Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, April 19, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 307

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

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

M. Dykeman

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Creative Industries Week and film industry

B. D’Eith

Alice Olson

S. Bond

Steveston Harbour and fishing community

K. Greene

Eagle Valley Senior Citizens Housing Society

G. Kyllo

Prevention of Violence Against Women Week

K. Paddon

Cancer fundraising by Surrey Eagles broadcaster Joey Pitt

T. Halford

Oral Questions

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

K. Falcon

Hon. J. Whiteside

T. Stone

Environmental regulation of industry and lobbying on Elk Valley pollution issue

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

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

S. Bond

Hon. J. Whiteside

E. Sturko

P. Milobar

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 41 — Membership change to Finance Committee

Hon. R. Kahlon

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing (continued)

Hon. R. Kahlon

K. Kirkpatrick

M. Bernier

I. Paton

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

Hon. R. Fleming

T. Stone

T. Halford

M. Lee

E. Ross

N. Letnick

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation (continued)

L. Doerkson

Hon. B. Bailey

T. Shypitka

B. Stewart

Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions

Hon. J. Whiteside

E. Sturko

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 2023

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Hon. Members, pursuant to Standing Order 12, I’m advising you of the

unavoidable absence of the Speaker.

Consequently, in his place, the Deputy Speaker will take the

chair.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: L. Doerkson.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. H. Bains: Representatives from the Union of B.C. Performers are here this week

to take

part in Creative Industries Week and meet with the ministers and

other elected representatives. Today they are here for today’s performance

of question period.

Joining us in the gallery today is Keith Martin Gordey, UBCP-ACTRA

treasurer and ACTRA vice-president; Jo Bates, secretary; Karla Laird,

executive administrative director; Megan Milton, industry relations; and

Michael Cheevers. Many of us know Michael Cheevers, ACTRA industry

relations.

I’m sure you would give them standing ovation, but for now, I just

hope the House will give them a very warm welcome.

R. Russell: It’s my privilege. I don’t often get guests from the homeland, and

today I have two guests in the House with me, one 11 years old and one 12

years old. In the spirit of the prayer that we heard around temperance and

understanding, I did ask them to take note in QP to find out how many of the

interactions they feel like would be acceptable in their grade 6

class.

Please, would everybody make my daughter, Juno Russell, and our

friend, Sylvie Viebrock-Hall, feel very welcome.

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m pleased to inform the House that in this gallery, we have a

special group from my ministry today. They are the articling students Katie

Mysak, Skeena Lawson, Dario Balca and Lynnie Alcordo.

Also present are two former articled students and current legal

counsel, Erin Halma, Keenan Miller and Kyle Chelsey. They are accompanied by

staff members of the articling student program, Natasha Miller, Sherri Lee

and Steph Christo.

Rounding out the group is Savannah John, an Indigenous youth intern

with the B.C. Prosecution Service.

I just want to welcome them, and I appreciate all the work that

they’re going to be doing in the upcoming years.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s nice to look up and see a friendly face up there, Lynn Klein.

Everyone knows Lynn has been a feature of this place for many years. He’s

watched us debate many, many issues. Every time I look up, I always look to

see him, to see if he’s still up there. I know he’s moved out of town, and

he’s found his way back today in the Legislature to see us.

I’m hoping the House can join us to welcome Lynn back to this

House.

J. Tegart: I’m pleased to welcome Raylene and Tyler Jones from Dawson Creek.

Raylene was born and raised in Ashcroft, and she is an RCMP member receiving

a medal of valour this evening.

Please make Raylene and Tyler very welcome.

S. Furstenau: It’s a delight to look up and see a friendly face, the councillor of

Parksville, Sean Wood, up in the gallery. Sean is a hard-working local

representative and an all-around great guy.

Welcome, Sean.

A. Walker: To continue the welcome to my good friend Sean Wood, he’s a former

federal Green Party candidate, a former Parksville volunteer firefighter.

Now as a city councillor, he’s able to continue championing for first

responders in his community, for the environment and to continue to build

community.

Would the House again make Mr. Sean Wood feel very welcome.

Hon. G. Lore: I recognize this is not technically to the letter of the law in

introductions, but I think there’s exactly one nine-year-old who watches

this place, and that’s my daughter Eve, and it’s her birthday

today.

[1:40 p.m.]

She follows this place so closely. She asked if I thought I could get

Mr. Speaker to sing “Happy Birthday,” so I may stop by your office

later.

Would the House please join me in wishing her a happy

birthday.

Deputy Speaker: Well, happy birthday to Eve.

I see….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Oh, there he is.

Member for Maple Ridge–Mission.

B. D’Eith: Well, thank you very much, hon. Speaker. If the House will indulge me

a bit, we have a number of people here for creative industry day, and I did

want to say a number of them are in the House right now.

I want to welcome Gemma Martini, who’s the board chair of MPPIA and

the CEO of Martini Film Studios.

Hans Dayal from the Directors Guild of Canada and a production

manager.

Haydn Wazelle is the CEO of ZedDrive.

Kendrie Upton is the executive director of the Directors Guild of

Canada B.C.

Lindsay Donovan, who’s VP of sales for Encore Vancouver.

Mary Jo Beirnes, the director of studios at MBS Equipment Co.

Canada.

Paul Klassen, executive director of the British Columbia Council of

Film Unions.

Pete Mitchell, president of Vancouver Film Studios.

Spencer Kent, executive in charge of Industrial Light and

Magic.

Tracey Friesen, managing vice-president of the Canadian Media

Producers, B.C. branch.

Michael Walbrecht, who’s come all the way from Los Angeles, is the

vice-president of Warner Bros. Entertainment.

Crystal Braunwarth is the business representative of IATSE Local

And of course, the entertainment lawyers who make all the films and

work, I must say — sorry, guys — Jeevyn Dhaliwal, KC, and Larlee

Rosenberg.

Will the House please make all the creative industry folks

welcome.

Hon. M. Dean: We have a new member in the press gallery here in the Legislature, a

new journalist, Mary Brooke, who I’ve known for a long time. She did a lot

of reporting out in the West Shore, and she currently does reporting on the

whole of the region. It’s nice to see her in the hallways here

today.

Would everyone please make her very welcome.

G. Kyllo: We’re certainly joined by somebody that’s not new to this place — a

good friend, a very dear friend of members on both sides of the House, Lynn

Klein. Lynn had a very long-standing, lifelong career with the B.C.

Ambulance Service. Lynn was also instrumental in working with former Speaker

Linda Reid in having the Fallen Paramedics Memorial unveiled on May 6,

Lynn is actually joined today by the provincial honour guard of the

EMS service, with members from across Canada for round-table discussions on

how they can be a better service to all Canadians. There’s a vigil happening

this evening at 7 p.m. at the Fallen Paramedics Memorial, and all members of

the House are invited.

Would all members please make Lynn feel very, very welcome.

Hon. B. Bailey: I want to follow in the footsteps of my colleague the Parliamentary

Secretary for Tourism, Arts and Culture to give a big welcome to all of

those that are here from the creative technology space. We are so blessed in

British Columbia. Our film industry, animation, video games, never mind

books and magazines, documentaries — many, many thousands of

jobs.

We thank you for that, and we thank you for the hours of

entertainment.

Deputy Speaker: And to anyone who hasn’t been welcomed yet, welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL P r 402 — ST. MARK’S COLLEGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

M. Dykeman presented a bill intituled St. Mark’s College Amendment

Act, 2023.

M. Dykeman: St. Mark’s College was incorporated pursuant to

an act to

incorporate St. Mark’s College, Statutes of British Columbia 1956,

chapter 68. The college seeks amendments to its act in preparation for a

merger with its affiliate, Corpus Christi College.

Specifically, the St. Mark’s College Amendment Act, 2023, includes

amendments to authorize the college to grant associate degrees under the

Degree Authorization Act, modernize the corporate powers and governance

of the college and make other incidental changes to the St. Mark’s

College Act.

Deputy Speaker: The question is first reading.

Motion approved.

[1:45 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 105, the bill shall stand referred to

the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct,

Standing Orders and Private Bills.

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

a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary

Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CREATIVE INDUSTRIES WEEK

AND FILM

INDUSTRY

B. D’Eith: It’s me again. I hope that everyone is enjoying Creative

Industries Week. We’re celebrating B.C. books, magazines, music, film,

television, animation, VFX and video games.

I was incredibly excited, as Parliamentary Secretary for Arts and

Film, to hear this afternoon about the $42 million in new funding to

Creative B.C. to ensure stability and growth in the creative industries,

including multi-year funding for the domestic film production fund,

Amplify B.C. and B.C. Books.

Today is the tenth National Canadian Film Day celebrating Canadian

cinema, so I want to just shine a spotlight on B.C.’s motion picture

industry. B.C. has a robust and thriving film industry and is one of the

largest motion picture hubs in Canada and North America. The strength of

this industry is B.C.’s mighty motion picture workforce that has an

estimated 200 B.C.-based independent producers and over 88,000 skilled

workers.

Now, film is a powerful medium to communicate truth and bridge

social connections. It also allows us to showcase our province to the

world. B.C. is recognized nationally and internationally as an ideal

location for filming, with its breathtaking landscapes, talented crews

and strong production and post-production infrastructure.

Our government is helping to secure B.C.’s enviable position

through competitive tax credits and grants that bring businesses to the

province and ensure a thriving domestic film industry. It’s an effort

that’s actually paid off. There’s a roster of high-level productions

that are currently filming in this province.

Most recently Vancouver was chosen as a location for season 2 of

The Last of Us — yeah — one of the biggest productions to

ever come to this province. This is one of the many thousands of success

stories for British Columbia.

Let’s recognize the National Canadian Film Day and celebrate our

B.C. motion picture industry.

ALICE OLSON

S. Bond: Well, she’s a World War II veteran, a mother of 11, a bingo

fanatic, and she has been a resident of Valemount, British Columbia, for

decades. Recently the Valemount community hall was jam-packed to

celebrate and honour Alice Olson on her 100th birthday, and what a

celebration it was. It was a room full of love for this amazing woman

who is a grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother. And

when you add up all the grands, it totals 67.

Alice is a very proud member of the Royal Canadian Legion. When

Branch 266 was built, Alice became a charter member of the Ladies

Auxiliary and over the years took on many executive roles. She played a

key role in fundraising, education bursaries, crib and dart tournaments,

catering for special events and, of course, dances.

Alice proudly wears her Legion uniform every Remembrance Day, and

her Canadian Women’s Army Corps uniform and military photos are on

display at the Valemount Royal Canadian Legion museum. Alice was given a

lifetime membership by the Valemount Legion.

So many stories were shared at Alice’s birthday party. One of her

granddaughters talked about how welcoming and warm her grandmother was

and still is. Nobody had to call ahead or make an appointment. If

someone arrived at dinner, another plate would be set on the table, no

questions asked.

She also said: “To this day, I’ve never heard my grandma talk down

about people. She treats everyone with dignity and respect. Just don’t

be loud or talk too much during bingo.”

It was such an honour to be part of a very special birthday

celebration for a woman who has served her country, loves her family and

is part of the fabric of Valemount and the Robson Valley.

