Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 18, 2023

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 305

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 5) Amendment Act, 2023

Hon. R. Kahlon

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Jay MacArthur and contributions to outdoor

recreation

J. Sturdy

Cancer Society Daffodil Campaign

A. Singh

Liz Borrett and marathon running achievements

B. Stewart

B.C. Music Day and support for music industry

B. Anderson

Peter’s Your Independent Grocer anniversary events in Kelowna

R. Merrifield

Everett Crowley Park

G. Chow

Oral Questions

Crime in communities and handling by justice system

P. Milobar

Hon. N. Sharma

Public safety on transit systems

T. Halford

Hon. M. Farnworth

Shipbreaking activities in Baynes Sound and environmental compliance and enforcement

A. Olsen

Hon. G. Heyman

Crime in communities and impact on businesses

E. Sturko

Hon. M. Farnworth

Crime in communities and action on community safety

S. Bond

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. de Jong

Hon. D. Eby

Tabling Documents

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, report, Advocating for

Change: Five Years in Review , April 2023

Reports from Committees

Selection Committee, report, April 18, 2023

Hon. R. Kahlon

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing (continued)

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. R. Kahlon

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

S. Furstenau

Hon. R. Fleming

J. Sturdy

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation (continued)

B. Stewart

Hon. B. Bailey

TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2023

The House met at 10:01 a.m.

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Hon. Members, pursuant to Standing Order 12, I’m advising you of the

unavoidable absence of the Speaker.

Consequently, the Deputy Speaker will take the chair.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: E. Ross.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Alexis: It’s my honour and privilege to rise today and make introductions on

what is the 50th anni­versary of the creation of the Agricultural Land

Reserve. The ALR was formed in 1973 by people who saw the need and value of

preserving farmland for food production. And that need hasn’t changed. B.C.

farmers are still working on ALR land, providing healthy, local and

sustainably grown food for British Columbians in every part of the province.

We look forward to the next generation of farmers doing the same.

The ALR is a key part of B.C.’s plan for a sustainable local food

system and I’m delighted to be able to celebrate its golden anniversary

today with two very important people here in the gallery.

Joining us today are Jennifer Dyson, the chair of the Agricultural

Land Commission and Kim Grout, the CEO of the ALC. Both women play an

important role in maintaining the integrity of the ALR.

I would kindly ask members to join me in welcoming them here

today.

J. Tegart: I am pleased to welcome students from grades 10 and 11 from Merritt

Secondary School to the precinct. It’s not very often that I get visitors

here at the precinct, particularly from school groups. I had the opportunity

to meet with them and their chaperones in the Hall of Honour this morning,

and talk about the importance of the work done in the people’s

House.

Please make them feel very welcome.

B. D’Eith: I just wanted to say that in the House today is my successor at Music

B.C., Lindsay MacPherson, who runs Music B.C., which is the trade

organization for the music industry. As part of Creative Industries Week,

we’re really pleased to have film and music and book publishers. Everyone

had a wonderful time at B.C. Book Day.

I just wanted to say that Lindsay is doing an incredible job at Music

B.C. We’re meeting with them today. They’re having a showcase tonight. I

also wanted to congratulate Music B.C. on launching their second ARC program

for artist development, which is coming up.

Would the House please make Lindsay feel very welcome.

Deputy Speaker: I just would remind members. Please don’t use your phones to take

pictures in the chamber. Minister for Children and Family

Development.

Hon. M. Dean: Today we’re joined by Colin Sparks, from Metchosin, in the gallery.

He’s here with his mom, Nina.

[10:10 a.m.]

He’s a student at Royal Bay high school, and he entered my

constituency office’s My Vision for B.C. contest. He came up with two

suggestions, actually. He came up with this really great proposal of

revolutionizing the fine system to be more equitable here in the province so

that fines — if you think about, for example, a speeding fine — would

actually be based on income and would be proportional to income, because he

thought that would be fairer and would actually be a better deterrent as

well. I thought that was a great idea.

Colin and his mom are going to be here for a few hours, and meeting

people here in the building, and we’ll be having lunch together later on.

I’m really excited to spend some time with them.

Would everybody please make them very welcome.

S. Furstenau: I have the pleasure of introducing two guests who are with us today up

in the gallery. We have Christina Peet-Williams. She’s a first-year student

at UVic, doing a double major in environmental studies and human geography

with a very strong interest in environmental issues and climate change, as

we should all share. Christina and I met at an “Introduction to Canadian

Politics Class,” where I was a guest lecturer, and her main interest

involved how environmentalism and politics can be woven together.

With Christina is Claire Rimmer, and Claire is from Cowichan Valley.

She is 16 years old and grew up in the Cowichan. She’s in 11th grade at

Brentwood College and really enjoys classes focused on social justice, law

and politics. After high school, she hopes to attend school somewhere in

Canada, study political science and maybe go to law school. She’s an avid

sailor, dancer and reader, and she loves performing.

I would be remiss not to give a shout out to Claire’s brother Hugh,

who has made it a habit of finding my family when we’re out on the Salish

Sea and rescuing us when we need it the most.

So a huge welcome to Claire and Christina and a thank-you to

Hugh.

J. Sims: Last night many of us gathered from all sides of the House to

celebrate an Iftar, breaking of the fast, hosted by the Ahmadiyya Muslim

Jama’at of B.C. It was a multi-faith dinner. We heard wonderful speeches,

but more than that, we got to join in and enjoy the food that was brought

here all the way from Surrey. It was amazing food. It was an experience for

many. I’m sure for some it was their first Iftar, but others have been to

many others.

I want to acknowledge the president of the B.C. region, Rizwan

Peerzada; the local president of greater Vancouver; Naeem Ahmed; Muhammad,

Shakoor Ahmad; Umar Farooq Chaudhry; Yawar Ahmed; Tariq Ghuman; Ashfaq

Ahmad; Hashhar Ahmad; Irrtaza Ahmad; Mubarak Chaud­hary; Roukhshan

Butt; Md Rokonozzammam; Waseem Aahmad Sheikh; Ayman Al Sultan; Husin

Sultan.

I want to thank the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at of B.C. for hosting the

Iftar dinner right here in the People’s Hall of Honour. It was an absolute

delight to participate.

I will end by finishing with a philosophy that the Ahmadiyya live by:

“Love for all; hatred for none.”

G. Begg: I’m pleased today to welcome two distinguished guests, both in the

gallery. Dr. Claire Sira, a clinical neuropsychologist here in Victoria is

on the executive of the board of directors and a past president of the B.C.

Psychological Association and is one of the co-authors of the primary care

psychology proposal currently being revised for resubmission to the Ministry

of Health to integrate mental and behavioural health services into primary

care.

She’s accompanied by Dr. Lesley Lutes, a clinical health psychologist

professor, director of clinical training and director of the Centre for

Obesity and Wellbeing Research Excellence in the department of psychology at

UBCO. She’s also one of the directors of public advocacy for BCPA and one of

the co-authors of the primary care psychological proposals.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

[10:15 a.m.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING

(N o . 5)

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. R Kahlon presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating

(No. 5) Amendment Act, 2023.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m introducing the Municipalities Enabling and Validating

Amendment Act, 2023. This bill would expediate development of

much-needed supportive housing at 2086-2098 West 7th Avenue and 2091

West 8th Avenue in the city of Vancouver, also known as the Arbutus

project. This bill addresses a request made by Vancouver city council

for the province to legislatively intervene to move forward on the

Arbutus project.

This project will create 129 supportive and affordable housing

units and will provide homes for people living in the community. We are

in a housing crisis in Vancouver and across the province with too many

people sleeping outside. We cannot afford to wait for much of these

homes to be built.

The project took more than 15 months to be approved, and

consultation and engagement included six days of public hearings lasting

more than 30 hours with 300 community members participating. In

addition, over 2,000 written submissions were received for the

project.

In July 2022, the Vancouver city council approved the Arbutus

project in principle. The adoption of the rezoning bylaw and

construction of the project has been delayed due to legal action by

opponents of the project. This bill, if passed, would position the city

to proceed with the Arbutus project for construction to begin, scheduled

this fall of 2023, and provide critically needed housing for people in

the community.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 26, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No.5) Amendment Act,

2023, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

JAY M ac ARTHUR AND

CONTRIBUTIONS

TO OUTDOOR RECREATION

J. Sturdy: It’s human nature to protect the things you love. Jay MacArthur

spent 40 years as a volunteer protecting trails, parks and outdoor

recreation areas of British Columbia. He loved the outdoors and the

outdoor life. He recognized very early that preservation needed to be

balanced with public access and necessary maintenance of trails and

parks.

Jay MacArthur unfortunately passed away in October of 2022 at the

far-too-young age of 65. In the late 1970s, Jay became involved in the

Federation of Mountain Clubs of British Columbia. He served as the

president and was recognized as an advocate for land preservation, trail

development and ongoing maintenance of trails.

Jay received awards and recognition for his contribution as a

dedicated volunteer in the outdoor recreation community, namely a

Distinguished Service Award and a leadership award from the Alpine Club

of Canada. Jay had a hand in the creation of several provincial parks

and helped to obtain federal funding to construct the Howe Sound Crest

Trail in Cypress Provincial Park.

Jay and I worked together to restore access through

Whistler-Blackcomb’s controlled recreation area to Sing­ing Pass

in Garibaldi Park. We saw partial success there as the summer access was

re-established, but winter access remains very limited. I have not given

up on his vision of ensuring that B.C. Parks and Whistler-Blackcomb

adhere to the commitments of the master development agreement which

commits that the public should be able to freely and safely transit

through the Whistler-Blackcomb ski area to access the tens of thousands

of acres of Garibaldi Park and beyond.

As the founding member and eventual president of the Southern

Chilcotin Wilderness Society, Jay helped establish the Southern

Chilcotin and Big Creek Provincial Park. We don’t all participate in

back-country recreational activities, but we can all appreciate and

applaud Jay MacArthur for his dedication to preserve and protect the

environment.

Working with Jay was always a pleasure. He was fo­cused,

collaborative, respectful and, above all else, incredibly committed to

wild spaces and public access to the back country.

I know he will be greatly missed.

CANCER SOCIETY DAFFODIL CAMPAIGN

A. Singh: Each year the Canadian Cancer Society’s Daffodil Campaign for

Cancer Awareness Month unites British Columbians to take action for the

nearly half of Canadians expected to be diagnosed with cancer in their

lifetimes.

[10:20 a.m.]

Donations raised through the Daffodil Campaign will fund

nationwide support programs that offer comfort and connection and

word-leading research to transform the future of cancer treatment and

care.

While the entire month of April is Daffodil Month, April 18,

today, has been identified as a day of action when statements will be

read out loud throughout legislatures in the country and will coincide

with landmarks being lit up across the country.

I’ve spoken of this here before, but I wanted to again recognize

the impact that cancer has on our loved ones. We know it has touched so

many in this hall, including myself.

This time last year I was in my seventh month of chemotherapy, and

although I made it to work almost every day with a smile, I can confess

that it wasn’t easy. It’s likely the second-hardest thing that I’ve

done, overcoming alcoholism being the hardest.

