Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 190

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Seaforth Highlanders army cadets in Langley

A. Mercier

Barkerville

C. Oakes

Volunteerism and Mission Community Service Awards

P. Alexis

Dave Horton and COVID-19 community response

S. Bond

Milieu Employment Services

M. Starchuk

Uli Blume

T. Halford

Oral Questions

Primary health care services and health human resources strategy

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

Access to family physicians and primary health care services

T. Stone

Hon. A. Dix

Telus Health services and private providers of primary health care

A. Olsen

Hon. A. Dix

Funding and status of primary health care services

A. Olsen

Hon. A. Dix

Health care issues and whistleblower protection for health care workers

B. Banman

Hon. A. Dix

P. Milobar

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Transportation Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. R. Fleming

B. Stewart

A. Olsen

Hon. B. Ma

A. Mercier

M. Starchuk

Hon. R. Fleming

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. H. Bains

G. Kyllo

A. Mercier

B. Banman

S. Chant

C. Oakes

R. Merrifield

M. Morris

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (continued)

Hon. B. Ralston

T. Shypitka

J. Sturdy

Estimates: Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Hon. N. Cullen

D. Ashton

A. Olsen

S. Furstenau

S. Bond

M. Lee

J. Sturdy

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2022

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: B. Banman.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Dean: I rise in this House today to introduce two brilliant students from

Royal Bay high school, Ariska Sharma and Tayhee Kim. They’re here with my

amazing constituency assistant, Nubwa Wathanafa. Together, they submitted

their idea as part of my spring 2022 My Vision for B.C. contest, which

invites high school students in Esquimalt-Metchosin to propose ideas to make

B.C. a better place.

Ariska and Tayhee recognize the unique challenges young people with

addictions face and advocate for free specialized support for youth and

emerging adults. I congratulate them for their dedication and compassion to

build a better B.C.

Would everyone please make them very welcome.

A. Olsen: Today I’d like to rise to introduce a couple of friends of mine from

Saanich North and the Islands, specifically from North Saanich, Central

Saanich — one of the Saaniches. There are so many Saaniches. Nobody even has

any clue which one is north and which one is central any longer.

Anyway, to the point. I’d like to introduce the former mayor of North

Saanich — mayor for two terms, six years — Ted Daly and his partner Janet

McLean. Ted has spent 21 years in local governance. He mentioned over lunch

today in the dining room that you may have sat on the other side of the

table from him, and I might bring him back to say hello, if that’s okay,

after question period.

Janet McLean worked for the Family Caregivers Association of B.C. for

many years. I have no idea why they would do this, but they bid on lunch

with their MLA, and today we followed through and made good on that

commitment. Sidney by the Sea Rotary has these silent auctions, so I’m

really thankful to be able to participate in that and to thank Ted and Janet

for coming and spending about an hour today and having a good

conversation.

Would the House please make both of them very welcome.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to welcome to the House…. I have two sets of

introductions. We’ve got with us Simon Wladichuk. Simon is from General

Brock Elementary in Vancouver-Kensington. He’s in grade 2, and he’s the

winner of the Democracy and Me poetry event in the category of kindergarten

to grade 4. He’s here with his family — the parents Adrian and Sara and also

his little brother Eric and accompanied by very proud grandparents, Brent

and Diana.

I’m also making an introduction on behalf of the MLA for

Richmond-Queensborough, who couldn’t be here. But also welcoming Maryam

Abusamak. Maryam was the winner. She’s in grade 11. Her family is joining us

as well — her mother, Isra Karaz, and also brothers, Muhammed Abusamak,

Abdullah Abusamak and Ibriham Abusamak.

If everyone has an opportunity to head out to the hall downstairs and

take a look at the display, you can see the poetry of the winners there. I’d

ask the House to please give them a very warm welcome.

Hon. B. Ma: As I look up into the gallery, I notice that Crystal Starr Lewis has

joined us here. She is here to shadow me this afternoon, into the evening,

but I actually know her from outside of this place as a rising young star in

the Squamish Nation, a real leader amongst her peers. She ran formally to be

a councillor in the Squamish Nation on a platform that focused on

sustainability, transparency, affordable housing, wellness, and she has a

passion for youth engagement as well.

I’m so pleased to see her here with us today. It is an honour to have

her in the House. Would the House please join me in welcoming

her.

D. Coulter: I have two introductions today. Many of us know that across the street

at the Empress, CUPE B.C. is having their convention. Today I have a good

friend from CUPE B.C., Stephanie Goudie. She’s the president for CUPE 2403,

and she’s also a regional vice-president for the north in CUPE B.C. She was

also a 2017 candidate in Peace River South. I think all of us can give her

full respect for that because it’s very hard to put our name

forward.

[1:40 p.m.]

Also, it’s Administrative Professionals Day. So I’d like to introduce

my legislative assistant, Laura Parent. She’s here, I think, watching her

first question period. I’m not sure. No. She shakes her head. It’s great to

have her here, anyway.

Would the House please give them a resounding welcome.

M. Starchuk: Today I rise to talk about a spark. Some people are former Guides and

Scouts, and we know that you have to nurture that spark to turn it into a

flame.

I find that flame in the centre of my heart. No, it is not heartburn.

It is a different kind of a flame. Today marks the anniversary between

myself and my partner, who is my soulmate.

Sandra Follack, happy anniversary.

Mr. Speaker: Although the member for Vancouver-Kensington has introduced the three

young winners of the contest that we had earlier, I would like to again

welcome them.

For the category of kindergarten to grade 4, Simon Wladichuk, from the

riding of Vancouver-Kensington, who is here. For the category of grades 5 to

8, Keeratveer Bambrah, a constituent of the Surrey-Newton riding. He is here

today. For the grades 9 to 12 category, Maryam Abusamak, a resident of the

Richmond-Queensborough riding.

Please give another round of applause to all three winners.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SEAFORTH HIGHLANDERS

ARMY CADETS IN

LANGLEY

A. Mercier: Recently I had the opportunity to go and visit with the 2277

Seaforth Highlanders of the Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps in Langley

city.

It is the ten-year milestone for the Langley cadet corps. This

group meets on a weekly basis, with cadets all the way from Abbotsford

and Surrey, in Langley city for training.

These kids had the best questions. We had a great conversation

about parliamentary government, climate change. They were really

concerned about the events in Ukraine, in international relations and

what we could do locally. We had a great conversation about mandate

protests and constitutional democracy and respecting the will of

elections.

I have to say that there was a budding group of young

parliamentarians there. They really wanted to know: “What’s the routine

of an MLA? What do you actually do all day?” There were some questions

about compensation that started tepidly at first but gained some steam.

“Well, how much do you make? What kind of car do you drive? Do you have

a pension?”

I think the most important question came near the end, which was:

“Do MLAs still have time to watch Netflix?” Now, I hesitated to answer

for my colleagues in this chamber, but I have to confess that anyone who

arranges their life appropriately will always have time to watch

Netflix. They were heartened to hear that I’ve been able to finish the

fifth season of The Last Kingdom .

I really want to thank the officers. They are doing a great job

with these kids. I want to give a shout-out to Capts. Randy Bach, Dawn

Royle; Lts. Eugene Collinson, Rick Wiltshire, Randall Nabors; Second Lt.

Les Miller; and, of course, the civilian volunteers who are keeping it

running, Vanessa Richards and Michael Louser.

At the end, they presented me with one of the regimental flags.

I’ll have them know that I’m proudly displaying that in my

office.

BARKERVILLE

C. Oakes: Barkerville Historic Town is delighted to announce that it will be

open on June 4, 2022, with the return of street

interpretation, stores,

restaurants, exhibits and lodgings. Barkerville street

interpretation

has received a rebound. Barkerville’s talented professional interpreters

have deepened their roles and expanded upon their historic

stories.

[1:45 p.m.]

Each interpreter is a living, breathing storybook. It’s advised

that you give yourselves at least a full day on site, if not two, to

experience even a fraction of what Barkerville has to offer in its

kilometre of historic street, with over 125 historic buildings and

plentiful exhibits.

Indigenous

interpretations will be integrated throughout the

site’s programs and encourage meaningful learning and conversations

between interpreters and visitors in a safe and inclusive place. The

Barkerville Indigenous Celebration will also take place on B.C. Day,

August 1. Working demonstrations will take place daily at the blacksmith

and printing shops and at the famed Cornish water wheel.

Barkerville’s historic Chinatown is also a national historic site

of Canada and remains an active archaeological excavation and will be

staffed by Barkerville’s knowledgable Chinese interpreters.

Historic Indigenous, Chinese and colonial music will take place

throughout the main venues on each day. Those who feel that they can

walk another kilometre up the historic Cariboo Wagon Road will meet

judges and gain insights into the early colonial justice system at the

historic Richfield Courthouse. To continue to celebrate Barkerville’s

deep Chinese roots, the beautiful Chinese Mid-Autumn Moon Festival will

occur on September 3.

Oh, there’s so much more I could talk about — the good news and

the bad. Reservations at Barkerville campgrounds, cottages and hotels

are booking up fast, so please plan your stay now. I would like to send

a warm welcome and invitation to all members of this House and, in fact,

to all British Columbians to come and visit Barkerville Historic Town

and Park.

I want to hear your stories of your favourite Barkerville

experience.

VOLUNTEERISM AND

MISSION COMMUNITY SERVICE

AWARDS

P. Alexis: I guess I’m going to have to go to Barkerville now. Thank you for

that.

As we celebrate National Volunteer Week, I want to acknowledge the

dedication, generosity and meaningful impact that those volunteering

have had in my communities and across the province over the last few

years. Volunteers have truly made a difference in the lives of people

across British Columbia.

Yesterday the city of Mission celebrated their biannual Community

Service Awards. These awards honour those who have demonstrated

exemplary volunteerism within the Mission community. I’d like to take a

moment, if you’ll indulge me, to acknowledge the winners.

The Arts and Culture Award, Camille Atebe.

The Community Service Award, Steve Bryan, Maureen Coates, Liz

Ellis, and Bill and Linda Golightly.

The Community Service Award, under the age of 25, Young Guns

Weightlifting Club.

The Crime Prevention and Safety Award, Mission crime prevention

volunteers and Judith Pellerin.

The Sports Volunteer of the Year Award, Mission skating

club.

The Special Accomplishment Award, Mission Emergency Support

Services Team and Mission Altogether for Healthcare.

The Lifetime Achievement Award, Rotary Club of Mission and Rotary

Club of Mission Midday — that’s my club, yay; Mission District

Historical Society; B.C. Custom Car Association and Mission Raceway

Park; Jeff MacAulay; Mike Davison; Gordon and Ann Mohs; and Jim

Taylor.

The Citizen of the Year Award for 2022 went to Ellen

Youn-Nguyen.

The Freedom of the City Medals — Valerie Billesberger, Jim Hinds,

Glen Kask and Doug Pearson.

On behalf of myself and the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission, we would

like to congratulate the recipients on their recognition and give our

thanks to them and all the volunteers in Mission and across British

Columbia who contribute to the betterment of their

communities.

DAVE HORTON

AND COVID-19 COMMUNITY

RESPONSE

S. Bond: During the pandemic, people wanted to be together. They just

needed a way to do that safely.