Alice, you fill our hearts with gratitude and inspiration. In the

year ahead, we wish you good health, much happiness and many games of

bingo with family and friends.

Happy 100th birthday, Alice. I look forward to celebrating with

you again next year.

[1:50 p.m.]

STEVESTON HARBOUR

AND FISHING

COMMUNITY

K. Greene: Steveston Harbour is a vibrant fishing port. It hosts the largest

small craft commercial fishery in Canada, with over 500 fishing vessels

and thousands of direct and indirect fishing and maritime jobs on over

17.5 hectares in the heart of Steveston.

The public sales boats, where you can buy directly from fishers,

are what most folks think of when they think of fishing and Steveston,

but the harbour is so much more than that.

Fishing vessels are supported by important services offered on

site. The vessel repair area offers everything from welding at Bishop’s

Aluminum and Action Welding, through to rigging and hydraulics repairs

at Ocean Rigging and Hydraulics. Strait Marine operates 50- and 70-tonne

travel lifts to enable fishing and pleasure craft to be lifted out of

the water for repair.

Fishing vessels don’t just have to be in tip-top shape; they also

have to have good equipment. Pacific Quality Traps is a crab and prawn

trap manufacturer located on site, Pacific Net and Twine supplies

fishing equipment, and Tri-Core Plastics is a commercial tote

manufacturer.

With maritime insurance, a maritime school and wooden vessel

repairs and fabricators, Steveston Harbour serves the region.

Steveston Harbour Authority has worked hard to ensure that they

are supporting a vibrant fishing industry. That’s why they built the

Steveston ice plant in 2019, which supplies ice on a first-come,

first-served basis to all fishermen.

The success of the harbour and the fishing community means that

Steveston Seafood Auction, Coldfish Seafood and 7th Avenue Dock Inc.

collectively unload 50 million to 100 million pounds of seafood

annually.

Organic Ocean Seafood packages and distributes freshly caught B.C.

seafood to restaurants and the public across Canada.

But wait. That’s not all. Ocean Legacy Foundation is Canada’s only

marine plastics recycler, closing the loop with unusable fishing gear

like ropes, nets and floats.

I’d like to thank Steveston Harbour Authority for building a

regional harbour that supports fishing, the maritime economy and,

importantly, community.

And remember, don’t feed the sea lions.

EAGLE VALLEY SENIOR CITIZENS

HOUSING

SOCIETY

G. Kyllo: During the ongoing housing crisis, we must take it upon ourselves

to support those that need help the most, including our seniors. I’m

honoured to speak today about the Eagle Valley Senior Citizens Housing

Society.

This Shuswap organization is very close to my heart. I’m excited

to share with you some of the amazing work that they’ve been doing

within our community.

The Eagle Valley Senior Citizens Housing Society is a non-profit

organization that offers housing services to seniors and people living

with disabilities. Their goal is to promote independence, dignity and

wellness in a safe and secure environment. They offer three levels of

housing, including the Haven, the Lodge and the Manor, all within

walking distance of each other, in beautiful downtown

Sicamous.

While the Eagle Valley housing society works with stakeholders to

develop new seniors housing solutions, they also make it a priority to

keep their current housing units livable for residents. One example is

the recent renovations of some of the one-bedroom units at the Haven

with cable, heat and water services, making more comfortable and

convenient living situations for their senior residents.

What’s particularly heartwarming about this renovation project is

that it was made possible by volunteers of the Eagle Valley Rescue

Society, who have given their time and shared their tools to help with

the renovations. This is a wonderful example of community members coming

together to support one another.

The Eagle Valley Senior Citizens Housing Society is an incredibly

important organization within Sicamous. Their work is vital to ensuring

that seniors and people living with disabilities have access to safe and

affordable housing.

I encourage all members of this House to support their work

however they can.

Please join me in thanking the Eagle Valley Senior Citizens

Housing Society for the amazing work they do within the community of

Sicamous.

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE

AGAINST WOMEN

WEEK

K. Paddon: I rise today to talk about Prevention of Violence Against Women

Week. This week recognizes that gender-based violence, or GBV, is an

ongoing problem that deserves the attention of everyone and that we must

all work together to end violence against people based on their

gender.

Gender-based violence, or GBV, is any violence that is committed

against someone based on their gender identity, gender expression or

perceived gender. GBV includes any form of violence or intimidation that

is physical, psychological, sexual, financial, cultural or spiritual in

nature.

GBV disproportionately impacts women, girls, Indigenous people,

2SLGBTQIA+, non-binary and gender-nonconforming folks.

GBV happens everywhere. It can happen at home, school, work,

religious or cultural centres, urban or rural communities — any income

level, anyone. At its foundation, GBV is based on gender inequality and

is an abuse of power.

[1:55 p.m.]

There are many gender-based violence service providers in

communities across our province. Some of these organizations also have

resources for friends, family members and loved ones of those who may be

experiencing violence.

Gender-based violence is everyone’s business, and it’s important

to know the signs. If someone you know is withdrawing from contact with

their family and friends, if they have unexplained injuries, if they

have changed their behaviours or routines, if they are fearful or upset

about their abuser, please reach out for help.

Please be a safe space for somebody. Please believe

victims.

Some lesser known but equally important ways to get help are hand

signals, such as with your palm facing away from you, move your thumb

across and lower your fingers into a light fist. Or if you’re in a bar

and are worried about your safety, you can ask the bartender for an

angel shot, which is code for asking for help.

If you or someone you know is experiencing violence, it’s not your

fault. You can reach out to VictimLink at gov.bc.ca or call

1-800-563-0808.

CANCER FUNDRAISING BY SURREY

EAGLES BROADCASTER JOEY

PITT

T. Halford: We all know about blue chip prospects that exist in our hockey

system, whether it’s Connor Bedard or some of the others on our local

team.

I want to highlight one that is off the ice. It’s in my community

of South Surrey. That is our broadcaster of the Surrey Eagles, Joey

Pitt.

Now, Joey, over the last 33 months, has had some beautiful hair.

It was a mullet to be for the ages. It’s something that he started a

number of months ago.

There was a reason that he did this. He had a friend that was

diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. That friend’s name was Avery. He

said: “I joked with him. I said: ‘Hey, Avery. I’m going to grow my hair

out, and then shave it off and make a wig for you.’”

Joey’s friend Avery passed away last summer, just as Joey was

hired to start working for the Surrey Eagles. But what Joey did do is he

lived up to his word. He committed and he raised over $15,000 for Wigs

for Kids — $15,000, and that amount is still growing.

On March 19, the South Surrey Eagles hosted the Victoria

Grizzlies, and Joey got his head cut. He got trimmed, and he did it in

front of a sold-out audience.

I cannot say how proud our community is. Not only is this guy

going to be somewhere someday, whether it’s on Sportsnet or TSN; he will

be a broadcaster at the highest level, because he’s good at what he

does. More important than that, he is an exceptional human

being.

Joey, thank you for being such a strong pillar in our community,

and thank you for leading such a great initiative.

Deputy Speaker: I just wanted to ask that we consider our role here as role models

for people in our communities. While in our communities, we wouldn’t

accept shouting at each other or continually interrupting each other. I

don’t know that we should accept that here.

I just ask that you consider that in our work here

today.

Thank you, Members.

Oral Questions

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND REGULATION OF

ILLICIT

DRUG USE IN PUBLIC SPACES

K. Falcon: The Premier’s reckless decision to decriminalize hard drugs

without the proper guardrails has exposed our communities to open drug

use in public areas, in parks, beaches and playgrounds, without any

controls.

While simple activities like having a beer at your local public

park or using a plastic straw are tightly regulated, the Premier’s

policy allows completely uncontrolled consumption of lethal drugs like

crystal meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl. Neighbourhoods, as a result,

are being plagued by discarded drugs and drug paraphernalia, forcing

families to worry about their children stumbling upon needles in parks,

beaches and playgrounds.

Now municipalities, forced by this Premier’s policy to try and

manage this crisis alone, are trying to introduce bylaws, but they face

resistance from the provincial government and legal challenges from the

Premier’s friends at Pivot Legal Society.

[2:00 p.m.]

My question to the Premier is this. Since the Premier failed to

put guardrails on his decriminalization experiment, will he, at minimum,

support the bylaws for cities to protect children and families from

exposure to drugs at parks, beaches and playgrounds?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I thank the member for the question. I just want to go back to the

work that was done, in fact, to prepare for the process of

decriminalization and the exemption we received from Health Canada,

which was an answer to a call that had been made by municipalities, by

public health officials, by people on the front lines, by clinicians in

order to work towards destigmatizing drug use so we can better support

people in accessing care and support.

I want to remind all of us that that is the objective of

decriminalization, that is what was discussed as the objective by the

Select Standing Committee on Health, and that is what was supported by

all parties of this House, with the exception of the B.C. Conservative

Party, in moving forward with this.

I want to say that we, as we have committed to do, have been

working with all of our partners that represented on the table, that

contributed to the development of the application for the exemption and

that continue to meet to assist in the implementation and advise on the

implementation, including the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

We work closely with municipalities on issues and challenges that

they may be experiencing in their communities. I’ve met recently with

many municipalities, and I’m grateful for their collaboration as we move

to find solutions for their concerns.

K. Falcon: The problem is there was a federal letter of requirements that had

very specific things that were supposed to be in place called

guardrails, none that you have implemented. It was the Premier’s

decision to plunge ahead with this decriminalization without the proper

guardrails, which were supposed to be in place, that has exposed

families to open drug use in beaches, parks and playgrounds without any

controls whatsoever.

Just this morning, this very morning, we see parents like Andrea

Miller, whose daughter Everleigh found a packet of fentanyl at her

elementary school playground in Nanaimo.

No parent should have to live in fear for their child’s life

because they’re going to stumble across drugs and dangerous drugs like

fentanyl in their own playgrounds. No wonder communities like Penticton,

Kelowna, New Westminster, Kamloops and Campbell River are all trying to

at least put some controls in place.

Despite, again, the strict regulations that exist around enjoying

a beer in our beaches and parks, this Premier and the NDP’s

decriminalization policy allow uncontrolled use of hard drugs like

crystal meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl in beaches, parks and

playgrounds.

My question is a straightforward one. Is the Premier going to

continue siding with his own radical friends at Pivot Legal Society and

continue to allow the open use of drugs in beaches, parks and

playgrounds in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Whiteside: That characterization, I would suggest, is just simply wrong —

quite wrong, in fact. With respect to the exemption that we received

from Health Canada, our government has been working very hard to ensure

that we are working and scaling up supports across the entire continuum

when it comes to harm reduction, to treatment, to prevention, to

education.

As part of our work leading up to decriminalization, we worked to

expand treatment and recovery. We engaged with stakeholders and with

Indigenous partners, conducted education and outreach campaigns. We

worked closely with front-line police officers.

I’ll remind folks that this, of course, has the support of the

police chiefs of Canada and local police chiefs. We had over 9,000

police officers in the province engage in the education activity and

modules leading up to decrim.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’m very grateful, again, for the work of partners like school

districts and municipalities, who are responding to issues that may

occur. I’ve met with municipalities and will continue to meet with

municipalities to address concerns.

I want to remind British Columbians that the support every single

party in this House gave to the suite of measures, including

decriminalization, in the standing committee report last year is

critical…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Members. One person has the floor.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …to dealing with a serious public health crisis that we all have

an obligation to work towards solving in this province.

