Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 11, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 330

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

Hon. D. Eby

K. Falcon

M. de Jong

S. Furstenau

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Public Service Act

Hon. R. Kahlon

Appointment of Special Committee to Review Passenger Directed Vehicles

Hon. R. Kahlon

Appointment of Special Committee to Appoint a Police

Complaint Commissioner

Hon. R. Kahlon

Supply Motions

Reports of resolutions from Committee of Supply

Hon. K. Conroy

Funds granted for public service

Hon. K. Conroy

Funds granted for capital expenditures, loans,

investments and other financing requirements

Hon. K. Conroy

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Supply Act, 2023–2024

Hon. K. Conroy

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Supply Act, 2023–2024

Hon. K. Conroy

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 30 — Supply Act, 2023–2024

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Supply Act, 2023–2024

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 5 — Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 2023

Bill 10 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2023

Bill 11 — Election Amendment Act, 2023

Bill 13 — Pay Transparency Act

Bill 17 — Family Law Amendment Act, 2023

Bill 18 — Haida Nation Recognition Act

Bill 19 — Money Services Businesses Act

Bill 20 — Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2023

Bill 21 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2023

Bill 22 — Strata Property Amendment Act, 2023

Bill 23 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2023

Bill 24 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023

Bill 25 — Electoral Districts Act

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

Bill Pr401 — Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 2023

Bill Pr402 — St. Mark’s College Amendment Act, 2023

Bill 30 — Supply Act, 2023–2024

Tabling Documents

Parliamentary calendar, 2023, updated

THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2023

The House met at 1:04 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Dean: I call Committee of Supply estimates, Office of the Premier, to

continue.

[1:05 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE

PREMIER

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

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

We’re currently considering the budget estimates of the Office

of the Premier.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $16,045,000

(continued) .

The Chair: It’s my understanding that there was a question pending. Is

the Premier prepared to address that or…?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes. There are a couple of key issues that were raised by the

Leader of the Opposition in relation to the issue of prescribed safer

supply. First, he seemed to suggest somehow that the Minister of Mental

Health and Addictions and I were somehow at odds on the issue of what

was being tracked and what wasn’t.

The quote that he read from the minister was that in response to

data from the coroner’s office, the coroner’s office is not currently

breaking out hydromorphone. The situation is, in fact, that we are

tracking hydromorphone. The member suggested that that meant that we

weren’t tracking hydromorphone. But, in fact, we are, through all of the

research studies that I outlined to the member, but it’s not currently

broken out separately by the coroner’s office.

The second component of the member’s question was really around

the issues related to services for children and youth and making sure

that children and youth have access to care, especially when they’re

struggling with addiction. We know that if we can intervene early when

someone is struggling with addiction, we’ll have far more success than

if we wait in terms of the kind of lives that they’re going to have

ahead of them. That is certainly a critical piece of our

work.

We have a number of different initiatives focused on young adults

and youth. We have multidisciplinary integrated child and youth teams in

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, Comox Valley and Richmond, ongoing

implementation in Coast Mountains and Okanagan Similkameen school

districts.

There are seven new communities that are implementing ICY teams,

including Fraser-Cascade, which includes Hope, Harrison, Agassiz, Boston

Bar; Kootenay-Columbia, which includes Castlegar and Trail; Mission;,

Nanaimo-​Ladysmith; North Okanagan–Shuswap, which includes Salmon

Arm; Pacific Rim, which includes Port Alberni; and Powell River. ICY

teams are going to expand to another eight school district communities,

for a total of 20 communities by ’25-26.

We continue our investment in the Foundry site expansions, towards

23 centres provincewide by ’25-26. These are youth mental health support

centres, drop-in centres for kids that are particularly at risk of

addiction who are struggling with mental health and mental

wellness.

The Ministry of Education and Child Care has implemented the

mental health in schools strategy, embedding positive mental health and

wellness programs and services for students in all school

districts.

[1:10 p.m.]

Young people aged 12 to 24 who are struggling with

sub­stance use disorder and their families are going to benefit

from 123 new beds that build on our Budget 2021 investments. These

investments are having a real impact on availability of treatment. For

example, when we formed government, Interior Health didn’t operate any

youth treatment beds. They now operate 25 youth treatment beds, and

there are more in development.

With respect to safer supply generally, the preliminary findings

have shown that people who are provided a prescription have shown a 76

percent decrease in mortality in people receiving prescriptions for

opioids compared to those who do not. Obviously, this is a serious

thing, and it’s something we’re approaching carefully in an

evidence-based approach. It actually builds on work that the member says

he is proud of doing, the NAOMI and SALOME trials.

There is unfortunately an additional correction to put on the

record. I mean, this work is hard enough in terms of the disturbing

facts of the number of deaths, the toxicity of the drugs that are in

community and the desperate efforts of physicians, nurses and others to

get between predatory drug dealers and people struggling with addiction.

But we do need to start from the basis of what is happening.

The member made a number of claims about overdose prevention sites

that were contradicted by the operator of those sites, who said: “He

doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He hasn’t even visited us.” Today,

again, we checked it out and confirmed that St. Paul’s doctors are in

fact continuing to prescribe hydromorphone.

What St. Paul’s doctors are doing is…. There are people who are

not responsive to hydromorphone because they have a severe addiction to

fentanyl, which is even stronger than hydromorphone. So they’re trying

to find out how to best recalibrate medications that meet those specific

patient needs. The work that they’re doing is very responsive to what

they’re seeing in community, and we want them to do that. We want those

doctors to be responsive to what they’re seeing in community. We also

want that evidence, which is why we’re doing all that research they were

talking about.

I want to also thank St. Paul’s and Providence Health. We are

working with them right now to implement a first-of-its-kind treatment

regime where people who show up in the emergency room with overdose are

able to go directly from the emergency room to detox to treatment, right

on site at the hospital. We’re doing that work with them.

I look forward to having more to share with the members soon about

that important work in delivering additional treatment at that hospital

that sees a lot of overdoses related to the toxic drug

crisis.

K. Falcon: It’s important. I know the Premier mentions lots of programs and

this and that and how much money they’re spending, etc. But it’s

actually the results that the public of British Columbia is most

concerned about, and what we’ve seen, as the Premier would know well,

under his government is that every year that they’ve been in power,

we’ve seen the overdose death rates go up to the highest levels ever in

the history of this province.

You know, when you see results getting worse every year, to

continue doing more of the same approach is not going to get you

different results. This is why we’re so concerned and we’re echoing what

we’re hearing from medical specialists whose entire careers are built

around working with those struggling with addictions.

Many of those experienced addiction specialist physicians have

voiced a lot of concerns to me about the remarkable similarities between

the government’s current approach of publicly supplied addictive drugs

and the Oxy­Contin crisis that we just went through in North

America.

I don’t need to remind this Premier that at Purdue Phar­ma,

their entire approach was over-prescription of opioids by minimizing the

dangers of diversion. They were incentivizing doctors to provide more

opioids, arguing that these were safe drugs, very similar to the

language we hear out of this government when they call it safe supply. I

refuse to use the term because it’s publicly supplied addictive

drugs.

[1:15 p.m.]

We saw what happened across North America: an entire generation of

people becoming addicted to opioids and OxyContin, yet the government

response to that is to say: “Our approach is going to be doing exactly

the same thing: prescribing highly dangerous, publicly supplied

addictive drugs to an already struggling population that are struggling

with addictions.” I would just like the Premier to explain how his

current approach in government differs from that of Purdue

pharmacy.

Hon. D. Eby: I certainly am familiar with Purdue Phar­ma. It was our

government that initiated Canadian class action litigation by provinces

across the country to recover health care costs related to the overdose

crisis that was driven by their marketing activities.

We, thanks to fast action after being sworn in as government, made

the largest health care costs recovery in the province’s history from

Purdue Pharma. If we had not acted, there wouldn’t have been $1 for

British Columbia from that company for their activities. I agree with

of approach. He wasn’t aware that we had already done it.

The second piece is around enforcement. It is critically important

that the people who are profiting from the misery…. It doesn’t matter if

they’re organized companies like Purdue Pharma and the other companies

we’re still pursuing in court or organized crime; we are pursuing them

aggressively.

In just the last six-month period, one seizure of precur­sor

chemicals capable of producing 525 kilograms of fentanyl, over 150

kilograms of MDMA. That’s 262 million potentially lethal doses of

fentanyl and three million doses of MDMA. Also, one million pills of

various kinds, seized by the RCMP, resulted in six people

arrested.

Another one: an 18-month-long investigation, five ar­rests,

multiple seizures, 52 kilograms of methamphet­amine, 30 kilograms

of psilocybin, three kilograms of cocaine, 1.2 kilograms of heroin, and

more.

[1:20 p.m.]

Another year-long investigation: $3 million in drugs as well as

guns and cash, including 72 kilograms of fentanyl-laced fake Percocet

pills, 16.5 kilograms of cutting agents, meth, MDMA and benzodiazepines,

$123,000 in cash. It resulted in three arrests.

In this legislative session, we passed new laws that allow us to

seize the assets of organized criminals that are not able to explain

where they get their money from through unexplained wealth orders. I

very much look forward to the police and the civil forfeiture office

using those tools to crack down on people profiting from mis­ery

in our communities.

It’s important to recognize that the prescribed safer supply work

is overseen by physicians who are expert in the area, including those

doctors that the member was just talking about at St. Paul’s that are

experts in addiction. The preliminary findings are showing a 76 percent

decrease in mortality. The research continues. The work continues on

this.

The member asks: how is what we are doing different from what was

happening with Purdue Pharma when they were actively promoting opioids

to people who were not using them? The people who are getting the

prescriptions have serious opioid addictions. The prescription comes

from a nurse or a doctor that is an expert in addiction. We’re trying to

separate them from the criminal gangs, trying to separate them from the

toxic street drugs, which I just ran down the list of, that organized

crime is profiting from.

Profoundly ironically, this is exactly what the member stood up in

this place literally yesterday and told us that he did when he was the

Minister of Health. He said: “We had the NAOMI trials and the SALOME

trials, and that was about drug replacement therapy to see whether we

could have a situation where those that are in severe addiction crisis

could have replacement drugs that would allow them to transition so that

we could get them into treatment.” The one thing I would add to that is

to keep them alive so they can get into treatment.

Since coming into government, during the global pandemic, with the

closure of the borders, we have seen a mas­sive spike in the

toxicity of the drugs that are coming into British Columbia. They’re

smaller. They’re easier to ship. They’re also profoundly strong and

toxic, and they are killing people.

This effort is also about keeping people alive so they can get

into treatment. We have literally $1 billion in the budget to expand

that treatment work, doubling youth treat­ment beds across the

province, making a real impact for people struggling with

addiction.

I take the member’s core point, which is: more work to do. We need

to continue to monitor this work to ensure that we’re headed in the

right direction.

K. Falcon: It would be appreciated if the Premier could shorten his answers.

I know he’s taking 15 minutes before he even stands up to answer basic

questions. Then, I realize, he’s trying to rag the puck, so to speak, so

that he doesn’t have to get asked hard questions. But if we’re going to

get through to where we can canvass a number of issues, it would be

helpful if the Premier kept his questions relevant.

I would remind the Premier — he repeatedly keeps read­ing

that into the record — that the NAOMI and SALOME trials were controlled

trials under the supervision of addiction specialists with the goal of

getting people into treatment. You have a minister responsible for

mental health and addictions that cannot even tell us how many addiction

beds are available in the province of British Columbia today.

