Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 24, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 311

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

John Noonan

M. Dykeman

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M222 — Protecting Small Business from Crime and Vandalism Review Act

T. Stone

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Vaisakhi Parade in Surrey

G. Begg

Ramadan and Eid ul-Fitr

T. Wat

Invasive plants and removal work by volunteers

S. Chandra Herbert

Bernard Avenue community initiative in Kelowna

B. Stewart

60th anniversary of Prince Rupert Lions Club

J. Rice

Simon Fraser University football program

T. Halford

Ministerial Statements

Burial site of Indigenous children at Sechelt residential school

Hon. M. Rankin

M. Lee

A. Olsen

Oral Questions

Drug decriminalization program and regulation of illicit drug use in public spaces

E. Sturko

Hon. J. Whiteside

T. Stone

Transitional housing and action on homelessness

S. Furstenau

Hon. R. Kahlon

Drug decriminalization program and access to addiction services

T. Halford

Hon. J. Whiteside

Drug decriminalization program and regulation of illicit drug use in public spaces

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Whiteside

S. Bond

Hon. D. Eby

Question of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

S. Chant

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. R. Kahlon

B. Stewart

K. Kirkpatrick

R. Merrifield

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction (continued)

D. Davies

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Estimates: Ministry of Health

Hon. A. Dix

S. Bond

D. Davies

I. Paton

T. Shypitka

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions (continued)

E. Sturko

Hon. J. Whiteside

T. Shypitka

B. Stewart

S. Furstenau

MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2023

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

B. Anderson: I am delighted to welcome Emilio José Izurieta Vasquez, mi hermano

ecuadoriano. También me gustaría agradecer a sus papás Emilio Izurieta y

Kelly Vasquez por recibirme en su hogar y por todo el apoyo que recibí

cuando fuí estudiante de intercambio.

[Spanish text provided by B. Anderson.]

Emilio is my Ecuadorian host brother. I lived with him and his family

in Ecuador when I was an exchange student 20 years ago. I would like to

thank the Daybreak Rotary Club in Nelson for that life-changing opportunity.

Emilio is now studying at Selkirk College in Castlegar.

With Emilio today is José Chávez, who was also a student at Liceo

Naval in Guayaquil when I was studying there. José is now studying at

Camosun. He is excited and determined to positively contribute to this

province.

Also joining us is Cinthya Lizárraga from Guadalajara, Mexico. She has

a master’s degree in cultural management and development, came to Victoria

as a student and is hoping to work in B.C.’s tourism and hospitality

sector.

[1:35 p.m.]

Could the House please make my Latino contingent — Emilio, Cinthya and

José — welcome to our Legislature and to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Health.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, Hon. Speaker. Welcome back.

Today we commemorated, in a ceremony in the Hall of Honour, Armenian

Genocide Memorial Day. I want to thank the Premier, the member for Richmond

North Centre, the member for Cowichan Valley for their participation. We’re

welcoming, today, 44 guests from the Armenian Canadian community across

British Columbia. It’s a very solemn day. As you know, April 24, 1915, marks

the beginning of what we know as the Armenian genocide.

I want to introduce four members of the Armenian National Committee,

not all 44 today but four members of the Armenian National Committee of

Canada: Jack Deragopian, Vic Andonian, Meg Sulahin and Titar Kochkian. I

also want to note two young Armenian Canadians who spoke so well today.

Karni Kochkrian and Lorig Korajian spoke so well during our

presentations.

Finally, I’d like to welcome, from St. Gregory’s Church, Father

Karekin, a church that has welcomed more than 300 refugees and sponsored

more than 300 refugees to British Columbia from Syria in the last few years;

and Father Keghart from St. Vartan’s, who’s done some of the same

work.

I want to welcome all of them on behalf of all members of the

Legislature.

M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf, and I’m sure on behalf of everyone in the

chamber, it’s hard to believe that over 70 years have passed since George

Garrett picked up his microphone for the first time as a radio reporter in

North Battleford. It was 70-plus years ago.

In 1999, he hung up his microphone and tape recorder, and he had both

a microphone and a tape recorder. He carved a reputation for himself that I

don’t think has ever been surpassed. Journalism in this country and this

province hasn’t really been the same since George entered retirement. He

guided the province and the public through some of the most difficult

stories — stories involving great tragedy, sometimes great conflict, and

also stories that involved great happiness and success and

celebration.

He had the tenacity, and still does, of Jack Webster and the demeanour

of Bill Hughes on the Roving Mike . He was known as much as a

reporter for his discretion as his relentless pursuit of the story. Anyone

who had occasion to meet George in his capacity as a reporter understood

that he was, and is, a man to be trusted.

In his retirement, he has not been idle. He has been a leading

advocate for a group of people that help people, and that is the Volunteer

Cancer Drivers Society. I suspect that that is a passion that he feels even

more acutely. George has not been shy about indicating his own battle with

cancer, a battle that he pursues with great courage and great vigour. It’s

great to see him. He’s here today with his daughters, Linda and Lorrie, and

George Orr, a former reporter-producer with the CBC.

George, it is fantastic to see you here with the members of your

family and your friends. Great to know that you are still pursuing life to

the fullest.

For a lifetime of contribution to journalism in this country, this

House wants to thank you and welcome you here.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I have to say that it is such a privilege today to be able to honour

some guests who work out of New Westminster to the House.

[1:40 p.m.]

We are joined in the gallery today by Hon. Col. Al De Genova, who is

the founder and president of Honour House. He is also an honorary colonel of

the 15th Field Royal Canadian Artillery. He’s here with his son, Gnr. Justin

De Genova, volunteer with Honour House and also reservist with the 15th

Field Royal Canadian Artillery Regiment. We might have Wendy Field up there,

as well as Hudson De Genova, Allan and Wendy’s grandson.

We are so fortunate in this area to have Allan’s incredible energy and

advocacy. On April 3, Honour House Society launched their latest major

fundraising and awareness project, the Tour of Honour, which is a caravan of

about a dozen people travelling the length and breadth of British Columbia

to bring attention to illnesses and injuries that those in uniform

face.

Honour House provides home-away-from-home services for people,

emergency services for military personnel, veterans and their families, when

they are seriously ill or injured. We’re so fortunate to have them in my

community and fortunate for the work that they do.

Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

D. Clovechok: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce a couple of my

friends who are arguably in a profession that’s not only one of the most

important in this province but one of the toughest yet one of the most

rewarding, and that of course is the profession of teaching. They’re both

from Selkirk Secondary School in Kimberley. Scott McInnis and Jeff Keiver

are up there in the stands.

If you like hockey — I’ve got to be a little bragging here — the

Kimberley team took on the Princeton Nitros. If you watched the Edmonton-LA

game last night and you knew how exciting that was, the Kimberley Dynamiters

won the KIJHL in overtime in the seventh game, 3-2.

Please make them feel welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: I would like to introduce some constituents of mine who are joining us

in the gallery today. Simrit Lally is a third-year student at Sauder School

of Business at UBC. Last semester she was taking a class in business law,

and that sparked her interest in labour law, and therefore, there was a call

made to our constituency office. We had a long discussion about labour laws

in British Columbia, the fairness for the workers and the

businesses.

She showed so much interest in how our laws are actually developed and

the process we go through, I said: “Why don’t you come in and take a look in

person?” So here she is, and she will be going around and visiting different

offices and watching question period today.

This is not what we all do, Simrit. Question period is just one small

piece, although you hear a lot about question period. But how the laws are

debated here, you will have an opportunity to see, and I really am happy

that you’re here. I feel that our MLAs’ job is much easier when younger

people are starting to show interest in the work that we do, how governments

work.

I implore all young people out there to get involved in your local

areas, see how the policies and laws are made and legislation is crafted,

and come here and take a look at what your House and your representatives

are doing here.

Please join with me at this particular time to welcome Simrit for her

to be here and showing her interest.

Thank you very much for showing up.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’d like to welcome a good friend of mine to the House today. Margaret

Mardirossian is a television executive producer and has been a resident of

West Vancouver for the past 15 years. She will soon be celebrating her 30th

anniversary of the production company she founded and is president of, Anaïd

Productions. The proper pronunciation of that word is anna-eed, if I’ve said

that properly. This is the Armenian goddess of nurture and

growth.

Margaret’s grandparents escaped the genocide of the Armenian people,

and Margaret’s first award-winning short film, Hy Em Es , was the

story of her grandmother’s experience.

Please join me in welcoming Margaret to the House today.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member for Richmond-Steveston and I have a shared guest today

joining us in question period. Angela Waber was a teacher of mine in grade

11 and grade 12. She was a sponsor for the cheerleaders, and I was the

captain of the cheerleaders. It was during that time that Mrs. Waber…. I

still have to call her Mrs. Waber because she was my teacher, and she’s

still Mrs. Waber.

She has had a teaching career that started in Haida Gwaii in the early

’70s, and she finished her career in Richmond, at Richmond High. Go

Colts.

The member for Richmond-Steveston was a year old when I graduated high

school, and we both shared her as a teacher — however, a decade and a half

apart.

There are a couple of things I learned from Mrs. Waber when she took

over the cheerleaders. Her emphasis was on the leader part of the cheer. So

she asked her cheerleaders to remember, and this is the lesson I’ve kept

with me as an MLA, that if you don’t show enough self-respect for yourself,

how can anyone else respect you. Work hard, but make sure that you laugh,

and remember that when you’re out there in the world, you’re not just

representing yourself; you’re representing the group of people that you

represent.

These are the lessons that Mrs. Waber taught me, and I want to ask

everybody in the House to please welcome one of my favourite teachers, Mrs.

Waber, to the people’s House.

Tributes

JOHN NOONAN

M. Dykeman: I received some very sad news last night of John Noonan, who was

the president of the National Association of Parliamentarians, B.C.

chapter. He recently passed away. He was a dear friend and mentor of

mine. I had the honour of serving in the role as president when he

retired. He touched the lives of so many people and lived by the motto

that we must conduct ourselves with honesty and integrity. He loved his

family, and I know that all of us who have had our lives touched by him

will miss him immensely.

One of the things that he was known for, when you’d ask him how he

was doing, is that he’d look at you and say: “Better now.” I can say

that all of us that had the opportunity to call him a friend and a

mentor are better now from having him in our lives.

Introductions by Members

T. Wat: I would like to also join the Minister of Health in welcoming the

Armenian community — the priests and the young students — to this people’s

House. I’m particularly happy to see two, among many, of the Armenian

friends — Jack Deragopian, chairman of the Armenian National Committee of

Canada, western region, and Co-chairman Vic Andonian.

Today I made so many Armenian friends. Let’s welcome them to this

people’s House.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Joining us in the House today are my mom and dad, Samuel Malcolmson

and Ann Harty Osler Malcolmson.

Will the House please make them

welcome.

I’m not giving a long speech, because those are the rules. I love

you.

Hon. A. Kang: I have two special visitors here in the Legislature today. For 30

years, Tim Strachan and Kim Quarton have served thousands of tourists and

locals from their iconic James Bay restaurant, Santiago’s. I know many of us

have frequented there. They are dear friends to my administrative

coordinator, Ngaire Lord, who, in one of her jobs before becoming my AC,

worked at Santiago’s. This is their first time here.

Will the House please welcome Tim and Kim to our House.

