Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Monday, November

20, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Sharma: It's my honour to welcome Sabrina Guzman Skotnitsky, who is the partner of Raunaq

Singh in my office — we're really lucky to have Raunaq — and she is a master's student

in UVic and studying climate anxiety.

Please welcome Sabrina to the House.

Hon. A. Mercier: I'd just like to welcome some friends in the gallery: my friend Paul Way, who's a

business agent on Vancouver Island for Teamsters Local 213, his wife, Avril, and their

grandson Wyatt.

They're here to take in the Legislature as well as to see their local MLA, the member

for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who I'm advised they're quite familiar with through hot yoga.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: The Dhahan Prize for Punjabi Literature is a signature prize for Punjabi that celebrates

Punjabi language by awarding excellence in novel and short story writing. They just

held their award ceremony on November 16, where they awarded three eminent Punjabi

writers. For the first time, they had a female winner for this signature prize.

Today we are joined by quite a few members from that organization. We have Barj Dhahan,

who's the founder of the prize. Along with him, we have Sarup Mann. We have Safir

Rammah, Gurtek Shoker and Kuljinder Shoker. Also, we have the writers Balijit Singh,

who was a Dhahan Prize finalist, and Deepti Bubuta, who's the winner for this year's

prize. We have Jameel Ahmad Paul, also a finalist, and we have Joyce Astifan.

Last but not least, Raghbir Singh, my father, who was the previous chair of the Dhahan

advisory council, and also Zubair Ahmad, who's the present Dhahan Prize advisory chair.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: Today in the House, I'd like to welcome and introduce my good, old-time friend for

a long time, Raj Kumar. He's in there somewhere in the gallery.

Raj Kumar has been a member of my constituency association for over 12 years. Every

meeting he comes to, his witty and passionate opinions are always there. There was

no job that was too hard for him, too big or too dirty, for that matter, during my

campaigns. He was the first one in and the last one to leave. It's people like Raj

Kumar that give me the inspiration to continue to do the work that we are doing together

to make life better for British Columbians.

I'd just like you to join with me and give him a very warm welcome. He's up there

— right there.

C. Oakes: I'm pleased to have a constituent joining us in the gallery today. Stewart Fraser

is somebody I've known for many years, sat on many tourism associations. Stewart is

Itcha Mountain Outfitters.

August 11, 2017, changed a lot of our lives, and no more impacted was Stewart and

his business as a guide and outfitter. We still continue to try and work through those

difficult files. It takes years when these wildfires impact businesses and communities.

Stewart is here today. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

Hon. N. Cullen: I'd like to join my colleague in welcoming a number of guide-outfitters from the Guide

Outfitters Association of B.C. who are joining us here today in the gallery. A number

of them are from the North and from my riding in Stikine, which is a real treat for

me as a northerner.

Michael Young, Aaron Fredlund, Shana Dennis, Colin Niemeyer, executive director Scott

Ellis, Justin Keutzer, Craig Kiselbach, Darren DeLuca, Stewart Fraser, Jennifer Johnson,

Jake Gunson, Scott Pichette and Brenda Gibson, all representing GOABC, believe in

a province with a strong and stable guide-outfitting industry and abundant wildlife

populations for all to enjoy both today and in the future. I hope that's a vision

all of us here in this House can share.

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

D. Clovechok: It's absolutely a pleasure of mine to introduce a colleague of mine from Golden, British

Columbia, Wes Routley, who's a councillor from Golden. An intelligent young man —

only 26, but he's got a great career ahead of him. I'd certainly encourage him to

come over to this side of the House.

Would the House make Wes feel very, very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I have two special guests — chair Peter Luckham and communications

specialist Morgana van Niekerk.

They are representatives from the Islands Trust. I want to thank them for all the

work that they do and the time they've dedicated to make the Islands Trust such a

wonderful cause.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. N. Sharma: I have one more introduction to make. It's a real pleasure to welcome Nicola Espiritu.

She is a constituent of mine from Hastings-Sunrise, also the co-vice-chair of Filipino

B.C. and a registered nurse from Vancouver.

Thank you so much for your contributions.

T. Wat: On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to welcome Filipino B.C.'s visit

to our people's House. Filipino B.C. strives to unite diverse groups and individuals,

fostering a vibrant Filipino and broader community in our province.

Please join me in welcoming Rafael Aquino and Kristina Corpin-Moser.

S. Chant: Hopefully in the gallery by this point, and definitely on the precinct, is a group

of young ladies from the 1st Sidney Pathfinders and the 1st Peninsula Shores Rangers,

who are here with their guider, Laughing Owl. I'm Screech Owl.

I just want to have the people in this chamber welcome these young ladies, who are

in a group that is learning leadership, working on being solid members and contributing

members of their communities and spending the time to learn about how our government

works so they, too, can get involved in that phase.

I'd like a warm welcome for the members of the guiding community who are here with

us today.

K. Paddon: We all know how important our constituency assistants are. So naturally, I would like

to welcome one of the people who made that possible, my constituency assistant's mom,

Susan Trithardt. She is joining us today, along with my amazing constituency assistant,

Jennifer Trithardt-Tufts.

I would just ask that everyone make them welcome. If you see them in the hall, please

thank Susan, because that's how I have Jennifer. Please thank Jennifer, because she

helps the people of Chilliwack-Kent.

R. Parmar: A few weeks ago I was honoured to be invited by members of the Telangana community

for an event in the Highlands. For those who've never been to the Highlands, it's

a pretty rustic place. We were at the Highlands Community Hall. This community came

together, many living in Langford, and lit the place up. It was a wonderful opportunity

for me to get to know the community.

I was so honoured to have members of the community, all from the city of Langford,

in the Southpoint neighbourhood, join me for lunch today, where we talked about the

important work that they're doing as public servants in the great city of Langford.

We also talked about cricket and how I need some lessons on how to play cricket. So

hopefully, they'll help me out on that.

But I'm honoured to invite four guests here, one who was unable to make it. Shiva

Rama, Krishna Nerella, Narender Tirukovela, Shrathank Babburu and, my favourite name,

Ravi Chandra Yadav.

Would the House please make them all feel very welcome.

Hon. A. Kang: I do also see in the gallery today a very good friend of mine, RJ Aquino, who is part

of Filipino B.C. I was able to meet with him and a few other delegates today to talk

about cultural diversity and the work that he does in the Filipino community.

Would the House please make RJ feel very welcome.

D. Davies: I'm happy to be making a few introductions here, three. First of all, I'm going to

start with my first two, which is my own two children, Hana and Noel Davies, who have

begrudgingly dragged themselves into the chamber to listen to all of this stuff happen.

But I'm always happy to have them down here to see what we do, so I certainly want

to thank them for coming up. I love you both.

Third is a young man who's been staying with us for a couple of months and visiting

all the way from Brussels, Belgium: Luis Hernandez.

If the House could make them feel welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

M. Elmore: I'm pleased to rise and join everyone welcoming…. I have a constituent, as well, here,

Kristina Moser, executive director for Filipino B.C. I know her mother and her family

very well. They're very active in the community, Vancouver-Kensington.

I also welcome Francis Matheu, who is a director of Filipino B.C. Congratulations

to him. He has completed his master's of fine arts from UVic in directing. He's a

theater practitioner and a local director-producer here in the South Island.

I ask everybody to please make them feel very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PATRICIA FOREMAN DAY

J. Rice: A year ago tomorrow, a very atypical tragedy occurred just a few steps away from my

constituency office, a murder-suicide.

Patricia, better known as Patty, Forman was a mother, an MCFD worker, a renowned musician

and performer, very active in our arts community, among many, many other things to

those close to her, family and friends. Whether you were close family and friends

or whether you were ten degrees removed from both the victims, we all felt it. It

was very painful, and we've all had grief to process.

So I'd like this House to join me as we proclaim a very important special day for

Patty.

"Whereas on November 21, 2022, Patricia, or Patty, a long-serving public servant in

the Ministry of Children and Family Development, was killed on her way to work, a

victim of intimate partner violence;

whereas beloved by her children, family community

and coworkers, Patty Forman is missed by many; and

whereas Patricia Forman Day is

an opportunity to honour and celebrate Patty's life and the many gifts she brought

to those around her, such as her love for her community, theatre, music and her work

with families at the Ministry of Children and Family Development; and

whereas Patricia

Forman Day is an opportunity to show support for those who knew and loved Patty and

for those who have experience with intimate partner violence, now know ye that we

do, by these presents, proclaim and declare that November 21, 2023, shall be known

as Patricia Forman Day in the province of British Columbia."

WORLD DIABETES DAY

S. Bond: On November 14, people around the world came together to recognize World Diabetes

Day.

Diabetes impacts the lives of millions of people, and there are still many living

with it every day who have yet to be diagnosed. In fact, one in ten people worldwide

have diabetes, 90 percent have type 2, and close to half have not yet been diagnosed.

Education and awareness are vital tools in the response to diabetes, helping people

understand the condition, the symptoms and the risk factors and working to improve

diabetes care. While type 1 diabetes is not preventable, the everyday choices people

make can have a direct impact on the development of type 2. With a healthy diet, regular

exercise, avoiding tobacco use and maintaining a healthy body weight, you can reduce

your likelihood of developing this type of diabetes.

We must also recognize that it's not easy for everyone to maintain a healthy lifestyle,

as unhealthy foods are often significantly more affordable and accessible than fresh

fruits and vegetables, and not everyone has the same access or time for exercise.

However, any efforts that can be made to limit sugar intake and stay active are important

in the prevention of the development of type 2 diabetes.

The theme for World Diabetes Day was "Access to diabetes care," highlighting the need

Unfortunately, as many of us know, insulin and other supplies remain prohibitively

expensive in many parts of the world. We have a responsibility as leaders to do our

best to ensure that all those who need life-saving medications and supplies have access

to them.

As we reflect on World Diabetes Day, I urge all MLAs to spend time learning more about

the impacts of diabetes and committing to work together for better prevention, diagnosis

and management of diabetes in our province.

[1:50 p.m.]

WOMEN’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP DAY

G. Chow: Today I'm pleased to rise in the House to acknowledge Women's Entrepreneurship Day,

which was celebrated yesterday, on Sunday, November 19. This day was proclaimed by

the province to bring awareness of the economic and social impacts of businesses that

are being owned, operated and invested by women in our local communities.

For years, advocacy groups throughout Canada have highlighted the significant economic

boosts that occur when the gender gap is closed and women are holistically included

in all aspects of the economy, including the entrepreneurial space. From improving

productivity and fostering innovation to increasing overall incomes, adding new skills

and perspective to a workplace, the benefits that we all collectively experience from

this cannot be overstated.

The number of women entrepreneurs is increasing across Canada, contributing an estimated

$140 billion to our economy in 2022. By investing in federal and provincial granting

programs that focus specifically on women entrepreneurs, we're enabling women to break

through the financial and gender barriers to support their businesses. In British

Columbia, we currently have over 40 percent of our small businesses run by women entrepreneurs.

That, in part, is due to the granting programs provided. The social impact of this

should be applauded.

