Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 3, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 195

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)

PACT team for response to mental health calls on North Shore

K. Kirkpatrick

B.C. Ukrainian Cultural Festival

B. D’Eith

Fort Berens Winery fundraising campaign for rebuilding of Lytton

J. Tegart

Access to abortion services

G. Lore

Retirement of B McKenzie and work with children and families

S. Furstenau

Response to misinformation and disinformation

R. Russell

Oral Questions

Crime in communities and handling of cases by justice system

S. Bond

Hon. D. Eby

P. Milobar

Review of Mental Health Act

S. Furstenau

Hon. D. Eby

Crime in communities and handling of cases by justice system

T. Stone

Hon. D. Eby

M. Morris

L. Doerkson

Community safety in Vancouver’s Chinatown

T. Wat

Hon. D. Eby

Crime in communities and handling of cases by justice system

T. Halford

Hon. D. Eby

Motions Without Notice

Membership change to Public Accounts Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Membership change to Health Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 16 — Transportation Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. R. Fleming

B. Stewart

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (continued)

Hon. G. Heyman

A. Olsen

D. Ashton

P. Milobar

TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2022

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: J Routledge.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

A. Mercier: I have two sets of introductions I’d like to make this morning. First,

I’d like to ask the House to join me in wishing my daughter, Charlotte, a

happy birthday. Charlotte is four. We had a great birthday party at Dinosaur

Park, in Langley, on the weekend.

Also, I’ve got two folks here who are constituents of my colleague

from Langley East that I’m a little not sure about. I brought my parents,

Marc and Roberta Mercier. They should get a hand for raising me.

But you know, it’s not often that I find myself here on the floor of a

chamber like the Legislative Assembly where I’m offered the full benefit of

immunity from civil actions for slander and defamation with my folks. So I

thought this would be a good time to get into my long-standing list of

grievances. I’m kidding, but you can see how worried they looked there for a

sec.

In all seriousness, they’ve given their lives to public service, not

literally but their careers. My mother is a registered nurse who’s created a

lifelong suspicion of nurses in me through the overuse of hydrogen peroxide

for small cuts but who had an illustrious career at Royal Columbian and the

NICU in Children’s as well as teaching at Douglas.

join the RCMP as a young man about 100 years ago and spent some time at the

IGTF and CFSEU as well as a long career in special O. So I’d just say to the

other members of the House not to worry about being too raucous in question

period. They raised four kids, and I’m the best one.

L. Doerkson: Today I am extremely proud to introduce two of the hardest-working and

committed people that you are ever going to meet. The workload that they

plow through every single day is absolutely unbelievable. The assistance

that they provide to the constituents of the Cariboo-Chilcotin is

incredible. I know the residents of Cariboo-Chilcotin are both fortunate and

pleased to have this duo representing them, but it’s myself who is most

grateful.

I am so thankful to both of you every day. Thank you, Jenny Huffman,

from our Williams Lake office, and Beverly Marks, from our 100 Mile office.

These are two of the best CAs in all of British Columbia.

Thank you for your efforts.

R. Singh: Today in the House somebody is celebrating her birthday. She’s a great

colleague, a strong ally and somebody I call a very dear friend. The member

for Vancouver–False Creek is celebrating her birthday.

Wishing you a very happy birthday.

Would the House join me in wishing her a wonderful day.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PACT TEAM FOR RESPONSE TO MENTAL

HEALTH CALLS ON NORTH

SHORE

K. Kirkpatrick: This February I was privileged to sit down with Julia Kaisla, who

is the executive director for the Canadian Mental Health Association,

North and West Vancouver. Over the past year, Julia and her team have

launched the peer-assisted care team, or PACT for short. This program is

one I’d like to highlight in the House today.

It’s an alternative service to police response in a crisis call

related to mental health and substance abuse. I first learned about PACT

during a presentation to the Special Committee on Reforming the Police

Act and then again during my meeting with Julia. One thing has been

clear to me and to so many others: police response alone is most often

not the best response to somebody with a mental health issue. Mental

health challenges are not criminal in nature, and armed response can

escalate issues.

[10:10 a.m.]

The association offers a variety of social and support groups that

are free and open to everyone, but this is a program I’m particularly

excited about. PACT pairs a mental health professional, such as a social

worker, counsellor or psychiatric nurse with a peer support worker, with

the goal to connect North Shore residents and their families who are in

crisis to hope and help.

The objective is to build relationships. This includes follow-up

with these individuals and families to navigate ongoing health and

community assistance. Intervention by the PACT team before a major

escalation occurs is a sensible approach.

Congratulations to the CMHA team for your innovative approach. I’d

like to thank all those at Canadian Mental Health of the North Shore as

well as the West Vancouver police and the North Vancouver RCMP for their

collaboration on this great project.

B.C. UKRAINIAN CULTURAL FESTIVAL

B. D’Eith: As displaced Ukrainians fleeing the violence in Ukraine begin to

arrive in British Columbia, cultural exchanges are happening in

communities across this fine province. But in Mission, British Columbia,

one such exchange has been happening for 25 years.

Since 1997, the B.C. Ukrainian Cultural Festival has invited dance

troupes from all over the Pacific Northwest to Mission to compete and

participate in the festival. Thousands of attendees converge on the

Clarke Theatre to participate in the cultural celebration, where dancers

entertain and perform in front of an international panel of

judges.

In addition to the complex and beautiful dances displayed

throughout the day, the festival includes vendors, entertainers and a

host of other activities for everyone and the families to enjoy. It’s an

amalgamation of music, food, dancing and vibrant colours of incredible

arts, crafts and clothing.

My colleague the MLA for Abbotsford-Mission and I are looking

forward to attending the Ukrainian festival this Saturday, and we have

done so for many years. I know the member for Abbotsford-Mission also

has a deep personal connection to the festival, having personally

participated since 2005. She loves to witness the talent and pure joy of

the dancing competition.

My family also loves enjoying the event. My wife Kim’s family is

Ukrainian, so I’ve had the actual pleasure of enjoying Ukrainian culture

in my house, including Ukrainian food, for many years. Just a few weeks

ago, at Easter, there were three generations in the kitchen, fussing

over the best way to make cabbage rolls and perogies. It was fun for

me.

I want to thank the organizers, Darka Morin, Nathan and Wally

Nychyporuk, Juana Veters, Holly Russell, Michele and Shannon Huston.

We’d like to give special thanks to them for everything they do in

dedication for bringing this event to our community.

We encourage everyone to come out and celebrate the B.C. Ukrainian

festival this Saturday in Mission.

FORT BERENS WINERY FUNDRAISING

CAMPAIGN FOR REBUILDING

OF LYTTON

J. Tegart: The beautiful village of Lytton was almost completely destroyed by

fire on June 30, 2021. To lift spirits and raise awareness and funds for

the significant rebuild and recovery process, Lillooet’s Fort Berens

Estate Winery is engaging the community by creating the Lytton Strong

fundraiser.

Over the years, Fort Berens Winery has purchased grapes from the

small Winches Spur Vineyard, owned by Chuck and Nonie McCann.

Miraculously, this vineyard, located on the traditional territory of the

Nlaka’pamux people, was one of the few things in the area left unscathed

by the fire.

Generally, Fort Berens adds these grapes to a larger blend of

Pinot Gris under their label. This year, the winery has decided to do

something different. They again purchased all the grapes from 2021.

However, instead of combining them with their blend, all the Winches

Spur grapes have been bottled as a special edition wine that will be

sold by auction this spring. One hundred percent of the proceeds will

support the effort to rebuild Lytton.

In particular, the Lytton Strong campaign has a goal of $125,000

for a legacy project in the community, such as rebuilding the pool and

recreation centre, a community gathering site for all. I commend Fort

Berens winery co-owner and founder Rolf de Bruin and his team for this

initiative, as well as TricorBraun for donating the bottles, Elite

printing for donating the labels and Artus Bottling, which is donating

the bottling services.

[10:15 a.m.]

The campaign dates — put this on your calendar — are June 3 to 12.

They’re soliciting corporate donations and auction items, and I am

personally inviting all members in this House to participate in this

fundraising.

This is a true community effort that will make a tremendous

impact.

ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES

G. Lore: Yesterday a leaked document, a draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme

Court, sent shock waves through the United States and around the world.

