Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 25, 2023

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 312

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Mental health and addiction services and discussions

in Hope and Merritt

J. Tegart

Skilled trades training programs in

Burnaby

J. Routledge

Bowen Island and Whistler community health

centres

J. Sturdy

Fundraiser walk for aquatic centre in

Agassiz

K. Paddon

AI development permit chatbot in Kelowna

R. Merrifield

Volunteerism and events in Comox Valley

R. Leonard

Oral Questions

Attacks by repeat offenders and handling of cases by

justice system

M. de Jong

Hon. N. Sharma

E. Sturko

Drug toxicity crisis and access to safe

supply

A. Olsen

Hon. J. Whiteside

Attacks by repeat offenders and handling of cases

by justice system

P. Milobar

Hon. N. Sharma

E. Ross

L. Doerkson

Government action on repeat offenders and directive

to Crown counsel

S. Bond

Hon. N. Sharma

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing (continued)

J. Sturdy

Hon. R. Kahlon

M. Bernier

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating

(No. 5) Amendment Act, 2023

Hon. R. Kahlon

M. de Jong

M. Lee

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Hon. A. Dix

S. Bond

J. Sturdy

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions

(continued)

E. Sturko

Hon. J. Whiteside

TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2023

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Glumac.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

A. Singh: Today a delegation of 22 people are joining us. They are participants

of the Dr. Ambedkar International Symposium on Emancipation in Vancouver and

Equality Day.

Dr. Ambedkar was a tireless jurist and advocate for equality and the

head of the committee that wrote the constitution of India, heralded by many

legal advocates at the time as one of the most progressive constitutions in

the world.

One of the guests is a grand-nephew of Dr. Ambedkar, Rajaratna

Ambedkar. They have been celebrating Dr. B.R. Ambedkar International

Symposium on Emancipation events all week at UBC, SFU and UVic. Also joining

them is my good friend Jai Birdi.

Let us welcome them.

Hon. A. Mercier: I’d just like to welcome my wife and two children to the House. Kate

is my best friend, my better half, and I couldn’t do half the things I do

without her. My son is the one up there with the great hair, Simon. He’s a

year old. Charlotte’s here, too, your biggest fan, Mr. Speaker, and it’s her

fifth birthday next week.

Will the House please welcome my family.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Will the chamber please extend a warm welcome to my guests and, also,

the guests of the Minister for Public Safety, participants and alumni of the

Guthrie program, which is a therapeutic community within the Nanaimo

Correctional Centre. It’s the only place in the province, but I’m also told

the only place in the country, that has this therapeutic community built

into the prison system.

Please join me in welcoming Lauren Krowicki, John Horn, Harry Shergill

and Jason Foley.

Thank you for being here.

P. Milobar: Today we have several members from the Simpcw First Nation here, down

for meetings yesterday and today as well. With us, we have Kukpi7 George

Lampreau; Sam Phillips; the senior adviser with their natural resource

department; Andre Taniguti, the director of finance and operations; and the

government-to-government coordinator Corbin Kelley.

Will the House please make them all feel welcome.

H. Yao: Today I would like to ask the chamber to welcome a delegation coming

from Vancouver Davis College, an educational institution in Richmond. Please

welcome Winnie Zhang, executive vice-principal; Sun Hua, vice-president for

marketing; Tina Zhang, campus operation director; Dan Tidsbury — I do

apologize if I butcher your name — vice-president for compliance and

development; and Owen Sun.

Please join me in welcoming them. Thank you, everyone.

K. Paddon: Today I would like to welcome Jake Power back to the Legislature. Jake

runs PowerWood in Kent. It’s a fantastic organization. He’s here with the

B.C. value-added. I’m not going to be able to join the group for lunch, but

it’s okay because I know where Jake works, and he’s always happy to fill me

in.

Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Tegart: Today in the gallery, I have a friend visiting from Calgary with her

grandson. Please welcome Carol Mann and her grandson Tyson and their

friends, Val and Courtney Ell.

Welcome to the House.

D. Routley: I’d like to

join the member for Chilliwack-Kent in welcoming the value-added wood

coalition.

British

Columbia’s forest industry has defined our past and will shape our future.

Value-added wood manufacturing businesses and their earnest, hardworking

employees are trail-blazing new ideas and new products within our forest

sector.

I’m happy to

introduce Andy Rielly, who is the president of Rielly Lumber, chair of IWPA

and the father of Toronto Maple Leafs star defenceman Morgan

Rielly.

Mr. Speaker, I

never thought I’d say this, but go, Leafs, go!

[10:10 a.m.]

I’d also like

to welcome Brian Hawrysh, Brian Menzies, Dan Battistella, Doug Pauze, Jake

Power, John Gillis, Ken Kalesnikoff, and Warren Carter. These folks and the

companies and workers they represent are innovators and entrepreneurs who

make new and forward-looking prod­ucts. These businesses support families

around the prov­ince. They use every part of the tree to make a big

impact.

It isn’t just

what they produce that’s important. It’s the ingenuity and the innovation

that they bring to their profession in British Columbia. That innovation has

been at the core of our value-added sector for many, many years, and it

makes B.C.’s value-added sector leaders at a time when the world needs us

all to stand up for innovation and change.

These people

are here in the gallery. I’d like you all to welcome them.

D. Ashton: I, too, would like to echo the comments by my peer from Nanaimo–North

Cowichan on value-added timber.

I come from a community that had lots of opportunity and had lots of

industries that were doing it. I think, as we have all heard, it’s more and

more important for the province of British Columbia to continue to utilize

every part of those wonderful trees that we grow in our incredible

forests.

I would like to recognize all the members up there from the

value-added coalition, especially a gentleman that I had the opportunity, in

my first years here, of working with, Brian Menzies.

Good to see everybody. Thank you for coming.

S. Furstenau: I have three guests in the gallery today who are here to shadow

me.

Jack Bradley is from Orangeville, Ontario. Now in his third year at

UBC studying bioeconomy science, he’s interested in the development of

sustainable communities, renewable energy alternatives, spending time

outdoors, playing guitar and working at his dream job as a student park

ranger with B.C. Parks.

Monika Arcadi is in her first year at UVic, studying French and

environmental studies. She’s originally from New Westminster, B.C. and

competes on the track team. While she doesn’t have a favourite topic yet,

she is passionate about learning. I’m with her on that.

Cynthia recently moved from Calgary to study her first year of

forestry. She’s doing a degree in forest bio­economy science and

technology at UBC. Global natural disasters drew Cynthia into the fight

against climate change and learning about environmental law, policy and

sustainability.

I’m delighted to have them joining me here today. Would the House

please make them most welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES

AND DISCUSSIONS IN

HOPE AND MERRITT

J. Tegart: B.C. is facing a crisis in mental health and addictions, and we

need to be talking about it more. That is why my colleague the member

for Surrey South and I will be hosting community conversations this week

— to share experiences and ideas for change in the communities of Hope

and Merritt.

No matter where you live in B.C., in a big city centre or a

smaller more rural community, it’s likely that you or someone you know

has been touched by this issue. Many people have also been touched by

the great work of our local social service agencies, who are doing the

best they can to keep up with the high demand for help.

I want to highlight two of these organizations, one in Hope and

one in Merritt. The Hope and Area Transition Society, or HATS, provides

substance use services for adults and youth, as well as other youth and

family services and supports for those looking for housing, through a

trauma-informed approach.

Meanwhile, the ASK Wellness Society in Merritt pro­vides a

range of outreach support services designed to assist people facing

homelessness, mental health, substance misuse or a combination of these

factors. Their vision is to “work towards a society that recognizes the

value and potential of each individual.”

Recovery is possible. It’s my sincere hope that people in the

communities of Hope and Merritt will stop by for one of our community

conversations. We’re in Hope this Friday, April 28 at 6:30 and in

Merritt on Saturday at 1:30 in the afternoon. I’m looking forward to the

discussion.

[10:15 a.m.]

I thank my colleague for joining me. These are conversations that

need to happen in every community.

SKILLED TRADES

TRAINING PROGRAMS IN

BURNABY

J. Routledge: April is Construction and Skilled Trades Month, so I’d like to

take this opportunity to tell you about SkillPlan. It’s located in

Burnaby North.

SkillPlan was created more than 40 years ago to improve

apprenticeship training and outcomes. Today it is consid­ered a

leader in Canada for pinpointing foundational skills challenges and

designing curriculum and industry-specific training programs to address

these challenges.

Their Build Your Skills online personal training hub helps people

gain the skills they need to enter and succeed in the skilled trades.

Their online courses have easy-to-follow lessons, interactive activities

and video tutorials to help learners in trade math, reading, science and

more. In B.C., SkillPlan is currently working with many unions, colleges

and school districts to ensure learners have access to these supportive

tools.

The SkillPlan mentorship program supports apprentices and

journeyworkers to learn how to create a supportive culture on the

jobsite, where 80 percent of knowledge transfer actually happens. This,

in turn, supports a more diverse workforce, enhances productivity and

improves safety on the job.

The SkillPlan Building It Green program recognizes that reducing

greenhouse gas emissions relies heavily on the climate literacy of the

skilled trades. Building It Green helps them understand their role in

constructing and maintaining net-zero projects.

SkillPlan serves 14 international building trades unions, their

affiliated contractors and their technical training providers to support

thousands of apprentices every year to achieve their trade certificates.

I’m proud that they are part of the Burnaby community.

BOWEN ISLAND AND WHISTLER

COMMUNITY HEALTH

CENTRES

J. Sturdy: The delivery of health care must change and is changing.

Community-led efforts are being developed across the province in

response to the shortage of family practice physicians. In West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky, two active and engaged communities have been

creating solutions in community: Bowen Island and Whistler.

On Bowen Island, the ambition was bold: to build a new community

health centre to house primary, emergency, mental, public and dental

health as well as ancillary services. After years of planning, constant

fundraisers, the efforts of a deeply passionate community and the

contributions of over 500 Bowen Island families, they raised $6 million

to get the project started, and it’s tracking to be open in the fall of

this year. I certainly look forward to celebrating with them on that

day. The community health centre is owned and operated by the Bowen

Island Health Centre Foundation, which is an independent registered

charity.

In Whistler, the vision for an integrated health centre was

similar. A task force was formed in 2019 in response to a chronic

shortage of family physicians. They began with an assessment of existing

models, with a focus on structures where a local society manages primary

care clinics.

In 2022, the Whistler 360 Health Collaborative Society achieved

registered charitable status, which enabled them to act on their phased

approach, starting with the provision of affordable space and more

doctors now. The society was able to secure a vacant commercial space

along Main Street, where the first new physician saw her first patient

on March 29, just a couple of weeks ago.

In both cases, the society takes care of the business of primary

care while the practitioners focus on patients — very much what doctors

really want to be doing.

These innovative initiatives take years of dedicated volunteer

work and commitment and are changing the landscape of primary care in

favour of community-led models.

I’m sure the House will join me in wishing Bowen Island and

Whistler much success in bringing quality longitudinal family practice

to their communities.

FUNDRAISER WALK

FOR AQUATIC CENTRE IN

AGASSIZ

K. Paddon: If you have been lucky enough to spend some time in

Chilliwack-Kent, I hope that you’ve had the opportunity to visit the

Kent area, which includes the small but mighty Agassiz at the foot of

the beautiful Mount Cheam. Kent also includes the small but mighty

mayor, Sylvia Pranger.

