First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Thursday, May 1, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 53

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

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: Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs (continued)

Rob Botterell

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025 (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

Claire Rattée

Rosalyn Bird

Kristina Loewen

Trevor Halford

Á’a:líya Warbus

Heather Maahs

Elenore Sturko

Personal Statements

Apology for Comments Made in the House

Hon. David Eby

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship (continued)

Donegal Wilson

Hon. Randene Neill

Ian Paton

Scott McInnis

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act (continued)

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Gavin Dew

Committee of the Whole

Bill 7 — Economic Stabilization (Tariff Response) Act (continued)

Steve Kooner

Hon. Niki Sharma

Kiel Giddens

Gavin Dew

Thursday, May 1, 2025

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate on the estimates for the Ministry

of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

In

Section C, tiny House, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 7.

In the Douglas Fir Room…. I will not make the same mistake. It is bill…. No, it’s

not. It’s estimates of WLRS, of water, land….

Interjections.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : Yes, I know. I know. Bill 5 has been driving me nuts all day.

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Housing and Municipal Affairs

(continued)

The Chair : Thank you, Members. We are going to call this House back to order. We are, of course,

considering the estimates of the Housing and Municipal Affairs Ministry.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,513,975,000 (continued) .

Rob Botterell : One of the areas that comes into play in our efforts to address the housing crisis

in this province, particularly as it relates to renters, is the policy option of rent

control and, in particular, vacancy control.

My question to the minister is: does the minister’s housing plan include any form

of rent control and, in particular, vacancy control, that could moderate rent increases

overall and limit evictions-for-profit to protect renters?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Again, thank you, Member, for the question.

Just previous to lunch, we were discussing the many measures we’ve taken to ensure

protection for renters. I mentioned that in order to do those changes, we had created

a task force which included the member’s predecessor, the Minister of Tourism, Arts

and Culture and the former MLA for Courtenay-Comox, where they travelled the province

to identify what the greatest needs were, what could work, but used data to help advise

us on what measures we should be doing as we go forward. On the question of vacancy

control, that report, that task force recommended against it. They recommended against

moving in that direction.

We know that New York, for example, has vacancy control, but they are facing some

serious challenges right now around…. Because of vacancy control, those buildings

are not seeing the investments to be fixed up, and it’s causing additional challenges

in the community. Because of that recommendation, government made a clear commitment

that we were not going to proceed in that direction.

We do have protections in place. Right now rents are limited to be increased to CPI.

We release that number every year so that there’s some protection for renters. Landlords

have the ability to increase rents above that if they need to do renovations of their

properties. But they apply, and they get permission given to them. So we have systems

in place to ensure some protections, unlike a few provinces that exist.

Of course, as I mentioned to the member before the break, one of the most important

things we can do to help renters, to give renters power in the marketplace, is by

increasing supply. That’s the work that we’ve been doing as a government.

Rob Botterell : Thank you for the answer, Minister.

I’ll illustrate the basis for the next question with an example, but there are examples,

I expect, throughout the province that the minister hears about on a regular basis

and we all hear about on a regular basis.

[1:10 p.m.]

On Salt Spring Island, in my riding, there is a massive housing crisis. The result

is, because of the lack of affordable housing, that we have over 100 boats in the

harbour where individuals are living aboard the boats because that’s the only accommodation

they can find. This amount of boats — sailboats, all sorts of boats — in the harbour

is causing significant environmental impact. Actually, recently a couple of the boats

have sunk in the harbour.

The people living aboard those boats are not living there out of choice. They’re living

there because there is not access to affordable housing on Salt Spring Island.

To complicate matters further on Salt Spring, there are a large number of individuals

and families who are living in trailers and other types of accommodation that is far

from being healthy and safe but is effectively the only accommodation that they can

afford that is available.

So that just has created a huge housing crisis, and it impacts people on Salt Spring

who work on Salt Spring, work in shops on Salt Spring. It’s not about accommodating

an influx; it’s about the people who are on Salt Spring right now.

The question that keeps coming up when I meet with Salt Spring residents and constituents

is…. There’s not an infinite budget to tackle the housing crisis, and there is a process

through B.C. Housing which is entirely appropriate, that is at arm’s length. The question

that keeps coming up from constituents is: how are funds allocated between rural communities

and urban communities and within rural communities to tackle this issue?

There’s a concern on Salt Spring that they have a housing crisis. What are the criteria

in terms of the funds that could be available for eligible projects? For the constituents

that are listening in to this or are attending community meetings, it would be helpful

to have an explanation of how that allocation decision is made, not for an individual

project but for rural versus urban and within rural.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Thank you to the member for raising some of the complexities that the member is seeing

in his community and the things that he is hearing.

I am certainly aware of the challenges that are faced on Salt Spring. I had many opportunities

to engage with the member, of course, on this topic, and his predecessor as well.

Add to that the complexity of how difficult it is to actually build housing on Salt

Spring Island. It adds to the challenge.

I can share a couple of things with the member. I can share with the member that Salt

Spring, the elected officials there, are apprised of the situation. They’re seeing

the benefit of the short-term rentals registry and the actions we’ve taken on short-term

rentals across the province. They have actually written to us requesting that we include

them in the principal residence requirement.

They see an opportunity for them to have more housing. They see the challenge, which

is a lot of people are buying up properties in their communities. The people locally

can’t find housing, and they can’t find a workforce to operate the businesses. It’s

having a huge impact, as the member has rightfully raised. So Salt Spring has asked

for that. That’s something that I’m considering at this time. And I think that will

help. That will help immediately for that community.

The second thing I can share with the member is that we have made investments to the

question around how we decide between rural communities and non-rural communities.

I think it’s important to note that we don’t fund just affordable housing in cities.

We do fund housing in rural communities.

[1:15 p.m.]

I can share with the member that we have opened 80 units of housing over the last

few years on Salt Spring. We have opened 22 units on Croftonbrook, phase 2. We have

opened another 34 units at Croftonbrook, phase 3. The member will probably be aware

of the Salt Spring Commons — that’s 176 Bishops Walk Road, 24 units there of affordable

housing; and we have right now under construction some units on Drake Road, as the

member’s probably aware as well. Also, we have supportive housing at that site. So

there are about 32 units that are under development right now on that site.

Of course, we want to look for more opportunities. I shared with members yesterday

that part of the learning that B.C. Housing has put in, some of the feedback they’ve

put in is that now the community housing fund applications will be, so to speak, rolling,

so that if someone applies and they are not successful, they have an opportunity still

within that approximate year to apply again by updating their application.

We are trying to be as flexible as we can because at the end of the day, we want to

see housing, and we want to see all communities see the benefit of that. Those flexibilities

are built into this.

I appreciate the member’s comments around the fairness piece. All the decisions go

through a fairness commissioner so that it’s clear that these decisions are being

made with a data-informed lens.

Rob Botterell : It would be helpful to understand in a bit more detail for Salt Spring constituents.

I certainly appreciate the projects that have just been referenced in relation to

Salt Spring.

Right now the Islands Trust on Salt Spring has in effect put a moratorium on enforcement

of bylaws in relation to various units that would be out of compliance, because to

enforce the bylaws would effectively put constituents into a homeless situation.

The contribution that’s been made is certainly much appreciated. The question I’m

curious about is that…. If there are, say, roughly 1,500 Salt Spring Islanders who

are living on boats or in trailers that are not safe, and so on, that’s a large number

of residents that we need to address. The short-term rental registry decision or request

certainly helps in part.

The question that I’d appreciate some further guidance on is: if there were $200 million,

as a hypothetical, available for affordable housing in rural communities around the

province, leaving aside specific applications, how is that allocated? What are the

criteria governing the allocation of those funds in particular envelopes for particular

parts of rural B.C.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I think it’s a fair question. It’s one of the discussions that we’ve had. In fact,

we made this change with the last CHF call. We heard from many not-for-profits that

there was a concern that they didn’t want to be competing against Vancouver, because

Vancouver had the greater capacity to have better applications, have more dollars

to put in, etc.

So last CHF call we made the change to have a certain amount of allocated units per

region and then the applications are only competing against their region. They’re

not competing against the entire province. We saw some good success with that.

Our intention is, with the next CHF call, to do a similar thing. I can’t give the

member the exact breakdown numbers for the next CHF call — we’re still in development

— but we will use the same formula to ensure that there’s a region and there’s an

allocation of units, and then the competition is within that region. So the region

benefits by knowing they’re going to be having those many units going forward.

[1:20 p.m.]

Rob Botterell : In a couple of examples that I was provided by constituents in the riding last year

was that the call for proposals…. They learned later on, after making the proposal

or the application, that they would have had a better chance of succeeding if they

had teamed up with a First Nation or an Indigenous partner as opposed to proceeding

without the benefit of an Indigenous partner. It was a bit of “hindsight is 20-20,”

as far as they were concerned.

I’m just wondering if there are ways to ensure that potential applicants are aware

of those criteria before they apply so they can put the best possible application

forward.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : We do provide feedback to anyone that’s not successful.

Although I can’t comment on a specific application — we don’t have enough of the information

— there are usually various reasons why some projects don’t score as high. If you’ve

got significant housing pressures…. We know that often there’s a disproportionate

impact felt by Indigenous communities; by, say, racialized communities. That is one

of the reasons why the feedback may have been that way. Again I’m presuming, because

I wasn’t present in those discussions.

One of the main things that we do look at, though, is: is a project shovel-ready?

Do they have council on board? Do they have the approvals? Are they ready to go? That’s

a challenge that some proponents have when they come forward, that they don’t have

that. They don’t have the zoning done. They’re not prepared in that sense. They’re

prepared because they want to see it happen, but they don’t have all the ducks in

a row.

We always advise anyone that is considering to apply to meet with their local council.

My experience has been that…. I would say a majority of councils that I’ve been able

to work with, when they know it’s an affordable housing project, will do what they

can to prepare to get that there. That is an instrumental piece.

Again, I’m not saying that’s the specific case, but generally, that’s some of the

feedback we provide. And if anyone doesn’t succeed, we do provide them information

about what they could do to strengthen their application and be prepared for future

calls.

Rob Botterell : I will switch my line of questioning momentarily. But I do have one other question,

which is…. Through this process of applying and having a project that’s shovel-ready,

there can be instances where the local government — whether it’s a municipality, whether

it’s the Islands Trust — has provided all the land use planning approvals necessary,

and these non-profits have put the effort in, often with the support of the province,

to prepare the application.

It’s not unlike a real estate transaction with subject-to clauses. The way I mean

that is that it may be 99 percent shovel-ready, but there is a need to…. And the getting

it to 100 percent is, partially, having the tentative approval from B.C. Housing,

which then enables the non-profit to deal with another issue.

[1:25 p.m.]

I’ll give you an example. There’s a project in my constituency which is shovel-ready

that could make an application tomorrow. There is a road access issue where the applicant,

the non-profit, will be able to get the funding to build that road access, but it’s

contingent on knowing that B.C. Housing approval is in place. So it’s a bit chicken-

and-egg.