They are not unrelated. Alcohol is a known carcinogen, and I

cannot say that it didn’t contribute to my cancer. My good friend Dr.

Eric Yoshida, our province’s most prominent gastroenterologist, would

say that it likely did. But that’s a story for another day.

Cancer, dear colleagues, remains the leading cause of death in

Canada. More than two in five Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer in

their lifetime, and about one in four will die from cancer.\

Lung, breast, colorectal and prostate cancers are expected to

remain the most common diagnosed cancers. They have been for the last

little while, accounting for almost half of cancer diagnoses. Skin

melanoma cancer continues to increase, despite being a highly

preventable cancer.

Wear sunscreen, my friends. It’s even more deadly for people with

darker skin, as it tends to be diagnosed at a later stage. So if you’re

brown like me don’t think you’re immune to skin cancer.

There is good news, though. Death rates have been, in general,

declining over the last few years. The current five-year net cancer

survival rate is estimated to be at 64 percent for all cancers combined.

It wasn’t always.

Those statistics are also a lot better than they have been in the

past, and that’s a testament to the significance of continued research

and detection and treatment and how awareness programs like Daffodil

Month have helped improve those statistics.

LIZ BORRETT AND

MARATHON RUNNING

ACHIEVEMENTS

B. Stewart: Let me introduce you to an inspiring woman who defies age and

proves it’s never too late to start running. She recently returned home

from Tokyo after completing all six races of the Abbott World Marathon

Majors and also setting a new world record as the oldest woman to ever

complete the series. The Abbott World Marathon Majors includes Boston,

New York, Chicago, London, Berlin and Tokyo.

Meet Liz Borrett, the W-80 age group crusher from Kelowna B.C.

who, at the age of 63, decided to take up running and has since then run

approximately 25 marathons. It’s astonishing to know that she almost

always wins her age group, and she continues to challenge herself and

push the boundaries of what’s possible.

Borrett’s love for running started when she participated in her

first marathon to help a friend fundraise. She didn’t train for it but

enjoyed the experience, which motivated her to start training and

eventually join a running group.

In 2019, Borrett celebrated her 80th birthday. Despite her age,

she continues to set the bar high by winning her age category in both

Boston and London marathons that same year. In addition, she completed

Disney’s Dopey Challenge, which consisted of running 78.3 kilometres

over four days. It’s incredible to see that even at the age of 84, she’s

still up for new challenges and adventures.

Liz Borrett is an excellent example of how determination,

discipline and passion can help achieve great things. So let’s take a

leaf out of her book and commit to leading healthier, more active lives

no matter our age.

Congratulations, Liz, on all your successes. Thank you for being

such an inspiration to us all.

B.C. MUSIC DAY

AND SUPPORT FOR MUSIC

INDUSTRY

B. Anderson: I rise in the House today to recognize B.C. Music Day.

Music is an essential part of many of our biggest mo­ments

in life. It is a key ingredient when we are celebrating love or can help

to ease our pain when we are mourning the loss of a loved one. Oliver

Sacks, professor of neurology at the NYU School of Medicine said: “Music

can lift us out of depression or move us to tears — it is a remedy, a

tonic, orange juice for the ears. But for many of my neurological

patients, music is even more — it can provide access, even when no

medication can, to movement, to speech, to life. For them, music is not

a luxury, but a necessity.”

[10:25 a.m.]

There is no denying the power of music. Music helps us share our

culture and creates shared experiences. We are fortunate to have such a

vibrant and vital music scene in B.C., and I am thrilled to be able to

celebrate the incredible artists and businesses today as part of B.C.

Creative Industries Week.

In addition to our incredible musicians, B.C. is home to

presenters, venues and music companies that showcase B.C. talent. This

diverse industry creates jobs and supports local businesses through

events and festivals.

We relaunched B.C.’s fairs, festivals and events fund in February,

providing $30 million in grants which will bring people together and

attract visitors to B.C. Through our government’s partnership with

Creative B.C. and the B.C. Arts Council, we have taken action to support

11,000 people who work in the industry. We have literally amplified

thousands of voices, built local talent and helped to launch careers

through Amplify B.C.

Please join me in celebrating B.C.’s music industry. We are

grateful for all the people and businesses that entertain us and move us

each day with their creativity and resilience.

PETER’S YOUR INDEPENDENT GROCER

ANNIVERSARY EVENTS IN

KELOWNA

R. Merrifield: This last week I attended the anni­versary celebration of

Peter Boyd and his exceptional store, Peter’s Your Independent Grocer.

This celebration not only highlighted the success of Peter’s grocery

store but also shed light on the vital role of local food artisans in

our community.

Throughout the years, Peter’s dedication to providing the

best-quality products, exceptional customer service, support of new

Canadians and unwavering support for local food artisans has established

his store as a pillar in our community of Kelowna. His passion for

promoting local businesses and fostering relationships with food

artisans has helped strengthen the bond between the residents and the

local food scene.

At the anniversary events, several noteworthy female local food

artisans were showcased, offering a fantastic opportunity for our

community to appreciate their talent and hard work.

Las Mexicanas, a woman-led artisanal food company, presented us

with an array of delicious Mexican cuisine that transported us to the

heart of their cultural roots.

Umami “Crave the fifth” showcased their culinary prowess with a

selection of exquisite dishes that played with our taste buds, offering

a symphony of flavours that left us in awe.

Shuswap Coffee Co. literally energized the crowd with their

sustainably produced aromatic coffee blends. Their efforts to maintain

ethical and eco-friendly practices in their coffee production speak

volumes about their values.

St. Hubertus winery was on hand for tastings of their latest

vintages and showcasing some of the wines offered in Kelowna.

And last but not least, BABz offered delectable vegan options that

catered to the plant-based food enthusiasts in the crowd, showing how do

delicious and satisfying vegan cuisine can be.

In conclusion, Peter’s Your Independent Grocer’s anniversary

celebration was not only a tribute to the store’s success but also a

testament to the power of support for local food artisans. I left with

more than just a full belly but a full heart, seeing all that Peter is

doing to support our community.

Happy anniversary, Peter’s Your Independent Grocer.

EVERETT CROWLEY PARK

G. Chow: Oftentimes I talk about washrooms, but not today. Today I’m going

to talk about a garbage dump.

Once upon a time, there was a garbage dump in my riding of

Vancouver-Fraserview, on the unceded territory of the Coast Salish

peoples — a 40-hectare or 100-acre property that borders Burnaby city to

the east, Kerr Street to the west and Fraser River to the south. An area

one-tenth the size of Stanley Park was Vancouver’s garbage dump for

almost a quarter-century until 1967, when city council came to its

senses and closed it.

The landfill was decommissioned and covered with five feet of fill

to cap the entire area and left alone. As vegetation started growing in

the area, it became a popular destination for motocross riders. Many

ideas were proposed for the land, but nothing permanent panned

out.

In the mid-1980s, the Vancouver Natural History Society

recommended the area to be a low-development natural park, and the Kerr

Road Park Committee was founded.

In 1987, the Vancouver park board started work on the site,

building a small parking lot, some walking trails and viewpoints and

named it Everett Crowley Park in honour of the owner of Avalon Dairy,

which was Vancouver’s last independent dairy. Everett Crowley also

served as Vancouver park commissioner from 1961 to 1966.

[10:30 a.m.]

With time, the garbage dump was reforested by local vegetation and

invasive species. The Vancouver park board, along with the community,

took great efforts in planting thousands of native trees and wildflowers

to attract pollinator bees. Since 2002, there were annual Earth Day

planning activities and celebrations in the park.

I recall former Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan’s fondest saying when

I was on council: “If everyone lives in the world like Vancouver, we

need three Earths.”

Since we only have one Earth, we need to love it and treasure it.

Let’s come to my park, Everett Crowley Park, this Saturday, April

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. See you there.

Oral Questions

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING BY JUSTICE

SYSTEM

P. Milobar: Under this soft-on-crime Premier, crime and disorder in

neighbourhoods, business districts and on transit has never been worse,

and it’s completely out of control. This all began with his time as the

Attorney General, where we saw a 75 percent increase in no charge

assessments and, worse, a 40 percent decrease in the numbers of people

in jail.

Just yesterday this is what a chief of police had to say about

this Premier’s failed catch-and-release justice system. He said, “We’ve

lost sight of the victims. I don’t know if we’d even call it a justice

system any more.” That’s a chief of police acknowledging that he feels

we do not have a justice system any more in this province under this

Premier’s watch.

When will the Premier finally put the rights of victims and people

to be safe ahead of those who continue to re­offend on a daily

basis?

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for the question. Everybody deserves to

feel safe in their communities. We as a government have been taking

action on many levels to address the situation that’s happening in

communities.

From my part as Attorney General, the justice system, we have been

advocating for the federal government to make changes to the bail

policy. Cities across this country have been seeing a rise in repeat

violent offenders. Through our leadership and advocacy, we received a

commitment from the federal government to make those changes, and as

Attorney General, I’m monitoring that.

We’re also taking action in terms of investing in the supports and

the services needed in our justice system to help address this issue.

Recently we announced 12 hubs for the repeat violent offender

intervention initiative across this province to address the repeat

violent offenders and their impacts on communities.

We’ll continue to do the work necessary to increase safety in

communities.

Deputy Speaker: Member, supplemental.

P. Milobar: Frankly, none of that’s working. People don’t feel safer in their

neighbourhoods, and empty words and promises by this Premier and this

government are not making the situation better. By every measure, it’s

worse than it’s ever been.

People feel unsafe everywhere in this province — urban centres,

rural centres, in suburbs, you name it. They’re tired of the robotic

responses from this government and the lack of accountability from this

soft-on-crime Premier when it comes to assaults and violence and the

threatening of people every single day.

The simple fact is not only is this soft-on-crime Premier the

architect of the catch-and-release policies, he literally wrote the book

on how to sue the police.

Given this Premier’s past, it’s not surprising that during his

time as Attorney General, we saw that 75 percent increase in no charge

assessments and a 40 percent reduction in those jail populations. That’s

led to what we saw yesterday — a chief of police saying that we don’t

have a justice system in this province anymore, aligning with what the

public is saying.

The only people that seem to think things are getting better on

our streets are the members of the government. Everyone else outside of

this chamber knows the fear they’re living with on a daily

basis.

When will this Premier end his catch-and-release pol­icies

and prioritize the families of this province over the prolific

offenders?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their

communities, and we as a government are taking action on many levels.

This, unfortunately, is happening across the country, in countries and provinces, and we

were happy to join with ministers and Premiers from across this country

calling on the government for specific reforms to the bail policy in

order to address repeat violent offenders.

But we’re not stopping there. I’m working with my colleagues

across this government to invest in the programs and services needed to

address this challenge. We’re meeting with communities. We’re

understanding issues on the ground and responding.

We announced the largest increase in funding to police officers

across this country. We announced one of the largest calls to Crown

counsel under my ministry to help support the work that needs to be

done. We’ll continue to invest in the resources and the programs that

are needed to make the situation better.

PUBLIC SAFETY ON TRANSIT SYSTEMS

T. Halford: Yesterday we heard the Solicitor General say: “Everybody deserves

to feel safe.” We heard the Premier say: “Everybody deserves to feel

safe.” We’ve heard the Attorney General say: “Everybody deserves to feel

safe.”