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to introduce a couple of friends in the House today.

Ben Millette and Bob Davey are here. Ben is from Victoria, and Bob is from

just a street over in Powell River, so he’s a constituent who has made his

way down from the qathet regional district. The part that I was going to

leave out of my speech but decided not to for some reason is that Slim and I

sometimes need a little help doing things around the house. So Bob is our

straight eye for the queer guys.

[1:50 p.m.]

I just want to say that he’s a wonderful friend, really helpful, and

everyone in town knows him. Now the House knows Bob Davey.

Welcome, both of you.

Waber. She was the best teacher anybody could ask for. We were challenged by

her. We were safe with her. It’s very fitting that she’s here the day after

Shakespeare Day.

To honour the work that she’s done with us over the years…. In 1996, I

had to memorize a brief Shakespearean excerpt, and it is:

“Oh, what a noble mind is here o’erthrown!

The courtier’s,

soldier’s, scholar’s, eye, tongue, sword;

Th’ expectancy and rose of the

fair state,

The glass of fashion and the mold of form,

Th’ observed

of all observers — quite, quite down!

And I, of ladies most deject and

wretched

That sucked the honey of his music vows,

Now see that noble

and most sovereign reason

Like sweet bells jangled, out of tune and

harsh,

That unmatched form and feature of blown youth

Blasted with

ecstasy. Oh, woe is me

T’have seen what I have seen, see what I

see!”

A. Singh: I should just sit down at this point. There’s really no

point.

We do have our former member Chuck Puchmayr, who is also a volunteer

with Honour House, here in the hall today. As the minister stated earlier,

the Honour House is doing a tour of honour, so they’ll be going around

British Columbia. If they come into your constituency, please go out and

greet them and welcome them.

S. Chandra Herbert: I couldn’t avoid looking up and seeing Al De Genova and Wendy Field in

the chamber today. Many don’t know, but it feels like just a few years ago

that Al and I served on Vancouver’s park board together. I just want to

credit him, and thank Wendy as well, for those late, late nights and for

that constant refrain of: “It’s about service, not yourself. It’s about

getting the job done, not getting the credit.”

So thank you. It’s a real credit to you today, and much

appreciated.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M222 — PROTECTING SMALL BUSINESS

FROM CRIME AND

VANDALISM REVIEW ACT

T. Stone presented a bill intituled Protecting Small Business from

Crime and Vandalism Review Act.

T. Stone: I move that the bill intituled the Protecting Small Business from

Crime and Vandalism Review Act, of which notice has been given in my

name on the order paper, be introduced and read for the first time

now.

The level of crime and social disorder faced by communities across

B.C. has become increasingly difficult to bear. Small businesses, in

particular, are finding it hard to keep their doors open as they try to

cope with rising theft, broken windows, graffiti and other types of

property damage. The costs of cleanup, repairs and enhanced security

measures go up and up, as do their insurance costs.

These are hard-working business owners who are doing everything

they can to stay afloat. But when offenders, largely prolific ones,

continue to target their establishments day after day after day, many of

them feel they can’t stay in business much longer. They’ve been pleading

for help, and this bill would move that process along more quickly so

they can get the support they need before it’s too late.

This bill calls for a thorough assessment of the impacts of crime

specific to small businesses to get a true sense of the extreme

challenges they are facing. It would also look at the feasibility of a

range of funding mechanisms that would help offset the cost of repairs

and security upgrades that small business owners are dealing with, no

later than the start of the fall sitting of the Legislature.

I want to acknowledge the advocacy of the Business Improvement

Areas of B.C., which has been calling on government to provide targeted

financial support for some time now. It’s imperative that we all work

quickly to provide small businesses in affected areas with support as

soon as possible, so they can continue to stay in business, contributing

so much to our local economies and our vibrant communities.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

T. Stone: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M222, Protecting Small Business from Crime and Vandalism Review

Act, 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.

[1:55 p.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

VAISAKHI PARADE IN SURREY

G. Begg: For hundreds of years, Vaisakhi celebrations have marked the

coming of a new year and spring harvest. More recently, it has become a

day to mark the birth of the Khalsa, a community that considers Sikhism

as its faith. The tradition was initiated in 1699 by the tenth guru of

Sikhism, Guru Gobind Singh.

I was there, with more than 500,000 others, in Surrey on Saturday

for one of the largest Vaisakhi parades in Canada and maybe even the

world. A portion of Surrey streets in Newton were shut down for this

magnificent multicultural community event, as thousands from all over

partook and watched this colourful parade and festival, which took place

for the first time since 2019.

It was truly a family event, which included the very youngest to

the very oldest, all together to celebrate the core values of Sikhism,

including inclusivity, dignity and respect for all, founded on values of

righteousness, protection of human rights and equality for all

regardless of race, ethnicity, religion and sexual

orientation.

The parade this year featured 20 floats, scores of booths and

cultural displays. On top of the vibrant colours, joyful spirits and

visible cultural representation, there was that other universal

attraction that brings people together: a virtually endless selection of

free food and drink.

An event like this, of course, can only succeed through the

dedication and hard work of its organizers. In this case, all are

volunteers, all from the Gurdwara Dasmesh Darbar, which began hosting

the parade when it opened its doors in 1998. Within its first few years,

it grew to 60,000 attendees, and by 2019, it was attracting close to

500,000 participants every year.

I’m sure that all members of the House will join me in applauding

Moninder Singh and the 1,000 volunteers from Dasmesh Darbar for all

their hard work in organizing the best Vaisakhi ever.

RAMADAN AND EID UL-FITR

T. Wat: The month of Ramadan is a time of reflection, renewal and empathy

for the diverse Muslim communities across B.C.

Last week I was honoured to attend a few events and dinners to

commemorate the holy month of Ramadan. I would like to appreciate the

Turkish Educational and Cultural Foundation for organizing and hosting a

welcoming event to celebrate Ramadan in Richmond, on top of the already

incredible work they do in the local community.

Special thanks to Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at B.C. for hosting the

break-of-fast multifaith Iftar dinner at the Legislature as well. It was

special to be there alongside my colleagues.

I would also like to thank the CentreCanada Newcomer Services

Society for inviting me to join the wonderful Ramadan dinner last

Thursday, seeing so many people from different faiths and backgrounds

coming together to celebrate the spirit of Ramadan.

Ramadan is a special time for Muslims across the world. It is a

vital time for reflection, self-discipline and compassion for others. As

families and friends celebrated Eid this past weekend, I hope everyone

had the opportunity to treasure and cherish the time spent in each

other’s company.

To have had the opportunity to attend and speak at some of these

dinners was not something I took for granted. Events like this one bring

us all together in the ongoing fight against racism and violence against

marginalized groups.

As many of you know, I’m incredibly proud to represent a riding

that is rich in diversity and inclusivity, and events like this will

only help us garner more respect and understanding for one

another.

On behalf of the B.C. United caucus, I wish all Muslims

celebrating Eid ul-Fitr our warmest wishes for peace and happiness and a

joyful Ramadan.

INVASIVE PLANTS AND

REMOVAL WORK BY

VOLUNTEERS

S. Chandra Herbert: They come in the dead of night. They come in the middle of the

day. They arrive on the wheels of trucks. They arrive in your bouquet.

They spread by root. They spread by seed. Hon. Speaker, they have real

greed.

I speak of invasive species.

[2:00 p.m.]

In all of our communities in this great province of British

Columbia, we are being invaded at all hours of the day and night by

species that are taking the space of incredible species, which you can,

in many cases, only find in this province. I want to give great thanks

to those who are taking action. Every moment we don’t act, they continue

their spread.

This weekend I hung out with the dedicated invasive removal team,

the DIRT squad, from the Stanley Park Ecology Society as we took on the

over here on the Island; a little less so over in Vancouver, although

it’s a problem there too — because we believe that we need to allow our

native species to thrive. On the Island, we know that camas and many of

the lupins are getting overtaken by Scotch broom.

Last weekend I got pulled over by a guy saying, “Hey, give me a

hand,” as he decided to take on the broom in bloom. After question

periods, and so on, this last weekend it was really nice to be able to

get my own internal frustrations and aggressions out taking on invasive

ivy or holly is a great recipe for success.

I just wanted to say to those volunteers who put in hour after

hour after hour, to the invasive species councils, to the stores and the

businesses that are working to remove those species from sale: thank

you. There’s not a moment to lose.

BERNARD AVENUE COMMUNITY INITIATIVE

KELOWNA

B. Stewart: I liked that little introduction.

Here as we celebrate Tourism Week in B.C., it’s my pleasure to

talk about an exciting initiative taking place in downtown Kelowna,

called Meet Me on Bernard. As many of you already know, Bernard Avenue

is the heart of our downtown core, and it is a vibrant and bustling hub

of activity.

It was in 1892 when Kelowna was laid out by the Lequime brothers,

Bernard and Leon, who built a store that still stands today. This

exciting development was created by the introduction of CPR

sternwheelers, like the Aberdeen on which my grandfather

arrived in 1908, the year Bernard Avenue was paved.

Meet Me on Bernard is a community-led initiative which aims to

create a safe and inclusive space for residents and visitors alike to

come together and enjoy all that our city has to offer. By temporarily

closing off Bernard Avenue to vehicular traffic and opening it up to

pedestrians, cyclists and businesses, we are creating a unique and

dynamic atmosphere that fosters connection and engagement.

Through this initiative, we are supporting our local businesses

and encouraging people to shop and dine locally. We’re also promoting

active transportation and providing a space for outdoor activities, such

as yoga classes, street performances and community events.

Meet Me on Bernard is an example of what can be achieved when we

come together as a community and work towards a common goal. I am proud

to support this initiative and encourage everyone to take advantage of

this opportunity to enjoy our downtown core in a new and exciting

way.

I hope to see you all on Bernard Avenue soon.

60 th ANNIVERSARY OF

PRINCE

RUPERT LIONS CLUB

J. Rice: For the last 60 years, the Prince Rupert Lions Club has proudly

been serving Prince Rupert and the Port Edward area. At one point in

time, there were three Lions clubs running: two in Prince Rupert and one

in Port Edward.

Now, 60 years is a long time for any organization, but with the

ever-shrinking membership in local volunteer and service groups, this is

a pretty darn good record and one that should be celebrated.

During their extended history, the Lions Club has met in various

locations from the old Kin Hut — I have no idea where that is; that’s

way before my time in Rupert — to the Via Rail station to their current

location on Fraser Street in Prince Rupert, among others. What has

remained the same is their commitment to the community of Prince

Rupert.

Annually the club raises approximately $60,000 from fundraising

efforts. Almost all of the money raised by our local Lions Club goes to

support local charities and organizations.

Typically, in a given year, they support the Salvation Army Food

Bank; the Prince Rupert wildlife shelter; the Oldfield Creek Fish

Hatchery; the men’s Trinity Recovery House, a place where men can find

support as they recover from addictions; the Prince Rupert Special

Events Society, including supporting Halloween Fest, the Children’s

Festival and Seafest.

[2:05 p.m.]

In addition, the club sponsors numerous youth activities,

including the gymnastics club, Prince Rupert Youth Soccer, Prince Rupert

club volleyball, Charles Hays basketball teams, First Nations basketball

teams and many others.

