legal protections?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, we would have internal structures in place, along with the directives, to do exactly things like the member suggests — to help procurement entities understand the directives and what they’re expected to do.

Steve Kooner: What would those training sessions or knowledge sessions look like? What would the procedure look like?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The way would be up to the ministries. I don’t have that answer because right now my job is to give the enabling powers to the ministries to do the work. That would be up to them.

I would imagine it would be a chance, once you’ve issued a procurement directive, to contact the government procurement entity that’s under your ministry and do presentations and talk through what it means and ensure that they understand.

Steve Kooner: I appreciate that answer. When it comes to legal protections, a lot of people don’t like to rely on verbal assurances or words, because there could be pretty stringent legal repercussions. They want to actually have those protections in place.

If not in here, is there somewhere else? Are we going to be getting more information throughout this bill of what those standards are going to be on the ministers to make sure these government procurement entities are going to get the training and that that training is going to be specific so that they understand what their protections are?

Hon. Niki Sharma: To understand the government procurement entities’ relationships with government and the ministries they sit on, I think it helps to understand how, actually, the ability to ask questions and be engaged is pretty close and direct.

First of all, government procurement entities would have their own legal counsel and ability to do that. But the connection they would have with their ministries to ask questions, to make sure they understand the procurement directives, to understand the content of it, would be at a high level of sophistication.

It’s how we operate with these procurement entities already. There are relationships with all the ministries and these entities that are not only about financial reporting but many other things.

[4:40 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: It’s my understanding that these types of provisions that we’re now dealing with in Bill 7 are unprecedented, because we’re dealing with unprecedented times.

What was kind of explained, in my understanding of it anyway, is that it will be approached…. It involves a high level of operation, where these entities have their own legal counsel. But that all seems like there are no stringent guidelines or no stringent framework for these entities to actually get that legal advice.

Why this is important is that, looking at it from a legal lens, a lot of people go to lawyers to get legal advice. They don’t want to act before they actually get the legal advice, because there could be consequences. That’s the whole premise of getting legal advice and, at times, getting that legal advice in writing.

But here with this situation, it is magnified a thousand times further, because we’re dealing with unprecedented times. We’re dealing with not just thousands of dollars. We’re dealing with not only millions of dollars. I think it was the words of the Attorney General that the amount of money that could be involved with these procurements could be up to $600 million, which involves a situation that could lead to drastic legal consequences.

From my example of people going to lawyers for legal advice on smaller matters versus this…. Now we’re dealing with unprecedented times. We’re dealing with an unprecedented amount of money in regard to the provisions in terms of procurement in this bill. Yet it seems that we don’t have a clear, concrete framework for how people are going to get their legal advice.

We were just going through this definition of protected person in subclause 8(2). I was a little bit confused myself, so that’s why I asked for clarification on what does a protected person mean in terms of this clause — a member, director, officer, employee. That’s just one thing, but now I’m going even further. I’m talking about the actual legal advice to understand this provision, to actually be protected, but it seems that there’s no guideline.

If there are no particular guidelines right now or a framework to tell ministers that you have to provide this legal advice — so that people have to understand which people are included in the protection, which people are not included — will that be coming in the near future? Will that be a regulation that’s drafted? Has there been any discussion on that?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay, I’ll start by saying that the only thing they really need to understand are a few clauses. I don’t think it’s complicated for the level of organizations we’re talking about — health authorities, B.C. Hydro, ICBC. Organizations like that have regular procurement legal teams. They’re pretty sophisticated; not only that, they’re very closely associated with government. Working with government is a regular thing for them.

There are lots of precedents for the type of provision that we have here, with providing immunity for certain things. It’s very clear what this one is for, in the wording of it. That precedent sits as it is, and I don’t think there’s any other precedent of it being associated with any requirement for a minister to make sure that legal advice is provided to the entity for which that indemnity might apply.

We think we have the right safeguards and the right protections in place in the event, as I mentioned…. As this rolls out, that relationship and the explanation of procurement directives with the ministries with whatever government procurement entity exists in there would be a way to communicate with each entity.

Steve Kooner: Is the Attorney General saying that there are going to be no further safeguards in explaining the legal protections under this act to government procurement entities?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’ve had an extensive conversation on all the safeguards that are in place with respect to this provision, the procurement directives and the transparency that’s involved with all of this. It’s my view that the level of protection in here is strong. It’s going to help all of our procurement entities and government to move together in the same direction and unlock the potential of procurement in this province.

Steve Kooner: With all due respect, the previous discussion had to deal with what the safeguards are from this legislation. Now we’re talking about those people that are going to actually implement this legislation. We’re talking about the safeguards for them. So I respectfully disagree that the prior discussion applies to this. This is talking about who’s going to carry forward this legislation and the provisions.

Back to the question: are there going to be no further safeguards to explain the legal protections to these government procurement entities that are carrying out these directives?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay, I’ll give one more shot at talking about the safeguards that I mentioned and that are in place related to this.

It starts by the OIC. The procurement directive will be published as an OIC and transparent in all its guidance.

With respect to the immunity clauses, this is very common and will be…. Deputy ministers and I talked about this already, the relationship with the government procurement entities in terms of presentations and the ability to answer questions that are related to that. There’s a lot of precedent for the type of relationship that we have with our government procurement entities and working together in many different ways.

In my view, the safeguards that are in place are appropriate for the type of relationship we have, and clear and transparent and will help us move forward.

[4:50 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I am still left with an unclear understanding.

Is it the position of the Attorney General that there will be no further safeguards? The safeguards that we have right now, to inform these government procurement entities, that’s where it will remain, but then there will not be any further safeguards?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve answered this question already, Chair.

Steve Kooner: I respectfully disagree to that. I don’t have the understanding of that. The understanding that I do have, the answers that were provided before, was about safeguards from this legislation. And there has been a roundabout explanation, but I was just asking for a clear answer to a clear question, no further safeguards or safeguards? Further safeguards or no further safeguards? Just a plain answer to that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, so I have answered this question. I talked about all the safeguards in place, and we’ve canvassed this question. I believe I’ve answered it.

Steve Kooner: It’s my understanding there will be no further safeguards, because the explanation was provided that all these safeguards are in place. So there will be no further safeguards, just for the record, for the people watching. That’s what my understanding is, as I was just told. My question was answered, and that’s the understanding I have.

Would the Attorney General like to clarify that, or is that correct understanding there?

The Chair: The member may not agree with the answer, but the Attorney General has given her answer.

Steve Kooner: To go further with this provision, there is other language here that is a little bit ambiguous. Now, in subsection (1) of clause 8: “Subject to subsection (2), no legal proceeding of damages lies or may be commenced or maintained against a protected person” — that’s great; we spent some time on that — “because of anything done or omitted….”

Now, the word “anything” is a bit vague. Could I get some explanation on that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: To the member’s question, it’s not just “anything” on its own. The word “anything” is to be read with “because of anything done or omitted in complying with or intended to comply with a directive.”

It’s designed in a way to be broad enough to capture actions that might be taken in accordance with the way it’s written.

Steve Kooner: I now get that this legislation’s intent is to be very broad. Thank you for that explanation.

Going on further, “because of anything done or omitted in complying with, or intending to comply with” — I understand complying with, that somebody either complies with something or they don’t comply with it. But “intending to comply with” — that sounds very ambiguous. This could leave big room to interpretation of what that actually means.

I need an explanation on that, please.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Okay, yeah. Thanks for the question.

You have to understand “intending to comply” with a directive in the context of also what we’re excluding. In the legal sense, intending to comply with a directive means that we want to make sure we protect a few people from honest mistakes that they may have done. Or genuine error — that they were genuinely trying to comply with the directive, and something happened.

That is qualified by the subsection (2), which is excluding the bad faith. It helps you understand what’s in the context by understanding what we carved out. We talked about bad faith, I think, in a previous question and what that covers. That’s the reason behind it.

Steve Kooner: Going back to the previous question and how it relates to this, I was asking about the legal advice, the legal protections, knowledge that is bestowed upon people that are going to carry forward the legislative provisions here, the directives. Now, going to this provision, it talks about catching some people that have…. They’re exercising good faith, they’re trying to carry out these directives, and they may not have known what they were actually doing, but they had good faith.

