Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Wednesday, November

29, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Singh: In the House today, we have the representatives from the B.C. Teachers Federation.

We have Clint Johnston, the president. We have Carole Gordon, Amy Smart, Anna Chudnovsky,

Sam Asmoucha, Marilyn Carr, Marjean Brown, Jeanine Foster, Lisa Hager and Katie Keast.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

E. Sturko: It's my pleasure to welcome back today Her Worship Brenda Locke, the mayor of Surrey,

who joins us here on the floor as a former member of this Legislative Assembly.

Her Worship served as a member of the government from 2001 to 2005 and was the Minister

of State for Mental Health and Addiction.

During her service to the province, she brought Simon Fraser University to Surrey.

She helped bring the B.C. RCMP headquarters to its home in the Green Timbers area

of Surrey.

Just this past weekend she lit Surrey's gorgeous Christmas tree, which is the biggest

Christmas tree in all of British Columbia, in front of a crowd of over 30,000 residents

and opened the Surrey holiday market.

Only a few weeks ago she successfully raised over $500,000 for the Surrey Fire Fighters

Charitable Society at the Mayor's Evening of Giving gala.

Mayor Locke is joined by her colleagues, who are up in the gallery, Coun. Pardeep

Kooner, Kristy Wawryk and Harry Kooner, who are her senior advisers.

Will the House please join me, once again, in making them all feel very welcome.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I, too, want to welcome the mayor.

[1:40 p.m.]

We had an opportunity to meet yesterday to talk about housing. I certainly know that

she has been a strong advocate to ensure that we get affordable housing built for

the most vulnerable people in Surrey. I really appreciate that effort that she puts

into that. We have some exciting things that we're going to work together on.

I also know in the gallery today I have Kaye Abellana, Katie McGroarty, Jill Dickau,

Deborah Elderhorst and then Clay Suddaby, Tasha Schollen, Liam Butler, Travis Paterson

and Alyha Bardi, who are part of the communications team that's been doing a lot of

work around housing.

I want to welcome them and thank them for all the work that they've been doing.

Hon. G. Lore: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Cleo Philp. They're a UVic student

and the director of campaigns and community relations at the University of Victoria

Students Society. We had a chance to meet a couple of weeks ago, as well, when the

student society was here doing some advocacy.

Will the House please help me make her feel very welcome.

Hon. A. Dix: During lunch, members on both sides of the House met with representatives of the Canadian

Cancer Survivor Network. We heard significant briefings on both breast cancer screening

and colorectal cancer screening. I want to especially acknowledge Michelle Di Tomaso,

who's a constituent of mine and was very much involved in the changes that were made

to ensure the notification of people around the results of dense breast and breast

cancer screening.

I wanted to acknowledge all of their work and their presentations today and thank

members on both sides of the House for participating.

P. Milobar: I'm joined here today…. I have some relatives that haven't been before, and it's their

first time. Two of them are two of my four siblings. My sister, Elizabeth Laird, is

here, as well as my brother, Antony Milobar. I will just say they're much older than

I am. We'll leave it at that, as only a younger brother can say, seeing I'm the youngest

of the five.

We're also joined here today with my mother, Mary-Ann Milobar.

Will the House please make them all feel welcome.

S. Furstenau: On the precinct, and they will be joining us in the gallery, are three groups of students

from Shawnigan Lake School, here with their teachers. I had the delight of being able

to chat with them at the entrance, and they are engaging in their own model parliament,

so let's be model parliamentarians for the students of Shawnigan Lake School today.

Also, I see there are three members of North Cowichan council in the gallery today:

Bruce Findlay, Tek Manhas and Mike Caljouw. Welcome as well.

D. Clovechok: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce my mom No. 2. Not my real

mom, but she's actually the mom of the member from Shuswap, who happens to be my roommate.

But whenever Marianne comes, I get banana bread, all sorts of different cookies and

strudel and meatloaf.

It's truly something that's really important to me as far as my diet goes, and she's

just an amazing human being. Today, we can actually see her up there, so if the House

would welcome her, it would be appreciated.

J. Sims: I also want to add my welcome to members of the BCTF.

They've all had their names read into the record, but I do want to say it's always

a great day when we have teachers right here in the Legislature. So welcome to this

wonderful House. And I'm sure you will all welcome the BCTF as they enjoy the very

rich conversations they're going to be having with each and every one of us.

I also want to take this opportunity, as I'm up, to welcome Rob Costanzo, the new

city manager for the city of Surrey, the best city in the country; Kristy Wawryk,

who is a personal adviser to our mayor, Brenda Locke, who is joining us today as well;

and Harry Kuna, the intergovernmental adviser. Another city councillor who has joined

us today is Pardeep Kooner.

Please help me make them feel welcome into this House.

[1:45 p.m.]

A. Walker: Today is a great day in my family. It is my father's birthday, and this week, he is

also celebrating his retirement.

He would give me a really hard time if I didn't correct the record. When I introduced

him last, I introduced him as a man to look up to, a man who's 6 foot 2. He's 6 foot

4. I hope that Hansard can correct this for posterity.

I wish the House could join with me in wishing him a happy birthday and a happy retirement.

Statements

INSTALLATION OF Lək̓ʷəŋən SIGNAGE

AT LEGISLATURE

A. Olsen: I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the important event that happened at the

front of the Legislature today.

I wanted to take a moment to raise my hands to you, Mr. Speaker, for the important

and powerful words that you shared on behalf of this Legislative Assembly, on the

effort that you have undertaken with respect to the journey of reconciliation that

this institution necessarily needs to be on and that we need to remain committed to.

I want to raise my hands in gratitude as a person who is from the SENĆOŦEN-speaking

lands to the north of here, the W̱SÁNEĆ people, W̱JOȽEȽP village. I come from a very

proud family, and I come from a family that has lots of connections to these lands

down here. But I still feel a stranger and a visitor in these lands, the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking

lands.

I think, Mr. Speaker, your act of putting those words in front, bringing our families

here from both the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking villages, the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people here,

and ensuring that inscribed in front of this Legislature are important messages that

have been shared with us, the work done by Dr. Elmer George and the Thomas family

and many, many others….

It's important that, I think, all members of this place understand what those words

are.

Starting on the east and moving west, the first inscription: "We thank our warriors

that go to war."

The second inscription: "We hold gratitude and respect for those who do not come back."

The third: "They gave our lives for us."

The fourth: "Thank you, ancestors. hay'sxw'qa s'iem ."

"It's good that you settlers are one together with the lək̓ʷəŋən people," is the next

one. "Working together as one, our children will become strong." And finally, "We

all love the children. Every child matters."

From a person that comes from the W̱SÁNEĆ territory and visits this institution every

day to do my work, I raise my hands in gratitude on behalf of our families as being

a witness to that event today.

Thank you for the leadership you're showing with this precinct, Mr. Speaker. HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM .

And when I say SIÁM , I mean SIÁM in the way that we use that word. We hold you up.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM .

M. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to join the House Leader of the Third Party to also recognize your leadership

and the leadership of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and her team for working

with Dr. Elmer George as an Elder of the Songhees Nation, as well as the other representatives

of the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations this morning.

It was a remarkable commemoration, an unveiling ceremony.

We were joined by the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the member for Skeena, myself and the House Leader and

other witnesses and members of this Legislative Assembly, including the Premier, who

joined us for this remarkable ceremony.

I know, recognizing the voice and the space, that the Speaker continues to want to

improve for the Legislative Assembly, for Indigenous peoples and First Nations, the

recognition on the pictorials in our precinct and now what is in front of our Legislative

Assembly building.

How emotional this moment was this morning, particularly for the House Leader of the

Third Party, as he just spoke to.

I know that every time we hear the member for Skeena, the former member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant, the new member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the House Leader for the Third

Party and others speak in this House — the importance of that voice….

[1:50 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker, you are creating the space for greater recognition, respect and honour

for our province. We all, as members of this Legislative Assembly, owe you a debt

of gratitude for your leadership in doing so.

In this space, in our words…. As we see and hear from Elder Butch Dick and Elder Shirley

Alphonse and others on occasion on the floor of this Legislative Assembly, the words

and the land acknowledgments do matter. Now, thanks to your leadership, on the front

of this precinct, for the visitors to this precinct, community members who share the

space, the site of the traditional territory for the lək̓ʷəŋən peoples, the former

village site, there is recognition of the lək̓ʷəŋən language.

As we spoke to Elder Mary Anne Thomas, for example, and her daughter, the meaning

of passing on the importance of the lək̓ʷəŋən language.

I join with the House Leader of the Third Party to thank you for your leadership,

Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to the continued work that you're doing with your

special advisory committee — the work that I know you're bringing back to this House

and other recommendations and other steps to be taken for reconciliation for the Legislative

Assembly with the Indigenous peoples and First Nations of our province.

Thank you again.

J. Phillip: Iskw’ist Amshen. That's my traditional name.

I want to thank the Esquimalt and Songhees people for the opportunity to do the work

that took place this morning. I was totally honoured, and it was very emotional.

The significance of this is just amazing, because it was an all-party event. You know,

there's something we can all agree on — yay. But it tells everyone where we are. Just

all those words there. It speaks to the past. It speaks to the present. And it speaks

to the future.

I was just honoured to be there, and I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for spearheading.

I know this took some time, years, to organize.

I hold my hands up to you. huy ch q'u siem.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Introductions by Members

S. Furstenau: I saw that the students from Shawnigan Lake School came in. If we could all make them

feel most welcome.

Speaker's Statement

INSTALLATION OF Lək̓ʷəŋən SIGNAGE

AT LEGISLATURE AND

MESSAGE OF APPRECIATION

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members.

To the three MLAs who spoke, expressed their comments in the House, I really appreciate

it. It's the teamwork. It's not just me. We all work together to achieve that goal.

I also want to express my appreciation to all members who attended the lək̓ʷəŋən welcome

signage unveiling ceremony this morning. All four parties — they were there. So thank

you very much from the bottom of my heart.

In addition to the invaluable guidance and support from Songhees and Esquimalt Chiefs

and Elders, this multi-year project has been guided and supported by many Legislative

Assembly staff.

I ask the House to join me in expressing our appreciation to the Legislative Assembly,

the Assembly staff who went above and beyond in planning, coordinating and helping

me host this special event.

They are Karen Aitken, Adriana Ayers, Emma Curtis, Cai Dong, David Nicholls, Daniel

Saretsky, Nathan Walsh.

From Precinct Services: Russell Baker, Surjit Dhanota, Jesse Szczepanowski, Darren

Sopher.