[10:20 a.m.]

This past Saturday Mayor Pranger laced up her running shoes —

actually, a couple of pairs — and set out on a 26-kilometre trek from

Agassiz to Chilliwack. More specifically, the mayor left the district of

Kent municipal hall and walked to the closest indoor pool facility at

the Landing Leisure Centre in Chilliwack.

Why? Well, this walk, and the distance covered, was to demonstrate

the need for an all-season pool in Agassiz and to fundraise so that

pool a reality, the district of Kent has a goal to fundraise $1 million

to be added to provincial and federal grants. Last year, our government

committed $9.5 million to the project, but rising costs and inflation

mean a little more support is needed, so the community is

fundraising.

Mayor Pranger began the walk with Chief Andrew Victor of Cheam

First Nation and was met at the end by city of Chilliwack mayor Ken

Popove, with many support­ers, walkers, businesses and volunteers

all along the way. When I spoke with Mayor Pranger yesterday, to see how

her spirits and her feet were feeling, she shared that she is so

thankful to the community and the province. She said that she feels

wonderful and was so grateful for the strength, the good weather and all

the encouragement along the way.

The project is more than just a pool. It is to be a regional

centre, operated by the district of Kent, serving all partnering

communities equitably. Its name is Lets’emot regional aquatic

centre.

The Halq’eméylem word lets’emó:t stands for one heart,

one mind. The district will be incorporating this concept into the plans

in the spirit of embracing all neighbouring communities, including FVRD,

Harrison Hot Springs, Seabird Island, Cheam First Nation, Sts’ailes

First Nation and Sq’èwlets First Nation.

Mayor Pranger’s walk raised an estimated $30,000 towards this

exciting project, but there’s still more to raise. If you’re interested

in learning more, check out www.kentbc.ca.

AI DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CHATBOT

KELOWNA

R. Merrifield: Kelowna is the birthplace of entrepreneurship in the province, and

our city hall is part of keeping that groundbreaking spirit going. The

city has recently showcased one of the newest advancements in their tool

belt, using innovation to help solve our housing crisis and to better

serve our residents. You almost won’t believe how. It’s through

artificial intelligence, or AI.

During the UBCM housing summit panel earlier this month, Mayor Tom

Dyas shared with other B.C. mayors how Kelowna is about to introduce its

AI development permit chatbot, utilizing AI to streamline development

processes and improve customer service. Kelowna announced that they are

the first in Canada, and possibly even in North America, to pilot this

AI chatbot, a project that they are working on in collaboration with

Microsoft Canada.

This AI chatbot builds on the past successes, such as recreation

customer service, YLW airport and snow re­moval chatbots, which

have positively resolved up to 80 percent of phone calls and public

interactions. But this takes it to a whole new level. The development

services chatbot, set to launch later this year, aims to remove barriers

to housing delivery and provide faster and more efficient development

processes.

By offering support to residents 24/7, the AI chatbot will free up

staff time and improve the quality of applications for building and

development permits. This will not only reduce wait times, but also

ensure that projects meet Kelowna’s high standards and are processed

quickly for immediate construction.

But Kelowna isn’t making this proprietary. They want all

municipalities to share what they have developed, making all of B.C.

better. The AI development permit chatbot exemplifies Kelowna’s

commitment to innovation, technology, and, most importantly, our

community and our province.

To all the city staff, like our CAO, Doug Gilchrist, and

divisional director of planning and development services, Ryan Smith,

and to the council and Mayor Tom Dyas, thank you for your vision,

innovation and your help in solving the housing crisis.

VOLUNTEERISM AND EVENTS

IN COMOX

VALLEY

R. Leonard: Saturday was Earth Day, and it was the perfect day to end

Volunteer Week. Dozens of dedicated volunteers came out in miserable

weather to engage with others, showcasing their work and inspiring

others to join in their efforts to better their community and this

planet.

My husband and I joined a watershed walk organized by the

volunteers of Millard Piercy Watershed Stewards. As is befitting the

heart and soul of volunteers, a day later, we came upon an extension of

Earth Day activities. Courtenay councillor Doug Hillian and his wife,

Shelagh, and Gord and Val Sherriff made up one of a number of teams

volunteering their time in a shoreline cleanup organized by Project

Watershed.

[10:25 a.m.]

We also came upon the volunteer effort on display at the annual

Snow to Surf, which sees over 1,000 athletes and their cheerleaders

hosted in a relay race from Mount Washington down to Comox

Marina.

Earlier this year, I recounted in this House the ongoing,

monumental volunteer efforts of the Comox Valley Ukrainian Cultural

Society to help displaced Ukrainians. In the long list of volunteers I

mentioned, I’m afraid I omitted Susan Plensky, who is a very

hard-working chair for the society’s committee to fund incoming

Ukrainians.

On the weekend of July 14 to 16, coming up, a corps of hundreds of

volunteers, some who’ve been busy all year long, will make sure

thousands of people enjoy our Vancouver Island Music Fest.

Whatever your interest, there is a place to volunteer. Grads, take

note. Volunteering is a way to meet new friends, or your soulmate, learn

new skills or be inspired to a career. There’s nothing like the feeling

of being part of something bigger than yourself. I know that that was my

path to this place.

Volunteers weave communities together. Our Comox Valley is a rich

tapestry.

Come for a visit and see. We welcome tourists beyond Tourism

Week.

Oral Questions

ATTACKS BY REPEAT OFFENDERS AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

M. de Jong: In communities across British Columbia, the epidemic of violent

crime continues to get worse. Innocent people are being stabbed, beaten

and brutally assaulted at a rate we’ve never seen before.

The one expectation that every reasonable person would have is

that when a repeat offender, who has committed a violent crime, who has

breached conditions of their re­lease, is the subject of a warrant

for arrest, this government would at least ask the court to have that

person detained pending their trial. But the data that the government

has released confirms that in fully half of those cases, the government

didn’t even ask for detention.

Yes, the courts are independent. But I can guarantee you this. If

the government doesn’t ask to have that violent repeat offender

detained, he or she won’t be.

Can the Premier explain why, in half the cases of a vio­lent

repeat offender being back before the courts on a new charge, the

government didn’t even ask, in the name of public safety, to have that

person detained?

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for the question on this very important

issue.

Public safety is something that this government takes very

seriously. In fact, we’ve been leading the charge to ask for bail reform

from the federal government. We issued a directive to the B.C. Crown

Prosecution Service that resulted in the strictest bail policy in all of

Canada. The preliminary results are showing that in the majority of

those cases, detentions are being denied.

That’s why we, as a government, have been seeking federal reform

to the Criminal Code, which is the law of the land. We’ve joined

ministers from across this country and received a commitment from the

federal government that as early as this spring, they would amend the

Criminal Code. We use the government will continue to keep that pressure

on.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, supplemental.

M. de Jong: Well, the government can ask for all the reforms it wants. I can

guarantee you this. If the govern­ment doesn’t ask to have a

violent repeat offender detained, they won’t be. In half of the cases

that came before the courts, according to this data, the government

didn’t even bother to ask.

A year ago we provided a draft directive to this government that

focused precisely on violent prolific repeat offenders. The government

sat on its hands for almost a year. The Attorney hasn’t answered the

question.

[10:30 a.m.]

With the rate of violent crime, the list of innocent victims

piling up, why on earth is the government refusing to at least ask the

courts in half of the cases of repeat violent offenders who are wanted

on a warrant, who have already breached a condition of release…? Is the

government not even asking, in the name of public safety, to have those

violent offenders detained?

Hon. N. Sharma: Public safety is something we take very seriously, and that’s why

we have the strictest bail pol­icy in all of Canada. In fact,

Saskatchewan has adopted our bail policy.

As the member knows as a former Attorney General, the Crown

counsel is tasked with making independent charge assessments, but what

we know is that when they do seek detention, they’ve determined that

there is a public safety risk or there’s public confidence at risk of

the justice system.

That’s when they’re seeking detention, and in those cases, in the

majority of time, that’s denied. What we have said as the government,

repeatedly, and what we’ll continue to say, is the federal government

needs to make bail reform a priority.

The Premier met with Premiers across the country last Friday. I

issued a letter to Minister Lametti asking for those changes and will

continue to advocate for them.

E. Sturko: Once again, instead of addressing the Premier’s failed

catch-and-release justice system, the NDP has opted to manipulate the

numbers.

The Premier only told half of the story when he tried to shift the

blame for not doing his job on delivering on the promises that he made.

The reality is that under this soft-on-crime Premier, the province only

seeks detention of violent offenders who breached their bail conditions

in 50 percent of the cases.

If a prolific offender commits a violent crime while out on bail,

why on earth wouldn’t this government want to, at the very least, make

the argument that this person should be held in custody for public

safety?

Hon. N. Sharma: As the member would know, as somebody who’s participated in the

criminal justice system before, Crown counsel has the independent charge

assessment process. What we do know, with the stats that were held and

released by the B.C. Prosecution Service, is that when Crown has made an

assessment that public safety is at issue or the public confidence in

the justice system is at issue and they’re seeking detention, in a

majority of time, that’s denied.

That’s why we’re calling on bail reform. It’s the law of the land

under the Criminal Code, which is the federal government. We’re joining

provinces across this country who are also seeing a rise in repeat

violent offenders to call upon the federal government for those changes

and will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey South, supplemental.

E. Sturko: Our Attorney General is correct. I do have experience working with

our criminal justice system, so I do know for a fact that it is this

Attorney General who sets the framework for charge assessments in

British Columbia. It’s this Attorney General that would be setting the

guidelines for what’s considered in the public interest. And I can tell

you that we’ve been asking them to consider it in the public interest to

put people’s safety above the rights of criminals in this

province.

We can talk about criminality and problems in other provinces, but

the reality is that B.C. stands out with its exceptionally low charge

approval rates, minimal population of individuals held in custody and a

soaring number of violent criminals. Yesterday’s data just validates

every­thing that we have been saying about the NDP’s

catch-and-release justice system, even as this government insists and

kept insisting that the system isn’t broken.

If you’re not seeking the detention of half of repeat offenders

who have already demonstrated — they have already demonstrated — they

are in breach of conditions, then there’s something wrong with your

directive. Meanwhile, four people a day are randomly attacked in

Vancouver every single day.

Instead of deflecting blame onto judges or the federal government,

will the Attorney General take responsibility and mandate that in every

case involving a prolific offender committing a violent crime while out

on bail, that they are going to seek detention?

Hon. N. Sharma: We have the strictest bail policy in all of Canada. In fact,

Saskatchewan has adopted, largely, our bail policy. We have asked our

Crown counsel, as I mentioned before, to use everything that they can

within the current federal law to address repeat violent offenders. They

make independent charge assessments, as I mentioned before, and when

they make those assessments and they determine that public safety and

the public confidence in the justice system is at risk, they seek

detention.

[10:35 a.m.]

What we know from the preliminary data, and what I’ve raised

concerns about, is that changes to the federal Criminal Code are needed

before our Crown counsel and our justice system have the tools necessary

to actually obtain that detention when it’s needed.

DRUG TOXICITY CRISIS

AND ACCESS TO SAFE

SUPPLY

A. Olsen: More than 11,000 British Columbians have died from toxic illicit

drugs since 2016. It’s the leading cause of unnatural deaths in our

province, and these deaths are preventable.

