Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, November

7, 2023

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: E. Sturko.

Introductions by Members

R. Parmar: In the gallery, we have someone here who won't be undersold. I think, on behalf of

all of us who are MLAs in the greater Victoria region, we have in the gallery the

most famous person in the capital regional district. That is my uncle Gordy Dodd,

joined by his brother Komal Dodd.

I'm so pleased that they have brought to the precinct, for the first time, here today

Jaiwant Parmar, Meena Parmar and Kerman Parmar, who are from Chandigarh, India, visiting

our beautiful city and our beautiful House here today.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

G. Kyllo: It gives me a great amount of pride today to introduce to this House members of the

Christian Labour Association of Canada, an organization founded in 1952, representing

over 60,000 workers across Canada. They do a lot of work in supporting trades and

apprentices across British Columbia. They are founded on the belief that people, businesses

and work communities flourish when workplaces are based on cooperation and mutual

respect.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada, otherwise known as CLAC, is not necessarily

an organization that has received the amount of respect that is deserving of them,

especially from the current government. I believe it was Premier John Horgan that

actually had some sad words in reference to this organization.

This organization provides a significant amount of support for many apprentices across

B.C. They're a progressive union, representing many hard-working men and women across

B.C.

It gives me a great amount of pride to introduce today…. Joining us are Ryan Bruce,

Mark Corapi, Larry Richardson, Miranda O'Krane, Paul DeJong, Dan Baxter, Darrel Reid

and Keri Salvisburg.

Would this House please make our friends from the Christian Labour Association of

Canada feel most welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 46 — HOUSING STATUTES

(DEVELOPMENT FINANCING)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. R. Kahlon presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce the housing statutes residential development amendment act.

This bill creates more homes within the reach of people by making it easier to increase

the supply of more attainable homes, like triplexes and townhomes, in existing communities.

The bill focuses on local government zoning bylaws to allow….

They got me. They gave me the wrong note here.

I move first reading, hon Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of Bill 46, Housing Statutes (Development

Financing) Amendment Act, 2023.

Motion approved.

[10:10 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the next sitting.

Bill 46, Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FISH, WILDLIFE AND

HABITAT COALITION

D. Clovechok: It's my pleasure to rise in this House today to give recognition to the Fish, Wildlife

and Habitat Coalition, acknowledging the incredible work they do in British Columbia.

The coalition was formed when a number of organizations and sustainable businesses

came together to advocate for the restoration of fish, wildlife and habitat across

British Columbia. Their advocacy has taken them down three different paths.

The first is to work through legislative channels to conserve and restore fish and

wildlife populations and create a biodiversity and ecosystem health framework.

The second is to increase habitat conservation and protection in an action that will

be completed hand in hand with local communities and partnerships with local First

Nations.

Lastly, they hope to see the dedicated funding put towards the coalition's initiatives

in working to ensure that more support goes directly to ecosystem management. Their

dedication to B.C. wildlife is inspiring, and their commitment to protecting B.C.'s

ecosystems is evident in everything that they do.

I am privileged to live near the headwaters of the Columbia River, one of the most

significant watersheds in British Columbia, if not in the world, and I have seen firsthand

the importance of protecting this region and the benefit of investing in habitat conservation

and wildlife for both human and wildlife populations.

It is tremendous to see the work that this coalition is doing and see how large a

group of the advocates have come together with one voice to fight for the wild places

and the wild things. It's truly commendable, and I encourage everyone in this House

to read more about their work.

Really quickly, I want to recognize Scott Ellis with the Guide Outfitters and Jesse

Zeman with the B.C. Wildlife Federation for doing all that they do and for fighting

as hard as they fight.

INDIGENOUS VETERANS DAY

AND REMEMBRANCE DAY

S. Chant: I will start by acknowledging that I'm speaking from the unceded territories of the

lək̓ʷəŋən people, the Esquimalt and the Songhees.

I work, live and learn in my beautiful riding of North Vancouver–Seymour, situated

in the unceded territory of the Coast Salish, specifically the Tsleil-Waututh and

Squamish Nations.

November 8 is Indigenous Veterans Day in Canada, recognizing and commemorating the

contribution that our Indigenous communities across Canada made throughout our involvement

in various theatres of war such as World Wars I and II, Korea and Afghanistan. They

served with honour, distinction and sacrifice, yet when they got home, they did not

receive the benefits afforded to other Canadian military members.

Tomorrow Canada pays tribute to our Indigenous warriors of the Canadian Armed Forces

in communities across B.C. and the rest of the country.

November 11 is Remembrance Day, with commemorative services at cenotaphs across B.C.

and Canada. We honour our veterans and servicemen and -women who comprise the Canadian

Armed Forces, a strong and solid force recognized throughout the world as a staunch

ally of democracy and humanity.

Our military also contributes to domestic operations, such as helping with freshet,

flood, wildfire and COVID management in B.C. Of note, also, is the Merchant Navy,

at sea throughout World War II during the Battle of the Atlantic as they conveyed

supplies, equipment and troops across the Atlantic in support of the war effort.

I remind everyone that we have an ongoing debt of gratitude to the servicemen and

-women in our navy, army and air force, past, present and future.

Included in our thanks are those that serve from our Indigenous communities and the

many others of diverse backgrounds who stand up in support of Canada, including those

who do not wear a uniform.

I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge the service of the reserve forces,

the cadets and the legions across the province and the country.

I close with an excerpt from "For the Fallen," by Laurence Binyon.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning,

We will remember them.

RCMP TOY DRIVE AND FUNDRAISER FOR

RICHMOND CHRISTMAS FUND

T. Wat: I rise today to highlight a heartwarming and important event happening in Richmond,

the ninth annual RCMP toy drive, set to take place on Saturday, November 18.

The RCMP toy drive is not just an ordinary toy drive. It is a true embodiment of the

holiday spirit. It's an opportunity for all of us, as a community, to come together

and make a significant difference in the lives of those who need it the most during

the holiday season.

[10:15 a.m.]

One of the exciting features of this year's event is the introduction of a Jail and

Bail fundraiser. Local leaders, guests and even myself will be arrested by dedicated

RCMP officers and brought to a makeshift jail. But it's all in good fun, and here's

the best part. We can be bailed out. Richmond mayor Malcolm Brodie will be the judge

determining how much is needed to secure our release.

All the proceeds from this activity will go directly to the Richmond Christmas fund,

supporting those in our community who may otherwise miss out on the festive joys.

The Richmond Christmas fund has been a beacon of hope for many families in our community.

It provides grocery vouchers to those in need, ensuring they can prepare a festive

meal and enjoy the holiday season.

I would like to thank the president and CEO of Richmond Cares, Richmond Gives, Ed

Gavsie; Richmond Christmas fund chair Linda Reid; and former chair Wayne Duzita for

their many years of selfless services and devotion.

I encourage all MLAs in this House to join me in supporting the ninth annual RCMP

toy drive and participating in the Jail and Bail fundraiser.

Let's continue to show the strength of our community and our commitment to ensuring

that every Richmond resident experiences the joy and warmth of the holiday season.

WORK OF VANCOUVER–WEST END

CONSTITUENCY ASSISTANTS

S. Chandra Herbert: I want to celebrate some community heroes in my community of Vancouver–West End, two

of them in fact. They're my constituency assistants, Murray Bilida and Christina Rzepa.

I celebrate them because they help West Enders and Coal Harbour residents sleep better

at night.

I say this quite literally, and I think it's probably the truth for every one of the

MLAs here too. Your CAs can do so much to help your community thrive.

Now, when I say "sleep better at night," I think of a couple of stories. One of them….

A woman got flooded out of her home because of a pipe break up above her in an apartment

further up, and her mattress was ruined. Now, she didn't have much money. She didn't

have insurance, and she was sleeping on the floor, quite literally. We heard of this.

My staff acted. We got her a mattress and got things changed.

I think about a small business person who was owed money. He literally couldn't sleep

at night because he was going to go bankrupt. They managed to stand up for him, go

after the department that was owing him the money, get the problem fixed, get him

the money that was owed.

