Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Wednesday, November

8, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Today in the gallery we have Jessica Brooks, Mark Sadoway, Clarence Lai and John Gamey.

These amazing folks are within the Ministry of Housing. They have been working long

days, even nights, to ensure that we can get the legislative changes we need to get

the housing built in this province. I am so grateful for the cutting-edge work they've

been doing and all the work we've been able to do. It couldn't have been done without

them.

I want to welcome them to the House and thank them for all their work.

Hon. N. Cullen: I have the great pleasure today of introducing some of my family who are in the gallery

today. My mother and father, John and Marguerite, are here, as well as my stunning

and beautiful boys, Isaac and Elliot Cullen, who just a few days ago competed in the

provincial cross-country championships in White Rock. As grade 8 students against

9s and 10s, they absolutely crushed it. I'm so proud of them. They're visiting all

the way here from Smithers.

And to my parents, who knocked on countless doors, drove thousands of kilometres over

many elections and helped me out a lot before my political career as well, just a

huge thanks for all that is made possible, as all of our families do by allowing us

to be here and representing people in British Columbia.

Will the House please make them feel welcome.

H. Sandhu: Today is a very special day for me, not only that I won as an MLA three years ago,

thanks to the people of Vernon-Monashee, but also today is my daughter Jasreen's birthday.

Jasreen turns 17 years old today.

I'm incredibly proud of Jasreen. She's a kind, caring and hard-working young girl.

Due to our circumstances, Jasreen's childhood wasn't easy, but she prevailed and overcame

a lot of heartache and challenges.

Jasreen is now in grade 12. She's doing a dual-credit course to be a nursing unit

assistant. She also works part-time at a great local cafe and loves her job. She recently

got hired with Interior Health Authority, which makes our entire family a family of

health care workers, except my seven-year-old son.

Would the House please join me to wish my amazing daughter Jasreen a very happy birthday.

Happy birthday, Jasreen.

Hon. M. Dean: Today is Indigenous Veterans Day. We honour and recognize Indigenous people who have

served and who are currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. We remember the

service and sacrifices of about 12,000 First Nations, Métis and Inuit people, as well

as being grateful for the tremendous contributions of Indigenous people on the home

front during wartime.

To mark this today, I have some very special guests from the military and local community

here in the gallery: Bombardier Joseph Sam, 5th B.C. Field Artillery Regiment, Nanaimo

detachment; Darlene Rotchford, councillor from the township of Esquimalt and member

of the military community; Kirk Mercer, Victoria Labour Council president; and John

Ducker, honorary colonel, 5th B.C. Field Artillery Regiment, Victoria.

Would everybody please make them very welcome.

Hon. P. Alexis: Today I would like to introduce the very hard-working team from the Ministry of Agriculture.

These, in particular, are staffers from the agriculture and food executive office's

support team who work, as well, 24-7 because we're just so incredibly busy.

[1:40 p.m.]

Today we have Shawna Lyttle, Charlene Evers, Magdalena Golacka, Dawnae Zachary, Erin

Hansen, Raheem Khan, Anika Pobuda and Julia Henshall.

Would everyone join me in welcoming them to the House today.

M. Lee: I would also like to take the opportunity today, on behalf of the official opposition,

to recognize Indigenous Veterans Day, including the veterans in the gallery and those

here in Vancouver, who I see on Remembrance Day on an annual basis, including Lloyd

at ANAVets Legion on 49th and Fraser. I look forward to again commemorating those

veterans who made the sacrifice to protect the rights and freedoms that we all enjoy

in our country today.

We know that some of the most highly decorated soldiers, aviators and sailors in our

military history are Indigenous. They have significantly contributed to our country's

efforts during conflict and during peace times. They did this despite the systemic

mistreatment that many Indigenous peoples received back home, because they believed

in a brighter and peaceful future for all generations to come.

So on behalf of the entire B.C. United caucus, I want to recognize those veterans,

including those Indigenous peoples who currently serve in our armed forces for our

country today.

We recognize your contributions and your ultimate sacrifice in service of our country.

Hon. R. Fleming: We have a number of guests, over a dozen guests, today representing the concrete industry

— Concrete B.C., specifically — and people from firms that are from the Okanagan,

the Fraser Valley, here on Vancouver Island and the Greater Vancouver area.

Of course, these people are indispensable to the partnerships we have to build infrastructure,

both public and private, right across the province of British Columbia. Jason Saunderson,

who is the executive director and is known to members on all sides of the House, is

with this delegation. I'd like to welcome him and his colleagues. Ken Carrusca from

the Cement Association is here as well.

There truly is peace in the valley, peace in the kingdom and across the supply chain

with both those indispensable organizations here in the gallery with us today.

I would ask members to make them most welcome.

Hon. L. Popham: I have five rock stars in the chamber today: our tax team for government communications

and public engagement. I depend on the work that they do. I'm glad they're here. They

are Corinna Filion, Jill Nessel, Celine Beckner, Rachel Nesbitt and Cathy Cui.

Thanks for everything you do. It's so good to see you.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 47 — HOUSING STATUTES

(TRANSIT-ORIENTED AREAS DEVELOPMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

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

intituled Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas Development) Amendment Act, 2023.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 47. This bill supports the local government density

initiative legislation and helps address our housing crisis. This bill continues our

government's work to increase housing supply in the right places.

If passed, local governments will be required to designate transit-oriented development

areas around frequent transit stations. Within those areas, local governments cannot

reject residential zoning applications that meet minimum density levels and must follow

the rules and standards to support transit-friendly and complete communities being

built in the right locations.

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

Motion approved.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the said bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 47, Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas Development) Amendment Act, 2023,

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COMMUNITY AND FAMILY

SERVICES SOCIETIES

R. Russell: Two years ago, on the back streets of Keremeos, I was passed by a guy in a mobility

scooter with not only a well-overloaded cart behind him but a wheelbarrow perched

precariously on the front of his scooter and the wheelbarrow full of vegetables and

flowers and corn husks. This was how I met Albert, the champion and leader of the

community garden and the gathering place there.

A few weeks ago, the Premier and I were invited into Albert's home. He lives in the

Ambrosia building that opened last year — 43 new affordable rental homes in Keremeos

and the result of a partnership between governments and the Lower Similkameen Community

Services Society. Albert's home would not exist if it were not for the work of that

community services society.

So many of the challenges we face today with the ferment of hate and anger in our

world stem from a lack of community, an erosion of sense of community and a growing

disconnect from friends and family. Our modern world feels designed to pull us away

every ad we see on the streets and screens around us. All of this is designed to draw

us into an imaginary world of people that aren't real and that make us feel insufficient,

inappropriate, ugly, alone, empty or angry.

People like Albert are helping resist that encroaching darkness, building that connection

to people and place, and they're supported and enabled in that work by those organizations

that work to support people and build community in the truest sense of the word.

In my region, these organizations and their executive directors and chairs include

entities such as Princeton and District Community Services Society, Becky Vermette

and Suzanne Hoffman; Princeton Family Services, Jenny Pedwell and Carol Bertrand;

LCSS, as I mentioned, Sarah Martin and Brian Mennell; Desert Sun Counselling, Marieze

and Rachel; Boundary Family Services, Darren and Alina; South Okanagan Immigrant and

Community Services, Cherry and Bruce; OneSky, Tanya and Steve.

All of these community and family services societies out there are supported by volunteers

and the many, many staff that do what they do as a labour of love and place and people.

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS IN

WHISTLER AND SQUAMISH

J. Sturdy: What is entrepreneurship? Well, it starts with an idea. You see a problem you feel

uniquely equipped to solve or an opportunity to add value to the community. You start

brainstorming ways to make the future better than the present. Then you act, and although

it sounds simple, in reality, it is anything but.

It takes a special person to appreciate, understand and accept the risk. That's why

it's an honour to rise in the Legislature today to celebrate the small business winners

of the Whistler Chamber of Commerce and the Squamish Chamber of Commerce Business

Excellence Awards. I invite the Legislature to join me in recognizing the exceptional

contributions of the following artists, community leaders and business leaders in

the Sea to Sky.

From the resort municipality of Whistler is Jackie Dickinson of the Whistler Community

Services Society, the Whistler 360 Health collective, Navio Immigration, rising star

Katia Barton, the Raven Room, the Quattro Restaurant, The Velvet Underground, Kristen

Robinson of Kristen Robinson Productions and, of course, the ambassadors of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh

Líl̓wat7úl Cultural Centre.

From the district of Squamish, Jose Oreamuno, Rebecca Bolkowy of Local Roots Farms,

Sḵwálwen Botanicals, the Little Bookshop, Squamish Valley Golf Club, Outbound Station,

Blue Water Concepts, Act Alive Academy, Bueno Custom Furniture, Groms Physio + Co.

and, of course, PearlSpace.

Thank you to the work that each of you do each and every day to enrich our communities.

Your vision, creativity, tenacity and resilience form the backbone of our community.

It's an honour to recognize you publicly in the Legislature today. Congratulations

to you all, and I'm only sorry that in just two minutes, I don't have the opportunity

to do the justice that each of you deserve.

[1:50 p.m.]

WATERSHED SECURITY

F. Donnelly: Rich and abundant watersheds such as the Fraser, Skeena, Peace, Columbia and Cowichan

bring health and prosperity to communities in every corner of B.C., providing essential

benefits like clean drinking water, thriving salmon runs, water for growing food,

and natural protections against climate disasters like floods, droughts and wildfires.

Rivers and lakes are the cornerstone of our local economies and community well-being.

However, B.C.'s watersheds are becoming increasingly degraded in many parts of the

province. The price of securing watersheds will continue to rise unless we take further

action. The province has spent billions on fighting wildfires and floods, and the

economic loss from this year's drought has been devastating.

That's why earlier this year our government invested $100 million to kick-start the

watershed security fund. With climate disasters on the rise, this fund provides a

powerful opportunity for the province to work with First Nations to rebuild watershed

health, strengthen community resilience and economic well-being, while advancing the

rights of Indigenous peoples.

We know B.C.'s watershed sector supports more than 47,000 direct and indirect jobs,

from Indigenous guardians to heavy machinery operators. Investing in watershed work

supports community economic development, creates Indigenous and youth employment and

increases revenue for local businesses and contractors.

Our government realizes additional investments are needed, which is why we are encouraging

the federal government, private sector and philanthropy to join us in growing this

important fund to achieve tangible outcomes in B.C.'s watersheds.

I recently joined the Premier and the Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship

for a round table on watershed security, where we heard clearly from First Nations,

mining, ranching, agriculture, forestry and conservation groups that we need to provide

a coordinated, proactive response to water.

The minister and I also met with Indigenous leaders at B.C.'s Water Table to hear

their concerns and learn about their progress. They are doing good work and making

progress. We thank them for their dedication and support their efforts to lead us

to a more water secure future. As we know, securing B.C.'s watersheds is in all of

our interests.

METRO COMMUNITY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

FOR VULNERABLE PERSONS IN KELOWNA

R. Merrifield: Recently a constituent of mine, Lori Butler, reached out to have me tour Metro Community.

This organization serves as a beacon of hope and support for our city's most vulnerable

since 2008. Their leader, Joel Feddersen, lights up when speaking about the advocacy

work and homelessness prevention all the way to the meal program and art classes and

everything in between that they offer.

