Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, November 22, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 251

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ellen Godfrey

Hon. M. Rankin

Introductions by Members

Speaker’s Statement

Christmas tree in rotunda

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Woodlot licence program

T. Stone

Cannabis cultivation in B.C. and review of federal legislation

B. Anderson

Junior hockey league in Kitimat and youth conduct and values

E. Ross

50th anniversary of Ridge Meadows Recycling Society

B. D’Eith

Cypress Provincial Park and legacy of Katharine Steig

J. Sturdy

Restoration of Guichon Creek

J. Routledge

Oral Questions

Action on affordable housing and management of B.C. Housing

K. Falcon

Hon. M. Rankin

Management of B.C. Housing and Atira property services

T. Stone

Hon. M. Rankin

Income and disability assistance rates

A. Olsen

Hon. N. Simons

Fire at Winters Hotel and management of B.C. Housing and Atira property services

S. Bond

Hon. M. Rankin

Comments by B.C. Housing official

M. Bernier

Hon. M. Rankin

Management of B.C. Housing and termination of board

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Rankin

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, Report on the Financial Audit Work for the

2021-22 Fiscal Year , November 2022

Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, annual report, 2021-22

Petitions

R. Leonard

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 37 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2022 (continued)

D. Davies

T. Halford

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 42 — Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2022

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 41 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022 (continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2022

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. B. Ma.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning are two members of our

Consular Corps here in British Columbia. Mr. Kohei Maruyama is the new

consul general of Japan in Vancouver, and Mr. Allan Najum Litman is the new

consul general of Chile in Vancouver.

[10:05 a.m.]

The consul generals are here on their first official visit. They will

be meeting with me over lunch later today. This afternoon they will be

meeting with you, Mr. Speaker. The consul general of Chile will also be

meeting with the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation and

representatives of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation.

British Columbia, I think all members are aware, has strong and deep

relations with both these Pacific-facing countries. No doubt the discussions

will include the recent meetings between our Prime Minister and the

President of Chile on the margins of the APEC economic leaders meeting in

Thailand, as well as high-level interactions with Japan at the G20 and other

recent meetings.

Would the House please make them and their delegations feel very

welcome this morning.

Hon. H. Bains: I’m very, very pleased to advise the House that in the gallery today

is my constituent Donna Carlaw and her friend Mary Gawle. They travelled all

day today, I think, and they’re here. Please help me give them a very, very

warm welcome.

B. D’Eith: Today I’d like to welcome, as we all do from time to time, our

constituency office staff. We all know how hard they work for all of us. I

just wanted to have a shout-out to all of the constituency

assistants.

Of course, I have two of my assistants here. I have Tara Cooke. It’s

her first time in the House, and Alysa Huppler-Poliak, who I share

generously with the member for Vancouver–False Creek; and Sunny Schiller,

who isn’t here. I wanted to congratulate her on being elected as a

councillor for the Maple Ridge council. And of course, the unsung hero,

Sophia Kreuzkamp, who’s worked with many of our members. She has become

quite the amazing fixer of many issues throughout our government

caucus.

Please give them all a warm welcome.

L. Doerkson: It’s a great pleasure to introduce members of the North Island Woodlot

Association here with us today. Howie Griessel, Nigel Ross, John Gregson,

Ken Dodd, Sibylle Walkemeyer and Wolfram Wollenheit. Would the House please

make them very welcome here today. Thank you for coming.

Hon. A. Dix: Representatives of Diabetes Canada are here today to meet with MLAs on

all sides of the House. I want to introduce Russell Williams, the senior

vice-president of Diabetes Canada; Joan King, their director of government

relations; and Nafisa Merali, who is a board member. And we welcome them and

look forward to meeting with them today.

S. Bond: I want to join the Minister of Health in welcoming the representatives

that are here from Diabetes Canada today. They do an exceptional job when it

comes to education, to research and to support. We know what a significant

challenge this issue is not just across Canada, but particularly in British

Columbia. I want to recognize the work done by Joan King and Nafisa Merali.

We appreciate the efforts and are very glad to have you in the Legislature

this morning.

Thank you for joining us.

Tributes

ELLEN GODFREY

Hon. M. Rankin: Today in the House is accomplished British Columbian Ellen

Godfrey. I know she is rightfully proud of her son, Samuel, who has

worked in this building for more than five years, serving with

distinction in the offices of four of my colleagues in the executive

council.

I know she’s also proud of her daughter, Rebecca, whose recent

passing is a great sorrow for many. I extend my condolences to Ellen and

her loved ones. Rebecca’s accomplishments will be well known to members

of this House. Her book Under the Bridge won the B.C. award for

Canadian non-fiction and is now being made into an eight-part TV series

for Hulu.

Today, however, I ask the House to join in acknowledging Ellen’s

accomplishments, her own accomplishments. She is the former president of

the Vancouver Island Advanced Technology Centre, a former member of

Canada’s council on science and technology, and she was on the board of

governors of the Royal Roads University.

After obtaining her degree from Stanford, Ellen began her work

career in the 1960s in the Canadian book publishing industry. She was

involved in the founding and operations of three important Canadian

publishing houses: New Press, House of Anansi and Press

Porcépic.

[10:10 a.m.]

Her work helped hundreds of Canadians see their work completed,

published and shared with the world.

Later on, Ellen entered the computer business, becoming, in time,

the CEO of Softwords, a computer software company based here in

Victoria. Her work created many jobs and helped build the thriving tech

sector we see around us today.

In the early 2000s, in this role, she did literal groundbreaking

work in B.C., bringing broadband, high-speed Internet access to people

across the north and remote Indigenous communities such as in the

Na̠mg̱is Nation.

She’s also made significant volunteer contributions to many public

and non-profit bodies, including most recently five years as public

representative for the B.C. Medical Services Commission.

I would be remiss in not noting that today is also a day quite

shortly after Ellen’s 80th birthday, celebrated last week.

Would the House please help me wish Ellen a happy birthday and

join with me in thanking her for her enduring and remarkable

contributions to our province.

Introductions by Members

R. Merrifield: I am very excited to have a constituent from Kelowna–Lake Country’s

riding, but our shared community of Kelowna, in the House today.

I have known Loyal Wooldridge and his husband, Ian, for over a decade.

A businessman, a philanthropist, an avid politico, Loyal and I were fast

friends and attended debates and town halls with the now Prime Minister

Trudeau, along with many events and task forces to support those in need

within our community.

Loyal is a man of action and authenticity. He was always available for

a coffee or debrief and was open to an alternate thought or position. That

was before and after he became a city councillor in 2018. He is a champion

of our city of Kelowna, a two-term city councillor, a businessman, a

husband, an advocate, and I am so lucky to call him my friend. Would the

House please join me in welcoming Loyal Wooldridge today.

Hon. M. Dean: Today we have students from Esquimalt High School visiting. They’re

here with their teachers Tim Zemanek and Allyson Hoffman. I had the great

pleasure of visiting with them and having a really interesting discussion

with them just a couple of weeks ago. Would the House please make them very

welcome.

K. Greene: I know that many of us here know that we are able to do this work with

the support of our families, and I wanted to take a moment to honour mine.

It is birthday month in my household, and I’ve missed a lot of birthdays.

Won’t you please join me in wishing my husband, Trevor, and my kids William,

Matilda and Sullivan a happy birthday.

Hon. L. Popham: I have the great pleasure to introduce a fabulous part of my Ministry

of Agriculture staff today. My food system partnership unit and my Feed B.C.

team are here visiting. I’m so proud of them. They bring me a lot of joy in

their briefings. I’d like to introduce Martha Anslow, Elietha Bocskei,

Christina Waters, Michaela Bub, Linda Dun, Zac de Vries, Taran Negra,

Jennifer Walsh, Taylor Jeffery, Kristina Bouris, Stacie Irwin and Oleg

Saldyga.

I’m really proud of all of the work you do, and I couldn’t do this

without you. So thank you for everything.

I’d also like to just add one more thing. A couple of weeks ago, it

was Remembrance Day, and I was unable to get back to my own constituency of

Saanich South. My brother is the fire chief of Delta, so I thought I might

as well go try and hang out with him. I gave the member for Delta South a

bit of a heads-up that I would be there, and before I knew it, I had the

most welcoming call from the mayor of Delta inviting me to officially

participate in their Remembrance Day service.

Not only that; the member for Delta South asked me to walk with him in

the procession and also to walk up with him to lay the wreath at the

cenotaph in Ladner. When we got to the moment where we were to lay the

wreath, the member handed me his wreath, and I laid it for both of us. I

just want to say that that was very kind, and I want to thank him for his

generosity of spirit.

[10:15 a.m.]

G. Lore: I rise today to welcome ChrŸs Tei who is here with us. ChrŸs is a

trans activist and executive director of the Rainbow Health Cooperative.

Rainbow is a volunteer-based, not-for-profit cooperative with a mission to

promote gender wellness through education. The Rainbow Health Cooperative is

an important community resource here in Victoria, doing some really great

work.

I thank ChrŸs and everyone on the team there for everything they do,

so please join me in welcoming ChrŸs Tei today.

Hon. M. Dean: Watching today from home is someone known very well to all of us here

in chambers, Elder Shirley Alphonse. Last week she received an honorary

doctorate from Royal Roads University, which is in the heart of

Esquimalt-Metchosin. I was very honoured to be able to pay tribute to her at

a very special dinner at Hatley Castle last Thursday evening. We were joined

by the then-Premier of the province of British Columbia on his last evening

as Premier.

It was such an honour to be able to be there and to be able to pay

tribute to Shirley and all of her work. I’ve known her for well over a

decade. She’s done a lot of work here in this House. She has brought a lot

of prayers and started our work off in a good way on so many

occasions.

I just would like to take this opportunity to say

HÍSW̱ḴE , thank you,

Shirley, for your generosity, for sharing your wisdom and your knowledge and

for helping to mentor me over all of these years.

I hope that everybody in this chamber will take this opportunity to

show their appreciation for all of Shirley’s work.

A. Walker: Joining us shortly after the students from Esquimalt High School

depart will be the school of Ballenas Secondary, with Jessylee Spence. If

the House could give them a wave when they arrive and a welcome right now,

that would be wonderful.

B. Bailey: Last week I walked into my office and overheard a very difficult

conversation. A gentleman was on a call, and at times, he was very angry. At

other times, he was incredibly, inconsolably sad. At no time was he calm,

but calm is exactly what was happening on the other end of the call, and

always does from this wonderful CA that I share with my friend and colleague

from Maple Ridge. Will the House please join me in thanking and welcoming

Alysa Huppler-Poliak to the precinct.

J. Rice: Today I’d like to introduce a constituent and the newly elected — I

guess you could say re-elected, because he served in past years — area A

director for the Central Coast regional district. Steve Emery comes from

Denny Island, home of Shearwater. He has been there forever; I can’t

remember how long. But he is a jack of all trades. He does everything for

the community. He’s the president of the chamber of commerce. He’s newly

appointed to our ferries advisory committee. We really, surely need his

voice there. He’s in the House today, and I just hope the House can please

make him feel welcome.

T. Shypitka: In the precinct today, we have Geoff Morrison. Geoff is a

jurisdictional manager for B.C. for Canadian Association of Petroleum

Producers. He’s also the chair of the B.C. Oil and Gas Research and

Innovation Society, which is an organization that promotes research aimed at

improving the environmental performance and regulation of oil and natural

gas activities. Geoff is here speaking to opposition to discuss the

importance of the oil and gas sector and what it means to British Columbia.