I’m just curious how B.C. Housing and the minister deal with those sorts of situations

where it’s very real that it will get funded, that additional bit of infrastructure,

but everybody needs to know that the project has been approved. Then the funding will

come from that, not from the province but from private donors.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : One of the reasons why we have, now, a rolling call is to address those types of

challenges, where you’re almost there, but you’re not quite there. And now it’s….

Because there’s going to be some steady rollout to it, it gives those types of situations

the opportunity.

There also are challenges where local governments say: “Well, we approve of the housing,

but we don’t yet approve the people.” That’s something we have to push back against

as best we can: where everyone is supportive of the housing until they find out what

incomes people are coming in with. Then they stigmatize people; they stigmatize the

project. So those are some of the challenges that we try to deal with.

For us, of course, we want to see an understanding from the local government that,

yes, they want that housing. They understand that there are going to be some more

vulnerable people, low-income seniors, etc. But the rolling call will help. We’ll

have to navigate any challenges that come, but I think that’ll be an important step

to help along the way.

The Chair : Thank you, Minister.

House Leader of the Third Party.

Rob Botterell : One of the things I like about estimates is hearing my name as House Leader mentioned

repeatedly through the afternoon. It almost makes me wish I could ask 100 questions

rather than maybe only 25 or 30. It’s very good for my heart. Thank you.

One of the items that I’m sure has been canvassed prior to this

section of the estimates

but I think would be helpful to maybe summarize or go through in some detail is the

issue of municipal infrastructure.

Now we have a government in place federally, with Prime Minister Carney, that certainly

has indicated a high degree of ambition to address housing and infrastructure needs

across Canada.

In the case of municipal infrastructure and local government infrastructure, there

are going to be a couple of different situations. There will be the situation, which

we’ve canvassed in previous parts of these estimates, where the infrastructure is

already in place. There’s overcrowding in housing. So the infrastructure — whether

it’s sewer, water or whatever it is — is already servicing the community. It’s more

about creating a healthy, safe housing environment than it is about lack of actual

infrastructure.

It’s also about, for affordable housing, ensuring we’re accommodating residents that

are already in the community. This isn’t about creating the infrastructure to support

an influx of new $1 million, $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, $5 million houses

in a part of a community where more individuals are coming. This is about folks that

are already there. They want to work in the community, and they’re looking for affordable

housing.

[1:30 p.m.]

From the municipality’s perspective or the local government’s perspective, there’s

an infrastructure gap. The UBCM estimates that municipalities need $24 billion during

the next decade just to replace core infrastructure and how they will accommodate

infrastructure upgrades that are reasonably needed to support the housing growth that

is resulting from this government’s, I would say, innovative policies.

What is the government’s plan to address the infrastructure deficit in municipalities?

Secondly, what is the government’s plan of action in terms of engagement with the

federal government to ensure that the federal government steps up to the table to

help close that gap as well?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’ll start by saying I thank the House Leader of the Third Party. I think I’ll just

make a comment on that, which is to say, we forget how big of an honour it is to be

in this place.

When you hear the MLA from Abbotsford, the MLA from White Rock…. When you hear these

things, it’s our reminder that we have an honour to serve the people of this province.

So for you to take a moment to reflect on that, I think, is something we all appreciate

on this side and something all of us should appreciate because we’re here temporarily.

I appreciate your comment on that.

Part of the changes we made last year around small-scale, multi-unit, around transit-oriented

development was on the principle that the best use of our existing infrastructure

is housing where the infrastructure already exists. Our legislation was built around

the notion of not wanting to encourage sprawl beyond where communities had already

decided their growth — urban containment areas.

We have seen research, Metro Vancouver had research, that showed that this type of

housing was the best use of the existing infrastructure to get more housing.

We have, as the member has asked, had a really good relationship with the federal

government when it comes to infrastructure. We always want more. It always feels like

it’s not enough. Whether it’s our government or it’s the government before us, there’s

been a lot of work to align our programs with the federal government, because local

governments find it frustrating to have to apply one place and then try to piecemeal

it from another level of government.

We had two funds in particular. One was provincial. We provided $1 billion, part of

the growing communities fund, to local governments. We didn’t prescribe what they

could use the money for. Local governments made a decision of where they wanted to

allocate those dollars.

For example, in the member’s community, Sidney was provided $3.82 million, and I believe

they did some work with the waterfront washrooms, the Philip Brethour Park playground,

Beacon West roundabout. They put those dollars to use to help improve the infrastructure.

That work’s happening.

One of the important pieces that…. Infrastructure is definitely on the top of our

list in our discussions with the federal government. It was on the top of the list

before; it’s on the top of the list now. I shared with members yesterday that our

top asks to the federal government are infrastructure dollars. Money around Indigenous

housing is one of those top priorities as well. We’ll see what they come through with.

Our goal will be to try to align as best we can with them.

The federal government had a community housing infrastructure fund. The federal government

launched this in, I think it was, May or June last year. We spent a lot of time negotiating

with the federal government around how we could contribute to that pot of money and

leverage that for local governments. We were not successful. We were not successful

in the entirety of the fund.

[1:35 p.m.]

The federal government was able to get Metro Vancouver $250 million, on the condition

that Metro Vancouver agreed to put two-year in-stream protection in place, so that

more projects could proceed, and make some changes to how DCCs are collected. That

was an example of how you can make sure local governments have infrastructure dollars

but, at the same time, ensure that projects can still pencil and proceed.

We tried to negotiate for the rest of those dollars, but we were unsuccessful, mainly

because we couldn’t agree with the criteria that were set.

They were hoping for a three-year freeze of DCCs across the province, and local governments

have greater infrastructure needs than the dollars the federal government was willing

to put to the table. So we advised them that it’s best that they work with local governments

directly.

That being said, that was before the election. It was a different government, different

Prime Minister. I’m looking forward, when a new Minister of Housing or a new Minister

of Infrastructure is announced, to be able to have a meeting at their earliest convenience

to discuss how we can continue to build our infrastructure to support housing in our

communities.

Rob Botterell : In the work that UBCM has done, they have identified the gap as being $24 billion

over the next ten years.

To the minister: is that in accord with your understanding of the funding gap we need

to close? As a second part of that question, are there options to develop a more consistent

and reliable funding formula rather than a grant-based system of infrastructure funding?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It’s hard to get to an exact number. Many variables are linked to why it’s a challenge.

One is that local governments’ needs change often. They could identify certain amenities

they need, some sewer and water infrastructure upgrades they need. There are some

communities that have needs and some that have wants, because they have desires to

grow their community in a certain way.

It’s ever changing, so it’s hard to come to an exact number of what it is. But there

are significant needs in community. Part of our discussion with the federal government

will be: well, how do we have something consistent that can support communities as

they grow?

Of course, local governments also depend on DCCs and ACCs. Maybe it’s a good time

to touch on that, which is just to say that there have been challenges from local

government on how they collect fees. Those in the home-building community argue —

and I think, in some cases, justifiably — that the fees are just too high to have

anything be built in the community.

Part of our changes was to make a shift from how housing decisions are made. This

is prior to this new session. We brought in legislation to change that. Because we

have moved to more pre-planning, now communities are required, every five years, to

update their official community plans. Engage with the community: where do you want

the housing, where do you want the parks, and where do you want the amenities?

Any project that comes forward that fits within what the community had agreed upon

doesn’t have public hearings anymore. That means that the ability to negotiate and

extract dollars is not the same. The ACC tool allows local governments to still collect

dollars for amenities, but they’re required now to identify what the amenities are

and put it into their bylaws so everyone knows the money’s going to this.

They are allowed to charge for net new. So you can’t say, “There are ten units; we’re

going to build ten units,” and, all of a sudden, you have to pay for the new playground

for new people when the amount of people is the same. So it’s net new, and the fees

are more transparent.

I think that’s good for the home-building community. I think it’s good for elected

officials, too, because the number one thing I hear from people, and I think mostly

unjustifiable, mostly not correct — maybe in some cases it is correct — is that one

developer is getting a better deal than another one because all of this is being negotiated

behind closed doors, not in public.

There’s always this doubt in people’s minds: “Why are they doing that for that developer,

and they are not doing it for this?” or “What kind of arrangement do they support

financially?” I think that undermines our democracy. To have an ability for a local

government to say, “These are the amenities we want in our communities. Here are the

dollars we need. Here’s what we’re going to need to collect per unit for net new units,”

and be transparent about it, I think it’s better for everybody.

[1:40 p.m.]

That’s the direction we’re heading. I think that certainty will help everyone involved.

It helps the local government, and it helps the people in our community to understand

that these are the amenities that we’re prioritizing.

It is a holistic change from how things have been done. If you include additional

dollars…. We provided $1 billion last year, directly to local governments as well

as First Nations, for infrastructure. That’s a significant investment, some of the

largest investments ever made, in fact, for infrastructure.

Then add on top of that the investments we’re making in transit, the investments we’re

making into 911 calling, the investments we’re making direct into water and sewer

facilities. We continue to make historic investments, and we’re going to continue

to do more, but it’s going to involve a partnership with the federal government.

Rob Botterell : One of the approaches that has been taken in other jurisdictions around Canada —

and, certainly, south of the border as well — goes by various names, so I’ll just

describe it. When you put in major infrastructure — for example, a SkyTrain line or

a new road through an area — it can often raise the land values in the adjacent properties.

What in effect happens is that the landowners adjacent to the corridor receive a windfall

in terms of the value of the property.

One of the measures that other jurisdictions have taken — maybe it’s happening in

B.C., and I’m unaware of it — is that there are tax policies and approaches taken

to recover some of that windfall. Effectively, what has happened is that the public

have subsidized, through their taxes, the upgrade in infrastructure, but the benefit

goes to adjacent properties. Really, it would be appropriate, from a public policy

point of view, that some of that windfall, if you will, be returned to defray the

cost of the upgrade of the infrastructure.

My question to the minister is: has that type of approach to recovering the cost of

important public infrastructure been considered, or would it be considered?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The member’s description could be two things.

One, it could be land value capture, with a lift of the value of the land. The Ministry

of Finance would do that work. I know that we’ve done work to enable local governments

to be able to capture some of that value, so it’s a better question for the Ministry

of Finance, on where that work is proceeding.

The other way that could be looked at is around inclusionary zoning and capturing

some sort of value from a project. Maybe it’s affordable housing; maybe it’s cash

in lieu. We have provided, in the legislative change that we did, the ability for

local governments, especially in transit-oriented development areas, to do that. But

the requirement for them is to do a feasibility study to ensure that any inclusionary

policy they’re putting in place does not deter development.

We do that because a change in Vancouver will be different than a change in Burnaby,

in Surrey or in a different community. Having one standard policy just wouldn’t work,

given the different dynamics within communities, but the ability is there for local

governments to do that.

It’s vitally important that I emphasize that it requires a feasibility study to ensure

that it doesn’t deter development. It’s easy to say: “That project right there is

going to be six storeys. We want 50 percent affordable housing.” I just used a number.