In commemoration of the milestone of their 60th anniversary,

they’re putting on a celebration dinner on May 5. Tickets are available

for $60 each for a buffet dinner. At this event, they plan on inducting

new members as well as celebrating the occasion with notable Lion

members from out of town, including the district governor, May Ho, and

past international president Al Hunt.

Congratulations, Prince Rupert Lions Club. I look forward to

seeing you on May 5.

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

FOOTBALL

PROGRAM

T. Halford: Recently Simon Fraser University abruptly announced it would be

shutting down its football program. This announcement has blindsided

staff, families, football communities and, most importantly, the

players. The decision has left the student athletes stranded, unsure

whether they can or where they will continue their football

careers.

This announcement is pretty personal to me because while growing

up, I spent many hours up on the mountain watching football games. It’s

hard. Every summer I would go up with my uncle and tag along. My job was

ball boy. I was a ball boy. I was the water boy for six years up there

with SFU. I formed those relationships with people like Angus Reid, Sean

Millington, John Macdonald, Giulio Caravatta and others.

There’s a long list. Some of these players didn’t just go on to

the CFL or the NFL. They went on to become firefighters, doctors,

lawyers and other strong members of their community.

I remember sitting in my aunt and uncle’s kitchen when a player

would phone because they were having a personal struggle. It was my

uncle, the coach, who would take that call and work through it with

them, or when a new player would come to town, my aunt would make dinner

and welcome them to be a part of the family.

Tomorrow is a day of action for SFU football. It’s being led by

the SFU Football Alumni Society to raise funds for the players that are

so affected. The B.C. Lions have pledged to match those funds

tomorrow.

I ask all those in this House to support the SFU players and the

SFU Football Alumni Society as they try and get out of the courthouse

and back onto the football field.

Ministerial Statements

BURIAL SITE OF INDIGENOUS CHILDREN

AT SECHELT

RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL

Hon. M. Rankin: Today we stand with shíshálh Nation Elders, survivors, leaders and

community after the release last Thursday of results of their

ground-penetrating radar investigation on the site of the former St.

Augustine’s Indian Residential School. This residential school was

located near Sechelt, British Columbia and operated from 1904 to

I fully support shíshálh Nation as they continue their search for

the missing children.

Shíshálh Nation has requested privacy at this time, as they

grieve, heal and gather as a community. We respectfully asked that

non-Indigenous people provide the shíshálh Nation with the time and

space necessary to absorb this tragic announcement. I was in touch with

Chief Lenora Joe again this morning. I want to acknowledge that this is

a profoundly painful time for the shíshálh Nation and the former

students and their families, who have known this truth for

generations.

This extremely difficult work is uncovering the disturbing reality

of the residential school system that we all must grapple with. Children

from 51 First Nations across British Columbia and other provinces as far

as Saskatchewan attended St. Augustine’s over the years. As hiwus Lenora

Joe reflected last week, we ask people not focus on the numbers but

rather on what each of us can do to honour the children that never came

home. These were children, and one child is too many.

To support them and other communities searching for the missing

children, there are many things we each can do. Learn about the history

and legacy of residential schools. Wear orange shirts, and fly flags at

half-mast. The Legislature and the city of Victoria have shown their

support by flying flags at half-mast this past weekend.

[2:10 p.m.]

The First Nations in British Columbia, with support from the

federal and provincial governments, are on a path to continue and to

complete the work started by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission

over a decade ago. British Columbia, with the support of Charlene

Belleau in her role as First Nation liaison, continues to work with the

First Nations across our province to make sure they have access to the

resources and expertise required to advance this work.

We know that these institutions hold many unanswered questions for

survivors, their families and their communities and that these

investigations are another step on the path toward truth, healing and

justice.

As we all know today, the residential school system was an attempt

to assimilate Indigenous peoples by stripping them of their language,

their culture and their connection to family, community and land. We

have all had to confront our truth and often-troubled history as a

province and as a country with each disclosure since 2021. Each

disclosure should remind us that we are only at the beginning of this

important work.

We have a shared responsibility as British Columbians to

acknowledge the truth being uncovered by First Nations in B.C. and

across Canada.

I invite members of this House and everyone across the province to

reflect on the role and responsibility for each of us to stand with

leaders and together help bring respect where there has been indignity,

comfort where there has been pain and healing where there has been

generations of harm.

M. Lee: I rise to express our support for the shíshálh Nation on their

announcement last week of 40 unmarked children’s graves at the former

site of St. Augustine’s Indian Residential School in Sechelt. Like other

First Nations in B.C. — Tk’emlúps,

c̓išaaʔatḥ and Williams Lake

First Nations — the work and journey by the shíshálh Nation has been

long and arduous.

We’ve had the opportunity in this chamber to acknowledge, support

and raise awareness of the meaningful work and responsibilities carried

out by these nations, and we do so again today for the shíshálh Nation.

As we do this, it’s important to recognize that this Indian residential

school in Sechelt operated from 1904 until 1975 and that the nation has

indicated that members of more than 51 First Nations attended this

school.

Following the opening ceremony for the investigation by the nation

back on February 21, 2022, shíshálh councillor Selina August said: “It’s

for our people. It’s to find the truth and to heal, put some closure on

some of the trauma and experiences that survivors went through and to

just move forward.”

This heart-wrenching finding of the 40 unmarked graves is another

tragic reminder of the legacy of residential schools and their profound

impact on Indigenous communities across our country. We must acknowledge

the devastating toll this has taken on generations of Indigenous peoples

and the ongoing trauma that persists to this day.

As Chief Lenora Joe of the shíshálh Nation shared in her video

announcement last week, surrounded by other community leaders in the

longhouse: “These children were our aunties. They were our uncles. They

were our future leaders that we never met. They never grew up, and

decades later, they’re still lost children.”

Acknowledging and supporting the shíshálh Nation at this time

gives us an opportunity in this chamber to reflect on the harsh reality

and devastating truth that we are all working so hard with First Nations

to reconcile in our province. It’s a reminder of the vital necessity of

reconciliation, as First Nation communities continue to deal with the

intergenerational trauma inflicted by the Indian residential school

system.

[2:15 p.m.]

As the shadow minister for Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

and on behalf of the official opposition caucus, I reaffirm our

commitment to working towards meaningful reconciliation with Indigenous

nations and communities. We must continue to listen to the stories of

survivors and their families and take meaningful steps to address the

ongoing impacts of residential schools. We must continue to support the

efforts to ensure that survivors, their families and their loved ones

are heard and supported. It is a long but much-needed

process.

I would like to thank the shíshálh Nation staff, volunteers and

all others who have carried out this difficult work to make this

heartbreaking but important discovery in pursuit of answers, truth and

healing.

It doesn’t stop here. There’s certainly more work — much more work

— to do.

A. Olsen: Today I stand and respond to the ministerial statement provided by

the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation with the

acknowledgment of the pain and tribulations that are being felt today

and over the past few days from our relatives in shíshálh: Chief

yalxwemult, Lenora Joe, and the leadership in the community, acting on

the information provided from the Elders that survived the horrific

experiences that happened in residential schools, specifically the St.

Augustine Residential School, operated by the Catholic church in their

community.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the family, as we have now stood

numerous times to acknowledge that each time these findings are publicly

stated, it’s not just the communities that are noting their findings,

that feel the effect of these announcements but that it indeed reopens

the wounds of residential and day-school survivors that live today,

their family members and those that may have suffered as a result of

being descendants of those people who, unfortunately, never made it home

from school.

As the minister said, we must do more. We must do better. We must

do our part. I think it’s important to acknowledge, in that, that

residential and day schools, which we have stood and acknowledged

several times now in this House, in this chamber, were only one part of

a much broader policy of assimilation and cultural genocide that was

experienced by Indigenous people here in British Columbia and right

across our province.

While we mark these occasions by lowering flags and by wearing

orange shirts, as a direct descendant of residential and day-school

survivors, I feel it’s my obligation to also remind this institution

that the steps that we need to take must be more than that. It’s

important to acknowledge that that broad set of policies that

residential and day schools were a part of was actually about separating

mothers and children and undermining Indigenous mothers and

fathers.

Even as this institution changes and evolves in many wonderful

ways, in fact, it’s important that we’re honest and we acknowledge the

many awful ways that it’s not evolving and changing quickly enough. I

think of the ongoing suffering that the Ministry of Children and Family

Development continues to cause our families.

I think about the drug poisoning crisis and the report that we

just had last week where 16.4 percent of the deaths of people that

passed away as an unfortunate result of the drug poisoning crisis were

our Indigenous relatives, Indigenous people, when only 3.3 percent of

the population are Indigenous people. That’s 5.9 times the rate of the

general population.

[2:20 p.m.]

I think it’s also important to acknowledge the impact that has had

on our women, our Matriarchs, our grandmothers, mothers, sisters, aunts,

cousins: 36.5 percent of the Indigenous people who passed away are

women. That’s 11.2 times the rate of women in the general population

that have passed away due to drug poisoning. There is a direct

connection, and we must make that direct connection to the policies of

this place as part of that broad policy.

When we stand in here and acknowledge the impact of residential

schools, it is important that we are fully embracing and aware of the

deep pain and suffering that it has not only caused the families of

those who didn’t come home from school but those who did come home from

school. There are people in our communities that continue to carry those

stories and that pain and suffering to this very day.

HÍSW̱ḴE

SIÁM .

Mr. Speaker: I ask that all members join me in a moment of silence.

[The House observed a moment of silence.]

Oral Questions

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND REGULATION OF

ILLICIT

DRUG USE IN PUBLIC SPACES

E. Sturko: Under this soft-on-crime Premier, overdose deaths, crime, social

disorder and violence have never been worse.

On Friday, the Vancouver police chief supported our call for a

provincial ban on public use of hard drugs in spaces like parks and

playgrounds. This is what police chief Adam Palmer said: “It’s just

common sense.”

Will the Premier listen to the chief of police and ban the public

use of hard drugs like crystal meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl in parks

and playgrounds and other public spaces, yes or no?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question. I want to be very clear

about what decriminalization does and what it does not do. What it does

not do is it does not change the ability of local governments to pass or

amend their bylaws. What it does do, however, is require that local

governments, as they well know, engage with public health when they are

considering passing bylaws that have a public health

implication.

This is something that anybody who comes from local government is

well aware of. They know the law. They know

section 83 of the Public

Health Act.

More than that, I would say the process of discussion that we went

through in this place with respect to the issue of the toxic drug crisis

through the select standing committee, the discussions about the role of

decriminalization in destigmatizing people who use drugs so that we can

better connect them to supports and to treatment — that is something

that was recognized as important and supported by all members of this

House.

We are working with municipalities to address any concerns that

they may have. They have levers. They have the same tools that they did,

and they are well aware of their obligations under the Public Health

Act.

Mr. Speaker: Surrey South, supplemental.

[2:25 p.m.]

E. Sturko: Well, Interior Health is putting up a barrier for municipalities

who would like to have bylaws in their communities. A note sent to the

municipalities from Interior Health asked them to wait for six months

before deciding if they will put forward any bylaws. That’s six more

months of disorder, six more months of chaos.

It was the Premier’s decision to decriminalize hard drugs without

any practical protections, like a commonsense ban on public consumption.

Only the NDP could think it makes sense to say that having a beer or a

glass of wine on a park bench is banned, but using crystal meth, cocaine

or fentanyl on that same park bench isn’t banned. A provincewide ban is

a tool to protect communities and empower the police to guide people

towards services.