Would the House please welcome Geoff.

Hon. N. Simons: I want to take this opportunity to wish my partner, Slim Milkie, a

very happy birthday. You all know him. He’s been around here a while. I just

want to take this opportunity to wish him happy birthday.

I don’t know if he’s watching, but if he is, you’ll all get a critique

later.

[10:20 a.m.]

Speaker’s Statement

CHRISTMAS TREE IN ROTUNDA

Mr. Speaker: Members, you might have already noticed that we have a Christmas

tree out in the rotunda.

This morning I had the pleasure of presiding over the delivery of

our official Christmas tree. The tree’s arrival marks the beginning of

the holiday season, and I want to say, on behalf of all of us, thanks to

the Fleming family for donating those trees every year. This year the

tree is 31.4 feet long. It’s a Douglas fir, so please enjoy.

I also want to say that it was a team effort to hoist that tall

tree — all the members from the Fleming family, plus Surjit Dhanota and

his crew from the legislative building. They worked so well.

It looks so beautiful, so please enjoy.

I want to say thank you to each and every one of them for doing

it.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WOODLOT LICENCE PROGRAM

T. Stone: The woodlot licence program in British Columbia is sometimes

referred to as a win-win-win for licensees, the government and the

public. This is thanks to its ability to maintain community-friendly

forest tenures, with licensees managing a small portion of provincial

forest. It’s a unique opportunity that sees private citizens given the

opportunity to be involved in the management of the public forest

resource that we all hold dear.

Woodlot licensees operate well above the expected standard,

striving to market logs locally and supporting local wood manufacturing.

They are highly dedicated and committed and have worked very hard to

gain the support of the communities within which they

operate.

Unfortunately, their future operations and services — indeed,

their livelihoods — are at risk. Licensees continue to voice concerns

about crippling policies meant to mitigate issues that woodlots did not

create in the first place, issues they are confident they can manage

within their sustainable and small-scale operational unit.

They’re also concerned about the potential dismantling of the

woodlot licence program for good. This lack of certainty is incredibly

stressful for these family forest operators, and frankly, they deserve

better. They deserve answers and hope and optimism for their

futures.

It’s my hope that woodlot licensees will have their concerns heard

and that they will receive the satisfactory and fair solutions that they

are currently seeking.

Forestry, after all, is a vitally important industry across

British Columbia, and the hard-working people in these communities

deserve strong advocacy and a bright future.

CANNABIS CULTIVATION IN B.C.

AND REVIEW OF FEDERAL

LEGISLATION

B. Anderson: This may come as a surprise, but a lot of cannabis has

historically been cultivated in the Kootenays. Cannabis production has

subsidized the livelihoods of thousands of small businesses for decades

in my region.

While the legacy market included illicit activities, one could

argue that cannabis, as a plant known for its medicinal properties,

should never have been criminalized by Canada in the first

place.

The Kootenays is certainly a region that has been

disproportionately impacted by both cannabis criminalization and

cannabis legalization. When Health Canada announced that it was

reviewing the Cannabis Act, I wanted to take the opportunity to advocate

for my community and amplify their voice.

I want to thank the dozens of people representing businesses,

organizations and themselves that responded to my survey. Their words

were thoughtful, well informed, and I am honoured to be able to include

them in my submission to Health Canada.

I want to thank my constituency assistants, Anna and Sarah and

also Corinne, Anna’s sister, who helped me do a lot of the heavy lifting

right up until the deadline last night, so thank you.

Many people in the Kootenays are expert cultivators. I look at my

friends Kelly and Josh of Dragonfly Earth Medicine, who have a

regenerative cannabis farm that is heavily invested in helping people

that are really sick, including kids.

I was grateful for the invitation by our Minister of Public Safety

and Solicitor General to join him for a tour of the Williams Lake First

Nation. It’s the first vertically integrated cannabis facility. Chief

Sellars was grateful for the opportunity to use cannabis as an economic

opportunity for his community, but he was also clear about the

challenges they faced.

[10:25 a.m.]

When I walk around Kelly and Josh’s farm and I see Williams Lake

First Nation, I see the future of cannabis cultivation in British

Columbia. It provides a space for learning, healing, and connecting.

There’s a huge economic opportunity for tourism. Just look at wine in

the Okanagan.

I want to thank the minister for providing me with the opportunity

to submit to Health Canada on behalf of my constituency.

JUNIOR HOCKEY LEAGUE IN KITIMAT

AND YOUTH CONDUCT AND

VALUES

E. Ross: Old-fashioned values. Before I became a leader, I was a basketball

coach in my village of Kitamaat Village, and I had old-fashioned and

strict rules for my players, because I believed those rules could put my

players on a good path.

I feel bad for today’s generation because of what they face in our

streets today. Crystal meth, cocaine and heroin are readily available.

But what’s even scarier — fentanyl is readily available and mixed to

create deadly cocktails.

When I was asked to support the new junior hockey league in

Kitimat, I first wanted to know what was expected of the players that

are recruited from all across Canada, including from First Nation

communities. I was surprised to see that the players had to sign

contracts. Here is some wording from some of those contracts.

“The board reminds the players that they are local sport heroes and

must conduct themselves accordingly at all times, both on and off the

ice. You are a Junior A hockey player 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

No illegal drug use or alcohol consumption will be tolerated. The teams

are 100 percent supported by local hockey fans, and therefore, we have

to make certain that you are an appropriate role model for the

community. Be smart, and look out for one another.”

It goes on, because a lot of these hockey players actually billet

out the families all across B.C.

“Billet family belonging should always be treated with utmost care.

Players are expected to provide their own spending money for day-to-day

expenses. Players are expected to seek employment, if possible, if not

attending school, and players must notify and respect the billet family

regarding their whereabouts.”

These may be old-fashioned values that come from a different age,

but more than ever, we need these because of what our people are facing

today. If we can build strong young people, in turn, we can build a

strong society.

50 th ANNIVERSARY OF

RIDGE

MEADOWS RECYCLING SOCIETY

B. D’Eith: Imagine having an idea to change society for the better and seeing

that come to fruition. Now imagine seeing that same idea transform over

50 years. That’s exactly what we celebrated a few weeks ago, the 50th

anniversary of the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society.

Now in 1972, no one recycled or even knew what recycling was. But

committed volunteers, including society founders Bob Cordoni, Bill

Archibald, Beryl Cunningham, Candace Gordon and Julie and Dave Koehn,

forged partnerships with local manufacturers, developed a system to sort

and ship recycled materials, promoted the idea of recycling to local

residents and began collecting newspaper, glass and tin cans in a

backyard shed in Hammond.

As collection grew and they opened their first depot beside the

Cottonwood Landfill to continue educating community members about

recycling, they really made an impact on the society. As time went on,

this depot grew, and they added staff, including the addition of

mentally challenged employees from the community.

The society also grew its volunteer base and continued to expand

and provide award-winning, enhanced recycling services and other

programs to the community. Now they are an integral part of the Ridge

Meadows community, hosting Earth Day celebrations every year and

spearheading the Repair Cafe, where residents can bring their broken

appliances or stuffed animals to get repaired.

The celebration at Whonnock allowed the founding members a chance

to reflect on the astonishing achievement of seeing a society grow and

flourish for five decades, inspiring us all to do more for the

environment.

Special thanks to all the past and current members, staff and

volunteers and to friends like Linda King and Craig Speirs for their

work with the society and executive director, Kim Day, and of course,

Leanne Koehn, who is continuing her parents’ legacy, working and

engaging community with the society.

[10:30 a.m.]

CYPRESS PROVINCIAL PARK

AND LEGACY OF KATHARINE

STEIG

J. Sturdy: Cypress Provincial Park is not a big park by provincial standards,

but it is a treasure. Located on the North Shore, bounded by Howe Sound,

Mount Strachan and West Vancouver, it’s aptly described in the B.C.

Parks literature as sitting like a crow’s nest high above Vancouver.

When you’re atop the sky chair, especially at night, it’s pretty hard to

disagree.

Both the park and its commercial controlled recreation area have

seen rapid growth in visitation over the last few years. Hiking, skiing

and snowshoeing have exploded, and the presence of all these visitors

has had its inevitable impact.

But as a guardian and a steward of this precious place, there was

Katharine Steig. In 1990, she played a key role in an effort to protect

a stand of big, old trees above West Vancouver from being turned into

just another golf course. The forest she helped protect eventually came

under the stewardship of the Old Growth Conservancy Society, a group in

which she was active until her death this past August.

Katharine was a founder and active member of the Friends of

Cypress, an organization focused on maintaining the wilderness of this

3,000-hectare provincial park and surrounding area. The protection of

Mount Strachan and Hollyburn as well as the preservation of Yew Lake

were highlights of her tenure, as the group tried to keep the park’s

focus on retaining this amazing natural environment located right on the

fringes of the city.

The Friends also were involved in park planning, undertaking many

enhancement projects, including signage, education, trail maintenance

and improvements.

If I may, I’d like to quote a couple of verses from a poem her son

wrote in memoriam, which I think sums her up well and seems to have a

bit of a nod to Dr. Seuss.

You were loved by loggers and hippies alike,

by hikers

and skiers and mountain-bike types.

You even had respect from the

big businessmen,

though they knew not to get on the wrong side of

your pen.

Here’s to the way that you quietly spoke

with the city

people and politicians and park service folks

and taught them, when

they built their trails and roads

to leave room for the lilies and

gentians and toads.

We should all have such a legacy.

RESTORATION OF GUICHON CREEK

J. Routledge: I’d like to tell you the story of the little creek that could.

It’s a true story about Guichon Creek, a severely damaged stream that

runs through the heart of Burnaby and is being brought back to

life.

In the early 1900s, it was a popular fishing spot. People swam

there. But throughout the last century, it was dammed, urbanized,

industrialized and culverted. It became a dumping ground for old

mattresses and tires, and it became sterile for salmon and other species

that once thrived there.

Fifty years ago the world-celebrated river conservationist and

founder of World Rivers Day Mark Angelo, then a young BCIT teacher,

rallied students, teachers and the community to rewild the creek. They

began to collect truckloads of litter. They replanted thousands of trees

along its banks, and by 2006, much of it had been restored. Salmon and

trout were returning. Songbirds, herons, eagles, raccoons, otters and

even sometimes a bear came back.

Today Guichon Creek south is beautiful and natural, but Guichon

Creek north remains covered by concrete walkways and roads. The salmon

still cannot navigate upstream to spawn. A precious few make it partway,

and people with nets help them complete their journey. There is a plan

to daylight the remaining 700 metres still covered.

Why do I call Guichon Creek the little creek that could? Because

that’s what Mark Angelo calls it in a beautifully illustrated children’s

book he wrote to document the restoration of what had been, as one Elder

put it, her ancestors’ Safeway and Costco.

It’s a story of hope, of community solidarity — something, I would

argue, that needs to be restored and sustained as much as this little

creek.

[10:35 a.m.]

Oral Questions

ACTION ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING

AND MANAGEMENT OF B.C.

HOUSING

K. Falcon: There is no bigger broken promise by the NDP than their promise to

make housing more affordable. This government is now in their second

term and have had over five years to implement their program.