In my community, Dave Horton found a way to make that happen. He

started outdoor movie nights, drive-in trivia and kids drive-in trivia

nights. He also provided technical support to allow weddings, funerals,

birthdays and even AGMs to occur, following pandemic guidelines. None of

us will ever forget the Halloween drive-through or scavenger hunts. All

in all, 65 free activities and events held safely during a global

pandemic that thousands of people enjoyed and even raised money for

charities.

[1:50 p.m.]

Dave did this while being a husband to his wife, Janine, and a dad

to their six children, made even more challenging by the fact that he

had been laid off from his job.

One of the things I will remember most about the pandemic is the

incredible legacy of kindness that emerged. At a time when many people

were afraid, there was also community and support and hope. Dave helped

us find ways to be together, even when we needed to stay

apart.

The pandemic called for us to be creative, innovative and find

some pretty unique ways to spend time together. Thank you, Dave, for

being a difference-maker during some of the most difficult days we have

experienced. As a well-known quote says: “Do good for others, and it

will come back to you in unexpected ways.” That’s exactly what happened

to Dave.

Recently Dave Horton was awarded the B.C. Medal of Good

Citizenship for his outstanding contributions during the

pandemic.

Congratulations, Dave, on receiving this well-deserved

recognition. Prince George is proud of you, and we are grateful that you

helped find ways for us to stay connected and feel less isolated when we

needed it most.

MILIEU EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

M. Starchuk: Milieu Family Services head office is located in Cloverdale — not

quite Barkerville but Cloverdale — and it’s just around the corner from

my constituency office.

One of their programs, Milieu Employment Services, started in 2009

and uses a customized employment approach. They believe everyone has the

right to be employed and that people with disabilities should be

represented in a variety of industries and roles.

Milieu’s aim is to close the knowledge gap by ensuring that

employers have the tools and access to an inclusive workforce that

reflects all citizens in their community. Milieu tailors their

employment opportunities by carving out tasks from existing job

descriptions. The tasks match the strength of the job seeker.

In 2014, Milieu was successful in receiving an employment contract

from Community Living B.C. This contract started with 30 job seekers

with diverse abilities and has now grown to over 200 people receiving

employment supports.

As an example, Dave Berton, product manager of Coast Water

Systems, needed reliable, self-motivated individuals to take ownership

of the shop floor to ensure that the shop was clean and prepped for the

next working day. Milieu’s employment specialists met with Dave to

identify the specific needs of his shop and to better understand the

skills and abilities needed by an individual to work in an industrial

shop setting.

Based on this meeting and gathering some information through a

discovery process with Adam Shimma, it was determined that Adam was the

best match in accordance to Coast Water’s needs. Adam ensures that the

shop is ready and cleaned in accordance with the safety standards.

Through the hard work and attention to detail, Adam has quickly

established himself as a valued employee.

Over the years of working with Coast Water, Adam has been able to

make many changes to his life. He’s moved out of his family home, and

he’s now living semi-independently. In Adam’s words: “Having a job is

important to me so I have money to go out and do more things and save up

for that tattoo that I’ve wanted for a long time.”

Join me in congratulations to Adam and the many others who have

come through this program at Milieu Employment Services.

ULI BLUME

T. Halford: One of White Rock’s most well-known citizens, a restaurateur whose

name was iconic on the White Rock waterfront, has left us. Uli Blume,

founder of Uli’s Restaurant, passed away last week after battling an

illness for a few years.

His son Tyson, who now runs the popular waterfront restaurant,

says…. He called him “my mentor and the visionary and the original

proprietor of Uli’s Restaurant. That was my father.” Tyson noted that

his father lived nearly 40 years in White Rock. He made lots of friends

in the city and loved and celebrated life with an enthusiastic passion.

“He would have wanted us to lift a glass in his memory,” Tyson

said.

Uli, whose roots were German, brought a European flavour to the

waterfront. He opened Uli’s in 1985, and he had previously honed his

skills in England, Holland, France, the Bahamas and South America. He

eventually sold the restaurant in 2007, but he came back. Five years

later, after travelling and cycling in Europe, he felt the need to come

home. He said: “I was bored. I needed something constructive to do. I

like people, I like the hustle, and I like the bustle.”

[1:55 p.m.]

As news of Uli’s passing has spread, many people in White Rock

have shared their thoughts and memories of Uli. One person says: “His

charm and flair for food and life was undeniable.” Another one says: “He

was a White Rock legend and will be missed, and I have so many fond

memories of Uli and his legendary restaurant.” I think we all agree with

those.

The restaurant is still operated today by Tyson.

I encourage everybody in this House to visit us in White Rock and

to visit Uli’s. It is a true gem on our waterfront.

Oral Questions

PRIMARY HEALTH CARE SERVICES AND

HEALTH HUMAN RESOURCES

STRATEGY

S. Bond: Nearly one million British Columbians have no family doctor in our

province, and the number is climbing. If you can’t find a family doctor,

you’re being faced with hours-long waits at walk-in clinics. By nine

o’clock this morning, the Lonsdale Medical Clinic in North Vancouver was

at full capacity, and the clinic that was two blocks away had a

five-hour wait time. Those who can’t find access end up in emergency, so

it is no wonder that hospitals are over capacity and our health care

workers are overwhelmed.

The province is facing a health care crisis, but instead of taking

action, the Premier chose to lash out this week. He’s blamed the federal

government. He’s blamed the opposition. But he simply can no longer

ignore the fact that urgent action is required.

The NDP has long promised a health and human resources strategy.

Most recently the minister promised that it would be delivered by last

fall. We have yet to see that plan.

To the Premier today, where is the plan?

Hon. A. Dix: The issues around primary care, as the member knows, have been in

place in B.C. for a long time. We’ve just been through, and are in the

midst of, a more than two-year-long pandemic that has fundamentally

changed the delivery of primary care in that time, such that the number

of fee-for-service visits that were virtual in 2018 was 646,000 and last

year was more than 13 million. This is a profound change to primary

care. That’s why, in 2018, we introduced a series of significant

measures.

First, primary care networks, including 30 new people attached to

primary care in the member’s hometown of Prince George, 51 in Kelowna

and in many other communities around B.C. to build out team-based care.

We’ve added 27 urgent and primary care centres, including one on the

North Shore. That is extremely successful and absolutely necessary

during this time of pandemic, when in-person visits were scarce and

challenging. The system is coming out of that period, moving away from

in-person visits to a majority of virtual visits and back.

As the member can see, we’ve taken consistent action, in

particular, in doubling the number of nurse practitioner spaces once the

new spaces at Thompson Rivers University are added; new residency

positions, which gives us the largest family practice residency program;

and last week, of course, significant action to speed internationally

educated nurses into the primary care and public health care system.

Action is being taken, and the full health human resources plan will be

available soon.

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

S. Bond: Thank you very much to the minister.

The plan will be available soon. We heard it was going to be

available last fall. This government made significant promises to

British Columbians when they called their snap pandemic election. The

fact of the matter is that what we know today is that under this

minister and this Premier’s watch, the number of unattached patients in

British Columbia has gone up by over 200,000.

The minister talks about walk-in clinics in British Columbia.

People can’t get in to those walk-in clinics without long waits. In

fact, those waits are the longest in Canada. The number of people in our

province who do not have a relationship with a family doctor has

increased dramatically under this government’s watch.

[2:00 p.m.]

Yesterday — and I know the minister knows this — we all heard the

story of a parent who had their sick child in their vehicle. They were

driving around the Lower Mainland of British Columbia trying to get

access to a medical appointment. Do you know where they ended up? In the

emergency room. That is simply not good enough in the province of

British Columbia.

This is a two-term government. In fact, during the last election,

they claimed: “We’re getting results and reducing your wait for care,

and 2021 will be a crucial year in our health care plan.” It’s a crucial

year, all right. The number of unattached patients has gone up. People

are waiting longer to get into walk-in clinics, and ultimately, parents

are driving around the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and across the

province trying to get access to a medical appointment.

Again, saying that the plan is going to be available soon is not

good enough.

Let’s ask the minister again. When exactly will he provide British

Columbians with the health human resources strategy that he and his

Premier promised?

Hon. A. Dix: We’re taking action on it. Without getting into the political

debate about it, we recall another general election. It was 2013 when a

promise was made by the then governing party that everyone would have a

family doctor. They abandoned the scheme in three years.

So what did we do? In 2018, we put in place a plan to build out

team-based care. What have we done? In places such as Prince George,

Kelowna and across B.C., we’ve built out that plan. How have we done it?

In working with local health care practitioners.

It is a significant challenge. We’ve been through a two-year

pandemic that affected primary care more than anything else. I mean,

everybody surely would have to admit that the absolute transformation

that occurred, on a dime, of our primary care system to see us go and

increase the number of fee-for-service visits by 1.5 million over two

years was a significant achievement of everybody working in the

system.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, I’m tired of the pandemic, too, I’d say to the hon. member.

It’s still on…

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

Hon. A. Dix: …and we still have to address it.

We’ve added 960 FTEs to primary care networks across the province.

We’ve added 27 urgent and primary care centres. We’re transforming the

system and moving — yes, slowly — away from the fee-for-service model.

We’ve reduced surgical wait times in the province. The surgical wait

time list went down during the pandemic, as the member knows.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: All of these steps are to address the very issues that the member

is raising. We need to continue to do it — not take short-term action

and then abandon it in a short period of time but take sustained action

to improve team-based care in B.C.

ACCESS TO FAMILY PHYSICIANS

AND PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

SERVICES

T. Stone: Well, we’re all hearing from British Columbians who are gravely

concerned with this worsening state of health care in British Columbia.

We’re talking about access to family doctors here, and results are what

really matter. We actually attached 178,000 people to doctors leading up

to 2017. Our government attached 178,000 to doctors. Under this

government, in only 4½ years, 200,000 British Columbians are without a

doctor — one in five.

For two elections now, this government, this minister and this

Premier have made huge health care promises to British Columbians. Like

so much else, they might have great intentions, but they simply can’t

deliver. Health care spending, as a percentage of GDP, is declining.

Hospital employment has fallen by 10,000 positions since 2017. As I

said, one in five British Columbians is without a family doctor, and we

have the worst wait times for walk-in clinics in the entire

country.

Instead of taking responsibility, the Premier lashes out, and he

says that the solution is more cash from Ottawa. When will the Premier

stop blaming others? When will the Premier acknowledge that this health

care crisis is happening on his watch? When will this Premier act so

that British Columbians get the health care that they need when they

need it?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: As the member will know, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the health

care system, I think, in B.C. — its workers across B.C., the system, the

leadership — has performed in an exceptional way to respond to an

unprecedented public health emergency.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Let’s hear the answer.

Hon. A. Dix: In key areas of care and across the board…. I mean, the member — I

heard him criticizing the government’s record on employment previously,

saying there were too many hirings in health care and not enough in the

private sector. Now he’s claiming the opposite. It depends on the

question. But I would say this….

Interjections.

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

The Minister will continue.

Hon. A. Dix: What we’re doing is taking sustained action, in the member’s

community and everywhere else in B.C.