Of all the people who use drugs in this province, less than 1

percent can access safe supply, according to this government’s own

numbers. Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians use drugs and

100,000 of those people have an opioid dependence. This government says

that saving lives is their first priority, yet 99 percent of the people

who use drugs — whether daily, on the weekends or just once in a while

or just once — only have access to a toxic supply that is killing

thousands of British Columbians.

This government could expand safe supply and save thousands of

lives, but they are concerned about their own political viability. As

Moms Stop the Harm writes: “It’s the result of stigma and lack of will

on the part of policy-makers.”

My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

When will she expand safe supply to anyone who needs it in this

province?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I thank the member for raising a very important question with

respect to work that we have done in this province that is ahead of

where many other jurisdictions are at with respect to supporting

individuals who use drugs, working to create measures to try and

separate individuals from the toxic drug supply.

We stood up our prescribed safer supply program in the midst of

the early days of COVID through our risk mitigation guidelines on the

advice of public health officials in order to try to support individuals

in the midst of the pandemic and in the midst of the profound disruption

that the pandemic brought.

We’re working very hard with providers, with our health

authorities, with physicians, with regulatory bodies, to expand the

availability of prescribed safer supply. We are adding more and more

physicians, and nurse practitioners are stepping up every month to

provide those services. We know the regulatory bodies are working.

Health authorities are working.

We’ll continue to do that work. We understand the importance of

measures to separate people from the toxic drug supply.

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

A. Olsen: This government should be acknowledged for taking the first step,

but the steps are not going far enough.

Data released found that First Nations people are five times more

likely to die from toxic drug poisoning than the rest of the population.

Indigenous women died at 11 times the rate of other women in British

Columbia. The First Nations Health Authority said that First Nations

people have even worse access to substance use treatment, including safe

supply, than the rest of the population. This mass death is the result

of policy failures and policies that do not go far enough, and it’s

disproportionately harming First Nations people.

The B.C. NDP government is ignoring the advice of its own experts.

The chief coroner acknowledged the longest public health emergency in

the province’s history, calling it a crisis of incomprehensible scale.

The chief coroner’s death review panel asked this government to go

further on safe supply through medical prescription and compassion club

models. Expanded safe supply and compassion clubs access is nowhere to

be seen in British Columbia.

My question is to the Premier. Why has he not supported the

expansion of safe supply to stop the mass casualties that we’re seeing

month after month after month and, in fact, year after year after

year?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I do want to just acknowledge and thank the member for raising the

disproportionate impact of this crisis on Indigenous people. I am

grateful to the work that is done through our First Nations Health

Authority, working very closely with the First Nations Health Council,

First Nations and our regional health authorities to identify those gaps

in care and supports for Indigenous people that are so critical for us

to work on to turn the tide on the toxic drug crisis.

[10:40 a.m.]

Since March 2020, nearly 12,000 people have been connected with

prescribed safer supply. In February 2023, over 4,800 people received a

prescribed safer supply, and 330 of these were people who we connected

to a prescription for the first time. That’s very important progress in

terms of having those individuals in a system connected with care so

that we can continue to support that individual on their wellness

journey.

I know the coroner has done important work with respect to looking

at how safe supply is working and has confirmed that safe supply is a

helpful and important tool, as our public health officials have also

advised. Work is underway to evaluate how prescribed safer supply is

being offered.

We are working with all of our partners to scale up that program

so that we can separate more people from the toxic drug

supply.

ATTACKS BY REPEAT OFFENDERS AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

P. Milobar: I can appreciate the Attorney General…. It must be frustrating to

have to clean up the mess from the previous Attorney General, because

the Premier was the Attorney General for five years, did create a

soft-on-crime, catch-and-release system that we’re seeing the

ramifications of today.

What the data has shown is that the changes to the directives by

this government haven’t worked, and 50 percent of the people are not

moving forward and being held. They are being released. Under the

soft-on-crime Premier’s catch-and-release justice system, there are

still four unprovoked stranger assaults every single day in Vancouver.

Despite all of the hollow rhetoric coming from this government, the

empty announcements, violent prolific offenders continue to cause

chaos.

Yesterday we learned that the attacker in the high-profile Surrey

SkyTrain random stabbing was apprehended and then promptly released back

into the community. This unprovoked stranger attack left the victim with

a serious stab wound to their stomach.

What British Columbians want to know is: how can someone stab a

person on the SkyTrain one day and be promptly released back on the

street, and why are half of violent repeat offenders being let off the

hook by this soft-on-crime Premier?

Hon. N. Sharma: As I mentioned before, this government takes public safety very

seriously. I mentioned earlier about having the strictest bail policy in

all of Canada and the efforts that we’re taking to step up and call on

the federal government to make that change to the Criminal Code. The

judges are tasked with implementing, independently, the laws of the

land. In this case, it falls within the federal government to amend the

Criminal Code.

We’re not stopping there. We take public safety so seriously that

I am working with my colleagues across this side to stand up programming

across this province to address repeat violent offenders. On May 1, we

will have the repeat violent offender intervention initiative, which

will be a collaboration between Crown counsel, police officers,

probation officers to circle around these prolific violent offenders and

to help use every tool in our justice system to address their

violence.

My colleague from Public Safety has invested the largest

investment in this province’s history in the RCMP officers. My colleague

from Mental Health and Addictions has invested $1 billion in mental

health and addiction supports.

We’re working together, as a government, to address public safety

in this province, and we’ll continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

P. Milobar: The best protection for a community against a violent prolific

offender is to keep the violent prolific offender in jail.

We know that if you don’t ask, they won’t grant. Now we know, with

the data, that the provincial prosecutors only seek detention for

dangerous criminals who commit more crimes while on bail 50 percent of

the time. That’s it. That’s on this Premier. It’s simply not good

enough.

In Nanaimo, three criminals were pulled over for driving a truck

with no insurance. Inside police found drugs, face masks, zap straps, a

large hunting knife, a collapsible baton, a baseball bat and a tactical

semi-automatic pistol-grip shotgun.

[10:45 a.m.]

Doesn’t sound like they going to a ball field, and it doesn’t

sound like they were going duck hunting. Violent criminals — that’s what

they use to carry out violent crimes. And one of these individuals even

had multiple outstanding warrants. But despite the overwhelming

evidence, all three were released back into community. That’s the 50

percent that don’t even get detention sought by this

government.

When will the Premier stop prioritizing criminals’ rights to

reoffend and start putting the safety of communities like Nanaimo and

everywhere else in this province first?

Hon. N. Sharma: As I mentioned, we’re a government that takes public safety very

seriously. In fact, some of the communities that were mentioned by the

previous member — Nanaimo, Cranbrook — were the sites of these hubs for

repeat violent offender initiatives. This was built on a program that

existed in 2012 that was cut by that government.

What we saw in that program was a 40 percent reduction in repeat

violent offending, and we’ve stood up that team very quickly. The B.C.

Prosecution Service, along with police and probation officers, have done

amazing work in terms of standing up those hubs across…. We’ve announced

12 across this province, and as of May 1, they’ll be

operational.

It’s amazing work to have that stood up. It’s because we care

about public safety. We care about investing in the things that are

going to make this situation better for people across this province, and

we’ll continue to do so.

E. Ross: The spin cycle and the blame game are getting tiresome, because

it’s the residents of B.C. that are suffering because of the spin cycle

from this government, especially when you consider that a solution was

offered by this side of the House that would have had immediate results

instead of these year-long…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

E. Ross: …spin cycles promoted by this government when we’re talking about

the safety of our citizens.

Interjection.

E. Ross: Speak up. I can’t hear you.

Mr. Speaker: Member will continue.

Please continue.

E. Ross: Violent repeat offenders keep causing havoc and getting released

back on the street, and no amount of NDP protocol spin is going to

change that.

It was over a year ago that I asked the Premier about his

catch-and-release justice system and the chaos and crime in Terrace. He

dismissed the issue as mere anecdotes. Those were his words. Then we had

this government claim the system isn’t broken. Well, now British

Columbians are saying that the system is broken.

My question is to the Premier. If a prolific offender in Terrace

commits a violent crime while out on bail, why doesn’t the government

prioritize public safety by at least making an effort to keep them

detained instead of releasing them half the time?

Hon. N. Sharma: We have the strictest bail policy in all of Canada. We’ve asked

our Crown counsel, through a directive, to seek detention in situations

where repeat violent offending is at issue. They make their independent

assessments, and they do so.

As I mentioned earlier, this is why we see and been advocating….

Every time I get asked this question in this House, including my

predecessors, I’ve been saying federal reform is needed to the Criminal

Code in order to make those changes.

We have seen, unfortunately, this issue of violence be in many

cities across this country. We have joined Premiers and ministers from

across this country to talk about public safety issues and to call upon

the federal government to make the changes to the Criminal Code but also

help us with resources in terms of responding.

We haven’t stopped, in terms of standing up the programs and using

every tool in our toolkit to address this issue, and we’ll continue to

do so.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Skeena, supplemental.

E. Ross: There was a solution provided in this House by my colleague from

Abbotsford West, a private member’s bill that was not called by this

government. There were 87 MLAs that could have debated that bill in the

interest of keeping our communities safe. That bill was not called. The

results could have been immediate instead of this year-long process of

spin cycles.

Prolific offenders in communities like Vancouver, Na­naimo

and Terrace continue to be put back into community to attack people and

businesses. The George Little House in Terrace has experienced multiple

break-ins, with the most recent just occurring last month. During three

of these break-ins, thieves brazenly stole artwork from local artists

and badly damaged this beautiful heritage building. And this was all

captured on video.

[10:50 a.m.]

Debbie Letawski from George Little House says: “These incidents

have caused considerable financial hardship and loss as well as taking

an emotional and physical toll on my health and well-being.” This is

what British Columbians are feeling. Boarded-up storefronts, violence

and sleepless nights are not what the residents of B.C.

deserve.

My question is for the Premier. What will it take for the Premier

to abandon his catch-and-release justice system and finally deliver the

public safety that he promised?

Hon. N. Sharma: We take public safety very seriously. We’ve taken unprecedented

action as a government when it comes to standing up the programs,

investing in the resources to address this issue. We know British

Columbians deserve to feel safe in their communities.

My role, in a just system, is to make sure that we have the tools

needed to address this issue, whether it’s the repeat offender

initiative that we’re standing up in 12 hubs across this province, the

bail reform policy that we’re calling and taking a leadership role on

for the federal government or it’s the directive that we

issued.

We’re also investing in things that are needed. We have a 32

percent increase in the Crown counsel budget, and that’s after the

opposition starved it for years. We have 21 new dedicated Crown

prosecutors that are part of repeat offenders response teams, and my

colleague has put an unprecedented investment in RCMP officers

throughout B.C.

We’ve taken action, and we’ll continue to take action on this

issue.

L. Doerkson: The Attorney is right in suggesting that the residents of our

province do deserve to feel safe.

What the people of British Columbia don’t understand is how it is

possible to stab a resident of this province one day and be released the

next?

The Premier has an obligation to keep the residents of this

province safe. The NDP government has made many announcements, but they

have made no progress whatsoever. Random attacks, violence and total

disorder caused by prolific offenders continues, and not a single NDP

announcement has made any difference.

What the people of Cariboo-Chilcotin don’t understand is why it’s

not always in the public’s best interest to at least try and detain

prolific offenders who commit violent crimes while on bail. Why only try

and detain prolific offenders half of the time?