So how are they doing? Well, B.C. now has the highest housing

prices in North America, third highest on the planet. B.C. now has the

highest rents in all of Canada under this NDP government, and we’ve got

record homelessness and social disorder in virtually every community in

the province.

But it’s not just their utter failure to provide any relief for

working British Columbians. It’s also their total incompetence in

managing the one Crown corporation responsible for delivering housing to

those most in need, B.C. Housing. Under this Premier, B.C. Housing’s

budget and debt ballooned to over $4 billion, but the results, not

uncommon in this House, have gotten worse not better, with homelessness

and social disorder at record levels.

Frankly, it is a disaster, which was confirmed in a damning report

by Ernst and Young that this Premier tried to bury by quietly releasing

it over the Canada Day long weekend. The report concludes that there has

been total mismanagement of billions of dollars so bad that the Premier,

then the Housing Minister, had to fire the entire board that today’s

Finance Minister had appointed.

Given his complete failure as a Housing Minister, the damning

report on B.C. Housing and the ongoing effort to try and bury his own

mismanagement, how can anyone trust this Premier to deliver the housing

that people need?

Hon. M. Rankin: We acknowledge, in this House, that there is a housing crisis.

That is why this week we’ve introduced historic legislation, the Housing

Supply Act, that will allow us to work with local governments to create

the housing that is desperately needed in so many parts of this

province.

This government has done an enormous amount to create new housing.

We have spent $7 billion. We’re on target to spend $7 billion over ten

years in order to create new housing that’s desperately needed. B.C.

Housing is probably the largest developer, if you will, in the entire

country. We are tackling this crisis head on, such as with the Housing

Supply Act, such as with the amendments to the Strata Property Act

yesterday.

We’re also trying to get speculation out of the market, and that

is why we passed the speculation and vacancy tax, which has created

20,000 units so far in this province. The hon. Leader of the Opposition

believes that tax is unfair. He said: “These are not speculators. These

are people that have a second property…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.

Hon. M. Rankin: …and they’re being forced to pay…an additional cost.”

We disagree. We think that’s one step among many that needs to be

taken, and we’re going to continue to work aggressively in that

direction.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: Just like in health care, they like to talk about how much they’re

spending, not the results they’re not getting. The mismanagement at B.C.

Housing under this Premier is staggering, especially when you consider

they’ve only built 9 percent of the 114,000 homes they promised to build

within ten years, and they’re halfway through their mandate already in

that ten-year period.

The Ernst and Young report paints a very clear picture of an

organization in chaos. B.C. Housing is poorly managing its signature $2

billion HousingHub loan program, contracts being awarded without any

criteria and a lack of just a basic paper trail. We’ve got a board that

sat silent while the CEO personally authorized $115 million in property

acquisitions without the necessary approvals.

That’s right. The NDP-appointed B.C. Housing board allowed their

CEO to personally approve more than $115 million in property

acquisitions without any discernable due diligence. All of this

incompetence happened under this Premier while he was Housing Minister,

and he owes the public an explanation.

[10:40 a.m.]

Given the fired board, the chaos and the mismanagement, will the

Premier do the right thing and order a full independent and transparent

audit of the mess that he has overseen at B.C. Housing?

Hon. M. Rankin: I entirely disagree with the characterization offered by the

member. We have a highly talented CEO, Allan Seckel, who will be no

stranger to the people on that side of the aisle.

I need to remind the House what CMHC said. We are making up for

lost….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. M. Rankin: This government is making up for lost time after years when the

former government didn’t build the houses that people need.

Here’s what the CMHC said. They said that more than twice the

number of homes are under construction than when the opposition leader

was Finance Minister.

We are on track to deliver the promises we made for 114,000 homes.

We are delivering that. We have completed 36,071 housing that is under

construction or in approval. I mentioned the 20,000 units that are now

being made available thanks to the speculation and vacancy tax making

them now available in the market.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. Rankin: We’re in year 4 of that ten-year plan, and we are on target to

deliver what we said we would do.

I would remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that when the

B.C. Liberals were in power…. They came and cancelled every NDP

affordable housing project when they got the ability to do so in

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: A lot of words from the Housing Minister. Unfortunately, none of

them answered the questions that I was asking.

We now have a Premier who believes he’s Mr. Competent, but the

real truth is that the Premier’s entire time as Housing Minister was

marked by chaos and dysfunction. He tried to bury the damning Ernst and

Young report on the Canada Day long weekend — sound familiar? — and

chose to fire the incompetent B.C. Housing board, which they appointed,

on a Friday night in July a week later.

The turmoil didn’t end there. Nearly 20 senior executives have

departed from B.C. Housing under this Premier’s watch, within just two

years, with little to no explanation, including the CEO, the

vice-president of operations, the chief development officer, the

executive director for homelessness, the executive director of finance,

just to name a few.

Losing 20 senior executives in any organization over a two-year

period would be shocking in the extreme. In an already deeply troubled

organization like B.C. Housing, it is stunning.

My question to the Premier: will the Premier acknowledge the mess

that he has overseen and order a full independent and transparent audit

of B.C. Housing today? Will he do that?

Hon. M. Rankin: We commissioned a report. We examined it. We are taking action. A

new board is in place under the leadership of Allan Seckel, a very

eminent British Columbian who worked with distinction in this government

previously.

The rest of Canada is envious of B.C. Housing and the

extraordinary accomplishments that they have made.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Member, you’re wasting your precious time. Come to order.

Thank you, Member.

Minister will continue.

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: B.C. Housing is on track, as I said, to spend $7 billion over ten

years to address the housing supply crisis in our province.

I was in Cranbrook earlier last week and met with the mayor of

Cranbrook, who was anxious to work with B.C. Housing on problems that

their community is facing. I’ve had conversations with people across

British Columbia praising us for the work that B.C. Housing is doing in

their community.

Do we have a housing crisis in British Columbia? Yes, we do. Do we

have the people to do the work? Yes, we do. We’re proud of the work

they’re doing for British Columbia.

MANAGEMENT OF B.C. HOUSING

AND ATIRA PROPERTY

SERVICES

T. Stone: Does this government have an accountability problem when it comes

to how they’re spending money on housing with terrible results? Yes,

they do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

T. Stone: The Ernst and Young report is actually a part of a damning string

of reports for B.C. Housing. It’s evidence of a housing program in

chaos.

Thanks to a whistleblower, the opposition has acquired leaked

documents of another audit, a damning audit that was covered up by this

Premier. Another accounting firm, this one BDO, was retained to do a

financial review of Atira. Now, Atira is B.C.’s largest non-profit

housing provider, with an annual taxpayer-funded budget of $41

million.

That review outlines severe financial mismanagement and a complete

absence of oversight. It shows that Atira has been making financial

decisions with draft budgets, not actual final budgets, that had

“incorrect, incomplete or misleading information.”

This report was covered up at a time the Premier was also pouring

hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars into a housing program that

was in absolute chaos, without basic oversight and with worsening

outcomes. The Premier chose to bury the BDO report detailing this

financial incompetence.

Will the Premier do the right thing today and order a full,

transparent, independent audit of B.C. Housing and Atira?

Hon. M. Rankin: Well, we did initiate a review of B.C. Housing to look at their

organizational capacity and financial systems and controls and to make

sure that they were appropriately supported to deliver on a very much

expanded budget and mandate since the NDP came to power. The report was

commissioned, an independent review was conducted, and the work is

underway to implement those changes.

There were 26 findings and 44 recommendations made across 44

themes — governance, strategic planning, business integration, human

resources, program design, project administration processes — and there

were suggestions for efficiencies that could be made. Those efficiencies

are being gained.

This is a Crown corporation that is subject to the same oversight,

the same accountability and transparency rules of other Crown

corporations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. M. Rankin: The fact of an independent review should not be news to this

House.

I reiterate. B.C. Housing is doing extraordinary work to address

our housing crisis head-on. They are respected across this province for

the work that they’re doing, and I stand behind them

entirely.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, Ernst and Young says that B.C. Housing is in complete chaos.

BDO comes out with a different report and says that there are no

financial controls, no financial oversight within B.C. Housing with

respect to its largest housing provider, Atira. And the entire board of

B.C. Housing is fired, without any explanation whatsoever, within the

two years that the current Premier and then Housing Minister was in

charge of oversight.

This incompetence is at every single level with respect to B.C.

Housing and their providers. The Premier had to know about the

catastrophic state of finances at Atira. After all, the Premier stood

alongside an Atira board member to launch partisan attacks in the

by-election that elected the Leader of the Opposition.

The BDO report found “ineffective board oversight” and

“assumptions that budget overages will be covered by B.C. Housing.” In

fact, the B.C. Housing whistleblower revealed that there was a constant

stream of pressure coming from senior B.C. Housing executives to ignore

the BDO report and keep shovelling taxpayers’ money toward

Atira.

[10:50 a.m.]

B.C. Housing funds Atira’s $41 million annual budget. But get

this: just 7½ cents of every dollar that Atira invests actually goes to

client services. And this month, despite repeated calls for

transparency, Atira’s CEO gallingly refuses to disclose her

taxpayer-funded salary.

There has been a stunning misuse of taxpayer dollars at Atira,

with no oversight and no accountability. The Premier must order a full,

independent and transparent audit of B.C. Housing and Atira.

My question to the Premier is this. At minimum, will the Premier

at least stand up today and disclose the taxpayer-funded salary of the

CEO overseeing Atira — again, an organization that is clearly in

absolute disarray and failing the very people that it’s supposed to be

helping?

Hon. M. Rankin: As I said, an independent review was commissioned. There has been

great growth in B.C. Housing as we expand and implement our aggressive

housing policy. We have taken steps to ensure, through the independent

report, that better governance arrangements are in place.

That’s nothing new. They have an implementation plan that is in

place, and we’re working with B.C. Housing to figure how we can best

respond to the recommendations that were made. That comprehensive

implementation plan will include a workplan for 2023, and that’ll be

completed sometime in the next few months.

We want to ensure, on behalf of British Columbia, that B.C.

Housing has the tools necessary to respond to the enormous new demands

that are made upon them, with oversight and decision mechanisms that do

the job.

We have a great deal to be proud of in B.C. Housing. They’re going

to continue to do the work that’s necessary, because we know they’re a

part of the solution to the housing crisis we all face.

INCOME AND DISABILITY

ASSISTANCE

RATES

A. Olsen: My question is to the Premier. Will he raise the provincial rates

for income and disability assistance to above the poverty

line?

Hon. N. Simons: I thank the member for the question, very much.

Obviously, the issues of inflation and poverty are important to us

as a government. You’ve seen the action that we’ve taken over the last

couple of years.

We had the largest single increase in income and

disability assistance rates in the history of the province. We’ve taken

a number of other affordability measures to reduce the impact of

inflation and rising cost of living, which have been well received by

people in the sector. We’re always looking at ways of reducing the

impact of higher prices on people and always looking for ways of

reducing poverty in this province.

I would point out, as well, that between 2016 and 2020, we raised

over 104,000 children out of poverty during that period of time, and

we’re going to continue to work on that.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, supplemental.

A. Olsen: I understand what the previous government’s approach to poverty

reduction had been. I’m trying to get an understanding of what our new

Premier’s approach to poverty is going to be.