Let’s say 20 percent. If the project still can’t pencil at that price point, you’ve

essentially just killed the project.

We want local governments to have the ability to have inclusionary zoning policies,

but we don’t want it to be a poison pill, where it’s used to deter development in

communities. Finding that balance is something that we tried to strike in this.

[1:45 p.m.]

So there are two pieces. We do inclusionary policy and enable local governments’ land

value lift. I know there are discussions happening in TransLink, as well, and other

authorities looking at that. That would be something that we wouldn’t directly look

at. It would be the Ministry of Finance.

Rob Botterell : I’m going to shift gears now to local housing models funding. There are a variety

of local housing models to ensure that the distinct needs of a community can be attended

to, rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach. I know we’ve, on a number of occasions,

had helpful discussions around the Village model that is implemented in Duncan and

other similar models around the province.

I’m particularly interested in tiny home communities like the Bluegrass Meadows Micro

Village. What types of funding are there in this budget directed towards local and

alternative housing models, and has this been expanded since last fiscal year?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I know the member is passionate about this topic, because we’ve had opportunities

to speak about it. There’s a lot of interest around tiny homes and communities as

well. The member is well aware that we have a tiny home village, so to speak, in Cowichan

and in Victoria. We have expanded tiny homes in Kelowna and Campbell River.

It’s important to know that tiny homes work in some communities, but they don’t work

in some communities. They work on some lots, but they don’t work on some lots. It’s

not the one solution that fits for everyone, but it may be a good solution for some

communities.

B.C. Housing has been very flexible in ensuring that different models be considered

in different communities, and now, as part of our agreement with the B.C. Greens,

we will be able to expand that, and we will be looking to expand that. It won’t necessarily

be tiny homes in every community, because some communities are not interested in that.

They would like to do a different structure. But that option is available for the

communities that are interested in doing so.

I can share with the member that we have increased funding for HEART and HEARTH —

$44 million in capital, $227 million in operating for this type of model — and we’ve

had some big success.

I look at Kelowna and what’s happening in Kelowna, where we’re going to have just

over 120 units within the next few weeks. They’re seeing over 60 percent of people

going into this supportive housing getting wraparound supports, learning, doing important

life skills, getting IDs, connecting, getting a chance to work and reconnect with

family. We’ve seen over 60 percent of people move in and already establish themselves

in different opportunities or connect with work. So that’s a big success.

We’ve been rolling these units out, as the member is aware, in Campbell River. We

have communities that were fighting us because they didn’t want this type of housing

in their community now calling us and saying, “Can we have it?” because people have

realized that the only way you can address homelessness is by addressing the fact

that we don’t have enough housing.

I often will say this, and I mean it, which is that the problem isn’t homeless people.

The problem is that they’re homeless because there’s no housing. That’s our responsibility:

to scale up housing opportunities in communities, and we’ve had some success. We’re

going to do more because of the agreement that we have with the B.C. Greens, and certainly

hope to be able to share more of those details with the member very soon.

Rob Botterell : The whole issue and topic of building codes has been canvassed fairly extensively

over the period of budget estimates.

[1:50 p.m.]

On Saturna Island and in parts of the riding in Sidney and North Saanich, there is

active discussion around supporting young families starting out or folks in their

20s who want to build, I’ll call it, a tiny home. From their perspective — and, certainly,

getting this feedback from some of the local governments and the CRD — the building

code requirements for what would be a very small house, but one that enables folks

to get into the housing market and live where they work, appear to them to be quite

onerous.

The question is: has there been consideration of relaxing some of the requirements

under the code in relation to what are fairly very modest tiny starter homes?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I appreciate the member raising this.

I think it’s important to start by saying that a complete home not built well is just

as dangerous as a tiny home not built well. Right now tiny homes are being built throughout

the communities, throughout the province, but they require a level of safety to ensure

that they’re safe.

We do hear from some local governments who say: “It’s the building code. That’s the

reason why we can’t do the tiny home.” There are a lot of communities where there

are tiny homes, but they’re not to code.

I will give the member an example. We had in Prince George, at Moccasin Flats, a homeless

encampment. We had almost 100 people a year ago. A lot of people struggling to get

into housing. So we had an agreement with Prince George, an MOU that said we were

going to deploy 140 homes in that community, everything from modular to purchasing

if we need to. We now have a handful of people left on Moccasin Flats, and they’ve

been offered housing but they haven’t chosen it.

During that process, we had a tiny homes manufacturer from Alberta say: “We’re going

to come in, and we’re going to provide tiny homes to the community. If the province

can’t get that, we’re going to do it.” And they came in, so to speak, illegally and

put some tiny homes down. Within two weeks, there was a fire, and we lost those tiny

homes. I didn’t hear from that company again.

So what’s widely important to me is that we’re always looking at the building code,

but if it’s going to put people’s lives at risk, I will not be the minister that signs

off on it.

It’s the same thing I hear about seismic. I hear people say that the new seismic code,

which is going to have a big impact here on the Island, which essentially is research

from the National Research Council that says specific types of soils require different

types of building structures…. I hear from folks in the home-building community say:

“That’s going to put a lot of costs on us.”

I always say: “Do you agree with the research that it could be dangerous?” And they

say: “Yes.” And I say: “Well, then, what are we discussing here? Why don’t we find

innovative ways to find solutions around that? Let’s make sure we do it in a safe

way.”

That’s the same with tiny homes. If there are suggestions that the member has on the

code where the member hears ideas of how it can be done in a safe way but ensure that

more of them can be deployed, I’m all ears. I’m very open to that, and if the member

hears that, please do bring that forward.

Rob Botterell : I’ll certainly take you up on that offer. We have some folks in our riding that I

think have some fairly creative ideas that respect the need for safety and seismic

and all of the reasons you have a code. So thank you for that offer.

We’ve talked at some length about the speculation and vacancy tax and had a fairly

vigorous exchange this morning on this issue through question period. We in the Green

caucus certainly support the speculation and vacancy tax and the approach that’s being

taken from a policy perspective.

[1:55 p.m.]

We would appreciate what information the minister could describe about the housing

that is being created or what the minister sees as the future capacity or potential

for the housing being created through this tax and how that tax collected might be

deployed to support affordable housing.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : This was canvassed yesterday with the official opposition as well. The speculation

tax is with the Ministry of Finance, so they’ve got all the information. It’s led

by the Ministry of Finance.

I’ll just make a comment to say that it’s been one of the most effective policies

to get more housing back in the market. It’s a very simple premise. If you have investment

properties and you leave them empty, you pay the tax. If you have investment properties

and you don’t pay taxes in British Columbia, you pay the tax. In fact, if people are

renting their properties out and not leaving them empty, they’re not paying the tax,

and it’s good for us because it means more housing available.

The member is aware, because he heard the debate this morning, that in Metro Vancouver

alone, we had more than 20,000 units come onto the market for people to rent. That’s

remarkable. If you think of how much it would cost us to build 20,000 homes and how

long it would take us — billions of dollars. One tax policy brought those homes back

available for people in our communities.

You know, what I would say is that it’s a huge success. In fact, when I was travelling

through the Interior, I remember meeting with one of the mayors in the Interior who

told me that close to 54 percent of all of their mailings for their notices go outside

the community. That’s pretty remarkable for a community that wants to operate, have

a community, where a majority of their tax filings are heading to people that don’t

even live in the community.

They were asking us: “How do we get in?” We want to make sure that our housing is

for the people in our community, make sure our kids have a place to live, because

they’re struggling and thinking about leaving the community, leaving the province,

when we have housing right here and it’s sitting empty.

That’s just my view on it. That’s our government’s view on it. But the actual tax

measures are better situated for the Ministry of Finance.

Rob Botterell : This may be more of confirming that this is also a topic to be canvassed with the

Minister of Finance. What we’ve seen in the riding is constituents who are starting

out in the housing market who are facing the challenge of meeting the mortgage and

meeting all the various commitments that come with new home ownership.

I’ll digress for a moment and say that I have a certain amount of empathy for these

folks, because when we bought our first house on Bowen Island many, many years ago,

long before the internet, we had to cancel our subscription for Granada TV in order

to pay the mortgage. That was one of the best things we ever did because our daughter

grew up without TV, and I think she’s better for it. But that’s a digression. Back

to the question.

The question is…. These young families that want to get into the house market need

that extra helper in terms of rent. You know, in compliance with all zoning, they

would be looking at adding a suite or finding some other rent helper, and often the

obstacle to doing that for them is that it’s just one step too far in terms of that

$10,000 or $15,000 to actually create the suite fully up to code.

[2:00 p.m.]

Is this a question that you can consider, or should I save it for the Minister of

Finance, in terms of setting up some form of loan guarantee program or something that

enables the government to both assist that initial investment and also get it returned

in due course?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I was smiling at the member when he was describing his child not having TV. I had

the opposite moment with my kid. I had my grandma visiting about ten years ago, visiting

my home, and my son called me at work and said: “Dad, you won’t believe what we have

here. We have a cell phone with a wire that goes into the wall.” I realized pretty

quick he was talking about a land line — you know, those things we used to have.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Yeah, it’s rough. Times do move.

I’m very sympathetic to the point the member has made as well. We hear from a lot

of families in my community who say: “I’ve got a home, and I just want to put a little

accessory dwelling unit in the back so my kids can be near me. I want my grandkids

near me. I won’t have to travel. If I can do that, that would be easy.”

But there are a lot of challenges to be able to do that. There are some building code

challenges, which I’m looking at right now to find ways to make it easier, to ensure

the safety but ensure that it’s a smoother process. There is the federal government.

We had a program, but we cancelled the program because the federal government program

and what’s coming and what they’re offering is just way better than what we’re able

to provide.

There is going to be the financing piece, but I think that a major part of the solution

will be a two-parter.

One is more set designs — I wouldn’t say pre-approved, but pre-reviewed designs. Planners

don’t like pre-approved designs; they like pre-reviewed. That standardization allows

for those that build these modules through manufacturing, etc., to be able to create

the efficiency to be able to make it cheaper.

If they’re constantly creating different designs, it’s expensive, but if they have

a whole host of set designs, they’re able to produce them and drop the cost considerably.

That’s one of the things that we’re rolling out, but it will make a big difference.

The other one is from the city or local government perspective. Every local government

has different rules. When you have every local government with different rules, different

height, different law coverage, it’s hard for those that are manufacturing to create

the scale to be able to lower the cost. So we do need some standardization.

We put set design guidelines out to local governments and said: “Here’s what you all

should be doing. This is the best standard.” It was done by a planner who won provincewide

awards for his green planning. He was the chief planner at the city of Vancouver,

with award after award for his sustainability lens on planning. One of the things

they highlight is the need to standardize both the zoning from local governments but

also to standardize the templates of what these units can look like.

So we’re doing some work on that. We have some more work to do because it’s all over

the map still.

We do need to set some basic, I think, requirements for local governments. To say,

“Here’s what it should be at a minimum; you can go much more than that if you want,”

so that we can create standardization so that our industries can respond to lower

costs for young families, for families that want their kids nearby or for people that

are thinking: “Hey, you know what? I have a home. I can put a little unit in the backyard.