From Hansard Services: Mike Beninger, Simon DeLaat, Dwight Schmidt.

From the Office of the Clerk: Nicole Beneteau and Zaina Khan.

[1:55 p.m.]

From the Office of the Speaker: Tabitha Bernard, Karen Armstrong, Sasha Dani.

From the Parliamentary Dining Room: Traci Sparks, Karen Young.

The Office of the Sergeant at Arms: Pam Bolton, Todd Bryant, Marie-Josee Mayo and

Chris Swain.

My sincere appreciation and thank you for all the participation because, as I said,

it's a team. We are a team all together on this journey. We have to paddle together

to reach that goal.

hay'sxw'qa s'iem . Thank you.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M227 — LUNAR NEW YEAR ACT

H. Yao presented a bill intituled Lunar New Year Act.

H. Yao: I move that a bill intituled Lunar New Year Act, of which notice has been given in

my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

The bill seeks to formally recognize and commemorate the lunar new year and spring

festival celebration months within the province.

The lunar new year, based on the agricultural calendar, originated in China and can

be traced back about 3,500 years ago. The lunar new year celebration is a time-honoured

tradition and symbolizes renewal, harmony, health and prosperity.

The significance of lunar new year extends beyond its cultural and traditional aspects.

We feel a deep human need for agricultural success, family connection and social collaboration

that embraces multiculturalism built upon all people's desire for harmony, health,

prosperity, and family happiness.

Our province is a home of a mosaic of cultures. The introduction of the Lunar New

Year Act is a testament to our commitment to fostering inclusivity and acknowledging

the vibrant cultures that shape the identity of our province.

This legislation is a step toward recognizing the cultural heritage of our Chinese,

Korean, Vietnamese and other communities who have played a crucial role in the development

and the prosperity of British Columbia.

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

Motion approved.

H. Yao: I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill M227, Lunar New Year Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ALOPECIA AND COMPASSIONATE

AWARENESS AND EMPOWERMENT

R. Leonard: I have frontal fibrosing alopecia. It's known as FFA. It's a relatively new form of

balding that was first identified about 30 years ago, and the numbers have been growing.

Its cause isn't known yet. Fibrosing means scarring, and therefore, it's permanent

hair loss.

There are many types of alopecia, including the prevalent male androgenetic alopecia,

male pattern baldness. For men, hair loss is the norm. Not so for women.

Everyone's journey to deal with it is unique. I was on a ferry recently, and a woman

approached me and asked if I was undergoing chemotherapy, which she followed up immediately

with her own journey with cancer. I explained that I am just bald; I was not facing

the pain of chemotherapy or the fear of facing my own mortality. It wasn't the first

time, or the last, that I'll ever have this conversation. In fact, I had one today

with Michelle Di Tomaso at the cancer survivor luncheon.

I thank her and every one of those women who bravely and compassionately initiate

these conversations. I recognize that they do so to hold me up. I never anticipated

such kindness. When I took off my scarves and wigs, I was shedding my fear of exposure

and the emotional pain of loss. I felt incredibly liberated and happily empowered

to hold up other women and youth by showing them that they're not alone, and we're

okay.

I've been approached by women who share their own FFA stories. It's my hope that by

showing myself as I am, I'm helping others feel empowered too. I've been surprised

by how many people with other differences manifested physically see themselves in

my journey.

We tell kids that sharing is caring, and it's true. Parents tell their children not

to stare. It's impolite. I know I look different, but helping others recognize our

common humanity is what I do simply by showing my alopecia.

We are all okay. [Applause.]

[2:00 p.m.]

CONTRIBUTIONS TO KAMLOOPS COMMUNITY

BY MARY-ANN MILOBAR

P. Milobar: Across this province, we're always hearing of our constituents and people that have

been true community builders in our city. Today I'm going to take my two minutes to

highlight somebody that's been a community builder in Kamloops since 1961.

This community builder started out with modest beginnings, actually growing up in

a small mining town named Nordegg, Alberta, and worked jobs like, literally, the plug

and switchboards for the local telephone company' was a teacher for a short stint

of time where the average class size was 40-plus students in a multi-class, one-room

school; but then moved to Kamloops and started really invigorating our city in terms

of the work that she was doing there.

A founding member in 1961 of the Royal Inland Hospital women's auxiliary, which continues

to this day doing great work for our hospital and fundraising in our community.

A founding member of the Kamloops Symphony Orchestra back in the early '70s, which

is a professional orchestra company still. You can imagine back then in Kamloops saying

you wanted to have a professional orchestra.

In the late '70s, early '80s, by circumstance wound up running a hotel in Kamloops

with no previous experience, and by the end of the 1980s, despite crippling interest

rates, became the first female president of the B.C. and Yukon Hotel Association.

Then in the later years, decided that maybe joining the B.C. Wildlife Park board and

helping it transform itself from the Kamloops Wildlife Park back to a B.C. Wildlife

Park with a B.C. focus on animals would be a good place.

And not done there, was also on her church's steering committee for a housing project

to redevelop their church site in downtown Kamloops to provide low-income housing

for people in Kamloops.

All communities have members of their community like this that help build our cities

and make it stronger.

I'm just very fortunate and proud to be able to say that person, in this case, is

actually my mother, Mary-Ann.

the Hill We Climb POEM

R. Russell: As we near the end of a year of work in these halls, I offer some words from Amanda

Gorman's poem, The Hill We Climb .

When day comes we ask ourselves,

'where can we find light in this never-ending shade,'

the loss we carry

a sea we must wade?

We've braved the belly of the beast.

We've learned that quiet isn't always peace,

and the norms and notions

of what just is

isn't always just-ice.

And yet the dawn is ours

before we knew it,

somehow we do it.

Somehow we've weathered and witnessed

a nation that isn't broken

but simply unfinished…

And so we lift our gazes not to what stands between us,

but what stands before us.

We close the divide because we know, to put our future

first,

we must first put our differences aside…

Let the globe, if nothing else, say this is true:

That even as we grieved, we grew;

that even as we hurt, we hoped;

that even as we tired, we tried;

that we'll forever be tied together, victorious,

not because we will never again know defeat

but because we will never again sow division…F

for while we have our eyes on the future,

history has its eyes on us.

This is the era of just redemption

we feared at its inception.

We did not feel prepared to be the heirs

of such a terrifying hour

but within it we found the power

to author a new chapter,

to offer hope and laughter to ourselves.

So while we once asked,

'how could we possibly prevail over catastrophe'

now we assert,

'how could catastrophe possibly prevail over us?'

We will not march back to what was

but move to what shall be:

a country that is bruised but whole,

benevolent but bold,

fierce, and free.

We will not be turned around

or interrupted by intimidation

because we know our inaction and inertia

will be the inheritance of the next generation.

Our blunders become their burdens.

But one thing is certain:

If we merge mercy with might

and might with right,

then love becomes our legacy

and change our children's birthright.

So let us leave behind a country

better than the one we were left with…

When day comes we step out of the shade,

aflame and unafraid.

The new dawn blooms as we free it.

For there is always light,

if only we're brave enough to see it,

if only we're brave enough to be it.

[2:05 p.m.]

COMMUNITY SAFETY

M. Bernier: As we strive to ensure we live in family-friendly communities, the importance of ensuring

we do everything possible to make sure people are safe cannot be overstated. This

is not just a large community issue, as small rural communities like mine are grappling

with the pervasive issues of violence and open drug use and now drive-by shootings.

Safety is not a privilege. It is a fundamental right that we should all be enjoying.

But violence and drugs are now infiltrating our neighbourhoods. The impact of violent

crime and people on our streets suffering with addictions issues create profound and

long-lasting effects on our residents struggling with the negative impacts that this

is creating.

My communities are witnessing firsthand the impacts of what has happened with the

decriminalization of drugs and when we don't address the root cause of violence and

drug-related challenges. I've tried to raise awareness through the local RCMP in my

region, but they, frankly, need more support. My citizens are, frankly, also fed up

with this situation, with community groups like Citizens Take Action being formed

because of the frustration and feeling of losing control of our communities. Citizens

on Patrol has also ramped back up on our streets, trying to help. But frankly, it

is a sad situation when local businesses and people and concerned citizens are having

to try and deal with this situation after feeling abandoned.

British Columbia has the highest homicide rates of all major provinces. And in small

Dawson Creek, I am told that we've had eight murders in the last 18 months, with not

one person being charged or arrested. Last week — a person killed after tormenting

my community was someone recently released from jail that had no reason being on our

streets. Yesterday — two more drive-by shootings, and again this morning by an elementary

school.

Safe communities are the bedrock of a thriving society, and we need to be confronting

these issues of violence and drugs head-on. It is our collective responsibility.

ACTIVISM AGAINST

GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

M. Elmore: November 25 is the United Nations–recognized International Day For the Elimination

Of Violence Against Women and the start of 16 days of activism against gender-based

violence, an international campaign that runs until December 10, which is International

Human Rights Day.

The awareness campaign is an opportunity to reinforce work underway in B.C. to help

end gender-based violence and support survivors. It's also a time to recognize and

honour community-based service providers in their work to ensure survivors get the

support and care they need.

Gender-based and sexualized violence often impacts girls, women, two-spirit, transgender,

non-binary and other gender-diverse people, especially compounded by race and indigeneity,

with devastating and long-lasting effects.

Work underway to help end violence and support safety with a survivor-driven, trauma-informed

approach includes stable grant funding for victim services, sexual assault services

right across our province, support for the Indigenous-led Path Forward community fund

to support Indigenous communities to create their own culturally safe practices and

approaches, investments in transition and safe homes, second-stage housing and affordable

housing spaces for women leaving violence.

Over the next ten years, the women's transition housing fund will create spaces for

3,000 women; historic investments in child care which create opportunities for women's

economic empowerment, an important factor in addressing gender-based violence and

raising the minimum wage; support for LGBTQIA2S+ people and all people of all sexual

orientations and gender identities, including access to services and combatting discrimination.

More needs to be done, and that's why our government is committed to developing a

gender-based violence action plan. I know everybody here in the House joins me in

their commitment to end gender-based violence. It's going to require all of us working

together to make our province safer for all people.

LEGISLATURE MOUSE POEM

J. Tegart: It's always a pleasure to stand in this House and speak about important matters in

my riding, celebrating incredible people, special occasions and wonderful events.

Today I am speaking from my experience as an Assistant Deputy Speaker on behalf of

a treasured, often unseen, often forgotten member of this chamber.

[2:10 p.m.]

Let me begin.