The housing measures announced yesterday by the Premier don’t

actually guarantee any affordability at all. The annual income for

disabled people in British Columbia, even after what the minister just

noted, is a dismal $16,000. That’s currently $10,000 below the poverty

line.

Even under this so-called progressive government that we have

here, the rates continue to languish. In the increase last year that the

minister just mentioned, the increases have almost been entirely erased

by inflation.

It’s heartbreaking, really. We have condemned those with

disabilities to live in poverty in this province. We can’t fix housing

without an intersectional lens. The executive director of B.C.’s

Homelessness Services Association said these rates “fall short of what’s

needed for people to find housing.”

[10:55 a.m.]

The Premier must start by recognizing that raising our assistance

rates is a necessary part of our housing strategy. Will the Premier

raise the income and disability rates to be above the poverty

line?

Hon. N. Simons: I do, actually, appreciate getting questions on this issue,

because it’s important that we keep these issues in front of the public

of B.C., and we know that the previous government is uninterested in

this.

As a matter of fact, the demonstrated actions of our government

have indicated quite clearly that our interest is in reducing poverty in

this province. We have a poverty reduction strategy. We have measured

our successes. Our successes are considerable, but there is always more

work to do.

Absolutely, the issues that the member raises are of concern to

us, all of us as members of the government caucus. We’re proud to

continue to work on finding ways to reduce poverty. That may include

rates. It may include other benefits, tax benefits that have been rolled

out over the last number of months.

The work continues. The work is an essential core of our

government’s philosophy and our interest in reducing poverty in this

province.

FIRE AT WINTERS HOTEL AND

MANAGEMENT OF B.C. HOUSING

AND ATIRA PROPERTY SERVICES

S. Bond: Housing and homelessness have never been worse in this province

than under the Premier’s watch. Record high wasteful spending with

record low results.

The failure to act on the concerns with Atira raised in the BDO

report had devastating consequences.

The BDO report found: “Staff look for ways to reduce the pressure

on cash flow with other downstream consequences.” Let those words sink

in. That means cutting corners.

On April 11, the Winters Hotel, operated by Atira, burned down in

a deadly blaze that tragically killed two people. Media reports and

freedom-of-information documents show that prior to the deadly Winters

fire, fire extinguishers were empty and had not been replaced by

Atira.

How can the Premier possibly justify the unconscionable decision

to bury a report revealing that Atira was cutting corners just months

before the deadly blaze occurred?

Hon. M. Rankin: Certainly, we empathize with the situation that was just raised by

the hon. member. There is no cutting of corners or anything of the sort.

That issue is under investigation.

I can say to this House entirely that there are changes that are

being made in the governance arrangements of B.C. Housing. I’ve

described them before.

More will be coming as we implement those changes to an

organization that has grown exponentially since this government came to

office and decided to take the housing crisis seriously.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: There wasn’t cutting corners? The fire extinguishers were empty,

and that wasn’t all. There were multiple failures at the Winters Hotel.

Not only were there not working fire extinguishers; the building

sprinklers and fire alarms weren’t working at the time.

The minister can speak about being empathetic. There were no

working fire extinguishers or alarms.

There is absolutely no accountability or transparency. How on

earth can anyone take this Premier at his word when he buried a report

and, at the end of the day, people died?

Will the Premier today do the right thing? Will he commit to a

full independent and transparent audit of B.C. Housing and Atira?

British Columbians deserve that to be done.

Hon. M. Rankin: Reports have been released. There are certainly issues that are

deserving of serious scrutiny and investigation. That is exactly what’s

going on. It’s clearly unacceptable for fire extinguishers and fire

alarms to be not functional.

[11:00 a.m.]

We obviously accept that, and that needs to be dealt with head-on.

But there’s no effort to cut corners or to somehow deprive the public of

information about this important issue. That is what we’re

investigating. That is what the people of British Columbia have a right

to understand, and that’s what we’ll get to the bottom of.

COMMENTS BY B.C. HOUSING OFFICIAL

M. Bernier: We’ve heard of all the problems with B.C. Housing today, but

there’s another reason why the NDP is nowhere closer to building the

114,000 homes that they promised.

Stephanie Allen is B.C. Housing’s vice-president of strategic

business operations and performance, appointed by this NDP government,

and has a history of radical and controversial claims.

Last summer she accused politicians and the city of Nanaimo of

hate crimes against the homeless.

This July — this July, just a few months ago — Allen compared

owning a home to owning slave: “The original real estate investment was

enslaved Africans. God bless everyone trying to find a home in these

stolen lands as capitalism collapses under the weight of its greed and

selfishness.”

You’ve got to pause and think about that for a second. This is the

second in command for B.C. Housing. A senior executive making decisions

for B.C. Housing comes out with a quote like that.

I wish I was done. This person makes $245,000 a year making

decisions — $245,000 a year — but also came out and said: “I’m not sure

how we get out of housing in a climate crisis without limiting

capitalism.”

This person is focusing on radical politics rather than delivering

on the $4 billion that’s needed to be spent to help our much-needed

people in British Columbia.

The Premier’s failed to answer questions so far today. Here’s an

easy one. Does the Premier endorse the statements of this B.C. Housing

executive?

Hon. M. Rankin: I should start by saying that it is not this government that

appoints the individual in question. It is the CEO who made that

appointment, the former CEO.

If you’re asking if this government accepts the statements that

you’re attributing to that person — which of course, I’m unaware of — of

course we do not.

MANAGEMENT OF B.C. HOUSING

AND TERMINATION OF

BOARD

P. Milobar: It’s unfortunate that the Premier refuses to defend any of his

track record.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Let the member ask the question.

Members.

Member, continue.

P. Milobar: Time and again, time and again, the public….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

P. Milobar: Time and again, the public and the opposition have been calling on

the Premier to stand and account for his track record and his history of

handling the B.C. Housing file. Time and again, he has refused to answer

and refused to take any accountability for his lack of action and his

failures on this file.

We’ve heard about the Ernst and Young report, which resulted in

the firing of the board and resulted in 20 senior executives realizing

that they should probably get out while their reputations were still

intact.

We’ve heard about the BDO report, which was buried by the Premier

when he was the Housing Minister, that spoke about the shortcomings at

Atira — the lack of oversight, the cutting of corners and how that

impacts what happens at the Winters Hotel.

The minister can say that there was no cutting of corners. I think

the average person out there is thinking that non-functioning fire

alarms, non-functioning fire sprinkler systems would be a cutting of

corners. That’s a cutting of corners that led to a fire that resulted in

death.

There is no accountability from this government whatsoever with

the consistent mismanagement of B.C. Housing and its lack of

results.

So a very simple question today to the Premier, because this has

been refused to be answered all along, a very simple question. Why was

the board of B.C. Housing fired?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: When issues were identified at that Crown corporation, an

independent report was commissioned. A number of recommendations were

made by Ernst and Young in order to improve financial management and

governance arrangements of that board, an arm’s-length Crown

corporation.

Those changes are underway. A workplan will be finalized in the

weeks to come.

Those changes respond to the extraordinary growth of the work that

B.C. Housing has had to do, as we step up to do the work that was never

done under the former government. That is delivering homes for British

Columbia.

We are on track to do the 114,000 units that we promised to do —

36,000 underway, 20,000 with the speculation and vacancy

tax….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. M. Rankin: With the bills that have been announced this week, the expansion

of housing supply in partnership with our municipal partners, we

believe, will be able to address the housing crisis head on for British

Columbians.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of presenting the Auditor General’s report

on the financial audit work for fiscal year 2021-22 and the Office of

the Police Complaint Commissioner’s Annual Report,

2021-2022 .

Petitions

R. Leonard: I’m presenting a petition of 152 names, requesting the non-emergency

medical travel assistance plan, also known as TAP, to be expanded from

covering travel costs to registered specialists to further include referrals

to general practitioners with specialists when people have to move out of

their communities to seek medical attention.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading, Bill 37, Energy Statutes

Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I call committee stage, Bill 42,

Provincial Sales Tax Act.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, continued committee debate on Bill 41,

Workers Compensation Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 37 — ENERGY STATUTES

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2022

(continued)

D. Davies: I’m happy to be back again, continuing my remarks on Bill 37, the

Energy Statutes Amendment Act.

I mentioned a couple of things yesterday in my….

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: If members could quietly leave the chamber if you’re not

staying.

D. Davies: Thanks, Madam Speaker.

I’m glad to have the opportunity to talk on this bill. I talked

quite briefly yesterday. In fact, I think I just kind of got a bit of an

introduction on, speaking about what this bill does and the support that

we have around always looking to improve services and to improve things

that make our province tick.

As I mentioned yesterday, the Oil and Gas Commission, I would say,

is kind of dear to me. I live in Fort St. John. Of course, that’s where

the Oil and Gas Commission was headquartered some 25 years ago by the

NDP government. A good decision then. I don’t think we will argue

that.

I think what we need to look at, though, is how this could

impact…. I mentioned, very briefly, yesterday about the unintended

consequences around what this bill could possibly do. Of course, I also

live in the heart of the oil and gas sector, predominantly natural gas.

There’s not an awful lot of oil, but there is oil — but certainly, the

heart of the natural gas industry here in British Columbia. It’s an

industry that contributes billions of dollars, as has been mentioned by

my colleagues previously, into the provincial revenue stream to support

the incredibly important things that we all need — health care, whether

we look at health care; or making sure our roads and infrastructure are

up to par.

[11:10 a.m.]

We have a group of school kids coming in.

Welcome. Just to let you know, we’re in the middle of a bill

debate on the Energy Statues Act, so listen along. There’ll be a test on

it later.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

D. Davies: Oh. Yes, I think there’s an introduction coming here.

Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Hon. K. Conroy: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Conroy: On behalf of the member for Parksville-Qualicum, I want to also

welcome the second group from the Ballenas high school. I just have a bit of

information for the students here.

Your teacher, Mr. Wyllie, is known to me as Roman. I’ve known him

since he was born, actually. I was there on the day of his birth, so I have

all kinds of dirt on him. So if you would like to talk later, we could have

a great conversation about Mr. Wyllie’s life.

They’re all shaking their heads yes.

So you’re here today for the discussion in the House on legislation.

The member is speaking in response to the legislation that was introduced.

It’s the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, which is critically important to the

province.

You’re going to hear the member from the opposition providing his

views on the bill, and if we get to it, we’ll actually have the minister

stand up and finalize his comments on the bill. I’m not sure if we’ll get to

that in the time you’re here. But it’s great that you’re here to see

democracy in action. Welcome to the Legislature on behalf of all of

us.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you may continue.

Debate Continued

D. Davies: Thanks, Madam Speaker.

Thanks, Minister, for that introduction as well.

As an industry that does contribute billions of dollars into

the provincial revenue, as I mentioned, it’s extremely important

that we embrace British Columbia’s resource sector. It doesn’t

matter what it is — whether it’s forestry, our mining, our fisheries

or the natural gas industry. These are all extremely important

pieces of what makes British Columbia tick, providing the money for

the things that we all want.

We want good health care. We want a good education system. We

want our infrastructure kept up. We want our vulnerable taken care

of. And these are all important things that I worry, with Bill 37,

could have some unintended consequences regarding what the impact

could be on the investment atmosphere here in British

Columbia.

British Columbia is a leader in the world on natural gas

extraction, the most environmental ethical extraction in the world.