Going back to that question, are there going to be proper safeguards in place and a framework to actually teach these people so they have the proper training? If they had the proper training, my understanding from the Attorney General is that the Attorney General’s office feels very confident that these procurement entities will be able to carry out these directives and they will know what they’re actually doing.

If they will be actually knowing what they will be doing, then what’s the purpose of having this in here, “intending to comply”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s to cover any honest mistakes. It’s that sometimes mistakes are made, but they’re genuine in the sense that they weren’t intended, and they were not in bad faith.

Steve Kooner: That explanation really doesn’t make sense to me, when earlier the Attorney General explained that these procurement entities are highly sophisticated. They will understand the safeguards. They will understand the legal consequences. They will understand the legal protections.

On the reverse side, I’m being told now that there might be some people that are not going to understand. They’re going to make mistakes, and they need protection too.

[5:00 p.m.]

Those two ideas converge with each other. They don’t make sense. They’re going on two different paths, those two ideas. They don’t make sense at all.

Going further on this point, I understand complying, but intending to comply seems to be conflicting with the other explanation that I received. My understanding so far on this clause is it’s pretty broad, as I confirmed with the Attorney General. It’s broad coverage. But there are some problems in terms of certain people that may be carrying forward these provisions. They may either know what they’re doing, or they may not know what they’re doing. That seems to come out from this debate today.

The follow-up thing today that I want to talk about is, further, that on the next part of this clause in subsection (2), it talks about bad faith. And I know the Attorney General did spend some time talking about bad faith, what does it actually mean. And then the Attorney General just spoke right now about good faith, certain people exercising good faith.

We’re looking at a bill that’s involved here, and when we’re looking at bills, we’re actually trying to create law. So that takes you back to law.

When we’re looking at, say, for example, certain areas of law, such as civil law or civil actions, we often hear terms such as “negligence,” “gross negligence” or “wilfully blind.” You know, somebody in their state of mind shouldn’t have some protection because they should have just known better. They should have known what they were doing was improper.

I understand bad faith, somebody just making a decision, and they’re clearly making a decision because they decide to do the wrong thing. Then there are some people that are so above their heads in carrying out decisions that they don’t know what they’re doing, and they shouldn’t be doing that because there could be serious consequences. There could be gross negligence.

Why is gross negligence also not included as an exception here? Why is bad faith only, but why not gross negligence?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: To answer this question, we have to start with the laws that attach themselves to procurement.

What we’re saying with this is that we are going to step in with these indemnity provisions in the context of an entity or an organization or a person stepping in to put forward procurement directives.

In the context of procurement directives, it’s a contractual thing. It’s not tort. It’s related to contractual relationships and how we engage in that process of forming one — and all of that law related to that. In the context of that, the drafters have put the exception for bad faith to align itself with the law related to procurement practices.

Now, in a scenario where there was an issue of gross negligence, as the member raised, it would be very complicated. If it’s not related to procurement or the contractual relationships, then it may not be something that we step into. Let’s say there are elements of that tort that’s being alleged that lead to bad-faith analysis, because there may be overlap, then maybe it applies. But generally speaking, this indemnity is for an area of law associated with procurement and contractual situations.

[5:10 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: With all due respect, the laws around contracts and civil law interact with each other. Some of the remedies or some of the terms are loosely used on both sides, contract law and civil law.

With all due respect, if somebody is carrying forward a contractual term — a procurement entity is carrying it forward — humans are involved. Human decisions are involved, and there could be negligence, and that’s there. What’s even worse is gross negligence, where people should have clearly known that they didn’t know what they were doing. They could make a wrong decision. It’s pretty close to bad faith, and they did it anyway. They did it anyway, and now there are millions of taxpayer dollars lost.

That’s a huge concern, but I understand that the interpretation from the Attorney General’s office is that this adequately deals with the situations that may arise, just by adding “bad faith.” With all due respect, I do not agree with that.

At this point, I’m going to move an amendment to clause 8. The reason why I’m moving the amendment to clause 8 has to do with both subclauses. I had an issue with subclause (1). I talked about the wording that’s stated, “intending to comply,” and I mentioned my reasons why that was concerning to me. Now I’m also mentioning why it’s concerning that gross negligence is also not included here.

[SECTION 8, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as show:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), no legal proceeding for damages lies or may be commenced or maintained against a protected person because of anything done or omitted in complying with, or intending to comply with, a directive issued under this Part.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a protected person in relation to anything done or omitted in bad faith.or gross negligence.]

That’s my proposed amendment. I have a copy of it here that I’d like to hand up. I could also speak to it, too, when the chamber is ready.

The Chair: We’ll take a recess to distribute the amendment.

The committee recessed from 5:12 p.m. to 5:18 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: I will call the committee back to order.

The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

Steve Kooner: As I was speaking about earlier, before I introduced this amendment, from my perspective there’s a serious issue with clause 8. Subsection (1) I referred to…. I went at length, questioning the language used for intending to comply.

[5:20 p.m.]

I mentioned what my concerns were after the explanations that were provided by the Attorney General, and those concerns are still ongoing in terms of that. That’s one of the reasons why I introduced this particular amendment. The explanation that was provided wasn’t a clear explanation of why this section is really needed. The amendment proposes to strike this part out.

It will still protect those people that are complying with the act. They know what they’re doing. They’re complying with what they’re asked to do in regard to clause 8. They’ll still have the protection. But the explanation that was given for intending to comply — that would be struck out.

In subsection (2), the explanation that was provided for why “gross negligence” is not included, when it could involve a degree of culpability, wasn’t very clear.

Now, if somebody is asking why I’m extra concerned, it is that we’re dealing with unprecedented legislation with Bill 7. We’ve never had a political climate such as this, where we have to create a piece of legislation such as Bill 7.

Not only is it unprecedented times; we’re dealing with money that is not only a matter of millions of dollars. It’s not only a matter of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Attorney General, in a previous part of the debate I believe, used the amount of…. It could be $600 million, and it could maybe even be beyond that. That’s a lot of money, a lot of taxpayer money at a time where this province is really struggling.

The deficit is at a level of $10.9 billion, according to the government, but according to many stakeholders and credit agencies, that deficit actually looks more like $14 billion. That’s money that the government doesn’t have and that the government needs to spend, so we are in a very grave situation in terms of finances.

Now we’re dealing with procurement measures that don’t have stringent protections, stringent explanations for certain important sections or certain parts of this clause. This is very concerning. This particular clause should be very clear, and the protection should be very, very clear.

It would become a lot clearer if the words “intending to comply” were struck out and also if the words “gross negligence” in subsection (2) were added. So those people that have a degree of culpability because they’re so grossly negligent would not be protected under this. They would not be protected for making decisions that would cost our taxpayers here in British Columbia millions and millions of dollars.

That’s in a situation where this province is in dire circumstances financially. That’s why important attention needs to be provided here, and there need to be extra safeguards. This proposed amendment provides those extra safeguards, so there’s sound reason to have an amendment in this place.

I urge both sides of the House to support this proposed amendment, to vote in favour of this proposed amendment, because it will allow for more protection on the mechanism around procurement, and that would eventually lead to safeguarding the process and the framework that is going to involve millions of dollars, several millions of dollars of British Columbia money.

I urge both sides of the House to support this proposed amendment.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I do not support this amendment, and I’ll lay out the reasons for it.

The first one. I guess, generally the reason that I don’t support either of these amendments is because it diminishes the bill, and it diminishes the protections available. Also the protection of the public purse, as the member articulated. He shows importance, as I do.

The first reason for that is the removal of “intending to comply with.” The reason that I don’t support that is that that would leave it as a strict liability offence, then.

[5:25 p.m.]

If somebody doesn’t perfectly comply, then they wouldn’t get the protection of indemnity. I don’t think that’s us operating in good faith with our partners and would be kind of against the provisions or the power of that indemnity.

The second one, why I wouldn’t support it, is the addition of “gross negligence,” for a few reasons. I would refer the member to the Kripps case in 1990 of the Court of Appeal, which very clearly defines “bad faith” as including dishonesty, recklessness and gross negligence.