The Metro Community provides an indispensable network of support that extends far

beyond basic needs. Daily, they offer nourishment — with breakfast, lunch and dinner

— to approximately 150 individuals. Their drop-in centres provide a haven where the

marginalized can find warmth, charge their devices, seek companionship and bridge

the gap between survival and living.

Moreover, the Metro Community's hygiene program has been transformative in its impact.

With over 700 unhoused members, it offers more than just showers and laundry facilities.

It restores dignity and fosters a sense of belonging through services such as personal

hygiene care, ID services, wound care and haircuts.

The community engagement initiatives, including the Metro Community and the volunteer

program, exemplify a successful model of community support. They magnify the effect

of every dollar spent, ensuring that resources reach as many individuals as possible

through their volunteerism.

This organization also plays a pivotal role in advocacy, with fundraising events like

the Coldest Night of the Year and the Come Together Gala, which is being held on November

9, highlighting the ongoing need for support and solidarity within our community.

Now faced with the severe challenge of a provincial grant withdrawal, which constitutes

a substantial 83 percent of their funding, the sustainability of this program is at

risk. It's not just a monetary gap; it's a potential crisis for the welfare of many

in our city. This situation presents us not with a problem but with an opportunity

to reaffirm our commitment to the well-being of our constituents by supporting the

Metro Community's multifaceted services and efforts.

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE

AWARDS IN RICHMOND

K. Greene: The 46th Annual Business Excellence Awards, hosted by the Richmond Chamber of Commerce,

is on November 22. Finalists have been announced in ten award categories. Among them

are businesses and organizations from the Richmond-Steveston riding.

Up for small business of the year is Go2Girl, a business that offers residential and

commercial cleaning, home, organization, weddings and events and more. Owner La Toya

Barrington was recently awarded the best woman-owned business award by the Black Business

Association of B.C.

[1:55 p.m.]

In the category of business leadership of the year is O'Hare's Gastropub and Liquor

Store. Owned by Erinn and Grant Bryan, O'Hare's has organized signature community

events like the Steveston Beer Fest and Steveston Wine Fest, which benefit the Richmond

Christmas fund supporting in-need Richmond families. Erinn and Grant are also deeply

involved in youth soccer, the Richmond Chamber of Commerce and the Steveston Merchants

Association.

Up for new business of the year is Petsville Animal Hospital, located in Steveston

Village, open seven days a week for our four-legged family members. They offer services

from dentistry to surgical procedures and offer house calls for some services. Their

pun game on Instagram is A-plus, and they're enthusiastically jumping into the fabric

of Steveston Village with both feet.

In the category of outstanding workplace of the year is Tourism Richmond, led by CEO

Nancy Small and her amazing team. Their core values are epic — excellence, passion,

integrity and collaboration — and it shows in their award-winning tourism campaigns.

Nominated for association of the year is Richmond Youth Soccer Association. Founded

in 1955, it evolved into today's Richmond FC in 2014. They received the Canada Soccer

designation of quality soccer provider, demonstrating their ongoing commitment to

the sport, and they're also great advocates for improved soccer facilities for Richmond

families.

Please join me in congratulating these finalists on their outstanding work and contributions

to our community.

KIWANIS NORTH SHORE HOUSING

SOCIETY AND VILLAGE WEST PROJECT

K. Kirkpatrick: I'm very pleased to be able to stand and celebrate an organization that provides and

operates non-profit, below-market residential accommodations for seniors with low

or modest incomes across the North Shore.

The Kiwanis North Shore Housing Society has a 75-year history of supporting the North

Shore. It's now considered the primary provider of below-market, independent seniors

rental housing in West and North Vancouver, an accomplishment made possible by extraordinary

volunteer board members and professional, caring employees. Now working with land

that was provided by the district of West Vancouver on a zero-cost, 60-year lease,

Kiwanis is well on the way to creating Village West, with expected completion in 2026.

The district of West Vancouver had the goal to optimize on two main policy objectives:

create additional housing supply and provide below-market housing to people with moderate

incomes. The project is comprised of two six-storey buildings, with a total of 156

mixed-size units, and 52 percent of those units are going to be designated for families,

which is something that is much needed on the North Shore. The complex will also include

a 3,000-square-foot adult daycare centre, which will be operated by Vancouver Coastal

Health.

This Friday, after many years of intensive planning, Kiwanis is hosting a groundbreaking

ceremony, which will be a celebration of their perseverance and experience in providing

much-needed housing and supports.

In closing, this project addresses the affordability issue in our community by providing

rental units for moderate-income families. Congratulations to the district of West

Vancouver for their progressive land use strategy, Vancouver Coastal for recognizing

the need for adult daycare on the North Shore and, of course, to Kiwanis North Shore

Housing Society for making this vision a reality.

Oral Questions

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

HANDLING BY JUSTICE SYSTEM

K. Falcon: Day after day, communities and businesses face a relentless onslaught of shattered

storefronts, rampant shoplifting and violent assaults at levels never seen before.

This total chaos and disorder is the direct result of the Premier's soft-on-crime

policies and his catch-and-release playbook that he oversaw while Attorney General.

People have had enough, including the Save Our Streets coalition made up of retailers

and community groups that have a clear message for the Premier that what he is doing

is not working.

So my question is: when will the Premier listen to the united voices of communities

and businesses and admit that his soft-on-crime approach has utterly failed?

Hon. N. Sharma: I thank the member for the question. Public safety is very important. Every British

Columbian deserves to feel safe in this province.

[2:00 p.m.]

It's something that the Premier, when he was Attorney General, and myself as Attorney

General take very seriously. We've been advocating for bail reform at a federal level.

In fact, I was the only minister from across this country to speak at the Senate committee

to ask for a quick passing of the bail reform in this country.

We're investing in the programs on the ground, across government, to make sure that

the communities have the resources they need to face the challenges they're seeing

when it comes to some increase in vandalism and crime. We'll continue to put in the

effort it takes to make this better for communities.

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

K. Falcon: Well, the Attorney General talks about the federal bail reform, but that only applies

to violent repeat offenders. We are talking about prolific property crime offenders

that are creating chaos in our streets. That's the difference between rhetoric and

the results that people want to see.

The fact of the matter is that crime and violence in our communities has never been

worse than it is under this Premier and this government. Clint Mahlman, the London

Drugs president and a member of the Save Our Streets coalition, said it best: "Words

don't mean much. We want to see measurable results."

The evidence is there in every smashed car window, every defaced storefront and across

every neighbourhood in our province. People demand results — not rhetoric, not excuses.

When will the Premier end the soft-on-crime approach and finally admit that this catch-and-release

playbook has utterly failed? When will they commit to restoring consequences and treating

all crimes seriously?

Hon. N. Sharma: This government takes public safety very seriously. In fact, we have a cross-government

approach, through our safer communities action plan, where I'm joined by my colleagues

in making real investments on the ground for communities. Again, I was the only minister

from across this country to advocate at the federal level for bail reform.

We're investing in a repeat offenders initiative that has on-the-ground resources

— for our police officers, our Crown counsel and our probation officers — around repeat

violent offenders. We've invested in more resources for RCMP officers. We're going

to continue to take action because that's what we're about.

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

K. Falcon: Well, the reality is that we didn't see this seven years ago. Under this Premier,

we've seen rampant street disorder become, as the NDP like to describe it, the new

normal.

Apparently, we're supposed to just accept this as the new normal — which we don't.

Nor does the Save our Streets coalition, which is a grassroots alliance from Dawson

Creek to Victoria. They are rapidly seeing new members joining, virtually daily. People

and businesses are fed up with being afraid in their own neighbourhoods, in their

own workplaces and when they go out to shop.

When will this soft-on-crime Premier and Attorney General realize that their failed

policies and the reckless decriminalization that they've overseen has fuelled this

explosion of violence and street disorder? When will they treat all crimes seriously

and restore law and order to our communities?

Hon. N. Sharma: We've been investing in resources on the ground across communities to address the

challenges that they're facing. In fact, communities across North America and this

country are facing challenges when it comes to some incidents of crime.

We know that communities need support, and we're doing that. I had the chance to visit

the repeat offender initiatives in Surrey and Vancouver that have been up and running

for four months, five months now and have had 300 cases referred to them. They are

looking at the most prolific offenders right now and figuring out how to keep communities

safe by keeping them off the streets.

It's working. That was a program that was around in 2012 and was cut by that government.

We will continue to invest in the resources needed to make the situation better.

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES

AND IMPACT ON BUSINESSES

T. Stone: Well, violence, social disorder and property crime have never been worse in British

Columbia than they are today under this soft-on-crime Premier. The Premier's refusal

to treat all crime seriously is also having a profound impact on British Columbians,

costing each family $500 annually, due to unchecked retail crime.

[2:05 p.m.]

The Save our Streets coalition highlights the huge costs of spiralling theft, a fact

highlighted by the second wave of Project Barcode by Vancouver police, which netted

258 arrests and $57,000 in stolen merchandise. Now, despite the best efforts of police,

under this Premier's catch-and-release justice system, nearly half of these arrests

did not lead to charges.

When will the Premier stop his catch-and-release approach to justice in this province

and treat all crime, including property crime, seriously and with urgency?

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to correct a statistic there, which is just not true. Of the files that the

B.C. Prosecution Service received from the VPD related to Project Barcode, over 83

percent were approved for charges.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, supplemental

T. Stone: For months now, the B.C. United opposition has been consistently urging this NDP government

to step up with supports for small businesses that have been hard hit by social disorder,

chaos and property crimes as a result of the Premier's deliberate policy choices.

These calls have been blatantly ignored by this government over the past year. With

NDP foot-dragging, insufficient funding and applications for the long-overdue government

aid program, still yet to open, this is far too little and far too late. Even worse,

if you want to apply for a crime prevention grant, your business is not eligible unless

you or your neighbour has already been a victim of crime. That's getting the very

idea of crime prevention a little bit backwards, don't you think?

My question. When will the Premier put a stop to his catch-and-release policies and

treat all crimes in British Columbia, including property crimes and retail crimes,

seriously and with the urgency that small businesses and British Columbians deserve?

Hon. B. Bailey: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We are seeing challenges for small

businesses in downtown cores all across Canada, all across North America. It's a concerning

trend.

Incidents of violence and crime worry us. It's important that small businesses and

people working in small businesses feel safe. That's why we're doing a number of different

things to address this challenge. The safer communities action plan is a very important

part of it. Also, we've met with small businesses and heard from them that they need

some direct support.

Our securing small business rebate is $2,000 to help small businesses that have been

impacted — graffiti, break-ins and the like. It also can cover the deductible, because

of course, businesses also have insurance. So the deductible can be used.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. B. Bailey: The $1,000 is in addition to that to allow small businesses to purchase things like

cameras and roll-downs to provide some protection. The whole $3,000 can be applied

for as of November 22, and it's backdated to January 1, all of this year.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON

FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY

AND ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

A. Olsen: On the carbon tax, first the B.C. NDP flipped, but when they flopped, it was onto

the right side of history.

While the United Liberal Conservatives chased runaway political rhetoric, this B.C.

NDP government remains committed to the carbon tax — one important tactic to address

runaway climate change. With gratitude to the Premier and his ministers, we stand

with them in this effort.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

A. Olsen: On energy policy, though, Mr. Speaker, not so much. They failed to set binding climate

targets to track and report progress, and most notably, to rapidly wind down fossil

fuel production. Approving LNG Canada, Woodfibre LNG and Cedar LNG make it impossible

for us to honestly achieve our climate targets. They've locked fracking and LNG exports

for decades. These are the opposites of climate action.

The Premier stated: "We cannot continue to expand fossil fuel infrastructure and hit

our climate goals."

My question is to the Premier. When will the Premier stand by his words and stop expanding

fossil fuel infrastructure?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member, both for the question and for his obvious commitment to action

on climate change.

[2:10 p.m.]

We do, however, disagree on a number of matters. The member opposite –– and many people,

unfortunately –– focus on a narrow band to say none of the actions that we're taking

in our comprehensive CleanBC plan is a commitment to meeting our climate targets.

That's simply not true.

We're taking action on transportation. We're taking action on home heating. We're

taking action on decarbonizing industry. And we are taking action through our new

energy action framework in developing a regulatory cap on emissions from the oil and

gas sector to meet our target of a minimum 33 percent reduction by 2030. That's what

we're doing.

We're also focusing, through the major projects and clean energy office, on encouraging

and supporting the development of clean energy and clean energy technologies in all

its forms, as recently witnessed with the agreement of our Premier and the Premier

of Newfoundland and Labrador to collaborate on hydrogen production.

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

LNG INDUSTRY ADVERTISING

A. Olsen: While we stand with this government in support of the carbon tax, we will continue

to hold the government accountable to the commitments they have made to ensure that

we are on track to meeting our climate commitments. The hard truth in B.C. is that

we're not heading in that direction. Incrementalism and empty rhetoric won't save

us. Immediate and fulsome action will.

The organization Canada Action is spreading misinformation about LNG with the Minister

of Energy and Mines' photo in their ads. Does she know that she's become the face

of LNG and greenwashing? LNG does not reduce global emissions, as leading experts

have repeated time and again. LNG will not be net zero, regardless of how many carbon

offsets they purchase.

My question is to the Minister of Energy. What will she do to ensure that she does

not continue to be the face of LNG in their misleading ad campaigns?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you to the member for the question. Yes, he's absolutely correct that my face

may have appeared on ads of what companies want to put out there. It doesn't change

what this government stands for, and it doesn't change what I stand for. Following

on the words of the Minister of Environment, this government takes climate action

extremely seriously, has set ambitious targets and a comprehensive CleanBC plan that

has an extensive set of policies across all sectors to drive our emissions down.

We know that we need to do this in a way that works for communities and works for

people. That's why we set up the new energy action framework. We have the oil and

gas emissions cap that's coming in. We know that this society is transitioning from

fossil fuels into clean energy.

The clean energy and major projects office has been stood up to direct companies into

government so that we can help them through the regulatory processes. We can help

them make their final investment decisions. We've seen so much interest in hydrogen.

We're seeing interest in biofuels. We know that mines want to electrify. We're working

directly with First Nations to increase their equity stakes and the benefits that

they'll receive from clean energy.

We are going to stay focused on this, laser-focused on this. I appreciate the member's

attention to this, and I appreciate the question.

HEALTH WORKER VACCINATION POLICY

AND PROVINCIAL HEALTH OFFICER

B. Banman: During the COVID-19 crisis, everyday, hard-working people were sucked into a whirlpool

of chaos caused by constantly changing rules, brutal restrictions on people's personal

freedoms and a heavy-handed approach that especially failed the most vulnerable British

Columbians.

Today British Columbia stands alone, against all evidence, as one of the only jurisdictions

in the world to ban health care workers who choose not to take the jab, because of

the ideological agenda of this extreme leftist NDP government and their unelected

bureaucrats.

In the midst of a health care staffing crisis, Dr. Bonnie Henry and this NDP government

have banned thousands of health care workers from working in B.C.'s hospitals, clinics,

doctors' offices and ERs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Question, Member.

B. Banman: This NDP government is failing working-class, everyday British Columbians. And so

is Dr. Henry.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

Question. Question.

[2:15 p.m.]

B. Banman: Enough is enough.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Members, hold it.

Member. Question, please.

B. Banman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question to this NDP Premier. Will he fire Dr. Bonnie Henry and hire back the thousands

of health care workers who were wrongly kicked to the curb?

Hon. A. Dix: I think people in B.C. know that we, as a province — not the government but the whole

province, the people of B.C. — led the world in our response to COVID-19. We did so

because we respected science, we respected our public health leaders and we had an

outstanding public health leader, Dr. Bonnie Henry, leading that effort.

There are jurisdictions that have intervened to fire their provincial health officer.

We are proud of ours. We support ours, and we're going to continue to do so.

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

B. Banman: I vividly remember the briefing call I attended where Dr. Bonnie Henry used the term

"cajole" to describe the vaccination update plan that she and the B.C. NDP had cooked

up together.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines the word "cajole" as: "cajole — to persuade someone to do something they

might not want to do by pleasant talk and sometimes false promises."

Mr. Speaker, let me say this. As a medical professional who is, personally, twice

vaccinated, this is not about opposing the jab; it is about ending the medical tyranny

of this NDP government and Dr. Bonnie Henry. Enough cajoling, enough coercing and

enough deflecting. It's time to be held accountable.

My question to the NDP Premier: will you fire Dr. Bonnie Henry, or do you want to

wait for the working-class, everyday British Columbians to elect a Conservative government

and fire you both?

Hon. A. Dix: People in this House will know that Dr. Henry has, yes, repeatedly briefed people

in all political parties, repeatedly answered their questions, repeatedly asked for

and received support as we sought to get people vaccinated.

I'd like to, in particular, point out the support of individual members of this House.

My friend from Peace River South, in difficult times, stepped up. You know why? Because

the people most vulnerable to COVID-19 were the very people that the member talks

about.

How can you have so much contempt for people who live in long-term care? How can you

have so much contempt for people who have to be in acute care? How can you have…?

When we know that it's the most vulnerable who are most vulnerable to COVID-19, how

can you take the view that we should have abandoned them?

We had the best record, I think, in Canada in response. And we had the best record

in Canada in response because Dr. Henry listened to people, she engaged with people,

and she applied the best possible science to decisions, including the one the member

is referring to.

She is a great public health leader. I am proud to be associated with her. I think

it is shameful that she's being targeted in this way by a political party in this

Legislature. She has done a great, courageous and remarkable job. I stand with her,

and I hope everyone in this House does.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members.

[2:20 p.m.]

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES

AND IMPACT ON BUSINESSES

L. Doerkson: Violence and social disorder have never been worse in this province.

Melanie and Troy of Walk-Rite shoe store are casualties of this Premier's failed catch-and-release

policies. Last week thieves shattered their store's large display window with a large

rock and looted their business.

Amid shattered glass, Melanie says,: "More importantly, they stole our family's livelihood,

yet we are just supposed to shrug it off again. Repeat offenders aren't being held

responsible, and they know there are no consequences."

When will this soft-on-crime Premier end his failed catch-and-release policies and

restore accountability so that crimes have consequences in this province?

Hon. N. Sharma: Everybody in this province deserves to feel safe. When we hear about incidents of

violence and vandalism, of course we're all concerned. This is a government of taking

action, and we're facing those challenges on all fronts.

We have a safer communities action plan. Me and my colleagues across government are

investing in the types of resources that we know make a difference, including hiring

more RCMP officers in communities throughout B.C., especially rural communities. We

stood up 12 repeat violent offender intervention hubs, and those hubs are now up to

close to 300 individuals, where they're circling around the most violent repeat offenders

to make sure these people are kept off the street.

We're investing in car programs to help with the mental health crisis. We're creating

peer-assisted care teams to support people in crisis across this province. We are

tackling this issue on every front, and we're going to continue to do so.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON REPEAT

OFFENDERS AND CRIME IN COMMUNITIES

E. Sturko: We hear more examples every day about emboldened criminals. Pouria Sahragard, a past

violator of release conditions, was yet again on release conditions when he committed

a brazen assault on a stranger. He viciously assaulted and choked a woman in broad

daylight on a trail in Coquitlam, and police believe there are likely more victims.

Throughout his career, this Premier has consistently prioritized offenders over victims.

It's even been said by former VPD officers that when the Premier was with Pivot Legal,

he was well known for protecting drug traffickers, a pattern that continues today.

How can we expect the Premier to end his catch-and-release policy when his Attorney

General, who oversees the B.C. Prosecution Service, has herself turned a blind eye

to taxpayer-funded drug trafficking?

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to start by saying that when we hear about incidents of that violence and crime

in community, of course it's disturbing, and it is for all of us. We know we need

to take action. We are taking action. It's a challenge that's been faced by communities

across North America and Canada. I want to say that I see the impact of the resources

that we're having on the ground right now.

Repeat violent offending is a serious concern that we're tackling head-on. We know

that repeat violent offenders need to be kept off the street to keep communities safe,

and we're tackling that on all fronts.

We are asking for bail reform at the federal level. We've led the charge across this

country when it comes to that bail reform, and we'll continue to do so. I'm informed

that it passed at the Senate today. I'll be speaking with Minister Virani…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. N. Sharma: …to continue to advocate for that to pass quickly through the House of Commons. We

need to keep at this issue, and we're standing with communities to make sure that

they're safe.

P. Milobar: Well, the government has been giving those same answers for years now, and in that

time, we keep seeing results getting worse and worse for people on the streets. They

feel less safe daily. The empty promises just simply ring hollow from the Premier

and Attorney General. The Premier has built his career on challenging law enforcement,

even writing the book on how to sue the police.

Violent random attacks remain the NDP's new normal as the explosion of violence that

began under this Premier's watch as a soft-on-crime Attorney General continues on.

Just the other day, a 67-year-old man was the latest victim of a violent random assault

— mere blocks from this building, near an elementary school — as he got stabbed.

With a track record of consistently favouring the rights of criminals, who would expect

anything other than more rampant violence that's exploded under this soft-on-crime

Premier's watch?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I've talked already about the programs we're investing in.

I want to talk a little bit more about my visit to the repeat violent offender initiative

hubs in Surrey and Vancouver, where I got to meet front-line workers, including probation

officers and Crown counsel that are grateful for the resources we've given them to

circle around repeat violent offenders, to make sure they have better information

when it comes to putting these people behind bars, to make sure they can problem-solve

to see what that individual needs to break the cycle of violence and criminal activity.

We know that those 12 hubs across the province are working. I'm glad that we're making

that investment. We had a program like this in 2012, and we know that that program

was responsible for a reduction in repeat offending by 40 percent. They cut that program.

We're going to continue to invest in the resources that we need to make this issue

better.

S. Bond: Well, the Attorney and the government can try to blame everyone else, but growing

social disorder and crime rests squarely on this Premier's shoulders.

The Premier's anti-law-enforcement track record is crystal clear. In fact, this Premier

authored a book called How to Sue the Police . He also distributed laminated cards to drug dealers, arming street-level criminals

with the tactics to evade the police.

Ex-sergeant and VPD veteran Curtis Robinson says: "The Premier stood in the way of

active and effective enforcement. He drove a wedge between effective policing and

those who were active in crime." That is the record of the Premier of British Columbia.

How in the world can the public ever trust this Premier to put the rights and the

safety of law-abiding citizens over criminals?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think the party opposite wants British Columbians to forget the cuts they made across

this province that hurt people and contributed to the challenges that we're facing

today.

They were wrong in their approach then.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Hon. N. Sharma: They made devastating cuts to social services that help prevent crime and keep communities

safe. They cut housing. They cut social services across this province.

We are doing the work to make our systems better, to respond to the challenges that

we see today, and we will continue to do that work.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, it's time for the Attorney General to look in the mirror. Violence and social

disorder have never been worse in British Columbia, and the members opposite might

want to mock and think that's funny. British Columbians do not think it is funny.

When the Premier of British Columbia didn't bother to leave his militant activism

at Pivot Legal behind, instead, what did he do? He brought his anti-police sentiments

into his roles in government, undermining law enforcement at every single turn.

Let's look at the facts. As Attorney General, this Premier oversaw a 75 percent increase

in no-charge recommendations and a 40 percent decrease in the number of people in

jail. That is his record. Stop looking in the rearview mirror, and look in the mirror

at this government's record. On his watch, we saw precedent established where the

release of violent offenders before the ink dries on the police reports is not the

exception but the rule.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, shhh. Members.

S. Bond: When will the Premier prioritize the safety of innocent victims over criminals in

British Columbia?

Hon. N. Sharma: Let's talk about turning a blind eye. What about money laundering in this province?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, shhh. Members.

Members. Members. Members will come to order now.

[2:30 p.m.]

Member. Member, the Attorney General has the floor.

Shhh. Member, please come to order.

Attorney General.

Hon. N. Sharma: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, the Attorney General has the floor.

Hon. N. Sharma: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Member, please come to order.

Attorney General.

Hon. N. Sharma: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been taking the issue of repeat violent attacks and offenders in this province

very seriously. We stand with people in communities that are asking for the resources

that they need to make this problem better. We're doing that, and we'll continue to

do that work.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In this chamber, I call third reading for Bill 38, International Credentials Recognition

Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — INTERNATIONAL CREDENTIALS

RECOGNITION ACT

Bill 38, International Credentials Recognition Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L. Beare: In this chamber, I call third reading, Bill 34, Restricting Public Consumption of

Illegal Substances Act.

BILL 34 — RESTRICTING PUBLIC

CONSUMPTION OF

ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES ACT

Hon. L. Beare: I move third reading for Bill 34, Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances

Act.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you've heard the question.

Division has been called.

[2:35 p.m. - 2:40 p.m.]

Bill 34, Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act, read a third time

and passed on the following division:

yeas — 77

Alexis

Anderson

Ashton

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Bernier

Bond

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chow

Clovechok

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Davies

de Jong

Dean

D'Eith

Dix

Doerkson

Donnelly

Dykeman

Elmore

Falcon

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Halford

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Leonard

Letnick

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Osborne

Paddon

Parmar

Paton

Phillip

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Ross

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Tegart

Walker

Wat

Whiteside

Yao

nays — 4

Banman

Furstenau

Olsen

Rustad

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: In this chamber, I call continued second reading for Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential

Development) Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir committee room, I call for Bill 41, Forest Statutes Amendment Act.

In the third House, Committee C, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 39, Zero-Emission

Vehicles Amendment Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 44 — HOUSING STATUTES

(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

E. Sturko: I'm just going to wind up my remarks here on Bill 44, and I just wanted to read a

couple of things into the record.

I know that the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca was talking about development in

schools and had some choice words for the opposition. So I just wanted to point out,

with regard to Bill 44, really, in my opinion, the lack of ability for this government

to implement the type of infrastructure development that is truly needed in order

for us to keep up, particularly with the plan for densification that this government

is pushing.

In the member's own riding, actually, Superintendent Scott Stinson said that "there

are currently 59 portables in the district, an all-time high." He said: "We try and

guess where the growth is going to be and where we need to put the portables."

School district board chair Amanda Dowhy said that "as residential development across

the West Shore continues to expand, it's imperative that they be accompanied by new

school infrastructure and expansion…." "Having to buy and move portables puts us under

extreme pressure on the district's operating budget," Dowhy said. "The more operational

dollars spent on portables, the less we are able to spend on students."

"In nine heavily populated elementary schools, much of the multipurpose space normally

used for activities like music, art and drama has been converted to classroom space,

a step the district called 'a last resort.'"

[2:50 p.m.]

I know that the member for Langford–Juan de Fuca talked about new schools there were

opening. In fact, there is a new school that is expected to open very soon. But, unfortunately,

that elementary school is going to be at or near its 480-student capacity when it

opens in 2025.

This actually reminds me of another little infrastructure foible. You guys might remember

the Pattullo Bridge in Surrey, a four-lane bridge being replaced with a four-lane

bridge by this NDP government. Here we have growth that's expected, now, to go, in

my community…. It's going to skyrocket in an already, probably, leading-the-province

in growth in terms of population, falling far behind in transportation infrastructure….

Just like this school being opened and already full, they're going to open the Pattullo

Bridge, and it's already out of date, a four-lane bridge with a four-lane bridge.

Also, I'm hearing now from elected officials in my own community, from our city council.

I wanted to read some of the comments, here, of one of the city councillors, Linda

Annis, who is on our city council for Surrey, because she also has some concerns about

the province's new housing rules. She says that this province's new housing rules

will put added pressure on infrastructure and schools. A recurring theme. This has

all the markings of a very rocky ride for Surrey and its neighbourhoods as land prices

soar, costly infrastructure needs replacing and more students enroll in our already

overcrowded schools.

Here's a quote from our councillor: "There isn't a single existing neighbourhood in

Surrey that can cope with four or six homes on one lot without major improvements

to infrastructure, such as sewer and water," Councillor Annis noted. "At the same

time, our schools are already overcrowded with more than twice the number of new students

showing up in September than originally planned."

"Then add in how much land prices will soar when homeowners realize just how much

their property is worth if four or six homes can be built on that current single-family

lot. When you add those all up, how can anyone say that housing will be more affordable?

Rather than one expensive home on a single-family lot, this change means that we could

have up to six expensive homes on one lot."

She also said: "In Surrey, we're not keeping up with the growth that we already have.

Imagine if we have an extra 20,000 students, which isn't that far-fetched under the

new housing rules." Councillor Annis explained that the province is building new schools

but not enough and not fast enough. "As a result, we are falling further and further

behind rather than catching up. These new housing rules only add more stress to a

system that's hardly coping as it is."

And: "The provincial government has made the change, so it should be up to the province

to explain how the new rules will create genuinely affordable housing and who is going

to pay for all the required infrastructure. The province calls their plan gentle growth,

but when you get down to the actual details and costs, it will be anything but gentle

for cities like Surrey.

"Is the province coming to the table to build more infrastructure, schools, parks,

playgrounds, pools and added transit? Because the unintended consequences of putting

six on one lot need to be understood and costed not just in terms of finance but what

it will do to neighbourhoods from a community perspective."

I couldn't agree more with our city councillor. Thank you for the time and for allowing

me to speak to Bill 44.

I. Paton: I'm pleased to rise today and participate in this important debate. I hate to bring

this forward, but this is another heavy-handed NDP government issue with very little

consultation to our local municipal governments and regional districts. Virtually

no consultation and overreach to our municipalities.

To me, I feel that this is a coming down on the democracy of our municipal governments

and their ability and their years of hard work and planning with their OCPs and their

regional zonings in their districts, including my municipality of Delta, where I spent

several years on Delta city council. I can tell you that we put in many, many hours

of designing our official community plan and coming up with the zonings for North

Delta and for Tsawwassen and for the Ladner areas.

[2:55 p.m.]

I wonder, at this point, now, what will become of some of our local councils. Because

on Delta city council, a lot of our work at council meetings was dealing with zoning

issues, people coming forward with two-lot splits and three-lot splits — very controversial.

We spent a lot of time on that. Of course, these often went to public hearing. It

looks as though now the general public of my community of Delta will not have that

opportunity to come forward and at least speak to these provisions of two-lot splits,

three-lot splits.

Of course, now, Bill 44 is suggesting that a single-family lot could be demolished.

The house could be demolished and could be replaced with anywhere up to four and possibly

even six residences. Again, I'll speak later to this. Can the municipality — for instance,

my municipality of Delta — handle this density and the infrastructure that goes along

with adding density to the area?

Housing is top of mind for every British Columbian, and we need to ensure we are making

the correct decisions for those living here now and those who will live here in the

future. Everyone in this chamber knows that we need to build more housing, but after

seven years and two elections, the NDP has repeatedly failed to do so.

This province needs a better housing plan than what the NDP is currently offering.

After two terms and seven years in government, just 15 percent of the 114,000 government-built

homes promised by the NDP have opened today — a shocking lack of results, but nothing

new from this government.

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

is higher than it has ever been. Right now far too many British Columbians are struggling

under the weight of steadily increasing costs. As a result of this NDP government's

inability to build more housing, B.C. now has the worst housing affordability in North

America on the Premier's watch. Rent now costs over $3,000 monthly in Vancouver for

a one-bedroom apartment. A Surrey townhouse that used to cost $300,000 in 2012 now

costs $900,000.

This government claims that Bill 44 will help build 130,000 homes over the next ten

years. By contrast, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation says we need to build

610,000 additional housing units by 2030 to restore affordable housing. This plan

falls well short of that. B.C. has the highest rents in Canada and the worst housing

affordability in North America.

The NDP's housing targets are set at only 75 percent of the real need and well below

the CMHC guidelines to restore affordability. Robert Berry of the pro-density group

Homes for Living said in the Vancouver Sun that the NDP is taking the "politically convenient route" with moderate targets that

don't solve the core issue.

Even after these changes, there are so many things holding up housing that the NDP

refuse to address. One is that Metro Vancouver is planning to triple development cost

charges on new housing, adding up to $25,000 to the cost of a new home. The backlogs,

delays and regulations at the residential tenancy branch make it next to impossible

for mom-and-pop landlords to rent out their basement suites or laneway homes.

The implementation of the step code for new buildings is going to add up to $50,000

per home due to the requirement for advanced mechanical systems and ultra-high performance

windows. We've seen, with the village of Lytton, costly archaeological requirements

and massive backlogs within the archaeological branch, and they are holding up housing

for years, not just for days.

I can give you an example of a situation in my own riding of Delta South, where a

builder who is so pumped to get started to tear down a home in Boundary Bay, which

is a part of Tsawwassen….

He was all ready to go with his crew. The owners are an elderly couple that wanted

to get a new house built on that property. They spent months and months waiting for

answers from government, waiting for permits, and when they finally got the permits,

they had to spend about $13,000 to bring in an archaeological dig company to do some

examination of the ground before they could get started building the new home in Boundary

Bay in Tsawwassen.

I'd also like to look at Bill 44, and it's very interesting. Let's talk about the

agricultural land reserve in British Columbia — Bill 52 and Bill 15 — that put strict

requirements for housing on farmland in British Columbia. I think most people in this

House would agree that I am a person who really believes that the next generation

of young people moving with their family need a place to live on the farm if they

want to continue to be part of the farming with their parents and possibly their grandparents.

[3:00 p.m.]

Bill 44 says anywhere in British Columbia over 5,000 people, you can take a single-family

lot, demolish that house and replace it with a fourplex or possibly even six. In the

words of my colleague from Abbotsford West…. He said: "Isn't this interesting that

you can actually have more houses on a single-family lot in Vancouver than you can

on a 500-acre farm in British Columbia where we only allow, basically, two homes on

a 500-acre single title farm in British Columbia?"

It's glaringly apparent that this bill presents a substantial gap that we, as responsible

representatives, cannot explore. This gap raises concerns and doubts about the bill's

efficacy and practicality.

I'd like to quote from Miss DeRosa. "Proposed legislation introduced by the B.C. NDP

last Wednesday will force municipalities to green-light multi-unit housing on single-family

lots whether they like it or not."

This goes on to say:

"The government's hope is that flooding the market with more units, either to own

or rent, will bring down the cost of housing in cities…. However, housing researchers

who have studied the strategy in New Zealand and the U.S. are divided over whether

it will temper hot real estate markets, pointing to evidence that while such policies

can bring down rental prices through increased supply, it also inflates land prices

as homeowners jockey to sell to the highest-bidding developer."

Then I can go on to quote also from Mr. Palmer.

"Henceforth, municipalities will have to plan and zone in line with guidelines set

out in a provincial government policy manual. The manual will set clear provincial

expectations in terms of setbacks, height restrictions, parking and lot coverage,

according to the government's PowerPoint

summary of the legislation.

"However, the New Democrats did not release the policy manual. That will come later

when the cabinet gets around to approving the guiding set of regulations.

"Yes, this looks to be another legislative rush job. Many of the blanks will be filled

in after the fall session is over, when the opposition is no longer able to debate

the contents in the House. Municipalities wondering how this will play out — almost

all of them, I bet — will just have to wait for the NDP manual."

To go further with Mr. Palmer's quote of November 8:

"The NDP government's drive to impose multi-unit housing on single-family neighbourhoods

has provoked a backlash from local leaders over the lack of detail and the short time

they've been given to adjust….

"The ham-fistedness of the threat combined with the vagueness of the delivery is forcing

municipal leaders to play a guessing game.

"One of the strongest reactions came from Burnaby mayor Mike Hurley. 'It's a massive

change,' said Hurley. 'And I don't think anyone really realizes how big a change this

is, whether it's good or bad,' he added, referring to the total lack of detail.

"Because of the six-month time frame, 'There'll be no community input for any of this

stuff,' said Hurley. 'I'm not sure that the provincial government…has the same level

of expertise when it comes to planning as cities do…. So, that's a concern.'

"He scoffed at the government's offer of a $51 million fund to support municipalities

in adapting to the changes. 'That's a drop in the bucket' when spread over the infrastructure

and resource needs of some 85 municipalities large and small, he said."

Then we move on to mayor Eric Woodward of Langley.

"Another mayor who raised concerns like those expressed by Hurley was Eric Woodward

of Langley township…. Woodward expressed doubts that communities will be able to densify

single-family neighbourhoods 'without creating significant challenges on sewer, water,

school sites, park sites, public safety capacity, road capacity and parking requirements.'"

But this is the only way for our citizens to voice their concern, and the opportunity

for public hearings for a lot of these issues is going to be taken away.

Nearly all the details about how this legislation is going to be implemented are supposed

to be contained in a policy manual, which won't be published until after this legislation

is passed. This missing policy manual is said to include important practical deal

details like setbacks, height restrictions, parking and lot coverage.

[3:05 p.m.]

Like I said earlier, when I was on Delta city council, one of the number one things

that took up our time at Monday night council nights, which still do to this day,

is people being able to come out and speak about what's happening in their neighbourhood

and challenging the area plan and the zoning bylaws for North Delta, South Delta and

Ladner and looking at the OCP.

The opportunity to have public hearings once a month where people could come out and

at least democratically get to the microphone and speak about whether they were in

favour of a two-lot split or a three-lot split was available. Now with the government

overburdening policy here, public hearings will not even take place anymore. People

will not have the opportunity to challenge where there's a fourplex in their neighbourhood,

a fiveplex or even six houses added.

This lack of detail makes this bill nothing more than a marketing document reflecting

this government's pattern of empty announcements with no details, no tracking and

poor results to date. The lack of essential details in this bill is not in the best

interests of anyone in our province. It leaves the public in a state of uncertainty,

unable to gauge the true impact and potential consequences of this legislation.

It is not a secret that the NDP tends to make announcements without providing the

necessary tools for implementing those promises. This pattern reinforces the notion

that our government is not adequately prepared to tackle the housing crisis and make

life more affordable for British Columbians. What the people of this province need

are not empty announcements but concrete well-thought-out plans and strategies that

yield tangible results.

The lack of transparency and details in this bill only perpetuates the frustration

and skepticism that many residents feel. It is our collective responsibility to ensure

that the government we entrust with our well-being provides more than mere words.

They must provide comprehensive solutions and a clear path forward. This government

has shown time and time again they are not the right people to build housing and make

life more affordable in British Columbia.

Another example of a situation in my riding of Delta South…. I know the provincial

government is the funding behind Red Door Housing, which are in charge of a facility

in Ladner called the Ladner Willows. It has become an extremely disappointing and

controversial building that was built for low-income families. Only built in the 1980s,

yet it is so deplorable — with mould, with rust, with roof leaks and whatnot.

This facility on Ladner Trunk Road in Ladner called the Ladner Willows has 48 units.

Up until now, almost 42 of the 48 have been boarded up with plywood. It has been sitting

like that for at least five years now with no provision from the government to move

forward and get people back into this facility or have this facility torn down and

rebuilt for low-income families in Ladner.

The Premier confessed as much at a gathering of NDP insiders at the Broadbent Institute

in September: "We're not going to solve the housing crisis, the opioid crisis, the

health care challenges. We're not going to solve all those issues in British Columbia

between now and the next election."

Moreover, there are large portions of this legislation that won't come into effect

even until after the next election. Interim housing needs reports don't need to be

completed until after the next election in December 2024. Official community plans

don't need to be redesigned until the end of December 2025.

What this legislation also fails to do is fix the massive amount of taxes that are

blocking new housing construction, including Metro Vancouver's plan to more than triple

the fees on new housing.

It's simple. Additional housing costs are the exact opposite of what British Columbians

need right now. To make housing more affordable, we need to make building housing

less expensive.

Unlike the NDP, we want to build high density where it is needed most, not urban sprawl.

People want to afford a home that is close to transit and has an easy commute to work

or school. Those are the homes that we want to build. That means smart urban density

in our downtowns as opposed to the outskirts of town. While building more housing

is undoubtedly a priority, it's crucial that we focus on the right locations.

[3:10 p.m.]

When we speak of right locations, I want to talk about a project of housing in Delta

South that I'm very proud of. It's called the Southlands property in Boundary Bay.

It's the old Spetifore farm that consisted of 537 acres, and, back in 1989, was the

longest public hearing ever held in Canada by a municipality.

It finally came back to us, in Delta, about the year 2012 or 2013. The owner said:

"Look. I own this 537 acres. It's kind of fallow farmland. Some of it's pretty decent.

Some of it is poor." The owner said: "Look. I want to put forward a project for housing

in this area."

We finally came to an agreement, as Delta city council. We said to the owner: "We

will give you 20 percent of that 537 acres, the poorest land — the sandy, salty land

of this 537 acres — if you will give back to the city of Delta the 80 percent of the

537 acres and also throw in $9 million of money to improve the drainage and irrigation

of the 80 percent."

What a success this has become. A planned housing development in south Delta, in the

Tsawwassen area, where we're not only building condominiums, single-family homes,

apartment buildings and townhouses. We're also adding….

It's a community now. There are coffee shops. There's a little store. There's going

to be a Four Winds pub. It's one of the greatest things that has happened to Delta.

Over 350 acres of farmland had the $9 million in improvements to it for drainage and

irrigation. I've never seen anything so successful. We've got three different farmers

out there growing potatoes, growing grain and growing corn.

It's just a great success story. That's why I think municipalities need to have the

ability to design and move forward some of their own housing projects without the

government telling them how they should run their business and how they should do

it.

People are naturally drawn to Delta as a place to live. Delta boasts thriving spaces,

including restaurants and breweries, which people want to enjoy. To promote these

aspects, we must strategically plan housing developments rather than allow unchecked

urban sprawl. We don't want to end up like California, where urban sprawl is rampant

and traffic jams mean it takes hours to get home.

Residents desire homes that are located near transit options, enabling easy commutes

to work or school. The essence of our housing strategy should be to fulfil this need

efficiently. This means focusing on development in the right places and ensuring access

to necessary amenities.

This is very important. In Delta, we do not have the best transit options. If we're

going to add density to areas of Delta South and areas of Ladner and areas of North

Delta, we have to have efficient transit so that people can not have to get in their

vehicles and drive to work. They can properly be able to take a bus.

A good example is Tilbury Industrial Park. It employs thousands and thousands of workers

that almost cannot get there in any kind of a rapid fashion on our transit system

from Vancouver or Coquitlam or Burnaby or wherever they happen to come from.

What I'm saying is…. If we are going to add all this density of fourplexes and six

houses in our suburban areas, we have to make sure that we have the proper transit

facilities, including the new bridge that we were going to put up to replace the George

Massey Tunnel. This legislation will increase density to 142 units per hectare, on

average, which is a significant increase for suburban areas, compared to 18 units

per hectare in Coquitlam.

Can you imagine in Delta? We allow approximately 17 to 27 units per hectare of density,

yet this legislation will now allow 142 units per hectare of density. This will not

sit well with a lot of people in my rather conservative area of south Delta, Tsawwassen

and Ladner.

There are no details or plans to address what is required to support all these homes.

The NDP hasn't even figured out how to pay for the massive cost of this infrastructure.

Because of those costs, housing is going to be very expensive unless we get taxes,

fees and red tape out of the way.

[3:15 p.m.]

Who is going to pay for the infrastructure, the sidewalks, the hydrants, the DCCs,

the water, the sewer, the schools, the upgrades to sidewalks and the upgrades to roads

in some of our subdivisions? There is a role for the province to be stepping up to

the plate here, but the best they can do is recycle old announcements that are massively

overbudget. British Columbians are tired of this same rhetoric and of seeing the same

projects re-announced but with no new affordable housing to show for it.

The approach to housing development in Delta and throughout British Columbia must

be strategic, thoughtful and aligned with the desires and needs of the residents.

We aim to create thriving communities with well-planned housing. Unfortunately….

This is something I consistently hear from my constituents. They are frustrated with

the current status of infrastructure, namely the Massey Tunnel. As it stands, people

may be hesitant to move to my riding because of the congestion they face. It can add

on a huge amount of time for commuters and people in the trucking industry. My constituents

are beyond frustrated with waiting for a replacement for the congested, seismically

unsafe George Massey Tunnel.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk a little bit about the density and new housing going

into Ladner. I can tell you that Ladner, as we speak, is currently adding a lot of

density and housing to an area right along the Fraser River called Hampton Cove or

the Captain's Cove Marina area. We have a huge amount of new houses going up, as I

just spoke about earlier, in Tsawwassen, the Southlands project.

Ladner is a population of about 25,000 people. Believe it or not, there's only one

exit to get out of Ladner — in the mornings, in the afternoons, in the evenings —

to meet Highway 17A, if you would like to go to White Rock or to the U.S. border or

if you'd like to approach the George Massey Tunnel to get to work or to get to appointments.

With the bridge, we were going to have a second exit coming out of Ladner on River

Road. It would simply go underneath the bridge and be able to connect people over

by the new casino and quickly get them into the tunnel. We'd have two exits to support

the density and building of houses in Ladner and Tsawwassen.

With this George Massey Tunnel replacement, we don't know that it's ever going to

happen or take place. They have killed the opportunity for the second exit out of

Ladner with this plan for the Massey submerged tunnel, which, without getting into

all the details, is an environmental nightmare. I could speak for three hours just

about my feelings on this tunnel replacement.

An Hon. Member: More. More. More.

I. Paton: More, please.

The project included ten lanes.

Deputy Speaker: If the member might speak to the bill, that would be appreciated.

I. Paton: I am certainly speaking about the density of new homes going up, fourplexes and sixplexes,

in Ladner and the ability for them to get out and get to work or get to medical appointments.

The project included ten lanes, two of which were dedicated to transit, major upgrades

to the Steveston and Highway 17A interchanges, highway widening and the potential

to see light rapid transit come to south of the Fraser. The government took all of

this away from my constituents when they ripped up the B.C. Liberal government's plan

in 2017. Instead, commuters continue to wait, possibly for ten more years, for this

replacement.

Every time I talk about the Massey Tunnel, I feel like I should pull out my notes

from five years ago, because nothing has changed. Not a shovel has gone into the ground

to replace the aging George Massey Tunnel.

Deputy Speaker: If the member might demonstrate the connection to the bill, that would be appreciated.

I. Paton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, in contrast to the NDP, we will be offering a real plan that prioritizes

green urban density over unmanaged sprawl. Their record speaks for itself when it

comes to housing. With the NDP's continuous lack of results, there is no reason to

believe they will be any more successful this time than they have been in the past.

We should be flooding the zone with all kinds of new housing — condos, townhomes,

apartments, market rentals, affordable rentals — along with building the infrastructure

— transit, child care and schools — that growing communities need and deserve.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on Bill 44.

Hon. G. Lore: I won't speak long to this bill. I did want to rise to voice my support for this bill

and the steps forward that it takes. In part, I'm inspired to stand and speak to it

by some of the things that I've heard from the opposition.

I think it's pretty clear that we're going to have formal opposition to this bill

from the other side. Some of the things I wanted to respond to are some of the ways

in which members of the opposition have been talking about homes for families and

people being able to let out their dogs and raise their families in communities.

[3:20 p.m.]

The kinds of housing that we're talking about in this….

Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Member.

If members could turn off their technology. We're hearing it, and we don't need to.

Thanks.

Please proceed. Sorry, Minister.

Hon. G. Lore: Thank you.

The housing that we're talking about in this legislation is family housing. In my

community, dense and diversified housing is home to families of all kinds in every

community, in every neighbourhood of Victoria–Beacon Hill. I think the attempts to

frame this as not good for families to either rent or own is disingenuous when we

need diversified housing, when there are opportunities in densified communities to

have walkability, to have connection with neighbours. This is not just neutral for

family housing. This has the potential to be net positive.

I also was listening to my colleague from Delta South and a few of the quotes that

he raised. Since the member for Delta South raised a few quotes from constituents

of mine, from organizations in my community, I felt the need to set the record straight.

The organizations the member was speaking to are strongly in support of this legislation

before us. They are in support of what they have described to me as bold and positive

steps forward. For the member opposite to take quotes from these individuals who believe

that this is good legislation, that these are important and significant steps forward,

is a misrepresentation.

The member also referenced public hearings, including the longest public hearing in

history. I will say the notion that we don't have urgency in addressing housing needs,

that the kinds of consultations and community conversations that happen as part of

the official community planning aren't important contributions is, again, I think,

off the mark in terms of what we need to rise to, to address the housing crisis.

I've been a part of a number of neighbourhood planning sessions here in Victoria as

part of the villages and corridors planning. The proactive outreach that happens during

this kind of community planning….

City staff and volunteers are part of groups that do this planning, that pop up at

the local pool, that set up coffees in neighbours' houses to get a sense of what people

want their neighbourhoods and communities to look like. That contribution, that kind

of community consultation should be recognized as good input into designing our neighbourhoods

and should be treated with respect for the time and energy that people give to that.

What we've got currently is that there are these neighbourhood and official community

plans. People put their energy into sharing their vision for a neighbourhood, their

vision for housing, their vision for their city. And then we also do a building-by-building

additional conversation.

What I have observed in my time involved in housing conversations in my community

is that folks who are underhoused, who face housing insecurity, are less able to participate

in those one-by-one development conversations. As a parent, I took my then six-year-old

to many public hearings on housing. More than once, I was not able to speak because

it went well into the night in a way that, again, doesn't work for families —

whereas

that input in that ongoing vision of an official community plan sets some of what

can be built where.

[3:25 p.m.]

To suggest that one form of consultation should just be disregarded and on a one-by-one

basis when we face urgency, when we face the need to honour that consultation and

official community plan…. That visioning of what a city should look like and where

housing should go is, I think, really important.

Again, just to speak to some of the quotes that were raised in the previous member's

speech. We have housing advocates who have been part of how we got here, part of this

conversation to move the needle on how and where and when we build housing. I am very

much looking forward to new opportunities, when a single-family dwelling in my community

is taken down for something other than an even bigger, even more expensive single-family

dwelling to be built.

Let's be clear. If folks want single-family dwellings, they can build them there.

But many families find… For many families, those single-family dwellings are unattainable

when it comes to cost. Many families are also interested in townhouses in small, multi-unit

buildings because of what they offer for living in communities, for connections to

neighbours.

So I think what we've got here is not a restriction on what can be built but an opening

up of opportunities for more density, for more robust and full neighbourhoods.

For what it will mean for my community and for families, for individuals looking for

more housing options and more housing security in the future, I am in favour of this

and in support of this legislation.

T. Wat: This is such a great honour for me to rise today and join many of my passionate and

committed colleagues who already spoke so eloquently on this bill. We really wish

the NDP MLAs from different municipalities can also stand up and tell us why they

should support this bill.

It's such an important debate that I think many of us should participate in, as what

we do from our caucus.

Housing is really the talk of the town now and is the top of mind for many British

Columbians, including, of course, my constituency, in my riding of Richmond North

Centre, and also many of the residents in the city of Richmond.

In the city of Richmond, the number of people over age 65 will substantially increase

by 2041. They will represent 26 percent of the population in 2041, compared with 14

percent in 2011. The over-75 age group will represent 15 percent of the population

in 2041, compared to 6 percent in 2011. Some will be active and healthy, and others

will be frail and will have health problems associated with advancing age.

This will have much implication for government to provide affordable housing and supportive

housing and other services or special programs to these age groups in the community.

That's why government must ensure that we are making the correct decisions for those

living in our province now and for those who will live in B.C. in the future.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Everyone in this chamber knows that we need to build more housing. But unfortunately,

after seven years and two elections, the NDP has repeatedly failed to do so. This

province needs a better housing plan than what the NDP is offering.

After two terms and seven years in government, what has this NDP government done?

Sadly, just 15 percent of the 114,000 government-built homes promised by the NDP have

opened today. What a shocking lack of results.

[3:30 p.m.]

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

is higher than it has ever been. Right now far too many British Columbians are struggling

under the weight of steadily increasing costs.

According to a CBC news report in March 2022 –– last year, but now it's even worse

–– many Richmond residents have been pushed out of their city because of the shortage

of reasonably priced rentals. The CBC news report said that the bulk of new construction

in Richmond is creating privately owned condos and not purpose-built rentals.

Data from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. says Richmond recorded 703 rental

housing starts and 5,495 strata condo starts from 2018 to 2021. Recent immigrants

from Hong Kong, many of whom live in the city of Richmond, said they were all taken

by surprise how expensive and unaffordable it was to settle down in the Lower Mainland,

including, of course, the city of Richmond.

Many of these immigrants have moved to the neighbouring province of Alberta, even

though they much prefer living in our beautiful province. They simply cannot afford

the high cost of living, including unaffordable housing prices or rentals, skyrocketing

grocery bills, transportation costs, etc. Our province and the city of Richmond are

losing these professional immigrants who have so much skill, talent and working experience

to contribute to our province.

As a result of the NDP government's inability to build more housing, B.C. now has

the worst housing affordability in North America. On the Premier's watch, rents now

cost over $3,000 monthly in Vancouver for a one-bedroom apartment. A Surrey townhouse

that used to cost $300,000 in 2012 now costs over $900,000. This government claims

that Bill 44 will help build 113,000 homes over the next ten years. By contrast, the

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. says we need to build 610,000 additional housing

units by 2030 to restore affordable housing. This plan falls well short of that.

B.C. has the highest rents in Canada and the worst housing affordability in North

America. If you are thinking about owning a townhouse, how much does it cost now?

It's up 33 percent, to $1 million. How about a single-family home? Well, it's approaching

$2 million. The NDP housing targets are set at only 75 percent of the real need and

well below federal CMHC guidelines to restore affordability.

Robert Berry, of the pro-density group Homes for Living, said in the Vancouver Sun that the NDP is taking a politically convenient route with moderate targets that

don't solve the core issue.

Brendon Ogmundson, chief economist of the B.C. Real Estate Association, notes that

even if targets are met, they fall short of what's needed for affordability. Even

after these changes, there are so many things holding up housing that the NDP refuse

to address.

Metro Vancouver is planning to triple development cost charges on new housing, adding

up to $25,000 to the cost of a new home. The backlogs, the delays and the regulations

at the residential tenancy branch make it next to impossible for mom-and-pop landlords

to rent out their basement suites or laneway homes. The implementation of the step

code for new buildings is going to add up to $50,000 per home, due to the requirement

for advanced mechanical systems and ultra-high-performance windows.

[3:35 p.m.]

The development approvals process review also cites a backlog caused by constant referrals

to the Ministry of Transportation for developments within 800 metres of a provincial

road and a lack of authority for the ministry to grant latecomer agreements, resulting

in the reluctance of developers to bear the high cost of being the first to develop,

including in areas identified as important for meeting community objectives.

As we have seen with the village of Lytton, costly archaeology requirements and massive

backlogs within the archaeology branch are holding up housing for years, not days.

The Premier, the Housing Minister and the entire NDP caucus should open up their hearts

to listen to the voices of renters. Let me quote some remarks from our renters.

"Lisa O'Sullivan, her son Cyril Gunn, cousin Sandra McMath and mother, Betty McGuire,

live in Richmond in a building that's shared by another family of renters and are

looking for a place that gives them their own space. O'Sullivan says they want to

stay in Richmond but can't find a place they can afford within the city, after searching

for two years."

Teresa Chhina, a housing outreach worker who is homeless: "My job is outreach with

the most vulnerable people in the province, but I myself am homeless."

Bert Atoza, who waited for hours in line to see just one apartment: "It becomes like

Hunger Games . We are fighting to get the place."

Ankita Goel, a renter: "Housing is unaffordable, groceries are going up, rent is going

up…. It's making me consider moving out."

Paula Hudson-Lunn is losing her apartment in Nelson. "Here I am, at 71, looking for

housing in a 0.6 percent rental vacancy market."

As a result of the affordability challenge, birth rates have plunged to 15-year low.

Michelle Cyca, a new mother forced to move: "The prospect of having a baby in a new

community, far from friends and family, was hard to swallow."

The Metro Vancouver Homeless Count shows that homelessness is at record highs under

the NDP, up 34 percent from 2017. In a letter to the editor of the Richmond News , Donna Colpitts says:

"I applaud councillor Kash Heed for putting forward a motion calling for an immediate

action plan to address the homelessness crisis in Richmond. Donna said: "It is clear

from the 2023 official homeless count final report that the current strategy is not

effective. The increase for all of Metro Vancouver was 32 percent; in Richmond, it

was 91 percent.

"Donna added that the report also highlights the fact that "the majority of people

experiencing homelessness are in their home community. They are not somehow being

imported or drifting into our community. They grew up here, and this is their home."

Before taking a detailed look at this bill, Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential

Development) Amendment Act, 2023, let's listen to the mayors of several municipalities

with regard to their thoughts about this NDP bill. I know that my colleague from Delta

South has already talked about some of them. I think it doesn't harm us to listen

once again to how they feel, because they are the ones who understand the housing

issue in their local municipalities.

[3:40 p.m.]

Burnaby mayor Mike Hurley is the first mayor to strongly criticize this bill as too

much, too soon. It seemed like the province had not put any thought into any of this,

Mayor Hurley told Burnaby Now . "It's a massive change, and I don't think anyone really realizes how big a change

this is, whether it's good or bad," he said, also noting that there were "hardly any"

details with this new announcement — hardly any details.

Mayor Hurley worries about the possibility of speculation and if land values on single-family

lots could double or triple. He questioned how properties will be taxed when lots

have the potential for four or six units and assessed on highest and best use.

Mayor Hurley is also concerned about infrastructure. He said that many of Burnaby's

neighbourhoods were built in the 1950s and 1960s with smaller pipes for sewers and

water. Let me quote him. He said: "Who's going to pay to replace all those pipes with

bigger pipes and then the infrastructure that goes with handling those bigger pipes?"

The province has planned a $51 million fund to support municipalities with the changes,

but Mayor Hurley said that money won't be enough when split between all the municipalities,

which the new legislation affects. Let me quote him again: "That's really a drop in

the bucket when it comes to infrastructure."

Mayor Hurley also said there should be much more consultation with the municipalities.

I'm hoping that the NDP MLAs could have consulted with the local municipalities, and

these kinds of comments would not have come about. Let me quote Mayor Hurley once

again: "I'm not sure that the provincial government…has the same level of expertise

when it comes to planning as cities do, and so that's a concern."

This new legislation will also eliminate parking requirements for projects within

400 metres of frequent transit, an issue Burnaby council has been arguing over for

months. Just three weeks ago, the Burnaby council approved reduced parking requirements

within 800 metres of a SkyTrain station, but they were reductions, not an elimination.

Let me quote Mayor Hurley once again. "We work on things, and then the province comes

out and does something, you know, without talking to us. And it's very frustrating."

Burnaby's bylaws will have to comply with the provincial rules by the end of June

next year. Mayor Hurley said: "There will be no community input into any of this stuff."

The province is also asking municipalities to update their official community plans

every five years. Mayor Hurley said that would likely mean more work for city staff

in years ahead.

Mayor Hurley is not the only mayor who expresses, I guess, frustration with this Bill

44. Another mayor who shares the concerns raised by Mayor Hurley is Mayor Eric Woodward

of Langley Township. Mayor Woodward told Postmedia that "the NDP government's implementation

timeline is completely 'unrealistic.'" Mayor Woodward suspects it has more to do with

the looming provincial election than any concern with long-term planning.

[3:45 p.m.]

Mayor Woodward expressed doubts that communities will be able to densify single-family

neighbourhoods "without creating significant challenges on sewer, water, school sites,

park sites, public safety capacity, road capacity and parking requirements. This one-size-fits-all

approach is really going to create a lot of problems here."

Well, there's another mayor. Acting Sooke Mayor Al Beddows says that one of the immediate

effects of the legislation would be to send his municipality back to square one on

a community housing plan that has just consumed several years' effort and $200,000.

This acting mayor also questioned the government's wisdom in getting rid of public

hearings once the new community plans are final. He told CKNW: "They say public hearings

are a nuisance and usually negative, and I guess they are. But it is the only way

for our citizens to voice their concern."

He also raised an important prospect. The ban on public hearing is intended to curb

the forces of NIMBY — not in my backyard. Well, as Vaughn Palmer of Vancouver Sun said, in the brave new world of provincial government dictator zoning, residents

may not learn about the transformation of their single-family neighbourhood until

the construction crews descend, when it will be too late for them to do anything about

it. How sad.

Vaughn Palmer, in his column, pointed out that Mayor Hurley, Mayor Woodward and acting

Mayor Beddows are not the only local government leaders raising legitimate concerns

about the NDP's rush-job zoning legislation. He said that each of the mayors represent

a community represented in the Legislature by NDP MLAs who should be alert to the

valid criticism of local government leaders.

I fully agree with Vaughn Palmer that our NDP MLAs on the other side of the House

should talk to their local government leaders, who know the local housing issue better

than the Premier and the Housing Minister and understand their concerns.

Now let's take a look at this Bill 44. There's a lack of details. There's also a major

gap in this bill that we have no ability to explore. Nearly all the details about

this legislation that are going to be implemented are supposed to be contained in

a policy manual, which will not be published until after this legislation is passed.

This missing policy manual is set to include important practical details like setbacks,

height restriction, parking and lot coverage. This lack of details makes this bill

nothing more than a marketing document, reflecting this government's pattern of empty

announcements with no details, no tracking and poor results to date.

This government has shown time and time again that they are not the right people to

build housing and make life more affordable in British Columbia. The Premier confessed

as much at a gathering of NPD insiders at the Broadbent Institute this September.

"We are not going to solve the housing crisis, the opioid crisis, the health care

challenges. We are not going to solve all those issues in British Columbia between

now and the next election."

Moreover, there is a large portion of this legislation that won't come into effect

until after the next election. Interim housing needs reports don't need to be completed

until after the next election, in December 2024. Official community plans don't need

to be redesigned until the end of December 2025.

[3:50 p.m.]

What this legislation also fails to do is fix the massive amount of taxes that are

blocking new housing construction, including Metro Vancouver's plan to more than triple

fees on new housing. It's simple. Additional housing costs are the exact opposite

of what British Columbians need right now to make housing more affordable. We need

to make building housing less expensive.

Unlike the Premier and the NDP, we want to build high density where it is needed most,

not urban sprawl. People want to afford a home that is close to transit and has an

easy commute to work or school. Those are the homes that we want to build. That means

smart urban density in our downtowns as opposed to the outskirts of town. We don't

want to end up like California where urban sprawl is rampant and traffic jams mean

it takes hours to get home.

This legislation will increase density to 142 units per hectare on average, which

is a significant increase for suburban areas, compared to 18 units per hectare in

Coquitlam. But there's no mention of how the government is going to improve the infrastructure

to go along with density. That shows that the government lacks foresight, lacks a

comprehensive plan at all.

There are no details or plans to address what is required to support all these homes.

The NDP has not even figured out how to pay for the massive cost of this infrastructure.

And because of those costs, housing is going to be very expensive, unless we get taxes,

fees and red tape out of the way.

There is a role for the province to be stepping up to the plate here. But the best

they can do is recycle old announcements that are massively over budget. British Columbians

are tired of the same old rhetoric, seeing the same projects be announced but with

no new affordable housing to show for it.

In contrast to the NDP, we will be offering a real plan that prioritizes green urban

density over a managed sprawl. The record speaks for itself when it comes to housing.

With the NDP's continuous lack of results, there's no reason to believe they will

be any more successful this time than they have been in the past.

The only people who can truly fix this mess are our B.C. United caucus, with a bold

vision to build homes and avoid cost escalation. We should be flooding the zone with

all kinds of new housing — condos, townhomes, apartments, market rentals, affordable

rentals — along with building the infrastructure, like transit, child care and schools

that growing communities need and deserve. To do that, we need a comprehensive plan

that meets the diverse needs of B.C. communities, and that's what you can expect from

a B.C. United government.

S. Furstenau: It's been interesting to listen to the debate on this bill. I hope everybody takes

the time to listen to the member for Saanich North and the Islands' speech yesterday,

which I think was not just wonderfully delivered but a thoughtful and deeply important

part of the conversation on housing in B.C.

[3:55 p.m.]

I'm going to follow his lead. I would like to say that it would be quite a different

thing if we were starting this debate and this conversation about housing with the

assertion that it's a human right, that there should be no expectation that people

in a place like British Columbia, in a country like Canada, should not have the human

right to be housed. Yet what we are mostly hearing in the debate is a kind of: "We

can solve this problem by just doing more of the same as what we've been doing for

so long."

What I'd like to argue is that the unaffordability and lack of attainability of housing

for far too many people in British Columbia is not the problem. It's a symptom of

a much bigger problem. What my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands laid out

yesterday was a view of community and family and housing — a view of the world, really

— that situates that unit of family within community and the idea that we as humans

are actually meant to be caring and taking care of each other.

What we've seen for the last about four and a half decades is a story, mostly from

Western governments, starting in the United Kingdom with a prime minister who said,

"There's no such thing as society", and then in the United States with a president

who rejected the idea that we should support people who need support. Then here in

Canada, with the adoption of the kinds of principles that led to a lack of investment

in non-market housing for the last four decades.

This bigger context to understand how the problem we have now with unaffordability

and unattainability of housing for so many people is actually the outcome of a system

that says: "We're going to lean into letting this thing called the market drive the

outcomes."

So what have we got? Where has that market taken us? Well, today in the world we have

what I would have been calling a billionaire problem. Currently the world's ten richest

men — and they are all men, Madam Speaker — own more wealth than 3.1 billion people

combined. They own more wealth, ten men, than 40 percent of humanity.

We have allowed for this unmitigated accumulation of wealth by the few to create the

conditions for more and more and more people in which they can't meet their basic

needs of shelter, food.

Then we have governments that for decades have not invested in the public services

that actually are a buffer against this growing inequality. So we see a decline in

the state of our public education system. We see a decline in our health care systems.

We see a decline in our public institutions, our social safety net. We see people

who are on disability, who are expected to live on a far-below-the-poverty-line amount

of money every month.

We have gotten here not by some accident, not by like: "Oh well, you know, this is

just the natural state of things." We've gotten here by a series of policy decisions

made by governments for decades.

[4:00 p.m.]

There's a very interesting

article that just came out in the Walrus. It's by Ricardo

Tranjan. It's an excerpt from his book called The Tenant Class, which was published this year. In it, he points out that this conversation around

the housing crisis in Canada has actually been going on for more than a hundred years.

We have commentary from B.C. that says: "We must have more homes, and we must have

them at prices people can afford to pay." That's from 1911.

In Quebec, Le Devoir , in a press conference organized by tenant communities, demanded provincial investment

in affordable housing. That was in 1980. We have the Toronto Star warning that if rent control were suddenly to cease, many families would suddenly

be confronted by the danger of eviction or the necessity to find other accommodation,

because they could not afford to stay where they were —1950. An investigative news

story in Maclean's contends that the housing crisis, which shows no immediate signs of easing, is fuelling

tenant organizing across the country. That's 1969.

This conversation around the lack of affordable housing is not new. As we heard from

the previous speaker, the kind of rhetoric and the kind of conversation that we hear

tends to stay pretty cemented within a particular set of boundaries, mostly around

what's called the supply side of the argument. If we just build more housing, it will

solve the problem, and yet that is not proving to be true.

I'm just going to quote from Ricardo Tranjan's piece here. He says: "For example,

proponents of the 'supply side' argument frequently point to low vacancy rates as

an indication that supply is low, which drives rents higher." This is the standard

kind of economic argument. If we have more supply, then we'll have less demand and

prices will go down.

Earlier in the article, he points out "housing is not bananas." It doesn't get overripe.

You don't have to sell it off quickly. Housing is a different kind of…. Well, it's

turned into a commodity instead of a human right, so the value of that housing has

continually gone up, and the expectation, as my colleague pointed out yesterday, that

that increase in value is something owed to people who invest in housing is also pretty

standard in the conversation.

I'll go back to Ricardo Tranjan:

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, the national vacancy rate went up from 2 percent to

3.2 percent — a 60 percent increase in the national vacancy rate. What happened to

rents? They, too, went up 3.6 percent. In Toronto, vacancy rates more than doubled

between October 2019, when they were at 1.5 percent, and October 2020, when they were

at 3.4 percent. What happened to the average rent in the city? It rose by 4.7 percent.

"A Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. report explained that in hot markets like Toronto

and Montreal" — Vancouver — "landlords chose to wait longer to fill vacancies or offered

one-time rent discounts instead of lowering rents."

Because we have, as my colleague spoke about, allowed for the commodification of housing,

there is an incentive that exists for finding ways to extract the most amount of profit

— the most amount of return on investment — in that housing.

Let me carry on from the article: "In 2021, a prominent housing expert, Steve Pomeroy,

demonstrated that 'between 2006 and 2016, Canada added 1.636 million households and

built 1.919 million new homes.'"

Let me say that again.

"'Between 2006 and 2016, in the space of ten years, Canada added 1.636 million households

and built 1.919 million new homes. Almost 30,000 extra homes were constructed each

year compared to the increase in the number of households,' and yet housing prices

and rents went up at a breakneck speed during those years. Neither Pomeroy nor I"

— Ricardo — "contend that Canada has enough housing or that additional supply would

not be beneficial. The point is that supply alone will not solve the problem."

[4:05 p.m.]

The bill in front of us proposes, essentially, a supply solution to the problem that

we're facing with the lack of affordable and attainable housing for people. And it

dismisses the evidence that we have that this solution has continued not to work,

that it's not just quantity of housing that is the issue. It is quality of housing.

Because we have allowed for market to be the driving force in this, we can, I would

say, expect to see what we've seen all along, which is that more housing does not

equate to lower cost of housing.

One of the books that I'm reading right now is Astra Taylor's Massey lectures, The Age of Insecurity . And I think we're hearing a lot in this House right now about people's sense of

insecurity. We're hearing questions around worries about crime rates, worries about

affordability, worries about people not feeling that sense of security.

Astra Taylor writes in her first chapter:

"Insecurity plays a unique role in the liberal capitalist order that dominates today

— a role underscored by the fact that the modern word "insecurity" entered into common

usage in the 17th century, just as our market-driven society was coming into being.

Only by revisiting the history and the central role insecurity has played in capitalism

since its genesis can we understand our present situation and see how more recent

developments — particularly the decline of the welfare state over the past 50 years

— have intensified and left no one, wealthy or working class, unscathed."

Another very, I think, important and critical point is that the inequality that we

see, the inequality that is actually a significant part of the lack of affordability

that people are experiencing, harms everybody. It's not that inequality only harms

people who are at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. It creates a growing sense

of insecurity for everybody, with the exception, perhaps, of the 72 centimillionaires

and six billionaires who reside in Vancouver right now, making it the 41st most wealth-laden

city that we have in the world.

We have Vancouver as a real example of the massive amount of wealth that can pour

into a region. Yet, as that ceiling of wealth gets higher and higher and higher, we

don't see the floor rise with it. The floor gets lower and lower and lower, and we

get greater inequality and greater insecurity.

So in the debate that we've been listening to about Bill 44 — with the exception,

largely, of my colleague yesterday —we're not talking about the root of the problem

that is getting us to this place where too many people in British Columbia can't afford

housing, are feeling very insecure economically, are feeling insecure in their communities.

The reality is that as a result of policy decisions that have been made for decades

in this country and in this province, we have the conditions where more and more people

are falling deeper and deeper into poverty. One of the driving forces of that is the

lack of housing that they can afford.

[4:10 p.m.]

So do I think that Bill 44 is going to solve that? I don't think it will. I think

it will achieve some of the outcomes that have been identified. But I think until

we really contextualize this problem into the wider socioeconomic context in conversation

that we need to be having, we are going to see, as we've seen since 1911 and 1950

and 1969 and 1980, the conversation around the housing crisis in Canada and B.C. carry

on much as it always has, because we are not willing to look at the root causes of

what has gotten us here and what is driving this perpetual problem that we face.

With that, I will thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate.

G. Kyllo: Well, it gives me a great amount of pride to stand in the House today to speak on

behalf of my hard-working men and women, the constituents of Shuswap.

In response to Bill 44 — the Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment

Act, 2023, it is interesting that in three terms for the current government, their

signature, Hail Mary, election platform promise to British Columbians was to improve

housing affordability.

Here we are, seven years in. I think we've seen at least six or seven, maybe even

more, housing bills as they continue to funnel their way through. What we've seen

is the single largest increase in housing prices, the most unaffordable housing prices

in North America.

Even media are reporting out that this piece of legislation was a rush job. It's incomplete;

there has been a lack of consultation. We have a government that is failing. They

have failed consistently to meet one of their signature election platforms in 2017:

to address housing affordability. As they continue to tinker around the edges and

muddle their way through, it's clear that they have no clear plan. There's no clear

direction.

It's not a plan that was put on the table in 2017, where they're slowly executing

on that plan. This has been a hodgepodge of different pieces of legislation, different

attempts to try and monkey around with the numbers and try and make it look like they're

achieving progress.

I'll remind viewers at home that it was the NDP that committed to building 114,000

homes over ten years. The result? A failing grade — barely over 16,000 homes in seven

years of a ten-year plan, 16,000 of their 114,000 construction target goal.

What has this government done to try and monkey around the edges to try and make people

somehow believe that they're making progress? Well, they've put in a speculation tax

and tried to come up with some numbers. We haven't seen the data or how they came

up with those numbers, but they decided that the spec tax actually freed up some rental

properties: "So we'll count those numbers towards our goal."

We've seen, in this legislative session, additional changes, largely around Airbnb.

I'm quite certain that this government again will try and come up with some number,

some estimation, on the number of potential units that might be made available for

housing, and they'll count that towards their target.

The reason we're here today is to talk about this bill, which I think is one of, potentially,

five different pieces of legislation that address housing in some form.

Government's talking now about building 130,000 homes over the next ten years. Well,

they built 16,000 over seven, which is not even 20 percent of their initial target.

Seven years in, you'd think they'd be at least 60 or 70 percent of the way to achieving

their target. No, it's a failing grade. Nobody is believing this government. They

keep coming out with announcements, new legislation: "Look over here, folks. Oh, we're

doing this over here." But they are failing British Columbians in a big, big way.

Housing is, definitely, top of mind for every British Columbian. We need to ensure

that we're making the correct decisions for those that are living here in British

Columbia now and for those who are coming to our province.

[4:15 p.m.]

Everyone in this chamber knows that we need to build more housing. There is a severe

housing shortage. We only have to look to the number of homeless in our communities,

the number of young kids that don't have the opportunity to find alternative housing

and are still living in parents' basements or living with other friends.

There is a great need for more housing, and it wasn't until three years into the term

of this current government that they identified that supply was even part of the conversation.

Their former leader, Premier John Horgan, said that supply wasn't an issue, that they

were going to somehow legislate their way out of the housing problem. We know that

that was a gross miscalculation, a gross error. So here we are.

The province needs a real plan. It needs a leader that's going to have a vision, show

leadership and provide hope for young British Columbians. What did we see this government

do with respect to housing supply? We saw this government charge ahead with buying

up hotels and motels, warehousing individuals with severe mental health and addiction

challenges, destroying neighbourhoods and taking product out of the tourism sector.

You could say that that actually helped to increase and push individuals into Airbnb.

It was this government that took away from hotel and motel stock that otherwise would

be made available for the tourism sector in our communities. When I had responsibility

for B.C.'s jobs plan, tourism was one of the eight main focuses of the previous government

in meeting the job plan numbers. What has this government done? There's no sense of

a jobs plan; there's no sense of hope.

What we have seen — it's certainly part of this legislation — is an override of municipal

authority. The NDP seems to always know best: "Don't do as we say; do as we do. Let's

blame it on the federal government. Let's blame it on municipalities.” Suddenly, this

blanket zoning that the government is providing and putting forward for communities

over 5,000 people is going to have disastrous effects.

Mayors from across B.C. are calling this out as a shambles of legislation — inadequate

consultation; inadequate thought into how municipalities are going to fund the necessary

upgrades to important services, whether it be water, sewer or hydro; increasing densification

of our neighbourhoods without forethought and without the opportunity of municipalities

to make their own choices and make their own determination on what is best for their

own communities. That's all thrown out the window.

It's no wonder that we are seeing mayors stand up and express grave concerns over

the direction that this government has taken. I was on municipal council in Sicamous,

only for a short amount of time, but it wasn't the municipality's responsibility to

build affordable housing. Yes, they certainly were very supportive of different housing

groups and associations that provided housing in communities, but it was largely a

federal and provincial responsibility.

This government changed that, tried to lure municipalities into the program of building

housing, $100,000-a-door incentives where communities were encouraged to vend in land,

waive DCC charges, and waive future taxes for municipal services. Municipalities spent

countless hours in time working on trying to meet the need and respond to the failure

of this government, which has tried to downshift responsibility onto municipalities.

This is just the start. Well, it's certainly not the only thing that they've done.

Just look at the employer health tax. It was the single largest downloading of costs

onto the backs of municipalities in the history of this province: a 2 percent employer

health tax.

[4:20 p.m.]

In most municipalities, 85 to 87 percent of their expenditure is as wages and benefits.

This government placed a 2 percent wage cost directly on the backs of those municipalities

and did not backstop with any additional funding. What did the municipalities have

to do? They had to raise taxes in order to make up for that shortfall.

Government talks about how they eliminated MSP. No, it was a big tax shift. A big

chunk of that tax shift went onto the backs of municipalities, who in turn just put

it back onto the residential and commercial taxpayers in their communities. There's

no end to the effort of this government, that surely believes that they know best.

It was interesting. This does tie directly to this bill with respect to what I see

as a government that is starting to — I would say "inflict" is probably the correct

word — put pressure on municipalities without looking at efforts that they can take

internally. This has to do with a municipality that's in my community, Salmon Arm.

There's a beautiful waterfront park, Salmon Arm waterfront park, a big marina that

was put in as part of the Expo legacy project. They've been waiting for a lease renewal.

They need the lease renewal to be completed so that they'll have a valid lease so

they can move forward with some projects they want to do in Salmon Arm. They've been

waiting three years — three years — for a lease renewal.

I spoke to a senior bureaucrat within the Ministry of Forests who confirmed to me

that the administrative time to process a lease renewal is eight hours — eight hours

administration time. And here we sit. Salmon Arm is waiting three years, and their

last update: "Well, it's going to probably be another