They've helped people facing evictions. Now, that's a really stressful experience,

especially when it's through no fault of your own. They stood up for them. They helped

them through every step of the way. They've kept them in their homes. They helped

people off the street into housing so that they can sleep better as well.

I think of one case that really exemplifies how they go above and beyond. We had one

man coming in. He would complain. He said that every time he was falling asleep, someone

would start banging on his wall, and he'd wake up. The property manager wouldn't do

anything about it. They said: "That's odd."

The next day a fellow came in and said: "You know, I can't sleep at night because

the guy next to me snores so badly, it comes through the wall, and I can't sleep."

We said: "Well, wait a second. Where do you live?"

We put two and two together, and they were actually neighbours of each other. The

one man would fall asleep. The other would bash on the wall because he couldn't sleep,

and it went back and forth. We got the one man a CPAP machine; the other guy, some

earplugs. They're sleeping restfully now.

Good job by my constituency assistants.

CARIBOO MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AUXILIARY

L. Doerkson: More than 100 years ago a group of women formed a small society, women that would

spend afternoons playing cards and having singsongs in the Grand Central Hotel in

Williams Lake.

The group got together on social issues, and it was a great opportunity, of course,

to share time together, but soon it turned into a fundraising opportunity, fundraising

for a cause that they felt would be incredible for Williams Lake and Cariboo Chilcotin:

a hospital, one that didn't quite exist yet but was for certain needed.

Soon the opportunity to raise funds for a War Memorial Hospital in Williams Lake was

in motion. One of the earliest documented contributions to the fund for the new War

Memorial Hospital was $9.55, and in those days, that was quite a great contribution.

Still fundraising 100 years later, this group of dedicated, committed residents of

Williams Lake and Cariboo Chilcotin have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars

and donated 100 years of volunteer time. They are the Cariboo Memorial Hospital Auxiliary.

[10:20 a.m.]

Special mention should be given to three women that have become lifetime members of

this association and have given so generously of decades of service and, of course,

their own time. Those three women are Carol Leckie, Eileen Dell and Christina Ford.

Thank you very much to President Judy Newbery and Marg Bublitz for the invitation

to join in celebrating at city hall this 100 years of service and of course to the

women of the Cariboo Memorial Hospital Auxiliary.

I ask this whole House to congratulate this devoted team on this achievement as they

continue every day with an unbelievable commitment in helping to make our incredible

Cariboo Memorial Hospital even better.

DIWALI

H. Sandhu: On November 12, many people across the globe and B.C. will be celebrating the Indian

festival Diwali, which is a festival of lights.

Lights are symbolic of this festival, and people light their homes with lights, sparklers

and fireworks to fuel their inner light that spiritually protects them from the darkness.

Diwali symbolizes the spiritual victory of light over darkness, good over evil, love

over hate and knowledge over ignorance. Diwali is a major cultural event for the Hindu,

Sikh, Buddhist and Jain diasporas.

Diwali is not limited to the celebration of just one historical event. Each religion

remembers different stories and historical events behind it.

On Sunday, we celebrated early Diwali here in Vernon at our beloved Elks Hall, organized

by Vernon and District Immigration and Community Services Society. The beauty of this

celebration was that people from all walks of life, different ethnic backgrounds,

longtime Vernon residents and newcomer Canadians from around the world joined us.

Some people celebrated Diwali for the first time. We loved delicious food, henna painting

and great company of wonderful people who were eager to learn more about Diwali.

We got to teach some dance steps to our many Canadian friends. I also got to move

my hips and to practice my previously learned dance skills. This was a moment worth

watching. The happiness, laughter, fun, unity, appreciation, and joy filled the entire

hall.

We know music and dance has a universal language and brings us closer. Diwali for

me is not only a fun festival, but it also instilled in me the values of giving, sharing,

kindness, acceptance and being thoughtful.

I wish everyone who will be celebrating Diwali on Sunday a very happy Diwali and happy

Bandi Chhor Divas. May your life be as colourful, shimmering and magical as the lights

of Diwali.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

AFFORDABILITY ISSUES

T. Halford: Another day, another report showing that B.C. has the highest cost of living in Canada.

By every measure, life under this NDP Premier is getting more expensive, from housing

to gas to groceries.

Bruce, in Vancouver…. Well, he's cutting back on essentials like vegetables, and he's

expressing the stress: "I have a heart attack looking at the prices. I can barely

afford life with paying for groceries right now."

When will this Premier give people a break on home heating, fuel and groceries so

they can afford to put food on their tables?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question.

Nobody wants to be in a situation like Bruce's, standing at the vegetable counter

and making tough decisions, because people are facing difficult decisions right now.

With global inflation and with high interest rates, the squeeze on household budgets

is really real. People do need help with costs.

The B.C. United has put forward a plan, but it is the wrong approach. They want to

walk back on climate action despite being the party that brought a price on pollution.

They want to address short-term pain, but they have a plan that's going to give a

subsidy to oil companies. It's not going to help people with gas prices. It's not

going to help put money back into people's pockets.

In fact, as we've canvassed already, Jason Kenney introduced a similar cut, and even

he admitted it didn't work. It didn't work in Alberta. It wouldn't work here, and

we know this. They know it too.

[10:25 a.m.]

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

T. Halford: Well, the minister can read off the script that she has prepared day in and day out,

but what we know is that this government is completely out of touch.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Let's hear the question, please.

T. Halford: This minister is completely out of touch with reality. We see that day in and day

out. Families deserve a break

Natalie says….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Halford: You want to heckle these stories? They can heckle these stories. These are actual

people, and if this government wants to laugh at these people, that's their prerogative.

They want to laugh at Natalie, but Natalie says this. She says….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Shhh.

Members, let's hear the question, please.

T. Halford: Natalie says: "If you don't believe how expensive life is in B.C., I spent $102, and

do you know how long this food is going to last me? Two to three days."

When will this Premier end the NDP's middle-class squeeze and give people like Natalie

a break on home heating, fuel and groceries?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question.

We know that global inflation and interest rates are causing real issues in B.C. and

right across the country. We hear about it right across the country.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. K. Conroy: To that, we respect and understand people like Natalie are struggling. That's why

we have brought in significant affordability measures to help people, because we recognize

that people need help right now.

It's not the time to make cuts. It's not the time to cut services to people. It's

a time to ensure that we can help people. We are doing that in a number of different

ways. We are doing that with our child care program, which is putting up to $900 a

month back into people's pockets.

We did that with our MSP cut. What we did is cancelled the MSP. That put up to $1,800

back into people's pockets. That was a regressive tax. You paid $1,800 whether you

made $50,000 a year or $500,000 a year. We cut that and put the biggest tax cut for

people in this province, put the money back into their pockets.

R. Merrifield: A government drowning in debt cannot be the lifeguard for an economy that is struggling

to breathe.

There is a huge gap between the NDP rhetoric and the daily reality for people like

Amber Davis. Amber says: "It's getting harder and harder to live here. The middle-class

squeeze is for real."

People like Amber cannot make ends meet anymore. The NDP's record-breaking inflationary

deficits are making things worse, not better.

When will the Premier ease the squeeze on essentials like fuel, groceries and home

heating for people like Amber?

Hon. K. Conroy: The member is accurate in the sense that people are struggling right now. We understand

that.

That's why we have brought in significant affordability measures for people. That's

why we are supporting people.

One member keeps referring to taxes.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. K. Conroy: One of the taxes that we brought in was the speculation and vacancy tax.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. That's good.

Hon. K. Conroy: That tax has created thousands of housing units in this province, housing units which

people desperately need.

We're committed to ensuring that people get the housing they need, get the supports

that they need — not cuts, not service cuts — and we will keep supporting people.

Mr. Speaker: Kelowna-Mission, supplemental.

R. Merrifield: Well, we're not going to be cutting anything when we get into government except the

NDP's….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Members, let's hear the question, please.

Member, continue.

R. Merrifield: The only thing that we'll be cutting is the NDP's corporate giveaways and pointless

bureaucracy, like the community rip-off agreements.