I’ll live in the unit, part of my retirement, and I could rent the rest of the house

out to another family.” There are just different things you can do with it.

Last thing I’ll say is that if you look at California, which brought in similar changes

to us…. They were a little bit more, I would say, aggressive on ADUs, accessory dwelling

units. I think the last stat I saw was that in L.A., 33 percent of all the new building

permits were accessory dwelling units. People said: “This is much quicker. I’m just

going to put one of these ADUs in my yard and have some families living in it.”

There’s huge potential in it. We are going to explore that as we go forward.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister. That’s certainly very promising.

[2:05 p.m.]

There’s a bit of a carve-out that I’d like to explore a bit more. In my riding, and

I think it’s probably similar around the province, young families will look at a house

these days, and it’ll be, in some cases, fairly large — this may sound small to some

these days, but from their perspective — 2,500 square feet or something, and it has

a basement. They could add a one-bedroom suite, to code, in the basement.

Once they figure out the cost of acquiring that house…. It’s not about building a

separate unit; it’s about renovating within the existing footprint of the house to

code. They just look at it, and they say: “Well, it’s just one step too far.”

If we had some financial assistance or a loan guarantee or something — not everybody

has parents with deep pockets — they could actually add housing, a one-bedroom, say,

or a studio. It would be a mortgage helper, and it would also help address the shortage

of housing generally in that affordability range.

Maybe that was addressed in your response, Minister, but that’s an area where I think

there’s a huge opportunity, certainly in parts of my riding, to add housing stock

at low cost and certainly see the government’s assistance returned in due course.

So I’d be curious for your thoughts on that.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Yeah, maybe I wasn’t clear. I tried to touch on that in the beginning of my answer,

which is…. We had the secondary suite program, which offered up to $40,000, and the

federal government came in after and said: “We have a program that’s $80,000 low-cost

financing, 2 percent interest rate, over a 15-year amortization.” So in order to be

efficient with dollars, why have a program that’s half the dollars that the federal

government has?

I think that would address the piece that the member is referring to.

Rob Botterell : The first-time-homebuyers program allows people to get property transfer exemptions

if the property has a fair market value of $835,000 or less, yet the average price

of homes in B.C. is around $965,000, creating a barrier for entry into home ownership.

Would the minister consider raising the property value cap for first-time homebuyers

to reflect increasing housing costs?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : That, again, is Finance. Tax measures are always with Ministry of Finance, so that’s

better situated there.

Rob Botterell : When I raise it with the Minister of Finance, can I say that the Minister of Housing

is highly supportive of an increase?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : When you raise it with the Minister of Finance, please mention that I’m looking for

a lot more dollars for affordable housing as well.

Rob Botterell : Can the minister speak to the estimated revenue from the school tax and what portion

of revenues from the additional school tax applies to high-value residential properties?

Related, does this government — and this may be Finance again, but anyway — have any

intent to expand the additional school tax rate, such as by adding additional brackets

to account for high-value residential portions assessed over $5 million?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : This will be the shortest answer I give you today, but it is Ministry of Finance

as well.

Rob Botterell : When the flipping tax was launched last year, the Minister of Housing and the Premier

identified that the tax was expected to make over $40 million in revenue and would

also help free up more homes. Can the minister tell us how much revenue has been made

from the flipping tax so far and estimate tax revenues for this fiscal?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Again, all tax measures are with the Ministry of Finance. Our ministry doesn’t handle

those measures.

Rob Botterell : A key issue with attracting and retaining health care workers in this province is

the lack of affordable housing options available to them.

I can use both Salt Spring Island and Sidney as examples of where the challenge associated

with increasing access to primary health care and increasing attachment of constituents

to doctors is not, interestingly enough, a lack of doctors. It’s not a shortage of

doctors; it’s a shortage of housing for doctors and the health professionals that

support the doctors. As with many issues, they’re interlinked.

Can the minister describe this government’s plan or approach to providing affordable

housing specifically for health care workers? That is the obstacle to significantly

increasing attachment.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The member is very right. It’s a major challenge for a lot of communities that are

trying to attract a skilled workforce, whether they’re health care professionals,

whether they’re working in local government planning, whether they’re firefighters,

police officers; the list goes on.

Traditionally, historically B.C. Housing has been in the space of supportive housing

and, maybe, more low-income housing. We have really expanded it with BC Builds, and

it’s very much targeted to what the member has just highlighted.

The first project we announced was with the city of North Vancouver. The city of North

Vancouver came forward with land. They had identified that their biggest priority,

the biggest challenge that they were dealing with was that because of the North Shore’s

lack of housing and the high cost of housing, they couldn’t attract health care workers

to work at the hospital, and Seaspan, which pays really well, was struggling to attract

workers to work for them. They couldn’t get housing, and people were commuting a long

distance over the bridges, etc.

There’s a whole host of projects that are being built through BC Builds, which targets

middle-income families. I know the threshold is around an $89,000 income up to $190,000

for family incomes. The reason we got into that space was to address that very challenge.

We have a whole list of projects. I can share with the member that the Northbank project

is very much focusing on that type of workforce.

We’ve got a project in Gibsons that’s being developed by a not-for-profit, operated

by Sunshine Coast Affordable Housing Society, which is going to be 33 homes, a four-storey

building with child care built into it. It’s going to be focused on that.

We have Whistler.

Even in the member’s riding, if the member is aware of the units at the Drake that

are being built for supportive housing, part of that also has some units that are

workforce-related.

It’s a challenge for us. You know, we also have this conversation around the Downtown

Eastside. The units are going to be there. What we are going to do? For a lot of the

not-for-profits that operate, their workforce can’t afford to live there anymore,

and they’re moving out.

So we do need to do more of this BC Builds opportunity, but that’s really what that

program was launched for. It was launched to ensure that there’s housing that’s below

market, for workforce housing that meets people’s needs and their incomes where they’re

at.

[2:15 p.m.]

Rob Botterell : The work in the riding that is taking place is much appreciated.

As the minister will know, as part of our accord with the NDP government, we are collaborating

on a study on community health centres and how to expand community health centres

across the province. So many of these issues are multiministry. I can phrase this

as a question. It would be very helpful to discuss how best to plug your ministry’s

senior people into that study, because it’s going to be the obstacle to many community

health centre expansions.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The BC Builds program is built with a lot of flexibility in that it’s very possible

that you have health care below and housing above. In fact, we have projects that

are being worked on where there’s a fire hall below and housing above. I know some

people think: “How can you have a fire hall and then housing above it?” But it’s possible.

Victoria is an example where we built affordable housing above a fire hall. When the

fire bells go, all the lights turn red, so people in the neighbourhood don’t actually

hear any fire trucks because the trucks can get out with no cars moving.

There are other communities that are looking to build community centres. We’re even

considering a school being built with housing above it. This is the future. And BC

Builds is well suited and actually is working really well for local governments because

local governments are thinking…. A lot of local governments’ concern was: “We have

land, but one day we wanted to build X. One day we wanted to build Y.” Now when they

get money through our growing community fund, they can take those dollars to advance

their project, and then we can come in and put housing on top.

You know, I think I’ll be following very closely to the work the member is doing with

the Ministry of Health. If there are opportunities, then we’ll certainly look to leverage

those.

Rob Botterell : We have discussed exclusionary zoning, to a certain extent, this afternoon. Let me

just frame the question this way. While the government has made commitments to expand

non-market housing and upzoning, current exclusionary zoning regulations often make

non-market housing developments unaffordable and unnecessarily arduous. This is most

evident in Vancouver, where apartments are still not allowed on more than three-quarters

of the city’s residential land.

The question to the minister is: is the minister working or will the minister be working

to implement provincewide initiatives in a tailored way to end exclusionary zoning

for non-market housing?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It is an important topic, and obviously, we’ve done a lot of work in this space,

and we’re going to do more. It goes to my comment I made earlier which is — I said

this yesterday, and I mean it — that if you were to go to an affordable housing rally

with people in a community, they would say: “What do we want? Affordable housing.”

“Where do you want it?” And then it’s dead silent. Nobody has a second piece to that.

The exclusionary challenges are real. Too often it’s not the housing that’s the problem;

it’s who is coming into the housing. So there are policies. Our zoning laws have a

history of being designed not to limit housing but to limit people and certain types

of people. We just have to come to grips with that, and that’s a reality.

Part of our work has been, to this point, to move to local governments. It starts

with our housing needs, and it starts with housing targets. We have given communities

housing targets, and it’s not just: “Go and build whatever you need.” It’s saying:

“Here are how many one bedrooms, two bedrooms, three bedrooms you need to be a complete

community. You need supportive housing. You need affordable housing.”

That has fundamentally shifted the conversation in communities. Instead of not-for-profits

begging to get attention of elected officials, elected officials now are going to

not-for-profits and saying: “We have to reach these targets. How can we work together

to do it?” I think that’s healthy. That’s a healthy start.

Now that local governments must update their OCPs to their housing needs, they have

to start planning their official community plans with a lens of where this housing

is going to go and have it approved up front. Then, when we get to the process of

these projects coming forward, we’re not debating whether these people should be living

in our community but more thinking about a community as a whole.

We are doing a lot of work in this space. We have more work to do, and part of that

is leadership from elected officials.

I was praising my critic from Surrey. When she was mayor, she took a really tough

stance in her community, and said: “Yeah, we need to have housing for people. It’s

the only way to support people.” We need to have those things across the province,

and that means pushing back against stigma and not stigmatizing people even more.

I’m definitely not referring to the member, because I know he’s a champion of this

housing. But we are doing lots of work, and we have more work to do.

Rob Botterell : Electrification of new buildings is a vital step to reach net-zero emissions, as

buildings were the third-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada in 2019.

My question to the minister is: does this government have a plan for the electrification

of new housing developments, and has the minister considered establishing a clear,

time-limited plan to work to implement a provincewide policy to prevent oil and gas

hookups to new buildings where electricity is available?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : There is a lot of work happening in this space.

First off, we made changes last year to ensure that all stratas are doing an analysis

of their building’s portfolio to assess what energy capacity they have. That’s a good

baseline, an important baseline.

We made changes to ensure that if someone were to want to build a charging station

in a strata building, there was an easier process for them to be able to do that.

Right now we are making some of the largest increases in hydro and electric capacity

in the province. We have legislation in front of the House, which I won’t go into,

which allows us to expediate more energy in our province to be able to meet that housing

demand and our demand for electrification. We need to do that in order to have this.

I would say that there’s not a discussion about a blanket across the province at this

stage, but there is work happening to ensure that we have electricity to meet the

demand in our housing market. There are conversations in communities, and in each

community, they’re slightly different. Our focus right now is to build up the capacity.

I don’t want to go too much into estimates for the Minister of Energy. I’ll leave

that to him. I’m busy enough with my file.

[2:25 p.m.]