By adding the term “gross negligence” to a word that already includes gross negligence, is in effect…. Not only is it not necessary; it’s actually legally damaging to the definition of “bad faith,” to include only one. If you only include gross negligence, it diminishes the term “bad faith,” because, as bad faith already includes gross negligence, the question that a legislative interpreter would ask is: why did you include “gross negligence”?

It leads you down to a legislative interpretation hole or spiralling down as to understand the legislative intent of only including one of the elements that are already included in bad faith and why it didn’t include dishonesty and why it didn’t include recklessness. Therefore, it completely diminishes the power of the term “bad faith” and is also not necessary.

I won’t be supporting this amendment.

Kiel Giddens: I just wanted to speak briefly about the amendment, and in the context, I want to respond, maybe, to the Attorney General’s comments on the fact of providing immunity in a case of gross negligence. I understand what the Attorney General has described there.

I think, in this case, making sure that it is clear that gross negligence is included…. We want to protect British Columbians from negligence of some sort of an entity being protected. In the case of an example of a procurement directive that the government has made, we want to make sure that we’re protecting the provincial financial situation but also protecting British Columbians here.

This term is used, of course, in contracts; it’s used for insurance purposes. I go back to my work in the construction sector. It is used in contracts and prime contracts, and I’ve discussed those in detail as part of this debate, in this clause and the bill overall. What I really think is that gross negligence needs to be called out specifically because we want, speaking in my role as a critic for Ministry of Labour within our official opposition caucus, the safety of workers.

Gross negligence in the protection of workers is something that we should defend against and make sure that we’re not immunizing people or actors or business, if there is gross negligence leading to unsafe practices or unsafe actions that have led to things that have hurt workers. For example, if a worker is killed because of gross negligence, that’s something we want to protect against. We shouldn’t provide immunity in this case because of that.

The same thing can be said for environmental protection. If there was something, a gross negligence in terms of the environment, environmental protection, I think that’s something that needs to be taken into account here.

I will support this amendment. I do think it’s a friendly amendment, and I hope that other members can as well.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to correct the record and some misinformation, in case the members of the public….

There is nothing about this that provides protection against workplace safety or gross negligence in a workplace or the ability to get around environmental standards at all. This is strictly to do with procurement directives, related to something completely different, and I don’t want there to be a misunderstanding out there about that.

[5:30 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I just wanted to clarify my comments.

In a procurement directive where a contract was undertaken, where a company or an actor or some sort of action was taken because of that procurement directive, I just want to make sure that we’re not providing immunity if gross negligence had occurred in that case. Procurement directives certainly can include procurement contracts, include procurement actions that work is done on behalf of a Crown corporation or a government ministry.

I just wanted to make sure that that protection was in place, but maybe we have a difference of opinion on how that will be read into the record.

[5:35 p.m.]

The Chair: Are there no further questions?

Shall the amendment pass?

Division has been called.

Is there agreement to waive time? I understand all the members are present.

Leave granted.

The Chair: All right. Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section C, or their duly appointed substitutes, are authorized to vote.

The question before us is the amendment on clause 8.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 5
L. Neufeld	Paton	Maahs
Wilson		McCall
NAYS — 7
Wickens	Sandhu	Routledge
Sharma	Yung	Malcolmson
	Botterell

[5:40 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I still have some concerns about clause 8. I’m just going to get to my next question.

Clause 8(1) refers to “no legal proceeding for damages....” How would that work in practice, that protection? How would it work in practice? Normally, somebody would, say, serve a demand letter first in a legal action just to kind of engage another party. Then the next step would probably be to file a notice of civil claim.

How would this process work? How would this protection come about?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are a lot of different ways that this could show up operationally. It’s an immunity provision. What happens, then, is if the defendant in action has been served by a demand letter or a notice of claim, they would, I’m sure, very quickly contact the province and say, if it’s a demand letter or notice of claim: “Hey, because of this clause, there’s no action against me.” Then, through that discussion, likely what would happen is that they could bring forward an application to dismiss the claim against them, right? They would have the provincial help and support in doing that.

It would end the claim against them, and then the province would have a suit against them. They would likely be the party that would be the one to take on the claim.

Steve Kooner: So is my understanding correct that the province would get involved at the stage where the notice of civil claim is filed, not at the time when a demand letter is informally served?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I mean, you could see a possibility where a government procurement entity serves a demand letter and contacts the province. We’re engaged with them in a way at that time. But then, there are so many scenarios there, if you put that into…. A demand letter doesn’t necessarily mean an actual claim, unless they filed it. So there’s a whole range of possibilities there.

In effect, what the provision does is to say that if it’s related to, as we talked about in detail, this person’s or this entity’s enactment of a procurement directive, then the province will step in.

[5:50 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: Just take a step forward. When the matter gets to, say, the Supreme Court and there’s a notice of civil claim that’s filed and the government procurement entity is sued, does the province get involved in filing the response to a civil claim and then also enumerating a defence, saying, “You are barred. You are statute-barred pursuant to subsection 8(1)” of this particular act? How does that work?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The beginning thing to say is that it depends on the facts of the case if the province gets involved or not. I think we talked in detail about the way this is meant to be applied, and where we would see where we would step in.

The other answer is it depends, because in effect what would happen is…. This provision has to be read with the next clause that relates to indemnity. In this situation, the government procurement entity that is facing a legal proceeding for damages through section 8 and working with, likely, the provincial government could make an application to strike, saying there’s no action here.

But there could be scenarios where you were likely to be named, as well, in some of those. Then you could see an agreement where the province says we’ll defend everybody, or you could see an agreement that might show up that says we’ll pay for your legal fees to defend this.

Sections 8 and 9 working together mean that there could be many different scenarios about how they show up, and it would all be in working with the government procurement entity.

Steve Kooner: Going back to the stage of the demand letter and in the notice of civil claim, I understand the next section deals with indemnification. But going back to here, I understand somebody being indemnified, but sometimes there’s no money to be indemnified for. It’s just a nuisance, and it takes away from…. Maybe some government entity was doing other work and was given the inconvenience.

Is there any protection under this section that the province would just take away that headache?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That answer is in clause 9, so when we get to that, I could point to the provisions that talk about covering these things.

[5:55 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: In terms of clause 8, what we know so far is the government’s interpretation is very broad, to provide a broad protection.

We had some discussion on consultation. I brought up the point of consultation, and the Attorney General mentioned that we had a general discussion on consultation involving the bill as a whole. Then we had some further discussion about this particular section.

In terms of this particular provision here, in clause 8, it talks about no legal proceedings being taken against someone if they’re complying with a directive, with the exception of, say, if they did it in bad faith.

Are there precedents in other acts or other areas that the government’s involved in and that have similar or the exact same provisions as this one?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m told that this is very common. We can pull an example up, but you would see provisions like this, obviously, adapted to the particular scenario. It’s very standard, and included in many pieces of legislation.

Steve Kooner: Can the Attorney General please provide an example, maybe a couple of examples, so that we on this side of the House can actually look at those examples and understand this piece of legislation better?

Hon. Niki Sharma: When we did a search over here on the term “no legal proceeding,” we got 85 hits in legislation. It’s a very commonly used term, and it points to that provision.

An example that I could give is the Transport Investment Act, section 8(3.1). But we could pull up many more if needed.

The Chair: We will just take a short recess until 6:10.

The committee recessed from 5:59 p.m. to 6:14 p.m.

[Jennifer Blatherwick in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order. Bill 7, Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act.

We are on clause 8.

Steve Kooner: I have a hypothetical situation that came to mind.

[6:15 p.m.]

If the Attorney General or a minister identified a contract that they no longer wanted to honour and then used this section to force a government procurement entity to cancel that contract, would there be any legal implications of that in terms of the government telling the procurement entity? Would there be any consequences for the government? Have they contemplated that? Has the government received any legal advice to that effect?

Hon. Niki Sharma: In that scenario, it wouldn’t be this clause that we would use, because this clause doesn’t give us the power to do anything as described. But in a scenario where a government directed with…. Whether procurement or not, through a directive or not, if they just directed an entity to say, “You have to break a contract,” there would be any types of liability associated, depending on that contractual breach.

This section doesn’t in any way avoid liability or any legal consequences of actions that might incur liability. What it does is it shifts it away from a government procurement entity, as long as they’re doing the conduct as described.