[10:30 a.m.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

It's only Tuesday, Members. Come on.

Members. Members.

R. Merrifield: After seven years and two elections of broken promises, life has never been more expensive

for young British Columbians, thanks to the NDP's middle-class squeeze.

A new BCAA report finds 60 percent are barely scraping by. Half say their jobs don't

even cover basic essential living costs anymore, like fuel, heating and food. This

Premier is making things worse, not better, with his record-breaking inflationary

deficits that continue to shrink people's paycheques.

When will the Premier admit that his policies are failing not just Bruce, Natalie

and Amber but an entire generation of young people who are struggling daily due to

the failures of this NDP government?

Hon. K. Conroy: We know that people in B.C. are facing real challenges right now, and we are making

thoughtful investments to support people now and for the long term.

You know, the opposition's response to economic challenges was to increase fees and

cut services to people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Shhh. Members.

Please continue.

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They left a legacy of deficits. They left deficits in the housing we need that people

want to live in. They cut to schools and hospitals that people rely on and the infrastructure

for growing communities. I would ask the members opposite: would they not…? They voted

against it — to give every community in this province hundreds of thousands of dollars,

millions in some cases, to invest in their infrastructure to ensure they can build

those houses, so they have the infrastructure that people in this province need.

The cuts underneath the former government were substantial. You just have to look

at that. They never funded people on social assistance to the degree they should have

been. They cut people with social assistance.

I can go on, on the number of cuts they made, but instead, we are going to support

people in this province. We're going to continue to provide services that people need.

SITE C POWER PROJECT

A. Olsen: You know who's not feeling a squeeze on their budget? B.C. Hydro and Site C. How much?

Well, we actually don't know, because it's been cloaked in site secrecy. That's a

slogan that even the B.C. United can use royalty-free. I dare them to ask a question

about Site C.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

A. Olsen: Anyway, secrecy and hypocrisy every step of the way for this project. The Site C dam

will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River, destroying some of Canada's best farmland,

habitat for more than 100 species at risk, Indigenous burial sites and traditional

hunting, trapping and fishing grounds.

When in opposition, the B.C. NDP government adamantly opposed the project, with former

Premier Horgan saying that Site C sucks. But he changed his mind, and he forged ahead.

The project is a year behind schedule, and the last real number that the former Premier

gave us was that the $6.8 billion project is now costing $16 billion. But is it $16

billion, $17 billion, $20 billion? Nobody really knows. The price of everything around

us is going up. It's hard to believe that the price for Site C stayed the same.

To the Minister of Energy, just how much is this dam costing us?

Hon. J. Osborne: I know that the member understands that we know our power demands going forward in

this province are significant and that, on a call for power coming this spring, we

are going to be relying on Site C coming online. This is important because people

are making the decision to switch the way they transport themselves, the way they

heat their homes, and they're relying on B.C.'s clean electricity.

Site C remains on track to be completed within the approved $16 billion budget, but

let's not forget that the old government rushed to push Site C past the point of no

return, and that cost billions of dollars without proper oversight.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. J. Osborne: We were left to manage this project that we inherited. We know we need the electricity.

We're going to be using it to make the switch that people want to make, to B.C.'s

clean electricity.

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

[10:35 a.m.]

A. Olsen: This government has managed the price right through the roof. That's all that they've

done is manage the price of this dam right through the roof. And who's on the hook?

The ratepayers are on the hook. British Columbians are on the hook.

You know what? The minister can say that British Columbians are going to get this

energy, but we know who's going to receive the electricity from this dam, and that's

going to be their buddies in the LNG industry. That's who's going to receive it. Actually,

the frackers right now — what they want is B.C. Hydro to build power lines to their

fracking site so that they can call their fracking operations green.

I was there last summer. I toured Site C, and I thank the minister for helping set

that up. I saw what was flooded and what will be lost forever. The environment, First

Nations, farmers and the wildlife in the Peace are all paying the unaccounted costs

for this project. I just learned that 24 active bear dens are going to be flooded

very shortly, and those who are trying to protect the bear dens are struggling to

find out when exactly the dam will be flooded.

My question is to the minister responsible for energy. When will B.C. Hydro begin

flooding the dam and filling the reservoir?

Hon. J. Osborne: Right now B.C. Hydro is making a determination as to when they will be able to flood

the reservoir and begin the work of activating the turbines and delivering clean electricity

to British Columbia.

B.C. Hydro is reaching out to communities, working with First Nations, speaking to

people about what that means and what they can expect to see as the flooding begins.

As soon as we have that information, we will share it with the member and all members

of this House.

GOVERNMENT CARBON TAX POLICY

AND RESPONSE TO FEDERAL CARBON TAX

CHANGES FOR HOME HEATING

J. Rustad: British Columbians are struggling with everyday costs. There's no question there.

Energy is one of the three key things they need to survive in this province.

It was interesting that in this meeting, coming out from back east, of the Premiers,

Canadian Press is reporting that Canadian Premiers are united in their criticism.

They're united in their criticism when it comes to the discussion on the carbon tax.

In fact, the Premier himself in the press is reported saying he supports fair treatment

for all Canadians.

My question to the Premier is this. Does the B.C. NDP Premier really believe that

fair treatment for all Canadians means struggling British Columbian families have

to continue to pay the punishing carbon tax while Canadians in other provinces are

getting much-needed relief on home heating?

Hon. G. Heyman: We know, and the Premier said this when he was back east with the other Premiers,

that we're committed to taking climate action, and the carbon tax is a central part

of taking climate action. That's accepted around the world, even if the members of

the Fourth Party don't understand that.

The way we've structured the carbon tax is to take the proceeds to invest in British

Columbians through the climate action tax credit, which we are in the process of doubling.

We invest in decarbonizing industry through the CleanBC industry fund. We help industry

be competitive and reduce emissions because we know that puts them on a good platform

for the future to create good jobs for British Columbians, which will help people

in our province with the cost of living.

We have a range of supports that we offer British Columbians, whether it's through

recycling carbon tax income, whether it's through a range of benefits or programs

like childcare. When you add it all up, British Columbians are far better off under

this government than they were for decades.

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

J. Rustad: Well, the reality is the carbon tax is taking $3 billion today out of the pockets

of British Columbians, and that's going to go up by $750 million a year up until 2030.

When you add that together, that's the equivalent of giving a 60 percent increase

in today's terms, in terms of personal income tax increases, to people in this province.

I can't understand how this minister could even fathom that that is fair or affordable

for the people in this province.

The people in Atlantic Canada are getting relief. They're getting relief on the carbon

tax on home heating.

Quite frankly, the carbon tax needs to be completely eliminated, but how, actually,

is that fair for this Premier to stand up and say all Canadians should be treated

fairly when one part of this country is getting relief from the carbon tax and British

Columbians are getting the shaft?

[10:40 a.m.]

The carbon tax was introduced in 2008. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Official

Opposition called it one of his proudest moments in government, introducing the carbon

tax.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh.

J. Rustad: And I love how that touches a nerve with them in terms of their flip-flop. That's

just wonderful to see.

Interjections.

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

Let's have the question, please.

J. Rustad: But since 2005, greenhouse emissions in this province have declined by only 3 percent,

and consumption of fossil fuels per capita has been consistent with other provinces…

Mr. Speaker: Let's have a question, please.

J. Rustad: …despite the fact that we have the highest carbon taxes. Clearly, there are better

ways to protect this environment than the NDP's failed carbon tax grab.

Will this NDP Premier commit to treat…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

J. Rustad: …all British Columbians fairly, unlike what both sides of this House would like to

do?

Hon. G. Heyman: This government instituted the largest middle-class tax cut in British Columbia history

when they took MSP premiums out of the picture, and the Leader of the Fourth Party

opposed that. When the Leader of the Fourth Party was a member of government under

the then B.C. Liberal Party, they raised hydro rates. They raised ICBC rates. They

cut services while they were cutting income taxes for the top 2 percent in this province.