Hon. N. Sharma: We have the strictest bail policy, as I mentioned, in all of

Canada. That bail policy sets out, under the federal law, the tools that

are needed for Crown counsel to make their independent assessments and

decide: is public safety at issue here? Is there something that

undermines the public confidence of our justice system?

When they seek that detention, a majority of the time it’s denied.

Clearly, it doesn’t matter how many times they seek…. What’s needed are

changes to the Criminal Code, which is what I’ve been saying and what

we’re taking action on and advocating with the federal

government.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

REPEAT OFFENDERS AND

DIRECTIVE TO CROWN COUNSEL

S. Bond: Well, what the Attorney General knows is that you can’t keep doing

the same thing over and over again and expect different

results.

Instead of defending the current situation, what the Attorney

General needs to do is revisit the directive that her government finally

got around to issuing — to ensure that Crown seeks detention of a

prolific offender who has committed a violent act while on bail every

single time. That’s exactly what this Attorney General could and should

do, and she knows it.

The fact of the matter is that British Columbians are worried

about the explosion of violent crime and prolific offenders. And you can

imagine their surprise when they found out, according to the

government’s own data, that this government doesn’t even ask for

detention in half of the cases where prolific offenders are

involved.

It may be difficult for the Premier to accept, but blaming

everyone else is inappropriate when the province fails to take action in

half of all the cases involving repeat prolific offenders and they are

committing crimes while they are on bail. The Attorney General knows she

could do something about that.

[10:55 a.m.]

In fact, we gave her a roadmap over a year ago about a directive

that would have made a specific difference related to prolific

offenders. Instead, they chose to do something else.

People are fed up with the never-ending violence in this province

and this soft-on-crime Premier.

Today will the Attorney General do the right thing? Will she

revisit the directive and ensure that when prolific offenders commit

violent acts while they are on bail, that every single time, the Crown

will seek detention?

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to start by saying yes, we did receive a draft directive

from the member opposite. Our lawyers looked at it, and it would have

been unconstitutional. We have issued a directive that has resulted in

the strictest bail policy in all of Canada.

The Crown counsel — I think two former Attorneys General have

spoken and asked me questions, so they understand — makes independent

charge assessments when it comes to it. But what we do know is when they

are seeking detention, there’s an issue of public safety and public

administration of a just system. When they seek that detention, the

majority of the times it’s denied.

Our directive is a solid one. In fact, Saskatchewan has adopted

it. But what’s clear with the preliminary data is we need changes to the

Criminal Code.

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

S. Bond: Well, the fact of the matter is the Attorney General knows that

the directive is not working. How can it not be in the public’s best

interest when a prolific offender can stab someone one day and be out on

the streets the next day, and this government doesn’t seek

detention?

British Columbians just don’t believe that anymore. They are

terrified to be in their communities. They don’t want to get on buses.

They’re afraid to get on transit in British Columbia. It is time for

this Attorney General and the soft-on-crime Premier to

acknowledge…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh. Members.

S. Bond: …that something different must be done. British Columbians deserve

that.

To the Attorney General, will she get up and commit to revisiting

the directive that clearly is not working when a prolific offender can

commit a crime while on bail and end up on the street the next

day?

Hon. N. Sharma: I agree with the member opposite that something different does

need to be done. The federal government needs to change the Criminal

Code so that our justice system has better tools to address this

challenge.

But as I mentioned before, we are using every tool in our toolkit

to address this. We take it very seriously.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

Hon. N. Sharma: That includes standing up a program that they cut in 2012 and

making it better. That includes investing in our RCMP across this

province…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. N. Sharma: …particularly in remote areas.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members will come to order. Members.

Member. Member will come to order. That’s enough.

Attorney General, do you want to conclude, please?

Hon. N. Sharma: Mr. Speaker, we’ll continue to do the work necessary to make this

better for British Columbians.

[End of question period.]

Hon. M. Dean: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Dean: During question period, we were joined in the gallery by some grade 6

and 7s from Shoreline Middle School. They were here with their teacher,

Linda Stringer. They’ve only just left, so they’re somewhere in the

precinct. Would you please make them very welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

of the Ministry of Housing.

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

for Ministry of Health.

In committee room C, continued debate on Committee of Supply for Ministry

of Mental Health and Addictions.

[11:00 a.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HOUSING

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order.

We are presently dealing with the estimates for the Ministry

of Housing.

I’ll call on the Minister of Housing to read the

vote.

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

(continued).

J. Sturdy: This is more of an inquiry than anything else.

[11:05 a.m.]

I have some constituents in my region who are interested in

building affordable market seniors housing. I wondered if there were

programs from the province or other places that the minister could

suggest in terms of financing and accessing an opportunity to build that

type of housing.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes. The HousingHub…. There are op­portunities. If the

member would like to refer the individuals to my office, B.C. Housing

can not only provide them information but also share with them federal

programs that might be available to them as well.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for that. I’ll certainly do

that.

If I might, as well, as a follow-up from some questions from my

colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano last week with regard to the

opportunity to develop tiny homes as an alternative housing supply. The

communities in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky — certainly in the corridor,

Squamish and Pemberton, in particular — have expressed a real interest

in the opportunity to provide tiny homes as an alternative housing

source or as a lower-cost housing opportunity.

When I read the report provided by B.C. Housing from a number of

years ago, it suggested that there may be an opportunity, as a result of

the B.C. building code being updated for 2023, that tiny homes could be

considered. I wondered if there were any initiatives on behalf of

government to work them into the B.C. building code to allow local

governments to at least consider them as an alternative housing

source.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I shared with my opposition critic yesterday that there was a

review done in 2016 to look at tiny homes. Some real issues were

identified in having them, if it means compromising safety of

individuals.

But I can share with the member that there are some prefab

companies in B.C. that have now found a way to build tiny homes within

the code as it is. If the member is interested in which companies those

are, we can certainly connect him with those resources as

well.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I think it’s important

there be an opportunity for people, for individuals, for owners to build

their own accommodation. It is a common practice. I don’t think anybody

is suggesting that to allow the creation of these homes that would be

unsafe is an acceptable outcome.

I think just some guidance for communities, some consideration, at

this point, in terms of a tiny home. Local government isn’t allowed to

consider them because they’re not considered in the B.C. building code.

So the idea of having these homes built in a facility as more of a….

What is it — an A277 or a Z240, the modular pieces? That’s fair enough,

but that’s a different issue than a tiny home built by an individual or

a family. Is there a way…?

I guess the question more specifically is: is the B.C. building

code expected to be updated for 2023? I recognize that it’s probably in

the purview of the Solicitor General. But is the B.C. building code

actually going to be updated for 2023, as was expected, and will there

be any consideration of tiny homes — even a definition, frankly — in the

new code?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would say to the member…. I shared with him the work that was

done in 2016 around it at a national level, in particular. But we are

going to be doing some engagement in the coming months. If the member

wants to present some specific challenges that he’s heard from his

constituents, certainly we would consider that in the work as we move

forward.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. Can we make sure that we get informed

of when the consultation takes place? I’ll certainly want to participate

in that.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for taking some more questions today

during these estimates. We don’t have many more, but obviously, we have

a few things we want to canvass on.

One specifically that the minister should be aware of, not far

away from here, was in the media again today. I’m just curious on the

minister’s thoughts. Residents at 2770 Claude Road in Langford have been

evacuated again, on short notice, due to possible structural concerns.

Concerns have been brought forward, I believe, through engineering, and

geoscientists have done some investigative work on this.

Obviously, there are going to be a lot of people displaced. I

believe there are up to 90 units in this facility. Now they’ve been told

on short notice — basically a day, it sounds like — that they have to

evacuate. Obviously, they’re looking for a place to live.

I guess my first question to the minister on this is: is this

common? Does this happen quite often, where a residential complex that

people are living in, especially a tower, a fairly new complex…? Is it

quite common that people are given evacuation notices for safety like

this?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As far as the province goes, no, it’s not common. It’s rare. In

this case, my understanding is that the builder in question is covering

costs for hotels for individuals. People can contact the RTB if they’ve

got additional concerns. To this point, no one has. But that option is

available if required.

M. Bernier: I think the minister can appreciate that in a stressful situation

like this, on short notice, the people are panicking. They’re not

necessarily going to be getting hold of the residential tenancy branch

right away. Their main concern is their livelihoods, their families and

where they’re going to put a pillow to be able to sleep

tonight.

In fact, some of the quotes that I saw in the paper this morning….

Victoria Simms: “This is unreal. There’s a sense of panic.” Another

person: “I feel like screaming at the top of my lungs; I am so mad.”

Another person: “We’re told if we have insurance…. But looking into it,

insurance won’t cover it.”

To the minister’s comments, the way it’s being reported — the

minister might have more information he wants to share with this House —

people were given basically an email saying that they could contact the

facility manager and they would get up to $1,000 to help cover costs if

they were going into a hotel room. I think the minister well knows that

in this region right now, it could be upwards of $150 or $200 a night,

easily, for a hotel room. Some of these people have pets that might not

be allowed. Some people have family members that can’t fit into one

room. I think the minister would know that that would only cover a

couple of days.

I’m curious where the province is going to step in here. These

families need support. They need help. Deferring them to the residential

tenancy branch doesn’t help them right now, when they’re looking for a

place to live, especially if there are not huge financial supports

coming from the facility owner. We’re hearing, like I say,

$1,000.

What action is the province…? What does the province and this

minister see as their role to try to help these families right now in

this situation?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would be very frustrated as well. It is an awful situation for

these individuals to be in. I know the previous incident that happened

in Langford…. I believe it’s this particular site, where the city put up

$300,000 to help accommodate the costs of individuals. The building code

is enforced by the local government.

I would say…. It just happened yesterday. I understand that there

is money being put up by the developer, and the city has a role.

Certainly, I’ll be engaging with the mayor of Langford to just talk

about what they’re going to do, how they’re going to support these

individuals, and see how we can help some of those efforts as

well.

M. Bernier: I appreciate that comment from the minister. It’s my understanding

there was a problem with this specific building in 2019. There were

engineers and geo­scientists that were brought in to look at it.

Obviously, there’s a concern, and I think we would all agree in this

House that it’s all about public safety. I get that.

My first question to the minister: does this happen very often?

Thankfully, as the minister acknowledged, no. This is rare. It doesn’t

happen very often. Because of that, yes, I know…. Not taking away from

the fact that this is a private development, this is not a

government-funded B.C. Housing initiative or some other

government-funded project, but in a case like this, I believe that there

is a role that the minister can play.

This is a unique situation. If it is true that there is only about

$1,000 being given to each person, first of all, that’s maybe a half

month’s rent, if they can even find a place. There’s the stress with

that. It doesn’t get you much in a hotel, as I mentioned. The minister

said he’s reaching out. When is he scheduled, then, to speak to the

mayor, Mayor Scott Goodmanson of Langford? When is he scheduled to speak

to him, and what is he willing to offer the mayor to assist the

residents in this facility?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can’t advise this House at this mo­ment. The situation

happened yesterday. My team is reaching out to the mayor to set up a

time. We know that this process is going to be…. The city is going to

have to play an important role. They went through the process of

approving the project. We can look at different options, depending on

what the city is going to do, but I think it’s important to note here

that this is very much in the city’s domain, and we can play a

supporting role.

The member asked what exactly we’re offering. I can’t say at this

point, because we’re going to have to have a conversation with the mayor

to see what their plan is first.