When I became Minister of Health, we were last in Canada in nurse

practitioners. We’ve doubled the number of nurse practitioners in B.C. —

doubled them — in a short period of time. We’ve added 960 FTE workers

across the primary care system, supporting it, adding access to care

across that system and continuing to build out primary care networks in

every community in B.C. We’ve added 27 urgent and primary care centres.

There are 600 more family practice doctors practising than there

were.

There are significant challenges to the system, particularly after

a pandemic that radically changed primary care, over a short period of

time, and affected everything that we did. The actions that we’re

taking: building team-based care; moving towards a modern, 21st-century

health care system; delivering a larger quantity of services, with more

people delivering these services. That’s the right path. We’ve got to

continue to work hard to address the very concerns that members on the

other side are raising.

Mr. Speaker: Official opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, the fact of the matter is that every walk-in clinic in the

Premier’s backyard was at capacity before 11 o’clock this morning, with

one exception: Esquimalt’s medical clinic, which has a five-hour wait

time. That’s unacceptable. The entire health system in this province is

in a crisis under this government.

We’re all, as I said, getting swamped with calls, emails and

meeting requests from the public and from health care professionals.

They’re all reaching out to us because they feel abandoned by this

government — family doctors, surgeons, technicians and a heck of a lot

of nurses, like this nurse, who said: “We are burnt out. We are tired of

witnessing the suffering that we have to deal with, on a daily basis,

due to inappropriate staffing levels in all departments of our hospital.

We are fearful for our patients. We are fearful for ourselves. We have

lost our voices. We are falling apart at the seams. Please, on behalf of

my colleagues, we are begging for help.”

If that doesn’t reflect a health care system in crisis, I don’t

know what does. It certainly is the opposite of what this government

promised that they would deliver to British Columbians in the last two

provincial elections. It’s a dire situation, it’s inexcusable, and it’s

getting worse by the day. When will this Premier fix it?

Hon. A. Dix: The member talks about nurses, who have done an exceptional job in

the pandemic, and I understand. I think everybody does, after the

extraordinary pressure that all of them have faced. Members will meet

with them on all sides of the House and hear this. The impact has been

profound. That’s why we need more nurses. It’s why being tenth in Canada

in nursing when I became Minister of Health wasn’t good enough. It

didn’t prepare us for changes in the health care system.

What have we done? We’ve led the country in the increase of new

LPNs. Now, it’s still a challenge, because we’ve started from a low

base, but we’ve led the country in LPNs. We’re third in Canada in

per-capita increase in registered nurses and first in Canada in the

increase in nurse practitioners.

The previous government was not without positive actions,

including, for example, the start of the nurse practitioner program in

B.C., but 11 years in we were last in Canada, and that’s not the case

anymore. We understand the issue. That’s why we’re taking action. That’s

why we’re going to continue to take action.

TELUS HEALTH SERVICES AND PRIVATE

PROVIDERS OF PRIMARY

HEALTH CARE

A. Olsen: To hear the Minister of Health suggest that we’ve come through a

pandemic is actually pretty distressing. I think we’re still in a

pandemic.

Nearly a million British Columbians….

Interjections.

[2:10 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

A. Olsen: It’s a hard reality, but it is the reality.

Nearly one million British Columbians do not have a family doctor.

Our health care system is on the brink, and our Premier wants to blame

everyone else for their failed policies. It’s about to get worse,

because the NDP government is pretending that there is not this threat

of large corporations who are poised to disrupt the primary health care

system. They’re pretending like that doesn’t exist.

You know who’s taking action on the primary health care crisis

that we’re facing? Telus. They’re taking action. They don’t want to talk

about this, part of their so-called social capitalist enterprise, but

they are charging $3,900 a year for their LifePlus program.

Don Copeman. He’s back, this time with Harrison Healthcare

clinics, opening soon in Vancouver and in Victoria. While Telus buries

their fees, Harrison’s just open about their “private health care fees,”

even calling their highest-level of service the premier service: $4,900

a year to start, for the first year, $3,900 every year after that for

adults; teens and young adults, $1,600; children, $675. For my family to

get to become a member of this exclusive club, $10,000 a

year.

transfer funds “have at times been withheld for violations of the Canada

Health Act in relation to extra billing and user charges.”

My question is to the Premier. We have a corporation charging

British Columbians fees for access to longitudinal primary health care.

How can he expect the federal government to step up and give us more

cash when he’s allowing this kind of exploitation in our

province?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, we have laws, the Medicare Protection Act, in B.C., and

those laws will be enforced. We on this side of the House brought into

place measures that have been passed in the Legislature, in 2003, but

never proclaimed.

In addition, we’ve taken specific action to ensure a whole sector

of health care, which is diagnostics, has changed profoundly in B.C.,

such that we went from 174,000 MRIs in 2016-17 to 260,000 last

year.

Whether it’s Telus….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The minister will continue.

Hon. A. Dix: Same with CT scans. I’ll tell you….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The minister will continue.

Hon. A. Dix: With respect to the Canada Health Act and the Medicare Protection

Act, which is our responsibility in this Legislature, they will be

enforced in British Columbia.

The areas of health care that are growing in primary care…. Those

are primary care networks. That’s public. That’s 53 of them, including

in the member’s constituency. That’s urgent and primary care centres.

That’s public. That’s community health centres, which had been stuck in

the mud for a generation in B.C. — new community health centres

controlled by non-profit organizations in communities.

With respect to everyone, the rules and the law will apply, and

those are the actions the government’s taking to ensure this generation

of public health care improves life for everyone in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.

FUNDING AND STATUS OF

PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

SERVICES

A. Olsen: In my riding, we have a clinic with 24 doctors fundraising for

overhead. We have an emergency department expanding — a $10 million

project, 30 percent of it contributed by local government, 70 percent of

it committed by the fundraising of the hospital foundation. That’s

what’s happening in my riding — a clinic with 24 doctors fundraising for

overhead.

This week the Premier and the Minister of Health were pressed on

their policies, their failed health care policies, and the Premier stood

in this chamber and swore at a member of this House.

[2:15 p.m.]

In an interview, the Premier shifts blame for his failed policies

onto the federal government, complaining about Canada health transfers

while clearly pointing fingers. Then the Premier has the temerity to

again shift responsibility in a Vancouver Sun article, saying

it’s not his problem. It’s a B.C. problem; it’s a Canada

problem.

These are just distractions, useful distractions from the issue

that nearly a million British Columbians are seized with at this moment.

The Premier is great at distracting.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Let’s have a question, please.

A. Olsen: The erosion of health care has been a growing issue over decades

in this province, as the Minister of Health said. However, this Premier

has been in that seat for five years now, and we’ve seen fewer people

with a family doctor, more corporations delivering primary health care

and more services being forced to fundraise to stay afloat.

My question is to the Premier. When is he going to stop shifting

blame and pointing fingers for his failed policies and take

responsibility for the mess that his government is making on this

equitable, universal primary care health care system in our

province?

Hon. A. Dix: I’m disappointed that the member seems to be suggesting in his

first question that we should not be advocating for increases in the

Canada health transfer. He will know that the federal government

contributes currently 22 percent — 22 percent — of health care costs in

Canada on what needs to be a shared-cost program.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: He will know that increases in the Canada health transfer are

absolutely necessary in this country for the long-term sustainability of

public health care. The Premier is advocating for that, as he should, as

the previous Premiers did, and as they should have. When the member

calls that an irrelevancy, the fundamental underpinnings of the public

health care system in Canada, that is incorrect. That is

incorrect.

With respect to Telus, we’ve answered this question in the House

previously, so I suggest that the member take a look at that response. I

have ensured that that issue be referred to the Medical Services

Commission. That’s how we enforce the law in British Columbia. We

referred it to the Medical Services Commission, the issue in question,

to ensure that everyone in B.C. is acting in compliance with the

law.

What we have to do is take action. What did the members learn last

night at their town hall meeting? We need to use nurse practitioners

more. We doubled the number of nurse practitioners. We need more

community health centres. We increased the number of community health

centres. We need primary care networks to expand team-based care across

the province. That’s precisely what we’ve done in his constituency, in

his leader’s constituency and everywhere else in B.C.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, when the question is being asked or being answered,

members don’t have to react to every word uttered by the other side.

Just listen, pay attention, and we’ll get through it.

HEALTH CARE ISSUES AND

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION

FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

B. Banman: You know, the Health Minister is pretty good at doling out facts.

So here’s one according to Stats Canada. It’s a shame when his facts

don’t match Statistics Canada. In Statistics Canada, B.C. is the only

major province to lose hospital employees during the pandemic. There are

8,000 fewer people working at B.C. hospitals compared to 2020 under this

Health Minister’s watch. We’ve heard horror stories from patients, and

now we’re hearing horror stories about this crisis from health care

professionals.

Here’s the sad thing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

B. Banman: Many are afraid to speak out. They’re afraid to speak about the

true state of the health care crisis for fear of losing their

jobs.

[2:20 p.m.]

In a document obtained from Interior Health, it says nurses must

“instil confidence and trust and not bring Interior Health into

disrepute.” Care should be taken in “making comments or entering into

public debate.” The consequence is that employees who fail to comply

“may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including

dismissal.”

It’s no wonder we’ve got 8,000 fewer people in this province

working.

Interjections.

B. Banman: A gag order. Exactly, a gag order.

Health care workers are overwhelmed and burnt out, as the minister

knows.

Why are this minister and the Premier threatening these

overworked, burnt-out nurses with dismissal for raising red flags and

telling the truth?

Hon. A. Dix: The member talks about facts. I know, because I meet and talk to

health care workers every day, what they’ve been through for the last

two years and the challenges they face in their work.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Let’s not try to be cute, okay? Let’s listen,

please.

Hon. A. Dix: I think it’s an exceptional thing that they’ve achieved for the

people of B.C. in a pandemic — an exceptional record of response on

critical care. The best in the world. On critical care, the best in the

world. The overall response to the pandemic, I think, the best in any

like jurisdiction in North America. I think the facts establish

that.

With respect to how many people work in the health care system,

I’d be happy to provide that number to the hon. member. It’s not a

matter of conjecture. We know, because people get paid, and we have

numbers.

I’ll tell the hon. member, just in long-term care, with our HCAP

program, we added 6,500 health care workers to support long-term care.

You know the reason we did it? Because in 2017, 87 percent of care homes

in B.C. were below the provincial government’s own standards — 87

percent. Thank God we did something about that in advance of the

pandemic.

P. Milobar: Just like the million people in B.C. without a doctor, there are

also new figures from StatsCan that show B.C.’s retirement-age

population has also rapidly passed one million people. The NDP don’t

have a plan to deal with the strain this puts on our health care

system.

It is a strain when you’re getting older. In Kamloops’s case, you

have to drive from Kamloops to Salmon Arm to get a CT scan, then come

back home. Then you get told to go to Kelowna for your surgery by a

Kamloops doctor in Kelowna.

The system is broken. Employment in B.C. hospitals has fallen by

almost 10,000 people since 2017. If you’re in an emergency room, then

you’re waiting for hours at a walk-in clinic, because you simply don’t

have a family doctor.

Here’s what another nurse says…. This is despite the threat of

being fired. The minister can try to dismiss the concerns of nurses all

he likes. They feel they are under threat of being fired for speaking

out. They don’t want their names used. They don’t want any

identification at all because they’re fearful of this government’s

retribution.