Their plan to overturn Roe v. Wade and strip women across the

country of access to safe abortions is chilling and horrifying

news.

Abortion is health care. It is a profoundly personal choice that

should not be decided or influenced by anyone beyond the person who is

pregnant. But in the words of the leaked draft, we see the echoes of the

words and actions of people, usually men, around the world who today are

trying to roll back the rights of women and the rights of people who are

pregnant to make decisions about their own bodies.

Today I think of the women and others who have fought for the

right to choose and protected that right over many years, including

women in this House. I think about the countless women who have died

when safe access was denied. That is the devastating truth. Actions like

this won’t stop abortions. They will just stop safe ones.

Our government has taken important steps to support access to safe

abortions, including providing universal no-cost access to medical

abortion and stocking it in rural pharmacies. There is more to do,

especially with access in rural areas, and our government will continue

to work to support and improve access across the province.

We commit to agency and autonomy and to supporting the right of

all women and pregnant people to access the reproductive health care

they need, including safe and legal access to abortion services when

they choose.

RETIREMENT OF B M c KENZIE

AND

WORK WITH CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

S. Furstenau: In 2018, my constituency office saw an increase in cases with

distressed parents sharing stories about how they were treated by the

Ministry of Children and Family. Their children had been removed, and

they were seeking advocacy from our office to help them reunite as a

family. The work is incredibly delicate. We needed someone who could

serve these parents and families well.

The first time I met B McKenzie, we were at a meeting discussing

the case of a mother whose child was to be removed in the hospital at

birth. We had our heads together, talking as though we’d been connected

all our lives. This is B’s magic. She sees a person completely,

immediately.

Soon afterwards we hired B as the MCFD advocate in our

constituency office. By the time parents come to our office seeking

help, they are traumatized and struggling with hope. B understood their

situation immediately and supported many parents in reuniting with their

children. These parents trusted B because B trusted them.

Last Friday was B’s last day with our office. After a long and

meaningful career in child and youth services, she is retiring. B

brought to our office a deep wisdom, a wonderful sense of humour and a

contagious laugh. She will not miss Maximizer, her nemesis, nor will she

miss the heartbreak of her work.

B taught us so much about forgiveness, empathy and love. I will be

forever grateful for her service, her storytelling and her teachings,

and I wish her well in the next part of her incredible

journey.

RESPONSE TO MISINFORMATION

AND

DISINFORMATION

R. Russell: We’ve seen a dangerous trend in the last two years in the

prevalence and amplification of misinformation and disinformation. This

polarization both undermines public trust in institutions like this

assembly as well as endangers the people of B.C., driving them away from

public health advice and away from services that they could benefit

from.

[10:20 a.m.]

As Jim Hoggan said: “The strategies used to mislead people with

anti-science propaganda and anti-environmentalism are much more

developed and robust than those used to educate people about science and

the environment.”

for example, is tied to just 12 individuals, the so-called

Disinformation Dozen. While digital spaces offer a forum for connection

and innovation, these spaces have been toxified by misinformation and

harmful rhetoric.

All of us carry a shared responsibility to rebuild trust in our

neighbours, our press and our governments. As Katie Couric said: “The

biggest lie of all, which fuels those who spread disinformation, is that

this crisis of trust and truth is uncontainable. Leadership from every

sector of society and a clear framework for action is

essential.”

My plea here today is that we demonstrate that leadership, that we

keep, in all of our actions as members of this assembly, this crisis top

of mind, and we do what we all can to help to reduce the harm of dis-

and misinformation in our world.

I had the honour to listen to Sophie Pierre speak a week ago in

Nelson. She spoke to challenges to our democracy at all levels of

government and of working to change a bumper sticker she saw that read,

“I love my country. I don’t trust my government,” to “I love my country

because I trust my government.”

There’s plenty we can do. As a start, for example, the Aspen

Institute Commission on Information Disorder and their recommendations

focused on transparency, accountability, civic empowerment and media

freedom.

Fittingly, today is the global day that recognizes press freedom.

A day to reflect on how vital it is to have free press, what it means to

have healthy discourse and how important it is to sincerely celebrate

alternative opinions and perspective. So let’s support each other, and

our journalists, to turn this tide of misinformation.

Oral Questions

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE

SYSTEM

S. Bond: Crime is out of control across this province under the Attorney

General’s catch-and-release system.

In Surrey, a man with a lengthy criminal record recently attacked

a mother and her 11-month-old daughter, knocking over her stroller while

shouting he was going to kill the child. The prolific offender had 14

convictions for breaching probation, 17 convictions for uttering threats

and 23 assault-related convictions. At the time of this particular

random assault, he was under three different probation

orders.

People have lost faith in this Attorney General’s

catch-and-release system. When exactly will the Attorney General do

something specific to deal with prolific offenders?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member. I think her question illustrates a couple

of the major challenges we face.

When I think about how I would react if somebody did that to my

family, it fills me with anger and an instinct to protect those that I

love. I think everybody in this House would feel the same way. Clearly,

when someone has had literally dozens of convictions — which means that

the Crown has prosecuted, they’ve been to court, the judge has found

them guilty and sentenced them — and this activity continues when

they’re released from those sentences, we need a solution that goes

beyond the current system.

Now, I accept the opposition’s suggestion that we need to be

creative within provincial jurisdiction, which is why we’re working with

police, why we’re working with mayors. I expect to have an announcement

in the coming days about what exactly we will be doing to be creative to

address these issues.

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

S. Bond: Well, thank you to the Attorney General. Of course that fills us

with anger and horror. It would be one thing if that were the only

situation that happened in our province, but it is not. Repeat and

prolific offenders keep cycling through the catch-and-release system

that is overseen by this Attorney General.

Over the weekend, we saw shocking video of bus passengers trying

to restrain a man who violently assaulted four people on a bus. The

attacker was a prolific offender but was released on conditions after

that violent assault.

[10:25 a.m.]

One of the victims, Tristan L’Esperance says: “My immediate

thought when we found out he was released on bail…he’s going to

seriously…injure someone.” Just another example of catch and release

under this Attorney General’s watch.

Why will the Attorney General not move specifically and

immediately to deal with prolific offenders?

Hon. D. Eby: I think that when we think about public spaces in downtown cores

or on transit, as the member says…. We need people to have confidence

when they’re using public services, when they’re in public areas, that

they’re safe, that they feel comfortable.

I’m happy to work with the opposition on these issues. Where we

part company, I guess, is understanding provincial jurisdiction and

responsibility and federal authorities.

I’ve explained to the member, and I know she knows this…. She

actually was an Attorney General. She was Attorney General with the same

charge standard that we have today. She was Attorney General with the

same disclosure process we have today. Now, the difference is that a

couple of significant things have happened since she was Attorney

General that she might not be aware of.

First, Bill C-75 at the federal level, the Zora decision from the

Supreme Court of Canada and the Jordan decision from the Supreme Court

of Canada, all of which place incredible pressure on our criminal

justice system to respond to exactly the issues she’s describing, which

are incidents involving serious mental health and addiction issues, and

how the courts manage those individuals.

Now, it’s important to be realistic about the context we work in,

because that will inform how we respond to it. We have to use provincial

authorities to address these issues. It is unfair of the member to blame

the Crown prosecution service that is using the same rules that they

used under her for what we’re facing right now. We need to work together

to address this serious issue.

P. Milobar: To be clear, the fingers are pointing at the Attorney General and

his failed catch-and-release system. It rings very hollow, and for very

good reason, when we hear the Attorney General try to

deflect.

The B.C. Liberal government? We acted on prolific offenders. The

prolific offender program involved intensive supervision, linking

offenders to services, as well as increasing enforcement. The results

included a 40 percent reduction in reoffending rates. But believe it or

not, the now Attorney General actually opposed that prolific offender

program, and he opposed the action on prolific offenders

directly.

This is what the Attorney General had to say when he was the head

of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, on October 25, 2011, in the

Vancouver Sun . He said, “We have serious concerns with the

results of this program and are continuing to investigate the aggressive

policing tactics” — a program that dropped prolific offender reoffending

rates by 40 percent.

Is this why the Attorney General refuses to take action on

prolific offenders and instead insists on going down the road of his

catch-and-release system?