Frankly, the issue I asked the Premier about was that physicians

are increasingly concerned the approach that resulted in the Premier and

this government — by the way, which I applaud — suing Purdue pharmacy

and, I believe, up to 40 other opioid manufacturers, and that saw a

situation where North America–wide we had an opioid crisis. Why? Because

they were pushing these drugs into the population.

The approach of this government is to provide publicly supplied

addictive drugs to the population. They’re doing a very good job of it.

The problem is that the hydromorphone that they’re pushing into the

population is being diverted, and that’s why we’re seeing the run-up in

youth representing and presenting at hospitals and doctors’ offices with

opioid use disorder.

[1:25 p.m.]

I’m simply asking the Premier the question. What is the difference

between you suing the opioid manufacturers, quite appropriately, for the

fact that they irresponsibly allowed drugs to get through our system…?

And remember, all of them prescribed by physicians. In fact, they

encouraged the physicians to prescribe them. Why? Because they were

safer.

That “safer” word might ring a bell with the Premier. This is the

same language we’re hearing from this government. Safer supply. No, they

are publicly supplied, addictive drugs that are highly toxic and

dangerous. We have to be careful. I don’t mean toxic in the fact that

they’re laced with fentanyl but highly dangerous to individuals taking

them — five times more powerful than heroin. The concern is, as they get

diverted into the broader community, which is clearly

happening….

I’m just asking the question. What is the difference between the

fact that you’re suing Purdue, successfully, and other manufacturers and

the fact that you’re doing the exact same thing and, I would argue,

opening up government to potential lawsuits in the future?

Hon. D. Eby: I take the member’s advice. I’ll do my best to provide answers as

quickly as I can. I think this is a critical issue. I’ll endeavour to

get the member the information that he needs.

This is the Premier’s office budget estimates. The Minister of

Mental Health and Addictions was available, did an extended set of

estimates and had all the materials available. We’re drawing from that

information to provide answers. It takes a little bit longer when it’s

not squarely on the topic of the estimates. It’s not an objection. I

want to answer the questions. I want to provide the information. The

reason I want to provide the information is….

It’s critical that people have the facts. The member stood in this

place and said something that was flatly incorrect about treatments that

were available at St. Paul’s for people struggling with addiction. That

kind of misinformation doesn’t help people. If you are under the belief

that a particular treatment is not available…. Something the member

says, in a position of authority, as the Leader of the Opposition, is

probably conclusive for you about whether or not you should be seeking

treatment there.

We need people to go to St. Paul’s. We need them to talk to the

addictions doctors if they’re addicted to opioids, to be dealing with a

physician or a nurse practitioner instead of with a street-level dealer.

The drugs are incredibly toxic out there. To get that health care

connection, for people struggling with addiction, is so

important.

[1:30 p.m.]

The member asks, “What’s the big difference,” like he doesn’t

know, like this is a parallel situation. The key difference in Purdue

Pharma is that physicians were encouraged to prescribe, as painkillers,

opioids to peo­ple who had never used opioids before as if it’s as

safe Tylenol. You’d give the opioids to this senior struggling with

chronic pain, and opioid prescriptions exploded as a result of that

marketing activity.

The safer supply initiative is for people with something called

opioid use disorder, which everybody else would just call addiction to

opioids. You show up to your physician. You are already addicted. You

are addicted to the point that you’re going out into the street, and you

are finding someone who is dealing drugs. You’re buying drugs from them

to feed your addiction.

Where does the money come from? Where do the drugs come from? We

know. They’re not safe. The money often comes from people’s depleting

savings, and then when they get really desperate, from proceeds of crime

to feed their addiction. Getting that physician in between them and the

predatory drug dealer putting them up to paying out money for drugs of

unknown origin, unknown toxicity…. This is the program.

To pretend like the member doesn’t know that when, in fact,

yesterday he stood up in this place and literally described this program

and took credit for establishing this program as Minister of Health…. He

said: “We had the NAOMI trials and the SALOME trials.” This was about

prescribed safer supply for people with opioid use disorder to see

whether you could get between those street-level drug dealers and the

person with the addiction with a physician — stabilize them, maybe even

get them some training and back to work, get them into treatment. I

think those were great initiatives. They are the foundation on which

this program is built.

For the member to now pretend, oh, he doesn’t know — “This is

about providing free addictive drugs to people. What’s the difference

between that and Purdue Pharma?” — when he literally ran the program for

people with serious addictions to try to give them a chance to get into

treatment, to stay alive, to stabilize their lives, which showed such

positive results that resulted in the experts in this area recommending

that we expand this approach, that we try this approach….

Now, for political reasons, to stand up, provide misinformation

about what’s available at St. Paul’s, pretend he doesn’t know how the

program works, use inflammatory language to pretend that government is

freely distributing opioids to the general public when, in fact, it’s a

prescription program through doctors and nurse practitioners trained in

the area…. It’s definitely not helpful in the crisis that we’re

facing.

There are hard questions to be asked. There are hard questions to

be answered. I’m committed to providing those answers as best I can to

the member about this profoundly challenging issue.

Now, he continues to repeat that we have seen an explosion in

addictions around young people in the province. I asked the ministry for

their best advice on this.

What I got back was that the number of youth under the age of 19

with the new diagnosis of opioid use disorder has been flat, low and

stable over the past decade. There was no significant increase in OUD,

opioid use disorder, or addiction to opioids, diagnoses among youth

under 19 after March 2020, which was the date of the implementation of

this program.

The number of youth 19 to 24 with a new diagnosis of opioid use

disorder has been declining since 2016. There was no change in this

general trend after March 2020 when the program started.

Now, there is a very troubling statistic, though, about young

people. It’s that we have been seeing, consistent with the population

generally, an increase in toxic drug deaths among young people, and I

have talked about that — young people who are going out. They think

they’re doing a drug like Ecstasy or something. They’re at a party. They

think this is a good idea. They make that one fatal mistake, and they

get a drug that they weren’t expecting, and they die of a fentanyl

overdose.

Fentanyl was detected in 80 percent of unregulated drug deaths

among under-19-year-olds since July 2020. Stimulants and benzodiazepines

were the next commonly detected substances at 52 percent and 50 percent,

respectively. I think we’re all troubled by that. I hope we’re all

troubled by that.

[1:35 p.m.]

We continue to monitor, and the best information the ministry can

provide me is that addictions have not been increasing in this group,

despite the member continually repeating that.

We’re doing the research to track these things. We will continue

to provide this House and the public with the evidence as we get it.

That is the responsible approach. If we see unintended consequences, if

we see things we don’t want to see, then we’ll take action to address

those issues.

K. Falcon: Important to note, Premier, that although we had those very

controlled trials, we did not plunge ahead with a publicly supplied

addictive drug program like this government has.

While this Premier can pretend, and apparently wants to pretend,

that there are going to be no unintended consequences, I’m here to tell

him right now and make the prediction that there will be exactly the

unintended consequences that they’re not prepared for, just as there

were unintended consequences when Purdue pharmacy and the other

pharmaceutical companies went ahead with their pushing of medical

opioids into the North American population, creating a North

America–wide pandemic of misery and addiction and death as a result of

their program.

I would also say, just referring back to…. He wants to,

apparently, completely deny that, apparently, physicians at St. Paul’s,

he’s saying, are not not prescribing. We’ve received confirmation again

that there are physicians there that have stopped prescribing

hydromorphone because of their concerns. I’ll state that for the

record.

The other thing I would let the Premier know is that there are

children and youth who have never used drugs before that are now being

sold diverted hydromorphone. And guess what they’re calling it to the

kids. Safe supply. “Don’t worry; these are government drugs; it’s safe,”

even though it’s five times more dangerous than heroin. That is what’s

happening in the real world out there.

Part of this, again, is the government’s approach. We know the

government has also got drug vending machines now in the downtown of

Vancouver and in the Downtown Eastside. The lack of proper controls has

meant these government-sanctioned narcotic vending machines are causing,

again, more diversion into the broader community and creating an

addiction crisis amongst youth. People working in the recovery sector,

the people that are actually treating people that are struggling with

addictions, have confirmed that children as young as 16 and 17 years old

are accessing these drugs.

Will the Premier make sure that there are proper controls so that

we’re not seeing the diversion of those highly addictive drugs like

hydromorphone into the broader community of children and youth at 16 and

17?

[1:40 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I apologize to the member. It took some time to track down the

program he was referring to.

He was referring to a vending machine. Unsurprisingly, it’s not a

vending machine. This is a device that dispenses a single dose of

prescribed supply. It requires biometric identifiers in order to be able

to access it. A vending ma­chine is where you put money in and get

something out. This requires the specific person that has been

prescribed to be there with biometric identifiers, and a single dose is

supplied.

It’s a Health Canada program run by Dr. Mark Tyndall, under a

direct exemption with Health Canada, the federal program. It’s not a

provincial program.

[1:50 p.m.]

It’s actually intended as an anti-diversion approach, because

instead of giving someone a whole bottle of pills in their safer supply

prescription, they are given a dose at a time each day, which is

intended to reduce the risk of diversion. Now, this program is also

subject to monitoring and research by Health Canada to determine if it

is, in fact, effective at reducing diversion.

I do want to address a couple of additional comments made by the

member and another member in the House. Earlier today, in question

period, the member for Surrey South said: “The fact is the rapid access

addiction clinic at St. Paul’s Hospital stopped prescribing

hydromorphone last February because they see more kids getting

addicted.”

Then, the Leader of the Opposition, before lunch, said: “To

reinforce that, St. Paul’s Hospital, in their rapid-access addiction

clinic — a clinic that is staffed by some of the top addiction

specialists in the province — actually stopped prescribing hydromorphone

two months ago, in February of this year.”

Two members saying it. This is not a mistake or a slip of the

tongue. They have been saying this, and it is incorrect.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: The member said, “No, I didn’t; I didn’t say that.”

Some doctors stopped prescribing. Physicians are going to make

decisions about what’s best for different classes of patients that

they’re seeing. They do that autonomously from government, and they

should do that; they should make those decisions. But to say the

rapid-access clinic, staffed by some of the top addiction specialists in

the province, stopped prescribing hydromorphone two months ago, in

February of this year is simply incorrect.

That kind of misinformation about medical programs responding to

the opioid overdose crisis is profoundly counterproductive and

irresponsible. It is a pattern of this member’s assertions about safer

supply, about his party’s support for it to date — consistently, at

all-party committees and at votes in the Legislature — and now they want

to have it both ways:

“We support it, but we don’t support it. Yeah, I ran SALOME and

NAOMI, but I didn’t support them. I didn’t support the idea of giving

people prescriptions. That’s why we didn’t expand it. I’m proud of it,

but I didn’t think it was a good idea.” Inconsistent, contradictions,

falling over themselves because they have a political

problem.

The political problem is that there’s a party that is clearly

opposed to this, the Conservative Party, and they want to have it all.

They want to say to some audiences: “We’re op­posed.” They want to

say to other audiences, “We’re in favour,” depending on which room

they’re in.

Leadership requires saying this is a hard issue. We’re trying to

keep people alive here. These are people with serious addictions to

opioids. We’re trying to get a physician between them and a street-level

dealer, to keep them alive so that they can get into treatment — exactly

the intention of the programs run when the member himself was the Health

Minister and said in this House that he ran those programs, for those

same reasons, and showed those same results, as a matter of fact. Now he

finds it politically inconvenient to have that history.