M. Bernier: Obviously, knowing how the procedure works to approve a

development…. A municipality goes through the process when a permanent

application comes in. We’re not going to get into that debate now,

because I would argue the work is being done.

[11:20 a.m.]

The city is doing the right thing. The report has come forward

that says that this is not safe. The city, it sounds like, has shown the

right leadership by making sure that they’ve removed the occupancy

permits, which they’re forced fairly to do in order to make sure they

have the safety of the residents as, obviously, paramount.

As I said, this is not rare. The minister says this is rare. I’m

saying it’s rare that a situation like this happens. I think that

deflecting it completely to the local government mostly, as the minister

is trying to do, is probably, in a unique situation like this, not a

fair approach. The city is going to need assistance. They are going to

need some kind of help — remembering that that assistance is about the

families. It’s about the people.

Dennis MacDonald lives in the building with his adult daughter,

who has a son with autism. I think the minister can appreciate the

stress that that’s putting on this family, a multigenerational family

that’s just renting a place, trying to get by. Now the trauma that

that’s going to put on this family, more specifically the young son with

autism….

When we hear stories like that, that’s where I say that this is

not just the city. This is not just the developer. This is going to take

a community and this minister and government as part of that. I believe

that they have a role to play to assist these families in, hopefully,

just a short term. But we don’t know how long this could go on for. It

could be, God forbid, a permanent situation, where these people will not

be able to go back to their homes because of safety. Again, the minister

plays a role in this, I believe.

It’s not just the phone call. Does the minister agree at least

that the province should and will take an active role in ensuring that

these people have a place to live?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I can’t imagine what these individuals are going through. I

think the member knows very well that when there are emergencies, the

province steps up to help. Terrace recently had a building that had a

flood. All the people were displaced. We stepped up to support people.

In North Vancouver recently, we had a fire. We stepped in to support

people.

This situation is a little bit different in that (

a) it’s unique

and (

b) it’s very much in the city’s domain. I’ve said to the member

that we’ll be meeting with the mayor. We’ll reach out to the mayor. The

mayor and council have not reached out to us for supports. It leads me

to believe that they will again have a fund available, like they did

last time, to support the individuals. Again, we’ll see what happens

from the conversation.

Of course, from a provincial perspective, we always want to

support people in the best way we can. But this was a building that’s

been approved, had some issues. People were pulled out. I assume the

city did some checks and ensured that the people could go back into the

building again, gave another occupancy permit and now have identified

another issue. We’ll see what happens from the conversation when we

connect with the mayor and council.

M. Bernier: I do appreciate those comments. I just want to be clear that it’s

not unique in the sense that people are struggling right now in the

province of British Columbia to find affordable housing. So you can

imagine the stress when we have the highest cost jurisdiction, in so

many ways, right here in British Columbia. And when we look at the

southern part of Vancouver Island, we can all agree the extra pressure

and stress, when it comes to finding affordable housing — to be blunt,

housing at all…. I think we can all agree and appreciate the pressure

and the stress that these families, young and old, are now faced

with.

I appreciate the minister’s willingness to deal with this. Again,

I believe that there is a role that the government can play. We’ll be

watching to see how this plays out, mostly for, obviously, the families

that are affected, that if there are gaps with what the city can do and

what the owner of the facility can do, because this is a rare and unique

situation, the government will find a way to assist these

people.

I think it’s probably fair to say that there’s not a lot of

vacancy here in the southern part of the Island. There’s probably not a

lot of vacancy in B.C. Housing or supportive housing units. There’s

probably not a lot of vacancy in the hotels, frankly.

[11:25 a.m.]

That’s the pressure and the stress that these families are under.

There’s an expectation that government will take that seriously. I

believe and I trust the minister that he will. But I will be watching to

see how that plays out.

Now, in saying all that, I want to thank the minister. I want to

thank the minister’s staff on behalf of all the colleagues on this side

of the House that have availed of the opportunity to come forward and

ask questions of the minister.

A big thank-you to our critic for Housing, who has allowed me the

time to help, on her behalf, finish off today. I just want to thank,

again, the minister and minister’s staff. This is quite a long set of

estimates. I think it’s an important time to ask the questions, to have

the dialogue, especially dealing with something that is so near and dear

and important to people in British Columbia in every corner of the

province.

Whether it’s the discussions around the stratas, the tiny homes,

the affordable housing, the struggles of B.C. Housing, the fact that we

still don’t have the audit released, we canvassed a lot of different

issues here. We’re still waiting for answers, I guess, to some of those

— understanding the situation that the government is in, trying to deal

with the fact that we have the highest cost jurisdiction in all of North

America when it comes to housing. I don’t see that getting better any

time soon, unfortunately.

There’s a lot of work that this government is going to have to do

because, over the last couple of years, it’s only going up. We’re asking

these questions on behalf of the people in the province of British

Columbia, the families, young and old, who are struggling to get into

the housing market, and those that are fortunate to get into the housing

market and to be able to stay in the housing market where they

choose.

I do know that the minister agrees we want to see everybody

flourish and survive and do well in the province of British Columbia,

and avail themselves to acquire the housing that they so desire, whether

that’s rental or market.

I’m not going to get into any other questions, other than, again,

to thank the minister and his staff for all of the hours that we’ve had

here talking about this important topic.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I also want to say thank you to the member across the way.

Although we only got a chance to have a couple of hours between he and

I, the opposition critic and I spent 14, 15 hours having this important

conversation. I want to thank both of them, in particular the opposition

critic for her thoughtful questions. I think it was a good

exchange.

It was good use of public time to go through all of the things

that are within the ministry, the work that B.C. Housing is doing. I

think it reminds us why the homes for people strategy is going to be so

important to ensure that we can build the affordable housing for people,

not only for low-income families but also middle-income earners. I’m

excited to advance many of those policies.

All of this requires a lot of work from staff. I’m fortunate to

have an amazing team. Many of them are here behind me, and many of them

are in another room ensuring that we have the answers that the

opposition wants to ask. I want to say a big thank-you to them for all

their work.

I want to thank the people at B.C. Housing, who do amazing work.

We talked about a lot of crisis situations when there are issues that

arise, and there are amazing people that step up and try to help and

find creative solutions to support people. It’s not easy work, so I want

to thank them. I want to thank my team here. Again, I look forward to,

hopefully, estimates again next year.

With that, I move the committee rise and report resolution and

completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:29 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolution, was

granted leave to sit again.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I call second reading of Bill 26, Municipalities Enabling and

Validating Act, 2023.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING

(N o . 5)

AMENDMENT ACT,

Deputy Speaker: The House will come to order. We’re dealing with Bill 26,

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

second reading.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

I rise today to speak about Bill 26, the Municipalities Enabling

and Validating Amendment Act, 2023. These proposed amendments would

expediate the development of the Arbutus project in the city of

Vancouver, providing much-needed supportive housing at 2086-2098 West

7th Avenue and 2091 West 8th Avenue in the city of Vancouver, also known

as the Arbutus project.

The amendments proposed in this bill would, if passed, validate

the previous public hearing process conducted by the city of Vancouver

and addresses a request made by their city council for the province to

legislatively intervene to move forward on the Arbutus project. It would

also deem that rezoning bylaws previously approved in principle by the

Vancouver city council be validly adopted. It would also provide for

powers and duties to be exercised as if the bylaw had been adopted by

the council under the Vancouver Charter. Finally, it would authorize the

council to enter into a specified housing agreement without the need to

adopt a bylaw.

These amendments are necessary to position the city to move

forward with a project that would provide the much-needed homes for

people living in Vancouver and directly in the community. The Arbutus

project is envisioned to have a 129 mixed supportive and affordable

housing developments in the Kitsilano neighbourhood of

Vancouver.

The Arbutus project requires the rezoning of three lots. The city

has previously undertaken the necessary rezoning bylaw amendments

process under

section 566 of the Vancouver Charter, including

requirements that there be a public hearing prior to any rezoning or

amendment to rezoning bylaws.

The public hearings occurred over six days in 2022, lasting more

than 30 hours, where 300-plus community members participated. In

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

Following the public hearing process, the rezoning bylaw amendment

application for the Arbutus project was approved in principle by the

previous council on July 26, 2022.

Unfortunately, due to a court petition filed by a citizens’ group

challenging the public hearing process and subsequent undertaking by the

city, the city did not adopt the rezoning bylaw amendment at the time.

Under these circumstances, the city has requested the province’s

legislative intervention to move forward the Arbutus project.

The amendments proposed in this bill respond directly to the

request from the city of Vancouver, position the Arbutus project to move

forward and would help support the development of much-needed supportive

housing in the community.

We are in a housing crisis in Vancouver and across the province,

with too many people sleeping outside. We cannot afford to wait for

these much-needed homes to be built.

[11:35 a.m.]

M. de Jong: When I look at the legislation that’s tabled in the House, a lot

of it is rudimentary, mundane and part and parcel of the administration

of government — and a government that has grown as society’s

expectations of government have grown.

Sometimes it’s not. Sometimes it’s legislation that is unique or

seeks to chart a very different direction. I sometimes ask myself:

“What’s the one word…?” Sometimes people ask me this: “What’s the one

word that you might apply to a bill that comes before the House, where

the government of the day is seeking to have it confirmed as

law?”

In this case, the term I would use, and I don’t think it’s an

exaggeration, is “extra ordinary.” I say it that way purposely, because

when sometimes one says extraordinary, that is deemed to be entirely a

positive reflection. I don’t think we can do that with this bill. It is

extra ordinary, and I don’t think I’m being entirely

flattering.

Over the course of the time allocated to me for making remarks,

I’ll endeavour to explain why I believe it is extra ordinary and why,

although the opposition is prepared to facilitate further discussion of

the bill, support is by no means unqualified. Depending on what we learn

about the bill, its provisions, of the rationale and the explanation

offered by the government and the minister, that support may not

materialize in the way that the government would wish.

Back to my word. There’s no question that the government seeks, by

virtue of Bill 26, to deal with an extraordinary problem, and that is a

housing situation that has gotten worse — that was bad and has steadily

deteriorated. I think it’s important that we acknowledge that

fact.

I believe, to be fair, that any government would have been

challenged, confronted, by the circumstances that have materialized. I

think it is equally fair for me to observe that despite some lofty

promises five or six years ago — six or seven years ago now — the

situation is worse and has gotten considerably worse. That’s not

something that the government necessarily wants to hear people say or

acknowledge.

I’m not, in the time available to me today, going to go on a

lengthy dissertation or analysis of what is contributing to those

factors. I will say this, however. This legislation and the direction it

charts and the approach it takes are very different than the analysis

that we heard from the now Premier and other members of the government

some five, six or seven years ago.

The analysis we heard in those days rested entirely on their

commentary around the nature of the demand. The blame, I think, that was

assigned at that time — the negative influence of foreigners, of foreign

purchases into the market, what that was doing to pricing….

[11:40 a.m.]

That formed the core of what the members of the governing party —

prior to becoming government, and for years as government — claimed

publicly, at least, to be at the heart of their housing strategy. Along

the way, there was no shortage of people who made the case — yes, I was

one of them — that what we were confronted by was a supply

problem.

Remember, the Premier was the Housing Minister for virtually the

entire time leading up to his assuming the Office of the Premier. Only

recently has there been any acknowledgment on the part of the government

and the Premier that throughout this period, what really stood in the

way of addressing the housing and affordable housing issue was supply.