Again, will the Premier listen to common sense and the chief of

police for Vancouver and ban public use in parks, playgrounds and other

public spaces, yes or no?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I need to correct the record with respect to what the Interior

Health Authority is actually saying.

What the Interior Health Authority has actually said is that

“decriminalization does not change or condone the criminality of

specific unwanted and unsafe behaviour, such as…violence and theft in

the community. Although decriminalization allows people to have a

certain amount of illegal substances with them, decriminalization is not

expected to change substance use behaviours.” Interior Health medical

health officers do not support substance use in public areas, as you

will well know from their messaging on tobacco and alcohol.

The letter goes on to say that where there are particular

concerns, those should be addressed in conjunction between medical

health and municipalities.

In fact, what the medical health officers said was that they

recommend a six-month observation period to monitor the effects of

decriminalization on public consumption before implementing new bylaws

or modifying existing ones. And in fact the Interior Health medical

health officers, who are doing an extraordinary job on the front lines

in the face of an unrelenting toxic drug crisis, which is the leading

cause of unnatural death in our province….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. J. Whiteside: They are working with health providers, with community providers,

with law enforcement on the front lines to do everything that we can to

try to turn the tide on this unrelenting crisis. They’re going to

continue to do that work.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Shhh. Members, please.

Continue.

Hon. J. Whiteside: It is, in fact, what they did in Sicamous. Sicamous had a local

concern. The medical health officers worked with Sicamous. Sicamous now

has a bylaw.

Indeed, communities know best what it is that they need and should

be sitting down with their medical health officers to navigate a public

health process that they all well understand.

T. Stone: Well, the letter that Interior Health sent to all municipalities

was very, very clear. In fact, the Interior Health Authority basically

told municipalities in that letter that a ban on open use in parks and

playgrounds would actually be harmful. That’s what the letter

said.

The letter went on to say that they don’t want bylaws to be

passed. They shouldn’t be considered at the municipal level until and

only after there’s been a period of at least six months that goes by to

see if there’s any increase in drug use in these public

places.

The public in Kamloops, and I would venture to guess in

communities all over the province, don’t want to wait another six

months. They don’t need another six months to see if there’s an increase

in drug use. It’s happening. It’s real. It’s in everyone’s faces

today.

Now to the minister, surely the minister knows that after six

years and two terms of this NDP government, the results are more crime,

more social disorder, more overdose deaths, more homelessness and more

violence than ever before in British Columbia’s history.

In question period last week, the minister referred to police over

a dozen times. She said that she’s in regular contact with law

enforcement. Well, last week we heard from the Vancouver chief of

police.

Now it’s Ray Bernoties, the former chief of the Oak Bay police

department and a former chief superintendent to the RCMP, who said:

“Drug usage must be prohibited from parks and beaches. That was among

many caveats for my support, as a police chief, for decrim.” Listen to

this: “When kids don’t matter, you’ve lost the plot.”

[2:30 p.m.]

The question to the Premier is this. Will the Premier commit today

to following the advice of these police chiefs to responding to the

pleas of parents and British Columbians and prohibit the open use of

deadly drugs like crystal meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl in parks and

playgrounds and other public places across British Columbia?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question. I think everyone in this

House agrees that we want our communities to be safe, and of course we

want to support the work of our health authorities and front-line police

enforcement around balancing off all of those issues when it comes to

public health.

There is no question that those individuals who use illicit drugs

alone are at a terrible risk of dying.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. J. Whiteside: When public health looks at this situation, of course they are

looking at balancing off all of those complex circumstances that can

cause people to die in an unrelenting toxic drug crisis, which not only

is the leading cause of unnatural death in our province but also is

second only to cancer in robbing us of productive years.

The work that we’re doing together, that we scoped out together

through our core planning table where police chiefs have been

represented, that in fact responds to a call made by Canadian police

chiefs…. That is the process that we are in now, and we continue to

benefit from the advice of front-line law enforcement.

I’m very grateful for the work that law enforcement has done.

Their engagement of the education material and their ongoing

collaboration is a very, very important part of the work we’re all doing

to ensure that we monitor and evaluate how decriminalization is

proceeding on the ground so we can ensure that we are indeed protecting

everyone in our community.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, the reality is police, law enforcement, chiefs — they’re all

saying the same thing. They’re saying that any support for

decriminalization that there may have been amongst them was all

predicated on the requirements that are actually well detailed in the

federal letter of requirements but that are not in place.

There was supposed to be training and resources provided to

front-line police officers. That has not happened across British

Columbia. There was supposed to be education for the public. That has

not happened. There was supposed to be access to health services,

treatment and supports for people to be able to access when they need

and where they need it. That isn’t happening, as per the letter of

requirements. Unique solutions for the regions in remote areas of the

province were also supposed to be there. That’s not there.

So now you have law enforcement that are saying what most British

Columbians are saying, and they’re saying: “No decriminalization without

these guardrails and these public safety protections in place.” People

don’t want decrim without the protections. The Premier’s empty rhetoric

stands in stark contrast to the results that we see every day. The

Premier knows it.

Crime, social disorder, violence, overdose deaths and homelessness

are at levels higher than we’ve ever seen in British Columbia’s history,

under this government. Parents are terrified to take their children

downtown or even attend school.

Now, over the weekend, drug paraphernalia was found on the grounds

of a Nanaimo elementary school. Guess which elementary school. This was

the same elementary school that has over 400 children from kindergarten

to grade 7, the same one where a little packet of fentanyl was found by

a schoolgirl last week.

When will the Premier take the concerns of parents seriously,

listen to police chiefs who say it’s just common sense and put the

rights of kids and British Columbians to be safe above the open use of

hard drugs like crystal meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl in parks,

playgrounds and public places?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I just want to be very, very clear that K-to-12 schools are not

covered by the exemption. They are on the list of those areas that are

not covered by the exemption. That issue will be dealt with.

I’m very grateful to the Nanaimo school district and to local law

enforcement who responded very quickly to the initial issue that came up

last week and who will be responding to this issue.

[2:35 p.m.]

Again, we have a very coordinated approach on the ground in

communities amongst those members of our core planning table:

municipalities, our health authorities, our community organizations and

our local law enforcement.

I would have to correct the record with respect to the engagement

of front-line police officers in the training that has been provided on

decriminalization. We have more than 9,000 front-line police officers.

Several weeks ago more than 84 percent across RCMP, across municipal

forces had taken that initial module.

The second module is underway. This is work that is happening

collaboratively every day on this file, and we are very grateful for

their commitment to ensuring that we work together to make sure that

decriminalization works and meets its objective of destigmatizing people

who are using drugs.

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND

ACTION ON

HOMELESSNESS

S. Furstenau: A recent poll from Vancouver found that 80 percent of people are

concerned with public safety in the downtown core. More than half said

that this provincial government is doing a poor job of addressing it.

That’s in part because this government is using an old playbook from its

predecessors, sweeping the streets without proper housing in place and

pretending that somehow hundreds of unhoused people will simply

disappear.

It doesn’t work. Hundreds of people still gather on the streets in

the Downtown Eastside because the reality is that there is nowhere for

them to go.

SROs and shelter spaces are not a viable option. People need safe

housing, a door that locks, access to mental and physical health

services, community support. They need a safe place to sleep. They need

support in the form of transitional housing. That’s the government’s

job, and it’s one they’ve been stumbling on.

My question is to the Premier. There are tens of thousands of

people experiencing homelessness in B.C. What is his government’s

strategy for transitional housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the question. I would agree with the

member that everyone deserves to have the supports they need to get on

their feet. I agree with the member that everyone deserves to have

mental health supports and other types of supports that are needed to

get the stability in their lives.

I disagree with the member when the member asserts that there’s

nowhere to go. We have been creating spaces, in particular around the

Downtown Eastside, around the encampments on Hastings Street, for people

to go to. We have shelter spaces available for people.

We’ve said many times, and I hope the member can agree with this,

that the encampments are not safe, that the shelter spaces we have

available are safer than the encampments, certainly what we’ve seen on

Hastings Street. We continue to have the space available.

We have staff that are on the ground working with people,

encouraging them to take the shelter spaces. The shelter spaces are

where we do the assessments of people’s needs. Once we have identified

the needs of individuals, then we move them into other

locations.

It would be correct to say that some SROs are not in good shape.

Certainly, the Premier and I have said many times that we need to work

with Canada, that we need to work with the city of Vancouver on a

strategy on replacing some of the SROs. But even the activists on the

ground will tell you that the majority of the SRO spaces are absolutely

necessary to ensure that we have housing for people.

Yes, we’re opening up new units. We have committed to 330 by the

end of June. We actually bought Chalmers Lodge, which is opening, and 95

spaces opened two weeks ago for occupancy permits. People are moving in

right now.

We are close to opening up the next 95 as well. We’re just waiting

on occupancy permits. We’re continuing to move people out of shelters

into the housing units. That’s our goal.

For too long, no one stepped up to say that we want to take

responsibility for the people of the Downtown Eastside. The Premier has

stepped up and said: “Yes. You know what? Enough is enough. We’re going

to do that.” We’re going to continue to do that work.

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

S. Furstenau: I asked specifically about the strategy for transitional housing.

What the Minister of Housing wanted to speak about was shelter

spaces.

Let’s be clear. Shelter spaces are in no way a form of housing.

You have to leave first thing in the morning. You can’t come till the

end of the day. Your belongings can’t stay in a place. There is no door

that locks. There is no safe place to sleep. This government doesn’t

appear to have a coherent strategy for transitional housing, but others

do. Others have stepped up.

[2:40 p.m.]

I spoke earlier this month about The Village project in Duncan.

People get their own space to call home, a door that locks. They get

mental, physical, medical, spiritual support. The tiny homes create a

community of support. It’s cost-effective, it’s fast to build, and

importantly, it’s proven to work.

The Village project in Duncan has been so successful, other

communities — I heard from them at AVICC two weekends ago — are seeking

support from this provincial government so that they can have the same

projects in their communities. It begs the question of why this

government hasn’t come out with plans to expand this model

provincewide.

My question is to the Premier. Why is the government and B.C.

Housing not adding this successful model of transitional housing into

the continuum of housing solutions?

Hon. R. Kahlon: To finish off the last question, 1,400 new supportive housing

units are either built or underway in the city of Vancouver. We have

been doing that work. Decades of underinvestment in housing, and we’re

making those investments as we speak not only in Vancouver but in

communities around the province.

Now, the member mentions a project in Duncan. The member will very

well know that we helped fund a similar project in Port Alberni, but

we’re learning along the way. We’re learning along the way of what

works, what doesn’t work. We know there are some good things about that

type of project, but we also know there are some challenges that come

with that type of work. We know that some of the tiny homes have

challenges when it gets too hot. They have some challenges when it’s too

cold because of the systems in them. We’re learning from all those

processes.

Of course, I’ve met with the mayor of Duncan. I’ve met with other

mayors who want to find creative solutions for their communities. My

message to them is: “Yes, let’s work together to find it.”