By connecting with wonderful groups like the Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and the

Women's Enterprise Centre, WeBC, women entrepreneurs work to mentor those wishing

to pursue a business career, whether in their local community or in the global marketplace.

While Women's Entrepreneurship Day happens only once a year, there are opportunities

every day to go out and support women-owned and -operated businesses in our community.

By supporting those businesses today, we all ensure that they will be around for years

to come.

TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE

K. Kirkpatrick: Transgender Day of Remembrance on November 20 holds profound significance as we gather

to honour the lives of transgender individuals who tragically fell victim to violence

and discrimination.

I'd like to take a moment to also just thank Nicola, Chris and Michaela today, from

T'eVine, thank them for their advocacy, for supporting trans people in community and

for taking the time to be here today with government members and MLAs to talk about

the importance of this.

This day serves as a reminder, urging us to stand united against hatred and ignorance.

The call to action implores us to confront prejudice and strive for a society where

every individual can authentically live without fear.

Yet it remains disheartening that the journey towards equality for transgender people

is riddled with formidable challenges. From employment and education to health care

and housing, transgender individuals grapple with pervasive discrimination and stigma

every day. This insidious prejudice not only leads to exclusion but also hampers their

access to essential opportunities.

The struggle amplifies when considering the disproportionate violence experienced

by transgender people, especially transgender women of colour. The prevalence of physical

and sexual assaults highlights the pressing need to address hate crimes targeting

transgender individuals. The consequences extend beyond the physical, as depression

and anxiety tragically plague this community.

Today is not only about mourning those we have lost but raising awareness and advocating

for change.

ANTI-HATE INITIATIVES AND

RESPONSE TO WAR AND VIOLENCE

M. Elmore: I join and echo the remarks from the member for West Vancouver–Capilano in marking

today, the Transgender Day of Remembrance, remembering those who have been victims

of violence, committing to end transphobia and to making trans people's lives more

safe. Today we mark this occasion by raising the transgender flag at the B.C. Legislature

in honour.

[1:55 p.m.]

Certainly, there's much more work to be done. To these ends, as well, I'm very honoured

that our government has introduced actions against hate-motivated violence in B.C.

by putting resources towards an anti-racist help line and also an anti-hate community

support fund to support organizations impacted by acts of hate, including the 2SLGBTQIA+

community, and to respond to hate-motivated crimes. I ask for support from all MLAs

in the House.

We've seen the horrific wars in Europe, in Ukraine, and also in the situation unravelling

in the Middle East, in Gaza and the humanitarian crises there. Our hearts go out to

the community. We know the humanitarian crises there — the access to water, food supplies,

fuel, hospital — and the impact on civilians. The deaths of thousands of civilians

and thousands of children are unimaginable.

We don't control those situations here in British Columbia. But we have a moral….

We are all one human family. That's why I think Canadians, really, are united in calling

for peace in the region. I know Canadians are united in calling for a ceasefire and

for a peaceful resolution, which includes the return of all hostages.

Here we stand for…. I know everyone in the House, across our province and in our communities,

reaching out and opening our hearts, stands for a peaceful resolution and stands against

hate of all stripes in our communities.

NATIONAL ADDICTIONS AWARENESS WEEK

E. Sturko: Yesterday marked the beginning of National Addictions Awareness Week.

Here in our province, perhaps more than anywhere else, we are acutely aware of addictions

and of the impacts that addictions have on our opioid crisis. While we often discuss

addictions in reference to the opioid crisis, there are many people who are battling

with other addictions: alcohol, gaming, technology. Of course, there are many other

challenges.

Addiction affects individuals and families in communities across Canada. It touches

lives irrespective of our age, gender, race or socioeconomic status. This week is

more than just about acknowledging addiction. It's about promoting understanding and

empathy. It's about breaking stigma. More importantly, it's about offering hope for

a brighter future.

Addiction is not a moral failing. Rather, it's a complex health issue, and it may

require medical intervention. Also, it requires education. Education is a vital tool

for combating addiction. By teaching our youth about the signs, about the risks and

about the available resources, we can prevent its onset and encourage early intervention

for those most at risk. We need to continue to try to build a society where seeking

help for addiction is not only met with understanding and compassion but where we

have resources to help people get well.

Many of us in this chamber have faced addiction. We've had loved ones who have experienced

it, or maybe they're currently experiencing it. We know how hard it can be to reach

out for help, especially when you're at your lowest, and how frustrating it can be

when you ask for help and you're told that you must wait.

Throughout this week, let us reflect on how we can ensure that services are available

to British Columbians and continue to support them in recovery.

Hon. L. Beare: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Beare: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour did a lovely introduction of the Girl Guides,

who have now joined us in the House today.

I'd like the House to please make these lovely women feel welcome.

Oral Questions

CLEANBC PLAN AND ECONOMY

S. Bond: Life has never been more expensive than today under this NDP Premier, but instead

of providing relief from sky-high housing costs, gas and groceries, the Premier is

set to make everything more expensive.

The NDP's so-called CleanBC scheme is a complete failure on emissions and an economic

disaster that will see average household incomes plummet by $11,000 every single year.

[2:00 p.m.]

Why is the Premier recklessly pursuing failed policies that will hammer British Columbia's

families, who are already bearing the brunt of the NDP's cost-of-living crisis?

Hon. G. Heyman: On the contrary, our government has taken a long list of measures to reduce costs

for British Columbians, including an expanded climate action tax credit for low and

middle-income families. At the same time, we have gone out of our way to take concrete

measures that British Columbians expect as they face the horrors of out-of-control

wildfires, heat domes, droughts, flooding.

They understand they need measures that will help them react to those emergencies,

while at the same time, they expect our government to have a plan to reduce emissions.

And contrary to what the member claims, that's exactly what our plan has done since

2017. It's reduced emissions, not only on a per-capita basis while our population

has expanded greatly; it has reduced them in absolute terms after years of rising

emissions under that party when they were on this side of the House.

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

S. Bond: Maybe I should remind the minister what one of his group of allies had to say about

emissions. In fact, they're going up, and he knows it. Here's what the Sierra Club

had to say: "B.C.'s emissions remain stubbornly high. That's a huge and growing concern."

Yet this Premier continues to pursue a failed scheme. What's it going to do? It's

going to kill jobs, paycheques and investment, and it is going to rip billions of

dollars of funding out of health care and essential services funding every single

year. This NDP scheme is not just failing on emissions, but it is going to hammer

working families in our province.

So to the Premier, why is he stubbornly clinging to a failing strategy that not only

misses the emission targets but devastates families' incomes and funding for health

care and other critical services?

Hon. G. Heyman: Our plan is working. Our plan will continue. Our plan will deliver what British Columbians

want, which are reduced emissions, which is exactly what the party opposite failed

to do when they were in government.

And that is exactly why….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh, Members.

Members. Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: That's exactly why reducing emissions is a huge and immediate need for British Columbians.

We have seen significant investments in clean technology in British Columbia. We just

recently, last week, saw a significant investment in a lithium-ion battery plant to

be built in Maple Ridge to create over 400 new jobs. We've recently reached an agreement

with the Fort McLeod….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Members will be quiet.

The minister will continue.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you very much. It's unfortunate that the opposition is more interested in their

own mythology than actually tackling climate change.

We've reached an agreement with the Fort McLeod First Nation that will see us work

toward a very significant investment in clean hydrogen and a straddle plant.

Costs for British Columbians have gone down under this government. A family with two

kids earning $100,000….

Interjections.

Hon. G. Heyman: I'm sorry that the facts hurt the opposition. A family with two kids….

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Members, come to order. Shhh, Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: They don't want to hear it…

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The minister will conclude.

Hon. G. Heyman: …because British Columbians know that a family with two kids earning $100,000 pays 34 percent less provincial taxes

today than they did in 2016.

[2:05 p.m.]

P. Milobar: That has to be one of the most out-of-touch responses we have heard, given how unaffordable

people are finding life in British Columbia right now.

The minister might want to brush off what the environmental groups are saying, but

here's another quote. "The government has failed to show us how it will meet its climate

targets and has broken its own laws in the process." That's from Ecojustice. These

are all supposed to be allies of this minister, and even they acknowledge that CleanBC

is failing.

Under this NDP Premier, we now have a record-breaking inflationary deficit of $6.7

billion and a doubling of the debt. Their failing so-called CleanBC scheme — their

own documents have shown — will plunge B.C. straight into a recession, cutting billions

from government revenue and setting to kill off tens of thousands of private sector

jobs by 2030, with 20,000 jobs gone in transportation, over 10,000 jobs gone in natural

resource industries and another 17,500 jobs in construction. All from government documents.

How can this Premier stand by a scheme that will tank our economy and wipe out tens

of thousands of jobs?

Hon. D. Eby: I know that the other side of the House is desperate to justify their about-face on

climate action. It's embarrassing. Their leader said that bringing in the carbon tax

was one of the proudest things he ever did. Now they say: "No. No, we don't think

it's a good idea anymore."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: They will say anything to get elected. They are in a position of desperation, but

I can't let them make up their own facts.

B.C. is an economic and fiscal leader in British Columbia…. Our debt to GDP is less

than half of Ontario and Quebec. We have the highest credit rating among provinces.

Last year we eliminated the operating debt.

We created more than 40,000 jobs already this year, more than 50,000 last year. When

they were in government in 2012, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Finance

Minister, they issued a press release when they created 17,000 jobs. We're creating

more jobs. We're creating clean jobs. We're taking climate action.

But people are struggling with affordability.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: That's why we've taken action to support them too. Lower ICBC rates, free contraception,

affordability credits for families. And we're going to keep taking that action to

support families on one of the biggest issues they face, the cost of housing, which

the opposition votes against –– every single action we're trying to take to provide

affordable housing.

How dare they stand up and say they're in favour of affordability? Give me a break.

P. Milobar: Highest rents in Canada. Highest housing prices in Canada. Inflation that's outstripped

the Canadian average ten of the last 15 months. Should I continue on? Oh, and we keep

getting ranked as the most unaffordable province in Canada. That's this Premier's

record.

But back to the failing CleanBC scheme, where we're not seeing emissions drop. In

fact, here's another quote: "CleanBC is in many ways a 'Jetsons' vision of the future."

Now, that's from Grand Chief Stewart Phillip.

The so-called CleanBC scheme has turned into a giant propaganda campaign and nothing

more by this province. In fact, all you have to do is watch a Canucks game where they

see running non-stop high-cost ads extolling the virtues of CleanBC, while failing

to admit that emissions are failing under CleanBC. It's making life less affordable.

The scheme is projected to cut household incomes by $11,000 a year based on this government's

own documents and our economy back by a decade. It will strip billions annually from

things like health care and education. On top of that, it's dealing a massive hit

to the job market, with nearly tens of thousands of private sector jobs expected to

disappear by 2030.

Again, why is the Premier so set on burdening families with higher costs and less

income during an already severe affordability crisis?

Hon. G. Heyman: It's unfortunate that the member opposite forgets that it was his party that introduced

the carbon tax and one of the few good things I would ever give the former Liberal

government credit for. But they've now turned their back on it.

[2:10 p.m.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shall we continue?