'Twas the night before closure, when all through the House,

a creature was stirring. It was Henry the mouse.

He's usually quite lonely. This place is quite stark.

But the people are sitting, in fact, way past dark.

The word is they're leaving. It's the last week they're here.

Their work is completed. There is nothing to fear.

Oh, but Henry has heard there's a movement about.

"A lobby by someone named Shaw," Henry shouts.

Shaw's talked to the Speaker and others as well.

Has he gone so far as to author a bill

to bring in a creature that would alter this place?

It's big, and it's ugly. Have you seen its face?

Shaw's put all the pictures on a calendar for sale.

He tweets them. He prints them and cuts them as well.

It's for a good cause. That's the reason, they say.

A cat. It's a cat, and they want you to pay.

Henry wants to shout out, as you turn out the lights,

"Mouse seniority is solid," and he's willing to fight.

You'll hear Henry exclaim you sure gave him a fright.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Mr. Speaker: That was awesome. Thank you.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND SUPPLY

K. Falcon: This Premier and government specialize in making empty announcements that unfortunately

yield terrible results. In seven years, the NDP government has made over 500 announcements

related to the housing crisis, and yet, where have we ended up after seven years?

The most unaffordable housing not just in Canada but in North America, and the highest

average rents in the entire country.

Now we find that the Ministry of Finance is forecasting a drop of 4,500 housing starts

next year, projected, while the average price of housing is projected to increase

to nearly $1 million.

My question is to the Premier. When will the Premier actually deliver results on housing

affordability instead of more empty announcements?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have talked at great lengths in this House about many challenges that people across

British Columbia are facing. We have a severe shortage of housing in British Columbia.

That's why we have brought so many initiatives forward this session: to ensure that

we can get the housing supply we need throughout our communities, but not only by

the private sector. We also know that in order to address the challenge, we need to

make investments directly in non-market housing.

We are two decades behind. For too long in B.C., governments felt that maybe it wasn't

our place to be in the housing game, and we're paying the prices for it now.

Now, I appreciate the member asking the question. But they have not supported a single

initiative that we've brought forward to address the housing crisis — not a single

one. In fact, they have members that believe you don't want too much supply, because

supply may mean that profits might not be the same.

That's the mentality we're dealing with. We're going to continue to take efforts on

our side to ensure that we get the housing that people need in B.C.

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

K. Falcon: Well, I think we've identified the problem. The minister stands up and says that they've

introduced a bunch of legislation to deal with it. Memo to the minister: it is year

seven of their government. It might be a little bit late.

Not surprisingly, we hear the minister go out and promise the most recent one: 130,000

homes over ten years will be the result of this legislation. Well, that's interesting,

because that brings back a memory.

I remember in 2017, they promised 114,000 affordable homes within ten years. We're

in year seven of that. We're in year seven, and what did they deliver, the actual

result? It's 16,000, a fraction of the 114,000 promised.

Yet again, despite all the lofty announcements, despite the over 500 press releases,

we are left with the same results that aren't working for British Columbians.

[2:15 p.m.]

Again my question, now to the minister: will the minister finally stop making housing

promises and deliver actual results for the public of British Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member knows that we are two decades behind when it comes to investment in non-market

housing. The member should remember….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.

Please continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member should also know that we continue to welcome people to British Columbia

at record numbers. We need to ensure that our housing supply keeps up with that. That's

why we brought in the pieces of the legislation we have: speculation and vacancy tax,

which I know he opposes, bringing back 20,000 units just in Metro Vancouver; historic

levels of investments, where there are units opening in communities across British

Columbia.

I certainly hope the other members stand up and talk about why they want housing.

I'll be able to show them the housing that's opening up in their communities. We're

going to continue to do more.

What I ask the member across the way is: where is his housing plan? You know, every

time he comes up and says we need more housing, he offers no solutions. In fact, maybe

I should look at the B.C. Conservative Party. Maybe they'll provide a solution, and

then he'll piggyback that as his very own.

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

K. Falcon: The only results from the Premier and this NDP government's repeated 500 announcements

has been creating chaos in city halls across the province, freezing planning departments

that are now unsure of what to do. No one knows how to make any decisions on projects

that were already well advanced. That's the reality of the chaos that this Housing

Minister has caused right now in British Columbia.

How on earth are municipalities supposed to make housing decisions when you've got

poorly thought-out legislation where they haven't even anticipated some of the outcomes,

obviously because they have no background, no understanding of what's involved in

the housing sector?

The fact of the matter is that they're now making things dramatically worse, because

in the midst of all the chaos they created, in the midst of all the projects now being

frozen and planners now not sure what to do in their own planning departments, we

get to hear the Finance Minister stand up and say: "Actually, there's going to be

a drop of 4,500 housing starts next year."

This is rather remarkable. And, at the same time, we're going to see average house

prices going up again. Bad result. Lower housing starts, higher prices — that's your

result after seven years of government.

Again to the minister, after seven years in which we had a Premier promise that people

will be able to see, touch and feel the results, why is it the only thing they can

see and feel are declining housing starts and rising housing prices?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's amazing for someone who spent three years as a developer to profess he has so

much knowledge. He doesn't understand that when interest rates go up, of course the

market has to respond to that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shh.

Members. Members, please.

Hon. R. Kahlon: He claims to be an expert, but the reality is we're the only party in this place that's

offering real solutions for housing — small-scale, multi-unit legislation which will

allow more units to be built throughout our communities. New legislation to create

certainty around decision-making.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please.

Please continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's clearly a sensitive topic for my friend across the way.

We're bringing in legislation to allow more housing to be built around transit, so

when we invest billions of dollars in transit, we're getting the housing we need.

Not only that, we are also purchasing properties near that transit so we can build

the amenities that communities need — health care, child care and affordable housing.

All of this is action that we're taking to ensure the housing crisis is addressed.

We have not heard a single solution from the other side except for maybe he's going

to give a few of his developer friends a tax cut. Nothing else has been offered to

this conversation. We're going to continue to do the work that's necessary.

IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING

ON INTEREST RATES AND INFLATION

P. Milobar: Only this government could think they're going to add housing supply by continually

villainizing developers and homebuilders that actually need to do the building of

the housing.

The minister wants to talk about interest rates. Let's take a little look at interest

rates and how it's impacting British Columbians.

Right now British Columbians are drowning in debt. In fact, we top the country in

debt repayments as a result of the rates continuing to rise.

[2:20 p.m.]

A new report from Scotiabank — not the opposition's report, but Scotiabank…. I think

they actually even sit on the minister's Economic Forecast Council. They make it clear.

A third of the Bank of Canada's rate hikes — those would be interest rates, to the

Minister of Housing — are due to provincial spending. A third.

This Premier's reckless, inflationary spending is adding financial hardships to people

daily. It's making it harder and more expensive to pay down debt.

Interjections.

P. Milobar: It sounds like the peanut gallery knows more than the Scotiabank and The Economist .

When will the Premier end his reckless inflationary spending that is fuelling the

increase in interest rates?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We've said many times, and the Premier has said many times, that we have concerns

when we continue to see interest rates increase — these same measures of inflationary

pressures that the Bank of Canada is trying to address. In fact, in their own reports,

it highlights that rising interest rates are actually fuelling inflation.

That contradictory message is why the Premier has said openly that we hope the Bank

of Canada does not continue to increase interest rates, because we know that it's

putting pressure on families. Every single day we hear that, and we're concerned.

We continue to make investments to support people in our communities, and we're going

to continue to do that.

We are not going to do what the opposition leader did when he was a Minister of Finance.

When people were struggling, he cut health care. He cut sexual assault centre funding.

He cut, he cut, and he cut. We're going to continue to invest, invest and invest in

British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

P. Milobar: Let's see. We have rising crime. We have the highest housing prices in Canadian history.

We have the highest gas prices and gas taxes in Canada. We have ever-climbing carbon

taxation on homeowners.

What am I missing? Oh, we have a crashing health care crisis. Well, the list goes

on and on — oh, a growing food bank list — and this minister is trying to make it

sound like they're actually doing something to help British Columbians? That's ridiculous.

It's typical of this government: "Point the finger somewhere else; the Bank of Canada

must be at fault." Let's write a letter that has no cause or effect whatsoever on

interest rates, instead of taking direct action on our spending that, as Scotiabank

has made very clear, would actually help with inflation and interest rates in British

Columbia.

We don't actually ever hear from the Finance Minister when it comes to her own reports

and her own advisers advising her around what's going on in the economy in British

Columbia. Again, top economists have called out the NDP for killing jobs with the

cost B.C. scheme.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Shhh.

P. Milobar: They're pointing the finger at them for their spending, causing inflationary pressures.

How many more British Columbians must drown in debt before the Premier owns up to

the consequences…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let's hear the question, please. Let's hear the question.

P. Milobar: …of his own government decisions and disastrous, inflationary, spending impacts?

Hon. K. Conroy: We do know that people in B.C. are facing challenges right now, and we have been talking

about it in this House. We've been talking about it with people across the province,

and that's why we are taking action to support people.

We are supporting people with affordability measures, because we know that's what

people want to hear from us. We know that that's the action people want us to take.

We know that people want homes. That's why we are bringing in homes for people in

this province. We've heard that from people right across the province.

We've heard that people are looking for affordability measures. That's why we've brought

things in like meals in schools and snacks for kids in schools, because we've heard

from parents: that's what we want. We've heard that people are wanting things such

as a family benefit.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, members. Shhh.

Hon. K. Conroy: The B.C. family benefit — we've actually increased it. We've increased it because

we know that families need that support. We gave an extra $500 to single-parent families,

because we know how difficult it can be.

We're going to keep supporting families. We're going to keep supporting people, because

we know that's what people want in this province. They do not want us to say: "Oh,

my gosh. Look at what's happening. We need to cut services." That's what they did,

and that's what hurt people in this province. We know that people, average British

Columbians, do not want to hear: "We need to raise taxes." They do not want to hear

that, but that's what they did…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Shhh.

Hon. K. Conroy: …on the other side of the House, and we will not be doing that.

Interjections.

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

Members.

Interjection.

[2:25 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

Sometimes I feel like I'm going to order hearing aids for everybody.

The minister has the floor.

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then you could shut your hearing aids off. That would be amazing.

We know that people are struggling, and we are going to continue to provide supports

for people, because that's the right thing to do.

PERSONS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF

A. Olsen: This week we heard a statement in the House celebrating the government's process to

legislation, but my optimism was cautious because the implementation timelines and

enforcement mechanisms were unclear.

A lot of these promises for a better, more inclusive British Columbia sound good.