The despicable comparison…. Purdue Pharma, to make money, took

people struggling with chronic pain, told their doctors that opioids

were as safe as Tylenol — that they should prescribe them freely and

that there was no risk of addiction — and hooked hundreds of thousands,

maybe millions, of people with this terrible advice. It’s advice they

knew was wrong, advice that they and their advisers at McKinsey cooked

up in a marketing book for doctors.

Compare that with a physician or a nurse practitioner who has

someone in front of them struggling with addiction, who’s going out into

the street to buy drugs that could kill them and getting the money to

buy those drugs God knows where and saying: “You know what? Let’s stop

that activity for you. Come here. We’ll make sure that we manage that

addiction that you’re struggling with. We’ll get you in touch with the

system, with the supports you need. We’ll keep you alive. We’ll stop

that struggle of getting the money every time to feed your addiction,

and we’ll work together to help you get out of this

addiction.”

[1:55 p.m.]

I mean, when you look in the eyes of a person who has lost a

friend, a family member, a son or a daughter to an addiction, and they

say to you, “Please try everything you can to keep this person alive,”

we’re willing to do that, and we’re doing it in a way that is rigorously

evaluated and monitored.

The member is either trying very hard to hide that his party

repeatedly supported harm reduction, including safe supply, including

himself as Health Minister, which he reminded us about in this place, in

this debate…. He’s either trying to hide it or he doesn’t understand the

program — it’s possible — and what the doctors are doing. Or he’s

willing to look someone in the eye that has a loved one struggling with

addiction and say: “You know what? I think that your loved one should go

out on the street to buy drugs. They shouldn’t be dealing with a

physician around accessing opioids.”

I can’t believe that’s true. I don’t be­lieve that’s true

because this is the same member who ran the NAOMI and SALOME initiatives

that, I think, were groundbreaking. It’s disappointing on a bunch of

levels because, like during COVID, this is a public health emergency.

It’s killing people. Finding ways to work forward, address issues, I

think, should be non-partisan. The member is trying all he can do to

make this partisan. He’s spreading misinformation in this place

repeatedly. It’s just disappointing.

K. Falcon: Well I shouldn’t be surprised that the Premier continues to

deceive and mislead on this issue. I’m going to straighten out the

record again for the Premier, because he apparently has difficulty

hearing. Make it very clear.

The NAOMI and SALOME trials were controlled trials, medically

overseen, to determine whether that replacement therapy could help

people get into treatment. I would encourage the Premier to read our

Better Is Possible mental health and addiction plan, whereby we believe

that the proper response, is to create purpose-built facilities where

the primary focus of government is not publicly supplying addictive

drugs but helping people get off their drugs.

This Premier’s reckless approach to not only publicly supply

addictive drugs but decriminalization without the proper guardrails is

not going to end well. I’ll say that right here, predict it very

publicly: we’ll see the continued poor results coming forward, and the

Premier is going to have to be explaining this in the weeks, months and

years to come.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, in the greatest of ironies, the

next group of lawsuits are not going to be to the Purdue companies of

the world but actually to his own government by people that are seeing

that their reckless approach is actually going to spread more damage,

chaos and despair in communities, particularly among young

people.

And just so that this Premier knows, we are actually getting text

messages right now from physicians at St. Paul’s who are watching this,

right now, confirming that, in fact, they are not, and they’re going to

stop, prescribing hydromorphone — many of them, not all of them, many of

them — because of the concerns that they have. The reason why we don’t

put their names on the record is because they know what kind of

vindictiveness this government and this Premier, in particular, have

towards people that dare to speak their minds.

That’s why they’re obsessed with secrecy. That’s why they’re

obsessed with making sure that everybody signs non-disclosure agreements

and gag orders, whether in the health sector, whether it’s parents that

just want to look after their kids with autism and stop this Premier

from stripping away individualized funding or whether it’s anybody else

that just wants to participate and speak truth so that we can have

better public policy. It doesn’t happen, sadly, with this government and

this Premier.

Before I ask my next question, I would like my colleague, the

member from Abbotsford, to have an opportunity to ask a

question.

Hon. D. Eby: I accept the member’s correction on the record.

He was incorrect that the clinic has stopped providing that

service. As I said, individual doctors will make individual decisions

that they need to make about what’s best for their patients, and we

support them in that absolutely.

He also incorrectly suggested the program is not medically

overseen. It is. It’s a program that is run through nurse practitioners

and physicians that are specifically trained in this program.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

He incorrectly stated the government is withdrawing

in­dividualized autism funding from families. That is not correct,

and he knows it’s not correct.

[2:00 p.m.]

He knows it’s not correct that the clinic stopped prescribing. He

knows it’s not correct that his party didn’t support safer supply or

harm reduction. He knows it’s not correct that he himself didn’t

actively support the NAOMI and SALOME trials, on which this work is

based. He continues to provide information that is incorrect in this

place.

It takes a little bit of time to get responses to the answers,

because we have to go back and literally pull the transcript from just

20 minutes ago to read back the member’s own words to him so that he can

remember what he said. He’s changed it. I accept the correction. I just

wish he would be clearer about a matter of life and death for British

Columbians.

M. de Jong: I just want to take a few moments to change gears and ask the

Premier a couple of questions on behalf of another large group of

British Columbians who feel let down by the government. I’m talking, of

course, about the transit strike in the Fraser Valley. Now, the Premier,

I expect, knows and understands how devastatingly harmful this has been

for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities — folks that

can’t get to their medical treatment, students that can’t get to class

and seniors who can’t get out.

Now, the Premier also, I expect, understands that there are some

tools available to the government. There’s a range of them. To be sure,

there is a continuum of involvement. But the government has chosen to

use none of those tools. The appointment of a mediator, the direction to

mandatory mediation and the setting of minimal essential service levels

that would address some of the worst challenges that our most vulnerable

citizens are facing….

The question is a straightforward one. It has been canvassed

several times in this House, but we’ve never really heard an answer, let

alone a satisfactory answer. Confronted by the terrible toll this

withdrawal of transit services is having upon people in a part of the

province that doesn’t have a SkyTrain, and there aren’t any other

options, why has the Premier’s government steadfastly refused to make

use of any of the tools that exist within the labour code that might

assist in ending this strike?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the question. I apologize for the

delay. I was trying to get him the latest information on

this.

My understanding of the current situation is the parties are, in

fact, not talking to each other. The Minister of Labour has reached out

to both parties to remind them of their responsibilities to the public —

the people who need to get to and from work and to and from appointments

and around their communities — that they need to be together at the

bargaining table.

We know that the best and most lasting outcomes result from that

collaborative work around the table together. The Minister of Labour has

also reached out to offer mediation services to those parties. I

strongly urge both parties to get back to the bargaining table to work

out these differences.

There is a challenge here. This is operator first national and

their employees. These are not direct government employees. The member

will know that we’ve reached resolution with public service employees

through the bargaining process. I’ll use this opportunity to say that

both parties need to be back at the bargaining table.

To the member’s point about essential services, I couldn’t agree

more. Government has ensured that Handy­DART services for seniors,

for people with mobility challenges, have been maintained throughout

this work disruption so that people can get around. I join with the

member in encouraging these parties to get back to the table and to get

people moving in the Fraser Valley again.

M. de Jong: Well look, I’m going to summarize, as best I can, how that

re­sponse and, more importantly, the response of non-action by the

government, are viewed by those people who are paying the price most

directly for this labour dispute. And that is the term

“lame.”

These tools exist. So the Premier says: “Well, we’re

en­couraging the parties to talk. We’ve offered a mediator.” The

government can do more than that. The government can insist that the

parties sit down with a mediator. The government can order a fact-finder

under the labour code to probe, specifically, what the issues

are.

The Premier and the government and the Labour Minister have

essentially said, “We’re not going to get involved because we want to

preserve the sanctity of the collective bargaining process between the

two parties,” which, of course, thus far has produced nothing and, at

the moment, not even talks.

The application of that principle seems fairly selective.

Preserving the integrity of the collective bargaining process and the

right of the parties to choose certainly didn’t reveal itself in Bill 5,

when there seemed to be another agenda at play on the part of the

government.

[2:10 p.m.]

The Premier can stand in the House and say to the peo­ple of

the Fraser Valley, who have been denied now for weeks and weeks and

months access to transit services, that, well, there is a measure of

essential services. I just want the Premier to know that for seniors who

are trying to access cancer care and preliminary medical treatments

related to that cancer care, they don’t get access to handyDART because

it’s not considered an emergency.

The government has at its disposal the means to ensure (1) that

people facing these critically important health-related needs can have

access. It has chosen not to do so. The government has at its disposal

the tools to insist that the parties sit down and begin to negotiate and

address these issues. It is the Premier and the government who have

chosen not to make use of those tools.

Thirdly, and my next question will relate to this specifically, I

have discovered, on the basis of people coming into the constituency

office, that for those most vulnerable citizens who are receiving a

disability pension, seniors who are receiving social assistance of some

kind, in many cases, they have a portion of their support cheques

deducted — I think it’s in the neighbourhood of $52 — for a transit

pass. Well, the problem is that the government continues to deduct that

amount.

So the government not only is not utilizing any of the tools at

its disposal to try and encourage a settlement, with the strike ongoing

and no transit services available, but apparently the government

continues to deduct money from our most vulnerable citizens to pay for a

service that doesn’t even exist anymore.

Is the Premier prepared to tell the House and commit to the House

that that practice, at least, will come to an end and protect our most

vulnerable citizens from what is an unconscionable, to my mind, move on

the part of the government?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: My apologies to the member for the delay. I wanted to get him as

concrete an answer as possible.

My understanding of the issue is that he is correct. There is a

transit pass deduction from disability. Disability assistance recipients

have the ability, before the fifth of the month, to opt for cash or a

bus pass. The member will re­member that we had some debates back

and forth about bus passes when we were sitting on that side of the

House. We changed the policy when we came over here. But at the core of

it, the member is right.

I think if you’re living with a disability, and you’ve got a lot

going on in your life, the last thing you’re thinking about is, before

the fifth of the month, to notify somebody to get the cash instead of

the bus pass.

We’ve reached out to the Ministry of Social Development. They

advised that they are alive to this issue. In fact, they’ve been working

on it and will be transitioning people to cash instead of transit pass

deduction should the strike continue. I thank the member for drawing the

issue to my attention.

The second piece is around the definition of essential services —

which services are covered, and which aren’t. These are determined by

the Labour Board, not by government. We’re just tracking

down….

We’ve provided B.C. Cancer with $800 million, which includes money

for patient transportation, so for the mem­ber’s constituents that

do have oncology appointments they need to get to, treatments, and so

on, we’ll see whether that B.C. Cancer support can provide that. I’ll

provide that answer later on in this session.

[2:20 p.m.]

In addition, we understand that the essential services agreement

is just that, between the employees and the employer. We may be able to

address this cancer issue, as well, through that agreement. We’ll ask

Labour to have a look at that.

Thank you to the member for bringing forward these issues from his

constituents.

K. Falcon: I’m going to return to the subject of housing and remind the

viewing audience…. A couple of the signature platform commitments made

by this NDP government back in their 2017 election campaign were (1) to

make housing more affordable and (2) to have government build 114,000

units of affordable housing within a ten-year period. That would be over

11,000 units a year.

Now, I must tell you, for the record, that those of us that were

in the private sector at that point, especially people in the housing

sector, did a collective guffaw at that particular commitment, knowing

full well that even the largest residential builders in the private

sector might build 1,500 to 2,000 units in a year. It was laughable to

think that government was somehow going to pole-vault past all of them

and be able to do over 11,000 units a year.