Hon. D. Eby: I know that the opposition, when they were in government, grappled

with the issue of chronic offenders. And I accept that we have a

different approach than they did when they were on this side of the

House. Our approach includes 500 complex care beds for people with

serious mental health and addiction issues.

When I was out in civil society groups, I had to fight tooth and

nail for any kind of housing other than a mat on the floor — never mind

mental health services. And if the member is here to say that they cared

more about resources for Crown counsel and resources to address these

kinds of issues on the criminal justice side, let me give that member

just one fact.

In the last year of their government, they increased Crown counsel

resources by 0.9 percent. In our first year of government, we increased

Crown counsel resources by ten times that, to 9.6 percent. Since being

in government, we’ve increased Crown counsel resources by 35 percent.

That’s leadership.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The end result is that under this Attorney General’s

catch-and-release system, people don’t feel safe in their communities.

Prolific offenders are running the streets right now.

[10:30 a.m.]

There is zero trust that this Attorney General is taking any

meaningful steps, both on the prolific offender side as well as with

police. In fact, the Attorney General has a long history of anti-police

comments. He literally wrote a handbook titled How to Sue the

Police when he worked at the Pivot Legal Society.

In 2011, he opposed a successful prolific offender program, saying

he had serious concerns with so-called aggressive policing tactics. He

said that you have to take police statistics with a bit of a grain of

salt. Yet we’re supposed to trust his statistics when everyone

acknowledges that crime is running out of control and he says it’s

actually dropping. His record over the last five years is a 75 percent

increase in the rate of no-charge assessments.

Once again to the Attorney General, when is he going to address

prolific offenders instead of his failed catch-and-release

system?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s almost like we didn’t just have an all-party committee that

agreed on a radical overhaul for policing in our province.

When I wrote that book, families who had loved ones who were

killed by police had to rely on police investigating themselves to

address that issue. Work that I did, along with many other people, ended

that system and forced the previous government to bring in the

independent investigations office so that families get

satisfaction.

Getting tough on crime doesn’t mean a blank cheque for police. It

means addressing the core issues. Police are not going to be able to

address — and they tell us that — the mental health and addiction issues

in our communities. Under that government’s watch, homelessness tripled.

That is not a policing issue. It is a public order issue, but it is not

a policing issue. Shame on them for not addressing those social issues

that drove the issues we’re facing today. We’re addressing those

issues.

REVIEW OF MENTAL HEALTH ACT

S. Furstenau: I’m heartened to hear the Attorney General say things this

morning, including that we need to work together to address serious

issues and his comments about the all-party committee and the value of

that work.

For years, advocates have asked for a review of the Mental Health

Act. It was asked for in 2017 by the Community Legal Assistance Society.

It was asked for in 2019 by the Office of the Ombudsperson. Just last

week, the government’s own Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act

recommended that the act be reviewed by an all-party

committee.

So it was incredibly welcome news when the Attorney General

reported that the act will be significantly modernized. But this moment

of joy was interrupted when we realized that the process is going on

behind closed doors. To quote the Attorney General: “We’re doing a

review of those processes and the legislation because it’s very

dated.”

The Mental Health Act is criticized for its lack of accountability

and oversight, and it has caused significant harm to thousands of

British Columbians, so this is not a “tinkering around the edges”

situation without involving patients and families. This issue warrants a

full public-facing review of the act. It requires serious transparency

to make sure that it’s working for people and communities.

My question is to the Attorney General. Why is the review an

internal process by the ministry and not a public-facing committee, as

recommended by the Special Committee on Reforming the Police

Act?

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of pieces. When I spoke to that reporter from the

Tyee , I explained that we were doing a policy review of two

pieces of legislation. One is the Adult Guardianship Act. The other is

the Mental Health Act. There are a number of lawsuits where the province

is being sued in relation to the Mental Health Act. Part of that work,

obviously, involves a policy review to make sure that we are responsive

to what’s happening.

The reporter then, with the editor, decided to run a headline that

we were overhauling the Mental Health Act. My team contacted the

Tyee to say that’s not what’s happening. If I communicated

that, just to be clear, we are not in that process. If we were,

obviously the community would be broadly involved in that

process.

We’re doing the work that’s necessary to respond to litigation and

to make sure legislation is up to date. I can advise the member that

that work will continue.

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

S. Furstenau: So we’ve gone from the news that there is an overhaul of the

Mental Health Act — which is much needed, long overdue — to the news

that there isn’t an overhaul of the Mental Health Act. However, pieces

of that legislation are being addressed behind closed doors.

[10:35 a.m.]

Let’s look at this government’s record on this — the handling of

would-be Bill 22, the involuntary stabilization care for youth. In the

consultation process, behind closed doors, experts flagged that this

legislation was harmful. But the government was determined to push it

through, despite resistance from the very communities it affected. Now,

two years later, they finally recognize that it was deeply flawed

legislation.

The bill is buried and gone, but the legacy of how this government

is handling the Mental Health Act continues. Having private

conversations that this government can ignore does not lead to trust. An

all-party committee provides transparency to the public. They help

depoliticize an issue. They show the public that collaborative work can

be done to achieve consensus.

The review of the Mental Health Act is necessary and overdue. It

is an opportunity for justice for patients and families. This government

needs to work on rebuilding trust.

My question is to the Attorney General. Will he commit to that

review of the act and ensure that it is done by an all-party

committee?

Hon. D. Eby: I explained to the member the routine and regular policy work that

happens within the Ministry of Attorney General in relation to these

kinds of issues. That work will continue.

The headline in the

article was simply incorrect.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE

SYSTEM

T. Stone: New reports show that 241 calls to police are abandoned every

single day. British Columbians simply can’t get through to the police in

four out of every ten calls. That’s up from 25 percent from the same

time last year.

While the crimes people face every day are under-reported, the

Attorney General would rather undermine police data to protect his

catch-and-release system. This is a pattern of behaviour. In the past,

the Attorney General has claimed that the Vancouver police department

has a history of “releasing misleading information.” The bottom line

here is that people have lost faith in the Attorney General’s

catch-and-release system.

When will the Attorney General take action to get prolific

offenders off of our streets?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m so glad that the member stood up to ask this question. I’m

busy finalizing a letter to him.

He did an interview on CFAX on April 28 where he made some

absolutely outrageous allegations about me, about Crown counsel and

about the administration of our criminal justice system. He said that I

changed B.C.’s charge assessment policy…. He used my name “changed the

charge assessment policy years ago to essentially implement a much

higher standard that’s required before charges can actually be

approved.”

I have an

article from 2014 from then Attorney General Suzanne

Anton defending the exact same charge assessment standard that we have

today.

He alleged I have a new full disclosure policy that forces police

to have full disclosure before charging murderers, insinuating that

Crown counsel is allowing murderers to go into the community because of

a policy I made. That MOU — drafted under the B.C. Liberals, amended

twice under the B.C. Liberals. The exact same policy. The idea that it

would prevent hard-working Crown counsel from protecting the public from

murderers is absurd. It is absurd. He needs to apologize to Crown

counsel for making such an allegation.

In the last year he sat around the cabinet table, he signed off on

a budget of a 0.9 percent increase for Crown counsel, which we increased

ten times in our first year of government. That didn’t stop him from

going on CFAX to say we’re underfunding Crown counsel. He said they’re

overloaded with files. They have 20 percent fewer files because crime

is, in fact, down.

Hon. Speaker, if he wants to stand up and apologize to Crown

counsel, I think he should.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order. Let’s hear the question.

T. Stone: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The only person that owes British Columbians an apology is this

Attorney General for being soft on crime.

[10:40 a.m.]

There is chaos taking place on our streets all over this province,

and it’s on this Attorney General’s watch. He has tools at his disposal,

and he’s choosing not to implement them. Crime is through the roof —

violent crime. People don’t feel safe in their communities, and this

Attorney General has the audacity to suggest that members of the

opposition — who are highlighting the concerns of British Columbians,

highlighting the concerns of mayors — should apologize?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

T. Stone: I don’t think so. He needs to apologize.

I know it’s uncomfortable for the Attorney General, who’s soft on

crime. He should apologize for that too. In addition to opposing

programs to address prolific offenders, the Attorney General has a

history of dismissing the severity of crime.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Order.

T. Stone: I know these are inconvenient truths that the members of the

opposite are not wanting to hear. They dismiss the fact that people

don’t feel safe walking down their streets in broad daylight. Assaults

are through the roof. They can laugh; British Columbians aren’t

laughing.