At the end of the day, we don’t want people in encampments. We

don’t want people sleeping on the streets. We want them in housing, and

any solution that is worth looking at, we will consider. Many of those

solutions we’re actually enacting.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND ACCESS TO ADDICTION

SERVICES

T. Halford: We’ve repeatedly warned that this Premier and this NDP government

have failed to put essential guardrails in place. Their narrow focus on

decriminalization without providing the necessary guardrails like access

to treatment and recovery is a recipe for disaster.

Just last week The Economist published a damning

article

called “Oregon Botches the Decriminalization of Drugs,” which exposes

the dire consequences of this NDP government’s approach: “British

Columbia…is undergoing its own decriminalization trial, and like Oregon,

it has opted not to compel treatment.”

Why has this Premier ignored lessons after lessons from other

jurisdictions when they pursued a decriminalization policy without

treatment and recovery?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I thank the member for the question. The work that went into

building the application to Health Canada for the exemption to allow for

the pilot project of decriminalization did indeed come with a list of

requirements. I will say that we have worked very closely with Health

Canada, very closely with our core planning table, with municipalities,

with Health, with front-line practitioners, with doctors, with police

enforcement, with community members on all of those areas.

Those measures are, of course, issues we are continuing to work

on. We have increased treatment beds in the hundreds over the last few

years. We have a $1 billion investment in this budget to continue that

work. We are working with Providence Health Care, developing an

innovative, seamless approach to detox, stabilization and

treatment.

This work is happening every day in our health care system by

incredibly dedicated doctors, nurses, addictions medicine specialists

across our system. We are working across the entire continuum. Of

course, there’s more work to do, and we have a significant historic

investment in order to do that work.

Mr. Speaker: Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.

T. Halford: We’ve actually heard from the minister today that they haven’t met

those requirements. She said it in this House in question period today.

Whether it’s treatment, whether it’s regions, whether it’s education,

whether it’s training, the requirements have not been met.

[2:45 p.m.]

We’ve seen this play out in other jurisdictions, whether it’s

Oregon or San Francisco. There is example after example. When you don’t

do the work, there are dire consequences.

This minister and this Premier should know that. There are

examples there. Overdose deaths, crime and social disorder have

skyrocketed in Oregon since decriminalization took effect. As a Portland

area drug counsellor, Kevin Dahlgren, said last week: “Decriminalization

of drugs is the worst thing we could ever have done.”

Decriminalization without treatment has wreaked havoc in San

Francisco, Seattle and Oregon. It’s so bad that today in San Francisco,

they called in the National Guard. That’s where they’re at today in San

Francisco.

Why is this Premier and why is this minister ignoring the evidence

and plunging ahead with decriminalization, when they have not put the

necessary work in place?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Again, I want to situate my comments in the context of the

challenge that our communities are dealing with and that our province is

dealing with, of an unrelenting toxic drug crisis that is the leading

cause of unnatural death in our province.

I absolutely agree that we need to act in a way that is

evidence-based. That is what we do. Evidence is what we rely on.

Evidence is what we relied on through the process of our core planning

table with chiefs of police, with law enforcement, with health

authorities, with addictions medicine specialists, with public health,

with our community partners, our municipalities to craft the application

for the exemption.

This is an answer to a call that has been put out by police

chiefs, by public health to develop this tool, along with many other

tools, to try to change the dial on this unrelenting crisis. What our

public health officials tell us — the evidence they look at and, in

fact, what they well know because it is what medical health officers in

Interior Health said to communities — is that evidence from other

countries that have implemented decriminalization shows that it is not

associated with increases in drug use, drug-related harm or

crime.

We will continue to take advice and counsel from our public health

officials, from those who are engaged on the front lines in the

evaluation of everything that we are doing in relation to the toxic drug

crisis, which everyone knows is phenomenally complex and which requires

all of our support. It requires the support that we had through the

select standing committee, the support to work across the entire

continuum to use all of the tools that we have at our disposal to try to

separate people from toxic drugs and to try to save lives.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND REGULATION OF

ILLICIT

DRUG USE IN PUBLIC SPACES

P. Milobar: Well, the evidence today in San Francisco is that the National

Guard and the state police are being called in to try to get control of

the situation that has gotten totally out of hand.

We were happy to hear that the former Minister of Education made

sure that steps were taken to have a provincewide ban on the use of

things like crack, crystal meth and fentanyl on school playgrounds. That

was a good thing.

Unfortunately, that minister is now the Mental Health and

Addictions Minister, and when municipalities are simply asking for the

exact same provincial framework for their parks, their playgrounds, it’s

met with resistance by this government. It’s met with resistance by

these health authorities.

For Interior Health to suggest that six months is a good time to

just wait…. In one month’s time, school is out. Those kids don’t have a

safe haven of a school playground to go to. They’re going to be at their

water parks, their municipal water parks with slides and swings. Their

parents are going to be worried for them, and rightfully so.

If this minister were willing to support a cohesive provincewide

ban for school playgrounds in regard to the use of crystal meth, crack,

fentanyl, and other hard drugs, why will this Premier not instruct this

minister to implement the same provincewide ban the municipalities are

asking for, for municipal parks and playgrounds in this

province?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: I feel like I want to note here that the Thompson-Cariboo health

service delivery has the fourth-highest death rate due to toxic drug

poisoning in the province. This is a challenging, challenging issue.

This is taking all of the incredible kind of innovation and dedication

of our front-line health resources of all of our community partners in

order to try to change the dial on a crisis that is the leading cause of

unnatural deaths in our province.

We have been very grateful for the work and the collaboration from

municipalities. I think I said last week in the House that I’ve met with

many representatives from many cities over the last couple of months and

had very collegial and constructive dialogue about moving forward on

areas where they may have concerns.

Communities are best placed to know how they need to address

issues at the community level, and they are well practised in the law in

British Columbia, the public health law that requires and sets out a

provincial framework, a statutory framework for municipalities to work

with public health to address issues in their communities.

That is the process, I expect, that will be undertaken in the

weeks and months to come on this issue.

S. Bond: The minister is correct about one thing. It is a serious

issue.

Under this government’s watch, a record-high number of deaths in

2022; a record, in March, of 197 deaths, a record 30-day average of

overdose calls in March. That is why we are so concerned about the lack

of guardrails that this government did not put in place regarding

decriminalization.

Let’s be clear. The Premier’s rush to decriminalize failed to meet

the requirements that were expected of this government.

I want to remind this minister, hopefully for the last time so

that she gets it right from now on. She conveniently leaves out the

actual words of the report that the Health Committee tabled. She should

perhaps check out page 48. Here’s what it says: “Committee members

recognized that there is preliminary work that must be done to support

the implementation.”

Here’s the message from members of that committee and the

opposition. Those requirements — that work has not been done. That’s why

we are so concerned about this government’s lack of action. The report

said “must” — not might, not maybe, not should — put those guardrails in

place.

Will the Premier finally acknowledge the damage that this policy

has inflicted, and will continue to, on communities right across British

Columbia? We are asking him today to stand up and commit to banning the

use of hard drugs like crystal meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl in

parks, playgrounds and other public spaces. It’s his chance to do it

today. Will he stand up and do the right thing?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Premier.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s hard to think of a more…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Please continue.

Hon. D. Eby: …challenging issue for government than the toxic drug crisis. But

it’s hard to think of something worse for families than losing a loved

one: losing a child who didn’t know what they were using, who died;

someone who loses a partner who had an injury from construction,

developed an addiction and accidentally overdosed. When you talk to

these family members, they say one thing to you. They say: “Do whatever

you can to prevent other families from having to go through

this.”

[2:55 p.m.]

I know the select standing committee heard compelling evidence

from families just like this. I know that every member in this place has

heard compelling evidence from families just like this. “Do whatever you

can to try to intervene and make a difference.”

Many of those folks are not public health experts or anything

else. They believe that one of the reasons why their loved ones didn’t

come forward to them, didn’t talk to them about addiction, was because

they felt stigma, shame: “It’s illegal.” “I’m engaging in illegal

conduct.” “I can’t talk to my family.” They feel that decriminalization

is one of the ways that people can come forward and talk to doctors or

nurses or another trusted person about what they’re going

through.

This is a pilot project. That is, literally, how it’s described.

The research on it is underway. If it’s not working the way we want it

to, we won’t continue it. But we do have to try whatever possible to

keep people alive and get them into treatment.

We have, literally, $1 billion in the budget for mental health and

addiction treatment to support people. Hundreds of new beds opened

across the province. I understand…. When I talk to the governors of

Washington state, of Oregon, I hear about the toxic drug crisis in their

communities too. They’re struggling with this too.

I just had a meeting with Premiers from across the country — the

Premiers from Northwest Territories, from Nunavut, from the Yukon —

talking about the toll that the overdose crisis has taken in their

communities.

This is a national issue in Canada. It is an issue right down the

west coast of the United States, while grappling for solutions to find

the best way forward. And really, if we’re going to address it, I think

we need to do it together, as we have been, frankly, to date, and we

need to hold onto that.

This is a challenging piece of work. We’ll work with local

governments to make sure those communities are safe — the playgrounds,

the parks, the schools. We’ll work with police to make sure communities

are safe. We provided additional funding for them to have boots on the

ground to provide that support.

We’ll work with mental health providers, with addiction care

providers, and we’ll do it with the parties in this House to make sure

it’s done properly. But we’re not going to let this issue go. We’re

going to do the work that’s necessary.

[End of question period.]

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

S. Chant: I reserve my right to personal privilege to be considered at a later

time.

Mr. Speaker: So noted.

Orders of the Day

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

Ministry of Housing.

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

Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. After that completes, the

Ministry of Health will begin.

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

for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. After that completes, the

Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship will begin.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HOUSING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3 p.m.

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

(continued) .

P. Milobar: I just have a few questions for the minister about a specific

local project that’s been recently announced in my riding of

Kamloops–North Thompson. It’s about three blocks from my office. I’m

sure the minister is probably not taken by surprise as to where I’m

going to head with this. But it’s a property at 435 Cherry

Avenue.

Now, for the better part of my tenure as mayor, it was probably my

most complained-about building and was a massive amount of community

problems and stress for a wide range of reasons. The condition of it was

to the point where it was almost being condemned. The repairs that were

made were made very grudgingly by the landlord at the time. There were

bouts with no power, no heat and a wide range of issues — water issues,

you name it.

In 2021, it resulted in an extensive fire in the building. I

believe there were three units that were heavily damaged and another six

that required large-scale remediation, as well, out of a 42-unit

building — so a very large portion of the building, really, which

resulted in it not having anyone being in it for the better part of the

last two years, perhaps even more. That’s the backdrop of a stick-frame

1957 building that has had the heck beaten out of it over the last 15

years minimum, that has now sat empty, that was now just recently

purchased by B.C. Housing.

Now, no one takes issue with the area. It’s flat. It’s walkable.

It’s close to transit. It’s close to medical services. It’s close to

shopping and schools. No one takes issue with any of that. However, it

was assessed at $4.2 million. It was purchased for $12.8 million. The

government, in their response to local media, said that it was

approximately $12 million, trying to justify the differentials. It’s

$12.8 million, so it would have been actually more accurately closer to

$13 million, approximately.

I guess what people in Kamloops are trying to figure out is….

We’re hearing conflicting answers. In the backdrop of all of that, how

can this minister and this government justify paying literally over

three times assessed value for a property that was sitting empty and was

not having a big run by the development community, as the minister may

have tried to indicate when it was first purchased, and they had to buy

it before the development community would’ve snapped it up. This is a

building that sat empty for two-plus years at a time when there are

record rents being charged in Kamloops with almost zero percentage

vacancy.