We have yet to see these changes actually benefiting people. For example, there isn't

a single van-ramp-accessible parking spot at any of the five major hospitals in Greater

Victoria. One of my constituents has missed hospital visits and has missed appointments

because she can't find a parking spot to meet her needs.

Our health care system should be a leader, yet it continues to place inexcusable barriers

access the services.

To the Minister of Social Development, can she guarantee that the timelines laid out

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thanks to the member for the question.

to all the members in this House that supported that work, to advocates that pressed

legislation that is in place, we are leading the country so far as the legislation

side.

The regulations and the implementation of technical standards are being worked on

right now by a really powerful and impressive advisory group, working on both the

I'm really encouraged. We hear monthly from this group. They're working, bringing

their lived experience to the standards and the regulation. We'll see the first evidence

of that in the spring.

I'm very happy to speak with the member about any specific implementation pieces that

people deserve support for and need help with right now.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

DISABILITY ASSISTANCE RATES

A. Olsen: The monthly updates that the minister is hearing from are daily barriers, daily obstacles

for the constituent that I raised. They have to navigate hospital parking lots that

are simply not designed to allow them to access health care services in this province.

That's entirely unacceptable. I asked the question as to whether or not the timelines

were going to be met. No answer — just a bunch of noise, frankly.

Core housing need in this province is 30 to 50 percent of people's incomes. Over that

50 percent, and they're in extreme core housing need. Creating accessible spaces continues

to be a daily fight within schools, municipalities and within our community.

Meanwhile, financial assistance for persons with disabilities is far from acceptable.

People who are accessing PWD payments are in that core housing need that the Minister

of Housing has no answer for in the bills that he was talking about earlier. Parents

with children with disabilities are forced to pay out of their pockets for service.

Adults with disabilities continue to live well below the poverty line under this so-called

social democratic government.

The only MLAs to have been raising these issues…

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

A. Olsen: …have been sitting here. When we do raise the issues, the minister responds by naming

a series of policy initiatives that fail to deliver people with disabilities out of

poverty.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member. Question.

A. Olsen: To the Minister of Social Development, will she finally convince the Finance Minister

to raise the disability rates above the poverty line in Budget 2024?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The commitment that our government has, that all members in this House have, to creating

that dignified life for all British Columbians — this is a shared value. It is work

that we are completely committed to. Frankly, the work that we had to do to catch

British Columbia up from a decade and a half of underinvestment continues.

The opposition froze income assistance at $610 for a decade. We have increased assistance

rates five times. The opposition withdrew, in a mean-spirited decision, the disability

access bus pass. We brought it back.

We just this year increased the shelter rate by $125 a month.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: That goes particularly to people that are the lowest income and need access to housing.

We have over 10,000 new rental units that are specifically targeted and reserved by

B.C. Housing for people with disabilities that have particular access issues.

The work continues, which is why we are rewriting our legislation and our new poverty

reduction strategy. The work is well underway, and we're committed to doing more.

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF NURSES

J. Rustad: Yesterday my colleague from Abbotsford South talked about the horrendous conditions

and the personal experience he had in the hospital in Abbotsford and the conditions

that are faced in that hospital. I want to talk about one other challenge, which is

nurses.

Across this province, we are seeing emergency rooms being on diversion. We're seeing

cancelled surgeries. We're seeing patients having to be moved to other hospitals.

We're seeing a significant challenge for nursing in this province.

The minister talks about there being 4,200-plus nurses being hired. From the B.C.

Nurses Union's own reports, in 2021, 49,177 nurses were working. By 2022, that was

down to 46,446, a drop of 2,700, and that's from the BCNU's own numbers. Couple that

with the number of nurses hired, and you can see there's clearly a real challenge

in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

J. Rustad: Perhaps the minister could answer this question. Why are nurses understaffed at hospitals,

why are they being burned out, why are they leaving the system, and perhaps the minister

could explain: where are British Columbia's missing nurses?

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know — he was in the government — that the number of registered nurses

actually dropped, in nominal terms, between 2009 and 2016. He was in the government,

so he would have been, I'm sure, aware of that. We've led Canada in new registered

nurses since I've been the Minister of Health.

We need more. This year…. This is just the college numbers. We actually count these

things. You don't have to find your own numbers or anything like that. It's all there.

We've registered 5,263 net new nurses.

How have we done that? We're doing that by increasing spaces in our post-secondary

institutions, including in the North. We're doing it by measures to retain nurses,

ones proposed by the BCNU, including the creation of relational security officers.

We said we'd hire 320. We hired 320 by increasing pathways to internationally educated

nurses, by signing an historic agreement with the B.C. Nurses Union to work together

to continue this work and to allow nurses who are LPNs to ladder up to RNs. Health

care assistants will ladder up to LPNs. This is how we address the problem.

We are seeing and leading Canada. We need to do more, and we will do more.

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

J. Rustad: Well, between the 1990s and today, it has been 16 years of NDP government with 16

years of Liberal government. According to the minister…. Between both of them, the

system is broken. They both have failed to deliver.

[2:35 p.m.]

The question to the minister I was asking, quite frankly, is describing the crisis

we have in our health care system. He's talking about all of these actions that he's

taking, yet we have a crisis. Anybody that denies that, quite frankly, is blind to

the problems we have in our system.

I want to give an example, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question, Member?

J. Rustad: The example is a nurse in Mackenzie.

Mr. Speaker: Let's get the question, Member.

J. Rustad: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The example is a nurse in Mackenzie. Her name is Jenny.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let's get the question, Member.

J. Rustad: Jenny decided to take the vaccine. She had a serious reaction. She was told by her

doctor not to take the vaccine. This government fired her. They would not let her

work in a city, Mackenzie, that needs nurses.

What we are seeing across this province is nurses that want to work not being allowed

to by this government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Question, please.

J. Rustad: I would love to, if we could stop the heckling, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

What we are seeing is nurses that want to work. What we're seeing is people that want

to get back in the system to help solve these problems.

When will this minister admit that his policies are keeping nurses from working and

causing a crisis in our health care system?

Hon. A. Dix: One of the reasons why I think British Columbia saw an increase, in the most recent

CIHI numbers, by 6.7 percent, in the number of registered nurses, and other provinces

saw a decline in the number of registered nurses, was…. In British Columbia, we support

our health care workers. When we pass a law in this House, a public health act….

Members of the House on both sides were members of the House when we most recently

passed it. We established the democratic authority for our provincial health officers,

Dr. Perry Kendall, who served the province well under multiple administrations, and

Dr. Bonnie Henry…. We democratically decided that on health care decisions, on medical

decisions and public health, we would take the lead of the provincial health officer.

The member apparently believes that he is more qualified to do that. He apparently

believes that. In spite of having been a member of the government that he now condemns,

in spite of being a member of the executive council…. Having served the province while

that law was in effect, he now condemns that law. Fair enough.

I'll tell you. The reason we're doing better than other jurisdictions in hiring nurses

and doctors and others is that we support our nurses and doctors and respect their

professional competence.

FOOD COSTS AND GOVERNMENT

SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES

E. Sturko: It's not just 60,000 children a month who were forced to use the food bank this year

under the NDP. Kathleen Simpson of UBC student services says that more and more students

are lining up at the food bank.

Not only is it that they have to serve more people who can't afford sky-high grocery

prices. The cost to pay for those same groceries has also gone up. Trucking food to

the grocery store means that groceries keep getting hit with the NDP's gas taxes and

carbon taxes.

Sinead Vesey went to the grocery store, the IGA in downtown Vancouver, and picked

up a cauliflower. It cost $9.10 to buy. Sinead says that prices are so ridiculous

under this NDP government and create so much stress in figuring out her meals. "It

does add stress, and I have to try to think about what I can actually afford to eat."

When will the Premier put people like Sinead ahead of his cost B.C. plan, which will

kill jobs and make groceries more expensive?

Hon. K. Conroy: The member is quite right in that global inflation has driven up the cost of groceries.

We are facing that every day in this province, and we are taking action to reduce

those pressures on middle-class families.

Instead of cutting taxes for the very top in this province, we're actually cutting

costs for everyone. One of the biggest….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The minister will continue.

Hon. K. Conroy: I'm going to start with child care. It's one of the biggest cuts that we have made

in the entire history of the province.

We are putting an average of $900 a month back into parents' pockets. Parents are

telling me…. They are taking that money, and they are able to afford groceries. They

are able to afford…. One mom told me that it's the first time in years she has been

able to afford fresh fruits and vegetables.

[2:40 p.m.]

We are making sure that parents are getting that. We are expanding that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: You know, the other thing we're doing is we've reduced ICBC rates for drivers, $400

a month. We are building more homes for middle-income families.

Free prescription contraception. I haven't heard a single person tell me that they

didn't like that. I haven't heard a single person say to me: "Oh, what a silly thing

to do." I have heard lots of people say thank you. In fact, one fellow came up to

me and said: "Thank you, Minister. Four — I have four teenage daughters. Thank you

so much."

So you can imagine how much money that's putting back into their families' pockets.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Hon. K. Conroy: But we are looking every day at how we can help families with affordability.

COST OF LIVING AND AFFORDABILITY

ISSUES AND GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES

T. Stone: Well, this government's initiatives are driving up government spending, driving up

inflation and driving people to the food bank when they're out of a job and out of

a home.

The second quarterly update released yesterday shows that interprovincial migration

has actually turned negative with 10,000 more British Columbians leaving our province

than Canadians coming here over the next two years, likely to escape the most unaffordable

province in Canada and a flat-lining private sector jobs market. It is not normal

for a government to want less prosperity and less jobs for its citizens.

My question to the Finance Minister is this. When will the government realize that

their inflationary deficits, their cost B.C. scheme and shrinking family paycheques

are driving more people to the food bank and even forcing thousands to flee British

Columbia, because they just can't see a future here in their home province?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the members for the questions.

I'm not sure if they're really looking at the numbers, because if they were, they

would see that we have had record levels of people coming to British Columbia over

the last four years. Historic numbers, in fact. Numbers that we've never seen before.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Why are they coming? Because we have the strongest economy in the country. Despite

the challenges we have with health care, coming out of the pandemic, we have…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …one of the strongest health care systems in the country. The recent study the Premier

highlighted showed that B.C. has the most-livable cities from every single province

in the country.

No doubt about it….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Let's conclude the question period. So let's hear the minister.

Minister.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

There's no doubt we have a lot more work to do, but we have made significant impacts

supporting people in British Columbia, and we're going to continue to do that important

work.

[End of question period.]

