First Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Wednesday, April 30, 2025

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 51

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Contents

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Lions Bay Rainforest Racers and Remembrance of Barbara and David Enns

Jeremy Valeriote

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act

Hon. Adrian Dix

Members’ Statements

Principles and Values of Sikh and Filipino Communities

Rohini Arora

Asian Heritage Month and Contributions of Asian Canadians

Hon Chan

Traditional Chinese Medicine

Paul Choi

Organ Donation

Á’a:líya Warbus

Food Security in Burnaby

Janet Routledge

Contributions of Rob M ac Neill and Operation Pegasus

Anna Kindy

Oral Questions

Call for Public Inquiry into Mental Health Care System

Elenore Sturko

Hon. David Eby

Police Investigation of Lapu-Lapu Festival Attack and Comments by Premier

Steve Kooner

Hon. David Eby

Government Action on Climate Change and Emissions Reduction

Jeremy Valeriote

Hon. Adrian Dix

Involuntary Mental Health Care and Conditions for Persons in Corrections System

Brennan Day

Hon. Josie Osborne

Mental Health and Addiction Services Facility Proposal for Okanagan Area

Gavin Dew

Hon. Josie Osborne

Access to Mental Health and Addiction Services in Northern B.C.

Claire Rattée

Hon. Josie Osborne

Kiel Giddens

Hon. David Eby

Overdose Prevention Site at Langley Memorial Hospital

Harman Bhangu

Hon. Josie Osborne

Community Safety and Involuntary Care for Mental Health Issues

Trevor Halford

Hon. David Eby

Tabling Documents

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., determination decision 24-03; Interior

Lumber Manufacturers Association; designated filer: Paul Rasmussen; November 20, 2024

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for B.C., reconsideration decision 24-03; Interior

Lumber Manufacturers Association; designated filer: Paul Rasmussen, April 15, 2025

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 19 — Appointment of Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists Transparency

Act

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Motion 20 — Committee of Supply and Committee of the Whole to Sit in Three Sections

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs (continued)

Hon. Ravi Kahlon

Tony Luck

Kristina Loewen

Linda Hepner

Brennan Day

Lorne Doerkson

Rosalyn Bird

Sheldon Clare

Harman Bhangu

Claire Rattée

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation (continued)

Scott McInnis

Hon. Christine Boyle

Misty Van Popta

Sheldon Clare

Gavin Dew

Rob Botterell

Dallas Brodie

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of the Whole

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

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Niki Sharma

Gavin Dew

Rob Botterell

Steve Kooner

Wednesday, April 30, 2025

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Rosalyn Bird.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. Adrian Dix : Today, April 30, is Journey to Freedom Day, which marks the contributions of the

Vietnamese-Canadian community and the journey that many of the community took in dangerous

circumstances to flee Vietnam and come to Canada in the wake of the Vietnam War, which

ended 50 years ago today.

We had — I want to thank members on all sides of the House for participating — a very

moving event today in the Hall of Honour. It’s my honour to welcome some of our many,

many guests, our 100 guests, today.

That included Andy Pham, who’s a Vietnamese community and industry leader who spoke

today so eloquently; Edison Tran, who’s a Vancouver entrepreneur and past vice-president

of the Vietnamese Professional Association of B.C., who gave a guitar performance

today; Ken Do of the Vietnamese Veterans Association.

Also, Vieng Phavongkham, the president of the Laos Community Association of B.C.;

Nguyen Hanh “Winnie” Cao; Tammy Dao from the Lac Viet Public Education Society; Hop

Van Phan from the Vietnamese Association for Cultural Preservation; and Tri Duc Dang

from the Vietnamese Air Force Association of B.C.

Thank you to all members for supporting this important day today.

Please welcome all our guests from the Vietnamese-Canadian community, from the Laotian-Canadian

community and from the Cambodian-Canadian community here to this House.

Rob Botterell : I am honoured to welcome to the House today a constituent from Salt Spring Island,

Olivia Hayne

April is National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Month. Olivia is here today

as a volunteer with B.C. Transplant.

When Olivia’s brother Alistair tragically passed in 2017, his family knew that organ

donation was the right thing to do, and he ended up saving the lives of five people.

Since then, Olivia and her parents have been dedicated volunteers with B.C. Transplant,

sharing Alistair’s story and encouraging others to consider registering as organ donors.

B.C. Transplant will be in the library today between two and 3:30. I welcome and urge

my colleagues to visit and meet with Olivia and other volunteers.

Thank you, Olivia and B.C. Transplant, for the important work.

Hon. Jagrup Brar : Visiting the Legislature today are guests from the Barrick mining association. They

are Christina Erling, vice-president of government affairs; Kerri Harmati, mine manager;

and Allison Brown, group director, reclamation and closure.

They’re here to watch question period, particularly. That’s their key interest. The

mining sector is usually quite…. They are kind of trained to hear high noises, so

that will be okay with them.

Barrick mining association is a major global mining company. I will ask the House

to please make them welcome in this House.

Anna Kindy : I’ve got two introductions to do.

I’d like to introduce Rob MacNeill, one of the program directors at Robron Centre,

an alternative high school; as well as Christine Johnson, a teacher there; Nicole

Girard; other staff members; and nine students.

Welcome.

I’d also like to welcome the British Columbia Public Service Employees for Freedom.

President Philip Davidson is now doing a law degree.

As well, the United Health Care Workers of B.C. The president is Jed Ferguson.

Both are registered not-for-profit societies in B.C. They are about informed consent,

medical privacy and bodily autonomy. There are 14 of them today, including Terri Perepolkin,

a health care worker who lost her job.

Welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Parmar : We’ve got representatives from the city of Prince George joining us in the House

today — Coun. Garth Frizzell; Coun. Kyle Sampson; Coun. Susan Scott; their city manager,

Walter Babicz; as well as senior adviser for intergovernmental relations, Catharine

Sikobe.

I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Prince George the last few months, and I’m really

pleased to be able to meet with representatives from Prince George to talk about forestry.

I know many members on both sides of the House will have an opportunity to meet with

these councillors and their team.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

Kiel Giddens : The Minister of Forests just beat me to the punch, but I’d really like to welcome

the delegation from the city of Prince George that was just named the northern capital.

I want to thank all members and ministers who have met with them in their time here,

and I want to thank them for the great meeting we had yesterday as well.

Could the House please give them one more round of thanks for all they do for the

city of Prince George.

Jessie Sunner : It’s always a good day when you get to introduce friends in this House. Today I’m

honoured to welcome my campaign manager extraordinaire, Jasmeet, who also works for

the Minister of Labour; along with her partner, Anmol, and her mother, Sharon. This

is her first time visiting this House. Maybe this is the visit that will make her

finally get her Canadian citizenship after 32 years of being in this country. That’s

what we’re hoping.

If the House could please join us in making her feel very welcome.

Linda Hepner : I would like to acknowledge Ms. Walser’s grade 5 class in my riding from the Surrey

doing a virtual tour of our building.

Please join me in welcoming them to what government looks like on a daily basis.

Hon. Diana Gibson : As was mentioned, it’s a real privilege to be able to introduce friends and family

to the House, and today I have with me three family members who I have the honour

and privilege of introducing.

I’ll start with my father because it’s his 85th birthday.

Interjections.

Hon. Diana Gibson : I know.

He’s been a real inspiration to me. He’s a professor of engineering management and

taught me a lot in my life.

My mother is also here, who is also a professor, in health and health science, and

a former nurse and also business owner, author.

My aunt, as well, Sheelagh Whittaker, who’s here, is another inspiring family member

who was actually the first woman CEO of a company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Thank you for the warm welcome.

Pete Davis : I just wanted to echo the Minister of Mines, as well, by welcoming Barrick Mining

Corp., I guess Barrick Gold Corp. now.

I had a great meeting this morning.

Thank you guys so much for coming.

We look forward, on this side, to making sure that mining stays a vital part of the

economy here in B.C.

Hon. Brittny Anderson : I just wanted to bring the House’s attention to a new docuseries, which is atypical

as an introduction in this House, but this is a docuseries called Wildfire , and it follows the B.C. wildfire service in a five-part series.

It was created by two of my constituents, actually some people I grew up with — Simon

Shave and Clay Mitchell, along with Kevin Eastwood. It showcases firefighters from

my constituency and also from many of yours.

I hope that we all have time to be able to review this. It shows the bravery of our

B.C. wildfire service firefighters. I am so grateful for their service and also for

the documentary makers.

Will the House please give a round of applause for this documentary.

[1:45 p.m.]

Larry Neufeld : I don’t see them in the gallery today, but I would like to welcome to the precinct

the executive of Tourmaline Corp., the largest natural gas producer in Canada. We

had an excellent opportunity to exchange some great ideas and talk about some of the

fantastic resources of the beautifully clean natural gas that we have in this province.

Susie Chant : I am very honoured to welcome the incredible staff and volunteers, as have already

been referenced, from B.C. Transplant to the Legislature today.

As national Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Month ends, we recognize the power

of donation to save lives. In 2024, 481 British Columbians received a second chance

thanks to 118 deceased donors and 90 living donors and the dedicated health care teams

who make transplants possible. Some of the volunteers with us today are transplant

recipients and donor family members, powerful advocates for the life-saving work that

they do.

I invite all members to stop by the Legislative Library this afternoon, up until about

3:30, after question period, to learn more about the impact of organ donation in British

Columbia.

As an aside, my husband was an organ donor for bone marrow a number of years ago to

a young mother of two small children. Those children are now in college, and their

mom is cheering them on. It’s really important.

Thank you for making them feel welcome.

Gavin Dew : I’d like to acknowledge someone who is not in the chamber today, and that is my wife,

Erin. Today is our eighth wedding anniversary, and instead of taking her out for dinner,

I’m going to be here in this House doing estimates and committee stage debate on Bill

I just want to state for the record that I love you, I miss you, and I’ll see you

soon.

Darlene Rotchford : I would like to welcome a resident of View Royal, from part of my constituency, Steve

Farmer. Steve was diagnosed with hepatitis C at the age of 46 and received a liver

transplant on New Year’s Day 2005. His transplant has given him time to be a dad to

his two daughters, and the highlight has been being able to see them both grow and

be married.

Steve has also competed in several Canadian Transplant Games and won many medals,

including last summer in Ottawa. Steve has been a longtime volunteer with B.C. Transplant,

sharing his story and inspiring people to register their decision on organ donation.

Can the House please welcome him.

Rohini Arora : I just want to welcome Daniel Heo, who is my new constituency adviser, and I was

hoping to have a line of sight on him.

He is absolutely amazing. I’ve known him since 2021. This man makes incredible bagels,

fresh, and brought them into the campaign office regularly. Suffice it to say, I don’t

know what I would do without him, bagels and all.

Statements

Lions Bay Rainforest Racers

and Remembrance of

Barbara and David Enns

Jeremy Valeriote : Tens of thousands of people took

part in Vancouver’s Sun Run on Sunday, among them

my constituents the Lions Bay Rainforest Racers team, who are admittedly not in the

building but are watching from home.

This year, 42 members came together to remember Barbara Enns, one of the founders

of the team, and her husband, David. Barbara and David died tragically last December

when their home was destroyed by a landslide.

I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations and appreciation to the Lions

Bay Rainforest Racers team.