In the communities in our province, people do not feel safe. On

our transit systems, people do not feel safe.

Another transit union representing SkyTrain workers is also

speaking out about unchecked violence on transit. Tony Rebelo, president

of CUPE 7000 says: “Our members are definitely concerned, and they have

been rattled, to tell you the truth.”

Sunday afternoon a 25-year-old woman, sexually as­saulted,

riding an escalator at the Granville Street SkyTrain station. People who

rely on our public transit system every day to get to work and to get to

school do not feel safe.

Will the Premier listen to CUPE? Will the Premier listen to

transit riders? Will the Premier listen to anyone and stand up and do

something about his soft-on-crime pol­icies in his

catch-and-release system?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question, and I want to address the two

issues that he raises.

First, in terms of our transit system, as I said yesterday, we are

working in my ministry. The director of police services is working very

closely with the transit police, the RCMP and the other policing

agencies, as well as unions, in terms of identifying potential gaps and

additional resources that may be required to ensure that we are doing

everything we can to make sure that our transit system, which is used by

over 400,000 people a day, is safe.

The issues that we have seen in terms of the attacks, which all of

us are horrified by, are not unique to this province but are, in fact,

occurring in transit systems across this country. Whether it’s Calgary,

Edmonton, Toronto, all have experienced similar situations.

I can tell you the Premiers of the provinces — all of the

provinces, because they’re all concerned about what they’re seeing in

their own jurisdictions — will be meeting on the 21st of April to deal

with this specific issue.

We are doing everything we can to ensure that our communities are

safe and to work with all levels of government and policing agencies,

unions and everybody involved in our transit systems to ensure that our

transit systems are safe for the public.

Deputy Speaker: Member, supplemental.

T. Halford: Let’s be very clear on this. It is the Premier’s failure to do his

job — to do his job when he was Attorney General and to do his job now

as he is Premier to keep people safe, whether they’re walking the

streets or whether they’re using public transit.

This Premier has seen an explosion of random violence under his

watch, and it continues every single day. People riding the bus, people

riding the SkyTrain, do not feel safe. The minister just referenced

transit police. We have got a police chief who says he would not even

call it a justice system any more. A police chief is saying that in this

province.

This is what Lara writes: “Nobody, regardless of age and gender,

feels safe in this city anymore. Criminals are arrested and let go the

next day. Nowhere is safe in Vancouver anymore. I do not feel safe

walking on the street.”

[10:40 a.m.]

My question to the Premier: how much longer will British

Columbians have to endure relentless violence before this Premier

finally decides to step up and do something and prioritize the safety of

our communities and our transit systems?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I notice that he quoted

a police chief saying that he doesn’t feel safe walking on the streets

in the city of Vancouver. But I note that they didn’t name the chief of

police. That would really assist in terms of understanding part of the

member’s question. If he would….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, two quotes but put together. But I still….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, a question has been asked. Let’s let the

minister have his response.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I make that observation because the opposition does have a habit

of, when they quote, which they do on a regular basis, naming the

individual they are quoting, yet today they are choosing not to do that.

Now, that is….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Please sit, Minister.

[The Deputy Speaker rose.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, please, we’ll have an answer to the question, and then

you’ll get to ask a question again. Thank you.

[The Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

As I said, that’s up to them. Now, to deal with the specific

issues that they have raised around transit safety, as I said, our

ministry is working closely with the police, transit police, the RCMP

and the agencies to determine what additional steps need to be taken. At

the same time, in terms of the federal jurisdiction around the Criminal

Code — which again, the opposition likes to raise — I will remind them

that that is federal jurisdiction.

We have pushed and have got a commitment from the federal

government to ensure that the reverse onus when it comes to bail

conditions is expanded to include a full range of weapons, not just

firearms but knives, bear spray and any kind of weapon. That’s real

action and commitment from this government. We are going to continue to

do everything we can to ensure that our communities are safe.

SHIPBREAKING ACTIVITIES IN

BAYNES SOUND AND

ENVIRONMENTAL

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

A. Olsen: Baynes Sound produces about half of British Columbia’s shellfish.

It’s an important economic, food, social and ceremonial site for K’ómoks

First Nation and has federal designation as an ecologically and

biologically sensitive area. Despite the significance, the province has

permitted shipbreaking, an environmentally hazardous industry, in Union

Bay.

In October 2021, the province issued a foreshore lease to Deep

Water Recovery that allows them to drag ships over the beach and onto

dry land.

In 2022, Deep Water Recovery was found to be out of compliance

four times under B.C.’s Environmental Management Act and hazardous waste

regulations. The company received three warnings and one advisory.

However, the company has not faced regulatory penalties, nor did the

province issue fines or revoke the original licence. By not acting, the

province is sanctioning this damage.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy. Will he take enforcement actions against Deep Water Recovery

to protect the environment and the people of Baynes Sound?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. As the member knows,

compliance and enforcement actions are taken by staff of the Ministry of

Environment on the ground, in this instance, as well as staff of other

ministries. I am very aware, as are my colleagues, of the concerns of

the community around Baynes Sound shipbreaking activities. There are

active investigations ongoing. When and if specific violations are

determined, action will be taken.

A. Olsen: I do understand where the regulatory and enforcement actions

happen. I also understand it’s the ministers that are government that

are responsible for ensuring companies and people are following the

rules and the regulations.

Ultimately, the responsibility lands on that side of the House.

K’ómoks First Nation opposes the shipbreaking operation. The Comox

Valley regional district has initiated a court action against Deep Water

Recovery.

[10:45 a.m.]

In June 2021, Transport Canada invited the province to participate

in a technical review of internationally recognized shipbreaking

regulations.

In March 2022, a group of NGOs sent a joint letter urging this

government to create regulation and follow the example from existing

legal frameworks and legislation.

In April 2022, the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal

Communities unanimously approved a motion calling on this government to

adopt shipbreaking regulations in B.C.

Despite these requests, the ministry has not taken any meaningful

action to regulate this hazardous industry. If properly regulated,

shipbreaking is an important industry. Without adequate provincial

oversight, however, this in­dustry poses serious risks to workers,

communities and our marine environments.

To the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, will

the minister regulate this activity that is actively imperiling the

health and the rights of First Nations?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you again, to the member for the question. I and my

colleagues realize this is a critically important issue to people who

live in the area. They have been communicating with us directly and

often. We have been meeting regularly with staff in my ministry and

staff in other ministries. This is an interjurisdictional issue, as the

member knows. It involves my ministry and the Ministry of Forests. It

also involves the federal government.

We’re working with other regulatory agencies, including Fisheries

and Oceans Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada as well as

WorkSafeBC with respect to the potential for asbestos exposures. We are

working to determine that the environment and human health are

protected, but the member also knows that there are procedures in

place.

There are laws that specify what compliance looks like. There are

matters of administrative fairness. We have visited the site —

inspectors from my ministry — multiple times, taken water samples for

independent analysis and issued warnings and one advisory to the company

under the Environmental Management Act. Activities and inspections

continue.

I and my colleagues continue to request and receive regular

briefings on this issue, and we will continue to do that to resolve this

issue for the people who live in the area.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES

AND IMPACT ON

BUSINESSES

E. Sturko: I actually find it appalling that this government would have to be

told that the person that we were quoting was police chief Dave Jones of

the Metro Vancouver Transit Police, because this has been all over the

media this morning. It’s clear that this government has no idea what’s

going on, so I’ll read the quote again from police chief Dave Jones of

the Metro Vancouver Transit Police.

He says: “We’ve lost sight of the victims. We hear that from

victim’s families. They feel victimized again. Has it gone so far that

people, whose laws they’re meant to protect…? They’re expressing

frustration and disbelief in it, and I don’t know if we can even call it

a justice system any more.”

He goes on to say: “You eventually come to a point where you sit

back and you realize how far we’ve gone. I think it just worries me as a

citizen. How am I protected within society?”

Because the reality is that this government’s soft-on-crime

policies go beyond the courtroom. It’s your abject failure to deal with

the root causes of crime, your failure to deal with…

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

E. Sturko: …mental health and addictions, social issues. Adding more police

to the problem is like putting a band-aid on a cancer. You have to deal

with the underlying cause.

Just yesterday, we learned of another violent attack in downtown

Victoria. An armed criminal brazenly robbed a busy Victoria jewelry

store in broad daylight. He shattered glass in a display case while

yelling and threatening staff with a hammer. This seems to be the second

time in under a week that the same hammer-wielding robber attacked the

same store.

How much longer must communities, small businesses, staff and the

public suffer the havoc caused by this Premier’s soft-on-crime

policies?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, because it gives me an

opportunity to outline the work that we have been doing and the actions

that we have been taking since we formed government.

[10:50 a.m.]

I have done that on a number of times in this House, in terms of

the police side, whether it’s the largest investment in policing in the

history of this province, whether it is the establishment of the hubs

and the increase in the number of Crown prosecutors or whether it’s

getting changes done at the federal level when it comes to the Criminal

Code of this country — all of those things that have to be in

place.

The forensic firearms lab. All of the things I’ve mentioned

before.

What I’d now like to do is to address some of the issues the

member just said, because on this side of the House we know that it is

about the root causes of crime, which is why we have been taking actions

to undo the neglect, the negligence on that side when they sat on this

side.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Shame? Shame? Shame?

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Shame?

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will tell you what shame is.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Shame was cutting $300 million from mental health services when

you sat on this side of the House.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: You want to say “gall” and “appalling,” hon. Member? Appalling was

cutting $35 million in supports for those on mental health

services.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Members.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Sit down, Minister.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Minister, sit down.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, we’ll come to order, and then we’ll move to the next

question.

E. Sturko: You know, we heard it from the Premier’s own handpicked expert

Doug LePard, and we see it in the evidence we see on our streets with

the chaos and violent attacks every day that criminals are emboldened by

the lack of consequences under this soft-on-crime Premier.

We now have a chief of police saying that we don’t have a justice

system any more. Crime is out of control, thanks to his time as Attorney

General, marked by a 75 percent increase in no-charge assessments and a

40 percent drop in people being kept behind bars.

The head of the downtown Victoria association, Jeff Bray, has

called this robbery a brazen attack and is calling on the province to

step up and deal with out-of-control violence. But people like Jeff have

no reason to trust a Premier who has spent his whole career putting

criminals ahead of victims.

When will the Premier listen to businesses suffering robbery after

robbery and end his soft-on-crime policies?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said a moment ago when they raised the question on the mental

health side of things, I reminded them they cut $35 million in supports

for mental health and addictions for youths. They completely deregulated

the recovery homes. And as Health Minister, the current Leader of the

Opposition cut over $300 million in the health system, which mental

health experts called staggering.

So we have spent a lot of time undoing the damage that they

did.

I also now want to address the quotes that the member has been

talking about. Remember I said I was a little puzzled as to why they

didn’t mention the chief’s name at the beginning? Now I’m able to

provide a little more context.