Question of Privilege

(Speaker’s Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the Chair is prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by

the member for Kelowna-Mission yesterday, which was taken under advisement.

The Chair thanks the member for Kelowna-Mission and the Government House Leader, on

behalf of the Premier, for their submissions.

In outlining the grievance of her question of privilege, the member for Kelowna-Mission

took objection to remarks made by the Premier during oral question period on November

20, 2023.

The submission of the member for Kelowna-Mission essentially disputes the characterization

of remarks made outside the House in a form of which the Chair has no knowledge without

it having been laid before the House.

Further, the matter at hand appears to be one of disagreement or debate between two

members and is therefore not a matter for the Chair to weigh into or adjudicate.

As such, it is the ruling of the Chair that a prima facie breach of privilege has

not occurred. Members are reminded that the essential elements of raising a question

of privilege are outlined on pages 399 to 400 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , fifth edition.

Upon reviewing these requirements, members will note that the process of placing a

question of privilege before the Chair or providing a response to a question before

the Chair is an opportunity to briefly state facts that are essential to assist the

Chair in determining whether the question should have priority over all other House

business.

As noted earlier, the Chair is not tasked with resolving a dispute between members.

Rather, the question before the Chair is whether a prima facie breach of individual

privileges of a member or the collective privileges of the House has occurred.

[2:45 p.m.]

I also remind all members to be guided by the established parliamentary practices

of this House and to be prudent and measured in their language.

Freedom of speech is an essential privilege that members of this House possess. The

Chair reminds members that this freedom is not absolute, and that respect for one

another, even at times of heated disagreement, must underpin all interactions between

members in the House. Thank you.

Point of Order

M. Bernier: Actually, on a point of privilege that I'd like to raise right now, I'm calling on

the Minister of Transportation to withdraw his unparliamentary comments directed to

members of the opposition that were made during this question period today.

Mr. Speaker: I take it under advisement, Member. Yes, we'll review the record. It seems like it's

a point of order rather than a point of privilege. We'll review the record, and then

we'll get back to you.

Petitions

C. Oakes: I rise to present a petition of 62 signatures from Likely, British Columbia, and surrounding

Cariboo area requesting for the health and safety of our children, residents, industry,

recreational vehicle users and tourists to take over the ownership of the Crossover

Road for year-round maintenance.

K. Paddon: I rise to table a petition on behalf of my constituents, led by Alina Durham, in honour

of her daughter Shaelene Bell. They have collected over 1,200 signatures asking that

the criteria for issuance of an AMBER alert be expanded.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call Motion 61 on the order paper.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 19 — APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL

COMMITTEE TO APPOINT A

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move Motion 61, standing in my name on the order paper, with respect to the appointment

of a Special Committee to appoint a Human Rights Commissioner.

[That a Special Committee to Appoint a Human Rights Commissioner be appointed to select

and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an individual

as Human Rights Commissioner for the province of British Columbia, pursuant to

section

47.01 of the Human Rights Code (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210).

That the Special Committee have all the powers of a Select Standing Committee and

in addition be empowered to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That the Special Committee report to the House as soon as possible, and that during

a period of adjournment, the Special Committee deposit its reports with the Clerk

of the Legislative Assembly, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, or

in the next following Session, as the case may be, the Chair present all reports to

the House.

That the Special Committee be composed of the following Members: Ravi Parmar (Convener), Brittny Anderson , Norm Letnick , Joan Phillip and Teresa Wat .]

Motion approved.

Standing Order 81.1

ADOPTION OF

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

SCHEDULE

Hon. R. Kahlon: I rise today in my capacity as the Government House Leader to move a time allocation

motion. Under Standing Order 81.1, we have tried to reach an informal agreement on

the allocation of time for the business of this House with three distinct Opposition

House Leaders as well as an independent member. However, we are unable to reach a

consensus.

It is with this understanding, and in accordance with Standing Order 81.1, that I

am compelled to bring forth a time allocation motion. This motion is intended to ensure

that we're able to effectively carry out the business of governing in our responsibility

on this side of the House. It is a tool to manage our time efficiently and to ensure

that all items on our agenda receive the attention they deserve, and they are not

obstructed.

With that, I move:

[That, pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2):

1. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 44) intituled Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023 , be disposed of by 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 29, 2023.

a. If at 3.25 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair

shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill,

without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall

not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with

Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b. Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the

bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c. Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or

any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings

of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall

be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d. If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division

shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2), as amended by Sessional

Order on February 6, 2023.

2. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 46) intituled Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023 , be disposed of by 9.45 p.m. on Wednesday, November 29, 2023.

a. If at 9.40 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair

shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill,

without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall

not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with

Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b. Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the

bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c. Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or

any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings

of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall

be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d. If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division

shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2), as amended by Sessional

Order on February 6, 2023.

3. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 45) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023 , be disposed of by 4.30 p.m. on Thursday, November 30, 2023.

a. If at 4.25 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair

shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill,

without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall

not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with

Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b. Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the

bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c. Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or

any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings

of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall

be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d. If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division

shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2), as amended by Sessional

Order on February 6, 2023.

4. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 47) intituled Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023 , be disposed of by 4.45 p.m. on Thursday, November 30, 2023.

a. If at 4.40 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair

shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill,

without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall

not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with

Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b. Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the

bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c. Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or

any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings

of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall

be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d. If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division

shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2), as amended by Sessional

Order on February 6, 2023.

[2:50 p.m.]

3. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 45) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 2023 , be disposed of by 4.30 p.m. on Thursday, November 30, 2023.

a. If at 4.25 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair

shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill,

without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall

not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with

Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b. Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the

bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c. Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or

any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings

of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall

be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d. If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division

shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2), as amended by Sessional

Order on February 6, 2023.

4. All remaining stages of consideration of Bill (No. 47) intituled Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act, 2023 , be disposed of by 4.45 p.m. on Thursday, November 30, 2023.

a. If at 4.40 p.m., the bill is still being considered at committee stage, the Chair

shall forthwith put any remaining question to complete the consideration of the bill,

without further amendment or debate, which shall be deemed passed and which shall

not be subject to a formal division call, but which may be taken in accordance with

Practice Recommendation No. 1.

b. Once the title of the bill has passed, the committee shall rise and report the

bill complete with or without amendment, as the case may be, to the House.

c. Immediately thereafter, notwithstanding Standing Order 80, Standing Order 81, or

any Standing Order or Sessional Order relating to the times and days of the sittings

of the House, the question on all remaining stages of consideration of the bill shall

be put forthwith without amendment or debate.

d. If a division is called on the motion for third reading of the bill, the division

shall proceed forthwith in accordance with Standing Order 16 (2), as amended by Sessional

Order on February 6, 2023.

And further, that, for greater certainty, a committee considering a bill in

Section

B may rise and report progress for the purpose of receiving a report from

Section

A or

Section C in accordance with this order.]

Mr. Speaker: This motion is not debatable, so we will not have….

Points of Order

M. de Jong: Point of order. The motion is not debatable, but for that reason, it strikes me, notwithstanding

the minister's ability as a speed reader, that the past practice has been for members

to have the motion in front of them for the vote. It strikes me that courtesy, if

nothing else, would suggest that members who have just been told that debate is being

curtailed could see the motion that is bringing down the guillotine.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member. In the past practice we have in front of the House, we have seen

that the Government House Leader will stand up and read the motion, and that's what

we have in the front of the House now. So that motion is not debatable.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole….

Mr. Speaker: No, hold it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, hold on, please. Thank you, Members. Thank you so much.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

A. Walker: I'd like to raise a point of order. In the minister's remarks, he mentioned that efforts

were made with all three parties and an independent member to negotiate scheduling.

That conversation never did take place, and I would ask the member to withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker: Members, as the Chair has said earlier, we are not going to debate it. So that's the

end.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members, I heard the point of order. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, do you have something new to add?

[2:55 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

A. Olsen: In the comments that were made by the Government House Leader, he notified this House

that effort was made to reach consensus with all House leaders. I want to inform this

House that no such effort to reach consensus…. I was pulled into the side room prior

to the beginning of this, and I was told that one Government House Leader was not

going to comply with his will, and so there was going to be absolutely no discussion.

There was no discussion on this. There was no effort to get consensus. This is an

appalling misuse of this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Members, I think we are getting into the debate mode, but we are

not going to debate it. I understand. I hear the member's point of order. I appreciate

it. Let's leave it there now.

T. Stone: I will move a point of order as well. This decision here today does not reflect….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Okay. Members, Members, Members.

Members, the Chair….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members at the back of the hall.

All Members. All Members. The Chair will hear the last point of order, and then we

will continue. No more points of order on this subject after this, please.

T. Stone: The point of order is this. It is absolutely incorrect, it is not factually accurate,

that there was an attempt to achieve consensus. The official opposition, of which

there are 27 members, were not in any way consulted on this. We were not engaged.

We were not asked how much time we planned on spending on any bills.

I, too, was hauled into the side room for a very brief conversation which was, as

a matter of fact: "Here's the motion. There isn't consensus. Let's move on." That

is not how this place is supposed to operate.

Points of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Members, let me read Standing Order 81.1(2) under "Time allocation."

"A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, has stated that an

agreement could not be reached under the provisions of section (1) of this Standing

Order in respect of proceedings…"

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shh, Members.

Member, you don't disrupt the Chair when you're making a comment, please. Okay.

"… has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of section

(1) of this Standing Order in respect of proceedings at one or more stages of a public

bill, may propose without notice a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified

number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at one or

more stages of a public bill. The motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate

or amendment. Any proceedings interrupted pursuant to this

section of this Standing

Order shall be deemed adjourned."

Debate Continued

Mr. Speaker: We have a motion in front of the House.

Division has been called.

[3:00 p.m. - 3:10 p.m.]

Members, we are voting on the motion tabled by the Government House Leader.

Motion approved on the following division:

yeas — 49

Alexis

Anderson

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Paddon

Parmar

Phillip

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Whiteside

Yao

nays — 29

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Halford

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Tegart

Walker

Wat

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential

Amendment) Act….

Mr. Speaker: Sorry. Hold it.

Member for Saanich North and the Islands.

Questions of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

A. Olsen: I rise to raise a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Do you want to state that now?

A. Olsen: The minister, in reading the justification for his motion to invoke closure upon this

House, removing the right of the members here to be able to dutifully do their job,

was based on a conversation that never happened, so Mr. Speaker, that Government House

Leader misled the House.