T. Stone: The decriminalization measures that the minister speaks of that

supposedly are doing such a great job of protecting the public…. I can

tell you this much. Andrea Miller, whose daughter found a packet of

fentanyl at an elementary school in Nanaimo, sure doesn’t think that the

government is doing everything it can to put the guardrails in place

that were promised.

Communities right across this province are trying to step up and

fill the leadership void left by this Premier.

Campbell River tried to regulate consumption in their community,

only to be forced to abandon it after the province, through Island

Health, frustrated their efforts, and they faced a legal challenge from

the Premier’s Pivot Legal Society.

Local governments in Penticton, Sicamous, Kelowna and Kamloops are

all facing the exact same obstacle, opposition from this government,

only this time, it’s through Interior Health.

After Kamloops voted to bring in bylaw amendments that banned the

use of illicit drugs in all public parks and facilities, guess what.

They very promptly received a letter from Interior Health telling them

to hold off on enacting bylaws for six months so “we can allow staff to

monitor the situation to determine if there is in fact an increase in

public drug use.” Seriously.

We don’t need six more months to see what’s happening in our

communities due to this government’s policies. It’s chaos and social

disorder everywhere. Council sees that. The public sees that. It seems

the only people that don’t see that is the Premier and this

government.

The question is this. Why is the Premier siding with his old

radical activist friends at Pivot Legal and, at the same time,

obstructing local communities from banning the consumption of crystal

meth, crack cocaine or fentanyl in public spaces like parks and

playgrounds?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I might just say that I am grateful for the somewhat more measured

tone from some of our municipal colleagues with respect to a crisis that

we all have a stake in working together to address.

We are working with police officers, with municipalities, with

health authorities, with public health and with front-line service

providers in order to address a public health emergency that, as we

know, results in the death of in excess of six people a day in this

province.

This is a very serious issue, and decriminalization was a very

important step that was called for by police, by municipalities, by

doctors, by public health and by front-line providers as one tool in a

very big toolbox. It was a measure that was agreed to by all parties in

this House, with the exception of the B.C. Conservative Party, in order

to try and make progress here.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Order.

Hon. J. Whiteside: We will continue to work with municipalities. In fact, I

understand that the Sicamous municipality bylaw has been passed. There

has been engagement with the medical health officer, and that’s what

municipalities are doing. They are engaging appropriately with their

medical health officers to determine what the local conditions are, what

the local issues are and what needs to be done. In Sicamous, they now

have a bylaw that I understand all parties are satisfied

with.

We will continue to do the work with municipalities to address

concerns as they arise on the ground on this very important public

health issue that cuts across, frankly, all lines here.

T. Stone: We will set the record straight once again. We seem to have to do

this every single day.

To be very, very clear, we supported decriminalization as long as

it was done in the context of the letter of requirements as provided by

the federal government.

Let’s be clear. Absent there being education, absent there being

appropriate treatment and supports for people, absent there being public

safety measures and absent there being those requirements in that

letter, this is a reckless policy this Premier and this government are

hurling British Columbians into.

[2:10 p.m.]

What local governments are saying is that there should, at the

very least, be similar regulations to ban the open consumption of

crystal meth, crack cocaine or fentanyl in parks, playgrounds and other

public spaces, as there is for, let’s say, alcohol.

It’s appalling that the Premier not only failed to implement such

obvious and necessary safeguards but is also actively preventing local

governments from implementing those steps. Kamloops councillor Sarai

says: “Every solution they come up with is to keep letting them use, and

we keep supplying them with material to use. But the aftermath is played

out on our city streets, in our city parks and in our playgrounds. That

has to change.”

We couldn’t agree more with Councillor Sarai. And what Kamloops

wants is the decrim guardrails that were promised by this Premier, and

they want leadership from this government. Kamloops councillor Katie

Neustaeter said: “What is the government’s plan? Tell us. In the absence

of that plan, you better believe that local decision-makers are going to

make decisions to hear the concerns of our community.”

The question is this. How can the Premier justify his inaction,

his obstruction, leaving our communities to face the dangerous

consequences of his reckless policy of decriminalization without the

guardrails and the public safety protections that he promised British

Columbians?

Hon. J. Whiteside: It is surprising what a difference a number of months make. When

the Health standing committee reviewed….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the minister listened to the question. I would respect

the minister, and let her answer the question as she will.

Hon. J. Whiteside: When the Select Standing Committee on Health reviewed this issue

as part of a number of recommendations with respect to the toxic drug

crisis in our province, there was unanimity at that table to support

moving forward…

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …with decriminalization and with our application for the

exemption.

Interjections.

[The Deputy Speaker rose.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, Members.

Please sit, Member.

Members, we will listen to the answer to the question. You do not

have to agree with it, just as they will listen to the question, and

they don’t always have to agree with the premise of the

question.

Please have respect for this chamber and for the public whose work

we are all supposed to be undertaking. Thank you.

[The Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Please proceed.

Hon. J. Whiteside: When the Health Select Standing Committee reviewed this issue, all

parties, all members at that table, were unanimous in their support,

with the exception of the B.C. Conservative Party.

And when we talk about the work that we have done in order to

prepare, we have invested in treatment and recovery programs. We have

expanded the number of beds. Hundreds of new treatment beds are open. We

have invested in community counselling. We have conducted outreach

campaigns. We have worked with our front-line police officers to ensure

that they are informed and educated. And we have had very excellent

feedback, frankly, from all of those engagements, including our

engagements with municipalities.

Now decriminalization does not change the ability of local

governments to pass or amend their bylaws. Clearly, as we’ve seen, there

is a bylaw that’s been adopted in Sicamous. They….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Whiteside: Can I finish, perhaps, with the answer to the question?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: No, it’s disrespectful. Listen to the minister.

[The Deputy Speaker rose.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, we have a way that we conduct question period. You ask a

question; they answer the question. It’s pretty basic. It’s how it

works. If you want to respect the process and have more opportunity to

ask questions, I would ask you to listen to the response, even if you

don’t agree with it.

[The Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to our engagement with municipalities,

representatives of municipal governments, including from Kamloops, have

been participating in our decriminalization core planning table since

its inception. Municipalities have been there since the

beginning.

We are committed to continuing to work closely with municipal

governments to address issues as they arise. We can see that this

process is working, as evidenced by the existence of the bylaw in

Sicamous.

That is the process that we are undertaking, and we commit to

continuing to do that work with our partners in the

municipalities.

[2:15 p.m.]

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF

INDUSTRY AND LOBBYING ON

ELK VALLEY POLLUTION ISSUE

S. Furstenau: For the last two days, my colleague has raised issues related to

regulation of industry in this province. It’s an issue that has been

raising flags for a long time.

In 2016, in her report on compliance and enforcement in B.C.’s

mining industry, the Auditor General warned about regulatory capture as

a risk in British Columbia, which is what occurs when the regulator

created to act in the public interest instead serves the interests of

industry.

At Mount Polley, B.C. had the largest mining disaster in Canadian

history.

We currently are home to the largest pollution of a watershed in

North America in the Elk Valley.

In my own community, a landowner quarried his property for ten

years without a mining permit. It took a community years to get the

Ministry of Mines to step in and regulate this mining

activity.

Now, on the same day that the former Premier stepped down as MLA,

he announced that he had taken a board position with one of the largest

mining companies in the world. This has raised serious and important

questions about the relationship between elected officials and industry

in this province.

To the Minister of Environment, did the former Premier have

conversations with him regarding whether to lobby the federal government

not to bring the Elk Valley pollution issue to the International Joint

Commission?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member makes, I think, a very serious allegation, because the

member knows, and was supportive of the lobbyists act that was

introduced by our government very early upon taking office, that any

elected official that held a post in executive council, any deputy

minister, is prohibited from lobbying members of the government for a

period of two years.

I would expect that the member has enough respect for the former

Premier to understand that he, having been leader of a government that

brought in such an important piece of legislation, would not violate

it.

The direct answer to your question is no.

Deputy Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I wasn’t making allegations; I’m asking questions.

In December of 2021, the federal government indicated that it was

considering referring Teck’s selenium pollution in the Elk Valley to the

International Joint Commission, the IJC, because this pollution is such

a long-standing issue. This company has had the largest environmental

fine in Canadian history.

In March of 2022, Teck wrote to the federal Minister of Foreign

Affairs requesting that pollution in the Elk Valley not be referred to

the IJC. Because of that lobbying legislation that was brought in under

the minority government, we know the lobbying that happened in this

building. Over the following days, Teck lobbied this government several

times.

On April 12, Teck lobbied the former Premier’s chief of staff, the

deputy ministers of the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of

Energy and Mines. The subject of their discussion was: “Provincial-U.S.

transboundary matters.”

Two days later, according to FOI’d documents, the Minister of

Environment and the former Minister of Energy and Mines wrote to the

federal Minister of Foreign Affairs requesting that pollution from

Teck’s operations in the Elk Valley not be referred to the International

Joint Commission.

Teck’s last meeting with the former Premier was on October 11,

2022. On November 18, the former Premier stepped down. By December, he

was discussing with Teck a board appointment with their spinoff company,

Elk Valley Resources.

A powerful corporation lobbied this government 47 times since

January 2022. The government…

Deputy Speaker: Is there a question, member?

[2:20 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: …then lobbied on behalf of Teck to the federal government to not

refer the issue of Teck’s pollution of the Elk Valley to the

International Joint Commission.

My question is to the former Minister of Energy and Mines and the

current Minister of Forests. Did the former Premier have conversations

with him regarding whether to lobby the federal government not to bring

the Elk Valley pollution issue to the International Joint

Commission?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’ve answered the question, I thought, quite clearly for the

member. Members of government regularly meet with lobbyists from

corporations and with lobbyists from environmental organizations.

Surprisingly, they don’t always agree. But not surprisingly, members of

government, whether they are members of cabinet or deputy ministers or

ADMs or executive directors, consider a whole range of important

options, fact and policy considerations in making decisions.

In the case of Teck and the water quality issues as a result of

selenium, there has been ongoing discussion with the nations on either

side of the border, with the corporation, with citizens in the area and

with governments south of the border as well as with academics south of

the border about science-based water quality guidelines.

Those conversations continue. We have recently set up an extremely

transparent website to inform anyone who is interested, on either side

of the border, in the progression of efforts to effectively treat water

quality for which, by the near future, Teck will have spent $2 billion

to address.

It is true that their initial efforts were not adequate. That’s

why there were escalating financial penalties from both the federal

government and the provincial government that were huge. Those penalties

send a message. Our actions to address water quality send a

message.

We will continue working with people on both sides of the border

as well as with Teck and now Elk Valley to address water quality issues

to ensure that the rights of the Ktunaxa nations are protected and the

water quality in the area comes up to a standard that everybody

expects.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND REGULATION OF

ILLICIT

DRUG USE IN PUBLIC SPACES

S. Bond: I stand to correct the record, as the Deputy Chair of the standing

committee on Health. I want to make it absolutely clear to this minister

and members on that side of the House.