The Leader of the Fourth Party is simply wrong. As the carbon tax goes up, so does

the amount of money we give to British Columbians, low- and middle-income British

Columbians, through the climate action tax credit.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: We are working toward giving British Columbians, a significant majority of British

Columbians, more back in the tax credit than they pay in carbon tax. At the same time,

we'll also increase the money that we give to industry to decarbonize, and we will

reduce emissions.

I'll simply close by saying the Leader of the Fourth Party is wrong. Emissions have

gone down in B.C., despite a significant growth in our population. We are reducing

emissions on a per-capita basis and on an actual basis. We'll continue to do that

while providing British Columbians with the programs and supports and support for

families in terms of rebates and credits that we have been doing all along.

JOB CREATION IN PRIVATE SECTOR

T. Stone: British Columbians know this. They know that they're paying a heck of a lot more.

They're getting a lot less, and everything in the province is broken at the moment.

The item that British Columbians are struggling with the most is the affordability

crisis, which has resulted in British Columbia being the least affordable jurisdiction

in all of Canada.

Now, as British Columbians grapple with that, this Premier's record-high inflationary

deficits keep piling up. But when it comes to giving British Columbians a break, the

coffers are bare. Now, here's a reality check. Private sector growth is what foots

the bill.

Leading and respected economists Ken Peacock of the B.C. Business Council and Jock

Finlayson of the ICBA report that job creation in the private sector has completely

flatlined for the past five years.

My question is this. When will the Premier stop his record-setting inflationary deficits

and recognize that it's actually a healthy, vibrant, growing private sector which

provides the revenues necessary for government to invest in the health care, education

and services that British Columbians depend on?

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. But frankly, I completely reject

the premise. Our economy continues to function well — 13.7 percent GDP increase, 2017

to now.

It is not correct that private sector jobs aren't growing at the same rate as public

sector jobs. They're both growing strongly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, shhh.

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. B. Bailey: It's true. We're making significant investments into the private sector in many different

ways.

Our biotech strategy, for example, supporting a new, up-and-coming sector that's so

important to the future of our province. We've made a direct investment to AbCellera

— $75 million, $225 million from the federal government, $400 million from the individual

company — for a $700 million investment growing out 500 private sector jobs.

I have a real problem with the criticism of public sector jobs. Which jobs would they

like to cut? Nursing jobs? Teachers? Firefighters? Let us know.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, the simple fact is that under the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.

Please continue.

T. Stone: Well, the fact of the matter is this. According to Stats Canada numbers that were

released for the month of October, government growth has wildly outpaced the private

sector.

For the previous five years, this government has presided over the creation of 22,000

private sector jobs and 121,000 public sector jobs. Those are the numbers for the

past five years. That's the record of this government.

Now, under B.C. United, in the previous five years of our government, we saw ten private

sector jobs for every one public sector job created. It was 26,000 versus 260,000.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Shhh.

Please continue.

T. Stone: And you know, the job creation record of our former government is contrasted with

a whole range of spending priorities of this government in areas like hiring 600 bureaucrats

for the nebulous aim of other budget priorities, as detailed in the last budget. Now,

what British Columbia needs is not limitless growth of government but a private sector

jobs plan.

The question to the Premier is this. When is this Premier going to wake up and realize

that, under the NDP, the backbone of our economy, the private sector, has been left

to essentially flatline?

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the member opposite. I'm absolutely shocked that this member can stand

up and defend a record that included the largest layoff of public sector workers,

mostly women, mostly women of colour.

You raised the labour force survey numbers. Let's talk about the labour force survey

numbers. Well, let me highlight a couple of things. First of all, 10,200 new construction

jobs this month alone; the previous month, 12,600 new construction jobs. Our province

has the highest-average salary of any province in Canada, $35.58 per hour. We've created

more than 40,000 jobs just this year alone.

This economy remains strong. The inputs that this side of the House are putting in

are working.

CLEANBC PLAN AND ECONOMY

P. Milobar: Well, it's not just the longtime, highly respected economists like Jock Finlayson

and Ken Peacock that are warning about a private sector that has flatlined under the

NDP. They're also sounding the alarm bell about the CleanBC plan that is secretly

really a kill B.C. plan.

Perhaps the Jobs Minister should read their own government documents about the damage

that that plan is going to do to the B.C. economy.

This NDP scheme will roll B.C.'s economy back by a decade, drawing $28 billion a year

out of economic growth and costing each family $11,000 a year.

Will the Premier acknowledge the truth behind his secret kill B.C. plan and justify

why he's content with erasing $11,000 per year…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

P. Milobar: …from household incomes across British Columbia?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: We do not have a secret plan. We have a very open and public plan to meet our climate

targets in British Columbia to the benefit of British Columbians, to the benefit of

North Americans…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. G. Heyman: …to the benefit of people around the world, because we saw, this summer, what the

impacts on people are when there's extreme heat, when there are runaway forest fires

and when there's drought. We saw the effect on the agriculture industry, and we saw

the effect on other industries.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: It costs literally billions of dollars, and we cannot afford that.

Let me speak to the so-called Business Council analysis of our CleanBC figures. They

took the numbers out of context.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let's hear the answer, please.

Hon. G. Heyman: That has been refuted by other economists. They did a comparison.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Members, you're losing your own time.

Hon. G. Heyman: They took it out of context. They did not understand, or, if they did, they did not

recognize….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, you're losing your own time.

Minister, please continue.

Hon. G. Heyman: Their numbers are based on 2017, as if we would never have ever taken another step

to take action to fight climate change in this province. If that's what the opposition

stands for, British Columbians deserve to know it.

FOSTER CARE CASE

M. de Jong: My question is for the Minister of Children and Families.

Far too often the minister has been obliged to stand in this House and answer questions

relating to a tragedy involving a child in care. Today I'm going to ask her to take

action to prevent a tragedy.

My office was contacted, I was contacted on the weekend by a foster family, a long-standing

foster family. They have taken in a young 14-year-old girl who has faced far more

challenges in her young life than anyone should. But she has found a family where

she feels safe and she feels loved.

A different form of tragedy has followed her. Her foster dad has been diagnosed with

cancer, and the prognosis isn't good. Later today, apparently, she's going to be contacted

by someone in the ministry to remove her from the family. She doesn't want to go.

Her caseworker doesn't want her to go. Her teachers don't want her to go. But there

is a policy.

I tried to contact the minister's office, and I was told politely that the minister

doesn't intervene in individual cases. But I need her to intervene. The 14-year-old

needs the minister to intervene. Surely there is room…. Surely we are here not just

to apply policy blindly but to bring some humanity to a circumstance like this.

[10:55 a.m.]

The question is a straightforward one. Will the minister call in the necessary people

before this terrible conversation takes place, and verify that for this 14-year-old,

humanity means leaving her in the only home she's ever felt safe in?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you so much to the member for bringing this to my attention and for speaking

so passionately on behalf of the family living in your community. I absolutely hear

your concern and your care for this family, and I see that this is a very serious

situation, which you're taking very seriously.

You are right that, as minister, I'm unable to get involved in family situations,

in individual situations. We have a provincial director of child welfare who is responsible

for the operations of the ministry and for the implementation of services under our

act. That is where the responsibility lies for actually being able to have a look

at how policy is applied in individual circumstances.

Now that this has been brought to my attention, I will be able to bring it to the

attention of the provincial director of child welfare.

What I can say is that in all circumstances, our staff are expected to put the best

interests of children first. We know that children need to be safe and loved and nurtured.

What's really the most important thing for us here in British Columbia is to make

sure that all children and youth are kept safely and are supported in order for them

to thrive. In all situations, we keep the children and youth at the centre of all

decision-making.

Again, I thank the member for bringing this to my attention, and I thank you for your

advocacy on behalf of this family.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 43, money judgment enforcement act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 38, International

Credentials Recognition Act.

In the third House, in committee room C, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 40,

School Amendment Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 43 — MONEY JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ACT

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Money Judgment Enforcement Consequential Amendments

and Transitional Provisions Act of 2023. This bill makes consequential amendments

to 36 different statutes that eight different ministries are responsible for.