T. Stone: I rise on a point of personal privilege as well.

I am very, very certain that if the Government House Leader was to take a look at

Hansard from his comments that he made in introducing this closure motion, he would very

quickly see that there's language he used in there which is completely and totally

false –– in particular, suggesting that there was any "consensus" whatsoever about

the time allocation for the balance of this session. To suggest that there was consensus

is completely and totally not true. That there was a lack of consensus is totally

untrue. Therefore, that represents a case of the Government House Leader misleading

the House.

I don't know of any standing order that permits any member of this House, not the

least of which is the Government House Leader, to mislead the House.

I'd ask the Government House Leader to acknowledge that there never was any consensus

whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that. Thank you, Member.

Members, we have already decided that motion. We have taken a vote on it. So there

will be no further ruling on these motions of privileges.

Interjections.

[3:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, as I stated earlier, we have the Government House Leader under Standing Order

81.1, subsection (2). We have now decided on that, so we will not be entertaining

any personal privilege on that matter.

Just the facts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We'll take it under advisement. I'll get back to you. Thank you.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential

Development) Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 44 — HOUSING STATUTES

(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 44; S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 3:18 p.m.

On clause 26 (continued) .

The Chair: All right. We'll get this committee underway.

P. Milobar: Thanks to the Government House Leader for being generous with the time to debate this

bill. We now have 9½ minutes, ten minutes left to canvass 21 more sections in a bill

that is supposed to somehow address housing in this province, but the government doesn't

want to actually talk about it or the detail in any great degree.

Back to clause 26 of 48 clauses, actually, yesterday we were talking about the OCP

that the municipalities are going to have to adopt, which are being contemplated with

the baseline criteria that this government has laid out in terms of number of units

per….

The Chair: Members, could we have a little quiet in the chamber so we can hear the questioner?

Thank you.

P. Milobar: In terms of minimum lot size, number of units that would be allowed on that lot size,

the proximity to transit….

[3:20 p.m.]

The minister seems to be all over the map of whether it's 15-minute transit service

or 30-minute transit service. That will come in regulation later.

I guess the question I have for the minister around a municipality's official community

plan…. Now, the heavier densification, as I understand it, will be allowed if you're

on, and we'll use the minister's example, a 15-minute rapid transit access or frequent

transit access. If that's the standard, municipalities, typically, are under a lot

of pressure with their budgets around transit provisions, around whether or not to

provide an increased level of service or not.

Would municipalities be able to get away from those higher densifications by simply

removing 15-minute bus service and changing it out to a 30-minute bus service? I'll

use Kamloops as an example, not that they're threatening to do this. But yesterday

I noticed in their budget deliberations that we're going to see right now a proposed

11 percent property tax hike; $2.2 million, or almost 2¼ percent of that tax hike,

is actually for the transit contract, increases to the transit contract.

Actually, at budget time, cities are going to have to start having some pretty serious

talks about how they're going to pay for various aspects.

If a city was to remove 15-minute bus service on a corridor and put it back to 30-minute

service, because of volumes and not wanting to subsidize low ridership on those other

service levels, would that then get them out of needing to agree to the highest possible

densification under this plan in Bill 44?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We'll set the exact times in regulations, and I can share with the member that it's

going to be close to the 15-minute service.

The member's question is, as I understand it, if a local government has that 15-minute

service and decide they don't want the 15-minute service –– they want to go to a 30-minute

service –– they will have the ability to do that.

P. Milobar: Well, I understand they have the ability to change the service levels of the transit.

I'm asking how that would then impact Bill 44 and the provisions within their official

community plan of identifying a

section of the city that you would be allowed to have

six units on the 280 square metres, because it's within 400 metres of a frequent transit

route, versus that route now no longer being frequent transit.

Would that not then enable a municipality to have a bit of a workaround here and say:

"Well, we don't want that densification, so the only way this government has made

that possible is for us to actually reduce transit service to a neighbourhood, whether

we actually did or didn't want to reduce transit service. But we'd rather do that

than see 210 units per hectare in that neighbourhood"?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I suppose a local government could say: "We want to avoid allowing six units near

a frequent transit area, and so we want to lower our service from 15 minutes to 30

minutes." I suppose they could do that if they wanted to avoid the six units. But

it's more likely that, certainly….

I'll give an example of my community. A 15-minute service route, approximately, in

my community has got eight storeys to 16 storeys –– in fact, actually, 22 storeys.

So it'll vary from community to community. I mean, I suppose a community could do

that, but I don't know why a community would want to cut back services that their

residents depend on.

To the member's question, if a local government decides for some reason that they

don't want that service, because they don't want the ability to have six units, I

suppose they could make that change and have their OCP reflect something different.

A. Olsen: One of the reasons why a municipality might do it is not because they're choosing

to do it but because this minister with this change is giving them no choice to do

it, because it's in a neighbourhood where there is a floodplain, because it's in a

wildfire interface area, because it's in one of these areas that insurance companies

are saying: "You probably shouldn't densify those areas because they're very close

to where wildfires might happen."

It might be because the infrastructure is not there to support it, and the plan to

deliver that infrastructure is going to take longer than the deadline that this minister

is arbitrarily setting. That might be one of the reasons why they're forced to do

it.

[3:25 p.m.]

The minister can stand up and say: "Well, one of the reasons why…. They might do that,

but I don't know why they'd do that for their citizens who rely on the service." They

might be forced to do it because this minister has given them no choice but to do

it.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. Member.

It being 3:25 p.m., pursuant to the time allocation order adopted by the House earlier

today, the committee now has to proceed to finalize clause-by-clause consideration

of Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023.

We're done with the debate now. We have to go through clause by clause. I will now

put the question on all remaining clauses of the bill.

Members, a division on the remaining clauses in the title cannot be called. But in

accordance with practice recommendation 1, members may request to indicate passage

on division.

With that, we will proceed.

Clauses 26 to 48 inclusive approved on division.

Title approved on division.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 3:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 44 — HOUSING STATUTES

(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023, reported

complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Now.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is third reading of Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development)

Amendment Act, 2023.

Division has been called.

[3:30 p.m. - 3:40 p.m.]

Bill 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023, read a third

time and passed on the following division:

yeas — 45

Alexis

Anderson

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

Donnelly

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Paddon

Parmar

Phillip

Ralston

Rankin

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Whiteside

Yao

nays — 29

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

Davies

de Jong

Doerkson

Furstenau

Halford

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Olsen

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Tegart

Walker

Wat

Questions of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

T. Stone: I rise to reserve my right to a point of personal privilege.

A. Olsen: I rise to reserve my right to a point of personal privilege.

Hon. R. Kahlon: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 46, the Housing Statutes (Development

Financing) Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 46 — HOUSING STATUES

(DEVELOPMENT FINANCING)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 46; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 3:45 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: We're going to call the committee to order. We're dealing with Bill 46, Housing Statutes

(Development Financing) Amendment Act, 2023.

Recognizing the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

P. Milobar: Sorry, Madam Chair. I thought the minister might lead things off. If he wants to,

I'll cede the floor.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for giving me an opportunity.

I want to first start off by recognizing the amazing people that really do the heavy

lifting and the work here. I've got my deputy minister, Teri Collins; Bindi Sawchuk,

my ADM. I've got Jessica Brooks and Lesley Scowcroft — the amazing folks.

There are other folks in another room that are supporting the work here. I want to

thank them for the work they do. It's challenging work.

Of course, this is an important tool that we're introducing here for local governments

to be able to invest in infrastructure in their communities while we're building the

housing that we desperately need. Again, thanks to the member for allowing me to open

it and recognize these amazing people.

P. Milobar: It's good, I guess. We have some time to dig into Bill 46. It's frankly a little unfortunate,

though, that the government decided how much time that will be, without consulting

with us.

Frankly, we would have preferred to have more time on Bill 44 and allotted more time

for that bill and a little less time to Bill 46, but the government has decided they

know best and the length of time opposition needs to properly ask questions around

bills in this place. That's unfortunate, because both have very serious consequences

to municipalities.

I don't think it's any accident that the majority of speakers at committee stage to

these bills come from municipal backgrounds — former mayors, former councillors, former

regional district directors — because they very much understand the real-time implications

these bills are going to have on not just their communities but municipal councils

across this province, moving forward, and the neighbourhoods within those municipalities.

I find it interesting that Bill 44, where the debate got cut off pretty quickly, was

really a bill that the minister was characterizing as dealing with affordability.

Now here we are with Bill 46, which very clearly is designed to give municipalities

the ability to not just add a few dollars to the cost of a housing unit but literally

tens of thousands of dollars.

We're going to dive into that a bit as we move through these sections and see what

modelling has been done by the government. I certainly hope they will actually be

able to speak to any modelling and data that they actually had to defend in the creation

of this bill.

In Bill 44, they certainly did not want to provide that. In fact, as we found out,

any of the people that they did consult with all had to sign non-disclosure agreements,

so we actually don't know what that data and information would reveal on Bill 44.

We certainly hope that's not the case on Bill 46, as the opposition.

I think it raises another concern. When we look at Bill 46 and Bill 44, and, tomorrow,

Bill 47 and the sheltering clauses in Bill 45, these all have significant impacts

and trade-offs to a municipality. But they're all being dealt with in isolation by

this government instead of as one housing bill, where you can actually properly evaluate

how it all interconnects — how transit interconnects or doesn't; how the densification

of single-family neighbourhoods interconnects with that transit or not.

Then with Bill 46, how it interconnects with Bill 46 and the potential of development

cost charges and, more importantly, community amenity agreement charges that don't

actually exist in most communities in this province yet will now be a tool for most

municipalities to actually access.

[3:50 p.m.]

Again, I said this even at second reading: as a former mayor, I can totally see the

appeal for municipal councils with Bill 46. They've been asking, long and hard, for

access to funding for infrastructure and things of that nature.

So a vehicle that enables them to charge more money will certainly be a welcome thing

for municipal councils. I'm not here to prosecute whether they should or shouldn't

be doing that, but I do have serious questions for the government, through Bill 46,

as to how the government is going to reconcile those tens of thousands of dollars

being added to every housing unit in this province with Bill 44, where they purport

to be trying to bring affordable housing into play.

As we start here on

section 1, I'm just wondering if the minister could provide a

bit of overview as to why the minister seems to think that enabling added charges

to development cost charges, and added community amenity agreements into communities

that don't currently have them, will help with affordability in this province.

Hon. R. Kahlon: This legislation creates another tool for local governments to be able to ensure that

they have dollars for the critical infrastructure that they need in their communities.