Minister will continue.

Hon. G. Heyman: The opposition can create all the mythologies they want. The fact is that emissions

have dropped in actual terms and on a per-capita basis since 2017, and they went up

between 2007 and 2016 when they were on this side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.

Hon. G. Heyman: That is a fact, and they can't change it, no matter what they say.

OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION OF

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

MINISTRY SOCIAL WORKERS

S. Furstenau: Ministry of Children and Family child protection workers have more power than CSIS,

yet there is no regulation or independent oversight of the profession. MCFD social

workers have the authority to conduct risk assessments and enter homes. They have

the power to remove children.

Some MCFD staff wielding such considerable power may not even have formal social work

training. The Social Workers Act provides a comprehensive framework for the oversight

of social work, yet this minister exempts her entire ministry from being accountable

to it.

My question is to the Premier. Will he commit to immediately subjecting MCFD social

workers to regulation under the College of Social Workers to ensure proper oversight

and accountability?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We want to make sure that every child has access to the services and supports they

need to live a full and healthy life.

I appreciate the member's question. I'll have to take it on notice.

S. Furstenau: My question was to the Premier.

Without the regulation of MCFD staff practising social work, the minister is undermining

public trust. The Representative for Children and Youth publishes reports. The Legislative

Assembly accepts the recommendations, yet we are still seeing the same heartbreaking

results, year over year. The ministry and the people that work in it need effective

oversight and regulation.

The First Nations Leadership Council, the B.C. Association of Social Workers, the

Representative for Children and Youth have called for the regulation of Ministry of

Children and Family social workers. Despite this, there has been resistance.

To the Premier, given the relentless instances of this ministry failing to protect

children and families, will he insist that this government takes the long overdue

step and commit to the most basic level of oversight and regulation of social workers?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member. The question was taken on order, so we'll continue with that.

SYSTEMIC RACISM IN

HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

B. Banman: This NDP government is undertaking an initiative called unlearning and undoing white

supremacy and racism in the office of the provincial health officer.

If there is racism and white supremacy occurring in the office of the provincial health

officer, British Columbians deserve to know the precise details of the exact incidents

which have occurred. If this is once again the NDP Premier choosing to prioritize

his woke politics over the real concerns of everyday hard-working people, I would

ask that he stop wasting tax dollars taken from British Columbians to fund the B.C.

NDP's virtual signalling.

Interjections.

B. Banman: Virtue-signalling. Thank you.

My question to the Premier, will this Premier please explain to British Columbians

why this NDP government is claiming that "white supremacist policies and practices

remain hardwired into our systems and processes" after six very long years of NDP

government?

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know that in the first year of the pandemic, the government undertook,

in health care, a report that I think was an exceptional report and gave direction

to where we need to go, where we are and where we need to go in the future in dealing

with racism in the healthcare system.

[2:15 p.m.]

That report demonstrated, both in the stories that it told and in the data that it

provided, that racism, where it exists in health care, is damaging to people's health.

We are taking comprehensive actions supported, I thought, by all members of the Legislature

to address this question, which is fundamental to the success of the health care system.

It means that every part of our health care system has to take action against racism

everywhere.

One of the details that report provided was that Indigenous women were nine times

more likely to leave, against doctors' advice, a major hospital in B.C. I would say

what that tells you is that racism is bad for their health and bad for our health.

We're going to take every step we can — united in this province, I believe — to act

against racism wherever it's found and wherever it is.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader of the Fourth Party, supplemental.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM AND

ROLE OF BUSINESSES IN DRUG SUPPLY

B. Banman: I have a supplemental question on the office of British Columbia's provincial health

officer. Dr. Perry Kendall, B.C.'s former provincial health officer, used his office

to help pave the way for the NDP's failed safe supply policy. He is now the founder

of a company called Fair Price Pharma that pedals so-called safe drugs, which are

being sold on the streets and in our schools, creating a new generation of addicts.

The Vancouver Sun reported in 2021 that Dr. Kendall's company had 15 kilograms of dillies. These are

brutally addictive killer drugs sitting in steel drums. That is enough drugs to kill

tens of thousands of kids. It may not be criminal, but it certainly feels like it

should be.

The question to this NDP Premier: is it ethical for government to buy safe supply

drugs from a company started by the former provincial health officer of B.C. who used

this mantle of his office to push to get these addictive drugs legalized, yes or no?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Well, I would say that the work of the former provincial health officer Dr. Kendall

has been exemplary in calling to attention in this province the declaration of a public

health emergency that now, in its seventh year, has killed over 13,000 British Columbians.

We work closely and rely on the advice and the expertise of our public health officials

to guide our response. In this case, it's a response to one of the most vexatious

public health issues that we could have possibly imagined in our province.

So we are very grateful for all of the work that's done by front-line providers —

the doctors, the nurses, the peer workers, the outreach workers and the public health

officials who are helping to guide and provide the evidence for our evidence-based

approach to how we deal with this issue.

I would say that and point out, as well, that in case it's not well understood by

the member, there is much work happening across our health care system by health care

providers to find innovative ways to try to save people's lives. The objective of

our government, the objective of our health care system and the objective of doctors,

is to try to save people's lives, to keep them alive so that we can connect them to

care and treatment.

That is why, as I understand it, Dr. Kendall started a not-for-profit company to try

and contribute to that effort. So we're very grateful for the work that our public

health officers do in this regard.

[2:20 p.m.]

CLEANBC PLAN AND ECONOMY

T. Halford: With half of the families just $200 away from being able to pay their bills at the

end of the month, every dollar is crucial. Yet under the NDP's CleanBC scheme, these

families are facing a staggering $11,000 cut in their household incomes every year.

That's a direct blow to those hanging on and just furthering the NDP's middle-class

squeeze.

How can the Premier stand by a policy that has not only failed on emissions but also

threatens to push already vulnerable families over the edge in this deep affordability

crisis?

Hon. G. Heyman: Commentators from around North America and, in fact, overseas point to CleanBC as

one of the leading climate plans in North America. It is achieving results, not just

results in emission reduction but results in spurring growth in low-carbon economic

development, which is where the world is headed.

The BCBC report assumes that climate action stopped in 2017, which frankly, it would

have were the people opposite still on this side of the House. Instead, we brought

in a comprehensive plan that is helping industries in B.C. decarbonize. Through our

carbon tax climate action tax rebates, we are assisting low- and middle-income families

in a way the opposition never did when they were on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.

T. Halford: Well, the Minister of Environment speaks about experts. Those experts are also actually

pointing to B.C. as one of the most unaffordable places in North America. Nearly 60

percent more families, and that includes 62,000 children, a month depend on the food

bank. That is a clear sign of an affordability crisis. That is a clear sign of a government

failing on their commitments to affordability.

Yet amid this struggle, the NDP's CleanBC scheme will slash household incomes by $11,000

every single year. How can the Premier justify sticking to this scheme when families

are lining up at the food bank more now than ever?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We know it's a tough time for many families in British Columbia. The member mentions

the affordability crisis, and of course, the member knows it's often linked to housing

— the fact that we have a growing population, the fact that our housing has not simply

kept up with the amount of units or homes we need to ensure that people can have that

level of affordability.

That's why this session, in particular, we introduced a whole host of legislation

to enable more housing to be built, legalizing housing in the province. So although

I appreciate the member's question about affordability, I ask him: why haven't they

supported any measures we've brought forward for housing? Why haven't they provided

any solutions to the problem? They have not provided a single thing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, please.

Conclude.

Hon. R. Kahlon: If they truly care about the issue of affordability, they will join us in taking initiatives

forward that will help address the housing crisis, which is what's challenging most

British Columbians in B.C.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON CARBON TAX

AND HOME HEATING COSTS

R. Merrifield: Well, the only thing that this NDP government is creating is housing chaos. In a tidal

wave of rising living costs, the NDP solutions for people is like handing out teaspoons

to bail.

Catherine, a pensioner and a constituent of mine, embodies the struggle many face

under the NDP's middle-class squeeze. She and her husband, like so many others, have

drastically cut back, limiting dining out, taking a car off the road and focusing

on essential groceries only. Yet even with this careful budgeting, they're significantly

impacted by the carbon tax and added $143 on their essential home heating bill, which

has doubled under this NDP government.

To double down, at the NDP convention this weekend, the Premier announced that despite

every other Premier and the federal NDP leader calling for carbon tax relief on home

heating, he would not be.

How can the Premier ignore the struggles of pensioners like Catherine and deny people

a break on home heating?

Hon. D. Eby: The member stands up…. She comes from a community that almost burned down this summer

in a wildfire — only thanks to the remarkable work of the B.C. Wildfire Service and

municipal forces from across the province that came to fight what everybody agrees

was a climate-related disaster.

A whole city burned down in this province. We're in year 4 of a drought. The Cowichan

River is drying up. Farmers are struggling, and all we see is the other side fighting

action on climate change. Listen, we need to take a leadership role in fighting climate

change, and we need to protect British Columbians.

[2:25 p.m.]

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. D. Eby: Why do they not support free heat pumps for British Columbians that have to use incredibly

expensive fuel oil? Why are they fighting? Why don't they join us in calling on the

federal government to provide the same benefits to British Columbians that people

in Atlantic Canada get?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Take it easy, Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. D. Eby: People in B.C. are entitled to the same benefits as the people in Atlantic Canada.

I'd love for the other side to stand up for all those families that can't afford to

switch, that have to fill up that fuel tank and can barely afford it.

You know, they failed to take action on affordability when they were on this side

of the House. They raised MSP rates. They put tolls on bridges. Child care was unaffordable.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, it's okay to listen to the answer, please.

Hon. D. Eby: That very member was on a UDI panel, where she said that the secret sauce of developers

in her area, like her, was restricting the supply of housing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: That's what she said the secret sauce of developers like her was in her area.

So if there's not enough housing in Kelowna, then she should look in the mirror.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, shhh. It's okay to ask questions and also okay to listen to answers, please.

CLEANBC PLAN AND ECONOMY

L. Doerkson: What's frustrating is that the Premier forgets daily in this Legislature that we are

now living in the most unaffordable jurisdiction in Canada — frankly, in North America.

Shockingly, it could get so much worse under the NDP government.

Respected economists Jock Finlayson and Ken Peacock have exposed the stark reality

of the CleanBC scheme, and it's an outright economic disaster. They warn it will drag

B.C. into what they describe as "a long period of recession-like conditions." Particularly

hard hit will be the resource sectors, which are anticipated to shrink by nearly 20

percent.

How can the Premier support a scheme that's poised to destroy our economy, eliminate

jobs and reduce incomes, all while putting essential services like health care at

risk?

Hon. G. Heyman: I don't know why the opposition continues to ignore the facts that have been repeated

to them, not just by me but by respected economic analysts who have published in Business in Vancouver .

The fact is that the Business Council plan assumed that there would be no development

in a clean economy…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. G. Heyman: …and no economic development on clean energy and clean technologies and expansion

of resource industries to provide decarbonized economies. These are all important.

The figure that they are quoting has been pointed out to be out of context.