What are the actual results? We’re two terms into this government,

six years with an NDP government, including the current Premier, who was

the Minister Responsible for Housing prior to becoming the Premier.

Well, we’ve ended up with the highest housing prices in North America,

the third highest on the planet. We’ve ended up with the highest average

rents in the entire country of Canada, right here in British

Columbia.

I know the Premier will try to chew up time by talking about…. “We

did this program. We did that. We’re spending this much money here and

that much money there.” These are the cold, hard, indisputable facts and

results of where British Columbians find themselves today: staring right

in the face of the highest prices in North America and the highest

average rents in Canada.

Now, I would argue that the reason this came about was because the

Premier and the NDP government built their entire housing plan on a

total misunderstanding of the market. I want to take us back to 2015,

when this Premier authored a thoroughly discredited study with Andy Yan

that said that the reason we have high housing prices is because of

Chinese foreign buyers. He based that on the fact…. They looked at 172

homes on the west side of Vancouver and said: “Oh gee, 135 of those have

non-anglicized last names. Therefore, that must mean that they are

foreign Chinese buyers.”

That report was thoroughly discredited by virtually everybody,

including Judge Cullen, who pointed out that there was no link between

foreign buyers and housing prices. But it caused a profound rise in

anti-Asian senti­ment in the province of British Columbia, to the

point where, sadly, the city of Vancouver earned the title as the

anti-Asian hate crime capital of North America, with hate crime

incidents growing by up to 600 percent.

It would be no surprise…. This Premier, in trying to take a

thoroughly discredited approach like that, created a huge amount of fear

in the broader community by people that believed: “Oh, I get it. Then, I

guess, the whole housing crisis is because of Chinese foreign

buyers.”

That was never the case. The evidence has clearly substantiated

that that was not the case. In fact, his partner in that discredited

study made it very clear that he initiated this at the Premier’s, then

an opposition MLA, request.

[2:25 p.m.]

The Premier responded at the time, in a Globe and Mail

article of November 2, 2015, with what, frankly, I think is a pretty

cowardly response. “I can’t recall where his study originated from.”

Well, he made it very clear where it originated from. It originated from

the Premier.

I guess my question is a pretty simple one. Will the Premier

apologize to the Asian community for this very discredited study, which

has caused a huge run-up in anti-Asian racism in the

province?

Hon. D. Eby: I think the difference between the Leader of the Opposition and

his party and our party is…. We believe the government needs to be

involved directly in the housing market, including building

housing.

[2:30 p.m.]

He may have laughed when he heard that we were going to work with

non-profits, Indigenous groups, the private sector and the

not-for-profit sector to build 114,000 units of housing, but we’re well

on our way.

We’ve got over 42,000 homes that are complete, that are developed

and made available to people right now. That’s a combination of

different programs. In total, right now over 74,000 homes are either

complete, under construction or funded and in the development initiation

stage with local governments — 74,000 homes. And we are on track to

114,000-unit goal.

I think that British Columbians want governments that shoot high,

that set aspirational goals and work with partners to deliver them, and

that’s what we’re going to do.

Now, the member says that there was a misunderstanding about what

was driving the housing market back in the day and that that

misunderstanding came from me. I’ll say this: I am not afraid to take

action on housing affordability. That includes advocating for the

speculation tax, which our government delivered, and supporting the

foreign buyer tax and expanding the foreign buyer tax.

We’ll be introducing, in the fall session, a flipping tax to go

after those people who buy a home for a short period of time and then

flip it to make money. Families, individuals should not be competing

with short-term speculators in order to be able to buy a place for

themselves to live.

I’m going to walk the member through the history of this important

issue, as he seems to have forgotten some key pieces of what was

happening in the 2015 period. May 2015. This is me talking to the then

Minister of Housing, Rich Coleman. This is me:

“All I’m suggesting is that it would be greatly worthwhile…to

measure the impact of foreign investors, if any, on the B.C. real estate

market.

“…this is very closely tied with an unfortunate history that we

have, certainly in Vancouver, of anti-Asian racism…. We need to be

careful, and we need evidence about what impact, if any, the

international investor class has.

“Clearly, there is a lot of concern about this in my community, and

people need to know whether their concern is overblown or whether it’s

legitimate.

“Again, to the minister,” will he measure “what’s happening in terms

of international and perhaps even domestic investors in property who

don’t live in the units and are simply holding them as

investments?”

The Housing Minister responded to me unequivocally. He said:

“There is no plan at this time to go and do what the member is asking.

We have not had any request to go and do this work,” despite the request

he had just received. “There’s no initiative at this time in government

to go and interfere in the marketplace with regards to housing. There is

no initiative or research that we’re doing from this ministry with

regards to that.”

Shortly after that, in July of 2015, a young woman named Evelyn

Sha, herself of Chinese descent, started the hashtag #giveusthedata in

protest. Again, the Housing Minister responded that there was no need to

collect data: “We worked with the real estate guys for years and have

got data on sales.” This is the context in which a number of academics

began research to try to determine what was happening in the housing

market, given the total unwillingness of the then government to even

look at the issue. And that included Andy Yan.

The pressure built and built until, finally, the Liberal

government agreed to measure the data. They got the numbers back, and

they were shocked: 13.2 percent of the sales in Metro Vancouver were

going to international buyers — 13.2 percent. Previous, the highest

estimate they had given was probably in the neighbourhood of 3 percent.

So this was more than four times what they thought was happening in the

market, when they finally started collecting the data. The net value of

those transactions: $1 billion.

[2:35 p.m.]

In announcing this remarkable data, the member for Abbotsford West

stood up and told media: “We know, with certainty, there are foreign

nationals from countries around the world purchasing residential

properties in B.C. We know that as a fact now and are beginning to be

able to quantify that. We know, at the head of that pack, the largest

group — certainly for the period we studied — was from

China.”

The member for Abbotsford West made that announcement as a senior

minister of the B.C. Liberal government. This led to an emergency

session where the then B.C. Liberal government scrambled to get ahead of

an issue that they had ignored despite repeated questioning.

July 25, 2016, then Premier Christy Clark, in the Vancouver

Sun : “There is evidence now that suggests that very wealthy

foreign buyers have raised the price, the overall price of housing for

people in British Columbia. If we are going to put British Columbians

first, and that is what we’re intending to do, we need to make sure that

we do everything we can to try and keep houses affordable and to try and

make sure that those very wealthy foreign buyers find it a little bit

harder to buy a house in the greater Vancouver area.”

They introduced a bill to implement the foreign buyer tax, July

26, 2016. In this place, the member for Richmond North Centre, who still

sits here…. From Hansard , the member said: “A property transfer

tax on foreign nationals purchasing property in Metro Vancouver will

help slow demand from abroad and ensure that our province’s cities are

not simply another product for financial speculation but a place where

people may live and raise their families.” In the same speech, that

member said that she believed Chinese Canadian families supported the

government’s data collection and the foreign buyer tax. I believe the

same.

The B.C. Liberal Party was so committed to this that, in their

2020 platform, they included the following: if they were elected, which

they weren’t, but if they were elected, they would “implement higher

property taxes for non-residents of Canada to help prevent inflation of

housing prices caused by foreign investors.” That is literally from

their platform. I wonder if the member will apologize for misleading

this House.

K. Falcon: That’s an unbelievable response, and it’s so incredibly

disrespectful to an entire community that has had to live with the

repercussions of decisions he made to bring forward a totally

discredited, flawed so-called study of 172 homes on the west side of

Vancouver, in which 135 non-anglicized names were his example of how

he’s being careful. Well it’s not careful. It’s racist, and trying to

blame Rich Coleman for those kind of racist dog-whistle policies is the

worst excuse imaginable.

When you couple that with the other wild allegations we know he

made during the so-called Chinese money laundering scandal, that was the

other area in which this then Attorney General amped up a lot of

rhetoric that hurt this community…. The question I was asking the

Premier was a pretty straightforward question.

Knowing that Vancouver has now been named the anti-Asian capital

of North America, knowing that it’s terrible that the Asian community

has seen a 600 percent increase in racist attacks and racist comments,

knowing that when the Human Rights Commission looked at the anti-racist

reviews that have been undertaken and noted that real estate was one of

the common themes that would come up, knowing that he was the one that

pushed this entire discredited survey out into the public to create the

mischaracterization of an entire community that has been an absolute

pillar of the building of the province of British Columbia, could he not

do the right thing on the record and apologize to that community for the

fact that that thoroughly discredited study…?

Discredited, by the way, by everyone — I could read through the

list — including Judge Cullen.

[2:40 p.m.]

Could he not stand up and do the right thing and apologize to the

Asian community for the harms he has caused by putting out that

thoroughly discredited so-called study in 2015?

Hon. D. Eby: The debate has reached various levels. We’ve had straight-up

questions. I hope I’ve given my best straight-up answers to the member.

We’ve had political questions. On occasion, I’ll admit delving into

politics in some of my responses, always with a measure of personal

respect for the role of the opposition and the role that all of us have

in this House.

It’s a pretty serious charge to call someone racist in this place,

especially given the history of this place. Let me say and express

disappointment that the member has decided to take this debate in that

direction.

This is a time in the world and in politics where people are

driving racist divides for their own political advantage. Our government

has….

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: Exactly right.

This issue of international money in our housing market, the issue

of money laundering…. These are important things for us to talk about

and address. It’s hard to do in a province that has such a history of

racism. We need to deal with these issues, though.

The rise in anti-Asian racism, which we saw during the pandemic,

in particular, when the President of the United States was literally

calling it “the China virus”…. We saw that wash into British Columbia —

attacks on people of Asian descent in our province. We stood together in

this place to oppose it.

Our government brought the Human Rights Commissioner back and

established it, as I recall, with a vote of…. Every member in this House

voted in support of the new legislation to bring the Human Rights

Commissioner back. A recognition, I think, that being the only province

without a Human Rights Commissioner, especially given the challenges of

racism in our province, was not the right thing. Those moments of

solidarity and standing together against racism are critically

important.

Frankly, these difficult issues deserve more than empty personal

attacks. That’s all I’ll say about that.

[2:45 p.m.]

The rise in anti-Asian racism that we saw during the

pan­demic is obviously unacceptable. Government took action. I

want to assure members.

Among other things, this government is funding a new Chinese

Canadian Museum in Chinatown. We believe strongly, and I’m sure we have

the support of the opposition in this, that education about the critical

role of Chi­nese Canadians in the history of this province, the

longtime role of building this province, and letting people know about

that, see that history at the storytelling centre, at the new Chinese

Canadian Museum, is an essential part of fighting racism. We funded

anti-Asian racism projects for multiculturalism grant

programs.

Now, it’s important to note…. It doesn’t matter if you’re Chinese

or not Chinese. If you’re Asian appearing in British Columbia, you can

be subject to these vicious racist attacks.

The Japanese-Canadian community, as well, is a community we’ve

partnered with to recognize, again, our terrible history with that

community, with the incarceration of more than 22,000 Japanese Canadians

during the Second World War, to build a new home, in partnership with

them, for Japanese elders in the community, educational work with them

and, ultimately, a new monument here to recognize that horrible moment

in our history.

We have a K-to-12 anti-racism action plan for kids in school. This

is the chance for us to reach out and really provide that base

understanding that British Columbia is an open and welcoming province

and that our diversity is, in fact, our strength with young

people.

We have a network across the province to respond to racist attacks

that we fund.

I’ll just read a quote, again, from myself. The member heard the

quote, from Hansard , about the proposal to track international

buyers. This is about money laundering.