In an interview with Sophie Lui done today, she asks Chief Dave

Jones about the transit system: is it safe? Dave Jones says the transit

system is safe. He says the most recent data shows crime rates have

declined. Crimes against persons in 2022 dropped by 21 percent compared

to the year before, and crimes against property were down 33

percent.

That’s part of the interview. I appreciate that the opposition has

a job to do, but let’s at least try and get all the facts out

there.

That’s why I’ll repeat what I said. My ministry…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. We will have order in this chamber.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …is working with the transit police, with the unions, with the

RCMP, with the policing agencies. I will note that TransLink’s budget

for policing has increased 13 percent in this year. They would like to

see more officers. They want to see more resources.

As the Premier said yesterday, we are identifying those gaps, and

if more resources are needed, they will be there.

[10:55 a.m.]

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

ACTION ON COMMUNITY

SAFETY

S. Bond: What we’ve seen on display by the Premier and the Solicitor

General today is exactly why British Columbians are terrified, because

his opportunity to stand up in this House and acknowledge that people

are afraid, that a mother is experiencing the loss of a 17-year-old

child because of a transit bus incident….

We get those kinds of answers from this Solicitor General? He

should look at himself in the mirror and recognize that this is on the

shoulders of a Premier and former Attorney General who simply has not

done enough — period.

If the Premier and the Solicitor General want to talk about their

lack of attention to victims, let’s talk about Clint Smith in Nanaimo.

The Premier rolled on into Na­naimo and reannounced empty words.

Clint runs the auto shop, and he was shot in British Columbia while

trying to reclaim his property.

Clint is a victim, and here’s what Clint had to say to the

Solicitor General. He can bluster all he wants…. These are the words of

a victim in British Columbia. “A whole lot less of lip service” and “a

whole lot more action” is required.

When will the Premier end the lip service, acknowledge that there

is chaos reigning in British Columbia and that it is squarely on his

shoulders as a former Attorney General and the now Premier of British

Columbia? When will he stand up and do something?

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Minister of Public Safety.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The member has a role

to criticize me as the Solicitor General. I understand that. But I also

want to point out that we are dealing with situations, particularly when

it comes to the root causes of crime, that were very much started when

she and her colleagues of the United party sat and were in

government.

The last time the United party was in government, they made those

cuts to health care, to mental health services. They made those cuts to

mental health services. They made cuts to sexual assault centres. They

did irreparable damage to the social service sector, which provides the

supports that they now want to see in place, that this government is now

having to undo.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, there was silence when you asked the question.

Please provide the same respect when he gives an answer.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, this government does care about victims and realizes

the trauma they have been through, which is why we have taken

actions.

I’ll also say this to the member, in regard to that particular

individual, Clint. I did have a conversation with him in Nanaimo. I also

listened to his interview that he did on CKNW, where he also

acknowledged that the steps we’re taking were a step in the right

direction.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Go read the transcript, hon. Member. Go read the

transcript.

What I want to tell you, hon. Speaker, again….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please. You had your chance to ask a question. Give him a

chance to answer it.

Hon. M. Farnworth: When it comes to supporting victims, we didn’t cut victim

services, when they did when they were on this side of House. We’ve

increased victim services. We increased it.

We are working with the federal government, police agencies, local

governments, provincial Premiers right across this country to deal with

the challenges that all of us are facing to keep our communities safe.

We are going to continue doing that, and I am very proud of the work

this government is doing.

M. de Jong: Well, look. People are trying to reconcile what they are hearing

from the Premier, from his ministers today, yesterday with the reality

of what is going on out there. Does the Premier see what’s going on out

there, in cities across British Columbia, random violence at rates that

we have never seen before in this province, a provincial police chief

who seems to have given up on the justice system?

[11:00 a.m.]

Look, it has to be said. In cities across British Columbia, there

are times when it’s hard to walk four blocks and not trip over someone

who is strung out on the sidewalk with drug paraphernalia strewn

about.

If the Premier doesn’t think that the proliferation of drug use

that has taken place as a result of policies that he has introduced does

not lead to unpredictable behaviour and sometimes violent behaviour,

then he’s in denial. The Premier chose to expand the availability of

drugs without ensuring that detox on demand was available, and people

are paying the price. Those addicted are paying the price.

The Premier chose to warehouse the homeless without providing

adequate supports, and people are paying the price. The Premier has

defended, for years now, his catch-and-release justice

system…

Deputy Speaker: Question, Member.

M. de Jong: …that has seen random crime spiral out of control. Innocent

victims are paying the price. No one believes the Premier’s

announcements…

Deputy Speaker: Come to the question, please.

M. de Jong: …because no one has heard the Premier acknowledge that the chaos

we see in the streets are the result of his policies. Will the Premier

acknowledge and finally admit that it’s his failed policies that have

led to the chaos…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. de Jong: …that it’s his failed policies…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. de Jong: …that have led to the violence, and that it is his

policies…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. de Jong: …that have left British Columbians feeling unsafe in communities

right across the province?

Hon. D. Eby: When I was sworn in as Premier, there were four key areas of

priority that I laid out for British Columbians that we would work on:

the issue of housing, making sure you have an affordable place to live;

the issue of health care, making sure you have access to health care

when and where you need it, including family doctors; the issue of

public safety…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please have some respect.

Hon. D. Eby: …recognizing that everyone in our prov­ince has a right to

be safe…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: He listened to your questions. Listen to his answer with

respect.

Hon. D. Eby: …when they go to work, when they go to school, when they use

transit, at home; and to build a strong economy that works for

everybody.

On the issue of public safety, we’ve been aggressive with Ottawa.

It was the Minister of Public Safety and the Attorney General who led

the charge nationally to get the federal government to commit to change

their bail laws to fix the problems that have been caused by that

change.

On that national front, we are unified with Premiers across

Canada, meeting with the chiefs of police from across Canada on April

21, in just three days, in an emergency meeting, called for by all the

Premiers, to respond to this issue that we’re seeing across the country.

This is a very serious issue. It deserves to be treated with

seriousness.

I have to say, I regret very much the members standing up and

pretending that our response to the toxic drug overdose crisis was not

endorsed by all the parties in this House except for the B.C.

Conservatives. They were the only party that did not endorse that

approach.

It’s a complicated and challenging issue of keeping peo­ple

alive so they can get into treatment — $1 billion we put into the budget

to expand treatment options for people. We’re going to continue to do

that work. The members on both sides of the House know this is a

complicated national issue, but B.C. is showing leadership every single

day.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Deputy Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Representative for Children

and Youth’s report Advocating for Change: Five Years in

Review .

Hon. B. Ma: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[11:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ma: They slipped in and slipped out really quietly right during question

period, but we were graced by the presence of 30 grade 11 students from

Sutherland Secondary from my community of North Vancouver.

They were here as part of the global perspectives program led by their

teachers, Jeffrey Aw-Yong, James Nevison and Claudia Panton. It’s quite a

fantastic program. By doing this one semester-long program, they earn

12 all at once.

They’ve already gone, but I think they’re still in the Legislature, so

I would the House please join me in making them feel welcome to the

building.

Reports from Committees

SELECTION COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have the honour to present the second report of the Special

Committee of Selection for the fourth session of the 42nd

parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call continued debate on Committee of Supply of the

Ministry of Housing.

In committee room A, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply

for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

In committee room C, I call continued debate on the Ministry of Jobs,

Economic Development and Innovation.

Deputy Speaker: We will take a short recess to get everyone in their appropriate places,

and then we’ll proceed with the business of the day.

The House recessed at 11:06 a.m.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HOUSING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Tegart in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:12 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning. I call Committee of Supply,

Section B, to

order.

We’re meeting today to consideration of the estimates of the

Ministry of Housing.

I now recognize the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $884,436,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

I now recognize the member for West

Vancouver–​Capilano.

K. Kirkpatrick: Welcome back to the minister and his team. The minister was

talking about 114,000 units that were initially promised by this

government over ten years. We discussed that a little bit yesterday. I

just want to ask a bit more about that. So it would appear, this year in

the budget, that the NDP has backed off that commitment to 114,000

homes, as it wasn’t in the budget. And they haven’t provided updates on

the status of individual Building B.C. programs.

Yesterday, however, I heard the minister say that there was still

a commitment to those 114,000, to that target of 114,000. Now we know

that that target was grossly inadequate for what British Columbia needs

in order to address this housing crisis. So why was the NDP promise to

build 114,000 homes not mentioned in the budget?

Hon. R. Kahlon: So the member says that the ambitious goal of 114,000 units was

grossly inadequate. I would highlight to the member that they came

nowhere close to that in 16 years, when they were in government. It

shows you the challenge that we’ve had and how far behind we are when it

comes to investments in housing.

To the second question from the member, I would say that we are on

track, and we, in fact, will surpass 114,000. The housing strategy that

we’ve launched highlights that the challenge has, in fact, grown. The

headwinds we’re facing have grown, coming out of the pandemic, and we’re

going to require more action in the province. Those numbers, of course,

are reflected in the Homes for People strategy.

[11:15 a.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I will mention this because the

minister mentioned it. A question that I have here is: when will the

minister and this government take responsibility for their lack of the

ability to address the housing crisis rather than continually blaming

the previous government for their last seven years of

inaction?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the acknowledgment of the lack of action that was

done prior to us coming into government. I think that the member

mentioned in the initial comment that the numbers weren’t in the budget.

We’re not quite sure what she was referring to. Page 11 of the budget

laid out the record investments in housing, both operating and capital

investments, to address the challenges we are facing in the housing

crisis across the province.

K. Kirkpatrick: There is discussion of record investment, but there is no longer a

target, unless I have missed that somewhere. That 114,000 target has

been removed, and I do not see a new target.

I also just heard the minister, if I heard correctly, say that the

NDP has exceeded the target of 114,000. Will the minister clarify what I

heard there?

Hon. R. Kahlon: What I’ve said — I said it yesterday, and I’ll say it again — is

we had an ambitious target of 114,000 units coming online. We, in fact,

will meet that target. We are on track. In fact, we will surpass it. We

have to surpass it, because we know the needs have only grown coming out

of the pandemic.

K. Kirkpatrick: So the minister is confirming that the 114,000 commitment made in

2017 to have new builds of 114,000 — they will actually meet that goal

by the end of that initial ten-year period?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the commitment when the initial housing strategy was

launched was that 114,000 units would come from direct investments in

housing. It was going to come through student housing. It was going to

come through funding, partnering with not-for-profits, partnering with

the private sector. It was also going to come through policy. Changes

like the speculation tax, which brought 20,000 units back

online.

All those pieces are important, because those were units that were

not available to people. Now I highlighted for the member across the way

that that’s 20,000 units that are available to people right now that

weren’t available. Students that are out at UBC now are five, six of

them living in mansions.

The strategy from the beginning was that. I actually highlighted

for the member comments that were made in estimates from both the critic

before her and the minister before me, both sides acknowledging that

they understood that it was going to be that way. That commitment

continues to hold. We are on track to get the 114,000, and we’re going

to continue to work to surpass that, because we know the need has

grown.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m going to stick on that number for a little bit because it is

being kicked around and a major part of the initial 2017 platform. I

would like to just quote from the NDP election promise: “…build 114,000

affordable rental, non-profit, co-op and owner-purchasing housing

units.” Then, it continues on to talk about what the minister has said

in terms of housing for singles, seniors, families. But the word “build”

there, I think, is important to remember.