The statutes will be amended by regulation when Bill 27, the Money Judgment Enforcement

Act, which was enacted earlier this session, is brought into force. It will be necessary

to amend these 36 different statutes because they either refer to

part 5 of the Court

Order Enforcement Act or refer to writs, garnishing orders or other methods of enforcing

judgments that will be eliminated when the Money Judgment Enforcement Act is brought

into force.

Some important amendments to highlight at this time are the amendment to the Civil

Resolution Tribunal Act, which will allow a money judgment from the CRT to be directly

registered in the money judgment registry established by the Money Judgment Enforcement

Act. In addition, the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act will be amended to allow the CRT

to register a judgment in the money judgment registry on behalf of a successful party.

This will make the CRT website a single stop for a person, from the beginning of their

dispute to collection, if necessary.

This bill, Bill 43, also adds transitional provisions to the Court Order Enforcement

Act. The transitional provisions will give a person who has already obtained a writ

of seizure or a garnishing order the option to continue to use that method of enforcement

that they have already gone through the time, effort and expense to obtain.

[11:00 a.m.]

While transition provisions ensure that writs and garnishing orders remain valid and

usable until they naturally expire, nothing will prevent a person from deciding to

stop using their valid writ and choosing to register their judgment, in accordance

with the Money Judgment Enforcement Act, and then instruct a civil enforcement officer

to seize property of the judgment debtor.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the

next sitting after today.

Bill 43, Money Judgment Enforcement Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions

Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I call second reading, Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment

Act, 2023.

I ask for a brief recess.

Deputy Speaker: We will take a short recess to get the appropriate parties into place.

The House recessed from 11:01 a.m. to 11:04 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

BILL 44 — HOUSING STATUTES

(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

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

I am here today to share a series of proposed changes to local government legislation

to create more homes within reach of people, making it easier to increase the supply

of more attainable homes like triplexes and townhomes in existing communities.

We all know that in a housing crisis we need to take strong action to address it.

Through these changes, which are the most significant shifts made by a local government

land use planning system in decades, we will make it easier to create the housing

we need. This includes more attainable housing for the people and families who call

British Columbia home and for many Canadians and new residents who will arrive here

over the next few years.

[11:05 a.m.]

If passed, the bill will amend the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter

to update requirements for local government housing needs reports, require municipalities

to proactively plan and zone to meet their housing needs, require most local governments

to allow small-scale multi-units in areas zoned for single detached homes and require

that local governments no longer hold public hearings on rezonings for housing projects

that are consistent with the official community plan.

We heard loud and clear from our stakeholders that frequently, a site-by-site zoning

process is one of the biggest barriers to getting housing built quickly enough to

meet the growing needs of our communities. The Ministry of Housing consulted extensively

on these proposed changes in this bill, and the changes have been made with broad

support. We have so much single detached zoning across the province, and people want

options like triplexes, townhomes and housing near transit. They want more homes closer

to their families, friends, jobs and schools.

Let's get into some of the specifics of the changes. The new zoning framework proposes

changing to housing needs reports, official community plans and zoning bylaws. The

aim is to move away from site-by-site zoning processes, which add time, uncertainty

and costs to housing projects, towards a more upfront community planning and proactive

zoning.

Since April 2019, the local governments have been required to develop a housing needs

report every five years and consider that report when they're updating their official

community plans. Local governments have gone through a full cycle of housing needs

reports and have identified two issues, which the bill addresses.

First, housing needs reports are not robust, consistent or comparable across local

governments, because they use different methodologies to calculate their housing needs.

Second, local governments are not required to plan and zone for the future base of

their housing needs reports.

That's why the proposed amendments would require all local governments to use a standard

method in housing needs reports to calculate the number of homes they will need over

the long term, which is 20 years, and require municipalities to update official community

plans and zoning on a regular basis to plan and zone for their long-term housing needs.

There will be regulatory authority to exempt local governments from the new requirement,

if needed at any point.

Allowing small-scale multi-unit housing and single detached and low-density zones

will also make it easier to build the housing that people need. Restrictive single-family

zoning has limited the development of the triplexes, laneway homes, garden suites

and townhomes that we so desperately need. Across the province, we will require local

governments to amend their zoning bylaws to allow more of these types of housing.

In most places, three to four housing units will be allowed on each lot in single

detached or duplex zones and, depending on lot size, up to six units in areas closer

to transit. A secondary suite or detached dwelling unit will be allowed in single

detached housing across British Columbia. While the regulation will set out the number

of allowable units and population thresholds for the requirement, these changes will

be intended to apply across B.C., covering 95 percent of the population.

The proposed amendments will also allow up to six units on single-family lots near

bus stops with frequent service. In these areas, local governments will not be allowed

to require off-street parking. This will allow more housing to be built within five

minutes of walking distance from well-serviced bus stops. This will support ridership

and mode shift and help achieve our climate goals.

Finally, to support affordability, local governments will be able to designate one

of the six units as an affordable housing unit, if they choose.

Areas outside of urban containment boundary areas and regional growth strategy or

official community planning will be exempt from the three-or-more-unit requirements.

This will help prevent urban sprawl, protect agricultural lands and reduce pressures

on rural infrastructure. Ultimately, it's about ensuring that new housing is built

in the right places.

We have also long heard that public hearings can slow down getting approvals for new

homes, delaying construction and adding costs to housing. These delays often result

in fewer units being built or in developers making the units more expensive, to offset

the added costs. So I'm proposing additional efficiency in local government development

approval processes by eliminating redundant processes as one-off hearings that slow

down housing projects.

These changes will make the best use of regular public consultation opportunities,

earlier in the process, to meaningfully shape a community's plans for how it realizes

its long-term vision, including meeting its housing needs. This means that public

hearings will no longer be required for a zoning bylaw and amendments for housing

projects that are consistent with the OCPs, which have robust consultative avenues.

[11:10 a.m.]

Public notice will be required for the zoning amendments, to ensure that residents

are informed of developments in their communities and can reach out to elected officials

through other channels, like phone calls or emails.

Because we're in a housing crisis, we need to implement these changes as soon as possible.

The first requirements will come into effect by summer 2024, at which time local governments

will have to have amended their zoning bylaws to comply with the small-scale multi-unit

requirements.

They must use provincial policy guidelines, which will set out expectations for height

restrictions, lot coverage, setbacks and parking requirements. Local governments with

infrastructure deficits can apply for an extension to specific sites to make upgrades

to avoid unnecessary risks to health, safety or the environment. We'll also allow

extensions for extraordinary circumstances like natural disasters.

What happens if a local government doesn't meet the deadline? We can use the ministerial

override to establish basic site standards like size, sitting, location of housing

so that development can get underway. This override would remain in place until the

local government amends their bylaws to fulfill the requirements.

The broader planning and proactive zoning requirements will take a little more time

to ensure good planning and public engagement to updated housing needs reports, OCPs

and zoning bylaws. Local governments will need to update their housing needs reports

for the first time by the start of 2025 based on new methodology. Municipalities will

need to update OCP and zoning bylaws by the end of 2025.

Future updates will be required on a regular basis to ensure housing needs reports,

OCPs and zoning bylaws stay up to date and responsive to local housing needs.

Given the scope of these changes, there are some risks. We know that there will be

capacity challenges, particularly in small and medium-sized communities. We will provide

clear, direct policy guidelines and support local governments along the way.

As announced in September at the UBCM convention, we will be providing funding to

support local governments, including $51 million in direct funding to help local governments

meet the new requirements and another $10 million for local government development

approval programs, which is administered by UBCM, to help local governments update

their approval processes and implement best practices.

We know that zoning is one part of the solution. Market forces also play a part, but

we must make clear the path for housing to get built. These are some of the biggest

changes that have been made to our land use planning system. They are critical steps

to our need to address the housing crisis.

I welcome questions and feedback from members across the way, and I look forward to

hearing the debate.

K. Kirkpatrick: I'm very pleased to be able to rise in the House today to speak to the bill before

us, the housing statutes amendment act. This bill deals with the residential development

zoning aspect of housing.