Other jurisdictions around the world actually look to British

Columbia for how we do it and how we do it well.

But with that does come a lot of oversight, which is

important. We do need to hold all companies accountable. It doesn’t

matter what sector they represent. But we also need to see and have

that balance.

My worry is, and I’ll talk in a moment about some of the

issues that stand out to me in Bill 37, where we start getting this

layering of red tape, red tape, red tape, red tape, oversight,

oversight, red tape. It’s just overwhelming. We start to scare off

people who want to invest in a safe jurisdiction such as British

Columbia.

We must know that we are not the only ones that are competing,

especially now. We’ve seen Europe, as an example, completely

upturned right now on getting a reliable source of energy. In fact,

they can’t. They are crossing their fingers that it’s going to be a

mild winter across Europe because there is a shortage of

energy.

Of course, we all know that energy shortage comes because of

the tyranny that’s happening right now in Russia, with the

unsanctioned war that’s happening in Ukraine. Europe has taken — and

I’ll talk a little bit about Germany, specifically — the stance that

“we do not want to import energy from Russia,” because they know, in

turn, it does go to supply revenue back into that regime, which

isn’t being used well right now. It’s a good decision. And in turn,

because of that decision, it opens up an incredible opportunity for

us here in British Columbia to look at….

[11:15 a.m.]

We have natural gas. I come from Fort St. John. I’m in the

heart of the Montney play. There is an abundance of natural gas

throughout the entire northeast. We have the skills. We have the

infrastructure in place. But what we’ve seen over the past few years

is tail-lights heading to Alberta of companies that have decided

it’s too risky to invest in British Columbia. We’ve seen tail-lights

of companies heading to Texas.

So we need to know that when we are looking at any resource

sector — specifically, I’m talking about the natural gas — we are

competing on a world stage to have our resource delivered to

countries around the world that are trying to do better. Those

countries, for the longest time, are China and India, and India is

going to be an up-and-coming force to be reckoned with, as their

population is growing. The middle class is growing, the desire that

they need for cleaner energy, to get off dirty-burning coal — China

as well.

Unfortunately, because they cannot access cleaner energy

sources, such as B.C.’s. natural gas, LNG when it’s shipped off —

I’ll talk about that in a second — to Kitimat and turned into

liquefied natural gas…. They cannot get this, and they are seeking.

They’re asking us, as is Europe, as is Germany. We had the

chancellor here — not here but here in Canada — recently. The

question was clearly asked: “Can you help us out?” Unfortunately,

the answer wasn’t a yes.

That really worries me in a few pieces. Again, it shows that

British Columbia and Canada are not necessarily open for business

when this opportunity is knocking on our door. As we have seen our

competitiveness deteriorate over the past four or five or six

years…. In fact, I would almost safely say that we’re probably one

of the most uncompetitive jurisdictions on the continent, I would

certainly say, when it comes to natural gas.

It worries me that Bill 37 will just add another level,

another layer, of this red tape, of this more uncompetitiveness that

we need to be looking seriously at. Where is that balance? As I

mentioned, I think we’re over that balance now, because we have

become uncompetitive.

One of the pieces in this bill that we will certainly be

asking about during our committee stage, in the coming…. Well, I

guess we’ve only got a couple days left, but soon. It’s going to be

around the establishment and how the bill will hold people and

entities accountable. That’s one thing that this bill does. In fact,

the bill enables regulators to more easily hold accountable entities

whose action may result in orphan wells.

If you don’t know, for the listening public and folks that are

in the gallery, an orphan well is basically where a company is just

bankrupt or can no longer further sustain, and they walk away from a

well. They walk away from a producing well. Often that’s been left

up to the province to clean up. I do commend the minister for

developing the orphan well program, which has been quite successful

in cleaning up a number of these orphaned wells. I think that is a

step.

I think there are other ways that we can be looking at, and we

need to find out, during committee stage on Bill 37, what these

other opportunities are. Right now what we could be looking at is

people that might have a small stake in a company, as a shareholder,

that could, ultimately, at the end of the day, be held accountable,

solely accountable.

[11:20 a.m.]

Now, when you start talking about what that does to an

investment perspective, talk about sending shock waves. Who is going

to want to be investing in British Columbia’s natural resources when

they know that even if they’ve got this much of a stake in said

company, they’re going to be responsible for this, even though they

might not have any decisions being made or any say in those

decisions?

These are questions that we definitely want to get to on Bill

37. Again, we support the modernization of the B.C. Oil and Gas

Commission. I would even say we support the idea of changing the

name to B.C.’s Energy Regulator, because I think it does capture it

more.

As I mentioned to the minister at the start of my remarks, if

we are not looking at bills and legislation to make them better,

then we’re not needed here. That is one of our main roles that we

need to do in this place. And as we move forward into committee

stage, those are going to be the questions that we’re going to be

looking at. That is definitely one thing that we do worry about.

What this new piece…. Folks that are investing in companies and,

again, making us more uncompetitive, adding more layers of red

tape.

The bill also looks at the up-and-coming hydrogen industry

that is in British Columbia, which is very exciting. I think

everybody in this House agrees that this is new technology that is

coming on board. Obviously, we understand that hydrogen is very

clean. We’ve seen it already used in different applications within

B.C. Transit and other places.

I’m very lucky. As I mentioned briefly yesterday, there is a

proposed project happening right now in my riding up in the far

northeast in Fort Nelson. It’s a great partnership between the town

and Fort Nelson First Nation, and to be moving that forward…. I

think it’s a great thing that hydrogen is being recognized by the

province and being put into this as we move forward on to probably

some exciting times.

As my colleague from Kootenay East mentioned yesterday…. He

took us down a bit of an education, and I was very enlightened. I

did not know the multiple levels of hydrogen. Some are better. Some

are worse. Some are in different applications. That was very

enlightening for me. I’m going to have to find out what they’re

planning on doing in Fort Nelson now as they move

forward.

This bill seems to be a lot of talk about the hydrogen

industry which, again, also we’ll have to ask a few questions about.

Is this the government’s plan to turn solely that direction, or is

this just being added? Again something that we need to be looking

at. When we are looking at trying to attract investment into British

Columbia and the ability and the opportunity that British Columbia

has to make a difference in the world in regards to cleaner energies

that the world needs.

We also recognize the importance of what this bill does by

also appointing First Nations, Indigenous communities having a

representative at the table. This is absolutely something that we

support. I think it’s a big step forward in reconciliation. It’s a

big step forward, as we’ve seen some challenges — and I know the

minister is very aware of the challenges around permitting,

especially up in the northeast — so hopefully this is a step forward

in making that process more open and transparent and understanding

by companies.

What we have seen…. There will be some questions definitely

around what this looks like, this appointment. We’ll be very

interested in looking at…. Right now in the northeast, we have many

projects that are stuck in permitting. One of the things that I hear

all the time from industry is everyone is fully supportive of the

reconciliation. Everybody, every industry out there is supportive of

it, but moving forward, they don’t know the framework that they need

to be taking to move forward in order to get these

permits.

[11:25 a.m.]

Up in the northeast, folks have been in limbo now for a better

part of half a year. A half a year when you’re looking at projects

to get moving forward is very valuable. And it goes again to the

competitiveness and that challenge that we see here in British

Columbia of industry looking at other jurisdictions that, I will

say, embrace the resource sector, other jurisdictions that are open

for business — while always, though, keeping in mind that they need

to be doing it right. They need to be using their best practices.

Again, British Columbia is a leader when we’re talking about best

practices in extraction of any of British Columbia’s

resources.

The theme that I’ve been talking about, on Bill 37, is really

on the competitiveness. It’s around certainty: certainty for not

only the companies that are looking at an opportunity in British

Columbia, but certainty for the thousands of British Columbians that

work in the resource sector, the thousands of British Columbians

that, up in my riding, rely on the natural gas sector; the certainty

that they know that they can continue to provide for their families,

that they can continue to move forward and have a job that will

sustain them and their families well into the future.

These are big challenges. That, unfortunately, we’ve seen over

the past few years, has been slowly deteriorating, as I’ve given you

some examples.

I guess we have also big questions around, now, the new

Premier, on what his angle is. Does he support the natural gas

sector, or does he not?

We’ve seen a number of very interesting references over the

past little while. Of course, Anjali Appadurai has really become

well known in the province. She is opposed to LNG, very openly;

opposed to the TMX; opposed to mining; opposed to fossil fuels,

generally speaking. So when we start seeing people from within the

government’s own party, the NDP, and the new Premier coming out and

saying that she would make a wonderful MLA, we wonder where the

direction and the future of British Columbia’s resource sector is

and is going. When we start hearing little things like

that….

Not just us in this House. The investment people, companies

around the world, watch us very closely, watch things that are

happening here, before they make their decisions on whether they are

willing to invest in British Columbia and whether they are willing

to invest in British Columbians.

As we move forward, in concluding, we need to really make sure

that we are asking the right questions in committee stage on Bill

37, finding out where the government intends to go regarding this

bill, regarding British Columbia’s incredible energy sector that,

really, employs thousands of people, that pays for our education,

pays for our health care, pays for infrastructure, pays for

everything.

This is what worries me. I look forward to committee stage.

With that, I’ll take my place.

T. Halford: Before I begin my remarks, following my colleague from Peace River

North, I will give a very special shout-out to a little viewer at home,

who is probably sleeping in my bed right now because she is home sick.

She’s probably wishing she’d gone to school, because her mom, I think,

has put this channel on. So she’s probably saying: “I feel okay, and I

can go back. I don’t need to see dad right now talking about this.” But

Sasha, I hope you get better, and I will call and check in at lunch.

Make sure you wash the sheets before I get home.

I will say this: very privileged to be in a House with members

that serve areas of this province that give so much to us in terms of

the resource sector. I represent the community of Surrey–White Rock.

Before I was elected, I spent a number of years working in the oil and

gas sector. I will say that one of the advantages of working there is

getting to tour beautiful parts of this province that we don’t usually

get to see.

[11:30 a.m.]

That is up in my colleagues’ ridings, whether it be Peace River

North, Peace River South or other areas, going to check out Stikine and

Kitimat. Going to those areas and seeing the investment made and how the

birth of that investment…. Just take, for instance, the work that my

colleague did when he was chief of Haisla and had a vision to support

the people of his community through the resource sector. I got to see

the work that he did firsthand. It wasn’t work over months. It was work,

over a period of years, that he put into this.

Not only is his community better for it, not only is the province

better for it, but I think the nation is better for the work that that

member put in, in getting LNG to success in British Columbia. We are all

indebted to that member for his service on that. I think we can all

agree on that. I will say that we all look at the resource sector, I

think, differently in terms of where we reside, but the one thing that

remains true is that we all depend on it. We do.

I remind folks that, especially this time of year, everybody does

have some form of pipeline coming into their house to heat their home.

Natural gas doesn’t magically just appear in our fireplaces or on our

stove. It comes from an area, and it travels to get to your house. It’s

such a matter of convenience for us to have that there, but I think

that, for a lot of us, we do not take into consideration the amount of

work and the benefit to have that there in our province and in our

nation.

I can see firsthand how that work was done. Like I said, I

travelled many times up to my colleague’s riding of Peace River North

and met with people that were employed by the sector. I met with people

that were able to purchase houses, purchase vehicles, go on trips, and

provide for their child’s education through this sector.