As for costs, this is from a member of a party that raised ICBC rates, that raised

B.C. Hydro rates, that raised MSP premiums and that cut services to British Columbians

on which they relied. We've eliminated MSP premiums. We took tolls off bridges.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: We took ICBC rates down by a significant amount for every family in British Columbia,

and they opposed us at every turn.

T. Stone: The bottom line is this. Seven years in a row under this government, this government

has not met a single emissions reduction target. Zero. Not one. In fact, the emissions

have been going up year after year after year. In 2021…. That's the latest year that

this government will even make its emission numbers known to the public, which tells

you a heck of a lot. What about the last couple of years?

Instead, we've got this glossy CleanBC document, this scheme, which is really nothing

more than a glossy brochure. It's a great bumper sticker and a great marketing slogan

that really is just intended to cover up a mishmash of regulations and taxes that

have made British Columbia the least affordable jurisdiction in North America.

Now, the NDP's so-called CleanBC scheme, on a go-forward basis, is a direct threat

to the well-being of British Columbians. As we have been canvassing here in the official

opposition today, it's projected to carve nearly $3 billion annually out of health

care.

[2:30 p.m.]

It's set to reduce household incomes by $11,000 per family per year, and it will result

in the loss of thousands of private sector jobs in British Columbia.

Again to the Premier, why is the Premier bent on pursuing a policy, this CleanBC scheme,

that's going to destroy thousands of private sector jobs, reduce incomes and undermine

the essential services that British Columbians rely upon in this province?

Hon. D. Eby: We added 47,300 jobs so far this year. Just last month we added 6,600 private sector

jobs. Our GDP growth since 2017 is the highest in Canada among large provinces — last

year 62,900 jobs, year to year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: People's wages in B.C. — and I know the member opposes it, because I heard him in

the media — are now the highest in Canada. The last time B.C. was No. 1 in wages was

19 years ago.

Now, we're not satisfied. We're not satisfied with reducing child care costs alone

and with reducing ICBC rates.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: With free prescription contraception. With free meal programs for kids that are hungry

at school. With affordability credits as much as $1,200 for a family. With a higher

B.C. family benefit.

Those members have seen us deliver for British Columbians, and we will continue to

take action, because we know families are struggling. In particular, on the issue

of housing, I look forward to when those members are called to account on the floor

of this House for voting against every single housing affordability initiative we're

bringing forward as they stand up for investors and speculators and people who turned

homes into hotels….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: What an embarrassment.

We're going to stand up for people every time on housing affordability, the cost of

living, and they're going to do the same thing, if they ever get the chance to get

on this side again.

[End of question period.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, the opposition has the right to ask questions, but the opposition also has

the responsibility to listen. We have to make that balance, respectfully….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, please.

We have to keep that balance and respect in mind all the time. Both sides — not only

the opposition, but also the government side. Everybody.

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

R. Merrifield: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling an annual report of 2022-23 for the Office of

the Police Complaint Commissioner.

Hon. A. Kang: I have the honour to present the 2022-23 annual report of the Islands Trust.

Motions Without Notice

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move:

[That, notwithstanding Standing Orders 2 (1) and 3, the House sit beyond the hour

fixed for adjournment until the questions on second reading of Bill (No. 45) intituled

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023 , and of Bill (No. 47) intituled Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023 , are put and decided.]

T. Stone: I just wanted to take a quick opportunity to make a couple of brief remarks about

this about this motion. I want to just start off by saying that the official opposition

actually finds this motion here today, which is essentially to provide for the possibility

of a late night sitting tonight, very, very odd.

Typically, there is communication back and forth between all of the different House

Leaders. And while I obviously can't speak to any conversations that the Government

House Leader has had with House Leaders from the other parties, he and I have spoken

on a regular basis up until late in the last week of session about our opposition's

intentions on different bills and how many speakers and this and that. We try to share

as much as we can with him, and he tries to share as much as he can with us.

[2:35 p.m.]

Where we left things at the end of that last week was that we certainly didn't intend

on bills before the House that still needed second reading to put up every single

member of our caucus. Therefore, if the Government House Leader had had a conversation

with me about this, I certainly would have advised him of such, and there would be

no need to do this.

But I do think that this speaks to a theme that has emerged over the course of the

past year in this place. That is where the government increasingly is of the view

that this chamber seems to be here to serve the purposes of government and not necessarily

all members of the opposition.

We have seen this through the increasing use of three chambers as we pointed out and

also by members of the third parties. The member for Abbotsford West pointed out recently

that it's pretty difficult for two MLAs in third-party caucuses to be able to be in

more than two at the same time. We've got three chambers going on.

Also, when you talk to members that have been around this place for a lot longer than

I have, they will tell you that it's virtually unheard of that the Birch Room is used

for legislation. Yet here we are. Up to this point, we've been using three chambers

for legislation.

I would remind the Government House Leader that it is his responsibility…. It is government's

responsibility to manage their legislative agenda and to perhaps set a date in the

calendar. If you set a date, stick to it — that you're going to have all of the legislation

tabled by a certain date.

That gives the onus, then, onto the opposition to manage our time accordingly and

debate the legislation, spend the hours where we see a fit, to do our jobs — as opposed

to these strange motions of adding chambers and adding hours and this and that that

don't appear to be based in any conversation and sharing of information that frankly

need to take place for this body to actually operate and function in a good manner.

Government has a job to do and so does the official opposition. Fine to support this

motion, but at the end of the day, we're not going to need to be here past the regularly

scheduled time. I would have told the minister that — unless government intends on

filibustering its own legislation, which would be even more odd than putting forth

a motion to essentially say we're going to stay here all night to conclude second

reading on two pieces of legislation without having actually had a conversation about

this.

So it's very, very odd, but reflective, I think, of general sloppiness and perhaps

some mismanagement of the legislative agenda of this government that controls all

of the tools around what they bring forward, when they bring it forward, how much

time they afford within the confines of the legislative calendar for the opposition

to also do its job, which is to scrutinize legislation on behalf of British Columbians.

A. Olsen: I rise to speak to this motion. I, too, am generally supportive of this motion. I'm

supportive of any initiatives that we can put in place that will, I think, allow government

to not have to use a time allocation and closure at the end of this session as has

been a growing trend.

I think we may have made it out of the last session without having to use it. However,

we are starting to see a trend in which the legislative agenda appears to be not guided

by any plan.

We've got pieces of legislation that are being opened and closed multiple times in

a session. Bits and pieces of bills that could be put together are just kind of randomly

put throughout miscellaneous statutes and amendments acts. We've got multiple pieces

of legislation dealing with incredibly complex housing issues. We're having multiple

debates in multiple Houses, making it absolutely impossible for the members of this

place, for the members of the public, for the members of the media to keep track of

what's going on.

It's about a general respect for a democratic institution that has various roles.

[2:40 p.m.]

I recognize that this institution may be a special case, actually, but this institution

has become overly politicized, to the point where the politics of the different sides

of this House have superseded the actual debate of good legislation and the passing

of good laws. The back-and-forth and the cut-and-thrust of politics in this place

have been put ahead of good governance.

We have a motion to extend the debate today to allow for these two bills to get past

second reading stage. I can support that, especially if that means that we won't be

shutting down debate and bringing a whole pile of challenges in front of us, trying

to explain legislation that hasn't had the benefit of debate. We need better planning,

we need less political games and charades in here, and we need fewer opportunities

to vote closure.

In this case, we're supportive of it, but this does give an opportunity to make a

note publicly with respect to having three chambers open. I made the decision to not

raise this issue when the member for Abbotsford West did. I recognize that our party

has certain circumstances that are beyond our control and beyond the control of this

House. It limits our ability to participate in every piece of debate that goes on

in this place. That's just the role that we accept and the role that we have here.

That said, we're not the only ones that have to accommodate three Houses being open.

Our staff have to accommodate three Houses being open. The public needs to pay attention

to three Houses being open in the debate that's happening. This needs to be a democratic

institution that is open and available for the public to be able to view, understand

and participate.

With so many different debates happening at the same time, for the media and the ever-shrinking

press gallery, the attention is fragmented between three different Houses. In one

House, you can't even sit a member of the public in, and there's debate about legislation

that's impacting their lives going on. It's inappropriate.

I call on this government, as I have done in the past, to start to operate with a

plan, to have a legislative agenda in place. Allow for us to be able to see what that

legislative agenda looks like and to be able to plan accordingly.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM .

A. Walker: The member for Abbotsford South has mentioned the challenges of three different Houses.

I immediately thought of myself trying to represent my community in three different

chambers. I'm doing the best I can, as an independent member, by myself. I've got

the support of the community behind me.

The challenge is when the rules of the game change, and there's no notice provided

to MLAs. That does not provide the dignity that is deserved of this place. We, as

MLAs, are doing our best to hold government to account and to bring ideas — whether

those are amendments or those are stories from our communities — and to ensure that

our communities are a part of this process.

I have received no notice of this. I'm going through the orders of the day. I haven't

seen any notice of this amendment coming. I haphazardly hear from the staff of the

House Leader. Some weeks I'll get the information about what I can expect. Other weeks

I get nothing.

It's a real challenge. I have leaders in my communities that are very frustrated with

some of the things that are going on by this government. They expect me to be able

to bring their voice to this place.

Recently I had the mayor of the city of Parksville bring, as council, a request to

government for an exemption to the short-term rental legislation. He didn't get a

response from the minister. He didn't get a letter or an email. He found out, through

the media, that this request had been denied. A journalist asked the question; the

minister gave the answer. This is not what British Columbians expect as far as democracy.

I don't mind the idea of working late in the evening. We were put here by the people

in our community to work hard, and that's what every member of this House does. But

there needs to be some predictability. We need to be able to actually plan ahead for

these sorts of things. If we had been given a heads-up on what to expect, if there

were a calendar where things were laid out, we could all work together to stick to

that.

The idea of just constantly changing the rules, when there are things that people

expect us to bring from our community, is completely disrespectful as far as I'm concerned.

For that reason, I certainly will not be supporting this.

B. Banman: It is indeed a pleasure to be able to speak to this for a few moments.

As the House Leader of government will acknowledge, we did send a letter basically

putting our concerns with regard to having three Houses open.

[2:45 p.m.]

Those sentiments were echoed by one of the longest-standing members here, the member

for Abbotsford West. Sadly, however, neither the opposition nor the Third Party chose

to respond to that. There are some issues with regard….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Members, let's hear it.

The member will continue.

B. Banman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are some issues, a theme, with regard to how this government has either pushed

legislation through this House or used closure to end debate on the legislation —

one of the largest, most important bills — which has now become a thorn in their side,

I will say.

They have used everything they can, in my opinion, to circumvent the meaning and the

spirit of democracy. They have used the fact that they have a vast majority over the

rest of the House, basically, as has been mentioned by the member for Parksville-Qualicum,

to push their agenda, in a rather undemocratic process, at the end of the day.

We have never had a time where we've had three Houses open, to the best of my knowledge,

from those that I've listened to. There was, as was mentioned, an inability for the

public to sit in on one of those Houses. The fact is that two official parties here

have two members that can't be in three places at one time.