In 2011, the Attorney General said we should cut police funding

because: “I simply think we’ve hit the point where crime is at a low and

acceptable level.” He continues, to this day, to claim that crime is

acceptably low. Last week in this House, he said: “I disagree with the

member that the statistics show that things are getting

worse.”

Despite his denials, serious crimes are on the rise all across

this province. In Vancouver, violent crime is up 7.1 percent. Stranger

assaults are up 33 percent, over four attacks per day. Arson is up 49

percent. There is a huge increase in glass breaks, which are up 48

percent, and the police say that glass companies can’t even keep

up.

When will the Attorney General acknowledge that his

catch-and-release system is a failure, and when is he going to step up

and take action to protect British Columbians so they once again feel

safe in their communities?

Hon. D. Eby: The lack of credibility of this member goes all through his

remarks. I have stood in this place and I have agreed with the

opposition that there are serious issues that need to be addressed. I

have agreed with them that we need to be creative within provincial

jurisdiction. I have an announcement coming within the coming days about

exactly how we’re going to do that.

Yet he stands up and insists the opposite, just like he stood up

on CKNW and said: “They,” referring to Crown counsel, “can’t actually

approve charges in a suspected homicide.” Just like he stood up and

said, using my name, that I changed the charge assessment policy years

ago — totally false, completely fictional.

So when the member stands up in this place and makes a series of

further allegations that I don’t take this problem seriously, he’s wrong

on that too.

M. Morris: The Attorney General’s job is to prevent the administration of

justice from falling into disrepute. There have been a number of

significant changes to the Criminal Code. There have been some

significant Supreme Court of Canada decisions that affect how

prosecutors do their job. So if the Attorney is relying on policy from

six, seven, ten years ago to support what he’s doing today, it’s wrong.

He’s got to be nimble enough to address these issues that have

surfaced.

I watched the chief of police in Vancouver on the news last week

saying: “I’ve heard a lot of armchair quarterbacks, but nobody knows our

data better than we do. We’re talking about invasion of people’s space,

physically — assaulting people, attacking people, robbing people.

Violent crime is more concerning than property crime, full stop, and

it’s up 7.1 percent.”

This weekend we saw multiple random attacks in Vancouver,

including one where a woman suffered facial injuries after she was

robbed and assaulted by a person using a broken bottle as a

weapon.

Will the Attorney General get up off his armchair, abandon his

doctrine of catch-and-release and take action to stop these random

attacks?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member from Kamloops South could take a lesson from that

member. I am grateful for a question that acknowledges the very real

context that we face, the challenge that we face.

Now, I mean, armchair…. Okay. This is politics. But this is the

challenge that we face.

The policies are unchanged. The member is 100 percent correct. We

need to be creative within the authorities we have to respond to this

problem. I agree with him that those policies are not serving us right

now. I have an announcement in the coming days.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: I have an announcement in the coming days about how we will

address this issue that has become particularly acute during the

pandemic. I know that the members know this. We’ll do that

work.

I thank the member for his question. I also want to thank that

member because that is the one member I have heard a constructive

suggestion from about how to address this issue. He suggested that we

have dedicated Crown counsel for some chronic offenders. I think it’s a

great suggestion. In fact, we’re looking at doing that. So thank

you.

L. Doerkson: One of the several attacks that happened this weekend in Vancouver

included a man who was shocked in the leg with a homemade stun gun.

Other random attacks included people hurling rocks, pedestrians being

kicked, punched and assaulted. It’s happening everywhere. In 100 Mile

House an arsonist sent residents of Parkview Apartments scrambling at

three o’clock in the morning. An armed robbery at the local A&W, a

stabbing on Birch Avenue, all within the last week or so.

People have lost faith. Say what you may, but the Attorney

General’s catch-and-release system is not working. Residents are

frustrated. They’re angry. They’re afraid.

When will the Attorney General take action and restore the faith

in the justice system?

Hon. D. Eby: I have had good discussions with the mayor from Williams Lake, the

mayors from Terrace, Trail, who have raised these issues with me in

addition to the Urban Mayors Caucus.

I have an announcement in the coming days about how we will

address this issue. I agree with the member. The current system is not

working for certain groups of offenders, and we need to address that. I

look forward to sharing that information with him.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

IN VANCOUVER’S

CHINATOWN

T. Wat: The Attorney General claims crime is down, but nobody, no one in

Chinatown believes him. No one in Chinatown believes in his failing

catch-and-release system.

Tracy To’s family appliance business has been in Chinatown for 34

years, and she says things are ten times worse than ever before. She has

had to deal with numerous fires, “female staff members physically

attacked…non-stop graffiti, defecation, needles in doorways” are

disgusting and criminals targeting our beloved Dr. Sun Yat-Sen garden

and also hacking off her dragon lanterns. It’s just pure

chaos.

Why does the Attorney General continue to ignore the crime

concerns that are hurting our historical Chinatown?

Hon. D. Eby: I know I’ve heard the concerns from the leaders in the Chinatown

community. I know the city of Vancouver has. I share their hope that an

increase in foot traffic in the neighbourhood as cruise ships return, as

tourists return to Gastown and to Chinatown, will have an impact in a

positive way. The city of Vancouver is taking a number of

steps.

I do have to take exception to the member’s suggestion that I

somehow downplayed the issues in Chinatown or in downtown Vancouver or

in other downtown centres. The members keep repeating this over and

over, even when I stand up and say: “This is a serious issue. We’re

taking action.”

The Minister of Public Safety and I have an announcement to share

in the coming days about what we’re going to do to be creative with the

mayors and other subject-matter experts in this area to address these

issues.

[10:50 a.m.]

I hope that when the member is communicating with key

constituencies, that she tells people that the government recognizes the

issue. We wish they would move faster; I accept that. We will have more

to say about this in the coming days.

To those in Chinatown, those merchants and others: we’re on your

side, and we’ll have more to do to assist you.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE

SYSTEM

T. Halford: On the weekend, the Attorney General claimed, “In terms of this

group of chronic offenders and individuals who might be involved in

these kinds of random attacks, I think that we are seeing some good

progress.” What does the minister mean by “good progress”?

Random attacks are up 33 percent in Vancouver. That’s good

progress. In South Surrey, the latest year-over-year crime data shows a

6 percent increase in violent crimes — good progress, according to the

Attorney General; a 10 percent increase in business break-ins — good

progress, according to the Attorney General; an 82 percent increase in

criminal disturbances — again, good progress, according to this Attorney

General.

How could this Attorney General possibly tell the people in South

Surrey that these increases are good progress under his

catch-and-release system?

Hon. D. Eby: The answer is simple: I didn’t. The member takes a single line —

as the members are entitled to — out of context. I don’t know how they

could listen to me stand here, over and over, and say these are serious

issues, that government needs to be creative to address them. The

Minister of Public Safety and I are working with police, with mayors, to

be creative, within provincial jurisdiction, to address these issues.

We’re working within a challenging federal context.

I guess I’m not sure what else to say to that member to underline

how seriously I take it that people, in some communities in our

province, do not feel safe and that they have concerns about the system

not working the way it should. It’s a priority for our government. It’s

a priority for me. It’s a priority for the Premier. It’s a priority for

the Minister of Public Safety and for every single member, I think, on

both sides of the House.

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

T. Halford: I’m sorry if the member’s quotes are inconvenient for him. What’s

not inconvenient…. The minister talks about an announcement in the

coming days. Well, why doesn’t that minister make that announcement

today? The fact is that we….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Halford: The government finds that this is a humorous issue. Well, I can

tell you that the people in Surrey, the people in Vancouver, the people

across this province find no humour in what is happening in our streets

— none.

Interjections.

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

Continue.

T. Halford: To the Attorney General, when will he admit that his

catch-and-release program is failing British Columbians every single

day?

Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate the sense of urgency that the member

has. I will announce it, and the Minister of Public Safety will announce

it, as soon as we can. The member will know that responses to complex

challenges like this require collaborative work. We’re working with the

mayors. We’re working with other key leaders on this, and we have to do

that work. It does take a little longer, but the end result will be

better.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion to change the

membership of the Select Standing Committee on Public

Accounts.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[That Adam Walker , MLA replace Niki Sharma , MLA as

a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.]