Introductions by Members

Paul Choi : I am excited to welcome my friend to the House today, Linda Li, and her two sons,

Henry Wong and William Wong.

She was a candidate with us for Richmond-Bridgeport, but more than that, she’s a pillar

of community in Richmond. She served with the Richmond Chinese Community Society and

the Richmond Hospital Foundation. She is a prominent business owner as well.

If I can just ask the whole House to give a very warm welcome to the three of them.

George Anderson : I would like to recognize someone very special in the Legislature today, and that

is my friend Linda Campbell.

Linda has dedicated her career to public service, bringing wisdom and compassion to

everything that she does. Moreover, she has a remarkable ability to get things done.

It’s a skill that I try to borrow whenever I can. Unfortunately, it has mixed results.

[1:50 p.m.]

Her presence today is a reminder of the many unsung heroes who serve not for recognition

but out of love for their community and country.

I hope that the House will give Linda the most warm welcome.

Thank you, Linda.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Renewable Energy Projects

(Streamlined Permitting) Act

Hon. Adrian Dix presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill

intituled Bill 14, Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act.

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

I am pleased to introduce Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting)

Act. Bill 14 would establish the B.C. Energy Regulator as the primary permitting agency

for renewable energy projects and major transmission lines, allow the B.C. Energy

Regulator to establish a new rigorous regulatory framework for renewable energy projects,

and allow for the exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act for wind power projects

and the North Coast transmission line.

I’d like to inform the House that the government considers this bill a matter of confidence.

B.C. has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to become a world leader in clean energy

production, and we must take every action possible to see that all British Columbians

benefit from this opportunity. Renewable energy projects are urgently needed to provide

affordable, clean power, create jobs and diversify our economy, especially during

this period of global market uncertainty.

We need to build. We need to build to support our economy. We need to build to fight

climate change. We need to build to secure our energy sovereignty. Bill 14 will assist

us in this task.

I am proud to move first reading.

The Speaker : Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Adrian Dix : I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Members’ Statements

Principles and Values of

Sikh and Filipino Communities

Rohini Arora : It is the last day of Sikh Heritage Month, and I would like to wrap it up by lifting

up the Sikh community and values and the connections with the Filipino community and

how our communities have come together during this significant time of grief.

Both Filipino and Sikh values place a strong emphasis on community support and collective

well-being. At the heart of both traditions is the idea that caring for others is

not just a choice or a responsibility but a source of happiness.

In Filipino culture, this is seen through the concept of bayanihan, where people come

together to help one another, especially in times of need, whether it’s moving a house,

responding to a natural disaster or supporting a neighbour in crisis. Filipinos naturally

unite in solidarity.

Similarly, in the Sikh community, the principle of seva, or selfless service, encourages

individuals to help others without expecting anything in return. One of the most visible

examples that we know of is the practice of langar, the free community kitchen found

in every gurdwara, where anyone, regardless of background, is welcome to a hot meal.

Both cultures also value hospitality, generosity and compassion, often sharing food

and resources with neighbours and strangers alike. Community gatherings, religious

events and festivals often become opportunities to support those in need.

Another important similarity is how both cultures mobilize so quickly during emergencies.

Whether through church groups, organizations like Filipino B.C. and Mabuhay House,

barangays or Sikh aid organizations, these responses are often grass roots and driven

by a deep sense of duty and empathy.

After the tragedy at the Lapu-Lapu Day festival, the Sikh community rose to action

to feed families, including Guru Nanak’s Free Kitchen and Khalsa Aid, and stand behind

them during a time of unimaginable grief. In both communities, the belief is clear.

When one person struggles, the whole community must step in.

This shared commitment to uplifting others is a powerful connection between the Filipino

and Sikh way of life. What an honour, and what a way to honour Sikh Heritage Month

than really, truly live our values.

[1:55 p.m.]

I want to extend my most sincere condolences to everyone affected by the tragic events

of Lapu-Lapu Day celebration.

To the Filipino community: we stand with you, and we love you.

The Speaker : Members, try to keep your two-minute statements within two minutes’ time, please.

Asian Heritage Month and

Contributions of Asian Canadians

Hon Chan : I will try my best, hon. Speaker.

May marks Asian Heritage Month. As we step into May, it is a time to honour and celebrate

the contributions of Canadians of Asian descent, those who have helped build this

province and who continue to shape its future.

British Columbia is home to one of the most diverse populations in the country, with

deep-rooted Asian communities whose presence dates back to more than 150 years ago.

From early Chinese railway workers and Japanese fishermen to South Asian farmers and

Filipino caregivers, Asian Canadians have long been the backbone of B.C.’s economic,

cultural and social life. Their stories are one of resilience, sacrifice and strength.

These communities have experienced exclusion, discrimination and hardship. However,

they have stood strong and made this province better for everyone.

Today Asian Canadians are leaders in every field. From education to business, from

health care to public service, their impact is not only seen in our cities but also

deeply felt in our neighbourhoods.

I want to especially recognize the work of SUCCESS, led by CEO Queenie Choo. This

long-standing community organization has helped tens of thousands of newcomers build

their lives here in B.C. Their tireless efforts over the past 50 years have empowered

generations of Asian Canadians and have brought communities closer together.

I also want to highlight the enormous contribution of the Filipino community, one

of the fastest-growing communities in British Columbia. From health care workers and

caregivers to educators, business owners and artists, the Filipino community exemplifies

compassion, dedication and service. Their presence has enriched every corner of our

province.

Asian Heritage Month is more than a celebration. It is a recognition of the history,

sacrifices and leadership of Asian Canadians. It is a reminder that the story of British

Columbia is not completed without them.

Let us honour these contributions not only in May but each and every day of the year.

Traditional Chinese Medicine

Paul Choi : I rise today to recognize and celebrate the upcoming fifth World Traditional Chinese

Medicine and Acupuncture Culture Week, starting on June 21, hosted by the Home of

Canadian Traditional Chinese Medicine Society, founded by Dr. John Lee and Dr. Rong

Gang Li in partnership with the Canadian Community Service Association.

Traditional Chinese medicine, or TCM, has profoundly contributed to our society by

treating diseases, combatting pandemics, supporting rehabilitation and preserving

health and well-being. Rooted deeply in the tradition of Eastern Asian philosophies

and culture, TCM emphasizes health cultivation and life fulfilment.

This special week of celebration provides a meaningful opportunity for British Columbians

to discover more about TCM’s immense value and engage in cultural exchanges to foster

mutual understanding between diverse communities. Activities will include ceremonies,

roundtable discussions highlighting B.C.’s accomplishments in TCM, educational programs

on health preservation, cultivation lectures and engaging tai chi exercise led by

esteemed TCM masters and renowned scholars.

I invite all members of this House and the public to participate and learn about the

remarkable wisdom and practices of traditional Chinese medicine during this important

culture week.

For more information, please go to wtcmaw.events.

Organ Donation

Á’a :líya Warbus : April is National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Month, and I want to take a

moment to honour the life-changing gift that organ donors give to others. It’s an

important and selfless act that has the power to transform lives. Organ donation is

one of the impactful acts of humanity that simply cannot be measured.

In 2024, 481 people received organ transplants. Out of those transplants, 118 were

made by deceased donors and 90 by living donors. Each of these people ensured that

a loved one or a stranger could have another chance at living a full life.

[2:00 p.m.]

Joining us here today is one of my constituents from Chilliwack–Cultus Lake. Krista

Winnig is a volunteer with B.C. Transplant and has personal experience with organ

donation. Her sister is an organ donor. I too can relate on a personal level. My cousin

donated a kidney to a close loved one, and this improved her standard of living and

created an unbreakable bond between them.

Organ donation truly can have a life-altering effect on families across British Columbia

and the country. Statistically you are more likely to need a transplant than you are

to become an organ donor. That’s what makes these acts of generosity so extraordinary.

They offer hope when it’s needed most.

Today I want to thank those who’ve already made the decision to give. Your compassion

has given others the chance to heal and continue to be with the ones that they love.

As B.C. Transplant says: “It only takes two minutes to save a life, but the impact

of that decision lasts a lifetime.”

This is work that deserves the continued support of all elected members in the House,

and together as British Columbians, we must ensure organ donation continues to enrich

and save lives.

To those who have passed but left a piece of themselves behind: your thoughtful acts

have saved and improved the lives of so many. We honour your memory and sacrifice

today.

Food Security in Burnaby

Janet Routledge : Burnaby is experiencing a food security crisis. Consider this. The number of people

using the Burnaby food hubs, or what we used to call food banks, has more than doubled

since 2021. An estimated 4,000 people are now using food hubs every week. Twenty-three

percent of all the food collected by the Greater Vancouver Food Bank is distributed

to Burnaby residents, and more and more recipients work full-time but can’t afford

basic living expenses.

This pressure on the food hubs themselves is overwhelming. They each have to find

their own supply of protein and fresh vegetables. While some hubs are run by a paid

coordinator, others are run entirely by volunteers. It takes 40 to 60 volunteers at

every location for a full day once a week to prepare and distribute food boxes.

While this crisis is unprecedented, so too has been the response. Last November the

city of Burnaby adopted a food system strategy. Implementing the strategy is an advisory

table composed of community food organizations like the Burnaby Neighbourhood House.

City staff and food security experts are also at the table.

The strategy addresses the entire food system: growing, harvesting, processing, packaging,

transporting, distributing, preparing, marketing and consuming.

The goal is to ensure that all people have food choice and access to culturally appropriate

food, that food is grown and made locally, that food is affordable to produce and

to purchase and that production is connected to local businesses, is sustainable and

resilient, and is ethical and socially just.

Food brings us together; so does this initiative.

Contributions of Rob M ac Neill

and Operation Pegasus

Anna Kindy : I want to introduce Rob MacNeill. He’s a 25-year veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces,

an avid skydiver, jumpmaster, skydiving instructor.

Rob is a selfless man. He has deep passion for helping people, including at-risk kids

as well as veterans and first responders who suffer from PTSD and anxiety.

He runs the Operation Pegasus Jump, an event that began in July 2022 aimed at supporting

veterans and first responders dealing with PTSD and other mental health issues. The

event uses skydiving, which serves as a platform for veterans to connect, challenge

themselves and share their stories in a supportive environment.

Recently a police officer involved in a shooting last year came to the program. He

is now back at work. Ten officers from the Vancouver police force have now registered

for Operation Pegasus.

In 2016, Rob was sought out to start a trades program. He started the program in his

garage with 14 youths. These 14 youths were high-risk, struggling and not successful

in the traditional school environment. Rob took these young people and started teaching

industrial sewing.

[2:05 p.m.]

After six months, he was approached to run his program through Robron, an alternative

school option offered in Campbell River. The program has grown and is well known in

Campbell River. He offers the programs to all the schools and teaches sewing to as

young as grade 4.

Along with sewing, his students have gained access to Rob’s vast knowledge and passion

in skydiving, rigging and parachute-packing. DND in Comox hires Rob’s students to

pack chutes. The students also pack chutes for Operation Pegasus. On his team of students,

Rob has the youngest parachute-packer in Canada, who now has her own business. She

also teaches at Rob’s program and mentors new students coming in.

Rob has opened the door for so many young people, and he supports them every step

of the way. He has managed to link at-risk kids with role models — for example, veterans,

police, first responders — with his Pegasus jump program.

