Contents

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Korky Neufeld.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Lana Popham: Today later on, we are proclaiming May 13 officially B.C. Dairy Day. It’s a day that the B.C. dairy industry is recognized and celebrated for the work that they do and the role that they play in our province’s food security.

I’ve got a whole bunch of guests who are joining us today, and also maybe I’ll remind folks that at lunchtime, Rocky Point Ice Cream is going to be handing out ice cream at the back of the Legislature.

Delicious.

Today in the chamber, in the gallery, we have Dan Wong from the Western Dairy Council, Travis Drew from Vitalus, Tanveer Ahmed from Agropur, Catherine Tokarz from Saputo, Bill McKenzie from Foothills Creamery, Gilles Froment from Lactanet, Jeremy Dunn from B.C. Dairy, Casey Pruim from B.C. Dairy, Brian Janzen from B.C. Dairy, Henry Bremer from B.C. Dairy, John de Dood from B.C. Dairy, Sarah Sache from B.C. Dairy, Mark Van Klei from B.C. Dairy and Luke Van Huizen from B.C. Dairy.

Give them a hand.

Sheldon Clare: I rise today to introduce my staff from Prince George–North Cariboo who will be working in the Legislature in the precinct this week: Adam Schaan from Quesnel, Shalan Pozer from Quesnel and Johnathan Raine from Prince George.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: You know, it’s a real honour today to welcome members of United Food and Commercial Workers 1518 into the gallery and onto the precinct today. Many of us had an opportunity to join their delegation for breakfast this morning and to hear directly about the important work that they do in our retail grocery sector, in our food supply chain, in health care. All across, really, many different sectors, UFCWs are working.

We’re joined today by Patrick Johnson, president; Ronda Melbourne, secretary-treasurer; and about two dozen front-line workers who I know are going to be bringing their stories to many members of this precinct today.

These folks are good friends and neighbours in my home community of New Westminster, where the UFCW office is located. They’re some of the fiercest advocates for decency and dignity for working people ever.

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

Lorne Doerkson: I want to introduce two incredibly good friends of mine. They were instrumental in my campaign, but they are best known for the folks that created and ran, for a number of years, the 108 Hills resort, of course, in 108 Mile, British Columbia, a beautiful resort.

Pat and Juanita Corbett, you are amazing human beings. You’ve done so much for the Cariboo-Chilcotin, and I’m grateful for you.

They are joined today by Devin Verokosky and Isabel Estephan. They are two young, brilliant, bright students that are both attending university here in Victoria.

Many, many welcomes to you all.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. George Chow: I have in the gallery two members of my constituency staff, Navleen Virk and Kayla Charchuk, who are here visiting the Legislature and attending a conference.

I’d like to ask the House to join me to welcome them.

They’re my able staff that help me a lot. Without them, I would be at a loss.

Kiel Giddens: On behalf of the official opposition, I also wanted to thank the UFCW Local 1518 for being here for the engagement this morning and today.

Welcome to the Legislature, and of course, thank you to the 28,000 members who provide good jobs. We’re all working towards safe workplaces for all in British Columbia, including your 28,000 workers.

Thank you for being here.

Hon. Brenda Bailey: I’d like, also, to welcome three constituency advisers that I get to work with in my riding of South Granville.

Just to give you a sense on the great background that these CAs bring to us. I know everyone in this House is served by incredible people who bring all kinds of different skills to this role.

I have three CAs here with me: Celine McRae-Hamdy, who’s actually an engineer by training; Kathleen Serrano, who is really a true political wonk and has spent some time in Ottawa; and Meagan Baird, who’s a small business person.

I’m so fortunate to have their skills and their amazing attitudes serve me in my work.

Thank you very much for everything you do.

Lynne Block: It is my privilege, especially during National Police Week, to introduce to you today a dedicated and community-focused leader in B.C.’s law enforcement, chief constable John Lo of West Vancouver police department.

Chief Lo first joined the West Van police department in 1995 and now has nearly 30 years of experience in law enforcement. Over the course of his distinguished career, served almost entirely within West Van, he has taken on a wide range of leadership roles and built a reputation for integrity, professionalism and a deep commitment to public service. Notably, he is the first internal promotion to the role of chief constable in 17 years, a testament to the trust and confidence placed in him by both his colleagues and community.

Chief Lo’s approach reflects a clear understanding that public safety is not just about enforcement; it is about listening, fostering trust and working together to build a community where everyone feels safe, respected and heard.

Please join me in welcoming to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia a valued and dedicated public servant, chief John Lo.

Amelia Boultbee: I’m honoured today to introduce from my riding Michele Cumberland and her class from Holy Cross Elementary School, along with their chaperone, Sophie Robinson.

Sophie Robinson and Michele Cumberland have a real passion for civic education. They do this trip every year to help students get their eyes on what actually happens in the seat of democracy here in British Columbia.

Michele Cumberland is the recipient of the King Charles III Coronation Medal in recognition of her significant contributions to civic education. Sophie just finished her first year at the University of Toronto on the Loran scholarship.

Welcome to yourselves and your class.

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

Stephanie Higginson: I am going to join the constituency adviser welcome train that’s moving through the House today.

I have my amazing constituency adviser, I believe, sitting up behind me, Hayley Tomlinson, working from the precinct today. As a brand-new MLA, I am so thrilled to have Hayley supporting me, with all of her incredible experience and knowledge.

If you could all make sure to make Hayley feel very welcome today if you see her.

Harman Bhangu: Joining me here in the gallery today is my constituency assistant, Joe Latam.

Joe was born and raised in Abbotsford, later attending the University of British Columbia. While at UBC, Joe served as the treasurer of the Young Conservative Club, later interned in Ottawa. Joe moved back to B.C. to work on the provincial election before joining my staff.

Please make him feel very welcome.

[10:15 a.m.]

Tony Luck: I’ve got a couple of introductions to do this morning.

First, I’d like to welcome back my wife, after spending a couple of weeks in Edmonton, where we were blessed with another beautiful baby boy. Unfortunately, he was two months early and had to spend a couple of weeks in the hospital, but our little Tyson was able to come home on Mother’s Day, and what a wonderful Mother’s Day present for the mother to have him home at that time.

I’d also like to introduce the students of the Sardis Secondary French immersion class. They are accompanied by Angela Robinson, who happens to be my wife’s niece. We’re very pleased to have her in the House here today, enjoying a visit. I believe they had a wonderful lunch together yesterday.

I would also like to introduce a group of LDS missionaries here in the gallery today. They have been touring the precinct and are taking in our proceedings during question period. Most of them are from the United States, so they’re here to see how democracy really works in British Columbia.

Would you please join me in welcoming all to the House this day.

Harwinder Sandhu: I am thrilled to welcome my two CAs. For one of them, Amy Klassen, it’s her first time ever at the precinct. And Caitlin Clow. They’re both an incredible team.

Caitlin comes from journalism experience. She was a beloved chief editor with a local paper. Amy comes from finance and business. Originally born and raised in Calgary, Alberta, and lived in the Kootenays — for Amy, for 15 years and then Lumby and then Vernon.

They’re very well connected with the community and community issues. They serve with the utmost care and fierce advocacy. When people say, during question period or other debates, “Alberta this and Alberta that,” they have a lot to say because they have some experience, and they tell me how grateful they and their families are here to live in B.C.

B.C. is lucky to have them. Vernon-Lumby is lucky to have them.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Macklin McCall: Today it is my pleasure to report that the RCMP union, National Police Federation, will be meeting with the entire Conservative caucus.

I would like to thank and welcome president Brian Sauvé, Chris Voller and Rob Farrer.

Will this House join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

Hon. Brittny Anderson: I would like to welcome my three constituency advisers today to the precinct. They’re going to be working here this week. It’s Anna Bundschuh, Sarah Wasilenkoff, and Erika Cizek.

They come from a variety of different backgrounds.

Erika had recently finished her master’s, focused on housing in rural communities, before joining us.

Sarah has been an incredible advocate and working in victim services for a really long time.

And Anna is an incredible community builder and special events organizer.

I am so grateful to the three of them for all of the incredible work that they do for the riding of Kootenay Central.

Will the House please make them feel very welcome.

Ian Paton: Well, here’s a quiz for everyone. What noble profession requires a routine of getting up at 4:30 a.m. every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, milking cows at 5 a.m. and then again at 5 p.m. while, in between, during your 14-hour day, you are feeding, cleaning, planting, harvesting and taking on the de facto roles of a veterinarian, a mechanic and an environmentalist?

Working 14-hour days sounds like being an MLA here in the Legislature.

As a former dairy farmer myself, a third-generation dairy farmer, I’m so proud of the work that they do at the B.C. Dairy Association and the folks that are here with the processing industry.

Between the Minister of Agriculture and myself, we look forward to meeting you all this afternoon and having ice cream at lunchtime today.

Members’ Statements

National Police Week
and Support for Officers

Bryan Tepper: This week we celebrate National Police Week, a time to honour the courage, resilience and sacrifice of our law enforcement officers.

[10:20 a.m.]

These men and women are the heart of our communities, working tirelessly to protect us, often at great personal cost. Police officers confront danger and trauma daily, responding to crisis, protecting the vulnerable and risking their lives. Tragically, many have made the ultimate sacrifice, leaving behind grieving families and communities. We honour their memory and pledge to never forget them.

Beyond the physical risks, officers face profound mental health challenges. The constant exposure, distress, violence and loss take a heavy toll, often in silence. Issues like anxiety, depression and operational stress injuries are real, yet only recently have we begun to recognize and address them. Departments are now starting to offer counselling, peer support and wellness programs, but there’s more work to do.