Now this morning government introduced another bill, another amendment, with respect

to housing statutes. That bill, although we haven't had much time to consider or look

at it, would seem to address how we are paying everything that is being introduced

in Bill 44. We'll look forward to being able to explore that in more detail.

Housing is on the top of mind of every British Columbian, and we need to ensure that

we're making the correct decisions for those living here now and for those who will

live here in the future.

Unfortunately, we weren't shocked yesterday to learn that B.C. now tops the list of

the most expensive provinces in Canada, based on a new analysis of publicly-available

data. The research…. They looked at incomes in British Columbia, property prices,

rent, food, transport. If we look at these costs, many of them can be influenced by

what this provincial government does and doesn't do, such as relief on heating costs.

Clearly our issues with affordable housing are certainly driving this, and we've heard

government say on many occasions that the issues with costs here in British Columbia:

"Well, it's not just British Columbia. It's all across Canada. Everybody's having

the same issue."

[11:15 a.m.]

But when we look at the fact that we are having that issue significantly more, and

our costs are significantly higher than other provinces in Canada, I think that the

argument that there are all these external forces which are impacting the bad performance

here in British Columbia…. I don't think those hold water.

We need to address our housing supply. Of that, there is absolutely no doubt. We need

to allow for the construction of more housing units in order for us to be able to

address housing shortages and affordability issues. Those two things are connected

to each other.

We need to encourage a variety of housing types. We need more apartments, townhouses,

co-ops. Co-ops were a fundamental way to create housing back in the '70s and '80s.

What's old should be new again. When we go back and look at some of these tools that

we had in the past…. Mixed-use developments. We need to be able to cater to a broader

range of income levels and lifestyles.

And we need to make sure that the work that we're doing is really focused around transit-oriented

communities. Transportation hubs, which really help to…. We really should be focusing

on those transit-oriented developments so we can make it easier for people's ability

to rely on public transit. We need to reduce car dependence, which will help to reduce

traffic congestion and lower carbon emissions.

Certainly we need to reduce how much it costs for a person to be able to get to work,

how close they can be. With the cost of gas right now, if you've got a mom who's got

two kids you've got to drop off at childcare in the morning…. They don't always have

those options, and absolutely wouldn't have those options if we start to develop more

sprawl away from those transit hubs.

Done properly, this can lead to denser mixed-use neighbourhoods, and this would make

it easier for residents to walk to amenities, to help create more vibrant and connected

communities. With upzoning, if it's done in the proper places, if it's done the proper

way, it also helps us to protect parks and green spaces.

It's important to consider that if it's not done the right way, there are significant

potential downsides. A few — and we can't underestimate the impact of one in particular

— are infrastructure improvements. It will cost a lot of money for a quick increase

in density. And if that density doesn't take into consideration and zoning approvals

don't take into consideration whether there is capacity on local services and infrastructure,

then it will have significant negative impacts on the community and on the developments

themselves and the ability for the developments to move forward.

Potential displacement, also, of existing residents. If there's a rush in certain

areas to increase density…. We've seen this along the Broadway corridor. The increase

in density is a good idea, and we need to do it, but look at the challenges and issues

on that corridor that we're having right now with the displacement of current tenants

in those smaller-density buildings at this point.

The ability to be able to move people and find housing is a circular issue. We don't

have the housing to move people into while we build the housing, so if we don't do

this the right way, it is going to increase the displacement of existing tenants.

And you need proper planning and community engagement to make sure that upzoning is

benefiting all residents and try and avoid negative consequences. If density is put

in places without sufficient support or planning, that displacement again…. I'm really

concerned that it would be detrimental to a lot of the people that it's actually trying

to help.

You can also expect to deal with the issue of gentrification. We've seen that as developers

have moved into areas that are perhaps lower-income areas, displacing those units

and those people.

[11:20 a.m.]

The absence of proper policies around that can really drive up property values and

can push out long-standing lower-income residents, which is a concern. I'm talking

about these concerns because, as I've seen in some of the other housing legislation

that's come in…. It would appear that negative consequences, impacts to community

and to people, were not well thought out.

There have been some serious impacts that I want to ask a lot of questions on in this

particular piece of legislation to make sure that those things aren't going to happen

again and that we're not going to end up with legislation here that has the opposite

impact to what we're trying to do. That is to create places for people to live safely

and affordably here in British Columbia.

Now, it's absolutely understandable that projects that support community OCPs…. Community

OCPs should be updated and should accurately reflect the housing needs in a community.

Public hearings that hold up development and have already been dealt with in OCPs….

I think looking at the redundancy there makes sense.

There also needs to be a way to make sure that communities understand what's happening

and don't feel that things are being imposed upon them. There needs to be information-sharing.

There need to be sessions and conversations that don't necessarily mean residents

will be saying yes or no to something or expressing or being able to stop important

development from going forward. But without proper community engagement, it will hurt

the ability for those communities to thrive and to be good communities.

There really needs to be a balanced approach. I'm concerned that the direction and

the way that this legislation is dictating changes and zoning is actually going to

harm vulnerable residents and make communities less cohesive.

You know what? It's sad right now. I was speaking to a friend last week who's a counsellor.

She said to me that a lot of the clients coming in to meet with her recently — well,

for the last few years…. One of the issues that they're expressing — and this is something

that she said was relatively new — is housing anxiety.

That is becoming a significant mental health issue for people now. They're not sure

what's going to happen with their housing. They're not confident that there is a plan

in place that is actually going to make housing safe for them or even a reality for

them if they're unhoused or they're precariously housed or they're in a bad relationship

that they can't leave because they have no housing to go to.

Birth rates in British Columbia are at a 15-year low. Why does this relate to housing?

Well, it relates to affordability, and it relates to the ability to find appropriate

housing for families. You really have to think twice about how you are going to afford

to expand your family, to grow your family. You certainly also have to think about

whether there's relevant and real accommodation for you.

A lack of family and affordable housing is significant. It needs to be planned appropriately

and done in areas where you've got the ability to support these families with schools

and with other amenities that they need to have close by.

Another issue that is very concerning — I think we should all be concerned about it

— is the Metro Vancouver homeless count. It shows that homelessness is at a record

high under this NDP government. It's up 34 percent from 2017.

That doesn't bode well for a government to introduce housing policy that will actually

be effective. The track record is not good at this point. We need to make sure that

we ask lots of questions on this legislation so that we can understand how we are

actually going to move forward on this, and we don't come back in a year and be looking

at equally horrible results.

Everyone in this chamber notes we need to build more housing. After seven years, we

know that this government has repeatedly failed to do so. We just need better than

what this government has been offering.

[11:25 a.m.]

When I talk about young people…. I can talk about…. It's all relative, I guess. But

45-year-olds have given up on the hope of home ownership. It seems the narrative from

this government is that's okay. That's just the way it's going to be.

We need to create pathways for ownership, and we need to bring hope back to people.

We need to come up with a vibrant and good plan and policy that are actually going

to be able to do that.

I did want to just raise concerns again about that first blush, how other people external

to those of us in the House are reacting to this legislation. I just want to quote

Mayor Mike Hurley of Burnaby. This was just in the Now yesterday. "It's a massive change, and I don't think anyone really realizes how big

a change this is, whether it's good or bad. There's hardly any details with this new

announcement."

That is another issue here. The devil is in the details. Our ability to take a look

at this and understand if it's good policy or not…. Well, so much of it is actually

being pushed out to regulation. Some of the really specific and important pieces are.

So it's hard for us to really be able to understand what's good and what's not good

in this.

Two terms in government. You've heard us say this before, and we'll happily say it

again. It is the way it is. Of the 114,000 government-built homes that were promised

by the NDP, only 15 percent have opened. It's a shocking lack of results, and it doesn't

give us hope.

Now that this government is actually increasing the commitments it's making on providing

housing, and its failure in the past to even meet smaller targets…. How can this government

determine that they're going to now set larger targets? I guess we can look forward

to larger targets not being met.