First of all, she was not in the room during the deliberations. I

will be perfectly clear. We fought and made it very clear that the

letter of requirements before moving ahead was absolutely essential. We

raised those concerns. Our support was contingent on the fact that this

government did what the federal government told them they had to

do.

Frankly, this minister knows full well that those requirements

have not been met. In fact, one of those key requirements is to ensure

that individuals who desire treatment or other supports can access them

when needed. She knows full well that that is simply not possible in the

region that I live in or most regions of this province.

This minister needs to correct the record. She needs to answer,

once and for all, today: will she support municipalities who want to

make sure that there is not open drug use in parks and on beaches, yes

or no?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Again, I thank the member for the concern. I’m grateful for the

member’s participation in the select standing committee.

With respect to the requirements of Health Canada, Health Canada

granted the exemption. We are regularly in touch with Health Canada.

They approved the exemption. They’re aware of the work that we are

doing.

Frankly, we know that having inherited a system — well, a lack of

a system, a fragmented collection of services — when we formed

government, the work that we’ve been doing since 2017 is to build that

system — an integrated system of mental health and addictions care in

our health care system.

[2:25 p.m.]

We, in this budget, have allocated $1 billion, an unprecedented

amount of money, to build up services across the entire continuum, from

harm reduction to treatment and recovery to community counselling

services to child and youth mental health — $75 million for expanding

the Foundry system.

That is the commitment that we are making to build a system where

a system did not exist, and that is work that we outlined….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. Order.

This is your time. If you want more

questions, you’ll stop the interruptions and let the minister finish

their question.

Thank you, Minister.

Hon. J. Whiteside: In the context of an unrelenting public health emergency that is

the toxic drug crisis, we have to do all of the things at the same time.

We are morally bound, ethically bound to ensure we work to keep people

alive while we can connect them to supports and services. That is the

critical task that was explored by the Health standing committee that

produced a very helpful set of recommendations that we are working on,

that were part of the plan that our Pathway to Hope, a ten-year mental

health strategy, was based on in 2018.

We will continue to work with municipalities. We will continue to

do that work. We will continue to support municipalities and address any

concerns that arise over the course of the implementation of our

decriminalization program.

E. Sturko: We’ll take that as a no. The Premier’s negligence and plunging

ahead with decriminalization without doing the work or putting in the

guardrails is unleashing chaos, and municipalities are left to fend for

themselves.

Municipalities like New Westminster and Kelowna say there need to

be provincial rules to avoid a patchwork of inconsistent responses to

decriminalization, which creates confusion for the public and challenges

for front-line enforcement.

Why won’t the Premier ban public use of high-risk drugs like

crystal meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl and give the police a tool to

direct individuals to use harm reduction sites and into

treatment?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you to the member for the question. Of course, the police

have been part of this process since the beginning. The application to

help Canada for decriminalization was generated, in part, as a response

to a call from police chiefs across the country. We work very closely

with law enforcement. They are part of our core planning table. They

were part of the development of our application for the exemption to

Health Canada, and they are part of the work that we’re doing

now.

We are in constant contact with law enforcement, as we are with

municipalities and all of our other partners in this important project.

We had over 9,000 police officers engage in the education training

around decriminalization. I’m very grateful for the important work that

they’re doing to connect people that they engage with to care and

support.

This work is ongoing. It takes a sort of a whole village approach

to this work, and we’re going to continue to do this work in partnership

with municipalities.

P. Milobar: Frankly, the answers today have simply not been accurate from this

minister on a wide range of fronts. The reality is, as we’ve heard with

the letter’s requirements, that much of the work was not done. In fact,

something as simple as a basic data set, what was supposed to be

collected over the year preceding decriminalization, has not been done

by this government either.

Yet you’re telling communities to wait six months to see what the

impact is. What are they comparing it to? The work on the data set

wasn’t done. When things that basic aren’t done, it’s no wonder the

communities are desperately trying to find a way to pass bylaws to try

to restrict the use in parks and playgrounds of things like fentanyl and

crack cocaine to the same level that cigarettes and beer are

banned.

Now, this minister, earlier, seemed to indicate that

municipalities are free to pass those bylaws if they choose, yet our

understanding is those bylaws actually have to be signed off by the

provincial government, by the Minister of Health, by the Minister of

Mental Health and Addictions.

Can the minister of Mental Health and Addictions state very

clearly for the record: are municipalities going to be allowed to pass

these bylaws if they choose, and the provincial government will not

stand in their way?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: As I think I’ve said a number of times over the course of this

discussion, the project of decriminalization is an important project

that came as a response to a call from police, from municipalities, from

front-line physicians, from our health authorities and was supported by

all parties in this House, with the exception of the B.C. Conservative

Party.

We have met the requirements set out by Health Canada. We are in

constant contact with Health Canada with regard to the evolution of the

project, and we work closely every day with municipalities.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Order.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I will say that I’m very grateful for the constructive

conversations that I have had with many municipalities over the last

couple of months as we work towards addressing any concerns that may

arise. We’ll continue to do that work.

[End of question period.]

D. Davies: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Davies: This is more to embarrass my daughter. Would the House make my

daughter feel welcome, Hana Davies.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, can we have some order so we can hear what’s coming up

next.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 41 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 41 — MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO

FINANCE

COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 41 with respect to the membership on the Select

Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, standing in my

name on the order paper.

[That Henry Yao replace Brittny Anderson as a

member of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government

Services.]

Motion approved.

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

for the Ministry of Housing.

In committee room A, I call continued debate in Committee of

Supply for the Ministry of Transportation.

In committee room C, I call continued debate on the Ministry of

Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation. When that completes, the

Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions will begin.

Deputy Speaker: We will take a short recess in order to get the appropriate people

into the appropriate places.

The House recessed at 2:32 p.m.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HOUSING

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Leonard in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon. I call Committee of Supply,

Section B, to

order.

I recognize the minister to move the vote.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Great to be back for another day.

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

(continued) .

[2:40 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the Chair, and thank you to the minister. Welcome

back, and welcome back to your team. We were in the middle of speaking

about co-op when things wrapped.

I do have a question just to revisit — a clarification. The

minister said yesterday $1.36 billion over ten years was available for

co-ops. This is to apply. So that was…. Just so I understand, it’s the

whole basket of money for housing. So co-ops would then need to compete

against other housing projects in order to be able to secure

funds.

Can the minister confirm how much will be dedicated, and if any

will be dedicated specifically, to revitalizing co-ops?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The dollar amount is available for not-for-profits and co-ops to

apply. They’re competing against not-for-profits. I think I gave the

number amount for how many years it’s available. Of course, we’ve funded

co-op projects through that in the past and certainly hope to see good

projects come forward again.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister explain to me how there can be a housing plan

with goals attached to it if this global number of $1.36 billion doesn’t

have any targets set with respect to different types of housing, such as

co-op housing? I would anticipate that somewhere within ministry, there

would be an indication or a target in terms of how much co-op dollars

will be available.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m sure the member is aware that the community housing fund is an

application-based fund. So we have applications that come from co-ops

and not-for-profits. When assessing which projects go through, we assess

community needs. We assess the need to build housing in all parts of the

province. As I highlighted yesterday, that part of our homes for people

strategy is to have a strategy around co-ops specifically.

But right now the dollars are available. Co-ops have been funded

in the past, and they can continue to apply for funds here as

well.

K. Kirkpatrick: The NDP housing plan pledges to revitalize — I said this yesterday

— co-op housing. There’s also a reference to growing the sector. The

minister just referenced, again, a strategy with respect to co-op. I am

somewhat perplexed not to have specific dollars actually dedicated to

that. But perhaps it will help if the minister can define what is meant

by revitalizing and growing the sector with respect to co-op

housing.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll refer directly to the words in the strategy. “The province

will work with co-op stakeholders and other partners to reinvigorate the

co-op housing sector.” We didn’t say in the strategy that we have a plan

today and that we’re going to announce it. We said we’re going to work

with them, and that’s the work we’re going to do.

[2:45 p.m.]

It’s going to require working with the federal government. A lot

of the co-ops were built under the federal government. But we have to

find a way to work together to move forward, and that’s the commitment

in the strategy.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I will take from that that it is still

relatively vague and there is a lot of work to be done in order to be

able to revitalize co-op as a viable option for affordable

housing.

Yesterday we talked about the purchase of land near transit. We

had discussed a number that was in table 1.2.2, “Investing in affordable

and attainable housing.” I understand from the minister that the $83

million — I’m just dealing with the one year at this point — which is

under the line item “Transit-oriented development” is specific for MOTI

to be able to purchase land in those areas.

As there is a commitment in the plan saying that this money is to

help deliver up to 10,000 units, can the minister explain to me where

the dollars are for the actual housing on that land?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A couple of things. Again, it will be no surprise to the member

that I don’t agree with her summarizing what she thought I said. I

prefer the record to show what I said, which is what’s in the actual

housing plan, which says that the province will work with co-op

stakeholders and other partners to reinvigorate the co-op housing

sector, working with the federal government in particular. That’s to say

that we already have co-ops being built.

On top of that, the member knows, because we talked about it

yesterday, that we also have the rental acquisition fund, which is half

a billion dollars that will go to a society that is built in partnership

with the B.C. Co-op Association, the not-for-profit and the Aboriginal

Management Housing Association. The Co-op Association, the reason why

they’re excited — again, I don’t want to go into the quotes from them —

is because they see an opportunity to reinvigorate and grow the co-op

sector.

[2:50 p.m.]

That is part of it, but we know we have more work to do. That’s

going to require conversation.

Now to the member’s question…. Again, the $395 million is to

purchase land. It’s in MOTI. I suspect the member can ask those

questions.

The member also knows that development takes years. Let’s say, for

example, the money, the $83 million, is for this year. They’re going to

go purchase it later this year. We could still not see development on it

for four, five, six, seven years. So it’s hard to book dollars when just

buying the land is important. That’s what we’re trying to do

here.

For too long, our public lands were sold. I think there’s an

understanding now that public lands should never be sold by government

again — not to private developers, not to anyone — for many reasons. We

have to build hospitals, and we have to build housing.

One of the things I want to clarify…. The member said 10,000

units. The strategy says 3,000 units within the next ten years. There

was just a little mixup there. It is, over ten years, 3,000

units.

We expect these units to be booked in probably year 4, year 5,

year 6. We still have to purchase the land. We still have to look at

what the development opportunities are around it. In the meantime, if

land gets purchased and there’s an opportunity….

There will be opportunities in, of course, the community housing

fund, if we can move it much quicker than that. There will be

opportunities in the existing HousingHub fund, which is there right now,

if we can move things quicker. Of course, we’ve got build B.C., which

we’ll have more details on later this year. It will also provide

opportunities for us to build on government-owned lands.

There will be plenty of opportunity. Fundamentally, at the

beginning, is the core need to buy land.

I shared this yesterday, but I’ll put it on the record again. For

decades, we had legislation in place in British Columbia which precluded

the government from buying land beyond what was needed just for a

SkyTrain station. I think it was shortsighted. Looking back at it now, I

can say that. I’m sure there was a reason for that thinking, originally,

when they bought it. That means that we had SkyTrain lines built, and we

couldn’t build housing around it. We couldn’t build health care around

it. We couldn’t build child care around it.