The basis of this work is from multiple reports. The DAPR review done by government,

which engaged with stakeholders throughout the province on what we need to do, had

a recommendation about creating a development finance tool that would be available

to local governments. UBCM also had a report, in 2021, ensuring local government financial

resiliency, a report that was very public. They also recommended the province do this.

Then there was also a Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel report in 2021, called

Opening Doors, which emphasized the need for moving away, from the negotiated and unpredictable

nature of collecting these kinds of fees, to something with more certainty.

I also will put on the record that there have been UBCM resolutions going back to

2005. It started with Invermere requesting to expand DCC categories to include fire

and emergency response. In 2011, North Okanagan regional district requested expanding

DCC categories to include solid waste facilities. In 2012, the Sunshine Coast regional

district requested expanding DCC categories to include fire responses.

[3:55 p.m.]

In 2019, Harrison Hot Springs requested the province to expand DCC categories to include

fire protection and emergency response capital; the city of Coquitlam requested the

province to review DCC legislation to include a wider range of categories, such as

emergency services; the city of Nanaimo requested the province to expand DCC categories

to include emergency services and solid waste management; and then UBCM, overall,

requested the province to review existing funding mechanisms for financial growth

related to infrastructure services, including emergency services and solid waste.

This has been called for by local governments for a long time. I believe this legislation

does two things.

It creates a level of transparency. Right now, often a lot of these amenities and

the dollars associated with these amenities are negotiated. That creates a lot of

challenges for everyone involved. Sometimes it can delay the process, I've heard —

up to a year in some communities — because they're going back and forth about how

much money should come with each project.

It creates some level of cost certainty up front. For any proponent that wants to

come in, they have something more predictable as to what their costs are. That cost

certainty, we know, is a very important piece to ensure that housing goes forward

and that the local governments have the ability to know that those dollars will be

there for them to invest in the important infrastructure that they need.

P. Milobar: As I said in my opening comments, as a former mayor, I totally understand why municipalities

would want the ability to have more revenue streams and a way to pay for infrastructure.

I don't take issue with them asking for that at all.

The fact that there has been a substantive lack of meaningful infrastructure programs

to tap into from the provincial government over the last seven years has made the

problem all the worse for municipalities trying to deal with water, sewer and traditional

infrastructure-type programs, which development cost charges are designed to help

with, with the growth in their community.

I know that we just finished 44 in a very rushed fashion, but Bill 44 was about creating

more densification in single-family neighbourhoods, whether or not they actually have

servicing or not to adequately address that growth, which could trigger a need for

development cost charges for growth. Development cost charges, for those listening

at home, are meant to help offset the cost of providing roads, water, parks, sewage,

those types of things — and fire is to come.

You have a certain capacity in your system. If you're a city, you may say: "Well,

we want to have growth in this area, and it's going to cost us $10 million. We think

that 50 percent of that cost should be borne by the new growth, which is going to

result in a slight oversizing of pipes and things of that nature. We're going to time

it out. The work is to be timed out as that growth starts to happen, the pipes age

out, and the road needs repaving."

It's a very complicated process that municipalities go through with their planning

and their official community plans — which we've talked about at length in Bill 44

as well — to overlay all that information and come up with what the cost should be.

Then they go either per square foot or by housing unit. It's all based on growth,

on new building permits and new applications coming in or on new lots being created.

In the case of Bill 44, the intention of the government is to have sixplexes added

to neighbourhoods on single-family home lots. Will the changes in Bill 46 impact those

housing units? Will they be subject to development cost charges? Will those sixplexes

also be subject to community amenity charges if a city decides to implement those

based on the provisions of Bill 46?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We're not changing any of the rules around DCCs, around how they can implement them.

Local government could implement DCCs. But with the new tool we're creating, the ACC,

there is a framework of when that tool can be used. The details of that are in clause

P. Milobar: Well, taking a quick scan, and I'll use Kelowna, it looks like a single residential

unit. They define a residential unit as something that has separate cooking and sanitary

facilities, washrooms, and access to open-air space outside without having to go through

other units. So it very much sounds like what would be one of a sixplex of units.

If you were tearing down a house — now, I guess, that one housing unit that's currently

there — it might mean you only are charged on five. I say "only," but this is without

community amenity agreements that don't exist in Kelowna. You're pushing $40,000,

based on a quick scan.

That means that that sixplex in Bill 44 that the minister characterized as affordable

housing will be subject to somewhere in the neighbourhood of at least $200,000 based

on this legislation. That's before we've added in fire protection, police and highway

interchanges. That's before we've added in community amenity charges.

Can the minister explain how, on the one hand, the government can be talking about

housing affordability and at the same time be introducing Bill 46? That despite….

I understand why municipalities would want it, why this government, on the one hand,

literally 12 minutes ago or 20 minutes ago will be talking about a bill purporting

to be all about affordable housing…. And then the very next bill would see upwards

of tens of thousands of dollars, at minimum, levied on each unit of a sixplex that's

contemplated in Bill 44.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It is interesting that we spent four days talking about how we're not listening to

local governments and how awful it is going to be, and now we're shifting to: local

governments shouldn't get this power because they'll abuse it. I know that's not exactly

what the member is saying, but it's kind of implied in where we're going forward here.

Kelowna, as the example the member has shared with me…. He gives an example of what

Kelowna does. This new tool doesn't necessarily mean…. If Kelowna didn't have the

CACs because they wanted to ensure that projects were viable, there's nothing in this

legislation that says they need to have the new ACC tool involved as well. This is

an option for communities. Just like DCCs and CACs, if Kelowna wanted to get dollars

from the CACs, they could have adopted it. They didn't. This gives them another tool.

It's still available to them if they choose to. The other tool is still available

to them as well.

P. Milobar: Well, the minister failed to acknowledge, too, that we've also been pointing out the

problem with how they brought forward the housing legislation in this session in that

we have closure now invoked on them. We have a bill that deals strictly with transit

corridors. Yet Bill 44 also touched on implications around transit corridors, but

that regulation is not ready yet. And we actually don't have the site standards ready

yet, but we may or may not have those ready in a couple of weeks.

In the meantime, we have Bill 46 in the middle that actually gives some extra autonomy

to municipalities to go out and get some money, which I totally understand, and roads

are expensive and water is expensive. I understand the ask from local governments.

I don't take issue with the local governments asking that.

The question was how this provincial government reconciles all of their discussion

in Bill 44 about it creating affordable housing. Bill 44, which creates six-plexes

on those transit corridors that we'll have to take on the preliminary discussion that

the minister has, because we still don't have the regulations or any of that, let

alone the data that the minister will not provide to us or the public or municipalities….

How the government, how the minister can reconcile his statements around a six-plex

piece of legislation will create affordable housing, while at the same time, 20 minutes,

30 minutes after that bill gets passed, we are now dealing with a bill that this government,

at a minimum, will see charges of $40,000 or $50,000 just based on existing DCC bylaws

and charges per unit of that six-plex.

That's not counting all of the extra stuff that's on here. That's really the statement

that we're making on this. As I mentioned, development cost charges get to be a very

complicated formula, and they take a long time to calculate.

I'm wondering if the minister can share with the committee…. There's going to have

to be a whole lot of OCP amendments and reworking and calculating based on interim

housing reports, based on Bill 44's directive nature on what has to be allowed for

densification in neighbourhoods.

Will the DCC bylaws under Bill 46, as they come into effect, also have to take into

account the interim housing report and growth or what municipalities are currently

planning for growth in their communities?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: As local governments go to update their OCPs and bylaws, they're going to need to

consider, as the member has highlighted, what infrastructure they need in their community.

That will be reflected in how they move forward with their DCCs, as well, if they

choose to use the new tool for that.

M. Bernier: By the minister's own admission — it's interesting; when we talked about the closure

on Bill 44 and some of the debate around local government and now Bill 46 that we

have in front of us — it sounds like he's saying that he is openly admitting that

he picks and chooses when to listen to local government's requests.

In the last bill, we talked about: the local government had very specific requests,

and he ignored them. Now he's trying to tout himself as saying: "Look at me. I'm listening

to local government's concerns." He can't have it both ways. Sometimes he does. Sometimes

he doesn't. I'm just kind of curious, I guess. It's when it goes to his own desires.

My question to the minister, I guess, first of all — and my colleague from Kamloops

touched on it — what provincial grant programs are there right now that every municipality

has access to for infrastructure improvements within their municipalities?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It's outside the bill.

I can share with the member that we have provided this year $1 billion to communities,

not through a grant process. We're not asking communities to apply. We trust that

they'll put those dollars to addressing either infrastructure or any amenities that

they feel need to be addressed in their communities.

We funded, for example, in Metro Vancouver, I believe it was, $250 million for the

Iona wastewater facility. We invested in supporting the TransLink, also, because it's

connected to housing. So we continue to make investments with our local government

partners. We certainly have more to do.

Of course, the federal government has already indicated that their funding will be

tied towards housing as well. So there are tools that we have put out for communities,

and we're going to continue to support local governments in that infrastructure as

we go forward.

M. Bernier: I know the minister likes to try tout the federal government and their contribution

in trying to trying to save the province from their failures on dealing with the housing

file, but I want to speak specifically to what this minister and this government is

actually attempting to do.

Trying to tout some year-end funding that they put out as a one-time, I mean, I'm

not going to take away the fact that every municipality is begging and pleading for

more infrastructure funding.

He talked about the majority of the year-end funding that went out this year. My question,

though, is actually relevant to this bill, although the minister is trying to avoid

it, because it will tie in to my commentary, I feel, either through this

section or

in other later sections.

The minister didn't directly answer by saying if there are present grant opportunities,

so if a city like Dawson Creek is feeling pressure right now because of the infrastructure

deficit, whether they can apply for it. Is there going to be…. After these bills pass

— so let's say next year — can the minister highlight, then, what grant applications

will be available next year, aside from just saying, "wait to see the budget," because

that's not fair to local governments?

[4:15 p.m.]

He's putting the pressure on them right now, on infrastructure deficits that they're

facing through Bill 44. We canvassed that one at length. But next year, when the municipalities

start seeing in real time the pressures on their water, sewer infrastructure, are

there going to be grant applications next year from the province to help alleviate

some of that pressure that's going to be brought on and forced on them because of

the bills that this government is putting forward?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We've canvassed that we have been making significant investments with local governments.

I can share with the member…. The member knows I can't speak to what the Minister

of Finance will do in future years, but we've made a pretty strong commitment to local

governments that will support them with that infrastructure.

It is my understanding that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of

Finance have a working group with UBCM on addressing this question that they've been

working on for a long time, about how infrastructure can be funded in the local governments.