I will say that we’re doing changes around code, around working with B.C. Hydro to

ensure that power is being provided to projects as we go forward.

If I can use this moment just to share with the member that we’ve also launched a

digital permitting hub. The digital permitting hub, I think, is going to be, over

time, a game-changer for communities. Essentially, it’s digitizing the building code

so that when a building permit application is submitted, within seconds it can check

to see if it’s code-compliant. It can check to see if it’s energy-compliant.

The province has a sense of where the energy portfolios of the buildings are. We’re

looking to partner with B.C. Hydro so that B.C. Hydro can get information on building

permits right away, as well, so that it allows them to prepare to provide energy in

a quick and efficient way. I think those are good incentives to help drive more electrification

in home-building, as we go forward.

Rob Botterell : We’ve canvassed this to some extent in previous parts of the estimates. The construction

trades workforce is facing a significant labour shortage, with approximately 11,500

construction jobs currently unfilled in B.C. Certainly, prefabricated houses and so

on are part of the solution.

A question is: what is this ministry’s approach to closing that gap, since that can

make a huge difference to our ability to close the housing gap?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The member is correct that there’s no one solution to the housing crisis. Every solution

involves lots of different moving pieces, and skills and trades training is critical

to do that. We have been expanding trades training at a considerable rate. We have

more to do.

We have been doing a lot of education in schools to remind young people that this

is a good career to get into and push back against, perhaps, misconceptions of what

the work is and what it’s not. I remember laughing with my dad about 15 years ago,

when I was working at banking and stressed out all the time, and my best friend was

an electrician. I remember saying to him: “You told me not to get into trades, and

look how happy he is.” It’s a great career field.

So we’re doing work there. We’ve been using the limited numbers we have from the federal

government on immigration to fast-track trades to immigrate here.

We have been expanding small-scale, multi-unit and housing near transit — lower-density

housing — because the skills that are required to build that housing are different

than the bigger developments and we have more access to trades in that space. Expanding

there, it’s an easier space to do that. We’re putting less pressure on our labour

force.

Prefabrication is the future. Mass timber is the future. I was fortunate enough, when

I was in the Ministry of Jobs, to be able to put together the mass timber action plan.

It is still as relevant today as it was then. Part of moving that forward is doing

the things we’re doing, using government procurement to help drive that demand and

that change.

But it requires more work, especially in the small space, the accessory dwelling units,

all this. We need more standardization. I know the member mentioned standardization

earlier. We need some minimums, and that’s what we try to do with the site standard

document we released.

Let’s have minimums so that industry can scale up and produce at large scale the amount

of housing at the minimum. If local governments say, “We want to go higher,” that’s

great. That’s up to them. They want to do a bigger footprint; that’s up to them. But

let’s have some minimums that are thought out so that industry can scale up the production

to be able to meet that demand and lower the cost over time.

I’m passionate about this. I know members are probably passionate about this. This

is key to addressing our housing crisis.

[2:30 p.m.]

Those of us that have seen how fast a mass timber building can be put together…. It’s

remarkable. North Vancouver, the city, is now the champion, the leader. Vancouver

used to be; now it’s North Vancouver city. They’ve got an amazing amount of buildings

coming online.

I said to the mayor: “Why are you so happy about this?” She said: “B.C. product. We’re

using sustainable products in our buildings. That’s what people in our community are

demanding, addressing embodied carbon. It’s being done in a way faster time frame,

less trades on site and less complaints from the public. There’s no noise because

everything’s being done off-site. It’s just being assembled there.” So I just think

it’s the future.

The federal government is doing some work in the larger building space for preset

designs of buildings, which will help. But it’s going to require us to do some more

work on standardizing minimums for small-scale, multi-unit and for accessory dwelling

units so that we can see industry scale up.

Rob Botterell : We have pretty much reached the conclusion of the memorable part of estimates, being

the Green caucus’s presentation. How’s that — quirky?

I do have one more question. Before I pose this question, I do want to thank the minister

and the minister’s staff and all the public servants in the Ministry of Housing and

Municipal Affairs and B.C. Housing, who have contributed to very helpful answers and

detailed answers to the questions we’ve raised.

Earlier today there was some significant and extensive discussion around cats. It

occurred to me that that is an emerging fairly major issue in the province. I thought

I’d conclude with this question, which is: this government included a commitment to

get rid of no-pet clauses for purpose-built rental apartment buildings, which excludes

pet owners from rental housing. Can the minister describe the timeline and plan for

implementing this commitment? What funding exists for this so that we can have cats

and dogs everywhere in the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : We are going to be doing some consultation with landlord groups, with tenant groups,

to do a better assessment of what this means and how we go forward. We haven’t started

that yet. I can’t give the member a firm timeline, although we are committed to it

in our mandate. When I have a better update, I certainly will share that with the

member.

Rob Botterell : Thank you, Minister. Those are my questions.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : First off, I want to thank everyone for the thoughtful exchange. The member for Skeena

asked some fantastic questions yesterday. The member for Surrey–Serpentine River —

we had a great exchange. The member from Prince George, and, of course, my friend

across the way from Saanich North and the Islands. This is what majority of the work

should look like in government and it does look like.

I appreciate the people that are here get to see a thoughtful exchange. It’s not just

yelling and screaming. That only happens for half an hour in the day.

I want to do a special thank-you to the amazing people behind me, because I don’t

do the work. They do the work. Not only them — there are people in the other room,

and there are people in their offices across the province that are watching.

A lot of people work. They do work. But the work that these individuals do has a massive

impact on people’s lives every single day. I think that when somebody joins the public

service, they want to know they’re doing something meaningful. I want to let the folks

here know that what they’re doing is instrumental in the time that we’re living in,

and I’m really grateful for all the work that they do.

To the people in the other room: thank you for the work that all of you do.

With that, Chair, I would like to wait for them to leave, and then I will read the

statement. Thank you all.

The Chair : Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,513,975,000 — approved.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair : This committee will stand adjourned.

The committee rose at 2:35 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson : Committee of Supply B reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry

of Housing and Municipal Affairs and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside : In this chamber, I call continued second reading of Bill 5.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Budget Measures

Implementation Act, 2025

(continued)

Deputy Speaker : Thank you very much, Members. We will bring this chamber back to order. Of course,

we will be debating the amendment on Bill 5, and we will recognize the member for

Skeena to begin this afternoon’s debate.

On the amendment (continued).

Claire Rattée : Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that, and I’m happy to be back and talking a bit more

about the amendment that was made to Bill 5 last week, I believe it was. I know that

it’s been a little while, and I started my speech already last week, so I’m kind of

continuing here.

I wanted to talk a bit more about what this amendment, the grocery rebate guarantee

amendment, will actually mean for British Columbians. I wanted to start off by talking

a bit about why this is necessary and why our leader moved this amendment, because

the issue that we’re having with the fact that the government campaigned on a promise

to provide a $500 rebate to each person in British Columbia, which would be $1,000

per family, and then pulled it away when they brought forward the budget, is that

you can’t have it both ways.

I know that there’s been a lot of talk about tariffs, for example, being one of the

reasons why they couldn’t bring this forward in their budget. You know: “We’re concerned

about tariffs. We’re concerned about what these costs are going to mean, so now we

have to claw back something that was promised originally.” But you can’t have it both

ways. Either you knew the tariffs were coming or you didn’t know the tariffs were

coming, because of the timelines of when the budget was put forward.

It’s no different than the carbon tax, for example, removing the requirement for the

carbon tax. Again, either you knew it was coming or you didn’t know it was coming.

So when this budget was put forward without this grocery rebate that was promised,

the issue becomes: was that actually factored in there, or was it not? Because at

that point we didn’t have tariffs yet.

That’s why we brought forward this amendment, because you can’t have it both ways.

Now more than ever British Columbians are struggling. They’re struggling to make ends

meet. We know that many British Columbians are only $200 away from insolvency, and

something as minor as this could make a massive difference in their lives.

I want to spend a bit of time talking about, like I said, what this actually means

for people in my riding, for example.

Just recently during the Housing estimates, I brought up one constituent that is low

income and is struggling and is on income assistance. This individual makes just under

$17,000 a year.

[2:40 p.m.]

When you think about somebody that’s making that much money a year, somebody that

has traumatic brain injury, has multiple barriers and is struggling to make ends meet

as it is, $500 extra on their income taxes in a year is a significant difference.

That makes a lasting impact, and this amendment would ensure that this is something

that that individual and every single British Columbian would get every single year.

When somebody is making $17,000 a year, an extra $500 could mean the world to them.

I’ve got a number of constituents that are on income assistance right now because

things have been very difficult in my riding. We’ve lost our forestry sector. All

the mills have closed. Times have been very tough.

Right now in the city of Terrace, based on the last homeless count, one in 83 people

are homeless. It is a staggering number, and the problem is that because that only

equates to a few hundred people, this government hasn’t necessarily paid attention

to it. To put it in perspective, if you were to look at what that means for population,

that would mean that for the Greater Vancouver area, the entire township of Langley

would have to become homeless for it to be on par with those same numbers. If that

happened, the government would call a state of public emergency. But because it’s

in my riding in Skeena, up north, nobody seems to care.

An extra $500 a year to one of those people that has to sleep on the streets in Terrace,

a place that is very cold most of the year, could make a significant impact on their

quality of life. It might allow them the ability to actually get into some kind of

low-income housing and improve their lives. So $500 might not seem like a lot to some

of the people that are in this chamber, but to most of my constituents, it would make

such a significant difference that it cannot be overstated.

When you look at some of the factors of things that are going on in Skeena right now,

the challenges that people are facing, the potential impacts of agreeing with this

amendment and approving this promise that the NDP made — that they campaigned on,

that is very likely the reason that they got elected — makes sense. It’s really the

bare minimum that could be done at this point, when there’s essentially very little

to nothing in this budget that was put forward for 2025 to actually address affordability

for the British Columbians that are struggling right now.

Another significant area that this could make a massive difference for, in my riding,

are people that are struggling with medical costs. There’s a lot of talk about how

our medical system in Canada is free, but people don’t talk about all of the extra

things that are involved in medical care that aren’t free, that aren’t covered. For

people that are lower income — or even somebody that’s generally considered middle

income because, really, that’s still not very much money in today’s day and age —

any kind of a significant health problem costs them so much more money because of,

again, our geography.

I know of three different people in my riding right now that have significant kidney

problems, and to be able to access the dialysis treatment that they need to go for….

One of them is at risk of actually losing their home with how much money it’s costing

them to drive from Kitimat to Terrace three or four times a week to be able to access

dialysis. A 63 kilometre drive to get to Terrace, if you do that three or four times

a week in a truck — that’s what you need when you live up north, because the highways

are in horrid shape and it’s incredibly dangerous because of the weather frequently

— that adds up. That’s significant.

This person’s spouse has been unable to work because they need to be the one to drive

them to these appointments. Dialysis is incredibly difficult on the body, and it’s

not easy for somebody to drive themselves to and from these appointments three to

four times a week. For that couple, this might mean them actually being able to keep

their home.