Housing cannot and will not be affordable if it’s not available. That

has formed the crux of the challenge that British Columbians have been

facing for some time.

I will, as I have done occasionally in the past…. I

re­member, in 2017, contacting the then mayor of Vancouver, who

had just been on the radio, decrying the state of housing and speaking

with some vigour about the developing housing crisis. I had a previously

scheduled call. It was just coincidental to him being on the radio, but

when I spoke with him, I asked him: “Well, Your Worship, how many units

of housing are there pending applications for in Metro

Vancouver?”

There was silence on the other end of the line. “What do you

mean?” I said: “Well, people make applications to build housing, and I

have just heard you speak with some passion about the crisis in housing,

its affordability and, presumably, its availability. These are units of

housing that people want to build and that would address, in part, that

problem. So how many are there?” And he said, somewhat to my surprise:

“Well, I have no idea.”

I said: “Well, for heaven’s sake, the challenge is real. I believe

it relates to the availability of housing. I think you understand that

that plays a role. Wouldn’t that be the place to start — to ask

yourself: ‘How many housing units does the private sector want to

build?’ That doesn’t involve any public money.”

I tell that anecdote because it is, for me, indicative of an

attitude that has prevailed for many, many years — until, perhaps, just

recently — and has stood in the path of meaningfully addressing the

question of housing availability and, by extension, housing

affordability.

There’s a secondary component to this, because whilst I believe

there is — or was, at least; I think, sadly, this is changing — ample

enthusiasm, within the private sector, to work as partners to address

the question of housing availability and, therefore, affordability, I am

prepared to concede that the private sector is in the business of

building housing not as a charitable endeavour, and seek to do so on the

basis of securing a reasonable return, which is a polite way of saying

that they want to make a few bucks doing it.

[11:45 a.m.]

That’s fine, but it does mean there is a group of people for whom

that housing may perpetually be out of reach. So when we talk about

“affordable housing” and then, one step beyond that, “supportive

affordable housing,” I think we have to acknowledge and accept that

there is going to be a role for government to play within the housing

market to address that segment of our population and the unique needs

that they have.

The problem that has developed on that front, as I see it, is that

when the government talks about supportive housing, my notion — and, I

think, the notion of many of my colleagues on the opposition — of what

constitutes “supportive housing” seems to be very different from what

the government believes qualifies as “supportive housing.” Or at least,

there’s a difference between what they say and what materializes in

fact.

I think, over the years now, that that has bred and produced some

suspicion on the part of local governments and on the part of residents

and citizens, who listen carefully, who understand that there is a need

to provide and that there is a role for government to play in affordable

housing — and, particularly, a role for government to play with respect

to affordable supportive housing.

People also want to know that the government can be trusted to

deliver on what they say will be part and parcel of those supportive

housing projects. The track record is not an enviable one, I’m obliged

to say, for this government.

The number of examples of projects where the government has said

to a community, said to a neighbourhood, “This is what this supportive

housing project will include” — only for those people to discover, after

the fact, that none of those wraparound services are actually present in

a meaningful way, in a practical way — has bred this suspicion, which is

manifesting itself now in opposition. The challenge is associated with

assisting people who have suffered from addiction, are suffering from

addiction, are the victims of abuse, who require supports.

Look, I accept that everyone in this House understands this.

Someone in dire circumstances who lacks…. Or the term “the wheels come

off….” It doesn’t generally always happen at two o’clock in the

afternoon. It’s more likely to occur, or can occur, at two o’clock in

the morning, and supports that are built around an eight-hour workday

don’t cut it. Those are not supports that are going to be present when

the client, the recipient — the resident, in the case of supportive

housing — requires that service.

There is this underlying suspicion and concern where the

government speaks of projects and of their commitment to providing the

wraparound services that will alleviate the likelihood of an individual

succumbing to addictions and then demonstrating erratic or —

regrettably, in some instances — dangerous behaviour. It’s why people

are concerned and, given the track record of the government,

legitimately concerned. Those are factors that need to be taken into

account when the government seeks to intervene in the manner in which it

is purporting to do in this case.

[11:50 a.m.]

Now there’s a secondary component. I’ve talked about the

extraordinary nature of the challenge that we face, government faces,

indeed, society faces. I might use that word again. The government has

chosen to respond, in this instance, with this project in an

extraordinary way.

What do I mean by that? I’m a little bit surprised that the…. Or

maybe I’m not surprised. I would have thought that the Minister of

Housing, who has introduced the legislation, would have acknowledged

this in his second reading remarks.

The project is contentious. The legislation is here be­cause

it’s contentious. That contentiousness has now re­vealed itself in

the matter being brought before the courts, as I understand

it.

In clause 2 of the bill that’s before the House now, the

government seeks to do something truly extraordinary. I do think it’s

important that the minister, and maybe he’ll do this when we conclude

the second reading and in his concluding remarks…. The government is

seeking to truncate the rights that citizens have to refer these matters

to the courts.

Now, look, it’s not the first time that has ever happened in this

chamber. I was part of a government, I think on one or two occasions,

that intervened to limit access to the courts. But it is

extraordinary.

The government must make the case for why that extraordinary step

to eliminate what would otherwise be due process is justified in this

case. Because the bill says, in effect, even if the courts were to find

that due process through the bylaw enactment stages has not been

followed and the bylaws were deemed to be struck down or unenforceable….

This piece of legislation says to those who have brought that review,

that petition, that judicial review: “Too bad. We don’t

care.”

As I say, in a society that is built around the principle of due

process and the rule of law, it is for the government to demonstrate

that that is justified. I’m not sure they can, but they’re going to have

to, because there are going to be pointed questions when this bill goes

to committee about what justifies such a dramatic intervention in what

would otherwise be the due process and the opportunity to review the

bill.

I’m alive to the hour, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure my comments

will go on much longer. So if you’ll permit me another

couple….

Interjections.

M. de Jong: All to say, whilst the opposition is prepared to facilitate

movement of the bill, the government has picked this project out and

chosen to deal with it in an extraordinary way to limit due process, as

it were. That is very different than developing a broad policy framework

around which supportive housing projects can be developed, where

everyone understands what the rules of the game are and conduct

themselves accordingly. That is not what is taking place here. For the

government to pick and choose, as apparently it is now intent upon

doing, in the way Bill 26 lays out, is certainly worrisome.

[11:55 a.m.]

Yes, there is a need for supportive housing. Yes, there is a need

to get on with ensuring these supportive housing projects are available

and the housing units are available to people. But the manner in which

the government is choosing to do so in this instance warrants very close

scrutiny.

Quite frankly, it has the opposition suspicious, and that

suspicion will reveal itself during the committee stage de­bate.

As I say, the government should not assume or take for granted ultimate

support from the opposition for the provisions of Bill 26.

M. Lee: I’m happy to commence my remarks, but I’m also happy to note the

hour.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

M. Lee: Noting the hour, I reserve my place in the debate and move

adjournment of the debate.

M. Lee moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported resolution, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Heyman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:05 a.m.

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

Section A,

to order.

We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates

of the Ministry of Health.

I now recognize the minister to move the vote.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $28,526,258,000

(continued).

Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Chair, with your permission, I’ll just continue, because we

left yesterday afternoon with a question by the member for Prince

George–Valemount. I just wanted to give some context to that question,

which may frame the debate for this morning’s session.

The member was asking about the capital funding en­velope

for long-term care. As the member knows — I talked about this last year,

I believe — the capital funding envelope for long-term-care renewal and

expansion was notionally approved at $1.3 billion. We talked about that

last year.

This envelope has increased as part of this budget to over $2

billion — $2.039 billion to be exact, so just over $2 billion. The

member will see, in the projects over $50 million, two projects that

were announced. The Western Communities project, which is $224 million,

$157 million of which is provincial funding…. She will know that outside

of the TransLink area, that funding is shared. And the St. Vincent’s

Heather care home in Vancouver, which is owned by Providence Health Care

but is integrated into our health care system, is $207 million, which is

all provincial funding.

So of that $2 billion, if you’re looking at that, those two

projects have been allocated, and I would expect, in the few weeks to

follow us now, a significant number of allocation announcements to be

made. That number is $364 million.

I’ll say, and I said this yesterday, by comparison from fiscal

year 2009-10 to fiscal year 2016-17, the total provincial capital

investment in health authority–owned long-term care, which includes

Providence, was $17.6 million — not billion, $17.6 million.

I just want to put in context why it’s important, and I’ll get to

the other numbers the member asked for as well. We see issues such as

multi-bed rooms. I think the member indicated she would be asking about

that, so I won’t get into that now. But that’s a significant goal and

priority. But if you look at the 127 long-term-care buildings that are

owned by health authorities, 45 of them were built before 1980, and 17

were built prior to 1970, which makes them at least 53 years

old.

The aggregate facility condition index. I talked about this

yesterday, in response to the hon. member’s question. I think I was

talking about my challenge in understanding the facility condition

index. But just so that people watching us know, an excellent score is

basically zero. The best possible score is zero, and the worst possible

score is one, under that. The facility condition indexes are very poor

in a significant number of these cases. In fact, 47 of our health

authority–owned and –operated care homes have a facility condition index

that’s in the very poor category.

I’d make two points. First, that the need to respond and to move

forward…. So $2 billion is a lot of money, of course, and we will need

to invest that and more in the future, to address this situation but

also to address existing demand. We currently have — and this only

includes St. Vincent’s and Colwood, those two projects, the West Shore

projects — 18 projects in flight right now, 12 under construction and

six in preconstruction.

These projects…. The member, I think, asked for the detail on this

about what’s replacement and what’s incremental. On those projects,

1,257 replace old and outdated beds. If you look at that number, 1,210

are net new beds, of which 1,155 are public beds. Sometimes when we have

contracted processes, there’s a small number of beds that are reserved

as private beds, and that has typically been the case in the way we

develop those projects.

[11:10 a.m.]

When we add those numbers, that only includes the two projects I

talked about. Incremental to that will be the remaining roughly $1.6

billion in spending, which will be in addition to those 2,467

incremental beds.

I think it’s fair to say…. This is, I guess, the political part of

it. And we got this yesterday. The members for Peace River North and

Kootenay East and from Delta talked about health authority–owned and

–operated projects that required either replacement or addition, and so

on, and that’s true.

I think it’s fair to say that people were let down in the period

after 2009, and it hasn’t picked up sufficiently in my period. We

understand we have a responsibility. If you’re spending almost nothing

on long-term-care capital when you have a facility condition index and

long-standing capital infrastructure like that, as occurred between ’09

and ’17, and then we picked it up somewhat but still not enough to match

that demand in the interim period, you’re going to have a significant

list of projects, including in Fort St. John, including in Quesnel,

including in Cranbrook, including in Delta.

I’m anticipating my friend from Cariboo North asking me about

Dunrovin Lodge, but maybe I’m anticipating too much.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: Now you will. But people should know, whether she does or not,

that’s a subject that she and I discuss on a regular basis.

So that failure to invest in the past has led to that

infrastructure issue, and there’s a very significant demand, as the

member highlighted yesterday, and an increasing population of seniors

and others who need long-term care.

S. Bond: I appreciate the minister’s answer. I’m hoping that we can find a

way to work our way perhaps a bit more succinctly through these

questions. That was 12 minutes, and every 12 minutes counts. I will also

resist the temptation I have to be partisan. We’ve just been through the

most partisan part of the day, and I don’t want to start there in

estimates.