Motion approved.

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO

HEALTH

COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion to replace a member on the Select

Standing Committee on Health.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:

[That Ronna-Rae Leonard , MLA replace Harwinder

Sandhu , MLA as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on

Health.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 16, Transportation

Amendment Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for

the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.

[10:55 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 16 — TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 10:59 a.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. R. Fleming: To my left is ADM Kevin Volk, who’ll be here to assist me in

answering the members opposite’s questions; and to my right is Shannon

Price, who is a manager of strategic real estate with the Ministry of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

[11:00 a.m.]

B. Stewart: We do intend on asking a few questions about this. I think that

there’s no question that both sides of this House are interested in

creating more affordability in the province of British Columbia.

However, we have questions around the tool that the minister mentioned

in second reading of this in terms of just how it was going to be

utilized. So I think that the fact that we’re looking at

this….

I’m wondering what work will be done to ensure that the private

sector can provide affordable rentals and housing for first-time

homebuyers near transit with Bill 16, please.

Hon. R. Fleming: As I tried to describe in second reading debate that we had the

other day, in describing this as a tool — this legislation, if it were

passed…. I think the member can probably understand that the

affordability challenge that we face in communities around British

Columbia as it relates to housing is primarily a land-cost problem —

rising land costs that have, I think, quintupled in the ’01 to ’17

period that I described and that continue to rise in most parts of

British Columbia.

Therefore, having the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority

taking a lead coordination role, having expanded powers — and

responsibility, quite frankly — that includes transit-oriented

development is, in fact, a game-changer for the province.

Yes, I wish it had been done long ago, but today we have an

opportunity to add this tool, which will give us the ability to create

very robust, unique partnerships with municipalities for things like

supportive policies agreements that relate to SkyTrain or public transit

exchanges — to lead redevelopment there; to work with the private sector

in partnership on delivering residential housing, commercial

development, job centres and all kinds of mixed-use developments that

are anticipated, with the ability of government to act

proactively.

Of course, we want to work with the non-profit housing sector to

deliver deeply affordable housing, which is much needed in a number of

communities where working people’s wages are simply so far out of line

with what it costs to rent or rent-to-own a home. These are the kinds of

interventions that governments need, given the reality and the

challenges that we face as it relates to housing.

B. Stewart: To the minister, I do think that he may be correct in the fact

that the land cost is driving up affordability, but I think that we know

— especially, take the city of Vancouver — that there is a significant

delay and lag time, as we’ve seen with developments, both strata as well

as other types of residential or commercial construction.

[11:05 a.m.]

Even in the private sector, when they acquire the land and they

have to wait…. Time is money is what they continue to tell us. I think

the reality is that…. How does the ministry, by acquiring the land,

overcome the challenges that are set in place by other municipal

regulations and process?

Hon. R. Fleming: One of the things I alluded to in the previous answer was

supportive policies agreements, SPAs. Not the type of spa that we’re

perhaps familiar with but the supportive policies agreement. It covers a

number of things between a municipal government and the provincial

government, perhaps, and other partners that may be included in that.

It’s things like a certain number of units of housing.

It’s not prescriptive on the form of the building or any of that

sort of thing, but it says that this number of units should be built in

a transit-oriented development around a transit exchange or a SkyTrain

station. It could include things like a commitment, by any level of

government that has approval authority for permitting and those sorts of

things, to expedite those approvals so that we achieve a much more rapid

ability to get to breaking ground and beginning projects.

I certainly have some experience with that with the city of

Surrey, for example, on schools. We had an accord with the city of

Surrey government where they would give us the ability to approve, in a

reasonable amount of time — having faced unreasonable approval times —

the ability to get to groundbreaking. It’s that sort of

thing.

The B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, when it becomes a

landowner, I think will have the ability to work very closely with

municipal governments on those types of SPA agreements.

There’s some evidence already of a positive influence in this

direction. The Surrey-Fleetwood neighbourhood plan has recently been

updated. It’s anticipatory of SkyTrain, the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain

project. It’s anticipatory of transit-oriented development. It’s

planning for that. It’s the product of collaboration between the city of

Surrey planning staff and the province that’s involved in the

Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project.

[11:10 a.m.]

B. Stewart: Well, I agree with the minister in terms of the fact that it is

our desire to develop transit-orientated communities, but we’ve seen

time and time again where local government and the residents are not

supportive of the goals or the ambitions of what it is that we’re trying

to achieve here. I do think that this is part of it, but what we do need

to know is: how is it that local governments are going to cooperate,

come to the table and create the zoning and the density?

In the minister’s response, he talked about schools. Well, we all

know, and we often talk about, the situation of schools in Surrey, one

of the fastest-growing school districts in the province — the demand for

schools and the thirst by council to do that. I would hope that there’s

a thirst, by other councils, to create affordable housing density. I’m

not necessarily seeing that by the rules that are being put in place and

the barriers that the cities are putting in place with the development

costs for private development, which buys land.

Not dissimilarly to what the B.C. Transportation Financing

Authority would be doing in this case, they buy the land with the best

intention. At the end of the day, they not only have to pay back the

land, but they have to pay the city for all the fees and build the

project in rising costs. They have to be able to deliver it and,

hopefully, make enough profit to be able to invest and do another

project.

I guess this is only one small part of what I think we see as part

of the solution, but the other parts of the solution are the other

players at the table: the communities and the cities. I guess, more to

the point about the question, has the ministry consulted and got

agreement on projects?

Now, we know that the minister has the Broadway subway extension

under development right now. In that particular project, the development

is already running into being not so high, in terms of buildings having

to be reduced in height and scope, etc., because of the neighbourhood

push-back. I guess what I’m really driving at is: how is the ministry,

once they acquire the lands at these transit-orientated exchanges, going

to be able to complete or develop that? How do they see it moving

forward?

Hon. R. Fleming: There was quite a bit in the member’s question. So I apologize if

I don’t respond and capture all of it.

On the Broadway SkyTrain extension, which is currently under

construction, with six stations — the tunnel-boring is set to begin soon

— it’s not ideal…. In the sense that the Broadway plan update, which the

city of Vancouver is doing, is quite comprehensive and very ambitious,

I’m very pleased with what I’ve seen in the early draft

stages.

[11:15 a.m.]

I think the public engagement has been incredibly useful, to talk

about what reimagining Broadway looks like, as a corridor — as a great

street, I think, is what they’re describing it as, as a second downtown

in the city of Vancouver, as an area of density which already has, I

think, the second-highest concentration of jobs per square kilometre in

the province of B.C.

It’s a very dense, productive area that supports jobs and

investment right now, and it has a residential component, but there is a

thirst — as the member has described it — in the city of Vancouver for

housing affordability as well. There are a lot of families that cannot

afford to live there. The Broadway plan does give an opportunity — for

the city, primarily — to work with the development community to try and

create affordable housing units there. Had we had this legislation, it

might have given a much larger role for the province to take a lead role

in the transit-oriented development.

By way of illustration, I think Broadway is going quite well. I

think it was positive that last week, or sometime around the time that

we had second reading of this bill, as a matter of fact, the city

council approved a 39-storey development — PCI Developments Corp., at

the Granville station site — that includes, if I’m not mistaken,

something like 250 affordable housing units as part of that development.

That’s all good.

With this bill, the advantage for us, as a province, is that we’ll

be able to shape growth rather than chase growth. We will be able to sit

down and get the planning worked on congruently, at the same time that

we are making our transportation investments, so that we can influence

things that are important to those communities — like housing

affordability, child care infrastructure, the commercial development

opportunities that would come with a transit-oriented development, and

working with school districts to plan for education support.

When you bring families — I brought up the example of Richmond and

the Canada Line — you’re going to need new schools. If you forgo the

opportunity by not purchasing land, you’re not going to get those

schools.

It really does help the province with a quite powerful tool to be

able to guide what development looks like, to enter creative

partnerships with local governments, with the development community,

with the non-profit housing sector, to make sure that we’re not simply

creating a public transit project, which is good in and of itself, but

leveraging that investment to influence a number of other public goods

that are priorities for our government and for communities where people

live.