Peter German, of course, was the former police officer, senior

RCMP officer, that did the review into money laundering in British

Columbia casinos.

“Anyone who uses the German report to legitimize anti-Chinese

sentiment is intentionally distorting the findings in order to

perpetuate racist attacks….

“Dr. German’s report has made it quite clear the money-laundering

problem in Lower Mainland casinos is connected to local organized crime.

Before we point our finger at anyone else, we must work on issues such

as demand for drugs here in B.C. and ensure we have the necessary law

enforcement response to white-collar crime and money

laundering.”

I said that in October 2018, at the time the report came

out.

The problem with these kinds of deeply personal and, frankly,

slanderous attacks is that they can shut down discussion about important

issues. One of those issues is the speculation and vacancy tax and the

foreign buyer tax, which was brought in by the previous administration.

I wonder if the member supports the foreign buyer tax or whether he

would repeal it.

Nine times the Leader of the Opposition has opposed the

speculation and vacancy tax, standing up for people who own a second or

a third empty home.

“We’ve got to be careful not to just demonize people that own a

condominium or a second place, or third, or whatever the case may be.”

That’s the Kelowna Daybreak South .

“These are people that have a second property, and they’re being

forced to pay an additional cost.” That’s the Darpan in April

of this year.

“What this speculation tax is…. It is a tax on people that own

second homes.”

“The speculation tax actually refers to people who own second

properties. So lots of British Columbians will own a cabin at the lake

or maybe a second investment condo or something like that.”

“I’m talking about all the taxes they introduced — the speculation

tax, the vacancy tax, all the new taxes on vacant land.”

On and on and on. The member opposes the speculation and vacancy

tax.

[2:50 p.m.]

It’s important to be clear what this tax does. We recognize that

our population is growing really quickly in this province. That’s good

news. The record-setting number of people choosing to move here from

other provinces and from other countries need somewhere to

live.

If you own a home in a speculation tax area — this is a city with

a very low vacancy rate — and you’re keeping it empty…. We’re working

really hard to get housing built. We have a 650 percent increase in

purpose-built rental housing, with 14,546 completed last year; housing

starts at a record high, up 70 percent since the opposition leader was

Finance Minister; housing completions up 50 percent over the same time

period. We’re working hard to get that housing open to address the needs

of all these folks who are moving to British Columbia.

Leaving a place vacant as an investment in one of these cities

where people can’t find housing: that has external costs. It drives

homelessness. It drives rent unaffordability. So putting a tax on that

activity to discourage it is the right thing to do. I understand that

the member opposes that. I understand now that he opposes, potentially,

the foreign buyer tax as well.

These are important but challenging housing issues. We need for

the people who are coming to British Columbia to take advantage of the

opportunities we have here…. A record low unemployment rate; 20,000 jobs

created already so far this year. They see opportunity in this province.

We need housing for them.

To hear the member oppose not just the demand-side measures that

our government has put in place but also the supply-side measures, to

vote against the housing targets for local governments, to speak out

against the idea that you should be able to build a small multi-unit

home without a bunch of red tape from the local government, to oppose

those kinds of measures…. The member is part of the official opposition,

but surely he recognizes that there are some things we should do to

address the housing crisis, to support families looking for a place to

live.

K. Falcon: I’ll end this point by reminding the Premier that it’s never the

wrong time to do the right thing. We all have a responsibility to choose

our words carefully in this House. We have a particular responsibility

when we know those words or actions or studies or whatever the case may

be can have real ramifications.

When you see so clearly that right here in the city of Vancouver

and right across the province, but particularly in the city of

Vancouver…. When the incidents of anti-Asian racism are the highest in

North America, then clearly it is never the wrong time to say: “I’m

sorry.” That probably wasn’t a good idea to release a study that was

flawed completely and may have sent the wrong message, which spiked

anti-Asian racism to Asian-Canadians, who have been the builders of the

province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

K. Falcon: I want to, Premier, talk about your specific budget. I’d ask the

Premier to please be respectful and shorten his answers. I know he wants

to put a lot of information out there and try and pretend that they’re

doing all these great things, but I’d prefer it if the Premier would

answer the questions so that we can actually canvass some important

information that the public would like to know about.

Interjection.

K. Falcon: Is there an echo in here?

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members.

K. Falcon: The member from Powell River apparently wants to continue talking

while we’re trying to ask questions. I would ask the member to be

respectful.

Interjection.

The Chair: Members. Members.

K. Falcon: I want to talk about the Premier’s budget. I announced that I was

leaving government back in 2012. I note the Premier’s budget since

2016-2017 has increased by 78 percent.

That’s pretty remarkable considering they’ve increased the

Premier’s budget in the Premier’s office by 78 percent, yet we’re

getting the worst results we’ve ever seen in housing. We’re getting the

worst results we’ve ever seen in crime and social disorder and chaos as

a result of his soft-on-crime policies and his catch-and-release system.

We’re getting the worst possible results we’ve ever seen in terms of

mental health and addictions. And we’re getting the worst results we’ve

ever seen in the health care sector. Yet the budget has gone up 78

percent.

[2:55 p.m.]

Despite the fact that we’ve already added a new, massive increase

in the bureaucracy, almost a third in the six years that the Premier’s

government has been in power, he still felt it necessary to invite new

consultants, with four special advisers.

I have a simple question of the Premier. It should be information

he has readily available. What are the payment details and hourly rates

for his special advisers Doug White, Penny Ballem, Lisa Helps and Craig

Jones?

N. Simons: It’s an honour and privilege to welcome to the

chamber….

The Chair: Could you seek leave, please?

N. Simons: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: Yes. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy is the

MLA whose students from Talmud Torah school are here visiting. I just want

to make sure that everybody here gives them a nice, warm welcome.

Welcome to Victoria.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: The member suggested that the Premier’s office’s budget has grown

dramatically.

In 2009, Gordon Campbell’s Premier’s office budget was higher than

the current office budget in today’s dollars. At the time, $14.1

million; in today’s dollars, $19.4 million. The source is the Bank of

Canada inflation calculator. Of course, our current office budget is

$16.045 million, as I read at the beginning of the motion, about $3½

million less than the 2008-09 year.

The Premier’s office budget also compares favourably to other

major provinces. Ontario’s Premier’s office budget is $57½ million,

Quebec’s is $50.3 million, Al­berta’s is $34.6 million and B.C.’s

is $16.045 million. We’re actually closer to Nova Scotia’s budget than

Alberta’s in terms of overall cost.

[3:00 p.m.]

The member is correct. I feel very fortunate to have

ex­perts in a number of different areas assisting government,

especially on cross-ministry responsibilities.

There is one person the member included in the list who is

retained, actually, through the legal services branch, lawyer Craig

Jones. As a result…. We are unable to disclose the terms of his

retainer. We don’t disclose LSB retainers. That is a practice that was

in place under the previous admin­istration and that continues

today. It is a matter of solicitor-client privilege.

Doug White is on a one-year contract with the Premier’s office,

with a maximum cost of $275,000.

Dr. Penny Ballem is on a one-year contract with the Premier’s

office at a cost of $170,000.

Ms. Lisa Helps is on a six-month contract with the Premier’s

office at a cost of $85,000. That breaks down to $80,000 for

compensation and $5,000 for travel.

K. Falcon: The Premier again tries to conflate other prov­inces’

budgets, in the Premier’s office, with his own. Of course, it’s not an

apples to apples comparison. Many of those other offices include in

their budget vote the Lieutenant-Governor’s office expenses, etc., which

we do not here.

I would remind the Premier…. The Office of the Premier budget, in

2012, was $9 million. Salaries and benefits only increased 1.5 percent

in the last five years of the previous B.C. Liberal government, from

2012 to 2017. The Premier can check that. Those are actual numbers. Just

to make sure we get things accurate on the record here.

The Premier has made a decision to appoint Penny Ballem as a

part-time adviser to health care, as he mentioned, at a cost of

$170,000. Yet we’ve seen absolutely no, not just any improvement in the

health care system…. We’re now experiencing the worst health care

outcomes in the country.

Can the Premier please justify why he’s spending $165,000 to add

yet another layer of health care bureaucracy?

Hon. D. Eby: If we might just have two minutes and return to the chamber, while

my staff are checking for the answer. Thank you.

The Chair: We will recess for two minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:03 p.m. to 3:07 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order. We’re on Vote 11, the

Office of the Premier.

Hon. D. Eby: The member asked about Dr. Ballem. I think British Columbians will

know her best as standing up the largest vaccination program in our

province’s history, in record time, leading to exceptional results for

British Columbia, including compared with provinces across Canada. She

is a force. Anyone who has had the opportunity to work with her would

immediately understand why I was so thrilled that she agreed to stay on

and continue working with government on the health file.

In fact, we have an exceptional health team. Our Minister of

Health is exceptional. His deputy minister, Stephen Brown, is recognized

as a leader in Canada. Dr. Bonnie Henry is holding down the public

health file still, making sure that British Columbians are looked after.

From the public health side of things, we have an exceptional team, and

Dr. Ballem is part of that.

Dr. Ballem is working on cancer care, working with the ministry

and B.C. Cancer on finalizing the cancer strategy and its approval and

rollout by government, including the $800 million B.C. Cancer used to

recruit oncologists and support people that need transportation to

cancer care through B.C. Cancer, clinical trials of new cancer drugs,

the research that those oncologists are going to do. Remarkable work.

We’re going to do everything we can, everything and anything, to support

British Columbians struggling with cancer. Dr. Ballem has taken this as

a lead file.

On primary care, she is assisting in the implementation of the new

agreement with family physicians. We are already seeing impressive

results from her support to the Ministry of Health. I think it has been

about three months since we signed that deal with the Doctors of B.C. We

now have 482 more family doctors who are under the new payment model,

who were not previously billing under the family practice codes. These

are 482 doctors we brought off the sidelines and into family

practice.

That’s great news for British Columbians looking for a family

doctor. More work to do but a really positive start.

[3:10 p.m.]

Also, nurses. The work of the Ministry of Health — Stephen, the

minister; the College of Nurses. The progress we’re seeing in recruiting

the nurses we desperately need in our health care system. A new deal

with the nurses where we’re going to be working together and in line to

deliver additional nurse support in hospitals.

A 6.7 percent increase in nurses in B.C. in 2022. When we compare

that to other jurisdictions, Alberta saw a 1 percent decline, and

Ontario saw just a 1.7 percent in­crease. We saw a 6.7 percent

increase.

The changes to the new streamlined pathway for internationally

trained nurses is paying huge dividends. B.C. is the destination of

choice for internationally trained nurses.

There was an

article in the Globe and Mail a couple of

days ago; 2,800 internationally trained nurses are already going through

this pathway. You’ll remember that we pay for their costs to go through

this, so they have to commit to working in British Columbia — 2,800

internationally trained nurses. It’s wonderful news and great news for

those health care workers that are tired, that gave their all during the

pandemic, and we’re asking them to give even more as our population

grows and demand and strain continues in our health care

system.

She’s also working with B.C. emergency health services around the

ambulance services in rural and remote communities, continuing that

critically important work for Brit­ish Columbians.

Definitely, I agree with the member. The health care system is

under strain. We have massive population growth. COVID took a huge toll.

But we are seeing very positive impacts of the changes we put in place,

the new agreements, the new systems, the 602 new nursing seats across

B.C., the integrated health human resource strategy, new cancer care

action plan, and so much more.

I look forward to talking more about all the work we’re doing on

health to improve care for British Columbians.

K. Falcon: That was an interesting overview of all the things that apparently

Penny Ballem has accomplished. It makes me question why, indeed, do we

then have a minister? Apparently, the minister needs a supervisor,

because we already know we’ve got a Health Minister who has a political

office staff of six, including — bizarrely, because I was in government

for 12 years and never saw this — two chiefs of staff. I’m not sure why

you have two chiefs of staff and a budget of $1.158 million.

There are also two parliamentary secretaries for Health, a deputy

minister and, of course, the deputy minister’s staff of 31. Of course,

you’ve got the Ministry of Health. You’ve got five health authorities,

the Provincial Health Services Authority as the sixth.

All this administration and the special adviser, what kind of

results have we got? Well, today, ironically, the Doctors of B.C. put

out a statement saying that all of the hospitals are in shambles right

now. We’ve got the Langley Memorial Hospital saying: “Don’t even bring

patients here; we’re so concerned.” Now the Doctors of B.C. are saying:

“Well, that situation in Langley Memorial is actually reflected right

across the province.”

Our cancer care has gone from the very best in North America, when

I was proud to be the Health Minister, to among the worst in the country

today. One is left…. I’m sure the public would ask themselves: what on

earth is this special adviser adding that we already haven’t got,

apparently, with his Minister of Health, who’s supposed to be doing such

a great job?

Well, it’s just a total dissonance from what the public is

actually seeing out there. That’s not me saying that. That’s just the

facts that we know are out there, that we see every day and hear every

day from our friends and neighbours.

I note he’s also hired Lisa Helps to advise on the record of the

government in housing. Now we know it’s the worst in North America. We

know the rents are the highest in Canada. But his selection is

interesting to me, somebody with absolutely no background in housing,

none, zero, who was a mayor of Victoria and, frankly, has a very dubious

record there. In fact, housing prices from the time that Lisa Helps was

mayor in 2014 through to October 2022 increased by 140 percent. Average

rents rose by over $500 per month during that same period of

time.

[3:15 p.m.]

Could the Premier advise us what skill set this particular

individual is bringing to dealing with the housing affordability

situation, which has become the worst in North America under his

government?

Hon. D. Eby: I am profoundly grateful for the leadership of the Minister of

Health on the health file. His work is reflected in the deal with the

nurses, the success we’ve had adding nurses to our hospital and the

2,800 nurses we have in the queue. With the registry, through our new,

streamlined process, we’re now the jurisdiction of choice nationally for

nurses to come and work to get those nurses into the hospital,

supporting people right now. It’s a huge priority.

The exceptional work opening hospitals across the prov­ince

in underserved communities where hospitals were long overdue: Surrey,

Fort St. James, Terrace and the new St. Paul’s Hospital…. It’s critical

health infrastructure that, as I say, was needed many years ago. Now we

have massive population growth on infrastructure that was not only not

invested for so many years, but actually it was the Leader of the

Opposition who sold the land for the hospital in Surrey.

[3:20 p.m.]

I accept the core, though, that our health care system is under

huge strain and needs urgent response. We’ve been doing that work. We

will continue to do that work. I ran through a number of the pieces

about that.

The member then went into the issue of Ms. Helps and her

experience. I’m going to read a quote from someone who was talking about

what the issue was, related to getting more housing supply, to respond

to our massive population growth.

“We’ve got to get more supply into the market. We can’t let local

government off the hook. They are a big part of the problem, and I can

tell you this. I’ll make sure that local government is going to do their

bit and that we get timely approval so that we get product into the

marketplace, so that we offer young people and first-time buyers a real

opportunity to get into the housing market, because that’s what we

need.”

You know who that person was? That’s right.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: The member says “brilliant.” That was the Leader of the Opposition

who said that. Why would it be, today, that he’s surprised that I got

the chair of the Urban Mayors Caucus — who, having retired from

politics, knows and has relationships with municipal leaders across the

province — to coordinate some of our housing work?

There are huge issues with local government. I have spoken out

strongly on this issue, and we are doing work with local governments,

including setting targets for them that match our population growth,

targets under a new law that, of course, the opposition voted against,

before they voted for it. We’re working with local governments on our

new legislation we’ll be introducing in the fall, allowing people to

build multiple units on a single-family lot — a small multi-unit home —

without any additional red tape. Again, the Leader of the Opposition

opposed that.

We recognize the permitting process, both provincially and

municipally, is too slow. We’ve got to work with local governments to

make sure that housing gets approved quickly so it can get built. A

house sitting on a planner’s desk can’t be lived in, whether that public

servant is in the provincial government or is in a municipal government

somewhere.

Ms. Helps’ experience is well placed there, with her proposals

around expediting approvals in the city of Victoria, increasing gentle

density in that community so there were homes that people with middle

incomes could actually afford, to get into the housing market. It was a

leadership role among mayors. I saw her work with the Urban Mayors

Caucus and how she brought people together. That is exactly what she’s

doing to support the government’s housing work as we continue to respond

to the urgent need of people to get a place they can afford, whether to

rent or to buy.

I still struggle to understand why the opposition op­poses

so many of these measures.

K. Falcon: I would remind the Premier that most of those members of the B.C.

Urban Mayors Caucus got voted out of office, including the mayor’s

friend that he was campaigning for in Vancouver, Kennedy Stewart, one of

the most disastrous mayors the city of Vancouver has ever seen, and

somebody that this Premier felt necessary to not only endorse but go out

and campaign and door-knock for. Although interestingly, the polls were

showing that he was going to win the race, it turned into a blowout,

just as a reminder for that member.

But the other thing I would remind the Premier of is that he

talked about supply into the market. You’re darn right I said that. The

problem with this NDP government is that for six years, the vast

majority of the time, they focused on adding costs to housing. A

blizzard of new taxes. That’s the NDP world. Here’s how they think:

“Let’s add a whole bunch of costs to housing. That’s going to make

housing more affordable.”

Well, that’s how we ended up with the highest housing prices in

North America, because only in their second term did this Premier, then

the Minister Responsible for Housing, say: “Gee, I wonder if housing

supply might have something to do with the challenge we’re facing.” No

kidding. But the fact of the matter is, you’re bringing on people that

have no experience whatsoever in the housing sector.

Yes, experience in local government is one aspect, but as I

pointed out in the quote that he correctly read into the record, a big

part of the problem is local government. They’re not getting the supply

into the marketplace, and that’s why that has to change. I’ll have time

to speak about that more if the Premier will keep his answers

tight.

I do want to point out to the Premier that the reason I raise

these questions about the bloating and exploding bureaucracy in the

Premier’s office is that 46 percent of British Columbians are literally

$200 a month away from not being able to meet their family

budgets.

[3:25 p.m.]

There are a lot of people struggling after two terms of NDP

government, with the highest fuel prices in North America, the highest

housing prices in North America, the highest average rents in Canada,

the highest grocery price increases and the highest inflation in the

country.

All of those pressures are making it more difficult. So when they

see the Premier’s exploding budget in his own Premier’s office, it

frankly is a dissonance that doesn’t connect with the reality that most

people are facing.

Now, we know the Premier has no qualms about spending more

taxpayers’ money for more political control and his already bloated

office, as evidenced by the $1.3 million increase in salaries and

benefits over the last year alone. At an all-time record, nearly $14

million is now going to his high-paid advisers. That’s a 73 percent

increase in salaries and benefits since 2016-2017.

Can the Premier please break down the number of full-time,

part-time and contract staff being paid through the $14 million in

salaries through Vote 11? How can he justify this massive increase in

salaries in the middle of an affordability crisis?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member asked me to keep my an­swers short, but then he

raises a whole pile of issues that we need to address.

The member made a series of allegations about housing — that our

government was opposed to supply or didn’t care about supply or

something. I only wish that when he was on this side of the House, he

had cared as much about bringing housing supply in. We wouldn’t be in

this situation today.

We have ten times more housing underway — that’s affordable and

social housing — than when the B.C. Liberals left government. We’re

already opening that housing at twice the rate of the B.C. Liberal

government, and more is coming in all the time.

We set records for the number of new homes under construction —

the highest in 60 years in this province. Purpose-built rental

construction is up 650 percent from when that member was the Finance

Minister. Housing starts up 70 percent from when that member was the

Finance Minister. Housing completions up 50 percent, compared to when

that member was the Finance Minister.

We’re building stuff like student housing. In 16 years, they only

built 130 student housing beds. What did he think would happen with

demand? We’ve got nearly 8,000 open or underway in five

years.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: Members are shouting, but they can get a chance to stand up. They

should ask the question. This is estimates. Ask the

questions.

The Chair: Premier has the floor.

Hon. D. Eby: The member says he’s concerned about affordability. Of course,

they would eliminate our rent cap on rentals, saving the average family

$2,500 a year. Under the old government, under the previous member,

landlords could raise rents at inflation plus an additional 2 percent

year over year. That’s the member that put tolls on the bridge. That’s

the member that raised MSP every year by 10 percent. He increased MSP,

increased ICBC premiums by 11 percent.

But he did cut costs for some people. He gave tax breaks to big

corporations and the top 2 percent of income earners. That’s

interesting.

And then the member stands up in this place and says that our

government put taxes on housing. We put taxes on empty units that this

member would get rid of, which would eliminate 20,000 rental units at a

time that we cannot afford to do that.

The member has asked about the Premier’s office salaries and

expenditures. I’ll remind the member. In 2008-’09, Gordon Campbell’s

office — the member was there — $3 million more, in today’s dollar, than

the current budget. We are under the budgets of the Premier’s office in

Ontario, Quebec and Alberta by tens of millions of dollars. We are

continuing to work on the priorities of British Columbians.

The member’s record on affordability, after voting against the

affordability credits in the supplementary estimates, voting against the

support for B.C. Ferries to make sure that ferry fares are stable and

that increases aren’t 10 percent a year for the next four years, voting

against the advanced 911 system that the province would provide support

to municipalities so property taxes wouldn’t go up.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: The member’s shouting at me. But….

The Chair: Could I call the House to order. I will also mention that we

are on Vote 11. If people could keep their comments to Vote 11, it

would be greatly appreciated.

Hon. D. Eby: Absolutely, hon. Chair. Thank you for the reminder.

Vote 11 is about the Premier’s office budget. We are well under

the 2008 spending expenditure in this office, under the previous

government, and we’re doing better than other provinces by a significant

margin. We’re going to act responsibly and use those resources to take

action on the priorities of British Columbians and keep doing that

work.

K. Falcon: The Premier, again, in typical fashion, is being deceptive and not

answering the question.

It was a very specific question, Premier. It was: what is the

breakdown of full-time, part-time and contract staff that makes up the

$14 million in salaries in Vote 11? Will you please provide

that?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member has asked a very detailed question. We don’t have those

specific breakdowns. We’re endeavouring to count the numbers for him to

be able to answer that. If he wants to ask another question, we can come

back to that specific factual answer.

K. Falcon: Great. I want to make sure we get that on the record. I’ll wait

while your staff is pulling that together, and we can move on to another

question.

Related again…. Because we’ve got a huge challenge of

affordability in this province, where people are struggling after two

terms of NDP government…. We also see that one of the Premier’s very

first decisions when he became Premier was to hand out some very

controversial severance deals, including a $600,000 severance to Lori

Wanamaker, only to appoint her the very same day to the B.C. Hydro

board, a position that pays $93,000. This kind of largesse at a time

when British Columbians are struggling to meet their monthly family

expenditures is shocking, to say the least.