Acknowledging these struggles is a vital step towards supporting our officers’ well-being.

National Police Week is also an opportunity to reflect on the partnerships between law enforcement and the communities they serve. Let’s foster trust, support mental health resources and show appreciation for our officers’ service.

To every officer: thank you for your bravery.

To your families: thank you for your strength.

And to our fallen heroes: your sacrifice lives on in us.

Let’s make this week a moment of unity, gratitude and commitment to support those who protect us in body, mind and spirit.

Komagata Maru and Action on Racism

Jessie Sunner: I rise today to mark the anniversary of the Komagata Maru, a dark chapter in our province and our country’s history.

On May 23, 1914, a steamship arrived in Vancouver carrying 376 passengers — including Hindus, Muslims and mainly Sikhs — from British India. They came here in search of opportunity, but instead, they were met with rejection, dehumanization and blatant racism. They were forced to remain aboard the ship for two months, cut off from food and water, all before being unjustly turned away under exclusionary laws designed to keep Canada white. The passengers called the ship the Guru Nank Jahaz.

Their passage was a symbol of resistance and a sacred journey grounded in their faith and the belief that all human beings are equal. However, that belief was met with closed doors, and the consequences were devastating, with many passengers facing violence, persecution and even death.

As a Punjabi Sikh woman in this Legislature, I do not take my place here for granted. There was a time when people who looked like me had no path to citizenship, when we could not vote in this province and when we had no rights in this very House where I stand today.

I think often about the sacrifices those passengers made and the struggles of the South Asian pioneers who came before us, many of whom faced open hostility and racism. Their ongoing resilience is what made space for families like mine to come to Canada.

I also think about how today, more than a century later, racism persists, now aimed at international students who are scapegoated, migrant workers who are treated as disposable, and refugees who are looked upon with suspicion instead of compassion. This is why we have a responsibility to continue fighting against injustice and to do better each and every day.

Remembering painful chapters like the Komagata Maru isn’t just about looking back. It’s about learning from our mistakes, confronting racism and injustice when we see it and refusing to let history repeat itself.

B.C. Dairy Day

Heather Maahs: Cappuccino, latte, cheesecake, crème brûlée, fudge, ice cream — what do all these things have in common? Milk and, obviously, deliciousness.

[10:25 a.m.]

There was a commercial on TV that used to say, “Milk, it does a body good,” and it really does. Did you know that a single glass of milk contains almost every single nutrient your body needs? Vitamin B12, calcium, riboflavin, phosphorus, milk proteins, casein, whey protein, fats and carbohydrates.

Who do we have to thank for this vital addition and rather necessary part of our everyday diet? Cows, of course. But who takes good care and facilitates the extraction with loving kindness? It’s the farmer.

Today is B.C. Dairy Day. In B.C., there are 426 dairy farms. They milk an average of 160 cows per farm and create 12,500 related jobs in this province that contribute $1.225 billion to B.C.’s GDP. And 890 million litres of milk are produced annually. By the way, 77 percent of those farms are in the Fraser Valley. Just saying.

Now that I’ve whetted your appetite, you’ll be happy to know — well, you already know, obviously — that we’re being treated to ice cream by the dairy farmers of B.C. because it’s officially Ice Cream Day. Definitely a benefit to our jobs.

Enjoy the treats today, and while you’re at it, say thank you on behalf of all British Columbians to the amazing dairy farmers of B.C.

Museums Week
and Role of Museums

Nina Krieger: Early this month people gathered in Lytton, B.C., to celebrate something extraordinary: the launch of the rebuilt Lytton Chinese History Museum, destroyed during a devastating wildfire in 2021.

The profound significance of this reopening for the town and the entire province speaks to the power of museums as sites for collecting and storytelling, for learning, connection and renewal.

Today, in recognition of B.C. Museums Week, I thank the people at the heart of the spaces and sites that make our communities strong. From Craigdarroch Castle to Britannia Mine Museum, from Barkerville Historic Town to the Bill Reid Gallery, we are so proud of our world-class institutions, which are drivers for local tourism.

I thank the Museums Association of B.C. for their support of a sector that contributes so much to our cultural and economic prosperity and to our health and well-being.

Our government has been proud to invest in the creation of spaces such as the Chinese Canadian Museum; and Jwest, a new Jewish community hub in Vancouver; and to support Indigenous cultural centres that are so important for advancing meaningful reconciliation.

This government will continue to support the vision of Canadians of South Asian heritages for a provincial museum and the vision of Canadians of Filipino heritage for a provincial cultural centre.

Forthcoming, the Royal B.C. Museum’s new provincial archives, research and collections campus will allow visitors and researchers to access, interact with and learn from B.C.’s histories the diverse and sometimes painful threads that make up our past and help us imagine a better future.

This week and always, let’s champion a thriving arts, culture and heritage sector, which is a driver for imagination, innovation and for our identities as Canadians and British Columbians.

Golden Ears Provincial Park

Lawrence Mok: It is springtime now, and I thought it might be timely for me to introduce to you a breathtaking natural escape located right in the heart of Maple Ridge, and that is the Golden Ears Provincial Park.

I must say that this park is not only a masterpiece of landscape; it is also a symbol of British Columbia’s commitments to conservation, outdoor recreation and the deep connection we have with nature.

Covering more than 63,000 hectares, Golden Ears Provincial Park is one of the largest provincial parks in B.C., with a vast expanse of rugged wilderness, pristine lakes and towering mountains. It has been a popular outdoor destination for both locals and visitors for generations. I myself will visit this truly magnificent park several times a year with my family or friends.

[10:30 a.m.]

Where does Golden Ears Provincial Park get its name from, you may ask? Well, it gets its name from the twin peaks that dominate the skyline: two rugged, pointed summits that look like two gigantic human ears that glow golden at sunset. The park is home to dense coastal rainforests, crystal clear rivers and streams. It is a sanctuary for birds, black bears, deer, eagles and the elusive cougars.

For the people of Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and Mission, Golden Ears is a place where families make memories, where friends gather around a picnic table and where outdoor enthusiasts find inspiration. It is a place of healing, reflection, fun and adventure. Golden Ears is a perfect getaway from the hustle and bustle of city life.

I would encourage my friends and colleagues in this House to come and visit the one and only Golden Ears Provincial Park.

Nursing Week and
Contributions of Nurses

Susie Chant: Thank you for the opportunity to rise and celebrate the nurses of British Columbia.

As always, I begin by acknowledging that I am currently speaking from the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, specifically those of the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations.

When I am in North Vancouver–Seymour, I work, live and learn in the territory of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh and səlilwətaɬ Nations. I’m grateful to all for helping me to learn the many meanings and practices of reconciliation.

This National Nursing Week and International Nurses Day I recognize the hard work and dedication of nurses throughout British Columbia. Nurses provide exceptional care in our communities, hospitals and care homes, and their expertise is deeply valued, especially in times of need.

The nursing family, including licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, registered psychiatric nurses and nurse practitioners, makes invaluable contributions to community, acute and specialized health care, as well as to primary care. Their role is critical in supporting patients from the moment they enter the health care system through to their recovery and ongoing health maintenance or to guide patients and families through end-of-life care.

Our government is proud to work with nursing leaders and organizations to build a stronger, more responsive health care system for all British Columbians. We’re committed to making B.C. the best place in Canada for nurses to work. In collaboration with the B.C. Nurses Union, we are establishing minimum nurse-to-patient ratios to improve working conditions and enhance the quality of patient care.

The government is also working with the college of nurses and nurse practitioners to expedite the registration process of internationally trained nurses. As a part of this effort, we are now actively recruiting nurses and nurse practitioners from the U.S. to join our workforce in partnership with health authorities, regulatory colleges and other key stakeholders. We’re launching a marketing campaign in Washington, Oregon and California to promote job opportunities in areas where nurses are needed most.

To all nurses across B.C.: thank you for your tireless dedication.

Oral Questions

Government Hiring of Consultant
on Downtown Eastside Issues

Steve Kooner: This government has had eight years to deal with rising crime, addictions and the mental health crisis in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. Eight years of failed policies, eight years of continued inability to action solutions to improve the challenges people experience on a daily basis in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver.

This government’s solution is to appoint Michael Bryant as the so-called Downtown Eastside czar without public announcement, without public transparency, without consultation. The activist community knew Bryant was acting as the Downtown Eastside czar, but the public was left in the dark. The public didn’t find out until the media went digging.

Given that the Downtown Eastside is a vulnerable population, can the Premier tell us what specific expertise Michael Bryant has to deal with the issues of the Downtown Eastside?

Deputy Speaker: Minister for Social Development and Poverty Reduction.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and welcome to the chair. It’s good to see you there.

[10:35 a.m.]

Thank you to the member for the question.

All of us in this chamber know how the Downtown Eastside faces complex challenges and how hard we’ve all been working to find more ways to deliver services to people.

We have built new housing. We have strengthened access to addiction treatment services. We have added employment supports to be able to help connect people with good jobs that are meaningful to them and help them access more opportunities.

But we know that systemic challenges remain. We know that for businesses and for residents the neighbourhood can be unsafe or people can feel unsafe.

That’s why we engaged Michael Bryant, to be able to work directly with the community, to find advice, to evaluate the work that we’ve done to identify solutions to the gaps and the work that remains ahead of us, work that our government is committed to do.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

Steve Kooner: Mr. Bryant was the head of Legal Aid and suddenly left after two years.