B. Stewart: Okay. Well, it’s great to hear that the city did approve that

39-storey tower on the Broadway line. Maybe just to add some clarity,

based on what the minister’s response was, could he clarify that Bill 16

is intended for transit-orientated development in existing subway and

SkyTrain lines, as well as maybe higher-density transit lines, like BRT

and things like that?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: The province, with Bill 16 at its disposal if it is proclaimed,

will be able to enter into a number of partnerships at existing public

transit infrastructure. It will not choose to do so at every location

everywhere in the province, as the member can well understand. We’ll

look at those opportunities that have dynamic, transformative capability

that will readily support densification, that are areas where we are

either contemplating future transit infrastructure investment, or we may

have land assembled already around transit exchanges.

I think, at second reading, I outlined a few examples that are

forward-looking. Surrey-Langley SkyTrain is a real, live opportunity

that we are currently planning and projecting to be completed about two

years ahead of the original schedule, which is good.

I mentioned the example of Surrey-Fleetwood’s neighbourhood plan.

You’re seeing that being influenced. Where there are private sector

holdings that are significant, like the Willowbrook mall, they’re doing

their own internal, privately led, transit-oriented development plan. I

don’t know too much about that, but I know they’re excited about the

opportunity of taking acres of asphalt parking and reimagining what that

mall looks like as a mixed-use development.

I mentioned the opportunity in the capital regional district,

because we have a bus rapid transit strategy and some existing transit

exchanges that will also give us an opportunity, should we decide to use

it.

We talked a little bit about Kelowna as well. The highway, which

is the main spine through the town connecting large institutions and the

downtown, is maybe an area that we could look at, as well, for

transit-oriented development. I think that’s in good, solid alignment

with the civic leadership in the city of Kelowna.

Those are the kinds of things that this tool that we will create —

having the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority be able to

proactively acquire land for the purpose not just of transit

infrastructure itself but transit-oriented development. It opens up a

whole new world of opportunity for affordability, for redevelopment in

an urban and suburban setting and more livable, compact

communities.

B. Stewart: I take it, from the answer that the minister has just provided,

that this is more about mostly future development, not necessarily going

backwards and looking…. You mentioned BRT. Sorry. Maybe we could just

clarify that.

I would say there’s a lot of transit. I think it’s somewhere north

of 60 stations of SkyTrain that exist in the Lower Mainland. Of those, I

don’t think that the opportunity that you’re proposing here has been

fully developed.

Is the intention to look at any and all transit stations and look

at the opportunities? Is there a plan as to how you’re going to go about

this?

Hon. R. Fleming: Yes, this bill will be a very powerful tool on future-oriented

projects that we have on the books.

[11:25 a.m.]

We have just about $7 billion worth of SkyTrain construction

underway or in pre-construction right now, in the budget before the

House and on the ground in the communities where it’s being built. But

it will give us the opportunity — and I think this is getting to the

crux of the member’s question — to do transit-oriented development on,

sticking with the SkyTrain example, transit infrastructure that has been

built out.

In many cases, unfortunately — I talked about the Canada Line —

there has been densification with no affordability. It was completely

market-led. So pardon the pun, but the train has left the station on

those kinds of opportunities. The land has been bought; the

densification has occurred. Working families didn’t get any access to

the benefits of having an efficient, modern transportation system out of

that.

But we do have some opportunities on the Millennium Line, on the

original Expo Line, where government is working with, for example, the

city of Surrey on the Scott Road station site to look at what

transit-oriented development would look like there.

They’re already updating their neighbourhood plan. The Crown

already owns land that is used for transit purposes, although

underutilized. It’s a park-and-ride. There’s a lot of land that could be

redeveloped as part of a transit-oriented development vision. The same

goes for places like Moody station — Lougheed station as

well.

So there will be some ability for us to use this legislation on

existing investments that have already been made by the

province.

A. Olsen: When the minister…. First of all, I’d just like to say I think

that there’s tremendous opportunity here. The minister references

affordable housing. I’m just wondering if, maybe, the minister can

provide a little bit more context around the type of affordable housing

that’s going to be built, in terms of: what’s the character of those?

The public is investing money in buying land. How is that money being

invested? What type of housing is going to be built?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I appreciate it. It’s a

difficult one to answer, because the answer is that this bill opens the

door for all kinds of potential in a number of locations. That will be

determined by local governments and transit agencies like TransLink and

the province — or by B.C. Transit in the communities that it

serves.

What kind of housing stock is part of a transit-oriented

development? The mixture of ownership versus rental market, below

market, deeply below market, non-profit, cooperative housing — all of

those will be possible because this bill opens the door for that to

happen.

Right now it’s not. It happens organically, sometimes through

governments. Local governments get involved. The city of Vancouver — we

talked about Broadway Line — has some holdings that are able to

influence some of the adjacent station development. But when it happens

organically, it’s basically bottom-line-oriented, and it’s

market-oriented, and it’s not affordable.

This allows us to have a greater measure of planning and control,

of collaboration and partnership, and to determine what types of housing

there ought to be and the number of units and the ratio of family-sized

units and the target for rents or rent-to-own programs. Those are all

things that can be determined by government working in partnership with

other agencies in government.

I guess what I could say is that politics matters, doesn’t it? I

think agreements would look different under a different character of

government than another character of government. But those can be

determined as we go, once we pass Bill 16, make it law and decide what

our priorities are and what the ambition of the investment is and what

the affordability targets are.

[11:30 a.m.]

A. Olsen: I appreciate the answer. I appreciate that we’re starting with a

fresh slate here, with a new opportunity. This is a point in the

opportunity, I think, to put some guidelines or some boundaries around

what it is that public money is investing in. I think when you see

these….

Maybe the minister has heard me ask questions of his colleagues

around public money being put into a real estate market that is

super-hot right now, red-hot right now, and the impact that that could

have, actually, on the increase in the value of the housing that’s being

built.

I guess what I’m getting at in this line of questioning is just

trying to understand whether or not the ministry has had conversations

around what kind of boundaries we might want to set — through

regulation, perhaps — once this bill has passed.

Has the ministry considered putting any guidelines in regulation

to ensure that the public money isn’t actually creating further problems

in a housing market that’s already red-hot, and that it’s actually

addressing the areas around the deeply affordable housing that’s needed

— the non-market housing, as an example?

There are opportunities that the minister could put in at this

stage to say that X number needs to be non-market housing, for an

example, or deeply affordable co-op housing. There’s a bunch of

different tenures that could be identified. Has that been considered at

this stage?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. The bill doesn’t have a

granular, prescriptive set of regulations or prescriptions about what

the land can be used for. That’s going to have to be determined on a

project-by-project basis.

What this does, though, is allow us to participate in those sorts

of things — to acquire land for the purpose of transit-oriented

development. We’ve had some discussion. Earlier the critic asked about

whether this bill could have a positive influence on the pace of

municipal approvals — for example, of housing development. I think it

can. We’ve outlined the supportive policy agreements. They’re one

mechanism to do that around a transit-oriented development.

Certainly, this bill will allow Metro Vancouver and other regional

cities in the province to greatly enhance the supply problem. In terms

of supply and the pace of approvals, those are good, cooling effects on

the red-hot market that the member describes, but for the purpose of

this bill, I’ve mentioned that one regulation we will do, should this

bill pass the House, is around a certain distance.

We will prescribe the transit-oriented development. From all the

scans of different jurisdictions around the world that have pursued it

successfully, it’s about 800 metres — or, as the Americans would say,

half a mile — or a ten-minute walking distance from a transit station

exchange or SkyTrain station, because that allows more affordability

around not owning two vehicles, or even one vehicle. It is what people

are prepared to do to get on a highly efficient public transit system

that has pedestrian activity associated with that. I have mentioned that

it is my intention to put an 800-metre sort of circumference around what

we would describe as a transit-oriented development.

[11:35 a.m.]

A. Olsen: Maybe just to finish this line of questioning — I appreciate that

it’s not considered at this stage — I would say that where the

provincial government is investing public funds, there’s an opportunity

to ensure at least a certain number of units.

I know that in municipal developments, you’d say 10 percent of

units, for example, need to be affordable. I say affordable. It’s

because it’s contingent on the market. They need to be below market for

them to be affordable, or you need to use the CMHC formula of no more

than 30 percent of your income being put to housing.

The real opportunity that’s presented here, I think, is that not

only do we have an opportunity to decrease people’s amount that they’re

paying for their housing, we’re also potentially…. Actually, the whole

point of this is to also decrease the amount that they’re paying to the

other most expensive thing in their life, which is their transportation

— so folks who are on minimum wage or folks who are living on a wage

that’s below that living wage. There’s real opportunity here.