Steve Kooner: On a different related topic on the same clause, has the Attorney General’s department assessed the potential economic and reputational consequences of shielding protected persons under this particular clause? Has there been some sort of assessment done? What could be some consequences of doing that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There will be no assessment right now because there’s no actual procurement directive under the act in place. And if you remember the discussion from clause 7, you’d be able to design that procurement directive at the time of its issuance to understand things like that. I think they would be designed, as we talked about in detail in clause 7, in a way to make sure that viability was a part of the risk assessment.

Steve Kooner: On this clause but on a different issue, what measures has the government put in place to ensure internal accountability and whistleblower protections are not undermined by this provision?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have answered this question before. The reason I know that is because the expert in government on whistleblower legislation is sitting beside me, and I think I already talked about that.

We have some of the strongest whistleblower protections in government, and none of this would impact that.

Steve Kooner: I do recall that there was a discussion on whistleblower, but I don’t believe it was on clause 8. I believe it was on a previous clause that we were reviewing. The question is to this particular clause.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Nothing here displaces that. If the member has a specific question of how anything here would relate to whistleblower legislation, maybe I can answer differently.

Steve Kooner: Okay. I think this might be my last question on clause 8.

Now, obviously, the government has had some time to think about this legislation and come up with this legislation, particularly with this particular clause.

[6:20 p.m.]

How does the government believe that this clause strikes the right balance between protecting public servants and ensuring the public has a means to hold officials accountable when procurement decisions lead to harm?

Hon. Niki Sharma: As I answered previously, there’s nothing in here that avoids liability. If there’s a potential for liability to be found, it just shifts it away from the government reporting entity to the province.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Kiel Giddens: As we’ve talked about, and it’s been said several times now, clauses 8 and 9 work together, so we’ll get into a little bit more of that.

I want to start by asking what specific types of legal proceedings are covered under this indemnification, just to make sure that we’re clear. Does this include all civil and criminal matters in Canadian courts or any other matters in Canadian courts?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Sections 8 and 9 are to be read together, as we’ve talked about before. The reason for clause 9 is to indemnify the protected person for the cost of expenses related to anything that happened in section 8. That’s the reason for this clause.

Kiel Giddens: Would that include both civil and criminal matters in indemnification, then?

Hon. Niki Sharma: No, it’s just civil.

Kiel Giddens: Since this is also in the context of a trade war, what about international arbitration or foreign courts? Obviously, we’re talking about procurement directives that are to do with international trade. I think this example could be quite plausible.

[6:25 p.m.]

What about foreign courts? What about things like the World Trade Organization or other bodies that would be judicial or otherwise in nature?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The nature of the type of dispute resolution that the member is talking about is government to government. For a lot of those breaches of international trade, Canada takes the suits, or the states do, on behalf of the nation-state. The other part of that is there’s no damage claim. Remember, in clause 8, it says, “legal proceeding for damages....” For those reasons, those kinds of disputes probably wouldn’t be covered.

Kiel Giddens: Has that been tested with the federal government at all? They probably wouldn’t be covered, so I’m wondering if there’s any interaction with the federal…. I’m not actually sure which ministry that would be, but maybe from a legal perspective, you might know where that might end up. Perhaps International Trade, for example, would have that clarification. Just wondering if that has been tested at all.

Hon. Niki Sharma: The way that this would show up, in line with the member’s questions, is in the definition of “protected person.” We went through that as a government-protected procurement entity and that wouldn’t be and can’t be a party to any of those disputes, the international trade disputes or mechanisms. That wouldn’t happen.

Now, remember that none of these permit provisions are about, like, ending liabilities, just shifting the liability away from the government reporting entities. We would take that on, anything, and they wouldn’t be able to be a party to any of those disputes.

[6:30 p.m.]

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Kiel Giddens: Thank you to the Attorney General for the response.

Again, this is in the context of a trade war that’s going on. Has the ministry considered how foreign governments or trade partners might actually view the indemnification clause, particularly if it applies to any actions against a foreign business that’s doing business in British Columbia?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, it doesn’t change if there’s a possibility of any action that that foreign entity might have against the government. This is about the relationship between the province and the government reporting entity.

In that sense, if we’re stepping in instead and protecting the government procurement entity…. In the scenario provided, if there are actions that could be taken related to this or if somebody wants to try in the context of a trade war, the courts are a process for that. There’s nothing about this legislation that would…. It doesn’t close off the potential of liability. It just shifts it.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe I’ll just back up to understanding how the indemnification process works overall. What process would be in place for a protected person to apply for indemnification in the first place?

Hon. Niki Sharma: We have to remember that clause 9 only comes into play after clause 8, so we’ve already been in contact and in relationship with this government procurement entity that has a legal proceeding against them for damages. We’ve already stepped in somehow, and that immunity provision in clause 9 is at play. This is about the costs or expenses that are related to that, and we’re indemnifying them.

In that situation, a relationship would already have existed, so it wouldn’t be an application process or something. It would be part of the process of dealing with that legal proceeding.

Kiel Giddens: Just so I understand this correctly, immunity has already been established, so the indemnification is automatic. Is that correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yeah, if the immunity has already kicked in, this would be the section that helps to fill in the gaps of costs or expenses that have been incurred by that individual. So yes, it’s already at play.

[6:35 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens: I’m wondering if the Attorney General specifically, or cabinet as a whole, has any specific powers around the indemnification for a decision-making authority that need to be, I guess, clear in this. If the Attorney General can provide that, that’d be helpful.

Hon. Niki Sharma: There would not be a cabinet role for this, but I can talk through how we have a lot of situations where our indemnities are kicked in, in government. The process for that is a risk management that’s situated under Finance, which does a risk assessment of that and would assess whether or not bad faith was implicated or if we think that we should play a role.

Then any litigation decisions, or how we act in litigation, switch over to the AG. So that’s under my ministry.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just following up on the Attorney General’s response there, how will government ensure that the indemnification is…? If it were to be denied on a bad faith exclusion based on the example provided, how would the government ensure it’s denied appropriately when there’s some sort of evidence of bad faith?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It would, obviously, depend on the facts of the case, but the processes that I talked about at the previous question would assess whether or not they determine there’s bad faith on the facts of what’s presented to them. In that case, if the GPE wants to challenge that, then of course they can challenge that decision that’s saying that they didn’t show bad faith. That would be a court determination, then, about whether that was at play or not.

If it’s a situation where there’s lack of clarity whether or not there is bad faith, and we’ve done our internal risk assessment and decided it’s unclear, we don’t know, but during the legal proceedings, stuff comes up that would tend to show bad faith, then it gives us the ability at that point, upon a court determination, to also kick in these provisions.

Kiel Giddens: I just need a little bit more help understanding the Attorney General Ministry’s role in determining who makes the determination of bad faith and when — especially if it is to be denied to an entity for a reason. I’m just hoping to get a little bit more help with that. Maybe she could explain it again in plain language.

Hon. Niki Sharma: As we talked about, there’s a risk management branch of the Ministry of Finance. They’re an internal structure that deals with indemnities that exist within government, or provisions similar to this. They, with the help of LSB, which is under my ministry — the legal services branch; that’s full of the team of lawyers of government — would help make that determination of whether or not there’s bad faith up front, to the point that the decision be made not to pursue it, or if there’s doubt, to indemnify, unless a court determines bad faith through proceedings.

That’s kind of the internal process of how it works right now, and this would be part of that.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response from the Attorney General. I guess that is helpful to understand the current process.

Would that same Ministry of Finance process kick in for…? I’m wondering if there would be a limit or a cap on the indemnification amounts that could be provided in any of these cases.

Hon. Niki Sharma: In this provision, the limitation is based on it only being costs or expenses. It’s capped in the sense of what the categories are in a proceeding.

[6:45 p.m.]

Costs are pretty well understood, and the legal proceedings are expenses related to that.

Kiel Giddens: In the same kind of vein, are there any limits to this indemnity in terms of the time frame of it, how long it actually applies for?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are a few answers to this. First of all, general limitation periods in the Limitation Act apply. That sets out the timing that you can have, when something occurs, before you can take an action. So you time out at some point.