Will this NDP government be meeting that 114,000, and I understand

they will, but will they be doing it with new housing stock as opposed

to other policies that have been bringing stock back onto the

market?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s going to be long 15 hours if we’re just going back and forth

on this question. I’ll say it again, which is the 114,000 units that we

committed to as part of our initial housing strategy was everything from

direct investments, working with the private sector, policy-related

measures, working with the federal government.

[11:20 a.m.]

All those measures were part of it. It was reflected in the

estimates. Both the critic at the time and the Minister Responsible for

Housing at the time acknowledged that that was the case, and that

remains the case now.

We also have increased the amount of funding that’s available for

housing, which we also canvassed yesterday. I’m happy to do this back

and forth, but I’m sure we can find better use of this time, getting

into the numbers and going into more detail.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thanks to the minister. The reason that we’re

going back and forth is because we need, and it’s my responsibility, to

ensure that we have got clarity on what the answer is. I’m going to say

what I believe the answer is, and then we can move on to some additional

questions.

I heard the minister say that initial 114,000 units that were

promised will actually be created, built by this government. I shouldn’t

say built because that’s the challenge here. We’re not using the word

“built.” There will be 114,000 additional units based on that initial

promise, but it will also include not just new units. It will include a

whole number of measures.

So if I can just confirm that, and then you have my word that I

shall move onto a new question.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can tell the member that the commitment we made, part of the

initial housing strategy, which was to deliver 114,000 units within ten

years, is something that we will meet and that we will surpass. We are

on target. That will come through policy. It will come through direct

investments. That will come through partnering with the private sector,

and it will come through partnering with the federal

government.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. We’re going to get our exercise here.

This is quick.

If the minister…. I’ve got a number of programs, and what I’m

looking for is the actual number of units created in each of these

programs. I’m wondering if I can just perhaps list the programs rather

than get up and down and say each one individually. Then see if we can

get numbers on the number of units completed.

Just to clarify, this is not the number of units that are

currently underway. It’s actually completed. That would be in the

affordable rental housing program; deepening affordability; community

housing fund; women’s transition housing; Indigenous housing; rapid

response to homelessness; supportive housing fund — we’re almost there;

homelessness action plan; and the HousingHub.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I will go through all those pieces for the member. Under the

affordable rental housing, we have 465 complete, 396 under construction,

181 in development and 105 initiated. Under the rapid response to

homelessness, we have 1,894 complete. Under deepening affordability, we

have 1,809 complete, 230 under construction.

It might be easier for me to just give this to you in writing. Is

that easier for you?

Interjection.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll read it now. Then I’ll get it…. I’ll share that with the

member after.

[11:25 a.m.]

Community housing fund, 1,475 complete. Women’s transition house

funding, 188 complete. Supportive housing fund, 1,812 complete.

Indigenous housing fund, 427 complete. Homelessness action plan, 409

complete. That’s under the Building B.C. program.

We have also non–Building B.C. programs. You’ve only asked for two

of them, but there are many more. So I’ll share the HousingHub, the

provincial rental supply, 3,194, and the HousingHub affordable home

ownership, 135.

Now, it’s important to note, and I know the member knows this,

that it takes, from putting money into the budget, sometimes three,

four, five, six years for housing units to get complete. I wish it was

faster. But that’s the unfortunate side of getting through permits and

other things. So a lot of the investments we made when we first formed

government are reflected in the completes, and a lot of the money we

made the years after are part of the under construction, in development

and initiated.

I can share with the member that under Building B.C. programs,

complete, under construction, in development projects are 20,825. Under

the non–Building B.C. that are under the complete and under development,

it’s 11,672.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you very much to the minister. He even answered my next

question, which was: how many are in the initiated process? I believe

that those are part of the numbers that the minister is going to provide

to me.

B.C. Housing has significantly reduced its transparency of its

capital progress reports. It no longer provides up­dates for

individual housing programs. Can the minister explain why that

is?

Hon. R. Kahlon: B.C. Housing does a lot of work to ensure transparency. The member

had many questions yesterday around many issues, or many topics, around

B.C. Housing, and I was able to point to the service plan, where it’s

actually made really clear to people so they can get a sense of what’s

happening.

A lot of the progress is reported on the B.C. Housing website. The

Q3 report is just being finalized to reflect the additional funding from

the Homes for People strategy and will be released very soon.

K. Kirkpatrick: Now, the service plan is not the same as an accountability report,

and the accountability reports are showing how progress is being made in

more specific ways. Will the minister confirm or commit that future B.C.

Housing capital updates will revert back to the original style and

accountability format?

There has actually been a change in the information that’s being

provided. It used to include providing the numbers of housing units

complete, in development, under construction and initiated for each

individual housing funding stream, much like the information you have

provided and read to me. Will that be once again available on the B.C.

Housing site?

[11:30 a.m.]

The information is still made public. The format of how it’s

shared has changed to make it more user-friendly to be able to navigate.

The questions the member has asked around specific programs and the

progress, that’s all on the site.

We can share the link with you so that you can see. Quarter 2 is

up on the site right now. Quarter 3 is just being updated to reflect the

additional supports that we have in this budget for housing. Once that’s

done, that will be made public — happy to send you a link so that you’ve

got that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. That link would be appreciated. It

sounds to me like you’re saying that the information that was previously

provided is still provided, just perhaps in a different format or a

different location. I appreciate that.

I’m going to ask a bit about transition housing. As we know,

families fleeing violence, domestic violence…. The inability for someone

to leave a dangerous scenario be­cause they don’t have somewhere

else to go, somewhere that they can have access to, that they can

afford. But it seems that the number of transition houses that have

actually been completed by this government is significantly smaller than

the 1,500 that were promised. Why is that? And can the minister confirm

how many of those transition homes are actually open at this

point?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: On the women’s transition housing funding, I think it’s important

to know that part of our 2018 commitment was to build 1,500 units for

women fleeing domestic violence. Part of our 2023 budget is an

additional $1.1 billion, so the target from 1,500 is now going to go up

to 3,000 because of the commitments, plus $118 million additional

operating subsidies because of a reflection of the cost pressures that

many operators are facing.

Now, we do have a challenge with this type of housing to bring it

on line in that it’s complex in the way that the buildings need to be

designed because it needs to be done in a more sensitive way. I can

share with the member that we have 188 complete, 546 units that are

under construction right now and 164 of them that are going through

development approvals.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister confirm just from a timing perspective, then, the

initial 1,500, of which I understand him to have just said 188 have been

completed? When will that initial 1,500 promise be met for the initial?

Then the additional 1,500, which is good to hear — when will those be

completed by?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The question is part of our original ten-year plan, where we’ll be

in the year ’27-28. We project we will be either complete or under

construction of 2,375 units. Now the member will say how many will be

complete, and I will say that at that pace I’m fairly confident we’ll

meet our 1,500 commitment of open by that date.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Recently, the minister announced to

legislatively upzone single-family lots to three to four units

provincewide.

[11:40 a.m.]

There have been a lot of questions about how that’s going to work.

There’s been a bit of a development freeze as some communities and some

developers are waiting to see what impact that’s going to have to their

future projects.

So a few questions around this. The first being: what does the

ministry anticipate will happen to property values once this upzoning

takes place?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the question.

We know how critically important it is to ensure that housing be

available for young families, for seniors who are looking for additional

cash flow opportunities in their home, opportunities for families to

stay united. So that’s why we’re advancing these policies, in particular

on the small-scale multi-unit.

Now I can share with the member that clearly when one lot gets

upzoned, we often see a significant increase in value in that one lot.

That’s why many would argue that spot zoning is not the most effective

way to build affordable housing.

We can share that, in the example of New Zealand, they did it in

large areas, which mitigated the lift in property value because it was

spread over a larger area, as opposed to being done in one specific

area. We believe that is the benefit of doing it in a large area of the

province, because the property value lift will be less than if it were

an individual site being upzoned.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’m not sure I heard…. That was a lot

of information provided to me there.

So there is a belief that the upzoning will result in an increase

in property values. I believe in New Zealand they use minimum density

requirements, which was rather than specifically zoning properties — for

example, as a fourplex — as long as the community met those minimum

density requirements, that there would be more flexibility in terms of

where that density would be taking place.

Does the minister believe that this will make it harder for

families who want to acquire a single-family lot to be able to purchase

one?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would say that it’s hard right now for young families to acquire

a lot. Many parts of the community…. There were some areas of the

province where it was a little more affordable at some points. But

certainly, coming out of the pandemic with the record numbers of people,

we’ve seen, with low interest rates…. And quite frankly, the mobility of

labour. We always say capital is mobile. Now labour is mobile. People

are moving from cities to smaller communities, which is putting pressure

on housing across the province.

So I would say that right now it’s not affordable. For zoning to

be in place that says only a single-family home can be built on that

parcel of land will actually make it less affordable for young families

to be able to purchase. Giving them options, giving the ability for

options, I think will make it more affordable for families.

In fact, we’ve seen it in the New Zealand example, where prices

flattened, rents flattened, compared to all their jurisdictions. So,

yes. I believe that this type of policy change will make more affordable

options available for families.

I can also share with the member that we’ve seen other benefits as

well. There’s a woman named Kathleen Higgins in my riding who rezoned

her property to have four units be built on it. Now she lives in one

unit with her partner, and her kids live in the individual

units.

So now the question would be: why is that success that we all

celebrated only available to one family? So there will be options for

others. I’ve heard from young folks at the UBCM — young councillors, in

fact — who said: “Does this mean now that I’ll be able to go with a few

of my friends, get a property and all of us build our own units within

that, and maybe even live together?” And I said: “Yeah.” These are the

types of opportunities we want to create.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. No debate from me that

affordability is an issue and that we have the highest affordability

crisis we’ve ever had in housing.

[11:45 a.m.]

The specific answer was with respect to single-family lots.

Because there is very little detail on how this program and the upzoning

is going to be rolling out, will there be single-family lots available

for families anywhere in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Single-family homes will continue to be built if people can afford

them and want them. That’s going to be going forward. What we’re simply

saying with where we’re going is that now there will be options for

others. In many communities….

I grew up in a single-family home. I was lucky. My parents were

able to buy it at a price that I can’t even say here, because I don’t

want to be ridiculed. But it was a different time in the ’70s. Now, it’s

just simply too far out of reach for too many young families. But for

some, it is still an option. What we’re saying is that the market will

decide what kind of units get built on those lots. Those that want it

and can afford it will continue to have it. But those that feel the

prices are too high and want other options will have those

options.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for the answer. To the minister, then, maybe I can ask a

bit around tax implications of this. We know that highest and best

value, your B.C. assessment, is going to come in now. The minister can

correct me if I’m wrong. My single-family home is now sitting on a lot

that can be zoned for a fourplex. What impact is that going to have on

my property taxes?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member knows that the property tax policy is done at Finance.

But I would say that the value of homes is assessed with the zoning that

exists now, not what it might be down in the future. But specific

property tax questions would be better for the Ministry of

Finance.