On top of that, this individual has had to drive multiple times and actually spend

most of the summer this past year in Prince George, which is an eight-hour drive away,

and pay for hotels for their spouse and all of that. Again, the financial impacts

of having a health care problem when you live in a riding like mine are incredibly

significant. I know that $500 a year or $1,000 for a couple, again, doesn’t sound

like a lot of money, but it really is. It could make such a significant difference

in the lives of people like that.

[2:45 p.m.]

I know another couple. They’re both seniors. They are both on long-term disability

and again, obviously, have very little income. They do everything that they can to

be able to live as sustainably as possible. They have a wood-burning stove so that

they don’t have to use electricity or gas. They’re also very kind people. They take

care of a lot of stray animals near their property. Recently, they also faced a lot

of significant challenges with their health. On top of that, because of some clerical

errors, they weren’t receiving their cheques for a few months.

I want to see an amendment like this passed because I don’t ever want to get a phone

call from a woman like that again, in absolute tears because she and her husband haven’t

eaten in a few days because they can’t afford it; all the stray animals that they

take care of, they haven’t fed. She’s just heartbroken. And now finding out that she

has to go to Smithers, which is about four hours away, to be able to get medical treatment,

because she can’t access it in our riding, and leaving her husband, who is severely

disabled and has no other caretaker there to assist him….

The financial impacts of this were immense. Again, there’s a couple that could really

use that extra $500 a year. It would have such a significant impact on their quality

of life and what that would mean for them.

I really do urge everybody on both sides of the House to think about those stories.

Think about the stories of people that you know in your communities that have come

forward that are struggling. We know that food bank usage is at an all-time high.

British Columbians are struggling right now. They can’t afford this.

If tariffs are the reason why we’re not able to provide British Columbians with a

little bit of tax relief, think about what those tariffs are going to do to those

British Columbians that are struggling to make ends meet right now. If the tariffs

are the reason why we have to tighten up the budget, again, think about what that

does to those families that are struggling to make ends meet and what this could actually

mean to them. It’s, again, a very, very small thing that has a huge impact on every

single British Columbian.

I’ve got families in my riding right now that can’t afford to feed both themselves

and their children. We live in British Columbia. That should not be happening in our

province. That should not be happening in our country. Parents that have to make a

decision between feeding themselves and feeding their children or hopefully relying

on school programs to be able to provide them with food throughout the day — it’s

shameful. That shouldn’t be happening in a country like Canada. It shouldn’t be happening

in a province like B.C.

This amendment fixes something that was promised by the NDP. The opposition is giving

them the opportunity to make this right and to save face on it. The trust of British

Columbians has been broken.

Campaigning on a promise as significant as that and utilizing it to be able to win

an election, one which was not won by any great number, by any means…. It was very

close, so I think we can feel fairly confident that that was a big factor in why it

was won by the NDP. Then to pull it away after winning election…. British Columbians

don’t trust the government right now. They don’t trust that this government has their

back.

The suffering that I’m seeing consistently, especially in my riding, especially in

a number of different areas throughout the province where people are not as fortunate….

The difference that this could make for those people is massive. And $500 a year can

buy a lot of extra groceries. It might not stretch as far as we’d like it to now because

of the tariffs, because of that threat, but it would still make an impact.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’d really urge everybody on both sides of the House to think about what this actually

means, what this would mean for British Columbians, what this would do to start to

restore some of that faith in government and to recognize that both sides of the House

are able to work together. That’s what British Columbians are looking for. That’s

what Canadians are looking for. Again, I think we saw that very clearly both through

our provincial election and this last federal election.

There is an expectation that we find common ground and that we work together on solutions

that are going to actually improve the lives of the people that we’re here to serve.

This is one way that we could very easily accomplish that. It would help significantly

with restoring that faith. It would help with some of the strains that we’ve seen

on mental health. We’ve been talking about that a lot lately in this House, about

the impacts on people’s mental health.

Financial insecurity has a huge impact on that. Financial insecurity is absolutely

a factor in anxiety and depression. It can mean the difference between a parent having

to work overtime shifts and not getting to spend enough time with their children because

they can’t afford to make ends meet, and that child then growing up feeling like they

weren’t paid attention to enough by their parents…. It’s a vicious loop.

We should be doing everything in our power right now to try and ease that burden on

hard-working British Columbians that deserve a little bit of a break right now, especially

with everything that they’ve been through recently. They’ve come out of a pandemic,

and we saw the impacts that that’s had.

I’m a business owner myself. I know the impacts that that’s had on small businesses.

I know that the cost of supplies for me to be able to run my shop have almost tripled.

Just because things have come down slightly since COVID prices doesn’t really mean

anything when you factor in the fact that everything skyrocketed during COVID.

Everything is still more expensive than it was prior to the pandemic. Cost of living

just keeps on rising. I think that members of the government know that, and that’s

why this was something that was promised in a platform and then not delivered on.

I think that members of the government likely have constituents in their ridings that

have reached out to them with similar stories to the ones that I just shared, and

countless others.

I’ll just reiterate that the people in my riding are really suffering right now. Until

we can make sure that we’re focusing on getting our industries back up and running

in that area and that everybody has access to good work and that there are enough

homes available for people so that they can live comfortable lives and don’t have

to be insecure about their financial status, that they can live comfortably, it’s

the least that we can do to provide them with a little bit of relief.

It’s the least that we can do for underserved populations specifically, to try and

ensure that fewer people are having to use a food bank to feed themselves and their

children, that fewer seniors are having to live out of their vehicles or go into shelters

and be surrounded by crime and drug use and things that they should not have to be

surrounded by. The fact that there are seniors that are having to utilize shelters

right now is shameful.

Again, I don’t understand why something like that would be happening in a province

like ours. We have so much potential, with our industries, to be able to generate

more revenue for the province. We have that ability to do that. British Columbians

don’t necessarily have the ability to do that for themselves, but this government

has the ability to do that.

If they’re concerned about saving money, and that’s why they don’t want to approve

this amendment and don’t want to ensure that British Columbians have more money back

in their pockets, then focus on promoting those industries and getting things moving

again in this province. Focus on things like forestry to make that money back up,

to ensure that we can put more of it in the pockets of British Columbians. They deserve

that opportunity. They deserve to be able to afford basic groceries, to be able to

heat their homes.

[2:55 p.m.]

I’ve got another constituent in my riding that had their gas turned off in their home

for a few months over the winter because they have a pellet stove. They still received

a $160 gas bill every month, even though their gas was turned off. Things are not

affordable right now in this province.

Again, it’s a very small amount of money in the grand scheme of things, but for each

of those individuals, it can make a big difference: for a student that needs to be

able to buy textbooks, for a mother that needs to be able to feed her children, for

somebody that’s struggling with addiction that needs to be able to buy nicer clothes

to be able to go to a job interview and get their life back on track. These small

things can make a very big difference in the lives of British Columbians.

I really hope that everybody will make the right choice when we vote on this amendment,

recognize that it was a mistake to take away this rebate from British Columbians and

ensure that we do the right thing — that we vote yes on this amendment and we provide

British Columbians with at least one small benefit from this budget that’ll help with

their cost-of-living expenses.

It’ll prevent more British Columbians from trying to leave this province to go somewhere

that it’s more affordable to live, to ensure that parents don’t have their young children,

teenage children, young adults leaving to go find work in other provinces. This could

make such a huge and significant impact.

Like I said at the beginning, you can’t have it both ways. We knew what was coming

down the pipe when the NDP originally promised this $500 rebate. The Premier had already

stated that if the federal backstop for the carbon tax was removed, we were going

to remove it too. This promise was still made, and it was still broken. Nothing really

changed, just the politics of the situation — being elected and feeling safe being

back in government again and not having to make good on a promise to British Columbians.

I hope that we make the right choice, that we vote yes on this amendment.

Deputy Speaker : Members, I just wanted to remind everybody that we are, of course, going to continue

this afternoon with second reading debate on Bill 5.

For those joining us in the gallery, this moves that the motion for the second reading

of Bill 5, intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025, be amended by “deleting

all the words after ‘that’ and substituting therefore the following: Bill 5 not read

a second time until the House amends the basic personal income tax provided in

section

4.3 (1.1) of the Income Tax Act (R.S.B.C. 1996) to $22,462.”

Today we are going to entertain speakers on the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird : I stand proudly today as the MLA for Prince George–Valemount, as a British Columbian

and as a member of the opposition to talk about two topics I would hope are close

to the heart of each elected representative in this House: our families and this province’s

economic well-being. When I speak in this House and I discuss the future of British

Columbia, I cannot ignore the profound impact that the actions of this government

have and are having on the constituents of my riding and on every British Columbian.

Today I want to enlighten you on a topic that has the power to uplift our families,

strengthen our communities and bolster our province’s economy: reasonable tax rebates.

Tax breaks of any size in my riding and throughout the North would be highly appreciated

and, unfortunately, necessary due to the significant downturn in the resource sector.

Let’s start with how these may benefit families. When households receive tax rebates,

they gain a little breathing room. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives supports

the idea that targeted tax relief can increase disposable income for families. They

advocate for personal income tax cuts that aim to benefit middle- and low-income Canadians

and indicate that such measures can lead to higher disposable income.

[3:00 p.m.]

Additionally, they emphasize the need for fair tax measures to address economic challenges,

further supporting the notion that targeted tax relief can positively impact family

finances, allowing them to invest in necessities like education and health care and

even save for future endeavours. This isn’t just good for individuals and families;

it’s good for our whole community.

Now let’s talk about communities. With families having more money in their pockets,

local businesses can thrive. Imagine a town where families can support their favourite

shops, restaurants and services. It sparks economic activity, it creates jobs, and

it fosters local entrepreneurship. Communities that invest in their residents become

more vibrant and resilient.

Of course, we must not ignore the broader province. When families and communities

flourish, our province benefits. Enhanced local economies mean increased tax revenues,

which can be reinvested into essential public services, like education and health

care. A study by the Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that every dollar invested

in community initiatives can yield up to $4 in economic return. Investing in residents

of B.C. and B.C. families is investing in all of our futures.

Our Premier has said that the residents of British Columbia need relief now. That

could not be truer with the continuous yet inconsistent looming threats and tariffs

from our southern U.S. neighbours. Tariffs will impact every community, every industry

and every person across this province and country.

Many B.C. residents were $200 away from being able to pay their bills before the threat

of added economic pressure. At the end of last year, a third of British Columbians

reported they are already insolvent, unable to cover their bills and debt obligations,

and they have an average of $97 less left over. Tragically, half don’t believe they

will be able to cover all living expenses in the next 12 months without going further

into debt. So imagine what $500 to $1,000 a household could mean for families in British

Columbia.

Well, today marks six months and 12 days since the 19 October 2024 provincial election.

As opposition, the Conservative Party of B.C. has introduced an amendment, the income

tax grocery rebate guarantee, to Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. This

bill amendment remedies a broken promise, a promise abandoned post-election by this

NDP government, one the Premier campaigned on, one he and his MLAs garnered votes

from, the $1,000 annual grocery rebate.