In terms of Bill 37, I think it’s important that all members of

this House realize the impacts that the resource sector has on our

individual constituencies. This bill expands the Oil and Gas Commission

in its role in regulating oil and gas to also regulate hydrogen. Its

name is therefore changed to the B.C. energy regulator.

This legislation presented also expands regulatory…. It requires

that one of the board members be a deputy minister and that another be

of First Nations heritage. The bill also enables the regulator to more

easily hold accountable those entities whose actions result in orphan

sites, abandoned wells. It’s something my colleague spoke about just

moments ago.

Now, we fully agree with the actions to help develop the hydrogen

industry in British Columbia. One question I think we would want to

canvass with the minister — I assume we would do this at committee

stage, if we are fortunate enough to get to committee stage — is: is it

clear? Is the minister focused on a green hydrogen industry?

British Columbia’s existing oil and natural gas industry is very

important, and while this bill is extensive, we also have some concerns

we would also like to raise on how amendments might unintentionally

discourage investment in B.C., reducing its competitiveness and,

instead, leading to increased investments in other jurisdictions like

Alberta.

[11:35 a.m.]

Through my previous life, I was fortunate enough — I know some

members of this House have done this as well — to go to other

jurisdictions, whether it be Asia, the United States or the U.K., and

meet with potential proponents of investing in B.C. One of the things

they will ask is about credibility: “Is it a jurisdiction where…? Are we

going to go there, and are the goalposts going to move? Are they going

to change the rules when we get there? Are they going to say one thing

and then, when we plant our flag, it’s now something

different?”

I do understand that industries and governments evolve and take

different shapes, and administrations do change. At the end of the day,

I think investors have been consistent in saying that they just need to

know what the playing field is. That’s how they make the decisions.

Whether they agree with it or they don’t agree with it, they just need

to know what the parameters are. If those shift and shift often and

shift sometimes dramatically, well, that gives, I think, pause to

whether or not B.C. is a place that people can invest in.

Several of its elements, particularly provisions for the working

interest participants and liability for directors and officers, could

impact investment, certainly in British Columbia. The proposed approach

could fundamentally alter the balance of risk for the regulated

community in the province, which may have ramifications that at present

aren’t well understood.

Again, this comes back to my comment that I just made. Taking all

this into consideration, investors are looking for certainty. They’re

looking for certainty of the regulators; they’re looking for certainty

in government. One of the first things I think that we would be

concerned with is how the provision of assigning responsibility that is

not proportional to ownership could lessen investment in British

Columbia.

The current proposal suggests that the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission

can hold WIPs entirely responsible for obligations under a permit in the

context of an orphan site, regardless of the ownership, Chair. Again,

this is something that my colleague spoke about just moments ago. I

think this would fundamentally change how risk is balanced among

partners. The requirements could reduce a company’s willingness to

become an investor in British Columbia. Certainly, that would have

ramifications on employment and financial contributions.

Another concern that we would highlight is that the absence of due

diligence defence could deter capable directors and officers from acting

in such capacity in B.C. This may happen because the potential cost for

which directors and officers would be liable represents a substantial

personal loss. These provisions should be clearly qualified by allowing

for a due diligence defence.

Also, an operator’s insurance limits could be exhausted if no

clear provision for due diligence defence is made. As a result,

companies may choose to conduct operations outside of B.C.

Further, we must base security for landowner compensation on risk

and corporate health. Legislative amendments should be flexible to allow

scrutinization to be administered by the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission as

the province’s regulator for the oil and natural gas sector.

Now, we do understand the central intent of the proposed

legislative amendments, which is to continue ensuring the industry

fulfils its environmental and financial obligations. It is important,

however, that any legislative amendments enable regulations that are

fair and provide continuing investment certainty in the province’s oil

and natural gas sector. I’m hopeful that this bill will reach committee

stage and that we will have a chance to canvass these issues with the

minister.

[11:40 a.m.]

As I stated before, I had the privilege of working in the oil and

gas sector for eight years. One of the challenges that we see in B.C.,

and I think we’re currently experiencing it, is as you go through a

change of leadership at any level, primarily the change in the Premier’s

office, I think that there’s a chance for opportunity. There’s also a

chance for angst and uncertainty. I think the resource sector is

experiencing that right now with the change that we’ve seen within the

last number of days.

The world events that have happened over the last year have shown

us how important it is to have a level of independence when it comes to

the energy sector. We’ve seen issues. For instance, the explosion that

happened in Prince George a few years back and how that altered and how

close we were to having an absolute crisis when it came to natural

gas.

It also speaks to the partnerships that we have, whether it’s in

Alberta or whether it’s in Washington state, and how complex…. When you

look at the natural gas sector in British Columbia — you look at the

projects, and you look at what’s in the ground now — I think people will

be amazed. It’s almost like you look at a maze when you’re looking at

the map of British Columbia and the connections and how natural gas is

transported through British Columbia.

I do speak to the uncertainty. The fact is that we have a Premier

now that has made comments about ending the reliance on fossil fuels.

Although some of those comments, I think, were made, in a way, to try

and ease some of the angst that came through the leadership process,

what it does is layer on extreme anxiety for those that are looking to

invest in British Columbia. That is a problem. When we look at what

happens when statements get made, whether they’re on TMX and whether

they’re on LNG….

There are a lot of people in this province that feed their

families through the resource sector. A lot of those families are in

Peace River North. They’re in Peace River South. They’re in Stikine.

They’re also in Surrey. They’re in Langley. They’re in Kamloops. They’re

in Chilliwack. They’re in Maple Ridge. They’re there. Those jobs are

well-paying jobs. They’re jobs that, I think, for the most part, that

people have gone and sought an education specifically to do that

work.

I think part of it is now is that there is an element of

uncertainty in terms of whether this is now going to be a government

that is going to allow that work to continue. We’ve talked about…. I

know that the Third Party has brought up phase 2, in terms of LNG

Canada. I think that there have been conflicting comments made by this

government in terms of their support or lack of support for phase

[11:45 a.m.]

What does that do? Would LNG Canada have made an FID knowing that

this government was going to blink on phase 2? I don’t know the answer

to that, but it’s an element of uncertainty.

I think, at this time, as we see conflict in the world…. As I

said, how important it is to have energy sustainability in our nation,

in our province…. We are blessed with the resources that we have. But

it’s important that we show that sector that we stand behind

them.

They have to do their part. They have to make sure that they are

upholding the laws, that they are meeting the standards set forward by

the regulators, whether it’s the Oil and Gas Commission, whether it’s

the environmental assessment office and that they are living up to their

ends of the bargain.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I think that we have a long way to go in making sure that we show

investors that B.C. is indeed open for business. How do we do that? I

think one of the ways we do that is we be consistent. Like I said

before, I think what the sector needs to know is where this government

stands. Does it support the resource sector? Does it support development

or not? And I think that’s the one thing that investors will always say:

“We just need certainty.”

I think what we’ve seen…. We saw it in question period yesterday.

The Premier was asked a direct question from the Leader of the Third

Party, and it wasn’t a direct answer. I think those questions will come

more frequently as this uncertainty kind of hovers over the Premier’s

office in terms of whether or not this government supports the resource

sector.

I will conclude my remarks there. I appreciate the time, and I

know I’ve got other colleagues that are eager to speak. With that, I

will take my seat.

Interjection.

T. Halford: With that, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to adjourn debate.

T. Halford moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. K. Conroy moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:49 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 42 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 42;

R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 11:17 a.m.

On clause 1.

P. Milobar: Given the way the sections are, I’ll have quite a few questions on

the front-end sections, likely.

I guess, first off, just so we can get a better understanding of

the development of this bill, I’m hoping the minister will be able to

provide us with a timeline of when the bill was first being discussed,

including representative dates around when it would have gone to cabinet

and when it would have, ultimately, had cabinet agree that this bill

should move forward to the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. S. Robinson: I do want to introduce a number of staff who are here to help me,

help us, through this committee stage. I’ve got Doug Foster on my left,

and behind me, I’ve got Steve Hawkshaw and Brian Murata, who have worked

diligently on this.

To answer the member’s question, we’d all been hearing about the

opportunity for Vancouver to be a host city for FIFA. When the city of

Vancouver put themselves forward, we started exploring with them, at

their request, ways to help them fund this opportunity. It really wasn’t

until it was awarded in June that we, in earnest, began to explore this

opportunity to help them with the costs.

It was at their asking that we accelerated the conversation so

that we could have the legislation that’s before us that would help pay

for the significant costs that come with hosting such an

event.

[11:20 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Obviously, there are cabinet confidentialities involved. So I’m

not asking, with this next question, for the minister to convey any of

what was discussed and the thoughts of cabinet, in general, or the vote

or anything. It obviously was approved by cabinet to come forward in

this form, and that’s fine.

What was the date that cabinet had that discussion and decided

that this bill met the threshold and the test to be brought

forward?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to let the member know that cabinet agendas are also part

of cabinet confidentiality. What I can share with the member is that We

had some preliminary conversations, as Vancouver put itself forward to

be a potential host city for FIFA.

So there were preliminary conversations. It really was when they

were awarded — I believe it was June — that conversations began in

earnest and activity started to really take place to deliver this for

the city of Vancouver. We have this opportunity to raise the resources

necessary to deliver on a commitment to host a number of FIFA games,

which I know everybody is really excited about.

The work began in earnest this last summer and until we’re here,

at committee stage of this bill.

P. Milobar: This feels a little like déjà vu. I asked similar questions on a

previous bill, and eventually the minister did provide a date. So let me

try this a different way, then.

Could the minister please let us know on what date the bill, as it

stands in front of us, was finished being drafted and signed off by the

minister?

Hon. S. Robinson: The bill got signed off in October.

P. Milobar: Again, it was introduced on October 31. Could we have a little

more specifics as to when? There’s accuracy that’s, I think, important

as we move through this bill. So was it October 30? Was it October 3?

What was the timeline?

Hon. S. Robinson: We had to do a little bit of digging. I wasn’t prepared to provide

specific dates about sign-offs, but we were able to track it down.

October 25 is when it got final sign-off.

P. Milobar: Thank you. The reason I’m asking these questions is because they

lead into my next question, then.

Our preliminary discussion with Indigenous leaders that were

dealing with the proposed Olympic bid was…. This was on their radar

screen, but they never actually had the province bring this up as a

potential funding source for the 2030 Olympic bid.

[11:25 a.m.]

The reason that’s important: this was drafted now and ready to go

on October 25. It was actually on October 27 that the government said

they would not be partnering on the Olympic bid with the Indigenous

groups. It was partly due to financial risk — and financial exposure was

the reason given — yet a very major funding source was never,

apparently, discussed or calculated into those decisions.

Was the prospect of Bill 42 taken into the calculation and the

risk assessment by the government, then, when they said no to the

Indigenous communities around their Olympic bid?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to get on the record that these are two

completely separate things that we’re talking about. The member is

pulling them together, and they are very distinct.

In our assessment of the 2030 bid that the member is referring to,

we could see no clear business case for the province that would make it

a viable games. I think if we’re going to host anything, you want to

make sure that it’s successful. That was very important, I think, to us:

to make sure, if we were to do that, that it would be

successful.

I also want to remind the member that we’re already hosting FIFA.