I’m hearing the minister very clearly that there hasn’t been these

considerations. What I would say is: let’s consider this. Let’s consider

the potential of regulations, of putting some numbers in place,

recognizing that each community is different, each council is different,

and that there needs to be that flexibility. I think the council that

the minister sat on formerly and the council that I sat on formerly are

very different communities, and they would require different

things.

However, there is an opportunity to take some of these units out

of the marketplace and give people really deeply affordable housing.

Where the provincial government is investing public money in it, that’s

an opportunity for us to say: “This is what we would like to see.” I

just encourage the minister to consider that in the regulation-making

process. I don’t expect to see it in the bill, because it does need that

flexibility, but this is a great opportunity for regulations to really

get good outcomes here, I think.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you for the question. As I said, I think in the previous

answer, this gives us enormous ability to influence for the good the

development of affordable housing in areas that we work with our

partners on to declare as transit-oriented development areas, where we

update community plans. The member knows, as a former municipal

official, what that entails in terms of the bylaw development and the

public engagement and the consultation.

We’re already seeing very huge, significant interest in the

Surrey-Langley SkyTrain corridor for doing just that. I’ve brought up

some examples. The Fleetwood neighbourhood plan is in the process of

being updated to prepare for the transformative power of a SkyTrain

station for livable density and compact development that is a lot

different than the earlier pattern of development for that

neighbourhood, which was auto-centric. Its zoning was based on that

being people’s means of mobility and getting around, so this will be

different.

Look, the bill is trying to address a problem that British

Columbia has in common with jurisdictions like California, Washington

state, Oregon, the Toronto market, New Zealand, Australia — which is a

pretty overheated market, as the member described. We need tools like

this to be able to work with local governments and others to be able to

build housing in a more affordable manner and create partnerships that

add that to our housing stock. It’s not the answer unto itself, but it

is a powerful tool that, arrayed with other tools that government has at

its disposable, I think is going to be quite complementary.

The member and I have discussed, for example, the bus rapid

transit strategy that we have here in the capital regional district.

He’s been supportive of investments at Mt. Newton Cross Road on the

Patricia Bay Highway, and I’m sure he can imagine that with Crown land

and municipal governments working together, that could be an area,

potentially, for development and densification. We have an Indigenous

community there that might wish to be a part of that as well, that would

build housing and institutions and amenities there. That’s what we’re

talking about.

Without Bill 16, we can’t really do that. With Bill 16, we can,

through the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority.

[11:40 a.m.]

B. Stewart: Minister, I just want to go back to the discussion we’re having

about the existing network of SkyTrain stations. There is bus rapid

transit here in the capital regional district as well as in the

Okanagan.

I guess you focus in on this about the tool that it creates and

the opportunity to help solve the affordability issue. My question is:

is it the intention of the ministry to work in collaboration with, say,

the Minister for Housing to aggressively pursue acquiring the lands so

that this gets some traction and that we can expect that we’re going to

see affordable housing, both a combination of non-profit, market

housing, the types that you describe? Is that going to be aggressively

pursued?

Hon. R. Fleming: What I can say is that a number of mayors — and I believe the

mayor of the member’s city, Kelowna, is aware and well-briefed on Bill

16. Should it become law and should the city, which has a commendable

vision for what 21st-century Kelowna looks like…. It’s recently made a

number of amendments to their OCP. The member opposite is probably more

aware than I would be, but I’ve been pleased to have them described to

me.

The mayor of Kelowna has opportunity, should this become law, to

work more directly with my ministry, the B.C. Transportation Financing

Authority. We would bring in B.C. Housing. I think on the BRT corridor,

there is obviously a lot of private land there, shopping malls and

commercial developments and things like that, but they would likely see

an interest there as well.

I mentioned in Surrey, Langley SkyTrain, that when we talked about

supportive policy agreements promoting transit-oriented development on

that line, the owners — and I’m forgetting the company name — of the

Willowbrook mall immediately engaged in their own revisioning of that

property as a new mixed-use development that is not just retail and

parking but has other things that could refresh and repurpose the land

that is consumed by that development.

Uptown is a good example here in Victoria, which is in Saanich

near the Uptown development. It’s a strategic site to optimize transit

service in greater Victoria that we wish to invest in as a new transit

exchange. We’ve just completed a pre-feasibility study with B.C. Transit

and the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, so we’re on our way in

anticipation of the legislation that would allow us to then work in

close collaboration with the district of Saanich.

[11:45 a.m.]

B. Stewart: I appreciate that you mentioned that mayors have shown enthusiasm,

adjusted OCPs. I wonder. On the existing SkyTrain stations, communities

that are impacted — New West, Port Moody, Coquitlam, Vancouver,

Richmond, all the way through Surrey, etc. — have there been

consultations with all of those communities about using this type of

tool to help increase affordable housing?

Hon. R. Fleming: We had some direct consultations on this in the drafting stage of

the legislation with UBCM staff. Certainly, there is a lot of discussion

at Metro Vancouver, which was just working on completion of its 2050

plan. It’s in draft form now.

There are lots of conversations happening about what Bill 16 could

do for communities that have existing SkyTrain infrastructure. Some have

been significantly redeveloped, but others have not. I expect those

conversations are going to grow even further. We’ll look forward to

having them when we have this tool for collaboration, planning and

affordable housing development at our disposal once it’s

proclaimed.

B. Stewart: I was talking about how aggressive…. I don’t know what the

minister sees in the next 24 months, what type of aggressiveness. Is

expropriation something that would be considered in cases where it was

deemed that something that should be developed or should be put

together…? I don’t know how much support in the community they have, but

is it a tool that would be considered by the B.C. Ministry of

Transportation and the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority in terms

of executing on this tool?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: As we are here on clause 1, we’re looking at expansion of

definitions.

We have

an act that is currently silent on what a transit station

is. What it could mean…. We have suggested text that’s before the House

on what transit-oriented development is. That’s what’s under discussion

here.

In clause 3, we will get into those amendments to

section 27 of

the existing act, if the member wants to talk about expropriation at

that time. That, of course, has long been on the statute books, and

there are a number of acts — I couldn’t name them all — that give the

province sort of last-resort legal authority to do that. This bill does

not, in any way, seek to promote expropriation. It seeks to promote

partnerships in acquiring land proactively. So there is no change that

this bill before the House brings in that regard, on what is existing

statute and law in British Columbia.

B. Stewart: Okay. Just in terms of communities that you’ve talked to,

Minister, in terms of the UBCM, Metro Vancouver, people like in my own

community, etc., what about the people that do this in the world of

development, etc.? Has there been consultation with them? Where are you

at in terms of the plan with them?

Hon. R. Fleming: To the member’s question, we did consult with a number of senior

development companies that have experience in housing and mixed-use

development. We did that, of course, under confidentiality, because if

you’re contemplating the change in law, you don’t want to give a

commercial advantage to anyone. We want to have a candid conversation,

and we had that with the development community. They were very, very

supportive of the concept of developing this legislation. Based on that

and the additional consultations the member references, we went forward

in drafting the bill that is now before the House.

With that, I would move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

AND

CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Sims in the

chair.

The committee met at 11 a.m.

On Vote 24: ministry operations, $312,344,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We are meeting today to continue

consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Environment and

Climate Change Strategy.

Minister.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you very much, Chair. With your indulgence before the member

asks a question, I want to correct, with apologies, an answer that we

gave yesterday to the question of agriculture emission reductions. In

the interest of completeness, I want to elaborate on one of the

responses to my opposition critic yesterday.

The member asked about expected reductions from the agriculture

sector. The answer that I provided included most emissions from

agriculture but excluded those from fossil fuel combustion. Including

the additional emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the agricultural

sector would result in a 2030 emissions total of 3.7 megatonnes without

any CleanBC measures. Under the CleanBC roadmap, sector emissions in

2030 are estimated to decline to 2.9 megatonnes, or a reduction of

approximately 0.8 megatonnes.

Thank you, and apologies again for missing that in our review

yesterday to provide the answer.