Can the Premier justify this very questionable $600,000 severance

payout and the immediate, same-day appointment to another job paying

$93,000 on the B.C. Hydro board?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I am advised Ms. Wanamaker did not accept the stipend from B.C.

Hydro. Perhaps that addresses the member’s concern.

In terms of severance generally, this is determined by the PSA

according to human resource guidelines and policies that haven’t changed

since the member was in government.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: I am advised that Ms. Wanamaker did not accept the stipend from

B.C. Hydro for her service on the board there.

As far as her severance and severance generally, the amounts that

are paid to individuals are determined by the PSA according to policies

and procedures that were in place when the member was sitting on this

side of the House, and they haven’t changed.

K. Falcon: We’ll confirm whether that is the case, for sure.

I also note the former chief of staff to the former Premier, Geoff

Meggs, received a $340,000 severance at the age of 71. Perhaps even more

concerning was NDP insider Amber Hockin, who received a payout of

$190,000 after a very short stint as this Premier’s deputy chief of

staff.

Can the Premier explain the rationale behind providing these kinds

of generous severance payouts, particularly to someone who voluntarily

resigned after accepting the position, while many British Columbians are

facing the daily challenge of just paying rent or putting food on the

table?

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows we have legal obligations when it comes to

severance and changing staff. These obligations are determined by

legislation and case law in British Columbia. The amounts are determined

by the public service, and we follow all appropriate public service

policies.

Amber Hockin served government for years, not just for November.

I’m grateful to her for her years of service.

In any transition, the member will be aware, you have to evaluate

the structure of the organization and the needs going forward. The job

description and the responsibilities for the deputy chief of staff role

changed during the transition. That resulted, ultimately, in a change of

staff. Previously, for example, the position did a lot of HR work. It

now focuses more on public engagement.

I hope that’s of assistance to the member.

K. Falcon: Again, I note for the Premier that in the case of Amber Hockin,

the NDP insider, she voluntarily resigned.

It seems strange to me that when someone voluntarily resigns, you

send them out the door with a $190,000 payout at the time when families

are struggling, as I say, just to pay their rent and to put food on the

table. This just seems, to me, indicative of the kind of government

we’re seeing, where wasteful spending is just a matter of course. I

haven’t even gotten into infrastructure projects. God forbid. If the

public could hear those stories, they’d be horrified.

[3:45 p.m.]

I do want to touch on the issue of another failed NDP promise,

very similar to the 114,000 homes they promised — it was laughable; they

never even came close to achieving — in the ten-year period. They don’t

talk about it anymore, of course, because they’re doing a refresh of the

housing plan.

One of the other areas they promised was, remarkably…. They would

eliminate all portables in Surrey within four years. As we looked to see

how they are doing on that program, after two terms of an NDP

government, by the way — they’re in their sixth year — we found out that

they not only had not eliminated the portables. They actually doubled

the portables in Surrey to the point where we have the school trustees,

with one voice, saying they’re now having to look at double-decker

portables. There are so many portables in Surrey. They’re running out of

space on the school grounds to put all these portables.

At some point, when you’ve taken up a big chunk of the parking

lot, when you’ve taken up a big chunk of the field…. It’s difficult for

teachers to have anywhere to park or for children to have anywhere to

play.

I’d like the Premier to address why they would make such an

outlandish promise and why, instead of actually eliminating portables,

his NDP government has doubled them.

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows, and I understand why, that we have legal

obligations when there’s a change of staff in government that we have to

meet.

When Christy Clark came in as Premier, taking over from Gordon

Campbell, she paid out — the same party — $12 million in severance. When

I transitioned in from former Premier Horgan, we paid out $1.3 million

in severance.

I do understand why the member is asking these questions. It is

important. So is context when he talks about different approaches by

different governments.

On the important question of schools for kids, especially in the

fast-growing community of Surrey…. This is an issue close to the heart,

certainly, of our government and a priority for us, from the previous

Premier to myself and our new Education Minister, whose home is in

Surrey.

Just in terms of making sure that resources are available, our

latest budget invests two and a half times more in building and

upgrading schools than when the Leader of the Opposition was the Finance

Minister. We’re putting the resources in, and the results are

coming.

New and expanded schools are open now, so 655 seats at the new

Edgewood Elementary; 300 seats and an addition at Pacific Heights

Elementary; 605 new seats at Douglas Elementary; 150 seats and an

addition at Frost Road Elementary; 100 seats at Coyote Creek Elementary

— that’s an addition; 700 seats and an addition at Sullivan Heights

Secondary; 250 seats and an addition at Sunnyside Elementary; 190 seats

and an addition at Morgan Elementary; 195 seats and an addition at White

Rock Elementary.

[3:50 p.m.]

Many more new and expanded schools on the way for kids. A new

school, Ta’talu Elementary. Semiahmoo Trail Elementary, Kwantlen Park

Secondary and K.B. Woodward Elementary are all getting expansions.

Snokomish Elementary, a new school. South Meridian Elementary, an

expansion. Tamanawis Secondary, an expansion. Guildford Park Secondary,

an expansion. Fleetwood Park Secondary, an expansion. Clayton Heights

Secondary, an ex­pansion. Forsyth Road Elementary, an expansion.

We’ve secured a site for Darts Hill elementary school and for Redwood

Heights elementary school.

In

summary, since we formed government, six new schools and many

school expansions were completed for Surrey kids.

The member — I’m glad it’s a priority for him now. But when he was

Finance Minister, he sold off public land that could have been used for

schools. He flatlined education spending, and the results were that the

opposition did not open any new schools in Surrey in their last four

years as government. They only opened one addition. While members on

that side were in charge, the number of portables in Surrey nearly

doubled.

Now, Surrey is growing incredibly quickly: 250,000 peo­ple

moved to B.C. in the last two years, and we know that Surrey has seen a

huge portion of that growth — 10,000 student seats, with more to come.

The priorities of parents in Surrey are our priorities. We’re working

hard with the community to deliver those schools.

I’ll just note that I’m happy to answer the questions. I’m happy

to take the questions, but this was the member who was yelling “Vote 11”

at me just a few minutes ago.

K. Falcon: I know the member doesn’t like to purposely put out

misinformation, but I would note that the severance that he mentioned

that happened under Christy Clark was actually $2.4 million, not $12

million. I’m sure the Premier wouldn’t put out wrong information on

purpose, though, frankly, I’m not so sure.

I would remind him that he listed off a bunch of schools —

notably, many that were started under our government. I thank the

Premier for that, but the question was actually about their…. Once

again, they never like to talk about results and outcomes.

The result of their promise to eliminate portables was they

doubled them. We actually reduced them by 100. I can tell them the exact

numbers: from 370 to 273 by 2017. Under his government, they more than

doubled them. Worse still, the situation is so bad that the entire board

in Surrey has been raising the alarm, pointing out that they’re going to

have to start looking at double-decker portables. Certainly, I’d never

even heard the term during the entire time I was in

government.

Again, getting back to housing. Because of the Premier’s challenge

and how long it takes to get answers, in trying to get to a number of

areas here…. Given the failed housing policy of this NDP government,

which has resulted, again, in the worst outcomes in North America —

important to point out — the Premier, presumably, in an attempt to try

and demonstrate that they’re doing something, has talked about a

refreshed housing strategy. That apparently includes rushing through

changes to strata rental restrictions without much thought.

What it led to was literally 230 stratas converted to 55-plus age

restrictions, taking 6,900 units out of the market for young people.

Now, the goal of the Premier’s ill-considered changes to the Strata Act

was supposed to be making more units available for young people. In

fact, he achieved the exact opposite, by seeing 230 strata condos,

representing almost 7,000 units of strata housing, suddenly converted to

55-plus.

Could the Premier please admit that these hasty and ill-conceived

changes to the strata rental restrictions have had negative consequences

for younger renters and that this rushed policy implementation may have

been a mistake.

M. Starchuk: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Starchuk: Joining us in the gallery right now are the grade 10 to 12 students

from the Cloverdale Learning Centre, who are here with Tracey Lane. They are

here to watch the debate on budget estimates for the Office of the Premier.

It was perfect timing that you got to hear the little blurb about the schools. Sorry that

you couldn’t stay longer.

Anyway, could everybody make them feel welcome.

[3:55 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: The member again raised a number of issues in the question. I’m

happy to do my best to address them. There are 33,000 strata buildings,

approximately, in the province, and 230 have converted to

55-plus.

What the member is referring to is legislation where we ended all

rental restriction bylaws and limited any age restriction bylaws to

55-plus only. The buildings that this particularly affected were

buildings that were built after 2012, because from 2012, new buildings

that were constructed were not allowed to have rental

restrictions.

There were a number of buildings that had rules that residents had

to be 19-plus. People would be living in them, they would be a couple,

they would become pregnant, and they would have to move out of the

building because the baby was not allowed to stay in the building

because the baby was under the age of 19.

[4:00 p.m.]

Profoundly unjust, unfair, not right, and we had to fix it. So we

did. We got rid of that 19-plus age restriction. We ended rental

restriction bylaws. I was stopped by a young woman in my constituency.

She said: “Thanks for changing that. I moved in with my boyfriend, but I

want to keep my unit.” No comment. She wanted to keep it as a backup.

Didn’t want to sell it. And she said: “I wasn’t able to rent it out, so

I felt so bad. I was keeping an empty place. I know people want a place

to rent, and the change that you made meant that I can rent that place

out now.”

We know that happened in literally thousands of strata units:

2,800 claimed a speculation and vacancy tax exemption based on the fact

that their building had rental restrictions. So almost 3,000 units

brought back onto the market, or at least paying speculation and vacancy

tax now.

The member is right — 230 buildings looked at the situation and

said: “Okay, we’re going to make sure that our building is 55 plus. This

is a restriction we’re allowed to put in place.” Seniors looking for

rental housing are a significant group in our province. It’s not a bad

thing to have rental units available in a 55-plus unit for

seniors.

What happened, if you can believe it, is some of these buildings

went 55 plus and then issued eviction notices to owners in the buildings

that had been there the whole time who were under 55. There were parents

with kids who wrote in to government and said: “Hold on a sec. I just

got an eviction notice because my building is going 55 plus, and I’m not

allowed to live here anymore.” In this session, we passed legislation to

fix that issue. The regulation is imminent.

Is it a mistake to make empty units available for rental? Not if

you sit on this side of the House. But having seen that member speak

again and again and again against the speculation and vacancy tax, now

today against the idea that if you own a strata unit you can rent it

out, that you should be able to be told that you have to keep it vacant,

that he thinks it was a mistake to address that issue, that he thought

it was right that a couple that had a kid in a 19-plus building would

have to sell their unit and leave, that it was right that they’d be

evicted…. Again, I struggle to understand.

The member stands up and says: “There are big challenges in

housing in this province. We need to address housing.” Then he stands up

and says: “Wasn’t it a mistake to make empty units available for

people?” I guess he can explain that to voters.

The reference on the Christy Clark severance. The mem­ber

suggested I was engaging in misinformation. I’m happy to give citations

to the member anytime. Article’s called “Severance After Changeover,”

written by Rob Shaw, published December 19, 2022. The quote: “In 2017,

taxpayers paid out almost $12 million to 133 staffers when the B.C.

Liberals were replaced by the new NDP government. The difference in this

case is that the governing party didn’t change, only the

leaders.”

K. Falcon: Of course I know I can’t keep correcting the record. The Premier

likes to read off articles and not budget documents. But I will just

point out that as a result of the Premier’s hasty decisions around the

strata rental restrictions, up to 7,000 extra units with restrictions

have now emerged where there were none before. That’s just reality.