If there was a rush to buy it and get it back into the housing

market, that would’ve happened. If the landlord had any interest in

actually trying to leverage and get the repairs done in time to start

creating revenue off of that building, that would’ve happened. It sat

empty for over two years in a hot rental market. This government paid

over three times assessed value. Why is that?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. Just to give more clarity

to the numbers, because the member used some numbers, I’ll give him the

exact numbers that we’ve got. The appraised value of the building came

in at $10.4 million.

The appraisal didn’t take into effect the renovation work that the

current owner had been doing to the property. So it was $10.4 million

without the included renovations, the over $400,000 of renos that the

landlord had done.

Purchase price was $11.2 million. The additional dollars above

that are money for additional things like closing, property transfer

tax, other pieces that are associated with closing costs. But the

purchase price was $11.2 million, and the appraised value was $10.4

million.

P. Milobar: What was the total then — $11.2 million plus what for all those

closing costs and property transfer taxes?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question. I can just give this to the

member as well. Purchase price was $11.2 million. Property transfer tax

was $478,000. Legal was $10,000. Acquisition fee, $560,000. Purchase

contingency was about $550,000. Total was $12.798 million.

P. Milobar: I guess, at a time where everyone else in British Columbia was

being told that their assessed values were going to come out likely

higher than market value because of when the assessments were done, and

that was pre–interest rates climbing and everything else, this property

seems to be one of the few properties out there that not only had an

assessed value lower than market value but an assessed value that was 2½

times lower, according to the minister.

I’ve talked with a lot of appraisers over the last couple of weeks

since this became public knowledge, and we’re all a little confused, so

maybe the minister can shed some light on this. We’ve never heard of an

appraiser who wouldn’t actually look at the building, which means

renovations would have been seen. To not have that be part of the value

of work that’s already been done doesn’t really make a whole lot of

sense in the appraisal.

In things like the highest and best use, that would be part of the

assessed value to begin with. It’s zoned RM3 in Kamloops, so it’s

already zoned multifamily, medium density. That’s not an unknown for an

appraiser. They would have known that.

They would have known, in fact, that it’s part of the north shore

community plan that has an about 270-page planning document that spells

out in this Tranquille Market area what the density and the floor-area

ratios would be and all of that. Any proper appraiser would have known

all that when they came up with $10.4 million. But according to the

government, those were all factors over and above the

appraisal.

Now, what we can’t seem to find out is who the appraiser actually

was. Was this an independent appraiser, completely independent of B.C.

Housing, or was this an independent appraiser that works specifically

and exclusively for B.C. Housing? Either way, who was the appraiser that

would come up with a value like this? We can’t find anyone in Kamloops

that agrees with this assessment.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can share with the member that all appraisals are done

independently of B.C. Housing. The appraiser in this particular one is a

company called Appraisal West, and they’re based out of

Kelowna.

P. Milobar: There are three or four various builders in the area. This area is

slated for redevelopment, so there have been a lot of empty lots or

older buildings that have been getting torn down and being replaced with

multi-family — commercial on the main floor and residential up above. I

guess I can understand, given that this is 42 units on a

36,000-square-foot lot…. However, the lot that actually fronts the

commercial road, which is about the same size, is about the same

assessed value for raw land value. That has the same development

potential in terms of zoning densification for area ratios, however you

want to phrase it.

I guess, given that there was such a large overpayment, the land

value in this case was only around $1 million for this property,

according to B.C. Assessment. The building was at around $3 million.

Given that there is such a wide discrepancy there with the appraised

value of an empty building that would need to generate, based on the

purchase price, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2,500 to $3,000 a

month per unit if it was a commercial purchaser buying this…. That was

part of the justification from the government to pay such a heavy price.

It was that they needed to snap it up before someone private

did.

You can get brand-new, purpose-built rental housing in Kamloops

for less than that, so the odds of someone charging $2,500 to $3,000 in

the market would likely be why, in the last two years, there haven’t

been people willing to pay that price.

Two things, I guess, that are outstanding, that the public doesn’t

know in Kamloops, are: what are the rents going to be in this building,

and who is the operator going to be?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re just working on the dollar amount. We’re just reaching out

to staff for the rent. I can share with the member…. I’ll get the answer

to the member once I have it.

I can share with them that there’s an RFP underway right now. Once

we have selected a provider, we’ll certainly be making the community

aware. With the renovations that are happening now, we expect the units

to be opened up in six months. So we have a little bit of time for the

provider to be announced and get up to speed for the work they have to

do.

P. Milobar: There was, by the looks of it, around $400,000 worth of work that

went into the $10.4 million appraisal. There’s another $550,000 worth of

work that needs to be done, according to the ministry statements, so

around $1 million worth of renovations needed to be done on the

building.

I’m wondering. Given that a bulk of this work would have had to be

done because of a fairly significant fire and that the timelines

involved would indicate the landlord might have had to get moving before

his insurance policy ran out, how much was covered by the insurance

policy? In other words, how much of this has been, essentially, almost

double-paid by the government? In other words, the landlord would be

having to do this work, and it would be paid for by the insurance

company, yet now the government is paying in addition, both to the same

landlord.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can share with the member that the dollars we have allocated for

additional work that needs to happen are for mechanical and some

plumbing repairs, replacement of roof and exterior cladding, new

windows, upgrading the security system, retrofitting the sprinkler

system to ensure its safety for future tenants and some upgrades to

electrical systems.

A lot of the core work to have the building opened — the previous

owner had already started that work and, in fact, most of that part was

done. But we want to make sure that the building is at the level that

B.C. Housing standards are at.

P. Milobar: I guess I’ll rephrase the question. Part of the justification for

paying $10.4 million was to pay for renovations work that was done to a

high level by a landlord who let a building sit empty for over two years

in a hot rental market and had a fire claim, one would assume, with

insurance in play. That would mean the landlord was being paid by the

insurance company to have that work done, and now B.C. Housing has

justified paying more to pay for that same work.

In other words, two people have paid for the same amount of work,

one being the insurance company, one being the taxpayers of British

Columbia. Do we know how much the insurance claim paid out to the

landlord that the government is now double-paying on?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Maybe I wasn’t clear, but we didn’t pay for that $400,000 of work

that was required after the fire. The owner, I assume through his

insurance, did that work. The work I’m talking about is additional

measures that we took for the building, that we will be uptaking for the

building, beyond what was needed to repair it from the fire.

P. Milobar: Well, I guess maybe the minister hasn’t seen what his ministry

sent the local media in regards to answering the question around the

valuation and how the payment came to be at such a high

number.

I’ll read directly from it:

“An independent appraisal of the site took place in February 2023,

which took into account the existing market value of the property,

including the land and building. This appraisal valued the property at

$10.4 million but did not consider the redevelopment potential of the

site. The property is zoned for a much higher density. The evaluation

also did not consider the suites that have been fully renovated to a

high standard by the previous owner. These renovations are valued at

approximately $400,000, accounting for much of the difference.”

Now, that’s explaining the difference between $10.4 million and

the $11.2 million before all of the closing costs. Again, how much of

that…? Was there any due diligence done to find out if the taxpayers of

British Columbia are paying an extra $400,000 on what was already paid

out as a $400,000 insurance claim?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s always a high level of due diligence done before anything

is purchased. Again, independent appraisals are done. In this case, it

was done by Appraisal West, a company out of Kelowna.

Again, the owner did $400,000 of work. That’s reflected in the

property we’ve purchased, and I’ve highlighted that we’ve got an

additional $550,000 of renos that we need to do. I’ve also shared with

the member what that $550,000 is.

P. Milobar: When did negotiations on this building first take

place?

[3:30 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chair.

I’ll answer, first, the previous question, which I told the member

I would get answers back to him on. The units: 42 affordable apartments

for low- and moderate-income families, for seniors, for individuals,

people who are living with disabilities. The rents are 100 percent

geared to income.

On the second question the member just asked, we have an accepted

offer from the seller, February 2023.

P. Milobar: So we have $550,000 worth of work — it looks like it’s the current

seller — that needs to get done. We have $400,000 worth of other work

that the appraiser and the government have felt needed to be done or had

been done. Is the minister aware that this landlord has only pulled one

building permit since the fire, in the value of $450,000, and the only

other one that’s just recently been pulled is actually for a garbage

enclosure in the parking lot?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member knows, as a former mayor, that building permits are

very much in the city’s domain, so I can’t comment on what the city’s

building permits are. I can share that $400,000 of work had been done by

the previous owner. If he’s saying the building permit was pulled for

approximately $450,000 of work, well, then that’s the member’s

statement, but I can’t provide any more information on that to

him.

P. Milobar: Well, it’s concerning, because in Kamloops we have a lot of people

that know that building, that are in that type of space in terms of

their business and buildings.

It’s about $310,000 a door, for a 1957 wood-frame walk-up. That’s

one of those buildings where you have to walk down a half a flight of

stairs to get to the first floor, and if you’re coming in off the

street, off of Cherry Avenue, you walk up half a flight of stairs to get

to the second floor. It’s been deemed an accessible building by the

government. However, to get to the elevator, you’ve got to go down a

half a flight of stairs or up a half a flight of stairs. But that’s

neither here nor there, I guess. If you park in the back parking lot,

you might be able to get in on the ground level.

The minister said an extensive amount of due diligence is done on

these types of purchases. We have a city full of residents that can’t

understand this valuation. We have the development community that can’t

understand this valuation. We had three developers, and they’ve all been

public about this, go through the building and compare notes with each

other. They all came with valuations anywhere from $6 million to $7

million recently for the exact same building, yet the government paid

$11.2 million.

Now, when I say…. I hear an extensive due diligence is done…. It

took me one email to the city to get the building permit value, and they

got back to me by the end of the day. It’s public information. It’s very

easy to obtain. The reason I know about the garbage enclosure was I

double-checked with them and said: “Are there any other permits pulled?”

They clarified that’s the only permit that’s been pulled — in 2022, for

fire damage.

Long before the government was on scene trying to buy this

property, the building permit had already been pulled, which means work

would have already been getting started, which means an insurance

company was likely paying the landlord for that work the government has

now used as justification for paying even more for the building than

what the appraised value was.

I’m not sure the level of due diligence…. The reason I know about

the second permit was that just before I walked into QP, it took me all

of 45 seconds to call it up on the city’s webpage and look for

outstanding permits on the property. That’s where the second one

suddenly showed up.

[3:35 p.m.]

That’s very clear; it’s for an outside garbage surround system.

Fencing and a gate for the garbage cans.

Is the minister not concerned that B.C. Housing’s due diligence

seems to be paying for work that was actually being paid for, and most

likely by an insurance company? Because they didn’t seem to ask the

question. That’s all we can conclude for a permit pulled in 2022 and is

now valuing future works or work that is still underway by the same

landlord for another $550,000.

It seems B.C. Housing is not really concerned about the city of

Kamloops getting paid the appropriate level of building permit fees.

They wanted to make sure everyone else was overpaid but not the building

permit department in the city of Kamloops.

Again, what type of due diligence was done, given that this is a

fire rebuild, a fire renovation? The permit was pulled in 2022. This was

only dealt with in February of 2023 — which smells an awful lot like

trying to get rid of year-end money by B.C. Housing with a rush out the

door — with a purchase at three times assessed value.