“I see my colleagues retiring early….”

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Both sides, Members. Order.

The member will continue.

P. Milobar: I’ll start again. The other side doesn’t seem to realize that they

actually do have gag orders in place, and they’re not bringing in

legislation to get rid of it any time soon. Nurses want whistleblower

legislation so they can actually speak to what’s going on without the

threat of being fired. It’s that simple.

I will quote again. “I see my colleagues retiring early. New grads

are shell-shocked and feel trapped. There is not a shift that goes by

where me or one of my co-workers is not teary and asking me, ‘What are

we doing? I didn’t sign up for this.’”

That’s the reality in our health care system here and now — record

levels of wait times, staff burnout and no action from this

government.

[2:25 p.m.]

How many nurses will have to quit before this Premier will finally

take some real action on what is happening in our health care

system?

Hon. A. Dix: Real action? In 2002, the previous government engineered the

largest layoff of women workers in the history of B.C. In

2018…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: …we repealed that legislation. In….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The minister will continue.

Hon. A. Dix: The member says we didn’t add capacity. There were 75 care homes

that were dramatically, dangerously understaffed when I became Minister

of Health — under 2.8 care hours per patient day. There are none today.

Zero. None.

At the beginning of the pandemic, we saw the absolute need to add

staff, LPN and care staff, in long-term care, and we did, with specific

programs that added 6,500 people to those systems.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. A. Dix: I would say that, on issue after issue, from MRIs to other

diagnostic care to surgeries to primary care to privatization to moving

our system away from fee-for-service to more APP, which I think everyone

has supported…. Everyone. Issues I think that people in British Columbia

support.

We’ve taken action to deal with the situation we inherited in

2017. I know that the members may find those facts inconvenient. What

I’d also say is this….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Let the minister conclude, please.

Hon. A. Dix: The House Leader of the official opposition thinks rules are for

other people.

I would simply say that we have been through an exceptional period

in public health care. Everybody knows that — that everyone in public

health care, who works in public health care has struggled through that

period. It has been unprecedented, and I’m very proud of the work

they’ve done. It’s why we continue to have to provide and increase and

improve resources in public health care, and that’s precisely what this

government is going to do.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 16, Transportation Amendment

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply, estimates of the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation. In the Douglas Fir Room,

following the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, it will be

Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

[2:30 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — TRANSPORTATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that Bill 16 now be read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 16, the

Transportation Amendment Act. These proposed amendments to the

Transportation Act will enable the B.C. Transportation Financing

Authority to acquire and improve land for the purpose of facilitating

transit-oriented developments. Transit-oriented development is meant to

promote greater development of the amount of residential, business and

public space within walking distance of public transportation services.

This promotes the development of complete, compact and connected

communities that can be served in all regions of our province by B.C.’s

world-class public transit systems.

These amendments are necessary to ensure the act’s purpose and

those of the BCTFA reflect the evolution of public transit to shape land

use and make life more affordable for British Columbians. The amendments

today that we are introducing will allow us to work with our partners,

to shape growth along transit corridors, to increase transit ridership

per capita, to support the province’s CleanBC climate action targets and

to advance key government priorities such as housing, child care,

education, job creation and economic recovery and economic

development.

Specifically dealing with the amendments that are before the House

and which we will discuss at committee stage of debate, the proposed

amendments include two new

definitions to the act: “transit station” and

“transit-oriented development.” These are necessary to clarify where

transit-oriented development may occur and the type of developments that

are intended to support public transit use.

There is also in this bill new regulation-making authority

provided to allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to adjust the

definition of transit station and to prescribe a distance from a transit

station within which the BCTFA is authorized to facilitate

transit-oriented development. The BCTFA is given new authority by this

bill to dispose of lands by way of lease for below-market rent, subject

to the approval of the Ministry of Finance. This change will facilitate

agreements between the BCTFA and agencies such as B.C. Housing to

advance government priorities for transit-oriented

development.

I want to describe, in this stage of debate, some of the

opportunities that this legislation will provide in different

communities around the province that are part of a $6 billion investment

in transportation networks that is provided by Budget 2022 over the next

three years. I have given an overview just now of the powers and

authorities that this bill will allow the B.C. Transportation Financing

Authority to have, to be a lead agency and coordinate across ministries

and work collaboratively with public transportation authorities like

TransLink and B.C. Transit and others, as well as local and regional

governments.

This is an exciting tool that we have consulted with the Union of

B.C. Municipalities and others about. It is one that will be able to

create stronger partnerships — new and enduring partnerships that were

previously not possible under the existing legislation. It will give the

province the ability to shape transit-oriented development, of course,

as I mentioned, and the benefits that flow from that.

We have lots of examples internationally and right here in B.C.

and in different parts of Canada of what transit-oriented development

is. It can be very good in terms of improving the efficiency of our

transportation networks. One thinks of the Canada Line, for example, and

some of the density and development that has occurred down the Cambie

corridor and into Richmond.

It can reach back into very old examples — a century ago, perhaps,

if we want to look at my city of Victoria, where one of the continent’s

best uses of streetcar systems once occurred and then disappeared in

1948, or thereabouts, but left a legacy of transit-oriented development

in parts of our city, like Fernwood, Fairfield, Oak Bay and

Esquimalt.

[2:35 p.m.]

That’s really the concept of it. But what we want to think about

in this debate, and are thinking about as a government, is what

transit-oriented development should look like in the year 2022 and the

21st century, in a jurisdiction that has very high line costs indeed. We

share that distinction with some other places around the

world.

It’s very different from the 1980s, when the Expo Line was built,

for example, going back to the Metro Vancouver area. Very different from

the Millennium Line in the 1990s, when housing was vastly different,

even very different from the early 2000s.

To give members maybe just an example of what we seek to do here

in terms of linking the transit investments we seek to make with the

public benefits of affordable housing and using those investments to

leverage complete compact communities that also address the needs of

British Columbians in communities as they grow, I’ll reach back just 20

short years ago and illustrate what is happening with land costs and why

affordable housing is a considerable challenge — indeed, our greatest

challenge around affordability for working families in B.C.

In 2001, in greater Vancouver, the average apartment cost

$160,000. The average detached home in that year cost $355,000. Fast

forward to 2017. The average apartment had escalated to $555,000. That’s

the average. The average detached home in the region was $1.5 million.

That’s in 16 short years. It’s gone up even further over the last five

years. The average detached home in Metro Vancouver is now $2.1 million.

This is what our constituents, our citizens in British Columbia are

talking about: how government can work with non-profit housing agencies

and regional governments, utilize the conveying powers that the Crown

has to ally its transit investments with other public goods.

I would add to that list things like child care, things like new

schools. We need tools to shape the growth that we have. As you’ve heard

members of government recently talk about, I think we were all caught by

surprise looking at the 2021 in-migration data to British Columbia:

100,000 people coming to British Columbia. It’s the largest year-on-year

increase in population in a very, very long time, and perhaps ever.

That’s why we need new and significant, ambitious tools to help us to

address the affordable housing crisis in our province.

We’re making the transit investments anyway, but right now, the

law restricts us to only purchase land that is absolutely necessary for

the transit project itself: the footprint of the Skytrain station, if

we’re using that example; the right-of-way for the guide rails — those

sorts of things. It does not allow us to actually participate in

transit-oriented development.

What we currently have — and what we saw in the Canada Line, to go

back to that example — is purely market-oriented, transit-oriented

development. Very expensive. The fact is that if we had done it

differently, if we’d had these tools….

We would have had to have a different government with a different

philosophy about this, for sure. But if we’d had this bill in effect,

this statute, and we were doing that project over again, we could enter

into agreements and partnerships with the city of Vancouver and the

development community and the non-profit housing community and others

that wanted to come to the table: service providers, job creators, those

seeking to move their businesses and places of work and make

investments.

We could have, for example, made it a requirement to have 200 or

300 deeply affordable homes adjacent, within 800 metres walking distance

of those stations. Times ten stations, that would be 2,500 to 3,000

affordable homes that we don’t have in our inventory because that didn’t

happen. But we have projects on the books, going forward, that I think

are very exciting for new, dynamic, fast-growing regions like the Fraser

Valley.

The Skytrain expansion from Surrey to Langley is the best

opportunity that we have before us right now as a government to

demonstrate the authority and the benefits that this bill is going to

have.

[2:40 p.m.]

We’re going to use these powers to make sure that Surrey and

Langley families get as a benefit — and the province gets as a benefit,

for the significant investment in a $3.95 billion project, I would add,

which we are accelerating by two years — that we have housing that is

affordable, truly affordable, for families as a legacy and a major

component of what we’re trying to do with the Surrey-Langley

Skytrain.

Retroactively, and working with the city of Vancouver, we’re

trying to do that with the Broadway subway expansion project as well.

There is very recent news about some densities around stations and some

good decisions that the city of Vancouver has made, as recently as last

night, that will provide those kinds of benefits, and we want to see

those kinds of benefits.

I think I’ve described the problem that we’re trying to solve.

It’s really a limitation on what the province can do — that we’re really

only in the business of building transit infrastructure; we’re not in

the business of facilitating transit-oriented development. That’s what

has got to change. That’s what a number of jurisdictions have done

successfully.

I haven’t spoken too much to the climate benefits of why we’re

doing this. I’ve spoken to our interest in affordability and expanding

child care and providing education and creating job centres, and those

will flow from the successful passage of this bill. But we should also

talk about our commitment to 2030, to be a world-leading jurisdiction on

fighting climate change and reducing GHG emissions. This is absolutely

essential to the effort that we are making as a government to do just

that.

There are some great examples of that. I think in first reading I

provided one around Stockholm, Sweden, where they built a

transit-oriented development that was anchored in a new public transit

spine through the city and ancillary lines. They successfully achieved,

within eight years I believe, a 35 percent reduction in the carbon

footprint of citizens in that city.

This will make a contribution towards what we’re trying to do

collectively. It’s about, of course, electrifying all sorts of things

that are currently powered by fossil fuels. But it’s also about how we

live with a lighter carbon footprint and live in more enjoyable,

aesthetically pleasing, complete communities.

I know that local governments are going to be enthusiastic about

this. They have had difficulties.

I go back to the Canada Line. At a time when I was Education

Minister, Richmond desperately wanted to have a downtown elementary

school. They had densified around Richmond Centre SkyTrain — lots of

families living in two- and three-bedroom units there that were around

the SkyTrain infrastructure, the Canada Line infrastructure. But another

branch of government was responsible for buying the land and, whoops,

they didn’t. So a $7 million parcel — I believe I’ve got my figures

correct — prior to the Canada Line’s completion was now $30 million. It

was uneconomic, and it didn’t happen.

We can’t make those kinds of mistakes when we’re making major

investments in public transit and see it in silos or isolation from

other government priorities, including services like education. What

could be more important than that?

Again, this bill will give us some tools, some leadership, some

coordinating power and legal authority to buy land and to be part of

developing transit-oriented communities in the areas where we are making

these investments.

This is an exciting bill, and it’s a necessary one. I do want to

assure members on the other side, as well, that we have done some

consultations. We have done some thinking. We’ve done some comparisons

with other jurisdictions that have this authority, that have done this

well, and we will be making some commonsense regulations that will

accompany this bill when it becomes law.