We changed that law last year. That has now enabled us to use the

$395 million, which we’ve dedicated for buying land, that is excess to

the amount that’s needed for the actual SkyTrain line or the frequent

transit area. It’s unlocking a new opportunity for us, which is

great.

I do want to clarify that it was 3,000 units over the next ten

years, starting this year.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I do thank you for that clarification. I had switched those two

numbers.

Yesterday we spoke about the strata age restrictions in Bill 44.

We seemed to be at cross-purposes when we were talking about this. I’m

not sure if we were just misunderstanding each other. I went away and

broke this down into some more specific questions that I’m hoping will

provide a bit more clarity in terms of what I’m looking for

here.

In the past decade, it has been…. I think a good guess would be

that one to two existing strata corporations converted to 55-plus every

year. Now 230 stratas have converted in the past four months, which is

the same amount of time since Bill 44 has been in effect.

Can the minister admit that this significant increase in

conversions to 55-plus is a direct result of the introduction of Bill

44?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I don’t think yesterday was a failure for each of us to

understand. I think it was more a failure to agree. We can go over this

multiple times, and I’m happy to do that. The time is the

member’s.

Fundamentally, if a building moves to 55 and over, and 230 out of

33,000 went in that direction…. What that means is that those units will

still be available for rent but to people who are 55 and over. We spent

the first day here in estimates talking about the need, especially with

seniors, around housing.

[2:55 p.m.]

Our goal with the strategy around that legislation was to ensure

that rentals will be available. There were a lot of rules precluding

renters from being there.

I know some members of the opposition suggested fear around

renters living near them. I won’t go to the quotes; I can bring them

out. The idea was to ensure that rentals will be available in all

buildings so that we can unlock all the potential we have.

Now, some strata corps thought by moving to 55-plus that somehow

they could stop rentals in their building. That is false. If they go to

55-plus, it means there are still rentals available. It just means it

has to be for 55 and over. The core reason why we ensured the 55-plus

was because the seniors advocate advocated that it was an important

piece.

Yesterday we had this exchange. We’ll have it again today. The

suggestion that that is a problem is a suggestion that, perhaps, the

55-plus should be removed. The member shared with me yesterday that she

didn’t think that was something that they agreed with, and that’s

something the seniors advocate has made for us.

Again, it was not a…. In fairness to the member, it wasn’t because

she wasn’t explaining her question well, and it wasn’t because I wasn’t

giving the answer well. It’s just a fundamental disagreement on the

premise of the question.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. The question that I just asked is if

the minister believes that an increase from one or two per year, over

the last few decades, of conversions to 55-plus versus 230 conversions

to 55-plus in the last four months is a result of Bill 44.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Strata corps have the right, at any time, to move to 55-plus. It’s

not my place to say if that’s right or wrong. Strata corps have that

right to do so under the law right now. Again, that is more units that

will be available to people who are 55-plus.

K. Kirkpatrick: Prior to Bill 44, many stratas without age restrictions — so these

are stratas that didn’t have age restrictions — did allow minimum

numbers of units to be rented. Sometimes it would be up to a maximum of

25 percent of the overall rentals in the building. These units would

have been available for rent or for purchase for families and

individuals of any age. Importantly, also, this is good affordable

housing for young people to be able to purchase.

Because of the 230 strata conversions to 55…. I would like the

minister to confirm that he understands and agrees that rental housing

stock has been reduced for people under 55 because of this.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can confirm for the member that 2,800 owners of strata units

claimed the speculation and vacancy tax exemption. So 2,800 units were

not being rented, for whatever reason, in a strata building. And I can

confirm for the member that the legislation where we made the change now

makes all 2,800 of those units available for rent.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will the minister confirm that the average number of units in a

strata is 30 and that 230 times 30 is 6,900, which is far in excess of

the 2,800 units that the minister said Bill 44 was meant to

create?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The 6,900 units the member mentions are all available for someone

to rent.

K. Kirkpatrick: I believe the minister does not understand what I am asking. The

6,900 units are now, whether they were available previously or not, no

longer available as rental units for anyone under the age of

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m very aware of what the member said. I do

understand.

What I’m saying is…. All those units are available for renters. I

mean, we spent the first day talking about the need for seniors to have

housing. There’s a growing demographic. I don’t understand what we’re

debating here.

[3:00 p.m.]

I shared with the member that 2,800 strata unit owners claimed the

speculation and vacancy tax. They owned a unit that was sitting empty,

and they claimed an exemption because they were not allowed to rent it.

Now what I’m saying is that every single unit under a strata corporation

in this province must be available for renting. Some, yes, were for

55-plus and some for everyone else, but they’re all available for

rent.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will the minister confirm, then, that the intent of Bill 44 was to

create seniors housing?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The intent of the legislation was to ensure that every unit that

is available be available for people to rent.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will the minister confirm that during committee stage on Bill 44,

the opposition critic at the time, who has just joined me here, asked

the Minister of Housing at the time if this legislation would cause a

number of stratas to convert to 55-plus. The minister said no, that he

was not concerned about this. It was too difficult for stratas to

organize, and this wouldn’t happen.

Does the minister admit that this was actually a miscalculation

and that the extraordinary number of stratas who, out of fear, are now

converting to 55-plus, was not, in fact, anticipated or the intention of

the legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Extraordinary amount: 230 out of 33,000. Two hundred and thirty.

That’s only one zero. All those units are available for

rental.

I think it’s important to go back again. We had 2,800 units.

That’s billions of dollars, if we were trying to build that supply in

the market right now. We had 2,800 units where people said: “I would

love to rent my property. It’s empty. But I can’t because strata rules

preclude me from renting it.” So there are more rental spaces now

available for seniors, people who are 55-plus, but there are 2,800 — at

least, minimum — units that are available for everyone.

Beyond that, there are also units now where people are living in

them, and they can actually have a roommate. I know of someone who had

that situation, where they were struggling, and they were able to bring

a roommate in. The member is asking if I think this policy is a failure.

There are 2,800 additional units on the market for rent. I think that’s

a success.

K. Kirkpatrick: I understood that the minister has just said that those 2,800

units that are back on the market are available for all people to rent,

but I would like him to please confirm how many of those 2,800 are in

55-plus restricted buildings.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, that 55-plus people rent may be breaking news to people in

this place, but yes, they do rent. Those units will be available, in

some cases, to people who are 55-plus, and, in some cases, to

everyone.

K. Kirkpatrick: Yesterday the minister said that he had received legal advice on

when and how the forensic audit for B.C. Housing could be released. As

the audit has still not been released, could the minister give the

specific legal reasons why it has not been released by this

time?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The process for release of this information is stipulated by the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The act includes a

requirement that a public body must give sufficient notice to third

parties before the release of information.

I confirmed for the member on day one that I met with the Privacy

Commissioner, not only to share my initial thoughts of the release of

the document, but also giving the commissioner an understanding of how

we’re ensuring that this important piece is followed.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Can the minister confirm, however, what

the legal advice was that he was provided yesterday, confirming that

legal counsel had provided advice on the release of this information,

and on what basis has it not yet been released?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s that a public body must give sufficient notice to a third

party before the release of the information.

K. Kirkpatrick: Interesting that the legal advice would simply be something read

out of FOIPPA.

Section 25 does allow discretion from government in terms

of releasing information which is in the public’s best interest. There

are no stipulated timelines, as the minister knows, in terms of what is

sufficient.

Am I to understand that the legal advice which was provided to the

minister was simply a paragraph out of FOIPPA?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Decisions of this sort are guided by FOIPPA. In this case, as I

have repeated many times, it’s critically important that we follow

FOIPPA. That includes a requirement that a public body must give

sufficient notice to third parties before the release of

information.

K. Kirkpatrick: We can stand here and debate what “sufficient” is and all of those

other things, but I will leave that at this point.

I’m wondering if the minister will let us know who those third

parties are that have been notified.

Hon. R. Kahlon: No. I cannot at this time.

K. Kirkpatrick: There was, fairly recently, a large exodus of employees from B.C.

Housing. It was significant. Actually, it wasn’t even through FOI

documents. I believe it was public to find where the exit interviews of

a number of people…. Morale has never been as low.

Will the minister allow that we can draw a conclusion that that

large exodus of employees and the bad morale is related to the forensic

audit?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member certainly doesn’t need me to allow anyone in this place

to draw whatever conclusions they want.

I would say that the nature of coming out of the pandemic has been

such where it doesn’t matter if you’re talking to public sector, if

you’re talking to private sector, if you’re talking to companies

anywhere. People have moved. People have found opportunities. New people

have come to B.C. Housing.

I think what’s key is that the people that we have at B.C. Housing

are phenomenal. I have had the opportunity of meeting so many amazing

people at B.C. Housing. The work they do, their commitment to ensuring

that people have housing…. I mean, every MLA in this House has been in a

situation where somebody needed something quick — somebody needed to be

housed — and they’ve been in contact with B.C. Housing to be able to

best support people. That’s the work these people do.

Yes, some people leave. Yes, some great people come. That’s the

nature of employers and employment relationships.

I would say that the new chair and the board have been doing

fantastic work, working with the team to ensure that we continue to

deliver but also address the issues that were highlighted in the first

Ernst and Young report. They have been enacting all those pieces. Those

key themes were important because we want to make sure that B.C. Housing

can continue to build the housing that we need, but do it in a better

way.

That’s why the information the member has is made public, because

we make these things public. Transparency is an important thing for

everyone.

Again, with this report, when we have gone through the due

diligence, it will be made public as well.

[3:10 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: There was nowhere in that exit interview where there was reference

made to the pandemic. There were many references made to things not

being organized, not having resources, mixed messaging and not having

appropriate access to HR. There were a whole number of things. I believe

that it is inappropriate or perhaps naive for the minister to describe

that as kind of a natural workforce turnover.

I also know a number of amazing people at B.C. Housing. I

completely agree with the minister that there are fabulous people there

doing great work. They need to be supported, and they need to be

supported with the right tools in order to be able to do that work. I’ve

worked with a number of those folks before. There are some great folks

there.

B.C. NDP right now is standing in the way of permitting tiny

homes. Why did the province not endorse the UBCM resolution NR21,

calling for action on permitting tiny homes?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I notice that the member, in her question, said the B.C. NDP

specifically. Well, I want to share with the member that the B.C.

Liberal — United, whatever the names are going to be — did a review of

this in 2016, a comprehensive review of barriers to tiny homes. It was

completed with the national building code.

At the time, the province said that there wasn’t enough. They

recommended not to make any amendments to the building code. I think if

the question is: “Can we find ways to enable this?” I’m happy to have

that conversation. If the suggestion is that somehow the B.C. NDP didn’t

do it, I think that that would be false.

K. Kirkpatrick: I understand, thank you, what the minister is saying.

Times have changed. We now have a request from UBCM. Does not

providing support contradict the B.C. Housing research centre’s white

paper Tiny Homes — An Alternative to Conventional Housing ? Does

government not want to support that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I mentioned, in 2016, a review was done. Of course, whenever

requests come from local governments, we continue to find ways to look

to see how we can accommodate them. But I think the member could agree

that safety is going to be number one. The B.C. building code

establishes minimum life-safety measures, such as structural integrity,

smoke alarms, means of egress, ventilation, health measures and

plumbing. Reducing or removing these measures for any building type

compromises health and safety for British Columbians.