The other thing to remember about this one is that it is costs and expenses, and 8 and 9 are to be read together. It’s related to that legal proceeding that was triggered. That means the life of that legal proceeding is what is part of it — so costs and expenses incurred as a result of that, depending on how long that takes.

Then the ultimate thing to provide its indemnity is in clause 29, and I’m happy to speak about that when we get to it.

Kiel Giddens: Maybe just because this specific bill…. We will get to it, this clause 29. I don’t remember if that’s the sunset clause one, but maybe we’ll get to it at that point. As I’m talking through…. I understand what the Attorney General is saying there. I’m going to move on to my next question.

Part of the reason I’m asking these questions is, obviously, just protection of taxpayer dollars and making sure that this is being used appropriately. Indemnification can be, in the government context, highly political. It can be very visible. These are things that get brought up in the Legislature, in the chambers, from time to time under various governments over the past decades. Indemnification can be a very politically charged topic at times.

With that, will there be any reporting or transparency mechanisms when indemnification is provided under this clause? For example, could that include something like annual reporting to the Legislature?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The way that that shows up as a public report is through public accounts where we publicly account when indemnities have been used.

Kiel Giddens: That’s excellent. Thanks to the Attorney General for clarifying that’s where this would be found. I’ll move along. I certainly don’t want to open up the debate on the question of gross negligence again. I’m going to spare the Attorney General further discussion on that topic.

I do want to get into just a little bit of understanding of what safeguards might exist to ensure this indemnification is not used to shield negligent or reckless conduct overall.

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s going to be the same answer as I did for clause 8. “Bad faith” has the same meaning as I talked about, including recklessness and gross negligence, and it’s a legally defined term.

Kiel Giddens: I recognize that. I recall the Attorney General’s response in that regard, but I’m wondering what safeguards exist to ensure that the indemnification is not used to shield negligent or reckless conduct.

Hon. Niki Sharma: That answer is in subsection (2), and it says pretty clearly that we can’t use subsection (1) or indemnify anybody for bad faith.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the answer. I’d ask the same question, one that’s not spelled out as specifically, about safeguards to ensure that this indemnification is not being used to shield for purely or political reasons or, even worse, for corrupt practices.

I know another member has used the example in the federal government context of the sponsorship scandal that happened. But if corruption did occur, what safeguards are in place to make sure that we’re not shielding someone, or an entity, based on those kinds of terms?

Hon. Niki Sharma: The first thing to keep in mind is that clauses 8 and 9 are to be read together. I described the purpose of clause 9 before as an ability to recover costs and expenses related to legal proceedings, so 8 and 9 are together. All of the safeguards that I mentioned under 8 would apply to clause 9, as they are to be read together. This is actually just to fill the gaps of costs and expenses related to 8.

There is nothing in any of these provisions that shields people, or shields government, from liability. It just shifts liability. It says to the government reporting entity: “If you do things — not if it’s bad faith, because we’re not going to protect you then — that we told you to do under the procurement directive, and there’s any legal proceeding for damage related to that, we’re going to step in.”

It doesn’t mean the legal proceeding ends. It doesn’t mean the liability that could be placed on the province is ended. And it doesn’t mean for any of the other laws related to corruption, all the kinds of bad scenarios that have been talked about in questioning, that we can avoid liability for that.

[6:55 p.m.]

This just shifts it from the government reporting entity to the province, except for bad faith. A lot of the scenarios that are being described are pretty squarely in that category of bad faith.

Kiel Giddens: I appreciate the response.

Just to make sure I’m clear, this clause would not allow indemnification in cases where a person knowingly violated any other provincial or federal laws while acting under this act?

Hon. Niki Sharma: That’s correct. If you’re knowingly doing something like that, it is clearly bad faith.

Kiel Giddens: Just wrapping up my comments before I pass on to the Attorney General critic, I’m wondering if the Attorney General could just provide a bit more general context on how this indemnification interacts with the other existing public sector indemnity policies. We’ve talked on it a little bit, but I wouldn’t mind a little bit more fulsome context in that.

Hon. Niki Sharma: Government procurement entities may have their own indemnity policies, and there may be procedures, as the member asked about.

The reason for this inclusion is we’re asking them to do something that’s potentially outside of their policies or their indemnity coverage. We don’t know that for sure, because there may be a range of them out there. What this does is provide clarity and consistency with respect to any procurement directive.

What that means is that we’re telling them that if you are doing something because of these procurement directives, and as a result of that there’s some legal proceeding against you, then we are going to indemnify you in these ways. It’s very clear.

That way, despite whether or not individual indemnity provisions do or don’t cover what we’re asking them to, which may be unusual for them, it will be covered.

Steve Kooner: I want to thank the Attorney General once again for answering my colleague’s questions. The answers are much appreciated.

[7:00 p.m.]

I would like to go to clause 9, to the terminology of clause 9. The clause reads: “Subject to subsection (2), the government must indemnify a protected person for any costs or expenses incurred by the protected person in any legal proceedings taken against the protected person for anything done or omitted in compliance with, or intending to comply with, a directive issued under this Part.”

Now, the first part that I need some clarification on is the word “must,” “the government must indemnify....” From the sounds of it, there seems to be no discretion in that word.

Is it automatic? If there are costs or expenses suffered by a government procurement entity due to some sort of legal action, is the government obligated, as soon as they find out about that situation? In this language, it states “must.”

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes.

Steve Kooner: I thank the Attorney General for that clarification.

Going further, it says: “must indemnify a protected person.” Protected person, I would take it, has the same explanation as I was provided for “protected person” and the concerns I had that would come about as from clause 8. Would those explanations apply to this clause 9 as well?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Yes, it’s the same definition of protected person.

Steve Kooner: Okay. Then going further, to where it’s stated “for any costs or expenses.” Now, I have a bit of an issue there. The issue there is that sometimes the law distinguishes between reasonable expenses and unreasonable expenses, and some people may incur extra expenses, knowing that they’re going to be reimbursed for them.

What is the Attorney General’s perspective, in this terminology “for any cost or expenses”? Is the Attorney General, with this legislation, stating that even if there are unreasonable costs and expenses, the government will still be liable for them?

[7:05 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: Reading the clause as a whole, and it’s a very common term that’s used in many pieces of legislation related to this, the important words to rely upon when you’re understanding what kind of costs would be included or not are “any costs or expenses incurred.”

It has to be something that a person has paid out of their pocket, by the protected person in any legal proceedings. It’s limited, in the context of the clause itself, to make sure that it’s costs that were related to the legal proceedings that they’ve incurred.

Steve Kooner: Thank you for the explanation. I’m aware that the Attorney General has much legal experience as a lawyer as well, as do I. But when there are legal actions that happen, often there are times when certain lawyers, on behalf of their clients, order expert reports. When expert reports are ordered, sometimes those expert reports are found to be unreasonable, and sometimes the courts disallow certain reports for not being reasonable.

The question goes to here. I understand the legislation, but what if a particular government procurement entity was a little bit extra-aggressive in incurring expenses? Would they get relief in this section still?

[7:10 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s important to remember the context of section 9 when it occurs. Section 8 says that there is no legal proceeding against that defendant. Then we talked in the last section about how there’d likely be a dismissal application or something that drops it against that defendant.

We wouldn’t have a scenario where, as the member describes, the government procurement entity has a vigorous thing where they’re incurring expenses with experts, because there’s no action against them as a result of clause 8. The province would then likely take over conduct or be sued directly.

We are talking about the costs and expenses that occurred in between the time that that defendant was part of the legal proceeding and the discussions with the province about what they’re doing about it and it being dismissed against them. It’s very limited in its application or its scope, and it’s to provide assurance to the government procurement entities that we have their back as they’re doing this.

Then the other thing would be — I think we talked about it a lot — the risk management branch. That’s in Finance. They exist to process these indemnifications. They would be in communication with that entity that is being triggered by that legal proceeding to control costs and understand costs.

So there’s that operational side of it as well.

Steve Kooner: The Attorney General would agree with me that although the action might be limited in scope, there probably will be some disbursements, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It would depend on the action and where it comes. I think there was a scenario where it’s a demand letter. We talked about that before, where that triggers the province stepping in. It really depends on what state they’re at, but maybe there’s, like, a printing thing.