What I do know is this. The context of the question was that we

need 10,000 long-term-care beds in the next decade. So what I’ve asked

the minister to do for me…. And I hear the details around this project

and that project. Can the minister provide for me a plan that indicates

how we are going to get 10,000 long-term-care beds in the next decade?

Is there a plan that can tell me what region, how many beds, what the

need is and what’s going to be spent on them?

Hon. A. Dix: In terms of the ten-year capital plan, what I told the member was

that we’ve added to that long-term-care capital plan. At our last

discussion, I think the number was $1.3 billion. So we’ve added…. It’s

now, I think, $2.039 billion. Let me just…. Yes, $2.039 billion. So that

is a significant increase. It’s not, of course, the only way that we

increase the long-term-care capital, and some of that will be for the

replacement of existing beds.

So where we’ve gone is from not having a long-term-care capital

plan to having one that sees an unprecedented investment. So that is the

health authority–owned and –operated side of the plan.

As part of our seniors strategy, in a broad sense, we have other

elements that include working with not-for-profit and for-profit

providers to increase capacity in those places, also recognizing that

some of the FCIs in those facilities require action as well. In

addition, of course, significant investment in home and community care,

because I don’t think there will be a debate from different people about

how many beds we need. But from my perspective, in the immediate, we

need more, and that’s why thousands of beds are under construction.

Through the $2 billion that has been allocated in this 2023 budget, many

more will be as well.

In terms of the numbers of those beds, the member can expect to

see those projects announced. And that number, which is currently 2,467

— remember, those are under construction now — will be added to

significantly.

[11:15 a.m.]

S. Bond: Again, to the minister, it’s a very straightforward question. I

understand that there are projects here and this has been announced. In

fact, the minister committed to 2,400 beds that have been approved

today. I have been unable to figure out how many have been announced and

where they all are.

The seniors advocate’s report is excellent in pointing out that

people in British Columbia are relatively healthy until they’re 80 years

old, and then the need increases incrementally. The comment in her

latest monitoring report is that we’ve not yet begun to feel the

pressure of that aging demographic. Surely to goodness, the Health

Ministry has a plan that is a document and that says we need 10,000

beds. The Conference Board of Canada, B.C. Care Providers — everyone

looking at those numbers agrees that we need 10,000 beds over the next

decade.

Is there a plan, a document, a piece of paper, that says: “Here’s

how many we need. Here’s how much money…”? Investments are appreciated,

but they have to be attached to a strategic plan that gives British

Columbians confidence that somehow, seniors in this province are going

to have a long-term-care bed when they need it. Is there an overarching

plan the minister can table with me today?

Hon. A. Dix: In response to the first question — I think it’s a good one — I’m

going to do this really quickly, but the member asked for this: what are

the projects I’m talking about.

There are 18 projects currently in flight. This isn’t a plan;

these are happening right now. I’ll share this with the members; they

don’t have to write it down and everything else. Twelve are under

construction, and six are under preconstruction.

In that list, and this doesn’t include the vast majority of the $2

billion plan that we have, there are the following HA capital projects

at West Shore, which is Colwood, and I referred to that before; St.

Vincent’s Heather, which is in Vancouver; Dogwood Lodge, which is in

Vancouver. Two are with contracted partners that own the land, but we’re

the tenant. That’s the project in Nelson, which is part of a 495-bed

initiative with Interior Health; and then the Chénchenstway project in

Burnaby, which people will remember is the New Vista project. We

supported New Vista in building a new non-profit project there, and

we’re using the existing site.

Six are with contracted non-profit partners, six are with

contracted for-profit partners. One, the one in Penticton, is searching

for land, and the contracted partner is to be determined. Those are the

beds, and that’s the 2,467.

That doesn’t include the vast majority of the investment that

we’re now making in this year’s budget, which is a $2.039 billion net

investment. Obviously, that’s a plan to significantly address issues of

declining facility condition in long-term care and increase the number

of beds. That’s what we’re expecting to do. As we lay that out, really,

in the next few weeks, the member will see that.

We also have a seniors strategy, which has been the subject of a

very significant investment. We’ve already talked about some of that. I

won’t give a long description of that. We’ve already talked about what

we’ve laid out. This is a significant component of that, meaning we’ve

gone from a period in which we spent nothing on long-term care to a

period when we’re spending dramatically on long-term care.

The member is right that there will be more demand for long-term

care in the next decade than is currently funded in this budget. It will

require further lifts in further years and increases in investments to

reach those goals, but this is a substantial, breathtaking, sea change

in the way that we deal with long-term care. It reflects a strategy that

says: we’ve got to address single bedrooms, and we’ve got to address the

facility condition index. When we do that, we have to increase bed

capacity, because we have to do all three things.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. The bottom line is that we need to see

an overarching plan that looks at a strategy to get to 10,000 additional

new beds, not replacement beds, because we know the demand is coming.

We’ll continue to look at those numbers, and we’ll certainly have

additional questions in the future to the minister, but I need to move

on.

[11:20 a.m.]

I wanted to back up for one moment, and I won’t ask for the

answer, but I’m just going to put it on the record. The minister

yesterday referenced a long-term-care monitoring tool which had been

created in order to deal with the new funding formula. We have yet to be

able to verify that it’s actually in use. The minister said yesterday

that it was.

I’d like the minister if he could, at some point during the day,

to come back and let me know where it’s in use, because we’re certainly

hearing from people in the provider world that that is actually not the

case. So if we could go back to that at some point.

I do want to move on, though. I want to get to the issue of

multi-bed rooms. The election promise made by this government was to

eliminate multi-bed rooms in health authority–owned long-term-care

facilities, giving seniors more dignity. Obviously, we agree that that’s

important. We also saw the impacts of multi-bed rooms during the

pandemic.

I’m wondering if the minister can give me an update. That was in

2022. I’m wondering if I could get specific answers to these questions:

has the scoping of the work been completed, and has any preliminary work

been done to determine whether there is additional funding that’s going

to be required? Just a status update on the promise made to eliminate

multi-bed rooms.

Hon. A. Dix: Maybe what I’ll do is just take the member through where we sit

right now so we have a common understanding of where we are.

In terms of rooms in British Columbia, and multi-bed rooms, the

vast majority of rooms, of course, are single-bed rooms in our province

— single-occupancy rooms. If you look at that provincewide, that number

was 87 percent in 2018 — essentially, in the start of this period of

government — and has increased now to 90.3 percent. So we were 12

percent short. We reduced that by 25 percent of that 12 percent. That’s

the progress we’ve made in terms of single-occupancy rooms.

But as everyone knows who understands the meaning of

“single-occupancy room,” that means that we’ve gone from about 72

percent of people living in single-occupancy rooms, because obviously,

if you’re in a multi-bed room, a four- or six-bed room, then that

accounts for more people per room. So that’s the reason for the

difference between those numbers.

We are making progress, and we’ve made significant investments.

One is the Chénchenstway project, which is at New Vista. The intent of

that is to reduce, at a number of other facilities where there are very

high numbers of multi-bed rooms, some of which faced very challenging

periods during the pandemic, including long-term-care sites like Mount

Saint Joseph’s and others, which had a lot of multi-bed rooms…. To use

those new beds to deal with the multi-bed-room issue. That’s what we’ve

been doing there.

Just to put that in context, if you look at the rooms now, as I

said, 90.3 percent of the rooms are single-occupancy, 6.6 percent of the

rooms are double-occupancy, and 3.1 percent of all rooms are multi-bed

occupancy. Both those have been reduced: the multi-bed occupancy from 4

percent to 3 percent, the double-occupancy rooms from 8.3 percent to 6.6

percent in that period. And they’ve been reduced in every single

year.

One of the goals of the major capital investment we’re seeing is

to take that action…. The member will see that a significant number of

those are replacement rooms, and the approach is, when we replace rooms

in a facility…. Typically, our older facilities have more multi-bed

rooms because of the nature of long-term care at that time, in the late

’60s — those that were built in the ’60s, those built in the ’70s, those

built in the ’80s. As we replace them, we’re going to see that number

continue to reduce, and we’re taking action now on specific sites to

reduce the number of multi-bed rooms.

Now, the New Vista Chénchenstway project was an innovative one of

health authorities who came together — including Providence Health Care,

but Fraser and Vancouver Coastal Health — to do just that. The care home

would move from one facility to another. And in COVID, we made the

decision to maintain the existing facility and then use those rooms,

upgraded, once the move had been made to the new New Vista. So that’s an

example of the work we’re doing.

We’ve made, I think, progress year unto year, and we’re going to

make progress year unto year to address that. Single-bed rooms, a

facility condition index and, of course, the need for new beds are three

of the significant considerations when we’re making decisions about

health care capital, including the projects mentioned by hon. members

yesterday.

[11:25 a.m.]

S. Bond: I know I don’t need to remind the minister, but I will, that that

was a very specific promise made in 2020 — that multi-bed rooms would be

eliminated. It wasn’t: “We’re going to make progress.” It was: “They are

going to be eliminated.”

It also raises the issue…. I don’t have time to debate that at the

moment. What’s critical about the 10,000 beds we need…. Those are

incremental, new capacity.

When you think about using a replacement bed to take care of a

promise related to multi-bed rooms…. We need to make sure that we’re

adding incrementally to get to 10,000 beds. It’s not as simple as….

We’re going to replace multi-bed rooms, and we’re going to use

replacement beds for that.

We have a big challenge in long-term care. We have an aging

demographic that actually needs to be treated with respect and

dignity.

We raised this issue yesterday, in terms of alternate level of

care patients. Again, I would very much appreciate the specific

information that the minister has about the 23 days, in terms of an

alternate level of care patient getting in long-term care. That is not

at all what we are hearing on the ground. We are hearing that there are

potentially months, if not longer, that alternate level of care patients

are staying in hospitals because there is nowhere else for them to go.

So complex issues.

Certainly, the numbers require significant action. I appreciate

the minister’s comments on investments that are being made, but we need

to see a plan that has an end point to the promise made by the

government in 2020 to eliminate multi-bed rooms and, also, a plan that

says: “We understand that we need 10,000 net new beds over the next

decade.” I think British Columbians would expect there to be a

systematic, thoughtful, laid-out plan that would demonstrate where,

when, how many of those beds, where they’re coming.

I appreciate knowing that the investment has gone up, but we

certainly want to see those plans articulated.

I’m going to move on to seismic upgrades. Those are also

important. The ministry’s own information talks about overall

infrastructure in the seniors care sector. It basically says that 63

percent of non-government care homes need to be renovated, and 10.5

percent of non-government care homes need to be rebuilt.

Can the minister tell me what work has been done to assess the

need for seismic upgrades in seniors homes?

Hon. A. Dix: There are a couple of indexes to talk about. One is the facility

condition index, which we’ve talked about already. I’ve described the

impact of that on investment and why there needs to be that investment.

There’s also a seismic priority index.

The member is correct. We don’t have a separate program for the

seismic and facility condition index. Education has that approach, as

the member will know, for their projects. We don’t have that separately.

It’s considered as we address our overall capital plan for long-term

care. So those are among the considerations, the facility condition

index and the seismic priority index, when those decisions are

made.

It is somewhat more challenging, I would say. That’s why,

typically, when we’re dealing with seismic issues, we’re replacing an

existing care facility and then transferring.

[11:30 a.m.]

We’ve had a case in B.C.… Essentially, in long-term care, we’re

at…. We keep our long-term-care homes at 100 percent capacity, or close

to that, as the member would imagine.