Can the Premier please inform the House why Mr. Bryant left Legal Aid so abruptly?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Michael Bryant’s previous experience includes being a lawyer, CEO of Legal Aid B.C., executive director and general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. He also held political office in Ontario — first as Attorney General, also as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, also as Minister of Economic Development.

The roles that he has held give him a unique perspective but also an outside perspective. His ability to work with a variety of communities who are impacted by the systemic challenges on the Downtown Eastside is work that we are glad to see him do.

Trevor Halford: We know about Michael Bryant’s past work history. That is why we have so many questions about Michael Bryant.

The fact is that this government is in the business of rewarding friends and insiders. But this? This one may be the most egregious.

Here’s what we know so far. The minister is right. He is a former Attorney General, Liberal cabinet minister. They should maybe google why he left Ontario.

Michael Bryant was appointed a consultant in February on a six-month contract worth $150,000. How do we find out about this work? We find out about it through Global News. Then we get a press release issued in panic. He also gets $25,000 in expenses.

My question is a simple one, to the Premier or to the Attorney General or to anybody that can provide an answer. Was the city of Vancouver consulted before Mr. Bryant was hired?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: Michael Bryant has held a variety of roles that give him a unique perspective and ability to work with the businesses, the communities, the people affected by the continuing systemic challenges on the Downtown Eastside.

He comes to this work as a lawyer and a former elected official, but he’s also been very public about his own struggle with addiction. That lived experience and his recovery journey is certainly well known and compelling to us. These are valuable perspectives to bring to this work.

While we continue to work to keep people in the Downtown Eastside living and working safer and make the area safer for everybody, it’s very important to hear outside perspectives. That’s the work that I’m pleased that Michael Bryant is doing.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

Trevor Halford: That’s great. So outside perspectives for $150,000 for six months of work.

You know what? This is maybe why it’s so quiet on the government side. We have a pretty good idea why he may have left B.C. Legal Aid. I think the Premier might have an idea. I think the Attorney General might have an idea. They’re not going to get up and talk about this.

In fact, the Attorney General, we know, has met with Mr. Bryant. We know the Premier has met with Mr. Bryant as early as February of this year.

[10:40 a.m.]

What did Mr. Bryant tell Global News what his big mandate is, what justifies $150,000 for six months of work, $25,000 worth of expenses on the backs of our most vulnerable people on the Downtown Eastside? Here he says, and I quote: “Whether the plans the province has underway and the commitments the province made during the election are going to make sense.”

That’s absolutely embarrassing. A plan for the Downtown Eastside. Are you kidding me?

The Premier may not want to answer this. The Attorney General may not want to answer this. The Solicitor General may not want to answer this.

What justification does this government have for giving this contract to this individual on the backs of our most vulnerable people?

It’s absolutely a disgrace.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I am honoured to stand up and support and describe the work that this government has been doing, investing in: a combined 211 supportive homes and shelter spaces are underway or will be preserved; opening the new Road to Recovery addiction treatment centre, fulfilling our commitment to have addiction treatment on demand for the people that need it most; expanding the Hope to Health program to help 50 percent more people with complex mental health and addiction challenges; and working with Lookout Society in the Downtown Eastside, integrating supportive housing with comprehensive employment services.

Those are only four of the programs that we’ve added.

Given our closeness, almost every minister directly funding and building new programs, it’s absolutely a benefit for us to bring an outside perspective with someone with a unique set of qualifications to investigate that work, to identify gaps and to point us towards the future work that we need to carry on.

Disability Assistance Rates

Rob Botterell: Across the country, disability assistance fails to meet the poverty line. In B.C., there have been menial increases to rates for persons with disabilities. The costs of housing and essential goods have increased drastically, yet assistance rates have failed to keep pace.

The market basket measure of poverty is $2,400 a month, while B.C.’s assistance for a single individual is barely $1,400. That’s a gap of $1,000 a month. This is legislated poverty. It’s unjust. Year over year, advocates call for this government to raise the rates.

To the Premier: when will you instruct your government to finally raise disability rates above the poverty line?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The world does feel uncertain right now. The cost of living has been under pressure by global inflation, by terribly increased costs of groceries and, for British Columbia especially, an intractably high cost of housing, which we’re working very hard to bring down, having some impact.

The member’s intervention is exactly why we have made five increases to income and disability rates since 2017. This is the largest by any government in British Columbia ever. Since 2017, the rate for a single person is up $450 a month. That is a 74 percent increase.

We’ve doubled the seniors supplement with this year’s budget, and we’ve increased SAFER grants by 30 percent.

[10:45 a.m.]

Across government, we are making investments so that people who have faced challenges can overcome the terribly increased cost of living. We’ve also got the highest earning exemptions rate in the country so people can supplement, with earned income, thei disability benefits. We’re also continuing to invest in employment training programs and job support programs for people who have faced barriers.

It’s work that we have been fully committed to, but to the member, it’s a very fair point. It’s work we’re going to continue to do.

Deputy Speaker: House Leader for the Third Party on a supplemental.

Rob Botterell: To the minister, could she survive with a household income of less than $2,300 a month?

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: The work that we have done to….

Interjections.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: I see the members of the opposition are heckling even on this question.

Again, I’ll flag our record against the Leader of the Official Opposition when he sat in the provincial cabinet. They froze income assistance rates…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: …at $610 for a decade, and we have increased….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, just a minute. Sit down.

Members. Members, let’s hear the answer.

Minister.

Hon. Sheila Malcolmson: We’ve increased rates five times, where the Leader of the Opposition’s party froze income assistance at $610 a month for a decade. They took away the bus pass for disability; we gave the bus pass back. They never touched the senior supplement; we doubled it and increased it again.

I’ll hold our record up against theirs for vulnerable people any day.

Government Action on
Youth Mental Health and
Addiction Issues

Claire Rattée: Speaking of that record, the CEO of CLBC gets a $12,000 car allowance, so I’m sure we can find some money in the budget.

Yesterday I raised the case of a young Indigenous woman who was denied access to a shelter and found dead the next morning. The Housing Minister falsely insinuated that it was a municipally run shelter to off-load the responsibility before doing a victory lap.

To be clear, it was a permanent shelter that was run with B.C. Housing funding that she was turned away from.

Sadly, her story only gets worse. After one of her overdoses, this young woman was hospitalized, and staff allowed her to use fentanyl and meth inside her hospital room. When her father made a complaint, instead of receiving the necessary medical intervention to help stabilize her, she was given a wheelchair so that she could continue to use drugs — just outside.

Does this Health Minister think that it’s appropriate to give vulnerable youth a wheelchair to continue using drugs when they are in crisis?

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

Anybody seeking health care in a facility like a hospital needs to get the care that they deserve and need. There are people who enter hospital facilities and other health care facilities who are experiencing substance use and addiction issues, and it’s important that they are treated with dignity and respect as well.

We know that workplace safety is the ultimate goal here, that patients and nurses, doctors, the whole health care team need to be safe. That’s why interventions like overdose prevention services are important.

That’s why we’re working to release overdose prevention services, minimum service standards, to work with health authorities to ensure there are places that are safe, where people can access not only the ability to use substances when they are facing these kinds of challenges and, most importantly, to get access to the supports and the care that they need.

It’s incredibly important to me that every single person using British Columbia’s health care system is treated with that dignity and respect. I want to assure the member that that continues to be my commitment, and I welcome further conversation with her about this individual.

[10:50 a.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member for Skeena with a supplemental.

Claire Rattée: Just a few months ago this young woman was sober for a full week. She made it to a Kelowna hospital with her father, begging for help, begging for treatment. Her father said to me: “She could get free food, free crack pipes, free sleeping bags, free drugs, free Narcan. You know what wasn’t free? Help.”

Instead of recovery services, she was given prescribed alternatives, despite already being sober, and sent back to unsafe conditions, where she relapsed.

How does this government not see that their approach is enabling and not helping?

Hon. Josie Osborne: These are exactly the circumstances that we hear about that allow us to redouble our efforts and our commitment to serving people who face these kinds of crises. We’re taking actions on all fronts to fight the toxic drug crisis and to support people experiencing these kinds of substance use issues.

We’re building the Road to Recovery model, a seamless continuum of services for people, with same-day access to a team that will triage and help a person access opioid agonist therapies, help them access the supports that they need. Building more treatment beds, more recovery beds — that’s what dignified treatment looks like for people, increasing the number of services that are available for people so that they can get the help that they need when and where they need it.

Korky Neufeld: Well, she received everything that harmed her but the help that she needed. It’s very sad. A Jordan’s principle–funded treatment place was fully approved for this youth in a centre in Alberta, but no one from child and family services here in B.C. showed up to the hospital to complete the paperwork. What happened? The opportunity was lost.

Not only did this young person need to go to Alberta for proper support, how can this minister explain letting a treatment plan fall apart simply because their ministry staff couldn’t do their job and show up?

Hon. Josie Osborne: As I’ve mentioned, we are doing everything possible that we can to support youth and adults who are experiencing substance use issues to access the care and the treatment that they need.

I know that the opposition doesn’t like to hear about the past. I know they don’t want to hear about the record of their leader when he sat on this side of the House.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. Josie Osborne: This is the kind of service that they gave to people during their time in office: cutting funding to the ATLAS youth recovery in Terrace, the only residential recovery centre for youth in the northwest; closing the adult psychiatric unit at Abbotsford Hospital; eliminating psychology services for adult rehabilitation at the Royal Inland Hospital; closing the only withdrawal management program in the Fraser Valley.