K. Kirkpatrick: I understand the need to ask tax questions to the Minister of

Finance. But, certainly, the implications of this new zoning impact

costs, and taxes are a big part of this. Is the province anticipating an

increase in tax revenues from this zoning change? I believe that’s

something that the Minister of Housing would discuss with the Minister

of Finance.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the ques­tion. Property

assessments are based on sales in the area. It will be reflected in

sales, maybe in future years. But it’s hard to project that

now.

K. Kirkpatrick: Is the province considering any land value capture taxes to tax

the result of the upzoning policy? As I’m sure the minister knows,

Generation Squeeze was here. They’re calling on government to implement

a land value capture tax in tandem with this policy. Is that something

that’s been discussed with the Minister of Housing and the Minister of

Finance?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s important to ground this in that the reason why we’re

going in this direction is that too many young families are priced out

of housing. It’s a generation, now, that will not have the same

opportunities that generations before had. The reason for that is that

we don’t want to lose young families to other provinces because they

simply can’t afford to live here. That’s why we want to give more

options.

[11:50 a.m.]

It’s not necessarily to get more tax revenues. Certainly, I’m not

saying that’s what the member is intending to say, but I’m just saying

that for the record. All the tax-related pieces are the Ministry of

Finance, so I’m not able to give the member any response to her

answer.

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate that. I do think that any time policy is being made

and tax implications are an important piece of it, it needs to be done

in concert with Ministry of Finance.

I want to just go back to the initial question I had on property

values. Does the minister believe that it will not drive speculation,

where developers have the opportunity to come in and to begin to buy up

single-family homes, because they know they’re going to be able to

rezone to triplex or fourplex?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, if we were zoning in small areas, that is something you

would see, but because we’re going in such a large area, we don’t expect

to see that type of thing.

What we’re hoping is those, in particular in the private sector —

but not only, maybe some of the not-for-profit sector also — see an

opportunity to be able to build more units, because we desperately need

them. That’s what our hope is from the policies. I can’t share any more

on that.

K. Kirkpatrick: I do think it’s naive to believe the real estate sector — whether

they’re for-profit, not-for-profit, social development — would not see a

financial incentive to begin to buy up single-family lots, which would

ultimately push up the price of land across the board from this

rezoning.

It concerns me that I heard the minister say that the minister did

not believe that would actually be the result. May I just confirm, then,

on the record, that the minister does not believe this new upzoning will

drive speculation and push real estate prices up?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I have answered the question, which is that if the upzoning

was in a small area, we could certainly see that, but the lessons

learned from other jurisdictions — New Zealand, California, Oregon,

Washington state, other areas where they’ve done this — is that we

haven’t seen, because of the upzoning in large areas, the same

significance.

Now, the member knows that most of our housing is built by private

sector. Yes, the private sector is going to look to make a profit. This

is how our free market works. We will see some in the private sector see

an opportunity to build more units than a single-family home, because

it’s going to be dictated by the market. That will be more affordable

for people, unless people can afford it and they want a single-family

home.

To the original point the member made, certainly, no one over here

is naive. We understand that we’re in a housing crisis. We desperately

need more units to come online, and we believe the private sector has an

important role to play in that. That’s why the zoning is going to be in

a large area of the province as opposed to confined to a small specific

area, because we know that the land value lift will be much less when

it’s in a larger area than when it is specifically in small areas of the

province.

The Chair: Member, one last question.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you very much.

Location matters. Although I appreciate the minister’s answer,

certainly, if we’re dealing in a smaller rural area, it’s not going to

have that same impact.

Whereas if we’re dealing with something in a more

urban, compacted area, where there’s more of a pressure on

densification, the likelihood of that not actually driving speculation

in those communities…. I do think that is unlikely.

I know we’re running out of time. My next question might be long.

Shall I just sit?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have ten more hours of discussion, so we have plenty of time to

go through all these things.

At this point, I move that the committee

rise, report progress on estimates of the Ministry of Housing and seek

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: The House is adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION

AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply,

Section A,

to order.

We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates

of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

I now recognize the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,020,919,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

I now recognize the Leader of the Third Party.

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m glad to have an opportunity to ask just

a few questions about one of my favourite topics, which is public

transportation. I’ll just start with a little anecdote, as I’m inclined

to do often.

My son is getting ready to go to UVic in the fall and has been

spending a few days checking out the campus, checking out classes. The

first day he did this, a couple of months ago, he came to Victoria on

the commuter bus from Shawnigan, a $10 bus ride, and then was able to

purchase a day-long bus pass for every bus in the CRD for $5. One bus

ride, $10. Bus rides all over the CRD, $5.

He was so delighted with the ability to get anywhere he needed to

within the CRD by bus. He came home aglow because this is so different

from the experience that he has had growing up in Cowichan. In looking

for work for his gap year, he was really limited to either Shawnigan

Lake or Mill Bay. The bus

schedule to Duncan really made it impossible

for him to be able to get to and from work without a car. The commuter

bus system really, also, couldn’t serve his needs.

It was great to hear yesterday about the improvements and the

rapid buses and all of the really great investments into the transit

system here in the capital regional district. Then you leave the capital

regional district, and it is a bus desert. It’s not an oasis.

The argument that often happens — and I was transit chair, for a

while, at the CVRD — is: “Well, we just don’t have the ridership.” But

we know with public transit…. We know that until the system is reliable,

accessible, easy to use, there when you need it, you won’t get the

ridership. People can’t rely on a system that isn’t there for them and

that doesn’t meet their needs. We’re in this relentless

chicken-and-egg.

I guess my first question to the minister really is…. It’s eight

in the morning. There is one person in the Cowichan Valley who needs to

get to Victoria, and there’s one person in Victoria who needs to get to

the Cowichan Valley. Neither owns a car. What do they do?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member. I know we’ve talked before about the

Cowichan Valley Commuter. It’s a relatively new service. It came into

existence not too long after this government was elected and began

increasing its

schedule and service before the pandemic. It had a rough

go during the pandemic, as bus service did generally.

[11:15 a.m.]

I believe we have now restored about four-fifths of the

pre-pandemic service, in terms of frequency, of the Cowichan-to-Victoria

service. We’ve also introduced one from Cowichan to Nanaimo, a brand-new

service that was introduced last year. We’re working on an

intercommunity bus strategy that is not just about Vancouver Island but

around the province. We were one of the provinces that introduced the

recovery of service routes to about 85 percent or 90 percent of where

they were prior to when Greyhound vacated British Columbia.

We regularly compare the strategies of other provinces, and

British Columbia is much further ahead than most of the jurisdictions

across Canada, who have now all completely lost Greyhound service. I

won’t go too far down that road, because I know she didn’t specifically

ask about Greyhound. But what I would say is that the Cowichan Commuter

goes from one separate, distinct regional district to

another.

B.C. Transit serves both communities as a Crown corporation. They

are continually engaging riders to look at recovering demand for

service. I will expect that additional service will be added on the

basis of that demand management for the service and continuing to

understand ridership patterns. That’s how any bus route and

schedule is

really determined in any transit system.

But I would also ask the member to maybe recognize that the

Cowichan Valley Commuter is not a typical route. It’s over 65 kilometres

in duration. It’s a much longer commute between distinct regional

districts. In a way, it’s a little bit like the West Coast Express in

Vancouver, which costs about $7 or $8 per trip, depending on your end

destination. If you buy a monthly pass, if you’re a regular commuter

from Cowichan to Victoria, the savings are significantly better. It

would be about $5 a trip, which is not bad for about two hours of

commuting — an hour each way — on the bus.

We’re going to continue to engage riders to see if there’s

additional demand to restore service and then add service. We’re going

to continue to evaluate where it is that commuters want to stop at,

because it is an express service. We’re going to continue to add service

like it throughout B.C. Transit’s system. We’ve added intercommunity

B.C. Transit service in the southern Interior, in the Okanagan, in

northern British Columbia and on Vancouver Island. I know many of these

services are in the member’s constituency, so I’m sure she’s pleased

that the Nanaimo-Cowichan express came into existence in

B.C. Transit is supported by the budget that is under discussion

under estimates to continue to deliver on new initiatives and new

innovations and continue to engage with ridership to see what the

patterns are. Things are different after the pandemic. There’s no

question about it.

Commutes to work are different. Work arrangements are different

for a lot of people in the workforce. All that has to be taken into

account as we prioritize the deployment of resources to get more people

to use public transit and give them opportunities to make their commute

on a public transit option.

S. Furstenau: The question I actually asked was not specifically about the

Cowichan Valley Commuter bus, which I’m well aware…. It actually existed

before this government. It existed before 2017. That’s one piece of a

puzzle, but that’s not regular transit between regions.

Now, let’s compare Sooke. Similar distance between Sooke and

Victoria — 38 buses a day. So when the minister indicates, “Well, that’s

a different region,” I think that this is actually the issue that we

have to solve. When it comes to public transit, we have to look at the

fact that over 20,000 cars a day are coming over the Malahat.

There is a huge amount of connection between Cowichan and the

capital regional district in terms of the number of people who come to

work or to school over the Malahat every single day. So the thinking

that is going to get us to different outcomes when it comes to transit

on southern Vancouver Island, which is what I think we have to be

thinking about, is….

[11:20 a.m.]

Stop thinking like: “Here the CRD ends, and we no longer consider

that as part of our thinking when it comes to public transit, because

that’s the CVRD, and that is a different realm.” We know that’s not the

case. Tens of thousands of people every day cross between the realms,

keep economic activity going and are an important part of

this.

Then there are a whole bunch of people who can’t. If you don’t

have a car at eight in the morning and you’re in Cowichan, you can’t get

to the CRD, and if you’re at eight in the morning and you’re in the CRD,

you can’t get to Cowichan by bus.

I figured out a few ways. You can take the Mill Bay ferry. You

have to get to Saanich and then take the ferry. But then the bus

schedule doesn’t align with the ferry schedule. So you’re going to be

spending a lot of time waiting at Mill Bay ferry terminal, where there’s

nothing there, until maybe a bus comes, quite a bit later. That’s one

option.

The other option is that you could take Harbour Air. You could go

to Vancouver harbour and then to Maple Bay. Honestly, I’m not being

facetious. There is no way between these two regions, and I think that

that can be solved by thinking differently about these regions, not

separating them when it comes to transit planning.

Bring the Cowichan Valley regional district and the Nanaimo

regional district to the table for south Island transit planning.

Recognize that these regions are deeply connected and that people are

moving between them every single day. Start making public transportation

planning oriented towards: how do we keep people moving on southern

Vancouver Island in an effective, efficient, affordable way? I think

that we could get to a lot of solutions that way.

Honestly, unless the minister has another answer for me — and I’ll

ask him again; maybe his staff knows something that I don’t know: at

eight in the morning, if you don’t have a car, you’re in one of these

two regions, and you want to get to the other, how do you do

it?

Hon. R. Fleming: As I said to the member, again, we are in a unique situation,

recovering from the pandemic. B.C. Transit has done an excellent job,

compared to any other transportation authority in North America, by all

comparables.