I support this. I'm prepared to work in the evening, but I have to say that the amount

of legislation being pushed through this House in this particular session makes me

wonder whether there is not some other motive in front of this government — such as

the ability to call a spring election, if they so wish — which is why they're trying

to push all this legislation through.

The public has a right to expect that the opposition parties be able to meaningfully

debate the legislation that's before them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

B. Banman: Sadly, this government has made a farce of that. It has been a farce. While I will

vote in favour of this particular motion, I find it very, very troubling, when one

takes a look at the entire timeline of this government, with regard to how they have

pushed legislation through this House. It is very troubling, and all British Columbians

should be watching very astutely as to what's going on. It just is very, very troubling.

M. de Jong: Well, look, I hate to say, "I told you so," but here we are, sliding down the slippery

slope, and we're near the bottom now. We have consistently, over the last number of

years, dismantled procedures and approaches that were designed to give this chamber

an element of predictability, of regularity.

The Government House Leader stood up, and he referred to the motion. People, anyone

that was watching, will be, I think, unclear — as, perhaps, some in this House might

be — on what he has said. What he has said is that this House will not adjourn until

the government gets what it wants.

Think about that. The Government House Leader has said that he — he and the Premier,

or he and the cabinet — has determined that this House will not adjourn. No one will

leave here until the government gets what it wants.

[2:50 p.m.]

Now, there are times where the public will understand that that's warranted. We may

be in times of a natural disaster, or we may be in times of a labour dispute, when

governments have decided to come back and said, "Look, we have to sit here and resolve

this matter, and however long it takes, we're going to do it," but that is not the

situation today. That is not what we are confronted by.

We are confronted by a government that has a healthy majority, that has been in power

for three years, that has known for months, if not a year, what dates the House will

be sitting — although they tend now to change that of their own volition.

So why doesn't the Government House Leader just come clean with all of us and say:

"The government has decided that it will decide when the House is going to sit. It

will decide how long it's going to sit, and it will decide what business is going

to be completed on any given day." Because that's what the Government House Leader

has just done.

"You're not leaving until we get what we want." That's what the Government House Leader

has said. It's interesting coming from him because he's responsible for managing this

place. He's responsible for establishing what…. And I know a little bit about that.

This House has been unbelievably accommodating, more accommodating than I would have

been, in terms of opening up three chambers to facilitate debate. There is no way

that the government or the Government House Leader can say that this chamber and the

members of this chamber have not been accommodating or have tried unreasonably to

obstruct the government's agenda.

What is the response we get from that, by trying to be responsible and accommodating?

A motion today that says you're not leaving until we get what we want. One of the….

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The Minister for Citizens' Services…. This is an interesting citizen service here,

that with two weeks to go in the session…. Someone said earlier: "Well, it's not quite

closure." It's not quite closure. It's kind of a variation on that, which is you don't

leave until we get what we want as government.

Look, I'm under no illusion. When the government started dismantling these procedural

safeguards — which, by the way, there are enough people on that side of the House

that if they weren't members, they worked here and know what kind of chaos reigned

in this place 25 years ago….

Some people might find it funny. Some people might find that funny, and I guess that's

what the government wants to go back to. Well, that's fine. I mean….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

The member for Abbotsford West has the floor. Please, listen to him.

Members, come to order.

Member will continue.

M. de Jong: I understand, and when we come to these discussions, I will be the last person….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

M. de Jong: I'll be the last person to claim to be lily white about anything. But that's why we

created, over time, in this chamber, between parties, what we thought would be some

procedural safeguards to preclude the kind of shenanigans that are now beginning to

emerge with regularity. Today is a good example.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Look, I'm sorry people seem to find….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let's not have a cross debate, please. Member for Chilliwack-Kent, please.

Member for Abbotsford West.

M. de Jong: I get the math. The motion has been tabled. The motion is going to pass. The House,

not just today but in the future, will live with the consequences of that. The motion

makes clear this: that today the government has decided what work this chamber will

do, and it will not leave.

[2:55 p.m.]

If it can do so today, it can do so tomorrow. And if it can do so tomorrow, it can

do so on Wednesday and on Thursday and each and every day thereafter.

If the Government House Leader doesn't understand the precedent he is creating, then….

I'm sorry. It is, in my view, a dangerous precedent. It represents, in my view, a

step, another step, back from the procedural safeguards that were created in this

place over the span of 20 years in cooperation between the two sides of the House

in a way that would protect the rights of members and protect our collective right

to have an element of predictability and regularity in the course of debate.

I will simply say this: I'm sorry that in circumstances where we've already heard

it wasn't necessary, on a day when the government has introduced yet another piece

of legislation, later in the session than they pledged they would…. Because the opposition

was told all of the legislation would be tabled last week.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Please conclude.

M. de Jong: I'm sorry it's come to this, because I think it represents a significant step backwards.

Thanks for the opportunity to make a submission.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister will conclude.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the comments from the members.

It's hard to take the last member's comments seriously. When he sat on this side,

when the government brought Bill 29 in…. He may remember that — firing 10,000 health

care workers, mostly women, mostly racialized women. My mom happened to be one.

He didn't think that was an issue at that time, when he was sitting on this side,

because at the time, he believed he wanted to give people the opportunity to go ahead

and have their moment to speak. So it's hard to take that member's comments seriously.

I appreciate he likes the theatre of this place, but I think it is a little hypocritical

of him to be the one making that criticism.

Now, it's true we have a fulsome agenda. I think all members in this House would appreciate….

What we're actually talking about here is working later in the day than was scheduled

to. I think all members in this House would agree that British Columbians work hard

every single day. British Columbians sometimes have to work a little later in the

day.

I can appreciate if members don't want to hear. But what we're saying here is that

we have work to do. We have to stay a little bit later in the day, and I would really

appreciate if the members would stay later in the day to do that work.

Now, the independent member….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members, please.

Please conclude.

Hon. R. Kahlon: To the independent member, I will commit to make sure that he's made fully aware,

just like the other parties are, of motions that are coming forward. I do appreciate

his comment and did respond to media. That's my job when media ask me a question,

to respond, and I did. I think he would appreciate that's the role of this democracy,

that when a reporter asks you a question that you do that.

Again, I hope all members support this motion because there is more work to do. People

are counting on us to address the challenges we have. These important pieces of legislation

will help us do that.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the motion in front of the House.

Division has been called.

[3:00 p.m. - 3:10 p.m.]

Members, we are voting on a motion which was tabled by the House Leader earlier. I'll

read it again for clarity.

"That, notwithstanding Standing Orders 2 (1) and 3, the House sit beyond the hour

fixed for adjournment until the questions on second reading of Bill (No. 45) intituled

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023 , and of Bill (No. 47) intituled Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023 , are put and decided."

Motion approved on the following division:

yeas — 52

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Banman

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

D'Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Olsen

Osborne

Paddon

Parmar

Phillip

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Rustad

Sandhu

Sharma

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Whiteside

Yao

nays — 27

Ashton

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Paton

Ross

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Tegart

Walker

Wat

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call continued second reading on Bill 47, Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented

Areas) Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 44, Housing

Statutes (Residential Development) Act.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 47 — HOUSING STATUTES

(TRANSIT-ORIENTED AREAS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

D. Davies: Continuing off the debate on Bill 47…. Again, I don't have incredible, lengthy remarks

to give.

I know that we had spoken the last time I was in the House in regards to not only

supporting the idea. We had actually…. Our Leader of the Opposition and other members

have mentioned this exact idea of densifying around transit hubs and making sure that

we're able to provide the housing that we need in our province.

One thing that has been mentioned over and over again is…. I think we're now at six

pieces of legislation that have come out in just a short number of weeks regarding

housing. We see this theme of not getting anything done, results that matter. We've

seen from this government…. Well, we haven't seen results, and that has been part

of the problem.

[3:15 p.m.]

Part of our concern about Bill 47 is the…. Are they going to have the ability to deliver

any of these results that they're talking about in this piece of legislation?

I think British Columbians have more or less given up hope on this government delivering

housing. We've seen the worst housing crisis ever in history unfolding right now before

our eyes. This is a government that has seven years as government, two terms, and

they have yet to really be able to deliver on any of their housing goals.

We've seen rents, again, explode to $3,000 a month for a one-bedroom apartment. Homes

are well over $1 million. We're not talking a fancy home but a hardly anything home

in the Lower Mainland and even more in the city of Vancouver. It's just one thing

after another, on the record of this government, when it comes to housing or the lack

of any record on housing.

Again, it's not that we are opposed to the idea of these transit-oriented developments

in the density areas. There are many questions that we need to ask. The first one

is: can they do it? Sadly, I don't…. We haven't seen any evidence of the ability to

do anything lately. The other one is: do we have the infrastructure in regards to

rail or that ability to even provide and to get to this point of where we're going

to be densifying housing around transit?

Of course, our job is, though…. We're only in second reading. We do, certainly, look

forward to moving into committee, where we can, obviously, dig a little deeper and

ask the harder questions to actually see if there is any merit on the ability for

this government to deliver on Bill 47.

Again, the end of the day is…. We are in this crisis. This crisis has been getting

worse and worse over the last seven years. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like this

government has any real plan to fix this.

It is our job to scrutinize this piece of legislation and to ask the questions. In

fact, later on here, this year or early next year, we do plan, the B.C. United, to

announce a plan of ours that will, in fact, deliver results, a real plan that is going

to work toward getting people housed.

Again, we all need to be looking at…. As a former city councillor, I know…. One thing

we talked about, even in smaller communities like Fort St. John, is that urban sprawl

and what that looks like and making sure that we recognized it and that we were smart

about how we do or don't do the urban sprawl.

It is costly to municipalities. We need to make sure, again, that there are enough

checks and balances in place — it is a comprehensive plan by the government that does

have achievables in it, and it has some goals laid out in it — before we can move

forward in supporting this. I do look forward, again, to a number of these questions

that we will be asking during our committee stage.

I do want to commend our Housing critic for the incredible work that she has done

on stickhandling these five or six pieces of legislation that have come out in just

a short little time.

With that being said, just concluding my remarks from the previous day, I do look

forward to continue in this debate before…. I will turn it over to my colleague.

J. Sturdy: To follow on with the remarks from my colleague here…. It is disappointing to be talking

about this really important set of issues around housing in such a disjointed way.

[3:20 p.m.]

Bills 44, 46, 47, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act…. It just seems very disjointed,

and it's difficult to speak comprehensively when we've got different bills with overlapping

issues and, potentially, conflict between the bills. It's difficult to give this legislation

the diligence it deserves.

It's also full of reliance, as has been pointed out many times now, on handbooks and

regulations that are nowhere to be seen, that are to be delivered at some point in

the future. It's certainly notable for its lack of detail. It's little more than a

framework because, as usual, this government really relies on an enabling type of

legislation without the meat on the bones and the details to be sorted out later.

We all understand that the devil is in the details. So while it's not unexpected,

it's in fact typical of this government. It's disappointing, and it really doesn't

give us the confidence that the details will get this legislation to a place that

serves communities.