Rob, thank you for caring so much and making a huge difference in so many lives.

Oral Questions

Call for Public Inquiry into

Mental Health Care System

Elenore Sturko : The mass murder of festival attendees in Vancouver over the weekend has had a profound

impact on our province. But this is not the first time there have been serious injuries

or deaths involving people with severe mental illness in our province. We heard multiple

examples yesterday — and, frankly, for years — of severely mentally ill people failed

by this government who go on to cause harm or deaths or who themselves become victims

of violence.

We need an immediate public inquiry. If the Premier is concerned about tainting the

future trial related to this weekend’s tragedy, the inquiry could focus on all those

other incidents. As a province, we cannot wait.

My question to the Premier is: will the Premier do the right thing and announce a

public inquiry into mental health care in B.C. today?

Hon. David Eby : There are a number of pieces in the member’s question I want to address.

First of all, with respect to the incident at the Lapu-Lapu Day festival, the mass

murder, it was just that. It was a mass murder by a man who decided to drive his vehicle

through a crowd. We don’t know why yet. It will be tested at the criminal trial and

ultimately, perhaps, at a public inquiry, but we will get British Columbians those

answers.

Vancouver Coastal Health tells us he was under active treatment. They tell us he was

compliant with his medication. They tell us that there was no indication that he was

violent. That will all be tested by cross-examination, perhaps twice. I’ll ask the

member and others to reserve judgment about what happened and let that process play

out.

For mental health broadly in the province, do we really need an inquiry to tell us

what we know we need to do, which is open more beds, provide more care, provide more

interventions in communities? Because that’s what we’re doing — 140 more hospital

beds across the province. We’re opening, across the province, intensive involuntary

care beds for people struggling with mental health, addiction and brain injury. Interventions

in communities. Additional ACT teams. Working with experts in the field like Dr. Daniel

Vigo.

There’s an aspect of the member’s question that I do want to address, the Mental Health

Act itself. We announced today that we’ll do a review and modernization of the act

to ensure it meets the expectations of British Columbians. We’ve held off on that

because of a court challenge to the act and the forced treatment provisions. We’re

defending the act. We think we need those forced treatment provisions. But the moment

we’re in, we can’t wait. We need to act.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Elenore Sturko : Yesterday the Premier stood on the steps of this place and said that if he didn’t

get the answers from court, he would call a public inquiry. Now he stands in this

place and says: “Why do a public inquiry if we already know what to do?” If the Premier

knows what to do, why is he not doing it?

Yesterday I received an email from the parents of a young man who had mental illness.

He was under the care of a mental health team, and he had been deteriorating for two

months before he was murdered, stabbed to death in an altercation.

His parents believe a lack of services and his deterioration contributed to the circumstances

that led to his murder. His parents said the mental health team did not check in on

their son with proper frequency and effectiveness or verify his medication.

[2:10 p.m.]

They said: “No one listened to us. Our son was miserably failed. His death could have

been prevented.”

Will the Premier do the right thing by this family and countless other families, families

that are impacted by the failures of the mental health system under this Premier and

this government, and call an inquiry into our system today?

Hon. David Eby : I’m sure the member didn’t do it intentionally, but she conflated my answer.

On the issue of the mass murder at the Lapu-Lapu festival, British Columbians deserve

answers. Why did this happen? If they don’t get the answers from the criminal process,

we will call a full public inquiry. I was very clear about that in my first answer

and clear again now. We will get British Columbians the answers, because I want the

answers. British Columbians want the answers. I know the member wants the answers

too.

In terms of the broad array of issues, in terms of people struggling in our streets,

in our communities, in terms of people needing additional supports, attending at hospitals….

And it’s not just mental health; it’s other aspects of health care too. Why we’re

expanding hospitals, why we’re expanding beds across the province, why we’re expanding

assertive care teams…. We know what to do there.

Now the member has raised a very important issue today again, and in her private member’s

bill, about the role of families. How can families be more involved in the care, in

particular of adult children that are struggling with mental health and addiction?

This is exactly the kind of issue that a review of the modernization of the Mental

Health Act can address, and we’re doing that work.

Police Investigation of

Lapu-Lapu Festival Attack

and Comments by Premier

Steve Kooner : Yesterday, during the question period, the Premier commented about this past weekend’s

horrific tragedy and on the suspect. “He is rightly charged with murder. He is facing

a criminal trial. I hope he is convicted. I hope he spends the rest of his life behind

bars.”

Yesterday at a press conference and in the House, the Premier said that he didn’t

want to comment on the case because he didn’t want to interfere in the police investigation.

To the Attorney General, can she please confirm whether or not the Premier’s comments

yesterday meet the definition of interference in a police investigation?

Hon. David Eby : The member is again doing what the first member did, and I’m sure unintentionally.

He is conflating my very specific remarks about a public inquiry where we call people

to testify, force them to testify about the incidents at the Lapu-Lapu festival. That

could compromise the criminal investigation into that mass murder. We won’t do that.

My own opinion is that this man should be tried, should be prosecuted, should be sentenced

for the rest of his life to prison for murdering children and seniors and others.

That’s my opinion, and I’ll be blunt. I think that’s the opinion of British Columbians

across the province. But it’s up to the criminal courts.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh, Members.

Hon. David Eby : It’s up to the courts. They will do that work, and we’ll let them do that work.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Steve Kooner : With all due respect, I did not refer to a public inquiry. I’ll read the quote again.

“He is rightly charged with murder. He is facing a criminal trial. I hope he is convicted.

I hope he spends the rest of his life behind bars.”

While we hold strong opinions to what we want to happen to the perpetrator, we don’t

want to interfere in a police investigation.

To the Attorney General, does she agree that the head of this government publicly

declaring his own preference regarding guilt, innocence and sentencing before a police

investigation is complete constitutes interference?

Hon. David Eby : I don’t know what to take from this. One member is completely willing to try and

convict the care team that was following this individual.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, let the Premier finish.

Hon. David Eby : To speculate about what happened until the information is in….

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members.

Hon. David Eby : I raised this yesterday. I think it’s critical that the facts have a chance to come

out. The one person that it is unambiguous about what they did, the individual who

drove a vehicle into a crowd of British Columbians….

The opposition can’t bring itself to say that is murder, that he should be tried and

convicted. Well, I’m sorry. That’s my opinion. And if the member wants me to apologize

for that, I never will.

[2:15 p.m.]

Government Action on Climate

Change and Emissions Reduction

Jeremy Valeriote : The 2024 climate change accountability report was released yesterday.

I’ll start by saying I’m grateful for the transparency. This caucus and many British

Columbians are frustrated that we are not on track to meet our climate targets. It’s

my job to convey the anguish and anxiety felt by my constituents on this.

A failure to meet legislative targets in any other area would bring harsh criticism,

and this is no different. Climate inaction means British Columbians will pay a much

steeper price than any carbon price can inflict: infrastructure damage, health consequences,

societal insecurity.

This work is going to be hard, and I sadly acknowledge we’re in a lull on prioritizing

this existential issue of our time. It’s difficult to lead the way when popular sentiment

works against our long-term responsibilities.

My question is for the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions. How can this House

and this government inspire British Columbians to see climate stabilization as a populist

collective effort and give government of any stripe the support and authority to accelerate

the energy transition we all know we need to make?

Hon. Adrian Dix : Thank you to the Leader of the Green Party for the question.

Just in this period since the election, we’ve announced ten renewable energy projects

and today introduced legislation to ensure and help ensure that those projects are

built. We will be doing more on this question in the future. I think it’s a singular

and remarkable effort to respond to our economic development needs and our climate

needs, to link them together and to build everywhere in British Columbia, and we’re

going to do it.

Since the election, we’ve introduced new regulation on methane where we’re leading

Canada, indeed leading the world: a 43 percent reduction in methane emissions in the

oil and gas sector. The industry deserves some credit for this, as well, I would say.

We are going to meet our targets for 2030.

Do we have more work to do? You bet we have more work to do. That’s why we’re reviewing

CleanBC programs to ensure that we work towards reducing emissions in British Columbia

— that we do that, that we make it a priority and that we do it linked to the affordability

of people in our province and linked to the clean economic growth we need to do to

create jobs everywhere in B.C.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Jeremy Valeriote : One of the areas where we have a lot of work to do is emissions from transportation,

which are up 18 percent since 2007. This figure is bound to go up with the repeal

of the consumer carbon price. The underlying reason is no mystery. In my riding, there’s

no public transit between Whistler and Vancouver, despite it being a key commuter

and tourist corridor. Commuters across B.C. spend too much of their days stuck in

traffic for hours because public transit is inadequate or nonexistent.

I appreciate the effort on wind energy, but our concern is that this government is

ramping up clean energy that fossil-fuel-export enterprises can use to greenwash their

dirty operations. Every dollar of subsidy to polluting industries is a dollar not

spent building public transit. A low-carbon economy that benefits British Columbians

in the long term has a higher return on investment for these public dollars.

What is the minister’s plan to reduce emissions in the transportation sector?

Hon. Adrian Dix : I just disagree with the characterization of the member, and this is a good debate

to have. When you produce clean energy, and then you do it again and again, you build

out on the extraordinary opportunity for clean energy — on projects, by the way, that

are 51 percent owned by First Nations. You are making a transformational decision

about the economy, and we have to continue to do that.

There is no other option to do that, and it benefits our economy, creates jobs and

builds public support for action against climate change. You bet we support this.

I hope all members of the House will support this, and we’ll be testing that in a

coming debate in the Legislature.

With respect to transportation initiatives, B.C. has the lead in Canada in transition

to EVs. That’s because of the work of a lot of people, including new car dealers,

including environmental leaders. We’ve got to continue to drive in that direction.

We have some of the most significant transit projects being built in Canada right

now, under the leadership of my colleague, the Minister of Transportation.

We need more transit, you bet. We’re building more transit. We need new EVs on the

road. We’re building it. It means the electricity we make in B.C. replaces the gasoline

we import to B.C. This is good for our province.

We support CleanBC, and we’re going to continue to act on climate change.

[2:20 p.m.]

Involuntary Mental Health Care

and Conditions for Persons

in Corrections System

Brennan Day : Both sides of this House agree that mental health is in crisis in this province.

Last week this government proudly announced nine involuntary care beds at Surrey Pretrial

and triumphantly declared that progress. Let’s be clear. Nine beds isn’t progress;

it’s a band-aid.

Even Dr. Daniel Vigo said: “Prior to the beds opening, people who required involuntary

care while in jail had to wait in segregation for weeks.” Weeks in solitary confinement,

while in mental health distress — that’s not care; that’s cruelty.

Can the minister confirm that people elsewhere in this province are not being held

in solitary confinement, awaiting mental health care?

Hon. Josie Osborne : Thank you to the member for the question, talking about the very important interventions

and action that this government is taking to support people who need a very special

kind of care.

We have Dr. Vigo working with us as a chief scientific adviser. His work has helped

us to identify a very small group of people who suffer from concurrent disorders —

substance use, complex mental health challenges, often acquired brain injury — and

who need these supports. It is so important, whether this person is in a correctional

facility or outside, that they get it.

That’s why we’ve made the commitment that we have. That’s why we’re building and have

opened ten beds at the Surrey Pretrial Centre. That’s why, next month, approved homes

at Alouette and Maple Ridge will open for people outside of the correctional centre.