We are building more beds. We are adding more services. We are expanding the continuum of care for people, and we will not stop.

Heather Maahs: Between the ages of 14 and 16, this young woman’s family repeatedly begged child and family services for help. When they called on a Monday, they were told no one could come until Friday. When they requested mental health support, they were told it would be a 34-day wait, despite her having a documented history of self-harm and trauma.

This was not a one-time error. This was the norm.

How can the Minister for Children and Family Development possibly defend a system that makes a child in crisis wait for more than a month for care?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Every child in this province and every family deserves access to the support and help that they need when they need it. More importantly, my ministry is also focused on support and help earlier on so that children and families don’t get to crisis.

Our ministry is focused and has invested in enhanced early intervention therapy services that support children at the youngest ages. We have wraparound supports and services in community and child development centres that combine developmental specialists with mental health specialists with clinical counsellors. We have integrated child and youth teams in schools. We have invested in Foundry centres. We have made more investments in mental health services than decades before.

There is more work to be done, and it’s heartbreaking to me to hear when any child cannot access the supports and services that they need. I’m a mom of teenagers. My teenagers have needed to access support and services.

We know that there are waits. We know that there are struggles. We are working every day to decrease barriers, to decrease silos between ministries. That work is ongoing, and we will continue to do the work.

Rosalyn Bird: Unfortunately, the current government continues to talk about the history of the opposition ten years ago. Ten years ago this young woman was ten. Youth are in crisis now — now, youth.

Today this young woman lives in a homeless camp in Nelson, where she has been sexually assaulted. She’s addicted to fentanyl, meth and benzodiazepines. According to her father, at one point this government placed her in an SRO with a known human trafficker.

Yesterday this Minister of Housing stood in the chamber bragging about unrelated projects while ignoring this young lady’s crisis, even though the local NDP MLA has been fully aware of the case details and should have relayed them by now.

How can this government justify letting a vulnerable teenager, struggling to overcome addiction, fall through every crack, only to end up in a drug camp surrounded by predators?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Every single individual, whether they’re young, whether they’re seniors, deserves to get access to housing. The member from Terrace, yesterday in her question, said this individual was sleeping in an emergency weather shelter.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I heard it. I’ll check the record. But that’s funded by local government, and that was my comment.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Clearly, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale continues to heckle, continues to not be able to control the heckling that comes out of her mouth. Perhaps I’ll answer when the member is ready.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Great leadership material for the next B.C. Conservative Party, from the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

Interjections.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Even their members are laughing.

The member referred to the housing that I mentioned. The housing that I’ve mentioned is important because we’re making investments to invest in housing that people need that are struggling in our communities. Why are we making those investments? Because those investments weren’t made for decades. We are decades behind when it comes to affordable housing.

We talk about supportive housing in this time, all the time, but I continuously hear opposition every time. We’re going to continue to invest in supportive housing in Nelson to support vulnerable people, to get them indoors. It’s vitally important to do so.

What I want to hear when we bring these projects forward, not only in Nelson but in Richmond and other communities…. It would be good to hear these people supporting it. The story of this young woman is tragic. But every time we open supportive housing, that’s who it’s supporting. It’s supporting vulnerable people.

You can’t come in this House and criticize us for not having enough and then, at the same time, go in your communities and talk about how you don’t want these housing units in your community. You can’t have it both ways.

We’ll continue to do the work to support this vulnerable person and other vulnerable people, because we know this housing is vitally important.

[11:00 a.m.]

Supportive Housing and
Services for Vulnerable Persons

Macklin McCall: This week I’ve been working with a man recovering from addiction, living with a brain injury and completely blind. Yet he’s been shuffled between two wet housing facilities that put his sobriety at risk.

Agencies aren’t talking to each other. He was sent to a new residence without a replacement white cane, just a broomstick to guide himself.

Is this how we treat vulnerable people in this province? Can the minister explain how this level of negligence is acceptable under her watch?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member didn’t share the community, but I assume it’s West Kelowna. The member will be aware that we’ve been working with the local government to try to scale up more opportunities for people, all different types of opportunities — both some sites that are wet, as the member has replied, and some that are dry — because we know that needs are different for individuals.

We have had some challenges in the community to get those units up. We’ve had some successes in the neighbouring community in Kelowna. The member will be aware that we’ve got approximately 140 units that we’ve scaled up to get people indoors.

But this is why we’re making these investments. This is why we’re going to communities and trying to make the case for why communities should accept this type of housing. We know that not every single person’s needs are the same, but we also know that we need to have a breadth of options of housing available in communities.

Again, I’ll reiterate what I said in my previous answer, which is that I appreciate the member bringing this case forward. I appreciate members raising issues on behalf of people who need supports. But what I’m asking is for this support to go outside. Go to your communities and make the case for why supportive housing is needed.

In here, you’re telling us that you think it’s important. Good. I’m with you. We’re doing that. We’re out there talking to communities. But what we need from you is to go out there in your communities and say why it’s needed, and that’s what we’re not hearing so far.

Government Hiring of Consultant
on Downtown Eastside Issues

Peter Milobar: Well, the problem with that answer is that we repeatedly bring these issues to the government, and the only people they seem to listen to is the mutual admiration society on that side of the House. They don’t realize these are the issues from the communities we’re bringing forward, and they’re not solving the problems.

You know, it’s interesting. Shortly after the Premier strong-armed his way into the Premier’s chair through that sham of a leadership race the NDP had, the Premier insisted he had all the answers for the Downtown Eastside. He cut his teeth there as a young lawyer. He knew what needed to happen. He was going to take it over. He was going to take the reins of it, and you would have changes you could touch and see and feel immediately. That was the Premier’s commitment.

Then, in the election, when he had been failing for two years, he said…. His commitment in the election, as he just said the other day: “Whether the plans the province has underway and commitments that the province made during the election are going to make sense.”

So a man who said he had all the answers, goes through an election saying he has all the answers, now has to actually hire yet another consultant to find out if his plans actually make sense or not. That’s the track record of this government. Seven years of failure. Now they have to review all of their failures to figure out how to fix the mess they’ve created after seven years.

We’ve asked a couple of questions today about the hiring of Michael Bryant. A couple of key ones have been conveniently completely avoided by this government. So dealer’s choice. They can pick either of the two that they’ve refused to answer.

Why did Michael Bryant leave B.C. Legal Aid — not Ontario; B.C. Legal Aid — after only two years, and was Vancouver actually consulted about the secret hiring, apparently, of Michael Bryant back in February?

They can answer either or both of those questions if they choose, or they can go down weird rabbit holes like they’ve been doing for the rest of today.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There was a lot in that rant that we just heard, but I’ll go to the core principle. I think what the member was talking about is the things that they’re hearing in their community.

I hope he’s hearing in his community that people are pleased with the largest investment in housing in the history of Kamloops.

The member from Terrace raised an issue in this House about an individual who had their money being clawed back. I hope she’s hearing that that issue got resolved.

[11:05 a.m.]

The member from Prince George…. I’m sure that they’re hearing that the largest investment in supportive housing, which is addressed at Moccasin Flats and getting people indoors, is helping.

I hope the member from Campbell River is hearing the same thing.

I hope the members and all their communities….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, we’re close here. Let’s hear….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Minister, hold on.

Hold on. Let’s hear the response from the Minister.

Proceed, Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I clearly hit a soft spot. My point is this. The point is that the housing we are putting into communities and the supports we are putting around those housing units are making a big difference in communities.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’re near the end here. Let’s hear the response from the minister.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hold on. Hold on.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, just a minute. Just a minute.

All right. Proceed.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We’re going to make investments in community. It’s making a real difference. We’re turning a corner. We know we have more to do, and we are going to continue to do that work.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Claire Rattée: I’d like to raise a point of order, please.

The Minister of Housing — I’d like him to withdraw his comments saying that I had said it was an emergency weather shelter. I did not say that.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

I’ll ask the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs if he wishes to respond to the point of order.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I thought I heard that, and I said that in my comment. If I am in fact not correct, I will withdraw.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair will review the relevant transcripts and take the matter under advisement.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 14.

In the Douglas Fir Room, continued estimates on the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

In the tiny House, Birch Room, continued committee stage on Bill 13.

[11:10 a.m.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects
(Streamlined Permitting) Act
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: All right. I call the House to order.

Recognizing the member for Kamloops Centre to continue second reading on Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Peter Milobar: I rise to speak to Bill 14, also known as the “Just trust us, we’re the NDP cabinet, and we know better than experts” bill, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act. I say that because Bill 14 raises a lot of concerns.

As we’ve heard, there’s no doubt that we need to continue to look for ways to green up B.C.’s power supply. There’s no doubt that we need to continue to look for ways to electrify our economy, to transition away from fossil fuels, to embrace newer technologies to power B.C. in a way that future growth requires and the world is demanding. But Bill 14 doesn’t really accomplish that. What Bill 14 does is it provides a massive power grab to government under the guise of fast-tracking projects.

Let’s look at timelines as we discuss Bill 14 today. It was back in January the Minister of Energy had indicated that Bill 14 would be needed to fast-track the projects that this government has been talking about since January, yet here we are debating it with seven days to go in the Legislature. Doesn’t sound like it was too much of a rush for the government to bring forward.

Why would that be? Oh, probably because they rushed Bill 7 in on March 13 that if they had not needed to gut in terms of part 4, they wouldn’t have needed Bill 14. They could’ve just changed any law at will of government. So, further delay from this government that says they’re a government trying to take action and move forward quickly on things.