Whether you're a renter, an owner, a senior or a young person, the price of housing

is higher now than it has ever, ever been. Far too many British Columbians are struggling

under the weight of steadily increasing costs of living. Because this government has

failed on the ability to create the housing stock that British Columbians need, we

are now looking at rent costs of over $3,000 a month in Vancouver. That's for a one

bedroom apartment.

When we were younger, we could get a few friends together and rent a place and share

rent. It didn't work so well in a one bedroom apartment.

A Surrey townhouse now…. So $300,000 in 2012. That same townhouse now costs $900,000.

That is a shocking increase.

Government claims that this Bill 44 is going to help build 130,000 units over the

last ten years. This side of the House remains very skeptical that that is actually

going to be able to happen.

We'd also like to make sure that we look at the word "build." When we're talking about

targets set by this government, the word "build" doesn't necessarily seem to be what

is reported out on. We're not talking about a reclassification of existing units.

This government should be committing to actually adding to housing stock and building

new housing, rather than reclassifying existing housing.

Now, if you look at the CMHC housing corporation, it says that we need to build 610,000

additional housing units by 2030 in order to be able to restore affordable housing.

This plan falls short of that. Now, I understood from earlier today, in question period,

that the NDP government does not necessarily look at the statistics provided by the

federal government, StatsCan. So CMHC numbers, perhaps, are also not important to

them.

Bill 44 seeks to increase density, which, in theory, we certainly support. But again,

the devils are in the details. There's an utter lack of details in this legislation.

Surely we can't look at a one-size-fits-all approach. That's what it feels like. Well,

that's what it is, if we start to look at this. We can't abandon those smart development

principles.

[11:30 a.m.]

Again, if you look at some communities…. You're going to start to allow fourplexes

to be built in areas where people can't access transit and amenities. That doesn't

make any sense.

Nearly all the details are going to be implemented in a policy manual. It's not going

to be published until long after this legislation has actually been passed. So how

can British Columbians know? How can the official opposition know? What does this

bill really stand for, and what is the impact that this bill is actually going to

have on communities?

This policy manual is going to include practical details like setbacks, height restrictions,

parking, lot coverage. Those are fundamental to an amendment that's dealing with zoning.

You're putting legislation forward that says: "We're going to deal with zoning issues,

but we're not going to tell you what that's going to be. You're going to have to wait,

and you're going to have to find out what that's going to mean to you and to your

community." Government has shown, time and time again, they're not the right people

to build housing and make life more affordable for British Columbians.

The Premier asserted, when he was speaking to the Broadbent Institute: "We're not

going to solve the housing crisis, the opioid crisis, the health care challenges.

We're not going to solve all of those issues in British Columbia between now and the

next election." This government has had seven years to deal with these issues, and

they have been getting consecutively worse. So the reality is…. Yes, these issues

are not going to be solved.

Why hasn't more work been done, and why haven't things even been getting incrementally

better? They haven't been getting incrementally better. They've been getting significantly

worse.

Large portions don't even come into effect until after the next election. Interim

housing needs reports don't need to be completed until after the next election, in

December 2024. Official community plans don't need to be redesigned until the end

of December 2025, if those community plans are even going to be able to have input.

We don't know how the provincial zoning requirements are going to supersede whatever

the community comes up with in their own OCP. It's still not going to be ready to

be considered until well after this legislation comes in.

What this legislation…. What we're not seeing in here is…. It is failing to reduce

the massive amount of taxes that are blocking new housing construction. It seems ironic

now, after having had a few moments to peruse the legislation that we'll be debating

later — the tripling of development costs on new housing developments in Metro Vancouver.

Even the federal government has said: "Wait a second. This is not the right way to

create affordable housing."

We're going in the wrong direction when we push the costs down to the developers.

They then, ultimately, get pushed on to the people who are the end units, whether

they're tenants, whether they're owners. It's the wrong way to go.

I believe, with the federal government…. We're on side with that approach. It looks

like the NDP government here in British Columbia is not on side with that approach.

This also takes away the ability for municipalities to even negotiate DCCs with developers.

Again, I look forward to debating the next piece of legislation and exploring a bit

more about how DCCs are going to be dealt with.

On this side of the House, we understand that additional housing costs are the exact

opposite of what British Columbians need right now. The only way that we're going

to be able to make housing more affordable is less red tape. Make it less expensive

to actually create that housing.

[11:35 a.m.]

What are we going to do as official opposition? We're going to add supply. We're going

to do that through working with municipalities and through reducing red tape and through

reducing the cost to actually create housing.

Now, people want to afford homes that are close to transit. So a real focus on transit-oriented

communities is important. We need to look at smart density. We have to appreciate,

and this government has to appreciate, that communities are different and communities

have different needs. They have different infrastructure needs, and they have different

needs for services.

Just in my own community on the North Shore — Vancouver, North Shore, West Vancouver,

district of North Vancouver, city of North Vancouver — we have a significant traffic

issue, a huge traffic issue. If you ask anybody on the North Shore, "What is the number

one thing that you need us to deal with here on the North Shore that impacts your

life on a daily basis?" it is transportation. We don't have the transit infrastructure

to be able to support the community.

We really need to be able to address that infrastructure piece before we add additional

density. Adding density is important. We need to do it on pace with the addition of

those other pieces that are missing in these communities. In the case of the North

Shore, we can look at traffic as being a significant barrier to the issues that we

have.

It is not unusual for any of you that have come off the ferry in West Vancouver, off

the Horseshoe Bay ferry. You're driving towards Vancouver, and you come to this point

just before you turn down Taylor Way. There's a sign that they've put up there. It's

computerized, so the numbers can change on it. It will say, "Lions Gate Bridge delay,"

and then, underneath that, there will be a number based on the traffic flow at the

time.

If I see that number as being ten minutes, I'm thinking: "Hallelujah, this is a good

day. It's only ten minutes." This is to get onto the bridge. This isn't to get over

the bridge. This is just to get onto the bridge. It's not actually unusual to be driving

along and to see that sign say 60 minutes, and sometimes 90 minutes.

When you've got a community that has traffic that is coming from the ferries, that's

coming from increased density in Squamish and Whistler, this is serious. This has

to be addressed at the same time that we're addressing density. You can't have one

before you actually have the other in place.

This legislation is going to increase density to 142 units per acre, on average. That's

a significant increase for suburban areas that are going to need support and help

in creating the infrastructure that's going to be required.

Look at Surrey. Every day we hear in the news that we've got portables there. Portables

aren't going anywhere. In fact, we're doubling up — double-decker portables now. There

is a huge lack of capacity in the K-to-12 system in Surrey as it stands right now.

So what is the Ministry of Education doing with the Ministry of Housing to ensure

that capacity is being built out in that community that is going to support a sudden

increase in density?

Again, if you're not working with all those ministries around the Ministry of Housing

that create that infrastructure, that support that infrastructure…. I'm not just talking

about pipes and hydro. It's all those other services — medical communities, UPCCs,

hospitals. Has there been an understanding of where those capacity challenges are

going to be and what health care facilities need to be constructed? How are we going

to prioritize that?

If we are looking at the wording in this legislation, Bill 44, today, we are led to

believe that we will have sprawl. We're not going to be creating those transit-oriented,

service-oriented communities that we all want to live in, or perhaps we don't all

want to live in them, but they are the healthy communities that as British Columbians,

we should have access to. They make the most sense in order to address an affordability

crisis.

[11:40 a.m.]

I'm not seeing that in Bill 44. I'm seeing a push to treat all communities the same

regardless of amenities. There is a hint of fractional increases in density within

a certain distance of transit.

Still, four units on a single-family lot that's a significant distance from transit

hubs is a challenge. Maybe we need to do more in terms of moving that density, as

opposed to blanket upzoning across the board.

Really looking at town centre planning…. We've heard so much about active transportation

from this NDP government, but this seems to be abandoning a commitment to active transportation.

Electrical capacity parking. I'm sure all of us have heard from the mayors in our

own communities about the concerns on who's going to pay for this. How is it going

to get done? So there is a role here for the province to be stepping up to the plate

and working with B.C. Transit, long-term transit plans and where things are going.