Ridership is coming back, but we’re looking at it on a

route-by-route basis. Those that seek to commute from Cowichan, for work

or other purposes, to the capital region — generally, downtown Victoria

— are part of an engagement. Ridership has still not recovered very

significantly, but I know that B.C. Transit is looking at ways to

promote and add back service there.

Her question is not just for me, though. I do want to say this:

the Victoria Regional Transit Commission, on this end of the journey

that she speaks of, between Cowichan and Victoria, is composed of mayors

and elected councillors. Their job, under the legislation, is to decide

on routes and services.

I would suggest the member should not just communicate with me but

also communicate with people who are elected to represent the capital

region, who decide on where they would like to deploy new and additional

service. People are looking at where commuting patterns are. They’re

looking at where the biggest environmental benefit can be

had.

Obviously, one of the priority decisions on service expansion that

was recently announced and made was between the West Shore and downtown.

This will literally take hundreds of vehicles off the same highway that

the member speaks of, will actually have an appreciable difference in

reducing greenhouse gases and is a high-impact, efficient investment

that elected members of local government made.

Don’t forget: those that pay fares are local constituents of

mayors and councillors. Ratepayers, through their property tax,

contribute a significant amount of funding. I applaud and support the

integration between different regional districts, and we have lots of

examples of where that happens, but there is a different set of

taxpayers in the Cowichan than there is in the capital

region.

They’ve obviously agreed that a service between the two regional

districts is important. What they now have to agree upon is a strategy.

I would suggest it’s best informed by data analytics and engaging with

users — which is happening through B.C. Transit — to get that in a

priority list that is considered alongside other investments that are

needed.

[11:25 a.m.]

The reason why Sooke has had enhanced service is be­cause

our government invested significantly on Highway 14, and there was

significant demand from Sooke. The expanded service there is excellent.

It has made sure that our highway investments are going to go a lot

further, because we’re not going to clog it up with cars. We’re going to

shift people to transit. We want to do the same thing on the Malahat,

and we want to build upon the service that we have.

I guess, at the end of the day, I’m asking for a bit of patience

from the member. We’ve gone through a pandemic. We’re rebuilding service

everywhere in the prov­ince. To inform a decision to add back or

enhance service pre-pandemic on the Cowichan Commuter, we’re going to

continue to rely on management and elected officials that are our

partners to collaborate on making that a priority.

S. Furstenau: This will be my final question. Thank you to the official

opposition for the opportunity.

I didn’t get an answer on the 8 a.m., trying to get

be­tween…. I think, in response to the minister’s comments: yes,

obviously, there are other tables involved here, but there is a need for

leadership from the province.

The role of the province is really to have the bird’s-eye view on

this and to recognize that the regions are going to be focused on

themselves. The province has a role to play to make sure that, as the

minister says, post-pandemic public transit world really recognizes how

important it’s going to be to create accessible, reliable public

transit.

The difference between the Sooke and the Cowichan is the price as

well. It’s a couple dollars to catch the bus from Sooke to Victoria.

It’s $10 one way from Cowichan. It’s $20. I know there’s a monthly pass.

So as an experiment, put a bunch of buses on for a couple of months.

Make them very low cost, and see how many people choose to ride them.

That’s how you’re going to collect data about the willingness or

interest in ridership.

Having the system as it exists right now, which is very limited

and very expensive, is not a good indication of what the desire for

public transit is between these two regions, because it’s inaccessible

on a number of levels — the timing, the cost, the inability to go in

either direction at any time other than once a day.

I just think that there’s a real opportunity for out-of-the box

thinking that says: “How can we create the conditions so that most

people who want to access public transit actually can do it?” Right now

those conditions don’t exist between Cowichan and the CRD, and I think

this is solvable.

The last I’ll end with very briefly — if the minister could just

speak to the decision to wait, really to the last moment, on the E&N

railway, to come out with the province making an announcement about

funding going to First Nations around potential next steps. Just so

people can understand, what informed the decision to wait right to the

last minute? That will be my last question.

Hon. R. Fleming: On the

preamble point there about Cowichan Commuter, and just to

maybe offer some final comments to the member’s questions there, I take

away the suggestions she’s made, because I think there is a balancing

act between looking at demand and not losing sight of potential demand.

So I think she makes a good case there, and there are lots of examples

of where one needs to be certain about what the data is actually telling

you and what might be missing.

But for sure, demand is down — there’s no question about it — on

the Cowichan Commuter post-pandemic. Work patterns have simply changed.

There is less demand right now. We want to make sure that there isn’t

some kind of suppressed demand that could come back, but the member has

to concede that there may not be such a thing.

I will commit to working with her and the B.C. Transit executive.

There may be some information she doesn’t have that B.C. Transit has,

and we’ll commit to sharing that as well. Certainly, we want to

strengthen public transit everywhere, which we’re doing in most

communities.

I think we’re in a good place overall in our transit system. We

have some community service by B.C. Transit that is at 110, 115 percent

of their pre-pandemic ridership levels, which is extraordinary. We have

some that are still in the phase of building back, and we’ll continue to

work on that.

[11:30 a.m.]

In terms of Island rail, I want to stress that our government did

not wait until the last minute. In fact, we grew a little bit tired of

waiting for the federal government — which, by the way, is the

respondent to the court action that was sought originally by the Nanoose

Bay Indian Band.

We expected the federal government, especially given that this

Island Rail Corridor was an

article of Confederation that united

Vancouver Island with British Columbia, would take an interest, given

that it was divested, given that they used to operate a passenger rail

service here until 2011 and pulled VIA Rail out of here, given that

they’re making rail investments in other provinces.

We begged their attention and begged them to have an adequate

response and to understand that this corridor, even if it’s not

important or feasible today or next year or the year thereafter, will be

important again to Vancouver Island — especially given that we only have

one north-south corridor, which is the Island Highway, available to us

to connect different parts of the of the Island; and especially because

we just went through the atmospheric river, and we know that there are

economic costs coming from that.

The federal government did not want to lead an engagement. They

did not want to work with regional districts. They did not want to work

with First Nations people directly. They preferred the province to lead

that exercise. So we didn’t wait for them. We got involved.

There was an 18-month response period. We spent 16 months doing

public engagement — the province. We tried to get the federal government

to attend. Sometimes they did; most times they didn’t. We tried to get

them to come up with an investment plan. We said: “We have some

ambitions here, and we would like to do it as well.” We tried to get

them to lend support and capacity-building to the Island Corridor

Foundation. That didn’t happen, unfortunately.

What they did come around to, though, because we did a number of

economic studies about what the future of this corridor can and should

look like, is they conceded that in order to support passenger rail

service being returned, it must have an economic base. It must have

economic activity that moves freight around Vancouver Island.

We shared all the data with them that we have about travel levels

and commercial traffic on the Island Highway, and we said: “At this

point, with 99 percent of truck movement responsible for goods movement

on Vancouver Island, this corridor has a role.” A population of 800,000

now, which will surely go north of one million by a decade to two

decades from now, is only growing importance. In fact, Nanaimo and

Langford are two of the fastest-growing cities in the province of B.C.,

which puts them in the top fast-growing communities in Can­ada.

That’s the next steps.

I think, at the end of the day, the federal government aligns with

our values as a province around taking reconciliation seriously. There

were some objections that are understandable from First Nations

communities, saying: “Look, this corridor was forcibly seized from

reserve territories that were granted over a century ago and,

essentially, confiscated and bisected.” Yes, trains did rumble by for

three-quarters of a century and provided no employment, no economic

benefit, no connection to goods and services. That was wrong, and that

is wrong.

It further blocks economic development now because most of the

Island corridor is adjacent to the highway. The disruption of the track

from access egress to adjacent business opportunities on their territory

is what was the genesis of that court decision.

We have decided, in the 4 percent of areas where there were

confiscations from First Nations, we will return those, and we will

continue the discussion and the planning for what goods movement will

look like and passenger rail service will look like when we have some of

the planning that is additionally needed.

We can’t just restore VIA Rail. It wasn’t that good. The track

condition has significantly deteriorated, so the cost will be very

large. The federal government has to be a partner, quite frankly, in

restoring it. We’re watching very closely what they’re doing in Ontario

and Quebec. There’s a bit of a rail renaissance going there, which is

excellent, and those opportunities exist in B.C., and we want to make

that case.

[11:35 a.m.]

VIA Rail, when it suspended service, moved 40,000 passengers a

year. TransLink moves 400,000 a day. B.C. Ferries moves 21 million

passengers a year. So it was an insignificant portion of people movement

when it was wound up.

We want to get back to something that’s going to be much more

effective, and it could be that the sum of the parts of the Island Rail

Corridor are greater than the whole that was useful at the end of the

19th century into the mid-20th century. Nanaimo, north-south

orientation, rail, could have a significantly different official

community plan that’s organized around transit. I can give other

examples in the Cowichan as well.

What we wanted to do was make sure that the corridor was not lost

and that the negotiations going forward are done on a reconciliation

basis, acknowledging that First Nations have suffered harm and no

economic benefit over the years, and that a decision to restore rail

service — or not, depending on what segment we’re talking about — will

be done on a respectful government-to-government-to-government basis.

The federal government has to be there.

So I outline that. I thank the member for the opportunity to raise

the question. I apologize for the long answer, but it was a very

detailed 16 months of intense activity. Our ministry had to take the

leadership role because the federal government just didn’t step up, and

nothing would have happened if we didn’t have a good examination of a

railway that we don’t even own and never have.

That’s where we are. I think there is a fantastic future for this

corridor, and I’m very optimistic that it will provide benefits to

everybody, not just a few that live on Vancouver Island in the

future.

J. Sturdy: I’ll certainly take this opportunity to continue to talk about

regions that are fast-growing. I’d like to talk about the Sea to Sky a

little bit, where I think we understand there is…. I think the minister

mentioned Nanaimo, some of the areas that are growing quickly.

Certainly, the Sea to Sky — Squamish growing at 22 percent over the last

census, Whistler growing at 18 percent and Pemberton growing at 34

percent, which is, I think, in fact, the fastest-growing community,

virtually, in this country.

I also was interested to hear the minister speak to the idea of

enhancing the opportunity to connect communities through B.C. Transit.

I’m sure the minister is very familiar with the initiatives that were

generated out of the 25-year Sea to Sky transit future plan back in 2017

to connect the Líl̓wat Nation with the community of Pemberton, with the

community of Whistler, with the community of Squamish, Pinecrest and

Black Tusk in between and then down through Britannia Beach, Porteau

Cove, Lions Bay and into the TransLink system.

This has been an initiative that these local governments have come

together on over the course of the last probably four or five years.

They have signed a memorandum of understanding between the local

governments, the regional district, the municipalities and the First

Nations, with a proposed model for governance in terms of a commission

model, and the minister is probably familiar that I have forwarded a

private member’s bill to support that model, and a funding model that

would be similar to the funding model for the CRD and

TransLink.

Now, historically the minister’s predecessor rejected that model

and kept telling the members of the MOU, the signatories of the MOU, to

be more creative in terms of their fiscal creativity around how to fund

a service like this. I think there’s been really no change from the

signatories of that MOU. They still support the idea of a transit fuel

levy, albeit at a much more modest level than what is currently in place

in Metro Vancouver or the capital regional district.