On 9 October, 2024, ten days prior to the provincial election, Premier Eby was quoted:

“Under our plan, families will get more support, and you’ll get it right away. John

Rustad would hand tax breaks to billionaires and speculators….”

Deputy Speaker : Member, we don’t use names, of course, in the chamber here.

Rosalyn Bird : It’s in a quote, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker : I would prefer that you stay away from the member’s name, please.

Rosalyn Bird : Noted. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

“He would hand tax breaks to billionaires and speculators while leaving you waiting

for the help you need now.” As it turns out, it is the Leader of the Opposition offering

that support and the Premier leaving B.C. residents waiting for the help he stated

they need now.

As we look to the future, I encourage each of you to envision the kind of British

Columbia you want to see — a place where families thrive, where every child has access

to quality education, healthy food, recreation and where communities are resilient

and prosperous. Together, this House can turn that vision into reality.

A high cost of living significantly impacts individuals, families and communities,

leading to increased financial stress, reduced well-being and potentially hindering

social and economic progress. For individuals, it can mean less discretionary income,

financial insecurity and difficulties accessing essential resources, like housing

and health care. Families may experience strain on their budgets, affecting their

ability to save and invest and potentially leading to increased stress and conflict.

[3:05 p.m.]

For many households, $500 to $1,000 in tax savings can cover essential and unexpected

expenses. It may be medical bills, car repairs or transit fares, ensuring families

don’t have to choose between essential needs and emergencies. That relief, even if

it seems small, may allow families more time together, because one or both parents

can

schedule one less shift. It could go towards children’s education, saving tuition

fees or purchasing necessary school supplies and books. Investing in our children

today cultivates a promising future for British Columbia.

We all recognize and have directly felt or seen the results of the rising cost of

living. In my riding of Prince George–Valemount, the use of our local food bank has

nearly doubled over a three-year span. Most of those individuals are seniors and children.

With this savings, families may be able to more readily afford healthy food options,

grow a garden, and they could can the bounty their garden produces, which in turn

helps to combat food insecurity and promote better overall health.

When families spend this savings locally at a family restaurant, tickets to a Cougars

game or a visit to the Exploration centre, they support their communities, and they

contribute to job creation, ensuring that our neighbourhoods thrive. It’s a ripple

effect of positive change.

It may free up extra money that can bolster savings accounts, providing families with

a cushion for crises, fostering financial security that can lead to peace of mind.

It may enable families to enjoy leisure activities, perhaps a family trip or a membership

at the local recreation facility that will enhance quality of life and strengthen

family bonds and significantly improve overall health.

When the government invests in families, it isn’t charity. It’s an investment in our

province’s future. Thriving families lead to healthier communities, reducing long-term

costs on health care and social services for the province and the country.

At a community level, a high cost of living can increase existing inequalities, limit

economic opportunities and impact public services and infrastructure. Often it can

disproportionately affect low-income communities and families, thereby widening the

gap between the rich and the poor and potentially stifling economic development.

Increased demand for social services, such as affordable housing and food banks, as

I have seen and heard in Prince George, puts a strain on public budgets and resources.

It can make it difficult for individuals to move up the social ladder, limiting their

opportunities for advancement. High housing costs can drive up demand for affordable

housing, potentially leading to longer wait-lists and increased competition for scarce

resources.

Lowering housing costs and other living expenses can make it less difficult for individuals

to pursue new opportunities, attend post-secondary school like UNBC or CNC college,

start a new business like Jack’s Indoor Adventure Playground or grow a business such

as the Wall of Fame Sandwich Shop, all of which are in Prince George.

The stress associated with continued increased costs can lead to increased mental

health challenges within the community, impacting the overall well-being of all residents.

There has been a doubling of requests for mental health services in my riding, which

speaks to this particular concern.

In the past few years, we have seen a record number of young British Columbians and

residents moving to Alberta, attracted to the province’s economic growth and job opportunities,

while struggling with B.C.’s high cost of living and housing has prompted many young

people to move or to seriously consider a move. My stepdaughter, her husband and my

four-year-old grandson just moved to Grande Prairie six months ago for these very

reasons.

[3:10 p.m.]

An additional $500 to $1,000 in tax savings for B.C. residents and families doesn’t

just represent money. It symbolizes hope, security and the investment in brighter

futures for themselves, their children and their communities. Let’s work together,

creating opportunities that resonate with compassion and integrity for all.

Every decision that we make — as individuals, as a political party, as an elected

government — has consequences. Sometimes they are positive, other times negative,

and occasionally those decisions have unintentional and unforeseen consequences.

I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to an essential pillar of Canadian democracy:

confidence in all levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal. For residents

of British Columbia, this confidence is not merely a political abstract. It is the

very foundation of a thriving, engaged and empowered community.

While I was campaigning and still today I have had many conversations with or received

correspondence from B.C. residents who have lost faith in the government. Many feel

unseen, unheard and forgotten. They remain disappointed with the continued broken

campaign promises, administrative mismanagement, increased taxes and a lack of accountability

and transparency. This has resulted in residents forgetting that in a democratic country,

the residents, the voters, are in fact the government.

We as their elected representatives have a responsibility to honour their choices

and to do everything we can to adhere to the principles of good governance, solid

fiscal policy and management while always striving for transparency and accountability.

When residents trust their government, they are more likely to engage in civic duties,

whether that’s voting, attending town halls or volunteering for community initiatives.

This active participation fosters a vibrant democracy where every voice is heard.

Confidence in leadership and elected officials encourages support for policies that

benefit our communities.

When families feel assured that their government has their best interests at heart,

they are more likely to embrace initiatives aimed at the improvements, be it in education,

health care or environmental protections.

As a proud veteran, I have seen firsthand in many places that trust in governments

is essential for social cohesion. When residents believe their leaders are acting

with integrity and making decisions based on compassion, we build a united community

where diversity is celebrated and collaboration flourishes.

A confident, assured public will stimulate economic growth. Investors and businesses

are attracted to regions with stable governance, knowing that leadership will foster

a favourable environment for growth. This influx leads to job creation, supporting

families and communities across our province.

In times of crisis — may it be natural disasters, forest fires, landslides, flooding

or public health emergencies — confidence in our government becomes a lifeline. A

government that communicates transparently and acts decisively instils a sense of

security, fostering communal resilience. We can weather all storms together.

Perhaps most importantly, confidence thrives in a system where integrity, accountability

and transparency are prioritized. B.C. residents deserve a government that acts with

integrity, is transparent in its dealings and is willing to admit mistakes. This honesty

fosters trust, an invaluable currency, in governance.

As we move forward, let us remember that our collective voices are powerfully capable

of shaping policies and making changes that reflect the diverse needs of B.C. residents

and our communities. Also, we must consider the legacy we choose to leave behind for

future generations. When we cultivate trust in our government and invest in our families

today, we are equipping our children with the tools they need to thrive tomorrow.

A strong foundation today leads to resilient leaders of tomorrow.

[3:15 p.m.]

In conclusion, the importance of confidence in our provincial government cannot be

overstated. It is what binds us as a community. It strengthens our democracy and empowers

us to strive for better. Together let’s advocate for leadership that embodies honesty,

integrity and commitment to all residents of British Columbia.

I ask all members of this House to support the bill amendment and make the grocery

rebate guarantee a reality as it follows through on a promise made and provides some

tax relief that British Columbians deserve and need.

Members of this House, let’s work together and move forward towards a future that

honours every individual’s and family’s right to thrive. Together we are stronger,

and together we can achieve greatness for our communities, our province and Canada.

Kristina Loewen : I rise today in this chamber to support this wonderful amendment that was brought

forward by the member for Nechako Lakes. This is an amendment that speaks to the heart

of what matters most right now to British Columbians: affordability, fairness and

responsibility. That is why I’m standing here today and speaking to this amendment.

This is an amendment that is grounded in fairness, responsibility and, most importantly,

meaningful relief for British Columbians who are being crushed by the rising cost

of living. Right now families across this province are struggling under the weight

of rising prices. Rent is up. Interest rates are up. Groceries are sky-high. The previous

member mentioned that some things are coming down, but that’s after they skyrocketed

during the pandemic, and that was an insane time.

I think, just for the record, when we compare where we are at now to where we were

two years ago, we’re not comparing apples to apples. We need to be comparing, or this

government needs to be comparing, where things are now to where things were when they

took over the government. It doesn’t matter whether you live in Prince George, Campbell

River or Kelowna, the cost of living is pushing people to the brink.

Everywhere I go in my constituency, whether it’s the grocery store, the gas station

or the community centre, I hear the same thing: “I don’t know how much longer I can

keep this up.” Families are watching their paycheques disappear before the month is

over. Seniors are making impossible choices between prescriptions and groceries. Young

people are wondering if they’ll ever be able to get ahead.

It breaks my heart listening to the stories of the people of Kelowna that are really

struggling, and they aren’t getting ahead. They are the reason I am an MLA. They are

the reason I decided to put my name forward and run.

British Columbians are resilient. They work hard, they pay their taxes, they play

by the rules, but they are tired of promises made and promises broken. They are tired

of being taxed to death — taxed on their income, taxed on their property, taxed on

their purchases and taxed on their taxes.

This bill begins to change that. The Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment

Act proposes to save each British Columbian $500 a year. That’s $1,000 to every two-income

household. Those are families that we’re talking about. This means that every family

would save $1,000 each and every year.

This means more money in families’ pockets, and not another broken promise from this

NDP government. The NDP promised voters a $1,000 grocery rebate in the 2024 election.

After the votes were counted and they regained the power that they’d feared losing,

they walked away on this campaign promise. That promise was a whisper of hope, a glimpse

of relief and a chance for just a sliver of peace and optimism for families that are

living paycheque to paycheque, just $200 away from trouble, loss and hardship every

two weeks.

[3:20 p.m.]

This promise was one that I would have latched onto in their shoes. When my husband

and I had our four children as young parents in our early 20s and early 30s, we struggled.

Life’s plans changed, and finances weren’t always easy. We lived paycheque to paycheque.

And yes, $200 — heck, even $100 — whether it was short or extra, made a huge difference

in our monthly bills. This was a time when we, like so many families today, could

not afford for one thing to go wrong.

We just got by. We didn’t go on trips. We didn’t go to movies. We didn’t go to the

mall, because we couldn’t buy anything. For us, we worked hard. We loved our kids

well, and we pinched and saved and budgeted, and we just hoped for calm waters.

We hoped the van wouldn’t break down, and it was a real threat, because I was running

a daycare at the time, and I needed the van to drive the kids to and from school.

A costly repair could impede my ability to work.

We just hoped no one would get sick. When my oldest child was four, she needed emergency

surgery. It turned into a lengthy hospital stay, and our family was in trouble. If

I wasn’t there to run the daycare, the loss of income would set us back significantly.

Many times I pushed through work while not feeling well, because there was no other

option for an entrepreneur living paycheque to paycheque.