A. Olsen: I wanted to follow up quickly on a question. Yesterday I asked a

question around Indigenous reconciliation. The minister referenced the

priorities of Indigenous leadership. One of the priorities that they

have brought forward is around biodiversity. It’s also a key

recommendation, recommendation No. 2, in the old-growth strategic

review. I’m recognizing that’s on the forestry side of

things.

I am wanting to ask…. I know that the ministry had been working on

biodiversity legislation. At some point that had stopped. I think that

as we see…. The member for Prince George–Mackenzie talked about

biodiversity yesterday in his two-minute statement. I wonder if the

minister could talk about the government’s work on biodiversity

legislation and the priority within the Ministry of Environment for such

legislation.

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, the member has correctly pointed out that the lead authority

for biodiversity legislation, including…. We’re working with the

Ministry of Forests on that aspect of recommendation 2 of the old-growth

strategic review. It has transferred to the Minister of Land, Water and

Resource Stewardship and so have the staff from my ministry that were

working on that. They’re now in that ministry.

My mandate letter asked me to support the Minister of Land, Water

and Resource Stewardship on matters of the watershed sustainability

strategy and fund and protecting biodiversity. My ministry and I are

eager to do that and willing to do that in whatever way the Minister of

Land, Water and Resource Stewardship requests us to support.

D. Ashton: Minister, always a pleasure to see you and your staff.

Minister, just very quickly. If I could pass some notes along to

you regarding an issue in Naramata. It’s about a sewage issue that’s

being proposed. I’ll just pass it along. Thank you.

Minister, I would just ask in consideration…. Coming from

municipal government, one of the biggest issues is that when we do sewer

an area on the expense of ongoing operations, when there is a plant that

is very close to other communities, I would hope the ministry would

consider the opportunity of municipalities working together so that

effluent could flow from one municipality to another municipality or

from a regional district into a municipality. It can make a big

difference in ongoing operations.

It was done during the tenure when I was at the regional district,

going north into the Kelowna catchment basin. The Greata Ranch area was

done. Peachland is another one. It does work. I would just ask for

further consideration of that.

Second of all, I would also ask you the opportunity to meet with

staff regarding an in-camera issue that both the minister’s ministry and

also the Agriculture ministry has in its purview at this point in

time.

And the opportunity for Topflight helicopters regarding permitting

issues in the Ashnola area, especially now with the Lower Similkameen

Indian Band and the issues that they have brought forward regarding the

Ashnola in their traditional lands and access through those traditional

lands. It’s just a request for those meetings.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for Penticton. I know the member has a

good reputation for being an effective local politician in his time in

municipal government, and I know knows the issues, including liquid

waste management plans, very well.

[11:10 a.m.]

The answer to the member’s question is if the regional district

puts forward a proposal for municipalities working together or receiving

effluent, we would welcome that. We’re happy to talk about it. We’ve

done that in other cases. One example is the village of Anmore, working

with Metro Vancouver regional district.

The member asked if there could be an in-camera meeting with our

staff. Absolutely, on this or any other issue. I think you didn’t

mention the issue, so I’m not sure what it is. That is a courtesy I

would extend to any member from any party, and so would my

staff.

If I understand the question about Topflight helicopters in

Ashnola, and the permitting — were you asking for a meeting regarding

that? Yes, absolutely. We’ll arrange that as well.

D. Ashton: Thank you, Minister, and thank you, staff. I greatly appreciate

it. Have a good day.

P. Milobar: I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out, in follow-up to the

minister’s answer there, with pride, that Kamloops provides sewage

handling for Tk’emlúps on the reserve, in Kamloops as well, in

partnership there. That’s always worked very well. That only has one

plant, then, working with the Thompson River, instead of two.

A couple of questions, though, for the minister in regards to

post-wildfire, specifically more around Lytton. Just some real quick

ones. Obviously, we’ve heard a lot over the last ten months — that

Lytton has been trying to get the debris removed. A lot has to do with

that it’s considered a contaminated site — the whole village.

Did the minister, the ministry…? Did anyone within Environment

direct and make the declaration that Lytton is to be considered a

contaminated site? Are they operating and not able to start to remove

unless the Ministry of Environment signs off on it? Can we get some

insight into that whole process as to how we are still here, ten months

later, with a contaminated site as a whole town?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I think we all know that

the residents of Lytton are continually concerned. There are several

areas, including contamination, in which they wish answers. Ultimately,

they want to get on with their lives and rebuild, and we want to see

them do that as well.

There has been no declaration of the town of Lytton as a

contaminated site, but our experience was that a combination of the

fires and the flooding had the potential to leave contamination in the

area. As a result of that, we’re working with emergency management B.C.

and other ministries to develop a recovery strategy.

[11:20 a.m.]

We worked with Indigenous and non-Indigenous governments to have

qualified professionals go in and test for contamination, which would be

a standard response if we had reason to expect contamination. What we

are trying to do now, to ensure that we protect public health, is

working with those Indigenous and non-Indigenous governments to develop

a broad process for the entire town to conduct the removal in a safe

way. We expect, by having not a site-by-site removal strategy but a

broad strategy, that we will both expedite the speed and reduce the

costs for businesses, individuals and governments to do that.

P. Milobar: Well, I thank the minister for that answer, but I think it just

leads to more confusion then. There are a couple of things to unpack

there. The fire ripped through on June 30. The flood event didn’t happen

until November, five months later. The flood event had nothing to do

with Lytton. In the ten months, we’ve seen major rain events — which, if

Lytton is truly that contaminated, would have created runoff. We’ve had

snow events and melt and freshet starting, which would have seen those

contaminated pieces flowing away from Lytton, into the Fraser

River.

At the same time, we saw Monte Lake, which burned down after

Lytton, not be required to have the same cleanup conditions applied to

it that Lytton had, and we’ve seen the Lytton First Nation, literally

basically across the road, be fully cleaned out. The site is prepped,

they’re having housing coming in, and they’re getting utilities

restored. It’s great to see. No one begrudges that work happening, but

literally in the exact same area, with the same fire, there has been a

completely different response allowed.

At the same time, we just saw last week, with the tragic fire at

the Winters Hotel in Vancouver, that building being demolished almost

immediately. The only thing that delayed it was the tragic and

unfortunate discovery of the bodies of people who had lost their lives

in those fires. It’s understandable that things would stop so that we’d

get a proper investigation, but the initial demolition and removal was

immediate.

The people of Lytton are looking for a very clear answer — there

was no actual order about contamination immediately put in place — as to

why they’re not allowed in, why it’s still fenced off, why they can’t

come and go to their own privately owned property to start remediation,

if the Ministry of Environment has not put any kind of contamination

order on the townsite. People are still needing to wear hazmat suits to

be allowed to cross the fenced area, after getting permission, to enter

into where their own private property is.

Can we get more clarification or detail as to why this site,

post-fire, seems to be the only site in British Columbia that gets

deemed contaminated? We can’t seem to figure out who has actually made

that designation and who is actually preventing people from going back

to clean up their properties, ten months after a fire has already ripped

through their town.

[11:25 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: My understanding is that when we sent people in to test in Lytton,

following the fire, it was found that the soot and ash from the fire was

contaminated with lead and asbestos. The village has determined that

that is a risk to public health, and therefore, the evacuation order is

being continued.

There is nothing from our ministry that prevents that from being

removed. There are a number of other factors that have to do with other

issues that are potentially slowing it down, but we’re simply, in the

Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, waiting for it to

be removed. We will then go in and test and certify that the site is

clean, which is what the insurance companies will require.

P. Milobar: Has the ministry issued any orders to any landfill operations or

any disposal ways of the waste that would at all be prohibiting the time

frame for the removal in terms of finding a location to send it to for

handling and either a burial or remediation or anything of that nature?

Are there any orders given or prevention of any specific sites that it’s

not allowed to go to?

[11:35 a.m. - 11:45 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for your patience. I apologize for the

delay in responding, but I’ve got a partial answer. We’re trying to get

a bit more detail — which we will be able to do over the lunch break and

give a more fulsome answer after the break, if that’s okay.

What I can tell the member is that we have a full-time staff

person who has been working with the village of Lytton to look at their

needs for remediation and determine what’s needed in terms of receiving

landfill and which ones are currently authorized to do that, which ones

we would need to work with to expedite permit amendments to receive it

within the Thompson-Nicola regional district. I can give a bit more

detail after lunch.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

Copyright © 2022 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.