That’s why we’ve made the commitment to continue to build out this system, so that

people, rather than being held in solitary confinement, get the care that they need

before they can be released back into the correctional facility population or, if

being released or out in the community, get the support that they need.

We know that more needs to be done. We’ve made the commitment. We’re acting, we’ve

opened beds, and we’re going to do more.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Brennan Day : Respectfully, I don’t believe it’s a small number. That is not the experience in

communities across British Columbia.

To the minister, how many people are concurrently being held in segregation while

awaiting involuntary care, and when will this minister commit to funding enough beds

across the province to make this cruel practice obsolete?

Hon. Josie Osborne : One of the most important things, I think, that we are all seeing is how we have

to approach this work with compassion and with dignity, ensuring that people are safe

in our communities and that people who are experiencing these disorders are safe as

well.

For too long, there has been a cycle of moving between the criminal justice system

and out into communities, with people not getting the care that they need. The humane

thing to do, the right thing to do, is to provide supports for these people.

That’s what we’re doing through involuntary treatment. That’s why we opened these

ten beds at Surrey Pretrial. We’re going to continue this work. We, as a government,

have recognized how important that is to do. That’s why we have Dr. Vigo working with

us. We’re going to continue to do that.

As I said, we’re going to expand this system of care so that people get the compassionate,

patient-centred care that they need.

Mental Health and Addiction Services

Facility Proposal for Okanagan Area

Gavin Dew : I think we can definitely all agree that it has been too long. For years, municipalities

and community groups in the Okanagan have been forced to pick up the slack and take

the blame for this government’s failed addiction and mental health policies.

There is a regional consensus around the need for a facility like the Red Fish Healing

Centre, which is a proven model to provide mandatory compassionate care for people

in need, but people in desperate need of help are still waiting, and our communities

are still bearing the brunt of it.

Will the Premier commit today to fast-track this project?

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

The Red Fish Healing Centre has presented an opportunity to give people the compassionate

care that they need, under the very specialized guidance of teams of mental health

professionals, of psychiatrists, of people who work with them to help recover from

severe substance use addictions combined with mental health challenges.

[2:25 p.m.]

I’ve had the opportunity to visit the facility and see the incredible care that’s

being delivered there. We’ve made that commitment to continue to expand those services

and more to ensure that people get the care they need, not just that type of specialized

care but all through the continuum of care that is needed, from early intervention

right through to the kinds of treatment and recovery services that are needed, the

aftercare, so that people can return to their homes and return to their communities.

We are not shying away from this. We never will. We are going to continue, and we

are going to continue to work hard at it.

Access to Mental Health and

Addiction Services in Northern B.C.

Claire Rattée : Northern B.C. has the highest rates of suicide in the province, nearly double the

national average and significantly more than any other health authority in British

Columbia.

Families are losing loved ones because basic mental health care simply doesn’t exist

in northern B.C. In my riding, a psychiatrist only comes a few times a year, and it

is a long wait to see a counsellor.

Will the Health Minister commit to at least one full-time psychiatrist in Skeena by

the end of 2025?

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

I appreciate the many opportunities that she and I have had to discuss the inequity

of services for people who are living in the North and the need to expand those services

to rural and remote communities.

I couldn’t agree more. We know that it’s very difficult for people to navigate the

mental health system and that people who live in the North and live in smaller communities

experience that to a greater degree. That’s why action is needed, and I completely

agree.

It’s why we’ve been expanding crisis teams across B.C. It’s why we’ve established

telephone lines for people to be able to get access. It’s why we have invested in

crisis counselling and counselling supports, low-barrier counselling. In fact, last

year over 29,000 people accessed our programs in counselling. Over half of them were

accessing mental health supports for the very first time.

We are going to continue to invest in the mental health care system, and we are going

to continue to expand access to those supports, including in the member’s own riding.

The Speaker : Member, supplemental.

Claire Rattée : I’ll take that response as a no, then. We still don’t get access to a psychiatrist

in Skeena. Clearly, this government doesn’t grasp the gravity of the situation in

B.C.’s north.

Mental health challenges are the precursor to many of the problems that are devastating

our communities, particularly addiction. Thousands of British Columbians have been

seeking treatment voluntarily, and they cannot access it. It’s enough excuses.

I’m hoping the Minister of Environment, the only NDP MLA in the North, can talk to

her colleagues down south and finally get some action for the people that are in need

in northern B.C.

Hon. Josie Osborne : I welcome a conversation with any MLA from any riding to talk about the supports

in their communities.

The member talks about the importance of being able to gain access to mental health

supports early. I want to talk specifically about one particular program that this

government has established and invested in, and that’s the early psychosis intervention

program. This is so important for youth to be able to access. I’m going to tell a

story about a young man, Cameron Webster.

Cameron Webster was a typical teenager. He was into sports. He was a competitive boxer.

When he was 19 years old, he began to experience auditory hallucinations and paranoia.

His parents took him to the hospital. He was diagnosed with psychosis. He became a

client of Island Health’s early psychosis intervention program. A year later he was

also diagnosed with a schizoaffective disorder.

He says that the time he experienced in psychosis, with psychosis, marked the hardest

part of his life, but it gave him a new direction in life and compassion for others.

Now, today…. He went on to study mental health and addictions locally, at Camosun

College. He works as a peer support worker in the same program that he used to attend.

That is a guiding light in the kinds of supports we need to continue to expand for

youth, for teenagers, for adults, and it’s the work that this government is so deeply

committed to doing. We are going to continue to do this work because we know that

people need the care when they need it, where they need it and that is what we are

going continue to do.

[2:30 p.m.]

Kiel Giddens : We’ve just heard from the Minister of Health, but respectfully, my colleague is not

from Vancouver Island.

Yesterday the Premier told this House that the government is making very good progress

on psychiatric care in northern B.C., yet today patients in crisis continue to be

released prematurely, directly risking community safety and safety to themselves.

The only secure forensic care for a potentially dangerous patient in a community like

Terrace is 12 hours away in Kamloops, if there’s a space even available.

The Premier talks about meetings and special advisers, but Northern Health needs more

than promises. They need secure psychiatric care beds immediately. The city of Prince

George supports the petition for better psychiatric care in Northern Health.

I’ll ask the Premier again, while the city of Prince George delegation is here in

this House today. When will the government move beyond meetings and platitudes and

actually deliver secure psychiatric hospital beds that northern communities desperately

deserve?

Hon. David Eby : I thank the member for his advocacy for his community. I suspect he’s aware that

our work there goes well beyond meetings and conversations. I look forward to being

able to update him very soon.

We’ve been working closely with the city of Prince George, with Chief Dolleen Logan,

with mental health specialists at the local hospital on adding additional beds. I

look forward to sharing more information soon.

Overdose Prevention Site at

Langley Memorial Hospital

Harman Bhangu : This government talks about action, but every day things in this province just get

worse. Yesterday a constituent of mine sent me a video of a drug tent that is set

up once again outside of Langley Memorial Hospital. This tent was set up 50 yards

away from a long-term-care home for seniors.

I asked the minister in February to take care of this, and she said: “We expect health

authorities, whose jurisdiction it is to enforce this policy, to do that work.” She

promised me it would be dealt with. Here we are over two months later, and this problem

still persists.

When will this minister act and get rid of the drug tent outside of Langley Memorial

Hospital, where families go to visit their loved ones?

Hon. Josie Osborne : The member refers to Surrey Memorial Hospital, a place that has episodic….

Interjections.

Hon. Josie Osborne : The member mentioned Surrey and mentioned Langley. I’ll talk about Langley.

Overdose prevention services are an important part of the continuum of supports that

are provided to people, that help separate them from the toxic drug supply, keep them

alive and give them access to people to talk about the supports that they need.

I’ve spoken in this House many times before around the work that we’re doing on overdose

prevention services, ensuring that we are working with health authorities under the

policies that are provided and also updating that guidance and policies for health

authorities to ensure that people are kept safe — staff and workers, volunteers at

these services, the people around in communities as well.

I’ll have more to say about that soon.

Community Safety and Involuntary

Care for Mental Health Issues

Trevor Halford : The Premier today, yesterday…. He has talked about getting answers. The problem with

that is that British Columbians have been looking for answers for years, not just

since the tragic events that took place on Saturday. It’s been years.

We’ve seen Constable Yang lose her life. We’ve seen, in White Rock, somebody stabbed

to death on the White Rock promenade. We’ve seen an elderly senior have their door

kicked in at midnight and beaten half to death, and then hours later we’ve seen an

RCMP officer almost have their firearm taken from them and have to have a physician

choke that individual out.

These cases aren’t new to this House. The problem is that the answers the Premier

has been giving in this House aren’t new either. The only legislation that we’ve got

to deal with any of these issues has come from this side of the House. This side of

the House has put that forward. We’ve had a Premier and a government campaign, not

one election but two elections, in terms of involuntary care and involuntary treatment,

and nothing.

[2:35 p.m.]

My question to the Premier is this. Will he stand up today and take responsibility

for the utter failure that we are seeing in every corner of this province regarding

mental health and regarding keeping our communities safe? Will the Premier take the

leadership and the responsibility that he has failed us to get this done?

Hon. David Eby : I appreciate the member’s passion about the issue. It’s important to have safe communities,

but it’s important to be accurate as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Shhh.

Hon. David Eby : The government has put in place new directives for physicians and nurses across the

province about involuntary care for people struggling with mental health and addiction.

We have expanded ACT teams across the province. These are teams that go out and assertively

provide mental health care in the community — 34 across the province, in communities

right across British Columbia.

We have new crisis response teams that are a nurse and peers who go out to take the

load off police, respond to mental health issues and provide care to people so police

can focus on fighting crime.

We are building 140 additional mental health beds at hospitals. We opened ten new

beds just the other day at Surrey Pretrial, the beginning of a series of beds targeted

at people struggling with mental health, addiction and brain injury.

Members are asking serious questions. I am providing serious answers about the action

the government is taking, and we’re not done. We’ve got more to do. The good news

is that we’re seeing crime rates come down in the province.

Interjections.

The Speaker : Members, the question was asked. Let’s hear the answer. There’s no need to interrupt.

Please.

The Premier will continue.

Hon. David Eby : We know we’ve got more to do, but we also know that these interventions are working.

We’re going to keep working until every single British Columbian is safe in every

community in this province.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

Elenore Sturko : I rise on a point of order. I’ve never in this place made a statement that I wanted

to convict mental health care teams, such as was characterized by the Premier, and

I’d ask him to withdraw.

Hon. David Eby : I was using a metaphor to refer to the member’s speculation about the teams, but

I accept that she has not made that statement and withdraw it.

Tabling Documents

The Speaker : I have the honour to table two registrar of lobbyists reports: determination decision

24-03, Paul Rasmussen; and reconsideration decision 24-03, Paul Rasmussen.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I call Motion 19 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 19 — Appointment of

Special Committee to Review the

Lobbyists Transparency Act

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move Motion 19, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which

appoints a special committee to review the Lobbyists Transparency Act.

[That a Special Committee to Review the Lobbyists Transparency Act be appointed to review the Lobbyists Transparency Act (S.B.C. 2001, c. 42), pursuant to

section 11.1 of the Act.