I appreciate the member’s advocacy. I appreciate the advocacy from

some local governments. We are doing a review of it. But there was a

reason why the previous government in 2016 didn’t do it. I suspect it

was around safety, because those are the concerns that come up now. If

we can find a way to ensure public safety and have tiny homes, of

course, it would be a great thing. But that work has to happen. A lot of

our work happens at a national level. We work with our national partners

on the building code and where research is at.

[3:15 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Tiny homes and manufactured homes are built to the highest quality

and standard. Safety issues and concerns — there have been so many

advancements in the manufacture of tiny homes. I think it would be

short-sighted to not consider these as a viable option for addressing

affordable housing.

Will the minister consider designating tiny homes as an allowable

dwelling unit and a viable topology to address the missing middle, which

can assist in delivering affordable home ownership and increase rental

options across B.C.?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have to say that I do find it a little ironic that the

opposition won’t support small-scale multi-unit homes but are

encouraging us to build tiny homes. I’ll leave that aside for

now.

I will say to the member that the B.C. building code establishes

minimum life-safety measures such as structural integrity, smoke alarms,

means of egress and ventilation, and health measures like plumbing.

Reducing or removing these measures compromises health and safety of the

building occupants.

Now, it’s important to note the building code has no limit on how

small a house can be built, provided that it meets the minimum standards

for protection of people and protection of the environment. It’s

important to note that several manufacturers in B.C. have actually

successfully designed and installed tiny homes that meet the safety

standards of the B.C. building code.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister explain the comment about not supporting

small-scale multi-unit homes? Perhaps that was something prior to my

being here, but I certainly have never had this discussion with

anyone.

Hon. R. Kahlon: On the record, the Leader of the Opposition has said that our

changes to allow single-family homes to go to three and up to four units

is not something that he supports. If the member wants articles where

the leader is quoted, I certainly can pass that along.

K. Kirkpatrick: I don’t understand how the minister could draw that conclusion in

order to be able to say something as clear as: “Our party doesn’t

support small-scale multi-unit homes.”

The example given is our asking questions about the upzoning to

fourplexes on single-family lots. This has nothing to do with that. It

is simply looking at making sure that everything is being considered,

the impacts are being considered.

I would actually ask, and I’ll have to look for the Chair’s

guidance on this, that the minister withdraw that. I believe that to be

a misleading statement.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s on the record, multiple times, where the Leader of the

Opposition has said that he doesn’t support the direction the province

is going on small-scale multi-units. He’s said it on radio. He’s said it

on TV. If the member wants me to get my staff to pull articles where

he’s raising issues around this, I certainly can share that.

[3:20 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: I can assure the minister that I have staff looking that up right

now, and we’ll return to that.

Over a year ago, the Premier promised to address the issue of rent

increases for families with newborns. He was the Housing Minister, and

he was asked about the Nanaimo resident Patrick Marston receiving a $100

rent increase notice due to the birth of his second child. The Premier

responded to the situation, calling it bizarre, and promised amendments

to the law but has failed to deliver those amendments now. Victoria

Walsh and her partner have now had a 20 percent rent increase because

their baby was considered an additional tenant.

If the minister can explain why this was not followed up on,

though promised, to address the concern. This has been a year after the

Premier calling this bizarre.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I certainly will get that for the member.

I want to share with the member that, at the UBCM speech, the

Leader of the Opposition said: “If you’re going to upzone every

single-family lot across the province to four units on every

single-family lot, well, that’s just problematic policy, on so many

levels.”

I’ll get the other answer for the member as well.

Interjections.

The Chair: Okay. Let’s get back to estimates, please.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Can the member give me details of what timeline she’s referring to

or if there’s an

article or a specific…. Perhaps the member can pass me

something with the person’s name on it so that we can better answer that

question.

K. Kirkpatrick: Absolutely. I also know that these were questions posed in

question period at the time. Patrick Marston and Victoria Walsh were the

names of the Nanaimo residents. The Premier was asked in response to

their story, at which time he said it was bizarre, and he promised

amendments to the law.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: If this dispute is in front of the RTB right now, unfortunately, I

can’t really provide comments on the specifics. I will say that I can

see how this would be so frustrating for that family, when they signed a

private contract with the understanding that if another person moved in,

their rent would go up. I’m sure their assumption would be the same as

many others: that by “another person,” it would mean another adult, not

a new child. So it’s certainly frustrating.

We’ve come across these kinds of challenges, both with agreements

and with people’s understanding of them. I don’t have a solution for the

member today, but I can certainly say that we’re looking at not only

this but a whole host of other challenges, such as people being

precluded from being in buildings because of having a baby and other

things. We are looking at all those pieces, but I can’t provide any

details to the member today.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. That did answer my question in a

general way. There were 15,000 British Columbians who had signed the

petition to protect B.C. tenants having children. What I understood the

minister to say is that that is something that they are alive to and are

looking at resolving. Thank you to the minister for that.

I’d like to talk about the homelessness strategy and tent cities

at this point. The Premier promised to take quick action on homelessness

and lead the charge in the Downtown Eastside, yet the homelessness

strategy has continued to be delayed. The Premier promised that all the

housing announced during his first 100 days would be ready in time for

the decampment of the Downtown Eastside. Why were the sites at Main and

Ash Streets delayed?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the member suggested that the homelessness strategy wasn’t

released. I think, maybe, there was a misunderstanding there because it

has been released. I just want to clarify that. It has been

released.

I think that all the 330 units that we expect to be, by the end of

summer…. It would have been ideal to have all those up before any action

would be taken from the city. But I think it’s important to note that

the city made a decision because of safety. They have to enforce the

bylaws. They have to ensure that both people living in the camps are

safe; they also have to ensure that the community is safe. With the

escalation of fires, the escalation of crime issues that they were

dealing with and the serious concerns, very valid concerns from the fire

chief, the city made a decision to move.

Now that being said, I’ve said in this House many times that we

have 330 units coming online by the end of the summer. Now we have an

additional 110, because we just bought the Chalmers Lodge, which is

fantastic.

We had some specific issues around the site the member mentioned.

One of the issues we had was that on the work that was happening on

site, crews were notified that concrete and asphalt needed to be tested

for asbestos because there could be some unknown surprises there. So the

city hazmat teams had to go on site, collect samples and help mitigate

any foreseen issues.

We also had another issue. For example, we had supply chain

issues. Some of the supplies that we were wanting to get on site were

delayed. That being said, the member will know the construction is

ongoing.

We had said that we would open around 100 units every month. I can

share that we have occupancy permit on the first 95, and B.C. Housing is

working right now to start moving people — in many cases, out of the

shelters — into these units. We expect more units to come online in the

coming weeks and then, every month, additional units to come on. We also

have extended funding for extreme weather shelters in the

city.

We’re doing all the things we can, working with our partners to

find additional shelter spaces for those that need them. We continue to

urge those that are looking for shelter spaces to take some of the

shelter spaces. But all that work is happening

simultaneously.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Did the province provide any advice to

the city of Vancouver on whether or not they should move ahead with the

decampment on the Downtown Eastside at the time they did? I understand

the minister cited that there were safety concerns, but what advice did

the province provide?

Hon. R. Kahlon: First off, I’m not in a place to give the mayor of the city of

Vancouver advice. The mayor’s responsibility is public safety. We have

said from the beginning, and I have said many times on record, the

encampments are not safe. They’re not safe for the people living in

them. They’re not safe for the community at large. So the mayor and I

are in alignment on that important piece, and certainly the Premier has

said it several times.

Of course, we want as much housing online as possible, but the

mayor has a decision to make when it comes to safety, and given the

facts in front of the mayor, the mayor had to make a decision. Our job,

from the province, is to ensure that we can get enough shelter space

available to people, and then get these units online as fast as we

can.

These units, that I mention, are the ones that are coming. I think

it’s important to note that since the Premier committed to playing a

leadership role on the Downtown Eastside, over 139 units have already

opened up. It’s significant resources we’re putting in place to get

units available for people to get them housed.

[3:35 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Can I just clarify that? I know it’s not the minister’s place to

kind of give advice or direct the mayor of the city of Vancouver. But

with respect to the timing, was this decision made in consultation

between the province and the city, so that everyone knew what was

happening at the same time and there was mutual support

there?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There was constant conversations, for the last 4½ months, with the

mayor. The mayor, on several occasions in the two months before they

took action, shared with me his serious concerns around fire.

I’ve had a chance to meet with the police chief, the deputy police

chief, the fire chief. Everyone stressed the importance — or the

challenge of escalation — of fires and crime-related issues.

That was known to us. They made it clear to us on several

occasions when we met, but it was always understood that the decision on

when to go is the city’s decision. Our decision is around how we get

enough shelter spaces and more supportive housing units available for

people when they need them.

K. Kirkpatrick: The media was reporting that the province seemed to be unprepared

to offer housing support for the campers when this happened. Why was the

minister so unprepared?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, I think it’s fair to say that when a de-encampment of that

size happens, it’s a really challenging situation on the ground, and

it’ll come as no surprise to anyone here that the first day was

certainly challenging.

That being said, everyone that said that they wanted shelter was

provided shelter, and not only on that day, because that day certainly

was challenging, but the days going forward and, in fact, for months

leading up to that.

It’s important to note that we had over 90 people that we were

already able to house the few months before because staff, people,

agencies are on the ground meeting with people one-on-one and saying:

“Do you need shelter? Do you need shelter? We have shelter space

available.” We were successful in finding shelter for 90 people. That’s

very positive.

On the day, again, it was just a challenging situation on the

ground, which makes making sure that everyone has everything they need a

challenge. Yet staff were able to make sure that shelter spaces were

available, or the not-for-profits were able to step up and make sure

that there was support available for people.

But the first day, no doubt, was a challenge, and days after that,

things were able to get more smooth.

K. Kirkpatrick: My understanding is on the first day, only eight people had

accepted housing. I know there was a small number perhaps the next day.

This was a number according to the mayor. I’ve heard that all people who

wanted shelter got shelter, but what does the minister think of the

number eight in terms of those seeking shelter?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: On the day 1, when the city took action on the encampment, 67

structures were taken down. We estimate around 36 people were impacted.

Forty-nine propane tanks were removed. The amount of people who took

offers of shelter that day was nine. So nine of the 36 estimated people

on the first day accepted shelter.

On the following day, the estimate is around…. The structures were

around 27 that were taken down, and there was an estimate that about 20

people were impacted. Nine people on that day took the offer of shelter.

Staff continue to be on the ground with anyone that is needing shelter,

to assure them that there will be shelter spaces available for

them.

K. Kirkpatrick: As the minister knows, and I certainly know, this is a very

complicated situation. You’re dealing with mental health issues. You’re

dealing with health issues, a sense of community. You have so many

people who are at different stages of life, with different issues and

challenges which have led them to the Downtown Eastside or have led them

into homelessness in general.

I’d like to ask about the Main and Ash Street residences. Who is

going to be transitioned into those homes, and what will the process

look like for getting people into those homes?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s a great question. Thanks to the member for that question. The

first step is always shelters. It’s important for staff to be able to do

assessments on the needs of people, whether they need supportive

housing, whether they need something more complex, whether they just

need some rental supports to get into rent. So that assessment happens

at shelters.