There’s not a case of transferring patients from one facility to

another and then making internal fixes to a project. Typically, what we

do when we’re dealing with seismic is we have a list of projects from

the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s that were built, and we need to replace them. We

do have those indexed, and seismic is a consideration, but in terms of

our long-term-care capital plan, it’s one project.

We also are working with the sector, both in small ways and big

ways, through the B.C. Care Providers. We haven’t announced it yet, but

their program to make minor improvements is being supported and

continuing to be supported. It was started under the previous

government, I think, in 2016-17. And as a happy coincidence — and it

truly is a coincidence, a good thing — the member will know that the

present CEO of the Care Providers was the Minister of Health when the

program was created. That is being extended and supported.

In terms of dealing with seismic issues on both sides, those are a

consideration, but they’re considered with the facility condition index,

as described before.

S. Bond: I appreciate the minister’s answers.

I want to spend a couple of minutes on the facility condition

index, fondly known as FCI. In fact, when you look at the list of

long-term-care facilities, 38 long-term-care facilities in B.C. have a

facility condition index of 0.6 or higher. If you include all facilities

over 0.5, that’s another 28 facilities, for a total of 66 facilities for

which the repair cost is 50 percent of the replacement cost.

Now, if we want to use a controversial comparison — but we will

use it — when we were looking at the Royal B.C. Museum, the government

said that it was necessary to do a complete teardown when the FCI was

0.35. We have at least 66 facilities, long-term-care facilities, for

which the repair cost is 50 percent of the replacement cost.

So can the minister tell me whether or not an assessment of all

long-term-care facilities that have an FCI ratio over 0.5 and greater

has been completed, and what is the estimated cost to replace those

facilities?

Hon. A. Dix: Yes, we’ve done an FCI analysis of all the facilities. I think the

member may have older data. When I was listing off the numbers, I think

it was actually higher — that are 0.6 or higher. I have 47 buildings,

not 38, just so the member will know that.

As I noted, if you look to understand why that would be the case….

People would say: “Well, what’s happening with those buildings?” The

average age of health authority–owned long-term-care homes is 37

years.

We’ve had this discussion. I’ve made this point about the lack of

investment in the past not having been a good thing. And that’s not just

one government, by the way; that’s others, right? But this was an issue.

The determination was made, and it was a public policy determination, to

focus on new builds in the contracted sector. That was the

determination, and now we’re dealing with a significant

issue.

If you look at just these issues, in every case that analysis is

done. So everyone understands, 0.6 is very poor, 0.3 to 0.6 is poor.

That’s why the discussion of the Royal B.C. Museum was what it

was.

The situation, I should say, is not dissimilar…. And we do this

work in support of our non-profit partners, for example, who tend to

have older facilities. The for-profit sector has grown in the last

number of years, but there are….

[11:35 a.m.]

To look at the 90 licensed facilities owned by non-profit partners

— this is beyond the description I gave — 42 opened prior to 2000; 32

opened prior to 1990; 15 opened prior to 1980, which means they’re at

least 40 years old.

To look at the 90 licensed facilities owned by non-profit partners

— this is beyond the description I gave — 42 opened prior to 2000, and

32 opened prior to 1990. And 15 opened prior to 1980, which means

they’re at least 40 years old.

This is not just an issue with the health authority–owned and

–operated; it’s also an issue for a significant number of care homes in

our non-profit sector that will require a significant investment in the

coming years on the existing…. I agree with the member. That means that

you have to look at those elements of replacing existing buildings — or

upgrading, but probably replacing many of those existing buildings —

especially the ones built prior to 1980, and, while you’re doing that,

increasing capacity. The member is right in that respect.

There’s a detailed response on FCI, which I’m going to save the

member, about how one calculates these things. Just to say that detailed

analysis is made in every case. Part of the challenge…. This is

especially true, why we….

Someone asked yesterday about why we’re doing Colwood as opposed

to something else. In the last 23 years, there have been three new HA

facilities opened on Island Health, for a total of 231 beds. As the

member says, that’s not going to get it done over time, and it puts us

more in deficit in terms of the replacement beds we have to do. You see,

in the numbers I gave to the member, how significant that number is as a

share of the beds we’re building now.

S. Bond: The minister is correct. The list that I have, as a result of an

extremely long wait for FOI, was May of 2022. I’m happy to have

refreshed information from the minister rather than wait an eternity

through FOI.

I’m wondering if the minister could tell me if…. When we look at

FCI and we look at the condition of long-term care facilities, every

year that we defer a replacement plan…. Does the ministry look at what

the increased cost of that deferment would be?

Hon. A. Dix: Two things. There are always cost escalations for the projects

themselves. We’ve seen that dramatically in the last number of years,

and we’ll be having, I’m sure, further discussions of that when we talk

about the overall capital plan of Health.

I think it’s fair to say that now decades of deferments have

increased the cost significantly. That is a consideration. It’s why we

have to act and why we are acting. Members are going to see…. I work, as

you know, with members across the Legislature who are advocates for

these projects, so we’re going to see them together, in some cases, the

changes we’ve made.

What I can say is that it’s not enough in the sense that we’re not

responding in every single case where needs require, even within a

$2.039 billion budget. So yes, when you defer, it costs more, because

there’s cost escalation and because….

It’s principally because there’s cost escalation in the

construction, because some of our most challenged buildings — if you

think, for your members from Kelowna, of Cottonwoods, for example — are

not really upgradable, in the sense that they need to be, essentially,

replaced. So the increase in cost is the cost escalation.

But there’s a further question, which is the cost for those living

in long-term care, who only live a relatively shorter period in

long-term care because of the circumstances of their health. They’re

living in those facilities now, so there is cost for them that we don’t

measure in these terms but is still significant.

S. Bond: I certainly recognize that deferral of a project likely means

escalation in cost. My point was that as we look at facilities and look

at the ratings, there comes a point where you have to balance. I didn’t

mean that it has to be…. It wasn’t directly to the minister.

[11:40 a.m.]

There is that balance in terms of deciding when you’re actually

going to make a decision to replace versus continuing deferral because

of the increase in costs. So I’m assuming the ministry monitors that

carefully and then makes a decision about when to move from deferral to

actually replacing.

I think it’s just important that we have on the record the fact

that there are a significant number of long-term-care facilities that

are at the point where it is 50-50 in terms of repair or replacement.

That’s an important consideration in the overarching look at

capacity.

I want to move on to health care standards and, basically, direct

care hours. But I want to just articulate my significant concern about

the lack of capacity that we have to manage the aging

demographic.

One of the things we can be very grateful for is there’s a very

healthy population in British Columbia. Most seniors prefer to live in

community wherever possible. We’re going to get to home care in a moment

in terms of how we support people staying in community, but we have a

big challenge ahead of us.

Government has to face that at least 10,000 beds are required.

That is new. It is not replacement. It isn’t making sure we have fewer

multi-bed rooms. We have a big challenge ahead of us.

In addition to that, we have to talk about how we care for

seniors. I know this government has increased the hours of care. But the

new national standard, while it is not prescriptive…. We’ve had this

discussion already. They actually use as an example…. A minimum level of

acceptable care, looking at a number of studies, is actually…. They cite

the number 4.1 hours.

We’ve seen that the Ontario government is increasing the hours of

direct care to an average of four hours per resident. The government of

Alberta is recommending up to 4.5 hours over four years. They’re going

to make that transition. Currently, and the minister can correct me if

I’m incorrect, B.C. looks at an average of 3.36 hours of care when you

include allied health.

One of my concerns is that there’s no longer a performance measure

in the service plan to demonstrate where the government intends to go on

hours of care. Last year the service plan showed that the ministry’s

intent was to hold at 3.36 hours of direct care through to

2024-2025.

Can the minister speak to what the government’s intention is when

it comes to how we line up against other provinces? We are seeing

significant movement in other provinces. I’m wondering what the plan is

in British Columbia to move beyond the 3.36 hours of care per

day.

With the minister’s indulgence, we can come back to direct hours

of care. I have a colleague that has one question related to

infrastructure, and we aren’t going to have the opportunity to go back

there. So if I could ask the minister to recognize my colleague for one

question, and then, after the break, we can come back to direct

care.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to my colleague for allowing me to ask a

question.

I’m sure the minister is familiar with the situation in West

Vancouver, where we’ve lost several hundred long-term-care beds over the

last number of years. There’s a proposal from the non-profit Baptist

Housing Society from the Inglewood Care facility to significantly expand

that facility, which is over 60 years old at this point, with, I think,

230 beds, mostly multi-bed rooms, I believe. It’s really time to upgrade

this facility, given that we’ve lost so many beds on the North Shore,

certainly on the West Vancouver side.

Could the minister help me understand what government’s commitment

is to that proposal at this point, if any?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: I’ll just say it is, I think, a high-priority project, a project

that we support strongly. What they’re seeing, I think, and I don’t

want…. It’s in some ways their business and what they’re working for.

What they’re seeing is the kind of escalation in capital costs that

we’re seeing elsewhere. We’re working with them, and Vancouver Coastal

Health is working with them on that. It’s an important

project.

Obviously, we have other projects and work in mind on the North

Shore, broadly, from across the communities because there is an

increasing seniors population, increasing need for that care. In any

event, as we’ve been discussing here, we need to not lose beds when

we’re trying to gain beds and to replace beds that are too old, as is

the case at Inglewood. It’s a project we support. It’s a project that’s

going forward, we believe.

I think the issue there is that the proponents of the project are

dealing with the same thing that, in fact, health authorities are

seeing, which is a significant increased cost. Just to be clear, we’re

working with them on that and continue to be. We’re hopeful that we get

those beds built. We need to get them built at Inglewood.

I want to thank the member for his questions.

Briefly, I’ll say, on the 3.36, we went to 3.51 this year. So we

exceeded that target. What I’d commit to do is simply…. Sometimes the

target is in the service plan. Part of the reason why that target was

not put in the service plan…. We wanted to bring in some other targets

which are helpful for the public to look at the progress of issues. We

had driven that project to achieve the goal that we wanted to achieve,

which is the government’s 3.36 commitment, which had been made in 2007

or 2008. We wanted to make that. We made a major effort. We funded it.

We’ve talked about it in multiple estimates.

Part of the reason it came down from that…. What I’d commit to the

member to do is simply, of those targets that are not in the service

plan, to provide that information so that the opposition and everyone

else continues to have that. The intention was not to remove that, for

it not to be assessed. It’s just that we had met our target in that

case. So continuing to talk about it as an aspiration to get better when

it wasn’t an aspiration, necessarily, was the reason we made that

decision. But that’s easily done. We’re at 3.51 this year. I think the

member has rightly identified…. And we’re certainly looking at that, as

we look at the discussion with standards, looking at what other

jurisdictions are doing.

Just to put it in context, I think it was in the neighbourhood of

— I’ll have to get the numbers — $250 million to go from 3.11 to 3.36.

That was the estimated thing. We’ve gone beyond that. The reason we’ve

gone beyond that is the success of the age-cap program. But I’ll have

more to say on that. I think we’re past our time.

Hon. Chair, you’re looking at me expectantly, saying: “Why doesn’t

he just read this following motion?” It’s that the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MENTAL HEALTH

AND ADDICTIONS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); R. Leonard in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

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

Section C,

to order.

We’re meeting today to continue the consideration of the

estimates of the Ministry of Menta