This is why I think all members should support this bill, because I think everyone

in this House, especially experienced members who have sat at the council table, will

know that it's critical to invest in our infrastructure while we build housing, and

this tool allows us to do that in a more predictable way.

It's not just because local governments were asking for it. Those that are in the

homebuilding community also understand that this is an important tool, an important

step.

For example, Anne McMullin, who's with the Urban Development Institute, put out a

statement saying they're "encouraged by this new legislation, which aims to make development

charges more transparent and predictable. Combined with zoning measures announced

last week, these are some of the most substantial changes to the development approval

process in decades."

Bridgitte Anderson, who members may know in this place, who's the President and CEO

of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, said: "This new legislation is a welcome

step forward towards more certainty and clarity that will improve the timelines to

build the housing we need."

Trevor Koot, the CEO of the B.C. Real Estate Association, said: "The need to reform

development financing was a key finding of the Development Approval Process Review

report. The B.C. Real Estate Association is supportive of efforts of the government

to bring more clarity, transparency and predictability to the fees collected by local

governments from builders of new housing."

I guess, to kind of wrap all the pieces together, we are making investments with local

governments. We know it's important to do. And of course we're going to continue to

work with local governments to support them with their infrastructure as we go forward.

This tool is supported by local governments, yes, because this creates an opportunity

for them to help fund the important infrastructure. But it's also supported by industry,

because they understand that you need both. We need to invest in infrastructure, and

we need to ensure that the housing gets built. And there's a belief –– certainly,

we believe –– that we can do both together.

M. Bernier: I think, to be fair…. You know, I don't want to speak on behalf of all of the people

that the minister just quoted, but a lot of people are supporting this begrudgingly.

Of course, people are saying finally, under this government, they've seen the deficit

as well in houses being started because of some of the challenges around not having

that transparency or predictability.

[4:20 p.m.]

I'm pretty sure, if we canvassed most organizations, they're saying: "We're in a housing

crisis. Housing is unaffordable." And any time we add any cost to it, it's going to

be at the detriment to the end user, which we know is the people who are already struggling

to get into the housing market.

The minister can quote groups that are saying: "We're happy that we have some predictability."

Fair enough, because we know we haven't seen that under this government. We have not

seen that transparency. So of course it's great that they're acknowledging that, finally,

this government is bringing that forward.

But my concern is always around making sure that we keep the housing affordable so

people can actually get into housing. Everything that we're seeing is actually going

to add to the price and the cost of housing.

Back to the original point, the concept here was around municipalities and the infrastructure

deficit that they're already facing. In Bill 44, we talked about how now, in some

areas, we're going to have densification taking place that is beyond the capacity

of the infrastructure that's there.

I want to acknowledge the minister has said, and committed, that he wants to continue

working with local government. But there's…. That does not…. His well wishes, or his

good intentions, don't necessarily pay the bills for local government.

What I'm hearing, and some of the concerns…. And I'm curious how the minister will

want to acknowledge this. I want the minister to know this is not an I-got-you moment.

This is not about trying to find some political angle where the minister is not doing

his job in this section. Other sections, I'll say he didn't — maybe right now.

But I do want to, in all fairness, say one of the things I'm hearing is that because

we've seen the lack of investment and acknowledgment from this government on those

deficits that I've talked about in the infrastructure within municipalities…. Right

now the major way that governments raise funds to pay for their surface infrastructures

and other things…. And we'll get to it later on in the bill; I understand some other

sections we can talk about. But a lot of that is through local taxation.

Local governments are always looking for support, and need support in lots of areas,

from the provincial government. What my concern is, and it's a concern that I'm hearing

from some local governments, is if this bill passes….

And yes, some governments, some local governments have said they want the ability

around DCCs. I get that. As a former mayor, as a former executive member on the UBCM,

I understand that intention and the need and desire.

But what I'm also hearing through that is we do not want to use this tool as a scapegoat

for government to now not step up and support local governments. That's why I'm curious

on the acknowledgment from the minister.

I think he understands where I'm going with this. The last thing we need now is a

community saying: "We've been forced under Bill 44 to allow this densification, whether

we wanted it or not." Yes, we've been given advantages or privileges — however the

minister wants to word it — through Bill 46 for the ability to collect some money

up front from DCCs on development that will come in. We know that that will not be

enough to offset the pressures that governments are going to face.

So my concern, some local governments have told me their concern, is now they'll go

to the government and say, "There's a financial difference here. We need grants, we

need supports, because we do not want to continue to download these costs to our local

taxpayers" — and, in essence, to the people who are struggling to get into the housing

market because of the increased costs through the DCCs. Nobody wants to technically

see that as we're trying to find opportunities for people to get into the housing

market.

Will the minister confirm today that he and his government will not be pointing to

DCCs and local governments as an avenue to collect funds locally, and they will continue

— this should be an easy answer — to be open to local government? So when they come

forward and say, "We can't afford it, and this is why," this minister will be stepping

up through grant applications, especially in our smaller communities who struggle

already, that he will help with that infrastructure deficit to pay for the subsurface

concerns that they have.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for his question and comments.

We canvassed this at great length previously. If the member wasn't here…. He mentioned

the previous legislation, and I don't want to go back to doing that. But it is the

most effective way of getting development done with the infrastructure that we have.

Now, I strongly urge all members to support this bill, because what I hear already

is there's an understanding that local governments need the tools to be able to fund

the infrastructure in their communities. That's what local governments have said to

me, that they need this.

I haven't heard from a local government saying: "Don't give us this tool." I haven't

heard that. If the member has a specific community that's saying, "We don't want this

tool," I'm keen to hear it.

We know that it's vitally important that we have healthy, vibrant communities. As

we build the housing for the people, not necessarily even the people that are yet

to come, the housing for the people that are already here, that are struggling….

We've talked about this in the House. We have young families who can't afford the

large single-family home when it's being built, and having options available to them

is great.

We have Kathleen Higgins from my community who built a fourplex in their old family

home — the entire family, all the kids, are still staying in that one parcel, raising

their families, which is amazing.

But when we do that, we want to make sure there are parks and fire halls and police

stations and all of those important things. That's what we're trying to do here: to

ensure that they can continue to have the dollars they need to fund that infrastructure.

Of course, to the member's point, we're going to continue to partner with local governments

to invest in infrastructure. The challenge we have is, to date, local governments

still get a lot of this funding, but they get it through negotiations. That negotiation

is challenging both for local governments, but it's also challenging for those that

are bringing projects for the not-for-profit or private sectors.

What we're saying is we're acknowledging that there are infrastructure needs. We're

saying up front that there's a way for communities to be clear about what their infrastructure

needs are, and there's a tool available now with more certainty for everyone involved.

To the other core point the member is making, of course, we want to support communities.

I'm fortunate in my community in Delta. The province made a significant investment

in a new track and field facility. Local government put in some money, but we put

in a lot of money as well. That's separate from the $1 billion.

We're investing in parks, because we know the playgrounds in our parks are vitally

important. Four playgrounds in my community have been funded.

All of those things are important. They're going to continue to happen. We're going

to continue to partner with local governments. This is just another tool for local

governments as we move forward.

P. Milobar: Well, again, I don't think anyone on our opposition benches is oblivious to the fact

that municipalities would like tools to raise more money to pay for infrastructure,

especially if there's a lack of provincial infrastructure programs for them to tap

into to deal with that growth.

To be clear, I fully supported…. Back in Kamloops, when we waived development cost

charges for affordable, supportive housing projects, when we would actually accelerate

the permitting process and move them to the front of the line through the development

services department…. When we would do all of those sorts of things, we had a local

affordable housing fund that people could tap into to help pay some of the costs,

if they were successful in getting grants out of B.C. Housing and other agencies,

and things of that nature.

I don't take issue with that. I don't take issue with the fact that this is at least

protecting those types of carve-outs in terms of making sure that affordable housing

projects are not subject to development cost charges and community amenity agreements.

The problem is the minister admonished us — I guess that's the word I'll use — in

terms of picking and choosing when we listen to the local government. But in fact,

it's the government that's doing that. They're the ones bringing in the legislation,

picking and choosing when they have or haven't listened to municipalities.

I thought: "Well, jeez, the minister says UBCM is fully supportive of Bill 46," and

I can understand why. What else has the UBCM asked this minister for, specifically

around housing?" I thought: "Well, let's just see what the most recent convention

is: 2023." Well, look at that. EB10 is a motion endorsed by UBCM around B.C. Housing

delays in their communities. I haven't seen any action under this government on that.

[4:30 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

In fact, I can speak from experience in Kamloops. The housing that's been bought at

three times assessed value, that was supposed to have people living in it in September….

Just one building alone of the three — I'll reference the one, but all three are in

similar states — actually still has no one living in it, because it was a disaster

of a purchase, as we warned this minister about. Everything we warned this government

about has actually come to pass.

In fact, the person that they bought the building off of that was supposed to do renovations

didn't actually do the renovations. But the minister assured us due diligence was

done on that purchase. Now, lo and behold, they have to go back in and keep renovating

because the service provider wasn't able to use the building in the condition that

this government bought it in and tried turning the keys over to the service provider.

That's one example of a few. In fact, in the last report I saw, despite some of these

units being bought three years ago, we have 80 units with people living in them out

of 225, I think it is off the top of my head, from B.C. Housing, all overpaid for.

That's just the Kamloops example, let alone all the other cities.

I can understand why UBCM would come to the minister and endorse a motion saying:

"B.C. Housing delays. Where's our support from the provincial government?"

Then you only have to look from EB10 to EB11 to see the affordable housing infrastructure

upgrades. What that was, endorsed by UBCM, essentially says somewhat what the minister

was just saying. It's saying: "We're waiving the development cost charges." I'm paraphrasing

it. The premise is municipalities are waiving the development cost charges for affordable

housing units. They don't take issue with that. But you know who's not backstopping

that infrastructure that still needs to be done? The province of B.C.

It's very interesting. Whenever someone needs actual dollars, from a municipality,

out of this government, they don't seem to be listening and taking action. But if

it's just enabling legislation to let municipalities bear the brunt of adding extra

costs, be it to a local property tax owner or someone trying to build actual housing

in a community, we'll push all of that over to them and let them wear that. And then

they can try to figure out how to cover off the infrastructure deficit, because we

haven't funded it appropriately.

I guess the minister could correct me if I'm wrong. But this bill does assure that

the waiving of development cost charges for things around affordable housing still

will happen, which means that still creates an infrastructure deficit.

The minister has spoken twice now, in two different answer