Then there’s what’s called the coordinated access table, which has

a lot of not-for-profits on it. B.C. Housing participates. What they do

is go individual by individual and identify what their needs are and who

is a good fit for the unit. Then they are offered space. Sometimes it

takes time for people to make their decision. Then they’re scheduled,

and then that transition happens.

It’s vitally important for us to be on the record to say that the

shelters are the first place where we prefer to do all the assessments.

Then we have a better sense of the needs of the individual. In the end,

we don’t want to put them somewhere where they won’t be successful. It

won’t be good for them. It won’t be good for the community at large. So

that’s where that work happens.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister explain, with respect to both Main and Ash, are

they high barrier or low barrier? Are they for specific…? Women? Men?

What is the anticipated population?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I laid out the process of how people are given opportunities into

different types of housing. These particular sites are supportive

housing. Whenever decisions are made about who goes into a site, it’s

always a balance that is struck. It is low barrier, but the teams that

have the discussion….

[3:45 p.m.]

The value of having everybody at the table is that they get to

assess people’s needs. They try to ensure that…. There are some that

have maybe more needs that go, but they also try to balance it with

people who have less other needs, social support needs. They try to find

that balance to make sure that it can be a good fit for the community.

It’s important to note that seniors and Indigenous communities are

prioritized to get these spaces.

I believe that’s the only question the member asked.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister explain what supported services will be available

at each of these housing projects?

Hon. R. Kahlon: There’s 24-hour staffing, 24-7 staffing, meals. There are on-site

health supports, overdose protection services, mental health supports,

wound care supports. So quite comprehensive supports at the

building.

K. Kirkpatrick: With the 24-7 staffing, what is the staffing ratio to have on-site

staff 24-7? Does that ratio change in the evening versus the

daytime?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The number fluctuates during the day. It depends on the operator.

It depends on the needs of the people being served at that particular

site. At no point will there be less than two people on site, but it can

be a lot more, depending on the needs of individuals at that particular

site.

You have mental health support services. You have other

health-care-related workers there, so the numbers can be much higher,

depending on the need. It’s operator by operator, and it’s an agreement

that goes through with operators.

[3:50 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: With the operators, there would be a contract set out. I don’t

know now if it would be with BCH or who it would be for supportive

housing.

Am I to understand now that there is not yet a contract which

outlines the actual programs that will run? When I talk about programs,

I mean the kind of housing and the kind of supports that are going to be

provided. Is that still yet to be determined on those two

sites?

Hon. R. Kahlon: A contractor has been identified for the Ash Street site. Staff

are just trying to get information on whether everything has been

finalized with them or not. An RFP is underway for the Main Street

site.

K. Kirkpatrick: I just want to go back, then. I’m spending a lot of time on this

because it’s of particular interest to me and, I think, to all

people.

The minister said, previously, when I asked who is going to be

housed in these units, what kinds of supports they are going to have…. I

understood that we’re still trying to kind of figure that out. But if a

contract has already been awarded to a housing provider and there’s an

RFP out right now, that RFP would, presumably, include all of the

services and supports. It would identify the type of individuals that

would be living there.

Is that the case that there are specifics in terms of who will be

living there and what the supports will be?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I highlighted how individuals are chosen to go on site. As I said,

the staff are just trying to get the information about whether the

contracts have been signed and finalized. If we have that information,

I’ll share that.

K. Kirkpatrick: I guess I can also look in the RFP if there is one out there and

available. I am surprised, if these buildings were already supposed to

be open, if we don’t have confirmed contractors in them, but I will be

interested to find that out.

This is probably my last question on this but, again, just very

interested, because I think that Main and Ash are going to be models of

other ways that some of these encampments can be supported.

Are these…? It goes back. I guess, maybe, this is an RFP question

now. I don’t know. Is the intent that these will be, as the minister

said, low barrier? Would residents be able to be in active addiction, or

would they need to be clean or not using prior to being residents in the

facilities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I highlighted, the coordinated tables will help identify who

goes in. These are low barriers. I mean, at the end of the day, our goal

here is to bring people indoors, get them out of encampments, out of

parks, off the street and indoors to provide them the supports that they

need. It’s not always one thing. I know the member knows this better

than many in this chamber. People have very different needs. Some will

have more needs, and some will have less. But our main goal here is to

get people off the street and get them the supports.

In some cases, it’s people who need mental health supports. In

those cases, it’s hard to get people even the meds that they need. It’s

hard to get any stability in their lives when they’re in encampments in

the street. So it’s about bringing them in, giving some stability and

then opening the door for other things, whether it’s mental health

supports, whether it’s taking steps towards detox. All these things

happen once people have that stability in their life.

K. Kirkpatrick: I certainly hope this goes well. I’m certainly hoping that

vulnerable people who need that support are getting that support. So I

am hopeful. I thank staff for doing what they can do in order to keep

people safe there. I would ask that perhaps the minister indulge me with

a tour or something of the properties when they’re at a point that that

would be appropriate.

I’m going to change tack a little bit here, though I’m still….

We’re kind of in the social housing area here. Housing sites and the

homeless encampments — as we know, and as the minister has said — have

been challenging. They’ve been the site of increased violence, including

some pretty scary weapons-related incidences. This suggests that the

government is perhaps tolerant of B.C. Housing sites becoming

flashpoints for crime.

[4:00 p.m.]

What has the minster done to address the infiltration of guns,

drugs and gangs into B.C. Housing locations like this year’s recent

seizures from Johnson Street housing?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The question was around 844 Johnson Street. I think it’s important

for some context of that site.

That site was put up in 2016. At that time, it was associated with

the encampment that was at city hall. At that time, folks were shifted,

but they didn’t have that coordinated access table that we have now.

Folks were just moved in. Part of the contract, and the way it was

structured at the time, has led to some challenges around how people can

go in or out, how operations can happen there. The building operator is

PHS. They have the ability to monitor and ban specific people from

entering into common areas.

The B.C. court has ruled that tenants also have the right to

private enjoyment of their homes or units. This can make it really

challenging when there are criminals who are preying on vulnerable

people.

I met just about a month ago with the mayor of the city of

Victoria, the police chief, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister

of State for Child Care and staff, where we had a conversation about

what we can do to ensure more safety on the site, given that the courts

have made their decision. Numerous things that came out of that we’ve

enacted, such as more fencing around the area, so people can only go in

and out one door. That’s made a big difference. More security on site

has made a difference as well.

Then there are some things, obviously, that we’re still challenged

with, around who’s going into units, etc. — something that we don’t

necessarily have challenges on in other sites.

K. Kirkpatrick: What message does it send to communities about supportive housing

when there is rampant crime happening within and around these supportive

housing units? Not all of them, of course, but there are many that are.

What does the minister say to those communities that are experiencing

some of the impact of that?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, I appreciate the member’s question. I think it’s important

to note that this one was in 2016.

When we talk about supportive housing, I think it’s incumbent on

both sides of the House to ensure that people know that this is vitally

important — to ensure that people get stability in their lives so they

can get the supports that they need. Just having people on the streets

means that these challenges are going to be happening in encampments and

parks and elsewhere. It’s better to get shelter and get the supports

they need.

Now, I really appreciate the member saying that it’s understood

that it’s not everywhere, that some sites have particular challenges.

This one in particular has challenges because, at the time, there was no

coordinated table. There was no understanding of: can we get a mix of

folks into the site so that it doesn’t add additional challenges to the

operators?

[4:10 p.m.]

The decision at that time was made just to say: “Okay, everybody,

go on in.” I’m not blaming folks, because we’re dealing with

encampments. I know how challenging and complex it can be. But I think

we’ve learned from that experience.

Working closely with local governments…. I’ll give an example. I

was in Vernon recently, and the supportive housing built there has been

a game-changer for the community. The mayor was highlighting for me that

they saw a 67 percent reduction in calls to bylaw from local businesses

because of the supportive housing.

I met a woman there, who was working there, who pulled me aside to

tell me that she was sleeping in an encampment a few years ago, got

herself into a shelter, then was in supportive housing and got herself

into, now, rental housing, and they provided her skills to do

peer-to-peer support and is working on site.

So this works, but the path for every individual is not a straight

one. It’s our responsibility to continue to engage with folks to make

sure that we are making this safe for the community but also providing

space for people to get the support. Many of our supportive housing

units have tables where community is at the table, where they can

identify issues so that we can proactively deal with them in advance.

That has also been a success for us in many communities.

Just when I was in Vernon, I met this woman who said: “I was

against this housing in my neighbourhood, and now I’m grateful that it’s

there.” That’s what we want to be hearing in more communities, because I

think, deep down, everyone is compassionate, everyone understands that

everyone deserves a chance to make it.

We need to keep reminding people that this kind of action, the

work we’re doing, is giving people hope — and there is hope.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. The minister points out that Johnson

Street was a 2016 project, but I would just like to point out that it is

under this government where caches of weapons are being found and

seized. The minister well knows my appreciation for supportive housing

and that we can’t paint every project and every person in a certain

light, because we really do need to make sure we’re taking care of those

who are vulnerable. But clearly, crime associated with B.C. Housing

sites — whether they’re hotels, SROs, what have it — is

significant.

I’ll just read the Victoria police chief’s comments: “Many of

those supportive housing locations are simply not safe” and “We are

seeing a trend that we need to address.” So what would you say to the

police chief in terms of what is being done to address safety issues at

supportive housing sites?

The minister had listed some things that were happening with

Johnson Street, but we’re not seeing the success of what is being tried.

So what would he say to the police chief?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll share with the member not what I would say. I can share with

the member what I did say to the police chief, which is: “Let’s start at

the first basis, which is, can we agree that people in housing are

better, that we’re better able to serve them and the community is safer

than when they are in encampments and parks?” We started with an

agreement there. That was a good first step. Then we said: “Okay. How do

we ensure that we have the housing but we’re also making sure that

people in the community are safe?”

I appreciate the member saying: “Well, 2016 was…. It’s happening

now.” What I’m saying is that the basis of the contract at the time is

the reason why we’re limited in some important things, such as who can

go in and out. Like other supportive sites, it’s coming through one

door. You can have different rules in place to ensure safety. Because of

the court’s adjudication on how the contract was structured at the time,

we’re limited by that.

I just want the member to be clear: I’m not blaming anybody here.

I’m just saying I appreciate the challenge at the time. You’ve got

people in encampments, and you’re trying to get people into housing, and

the decision was made. I’m saying that we’ve learned from that

process.

[4:15 p.m.]

On that particular site, we’re still dealing with a challenge on

how that contract was structured at the time. We’ve taken steps, after

the conversation with the mayor and the police chief, to make it safer.

The police chief wanted to be more engaged about how the police can be

more engaged with our not-for-profits.

By the way, the police chief, on record, has said multiple times

that they’ve got a great relationship with the providers. In fact, one

of the large arrests that was made on site was because of that

partnership. That, I think, is vitally important.

The mayor wanted to make sure that we had an opportunity to do

some of that work early. We agreed. Some of that is happening already. I

think it’s important that in order for us to be successful, we’re going

to need to continue to have tables where we’re having those

discussions.

I have to give the chief credit. He came to the table. He

understood what we were saying. We fully understood what he was saying.