For example, I do intend to propose that the area of definition

for a transit-oriented development be 800 metres, which is international

best practice and is a ten-minute walking distance, for example, of what

a TOD boundary would look like, where we seek to create them.

I’ll close here because I know other members want to participate

in this debate. But I do want to spend a couple minutes on…. I have to

apologize for being very Metro Vancouver centred on this.

This is exciting for all kinds of regions, including the critic’s,

across the way, for Kelowna, where I know that his mayor and council

have recently made some, in my view, visionary updates to their official

community plan and how they contemplate Kelowna in the 21st century and

going forward. They, obviously, have some incredible institutions, some

of which are quite new. They have a growing airport, which is, itself,

part of the transportation network there. They have UBC Okanagan, and

they have a very congested highway system — the main routes connecting

downtown to neighbourhoods, commercial districts and other

things.

[2:45 p.m.]

We do, through B.C. Transit, have a bus rapid transit strategy for

communities like that. We do have an opportunity, through the definition

of the bill we’re discussing here today, to define transit stations as

transit exchanges. So we would, in the case of Kelowna, be able to look

at how we shape the form of development going forward, how we link

employment centres and maybe repurpose the acres of surface parking by

making public transit a significant mode of choice. And how we also

prevent sprawl.

I know that in Kelowna’s case, you’ve got wildfire interface and

other constraints in terms of growing up the hills. And how we get

people to revitalize the downtown and surrounding neighbourhoods in a

city like that.

The same goes for my region here in greater Victoria and in the

capital region. We also have a bus rapid transit strategy that the

capital regional district, the province, B.C. Transit have approved, and

we made that public in the summer of 2021. That contemplates bus rapid

transit technology to the West Shore down Highway 1. We have the

beginnings of that as far as McKenzie — or elements of that, I should

say.

We have some projects being constructed right now that also will

allow us to build a bus rapid transit network down Highway 17. That can

be an area where we do transit-oriented development going forward. That

can be an area where the Crown looks at land purchase possibilities to,

again, shape growth, work with mayors and councils and do things

differently going forward.

Affordable housing in my region is just as much a preoccupation

for young families and families of all types as it is in Metro

Vancouver. Housing prices here are a considerable challenge and a

barrier that people have to deal with.

I’m proud of what our government has done and is doing around

reducing the tax burden on working families, on getting rid of things

like the MSP, on making child care significantly more affordable, on

making post-secondary opportunities more affordable, as well, with grant

programs — and all those good things. But we do need more investments,

more effective investments, in transit-oriented development. We need a

vehicle to do that, like the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority,

which is proposed in that bill. I think that’s a solution to a big

problem that will help develop tens and tens of thousands of units of

housing that will accompany billions of dollars of investments in

transit.

It would also be an added advantage to see these things happen

sequentially. I think the old philosophy has been “build it, and they

will come.” Maybe that worked for a time. I mentioned, you know, 25

years ago how cheap land prices were, and that it was not the

preoccupation of people living in Metro Vancouver — those housing

prices. Today it overshadows almost everything else.

Now we can make investments and congruently have affordable

housing occur in the areas where we’re making those public transit

investments. We don’t have to wait and let the market decide when it’s

the right time. We can work with market actors. We can work with local

governments. We can work with employers seeking to make investments and

change land use. Instead of it being a big windfall for speculative

activity, and we have seen that happen, the public interest can be

represented in acquiring land and taking the value enhancement and

putting it into affordable housing for families.

That might change the overall housing market too. We certainly

hope it does. We’re going to find that out — again, through the $6

billion worth of investments in our public transportation network that

we contemplate. But we need complementary legislation like this to

advance other social and economic development objectives in the province

of B.C.

I look forward to hearing from other members on this bill. I think

that this has transformative capabilities about how we do business, how

we introduce new thinking into the province’s way of doing business on

these types of investments. I think that it will significantly spur

positive economic development and growth and prosperity as we go forward

and clean growth in the way that the CleanBC plan gives us a roadmap to

do.

[2:50 p.m.]

I hope this bill will be supported by all sides of the House. I

think that without Bill 16, all of those things — affordable housing,

more child care, more education institutions, more job centres and

orderly planning around different types of land use — will be far, far

more difficult going forward, with the land prices that we face in most

of the province, without Bill 16.

I will conclude my comments there, other than to say that I am

also pleased that this legislation contemplates working with Indigenous

communities. It’s absolutely in the spirit of the DRIPA legislation. I

think that the kinds of conversations on the journey of reconciliation

that we’re going to have, which includes building more livable

communities with tools like this, are especially of interest to

Indigenous people, communities and families right across our

province.

B. Stewart: It gives me pleasure to rise today on Bill 16, the Transportation

Amendment Act. I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak about

this.

Certainly, this piece of legislation will help shape the future of

transit and community planning in British Columbia. It takes me back to

an earlier time when the government of today was in power and it created

the agricultural land reserve. I think that there’s no question that

that changed the future of land use planning in British Columbia in many

ways. It also has been a constraint, limiting where communities can

develop and grow.

We know that across B.C. and particularly in the Lower Mainland,

there’s a critical need for new and expanded transit services to meet

the transportation needs of the travelling public, connect communities,

reduce congestion and meet our climate objectives. The minister’s

comments that talk about the OCP changes in the Central Okanagan and

Kelowna and active living — there are challenges created between the way

that the communities have grown, the ALR and the fact that there are

geographic constraints, whether it’s the lake or the mountains. So I do

think that these are important parcels, or pieces, of a

solution.

We also know that transit services provide opportunities for

community growth, densification and building a transit-oriented

development. We can also support increased housing supply, hopefully

off-setting the skyrocketing housing prices. As our province’s

population continues to grow, there’s no disputing that our cities will

have to grow as well. The most logical way for our communities, like

those in the Lower Mainland, to increase housing supply is through

densification.

Building these areas of dense development around transit corridors

and in tandem with new transit lines will absolutely be essential in

bringing prices under control and creating more livable and sustainable

cities. The minister also mentioned about bus rapid transit, which I

know was announced even before I got elected in 2009. I would say that

it’s wildly successful — perhaps even more successful, meaning that

there is a limitation and a constraint around that, because buses pass

by people sitting at the BRT stops, so there is a need for increased

transportation.

We see that the spine and lines going out really do need to

reflect the population and where things are going. But we do have those

challenges — long distances between communities. Look at the Lower

Mainland. Between Chilliwack, Abbotsford and Langley, there are so many

of these communities that are surrounded by agricultural land. The

reality is that what we haven’t done…. I know that it was certainly my

belief that the government, both the one that’s in power and the one

that hopefully will come in the future, supports the idea that we

continue to make it so that it’s easy for people to get to where they

work, etc.

[2:55 p.m.]

I think that transit-oriented, livable communities…. I don’t know

if 800 metres is the right number. I have heard that number from a

number of associations in Vancouver in terms of what the public is

willing to accept. I’m not quite certain the public…. Based on what I

heard yesterday, on the Broadway line, in terms of the same kinds of

pressures, they don’t want to see tall buildings. They don’t understand

what that is.

I hate to say it, but the landscape in the Lower Mainland and

across British Columbia in urban communities will change dramatically.

We really need to incentivize communities to find a way to get this to

happen.

You know, building these areas, it’s important…. We really want to

make certain…. We see Metro Vancouver — of course, we have the highest

prices, the most acuity. And the minister’s mention of 100,000 new

people immigrating into British Columbia. If we have to continue at the

ability where we welcome other Canadians, etc., we have to build more

density and transit-oriented communities.

One of the concerns we have is that this plan, and the idea that

we’re going to acquire this land, requires planning, and it requires

some execution. We can’t just go out and buy land on every transit

station. I think that there are somewhere north of 50 or 60 SkyTrain

stations, more being added every day. The reality is that we need to

make certain that we have a plan as to where the priorities are and

where we’re going to do it — and work with communities, as he

mentioned.

While it’s somewhat frustrating that it’s taken time for the

government — well, five years — to introduce a bill that takes advantage

of transit corridors, it is encouraging to see that the NDP is turning

its mind to this concept. That being said, the legislation before us

today is certainly not perfect and will not accomplish many of the goals

we all want to see realized.

Firstly, there’s so much more we need to do to encourage

densification of our transit corridors, and this is something that this

bill, largely, either overlooks, or it isn’t addressed in there. What we

need to do is to harness the power of the market.

The minister mentioned the Canada Line and the densification

that’s taken place. I think that the words that I heard him use were

that we would like to see more affordable densification, and I do think

that’s mixed-use land use planning. I totally believe that our

government in the past has supported the idea of mixed uses rather than

segregated communities. We need to have affordability mixed in with

other people that want to live in those communities to have

diversity.

I guess the question that I have is that this particular

legislation is about the government spending money. I don’t quite know

where the money is going to come from for this infrastructure and how

it’s going to get developed. Where are the tools that are going to be

able to allow the government to partner up, as the minister says, and

create these partnerships?

Is it going to be through incentivized infrastructure spending? Is

it going to be through…? If the government has this property, how

exactly will it be planned to be utilized? Even though the government

might acquire it, are they going to buy the land and then come back and

say: “We’ve got this property. This is what we’d like to

see”?

I really believe that if there’s any shortcoming in all of the

governments that have developed SkyTrain, it has been that they didn’t

really work with the local government the way that we could have. And we

probably didn’t foresee it being able to get to the level of

densification around transit infrastructure. So it raises the question

about the government’s intentions, future plans.

I know that the minister has mentioned affordable housing a lot on

this particular piece of legislation. With this legislation, are they

planning on going into the property development business themselves? Or

do they intend to work with the private sector? Either way, what will

this look like in practice?

Transit-oriented development could be built in such a way that it

would not only contribute to increasing housing supply but also help to

support the expansion of future transit lines. But the way that this

legislation is currently written, we see a number of missed

opportunities. Additionally, we have significant reservations about this

government’s ability to get this right, when they are already failing on

so many fronts.

I think about the active living and the whole discussion about one

of the replacement pieces of infrastructure that’s often talked about. I

have to say that the Massey Tunnel replacement still drags on. I’m not

quite certain what it will be named when it comes to reality at the

promised deadline of 2030. But I do think that it’s an important and an

integral part of the mixture and the mixed use. Until we get to the

transit-oriented communities of Delta, Tsawwassen and all of those

communities — the ferries, maybe the Peace Arch; maybe it goes all the

way to Seattle — the reality is that we have to think big

here.

[3:00 p.m.]

I do think that that’s one of the things. We don’t want to see

things stalled out because of the fact that we don’t like someone else’s

plan. We want to make certain that we’re able to deliver on these plans,

and we want to see that it happens in a time period where we’re not

actually out of the government, in the sense that we’ve been in for five

years and we’re going to delay it another six, seven or eight

years.

We want to make certain that this happens in our lifetime, to help

improve future generations and make certain that the communities that

could be impacted…. I imagine that the Canada Line could easily be

attached to what was proposed. I don’t know how that’s going to fit in.

Maybe it’ll be like into South Surrey. A line will cross the Fraser at

some point and be able to go over. We do need to think big about how the

transit is going to work.