Yeah, there may be some cost. That’s why we have this section.

Steve Kooner: I understand that there was some discussion about the government department that handles these types of claims. I understand this section.

The issue here is that for the person that’s going to want to claim reimbursement, if the government department says, “Oh, this expense is a little bit unreasonable,” that person is going to come back to this section and say: “Well, hey, no. You can’t discount my claim, because I have this section to protect me.” “So government, you are obligated to pay me.”

Is that not the case?

Hon. Niki Sharma: How that would play out is that if there is…. Again, if it’s a cost or expense that is incurred by a person in a legal proceeding and they say, “You must pay it,” and we dispute that and say, “We don’t agree that this is a cost or expense that was incurred in the legal proceeding,” or there’s some aspect of that, we would make that determination. Then it would be a matter of dispute about whether or not that section applies, and they could review us in court if they disagree.

[7:15 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: If my understanding is correct from the explanation, the party that feels aggrieved by the government for not paying, pursuant to this, could have an action against the government to claim the excess expenses that the government found unreasonable, correct?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Well, I think what the member is describing is a hypothetical situation.

I was trying to say that in the event we say, “This is a cost or expense that wasn’t incurred by you in the legal proceeding,” and the protected person disagrees with that finding, then there is an ability for them to say: “I’m going to review that in court because I don’t agree with that finding.”

Again, we’re talking about, probably, not likely very high expenses, so I can’t imagine that happening. But that would be the avenue.

Steve Kooner: There may be also a situation where the government procurement entity does not provide notice to the government of a legal action in a timely manner. They might just proceed forward with that legal action, defend themselves and provide notice to the government at a later date. Isn’t that a plausible explanation? Isn’t that a plausible situation as well?

[7:20 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: We’re having a really hard time imagining the scenario that the member provided us, because they are government reporting entities. They’re so closely tied to government and our relationship with government that there would be few failures that would happen, for that instance to happen, where a lawsuit has continued for a long time, and we don’t know about it.

There would be a few failures that would happen that have probably zero chance of happening. One is that we weren’t also named in that lawsuit, which is very, very unlikely. Two, an entity like the health authority or ICBC or B.C. Hydro…. The government reporting entities that we’re talking about aren’t sophisticated enough to understand indemnity provisions and how they can avail themselves of those indemnity provisions and incur expenses without doing that. I would say that that would also be very highly unlikely.

Just in the nature of the relationship we have with the ministries and the way they interact, I think that would be inconceivable. Also, as Attorney General and in our office, I would likely get notice of major litigation related to procurements or things like that, so I think this scenario is very unlikely.

In the situation that it would happen — barring all of those things, making all of those things just fail — then it would go back to the provision. And if they notified us at some point saying, “Actually, clauses 8 and 9 should have applied to this proceeding, and we’ve gone this way far down it and haven’t told you about it,” then it would be a matter of us figuring out how section 9 applies, according to the wording of it.

Of course, costs are something that are assessed by a judge, so that’s part of the process. Then we would have to sit down with them and take a look at how far they went and how these indemnity provisions apply to them.

Steve Kooner: Just adding to the last point that the damages or the expenses would be assessed by a judge, is the Attorney General saying that the government would only pay the damages that were assessed by a judge, or doesn’t it really matter if it was assessed by a judge?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I said the costs were assessed by a judge in a legal proceeding. Expenses — obviously, that’s a different category, but in a proceeding, it’s the cost that you get the judge to assess.

Steve Kooner: There may be a situation where all the expenses are not awarded under the bill of costs. In that situation, would the government pay all those expenses, regardless of them not being awarded?

[7:25 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: The clause talks about costs and expenses related to the legal proceedings. It’s not damages. It’s not any claim of damages or those things associated with that.

I would just go back to the conversation that we had about the risk management branch, how these indemnity provisions kick in, and how there’s a whole fiscal and risk management process that happens with the party at that stage. If there’s any dispute on that, they can challenge it.

Steve Kooner: I was not referring to damages, just for clarification; I was referring to expenses. Bill of costs includes what units you can get under court rules for costs and then also expenses, which are referred to as disbursements in court actions under a bill of costs. Expenses — that’s what I was getting at, for clarification purposes.

I have an unrelated question to clause 9. Well, I guess, it’s kind of related. It has to do with lawsuits. Is the government actually expecting many lawsuits due to this legislation?

Hon. Niki Sharma: There are no procurement directives issued. That’s the first thing. I think I would say no, because I talked a lot, when we were talking about clause 7, related to how the procurement directives will be designed and the ability for there to be an assessment of viability and risk assessment of the government reporting procurement entities. But these provisions give the assurance to our partners that we want to work together on this.

Steve Kooner: In the event that there were lawsuits — maybe there was some sort of risk assessment done; that’s why there are some provisions in here to address risk — what could be the estimated value of lawsuits as a result of breaches in contracts or obligations that government procurement entities may have? If they don’t go forward with those provisions because of government directives and instead rely on this section, what could be the extent of the amounts that could be potentially awarded in regard to those lawsuits?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, there are no procurement directives that have been issued at this stage, and there’s no viewpoint now, at least for me or the government, that we would be issuing procurement directives that would be directed at incurring tons of…. They can be designed in a way that minimizes that, and they will be.

No such risk assessment or analysis has been done because, at this stage, the analysis and the thinking behind these provisions were about designing and enabling a statute that contemplated all the ways that we could make sure that we were clear, consistent and had the powers to issue such directives to our government procurement entities.

Steve Kooner: Is there any precedent that the government has where they’ve used similar legislative provisions, such as section 9, to deal with maybe not procurement but maybe another area that involves a huge amount of money and certain entities performing certain obligations in regard to the money that’s kind of connected to government services?

Is there some sort of precedent that shows that there’s an indemnification of provisions? Is there something like that, first of all, and secondly, if so, what have those expenses been, related to lawsuits, in similar situations?

[7:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think it would be really hard and unhelpful to compare. We were talking about other enactments that include indemnity and similar provisions to this, but they’re so entirely different. One is the Auditor General Act; one is the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act. They are so situated in their context that comparisons between them really wouldn’t make any sense.

The Chair: Members, we will take a five-minute recess at this time. If we could please return to begin at 7:36.

The committee recessed from 7:31 p.m. to 7:38 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: We are resuming, calling Section C back to order. We’re on Bill 7.

Steve Kooner: Just before we had the break, I was about to ask a question related to the answer that was supplied by the Attorney General. The questions and answer had to do with lawsuits, and the Attorney General was providing explanation of why the current precedents would not be applicable in this case because they are so diverse.

My response to that…. I would still like to know — even if there’s a wide range, because that would help me understand and would help our caucus on our side understand — what the extent is. What’s the low end? What could be the potential high end?

Although it might not be exactly applicable to this situation, at least we would know that this is the low end, and this is the high end. Maybe somewhere in between, these lawsuits related to procurement that connect to section 9 might be…. The subject matter might be in between there somewhere. It’ll still give us some sort of benchmark rather than zero or nothing at all.

Otherwise, we have no clue.

[7:40 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: First of all, it’s irrelevant because of the reasons that I talked about — the different regimes being so different — and it’s just not information I have, nor do I think it’s relevant to the clause.

I’m just going to have to go back to the fact that I think that we don’t have any precedence related to procurement and indemnity in government. Any other provisions we have in the many, many statutes that exist may or may not be used. There’s no analysis that I have to offer here, nor do I think it’s relevant.

Steve Kooner: With all due respect, I do feel it’s relevant because that’s information we need to know if lawsuits are going to come. Obviously, lawsuits happen in everyday life in British Columbia. They happen, and when there are bigger amounts of money involved and there are more transactions, they happen more often. That’s just the fact of the matter.

There are concerns if we do not know. We don’t have any sort of precedent on this side of the House, and we don’t know the extent of the consequences that could lead as a result of having this provision. That’s some critical piece of information that would help us understand and also educate the public. Although we cannot receive information in regard to precedents from the Attorney General’s department, a follow-up would be: has the government put aside a reserve to deal with the lawsuits that may come about?