You know, when you look at this government’s history and track record of the amount of times they have said over seven years that they’re taking action, that they’re speeding processes up, that they’re accelerating permitting, that they’re getting bureaucracy out of the way, that they’re invigorating the energy sector, that they’re going to move forward with projects in a cohesive and timely way…. The amount of times they’ve actually changed legislation to do that…. I’ve actually lost count.

Now, I was the Environment critic for 3½ years from 2017 till the election in 2020, and there was an environmental assessment review act that then Minister Heyman brought forward. It had a lot of the same talking points from government that this does in terms of moving forward projects quicker, keeping things out of the law courts, making sure there’s true reconciliation with Indigenous communities, and so on, and so on, and so on.

Yet with Bill 14, what we have is a dramatic overreach by government. Now, I think it’s telling, the amount of overreach this has, because the government felt compelled to make this a confidence vote. They said the same with Bill 7, and then they had to backtrack almost immediately after people started to actually read the legislation and realized just how all-encompassing it was.

Then they brought forward Bill 14, introduced Bill 14 and made sure everyone understands it’s a confidence vote. Well, that made my life a lot easier, because I have absolutely no confidence in this government on just about every single topic. So for any and every confidence vote that this government is asking me to express in them, I know what my vote is going to be, and it’ll be a vote of no.

[11:15 a.m.]

I have no confidence in this government. I have no confidence in this government’s ability to deliver what they say Bill 14 is actually going to deliver. Because here we are, mid-May — what is that, five, six months since January, when this was first announced? — and we’re finally getting to it. That’s the rush that this government….

Interjection.

Peter Milobar: The minister can say three, and maybe that’s the problem. It’s NDP math at its finest yet again.

It was January when it was first announced that we were going to be seeing projects around wind being fast-tracked.

Interjection.

Peter Milobar: Oh, December. It gets even worse. The minister is making it even worse in terms of the government expediting things along.

The point is that the concept gets floated by a government in December, and here we are in May. Legislation that was acknowledged by this government as needing to happen, changes to the energy regulator, doesn’t come forward at the beginning of our session, doesn’t come forward in the middle of our session. It comes forward in the dying days of our session and comes forward actually with closure introduced a day or two later to say: “We’re going to limit debate; we’re going to shut things off on Wednesday on the last week that we’re here.”

I remember we’re not here next week, so it’s really seven days’ worth; six if you consider next Thursday doesn’t count as in relation to Bill 14 because the government is sure to take away even one more day of debate.

It’s interesting, because typically, closure gets brought in for the Thursday of our last day of sitting. In fact the Energy Minister would well know that because he was the Health Minister when Bill 36 got the same type of treatment, and that was on a Thursday that they decided they didn’t want any more questions on the 400-plus clauses that hadn’t been canvassed yet on Bill 36, after waiting to bring it forward and through this House in a way that did not allow for proper vetting of such a substantive bill.

They’ve done it with forestry bills. Back in 2021, we actually had two forestry bills being debated at the same time in this chamber. We had one at second reading in this chamber; we had one at committee stage in the other chamber. Both wound up with closure on the last day of sitting. One didn’t even get out of second reading and was passed by this government, on fundamental changes to forestry. The other one had the Forests Minister in the other chamber dealing with committee stage on the other bill, and that got closure. That’s how this government operates.

On Bill 14, they’re operating the exact same way: “Don’t worry, folks. Nothing to see here. Just trust us. Cabinet knows best. We’ll solve all the problems.” Except they haven’t solved any problems in the last seven years. They’ve made everything worse by every measure.

Frankly, we’re supposed to trust that the Energy Minister, who presided over a health system that declined over the last seven years, now has all the answers, by way of regulation and Bill 14, to solve our energy problems that have been building for the whole seven years this government has been in office.

Remember, this is a government that was fundamentally opposed to Site C and how the power was going to be redundant when Site C came online. Then they became government, and they thought: “Well, we’ll delay it for a year. We’ll go through the motions with the Green Party to make it look like we’re being sincere with our confidence and supply agreement, and then we’ll continue with Site C, realizing we actually need the electricity if we’re going to electrify the province.”

Here we are seven years later. Site C, I would remind everybody, by their own former Minister Mungall, as of June 30, 2017…. This government took over July 2017. June 30, 2017, Site C was on time and on budget. That was their own minister’s words. It’s now been delayed, and we can’t even get an accurate pricing number out of this government. They refuse to say. The last estimate we’ve had is $16 billion, not $6 billion like it was supposed to be, and no clear number. No clear number.

Interjection.

Peter Milobar: The Minister of Energy can say that’s not true, but he can go back and read the transcripts of estimates where Minister Mungall actually did say “on time, on budget as of June 30, 2017.”

Interjection.

Peter Milobar: I guess the Minister of Energy is feeling a little stung by our lines of debate on Bill 14.

It’s very interesting to hear, Madam Chair, how reactionary he has been to just about every one of our speakers. I think that, in itself, should be a red flag to a great many people when a minister is this defensive at second reading about a piece of legislation that they’ve slow-walked into this chamber, that’s demanding the amount of authority and autonomy they require.

[11:20 a.m.]

The government will say: “Well it’s the Energy Regulator. The Energy Regulator is going to look at all this. Don’t worry.” Yes, because this is a government that has such a stellar track record with independent regulators.

They certainly never, ever tell the B.C. Utilities Commission what to do, no siree. They certainly don’t tell ICBC what they should or shouldn’t be doing. Apparently, B.C. Ferries, which desperately needs more vessels than they currently have…. The ferry commissioner is about the only one they’ll actually listen to and turn around and say: “Oh, no, no. We can’t step in where a statutory body is. They’re independent.”

Apparently, only the Ferry Commission is independent under this government’s eyes. Now we’re supposed to believe that the energy regulator will be left to themselves, with Bill 14, and that cabinet will not be sticking their thumb on the scales.

It creates a lot of questions and a lot of concerns. A lot of those will be canvassed at committee stage. A lot of the answers will undoubtedly be very evasive from a government that does not believe in transparency at the best of times.

You know, it’s interesting. Wind farms are not small ventures. The finished product, absolutely we understand, is considered a green energy and everything else. We can understand that. But to try to pretend that there was not study after study around the world of potential impacts to flight patterns of birds, to a wide range of wildlife, to the noise that it makes and what that does to wildlife impact in surrounding areas…. It’s laughable that this government is trying to say that they can fast-track those environmental processes because it’s a wind turbine.

I can remember years ago, when my daughter was going to university down in California, flying in from Arizona over into the city she was living in, and a massive, massive wind farm of rusted turbines between Arizona and Bakersfield — weren’t moving, were just sitting there. Now, it was probably a failed private venture. I’m not sure. We were just flying over. But to think that these don’t have massive footprints for substantive energy generation, you’d be fooling yourself.

These are massive blades. These are massive towers. They need massive footings. They need massive equipment to build. You are not helicoptering all that you need to build a wind farm into these areas — unless, I guess, you’re going to be flying Sikorskys in tandem. That would be a nice GHG emission profile for that construction project, I guess.

We won’t know because we won’t have to look into that, under Bill 14, because these are deemed to be green, no matter what the impacts of construction actually are.

I haven’t heard a good explanation from the government — maybe at committee stage we will — of how exactly you build a construction road to get to a wind farm without properly looking at things like streams and the culverts that would need to go in or the bridges that need to go in to get that equipment in, the cutting through of roadways that needs to happen.

How is that industrial service road any different than a service road for a logging operation trying to access a cutblock? That needs to actually make sure that they are taking those environmental considerations in: watersheds, denning areas of animals, time of year, the type of cut and fill that will be needed to construct a road, the switchbacks that would be needed.

The blade of a wind turbine will make roads with switchbacks very, very difficult to try to build, which means, likely, an even more cumbersome roadway that needs to be built.

How does that differ from what TMX had to go through to put in the pipeline right away? How does that soil disturbance differ?

I would hope the Energy Minister is very well aware of TMX. I mean, we’ve gone from “every tool in the toolbox” to “dredge, baby, dredge” when it comes to that project.

Interjection.

Peter Milobar: Apparently we are. At least the Energy Minister is on the road to Damascus somewhere when it comes to energy projects. Maybe he’s arrived. I’m not sure.

Let’s look at the construction of TMX and how it relates to Bill 14. Why is that ground disturbance…? Why is it that they literally had to worry about salamanders, as it got down closer to the Lower Mainland?

[11:25 a.m.]

They had to worry about bird migration, nesting time frames. They had to start and stop construction in different segments based on that. Freshets of streams — construction had to start and stop. Impact of salmon-bearing streams or not. What was going to happen after, in terms of remediation to the area?

It’s not a road that’s left. It’s a pipeline that they obviously don’t want people driving on. But it’s a big, massive corridor. It creates a massive corridor for predators like wolves and others to access wildlife that they would otherwise have a lot harder time to access in those areas. All of that gets looked at.

Now, it can be looked at expeditiously. It could be looked at quickly. We’re not saying that you need to waive everything. We’re saying: why is it that this government, despite repeated, over the last seven years, adjustments and legislative changes to things like environmental assessment acts…? By their own words, when they introduced it, by their own press releases, they were supposed to change all of this to expediate things and move things forward quickly.

Bill 14 essentially says, by the government: “We failed. It doesn’t matter what our changes were over the last seven years. It’s failed.” We can’t get anything done quickly in this province. “Our solution is, instead of actually truly fixing the problem so we can have efficient and proper environmental oversight of projects, we’re just going to remove it completely, based on what the end product of the project is, not what the impact of that project is during construction, as it’s getting located. Just simply what the end product is.”