I want to make certain that when we do talk about this bill, we

want to hear about the minister’s and the government’s plans. It’s an

indisputable fact that housing unaffordability has soared under the NDP

government, with prices hitting record highs while supply hits historic

lows. We have to address that, and I think all parties agree on that.

All this while this government rakes in record profits off the crisis,

collecting billions in property transfer tax. We need to direct that in

the right way.

The NDP, I know…. I hear all sorts of numbers. We heard a lot

about that in question period today. The numbers that B.C. Housing

reports show that only 5 percent of the promised 114,000 units are

actually built, up and running, and occupied. I know there’s stuff

that’s planned, stuff that may be in construction, but the reality is

that 114,000, based on the population growth that we’ve just experienced

in the last year, is not nearly enough. We have to reach out to the

private sector. We have to get communities to being able to help embrace

the idea of densification.

That particular number that I just said was supported by the

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which has expressed profound

disappointment on this particular project or this promise. As well, the

government promised to deliver a $400 annual renters rebate, which was

promised in not one but two consecutive elections. I don’t know

if….

Deputy Speaker: If I might, Member, we’re discussing the Transportation Amendment

Act. If you could draw it back to the act, I’d appreciate it.

B. Stewart: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister has referenced being able to

increase housing. It’s very difficult to separate the two where the

government proposes to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money in

acquiring land. Are they going into the land development business,

residential development?

The point is that this bill, as it’s written, is about the B.C.

Transportation Financing Authority being able to purchase the land that

is there. So I think that there is a relevancy. I don’t think the $400,

in today’s market, is going to solve the housing affordability

crisis.

People were so disappointed that there was no affordable housing

included in the first concept art for the new Broadway subway stations.

Are we going to have to wait years for this to materialize? I think that

the Broadway line…. We did see approval yesterday, as the minister

mentioned, of a tower, but I still think that we’re talking about that

800 metres. We do need to see swifter, more decisive action, and we have

to have cities coming along and not necessarily being held by the fact

that cities are going to grow.

What about the other infrastructures, with the CBAs? Constant

delays, reduced scope of projects and cost overruns. This government has

proved, time and time again, that it just can’t get anything built.

We’re still waiting. I know that I’ll look forward to the Massey Tunnel

replacement. I’ll look forward to the Rogers Pass being completed, as I

know it’s working, and many of the other projects. Therefore, because

this government totally lacks a successful track record when it comes to

building infrastructure or housing of any sort, we don’t have the

confidence in its ability to successfully deliver on the increased

housing with this bill.

What about municipalities? How does the government intend to work

out the rezoning or the zoning issues and the desires of city councils?

This bill doesn’t address how these changes will be navigated at the

local level. What is the long-term vision? This bill is a step, but does

the government have a plan for where they want to go from here? While

much of the bill contains positive steps forward, it’s unfortunate that

it will likely be wasted on this NDP government that doesn’t know how to

get the big stuff done.

[3:05 p.m.]

While we are broadly supportive of the goals of this legislation,

we have serious questions for the minister about what this will look

like in practice. There are some areas where we have questions about the

possible ramifications of the legislation and the power it gives the

government.

I do like the fact that the minister cited an experience in his

own community about the fact that electric trams or cars that ran here

many years ago created communities that were built around that. The old

B.C. Electric lines that used to exist in the Lower Mainland — of

course, taken out. I’m sure that we had a love affair with the

automobile, and that’s why we have all the highways. I think we’re going

to have to get a love affair with the transit-orientated plans of the

future. I and the rest of the opposition look forward to exploring how

we can do that with this bill, working with local

governments.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the time in the

House.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Saanich North and the

Islands.

A. Olsen: I’ll wait, if you want to clap. [Applause.]

No, no, not for me. That never happens.

It’s my honour to stand and speak to Bill 16, the Transportation

Amendment Act. Certainly, I listened with interest to the previous

member’s comments. I think when we take a look at this bill, we look at

the opportunities that it presents, granting the power to the B.C.

Transportation Financing Authority to acquire land for the purpose of

transit-oriented developments. I think that this is a very positive step

forward from the government.

Part of the challenge with the cost of housing that we’re facing

today is the cost of land. It’s a huge portion of the cost of housing.

So when the member previously asked the question about whether or not

the provincial government was going to get into development, well, the

reality is that the provincial government has a tremendous amount of

power to be able to deal with the increased land costs and to actually

deliver housing that is non-market or that is dealing with the market

pressures as they currently exist.

Private development can’t do that. Private development has to buy

the land for what the value is and then develop it at the cost of that

development. Increased, escalating construction costs, escalating

building supplies, have made it incredibly difficult for the development

industry to deliver units of housing, homes for British Columbians, at a

rate that they can afford.

We can say that it’s below market, but if the market is higher

than most people can afford to pay, then it’s truly not affordable

housing. It is actually simply less expensive than what the market would

be, but that doesn’t mean that people can actually afford to live in it.

Oftentimes, in many cases, over 50 percent of people’s income they’re

paying for their housing costs.

I think one of the opportunities that this bill presents is the

creation of livable communities. I grew up in Brentwood Bay. At the

time, it was a livable community. It was small. It was self-contained.

It was a great place to grow up. For the most part, my parents didn’t

have huge pressure coming down on them for the cost of

living.

I know my peer group, as I talk to my peers…. I’m in a different

situation because I live on an Indian reserve in this country, so there

is a different situation there altogether. I do know the impact that the

cost of housing has for many families, most families in British

Columbia. I think one of the things that those families, families in

British Columbia, yearn for is the ability to live in their communities,

feel part of the community and not feel like there’s constant pressure

taking them out.

[3:10 p.m.]

With the provincial government taking the steps, through this

bill, through Bill 16, to be able to purchase land next to transit

lines…. We know that this could increase the availability of more

affordable, perhaps even non-market units of housing — hopefully,

non-market units of housing, homes for British Columbians. But the other

big cost that British Columbians carry is around transportation. The

transportation costs, increasing gas prices, increasing energy prices —

all of these increases are further making life less affordable than

previous generations had it. So the ability to….

Of course, we know, those of us that have been in local

government, that the development of communities, the development of

residential neighbourhoods is always far more connected to the

transportation network than is perhaps noted in the way that we organize

our laws and the way that we organize zoning and who owns the roads,

etc. By making sure that these connections are made, by making sure that

there is density in and around where the transit lines and

transportation are, allows for greater efficiencies within our

communities.

I think that the provincial government absolutely has a role in

this. As the member previously raised, there will be, necessarily,

questions with local governments — absolutely. That will be the role of

the provincial government — to connect with local governments and to

make sure that there is open, transparent communication on this and to

make sure, rather than having an adversarial process, that it is a

process that’s open and that is transparent. It’s certainly my hope for

this, because local governments don’t have the capacity to be able to

ensure that — to keep the land costs down. The provincial government

does.

We know that these transit-oriented developments…. The number that

I have here in my notes is 800 metres. I’ve talked to students in my

riding that are students from Germany and from European countries. I met

with a few of them a couple of years back at the local high school,

talking about how there are more frequent transit stops closer together.

Making transit more convenient for people is a way to encourage them to

move away from single-occupant vehicles to the transit and the

transportation and the mass transit that’s being provided. Making sure

that there is density in and around those systems will ensure that those

systems are able to be maintained and that there will be ridership on

them, and certainly that’s something that we can all support.

When I take a look at this bill, I’m pleased that the government

is taking these steps forward. Of course, we will be asking questions.

I’ll be listening, with great interest, to the questions that are coming

from our colleagues in the official opposition. We’ll have questions of

our own. I would say that…. Well, maybe I’ll just leave it at that. I’ve

addressed the issues around the potential tension between municipal and

local governments.

If there’s one flag that I will raise here, it is that the success

of this initiative isn’t going to be government granting themselves the

ability to do this — the provincial government. It is going to be how it

is executed on the ground with the local governments and ensuring that

there is collaboration with our transit providers — B.C. Transit,

TransLink — and the local governments and regional districts who have

transportation authorities. All of the players need to be at the table.

All of the people need to be around the table to have this

discussion.

The step here that we’re doing to grant government the opportunity

to do this is just the first step. It will be the steps that follow that

will determine whether or not this initiative is actually successful in

delivering what the promise is.

It’s really important that we do ask those questions. It’s also

really important, once this bill is out of our hands and into the hands

of government and into the hands of the Ministry of Transportation, that

the provincial government proceeds with a very open and collaborative

process to ensure that all of those that are affected by this, all of

the different governing bodies and authorities that are affected by this

decision and by this new act, this new law when it passes, will be

brought along in these conversations as partners in it, rather than what

potentially could be, which is decisions being made by the provincial

government and dragging those partners along with them.

[3:15 p.m.]

Certainly, my hope is for the former rather than the latter, and

that will be the encouragement that I will continue to have to the

minister and to the government. But this is certainly a positive step

forward and one that at this stage of the debate — and I don’t see any

of that changing — I certainly support.

Thank you to the minister for bringing it forward and to the

government for bringing it forward. I look forward to the remainder of

the debate.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

Hon. B. Ma: I am so excited to rise today to speak about a bill that the

Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure has brought to the floor,

Bill 16, the Transportation Amendment Act. I am afraid that it’s a

little bit of a boring, bureaucratic-sounding act, because it really

betrays the importance and the excitement that should surround this

act.

I’m glad to hear, from some members of the House already, some

generalized support for this bill. I certainly do support it as well.

Indeed, it’s a bill that will enable something that I’ve had many

conversations with colleagues in government about, which is integrated

transportation and land use development — in particular, the creation of

more transit-oriented developments.

In short, this bill allows the B.C. Transportation Financing

Authority, or the BCTFA, to acquire land for purposes that might not

appear directly related to the delivery of transportation

infrastructure, like highways, subway stations, and so forth. But it is

actually an incredibly vital and forward-looking approach to

transportation.

I’m really…. This is a topic that I could spend quite a lot of

time talking about, so I’m going to take this opportunity to really nerd

out about it. I’m excited to let you all know that for the next 120

minutes, I’m going to be telling you about how excited I am. No, I’m

joking. I max out at 30 minutes, and I’ll try to not take up all that

time either.

We are talking about building complete, walkable communities with

housing, child care, jobs, community amenities and more near transit

hubs, an approach known as transit-oriented development. Now, what does

transportation have to do with homes and child care? What does

transportation, the Ministry of Transportation, have to do with grocery

stores and employment centres? Why should the Ministry of Transportation

and Infrastructure, a ministry that has historically had a pretty

singular focus on highways and building highways, be in the business of

acquiring land for housing, as an example?

That’s what I’m going to talk about. It should be pretty clear

from this bill that our government is taking quite a different approach

to transportation infrastructure and transportation systems, very

different from the approaches of the past.

For many decades spanning the majority of the last century, North

American jurisdictions have tried to do what is often described as

“build their way out of traffic congestion” with ever-more lanes of

roads or ever-more highways for cars, only to find themselves facing

more and more congestion and oftentimes spending more and more money to

acquire more and more land to lay pavement that might otherwise be used

to build livable communities and housing. They’re trying to accommodate

more and more cars that are looking to take people to and from their

housing and to wherever else that they’re trying to get to.