This tool helps pay for the costs of FIFA over a number of years, and

we’ll be certainly having conversations with the city of Vancouver about

over how many years we need to have the MRDT in place in order to

generate the revenue needed to successfully host the FIFA games. You

can’t do another MRDT on top of this special-events MRDT for yet another

games a couple of years later, because there wasn’t the capacity to do

that.

While this legislation was being undertaken specifically for FIFA,

it can be used for other opportunities. That’s why we’ve written the

legislation the way we have. Should there be another opportunity for

Vancouver or other municipalities to do a global event that has benefit

for the entire province in some significant way, there’s a tool for them

to use, but the room for this, in this new tool, was already taken up by

FIFA.

As well, there’s an Invictus Games coming along, and now I

understand there’s a Grey Cup. That was also in the mix. There are lots

of events that are happening, and the capacity for also doing a

successful Olympic bid just wasn’t in the cards for the timing when it

was requested.

P. Milobar: The minister mentions Grey Cup. I’ll get to the confusion this

bill has created later, with the only reference to international events

buried in the very back page. That actually wouldn’t qualify, based on

the minister’s legislation.

Again, did the government then, not run any potential revenue

numbers on what a bill like this would mean in relation to a 2030

Olympic bid? In other words, the minister has said that there was no

viable financial path for the Olympic bid, yet we’re dealing with a

piece of legislation that was very clearly known by government ahead of

the no given to the Indigenous-led Olympic bid.

Were there any calculations done at all? Was there any revenue

projection modelling done on what this bill could mean to an Olympic

bid, moving forward?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member needs to recognize that the scope and scale of these

two different events are like night and day. The analysis that we have

for FIFA is around $240 million to $260 million or $270 million. Half of

that is Vancouver’s cost, and this tool can help them with their

cost.

Our very, very preliminary analysis…. This is very preliminary.

It’s over $2 billion to host the Olympics, so the scope and the scale

are like, I’ll say, Mutt and Jeff. Just the contrast to what is needed

in order to host a successful Olympic Games is way beyond anything that

an MRDT like this could possibly deliver.

P. Milobar: Well, the minister, in her answer

there, recognizes that even this is not intended to pay for the full

cost of the FIFA event. I recognize that. I’m not asking if this was

modelled to see if it would pay for the full cost of the Olympics, but

it’s a revenue source. The question was around modelling it to see if

there were a revenue source that could help offset some of the

risk.

Frankly, the answers, to this point, from the minister have shown

a very clear willingness to work with Vancouver on the FIFA bid — that’s

understandable — but a lack of recognition of the rest of the province.

These international events are supposed to be a provincewide benefit.

Now, my riding actually would have had Olympic events at it. They would

have had Sun Peaks. They would’ve had Kamloops. They could have been a

designated area. Whistler could have been a designated area. They would

have had Olympic events.

Depending what happens with this, Vancouver — and the

municipalities around it, whether or not Richmond agreed to go into

this, or Richmond agrees to go in with an Olympic bid — would have

played a part. There are a lot of hotels in Richmond. In fact, the

airport is in Richmond.

There are the training opportunities. You could have made a case

for municipalities to stick their hand up and say: “I would like to be a

part of it.” In 2010, Kamloops hosted training. Lots of cities hosted

training. Sun Peaks and Kelowna hosted training events. Those cities

could have made a case for having to be part of this as a provincewide

designated area to help host the Olympics.

I guess the question to the minister is: why would the government

not have looked at this through a lens like that to see if there was

some way to help offset some of the economic risk, if that were the sole

reason for saying no to an Olympic bid?

Hon. S. Robinson: A lot of considerations were looked at as part of the desire of

the four nations to host an Olympic bid. We looked at the whole cost.

That was very significant. More than $2 billion is what it would cost —

more than that; again, very high level, ballpark. We expect it would be

more than $2 billion that would be the final cost of hosting an

Olympics.

We were already committed to FIFA. That decision had already come

to pass. It was already awarded to us, and we had an obligation to

follow through and to make sure that we could deliver a successful FIFA

experience.

[11:35 a.m.]

In talking with the Minister of Tourism, there’s lots of interest

in hosting community events all around the FIFA opportunity, so that the

member’s riding in Kamloops can have their own party and gathering. In

fact, I would say that today I saw that the mayor of Port Coquitlam is

hosting a whole bunch of FIFA watching parties in his community, so

already getting into the spirit of FIFA. There will be, certainly, lots

of opportunity right across the province for communities to get involved

as we host this international event.

The other thing that the member…. I don’t know if he’s not

recognizing it or what

part isn’t clear. It’s that by having this tool,

this additional MRDT, the room for the MRDT over the next number of

years will be taken up by FIFA, because it has to generate revenue to

help cover the cost. So we can’t build on top of that some more MRDT for

another event, because FIFA is in 2026. It’s like the space for that is

being taken up.

That doesn’t preclude…. Again, the way we’ve written this bill is

that there is opportunity to do this again. Should there be a

significant event that is wanting to be hosted by whoever in this

province, there’s a tool available for communities to use. We recognize

that there are communities that want to be host to international events,

and we want to work with them to help them participate in

that.

P. Milobar: Well, again, I fully understand that there can’t be a layering.

However, it was the minister that mentioned the Grey Cup, which actually

doesn’t qualify for this bill whatsoever. The minister also referenced

the Invictus Games, which would not qualify for this because of a

stacking of events, given the time frame that the Invictus Games are at

and the location.

My question, though, is really around…. Again, this is actually to

do with

section 1, because it’s about designated major event

accommodation areas and the

definitions. I fully understand FIFA, but

unless there’s another 60,000-seat stadium — given the Surrey election

results, I don’t think that’s going to happen between now and 2030 — in

British Columbia I’m unaware of, there’s only one stadium that FIFA will

be played at in British Columbia. That’s in Vancouver.

That’s totally understandable. I’m not taking away from Vancouver

making this request, looking to cover the cost with this request. I

understand that. But that’s one designated area. The Olympics would have

been in multiple designated areas that could have been defined

throughout this province, because it’s an event that was going to be in

multiple municipalities.

Is the minister saying, by her answer a couple times now, that

this wouldn’t have worked for the Olympics because FIFA is taking the

space in Kamloops, in Sun Peaks, in Whistler, in Kelowna, in Richmond

and other cities, or is this strictly, at this point, a Vancouver —

depending on negotiations with the Metro area — type of tax?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, the member suggests that this tool for a 2030 potential

Olympic Games would have helped with the $2 billion-plus price tag of

hosting the Olympics. Because there is already a commitment to FIFA,

there’s not enough runway to actually raise the revenue that would be

needed to help offset some of these costs.

[11:40 a.m.]

That doesn’t mean it can’t happen beyond 2030. We just need more

runway. There wasn’t enough runway in order to make those a successful

games. That was really the main rationale, given that we know that

Olympic Games — we’ve done it before, in 2010 — cost a lot. It cost a

lot here in British Columbia. We paid for it for a long time.

We want to be prepared when we host these international games, and

we want them to be good games, want them to be successful games. It was

with that in mind that we made the decision that we wouldn’t pursue a

2030 bid, because the risks were significant, the costs were

significant, and we had already made a commitment to FIFA around hosting

those games. The fiscal capacity to generate revenue to help pay for the

games that the city needs was already identified, and this would be the

tool. But there wasn’t another way to do it for the city of

Vancouver.

I appreciate that the member recognizes that other communities

would host events for an Olympic Games. That was part of the suggestion

or the idea. But the ability for those communities to raise the revenue

that they would need…. It’s still not enough. Vancouver wouldn’t be able

to generate the revenue they needed. There again, not enough

runway.

Right now before us is a tool to help the city of Vancouver

generate the revenue it needs to host successful FIFA games. I know that

Kamloops and other communities will also get in the spirit, hosting all

kinds of watch parties, making sure that much of the province can

participate and enjoy the festivities that go with watching a game that

the rest of the world really loves.

P. Milobar: Well, these questions, though, are not about whether communities

will be watching the World Cup in 2026. I think that’s a given. They’re

already doing it right now, as the minister said. They’re also not going

to receive any of this money from the MRDT to host those watch parties

or anything else. Vancouver is not going to, through this MRDT, suddenly

start shipping money off to Kamloops so you can have a big screen up in

the town square. That’s not what this is designed for.

The minister has said there is simply not enough runway for this

to have been an effective use for the Olympics, yet the minister at the

beginning of all this said they didn’t actually model the MRDT for the

Olympic bid and the First Nations bid that was there.

It’s not just four nations. In the Kamloops area, there were

another four nations that were working through the process of agreeing

and consulting with the Vancouver four nations around the bid, or with

Sun Peaks, tying in with Kamloops. The Neskonlith, the Tk’emlúps te

Secwépemc, the Little Shuswap were all in discussions about how this

would work and be of benefit to them in their areas as well.

I guess the question around the designated recipients and all of

that and the designated major event areas…. With the backdrop of UNDRIP

and DRIPA, will Indigenous communities have sign-off on whether the MRDT

is applied, as well, within their traditional areas, or is this strictly

municipally led requests and approvals?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I first of all want to note that I did not say that no modelling

was done. Modelling was done. I think it’s important that the member

understand that we did do some modelling that was at a very high level

because we only had limited information. As a result, we were only able

to model what we knew at the time, and we took a look to see, again, at

a high level. That’s how we got to more than $2 billion — through

modelling. So that work was undertaken. I think the member needs to…. I

hope that he understands that and appreciates that.

The member’s question specifically was: if a First Nation wanted

to host in their community, what would they have to do? They would have

to work with Canada in order to get the authorities needed in order to

have an MRDT.

The Chair: Noting the hour, Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Noting the hour, I move that the

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 41 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2022

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

C) on Bill 41;

M. Dykeman in the chair.

The committee met at 11:16 a.m.

On clause 1 (continued) .

G. Kyllo: At the end of day yesterday, there were a number of requests that

we had of the minister, one of which was the provision of the

cross-jurisdictional scan with respect to the seven primary items that

are set out in Bill 41. I was wondering if the minister has that

information ready for me.

Hon. H. Bains: Yes, I do. I’m glad to share that information with the

member.

There was another request that was asked, which was the

consultation under the NDA. That is another document that I would

provide to the member.

Now, I just want to explain the jurisdictional

summary table. At

the top you will see all seven areas of improvement that we’re looking

at and where B.C. is. Then you look at all the other jurisdictions. A

tick mark is suggesting that they have those areas already in, but B.C.

is nowhere in any of those. I think it just shows that.

The consultation paper is straightforward, and it’s the names that

were asked about, who we met and when. That information is

self-explanatory.

G. Kyllo: I do appreciate the provision of the information that the minister

has provided. Just a couple of questions. One is with respect to the NDA

list. One of the other questions I raised yesterday was whether the

minister was able to share those organizations that were reached out to

for consultation but refused to sign an NDA. That was just another part

of that initial question with respect to the NDAs. So if the minister is

able to provide that for this House, it’d be much

appreciated.

Then with respect to the cross-jurisdictional

summary table, I’m

just having a chance to have a look at it now. The table has been

provided, basically, as a check mark on all the different items. It

doesn’t actually set out what the current rates are. For example, with

respect to the CPI rate on other jurisdictions across Canada, there’s no

actual information here as far as what the actual rates are for the

increases for disabled workers.

[11:20 a.m.]