The mayor highlighted how important safety was for the community. We’ve

taken some steps that actually have worked. But we have more work to

do.

K. Kirkpatrick: We can absolutely agree that we need to get people a roof over

their head. We need to keep them safe. But following along that thread,

when someone is vulnerable and they go into supportive housing and they

are then in danger in that supportive housing, that is certainly not the

solution that we’re looking for.

I was down Hastings-Cordova area a few weeks ago, meeting with a

housing provider, and they expressed to me an increase that they’ve seen

— and this has always been an issue — in sexual assaults on women in

shelters. In some of these supportive housing units, women are

particularly vulnerable. There are criminals that prey on women in

particular.

What does the minister say to this issue? Is it being recognized?

How are we going to keep people within these shelters safe from those in

the shelters who are not safe?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I guess I’ll start by agreeing with the member on this that it’s

horrifying to think people would prey on already the most vulnerable

people. It’s appalling. The member has heard stories. I’ve heard

stories. It’s just a sad reality, which is being faced by so many people

in B.C., Canada and the world. We can agree on that. We’re always aware

of individuals and organized crimes that are trying to take advantage.

In fact, I would say to those who have concerns around encampments and

others that there was organized crime actively involved in some of the

encampments as well.

[4:20 p.m.]

Our goal is to ensure that we can get people into housing so that

we can provide that safety and then the more supportive and long-term

housing. Again, I think it’s important to note that we’ve seen success.

We’ve actually helped people. I’ve been fortunate enough to meet many of

them. But we have a lot more people that we need to help, certainly

coming out of the pandemic.

It’s a conversation that I’ve had with colleagues around the

country, who have all seen significant increases in people being

homeless coming out of the pandemic, seen a significant increase in

people dealing with mental health challenges out of the pandemic. So

it’s important to note this is not only a challenge in B.C.

If you look to Seattle, Portland down in the Bay Area, Arizona,

across the country — that’s why reports are being written about this

topic across the country. The federal government is talking about more

encampment responses. So it’s a real challenge.

One of the things that we had talked to the Victoria police about,

in particular, was looking at ways…. It was suggested to us that perhaps

the police can be involved in identifying who goes into supportive

housing, and who doesn’t. But that is problematic in the sense that

under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, because of the

legislation, tenant and applicant information cannot be shared with

anyone outside of B.C. Housing without the tenant’s or applicant’s

express permission.

The coordinated access tables — they do the best they can to

ensure that they’re selecting people for the right type of

accommodation. We do a lot of work with security. Our not-for-profit

providers work closely with police. And again, the 844 Johnson site, in

particular — the fact that there was a major arrest, a major bust that

happened, is because of that close collaboration.

That work happens. It’s ongoing. We’re going to continue to work

with communities through that process, but also through these tables

that we create in communities, where people from the community get to

actually be part of the conversation and actually get a chance to

highlight concerns that they have so that we can proactively address

them.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. After B.C. Housing paid $500,000 per

key to buy a 110-room hotel at 1176 Granville Street to shelter former

residents of an Oppenheimer Park homeless encampment in 2022, police

have been called to that site 2,494 times, including 751 calls last

year, according to the VPD. What is being done to ensure that this stops

being the case?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yeah, the particular site…. I know the Vancouver police released

some data on that. Actually, what was discovered was that, in fact, it

was one resident that was under distress that was calling the police,

like, 12 times per day.

[4:25 p.m.]

What we were able to do — working with the police and, of course,

with mental health support — was to be able to…. I can’t talk

specifically about the case, but just to say we were able to find

additional supports for that individual so that the call amounts weren’t

there anymore. That was a particular challenge we had to deal

with.

Broadly speaking, in some of the supportive housing — not all of

them — and some of the SRO spaces, we deal with challenges. Sometimes

people are under distress, duress. They’ve got mental health challenges.

When you have people living in this kind of space, you’re going to get

additional calls.

We have people who unfortunately smoke in the rooms. They’re

smoking in the rooms when they’re not allowed, the fire alarms go off,

and then fire gets called. I find it frustrating, as the Minister of

Housing, but what is the alternative? People who are dealing with

trauma, who need to smoke — do I kick them out of the unit? That just

causes big issues.

We’ve been working really closely with grassroots organizations

around educating a lot of the residents about fire safety and other

things that need to happen. So that’s on the fire side. And on that

specific site, as I mentioned, unfortunately we had one person who was

under distress and who just felt like they needed to call the police a

lot, for many days in a row.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m not sure if the minister is suggesting that 2,494 calls to

this property were made by one person. There’s significant activity at

this building regardless of that one person.

What mental health supports — addiction, detox, recovery supports

— are being offered to the residents of that building?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m not suggesting that every single call came from that

individual. What I’m saying is that we had a challenge with a unique

individual. When we were able to find that individual additional

supports, the concern from the city of Vancouver, the police, was

dramatically less. Yes, calls come for a whole host of reasons, and I’m

sure many of those calls were for other reasons, but there was a

particular challenge with that individual.

That supportive housing site has people providing life skills

training for individuals, connections to health care, mental health,

substance abuse services. Again, staff there 24-7 to support tenants. In

particular, on that site, Vancouver Coastal has what they call the

intensive housing outreach team, which has additional clinical-related

supports for individuals. So that site has additional supports for

individuals that need it.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can I confirm, then, that those supports are available, that

they’re actually on site? How many FTEs are on site, and who holds the

contract for operating that building?

[4:30 p.m. - 4:35 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We’re just trying to get…. The member wants specifics of that

site, so we’re just having to do that. If the member wants to ask other

questions, and then we’ll just come right back to it while they’re

pulling it, for the interests of time….

Also, I just wanted to seek leave to make a quick

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Kahlon: I look up there and I see president Jen Ford and Trish Mandewo, who’s

the vice president of UBCM and was a city councillor at the city of

Coquitlam. I want to welcome them here to the House.

Debate Continued

K. Kirkpatrick: I’ll ask about another specific example as well. In my own riding

in the district of North Vancouver, there is a Travelodge which B.C.

Housing leased during the pandemic for shelter. That lease is to be

renewed, I think, towards the end of this year.

We get a number of

concerns brought to our office — doorbells being ripped off, open drug

use, theft — and it is connected to residents of the Travelodge. I’d

like to understand what kind of supports are being provided at that

Travelodge location. Is B.C. Housing aware that there are some

significant issues of personal property destruction with the townhomes

directly around it?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I hope the member appreciates that this type of question, around

the previous one — we have hundreds of sites and staff all over. We’re

trying to get that information for you.

The one the member mentioned around her riding, it’s managed by

Lookout Society. In that site, they prioritize Indigenous folks, in

particular from Squamish Nation. They’ve got meals, 24-7 supports and

other supports I’ve named for the other housing units. At this point, I

can’t share with you that I have any information about specific cases

linked to people living at that site. I’m not saying there may not be

issues. I’m just saying I can’t at this point confirm that for the

member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I understand those comments.

There was a promise by the NDP government to phase out SROs, but

now — I’m going to have to ask for a break after this question — in the

most recent housing plan, there is a commitment to put money in to

refurbish some of these SROs. Are SROs going to be part of the housing

plan moving forward?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’m surprised there wasn’t a round of applause for the member

suggesting a quick five-minute break, but it’s, perhaps, they’re all….

[Applause.]

Yeah, there we go. I was thinking, perhaps, that we put them to

sleep, but they’re awake and alive and smiling, which is

lovely.

[4:45 p.m.]

The SROs are an important part of our housing stock right now.

There is a clear understanding that in the long run, the SROs are not

the way to house people over the long term, but currently, we have a

huge housing crisis, and we need to ensure that all of our housing sites

and units are operating in a way that’s safe for the public.

Some of the units that we’re bringing online are newly renovated

SRO sites because in some cases…. It’s important to note this when we

think of SROs. Sometimes the media portrays all SROs as just awful. The

reality is that there are some that are, but there are really three

tiers. Even the housing advocates in the Downtown Eastside tell us —

they’ve told me — that SROs have a role to play in housing our

population, and not all SROs are just awful.

We do have some that are run-down. Some, in fact, that are

privately held. But we also have SROs, some of them that have been newly

renovated, that are quite adequate. Some are just so old that when their

time comes in the near future, they’re going to have to go, and

something else is going to be done. We’ve been engaging with the city of

Vancouver and CMHC on what that is. What does that future look like for

SROs? Certainly, for those that are in really bad shape?

The housing strategy refers to that, but that will be over time. I

don’t want to leave anyone with the impression that by the next three

years, SROs will be gone. They continue to play an important role. We

continue to find ways to renovate the ones that can be renovated, just

to improve the quality of life of the individuals that are living there.

But there are some that are more problematic.

Because of some of them being older, we sometimes have issues with

elevators and other things that come with that. But we’re working

through all those sites to identify what can be fixed up, what can be

renovated and then, of course, identifying what the future plan will

look like. That will happen over time.

The Chair: I’ll just call a 7½-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:47 p.m. to 5:01 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: Calling the Committee of Supply (Section

B) back to

order.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member had asked earlier about a site. It’s operated by Terra.

It’s 110 units.

I can share with the member that, over the last year, B.C. Housing

has significantly increased security on the site. So it’s already been

there for a year. B.C. Housing and Terra, in particular, are working

with a lot of the businesses that are impacted from there. In fact, with

the increased security and the engagements, they’ve seen a significant

improvement not only in the building but the area around it.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that answer. How does government

square a previous commitment to phasing out SROs with the current…? What

I’m hearing from the minister now is they are part of the current

housing plan. That is a real turnaround from when the Premier had

initially committed to getting rid of SROs.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I wouldn’t say it’s a turnaround. The Premier has been pretty

consistent. We’ve been pretty consistent. In fact, in the budget, we

have $1.2 million over the coming three years to have a table with CMHC

Canada and Vancouver to start strategizing around SROs.

I think it’s important to note that there are 95 buildings that

are private and 62 buildings that are non-market ownership. The work

we’ll be doing over the coming years is to identify the sites that need

us to act first and then building a plan over time to continue to

address the challenges that we have at SROs.

K. Kirkpatrick: The minister had committed to a review of SRO contracts. Has that

review being awarded? What’s the timeline for that happening?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can share with the member that the contract has been awarded for

the work to be done, and we expect a report later this year.

K. Kirkpatrick: Is the minister aware that his own government has already done a

review on SRO renovations and found that they provided a net

benefit?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, I have heard from a lot of advocates around concerns,

in particular around the P3 model SROs. It’s hard to know whether those

complaints are real or not, so that’s why the review is happening by an

independent firm to give us a sense of if there are issues or not and to

address those concerns.

The initial B.C. Housing study that was done by the research

centre at B.C. Housing just looked at components of SROs like heritage

restoration, tenant relocation, practices like hazmat-related issues.

That was published in 2018. It was done by the B.C. Housing research

centre.

The current study is, of course, being done by an independent

firm. It focuses on maintenance standards and practices and operations

of the P3 SRO models.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just a clarification. On the SRO contracts, who has the contract

being awarded to for the review?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Deloitte has been contracted. A small, small company called

Deloitte.

K. Kirkpatrick: I may have heard of them before. That’s great.

The ministe