After all of that investment, that time, that effort, that energy

— all that building — people who are travelling end up no better off

than when they first started. And what’s worse is that the critical

goods movement that depends on those roads and those highways often is

also stuck in the same traffic, in the same congestion. It costs time.

It costs money. It impacts our economy, and it’s very, very frustrating

indeed.

Why does that happen? Well, it’s because the number of trips or

travelling that a person or a community or a family makes is not

absolute. It actually changes depending on a whole lot of different

factors, one of which is the availability and ease of the infrastructure

made available to them to choose different modes of transportation at

various times of day.

You see, this refers back to a well-demonstrated phenomenon that

I’ve talked about in the House before — a demonstrated phenomenon in the

transportation field. It’s known as induced demand. It basically comes

from the very well-known phrase in planning circles that you cannot

build your way out of congestion by simply laying more

pavement.

[3:20 p.m.]

It’s much more complicated than that. In fact, it sounds

counterintuitive in a lot of ways. Despite that, it has actually been

demonstrated that in busy and growing areas, laying more pavement to

create more space for cars actually produces more car movements than

before, which generates more demand and ultimately leaves us trapped in

congestion again.

Let’s be clear now, okay? I mean, we’re talking about

transit-oriented development as part of this bill. The minister has also

noted, though, that it could be applied to other areas of the province,

not necessarily just in urban areas.

Speaking and thinking about other areas of the province, I want to

emphasize how important our highway networks are, particularly in a

place like British Columbia. They’re so, so important. We’re quite

spread out. It’s a very large province. There are many communities

outside of urban areas. In those communities outside of urban areas,

highways connect people to their families. They connect communities to

services and goods to market. They are, for all intents and purposes,

very, very necessary parts of our transportation system.

They also cost a lot to build. They cost a lot to build, to widen,

to expand, to maintain — as is all transportation infrastructure, be

they bridges, tunnels, SkyTrains or more. So it is incumbent on

governments and provincial governments to ensure that those kinds of

investments are being made in a very wise way and in a forward-thinking

manner that ensures that they last, that they generate value for British

Columbians and that they take into account what is needed in the years

ahead as we continue to work to improve affordability, to create livable

communities and, of course, to tackle climate change.

It turns out that taking all of that into account demands a

different, newer approach to transportation — one that our government is

taking. That is an approach that is multimodal, that is holistic and

that considers what our actual goals are for our transportation

systems.

Let’s talk about the goals of a transportation system. What is the

purpose of having a transportation system? What is our purpose in

building out transportation systems? I mean, if you think about it, very

few people enjoy spending their time trapped in their car in congestion,

spending hours of their life commuting to and from work. Very few people

enjoy driving in their vehicles for the sake of driving

alone.

I mean, I highly doubt very many people think to themselves: “You

know what I would really like to do today? What I’d really like to do

today is get into my car and be stuck in highway traffic for two hours.

That sounds like real fun. That’s what I’m going to do today.” Very few

people are going to say that. Nor do I think that many people think to

themselves: “Oh man, what I’d really like to do today is to get out, and

I really need to clock 150 kilometres on my car, just in a big circle. I

just need to drive around in a big circle. Drive around on all of the

roads I can find. I won’t feel good unless I drive at least 150

kilometres a day, just for no other reason than for driving.”

People tend not to travel for the sake of the actual driving

itself. Then why is it that governments often measure their

transportation success in the number of kilometres of lanes that they’ve

built or paved or the number of trips that they’ve generated on this

system or that? Why would we measure success that way, when the goal for

most people in our communities is certainly not to log as many hours in

traffic as they can?

Instead, perhaps we should seek to take an approach that

understands why people travel. That’s what Bill 16 is about. So why is

it that we travel? Why do we do it? Why do we travel? Why do we get into

our cars? Why do we commute? It’s because we’re trying to get somewhere

and not just anywhere. We’re trying to get to someone, to a place. Maybe

our place of work or a place of study, for instance, or maybe we’re

trying to get a good or a service, and it’s only available in a

place.

There’s a book called Human Transit , and it’s by an

international consultant in public transit named Jarrett Walker. This

book was recommended to me by a local planning consultant, Brent

Toderian, and in this book, Mr. Walker suggests thinking about

transportation as a system that enables access.

[3:25 p.m.]

It’s not really a sexy way to look at it, I realize, but I do

think that it’s a very productive and helpful way to look at

it.

I want to read something that Mr. Walker says about this. He says:

“Whoever you are and wherever you are, there’s an area you could get to

in an amount of time that’s available in your day. That limit defines a

wall around your life. Outside of that wall are places you can’t work,

places you can’t shop, schools you can’t attend, clubs you can’t belong

to, people you can’t hang out with and a whole world of things that you

can’t do.”

You think about that. If transportation is about access — about

increasing your access to people, places, things, accessing the people

that you love, to spend time with them, the services that you need, the

goods that you consume and your place of employment that you earn income

from, the schools that your children learn at — then what would happen

if we put all of those things together in a short distance from one

another?

What if we could walk to all of those things? What if we didn’t

need to get into our cars and drive 50 kilometres to access them? What

happens when you build housing people can afford close to the jobs that

they earn incomes at? How much travelling do they need to do then? What

if we build affordable housing close to jobs, close to schools, close to

child care, close to grocery stores and close to community centres? What

if you build them all into walkable, complete communities, and then you

centre them around transit hubs?

Then not only would you be creating communities within which

people have the freedom to access everything that they need in a day,

but you also position them to be able to access the amenities, the

services and goods, places, people and things at all of the other

complete transit-oriented developments that exist along that transit

line or that transit system.

You can give them that access, all without the obligation of

bringing their cars with them, without the obligation of needing to

battle traffic, fighting for parking, paying for parking, watching the

price of gas, worrying about whether you’ve had too much to drink at a

dinner out in order to drive home or if your car will get a ticket

because you’ve been on the street for too long — the freedom to choose

what you spend your time on and how you move around.

I want to talk a little bit, then, about the automobile. Since the

proliferation of the automobile in the early 20th century, we’ve been

told that cars were our way to freedom and independence, and everybody

wanted one. Our cities and communities were totally built around the

expectation that you would have one, two, three cars — maybe

more.

That expectation and that wanting and that design of communities

to require cars eventually became no longer about having the choice to

want a car, buy a car and own a car, but a necessity. So over time, it

was no longer about something that you were free to choose and something

that gave you freedom and independence, but something that you could not

function in society without — until it was no longer about that

independence, but about total dependence. That dependence has become a

chain around a lot of us. It’s hard to think about living in most of

British Columbia without a truck or a car.

In fact, regularly, when I talk about transit or active

transportation, like walking and cycling, as options that we need to

encourage people towards, it is very common that people will respond by

saying: “But I can’t use those modes, because I need my car or my truck

for a variety of reasons.” One line sticks out in my mind. I remember

somebody told me: “Bowinn, I can’t and I’m not going to take my chickens

on the bus with me.”

[3:30 p.m.]

Let me be clear. When we talk about needing to enable more people

to take the bus or transit or ride their bike or walk or live in

transit-oriented developments, and so forth, we are not talking about

forcing everybody to give up their vehicles and get on a bus. That is

not what we are talking about. I’m not going to be suggesting that

anyone should be designing our SkyTrain cars, for instance, to transport

cows to the processor or to be able to move steel beams onto the

construction site by public transit. You’re probably still going to need

your vehicle for that.

Governments are about making life better for people. One of the

ways that we can do that is to give people more choice about how they

move around and how they live their lives. Give them the freedom to

choose to leave their car behind for a night out on the town. The

freedom to know that their children can safely travel to and from school

on their own. The freedom to have the option of not sitting in traffic

three hours a day. The freedom to not have to worry about whether the

price of gas is going to impact your ability to afford the rest of your

bills.

On top of that, given that transportation accounts for well over a

third of greenhouse gas emissions here in this province right now,

providing residents with the choice to live without being dependent on a

car is way, way better from a climate perspective as well.

That’s what Bill 16, the Transportation Amendment Act, is about.

Not an exciting name. At its core, it is about a new approach to

transportation that focuses on why we invest in transportation in the

first place, which is the people. Enabling better lives and more livable

communities in our province well into the future and making life better

for people, families and communities in British Columbia.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

A. Mercier: I am so excited about this bill, the Transportation Amendment Act.

This piece of legislation is going to allow the province, through the

B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, or BCTFA, to acquire land for

the purpose of transit-oriented development around transit stations and

bus exchanges — notably, around SkyTrain stations.

The SkyTrain is coming to Langley. We promised it in 2020, and

we’re building it two years ahead of schedule. With that investment are

coming incredible changes to Langley. SkyTrain opens up a world of

possibility for folks in Langley and Langley city around Metro

Vancouver.

We’re going to be getting two stations in my riding that will see

folks having access to downtown Vancouver, to Waterfront station, within

65 minutes. It’s the equivalent of a ten-lane highway with no traffic

jams that gets you downtown in an hour. It is fundamentally changing the

community.

With that, it’s incumbent upon us as government and, I think, us

as legislators to make sure that we get this investment right. There are

few things government can do that are more defining and more impactful

on the development process than transit infrastructure. In fact, if you

look at surveys of municipalities across North America, you’ll see that

the same types of constellations tend to crop up around transit stations

because their impact is so strong. With that, it’s incumbent that we get

it right and that we unlock the potential around these stations for

transit-oriented development.

I’ve got to say that in Langley, particularly Langley city

council, we have a willing partner in making sure that we are building

more affordable housing, building more mixed use and building

transit-oriented development around stations. I can say anecdotally that

under the new official community plan, which is built around SkyTrain

and which contemplates this form of development that is contemplated by

this act…. The new official community plan is radically changing Langley

north of the Nicomekl River.

[3:35 p.m.]

Currently, of all the developments that are under construction or

are going through the approval process right now, 40 percent of them,

just over 40 percent of them, are for rental stock. This type of

development has a real and demonstrable impact on housing supply and on

the type of community we want to live in.

It’s important that government has this ability to purchase land

for this purpose around stations — before that land is bought up by

speculators for other purposes — to help shape growth so we are not in a

situation, like we’ve been in for the last 20 years, where we’re chasing

growth after the fact but where we can get ahead of it and work with our

municipal partners to make sure that we’re helping shape what the

community looks like.

I’m going to keep my comments brief, Madam Speaker.

In particular, there are significant opportunities within Langley.

I mentioned we’re going to get two stations. The first station is going

to be on Fraser and 196 Street at the Willowbrook mall, which I can tell

you, as a Langley boy, was a haunt. I spent a lot of time in the arcade

there playing air hockey when I should have been in class in high

school.

The White Spot in the Willowbrook mall is going to become a

SkyTrain station. So I’d say to folks in Langley: if you want to go to

White Spot, you should go now, because we’re building the train ahead of

schedule. So you’ve got a narrowing window of opportunity.

It’s surrounded by a desert of barren parking lot that is a

remarkable opportunity, in the situation we have now, to build more

commercial and residential buildings to allow for different economic

activity and places for people to live. We’ve added over 100,000 people

in the past year. We’ve added almost 100,000 jobs since the beginning of

the pandemic. What we need to do is add more housing.

We have phenomenal partners in Langley city and Langley township

on this, but we need to make sure that we get it right. So being able to

enter the market, in the province, to ensure this is critically

important. Although we might have great partners, they’re also small

compared to the financial footprint of the provincial government. The

economy of scale we get through this act is really

remarkable.