That the Special Committee have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition

be empowered to:

a. appoint of its number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees

any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees

all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b. sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation

until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c. conduct consultations by any means the Special Committee considers appropriate;

d. adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and,

e. retain personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.

That the Special Committee report to the House by May 4, 2026, and that during a period

of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or in the next following

Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to the House.

That the Special Committee be composed of the following members: Steve Morissette (Convener), Rosalyn Bird , Paul Choi , Kiel Giddens and Harwinder Sandhu .]

The Speaker : Members, you heard the question.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I call Motion 20 on the order paper.

Motion 20 — Committee of Supply

and Committee of the Whole

to Sit in Three Sections

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move Motion 20, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, which

rescinds the sessional order adopted by the House on March 12, 2025, and replaces

it with a new sessional order establishing

Section A,

Section B and

Section C.

[That the Sessional Order adopted by the House on March 12, 2025, enabling concurrent

proceedings of the House, be discharged.

And that, for the remainder of the current Session:

GENERAL

1. Certain proceedings of the House may be undertaken in three sections, designated

Section A,

Section B and

Section C, to be subject to the rules that follow.

Section A and

Section C sit in such committee room as may be designated from time

to time, and

Section B sit in the Legislative Chamber.

Section A,

Section B and

Section C be authorized to examine all Estimates, and

for all purposes be deemed to be the Committee of Supply, and that the Standing Orders

relating to the consideration of Estimates in the Committee of Supply and to Committees

of the Whole House be applicable to such proceedings, save and except that, during

proceedings in Committee of Supply in

Section A and

Section C, a Minister may defer

to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

Section A,

Section B and

Section C be authorized to consider bills at committee

stage after second reading thereof, and for all purposes be deemed to be a Committee

of the Whole House, and that the Standing Orders relating to the consideration of

bills in a Committee of the Whole House be applicable to such proceedings.

5. Estimates or bills may be considered in the order determined by the Government

House Leader and may at any time be subsequently referred to another designated Section,

as determined by the Government House Leader in accordance with Standing Order 27 (2).

COMPOSITION

6. The Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole or their designate preside in

Section

A and

Section C.

Section A and

Section C consist of 12 Members, not including the Chair, being six

Members of the B.C. NDP Caucus, five Members of the Conservative Party of British

Columbia Caucus and one Member of the B.C. Green Party Caucus.

8. The Members of

Section A be: the Minister whose Estimates are under examination

or who is in charge of the bill under consideration and Rohini Arora , Hon. Ravi Parmar , Janet Routledge , Harwinder Sandhu , Amna Shah , Amelia Boultbee , Gavin Dew , Steve Kooner , Lawrence Mok , David Williams and Rob Botterell .

9. The Members of

Section C be: the Minister whose Estimates are under examination

or who is in charge of the bill under consideration and Hon. Adrian Dix , Stephanie Higginson , Hon. Sheila Malcolmson , Steve Morissette , Hon. Niki Sharma , Heather Maahs , Macklin McCall , Larry Neufeld , Ian Paton , Donegal Wilson and Jeremy Valeriote .

10. Substitutions for Members of

Section A and

Section C be permitted with the consent

of the Member’s Caucus Whip.

Section B be composed of all Members of the House.

DIVISIONS

12. When a division is requested in

Section A, the division bells shall be rung four

times, and the division shall proceed in accordance with Standing Order 16.

13. When a division is requested in

Section B, the division bells shall be rung three

times, at which time proceedings in

Section A and

Section C shall be suspended, and

the division shall proceed in accordance with Standing Order 16.

14. When a division is requested in

Section C, the division bells shall be rung five

times, and the division shall proceed in accordance with Standing Order 16.

15. If a division is underway in

Section A or

Section C at the time that a division

is requested in

Section B, the division in

Section B be suspended until the completion

of the division in

Section A or

Section C.

REPORTING

16. At 15 minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the

Chair of

Section A and

Section C shall report to the House.]

The Speaker : You have heard the question.

Motion approved.

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

of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry

of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. When they finish, I will call, at this

point, Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship.

Then in

Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 7.

[2:40 p.m.]

The House in Committee,

Section B.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Housing and Municipal Affairs

(continued)

The Chair : Good afternoon, Members. We’ll call this chamber back to order, and we will call

on the minister to read the vote.

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

The Chair : We’re contemplating questions, of course, today on the estimates of the Ministry

of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I just want to make an opening comment.

First, I wanted to recognize the students that are here from McRoberts Secondary.

Hopefully, you’re enjoying your visit to Victoria and enjoying the travel around the

Legislature. Your MLA that represents you is not in the chamber. I’m not supposed

to say that, but he’s not, so I’ll do that. On everyone’s behalf, I want to welcome

you.

We’re having a debate about the budget for the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

We have an exchange, and people get to ask me any questions about our budget and where

the money is going and what’s happening in different communities throughout the province.

I hope you enjoy the debate, and thank you for coming. Hopefully, one of you will

be down here someday in the future as an elected official.

I also see Coun. Kyle Sampson here from Prince George.

Nice to see you.

We’ve done a lot of work, I think, between Prince George council and our ministry

and our team to ensure that we have a lot of housing coming on pretty quick in Prince

George. I want to welcome him here and thank him for being here.

I look forward to the exchange today.

The Chair : Welcome, everyone, to the Legislature.

Tony Luck : I’ll just start off where we left off yesterday. I’m going to have some questions

that weren’t asked yesterday, but we’ll just fly at it here.

For the first one, though…. We just had a bill presented yesterday, Bill 13, with

a whole lot of changes to the Community Charter and the Vancouver Charter. My question

will go around that, especially in this time of challenging finances for the municipalities

and everything. And maybe we need to look at….

[2:45 p.m.]

The Community Charter was last updated in 2003. In the meantime, there have been a

lot of band-aids applied to it. The question would be: given the evolving needs of

municipalities, when does the ministry plan to initiate a comprehensive review and

update of the community and Vancouver charters to better support local governments

in addressing contemporary challenges that we’re experiencing today?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I appreciate the member not talking about the legislation, but I can say to the member

that’s something we do all the time. Usually in each session — and not only in our

time in government; you’ll see that in previous governments as well — there are constant

changes happening to the Community Charter, constant changes happening to the Vancouver

Charter. It is very much a living document, I guess you can say, because the needs

change.

I would say that we engage regularly with UBCM, with different local governments to

identify challenges to the city of Vancouver, in particular with the Vancouver Charter.

Where we can make those changes, we certainly bring them into the House. I appreciate

the member noting that we have changes for those happening right now in the chamber

at this time.

Tony Luck : I appreciate the answer on that, Minister, and recognizing that….

I think what I’m hearing out in the communities is that there are other communities

— some of them are maybe surpassing the size of Vancouver and everything — looking

for their own charters maybe somewhere down the road.

We’re just wondering if there would be, some time in the future, recognizing some

of the things that need to be done in modernizing it…. I know we’re putting band-aids

on it constantly, but what I’m hearing out there is that a complete rewrite or a complete

sit-down to look at this would be really, really important as we move forward.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : There are a couple of first general comments I’ll make.

The Vancouver Charter has challenges. In fact, the work the city of Vancouver has

been doing has actually been shifting to better align with the Community Charter because

of the complexities. It comes with additional complexities because anyone that, for

example, wants to build a home in Vancouver has to understand the Vancouver Charter.

It’s a whole different animal, so to speak.

What you end up seeing are homebuilders that will build in Vancouver but won’t build

in other communities, or they build in other communities, and they won’t build in

Vancouver just because of that complexity. We’ve been trying to do work to better

align the two to ensure that there’s a balance. Something that was created uniquely

for the city of Vancouver over time has been evolving to become something that is

similar with the Community Charter. It’s ironic that’s happening.

Now the member may be referring to Surrey, because Surrey did say that they want to

consider their own charter. I met with the mayor and their staff to discuss specific

issues that they had and that they thought would be better for them with their own

charter. At that time, there weren’t the specifics. We’ve asked them to provide us

some information of what they think that could be. My understanding is that they’ve

just provided some preliminary information to us now. We’ll explore that.

My view is that if there’s something that the community needs in Surrey or another

major community, Burnaby, it may be something all communities need. So we’ll look

at that, we’ll analyze it, and then we’ll assess whether that’s something that’s unique

or whether that’s something that we should consider for all communities.

Tony Luck : One last comment on that. We’re a party of efficiency over on this side of the thing.

It certainly, after your comments, would make sense; let’s consolidate this and bring

it in because it would take a lot of confusion out for the builders and citizens and

all that and even new councils that get elected and everything have to understand

their charter. So it might be worthwhile to look at that, moving forward.

I’ll leave it at that for now, and thank you, Minister, for answering that question.

What I’d like to move to now…. A couple of questions.

As you know, in 2021, an atmospheric river disaster exposed serious weaknesses in

the Fraser Valley flood protection system, never mind in a couple of other communities,

especially the one that I live in up in Merritt, many of which are governed by outdated,

underfunded local diking authorities.

A 2022 report estimated that over $4 billion is needed for dike upgrades, pump station

replacement and resilience retrofits. To cite public expectations of urgent investments,

the pace of construction and planning has been slow, with multiple levels of government

blaming each other for jurisdictional holdups. Local governments report no clear provincial

lead agency while the province has publicly shifted responsibility to local diking

authorities.

[2:50 p.m.]

My question to the minister would be: why is the province taking so long to appoint

a dedicated coordinated agency or provincial flood infrastructure lead for the Fraser

Valley, despite repeated calls from the municipalities and First Nations for a one-stop

approach to this issue?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I appreciate the question and the concern.

I’m well aware of that because I was watching it very closely when we had to deal

with the atmospheric rivers south of the Fraser. I can tell the member that this question

is better for water, lands and natural resources because that’s within their ministry’s

portfolio.

Tony Luck : Yeah, fair enough on that. But this reaches into the municipalities, and they’re

the ones that are asking for that as well. Just a couple more questions, then, to

help them understand where we’re at with that, especially when we’re in the budget,

and if there’s money allocated and allowed for that.

What percentage of the estimated $4 billion flood infrastructure needed in the Fraser

Valley has been committed or spent as of 2025?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I can share with the member infrastructure dollars that we’ve shared with communities,

but this is very much in the water, lands and natural resources department. There

was, I believe, a flood mitigation strategy that’s being developed by that ministry.

You know, they’re the leads. They’ll have more information.

If the member wants to talk about infrastructure generally, I’m happy to talk about

it. But if it’s specific to floods, it is very much in a different ministry.

Tony Luck : All right, infrastructure. What is the current state of the Barrowtown pump station,

and are upgrades being prioritized, given its critical role in protecting Sumas Prairie?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Again, it’s not our ministry, but I appreciate the member putting it on the record

that he raised the questions.

I do believe, a few years ago, that the Emergency Management Ministry provided approximately

$50 million to the pump station. I’m trying to share a number that may not be exact,

but it’s in that ballpark, because it was EMCR that did that and not Ministry of Housing

and Municipal Affairs.

Tony Luck : We’ll just ask one more question around that, because this is to do with intergovernmental

disputes and that.

Will the ministry confirm if any of the funding delays are due to intergovernmental

disputes over jurisdictions? How does the government intend to break the cycle of

jurisdictional finger-pointing and the need for us to work together to get these things

put together?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Again, because this is EMCR, it’s better situated for there. But I can just share

with the member that I do recall that there are always disagreements, not only in

this, but with many issues, as you can imagine.

With this specific issue, I believe it was 2005, from my memory, approximately around

there, when Gordon Campbell was the Premier. Then there was a shift for who was responsible

for this. There was a major shift. So there are disputes since then on who is responsible

and why and who should be responsible.

[2:55 p.m.]

Again, it’s not my ministry that’s leading it; it’s EMCR. But to the member’s question

— are there disputes? — there are lots of disputes on different issues.

Tony Luck : I appreciate the honesty there around there being some cross-ministry situations

there. But we certainly like to get the answers, especially in this time of floods

and things that we’ve been experiencing in the province. So I appreciate that.

We’ll move to another topic here that’s been raising a lot of hackles and a lot of

questions. The Sen̓áḵw development is a major residential and mixed-use project led by the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nation in Vancouver, as you know, adjacent to the Burrard Bridge and Vanier Park.

Notably exempt from local municipal zoning and planning processes due to its status

as Indigenous reserve land, the project has drawn attention and controversy over its

scale, density and limited consultation with municipal authorities.

Questions persist around the province’s role in the project, specifically on whether

public resources or taxpayer support were extended to the project, either directly

or indirectly. There are concerns about transparency regarding public funding, infrastructure

costs and lost municipal revenues, particularly given the project’s exemption from

standard development cost charges and transfers. I’m hoping the minister can help

me on a couple of questions here that we’ve got around that project.

For the first one, can the minister confirm explicitly what role, if any, the provincial

government played in facilitating or supporting the Sen̓áḵw development project, either financially or logistically?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’ll make a couple of comments on this.

First, we need housing. It’s a consistent conversation that happens. I recall a famous

quote from a person who said: “What do we want?” They said: “Affordable housing.”

They said, “Where do we want it?” and then no one spoke. It’s a real challenge for

us because we consistently know we need housing, but nobody wants that housing near

their backyard.

I’m generally supportive of any opportunities there are, especially Indigenous-led,

especially the opportunity to actually have affordable housing in Vancouver, where

it’s needed.

The member’s question was what financial investments we have in that project. We don’t

have any. Our ministry does not. It’s possible that MIRR may be involved somehow with

the project, but certainly not the Ministry of Housing.

Tony Luck : Thank you, Minister.

I don’t think we’re worried about the low housing costs. It seems it’s the double

standard that’s being done here, waiving of DCCs, bylaw exemptions, municipal zoning

exemptions. I think that’s the concern about a lot of people here, that that’s happening

on.

Can this minister talk about that and why that has been allowed in this particular

project or any project like that?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I think the member knows this. There are often DCCs waived, there are often fees

waived, and there are often parks waived. I certainly hope that folks that are raising

concerns are not doing it because it is an Indigenous-led project. It’s unlikely that

it is, but I certainly hope that is not the case. It does happen.

Often developers come forward, or not-for-profits come forward, and say, “Can you

waive DCCs so that the project can be viable or, in some cases, be more deeply affordable?”

From a B.C. Housing perspective, we’re constantly going to communities to say: “We’ll

build affordable housing if you come to the table with some relief in those things.”

So that’s a city of Vancouver question. Of course, the federal government is the entity

that has invested significantly in that project.

Tony Luck : Yeah, I don’t think it’s coming from any position except that some groups get things

waived, especially when it comes to zoning — upzoning, downzoning, whatever the case

is. So they’re just concerned about that piece of it. I don’t think it’s anything

to do with any group or any of that in particular. That’s not what I’ve heard.

I was recently at a dedication in Merritt for a new Indigenous seniors housing project

that when I was on council, we approved, so we were quite happy to do that. I was

at the open house the other day. It was amazing — 59 units.

This is just about what we’re doing with the municipal zonings and bylaws and things

like that. Are we slowly creeping them down or whatever? I think there’s a concern

about that.

Beyond direct funding, were any provincial resources, such as technical expertise,

land transfers, expedited permits or legislated exemptions specifically provided to

enable the rapid advancement of this project?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’m not aware. Because we don’t have a direct investment in that project, it’s very

unlikely that we would be involved in any way. The federal government is involved,

so they may have supported.

I would say that MST — Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, xʷməθkʷəy̓əm — have a very, very sophisticated development arm. In some situations when we’re

building Indigenous housing, we may need to be involved in some way or another, but

when you have nations who have development arms as thoughtful and as big a player

as them…. They’ve got their own teams, I’m sure, that can handle all that work.

Tony Luck : A little further into that, could we find out what are the estimated total public

infrastructure costs, including roads, transit access, utility connections, sewage

and water, imposed on the city of Vancouver and the province due to the Sen̓áḵw development?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I understand Mayor Ken Sim was here earlier. I should have brought him in with me

for estimates.

Most of those infrastructure pieces are for the mayor and the city, and we haven’t

gotten, or I certainly haven’t gotten, any correspondence to say: “Can you support

us with infrastructure for these things?” It is very much a conversation between the

city of Vancouver and, in this case, the folks that lead the development.

I would say it’s not often, when you have a unique development come forward, where

local government would come to us and say: “Can you provide us infrastructure just

for that?” So I can’t provide the member with that answer.

Tony Luck : Has the province conducted or reviewed any fiscal analysis estimating how much property

tax revenue the city of Vancouver and the province will forgo annually due to the

special Indigenous reserve tax status granted the Sen̓áḵw development?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Our ministry doesn’t have that. It’s possible the Ministry of Finance might have

information around tax measures and potential dollars coming in or not, but it’s not

something our ministry has.

Again, thank you to the students from McRoberts.

Safe travels. Enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you for coming today.

Tony Luck : Given the unique financial and regulatory arrangements for Sen̓áḵw, does the ministry consider this project to represent a successful housing model,

and is the province actively pursuing or facilitating similar projects elsewhere in

the Lower Mainland or throughout British Columbia?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : If the question is, “Do we believe that housing in partnership with Indigenous communities,

with First Nations, is something we want to pursue in the future?” the answer to that

is: absolutely, yes. We think there are enormous opportunities to partner, to build

affordable housing with Indigenous communities.

In fact, if you look at BC Builds, we have a project in Cowichan, a BC Builds project

where the nation is bringing land and we’re bringing financing to bring more attainable

housing to the community. We have an attainable home ownership program that we’re

moving forward with MST on Heather Lands. We’re constantly having discussions with

different nations about housing opportunities across the province.

Tony Luck : I’m just finding my next sheet here. I’m sorry. Well, we’ll go on to the questions

on here.

The governance controversies in Metro Vancouver during early 2020 have highlighted

long-standing inefficiencies, redundancy and costly bureaucratic overlap among multiple

municipal governments in British Columbia.

I’ll prewarn you that this’ll be a bit of a sensitive topic here for many municipalities,

but studies from other jurisdictions indicate consolidation can streamline governance,

reduce administration redundancy and significantly ease taxpayer burdens by standardizing

municipal tax rates and service deliveries.

[3:05 p.m.]

Despite the clear advantages, the ministry appears unwilling to explore or to transparently

discuss the potential benefits of municipal consolidation in Metro Vancouver or elsewhere

around the province. Does this ministry…?

Given the high-profile governance controversy that engulfed much of Metro Vancouver

recently, has your ministry initiated or conducted any comprehensive studies on the

viability and taxpayer benefits of consolidating municipal governments in the Lower

Mainland or elsewhere in the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : If the member is asking, “Are we planning on merging communities?” the answer is

no.

We do support communities that want to explore that. For example, Saanich and Victoria

recently just had a people’s assembly where they wanted to engage with citizens about

how they should move forward as two communities. It was actually recommended by the

people’s assembly that they move forward with a merger, so to speak, to create efficiencies.

We helped fund that at the request of Victoria and Saanich, but in the end, those

two communities need to go back with the report to their communities and make some

decisions, and then we’ll look at it from there.

Tony Luck : To the minister: can you explain why this government would prefer to maintain the

status quo of fragmented, high-tax municipal bureaucracies rather than consolidating

governance structures that could demonstrably reduce tax burdens for British Columbians

around the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It’s why we provided Saanich and Victoria $250,000 for them to put an assembly together

to look at that question, and that report encompasses some of that. So that would

be an example of where we do that.

Of course, we’re not going to force Vancouver and Burnaby and New West to become one,

but if those communities came forward…. I hope no reporter is listening to this, saying

the minister is suggesting that, because I’m not. I’m using a hypothetical. Now it’s

going to be in a tweet, going out in an attack ad in moments.

Hypothetically, if those communities were interested in that, we would certainly support

facilitating that conversation, but we do leave that discussion to the communities

to find the efficiencies on that space.

Tony Luck : One last one on that one. Can the minister confirm, yes or no, whether the ministry

has undertaken research comparing the average property tax burdens faced by homeowners

in different municipalities across British Columbia, and if so, will you publicly

release that comparative tax analysis, and is there a benefit to communities consolidating

their efforts?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I was just confirming with the team. We have no studies on looking at merging communities

right now that I’m aware of.

Tony Luck : One last question on this one, then I’m going to turn a bit of time over to my colleague

here.

[3:10 p.m.]

Given the clear taxpayer frustration surrounding uneven and rising municipal tax burdens,

what measures, if any, has your ministry taken to ensure municipal governments operate

efficiently, transparently and with full accountability to taxpayers?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : We canvassed this part yesterday.

A major step we took was around creating an ACC tool. Local governments now have been

using a process referred to as CACs, and often that’s negotiated in closed doors.

It creates a lot of doubt from the public because it’s not as transparent a process.

The questions are always raised: “Well, did this developer help support this local

government and that’s why they’re getting something lower? Why did this person get

charged more?”

In order to, I say, depoliticize some of the decisions on housing, we need to create

systems that create more transparency and more information up front. It’s good for

the homebuilders to know, up front, their costs so it’s not changing on them.

It’s good for the elected officials to be able to clearly say to their community:

“We’re going to build X, Y, Z. It’s in our bylaw, and this is how much it’s going

to cost each development to get to that.” I think it’s just better for us as a society

to streamline. That’s why we made those changes in legislation last year, and communities

now have some time to create their ACC tools.

As we move to, by the end of this year, all communities having updated their OCPs,

their official community plans, to 20 years of housing need, what we’ll see is less

need for public hearings, less need for public to be engaged, again, because that

engagement will happen regularly every five years, and the community gets to decide

where they want the housing. It also means that the ACC tool will be important for

amenities.

We’re doing a lot of work to create more transparency, more clarity for local governments

all the time.

Tony Luck : I do have a follow-up from the minister’s answer there.

I’ve been on council before, and I know how much we do not like public hearings. However,

they are an important piece of the transparency for the people in the community.

Is this ministry, under municipal affairs, looking at other ways to make sure that

they are more transparent, to be more transparent and be able to have those conversations

with the public on an ongoing, regular basis?

Even in Kamloops at this particular time, they’re struggling with having public hearings

as well. It’s really important that we’re able to keep that piece for the public so

that they’re able to come and see what’s happening within their community.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I think it’s vitally important that communities are engaged about how they grow.

Where is the housing going to go? Where are the parks going to be? Where are the amenities

going to be in the community?

Our view is that when you have an official community plan being developed, that is

the ideal time to engage the entire community on what the community should look like,

where the housing can go, so moving away from site by site but moving to a more holistic

approach where the community decides together where they want that.

What I’m hearing from local governments since we made the changes that we made last

year, which was no public hearings for any project that already meets the test of

what a community has decided on in their official community plan, is that more people

are engaging right now in their official community plans. I think that’s healthy for

democracy, where the community comes together and says: “This is where we want housing.

This is our plan for the next five years.” It creates more certainty for people who

are building homes.

It’s better for council, because then if a project comes, there’s an understanding

that we had that conversation, so we’re not having the same conversation when we create

the official community plan that we’re having when a specific project comes forward.

Often what ends up happening, and the member will know from council days, is that

people that live just near it will say: “We don’t want that house here.” Then the

next project comes, and the people nearby say: “We don’t want that.” But when the

community as a whole had decided that that’s where the housing should be….

Basically, what I’m getting at is that the public engagement piece is very important,

but when we decide where the housing should go and parks should go and how the community

should grow, that should be the plan until the community comes together again to do

that, and that will now be required every five years.

[3:15 p.m.]

It was certainly frustrating for a lot of communities, because there were communities

that didn’t have a plan updated for 14 to 20 years, so nobody knew what the rules

were. Nobody knew where you could build. Now, requiring it every five years, as we

have with legislation, it means the community will get a chance pretty much every

election cycle to be able to say: “Let’s relook at this. Let’s figure out where we

want that housing.”

Tony Luck : Yeah, I understand that. Then the public hearings…. But the OCPs are…. Two things.

One, it’s hard to get public engagements. I’m really happy to hear that the minister

is feeling confident that there’s more public getting engaged with this. But so many

times, we’d go to a public hearing, and they’d say: “Hey, we never heard anything

about the OCP.” Well, it can be up to a two-year process. That’s one of the things.

The other thing is it’s very, very expensive to do, especially in smaller communities

that are struggling to get their infrastructure needs and everything done in their

own community. When I got elected in my community, the OCP hadn’t updated for about

15 years, so I fully sympathize and understand that. But boy, once we tried to get

it implemented and going, we got push-back. So I’m really happy to hear that.

What my question would be around that is: will the ministry be able to help those

smaller communities that now have to update that OCP on a regular basis in a five-year

plan — to help them out financially? Especially, like I say, the smaller ones — 2,000,

1,500 residents. It’s hard to do that considering all the other things that they have

to do in that community as well.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I appreciate the member’s comments.

We provided, last year, $51 million for local governments for capacity dollars to

do this work, to update their OCPs, to make the changes. We also have provided additional

dollars, actually, through UBCM for streamlining processes and permitting. We are

supporting communities with capacity dollars. We know that’s needed.

In fact, we’re going further. What we’ve said to local governments, and I think it

ties to what the member was asking earlier, was instead of every community doing their

own report and doing their own assessment, we have funded through UBCM peer support

groups so that local governments could come together and say: “Why don’t you do a

study on this, and we’ll piggyback. And we’ll hire a consultant to do this work, and

we can do it together.” We’ve seen a lot of communities take up on that.

Of course, Metro Vancouver has some advantages because of their scale, where they’ve

been able to move forward, but we have seen other communities — the CRD, etc. — that

have taken the opportunity to work together and share learning as they go forward.

Tony Luck : I’ll take leave at the moment, but I reserve the right to come back to any questions.

I’m going to turn a bit of time over to my colleague. She has another meeting to run

off to, so if she can ask a few questions. please.

Kristina Loewen : I wasn’t quite ready for that, but here we are. It’s all good.

In February, our local team of MLAs held a round table in Kelowna Centre that was

focused on homelessness and how to support the vulnerable in our community. We had

a wide range of community members present, including many from non-profit supportive

housing and various shelters and organizations. At this session, and in many other

conversations, both private and public, the question of the Residential Tenancy Act

comes up. Specifically, why does the Residential Tenancy Act apply in supportive housing

situations?

The issue is that those administering programs in B.C. Housing facilities are unable

to evict problem tenants. This comes at the expense of more vulnerable residents and

their quiet enjoyment at times. This comes at the expense of the neighbours who actively

see illegal activity happening. Program administrators are frustrated, seeing that

they have almost no recourse with the problem tenants under the current Residential

Tenancy Act.

Will the minister consider evaluating the RTA and its effect on supportive housing?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I appreciate the question. It’s a good question. It’s a conversation we’ve been having

with supportive housing providers for some time, since I actually became the Minister

of Housing. I think there are a couple things that I need to clarify though.

The RTA always applied. It wasn’t something new that we added where the RTA applied.

The RTA always applied, but a lot of supportive housing providers were operating in

that grey space where there were things happening, but they did fall under the RTA,

and cases were coming forward.

What we did was we made changes that allowed supportive housing operators to implement

additional measures. We had heard from a lot of our providers that they wanted to

have guest policies tailored to their specific housing site and to be able to do wellness

checks. Those were the changes that we made.

Also, those practices previously were not allowed. They were under the RTA. There

were people operating in the grey space, often because they were working with folks

who were vulnerable, and there were different scenarios they had to deal with. The

change we made was to give them the ability to do wellness checks and to give them

the ability to monitor who’s coming in and out.

That being said, we have heard from some supportive housing operators who say: “Well,

there are still some challenges for us.” I can share with the member that there are

three things that we’re doing to address it.

One, we have a staff and workplace safety working group, of WorkSafeBC and B.C. Housing,

that can help find opportunities to improve worker safety — the safety for people

that are working there. That’s vitally important. It can be a difficult place, for

some, to work.

Second, we have a working group with law enforcement that is looking at supportive

housing, how we improve safety and how we improve security.

We also are providing webinars with all of our providers, so that we can address any

issues that they may have with the RTA and try to help navigate those challenges as

we go forward.

Work is ongoing. In the end, we want to make sure that the people that are working

there are safe, that the people living there are safe and that the people in the community

are safe. The ability for us to have wellness checks and put in guest policies so

that we can ensure that people are not just coming in and out — those were important

measures that we needed to put in place. That’s why we made those changes in 2024.

[3:25 p.m.]

Kristina Loewen : Thank you to the minister for that answer.

I understand that you’re working with a lot of different moving parts, and it’s complicated.

There are safety issues, and I can appreciate that. I appreciate, as well, that you’ve

put some things into place.

It does seem like there’s still a problem. People in Kelowna Centre who are working

on the front lines have been asking me to push for more reform with the Residential

Tenancy Act and how it is applied in these situations.

I’m asking the minister today: will you commit to a full evaluation and full public

report on the intended and unintended consequences of having the RTA, in effect, in

this scenario?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : As I said to the member, we continue to have conversations with supportive housing

providers. As you can imagine, there are varying opinions from provider to provider.

Some providers believe there are not enough rights for tenants. Some believe that

there are not enough rights for them.

We believe we’ve struck a balance with the changes we’ve made. We believe that wellness

checks need to happen. We believe that providers need to be able to monitor who is

coming in and out and when. That’s why we made those changes.

The differences that we have in opinion are not whether those things need to happen.

But some believe that the RTA didn’t apply to them before, and the reality was that

the RTA applied to them before. There were cases that came forward to the RTA from

people that were in supportive housing and were successful. So that’s why we just….

The only change we made was in that space, to clarify what can be done and what can’t

be done.

I can share with the member that these conversations are ongoing. I can also share

with the member, and hopefully the member can share with those concerned citizens

that raised this, that we actually have cases where supportive housing has evicted

people for safety. So a system is available and has worked.

If there are unique challenges, we are going to continue to try to find a pathway

forward that can find a balance between making sure people that work there, that live

there are safe but also has some respect for the people that are living there as well.

We need to make sure both are respected.

Kristina Loewen : Thank you to the minister for the answer.

I totally agree. It’s a hard balance to strike. I see that too. You have my support,

my respect and my collaboration.

I was going to ask about housing only versus housing first. I understand the idea

that if you house a person who’s in addiction or struggling with health or mental

health, that that’s an important first step — that ultimately, it is cost effective,

and it serves as a foundation for healing.

As I’ve been discussing this with the boots on the ground — those running the outreach

programs, those running the supportive housing units — I’ve discussed and discovered

a lack, a lack of forward movement and support for those in these facilities, a lack

of services. I have been told explicitly that what was meant to be housing first has,

somewhere along the lines, turned into housing only.

I will mention that I’ve noticed one thing that’s not lacking. That is that supervised

sites are supplied, including dedicated outdoor spaces for inhalants and indoor spaces

for injectables.

My question to the minister is: where are all the supports, the healing programs,

counselling, career skills, resume help, budget skills, cooking classes, just to start

with? And how is the Ministry of Housing liaising with the Ministry of Social Development

and Poverty Reduction? If not, how and when can we meet in committees?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The team and I were just chuckling because I’m wearing my Kelowna socks right now,

so it’s just timely with the Kelowna MLA asking questions.

Let me start by saying that we get a lot of requests, as you can imagine, from supportive

housing providers that always want more dollars. They always want more people. They

always want more things. That’s just something we grapple with. With every ministry,

with every program, there’s always a demand for more. I just should acknowledge that

off the top.

Every single supportive housing operation that we have has similar pieces in it, supportive

housing services to do room decluttering, life skills, community information and social

programming, education, employment life skills, case planning, residence assessments,

help to get IDs and income assistance, two meals per day, 24-hour staff coverage.

Ministry of Health comes in with mental health supports.

I think Kelowna, since we’re speaking about Kelowna, specifically…. I think the member

shared yesterday some of the successes we’ve had with the HEARTH units that have come

down in Kelowna. It’s pretty remarkable, I have to say. I’m actually really proud

of the work that’s been happening in partnership with Kelowna, because all these things

are being tracked.

For example, within not even a full year of those units on the ground, we’re able

to assess each of those things that I highlighted to see how people are making progress.

They use goals, trying to achieve certain goals. They’ve got 94 goals achieved for

personal development, so that’s people taking the steps to obtain their IDs and services.

We’ve had — I can share this with the member if the member wants it in writing; I

can do that — 89 goals achieved for financial well-being, 74 goals achieved for mental

health and substance use, and 39 goals were achieved for employment. That’s either

finding a full-time job or some sort of employment program. You know, it’s remarkable.

I believe there’s a number of what percentage of people or how many people have moved

to the HEARTH sites into either rental or connected with family, and it’s a remarkable

number. I believe it’s over 55 people that have moved into the supportive housing

site, have gotten through their life goals and have been able to reconnect and re-establish

with community in a bigger way.

You know, it’s a model of success. We always need improvement. We’re always looking

for ways to improve that, but there is a lot of progress happening there.

Kristina Loewen : That’s great. There definitely still seems to be a lot of frustration around supportive

housing. I’m just going to say that because in Kelowna Centre supportive housing has

taken up a significant amount of my time as MLA.

I’ve had feedback from residents, neighbours and the community at large in regard

to current supportive housing as well as new projects coming along. Most of the feedback

has been, you guessed it, negative.

Now, I’m going to temper that with saying that I do think that supportive housing

is needed, and I do think that the people of Kelowna Centre really do understand that

people need to be housed. They really do have a lot of care and compassion in general.

Kelowna is a very generous community.

[3:35 p.m.]