“We agree with wind power, therefore we don’t worry about the inputs to construction and the harm it may or may not cause to a wide range of things when it comes to the environment. We’re not so sure about oil and gas, so we’re going to put up every roadblock, every tool in the toolbox we can, to slow that project down. Mines? Maybe we agree with it, and maybe we don’t. We’ll get back to you in 12 years.”

Somehow adding this next layer of uncertainty to industry in Bill 14 is supposed to bring peace of mind and de-risk investment decisions. A fundamental thing this government doesn’t seem to understand is how these investment decisions on projects are made.

I get that they have a handpicked group of wind farms. That’s wonderful for those wind farms. What about all the other projects that have been waiting for years and years?

You know, large corporations are just that, and these are big projects. You need large corporations attached with them. Whether we like that or not, that’s just the cold reality for them to be able to get the financing they need and make the final investment decisions they need to move things forward like a wind farm. They have projects going on all over the world. Pulp mills have projects going on all over the world. Sawmills have projects going on all over the world. Their parent companies.

What happens is each project goes into a board of directors meeting and makes their pitch for why the project in a certain jurisdiction should be the one that gets the scarce amount of dollars. Unlike this government, which seems to think you just keep running higher and higher deficits, that’s not how the corporate world works. They need to see an actual return on investment.

So you have five or six projects from around the world competing at the same time. They look at competitiveness, at the jurisdiction, the stability of the jurisdiction that they’re trying to operate in, tax regime, permitting timelines, permitting process, permitting certainty. You start reading through Bill 14….

You can’t just read through Bill 14 in isolation, because Bill 15 will have some impacts on this, as well, and actually so will Bill 7. This government has done a very good job of just separating the three and trying to pretend each one is independent of each other. Well, that’s not what’s going to happen.

There are huge question marks as to how you would even reasonably get approved or not in a timely fashion in B.C. already. This Bill 14 is actually adding to that uncertainty. It’s adding to that risk profile.

Then those companies that have enough capital in the year to invest in three of the six projects being pitched to their board have decisions to make.

[11:30 a.m.]

You know, we reference TMX, we reference Site C, and we reference LNG to this government all the time, because as much as the Energy Minister wants to try to say we’re the party of no, he must be confusing his days. I can appreciate that, because he’s flip-flopped on his views of Kinder Morgan, in particular, so many times that he probably doesn’t remember which one — he of the wool weathervane, created, based on that project.

I was at a breakfast when he said: “Well, it’s built now. It’s time to move on.” You know, the Energy Minister seems to get agitated. I was not the one characterized that I could kick a dog and still win an election. That was not me. The Energy Minister might be able to remind me of who that was, but it wasn’t me.

This is the problem. This is a government that fundamentally, in their background, have always been opposed to projects like this. They talk about how…. And this is why it’s so critically important. They talk about why these projects are important, but then they slow-walk them, and they create impediments, despite their press releases saying they’re speeding things up.

For the three projects I mentioned, the three big projects — TMX, what used to be Kinder Morgan, the old Kinder surprise; LNG; and Site C — over the last four to five years, as much as this government wants to say their GDP had higher growth than the rest of Canada, that’s because 80 percent of the growth in B.C. was tied directly to those three projects. Without those three projects, our GDP growth in some years would have been negative. Those three projects have now come to a close.

This government has wasted the seven years saying they’ve expedited permitting, saying they’ve got rid of duplication, saying they found ways to advance projects, and we have nothing sitting in the wings. Their answer — with Bill 7, with Bill 14, with Bill 15 — is just to say: “Forget about it. We’re going to just start signing executive orders by cabinet and say handpicked projects here, there and everywhere get to move forward. Other ones go to the back of the line. You can still wait ten or 12 years.”

Still, especially for a group that is clinging to power…. Remember that this was supposed to be the supermajority government that is now clinging to power strictly because of a deal with the Green Party. It forces the Green Party into an agreement around confidence votes, which the Green Party has said very clearly, at a minimum, on 15…. I think that on 14 they still have major concerns too. They don’t consider these part of that agreement, and I don’t blame them.

Talk about an overreach from a partner with a one-seat majority, based on the partnership with the Green Party, to introduce something like Bill 14, which says: “Eh, it doesn’t even matter that we said for the last seven years that we fixed the environmental assessment process. We’ve strengthened it, made it better, made it more consistent, streamlined it, and we’ve sped it up.”

Their answer is Bill 14, and it says to the Green Party: “Suck it up. Don’t worry about the fact that environmental assessments are essentially being removed, because you should like wind turbines.”

It sounds like the Green Party has figured out that there might be a little bit of disturbance. There could be some very serious environmental consequences to these wind farms. It doesn’t mean wind farms can’t happen in B.C. But you can’t just try to pretend that because it’s a wind farm, you wrap yourself in a Green cloak, and you say: “There. We’ve solved all the problems.”

The other problem with Bill 14 is, when you go through it all clause by clause — the definitions, the streamlined projects, the streamlined permitting, the application of this division, administration of delegated instruments, another area of level 2 streamlining, application of Energy Resources Activities Act, administration of Energy Resources Activities Act — time and again, the language in this bill, the language that this government has used to describe this bill, aligns very closely to what they have said over the years, about all those other times they had solved the permitting issues in B.C. — all the other times.

[11:35 a.m.]

It’s simply not good enough. Bill 14 simply does not actually accomplish what the government is purporting it’s going to accomplish.

I think it’s great that the government has found ways to find Indigenous partnership groups and investor groups to come in on wind energy projects. But it doesn’t mean, just as with any other segment of our population, that just because one Indigenous community has developed an equity partnership with a wind farm, the nations in and around that area are all in unison and in agreement for that. We saw that with LNG. Wet’suwet’en — some supported it; some didn’t. Hereditary versus elected.

For this government to try to portray Bill 14 like it solves all of those Indigenous investment issues is simply not accurate. The government hasn’t been clear, with Bill 14, how they intend to move forward with those issues without triggering more lawsuits, because they don’t have a clearly defined process. Bill 14 doesn’t spell out a very clear, defined process. It gets you an idea of what the government is proposing to do, but then they have all these override clauses that enable them, by way of regulation, to just keep changing the rules.

Partway in a project, if government wants to change the rules on you, they can. Partway into a project, if government wants to change some of the cost structures on you, they can. That doesn’t create certainty; it creates the exact opposite. If one project needs slight rules changed, government could just change them. Why did that one get that help? Does it come down to which lobbyist gets hired?

You’re going to hear a lot of similar things said about Bill 15, because there are a lot of similarities between the two bills. This one is much more energy-focused; I grant that. The other is even more all-encompassing. But all you have to do is look at the lobbyist registry. All you have to do is look at some of the names on that lobbyist registry and their tight ties to this government — former MLAs, family members of cabinet ministers that have government relations firms.

Now, I’m not saying anything untoward has happened previously. I’m not saying anything untoward will happen, moving forward. But it could. And public trust…. The basic tenet of public trust is the appearance that it can be trusted.

Bill 14 does not set the stage for that trust. The picking of winners and losers, the fact they’re already citing which projects they have deemed that Bill 14 will be in effect for — what does that say to project No. 10 or 11 that wants to raise their hand up and say: “What? Am I too late to the game now? Did I just hire the wrong government relations firm? Why wasn’t I on the first list?”

You know, this government made a big deal about changing the lobbyist rules and changing the donation rules, and then they bring in things like Bill 14, which totally circumvents all of that in terms of public trust. There’s the real conflict of interest, and then there’s perceived conflict of interest.

The perceived conflict of interest is actually the harder thing to manage for public trust, but it’s something that governments should be, over and above, trying to manage. Bill 14 sets the framework for perceived conflicts of interest everywhere, and then the ministers in this place get so upset when we dare to ask questions that the public is asking about some of those questionable relationships with government relations and themselves.

We’ll keep asking them. You’ll notice I was pretty careful. I didn’t even use names or anything. I could. I mean, technically I can’t get sued for saying it in here. But I’m not trying to paint any one person or firm that way. I’m saying it creates a massive perception problem that is real.

[11:40 a.m.]

With none of that being spelled out, with how open-ended this can be, with the fact the government can just keep changing the rules on these groups anytime they want and the fact, frankly, that this is a confidence vote — and I have, as I said at the beginning, zero confidence that this government, based on their track record of any file you want to talk about, knows what they’re doing — there’s absolutely no way I could support Bill 14, not just in its current state, but in any state.

I welcome the government to make every one of their bills a confidence vote. They might see just how little confidence we and the rest of B.C. actually have in them.

Teresa Wat: It is an honour to rise in this chamber this morning as an elected representative for the constituents of Richmond-Bridgeport to speak to Bill 14, the so-called Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

Let me say this clearly at the outset. I rise in firm and unwavering opposition to this legislation, not because I’m against the development of renewable energy in British Columbia, but because I’m against the centralisation of power, the erosion of democratic oversight and the blatant hypocrisy that this bill represents.

Let’s be honest with ourselves. British Columbia needs more energy. That’s a fact. With our population growing in our province, our industry evolving and our collective commitment to electrify our economy intensifying, the demand for reliable and sustainable energy is only increasing. B.C. Hydro itself forecast that electricity demand will rise by 15 percent by 2030, and by many estimates, that demand will double or triple by mid-century.