Was there actual structural work done in that building? Right now

it sounds like we’re all trusting, as taxpayers, a landlord that’s had a

dubious past for the last few years with this building to go and do all

the work to an incredibly high standard, yet they’re not pulling permits

that would indicate they’re doing that.

Can the minister explain that disconnect on what is going on, on

the ground in Kamloops with this building versus what their media

speaking points are saying?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can’t speak to the character of the seller. Perhaps the member

has better knowledge on the character of the seller than I do. I’ll

leave the commentary to him.

I can share with him, which I think he already knows, that we have

significant pressures we’re facing in Kamloops and the region around

Kamloops. We have more and more people who need an adequate level of

housing, need it fast. People in encampments, etc. What we’re doing here

is providing 42 affordable apartments for low- and moderate-income

families in Kamloops.

I shared with the member that an independent appraisal is done by

a company out of Kelowna that assessed the building at $10.4 million. I

shared with the member the additional costs around closing and

additional works that B.C. Housing wants to do to ensure the building is

at the highest standard. I don’t know what else I can share with the

member.

P. Milobar: Would the minister agree that B.C. Assessment uses purchases and

sales in surrounding and nearby properties to come up with assessed

values moving forward for other properties in that neighbourhood of a

similar type of property?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s…. First off, I can’t comment on B.C. Assessment, but

I’m sure the member will be asking it to the Minister of Finance. This

won’t be the first time where an assessed property value is, especially

in the larger scale, assessed much lower than the actual value. Again,

there’s an independent appraisal that came in at $10.4 million which a

lot of the work is based off of.

P. Milobar: The question, really, for the minister was more around whether or

not the minister and B.C. Housing ever factor in concern around one of

their purchases that will be significantly over assessed value and out

of whack for what the market actually is and what that does to

surrounding area land values.

Was there any concern given and thought and discussion given

within B.C. Housing and the minister’s office around what this will do

to the impact of the land costs and the future unit costs of other

buildings that will be going in, in that neighbourhood?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think one of the big things for me is how do we find homes for

people who are living in parks, living along the riverbed, sleeping on

the street? I’ve had a chance to talk to mayor and council. This is a

major issue for them, and they implore us to find ways to get people

indoors, to get them into shelter, to get them the supports they need,

working closely with them.

[3:40 p.m.]

When we see an opportunity to get units available for people right

now, because we know the need is there, we go through the due diligence,

which we have here, where we go to an independent appraiser, we get an

appraisal, and we do our assessments of how we can acquire that property

if it’s within the range of the appraised value.

Here I’ve walked the member through how the independent appraisal

came at a certain price and the additional costs for closing, etc. In

the end, our goal, always — coming out of the pandemic, the challenges

we’re seeing — is to try to get people indoors. That’s the goal

here.

P. Milobar: Well, there’s the old expression: go big or go home. This might

have been one of those cases where perhaps that would have been the

better option.

We have a building with 42 units and, I agree with the minister,

desperately needed housing in Kamloops. Again, I don’t take issue with

the location whatsoever. It makes perfect sense. As the minister said,

part of the reason they decided to pay more is for land value because of

the possible densification of that area, but the way the lot is

situated, the only way to densify that is to tear down the building and

rebuild new.

In that area, you have a floor area ratio of about 2. From 2 up to

4 is permitted by the city for anywhere up to six storeys. Right now

that building has a floor area ratio of approximately 1. So you could do

almost 150 units, probably, without even needing a rezoning. You would

just go in and put in the development permit application and the

building permit application, I would assume, at the value properly

accounted for, and start building.

I guess, given that we have had empty units — they weren’t in the

housing stock mix for Kamloops over the last couple of years — and given

the critical need, moving forward, it seems the only way a stick-frame

constructed building that has had the heck kicked out of it over the

last 50 years will see substantive increase in density in that area is

for a build. But the only way that’s going to happen now is to actually

evict 42 people while that build happens, because there’ll be people

actually living back in the building again.

Was there not discussion or consideration by B.C. Housing that if

you’re buying what is literally an empty building, it might be better,

although it would take that little bit longer, to get a much more

substantive building put on the property, for which you just overpaid

for the potential to put a more substantive building on?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think that when you have people sleeping in the streets and in

parks, along the river, you have to find ways to get people indoors as

quick as you can. That has been the goal for us. Of course, there’s

always an option of buying something, tearing it down and building, and

we’re doing that across the province, but then we’d be having the debate

on why the units are not built yet. Then we’d be hearing: “Press

releases, and no outcomes.”

We’re getting people indoors. We’re getting them indoors quickly.

That has been our goal from the beginning. We have an opportunity here

to get people in, in the next six months — 42 families. Again, I think

it’s going to be life-changing for those 42 families, and we’re going to

continue to work in the area, work with local government, to find other

solutions. We know the need is great.

P. Milobar: Well, our understanding in the community is that you’re getting

people indoors into units that have had to have their air conditioners

pulled, in one of the hottest cities in Canada, because the electrical

doesn’t support it.

When you talk to people, the electrical upgrades that they’re

talking about for a building of that size would chew up a large portion

of that $550,000, let alone a 14,000-square-foot flat roof that needs to

be replaced, which is no easy feat — depending on what type of

structural damage is in there, if there was any rot — especially being a

flat roof, because not only does it have to be designed to handle the

heat in the summer; it’s going to have to be designed to handle one heck

of a snow load in the winter.

[3:45 p.m.]

I have great apprehension when I see $550,000 in renovation costs

to do the types of upgrades that the minister is talking about — even on

a building which, in the grand scheme of things, isn’t that large but is

large enough to make you wonder — when people right now are phoning

renovators for their home and finding out just what a few hundred

thousand dollars does for roofs, windows, electrical and

plumbing.

Again, I guess, going back to the future use…. Part of the reason

the neighbours are a little nervous on this is that we had a motel

bought, a couple blocks away, by B.C. Housing. It took quite some time —

so bought, no operator known, no clientele known. In this case, bought,

no operator known, no clientele known. This is an area where there are a

lot of B.C. Housing facilities. There’s more on the books already, even

before this purchase.

The minister had referenced the RFP for operators and that it

would be about six months before the people could move in. What is the

timeline to have that operator in place? What will be the public

engagement strategy for the community, to know what exactly will be

happening with that building?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can share with the member that the RFP just closed. Staff are

just doing an assessment, and soon we’ll be able to make it public. The

folks that will be moving in are coming off B.C. Housing’s registry. So

it’s people who have applied for affordable housing — a mix between

families, people with disabilities, some individuals. The list gets

prioritized on need. People will be coming off that, and we expect

people to move in this fall.

P. Milobar: Can the minister just confirm, then, that all renovations that

will need to be done — to pass occupancy, to pass structural safety,

those types of things that were within the deal — are all being done by

the current landlord, paid for by B.C. Housing and the province, and

that when the province takes the building over, all that work is

done?

If that is the case, what is the mechanism that the province has?

Have there been funds held back, within the purchase agreement, if that

work is not done to a proper level?

[3:50 p.m. - 3:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Sorry. The team is just trying to get…. The individual teams that

are doing the work are getting the contract pulled up. I can share with

the member that part of the contract was withholding dollars from the

purchase price if the work is not done to an adequate level.

P. Milobar: Well, I do hope the work is done to an adequate level, so people

can move in as soon as the building changes hands.

I just have one last question, and I’ll preface it with this. I

fully understand the challenges municipalities and provincial

governments face trying to get housing projects off the

ground.

When I was the mayor, we did six public hearings on six different

pieces of property all in the same night, all for supportive housing. We

managed to pass four of the six. My hope was that at some point, people

would stop standing at the microphone and saying: “I’m all for

supportive housing. I’m all for housing, but it’s just not the right

location.” Unfortunately, that happened in all six instances. Like I

say, they were spread out around the city. I get that.

Part of that mindset was to build some trust with the community to

get away from the public hearings where they say: “When I bought my

house, I looked at the zoning map and nothing like this was around.” We

identified surplus city lands, three-quarters of an acre there,

half-acre somewhere else, and said that it would fit and that this is

the type of housing that might work for it. So people knew, because it’s

about building that trust.

Frankly, over the last while, B.C. Housing’s trust has been

eroding to the point that we have a forensic audit. That’s been

completed, but no one other than the minister has had a chance to

actually look at it. When you see a purchase like this — with the

meandering around of trying to explain how valuations have been gotten

when no one else out there, other than B.C. Housing, can point to that

being an accurate valuation — it’s unsettling for a

community.

B.C. Housing does own a lot of the building-the-trust piece that

goes with these projects in communities. When project after project,

especially in this corridor, keeps getting announced with no operator

and no clientele announced and “Just wait. We’ll have that later, maybe,

perhaps….”

[4:00 p.m.]

When the mayors and council don’t even have a heads-up

necessarily, when the local MLA certainly never has a heads-up but we

get inundated the day the announcement gets made…. I understand why. I

understand the process, but the public doesn’t. I have to turn around

and say to them: “I don’t know who the operator is going to be. I can’t

tell you what the clientele will be.”

I’ve had those conversations with community groups in my office

when the Fortune Motel was purchased. I said: “I get that. But what if

B.C. Housing said to you that it’s going to be for seniors?” “Well, that

would be okay,” they say. Then you go back, and you ask: “Well, who’s

going to be the clientele?” “Well, we haven’t decided yet” is all B.C.

Housing will say.

Neighbourhoods jump to the worst possible place, and that’s on a

backdrop of project after project not having, necessarily, the supports

that were maybe promised to the community or that the community felt

were being promised for them as these projects get off the ground. In

the backdrop of all of that, in the backdrop of all the questions I’ve

asked about just this one project and given that the government has had

the forensic audit for six weeks now — six weeks….

Other agencies have had the report for six weeks to try to say

what they want blacked out that could be embarrassing to their

organization. It defeats the purpose of a forensic audit in the first

place.

Can the minister share with this House when that forensic audit

will be released? Will it be before his estimates are done? I understand

that his will be going a bit longer. Or will it be conveniently right

after budget estimates are done, where there’s an open access to the

Minister of Housing to be able to ask questions about that forensic

audit? When exactly can we expect, after six weeks of waiting, that a

forensic audit of an organization that seems to have trust issues with

the public right now will be released?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s a bunch of things in there. First, I’ll start with the

positive, which is that I appreciate the member’s time as a mayor and

his recognition that it’s really hard to get supportive housing and

affordable housing in communities. The sentiment that “we need it, but

not in my backyard” is certainly something that we hear in communities.

This type of housing is critically needed.

We have a lot of people that are waiting to get into housing that

have been on registries for some time — seniors, in particular. We know

that there’s an increase in the amount of seniors that are looking for

housing and are on the registry. When we’re closer to, we’ll start going

through the registry and identifying those that have the needs to get

into this housing. Of course, that will be made public to the

community.

I mentioned to the member already that an RFP has just closed, and

soon, the member will know, there will be a provider announced. I think

the member and I can agree that many of the providers that are in the

region are fantastic. They do great work. It’s very challenging work.

We’re grateful for the work that they do. We certainly know, coming out

of the pandemic, that the work they do is more important than

ever.