Where they struggle is when they see residents loitering, littering, attracting drug

dealers — allegedly, let’s say — in their neighbourhoods, next to parks where children

play, shopping and the like.

Where we question the current government’s planning is: why are we spreading supportive

housing out into so many different neighbourhoods? We don’t think this should be a

normal part of every neighbourhood.

Two questions to the minister. Why every neighbourhood? What is the plan for frustrated

neighbours who feel they’re getting the runaround when they contact local authorities

about some of the issues around the neighbourhood?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : It is an interesting conversation. If you hear from the city of Vancouver, they would

argue that too many people are in one neighbourhood, and that it should be more distributed.

I think, it’s important for folks…. Well, first off, the research shows that when

people are in a community, they’re more likely to actually integrate in the community

as they get their supports and services. If you move people into, and I know the member

is not saying this, more of a ghettoized environment where they’re isolated from everyone

else, the chance of success is less.

Our goal, ultimately, is to have people integrate. I fully get it. If people see people

loitering outside and some people get frustrated, I get that. I acknowledge that people

have sometimes concerns around seeing people that they normally didn’t see in their

community. Those fears — they’re genuine, and I get it. I’ve never said to anyone

that I discount their fears. I understand.

I also know that if they’re sleeping in the park or if they’re sleeping behind the

local business or in front of the local business, that also has challenges. That also

has safety concerns. Our view is it’s better to get people indoors, because we’re

seeing the success. In fact, 66 people, the latest number I have, out of approximately

110 people have moved in and moved out.

We’ll continue to work with our providers, work with the community on how we can address

some of those concerns. In some sites, we don’t get many. In some sites, you get a

little bit more.

That said, we need housing. What we do is we go to local governments and say: “We

know there’s a problem. We need housing. Where can we find housing? Where can we find

land?” And we go to where there are opportunities. Of course, we have to rely on our

local government partners to support us in that, and that’s the work we continue to

do in communities throughout the province.

Lastly, I’ll say that there are communities that historically have said: “We don’t

want any.” The ironic situation is that many of those communities, over time, come

to the point to say: “We realized that doing nothing was not an option.”

Maybe I should give a shout-out to my critic, because my critic was the mayor of Surrey.

That was the very conversation, debate, that was happening in the community, where

there were many people saying: “We don’t want supportive housing. We don’t want that

in our community.”

It did take courage to say to people that we do need to support people. We need to

make sure that these people that live in our community, grew up in our community….

They deserve to have those same supports. I take my hat off to any mayor that has

been in that situation, because it’s not easy. You get lots of those concerns, but

we have to do the best for people as we can.

There are a lot of local governments that are doing that work, so I want to acknowledge

that as well.

Kristina Loewen : I’ll just ask one more question that is in regards to the good-neighbour policy.

I know one of the supportive housing units had that in their documents, but it doesn’t

seem like it ever really got off the ground. I’m not sure why that was. I know everything,

time and money, is short and staff is short and whatnot, but I think we could do more

to engage with the neighbourhood and even encourage some of the residents to contribute

to the neighbourhoods that they’re in.

I know Freedom’s Door is a great example of that in Kelowna. They’re a private facility.

They have their guys go and clean up the neighbourhood, and the neighbours don’t seem

to have a problem with them. I’ve never heard from a single neighbour near Freedom’s

Door complaining, but I have heard of complaints from some of the government-funded

supportive housing.

I’m just wondering if there’s room to act there and how we can collaborate for that

kind of positive, forward movement.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The team is just trying to pull that information.

I can share with the member that in a lot of the supportive housing sites that are

purpose-built, we are trying to create space internally so that people can gather

and have a bit of a living room where they can build those connections. It’s not possible,

depending on lot size, in every location. But where it is possible, we’ve been doing

that, and we’ve seen some success.

I do believe the member sent me correspondence on this maybe in the last six months,

but maybe not. I recall seeing correspondence from Kelowna from a resident that was

concerned about people gathering outside.

The challenge is…. It’s not a prison. We can’t keep people locked inside. They need

to be able to go out. In fact, it’s important for us and for them that they do, that

they reconnect and they’re able to go to the shops and do these things, because that’s

a life skill that will help them take the next step.

As far as the need for communities to be able to raise concerns and the tables that

we’ve created, I’m assuming, because the team was just looking at…. Is the member

referring to the Stephen Village supportive housing site? Is there a specific site

that the member is referring to?

Kristina Loewen : I would rather not be specific today, if that’s okay, but there definitely have been

some concerns raised about specific sites.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Well, I appreciate the member raising the concerns, and perhaps we can connect offline

to identify where those challenges may be and look to see how we can improve that.

[3:45 p.m.]

Tony Luck : First of all, I want to clarify right now. I’m going to be bringing some questions

up around the ALR. This has nothing to do with my comments in regard to getting any

land out of the ALR or anything to do with that or our party’s position. I just have

some questions around that, especially when it comes to housing, because there is

such a demand for housing. Many factors play into the cost of housing, the availability

of housing and that kind of thing.

I’d like to preface this with a little story before I get started. I’m giving something

away now. I was born in 1955. At that particular time, there were one million people

living in the province, and there was about 5 percent of the land available in the

province at that time for development. Lots of space at that time, no problem at all.

Let’s move the clock forward 70 years. Six million people in the province today. Same

amount or less land available for development now, because over that period of time,

the ALR was introduced into that 5 percent of the land.

One of the challenges we have around housing costs is land costs. We know that, especially

in the Lower Mainland and throughout the valley and everything here. To the minister:

what are we doing to secure more land in the province so that we have more land available,

especially in rural communities?

Kamloops is out of developable land. Kelowna is quickly getting out of developable

land. That’s a lot of small communities in our area, yet there’s this edict and demand

that we must build more housing. I know some communities, even in the Lower Mainland,

that are surrounded by ALR land. They seem to think that the edict is still there

for them to build all this housing. They can’t expand. There is no land to do it.

It’s one-third of the cost of residential housing.

What is this ministry doing about getting available land to build on?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I was chuckling not because the member raised how old he is, but I was chuckling

because every year in estimates, the faces may change but the same question comes.

The ALR is nothing within our ministry, so we don’t have control over the housing

policies on agricultural land or decisions around the agricultural land, whether it

pertains to housing or pertains to any topic. All of that is with the Ministry of

Agriculture.

It is interesting because this question comes up, but it is outside of our space and

policy work. I can’t provide the member with any specifics on that.

Tony Luck : I understand that, and it is probably in the agricultural piece, or whatever, but

it is an important component because the agricultural land has been locked away and

isn’t available for house building. So there is a little bit of overlap that we perceive

here.

Can this ministry confirm that it hasn’t conducted or commissioned any economic analysis

on the direct impact of ALR policies on housing affordability, particularly assessing

if the ALR could be driving rents and home prices up by 20 to 40 percent, or any other

less restrictive scenarios in there?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : I’m not aware of any. I can share with the member that even when we brought in rules

around small-scale, multi-unit and transit-oriented development, we excluded agricultural

land from those pieces.

Tony Luck : Has this ministry explored policy alternatives or introduced flexible measures within

the ALR to allow controlled and sustainable residential development, more for the

families that are already living there, allowing them to build more residential on

their property? We know in some areas of the province, they’re very strict about this,

even to build a second dwelling on some of those properties — on large properties.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Again, these questions are all for the Ministry of Agriculture, because we have no

policy levers over the agricultural land in our ministry.

Tony Luck : One of the challenges I’ve been finding as I’ve been rolling around my riding and

visiting individuals…. There are some challenges that some of the ALR is coming out

of the ALR. It’s being transferred to other groups, and it’s being used for housing,

industrial purposes and that.

Do we have any policies that are going to be worked around those kinds of exemptions

that are being extracted on this agricultural land at this particular time?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : Often, we’re getting requests for projects that could go, but there are agricultural

land–related items to it. We don’t have any policies that we’re exploring or any levers

that we have. It often has to go to the ALC for their decision. They’re independent,

and that’s where the decisions are made.

I can’t provide any more answers on any agricultural land questions, unfortunately.

Tony Luck : Yeah, I can understand that. We’ll have to pursue that in a different slant, because

we will need to talk about that with the Agriculture Minister and the ALC, I believe.

Let’s go back to one of our favourite topics here in the Lower Mainland, the North

Shore wastewater treatment plant. I know the hairs on your back just stood up. Anyway,

the North Shore wastewater treatment plant project stands as a devastating example

of government mismanagement, reckless spending and profound lack of transparency under

the current provincial administration.

Originally budgeted at roughly $700 million, this project has ballooned dramatically,

to close to $4 billion, a staggering increase that defies any reasonable accounting

standard. This has been going on for some time, of course.

Given the ongoing negotiations between Metro Vancouver and the terminated contractor

of the wastewater treatment plant, what specific steps has this ministry taken to

ensure that taxpayers will not be deprived of critical information due to any non-disclosure

agreement or other secrecy provision that may be signed between the contractor and

Metro Vancouver?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : The member, I know, knows that Metro Vancouver is governed by elected officials,

who will be going to the public for their own mandates. And they’re responsible for

their decisions they’ve made.

I, too, have concerns around the project. I have spoken about that publicly. I can

share with the member that there is a review happening, and we are observers. Part

of that review is to ensure that there is transparency, to ensure that it’s being

done aboveboard. The people that they’ve brought in appear, by all standards, to have

all the skill sets to be able to do that.

There’s litigation happening, so there’s going to be lots of sensitivities around

what information is gathered and what can be disclosed to the public. I think that’ll

be a challenge for Metro Vancouver, because you don’t want to compromise that lawsuit.

The lawsuit itself is a major concern. It’s a major, major concern. How it got to

that point is a major frustration.

I share the frustration the member has around that project. That said, I do believe

Metro Vancouver is taking the right steps. The mayors are taking the right steps to

put a team in place to do the reviews, and our observer will continue to monitor that

as they move forward.

Tony Luck : I think it’s been mentioned a number of times that you would never get the fox to

audit the henhouse. I think that’s exactly what’s happening in Metro Vancouver, and

it’s been called upon many, many times to have a completely and totally independent

review of Metro Vancouver, their accounting practices, and the way they let contracts

out there.

We know…. I think the minister is hiding behind the fact that this is the government

that gives the rules and the rights for municipalities and regional districts to operate.

So I’m asking again: why does the minister not call for an independent review? He

has the legislation. He has the power to do it, and this should be done.

We should not be allowing the fox to decide who is going to audit the henhouse. Can

we please get a commitment out of this minister that this will be done?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon : As I’ve said previously to the member, Metro Vancouver is responsible for the decisions

that they make. They are all elected officials.

They’ve brought a well-respected retired judge to come in and oversee the terms of

reference. They are going to take the step to put a team in place that will do the

review. We have an observer that will be ensuring that there is transparency, that

they’re looking at all the elements that need to be considered. At some point, when

that is done, they’ll have to share that with the public.

[3:55 p.m.]

Given that there’s litigation happening, they’re going to have to be sensitive about

what information gets shared until that legal action has been taken. Again, that’s

Metro Vancouver. They’re the leaders in this space, and this is their project that

they have to continue to advance.

Tony Luck : Yes, we know it’s Metro Vancouver, but they are there at the behest of the provincial

government.

There is legislation in the Local Government Act that allows this government, this

Premier, to demand an independent review of Metro Vancouver — not that they