It was promises like this, temporary and immediate relief, that tugged on our hearts

and minds and, yes, tempted us for our vote in the past. This is a cheap way to grab

votes.

I get it. It works. Desperate people will cling to hope. They will grab the closest

thing to their grasp which will keep them from drowning. It’s a survival instinct.

It’s a good thing. It’s smart. It’s necessary. I have been there, and I get it. But

it’s especially cheap now that it’s been used as a bait-and-switch.

Well, this new motion could rectify that. It would give families the relief that they

need now. It would also give this government the opportunity to make good, to provide

the much-needed and much-promised relief. It’s a start. This new amendment would reduce

income tax, and it would be permanent, not just three years.

One of the biggest reasons I got involved in B.C. politics, the biggest reason actually,

was affordability. I have four kids, as I mentioned before. They’re all young adults

or almost young adults now. I’m really proud of them, by the way. They don’t have

the same optimism that I had at their age.

I was told: “Your whole life is ahead of you. What will you do? Where will you travel?

What do you want to be? Where will you live?” I dreamed of travel, family, home ownership

with a beautiful yard and pets. Kids and young adults now seem to feel, or maybe they

know, that they will never own a home. They don’t have the same licence to dream that

I had not that many years ago.

My own kids have mentioned Alberta or further away for affordability reasons. Others

have left not only the province but the country. People are seeing their futures erode

in B.C. We are being taxed to the eyeballs.

Prior to being elected, I worked in real estate, and I saw firsthand how expensive

people find British Columbia. From the property transfer tax, which we sometimes call

a deal killer here in B.C. with those from out of province, to the sheer number of

buyers that just gave up here on our market or to the sellers that left for more affordable

ground, we saw it, firsthand as realtors, everywhere. If we could reduce taxes for

families, we might keep some families here in B.C. If we could reduce taxes for people,

we might keep our adult children here in B.C.

In October of 2024, the Premier said: “Under our plan, families will get more support,

and you’ll get it right away. The Leader of the Official Opposition would hand tax

breaks to billionaires and speculators while leaving you waiting for the help you

need now.” Well, actions speak louder than words, and it turns out that it was the

Premier that left you waiting for the help you need now.

[3:25 p.m.]

The Premier was all tax — oops, Freudian, I mean all talk — and no action. That is

like seeing someone drowning and saying: “Nah, I’m not going to throw you this rope

and flotation device now, because I can’t afford it. But I know you’ll be fine, and

thanks for voting for me.”

The Leader of the Official Opposition knows people are drowning financially and that

they need this help now. That is why I can support this amendment, and I hope that

you will too.

Families are hurting, and 307 new clients registered for food bank support in the

Central Okanagan. That was just this March. These are new clients to the food bank,

people who never needed a food bank before. These are families. In fact, the fastest-growing

clientele at the Central Okanagan Food Bank is middle-income families — families with

two income earners, two working adults in one home. Many have good jobs. Many have

university degrees. This is unacceptable in Canada. This is unacceptable in British

Columbia and in Kelowna.

This amendment could be a first step in instant relief for families. I read all of

the ministry mandate letters, and they all start with the same points: grow the economy.

But I do not see that happening, unless you consider government jobs and bureaucracy

economic growth.

This amendment would put more money in the pockets of British Columbians. For some,

it will be the difference between seeking help from a food bank for the first time

or going to the grocery store like they live in the first-world country that they

actually live in. For others, like the entrepreneur I was, it could mean being able

to spend time in the hospital with a loved one without going into debt. Maybe it will

be a payment on a student loan or an investment in a product for the start of a small

online business.

Or, since cats are a theme today, maybe you can afford to buy your cat some pet food

or some fresh litter.

I hope to make the point and emphasize how much people are struggling in the real

world, outside of the walls of this chamber. Seniors are struggling. A couple of weeks

ago in Kelowna, and I know I’ve said this before, three different senior men sought

shelter in one day at one particular location. That was one day in Kelowna. It’s worth

noting that not one of these men, not even a single one, had a drug use issue, and

not one of these men had previously sought shelter.

I’m sure that for them, after working productively their whole lives, this would have

been a blow to their pride. And I can’t imagine. I feel so bad for them. I can’t imagine

how they must be feeling and what they’re facing. This is how bad it is and how badly

British Columbians need this relief that this bill could offer.

In October of 2024, the Premier said: “I’m on the side of everyday people and families

who just want to end the day a little further ahead than when they started it.” The

Premier sounded so kind, and maybe I believe him a little bit because, well, he does

yoga like me, and yogis are nice people usually. Because I like to believe the best

about people and because I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, I want to

believe him. Most people want good things for themselves and for others. We don’t

like to see others suffering. But I do think there’s a disconnect from that side of

the room, because life is harder. Everything seems less affordable.

How can he be on the side of everyday people when he cancels relief, and life just

continues to be harder and harder for the shrinking middle class? I have a hard time

with the Premier’s statement, because after eight years of NDP government, there is

nowhere that you can look in any sector where life is better, unless it’s an executive

position in a government-funded job. Yet I hear all of these nice things coming from

the other side of the room. Things like: “We’re investing in this. We’re increasing

funding in that, continuing to support this. We’ll begin to support that. We will

do. We have done. We’ve reduced poverty. We’ve expanded programs.”

[3:30 p.m.]

But then tell me why. Why does life seem worse, harder? Why is everything less affordable?

Why are there more mental health struggles than ever before, and more crime? There

seems to be a disconnect here, a difference between some really pretty, dressed-up

word salads and reality.

I like to deal with the root of the problem. This amendment speaks to the root of

the problem. There’s not enough money in British Columbians’ pockets. Rather, this

government seeks to tax British Columbians and then give a little bit back here and

there.

This is the kind of system that promotes reliance on the government, and quite frankly,

it buys votes. It’s the kind of system that takes away from an individual’s ability

to provide for themselves. It erodes pride and purpose, two things that are key to

an individual’s ability to feel whole and alive and to achieve the mental wellness

that comes with that.

When I raise my kids, I want them to grow with a sense of reliance, with a feeling

of purpose and optimism. Too often today this government is pushing a “we’ll take

care of you” approach: “Trust us to give it back to you. Trust the system to be there

when you need it. Trust us.” This takes away from a person’s motivation, and furthermore,

that system is broken. The system is so broken and breaking down in front of us. What

will be left to trust in after we’ve gathered their trust?

This amendment could be a beginning. Together we can work to put more money into wallets,

money that the government never took out to begin with. A novel concept, I know. But

I believe we need to begin here.

On September 30, 2024, the Premier said: “A $1,000 tax cut the year after that, the

year after that and the year after that.” It was a cheap promise, but now the government

can make good on it. It can be a joint effort across political lines, and it can be

permanent, not just three years. British Columbians need more than three years of

relief. We need a real and lasting plan for a stronger economy, lower taxes and more

hope and opportunity for young British Columbians. This bill promises relief.

Perhaps we don’t need to make poverty a thriving industry, fuelled by high taxes and

low incentives for the business community. Perhaps we can move back towards a thriving

middle class. As we all know, a healthy and thriving middle class is essential and

important to a healthy democracy. A healthy and widespread middle class provides a

healthy foundation for the economy.

Modest taxes coming from this class can also support a wide range of supports for

a struggling and vulnerable population. Without a strong and healthy middle class,

all of the systems that the vulnerable depend on become at risk. As the critic for

Social Development, I am keenly aware of how at-risk some of these programs are or

could become.

Like any household budget, one cannot expect to run deficits, build debts, use credit

cards in an infinite manner and be able to sustain that behaviour long term. At some

points, payments become unmanageable, and the whole house of cards will fall. This

is my concern with the struggling middle class. It’s why I believe this amendment

is so important. We have to support the middle class, as it is they who support every

program that this government runs.

On September 29, 2024, the Premier said: “People need help now so they can get ahead.

The Leader of the Official Opposition would make ordinary people wait 18 months to

receive any support. That’s if you believe him at all. Our tax cut for the middle

class supports people now who are struggling with the high cost of groceries.” The

Premier said people will need relief now, but what’s changed since September that

he feels he can simply cancel this plan? What is his plan to support those who need

relief?

This amendment seeks to answer that call, delivering immediate relief to families

who are now just $200 away from falling behind on their bills. The people on this

side of the room have the backs of all British Columbians, and that is why we will

support this amendment. We want to see businesses thrive. We want a healthy middle-income

society.

[3:35 p.m.]

We want healthy programs supporting our vulnerable, but we realize we can’t do that

without a strong and healthy middle class that pays a reasonable amount of tax and

has a strong chance for opportunity and prosperity. We aren’t against social programs.

We understand how they must be funded and that money does not grow on trees.

I knew then and I know now that the member for Nechako Lakes would bring policies

that would bring relief to everyday British Columbians, policies that would release

the stranglehold of high regulation and overtaxation that it has on everyday British

Columbians and small businesses. This amendment brings real, recurring relief to the

people of British Columbia, which is what they need right now.

I know the people of Kelowna would support this type of amendment. During my campaign,

I heard from small businesses, small business owners and restaurant owners, that they

will not survive another four years if this NDP government stays on the current trajectory

of high taxes and high regulation. I have witnessed many businesses in Kelowna close

down in the past couple of years, so I believe them.

One of my colleagues on this side of the House tells me that restaurant owners in

his riding used to run their restaurants with 12 staff. Take-home was millions, and

a burger was $6 just a few years ago. Well, now that same burger is $12, so it has

doubled. They can only afford to have two staff, not 12; and they take home about

65 percent of what they were taking home several years ago.

This is not sustainable. This is why we will continue to see families in the food

bank lineup, leave the province and businesses leave the province. Unless and until

this government begins to bring relief to the middle class, we are on a path to deficits,

debt and lack of opportunity.

I do know that all members want good things for British Columbians, so I urge all

of us to dig deep, consider what is working and what is not working, and find a common

way forward. I do believe that we can agree on many things and that we should drop

the things that matter less. Ideologies and regulations and being right all matter

very little when children are hungry and jobs are scarce or the ones that are available

simply don’t pay the bills.

Let me remind this House that it wasn’t that long ago. It was just last year, in fact

that the Premier himself promised British Columbians a $1,000 annual grocery rebate.

He stood in front of cameras and said help was coming. Then after the election was

over, after the headlines faded, that promise was abandoned, but not before they gave

themselves raises.

British Columbians are not asking for luxuries. They’re not asking for handouts. They’re

asking to be able to afford milk, bread, diapers, gas to get to work. They’re asking

for a little bit of breathing room. They’re asking for the supports to be able to

provide for themselves, and this bill gives it to them.

This amendment holds the government to its word too. If the Premier and his cabinet

believed in that rebate enough to campaign on it, then they should believe in it enough

to support this bill. I hope all members of this House will support this bill and

provide the tax relief British Columbians so desperately need and deserve.

This is an amendment that every member of this House should support. It brings real

solutions to real problems. It’s not broken promises anymore. I urge all members of

this House to support this commonsense measure and give British Columbians the tax

relief that they deserve.

We in this House have a responsibility to