For example, just as an analogy, insurance companies set aside a reserve that they might have certain claims that may happen, in advance. Has the government done such a risk assessment and said: “We are going to put aside a set number of dollars because we might have some court actions coming our way, or we might have to reimburse some government procurement entities”?

Has the government done that action? Has the government put aside funds, first of all, and secondly, if so, what funds have been put aside?

[7:45 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: There is no reserve, and I just want the member to keep in mind that this is an enabling piece of legislation. As an enabling piece of legislation, it gives the government power to issue a directive.

At this point, whatever that directive is, who it applies to, the scope of it and all of those things associated with it would be in the hands of that minister, once they issue that procurement directive. So any analysis of liability just isn’t…. I wouldn’t be able to do that on anything based on no actual directive at this stage.

What I would say is that, generally speaking, how it works when it comes to the Ministry of Attorney General and the way things would happen with litigation, we don’t set aside…. There’s not a pocket of money; instead, it would be contingencies in the government that would be there for that.

Steve Kooner: Going to that last phrase that was just mentioned, contingencies. What does the Attorney General mean about contingencies?

Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s the way we budget in government. You set your budget, you set aside your operating expenses, and then you put in a portion of money for contingencies that are related to how you deal with unexpected things. That’s just a budgeting process of the government. That’s how it works.

Gavin Dew: Can the Attorney General expand on the estimated potential extent of risk exposure that is covered by those contingencies?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I already answered that. There is no procurement directive right now. We’ve talked for days about how the procurement directives would show up, how we’d be working with the government procurement entities, all the procedures and steps that would be put in place to do that. I’ve answered that.

Gavin Dew: I would respectfully disagree. I don’t think the question is around what the Attorney General has just asked.

What I’m trying to understand is what the extent of potential risk exposure is. Has there been analysis undertaken about the extent…? Obviously, there’s not a budget relative to this risk. You talked about contingency. I want to understand both what the maximum potential financial exposure is and the probability of that risk is so that we, as legislators, can understand what, on a risk-adjusted basis, the total financial exposure is estimated to be. If that work has not been undertaken, I’d like to understand why it hasn’t been.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve answered this many times, and I’ll explain again.

There is no procurement directive right now. This is an enabling piece of legislation. It enables ministers and ministries to issue procurement directives. The time of issuance of a procurement directive is the time that the minister with that government procurement entity, wherever it would apply, would assess risk, would assess all of the things that the member is asking about.

There’s nothing to attach a risk assessment to at this point. It is an enabling piece of legislation that enables ministers to issue procurement directives. In the context of making a procurement directive is when you would do the analysis that the member is talking about and when you would build in wording in that procurement directive to mitigate risk, to mitigate litigation, to make sure it’s clear with that procurement entity what you’re asking them to do.

[7:50 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I’m a little confused and frustrated here. It’s April 30. This has been ongoing for some time, and what I’m hearing is that no work has been done to evaluate the potential risk and exposure as a result of government indemnifying protected persons.

While I recognize that there may be individual scopes of risk, there may be individual levels of exposure that are consequential to any given, specific, individual procurement decision, I do think it’s really very material at this stage that we as legislators, who are being asked to move forward with a bill in which the government is going to indemnify individuals for costs or expenses….

What I’m hearing is that there has been no analysis done of what the broad scope of that risk exposure could be. That’s what I’m looking to understand.

I’m not looking to understand future analysis and future decisions that are made in the future. What I’m looking to understand is whether any work whatsoever has been done to understand what the total quantum of risk exposure is.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m going to ask for your guidance on this, Chair, because I have answered this many times. I will just say again: the crafting of the procurement directive and the ability of anticipating and mitigating claims when they do the directive are how we manage that risk. This is an enabling piece of legislation to give us the tools to do all of that.

The Chair: Member, the Attorney General has indicated that she has provided a response. Although you may not be happy with the response, it’s my view that this line of questioning is at risk of becoming repetitive. I would ask that you please reframe the question or pursue another line of questioning.

Gavin Dew: Thank you. I will bring this line of questioning to an end simply in saying that I am unsatisfied with the fact that it appears no analysis has been done about the potential risk exposure to the taxpayers of British Columbia. I believe that the failure to do so falls well short of the diligence that we should be exercising as a legislature, as we’re asked to move forward with this.

I would not in good conscience, in a governance role in my prior work in the private sector, allow such a risk to be taken without it being appropriately quantified and having an understanding of what we’re actually dealing with here. I am genuinely shocked at the intransigence around this basic information.

With that said, I’ll bring my questions on this to a close and hand back to my colleague.

Steve Kooner: In regard to this particular clause, what threshold or evidentiary standard will be used to determine whether a protected person acted in bad faith and is therefore not entitled to indemnification and protection? I know it was explained in a previous section, but in this particular clause….

Hon. Niki Sharma: Just confirming that it’s the same analysis of the answer that I gave on clause 8.

Steve Kooner: In regard to this last question I asked, who will determine the evidentiary threshold for indemnification? Who will be the assessor, in the government, to say: “This entity has met the threshold; now let’s pay them out”? Who will do that?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve had the exact same line of questioning already, by another member but about the same question. I talked about the risk management board. I talked about how those determinations are made. So also asked and answered.

Steve Kooner: All right. Another question for the Attorney General.

In regard to the comparison between clauses 8 and 9, clause 8 talks about how it’s kind of statute-barred, for organizations or entities, from suing government procurement entities.

[7:55 p.m.]

Based upon that logic, if nobody can actually sue these entities for obligations that they have to the government.... We had a discussion earlier about court costs and successful party. If you can’t sue a successful party, you may be awarded court costs.

In what situation, if section 8 is applicable, does the government see section 9 coming into play, if nobody can actually sue somebody?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I think I’ve answered this one a few times too. It would be the costs that are just incurred by that party before, as shifting it over to the province.

Steve Kooner: Is the government planning to implement any sort of safeguards or measures that will help mitigate the risk in terms of paying out?

I know the Attorney General mentioned information about potential reserves and reserves not being there and there being no potential precedents on what could be the extent of exposure. Has there been any sort of framework…?

I also understand that the Attorney General has said that this is an enabling statute, but there has been some significant effort put into this. In previous clauses of this particular bill, the Attorney General had said that they had worked with, I believe, the JEDI ministry, as well as maybe Labour. There were multiple ministries that had come and brainstormed how to bring this forward.

Was there any sort of framework that was discussed to kind of say: “If we’re going to pay out, how do we minimize that risk”?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve answered this question also.

The Chair: Member, I would just ask that you move on to a new line of questioning and ensure it’s not repetitive.

Steve Kooner: Sure. I can move on, but I believe the questions that were answered were on whether there are any sort of reserves. This specific questioning doesn’t relate to whether a reserve was set aside or if there are certain frameworks. The issue is, essentially, whether there was any work done in terms of setting some sort of framework. So I respectfully disagree that it was answered, but I will move on to another question.

Earlier I had some questions about the wording of clause 9. We had finished discussing “any costs or expenses.” Going further, we referred to “protected person,” and I was told that the explanation was the same as clause 8 in regard to that. Then we also discussed legal proceedings, and going further, that brings me down to the last phrase of this subsection, which talks about complying or “intending to comply with.”

I did take an issue to explanations that were provided in clause 8. Does the Attorney General have any further explanations in regard to this language? My position on clause 8 was that the language wasn’t clear. I felt that the language by having “in complying with” alone could actually address what this clause was trying to accomplish.

We had an extensive discussion on clause 8. Now that we’re on clause 9, I ask if the Attorney General has any further explanation here.

Hon. Niki Sharma: No.

[8:00 p.m.]

Steve Kooner: I still have issues with the wording of this legislation, for the reasons I supplied in clause 8. Going further to subsection (2), the language refers to: “Subsection (1) does not apply to a protected person in relation to anything done or omitted in bad faith.”

Now, I said, in the previous clause, that there should be wording such as “gross negligence.” The Attorney General responded and gave explanation why it should not be there. I did not get a chance to respond to that, but I will respond to it now.

Going back to government procurement entities understanding what their legal protections are or what sort of consequences they may have, they have to have proper legal education or information on how these sections work. There was a fair bit of discussion earlier about that, and I let the Attorney General know what my concerns were.