I think of the 203 Street station. Madam Speaker, if you’ve ever

been to Langley, you’ve probably been to Gabby’s Country Cabaret, and

you were probably saddened, like everyone in Langley was, when it

closed. Right around the former site of Gabby’s Country Cabaret will go

the 203 Street station. That area is going to undergo remarkable

change.

We need to ensure that as that happens, we’re working with our

partners so that we’re developing a livable and green community and the

kind of community we want to live in. We’re about to attract a whole ton

of people just through the amenity of the SkyTrain and the ability to

get downtown, and we need to make sure that we’re doing it

right.

The train opens a new world of opportunity to Langley city, and we

need to take up that opportunity and meet that challenge. For that

reason, I’m in favour of this bill.

I said I’d keep my comment brief, so I’ll take my seat.

M. Starchuk: I want to quote something that the member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale had said. Nobody jumps into a car to drive around for

150 kilometres, in a circle, just for the fun of it. Nobody gets into

their car to be stuck in rush hour traffic for two hours, just for the

fun of it.

I can tell you that SkyTrain…. When you’ve got a grandson…. You’re

heading over to North Vancouver, and you get on the bus that goes across

the water. That’s fun. That’s enjoyable.

With regards to SkyTrain and the act and Bill 16 and my support

for it…. Work has already started in Surrey. Like my friend across, I’ve

got two stations coming to my riding in areas that are going to be well

supported by the young families that are there and that are looking for

more affordable housing, which is coming.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the area through Green

Timbers, where there is an urban forest, has been completed. The street

is there. The curbs are up. They’re just waiting for that thing to be

put in the middle of that road to start its way out to

Langley.

When I think about what this act is going to do…. Public transit

is more than just getting people from their house to work or their house

to the shopping centre, other things like that. Public transit has the

ability to reduce those greenhouse gases, to get those people out of

their vehicles and for a very long time.

[3:40 p.m.]

When I think about the best time that’s ever suited, if I have to

go downtown…. Being on the SkyTrain is the perfect place to do your

work. Grab your iPad. Grab your phone. Let somebody else take you down

there and get out at the bottom.

These amendments will give the B.C. Transportation Financing

Authority the ability to do what it is that we want them to do and to

purchase land for housing in other areas that are there. When I think

about the stop that will be in my area of Clayton, I think of the

potential that’s there. People that are buying in that area right now

are looking at properties that are already green buildings.

There was a recent building that was put up there, a condo that

was basically EV-equipped, LED lighting, all the amenities that are all

there. By the time the for-sale sign went up, it was gone. So the people

that are in my riding are very conscious of what their footprint is that

they’re leaving behind.

The work has begun, and the thought of having the transportation

authority purchasing land and developing that, in a greater sense, is an

awesome thing. When we think about a highrise and we think about how

many people that will be there, we think about that person that buys

that unit on the 24th floor. There are commercial retail units on the

ground floor, and their transportation to work is an elevator for 23

floors. No need for a car. They can walk about. They can do all of

that.

With regards to what this is going to mean for us, I know our

local council has already amended the OCP to take into consideration

densification along this corridor that’s there. This will go a long way

into supplying those housing units that are out there that we need to

come to Metro Vancouver in a fairly quick way. The way that we’re going

to see mixed use with this bill coming forward is going to change the

landscape of my riding forever. It’s important that we’re there before

it’s built — that we learn what we need to have in the

community.

One of the other things that puts a smirk on my face is that that

one station that will be there, with the possibility of a hub, will take

people to the hospital that’s coming to Cloverdale. We can’t forget

that. Somebody that needs to get that kind of care will have that kind

of transportation to get them there, because we all know what it’s like

to park at a hospital. It’s much easier to use transit that’s

there.

When we think about the transportation that is there…. I know it

doesn’t look like it, but I do spend a fair bit of time on my bike. I do

ride my bike to my constituency office. This kind of transportation,

built at the same time, will include those bike lanes, those walking

lanes, those pathways to make it active lifestyles for those people that

are out there.

These transit-oriented developments…. We talked about the 800

metres. I know, as local government, that’s what we used as well — 800

metres, about a ten-minute walk, even for me, to get to those areas that

are there. We’ll be able to see those hubs that will be built around

there and best utilized, when this act comes forward.

The legislation changes all the future transit that’s there, and

it’s just for the people. It’s just for those people that are looking

for a place to live, for those people that want to get out of a car, for

those people that want to get to work in a clean and efficient

manner.

We know that when you provide transit into an area, it gets the

people out of the cars. Right now for anybody in my riding to want to

drive into downtown Vancouver, we’re probably looking at an hour and 15

minutes to an hour and 45 minutes. If you’re within 800 metres, it’s

probably going to be closer to about 47 minutes. You just think about

how that compounds itself on a week, on a month, and how many days in a

year that you spend behind that wheel that you no longer have to so that

you can now spend that time with your family.

The last thing that I’ll leave it with, in support of the bill, is

that, specific to my riding, when you build it right there, they’ll be

able to jump on it. They’ll be able to go to the rec centres. They’ll be

able to go to the libraries. They’ll be able to go downtown. They’ll be

able to go to all these other areas that are built within the city. The

use for a fossil-fuelled vehicle is no longer there.

On that note, I thank you for the opportunity. I’m looking forward

to this thing passing.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the minister wish to close

debate?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Thank you to all members from all parties who’ve participated in

this debate. I appreciate the thoughtful comments and some of the

questions that were raised, which I’ll have an opportunity to respond to

when we get to committee stage of debate.

I’ll just be very brief in my

summary and offer this additional

comment. How this legislation should be seen is another tool in our

toolbox to help address our goals around housing, child care, education,

jobs and making life affordable and of high quality here in British

Columbia. But I would see this and maybe explain this as being not like

any other tools that we have legislatively but a bit of a power tool

that gives us a significant ability to shape growth that aligns with

transportation investments that we’re making anyway or contemplating

making.

I do want to assure members that the intention of the legislation,

as well, is to work collaboratively with various partners to achieve

this goal. We’ve had some very good comments from members whose

constituents will most directly benefit — although the entire region

will benefit — from the Surrey Langley SkyTrain investment that we’re

making. This legislation will allow us to do a lot more than what we’ve

typically done in previous SkyTrain developments, which was, as I

mentioned earlier, just confined really to the station and the immediate

needs of the transit project — the guide rails and those sorts of

things.

In practical terms, we can now look at larger sites that will

contain both the station and adjacent facilities that we all need, and

we do have a budget that does account for the work that we will have to

do on that project. This bill is also about our ability to more

proactively pursue the development of complete compact communities that

are being developed in transportation-oriented development proposals in

regions right across the province. We will work with both the private

sector that has an interest in developing commercial investment and job

centres as well as real estate and building housing product.

We will work with the non-profit housing sector. We will work with

different levels of government. We’ve talked about local government and

regional government, and I think I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention

school districts as well, who have long-range facility plans and other

documents that need to be aligned, again, with some of the

transportation investments that we’re contemplating.

Again, I appreciate debate here at second reading and members on

all sides of the House. I will now move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 16.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Fleming: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 16, Transportation Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I call second reading, Bill 10, Labour Relations Code

Amendment Act.

BILL 10 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. H. Bains: I move that Bill 10 be read a second time now.

As Minister of Labour, my mandate includes a commitment to ensure

that every worker has the right to join a union and bargain for fair

working conditions. To support this commitment, Bill 10 amends the

Labour Relations Code in two ways. First, it returns B.C. to a more fair

single-step union certification process that limits employer

interference. This process is often called a card check.

Second, it addresses an outstanding issue respecting the ability

of workers in the construction sector to exercise their right to change

union representation. The Labour Relations Code, commonly referred to as

the code, is the primary labour relations legislation in B.C. The code

governs a wide range of labour relations matters that are central to

supporting workers to organize so they can bargain collectively for fair

working conditions. This includes the certification of employees to be

represented by a union and the ability of employees to change union

representation.

[3:50 p.m.]

Tomorrow is the annual Day of Mourning, where workers’ reps,

workers themselves, supporters, their colleagues, will gather to

remember those killed or injured on the job. It happens far too often,

that someone’s parent or sister or brother or friend, parents, goes off

to work and doesn’t come home at the end of their shift. We know that

one of the best ways to keep workers safe is to give them the ability to

speak up when they see a potential hazard. The provisions of this bill

allow those workers a voice. We think workers should be safe, and this

bill will give those workers one more tool to keep themselves safe at

work.

British Columbia’s code has a long and storied history. It has

been reviewed, amended and updated over the years to ensure that it

responds to the changes in B.C.’s economy and labour market. In

2002-2003, it was amended by one person with very little or no

consultation with anyone. Most recently, 2018, I appointed a

three-person expert panel of special advisers to review the code,

consult with stakeholders and provide recommendations to support a

growing sustainable economy and promote harmonious and stable labour

relations.

Later that year the panel submitted a report making a number of

formal recommendations to improve the fairness and effectiveness of our

labour relations system. These included recommendations that

specifically called for amendments to the code. Those recommendations

were implemented by Bill 30, which was passed in this House in spring of

2019. Those amendments focused on improving the fairness and

effectiveness of our labour relations system while maintaining the

code’s basic structure and fundamental principles.

With respect to the first issue, regarding union

certifi­cation, the panel recognized that there is employer

interference during certification, and they found this to happen too

often. Bill 30 made some changes to union certification that supported

workers’ access to certification, hoping that it would prevent employer

intervention during the certifi­cation process. But we left the

two-step union certification process intact.

Now, under the two-step system, for those who are not familiar,

the first step of the process is that if 45 percent of workers in the

proposed bargaining unit sign union membership, and if this threshold is

met, the union applies to the Labour Relations Board for certification.

Then there is a second step, where the board will order a secret ballot

vote to be held a number of days later. If more than 50 percent of

workers vote in favour of certification, the union is certified to

represent the workers.

This two-step process, which requires a secret ballot vote for all

union certifications, has been in place since 2001. However, there are

long-standing concerns that this process gives employers the opportunity

to influence how employees vote. Employers can, and they have, use the

window between the certification application and the secret ballot vote

to illegally interfere with the free choice of workers. For example,

some employers have used this period to fire key union supporters.

Others have threatened broad layoffs in the event of

certification.

[3:55 p.m.]

Think about that. This is the right that is enshrined in the

Canadian constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for all

Canadians: our right to association. That right should not be impeded by

anyone. It is happening under the two-step system. Bill 10 will help

stop that, so that we can uphold Canadians’ right to association without

interference by anyone.

This is a matter, again, I want to repeat: upholding a worker’s

constitutional right to association, right to organize and to speak up

for better working conditions if that’s what they want and if

collectively they want. It is their right. It is a worker’s right. No

one should interfere with that.

The Canadian constitution is clear that there should be nothing

that stands in the way of that right. The multistep process gives the

employer the ability to interfere with workers’ free exercising of their

right. Workers in the service industry are already subject to an

employer’s whim about their shifts. So as soon as an employer finds out

that one of the workers is involved in a union drive, poof, that person

suddenly is without shifts. As a result, they’re losing wages, tips. Or

worst-case