Now, as for the forensic audit, my critic and I have canvassed

this and can continue to canvass it as long as folks like. I’m here at

their disposal. I have shared multiple times that it is in my belief

that that report should be released with as much as legally possible. I

met with the Privacy Commissioner and shared with the Privacy

Commissioner my initial thoughts — our plan of how we’re engaging

certain entities that are named in it to ensure that the Privacy

Commissioner knew that we were thinking through all the pieces to do

this in a way that respects the legislation which we are to follow. When

we have got to that point, we will make it public.

I have always been and will continue to be available to the media

on any questions. I don’t shy from questions. I suspect they’ll have

questions, and I’ll be there to answer them, as will the folks from B.C.

Housing. That’s my commitment to this House.

[4:05 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Well, I just want to raise some questions about complex care.

Specifically in my community, we have…. First of all, the city of

Kelowna has a long history of being in a leadership role, supporting

B.C. Housing and the ministry in terms of providing support,

partnerships and land donations and working in terms of a strategy

dealing with homelessness called a Journey Home. They have executed and

brought online about 300 spaces for that particular — flexible zoning,

development policies. They want to continue to be a good partner with

the province.

What was originally announced back last year, in 2022, was the

fact that there was going to be creation of…. There was a ribbon cutting

with council. The member for Vernon-Monashee was at that particular

event, reminded us during Finance Committee hearings that this was going

ahead and it was a reality. Today the city has confirmed between three

to five units that are actually operational of that 20.

I know that the city is really concerned about the fact that this

process which they’ve been talking about…. I’ve been advocating for more

than just a few months — years. We know that that is part of the

solution. We know there’s money. The Premier said it today. There’s $1

billion being provided to Mental Health and Addictions. When are the 20

beds that were promised last year, in 2022, going to be fully

operational?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s advocacy on behalf of his community. I

can talk at a high level about complex care, but the member will

probably know that it’s the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions

that leads the complex care side of the conversation. If the member is

looking for specific pieces on that, I believe they’re in estimates

right now, and the member can get more details. But at a high level, I’m

happy to answer any questions the member may have.

B. Stewart: I think that this is the problem. We’ve asked these questions. The

Premier was Minister Responsible for Housing. I asked the questions two

years ago when I was responsible as Housing critic. We were told that

there was going to be this all-ministry objective that was going to

complete these things. What we find is there’s a lot of finger-pointing,

and we’re not getting to the results. Now, maybe that’s changed with the

Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. I do intend…. Our critic is

going to ask about that.

What the city of Kelowna and the citizens in the community are

asking is: how is it that we can participate and provide the support,

and we can’t seem to get to a completed action which has been promised

by the province? Now, I don’t believe that it’s exclusively Ministry of

Mental Health and Addictions. But we do want to make certain that we

can…. We’re getting mixed messages from IH, Ministry of Mental Health

and Addictions, Housing and, as well, the Ministry of Health. I think

that we’re trying to get to the bottom, and the city is looking for an

answer.

I have confronted the minister in this particular case. The mayor

was here about three weeks ago, and he did have meetings with other

members of government, but I was unable to get that meeting. What we

really want is the timeline. Can you help me on that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I had a chance to meet the mayor and some senior staff. We

had a very good conversation about housing. I shared with him that we

have in the time in government opened 916 housing units in Kelowna, and

392 are funded and will be in the process. We talked about other

projects that we can work together on that the mayor and council felt

were important. We talked about how we can get those projects online.

We’ll continue to do that work.

[4:10 p.m.]

Again, the member’s question is around complex care beds and how

fast that can be staffed up. I can get the member an answer after this

if he prefers and follow up with the Ministry of Mental Health if that’s

what he’s asking, but they’re literally in the next room having

estimates. It would be very easy to have somebody go there and ask the

minister to provide some information.

If the member is asking me to follow up from my colleague and get

him an answer, he knows that I’m always willing to do that.

B. Stewart: I think if I could get the commitment from the minister to provide

some more comprehensive answers…. If it is in the Ministry of Mental

Health, I will ask the minister, but I would ask that…. I think that the

collaboration….

The city of Kelowna just wants to know what it has to do to help

make this happen. They don’t believe that the 20 that have been

announced are adequate. They know that as the fastest-growing community

in Canada, they’re tracking along at a faster pace than many communities

with this particular issue. It’s not that they would like to have this,

but they know they need it, so the city is looking for very explicit

instructions as to what it has to do to help B.C. Housing or Mental

Health and Addictions achieve this.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member again for raising that. Again, I’ve met

with the mayor. I know we talked about this issue, so if the member

doesn’t get a satisfactory answer, he can just grab me in the hallway,

and I’ll try to get him as much information as I can. I know when the

mayor was here, we talked about this as well.

The member is correct. It is something that the mayor and council

believe is important for their community. I’ve been really, actually,

happy to work with the mayor in particular, but council as well since

I’ve been in this role, which feels like a long time but is just six

months. We’ve been having some really productive conversations about:

how do we support those who have complex needs? How do we support those

that are in encampments? How do we support those that just need

affordable housing in their communities?

I’ll do that, and again, if the member has any particular

challenges around that, he can grab me in the hallway, and we can

certainly try to find a way to get those answers for him.

K. Kirkpatrick: The minister may have been wondering why I haven’t been speaking

yet today. My colleagues will be coming in and out to ask their

questions, but I’m going to continue on with complex care and a few

questions around that.

Can the minister define specifically what complex care is and how

it differs from supportive housing?

The Chair: We will have a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:13 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Complex care provides enhanced health, mental health and substance

use in social service house settings. Services vary across projects but

may include team-based primary care, clinical counselling, psychiatric

and mental health treatment, overdose prevention, case management,

addiction medicine, Indigenous cultural supports, occupational therapy

and medication management support.

[4:20 p.m.]

Complex care services are usually co-located in supportive housing

sites or smaller settings and reach to multiple supportive housing sites

or market rentals or transitional respite spaces for temporary periods

of heightened need.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. They sound very similar, and it’s hard

to differentiate, from a budget perspective, what is supportive housing

versus what is complex care.

I’m going to ask some questions more specifically about complex

care and what was in the budget and what’s being discussed with that.

The minister spoke…. I think it was two weeks ago. We were at the RENT

event for B.C. Non-Profit Housing and talked about, I believe it was,

the new complex care units that were opening. I may have misunderstood

that. But can the minister list the full list of sites where complex

care has been established?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can share with the member that we have a project at Jim Green

Residence in Vancouver; Naomi Place in Vancouver; in Richmond,

transitioning out of a program; Kamloops. We have Kelowna. We have a Red

Lion Inn in Abbotsford, Foxglove in Surrey. We have a site in Langley.

We have Tri-Cities in New West, Maple Ridge. Greater Victoria has two

particular sites.

K. Kirkpatrick: I believe that is 12. How many beds does that actually

represent?

Hon. R. Kahlon: That’s announced 355 spaces in 12 communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister just confirm that it was 500 spaces that were

promised?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: In part of budget last year, we had announced that we would serve

600 people in 23 communities over the next three years. Again, I shared

with the member that we have announced already…. Sorry — a lot of pieces

of paper here. Give us one moment here.

Again, we had committed to 600 people in 23 communities over three

years, in last year’s budget. As of now, we’re at 355 spaces in 12

communities.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. So there’s been even a higher

commitment to spaces, which is good to hear. When will the remainder of

those spaces come online?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s a three-year plan, and I know that the Ministry of Mental

Health and Addictions is actively working on rolling out those

additional spaces. But again, we’re making significant progress in our

commitment of 600.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can I just confirm — and I should probably know this, Minister —

this is a three-year plan from the 2022 announcement of these

beds?

Hon. R. Kahlon: That’s correct. In the 2022 budget, we had committed 600 people in

23 communities across the province.

K. Kirkpatrick: Does the minister know the average length of stay for an

individual in complex care housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Unfortunately, detailed questions like that will have to go to the

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, as they deal predominantly in

that space.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister explain to me how Housing and Mental Health are

working together? And how are they doing their planning? For example, if

the minister is not sure the average length of stay in a complex care

bed or unit, how is it that there is substance behind the announcements

that are made in terms of what the community needs?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, if there are specific questions, we usually find out from

the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. Our ministry, SDPR, the

Ministry for Mental Health and Addictions — the teams work fairly

closely together. The deputies have a table where they’re often having

conversations about where the pressures are, where the needs

are.

Our Pathway to Hope plan…. All of these pieces coordinate, but

many of the services can lie in different ministries. But we do have

conversations about how we move forward in a good way.

[4:30 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Going back to the question I asked

previously about the difference between supportive housing and complex

care, one of the sites that the minister listed off in answering my

question about how many sites were there was Red Lion. That just kind of

stuck with me because that is a motel or hotel, I guess, which B.C.

Housing would have purchased in order to support people.

But it made me think that that sounds a lot like what we talk

about when we talk about supportive housing, because it’s not

purpose-built. It’s the use of a facility that…. Really, just based on

whatever services you wrap around it, you can call it supportive or you

can call it complex.

Could the minister walk me through, again, some specific key

differences between what a resident may experience in supportive housing

versus what that same resident might experience in a complex care

housing unit?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think part of the work…. I’ll actually go back. The member and I

were having a conversation last week about a site, particularly in

Victoria — I think it was in 2016 — where the government had folks who

were in an encampment and moved all of them into a new site, and then

some of the challenges…. I mean, not passing judgment or anything; there

was a decision made to get people out — I get it — but the challenges

that came when you didn’t have the opportunity to do assessments on

people.

The lessons we’ve learned is that as we scale up, we have to make

sure we have kind of a balance in each site. If you have too many people

who have higher needs, if you have people…. Especially when it comes to

complex care, we have kind of a rule that we don’t go more than 20

people on a site, mainly because that’s kind of the point where it

becomes more challenging for the community and it becomes more

challenging for the support teams around that.

Often, you’ll see supportive housing with some units of complex

care beds in it and, with the complex care beds come additional pieces,

additional supports around psychiatric and mental health–related

supports, additional addiction-related medicine supports. People who

have just a little bit more complex needs, that have more challenges and

they need the additional support…. When that happens, in fact, all the

folks in the supportive housing units get a benefit from it as

well.

The idea is not to isolate people away completely from everyone

and just house them. The idea is that you have to have a bit of a mix.

It’s a better solution for the community, better outcomes for those

individuals as well.

[4:35 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for the answer. Did I understand correctly that — and

I’m asking these questions just because it’s fuzzy, and I just really

want to have a better understanding — there can be complex care beds

within a supportive housing building?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, there can be.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister confirm that the capital funding for complex care

housing is the only capital funding tied to mental health in the 2023

budget?

Hon. R. Kahlon: These are questions for the Minister of Mental Health and

Addictions, and perhaps she would be better positioned to answer

it.

K. Kirkpatrick: It is difficult for us to be in two places at one time. I was

hoping that the minister would know the numbers for these things that

are so very closely connected to each other.

Government briefing notes say there was no capital funding for

complex care in Budget 2022 last year. So spaces came at the cost of

other residents. How many were displaced?

I’m going to attempt to clarify that. I realized, as I read it, it

was a bit fuzzy. Complex care units…. Let’s perhaps use the Red Lion as

an example. You may already have had residents there, but they were not

complex care residents. So with the introduction of new complex care

beds, were there other people displaced by that?

Hon