The fact that government has been signalling for over a year that housing was going

to be the signature piece in this government's agenda, the fact that it's put together

in such a disjointed way, the fact that it's messy, that it's haphazard, that it's

without details, that it's fundamentally undemocratic, and it's typically NDP…. It's

big government knows best, and local government is clearly not capable, according

to this government.

At a high level, our caucus certainly supports transit-oriented communities. We've

supported building housing that British Columbia needs. In fact, we've been calling

for an increasing housing supply for years now. Glad to see that government is finally

coming to the party on supply, because what we've really seen over the last number

of years are restrictions and limits and taxes, which have been the order of the day.

It's all been all stick, no carrot — all taxes, time delays, permitting roadblocks,

restrictions, limitations, constraints, criticism and little to no progress.

It's certainly never been more unaffordable to live in this province. Housing has

never been more expensive. Rents have never been more expensive — people living in

their cars, people living multiple people in a room. In Whistler, for example — $1,500

for a room with multiple beds. In fact, we've gone so far backwards that there are

stories out there of people with multiple beds in a room and people sleeping in shifts.

This is 19th-century stuff.

I think it's also worth mentioning, in terms of supporting local government and supporting

communities, especially some of these smaller communities, that there has been no

support for employee housing in Whistler for the last eight years. The last contribution

to affordable housing or employee-restricted housing in Whistler was from the B.C.

United, the B.C. Liberal government in 2016. So this government is really all talk

and little action, certainly no action in the Sea to Sky.

Whistler has, for a long time, been a place where the policy on housing its workforce….

It has had a policy of housing its own workforce in the community for the last 30

years or so, and 70 percent was the goal to have people who worked in the community

to live in the community, and they have actually exceeded expectations, mostly through

forms of density bonusing, which is interesting in that it looks like that opportunity

is also going to vanish due to the mismatch of legislation that we have before the

House today.

Squamish and housing in Whistler Housing Authority rely on this type of funding opportunity

to build employee-restricted or affordable housing, and both communities are concerned

that this long history of success will end.

Bill 47 certainly could be embraced by these communities and other communities around

the province with the creation of transit-oriented development areas, minimum heights,

minimum densities. It's what most communities want and have been trying to achieve,

certainly in Whistler, increasingly in Squamish and even in Pemberton. If you haven't

been to Pemberton recently, if you haven't been there in, say, a decade, you pull

into town, and it's mostly three-and four-storey buildings, which it wasn't in the

past.

People are trying to do the right thing, but all of these, mind you, are all being

built by the private sector without provincial investments. These private sector developers

are building these purpose-built rentals that government and government members have

spent years condemning as speculators.

Without these speculators, we wouldn't have had any investment in housing. So developers

— bad, according to the government. Government — good. Private sector jobs and businesses

— bad. Public sector jobs and debt — good, according to this government.

[3:25 p.m.]

Back to Pemberton, we're getting lots of comments about not recognizing the place.

The same is true for Squamish. Visit downtown, if you haven't been in Squamish recently,

and see what this community has accomplished. But it has created unintended consequences.

This is something that Bill 47 could well exacerbate — that single-family zoning that

has been changed, through OCP designations, to higher-density housing — resulting

in hugely inflated B.C. Assessment property values, because it's being based on highest

and best use under the OCP. Traditionally, it has been highest and best use under

zoning. So something has changed there. Long-time residents are seeing — because these

assessments are so much higher in areas that have been OCP-designated as higher density

— huge increases in property taxes because their assessed values have gone up so much.

This is also creating speculation. It's becoming unaffordable for these long-time

residents, and they are, in effect, being forced to sell out. There needs to be some

sort of protection against huge property tax increases that are a result of B.C. Assessment

evaluating on OCP designations rather than on actual zoning circumstances, and this

seems a relatively new phenomenon.

It's nice to see government, as I mentioned, coming on side to understand that supply

is, certainly, one of the keys, one of the main drivers, for affordability. However,

talk has been cheap and, in fact, meaningless in some respects. This government truly

hasn't performed. We could talk about a number of different examples, not the least

of which was the favoured renters rebate that went on for years — for 2017, '18, '19,

'20, '21 and '22.

Finally, they couldn't resist any more, and in 2023 they put forward a bit of a joke,

actually: a tax credit that goes to zero after $80K of family income. It's a $400

tax credit. When we look at the Vancouver rental for a one-bedroom topping out at

$3,000 a month, that tax credit is worth four days of rent. It's a tax credit that

you can get once, next in 2024. It's pretty much underwhelming.

Of course, we can always…. Everybody talks about the 114,000 units of affordable housing,

over ten years. We're — what? — 15 percent of the way there, after seven years. At

2,400 units a year, it certainly doesn't engender any kind of confidence in this government's

ability to advance things here.

What we need, really, are 70,000 units a year in this province, just to keep up with

internal growth and immigration plans. The best year ever was 42,000 units, mostly

built by the NDP-hated private sector investors. However, the government's contribution

to the inventory has been nothing less than paltry and, naturally again, doesn't instil

much confidence. Who can blame the opposition or the public for a lack of confidence

in where this government is going?

Well, potentially, there's value in this legislation. The opportunity to densify around

transit makes sense, although we certainly don't know the details. As is typical,

as I mentioned, it's enabling legislation. It allows cabinet to develop the details

and rules around it, behind the veil of cabinet secrecy, without legislative input

and marginalizing this House — which is sort of what it's doing today, in some respects.

I feel like I'm under pressure to get my message out — chop, chop, chop, right now.

Otherwise, I could end up, essentially, just forcing everybody to stay here tonight.

You know, you feel pressure as an MLA. You want to have the opportunity to say your

piece, but it feels like you're pressured not to.

It's more of just marginalizing the House, although I will say as well that maybe

the NDP back bench is fine with all this. At the end of the day, they've had very

little to say about any of this legislation. I think we've only seen a couple of government

backbenchers bother to speak about this stuff.

To speak to the legislation: as disjointed as it is, it doesn't seem to be able to

generate much interest from government members. No details to attach to Bill 47, along

with other housing bills, as in most pieces of legislation. It's really not surprising.

It is, after all, the most secretive government in Canada.

[3:30 p.m.]

Bill 47 prescribes, in legislation, no room for discussion, no room for debate. "Don't

worry; we know best," I guess, is what it comes down to: "Big government knows better

than this Legislature."

Obviously, our concern is simply: will this government be able to do what they want,

as has been exemplified over the last seven years in office? There's a lack of credibility

or willingness to provide results to British Columbians, especially when it comes

to creating enough homes in the province. Metrics, results and delivery have not been

government's strong point. Naturally, we remain deeply concerned about their ability

to get results, and we see the importance of housing targets and density in the right

areas.

This bill creates transit-oriented-development areas by regulation with minimum density

and height requirements within a prescribed distance of a bus exchange or a SkyTrain

station. But what are the minimums? What is the density? What are the heights? What

are the prescribed distances? All yet to be determined, and not the business of the

House, according to this minister.

Our B.C. United caucus supports the idea of increased housing development around transit

hubs and arterial corridors and density where it is needed most. Community planning

is critical, concentrating housing near essential transportation lines, with our vision

for a more accessible and sustainable future. We've made commitments to this going

back years, and it's a relief that government is catching up. Better late than never.

However, transit is the key to Bill 47. It's worth pointing out, for most communities

in this province, this government has been absolutely absent on transit.

The Sea to Sky has been trying to implement a regional transit plan since 2018 with

no help whatsoever from government. In fact, it would not be disingenuous to say that

the NDP has not supported, or one could go so far as to say the NDP has opposed, the

regional transit network for the Sea to Sky.

Local government and Squamish and Líl̓wat First Nation developed an MOU for regional

transit in the Sea to Sky, agreed on the governance model, based it on a 25-year Sea

to Sky transit future plan developed with B.C. Transit and with the RMOW, the village

of Pemberton and the district of Squamish, the Squamish Nation and the Líl̓wat Nation.

Everyone was on side. Oh, and the Squamish-Lillooet regional district, of course.

Everyone was on side, but you need a willing partner, and this government has been

anything but. The Minister of Transportation, in current or various iterations, was

not supportive of the proposal, and the government had absolutely no suggestion, no

proposal and has offered no hope.

Some talk of a trial for the past year was discussed, but nothing has materialized.

There was a reassessment of demand, but the reassessment of demand was carried out

during COVID and the Sea to Sky transit strike, so it seemed like a bit of a waste

of time. I'm not sure that the data that was generated from that was of any value.

However, the regional transit system as proposed by communities and First Nations

would connect the Líl̓wat First Nation in Mount Currie to Pemberton, to the resort

municipality of Whistler, Pinecrest-Black Tusk, through to Squamish, Britannia Beach,

Furry Creek, Porteau Cove, Lions Bay, Seascapes, Horseshoe Bay and into the TransLink

system.

This is a system that this bill is theoretically about — transit-oriented communities.

Recognizing that the Sea to Sky is a community, I venture to say the whole of which

is greater than the sum of its parts…. However, it's important that we connect the

communities in the corridor with Metro Vancouver because in many ways, as I said,

the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

When you look at a place like Squamish, which is the epicentre of the Sea to Sky in

many ways, it's where you find definitive health care. That's where the Squamish hospital

is. That's where long-term care is provided. That's where the biggest commercial centre

is. However, as they say, if it's anything other than owning a car, you can't get

there from here, at least not by transit.

This B.C. government hasn't supported the development of a comprehensive regional

transit system or given First Nations or the local government the tools to develop

one. It seems a bit of a no-brainer to connect the Sea to Sky to TransLink and Vancouver

because, after all, the Sea to Sky has just one road, essentially a two-lane highway

— albeit a great highway, but the capacity is limited.

[3:35 p.m.]

Growth takes place, and we've seen the growth: Squamish growing 22 percent over the

last census period; Whistler growing 18 percent; Pemby, 34 percent. Britannia is under

redevelopment right now. The old townsite has been reconfigured. There's a commercial

centre there.

There are thousands and thousands of more people moving into the Sea to Sky, and there

is no transit system. This government has not supported it with the necessary funding

to B.C. Transit and the tools to local government. This is not unique to the Sea to

Sky. This is happening all across the province. Communities all across the province

are suffering from the same fate. There's a real irony here that we're talking about

density along transit corridors and an NDP government that hasn't demonstrated any

commitment or increasing support for transit.

Arguably, we've gone backwards on transit funding over the years with inflation. In

fact, Whistler and Squamish are both sitting on budgets with additional money designated

for transit, for enhancing their internal systems. But again, no willing partner from

the provincial government and B.C. Transit. So they can't even enhance their transit

services in the internal systems. What we're going to see is that money is going to

be reallocated.

Whistler and Squamish are both talking right now about an 8 percent or 9 percent tax

increase. Hopefully that'll come down. But when we look at it, there are so many priorities.

Look at the emergency management plans and what has been delegated to local government

to deal with. All of these things are going to cost more and more money. There's less

money around and no partners for transit. At the end of the day, there are so many

obligations.

I have to mention one other piece, actually, before I wind up here. That is that there's

an expectation that OCPs will be updated by the end of next year. That's a cost to

local government. There's a cost and a need to do community engagement, and it's just

so incredibly unrealistic.

When we look at Whistler's last OCP, it was from 1993. It was updated and approved

in 2013. So what's that, 20 years? But then it was challenged by First Nations. They

went to court over it. It was finally approved in 2020, after 30 years. That's without

DRIPA to think about.

So to think that this government wants transitional language for OCPs next year and

updating by the end of next year and zoning bylaws for the following year is completely

unrealistic. More resources are needed, more infrastructure upgrades; certainly more

contributions or more thoughts on how transits are going to work.

I'll mention one other thing. When we look at transit-oriented communities, we look

at the minimum parking requirements or the lack of minimum parking requirements. It's

great for Victoria. It's great for Vancouver, for the most part. But if you live in

snow country, it's not so great. There are already enormous pressures on parking,

mostly in communities with significant winters, anyway. You only have parking on half

the roads half the time anyway.

So the idea that we are not going to be needing any more parking is pretty unrealistic.

While I know parking will go to clean energy vehicles over time, the idea that we

are going to continue to grow the province the way it's been growing and have fewer

vehicles or less vehicle traffic is just completely unrealistic.

With that, I'll take my place and thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 47, Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act,

The proposed legislation is aimed at encouraging communities to build housing in areas

that it is calling transit hubs. To achieve this, it is encouraging local governments

to bring in transit-oriented developments in their official community plans. So TODs

— transit-oriented developments, and OCPs — official community plans.

For those local governments that don't currently have TODs, Bill 47 requires municipalities

to designate these areas. For those that have existing transit-oriented-development

areas, those will take effect right away.

[3:40 p.m.]

Local governments will have until the end of June to establish transit-oriented-development

areas by bylaw. If they don't do that, the provincial government can step in.

I support communities that are more vibrant, more resilient, with easy access to transit

and amenities.

Just listening to my colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky talking about snowy

areas and the need for parking…. I spent my childhood and part of my young adulthood

in a very snowy city — Edmonton, Alberta — without a car and relied very heavily on

transit to get around. I learned how to wrap up my skin so that I would not suffer

from frostbite or exposure walking through those snowy streets.

It is entirely possible in cities with effective transit to get around without vehicles.

We should be really orienting ourselves towards creating the ability and the choice

for people to have to get around with transit regardless of where they live in this

province.

We often hear the shorthand for these vibrant, connected, resilient communities with

easy access to transit and amenities being described as 15-minute cities, the idea

that you could walk or cycle anywhere within your community within 15 minutes and

have access to all the amenities that you need — your work, your recreation, your

services, parks.

When you think about the sort of global destinations that people like to travel to,

often where they like to travel are to cities and regions that are highly walkable,

that have large parts of their cities that don't have access to vehicles, that are

very transit-heavy.

For example, there's Copenhagen in Denmark. Several decades ago, Copenhagen decided

to close off the entire core of its city to vehicles. When I was there — it's been

a while now, maybe 20 years ago, 15 years ago — it was such a delightful city to spend

time in because you could…. I had my young son with me at the time. We could ride

our bikes feeling very safe. There was transit accessible everywhere. You were part

of this very vibrant community of people that gathered all times of the day and really

enjoyed that outside life that is offered when there aren't vehicles whizzing by at

every moment.

Barcelona has an extensive part of the town that is non-accessible to vehicles. Sevilla

— Seville — in Spain as well. Just extraordinary. The whole centre of town is only

for pedestrians. These are places that people like to travel to, because it's great

to be a part of that feeling of being in a community where you're not constantly having

to dodge cars whizzing past you — that you're part of the human community and that

pure joy that comes from just being able to interact with people on the street.

We know from research and studies that talking to strangers is good for our mental

health, for example. When we have communities that are designed with lots of public

spaces and lots of capacity for us to interact with each other, when we're riding

on the bus or waiting at a bus stop or walking down a street with no traffic on it,

we get to enjoy the benefits of those interactions. We should absolutely be orienting

our efforts towards creating more and more communities that have this kind of resiliency

and vibrancy right at the centre of them.

This is also a significant part of our efforts to combat climate change, which is

a part of the debate in this House right now. I think that when we look at how we

respond to climate change, we have to ask ourselves: where are humans in our climate

change plan, and where is nature in our climate change plan?

Those two things are largely lacking from the current plan we have in B.C. But creating

the conditions where people don't have to rely on vehicles to get to the amenities

that they need, where they can walk to school, where they can walk to work or cycle….

These create the conditions for all of us to be able to reduce our emissions individually

but, more importantly, collectively.

[3:45 p.m.]

To suggest to people you just have to find a way to not use your vehicle, but without

having access to available, accessible, affordable, reliable transit, or without having

access to the kind of cycling infrastructure that we see in Victoria, it's very hard

for people to make that decision to not use their vehicle. So this is the way to create

the collective impacts that we want by making sure that people, individually, can

make those choices.

North America has been the poster child in design that favours cars and highways.

I have a stepsister who lives in California. We went and visited her a few years ago.

It's quite astonishing to see a state that really only has infrastructure for vehicles.

We really had no choice but to use a vehicle when we were there. The highways of highways

in California are something that I think all of us should look at and think: "We do

not want that." That is the wrong direction, a kind of centrality of the car.

I had an artist friend who once said: "If aliens were to look down on North America,

they would be pretty certain that the cars were the beings that the humans were serving."

We got the cars to where they wanted to go, put them safely into nice little shelters

at night, washed them and filled them up with fuel. We take very good care of those.

But we actually want to create communities and, ideally, a province and a future where

cars are not at the centre of everything we do.

Real estate has historically given homeowners great long-term returns that they've

been able to pass down to future generations. This is one of the reasons Canadians

still believe it's one of the best investments they could make. However, I think much

of the debate that's happening in all of the Houses, at the moment, in this Legislature

is around whether a home is more than just a commodity. Is it more than just an investment?

I think most of us agree that a home is something much greater than a commodity or

an investment. We have to ask ourselves: how are we responding to the situation we're

in now, where the affordability of that home, of that dwelling, has become out of

reach for far too many people?

If we want to make strides towards sustainable long-term affordability and livability,

we really must use existing land more pragmatically. We must create cities, towns

and neighbourhoods that offer a mix of housing types, with a vision for a quality

of life and equity in access to that quality of life at the forefront.

I am in favour of the transit-oriented development that is intended in Bill 47, yet

I have some questions about this legislation and how it will roll out and affect local

governments.

Cities such as Helsinki, as another example, have captured the spirit of the 15-minute

framework and even surpassed it by ensuring that each neighbourhood has a balance

of market housing, mixed-income housing and non-market subsidized housing.

This last piece is what is largely being ignored in our conversations in B.C. and

Canada when it comes to the housing affordability crisis. It is a housing affordability

crisis. Unless we have non-market housing as a significant part of our housing mix,

we are going to find ourselves in this perpetual cycle of the housing affordability

crisis.

The mix offers residents access to a culturally, socially and economically diverse

and vibrant community where small businesses and people thrive. This is what we could

have across B.C., but unfortunately, there is not much that we see in Bill 47 that

supports this vision.

The Minister of Transportation said he has earmarked $400 million to acquire land

around future SkyTrain terminals and transit hubs. That will give the government first

crack at developing affordable housing in those key locations, rather than leaving

it to private speculators to build expensive condos.

[3:50 p.m.]

The province's track record on delivering affordable housing is not very good. Market

rents are hitting record highs in Canada, with Vancouver leading the way. An average

one-bedroom in August in Vancouver went for over $3,000 a month. Non-market housing,

as offered by non-profits and public agencies, is in greater need than ever before.

The lack of investment for decades, particularly from the federal government starting

in the 1990s, has really created a massive, massive deficit of non-market, truly affordable

housing.

From what I understand, the province is still trying to figure out how to approach

building affordable housing near transit. They're working with B.C. Housing on how

that gets programmed, and they've committed up to 10,000 units but haven't advanced

anything, and there is no concrete plan that British Columbians can look at, or a

timeline.

How will British Columbians be assured that government will deliver this non-market

housing? How much will this government continue to rely on the private sector to build

what they call affordable housing, and which hasn't been delivered?

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a report last month that demonstrates

how governments should focus less on fruitless incentives to the private sector and

more on direct spending on non-market affordable housing.

B.C. does indeed need more housing inventory, but the solution is not just about boosting

supply. We need purposeful inventory, the right type of housing in the right areas

with access to the right mix of transportation and, most importantly, with livability

at the core. That should be prioritized in all communities across the province but

especially in smaller markets that are on the cusp of very fast growth.

There are human costs to the kind of sprawl that we see in North America. A recent

study by TomTom revealed that Canadians spent approximately 144 hours in rush hour

traffic across the country in 2022. Despite suburbia offering pockets of affordability

and promising improved livability, this perceived appeal quickly becomes diluted with

commute times.

There are also environmental impacts on the wrong kinds of development. Over 7 percent

of the original wetlands in the lower Fraser Valley and parts of Vancouver Island

have disappeared, and an 85 percent wetland loss has been reported in the South Okanagan

due to urban sprawl.

Right now approximately 10 percent of Canada's housing market is at risk of a one-in-100-year

flood event that has been classified as essentially uninsurable. That number will

only increase as we continue to build homes in floodplains and if we don't fix our

diversified infrastructure, said Kathryn Bakos, director of climate finance and science

at the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation.

Other questions that we have with this legislation are: how will these changes be

received by local governments? How are municipalities being supported to do all the

heavy lifting that Bills 44, 46 and 47 require? And how will the government ensure

their numerous policy manuals for these pieces of housing legislation are accessible

and that they truly support the work of local governments in updating their bylaws

and OCPs — and as they communicate these changes to developers and the public and

countless other impacted stakeholders? How does the government feel about downloading

so much responsibility onto already significantly overburdened local governments?

It's unclear to me how Bill 44 and the removal of public hearings for development

that fit within a community's OCP applies to this bill. While I support reforming

the public hearing process, I worry that people across B.C. will feel increasingly

left out and increasingly less trusting. Push-back against the ideas, for example,

of 15-minute cities happens when residents are not included in conversations about

the future and are relying on information being provided to them by sources that are

not necessarily reliable because they are not getting reliable information from their

public institutions and their governments.

[3:55 p.m.]

If people can't see themselves in this future, that creates an environment of distrust,

and what people fear about these ideas is that they are not part of the planning processes.

What we are seeing with the legislation that is in front of this House right now is

a potential acceleration of that feeling of dislocation, being left out of processes,

being left out of planning and, unfortunately, an increase in distrust, which is the

opposite direction we need to go right now as a province and as a democracy.

We are supportive of building housing near transit. However, we are also concerned

about transit infrastructure in this province. I have been asking for years to have

better transit between Cowichan Valley and the capital regional district, where tens

of thousands of vehicles go over the Malahat highway every single day, with very limited

access to transit — only a handful of buses going south in the morning, a handful

of buses going north in the evening, and each way costing $10 for a trip.

This is neither accessible nor affordable transit, and it does nothing to solve the

congestion that we see growing every single week on the Trans-Canada Highway coming

over the Malahat and into the capital regional district.

Mayor Brad West, the chair of the Mayors' Council, stated: "The fact is you can't

have transit-oriented development without transit, and TransLink's current system

is unable to keep up with the growing public demand for services across this region."

A similar call for funding was echoed at the local level by Anita Huberman, CEO of

the Surrey Board of Trade. She said: "These regulations will help guide local governments

in making responsible urban development decisions that prioritize transit access and

minimize environmental impacts. We urge the B.C. government to ensure there is adequate

funding for enhanced transit services in Surrey."

We believe we need the government and the province to rapidly increase public transit

services across this province. I think all of us hear from constituents in every part

of this province about the lack of access to public transit, particularly for an aging

population who have to travel in rural and remote areas to access health care. When

they don't have access to public transit, it makes that travel extremely difficult

for people.

The province has absolutely fallen behind on transit infrastructure. I looked at a

map not that long ago of the Greyhound service that used to exist in British Columbia

in the 1970s and 1980s. You could get anywhere on a Greyhound. I often did. I moved

here when I was 20, and to get back to Alberta for Christmas holidays, I would take

a Greyhound. It was a reliable and affordable form of transportation that existed

that no longer exists in this province.

As we saw in the British reality travel program not that long ago, there was quite

a bit of shock and surprise from people visiting Vancouver Island to discover you

actually pretty much can't get around this island or get up this island using public

transit, because it doesn't exist. To think that we are here in 2023 and the options

available to people for public transit in between our communities are low to none,

it's a pretty shocking state of affairs.

Last year we were in the Interior, having a little family break, and my son asked

Google the different ways to get back from Kelowna to Vancouver. Google let him know

that he could cycle more quickly than he could get there by transit in January. We

have a problem. We have a transit deficit problem in this province.

The TransLink Mayors' Council, the group tasked with overseeing TransLink's strategic

direction…. When we think of the Lower Mainland, there is transit available, but even

there, there is a deficit. The group tasked with overseeing TransLink's strategic

direction and priorities have created a ten-year plan that would cost $20 billion.

However, TransLink faces a long-term funding problem. Research shows that B.C. is

a hotbed for profit-driven displacement.

[4:00 p.m.]

In a report for the balanced supply of housing project at UBC, Silas Xwerub and Craig

Jones show that British Columbia has significantly higher rates of evictions than

the rest of the country and that 85 percent of the province's evictions are no-fault

evictions. The report attributes the prevalence of these evictions to pressures around

profit-driven displacement, where the financial incentives of selling a property or

raising rents lead landlords to evict tenants from their homes despite these tenants

paying rent and respecting the property.

An interim report from First United's B.C. eviction-mapping project also confirms

the prevalence of these forms of profit-driven displacement. This report further notes

the disproportionate effects of this kind of displacement on Indigenous, racialized

and disabled members of the community, a significant portion of whom are evicted into

homelessness.

There is no resolution to the housing affordability crisis that does not involve putting

an end to profit-driven displacement. To hold otherwise risks perpetuating injustices

rather than remedying them. To genuinely address the problem of a profit-driven displacement,

we should engage with what Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò refers to as constructive politics, which

would move beyond performative consultation or tokenistic representation in housing

politics.

Constructive housing politics would aim to share decision-making power with those

who lack adequate housing, including those who have been displaced or who are at risk

of displacement, and to strive together to alleviate housing insecurity and deprivation

in concrete and meaningful ways.

Much of what will unfold in this legislation, as has become more and more common in

this House, will come in regulation, including the definition of "exchange." There

remain a lot of questions about how this bill will work in conversation with Bills

44 and 46.

As has been raised several times, the number of housing bills currently being debated

simultaneously in this House makes it very difficult for the members of the Legislative

Assembly as well as the public to get a full and complete picture on what's happening

or the intention of what this government wants to have happen from all of these pieces

of legislation.

With that, I will end my comments and move over to the next chamber to find out what's

happening there.

R. Merrifield: Well, today I stand here as a representative of my constituents in Kelowna-Mission,

having had the fortune of having them elect me as their representative. But I also

stand here as a voice for the next generation.

As I've mentioned many times in this House, I have five children — two stepchildren

and three of my own — ages 21 through 27. I truly believe that that next generation

is the future of our beautiful province of British Columbia. I can tell you that around

dinners, in their conversations, their dreams are dying. They talk more about leaving

our beautiful province of B.C. than they do of staying and building a future.

We're really at a pivotal moment in time, and as we address Bill 47, a bill that has

the potential to reshape our communities and our lives, I would hope it's with that

seriousness that we approach this.

Earlier today I heard the Housing Minister laud himself for fixing housing. Bills

42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 — these bills aren't fixing housing. I don't even know if these

bills will fix housing.

[4:05 p.m.]

I can tell you is that what has happened is that in the first 6½ years of this government's

tenure as a majority, they created and flamed a housing crisis. Their first acts were

to quell demand, viciously quell demand by increasing costs and taxes — 13 of them

on housing specifically. It was only in the last two years that we heard the Housing

Minister, who is now the Premier, actually talk about supply. Supply is what is needed.

This is a housing chaos, these bills. Regulations won't be done until June at the

very earliest on any of them, and then cities are going to have time frames in which

to react. So what gets prioritized: 47, with the transit orientation, or 44? What

happens when an assembly is being attempted and, all of a sudden, somebody wants to

build a three-plex on their particular lot, damaging the future of density right next

to a transit hub? Does 47 kick in? Does it have to meet a minimum, or is 44 more applicable

in that particular situation? I don't know. Nobody knows.

For too long, the dream of affordable housing has been just that. It's a dream under

this government. The B.C. United caucus has been tirelessly championing this cause,

because every British Columbian deserves a place to call home. I used to say that

I, as a developer in the private sector, tried to build, desperately, affordable and

attainable housing for people.

We actually had a formula that would figure out what the average income was and then

build specifically to that average income. If we could not do that successfully, we

wouldn't tackle the project, because then we weren't building for the people that

actually lived, worked and played in that community.

You know who has been building over the course of the last seven years? Developers.

And you know why? CMHC. Our Premier and Housing Minister stand up and try and claim

that 26,000 number of purpose-built rentals. The only reason that those have been

built is because of CMHC housing funding under the federal government.

This government did nothing for the first five years of their majority and now is

trying to play desperate catch-up by turning our housing crisis with the least affordable

housing in North America and the worst rents, highest rents in all of Canada, into

housing chaos in the last 12 months of their rule.

I hope, I really hope, that this next generation gets on their feet on voting day

and actually votes to restore their dreams, because I don't trust this NDP government

and their track record on housing to take us anywhere but more into the chaos that

we have already endured. Bill 47 does nothing more than track the utter failure of

housing policy under this government.

The NDP have consistently underdelivered on the housing promises made. The 114,000

in ten years — remember that one? Where did it go? Nowhere. Now it's 140,000 from

somewhere. I can't really figure out where it's from. It's not creating new housing;

it's not starting new units.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

It's time for change, for action and for results, not just missed opportunities, unfulfilled

commitments and promises and a lack of understanding of the supply and demand which

has created our housing crisis. Really, it's our next generation that's going to pay

the price.

[4:10 p.m.]

Is there a glimmer of hope with Bill 47? Yes. Why? It's actually something that the

B.C. United have been talking about relentlessly for at least the last three years

that I've sat in this chair. Focusing on developing housing in strategic areas of

transit is definitely a step in the right direction. On this side of the House, we

believe in building communities that are vibrant, accessible and sustainable — communities

where our youth can thrive.

The concept of transit-oriented development areas is awesome. It's not revolutionary.

I just listened to the Leader of the Third Party talk about all of the cities across

the world that we could have used as examples over the last seven years. We don't

have to reinvent the wheel. We can follow best practices that we can find all over

this world.

It's more than just buildings. I've already critiqued the fact that this government

doesn't know how to build buildings. It doesn't know how to stimulate the economy

through building of housing. It doesn't know how to provide…. As we heard from my

colleague from the Sea to Sky, we know that they don't know how to build enough housing

for the workers that our companies desperately need.

It's also about building transit. We have been chronically starving our transit. I

know I've been advocating for more transit within my community. I've sat at meetings

with the minister in estimates, asking questions about how we could get more transit.

Right now from my riding, it takes two hours to take a bus to the university. Do you

know what university students are going to do? Drive.

Yes, transit-oriented development areas are awesome. This is about talking about bringing

that those investments that government makes are married and put together with the

density necessary to really create that vibrancy, where we integrate housing and transportation,

and where our neighborhoods come to life.

What's going to happen when Bill 47 is implemented? Well, right now, we have planning

staff that don't know what to do. For applications that come in, what do they make

them subject to? We're not sure. Do we set them to the minimums that have been determined?

Do we allow them to move forward, as per the current OCP? Planning staff don't know

what to do.

Councils don't know what to do. The council debate is: "Well, what happens when the

provincial legislation comes to fruition? Does anyone know what the regulations are

going to be?" They don't know.

Now we're talking about OCPs. Kelowna just adopted its OCP this current year. They're

going to go back to the drawing board and redo an entire OCP process with the transportation

plans and all the new laws that have come into being? This is going to take huge amounts

of time, millions of dollars per municipality, and all the while, they don't even

have the funding for transit.

Could this have a long-term effect positively? Who knows? I don't trust this NDP government

to implement anything well. If implemented positively, we know that transit-oriented

development can reduce congestion, shorten commute times, and foster those vibrant

communities, but we don't have that confidence.

While we can support the bill's fundamental principles, perhaps, we have to scrutinize

its broader implications, especially because this is left with so much to regulation.

As representatives of our constituents, it's our duty to meticulously review the bill's

details in the committee stage, but I don't know.

[4:15 p.m.]

We've got so many bills running and so many different committees, I'm not even sure

how we're going to get through them all in the next seven days of sitting. What I

do know is that we need to do something, because the soaring housing costs in cities

like Vancouver, Surrey and Kelowna exemplify the urgent need for a diverse range of

housing options.

We don't only need concrete and steel towers sitting next to transit. We don't just

need six-storey wood-frames. We need a variety of housing options. It's the only way

that we can actually provide for all of the complex needs of our communities. We've

been advocating for growth concentrated along transit and arterial corridors, trying

to avoid unmanaged sprawl and promote livability, but this NDP government is actually

encouraging sprawl, by mandating four units for every single-family lot.

In my community, single-family lots aren't in the core areas; single-family lots are

on the outskirts. Those are in the far-reaching suburbs of Kelowna; those are on the

hillside communities. How is that going to be managed now against trying to provide

for density along transit corridors?

News flash: it's chaos. We, as a caucus, remain committed to ensuring that this legislation

will fulfil its intended purpose, but we will introduce a comprehensive plan focused

on green urban density, offering sustainable solutions to housing that avoid the pitfalls

of unchecked sprawl.

Our plan is not going to be mere rhetoric, like the NDP's. It's going to actually

create sustainable, livable spaces for today and for the future. In our forthcoming

policies, we're going to stimulate both the private and the non-profit sectors towards

sustainable growth, focusing on urban density. With a comprehensive approach at our

core, our vision is going to extend to more than ju