We also discussed the provision in clause 8 that dealt with also providing broad-based protection to government procurement entities. It was explained that these government procurement entities are sophisticated entities that have legal departments. They understand all this. I was told that they will know how to comply.

When I got to the point in clause 8 to talk about gross negligence, I was told that it was a broad blanket. I did not agree to the explanations that were provided there. My issue now with this particular subsection is that if it said, “bad faith,” and it also said, “gross negligence,” it would be patently, obviously apparent by looking at the section that if somebody did gross negligence, it would not be included.

The Attorney General did mention that under their definition of “bad faith,” gross negligence would be included so there was no need to have it. But if it were included, people could clearly look at the section and say: “Look. Gross negligence. We better be prudent about how we exercise our due diligence here; otherwise, we might be liable.”

That could actually be a safeguard here. I’m of that same perspective. I wasn’t clear enough, because I didn’t get a chance to respond to the Attorney General after she gave her explanation, so I’m explaining it now.

If the wording is there, “gross negligence,” although it may be included in “bad faith” if you do the legal interpretation of it…. But if it’s outside as well, if it says, “gross negligence,” that would be very obvious to a government procurement entity that they need to exercise prudence.

Does the Attorney General have any further explanation after hearing what my response is there?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Nothing further, Chair.

Steve Kooner: Well, for the same reasons that I had earlier, I have my reservations about this wording and what it should include. We are talking about millions of dollars here. The Attorney General explained in an earlier part of this legislation that we were discussing that procurement directives may involve up to $600 million. That’s a lot of money, especially in the political climate of a huge deficit that this province is facing.

Extra safeguards need to be in place. Government procurement entities need to be able to easily understand this legislation.

For that reason, I’m moving an amendment on this particular clause now.

[8:05 p.m.]

[SECTION 9, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as show:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the government must indemnify a protected person for any costs on a party and party basisor expenses incurred by the protected person in any legal proceedings taken against the protected person for anything done or omitted in complying with, or intending to comply with, a directive issued under this Part.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a protected person in relation to anything done or omitted in bad faith.or gross negligence.]

In this particular section, I had an issue related to cost. I said that there’s ambiguity there. For example, in a court proceeding, if somebody wasn’t entitled to sue someone and the court found that somebody brought a frivolous action, they would get party-to-party costs. That would give some sort of protection that unreasonable expenses were not being awarded, or there would be some protection to the public purse.

I feel that amendment is necessary. I did have some reservations on that wording earlier. The other thing that this actually proposes to do is to add the words “gross negligence” after “bad faith.”

The Chair: We will take a short recess to review and distribute, if necessary, the amendment.

The committee recessed from 8:06 p.m. to 8:12 p.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

The Chair: Okay, Members. I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 7 back to order.

Members, we have an amendment to clause 9. The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

Steve Kooner: I’ve moved this amendment. As I mentioned earlier, B.C. is in pretty dire straits in terms of the financial situation, and accountability at all levels is very much needed. We need to protect taxpayers’ money. Whatever better oversight we could have on this bill…. As we have heard, this bill is very broad, and as we have heard in terms of even the past clause and this clause, the language is pretty broad.

We have heard that there haven’t been fund reserves set aside to deal with future potential lawsuits. We’ve also heard that there hasn’t been a framework put together in terms of safeguards and in regard to future claims. Then the language on this has similar language to the previous clause, clause 8. In proposing this particular amendment, it would really mitigate risk to the funds of B.C. taxpayers.

Really, they’re minor changes, in terms of wording, to this particular amendment. Most of the original clause would stay intact.

[8:15 p.m.]

We talked a little bit about party-to-party costs. We talked about disbursements. We talked about costs and units in court, and we talked about unreasonable costs. We talked about reasonable costs and expenses.

The first change in this proposed amendment would limit the language as to which expenses would be applicable. By allowing costs on a party-and-party basis, there would be checks and balances there because the courts would look at what’s reasonable and what’s unreasonable in assessing disbursements. That would help safeguard public funds. That’s why I feel that it is a crucial safeguard in that circumstance.

Going further, we had a discussion on the previous clause about bad faith and also gross negligence. Gross negligence could be to a certain level that could involve an element of culpability for a government procurement entity knowing that it’s not quite right to make a particular decision on procurement of goods, but they may decide to do it anyway, out of gross negligence behaviour.

I am aware, from the previous discussion of clause 8, that the Attorney General is saying that the definition of “bad faith,” by some legal interpretation, can include gross negligence. The reason why I put forward this proposed amendment to add the words “or gross negligence” is because there was also a discussion in the previous clause where we talked about knowledge of legal protections, knowledge of legal consequences. There was some ambiguity as to how the government procurement entities would understand those legal provisions that either protect them or have consequences.

By adding the words “gross negligence” — although, maybe, somewhere gross negligence may be included in “bad faith” — openly in this provision, having the words “gross negligence” will show to whoever is reviewing this, on the face, that if they have any sort of negligent behaviour that’s gross negligence, they may not get compensation. They’ve got to exercise some due diligence because government funds are on the line.

B.C. has the largest deficit in B.C.’s history in terms of finances in this province. This would show the public and instil confidence in the public: “Look, this is a broad-based piece of legislation.” Having the words “gross negligence” gives notice to government procurement entities that if they are not prudent and they do not exercise due diligence, there may be consequences for them. That will give assurances to the public that public funds will be protected.

This mitigates risk that may be applicable to public funds in this province. I urge the entire House, on both sides, to support this bill. The intent behind it is to protect public funds. People on the other side may wave their heads, side to side, that they don’t agree with what I’m saying, but the intention on this particular clause is to protect public funds and provide the appropriate safeguard.

I urge the members on both sides of this House to support this bill and to vote in favour of this bill.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I will not be supporting the amendment, and I will lay out the reasons for that.

The primary one is that because clauses 8 and 9 work together, they need to be consistent in their wording and language. That’s the first reason, and then we’ll go over the amendments that the member suggested related to costs.

[8:20 p.m.]

I want to just reiterate that this is about cooperation with our government procurement entities and us all working together towards procuring things in a way that supports the economy during this destabilizing time. What that means is that we want the government procurement entities to work with us. We want them to feel supported through that work, and we think that’s a really important policy objective related to this work.

The member’s amendments, for a few reasons, I don’t support. One of them is party-to-party costs, the estimate that that is about 30 to 40 percent of the costs incurred by an individual in legal proceedings. So 30 to 40 percent, I would say, is not a fair partnership or a fair indemnity for our government procurement entities during this time.

I do not agree with the removing of expenses. We went through, in detail, when these time periods would come in and how they work together with clause 8 with respect to legal proceedings and how they would eventually transfer to the province. So the number of expenses and costs are already in check in that way.

I think it’s, frankly, unfair to say to parties that we’re indemnifying none of your expenses, and we’re only going to pay party-to-party costs at a 30 to 40 percent rate. It goes against the intent and policy of what we were hoping to achieve by creating cooperation and alignment, in what is a really important time to have that cooperation and alignment related to the attack of the tariffs on our economy.

I just want to say the addition of “gross negligence….” I went into detail before about what the law says about that and why I don’t support the inclusion of it. I’ll just note that another confusion that it adds to the legal interpretation of that provision is that there may be incidents where negligence, in fact, is bad faith.

By specifically qualifying only gross negligence as something that’s named in the statute, the member is in that way creating further confusion about what “bad faith” means and what it couldn’t mean, when in fact, it could be a lower standard that meets the threshold of it being included in the definition of “bad faith” at negligence itself.

For many reasons, the amendments take away from the purpose, substance and drive of this legislation, and I won’t be supporting them.

Gavin Dew: I remain unsatisfied with the efforts taken to quantify and mitigate risk exposure, and I see this amendment, particularly the amendment to subsection (1), as helping to mitigate that risk. Therefore, I will be supporting it.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, the question is the amendment to clause 9.

Division has been called.

[8:25 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section C or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is the amendment to clause 9.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 5
Kooner	L. Neufeld	Dew
Maahs		McCall
NAYS — 7
B. Anderson	Davidson	Krieger
Routledge	Sharma	Chow
	Botterell

[8:30 p.m.]

Hon. Niki Sharma: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:31 p.m.