These are not projections to ignore. We must prepare for a future that is cleaner and more efficient, and that includes building the infrastructure required to power it. But preparation does not justify authoritarianism. Planning for the future does not excuse the dismantling of public scrutiny. Expanding renewable energy must not come at the cost of trampling on due process, undermining democratic institutions or marginalising local voices. Yet that is exactly what Bill 14 attempts to do.

Behind the glossy language of streamlining and efficiency lies a dangerous truth. This bill is a power grab, pure and simple. It represents the worst instincts of this government, the same instincts that were rightly rejected by the public just a few weeks ago when they tried to pass sweeping centralization under Bill 7.

After public backlash forced them to pull the most offensive provisions from that bill, they have returned with Bill 14, a legislative Trojan Horse cloaked in renewable rhetoric but carrying within it the very same threats to our democratic foundations.

Let’s call it what it is. Bill 14 is Bill 7 by stealth. This government, already infamous for its obsession with secrecy and its hostility towards transparency, is now seeking to grant itself extraordinary authority under the guise of urgent climate action.

[11:45 a.m.]

But urgency does not justify overreach, and expediency is no excuse for dismantling checks and balances.

The hypocrisy here is galling. This is the same B.C. NDP government that for years railed against development and energy projects when they were in opposition. They opposed the Site C dam. They opposed LNG. They opposed the Trans Mountain expansion project with every legal tool at their disposal. They obstructed, they delayed, and they deflected the cost of those projects — sometimes by billions of dollars.

Let us not forget, the original cost of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion was $5.4 billion. By the time it was done, that price tag had ballooned to over $34 billion. Why? Because of the legal and procedural sabotage orchestrated in large part by this very government.

Now, after years of being the party of no, they want us, they want British Columbians, to believe they have had a miraculous change of heart? They have gone from obstructionist to an evangelist of energy projects overnight.

They are evoking the spectre of Donald Trump and unstable geopolitics to justify granting themselves unchecked authority. They have even started talking about dredging Burrard Inlet to allow larger oil tankers through — something unthinkable to the Minister of Energy, then leader of the NDP, in 2013. He lost an election on the infamous Kinder Morgan flip-flop.

Let’s not kid ourselves. This is not a conversion based on principle. It is a political calculation.

I ask for adjournment of the debate and reserve my right to continue my debate.

Deputy Speaker: You’re looking to reserve your spot and….

Teresa Wat: Can I reserve my right to continue my debate after the House resumes?

Deputy Speaker: Certainly, you may do that, if that’s your intention.

Teresa Wat: Yes. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker: Okay, certainly. So it’s to reserve your place for your debate and to continue remarks and motion to adjourn debate this morning.

Teresa Wat moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

George Anderson: The Committee of Supply, Section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Jessie Sunner: Section C reports progress on Bill 13 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Bowinn Ma moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: We stand adjourned. We’ll return at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Children and Family Development
(continued)

The Chair: Good morning, 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 Children and Family Development.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $2,442,836,000 (continued).

Heather Maahs: I’m going to revisit a question I asked yesterday. I asked about missing Indigenous children and youth, and the response was zero. However, I have statistics that state, and this is from the RCY report, that 54.4 percent of young people reported as lost or missing from care were Indigenous. Also, I have a stat that says Indigenous females were found to be overrepresented among young people reported lost or missing, 62 percent. And 32.9 percent of Indigenous children were reported lost or missing more than once.

I’m wondering if we could revisit that question in light of these numbers that are from this report.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The question yesterday, as I recall it from the member, was how many children in care are currently missing, and I answered that question appropriately.

Heather Maahs: All right. Well, I’ll move to a different line of questioning.

What is the role of the new Indigenous child welfare director position, and how does this portfolio provide oversight and accountability to Indigenous children and youth in care?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I am actually quite honoured to have the opportunity to talk about Jeremy Y’in Neduklhchulh Williams — his role as our Indigenous child welfare director. It is the very first Indigenous child welfare director in Canada. There are a number of really important things to point out with respect to the ADM’s role.

The new Indigenous child welfare director furthers our commitment to reduce the overrepresentation of Indigenous children and youth in our care, to keep children and youth connected to their families, their culture, their languages. Jeremy provides advice and guidance on crucial Indigenous child and family service decisions.

Jeremy will also work to support Indigenous jurisdiction through upholding the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and harmonizing the rights and laws of Indigenous people with our provincial laws.

By changing the way that we do this work, we truly are transforming our child welfare system, and that aligns with the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action and supporting better outcomes for Indigenous children, youth and their families.

On November 24, 2022, Bill 38, Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act, was passed into law, making amendments to the Adoption Act and the Child, Family and Community Service Act. This included the provision to create an Indigenous child welfare director within the ministry, long advocated for by Indigenous partners, including the First Nations Leadership Council and Métis Nation B.C.

[11:20 a.m.]

The role includes three main areas of responsibility, practice and oversight support. The director is responsible for enhancing and improving oversight of practice to Indigenous children, youth and families. Jeremy is responsible for supporting and deepening culturally safe and trauma-informed practice, grounded in Indigenous world view and cultures.

Another area of responsibility is partnership and advisory: to be responsible for working in partnership with Indigenous people; to be guided by their communities and priorities for child and family services and Indigenous jurisdiction, which we’ve canvassed quite a bit; to be responsible for working across MCFD to provide guidance on how policies, processes, practices and operations can be aligned; and to better support Indigenous jurisdiction.

It’s a really important role. It’s a role that we’re very proud to have at MCFD, and I’m very proud of the work that Jeremy and his team is doing.

Heather Maahs: When did this work commence?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There were years of consultation and development of the role and the responsibilities. It was really important for us to work with our Indigenous partners, Indigenous leadership to ensure that we got it right.

As far as when the position actually began, September 30 of 2024, on Orange Shirt Day.

Heather Maahs: What is the reporting structure for this position? Who reports to the director, and who does the director report to?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The Indigenous child welfare director is an assistant deputy minister position, and that position reports to the deputy minister.

[11:25 a.m.]

The division is a growing division. This is a new position and a new division. The deputy minister of Indigenous child welfare supports our 25 Indigenous child and family service agencies in the province and also supports our work with respect to jurisdiction under our DRIPA action plan and our commitments to truth and reconciliation.

Heather Maahs: What is the budget allocation for this new position, directorship?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: All compensation for ADMs and ministry executives is publicly disclosed and is within the ministry’s budget. The ADM for Indigenous child welfare would not be any different than any other ADM in our ministry.

Heather Maahs: What would that be?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I’m going to provide the member with the range of salaries for an assistant deputy minister, which is publicly available. I do have to caution….

I am uncomfortable with the line of questioning around what the salary is for an Indigenous child welfare director. I believe that our compensation is publicly available. It isn’t any different for any one assistant deputy minister versus another. There is a range based on qualifications and experience, and the range of salary for an assistant deputy minister is $196,300 to $243,800.

Heather Maahs: I’m not really clear on why there’s uncomfortableness with giving me an answer to a question which is public information, regardless of race or creed or any position. That should be public information because it is public taxpayer money that is paying for it. Upon hearing that, would the minister like to be more transparent?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I have provided the salary range. We have talked about that it is publicly disclosed. My personal discomfort with the line of questioning is that I went through the purpose of the role, the historic nature of the role, our commitments to truth and reconciliation, our DRIPA action plan, and I have yet to receive a question on the salary of executives on any part of my ministry up until this point. So I think the context is really important, and I think it lays the groundwork for telling a story.

We compensate our leaders and our executives, and that compensation is disclosed publicly. I think the value of the role is transformational, so I am expressing my discomfort with the line of questioning. That is my personal discomfort with the line of questioning. The salaries are available to you online.

Heather Maahs: To the minister: well, that’s very disappointing that you’re refusing to answer this question. Regardless of the….

Actually, it’s more pertinent with all of the responsibility given to this position. I’m actually quite surprised that in estimates, where our job is to question the minister about the budget…. This is a new position, a brand-new position, and I think the public deserves a straightforward answer. This shouldn’t be difficult. Am I going to be forced, at this point, to file an FOI in order to get that information?

Interjection.

Heather Maahs: Excuse me? Are we weighing in from the gallery? Thank you.

That’s my question. Am I now forced to file an FOI to receive this information?

The Chair: Member, the minister was very clear that she answered the question. You may not like the answer to the question, but you may want to revise the way that you’re asking the question. Then she may be able to give you a different answer.

That being said, the minister has been very clear that she’s given an answer. You asked the same question again. She stated her response, and that’s the end of it. If you would like to ask a different question, please go ahead.

Heather Maahs: All right. Perhaps the minister would like to share whether or not this salary is based on the upper or the lower end of the scale that was given as an answer.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I just want to make sure that the member opposite understands that compensation for executives is determined through the Public Service Agency, that public accounts will disclose the salaries of public servants and that decisions for compensations are made based on a variety of criteria.

I have been generously provided permission to share with you that the salary for this position is on the lower range of that range that I provided.

Heather Maahs: Well, thank you. I appreciate that answer, and I am very familiar with PSEC, who does oversee salaries and wage benefits, from my time on the board.

I’m going to ask you now how many ADMs work for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The Chair: Member, just a reminder that your questions are through the Chair. Thank you.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I did the introduction at the beginning of estimates, where I introduced everyone. We have seven ADMs in the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Heather Maahs: Hon. Chair, through you to the minister, forgive me for not remembering the number that you gave in your opening — seven. Thank you very much.