Those 7,000 units, no longer available as a result of the Premier’s not

considering how the market might operate when you make changes like

that.

I would like to move, though, onto another area that I think

typifies in many ways why this government is unable to get anything

done, especially around housing. This is an example where nearly two

years ago, the entire village of Lytton burnt to the ground in a

devastating wildfire that destroyed the entire village. Despite the NDP

promises to create their “community for the future,” the response has

lacked any kind of urgency and demonstrated their total inability to

handle something as simple as getting a community back on

track.

Delays in clearing wreckage, soil testing and addressing

archaeological sites have further impeded the process. Residents feel

abandoned by this government, and the Premier hasn’t even visited the

place. I’ve been there, by the way, on two occasions. The Premier hasn’t

even visited the town.

The lack of progress has left the community without a single

shovel in the ground for any home or business, raising questions about

this government’s commitment to supporting them. They’ve spent $32

million so far without any tangible results. Can the Premier please

explain how it’s possible to spend $32 million and not have a single

shovel in the ground two years later?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: First piece. I want to correct myself. I mis­spoke. Wrong

article. The correct

article is the CBC, April 30, 2011, and the actual

spending in Christy Clark’s administration was $2.4 million versus $1.3

million, not $12 million versus $1.3 million.

The absolutely horrific destruction of an entire community by

wildfire, seen by people around the world as a real demonstration of the

horrific power of climate-related disaster…. Early morning on June 30,

2021, a wildfire destroyed the whole city of Lytton in minutes. Two

people died. There is still an RCMP investigation underway about the

cause of the fire. Ninety percent of the structures in the village site

were damaged. Most of the commercial and public services in the village,

124 residences, 28 commercial properties and 45 outbuildings were

destroyed.

The village lost its administrative office, which had on site all

of its physical and it’s backup digital records. The entire

administrative history of the village of Lytton was destroyed. The

Lytton First Nation lost about 45 residences, five commercial properties

and two outbuildings.

The province has stepped in. I agree with the member that this is

painful and slow work when there’s a fire like this. First of all, it’s

a contaminated site. The site has to be cleared, the contaminated soil

removed, all of the essential infrastructure, like water treatment and

sewer infrastructure, has to be put in place.

Municipal and fire services. Government has dedicated $21 million

to that and $9.3 million to support the village operations and staffing.

Their entire tax base burned down. In addition, they had to reconstruct

all of their by­laws and all of their administrative records

within the village as best as they could, given that they were destroyed

by fire.

[4:10 p.m.]

So $23.4 million was spent to support debris removal,

archaeological work and soil remediation for uninsured and underinsured

properties in the village. And $18.4 million of that was announced in

March 2022. An additional $5 million was needed and was allocated in

December 2022. The funding that’s being provided will support the

village operations through three years of core operations. Those years

have been ’22, ’23 and now ’24, where the work has focused, with the

regional district, on planning, recovery and rebuilding.

The remarkable work that’s required includes, almost in a perfect

storm…. This village site has been a village site for millennia. The

village itself is located on significant and important Indigenous

heritage, Indigenous village sites, artifacts, and so on. Archaeological

work has been re­quired extensively in order to move forward.

Obviously, that is a huge and demanding and challenging

thing.

We’re supporting residents. Residents can request a letter from

the archaeology branch to ensure they have all the information they need

to begin the rebuilding process. The village is now ready to be

receiving those building permit applications. In fact, a building

symposium will be held in a few weeks, I understand. We are going to

continue to provide that support as the village rebuilds itself and the

people are able to return to what was the site of that terrible

disaster.

K. Falcon: Well, the irony here…. In listening to that an­swer, it

tells you exactly why nothing is getting done in this province. It’s all

government, all process, all bureaucracy, all the time.

The irony is, in the village of Lytton, which burned to the

ground, the portion that is under federal jurisdiction…. They’ve

actually already completed their construction. The residents have

returned to their homes. They’ve got sprinklers going on their lawns,

and everyone’s kids are playing in the parks. Only in the provincial

area has nothing happened, and we now know why. Oh, apparently everyone

is supposed to be happy that maybe they can start applying for building

permits two years after this thing burnt to the ground. What an absolute

record of non-accomplishment. I can’t even believe it.

Again I want to ask the Premier…. I gave him that

op­portunity. We were looking for a breakdown, in Vote 11, of the

$14 million in salaries. I wanted a breakdown between the full-time,

part-time and contract staff. Your staff have had a lot of time to look

at that. I’d like the breakdown from the Premier now, please.

Hon. D. Eby: The numbers I’ve been given are 94 full-time, two part-time and

four current contracts.

The member asked for a salary band breakdown. I don’t have that

immediately available for him, but we will pro­vide that to

him.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the opportunity to ask the Premier some questions in

the Premier’s estimates.

The way I’m going to approach this is, really, to review a lot of

what we heard during the estimates so far with other ministers and to

try to establish decision-making processes, overarching principles, how

data is being used to inform decisions and the Premier’s positions on

things that have been stated by his ministers.

[4:15 p.m.]

I’m going to start with Housing. During estimates, my colleague

the House Leader asked the Minister of Housing if he believed that

housing was a human right. The minister responded by saying: “I believe

that people have the right to shelter in British Columbia.”

My question for the Premier. Can the Premier confirm whether the

statement made by his Minister of Housing properly conveys his

government’s position on whether housing is a human right or whether the

Premier and his government believe that only shelter is a human

right?

Hon. D. Eby: I apologize to the member for the delay. I’m just seeking to

confirm the quote. I have just gone through a couple of days of quotes

out of context.

The important question that the member asks is: what is the right

to housing in British Columbia? Legally speaking, the case law has

evolved to the point where if you’re asking somebody to leave a park or

sleeping on a sidewalk, the municipal government needs to provide a

dignified place for that person to go, a dignified shelter. A mat on the

floor is not sufficient.

[4:20 p.m.]

It is correct to say that currently in British Columbia,

recognized through case law at the Supreme Court level, there is a right

to basic shelter. So the Housing Minister is correct. I think what the

member is asking, though, is, is there a larger aspirational goal of

this government, and there is.

I believe, personally, there is a right for every human to a

dignified place that they can afford, where they can build their lives,

where they can participate as citizens, where they are able to build a

family if they choose to do that and to realize their ambitions in life.

That is the goal of our housing strategy, that is the goal of our work,

and we will continue to work on that and prioritize that goal in our

housing work every day.

S. Furstenau: Thanks to the Premier for that. I’m glad that we got to the

overarching question of values. I think it’s important that the Premier

is really clear I’m not trying to do any gotchas here. I’m just trying

to clarify. I recognize…. But, really, this is a process of

clarification, and I think not just for us but for the public to have

the ability to have these things clarified.

In his questions with the Housing Minister, as well, my colleague

asked about data and specifically about the number of housing units that

currently exist in B.C., because in terms of what the Premier was just

talking about, a housing strategy, I think that it is so critical and

essential that strategies and planning be data informed. We didn’t get

an answer to the question: how many housing units are there currently in

British Columbia? I’m wondering if that data is available

now.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the federal government, through census data, does

count something called “private dwellings.” I’m afraid I don’t have any

more detail about what’s included in that and what’s not, but the number

is 2.211 million private dwellings in British Columbia, the most recent

number from the census data.

[4:25 p.m.]

We do have data-driven work that we do around the housing issue.

First, on the issue of homelessness, we have two separate homeless

counts that we do, trying to count the number of people who are living

outside or in emergency shelter. We have a data-based approach where we

have anonymized data from several different government data sets. For

example, if you’re receiving social assistance, but you don’t have a

fixed address, that would be a marker towards being homeless. That data

is one way that we count or try to measure trends related to

homelessness.

The other is, and I know the member is familiar with this, the

street counts, where volunteers go out and do counts. There’s a fairly

significant gap between those two numbers, generally because the street

counts are not as successful as the data-driven approach. Identifying

people requires a point in time. It’s hard to measure trends, and it’s

whether or not you can find somebody on that particular day that the

count is done.

The second data-driven approach we take is we have required

municipalities across the province to produce a housing-needs study.

This requires looking at population growth in their communities and

income levels and determining what kinds of housing the community is

going to need over time.

We will be using these studies, under new legislation that we

passed in this place, to set targets for municipalities for housing

approvals, to align the interests of people who are building homes and

municipalities to get those places built but also to assist

municipalities with planning processes so they recognize they might need

townhomes or they might need a small apartment building in their

community. That’s the kind of growth we’re seeing even in very small

communities across the province.

That data is vital to assist local government in making those

decisions, and as a senior level of government, allowing the provincial

government to ensure municipalities are focusing on that reality that

they’re facing and that we’re facing at the provincial level.

Finally, as a government, we have been tracking our target of

114,000 units of housing through a number of different categories of

bringing housing on. I know the member is well familiar with those

numbers, so I won’t spend her time going through all of that in

detail.

S. Furstenau: Thanks for that.

I want to point out that back when the speculation and vacancy tax

was introduced, a lot of the discourse around it was that it would be a

tool to provide data on housing. I won’t pursue this any further because

I have such limited time, but I’d be interested in, perhaps at a later

day, a conversation about how effectively the speculation and vacancy

tax is actually delivering that very specific data on housing in British

Columbia.

I do want to move to transit. I know this has been brought up by

the official opposition — the ongoing transit strike we have in the

Fraser Valley on top of the longest transit strike that we have in West

Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

These are transit operations that are providing what is, in my

view, an essential public service — public transit — but the public

funds are going to a private, for-profit corporation. They are

contracted out to a private operator. The private operators, in these

situations, are paying transit operators less than they get paid in

other regions. The root problem that we see with this is that an

essential public service is contracted out to a for-profit, private

company.

My question for the Premier really is a question of values. Does

he think that essential public operations should be delivered in this

province by for-profit, private corporations?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member will certainly be familiar with my position on public

health care, public education, public services generally in the

province.

The issue of transit is one of partnership with local

gov­ernments. I was just…. The member probably saw a quick

conversation with the Minister of Transportation on this

issue.

First of all, in terms of the Fraser Valley transit strike, the

company that provides that transit service is supposed to…. They don’t

get paid if they’re not delivering the service. So they’re not getting

paid currently unless they’re actually providing services.

The issue of private bus services providing service in other

municipalities…. The reason why we have such a comprehensive provincial

transit system is…. We have an easy-to-join system for local governments

to be able to enter into a partnership with the province to deliver that

transit service. Those local governments are paying, in some cases, half

or more of the cost of that transit service. Changes in the delivery

model would need to be driven by those local government partners. We

work with them on the model that will work the best for them in their

communities.

I agree with the member. Transit is an essential service for many,

many British Columbians. That’s why we are con­tinuing to commit

major investments for B.C. Transit, capital funding, as well as major

transit projects like the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain and the Broadway

SkyTrain project — to strengthen our public transit system right across

the province and in high-demand areas.

[4:35 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: That’s not quite answering the specific question. I was transit

chair for the Cowichan Valley re­gional district, so I’m familiar

with that agreement. B.C. Transit has a fair amount of say in the

decision-making.

I’m going to quibble with a comprehensive transit system outside

of the major urban centres. As a person who has been advocating for

improved transit, even to the region, right out of the capital regional

district…. That is far from comprehensive at this point.

The question for the Premier is: does he think that it’s fair and

reasonable that the bus drivers and the workers are being paid less when

they work on a public tran