My question to the minister at this point is: what movement has

been made? What commitment can the government make towards the creation

of a regional transit service which, frankly, doesn’t exist?

I had heard…. There are bits and pieces. I listened to the member

from Cowichan speak to it, around the need, around growth and around the

fact that you can’t get from one place to the other unless you want to

fly Harbour Air, I think she said, or drive.

[11:40 a.m.]

Now, we don’t have the Harbour Air option. We don’t have a ferry

option either. Really, there’s no option but your thumb or a private

vehicle to either connect to Metro Vancouver or to connect up to

Whistler. We have a small service, a limited service, from Pemberton to

Whistler. It’s supported by the Líl̓wat Nation, supported by the

regional district, supported by the village of Pemberton. It was better

served before Greyhound pulled out of town.

There’s a real demand and a real consistent request of the

ministry to support a regional transit service. Perhaps the minister

could provide me with an update on what that initiative looks like today

and whether we can expect to see some support for it from the province

in the near future.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I know that he has a

long-standing interest in this and that this is important to his

constituents.

We’ve been working, during the pandemic, on different options

around intercommunity service on the Sea to Sky corridor. We thought we

had a proposal that elected officials up and down the corridor would

participate in and match provincial dollars to fund. They have some

objections. So we’re still in the process of arriving at a plan that

will meet the needs and the agreement of everybody.

It’s not a “back to the drawing board” situation. We have some

baselines about what the service should look like. We have a number of

private operators who are operating from Vancouver all the way to

Whistler now too. So there’s a healthy amount of competition and service

that wasn’t there previously. That’s good — to see transportation

options increasing on the corridor.

[11:45 a.m.]

B.C. Transit, obviously, has service areas and intercommunity

connections between Pemberton and Whistler and between Squamish and

Whistler as well.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Fleming: They have discussions about offering a transit service there.

They’re also making investments in infrastructure for supporting an

expanded transit service there that would be owned by the province that

we can plan for the future around. I don’t want to get into too many

details about that, because it does involve discussions around land

acquisitions and things like that that are best left off the

record.

What I will say is that I’ve also participated in some discussions

with the Member of Parliament for the Sea to Sky region, who has

expressed some confidence that the federal government would like to

participate on a 2.0 proposal of the pilot that we discussed in 2022. We

did a travel demand study to support that.

I know that the mayors are very interested in this. People who are

living on the corridor, the business community at the resort

municipality of Whistler for getting their employees to and from the

workplace, were certainly interested in moving quickly on where

discussions left off. I’ve told some of the mayors, though, quite

frankly, service can be implemented a lot quicker than legislation can

be changed. It’s fine to talk about governance and those sorts of goals

that they have for the corridor, but I’m more interested, as the

minister, to talk about service at this point in time that will inform

those kinds of decisions.

The reason why a pilot is so critical is it will inform how we

make a new service connecting all the communities in the Sea to Sky

corridor financially sustainable for the long term and how we build it

up and have it under part of the B.C. Transit service for residents in

that region.

I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

JOBS, ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT

AND INNOVATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); R. Leonard in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply,

Section C,

to order.

We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates

of the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and

Innovation.

I now recognize the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 37: ministry operations, $112,841,000

(continued) .

B. Stewart: I just want to welcome the minister in her new portfolio. I know

that she’s very…. I’m sure she’s doing an excellent job. I know some of

her staff, and I look forward to going through some of the parts of

trade in terms of the ministry’s responsibility.

Minister, in 2019, your predecessor closed the trade offices in

key Asian markets. I just wanted to ask if the minister could discuss

her position on the matter and whether this has adversely affected trade

in key markets for B.C. products.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: Hello to the member opposite.

I know this is an area that you have a lot of experience on, and I

look forward to the dialogue. Thank you for the question.

We have changed the model in which we locate our offices. The

offices, and we’ve actually found some benefits from that relationship.

The feds are sometimes able to open doors that we might not have been

able to open. There’s a lot of cooperation that happens with these trade

representatives, but it still allows us to have a B.C. focus, so we’ve

found that to be a positive relationship.

I will share with the member that between 2020 and 2022, B.C.’s

exports grew from $39.604 billion to $64.463 billion, with growth being

seen in all major trading markets, with the exception of China and

Taiwan.

B. Stewart: Just in response to the response. I guess I wonder…. Some of the

numbers we’re seeing in the report — that is, I believe, the Annual

B.C. Origin Reports — shows that there’s a decline of 24

percent in trade with Hong Kong. Further, there’s a 52 percent decline —

this is based on the 2018 period, prior to the office closures on

December 31, 2019 — in India.

Can you just explain why those are showing up? It doesn’t agree or

line up with what you just responded with.

[11:20 a.m.]

The Chair: Members, if you can turn off your devices, please.

Hon. B. Bailey: I’m not sure which report the member is referring to, but I’ll

share the numbers that we have, which are derived directly from B.C.

Statistics.

This is mainland China and Hong Kong from the period of 2012 to

2022. Exports to China and Hong Kong in­creased by 46 percent. The

greatest export increases were in metallic mineral products, which was

plus 196 percent; energy, plus 125 percent; machinery and equipment,

plus 81 percent; fish and seafood products, plus 87 percent. In 2022,

China and Hong Kong accounted for 13.5 percent of B.C.’s total

exports.

If the member would like to provide to us the material he’s

referring to, we could certainly review it and compare.

[11:25 a.m.]

B. Stewart: The information I’m getting it from is from B.C. Stats, and you

just surmised that the report…. Just to clarify, you said 2012 to 2022,

a ten-year period and up 46 percent.

I guess, specifically, because of geopolitical issues, I’m sure

there are variations in China just due to the nature of what happened in

the last few years. However, Hong Kong was separate. India, obviously,

is a separate country.

I was more interested in the change from when the offices last

fully operated as B.C. TIRs and when they changed to the co-located

model within the embassies. Maybe to rephrase this. In the markets where

there were the 13 offices throughout Asia, if the minister could

comment: have they at least increased or held their own in all markets,

with that one exception I mentioned with China?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: I’ll just describe the situation to the member. It’s quite

difficult to pull one factor out during this time frame, because, of

course, the impact of COVID-19 during this period was very significant,

particularly in regards to trade. As the member knows, it’s just very

difficult to isolate one single factor that could explain a decrease in

trade. Commodity prices were affected. The COVID shutdowns were major

inputs as well as just, frankly, less economic activity.

In regards to the member’s questions about the number of people

working on the ground and the trade investment officers that we have in

the field, I’ll share that with the member.

In Japan, we have five full-time trade and investment

representatives in place. In South Korea, there are four full-time trade

and investment representatives in place, and we also are hiring one

additional, to make it five. In China, there are nine full-time trade

and investment representatives in place, located in Beijing, Shanghai,

Chongqing and Guangzhou. Hong Kong is covered out of the office in

Guangzhou, and the province intends to hire one additional position in

Taipei.

In Southeast Asia, there are six full-time trade and investment

representatives in place, located in Singapore — that’s two positions;

Jakarta, one position; Manila, two positions; Ho Chi Minh, one position.

One position is vacant and currently under recruitment.

The member also asked about India. In India, there are four

full-time positions. In Delhi, there are two. In Chandigarh and

Bangaluru…. There is one vacant position currently in Mumbai. That would

bring us to five positions. That recruitment is currently under

place.

B. Stewart: I guess the question about the transition from a standalone

operation to a co-located…. What’s the cost expected to be in this

fiscal year? And what was it…? If we could just get the number for the

’22-23 and ’23-24 fiscal years as to what the cost of operating those

two years would be.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: I’m going to explain this by referring to the bucket of spending

that we’ve been allocated by Treasury Board, and that amount has

remained flat across ’21-22 and to ’22-23. But while that amount is $9.2

million, you will see that we have not spent to that amount for obvious

reasons — ’20-21, ’21-22. So I’ll share those numbers with

you.

In ’20-2021, we spent $5,362,532. In ’21-22, that number was —

we’ll just round it out for convenience sake — $7.9 million. And we have

to Q3, 2022-2023. That number is $8.5 million. Of course, we do expect

to be on track to spend that full bucket of $9.2 million.

B. Stewart: Just going back to the previous answer that the minister provided,

I want to clarify, and I may have…. I want to just understand that the

number, totally, on the ground today, not including the positions that

are vacant, is 29.

Hon. B. Bailey: Yes. The numbers I shared with the member in my previous answer

were for Japan, South Korea, China, Southeast Asia and India. I also

came to 29, not including the vacant positions. I didn’t include Europe

and the United States, so I’ll add those now, if I may,

Member.

We have a contract with Articulate International for the European

market, including the U.K., and there are seven trade and investment

representatives in the EU, based in the U.K., Germany and the

Netherlands. The United States — in that situation, we have a contract

with Fox Group International for the U.S. There are eight full-time

trade and investment representatives in place, and those are located in

Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Boston.

B. Stewart: I just want to go back to some previous responses that were given

by former ministers. I think one of the things that we were trying to

understand is the closure cost of the TIRs across Asia.

[11:40 a.m.]

It’s our understanding, but we don’t have the details, that there

was some litigation that was supposed to have been…. Well, it was in

progress a couple of years ago. I’m just wondering if that litigation

has been concluded and if that information is available as to what the

outcome was of the litigation differences.

Hon. B. Bailey: I will advise the member that these are personnel matters that

we’re not able to divulge publicly. But I will confirm, in fact, that

those proceedings are concluded.

B. Stewart: Thanks very much for that clarity.

I’m sure that the minister is aware that there are different legal

requirements in different jurisdictions, of course, in the markets where

these 13 offices — where there were differences, especially with COVID

and the obligation on some of these people. I’m sure that’s perhaps

understood by her staff more so than her.

Anyways, I noticed that there are some missions that the minister

herself has taken to Texas recently. I’m just wondering if she could

outline the priority visits in the next year for trade in terms of her

ministry and what the objectives are.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: My focus is on increasing export opportunities for B.C. companies

and in attracting investment into British Columbia. The federal

government has an­nounced its Pacific strategy, and we will be

announcing our trade diversification strategy in the coming weeks.

Essentially, I will share that the key focus of that strategy is our

tech sector; life sciences; energy, including hydrogen; forestry;

mining; agriculture; and really focusing on further diversifying our

trade opportunities and investment.

The member also asked about my recent trade mission to Austin.

That mission was a four-day mission that in­cluded both Austin,

Texas, and San Francisco. We attended South by Southwest in Austin,

Texas, specifically the tech aspect of South by Southwest, and a couple

of hydrogen meetings at South by Southwest. Also, in San Francisco, we

attended the World Agri-Tech Summit.

The focus, really, of both of those opportunities was to highlight

the incredible work that’s happening in British Columbia in our tech

sector, in our agritech sector. Again, the two focuses — looking for

opportunities for export and partnerships and also, very importantly,

looking at attracting investments.

We met with a number of very high-level venture capitalists that

are interested in our tech market here in British Columbia. As well, we

took a couple of meetings with large multinational corporations that

have not yet settled on where their Canadian head office will be

located. We’re working with two of those companies for the answer to

that questi