Can you tell us what their salaries are?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: As I mentioned to the member previously, and she acknowledged, all salaries are determined by the Public Service Agency through a variety of decision-making factors that are separate from my role as the minister. We also publicly disclose all salaries over $75,000 through public accounts, and that’s available to see. We can certainly pull that up for the member opposite and provide it to her, because it would have every ADM and deputy minister and my salary. It would have everybody’s salary on there for her or the public to see.

I would also say executive and support services is in the budget. It has minimally changed year over year. The change in that number, I would say, would be in alignment with inflation and regular increases to salaries and benefits. I don’t have the exact numbers, but surely, I can pull that up after estimates.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

Proceedings in the
Birch Room

The House in Committee, Section C.

The committee met at 11:17 a.m.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

The Chair: Good morning, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, to order.

On clause 5 (continued).

Ward Stamer: Just a couple of quick questions to the minister to wrap up the rest of the wildfire changes.

First question on 5. When it talks about…. In section (2), it goes through after the order is given and the subject of the order and then informing the person of the following…. And then it talks about possible work that is going to be done or prescribed or required.

On section (2)(v): “the right of the minister under subsection (3) (b) to carry out the work.” Is that a generalized term inasmuch as giving the minister authority to actually get the work done? Are we talking about still having the parameters in the order where that remedial work may be done by the proponent in a timely fashion or if the minister or the ministry has to step in and do the work and then that work will be charged back on the order?

Can I get a little bit more explanation on exactly what that section means where the minister will carry out the work?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar: This section, I have been advised by staff, is rarely used. We’re keeping it aligned with sections 25 and 27, and nothing, really, has changed here, as it’s noted.

As the member touched on, the Wildfire Act, section 28, provides the minister with the authority to issue a remediation order requiring specified persons to carry out remedial actions in relation to harm resulting from a contravention. It sets out a requirement, allows the minister to take actions and sets out the information that must be included in a notice as well.

Ward Stamer: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

Then down further, when it talks about in section (b), “in subsection (3) by striking out ‘the date specified in a written notice given under subsection (2)’ and substituting ‘the date specified under subsection (2)’” and then the repealing and substituting the following — can we get a little bit more clarification?

I know we had a question last night about written notices, how those notices were going to be delivered — if there was going to be an order, or if there was going to be a time for a proponent to be able to discuss. Can I ask for a reason why we’re going to be taking the written notice portion out of this?

Hon. Ravi Parmar: The member’s question is a good one.

Very similar to the answers that I provided yesterday, it’s just updated language. The notice requirement still remains. It’s just redundant, and it has been covered in other sections.

Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On clause 8.

[11:25 a.m.]

Tony Luck: I really appreciate the opportunity here to go over some of the things about municipal affairs, especially some of the changes to the voting procedure for civic elections — excited to see some of those, having been involved in a couple of civic elections in the past. Some of them are good.

We’re just going to go through here and ask some questions. I don’t think there’s anything too technical here, but certainly holding feet to the fire and making sure we get all our i’s dotted and t’s crossed.

Thank you very much for that.

The first question. We’ll look at clause 8 first. I’ve only got two questions there, so it should go pretty straightforward here. The first question: could the minister clarify whether the intent of clause 8 is to harmonize practices across local government jurisdictions, or is it targeted solely at addressing a unique issue with greater Vancouver region? Is there a bigger picture involved there?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: First, I want to thank my critic. I did hear his speech to this bill. There were thoughtful remarks and some critiques, and I’m happy to canvass that today.

I do have to say that I heard some other speeches from the opposition members, which were a little, I would say, hyperbolic and a little bit over the top. So I hope when I make some opening comments to each of the sections that my critic doesn’t see that as a reflection on his comments, because they were not his comments.

It’s important to note that this section was requested to us. This is not a section where we’re overtaking local government. That’s what I heard in the speeches, and that’s not the case. I’ll just put some context for the member.

Clauses 8 and 40 are aligned to this section, and this is an agreement that Metro Vancouver and the federal government had around $250 million to go towards the Iona wastewater facility. The agreement was that in order for Canada to give $250 million for Iona wastewater, Metro Vancouver would agree to two years’ instream protection. The province’s role is changing the rules to allow Metro Vancouver to do that.

I know there were some questions raised by some members about how much money is going out of Metro Van’s pockets, etc. First, I’ll say that this was canvassed amongst mayors. They made a decision. My understanding is that the federal government is providing $250 million. The instream protection and the measures that Metro Vancouver agreed to are about $220 million. There’s a $30 million net for Metro Vancouver above and beyond what they will be putting in place for instream protection.

I just wanted to ensure that that was on the record. This is very much focused on just Metro Vancouver and the commitment that they made to the federal government to unlock that federal investment.

[11:30 a.m.]

Tony Luck: Excellent, thank you for that answer. We were just wondering about how far the reach would be.

So $250 million on a $10 billion project — I think that was the last number — is a small amount of money, not in our eyes but certainly in the government’s eyes. We appreciate the answer there.

I’ll just ask one other question related to clause 8, then, having looked at the rest of that. Is there any potential for retroactive financial impacts on developers or property owners as we move forward with the amount of money and what they’ve done on that one?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll just read this into the record.

Metro Vancouver regional district and its greater boards have an existing development cost charge bylaw that was enacted on March 22, 2024. The instream protection period for that bylaw expired on March 22, 2025. The legislative change that’s being made is retroactive to ensure that the developers that had completed applications prior to the enactment of the development cost charge bylaw continue to have access to the lower rate of development charges for an additional year.

Tony Luck: That’s to the city and to the developer. Is there any financial impact to the property owners themselves, the ones that are carrying the burden for this?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That’s not our understanding, because this is DCC-related, and that goes on to new development and not to existing tax base.

Tony Luck: No other questions for clause 8, unless one of my members does. Nope. We’re okay there.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

Tony Luck: Just a couple of questions around clauses 9, 10 and 11 that seem to be related. What is the rationale for defining Vancouver land use provisions within the Housing Supply Act, and how does this definition enhance the act’s applicability to the city of Vancouver?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s a drafting omission from when this bill was introduced. Everywhere where we make a change to the Local Government Act, it enacts with the Vancouver Charter, except for in these three places. We had found that it didn’t actually have it in both. That’s why we’re adding it. It’s just to make sure that it’s consistent to what’s in the bill for the Local Government Act.

Tony Luck: Clause 10 amends section 11 to include references to Vancouver land use provisions. How will this amendment affect the process by which housing targets are set and enforced in Vancouver compared to other municipalities?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It mirrors them so that they’re the exact same. I should note, again, there were comments being made about some sort of massive power grab being done by the government in the second round of speeches. This is aligned with everything that’s already in place for local governments.

As well, Mayor Ken Sim was praising this legislation when it came forward, because it allowed us to be able to ensure that we’re comparing apples to apples from communities.

The biggest challenge we had was that communities had different understandings of how much housing they needed. This legislation allows us to do all of that.

[11:35 a.m.]

To the member’s main premise of his question, everything that’s there for the Local Government Act is the same for the Vancouver Charter.

Tony Luck: Yeah, I think we had a discussion about Vancouver Charter versus Community Charter in one of our debates some time ago and what that might look like, moving forward. But yeah, clause 9 — I think we’re okay with it, if you’d like to call that one.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

Tony Luck: I’ve got to be a little quicker on those ones, don’t I? My age must be showing or something. But anyway, thank you. Appreciate that.

Given the unique governing structure of Vancouver under the Vancouver Charter, how does the amendment ensure consistency in housing supply and objectives across different jurisdictions in British Columbia now, not just in Vancouver and that? There may be a consistent answer on that one, but we’ll explore it.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s a similar answer to the other section. It’s just to ensure that the same powers under the act that are available under local governments are the same for the Vancouver Charter. So again, it’s mirroring the powers that are there for local government.

Clause 10 approved.

On clause 11.

Tony Luck: Just some questions around clause 10 of the Islands Trust Act and a few things like that. What specific circumstances trigger the need for appointing an acting local trustee under the amended section 6(6) of the Islands Trust Act?

The Chair: Member, we’re on clause 11.

Tony Luck: Oh, I’m sorry. I’ll stay sat for clause 11.

Clause 11 approved.

On clause 12.

Tony Luck: I’ll make sure we uncluster those next time. They’re a little clustered up, but yeah.

All right, so a question for clause 12. What specific circumstances trigger the need for appointing an acting local trustee under the amended section 6(6) of the Islands Trust Act?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, I’ll start by saying this is not some power grab of government to try to take over local government. I have to, unfortunately, say that every time.

This host of recommendations comes through a group that we have by legislation. It’s a technical advisory group committee. It’s got UBCM, LGMA, Elections B.C., BCSTA, Ministry of Education and the AG. Then they give us advice on the changes that are needed.

To the member’s specific question around what the process is that we follow for the Islands Trust, under the legislation, the terms of office for electoral area directors of the Islands Trust trustees continue until their successor takes office.

For municipalities, their term ends immediately before the first council meeting. This means that if no candidates come forward for the office of electoral area director, or none, or only one local trustee office, then the term of the previous director trustee is continued. This provides for continued representation for the area.

Incumbents will have discretion to decide if they want to continue for the next four years, or they can formally resign and trigger a by-election.

Tony Luck: That sounds reasonable. Are there defined qualifications or eligibility criteria for individuals to be appointed as acting trustees?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Under the legislation, persons who may be appointed to local office are those who are qualified to hold office, which means they are 18 years of age or older, a Canadian citizen, a B.C. resident for at least six months and not disqualified from being nominated or voting in an election in B.C. or otherwise disqualified by law. In addition to those requirements, they are resident of the jurisdiction to fill the vacancy.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.