I’m assuming the minister was provided with a bit more fulsome

information than just simply a yes-or-no answer with respect to the

cross-jurisdictional scan. I just wonder if the minister has any

additional detail that might be provided.

Again, just as an example, when we’re talking about increasing

rates for those workers on permanent disability, I know that the current

rate in British Columbia is CPI less 1 percent. When we look across

Canada at the other jurisdictions, there’s no actual reference to what

the rate is. It’s just a check mark, so it’s hard to make a

determination where B.C. would actually stand.

It’s not necessarily just a yes-or-no response. It would be having

a look at what the actual rates would be in other jurisdictions across

Canada. If the minister could provide any additional detail or if he has

any additional information with respect to what’s happening across

Canada….

Hon. H. Bains: Two questions he asked. One was the NDA — whether we approached

someone, and they refused. There was no such organization.

When it comes to the jurisdictional cross-check, I think we will

have that information once we get to that

section of the bill, and we

will provide you that information at that time.

G. Kyllo: Okay. Thank you very much. We can certainly obtain the information

as we go through the specific clauses of the bill.

The other question that was raised towards the end of the day

yesterday was the actual magnitude of the cost. In the minister’s

response, he initially had indicated that the financial impact was one

of the considerations, one of the criteria by which the minister

determined which particular suite of changes were going to be brought

forward in Bill 41.

Later, the minister clarified that it wasn’t necessarily looking

at the financial impacts of each of the individual recommendations, but

once government had made a decision on the suite of changes that would

be brought forward in Bill 41, then WorkSafeBC was requested to provide

an impact of the gross or the aggregate cost of all of those. The

minister provided the information a number of times — that the cost

magnitude was seven cents per $100 insured.

The question that I’ll ask yet again is: what is the actual dollar

figure attached to? When the minister references this seven cents per

$100, I’m certainly assuming that WorkSafeBC would’ve had a look at the

total cost associated with all of the different changes that are set out

in Bill 41. Once they actually determine the total gross aggregate cost,

then there is a whole series of other calculations that would be

undertaken to determine what the impact may potentially be on WorkSafeBC

rates.

Now the minister shared in his response yesterday that some of the

rates would be smoothed over five years. Some may not have a direct

immediate impact. I just want to ask again: can the minister share with

this House the actual dollar-figure costs associated with the changes

that are set out in Bill 41 as well as the ongoing incumbent liability

that will be associated, again, with some of the changes that are set

forth in this bill?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think in order to answer that question, we need to put things in

context. One of the people that was hired by WCB to the commission and

recommendations, and what can be achieved with the surplus in the

accident fund, Mr. Bogyo…. I was going over, and this is what his report

says: “The accounting for workers’ compensation insurance funding,

reserves and liabilities is complex. As one stakeholder said, ‘There are

20 people in the world who understand how WorkSafeBC funding works, and

18 of them work for the Board.’” So it just shows how complex the way

they calculate their funding, their liabilities.

I think, again, to put that in context, there’s no actual cost

tomorrow — that they write a cheque to somebody because this is how much

it’s going to cost tomorrow. They have assets, and they have

liabilities. That’s how their funding formula works.

When they say it’s 100 percent, it means assets versus liabilities

are equal. But they are at 130 percent. That’s their requirement, and

that adds to the liability. But over the years, because of a good return

— a good market return of the investment — they were hovering around 150

percent. So there’s an additional 20 percent in the accident fund — they

call it a surplus in the accident fund — which is utilized over the

years to subsidize employers’ premiums.

I just had a quick look at it this morning. It amounts to about $3

billion, since they started to subsidize employers’ premiums, going back

to 2006, 2007. To put things in perspective again, in the last five

years, it amounts to about $1.4 billion. So I think those are big

numbers. But they have a surplus in the accident fund, and they are able

to utilize that over a longer period of time.

And how they calculate cost is…. When they talk about one-time

total liabilities, they are talking about how a one-time change in total

liability represents the increased lifetime value of all the existing

claims in the system. Roughly, there are 50,000 to 60,000 of them as a

result of the Bill 41 change. So they are looking at…. When they talk

about cost, they’re talking about liability, because it goes against the

liabilities. And liabilities calculated past claims and future claims

over the lifetime of their claims. So there’s no way to put a

cost….

[11:30 a.m.]

The member asked yesterday: “What would the cost be in the first

year or tomorrow? Will they be writing a cheque?” The answer is very

complex. What I’ll do is, I’ll try to get that answer from the board so

I make sure that I give you the right answers when it comes to the

liability. What is the actual liability they will have been incurring,

adding up?

I was interested to see what impact it would have on the

employers’ premiums, and I was told it was seven cents. They have money

in the accident fund to choose rate smoothing, and there will be no

immediate impact on the premiums because next year’s premium will remain

$1.55.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the minister’s response.

The minister indicated that financial impacts were one of the

considerations in contemplating a number of items that are actually set

out in Bill 41. It’s hard for me to understand that a decision of the

magnitude that the minister is contemplating with the bill that’s before

us — that the only number that the minister gave consideration to was a

single number provided by WorkSafeBC of seven cents per $100.

We do know that some of the changes in the bill, like, for

example, the provision of interest on outstanding amounts if there are

workers that are due compensation from WorkSafeBC…. If those amounts are

outstanding for over 180 days, one of the provisions is that there will

be payment of interest on those.

That is a number that will be finite and that WorkSafeBC would

know very quickly by just having a look at any outstanding amounts over

180 days and what the interest costs might be, associated with those

payment, with those compensation premiums. So for the minister to

indicate that many of these are ongoing liabilities that will be

incurred over years…. That’s not the case with all of the changes that

are set out in Bill 41.

Again, this is important. We are hearing from industry

associations that the changes that are proposed and set out in Bill 41

could have a cost magnitude of upwards of $800 million, which is a

staggering and very significant and substantial number. I certainly hope

that the minister was provided or at least had the inquiry to get some

additional information and didn’t base his decisions solely on a single

seven cents per $100 of insured value.

I’m just hoping the minister might be able to provide a bit more

context around it. Was it solely the single number of seven cents per

100 insured value? Was that the only inquiry that the minister made in

determining and assessing the affordability and the financial impacts of

Bill 41?

Hon. H. Bains: I will repeat that I will try to get the information that the

member is asking for. I was concerned about the impact on the employer

premiums, and that’s what my interest was: to make sure that the cost of

the premium is manageable. I was assured that it is. It’s seven cents,

and there are sufficient funds in the accident surplus that they can use

to smooth over a number of years.

[11:35 a.m.]

Again, the numbers that the member are mentioning, given by

association…. I can’t confirm those numbers, whether they’re right or

wrong. But again, we need to read that in that context that I just read.

The one-time change in total liability represents the increased lifetime

value. That may be what they’re talking about, lifetime value of all the

existing claims in the system, and there are 50,000 to 60,000 of them,

as a result of Bill 41.

That’s the best I can do here today. But I’ll try to get that

information, how you put the total dollar value to the liability. It is

not like a cost and they’re writing someone a cheque next week because

that’s how much the total cost is. It goes against the liabilities. So

is the decision that they make to give subsidies to the

employer.

Despite the $3 billion subsidy, or offsetting the rate that they

were able to do over a number of years, our surplus in the accident fund

continues to be very healthy. So they are in a very good position to

assure us that these changes are manageable, because of a healthy

surplus in the accident fund of seven cents, which could impact the

premiums.

The other question. The member said there will be interest. Well,

yeah, but that would be a one-time liability, and then it will be

ongoing. No one knows how many of those claims will be over 180 days

going forward. They will have some actuarial folks sit down and look at

those things. But they probably have, because that’s how they came up

with seven cents overall.

I will try to get that information for the member. That’s the best

I can do today.

G. Kyllo: It’s concerning that the minister made his determination on the

content of Bill 41 solely on a number provided by WorkSafeBC of seven

cents per $100 insured value. I would certainly have expected that the

minister would have had further inquiry to understand the full magnitude

of the cost.

The minister’s last response. When it comes to the interest that

will now be paid to workers that have had compensation claims delayed

for a significant amount of time, that is a finite number, and that has

nothing to do with the actuarial that the minister

referenced.

To think that the actuaries will somehow have a look at what the

actual amount of outstanding compensation claims are on the books, I

don’t see that. That’s more of a function of the actual accounting, in

the accounts payable department. That will have a look at what the delay

is on some of these compensation claims, and there will be an actually

finite number.

It’s apparent that the minister does not have the gross aggregate

cost. He did reference in his response that the ongoing future liability

of these changes may be upwards of $800 million. The minister says that

he has no ability to actually determine if the number that the employers

association provided is accurate or inaccurate.

It also is apparent that up until this point, at least, the

minister has not made any inquiry with WorkSafeBC, to even make the

smallest inquiry. Look, industry associations are concerned. They’ve

identified a suite of changes that the minister is presenting that could

have an impact of upwards of $800 million. Yet the minister has not made

even the smallest inquiry to WorkSafeBC, to even ask

WorkSafeBC.

Can you verify? Are these numbers accurate? Are they inaccurate?

What is the real number? It’s very surprising for a minister of a Crown

corporation with the significance of WorkSafeBC that there’s been such

nascent inquiry into the cost magnitude.

Let me maybe ask the question this way. The changes that are

represented…. The minister has indicated that the financial impact is

seven cents per $100 of payroll. Is that a finite number? I can’t

imagine that that number is finite. Maybe I’ll ask the minister: was

there a range that WorkSafeBC provided? Could be as low as six or could

be as high as nine, or was it just a finite number? Has WorkSafeBC

indicated that the only impact for this next year will be just a flat

seven cents per $100 of payroll?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I was given seven cents. It’s the cost implications of this bill,

and it’s not to impact the premiums next year, because next year’s

premiums are already decided. They will remain the same as this year,

$1.55. Then again next year, like every year, the board will sit down

and look at the injury rates, the return on their investment,

back-to-work successes and therefore the cost of claims, and then they

determine the rate for the following year. They will consider this

package, how they would build that into going forward, because I’m also

advised that there is a fund sitting in the accident fund that they can

utilize to smooth over a number of years.

Again, I think it’s something that I was assured was manageable.

It will improve the benefits and rebalance the system that we are trying

to do on behalf of the workers and, at the same time, will not have a

huge impact on the employer’s premiums.

G. Kyllo: It was interesting. I was certainly surprised by the timing of

WorkSafeBC’s announcement to actually freeze rates for employers for

2023. I think many employers were quite happy to see that WorkSafeBC

came out and actually announced a rate freeze for fiscal 2023. To the

minister: is that typical, for WorkSafeBC to announce a rate freeze in

the last week of October of every year, or is this timing different than

it has been previously?

Hon. H. Bains: This timing is exactly what they do every year. They do

consultation over the summer, and during the time that they make the

announcement, they do it every year at the same time. I can tell you

it’s not a rate freeze that they did this year. If you go back, if I’m

looking at the rates here, going back to, say, 2017…. The rate, when we

formed government, was $1.70 in 2016. In 2017 it was brought to $1.65,

and then in 2018 it went to $1.55. In ’19, $1.55; in ’20, $1.55; ’21,

$1.55; ’22, $1.55; and continuing next year, $1.55.

The Chair: Minister, could you move the motion?

Hon. H. Bains: Looking at the clock, I move that the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.

Copyright © 2022 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.