On the North Shore, we need a fixed-link rapid transit. We need that. That would really

go a long way to support the ability of those people on the North Shore to increase

density.

We need those things to be done in concert with the increase in density. These can't

be…. You know, with this government, we've seen things introduced that didn't consider

the bigger picture, and that's a concern.

I am going to give two examples of where that's happened. When the rental restrictions

were removed from pre-2010 apartment buildings and condo buildings, yes, there was

a lot to be celebrated in terms of making it easier to rent.

But what we asked government, while we were debating this bill, was: "Are you worried

that some of these are actually going to now convert to 55-plus buildings? And rather

than gaining a number of rental units, you're actually going to be reducing the number

of rental units that are going to be available for anybody under 55 to be able to

rent and anybody under 55 to even be able to buy in these buildings."

The Minister of Housing at the time said: "No, no. It's too difficult for them to

go through this process." But lo and behold, within six weeks of that legislation

passing, the legislation that came out of nowhere in terms of people who were living

in condominiums, almost 300 condominiums applied and became 55-plus.

Rather than increasing the number of available rental units, there has actually been

a decrease in the number of rental units. So we have to keep these things in mind.

I've also seen just recently with the short-term rental legislation not considering

the impact on people, not considering the impact of removing zoning, removing or imposing

these restrictions on buildings that were actually built for the purpose of vacation

rental….

Is the Speaker looking at me to wrap up?

Deputy Speaker: The time has passed.

K. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Noting the time, I will reserve….

Deputy Speaker: No, no. Your time. You've spoken….

K. Kirkpatrick: Oh, my time. I guess I…. Okay, thank you.

There is so much more to talk about.

Deputy Speaker: Okay, thank you, Member. Thank you.

R. Merrifield: I appreciate the comments from my colleague and critic on this file. I'll hopefully

add whatever is possible to do so in the short amount of time that I have.

As I'm reading this and as I'm listening to the intentions of this bill and what the

NDP have stated as its purpose, I'm just not sure that the government realizes what

they're doing with this particular piece of legislation.

I think we can all agree that density is great. I mean, I've been a strong advocate

of density over the course of my life. Having been in the industry for 25 years, I've

advocated for density.

[11:45 a.m.]

I have built many a multifamily property in my life. And I started…. I lived in multifamily.

They were a really significant spot in my life. I was very young when I graduated.

My parents signed my first lease on my first apartment because I was too young to

actually legally sign it. It was a condo that I rented. My next one was a townhouse

that I shared with five other friends. I've lived in six-plexes with my husband, and

I've lived in condos downtown in towers.

Density is amazing. Density is a positive place and space and way that we can achieve

housing, but this isn't a bill about density. This is a bill about creating housing

chaos.

Having been a part of OCP construction…. When I say construction, the actual creation,

I should say, of an OCP over the course of 13 municipalities, four provinces and over

25 years. I can tell this House that the amount of rigour that goes into an OCP planning

process is extensive. It is public consultation spanning months and years. It is consultant

work spanning years. It is an absolute, amazing process in which it takes a planning

department and, really, all departments, transportation departments, infrastructure

departments — all of those departments coming together to create this living, breathing

document that then really informs housing over the course of the next years.

In Kelowna, our OCP was just approved last year. In that approval is actually a document

that's supposed to go to 2040. Now, obviously, it'll go through iterations. It'll

be updated every decade or so. But these are huge documents that have a tremendous

amount of thought put into them.

It's gone. It's gone with this. In fact, this bill actually requires the OCPs to be

amended according to the housing needs assessments that they will all have to do.

I have no idea how municipalities are going to achieve that. And to take some of the

lowest density areas of our cities and suburbias and then transform them into these

multifamily areas is a huge task.

Oftentimes those single-family areas, or the less dense areas, are put at the outskirts

of cities because they are at the end of infrastructure. They are at the end of reservoir

lines or water lines. They are farthest away from sewer lines. They are the farthest

away from electricity supply. They're also the hardest to serve as a community.

In fact, in the city of Kelowna, there was a huge uproar on the cost of infrastructure

and this huge deficit that was growing — almost half a billion dollars that ballooned

to over $1 billion. In that particular case, infrastructure cost was one of the biggest

issues.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is actually talking about taking every single single-family home in those outskirts

and putting them into fourplexes and possibly even six-plexes on some of the collector

roads. That is quadrupling density in these areas.

These are areas that are already planned with complexity, planned with townhouse and

with condominium housing. It's all done with specific requirements for pipes, specific

requirements for electricity, specific requirements for water flow calculations, for

fire. This is going to have an incredible impact on what those costs are.

The minister sort of shrugged in the media, when the media asked him about that, and

said: "Well, you know, I'm not going to use that as an excuse." An excuse? Who is

going to pay for that? The very first single-family house that decides to do a fourplex?

They're going to pay for that four-kilometre pipe to be upgraded? It's impossible.

[11:50 a.m.]

I don't understand how this bill will actually be implemented. And without any of

the regulations, we don't actually know. But I will say that most people dream of

one day having a place of their own. It doesn't have to be big. It doesn't have to

be grand, but it is their own.

I can also tell you there's a premium on places with yards. It doesn't have to be

big, just enough for them to let their dog out in the morning without having to get

dressed. Just enough for a little playground, a playset for their kids, maybe a little

teeter-totter somewhere for their toddler. I just don't want to accept that the dream

might be dead, and that we're going to tell a generation of our youth that they won't

actually be able to own.

I don't underestimate the crisis at hand, a crisis where our own homes have become

mirages for too many. And the question is not merely one of availability but of whether

our children and grandchildren will be able to call British Columbia home, or if they'll

be priced out of their own history, their own communities.

This is not a failure of two decades; this is a failure of the last two terms. It's

time to call it as it is. After two terms, after seven protracted years, the NDP's

housing strategy is a mirage itself. Out of a grand 114,000 housing units that were

promised, a mere 15 percent were built.

I remind this House that this government spent five years trying to quell demand.

Increasing costs, labouring housing and new housing that was so desperately needed

with more and more costs and fees. All the while, trying to quell this demand, immigration

numbers soared, and less homes were built.

This NDP government failed in their attempts to build homes while making it more difficult

and more expensive for the private sector to do so. They frustrated the process. They

didn't build enough or stimulate enough homes being built. This just isn't underperformance;

it's a betrayal of the British Columbian dream to have housing.

This province isn't just another line in a budget or a bullet point in a bill. It's

the heart and soul of our people: the renters, the homeowners, the elderly, the young

professionals, all of whom are staggering under the weight of failed NDP policy that

has resulted in a relentless and out-of-price housing market.

City of Vancouver: $3,000 a month for rent of a one-bedroom apartment — $3,000 a month.

Over to Surrey, where townhomes have gone from $300,000 in 2012 to $900,000 today.

Come to Kelowna. That similar townhouse is a mere $75,000 less. A bargain, I'd say.

This isn't a trend. It's the stark reality of a housing affordability crisis that

has become the most dire in all of North America. We are the most expensive in all

of Canada, and it's all unfolded under this NDP's watch.

With Bill 44, the government waves a new banner of 130,000 homes over the next decade,

but those figures don't even come close to meeting what the Canadian Mortgage Housing

Corp. has exposed as a grave shortfall. We need 610,000 homes by 2030 to mend the

fabric of affordability that's been so brutally torn. The numbers don't just fall

short. They tell a tale of a profound disconnect with the needs of people.

Prices have soared. The NDP solution: housing targets sitting at a mere 75 percent

of what's truly needed. A figure that makes a mockery of the federal guidelines that

we ought to meet.

We are hearing voices from industry and advocacy. They speak volumes. Robert Berry

from the pro-density Homes for Living lambastes the NDP for their tepid targets, accusing

them of political convenience over tangible solutions. From the realm of economic

forecasts, Brendon Ogmundson, the B.C. Real Estate Association's chief economist,

cuts to the heart of the matter. Meeting these targets would still leave us miles

from the shores of affordability.

Noting the hour, I reserve my place in the debate.

I move that we adjourn the debate.

R. Merrifield moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

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

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada