Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, November 23, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 253

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Bobbi Sadler

Hon. S. Robinson

Introductions by Members

Speaker’s Statement

Hanukkah

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M217 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Gas Price Relief) Amendment Act, 2022

P. Milobar

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Genocidal violence against Hazara people in Afghanistan

M. Elmore

Forever Young Chorus

S. Bond

Youth climate change anxiety and hopepunk response

R. Russell

Serge Haber and Jewish Seniors Alliance

M. Lee

Arrowsmith Search and Rescue

A. Walker

Multiple myeloma awareness

C. Oakes

Oral Questions

Management of B.C. Housing and Atira property services

K. Falcon

Hon. D. Eby

Management of B.C. Housing and termination of board

T. Stone

Hon. D. Eby

Service model change for children with support needs and funding for autism services

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Dean

Comments by B.C. Housing official

S. Bond

Hon. D. Eby

Management of B.C. Housing and terms of reference for audit

M. de Jong

Hon. D. Eby

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

K. Kirkpatrick

Petitions

Hon. M. Dean

Tabling Documents

Islands Trust, annual report, 2021

Statement of 2021-22 borrowings, schedules A and B

InBC Investment Corp., annual report, 2021-22

Report on multiculturalism, 2021-22

Report on the administration of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2021-22

Chief records officer, annual report, 2021-22

Climate change accountability report, 2022

Environmental emergency program 2021-22 report to Legislature

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 43 — Housing Supply Act

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Bernier

J. Rustad

Report and Third Reading of Bills

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

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 43 — Housing Supply Act (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. M. Rankin

J. Rustad

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 38 — Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment Act (continued)

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Dean

K. Kirkpatrick

M. Lee

E. Ross

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole House

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

(continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

Bill 36 — Health Professions and Occupations Act (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

M. Lee

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2022

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. S. Malcolmson.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: I have two introductions this morning.

I wish, first, to share some very special news from my friend — our

friend and former colleague, the former member for Burnaby-Lougheed, Jane

Jae Kyung Shin. She and her partner, Steven Cheng Tsung Su, announced the

birth of their son, River Lee Su. His Korean name is Seoha and his Chinese

name is Ruihe. Together they mean “lucky river.” River Lee Su was born at

8:19 a.m. on Monday, November 14, 2022, at Royal Columbian Hospital in New

Westminster. I ask the House to please join Jane and Steven and their joyful

families to celebrate the birth of their son.

Also joining us in the House today is a group of students from

Kwantlen Park Secondary in my riding of Surrey-Whalley. They are joined by

their teachers, Stephen Mackie and Sarah Thompson. Sarah is a former

neighbour of the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

This semester these grades 11 and 12 students are taking a political

studies class. This is the first year that political studies is offered at

Kwantlen Park. Perhaps this may spark an interest in politics, and we may

see some of them down on the House floor one day. I understand the class is

very excited to be on their first field trip since COVID began. Today they

will tour this place, our Legislature, followed by a visit to the Royal B.C.

Museum. Could the House please join me in making the students of Kwantlen

Park Secondary School very welcome here today.

I. Paton: I’m happy today to be joined by good friends from Tsawwassen, B.C.,

Brad Semke and his lovely wife, Anne Marie. Brad Semke has been an integral

part of reshaping Tsawwassen along with his boss, Sean Hodgins, and they’re

doing some great things to make Tsawwassen such a great place to

live.

With them today is Anne Marie’s mom and dad, John Cullingford and his

wife, Karin Cullingford. Thank you so much. They’re from Chilliwack. Brad

and Anne Marie are from Tsawwassen.

Will you please make them feel welcome.

Hon. N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to welcome to the House my two constituency

assistants, one from Powell River, one from Davis Bay. Rob Hill and Amy

Clarke are joining us in the House. One took two ferries to get here. One

took one ferry to get here.

I just want to say how nice it is to see you in the House. I hope you

enjoy the day.

May the House join me in welcoming them.

M. de Jong: For more than three decades, George Ferguson reigned as the supreme

leader of Abbotsford as mayor. Sadly, we lost George a few years ago. But

today in the gallery, we’re joined by the former first lady, Ria Ferguson,

who is here visiting in the precincts. She’s squired by Darren Kish, a

friend of the Ferguson family, and our great-nephew, Phillip Michels, who is

originally from Cologne, Germany and is now a resident of Ireland and is en

route, eventually, to Tanzania on new adventures.

They are here in Victoria today and have had a tour of the buildings.

I know all members would want to make Ria and her friends welcome here in

the precincts.

B. D’Eith: Today we had the pleasure of joining B.C. Notaries for lunch, and they

will be joining us in the gallery today. Notaries have been working in

British Columbia for over 100 years, providing legal services alongside

lawyers — things like conveyances and wills and estates and affidavits and

so many more services in our province.

Today we have Daniel Boisvert. He’s the president, from Delta. Morrie

Baillie, from Victoria; Jackie Tait, from Chilliwack; Kate Roome, from

Duncan; Brendan Rothwell, from Kelowna; Ruminder Sadhra, from Vancouver; Cam

Sherk, from Squamish; and Chad Rintoul, from Sydney. Would the House please

make all these notaries welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Today in the gallery is part of the communications team for the

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. Will the House please thank Leah

Holoiday, Aygul Khalaileh, Blake Bilmer and Alessandra Vinhas for their hard

work. I’m so glad that they’re here to see the House in action. Together

with health authorities, they’re making announcements almost every week on

new mental health and addiction services, and I’m grateful for their

professionalism and time.

Tributes

BOBBI SADLER

Hon. S. Robinson: Bobbi Sadler was appointed deputy minister of the B.C. Public

Service Agency almost two years to the day, on November 26, 2020. Now

she is retiring from public service.

Before her role as deputy minister, Bobbi was the Assistant Deputy

Minister of Citizens’ Services, procurement and supply division. She’s

been in the public service for more than 35 years. She successfully

managed several large information management and information technology

projects and business transformation initiatives across the justice and

social sectors.

Bobbi was the ministry chief information officer for Citizens’

Services in 2011, and prior to her appointment as ADM of procurement and

supply, she was the assistant deputy minister and ministry chief

information officer responsible for the IMIT portfolio in the justice

sector.

I would ask that the House acknowledge her retirement and thank

her for more than 35 years of serving British Columbia.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Popham: I have some absolutely fabulous people joining us in the chamber

today. My deputy minister is down with the flu, so all his staff are over

here playing with me. So I have Shawna Lyttle, Char Evers, Magdalena

Golacka, Hemant Joshi and Chris Norton. They are visiting from just across

the street, out back of the building. We’re here to make them

welcome.

I want to thank you for everything that you do. We depend on you so

much.

P. Alexis: I don’t get visitors from home very often. Before I go any further,

for the record, I want you to know that my guests today were not responsible

for the mysterious howling last night that was reported in the media this

morning.

Would the House welcome my constituency assistants, my left hand and

my right hand, Janessa Derksen and Jo-Anne Chadwick. I don’t know what I’d

do without them.

Welcome. Thank you so much for coming.

T. Halford: Joining us in the House today is a little bit of White Rock royalty. I

would like to introduce my friend and, I think, one-time babysitter for one

of my kids once when we were in a jam, Tammy Evans. Tammy does a lot of work

in our community. Right now she’s doing a blanket drive. I’m so proud to

have Tammy here today.

Tammy, thank you for joining us.

B. Bailey: Tomorrow my daughter Esme graduates from UBC with her undergraduate

degree. I just want to say a couple of words to those young people who’ve

overcome great challenges in getting their undergraduate degrees.

Sometimes you skate through. It’s four years, you work hard, and you

pop out the other side. Other times, it takes tremendous grit and

determination, and you overcome huge hurdles, which was the case for my

daughter.

I am so proud. Congratulations.

R. Merrifield: I just want to take a turn and echo the welcome that my MLA colleague

from Maple Ridge–Mission has just made to the B.C. Notaries. As noted, we

had the opportunity to meet with them as well, and hear about some of their

concerns and some of their advocacy issues.

I wanted to welcome, in particular, Brendan Rothwell, who is a

constituent of mine but also a next-door neighbour in business. In addition

to helping serve our community and Kelownaites, we also get to share a

coffee in the local Starbucks.

Welcome, Brendan.

G. Lore: I’m honoured to stand today and introduce some guests to the House.

Luca Costi, Astrid Neilson-Miller and Roe Campbell. Astrid, Luca and Roe are

part of Gender Generations.

The Gender Generations Project was formerly known as the Trans Tipping

Point Project. It’s a not-for-profit organization that provides space and

mentoring for trans, non-binary, two-spirit and gender-diverse youth.

Besides mentoring, there are other programs such as workshops, retreats and

performances and art that connect people of all ages.

[1:45 p.m.]

To Luca, Astrid and Roe, and everyone at Gender Generations that isn’t

here with us, I just want to say keep doing this amazing, important and

inspiring work.

Will the members please join me in welcoming these guests.

M. Babchuk: Joining us in the visitors gallery today are two friendly faces

familiar to Vancouver Island MLAs: Mr. Brodie Guy, the CEO of Island Coastal

Economic Trust; and the vice-chair of ICE-T, Mr. John Jack, who is also a

councillor for the Huu-ay-aht Nation and the chair of the Alberni-Clayoquot

regional district.

Along with their dedicated team of locally elected leaders and

appointed directors, they are working to build a sustainable and resilient

coastal economy across Vancouver Island, the Sunshine Coast and coastal

islands and inlets, from the Salish Sea to Cape Caution.

Would the House please join me in making Brodie and John feel

welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure today to introduce two distinguished individuals who

are here in the gallery: Ron Tremblay, the chair of the Automotive Retailers

Association, and Adrian Scovell, president of the Automotive Retailers

Association, an organization that was formed in 1951. They represent the

automotive industry, and they currently have over 1,000 members and employ

10,000 people.

I’d ask the House to make them most welcome.

Hon. M. Dean: Today in the gallery we have Ryan Painter. He’s a resident from View

Royal, in Esquimalt-Metchosin. He’s very active in his neighbourhood. Would

everybody please make him very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Delta South.

I. Paton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity a second time. Today, as

the lead of the B.C. Notaries that have been with us here, is a good friend

of mine, also from Tsawwassen, a gentleman by the name of Daniel Boisvert.

Would you welcome Daniel and also congratulate Daniel on his recent election

to Delta city council.

M. Elmore: Hon. Speaker, I’m very pleased to welcome some friends here in the

Legislature for the first time. Sharif Turgan was born in Afghanistan. He

was trained as a civil engineer in Azerbaijan, and he trained in drafting

design from Brighton College in Burnaby. He’s a businessman, and he has his

company, Mega One Car Ltd.

He’s joined by his partner Kobra Rezaei. She is a former spokesperson

of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in Af­ghan­istan. She

graduated from Nagoya University in Japan. Her thesis, which should be of

interest to some of us here, was on women’s political empowerment through

the quota system, in the case of women parliamentarians, in

Af­ghan­istan. Kobra ran as a candidate in Afghanistan, and she

may run in B.C. someday here as well.

She’s joined by Mohammad Fazeli, who lives in Burnaby with his wife

and three-year-old and 1½-year-old children. He was trained with a bachelor

of international law from Azerbaijan, and he also has an accounting and

consultation service, MA Accounting and Consultation Services, and a

bookkeeping service here — very accomplished.

They’re joined by Abdullah Raza Karimi. He has a master’s in religious

studies; he’s a scholar. He volunteers with the Canadian Hussaini

Association, and he’s also a businessman. His company is AK Towing

Ltd.

I ask you all to please give them a very warm welcome.

H. Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, I also want to welcome Ryan Painter. He’s a great friend

of mine. I know he is a constituent of the Minister of Children and

Families, but he was born and grew up in Vernon, so he is a proud

Vernonite.

Ryan used to advocate; he was a very strong advocate for poverty

rights, food security, democracy and youth. He even performed as a guitar

player and a singer in many local concerts, and he was also a concert

promoter. So Ryan contributed to the richness of our community. I’m proud to

call him my friend and have always been grateful for his friendship and

support for me over many years, which meant the world to me.

I look forward to catching up with you, Ryan, later today.

Please join me once again to make Ryan Painter very welcome in the

House.

[1:50 p.m.]

Speaker’s Statement

HANUKKAH

Mr. Speaker: Members, I would like to take this opportunity to let you know

that the first night of Hanukkah will be celebrated on December 18 with

the lighting of the Menorah.

Rabbi Meir Kaplan of the Chabad of Vancouver Island will be on the

front steps of the Parliament Buildings at 4 p.m. for the celebration.

Rabbi Kaplan will also light a Menorah in the members lobby at 4 p.m. on

December 19.

I realize that some members will not be here. They will be in

their constituencies on those dates. But those members who are in

Victoria — I would strongly encourage them to come and join

him.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M217 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(GAS PRICE RELIEF)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

P. Milobar presented a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Gas

Price Relief) Amendment Act, 2022.

P. Milobar: I move that a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Gas Price

Relief) Amendment Act, 2022, of which notice has been given in my name

on the order paper, be introduced and now read for a first

time.

Recognizing it is late in the legislative calendar — however, with

a new willingness by this government to introduce and pass legislation

within the last week — I felt it important, given that our province is

in the middle of a severe affordability crisis, to bring forward this

gas price relief bill. As British Columbians struggle to make ends meet,

with prices for daily necessities skyrocketing, leaders must take action

and provide people with real relief. We know that the cost of fuel, in

particular, is taking a toll on people, both in terms of its direct

effect on commuters and vehicle owners but also as a result of its

impact on rising grocery and housing costs. Our entire supply chain is

affected when gas reaches record-breaking prices.

It is clear that action to address the cost of gas is long

overdue. This bill, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Gas Price Relief)

Amendment Act, would enable government to suspend provincial gas taxes,

as well as those applied to gas being brought to B.C. from Alberta,

relieving pressure on both consumers and the supply chain. It’s a

straightforward measure that could immediately provide relief to those

who desperately need it.

It’s time to get serious about making life more affordable for

British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill M217, Miscellaneous Statutes (Gas Price Relief) Amendment Act,

2022, 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)

GENOCIDAL VIOLENCE AGAINST

HAZARA PEOPLE IN

AFGHANISTAN

M. Elmore: On September 30, 2022, a suicide bomber killed over 60 young

people who were taking a university entrance exam at the Kaaj

Educational Center in Kabul. This was a targeted attack on the Hazara

community. The Hazara have a diverse racial and religious ancestry,

which has led to them being the most persecuted ethnic group in

Afghanistan. They have endured centuries of racism and discrimination,

combined with systemic attacks on the basis of race and

religion.

The first incidents of genocide were in the 1890s, and the first

genocidal war against the Hazara, where over half of the community were

massacred and forced to flee to India, Iran and now Canada. They were

put into slavery and had their lands taken. Since that first genocidal

war against the Hazara, the Afghan state has systemically excluded

Hazara from government and economic opportunities.

The Hazara are the number one victim of terrorism in Afghanistan.

They are not safe in mosques, in the marketplace or on public buses.

Violence is increasing: attacks on hospitals, schools, maternity wards

and universities; targeted killings; and land grabbing. There have been

multiple instances of genocidal violence.

I was honoured to attend an international rally against the

genocide of the Hazara people, where over 120 countries and cities

joined together to say: “An end to the genocide.” The diaspora community

is asking for us, for all levels of government to stand against

genocide, to raise awareness, to raise our voice and to spread the

message about what’s happening in Afghanistan against the Hazara

people.

[1:55 p.m.]

We can do more. We need to do more. I ask everyone here in the

Legislature to please join me in saying no to the genocide of the Hazara

people and stop Hazara genocide.

FOREVER YOUNG CHORUS

S. Bond: They are called the Forever Young Chorus, and they are a group of

singers that make you believe that maybe, just maybe, you can be young

forever. The Prince George choir, led by the fantastic Janice Taylor,

calls the Elder Citizens Recreation Centre home, where they practise and

then perform their community concerts.

The Forever Young Chorus, originally known as the Rainbow Singers,

was formed in 1992, when a group of eight ladies, with Elaine Clark as

the accompanist and Janice Taylor as the director, started rehearsing at

the Elder Citizens Recreation Centre. From there, the group went out

into the community to entertain other seniors. Since that time, the

choir has grown significantly, and now includes men and women. Janice

Taylor is still the director, and the very talented and dedicated Vic

Steblin is the accompanist.

The Forever Young Chorus is a volunteer seniors choir. They

regularly present weekend concerts in Prince George. Many of the choir

members have no professional experience, and some have no experience at

all, but they love to sing for the sheer joy of it. Under Janice’s

excellent leadership, they sound amazing, too.

One of my friends, Kathy Nadalin, told me that the Forever Young

Chorus strives to present a positive image of aging and that while they

are older, they don’t feel old inside. I know that firsthand, since both

my mom and dad loved their time singing with the chorus and cherished

the friendships that they made.

This last weekend the Forever Young Chorus hosted their fall

concert. It was full of toe-tapping music and even included a couple of

singalong songs; a visit from Victor Borge, also known as Odelia Cranz;

and a recitation of “The Train” by Ingrid Gohl. Special thanks to emcee

Sandy Kubert and Joe Anderson for doing the lights and sound.

The Forever Young Chorus is so much more than a choir. It is a

family.

Thank you for sharing your love of music with all of us, and may

you indeed be forever young.

YOUTH CLIMATE CHANGE ANXIETY

AND HOPEPUNK

RESPONSE

R. Russell: I had the privilege this morning to meet with the B.C. Youth

Council, as well as the Premier’s special adviser for youth. I certainly

love listening to those bright and open minds, but I hear concern too.

Last year a large study published in The Lancet , for example,

identified that 84 percent of respondents 16 to 25 were worried about

climate change. Perhaps even more concerning, a full 45 percent of

participants said that their feelings about climate change impacted

their daily lives.

We’re all familiar with the smoky skies, the swollen rivers, burnt

communities and the wildfires of recent years. I’m in this House because

of the floods of 2018. The burden of responsibility for these climate

disasters is heavy, and we’re asking or making our youth carry this with

us and for us, yet the majority often feel ignored or dismissed. As

Caroline Hickman put it: “There is a general ‘othering’ of children and

youth in society.” That same Lancet paper noted: “These

psychological stressors threaten health and well-being and could be

construed as morally injurious and unjust.”

Concurrent with globally distributed passionate

demon­strations around climate action, we see others, such as the

uprising and support of justice in Iran for Mahsa Amini. These actions

provide voice to the empathetic. These choices made with self-awareness

and the fight against hopelessness are hopepunk in action.

Similarly, my discussion this morning revolved around giving youth

a voice to be proper advisers for us legislators here — different

scales, parallel challenges. We have tools in this place to support this

hope for better and provide more agency to these. But when we spin this

place into the friction of partisanship like yesterday…. Not when we do

that, but when we amplify the strength of collectivism, optimism and

hope.

I end with a quote from the writer Alexandra Rowland:

“Hopepunk says that genuinely and sincerely caring about something,

anything, requires bravery and strength. Hopepunk isn’t ever about

submission or acceptance. It’s about standing up and fighting for what

you believe in. It’s about standing up for other people. It’s about

demanding a better, kinder world and truly believing that we can get

there if we care about each other as hard as we possibly can, with every

drop of power in our little hearts, and that in this world of brutal

cynicism and nihilism, being kind is a political act.”

[2:00 p.m.]

Our job is to help.

SERGE HABER AND

JEWISH SENIORS

ALLIANCE

M. Lee: Today I rise to recognize the incredible contributions and work of

Serge Haber as an extraordinary community leader and volunteer. Serge

was born in Romania in 1928 and is a Holocaust witness and survivor. He

arrived in Montreal in 1950 as a refugee from Cuba. His life experiences

shaped him into a relentless and outspoken advocate for inclusivity,

compassion and change.

Serge has held leadership positions with the United Synagogue of

Conservative Judaism, Congregation Beth Israel and Hillel BC at UBC,

where he helped to secure the new facility. He has served for more than

20 years as a director on the boards of Louis Brier Home and Hospital in

Vancouver-Langara and the Jewish National Fund.

For more than 35 years, Serge has been a speaker for the Vancouver

Holocaust Education Centre, also located in Vancouver-Langara,

connecting with students in secondary schools and universities

throughout the Lower Mainland. He continually gives his time and energy

to discuss his experiences and combat racial discrimination and

religious intolerance.

One of Serge’s greatest legacies is being the founder, in 2003,

when he was just 75 years young, of the Jewish Seniors Alliance of

Greater Vancouver, the JSA. There is no stronger advocate for the

well-being of older adults than Serge. The JSA serves seniors throughout

the Greater Vancouver area. He is dedicated to enhancing the quality of

life of all seniors and believes the key to this is the JSA’s peer

support services, which are designed to reduce feelings of isolation and

to promote connection to community.

At the age of 94, Serge remains passionate, energetic and a

fighter with a healthy appetite. He positively affects and impacts the

lives of thousands and is an inspiration and mentor to so many,

including myself.

Serge, we thank you for your vision, your actions and your impact.

You are truly amazing and one of a kind.

ARROWSMITH SEARCH AND RESCUE

A. Walker: Late in the afternoon on December 12, 2020, it was just about

freezing outside. There was a light breeze in the air, and Arrowsmith

Search and Rescue got a call. Eleven minutes later they were on scene at

Little Qualicum Falls Provincial Park. They had trained for exactly this

moment.

For those who haven’t visited the falls, the turbulent waters from

Cameron Lake just upstream have carved their way deep into a canyon.

These particular falls are at least three storeys high. A couple of

metres from the crest of the waterfall was a young man attached to a

log, hanging on for his life.

Nick Rivers was fitted out. He was lowered into position, and he

quickly realized a few things. First was that the water was so loud that

he couldn’t communicate with his team. Quickly they adapted, setting up

spotters on the opposite cliff to relay commands to the rope team.

Second was that the frigid waters were so ferocious that they were

nearly impossible to navigate. Third, the subject had just lost hold of

the log, and Nick had to act quickly.

I intended to talk about Nick’s accomplishments, but he insisted

that he was just but one of the many members of that team and that each

member of the team was integral to that successful rescue.

At the edge of the cliff leading the rope team was Ken Neden. He

has been an active volunteer for over 48 years.

Jennifer Hoard and Bruce Wall, this year, have each contributed

over 500 hours of training and call-out service.

Jeff Burdison, Denise Collins and so many others that Nick wanted

to recognize all committed to serving our community and are integral to

this team.

So far this year, the 42 active members have contributed over

8,650 hours of service. It is the hard-working people that keep this

team going.

Would the House please join with me in recognizing Arrowsmith

Search and Rescue.

MULTIPLE MYELOMA AWARENESS

C. Oakes: Multiple myeloma is the second most common form of blood cancer.

It affects a type of immune cell, called the plasma cell, found in bone

marrow.

Every day ten Canadians are diagnosed with this life-altering

disease. While there is no cure, people are living longer and better

lives thanks to recent breakthroughs and treatment. However, to find a

cure, more funding and research are required.

[2:05 p.m.]

Cyndi Logan, a constituent in my riding, is a fearless cancer

warrior, music teacher, wife, mother, sister and friend to so many,

including myself. She is also someone living with this form of

cancer.

One of the current treatments is a stem cell transplant. It

involves a procedure to collect the cells and then freeze them until

transplant time. The patient is then given a high dose of chemotherapy

in the form of a drug called melphalan. This will destroy the bone

marrow and, hopefully, the cancer with it. The rescue is when the stem

cells are then infused back into the patient to start the regrowth of

the bone marrow and immune system. This treatment has many risks, as it

leaves the patient very vulnerable until the engraftment of the cells

produces immune competence.

For patients in British Columbia, the only place to receive this

life-preserving treatment is the Vancouver General Hospital. For

patients in the North, it means the cost of travel, accommodation and

supportive medications. More than $10,000 out of pocket for the

month-long stay in Vancouver to receive the transplant and recover

enough to be considered immune competent.

Patients from rural areas deserve this treatment as much as anyone

else. Their location should not be a hindrance to obtaining this

treatment. We need a better solution than patients trying to raise funds

themselves or putting their families further into debt.

We need to help patients in northern B.C. who must travel for

these life-saving treatments only available in Vancouver.

Oral Questions

MANAGEMENT OF B.C. HOUSING

AND ATIRA PROPERTY

SERVICES

K. Falcon: Yesterday we raised serious concerns in this House about the

stunning mismanagement of taxpayer dollars at B.C. Housing and the total

lack of accountability by this Premier when he was the Housing Minister

responsible for that Crown corporation.

Now, while the Premier didn’t answer a single question here in

this House, he did tell one media outlet yesterday: “I haven’t seen the

report that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about, to the best

of my knowledge. I don’t know.” Despite having been the minister

responsible for housing, the Premier claims to be unaware of this

damning 2018 BDO review of Atira, B.C. Housing’s largest non-profit

housing provider.

Now, this is very hard to believe, Mr. Speaker. After all, B.C.

Housing issued a statement on that very BDO draft report back in March,

while he was the minister responsible. Furthermore, when pressed

yesterday, the CEO of Atira said that the report was common knowledge

during the time the Premier was the Housing Minister.

Something doesn’t add up. There are two different stories here,

and the public deserves to know the truth.

My question to the Premier: was he negligent as the Hous­ing

Minister and unaware of such a damning report on his largest housing

provider, or will he admit he was aware of the report and chose instead

to bury it?

Mr. Speaker: Premier.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Chair.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Premier.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Chair.

This is, indeed, a very serious issue. The response to a media

question I had yesterday…. I didn’t recognize the report that the

reporter was describing to me.

I am familiar with that report. It was described to me as a report

into what had happened under our government at B.C. Housing. In fact,

it’s a report into what happened at B.C. Housing under the B.C. Liberal

government, which is an important detail that was missing.

Regardless, this is a very serious issue, and I’ll endeavour to do

my best to provide the House with an accounting of what happened and

when. I’ll ask the Chair’s leave and the opposition’s leave if it’s a

longer answer than usual. If necessary, I’ll break it up into multiple

answers.

[2:10 p.m.]

I was appointed as Housing Minister in October 2020 — a great

honour, hon. Chair. By March 2021, about six months later, it was

apparent to me that a review needed to be done of business practices

inside B.C. Housing for a number of reasons.

One of them I’ve spoken about publicly on a number of occasions,

which was the Little Mountain deal, where a public property was sold

off, a low-income community levelled, and it remains an empty field

today. I didn’t want us to be in that situation again. There was also

other information that caused me concern.

At that six-month mark, I asked the Crown agencies secretariat,

through the public service, to initiate a review. That review was done

by Ernst and Young. The work started in October of 2021. It’s called the

Financial System and Operational Review . That report was,

in fact, released publicly.

During the time of that work, Ernst and Young identified that

additional questions were raised in the scope of work they’d been asked

to do and that they had more concerns. We asked them to continue that

work, and they provided details to us in June of 2022. The information

they provided to us led to us, in July of 2022….

I say “us.” I’m referring to the public service to whom I’m very

grateful for facilitating this process.

We requested the comptroller general to initiate a forensic

engagement at B.C. Housing.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

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

K. Falcon: I appreciate the word salad, but I think the reality is that I

asked a very specific question.

Now, a couple of points that he made. First of all, he tried to

say that, actually, it wasn’t their report. If the member would look at

page 6 of that BDO report…. It specifically says, very clearly, that

it’s referring to the 2018 financial statements of Atira.

He then references the Ernst and Young report. The Ernst and Young

report, just to remind this House, was the report that he quietly

released on the Canada Day long weekend in July. That’s consistent with

the kind of transparency and accountability that we’ve seen out of this

member. But my question to the member is: why is it that the problems

that were identified in that BDO report are not being

addressed?

The Tyee reported just today that B.C. Housing documents,

which were obtained through freedom of information, show that the same

problems identified in the BDO report continue at Atira. The same

problems continue. We also know, according to FOI documents, that

funding to Atira under that minister and this government has more than

tripled to almost $52 million a year. No other housing provider has

experienced such a massive increase in funding, record high spending,

coupled with record financial mismanagement.

Apparently, when the Premier was the Minister

Re­spon­sible for Housing, he initially suggested he had

never seen the report. Now he’s suggesting he didn’t realize which

report it was. Perhaps fair enough, confusing all the different reports

floating out there. The fact of the matter is the mismanagement was

happening right under his nose as the minister responsible.

I have a simple question for the Premier, very straightforward,

and it goes right to public transparency. Will the Premier at least

confirm what the salary is for the CEO of Atira, please?

Hon. D. Eby: What I’m going to do is continue to explain to the member the

steps that I took, starting almost immediately on my appointment as

Minister of Housing, and that have been continuing and escalating in

seriousness to the level of a forensic audit of B.C. Housing.

In early July 2022, we took the recommendations of Ernst and Young

around the terms of reference for a forensic audit of B.C. Housing, and

we asked the office of the comptroller general to take over

responsibility for that audit. The comptroller general agreed to do so

and retained Ernst and Young to do that work.

Now, this forensic audit is still in progress. I can provide the

members of this House with some of the terms of reference for the

forensic engagement of B.C. Housing: to ensure specific internal

controls at B.C. Housing are in place and operating as described,

including record retention and decision-making processes and procedures

for funding service providers.

We’re expecting the results of that forensic review early next

year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I can assure all members of this House, on receiving that…. We

will release all of the documents that we can, to the extent the law

allows, to the opposition and the public.

[2:15 p.m.]

MANAGEMENT OF B.C. HOUSING

AND TERMINATION OF

BOARD

T. Stone: There was no answer there to the very straightforward

question.

Atira, the largest non-profit housing provider for B.C. Housing,

is an absolute and complete mess. That has been confirmed in not one but

in numerous independent audits that have been done, or reviews that have

been done, by third-party accounting agencies.

We believe, and I think British Columbians would agree with us,

that the public has a right to know how much the CEO at Atira makes.

That was a simple question. So let the record show that the Premier

skated right past that, which is alarming in and of itself.

B.C. Housing and Atira are both in dire straits at the moment.

Those are both organizations that require ac­count­ability.

They didn’t have it back a number of years. Clearly, the accountability

is still not there today.

Let’s talk about B.C. Housing for a moment as well. Yesterday,

when asked why the board of B.C. Housing was fired, the Housing Minister

responded that it was because “issues were identified.” But for months,

this Premier has denied that there were any issues. He wants everyone to

believe that firing the NDP-appointed board on a Friday evening in July

was completely normal, that there’s nothing to see here.

Here are the Premier’s words: “The changes in the board are not

related to any sort of wrongdoing.” Frankly, this is the kind of devious

behaviour that is so typical of this Premier, to claim that there are no

issues, that this is all totally normal, rather than to just fess up to

what it really is, and that’s an attempt to hide the mess that he

created.

Another very simple question to the Premier is this. Why did the

Premier fire the board of B.C. Housing?

Hon. D. Eby: We received extensive recommendations from Ernst and Young

requiring a significant overhaul of the governance of B.C. Housing. We

put a new board in place. I put a new board in place to bring extensive

experience and skill sets to ensure effective and efficient

oversight.

I will say…. A lot of members on the other side of the House. It

is a bit strange that that’s the member that would ask a question about

managing Crown corporations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

T. Stone: Well, the Premier is barely into his first week, and he’s

completely out of material. I mean, give me a break.

The question was: why did the Premier fire the board of B.C.

Housing? He didn’t answer it. The question before that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

T. Stone: The board that was appointed by the Finance Minister, who sits

right beside him…. She appoints this board. He comes in and fires the

board. The public has a right to know why. The public has a right to

know how much the Atira CEO gets paid. No answer on that

either.

The Premier tried to bury a damning Ernst and Young report by

quietly releasing it on the Canada Day long weekend. One week later he

fired the board on a Friday night. That’s not normal. But that’s not

all. Seventeen senior executives from B.C. Housing departed the

corporation within two years, all without any explanation. That’s not

normal either.

Just think about this for a moment. How bad must it be, in an

organization with a multi-billion-dollar budget, to have 17 senior

executives leave the corporation within two years with no explanation?

Clearly, B.C. Housing is an organization that is in complete and total

chaos, and it’s all under this Premier’s watch.

The question is: can the Premier explain why 17 senior executives

left B.C. Housing while he was the minister responsible for B.C.

Housing, and will he order a full, transparent and independent audit of

the mess that he created at B.C. Housing and Atira?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It’s strange. I swear I just went through and explained the dates

and exactly when I ordered a full forensic audit of B.C. Housing. I can

provide the dates again.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: Listen. It was an incredibly….

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.

Please continue.

Hon. D. Eby: It was an incredibly stressful time at B.C. Housing through the

pandemic. I think a lot of employers saw senior employees making

decisions about where they want to work, what kind of work they want to

do, and so on.

I can’t explain the backgrounds of each individual employee, but I

can tell you that it was incredibly stressful and a huge amount of work

during the pandemic — decamping encampments, making sure that shelters

were safe during the pandemic. People were working crazy hours. I am so

grateful to every employee of B.C. Housing that put in that kind of

time.

I had the exact same message for our non-profit housing service

providers when I was speaking to them. These people put in unbelievable

hours to ensure that people in our province were kept safe during the

pandemic. We have challenges retaining people, in the whole social

services sector, coming out of the pandemic. I know that the members on

the other side know that. It’s not just B.C. Housing. It’s all kinds of

companies, public and private.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s work for us to do, absolutely. I accept that, hon. Speaker —

more work to do.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND FUNDING FOR AUTISM SERVICES

A. Olsen: To the Premier, does his vision for British Columbia include

returning to individualized funding for parents and caregivers of

children with autism?

Hon. M. Dean: We know that all children need to have access to the supports and

services that are going to help them develop and help them thrive, and

they need access to them as early as possible. That’s why we’re moving

towards a needs-based system for children and youth with support needs,

because far too many children and youths are being left

behind.

I have been listening to families. I’ve been listening to

advocates, to service providers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Members, let the minister answer, please.

The minister will continue.

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I’ve been listening to organizations,

Indigenous communities, Indigenous leadership. I have been hearing some

concerns, and where I’m hearing concerns, I take those concerns very

seriously.

I will continue to listen to families, to listen to advocacy

groups, to organizations. We will be working….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Dean: We will be working together to make sure that we build a system

that is more accessible to more children — and crucially, earlier in

their development — so that more children and youth across our province

will thrive.

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

A. Olsen: I’m sure the parents and caregivers of children with autism are

going to be disappointed that our new Premier doesn’t have a different

vision than the previous Premier and the minister.

For kids receiving individual support, they have bonded with their

service providers. These changes rip them away from their care team.

It’s cruel, actually. It takes years for parents to find the right

service providers for their children. When they do, those children

develop close personal relationships with their caregivers. Parents have

actually described them to us as part of the family. The new hub model

doesn’t guarantee that those same providers will be available to

families.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development is once again

separating children from their loved ones. These children don’t

understand government bureaucracy. All they know is that the people that

they trust are no longer around them. It’s confusing, it’s distressing,

and it’s traumatizing. It’s not difficult to imagine a child in this

situation, to not internalize this.

[2:25 p.m.]

AutismBC released the results of a survey of 1,500 parents earlier

this week. They found 4 percent of parents…. The minister says that she

is listening to the parents, but 96 percent of them want rid of this hub

model that she has brought in. More than half want to continue the model

that they know works: the individualized funding.

To the Premier, does his new vision for British Columbia include

listening to parents and caregivers of children with autism and

committing to returning to the indivi­dualized funding?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. M. Dean: It is really important to listen to families. I have been

listening to families, I will continue to listen to families, and where

I’m hearing concerns, I’m taking them very seriously. I hear from a

range of families. I hear from parents who say to me that this change

cannot come soon enough.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. M. Dean: There are far too many children and youth who are left behind.

We’ve heard from the Repre­sentative for Children and Youth. She

has made numerous recommendations that we need to move towards a

needs-based system. In fact, there was a select standing committee of

this very Legislative Assembly that made the recommendation that we need

to move towards a needs-based system….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Members, let the minister finish her answer, please. That’s fine.

People can ask another question later. Let’s let her continue. Let’s

listen.

Hon. M. Dean: It’s widely recognized that many children and youth with

neurodiversity and disabilities are not properly served and are left

behind. Indeed, AutismBC, when they came to visit me on Monday this

week, agreed with us that we need to change the system in order to meet

the needs of more children.

Many children who have a diagnosis of autism or who are waiting

for a diagnosis of autism are also not able to receive the services that

they need. Children and youth with support needs need to be matched up

with services that are going to meet the unique needs of them as

children, as early as possible, to help them on their developmental

pathway so that they will be able to thrive.

Working in a needs-based system means that services will no longer

be locked behind a diagnosis. More children will have better access to

services earlier in their development, and more children will

thrive.

COMMENTS BY B.C. HOUSING OFFICIAL

S. Bond: Yesterday we asked the Premier about the comments of Stephanie

Allen, who is a senior executive for B.C. Housing. She makes $245,000 a

year and is responsible for performance at the Crown corporation. The

current Housing Minister at least, to his credit, denounced the comments

of the senior executive yesterday, comments like this one: “I’m not sure

how we get out of the housing crisis without limiting

capitalism.”

The very person tasked with leading this Premier’s agenda on

housing, which requires partnership with the private sector, actually

believes that the private sector is the enemy.

Will the Premier stand up today and denounce these

statements?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s a remarkable thing to hear the opposition today supporting

private sector homebuilders when just yesterday they voted against

housing supply.

The opposition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, shhh. Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

The Premier will continue.

Hon. D. Eby: The opposition say a lot of words about housing, but if people

want action on housing, they know where it is.

[2:30 p.m.]

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

The member has the floor, please.

S. Bond: What we know in this House is that this Premier has been an

absolutely abysmal failure at every file he had his hands on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, shhh.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.

S. Bond: I can assure the member opposite what we voted against yesterday

was this Premier’s absolute lack of leadership, unwillingness to allow

proper debate to take place in this chamber, and we’re going to continue

to be against that every single day. What a shameful beginning for a

Premier, where he actually shuts down democracy in this Legislature, and

that’s what we’re going to keep focusing on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let’s get the question, please. Let’s hear the

question.

S. Bond: Here’s something else that is shameful. Making wild, inflammatory

statements about those people you need to partner with to deliver a

housing agenda should have consequences.

We have an executive, Stephanie Allen, being paid $245,000 a year

by taxpayers, and she is responsible for performance. She says: “God

bless everyone trying to find a home on these stolen lands as capitalism

collapses under the weight of its greed and selfishness.” She is the

second-in-command at a multi-billion-dollar Crown corporation that is

responsible for delivering this Premier’s housing agenda, and it

requires working with partners.

The Premier failed to denounce her comments. Will he get up, do

the right thing and denounce those comments?

Hon. D. Eby: I haven’t been around as long as the Minister for Public Safety,

but he leaned over and reminded me that in 2008, six bills were passed

in 30 minutes by the B.C. Liberal government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, shhh, Members. Members.

Member.

Please, continue.

Hon. D. Eby: Ramming through six bills in 30 minutes — there must have been a

crisis. There must have been a crisis. We are in a housing crisis.

British Colum­bians want us to act, and I will not apologize for

acting.

MANAGEMENT OF B.C. HOUSING

AND TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR

AUDIT

M. de Jong: Less than a week into his premiership, here’s what we’ve learned

about this Premier’s record on housing.

One, he actively sought to bury a report that revealed serious

problems in mismanagement at a housing agency that was receiving and is

receiving hundreds of millions of public tax dollars at his

direction.

Two, apparently on a dark and stormy night, he decided to fire the

entire board at B.C. Housing, without a word of explanation for why that

was so and what prompted it.

Three, 17 senior executives fled B.C. Housing during the two years

on his watch.

[2:35 p.m.]

Four, they left behind a 2IC who is issuing statements that would

make Che Guevara blush, denouncing those “evil, dirty capitalists” who

are responsible for partnering with government to build the houses that

British Columbians need.

Quite frankly, it’s a mess. No wonder, actually — no wonder the

Premier did something that’s never been done: that is, impose closure on

housing legislation 24 hours after it was tabled in this

Legislature.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Members, let the member finish his question, please.

M. de Jong: God forbid those pesky opposition MLAs should have an opportunity

to ask questions to determine what exactly is taking place within B.C.

Housing, what exactly is taking place within these agencies like Atira

that apparently are making a mess of things.

If the Premier won’t let MLAs do their job and ask the questions

that are necessary by imposing closure on legislation, will he at least

release the terms of reference to the audit he claims to have initiated

but didn’t manage to tell anyone about until this very time?

Hon. D. Eby: I commit to the member, every member of this place, that we’ll

release everything that the law allows us to release once the forensic

audit is complete. We expect that early next year, unless the audit

uncovers matters that require them to expand their scope of

work.

Now, it is important, I think, to be measured by results. In the

whole 16 years that the B.C. Liberals were in government, they

built….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Members, the Premier has the floor, please.

Please continue.

Hon. D. Eby: They built 130 units of student housing. Our government has built

5,860 units in just five years. The champion….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I think I’ve hit on something, hon. Speaker. I think I’ve hit on

something.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Finance Minister, 27,588

homes built, 1,948 rental homes built. In the most recent year we have

data for, 53,000 new homes built, 13,127 rental homes built — six

times….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. D. Eby: Six times the number of rental homes…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let the Premier finish his answer, please.

Let the premier finish his answer.

Hon. D. Eby: …and double the number of homes in the private market.

Better than that, this side of the House voting for housing

supply, while that side voted against it.

[End of question period.]

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

K. Kirkpatrick: I reserve my right on a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Petitions

Hon. M. Dean: I rise to present a petition from local resident Ryan Painter signed

by View Royal mayor Sid Tobias and 180 residents. This petition urges the

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to meet with the mayor and

council for the town of View Royal and residents to discuss possible

solutions to mitigate the effect of increased noise that’s having on the

neighbouring communities and their residents.

Tabling Documents

Hon. N. Cullen: I have the honour of presenting the 2021-2022 annual report of the

Islands Trust. It’s quite a hefty, good-looking document. The report

underlines the wide range of activities and hard work of the Islands Trust

and the Islands Trust Conservancy Board in managing development, sustaining

communities and protecting ecosystems in this very unique part of British

Columbia.

I greatly appreciate the dedication of the trust’s elected officials

and staffing to fulfil this legislated purpose of preserving the Islands

Trust.

[2:40 p.m.]

The Islands Trust is continuing its review of their policy statement,

which I look forward to. This is a foundational document that guides their

planning and advocacy.

I’d also like to recognize the trust’s ongoing commitment to

reconciliation and relationship-building with the many First Nations with

interests in the islands and the waters of the trust area. In 2019, the

trust adopted the Islands Trust reconciliation plan, which is reported here.

It continues to guide the Islands Trust Council in applying the United

Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples articles, the Truth

and Reconciliation Commission calls to action, the Islands Trust–First

Nations agreement, the engagement policy and the declaration on the rights

of Indigenous peoples.

Hon. S. Robinson: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I’m pleased to present

reports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022, on all amounts borrowed

by government and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports

provide an overview of the province’s borrowing activity in fiscal

2021-22.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I rise to table the InBC 2021-2022 annual report.

Hon. M. Rankin: I have the honour to present the annual Report on Multiculturalism

2021-2022 .

Hon. L. Beare: I have the honour to present the Report on the Administration of

the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as well as

the Annual Report of the Chief Records Officer, 2021-22 .

Hon. G. Heyman: I have the honour to present two reports. The first one is the 2022

climate change accountability report, as required by the Climate Change

Accountability Act. The second is the environmental emergency program’s

2021-2022 report to the Legislature, as required by the Environmental

Management Act.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 43, Housing Supply

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call committee stage on Bill 38,

Indigenous Self-Government in Child and Family Services Amendment

Act.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call committee stage on Bill 41, Workers

Compensation Amendment Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 43 — HOUSING SUPPLY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 43;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

Hon. M. Rankin: We are about to begin Committee of the Whole for Bill 43, the

Housing Supply Act.

Mr. Chair, if you wouldn’t mind, I’d like to introduce the

talented public servants that I have with me to assist: firstly, Teri

Collins to my left, who is the acting associate deputy minister; Bonnie

Ruscheinski, the acting assistant deputy minister; and Cimarron Corpe,

who is the director of housing policy.

On clause 1.

M. Bernier: Welcome to the minister and to the minister’s staff. Thank you for

being here. We will be here for a little while, anyway, as we move

through this bill. The minister will have to allow me, hopefully, some

latitude here because, of course, this bill was just presented 48 hours

ago.

There was no initial briefing. I want to thank staff for the

briefing I got just yesterday or the day before, after the bill was

introduced, though. I do want to acknowledge and thank them for

that.

We’ve had very limited time to get into this. If some of my

questions get repetitive to the Chair, it’s only due to the lack of time

that this government has actually given the opposition to research,

digest and look at the bill wholeheartedly.

It’s also important to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that we

now have only a day and a half left before this government…. It sounds

like they’re going to invoke closure, and we’re leaving this place. It’s

yet to be seen. We can only hope that they will see the light and allow

more time.

That time could’ve been given during second reading, when we had

numerous opposition members who wanted to highlight local stories and

what they’ve been hearing from constituents and from local governments

that pertains to this bill. That really is not relevant to bring forward

in committee stage unless, of course, the minister thinks it’s a good

use of his time to welcome in 20 people to speak for half an hour on the

importance of this bill for their community. Not only will he not allow,

but he doesn’t have the authority to do that.

I’m going to give some real snappers, I guess, just to try to get

things rolling here. The first things I want to talk about here are

really in

section one. We don’t need to dive into, I guess, explanations

of a lot of the

definitions. But I will jump to the last one.

It talks about specified municipalities. Can the minister give a

little bit more information to this House about what he means by a

“specified municipality”?

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank my colleague for his question and look forward to engaging

in this clause-by-clause analysis.

To his first question, the technical answer is…. A municipality is

prescribed by regulation. Once that regulation is enacted, that will

become a specified municipality. Usually the term used is “prescribed”

by regulation. The specific municipalities to which this bill will apply

will be done by regulation. The government has indicated that there will

be something in the order of eight to ten next year, if this legislation

is enacted, that would be specified at the outset.

[2:50 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Is there any chance that tomorrow this legislation won’t be

enacted?

The Chair: On clause 1, Minister.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m here to answer questions on the specifics of this

bill.

M. Bernier: I’m not trying to be creative in any way, to put the minister in

an awkward spot. He just said that this will only happen if it’s

enacted. I’m just asking him if this bill will be enacted or

not.

L. Doerkson: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to draw your attention to a potential

shortage on quorum — point of order.

The Chair: A point of order on quorum. I’m undertaking a quorum call.

It’s not a vote, but just so everyone understands, this is for

quorum, to make sure we have ten in the chamber.

[The bells were rung.]

Interjection.

The Chair: We ring the bell three times, even though it’s not a vote.

It’s just a quorum call, just so everyone understands. I know we

don’t do this that often.

All right, quorum has been met. Now we are back into

questions.

M. Bernier: My apologies. I’m not sure if I got an answer from the minister. I

think I did, and I know where he was going.

We’ll also watch to see if people come running in, because some

people will think there’s a vote, and we’ll deal with that accordingly.

I’ll leave that up to the Chair.

I guess to the point the minister was trying to make…. He was

saying: “If this passes.” We know the intent of government, obviously.

So I’m not trying to trip up the minister in any way. But I think it’s

important to talk about what this means for local

governments.

Obviously, when we talk about…. We said “specified

municipalities.” The minister referred to “prescribed municipalities.” I

understand the nuance there and the importance of the wording because,

of course, he’s a lawyer. I’m not. I know how the legal team looks at a

lot of this when they put it forward.

But the minister, under his own admission, has said that it’s

estimated that eight to ten communities will be involved — prescribed,

if we want to use that word, under the definition. Have the eight or ten

been chosen? Have they been contacted yet?

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank my friend for the question. The decision has not been made

on the specification of the municipalities. This will be done after a

review of the housing reports, which are being prepared by the

municipalities. We’ll look at demographic information and other economic

factors and make a decision based on that. But I can tell the member

that there has been no decision to this point.

M. Bernier: Listening to the commentary, then, from the minister, no decision

has been made at this point on the eight to ten. Nobody is locking the

minister down. I don’t think it says anywhere in the legislation…. The

minister will correct me if I’m wrong. Nowhere here does it say eight or

ten. That’s been a government announcement, I believe.

The minister’s nodding his head, so I’m not going to ask him to

get up and clarify that. But I just wanted to get that on the record,

that that was, I guess, an assumption or a target. Government is

assuming that they will be looking at eight or ten. Again, the minister

is acknowledging that.

I know the intent of government, obviously, that this will be….

Whether we complete it or not, we’ll see closure tomorrow, and this bill

will pass. I’m not putting words in the minister’s mouth, but I know how

the process works around this place and the intent of

government.

[2:55 p.m.]

If the work has not been done yet, and the communication and

consultation — I’ll get to that later on in other sections, I’m sure —

has not been done yet, what’s the time that we’re looking at before

municipalities will be notified, the consultation will take place, and

those prescribed municipalities will at least be identified?

Hon. M. Rankin: We hope that the legislation will come into force in the spring,

perhaps in April of 2023. All this is subject to vicissitudes, so many

things — the first of which is the assumption that the bill will be

enacted and the regulations will be in place, etc., in the normal

course. But our goal would be to have the legislation come into force in

April of next year.

Then, as for the first cohort, the eight to ten municipalities

that would be specified: how would we do that? Well, first we would

analyze the housing needs reports and statistics up to, let’s say, March

of 2023. Then we would begin the consultation process with the

municipalities, to which the hon. member referred. That would occur

between May and June of 2023. They’d be notified, and of course we’d

consult with them during that period.

Then the targets would be set for the first cohort — the housing

targets in June of 2023 — and the reporting for that first cohort would

start toward the end of the year, in December of 2023. All other things

being equal, that’s our general game plan.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. That kind of covered off probably where I would

have gone with some further questions. So I appreciate the information

that the minister just put forward.

Not that I want to jump…. I’m not asking the Chair to allow me to

jump to

section 21, which is the commencement, but it does say in

section 21 that it comes into force through an OIC. If that’s the case

and it’s not coming into force unless it’s through an OIC, and it’s not

going to be….

As the minister just said…. I know we’re on

section 1, and the

minister just talked about how that might not be until sometime next

year. Why did it have to come in, as it did just now, with very limited

notice — none — and very limited debate allowed in this House when we’re

finding out right now that it’s actually not even going to be

contemplated, brought into force through OIC sometime next

year?

Why was this not put forward as an exposure bill, then, on

government’s intent — which they have the full right to do — and

actually give the public and the municipalities time to digest this and

look at this before the government is ramming it through without that

consultation? Why was it not, maybe, brought forward as an exposure bill

for consideration in the spring, then, given the information that we

just heard from the minister?

Hon. M. Rankin: On the first point that the member raised, the enactment date in

section 21, I think the member would agree with me that that sort of

approach to bringing a law into force by order-in-council at some future

point in time is typical, if not constant. Some bills do come in, of

course, on assent, but the majority of them come into force through a

date set by the OIC. So I don’t consider that anything

unusual.

As to why this bill is being enacted, it has been the subject of

enormous consultation with municipalities, the Union of B.C.

Municipalities, homebuilders and so many other sector-specific groups in

the economy. That work has been underway. It also needs to be said that

this is an enormous amount of drafting and other work that got us to

this point in time so that we could be in a position to enact the bill

and then to take the steps that I described in my last

answer.

The Chair: Member, of course we are on

section 1, and questions around

clause 21 would probably be best put at clause 21. But I know the

member referenced that, so thank you.

[3:00 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair.

Interesting comments from the minister just now. With what the

minister just said…. So much work took place, so much consultation took

place, yet this was brought in with two to three days left in the

legislative session.

When did this government consider putting a bill like this forward

and start the legislative review process? I know how this system works

internally within government. It doesn’t happen overnight.

When did this bill start getting drafted? When was the direction

given to the legislative bill committee there to start looking at

this?

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the question. I just had to confer with my

colleagues. Quite frankly, I don’t remember.

To the best of our knowledge, cabinet direction was received in

June of 2022. After that, the drafting process began. As the member will

know, it’s often an iterative process. There are a lot of changes, back

and forth, based on consultation with municipalities and others. And

here we are in November.

That’s the time frame, to the best of my knowledge, that was

followed.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that. The minister has his staff here that were

working on this. I do want to acknowledge that the minister was not the

minister at the time. So I appreciate that it’s not in his memory bank,

per se.

If it started in June, when was it completed?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you for the member’s indulgence as I try to remember these

dates.

The member will know that there’s an elaborate process in all

executive councils. I’m sure the one followed by the previous government

would be no different.

There’s a committee that studied it. It went to cabinet for

approval-in-principle. Then it went to something we call the legislative

review committee, and there were some changes made as a consequence of

that back-and-forth, which I described. I think the final bill would

have been ready early this month, early November.

M. Bernier: Thank you for that acknowledgment of the process. I’m aware of it

as well. It’s one of those not only requirements but due diligence by

government that it go through that process. Again, politicians come up

with ideas, but the smart people actually try to put it on paper and try

to enact it. I know how that works.

I’m going to put the minister in a very awkward position here.

This won’t require staff consultation, I’m sure, though he might choose

to do so. If it was ready three weeks ago, why did it take until this

week, the last week of the session, for it to be presented in the

House?

Hon. M. Rankin: Sure, I can properly answer that.

There are a number of bills that are in the system at any given

time. It’s always the job of the House Leader to determine the best

timing for enactment and when bills are ready to proceed. I’m not

really, beyond that, as the Minister responsible for Housing, to do much

more than acknowledge the role that a House leader plays in any

parliament.

[3:05 p.m.]

M. Bernier: Again, I acknowledge the nuances on that and the relationship

between a minister and a House leader but, more importantly, the

direction and relationship between a House leader and a new

Premier.

I think it goes without saying that regardless of this minister’s

intentions, obviously, the public, through opposition as well…. Timing

is very convenient for government to sit on a bill and then enact it and

rush it through closure in the last week of session, conveniently, right

after the new Premier is appointed, when he talked about this as being

something that he wanted to see enacted.

Again, I think it’s important to get on the record — this wasn’t

an avenue that I was going to canvass until the minister allowed me that

opportunity through his answers — to again express the disappointment to

the democratic process of how this House is being treated, when we could

have had those extra couple of weeks to really….

[Interruption.]

The Chair: If members have phones or electronic devices, please ensure

that they are turned off.

M. Bernier: Since it wasn’t a member of my caucus, I’ll leave it to members of

the NDP to rat out their colleague to the Whip. I’m not sure what the

fine is in there. I know what it would be in my caucus, and I probably

couldn’t afford that fine, but I’ll leave that to them to determine how

that works out. I appreciate the quick interruption.

Again, I think the minister has heard, and frankly, probably

acknowledged, our frustration with this. That doesn’t take away from the

importance of the bill. I’m not trying to diminish that at all. The

intention of increasing housing supply is an important one. It’s one

that this side of the House supports, contrary to commentary we heard in

the House today that we were opposed to the bill. That is 100 percent

not factual.

We’re opposed to the process that this government has enacted in

order to rush through a bill, regardless, again, of its importance.

Regardless of the fact that if it was done properly, it would have

probably seen full support of this House, right from the get-go, because

that due diligence would have been afforded. The democratic process

would have been respected.

I think it’s just, again, important to acknowledge for the

minister. We’ll get through this as we canvass more questions in other

sections as well. I’m not finished with

section 1 yet, but when we get

to those other sections, again, canvass some of those concerns, but also

talk about the importance of this. As not only the Housing critic, but

as a former mayor, I understand the intent, I would say, of this bill.

The fact that we all collectively need to figure out a path forward to

increase housing supply in the province of British Columbia….

That doesn’t take away from the role and responsibility of

government to…. Historically it was to present bills in a timely way to

allow opposition the respect that they should be deserving of to do

their job as well. I love the fact that we get 15 minutes before I even

have to ask the question, but I think it’s important that that

commentary is brought forward. As we go through the day-to-day and other

questions, the minister will probably smile and nod as I repeat some of

that frustration in different sections, dependent on the kind of answers

that I receive.

We were talking about prescribed municipalities. The minister has

acknowledged that those municipalities haven’t been contacted or

notified yet. I guess it will be, when the minister was talking about

the timelines, that that will take place, that they will start looking

at reports. I’m not putting words in the minister’s mouth, so he can

correct me if I say anything that he did not say.

[3:10 p.m.]

Looking at reports and concept, bringing this into effect some

time next April, then going through the process. Then the municipalities

that will be — I’ll use the word “chosen” — prescribed, that this bill

will basically be enacted upon, where it will affect them.

I’m trying to just look at a timeline here, a realistic timeline

between what the minister said on government’s intentions for

information-gathering for communities being chosen, for them to do their

due diligence and to then come back with a report. Other sections will

cover the details of that, so I won’t get into too much detail in this

section on it. But once a municipality is prescribed, and we go through

the process, as the minister is saying, is it fair to say that it might

actually be a year — two years, possibly — before the province actually

will be looking at outcomes, I guess?

I say that because I know that the intent is to get shovels in the

ground. Nobody’s arguing that. But I also understand, again, as somebody

who’s been in this field for a while — as somebody who has built

affordable housing, as a former mayor and now the critic too — that this

doesn’t happen overnight. But it’s also fair to say that for a

municipality, they can’t do things overnight, either, and the public

wants to see results.

I guess I’m just looking for what the minister said from a

timeline perspective, when the minister will be finally looking at and

reviewing outcomes of actual numbers. Is it fair to say — and I’m not

intending this as a trick question — that it could be a year or two

years, the way this policy is laid out, before that would take

place?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for the question and, I suspect, the

commentary. I also want to acknowledge his recognition, his statement

that he recognizes the importance of the bill. If I heard him correctly,

despite voting against the bill in second reading, he is supportive — if

I’m not putting words in his mouth — of that. If so, I acknowledge that

personal support.

To the specific question that was asked, the consultation will

occur, as I said, with the municipalities after May. But I need to say

that there has been an enormous amount of conversation by government

with municipalities for months and months. I can’t remember how many

municipalities I met at UBCM. I confess it’s a total blur.

To suggest that we didn’t have endless dialogue about this bill,

to suggest that it was somehow a surprise to municipalities, is

categorically wrong. I’m not putting words in the member’s mouth, but

there has been enormous dialogue about this, and the proof is in the

pudding. We had many, many municipalities lined up a couple of days ago

to say how much they value this, how much they appreciate it and want us

to get on with it.

So those are the facts. How long? When will we see outcomes? Well,

we will begin with the reports. We expect by the end of next year that….

Well, first of all, I should start by saying that annual targets are

what will be set. But by the end of next year, as I outlined in that

process earlier, we will be getting into the nitty-gritty of the

qualitative commitments that will be required. What are the pre-zoning

processes? What about the approval processes? Can we show progress on

housing?

I know for a fact, to the member, that many of the municipalities,

in the Lower Mainland in particular, that anticipate that they’re going

to be engaging with us in this process have rolled up their sleeves long

ago and are getting ready. So work is underway now, and we hope we have

stuff to roll out very quickly.

M. Bernier: I’ll give the minister a chance when we get to sections 2 and 3 to

probably go into greater detail on some of the commentary that he had

when it comes to target-setting and requirements of those targets, which

are in other sections.

[3:15 p.m.]

But just sticking, then, to the prescribed municipality, staying

section 1 for a few more questions, with the indulgence of the Chair,

as I work through this.

It’s important to acknowledge, as well, to the minister’s point,

his commentary around UBCM, how it works. I’m not sure how many UBCMs

the minister has had the privilege of being at. I’m going to say just a

few. I’ve been to almost 20 of them, with different hats. I’ve sat on

numerous different sides of the table.

I understand his respectful commentary about how it can be a blur.

It truly can be when there is a lot going on — a lot of municipalities

that want to meet with ministers on a multitude of issues — and trying

to digest all that. They’re all important. As a former mayor, I’ll say

they’re all important. I think that is a step that it needs to go

through.

I do want to not clarify the minister’s comments…. I appreciate,

though, that he acknowledged that the frustration on the vote yesterday

was against process. The determination that I’ve said around support

is…. As we get through this, we’ll decide, based on how this works, on

the support holistically of this bill, depending on some of the answers

that the minister puts forward. That determination, I think, is made —

but not 100 percent sure — depending on some of the concerns that might

be raised.

The definite support that this side of the House has is the fact

that we’re in a crisis situation and we need to do better for building

housing. That sometimes will be collaboration in this House,

collaboration with the private sector, the not-for-profit sector and

municipalities. I believe the intention with this bill is to try to make

up some lost ground in some ways.

I think it’s also important to highlight, and I’ll ask a few

questions around this, the work that municipalities have already been

doing. I’m sure the minister has heard the frustration that some of them

face as well.

Now, I don’t necessarily need the minister to stand up and answer

this unless I can get a visual. The minister acknowledged they’ve been

in conversations for quite some time, if I understood the minister —

when I say conversations, that’s with municipalities — on a conceptual

design of a legislative agenda like we see in front of us

today.

I believe the minister said that those eight or ten

munici­palities have not been chosen yet. He’s acknowledging that

I’m correct with that. If I heard correctly, and I’m sorry if I’m

sounding repetitive here, the timeline for those to be chosen will be

some time after next April or May, after further consultation. Maybe the

minister might want to answer that one.

Hon. M. Rankin: I would just like to thank the member for using the same term I’ve

been using frequently in the last while, and that is the word “crisis.”

I think the fact that we share that perspective is really

encouraging.

Collaboration with everyone, the expertise the member has as a

former mayor, working with the opposition, working with municipalities —

that is what we hope. The Premier has said very clearly that the

last-resort compliance measures that are there, the so-called stick

people have referred to…. We hope it never gets to be used. We think we

have a pretty good story to tell about working together to do what the

people of British Columbia are asking us to. I appreciate the member’s

commentary on that.

I’d just reiterate that the objective is to bring the bill in, in

April, by order-in-council. I reiterate that I can’t commit to that

timeline. Things may happen, but that is clearly our goal. Then, of

course, municipalities…. The eight to ten municipalities would be

informed, and we’d begin, as I said, to consult immediately thereafter.

Sometime between May and June we begin that process.

M. Bernier: Thank you again to the minister for that. I’m just asking again,

mostly, because, as we acknowledge, we are in this crisis situation.

Nobody is sitting and waiting. Work is still going on, where it’s able

to.

[3:20 p.m.]

Later on in…. I can’t remember which

section it is; I’ll turn to

it afterwards. We’ll talk about the sticks and what the intention is of

government — as the minister says, hopefully never having to use it. But

we’ll canvass that in a little while.

I’m curious, though. When we’re talking about the prescribed

municipalities, with what the minister just said — I’m trying to figure

out how to phrase this: what if a municipality doesn’t agree, or what if

they aren’t chosen and they want to be? I’m curious how that process is

going to play out in the minister’s thought process, because he’s saying

eight to ten municipalities.

If I were the mayor of community X — and this government has now

walked in and said: “You are one of the municipalities we’ve chosen” —

what if I don’t want to be on that list? Will I have a say to opt out?

Or is this government…? Through the wording that they have here in the

definitions and then later on in the bill, do they have a choice or not?

I guess that will be canvassed later on, in the sticks approach — if

they don’t have a choice.

Hon. M. Rankin: If a municipality is not chosen and wants to be, we would welcome

them with open arms. We would work with them because that would be an

acknowledgment, on their part, that they share our concern that there

may be process changes that would allow us to build houses in their

community more rapidly — the kind of houses that we are expecting. It’s

the mix of housing, and so forth, that’s at issue.

We have told municipalities that this is a collaborative process,

in how we would specify the first cohort of municipalities. But at the

end of the day, if there is an unwillingness to accept the need to

address the housing crisis, as the member aptly put it, then we have the

authority under the act to bring them into this process.

Again, our entire objective is to avoid having to take those

steps, all through the process — up to and including the powers that are

vested in the cabinet, at the end of the day, later in the

bill.

M. Bernier: Thanks to the minister for that, and thanks to the Chair for the

flexibility.

As he might notice through questions and answers, we are jumping

around very vaguely in the bill. We’ll canvass some of the commentary in

a little bit more detail when we get to those specific sections, but I

think it’s also important to acknowledge that the minister’s answers and

commentary do reflect the questions that I’m asking on

section 1, and

those are relevant as well, which I appreciate.

That is interesting because there may be a multitude of reasons

for why a municipality may or may not want to be part of this. I’ll get

into some of the specific questions that I’ve read, from mayors out

there already and through the UBCM, about some of the unintended

consequences out of this or some of the information that has not been

forthcoming at this point. I don’t use that as a criticism. I use that

more because of the way this bill is put forward.

A lot of that detail is not in here — for obvious reasons, I would

assume, from government’s intents. The minister has said that the eight

or ten have not been chosen yet, and that will be done through a

consultation process, as he has acknowledged, later on sometime next

year. The minister has said publicly that Victoria, Kamloops, city of

North Vancouver and Langley are great examples of communities that are

already getting things done.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’m curious on the examples, then. If those are the cities that

he’s highlighted publicly and that are already doing a good job in

getting things done, is the assumption, then, that they won’t be on the

list? Maybe he can give some examples of why he has picked those

communities as doing a great job, in comparison to other

communities.

Hon. M. Rankin: I appreciate the member’s question, the reference to the

municipalities. I think the reason why those were selected by way of

illustration, the ones that were mentioned, is because they have made

some significant process changes to facilitate creating more housing,

different kinds of housing.

For example, the Victoria one. There were a number of pre-zoning

measures that they brought in, and they have innovative programs to try

to enhance the diversity of their housing stock. These sorts of things

are very welcome to meet the needs — because, as the member would

acknowledge, it’s not just about building houses; it’s about ensuring

that we have the diversity to meet the needs of the workforce in those

communities — you know, a different variety of homes. Victoria took some

really bold steps to diversify, which we think is consistent with our

common goal of finding more housing for people in British

Columbia.

I should also say that the legislation is going to apply to those

municipalities where the demand is the highest and where there’s a gap

between supply and demand. In some places, that’s not the case. The

demand has been met in spades by certain municipalities I can think of;

in others, that’s simply not the case. That will be a key factor in our

determination.

M. Bernier: It will be interesting as this unfolds, I guess, through this

process. The minister has highlighted some municipalities that have done

some great work, and I want to acknowledge that there are some

municipalities out there that are being creative and trying. I say

“trying,” because, as we’ve both acknowledged and all acknowledge, we

are in a crisis and have been, frustratingly, challenged with keeping up

in some areas. I think it’s also fair to acknowledge and give the

minister an opportunity to explain, because he actually has said: “Here

are some municipalities that are doing a great job.”

On the other side, the minister and this government have publicly

gone after some cities. You say they’re doing a bad job. In fact, the

mayor of Port Coquitlam, Brad West, has publicly come out quite upset, I

would say, because they know that they’re doing what they can. He said

that the government and the minister labelling them as a bad city is

completely unfair and erroneous.

I’m curious. In acknowledging those statements, as a former mayor,

I’d be upset as well if government were saying that we’ve been doing a

bad job, especially when we know the good work that Mr. West has been

trying to do for his community. Can the minister give examples, then, of

what they’ve been doing wrong and why they would say that they’re a bad

city?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. M. Rankin: Welcome, Madam Chair, to the table.

[3:30 p.m.]

This bill is being debated, as I understand it, in the Committee

of the Whole stage to deal with the section-by-section analysis. I don’t

see any utility, with great respect, in talking about municipalities

that may or may not be taking this or that step. I don’t see the benefit

to the work that is before this place today.

I can tell you that the issues that we’re dealing with in housing

supply don’t just involve quantity, but they involve the diversity of

housing stock that people need. To take a trite example, if everybody in

a municipality…. Not everyone can afford to live in expensive

condominiums or single-family housing on large lots. If that’s what a

particular municipality is doing to meet the housing crisis that the

member and I seem to agree exists, then that would not be consistent

with the goals of this bill or the housing-needs reports, more

importantly, set by the municipalities across the province.

M. Bernier: I’m saying this respectfully to the minister. Actually, in

committee stage, the way this bill is presented, is exactly the time

that I’m entitled to and have the ability to ask these questions. It is

up to the minister whether, I guess, he chooses to answer them or not,

which we hope he would.

It’s very important to highlight at this point, because we’re

talking about prescribed municipalities. The minister and this

government have come out and said: “These are good ones.” They have also

publicly said: “These are bad ones.” I just acknowledged one of them,

Mayor Brad West, who was singled out as a bad municipality, according to

this government.

All I’m asking the minister is, then, to acknowledge that if they

are a bad municipality…. I’m using his words, not mine, or the

government’s words, depending on how the minister wants to correct me on

that. All I’m asking for, I guess, is if the government is saying that

they’re not doing a good job, is there an expectation? Can I phone Mr.

West after this and say: “Government has acknowledged or refused to

acknowledge that you are a bad municipality, and they didn’t want to

correct that on the record”? Are they now going to be one of the eight

or ten?

Interjection.

M. Bernier: The minister can criticize all she wants. She has a chance to

answer if she wants, instead of the minister.

Sorry. I thought this was my time, Madam Speaker. Is it still my

time to speak?

The Chair: It is your time. Thank you.

M. Bernier: Thank you. Appreciate that. The minister can allow me that time as

well, and I’m not referring to the Minister of Housing. I’m referring to

the minister of community services who wants to somehow be involved in

this debate, even though it’s not hers.

I’m not saying anything that’s not…. These aren’t my words here.

I’m just asking for an explanation. I’m not trying to put the minister

in an awkward spot here, and I’m sorry if he feels maybe it is. I’m just

asking….

From a public perspective, municipalities want to know if this

government has already started picking and choosing which are good ones

and which are bad ones through public commentary. Mr. West wants to

know. Is he on the list of the eight or ten, and if so, why? This

government has already publicly said that they’re not doing a good job,

and they want to know why they’re not doing a good job.

Hon. M. Rankin: I would say that there is no good or bad. There is simply a

question of room for improvement across our province. We wouldn’t have

this problem we have faced together without that.

How will we determine it? Once again, as I said earlier, we will

look initially at that community’s self-identified housing needs,

through their housing needs report. We will do our own demographic and

evidence-based analysis of the economy, the growth patterns, who’s

coming in. What kind of person is moving in there? Do they need

apartments? Do they need large housing? Would towers be appropriate?

Would some kind of modular housing be appropriate? Are there shelters to

deal with people who are at that end of the housing

continuum?

Those are all the things that we’re hoping to do in cooperation

and collaboration with municipalities. That is entirely the goal of this

bill. We work with whoever will work with us.

M. Bernier: When we’re looking at these prescribed municipalities, then, and

to the minister’s acknowledgment of the work that needs to be done, is

he expecting all this work to be done?

[3:35 p.m.]

I guess I’m asking more from the carrot’s perspective for these

prescribed municipalities. I’ll get into detail in other sections on

some of the questions I have, but I’m curious from a…. I’m reusing the

carrots-and-sticks analogy in the House here.

Nowhere in this bill, though, when we’re talking about

municipalities that need to do a better job…. Nowhere with this bill, in

this bill or with the announcement of the bill…. The minister can

correct me if I’m wrong, because I wasn’t privy to all of the discussion

of this, for obvious reasons. Was there any new funding announced by

this government to match this bill, any new funding outside

of…?

Government is already funding announcements for different housing

projects that they want to see through B.C. Housing and others. Was

there any new funding an­nounced to go with this bill that will

assist municipalities, once they are prescribed, in order to assist them

to achieve the goals?

Hon. M. Rankin: The funding that has been made available, I think, is well known,

but I will perhaps repeat it. The province provided $5 million that was

very welcomed by the municipalities so they could undertake quality

housing needs reports. I certainly have spoken with the mayor in my

community about that, and they were very grateful, because they could do

in-depth analysis just to identify what I talked about in my previous

answer — namely, the kind of housing that’s needed in that community,

how much, how it can be done, etc. So that work was funded, I think

substantially, by the province.

There was also a commitment last year to $15 million to the local

government development approvals program to support implementing

established best practices, to test innovative approaches, to improve

development approvals processes while meeting local government planning

and policy objectives. That was $15 million.

We’re going to continue to be partners for municipalities. One of

the key things, I think, is the need for the government of British

Columbia to step up where infrastructure is required. Does a sewer

system have to be made larger? Will schools need to be constructed in

new areas of growth? What kind of transit is going to be needed in

certain communities, given the growth that will be inevitable, the kind

of housing that will take place near transit?

These are the kinds of things that the province will come to the

table with as a willing partner with infrastructure, and with any luck,

the federal government will join us, to that end.

M. Bernier: What I heard in that answer is nothing new. Yes, there are funding

programs. A lot of those have been continual programs. They’ve been on

through successive governments as well, I just want to acknowledge, for

helping local governments. So if there’s no new money, I can see some of

the frustration that local government is going to have. Maybe that’ll

come out later when we get to other sections.

We even have the NDP stronghold community of Burnaby. Mayor Mike

Hurley has now come out on this bill and said: “We can build….” I’m

quoting him here, the mayor. “We could have built 1,200 units in two

years, but we continually get turned down for funding from the

government,” the present NDP government, “in order to build those 1,200

homes that we know we need.”

So if there’s no new money — I know this is a commen­tary

that I’m hearing already from some of the municipalities — is the onus

now going to be on every municipality to not only figure out these

demands, which they’re already struggling to do in some cases, but also

figure out a funding mechanism to achieve them? I say that because —

we’ll talk again in later sections — the private sector can only do so

much. The government has committed to doing part of that, unless

something has changed.

What would he say to the mayor of Burnaby, who has said that he’s

got 1,200 units he can’t build because this government has refused to

fund them?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Well, I think I’d start by saying that funding commitments are

rarely provided explicitly in legislation. We’re here to talk about

legislation, not for me to suggest that funding will or won’t be

available to certain municipalities, going forward.

We’re going to continue to be there as partners for

municipalities, to do what we can to help them to meet the targets that

they’ve set and to work closely with the eight to ten municipalities,

the initial cohort, during the implementation phase.

M. Bernier: When we’re talking about legislation, especially legislation

that’s going to affect municipalities who are asking for money, it does,

actually, lend itself to asking those appropriate questions. It’s hard

to support a piece of legislation without knowing….

We know the intent of this government. Now they’re saying….

They’re putting forward a piece of legislation that may or may not have

dollars attached to it, which means a municipality may or may not be

able to achieve the goals that this government, as the minister

acknowledged earlier in our debates on this

section 1, could impose.

Whether they like it or not, this government could impose numbers.

Again, I’m trying not to get too far ahead of myself, because we will

get into the next section, I believe, which is targets.

The Premier said he was going to be doubling grants in the

community housing fund, yet when municipalities are applying right now,

they’re being told by this government there’s no money left. So I think

it is an important distinction to bring forward when we’re talking about

this bill.

Is the minister…? I know he can’t tell this House specifically.

But is there an expectation, since this will not come into effect until

after the next budget, that government is actually going to be looking

at mechanisms, then, in the next budget, which he can publicly talk

about, to assist local governments in achieving their

targets?

Hon. M. Rankin: The member said: “It’s hard to support a piece of legislation

without funding information.”

The member didn’t support the legislation. The member voted, in

principle, to oppose the legislation. They are on record as opposing.

That’s what second reading debate is. They opposed the legislation. So I

don’t know what he means by hypothetically hard to support. They have

not supported. They voted against it.

I rarely answer hypothetical questions about what funding may or

may not be available, but I am very proud of the fact that our

government has spent more money on housing than any government in the

history of this province by a significant margin, $7 billion over ten

years. The next budget, as the member alluded to, may have other funding

commitments. I can’t speak to the future or what another minister might

do.

We have got to take a number of bold steps, and you’ve heard the

new Premier talk decisively about some of those. This, however, is only

a bill…. We’re only focused on the housing supply bill at this moment.

We’ll have more to say on further steps on housing and funding in the

weeks to come.

M. Bernier: With all due respect to the minister…. It’s unfortunate he

digressed back to changing the commentary from what we just respectfully

talked about at the very beginning of this debate — that we actually did

not vote against the bill. That will come later. Not to get into a

wordsmithing debate here, but that’s not how this process

works.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Maybe I’ll remind the member that wants to be speaking in the

back, who’s not part of this debate as well, that what a second reading

vote is…. We voted against sending it to committee stage because we

weren’t finished debating second reading. That’s how….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: The member can keep beaking off behind me. He, obviously, doesn’t

understand the process and how this works.

We voted against moving it to third reading, because we were not

finished debating second reading. The minister and I, I thought, had a

respectful understanding on that beforehand. That is how the legislative

process works, contrary to, I guess, some of the new members who don’t

understand and who can go back and read the standing orders

later.

We voted against bringing it here today because we weren’t done

with our second reading debate. This government chose to ram through

closure and not to allow us the opportunity to talk about it in second

reading debate. They said: “You don’t have the right to talk as MLAs.

You don’t have the right to represent your constituents and talk about

this bill at second reading debate, and we’re going to invoke

closure.”

[3:45 p.m.]

That’s what we voted against. It was this government….

Interjection.

M. Bernier: I can sit down any time, Madam Speaker, if the member, from

wherever the heck he is — I can’t remember, because he’s new in this

House — wants to speak. I’m more than willing, more than willing to

allow my spot.

Interjections.

The Chair: I would remind the members that the member for Peace River

South has the floor.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I do find it interesting too. As the member behind me says,

practice in this House, for years and years, has been respectful debate

between the critic and the minister without heckling from backbenchers.

Obviously, once again, they don’t want to follow the process of this

House, as we’ve seen this government do.

The Chair: I would also remind the member who has the floor that we are

on clause 1.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I still have 12½ minutes on clause 1

here and to get to my question, but I do appreciate the guidance. I have

just over 12 minutes, actually.

I think it’s important that I get that on the record. I wasn’t

going to go back to that until the minister tried to falsely say that

the intentions of what we did on this side of the House…. It will be up

to the minister whether he wants to acknowledge that and correct the

record with his commentary. I’ll leave that to him.

The minister said that they haven’t decided yet on these

municipalities, that there’s going to be consultation, that it’s up in

the air. They’re going to continue looking at this. I find that

interesting.

I know the minister — I respectfully say this — is new to this

specific role. So you can’t really hold him, necessarily, individually

accountable for the past minister’s comments. But the past Minister of

Housing, who is now the Premier, publicly said that he knows which

municipalities. Actually, the words he used: “I have a hit

list.”

I’m curious how to square that circle, in a respect. The minister

just finished saying…. When I asked about good and bad, he said: “There

is no good or bad. We’re going to look at this.” Yet the now Premier

says there is good and bad, and he’s got a hit list.

Is it fair to say, then, that the Premier already knows which

eight or ten municipalities that he’s targeting? He just hasn’t advised

the now Housing Minister. That’s already been determined by the

Premier.

Hon. M. Rankin: I can only reiterate what I said earlier. There is no good or bad,

but there are those where room for improvement exists. We will make that

determination when targets are set for those specified municipalities,

looking at the evidence, looking at the municipalities’ own

acknowledgments, through their housing needs reports, of what the

housing needs are.

We will do initial internal analysis in government and, perhaps,

consult more widely with the building community and others to just see

how we can work together to improve things in those specified

municipalities initially and then, later, the others.

J. Rustad: I don’t want to take long, in terms of entering this debate,

particularly on clause 1. A couple of things I think about and I just

want to put on record.

I actually support this bill. I do have some concerns that I want

to, hopefully, get to when we get through to

part 5 of this bill. There

are a couple of thoughts. Since we’re kind of touching on this through

the definition side…. It’s outside of the

definitions. So I apologize

for that. There are a couple of thoughts I just wanted to ask the

minister about, in particular….

There’s this focus, obviously, on the six or ten. There’s a huge

need in the major municipalities, the larger municipalities, in the

province.

I of course represent many small municipalities that also have

needs that are pretty significant for a small community. They don’t

necessarily rank in terms of the list. Some of the larger challenges for

these small communities that don’t have housing….

Infrastructure, of course, is a big one, and I know you’ve covered

that. That’s something that will have to be dealt with through budget

processes down the road.

[3:50 p.m.]

Another big piece of it is land. For many of these small

communities, there is land that’s locked up. Communities are locked up

because of agricultural land, Crown land. There’s an unwillingness to

release any of that because of issues with Indigenous relations and that

side of things.

These communities are stuck. They want to be able to attract

housing. There are people that want to be able to build housing within

those communities, but there are these challenges around

this.

Are issues like that going to bubble up to the surface, in terms

of a bill like this, or is that going to have to be dealt with

separately?

Hon. M. Rankin: I’d like to welcome the member for Nechako Lakes to the debate and

thank him not only for participating but for his support of what we’re

trying to do. I much appreciate that.

I can tell the member that he’s right. I’ve acknowledged this in

many, many municipalities I’ve met in smaller communities that

infrastructure is a critical problem. It’s not just the fact that you

can’t — it’s often more expensive, given the winter conditions, for

example — get people to do the work. The difficulty we’re facing, across

the province, in getting qualified people — I’m sure the member would

agree with me — is exacerbated in some of the smaller communities. It is

a real problem.

The member is absolutely correct. I’ve been told by a number of

municipalities, smaller ones…. The duty to consult and accommodate is

something that this government takes very, very seriously. Therefore,

that has had an implication for the speed with which Crown land can be

freed up.

I’ve heard the Premier say that we have to do better, as a

province, in freeing up Crown land and the permitting that goes along

with it, the water permits, just all of the technical part of getting

Crown land into the private sector for development. We can do better,

and we will do better. We can hardly ask our partners at the municipal

level to step up if we haven’t stepped up. We get that message loud and

clear. That’s one part of the answer: Crown land

consultation.

The Agricultural Land Commission can also, given the existence of

the ALR, be a problem. I can advise the member that last year, on

December 31…. The sizing of permitted residences and additional

dwellings on the agricultural land reserve has been subject to new rules

that allow landowners in the ALR to have a secondary residence on their

property without needing to apply to the Agricultural Land Commission. I

know, in some parts of the Interior, that’s a significant issue as

well.

I want to thank the member for those observations. I accept

entirely that they’re valid, and we have to do better on

them.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for the response. I know, particularly, the

addition of a secondary home on agricultural land was very welcomed by

the agricultural community in my riding.

I agree with the minister. The challenge of getting qualified, or

just even getting people available to be able to do these things…. I

currently have a trailer park, which is just outside of Fraser Lake,

that has been without water now for almost two months. That’s the

responsibility of the Minister of Lands, so it’s not, obviously, part of

this debate, but it’s a real challenge in terms of that. I know they’re

working through trying to get water to that development.

The question around the ALR, though… I’m not quite sure how this

fits in, in terms of definition, but it’s an important piece. There are

small parcels of land, for these small communities, that are locked up

in the ALR and that are not an issue of a second home. It may need to be

able to put a neighbourhood in. It may need, whether it is small

parcels, whether it’s five acres or whether it’s actually putting in a

more dense type of neighbourhood, to allow a community like, for

example, Vanderhoof to be able to provide additional housing.

We’ve got a mining project that is going forward just south of

Vanderhoof, and there’s going to be a need for additional housing within

that community. Apartments aren’t really a viable option. In some cases,

they can be a little bit, but really, a lot of people that live in those

smaller areas want to be able to have a little bit of land and don’t

really want to be living in an apartment setting.

So this is a challenge for a community like Vanderhoof to be able

to find that land, particularly the land that’s locked up in the ALR.

The priority of the ALR, of course, is agriculture, and removing land

for housing may not be welcomed by the Agricultural Land

Commission.

[3:55 p.m.]

I’m wondering. Where you have that conflict in priorities between

the agricultural land and the need for housing, particularly in a small

community, is there some way we can find a path that would allow for

that kind of a development for a small community? It’s not going to have

a major impact in terms of agricultural land.

I understand what that means in terms of the Lower Mainland, where

there are huge challenges and huge pressures on the ALR land. But when

you’re talking about these small communities, it’s not quite the same

issue. My hope was, in terms of the focus on housing and the need of

housing and the reason for this bill coming forward, a recognition that

there are smaller issues as well that will have the same kind of urgency

or priority by government to allow for these communities to be able to

provide housing.

Hon. M. Rankin: I can acknowledge the advocacy of the member for the folks living

in the trailer park at Fraser Lake. I’m aware of the issue. I’ve heard

about it. I know that we’re making efforts to address it. I thank him

for his advocacy for his constituents.

Of the housing in Vanderhoof piece, and nearby, I had a chance, at

UBCM, to speak to the mayor and speak to the regional district folks as

well about that very problem with the new mine, and so on. It’s going to

be an issue. We’re trying to get ahead of that. We’re trying to get

ahead of it.

On the issue of agricultural land, though, the member will be well

aware of the delicate balance over the years that we’ve tried to achieve

in preserving agricultural land. I know it’s different in the north than

it is in the south. But one uses the Canada soil classification and all

the other factors to decide what is agricultural land. With climate

change, things that might not have been prime agricultural land in the

past may well be agricultural land in the future. The government has, I

think, an ethical and a legal obligation to protect that.

However, the member will also be aware that there is a policy.

There’s a possibility of seeking an exclusion from ALR. I know that

that’s a matter that the Minister for Agriculture and Food is seized

with. I think that that balance is what we’re all trying to achieve,

difficult though it is.

J. Rustad: Those were all my questions I have on

section 1. I just want to

thank the minister for the latitude of asking those questions, and I

look forward to an opportunity with other sections of this bill if I can

get the chance.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the Minister of Jobs trying to rush through such an

important piece of legislation. We’ve never seen that happen this

week.

Section 2, I guess, will now get into some of the commentary on

targets. I know we quickly, I guess, when we were talking to the

definitions

section of this bill, alluded to some of the targets and

the, I guess, objective that we’re trying to achieve not only

specifically with the wording within this bill, but obviously on the

ground within municipalities. Now the targets are going to be an

interesting one — somewhat, a little bit, nuanced.

I’m curious. Maybe I’ll start by asking a question to the minister

of when we talk about setting targets. He’s talked about needs

assessments. Depending on how that’s going to be used within the

portfolio of putting targets together, can the minister just explain to

this House, then, in his, I guess, words — his thought process — how

they plan on determining the targets for each of the prescribed

municipalities once those are chosen?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I would just thank the member for his question and point out that

a lot of what I think is the meat of the answer will be found in the

next section,

section 3, which goes through and talks about the

requirements for making the housing target orders. A lot of what I think

we can address will be dealt with at that time, but I can say to the

first point that he made that the factors will be different for every

municipality.

I mean, that’s the issue. Even among the eight to ten, there’ll be

different factors depending on the nature of the people who live there

and the kind of housing that will be needed. I think I’ll leave it at

that and perhaps anticipate further questions on this point.

M. Bernier: It will be a little…. I’ll use the word nuanced, again, as we go

through this. This is a new piece of legislation that the government has

put forward. Clause 2 is about housing target orders, and then clause 3

is about requirements for housing target orders. So you can hopefully

have a little bit of indulgence as we maybe — I know the process —

unintentionally blend some of the commentary, answers and questions as

we move through this.

Maybe I’ll go to this one, then, for the minister, which I think

we can attribute to clause 2. CMHC has come out and said that British

Columbia is going to need 570,000 units of housing in British Columbia

by 2030. Understanding the minister’s point that each municipality may

or may not be chosen and that there are different needs and different

requirements, which will also be different numbers, obviously, through

that process, is the CMHC report, the CMHC goal and targets, that’s

saying British Columbia needs 570,000 units…? Is that number going to be

encompassed into the plans for the municipalities?

Hon. M. Rankin: The CMHC projections are indeed sobering. We all have to, as a

province, determine how we’re going to address what may be true. That’s

one piece of information. As the legislation points out, a number of

other things will be taken into account. But certainly, those rather

sobering projections will be one factor.

M. Bernier: I’ll give the minister an opportunity. Outside of these agencies,

has the government done any of their own studies that they’re going to

be bringing forward? I have a binder here full of different ones, but

I’ll give the minister an opportunity to talk about what studies have

been done by government that have projections of what the requirements

will be and the needs will be in the province of British Columbia

between, let’s just say, now and the next five years or so.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The answer of course is yes, the prov­ince does have its own

analysis. I can give a couple of examples to the member. The population

growth forecast that takes into account immigration and in-migration,

for example. B.C. Statistics, along with the Ministry of Housing, does

quarterly analysis. There may be a lot more. I can’t talk to the

independent consultant reports that, from time to time, may have been

sought. I can’t say any more than that.

But of course, as the legislation contemplates, there’ll be a

number of factors taken in, a number of forecasts of different kinds

that we’ll factor in.

M. Bernier: Just to acknowledge the minister’s comments, there are a lot of

reports, a lot of different analysis, a lot of I’ll use the word

"experts" in the housing field, which it’s probably fair to say, the

minister and I are not. We have our political roles that we try to

achieve to help the people of British Columbia.

I think one thing that we’ll agree on though, as we’ve said, is

the crisis situation. I’ve yet to find a report that says: “Don’t worry;

we’re doing great. We have enough housing. Nothing to see here.” Most

things show that we’re behind, that we need to do better. The costs have

escalated. The frustration continues around municipalities trying to

achieve the goals, which in turn, translates to frustration around

affordability, frustration for people who are trying to get into the

market.

I think it’s fair to say, when we’re talking about this…. We’ll

say it’s a variable market in the sense, I believe — and the minister

will correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure I’m not here — that

the intention is not specifically high-end market housing. It’s a

multitude of rental units to affordable housing units to row housing, to

supportive housing. It’s the gamut, the full spectrum of housing that’s

needed, as the minister has acknowledged, dependent on the needs in each

community, which also vary.

I’m curious, though, with that. The government, under their own

announcements, have said that they want to achieve 114,000 housing units

in ten years. I’m curious where that fits in to the targets. Maybe I’ll

leave it there and let the minister answer. I’m curious. The 114,000

that have already been previously announced, that this government says

need to be built — are they calculating that into the 570,000 that CMHC

says we need? Is that going to be part of the targets that will now be

laid upon the municipalities to achieve as