Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Tuesday, November

21, 2023

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: K. Paddon.

Introductions by Members

L. Doerkson: Today in the precinct, we have a large group of folks representing the Invasive Species

Council of British Columbia. They're going to get an opportunity to tour the precinct

a little bit later today, but I'd like to welcome Gail Wallin, Nadia Chan, Dave Bennett,

Kevin Boon, Harold Aljam, Brian Thomas, Dave Walkem, Scott Pearce and Steve Thomson,

who many of you would know as a past MLA for Kelowna-Mission.

Welcome to the precinct, everybody. We really appreciate the work you do. It's amazing.

So thank you very much.

Hon. H. Bains: It gives me great honour and pleasure to introduce the executive council of the B.C.

Federation of Labour. The B.C. Federation of Labour represents over half a million

workers in this province, and they are engaged in every sector of our economy, made

up of 50 affiliates, some 800 locals.

We are the envy of the world in British Columbia. More people are moving to British

Columbia because they see hope and opportunities, and I think a lot of that has to

do with the B.C. Federation of Labour, their members, day in and day out, helping

not only their members but all workers to improve their benefits and working conditions

and the health and safety of those workers.

I would ask everyone in this House to please give them a very, very warm welcome.

Thank you for all the work you do for all of us.

M. Dykeman: Joining us today in the gallery are approximately 30 Neighbourhood Houses from across

British Columbia, members of the Association of Neighborhood Houses of British Columbia.

Neighbourhood Houses provide such important services and opportunities for people

to connect in our communities and make a very big difference. They are non-profits.

We're very excited that they're joining us this morning.

They were joining us downstairs in the dining room for a morning breakfast conversation,

which was wonderful to have the opportunity to connect. I know many people had an

opportunity, many of my colleagues, to connect with them this morning — the ones that

are in their ridings.

I'm wondering if the House could please join me in making them feel very welcome today.

Hon. J. Osborne: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a delegation today from Clean Energy B.C.,

who join us in the gallery. This is an industry association that promotes the growth

of B.C.'s clean energy industry and works in partnership with First Nations to advance

and support their priorities in clean energy as well.

Joining us today are Kwatuuma, or Cole Sayers, from Clean Energy B.C.; Ina Gjoka from

Innergex; Roslyn McMann from BluEarth Renewables; Danielle Van Huizen from Evolugen;

Brian Yates from Stantec; Yuho Okada from the Barkley Project Group — he is the Clean

Energy B.C. chair; Akira Yamamoto from TransAlta; Patrick Beatty from Invenergy; Carlie

Smith from Boralex; and Stephen Rayner from Huu-ay-aht First Nations.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

E. Sturko: Today we are joined by five brave women, part of a group of six women, each of them

former or serving police officers who, on October 12 of this year, announced a proposed

class action lawsuit for discrimination and harassment based on gender.

[10:10 a.m.]

They've now been joined by more than 60 other women from municipal forces across the

province, and they're here in the B.C. Legislature to raise awareness for the need

for changes to our Police Act to serve victims better, who are the victims of gender-based

harassment and discrimination.

Today joining us are Helen Irvine, Anja Bergler, Anne Piper, Lauren Phillips and another

woman, whom I will not name, in respect of ongoing court proceedings. Also absent

today, unable to join but an important member of the group, is Cary Ryan. I thank

you so much for being here, very much. I think it's amazing that you're here.

Will the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. B. Bailey: I see that in the House today we have the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade and their

CEO, Bridgitte Anderson.

Boards of trade do so much for businesses across our province. I see the Greater Vancouver

Board of Trade is not only training people up on AI and bringing important speakers,

but they also let us know what needs to happen and do a great job of lobbying.

Would everyone please join me in making Bridgitte Anderson most welcome.

B. D’Eith: I did want to echo the parliamentary secretary's greeting for the Neighbourhood House

folks who are here today, a gathering. They've been together 115 years; it's amazing.

I just wanted to add to it a bit. We have two members of my community and dear friends,

Christian Cowley and Gerry Pinel, here.

Christian is the executive director of the CEED Centre, which is a neighbourhood house,

but it's dedicated to the environment and development and sustainability. Christian

is also an amazing advocate for housing, especially for those who are youth. He worked

closely with Teesha Sharma, who, unfortunately, passed away at 27 years of age and

was a fierce advocate for youth housing.

I'm so very pleased that, working together, we were able to announce the youth emergency

shelter pilot for Maple Ridge. I know Teesha would have been very proud of us.

Then Gerry Pinel, who is VP of the CEED Centre and also an organizer of the Golden

Ears Transition Initiative and GETI Fest, which is an amazing festival we have every

year, and also an advocate for the tiny home movement.

Would the House please make them all very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: It's great to see a friend in the House today. Siobhan Powlowski is the executive

director of Gordon Neighborhood House.

I want to give a shout-out to the great work that she and the team at Gordon House

do to build reconciliation in the West End, to take action to make young people feel

safe and included, to build a new connections for recent immigrants, to make young

parents feel welcome, for food security. There's just so much that the Neighbourhood

House movement does. I could go on all day. It's wonderful to have her here in the

House.

K. Paddon: It was an honour to read from Growing Up Trans: In Our Own Words this morning for our prayer and reflection. I want to just share with the House that

Max Ransom, who's a student at UVic, the author of the poem, is with us today. I am

so grateful that he's here.

Along with him is Dr. Lindsay Herriot. She was one of the two editors on this book.

Also, the work around this book started in 2017 and is part of the Gender Generations

Project — which is still going on and welcomed 70 youth last weekend to continue the

space and the work.

I'm just so grateful to both of them. If the House would please join me in making

them very welcome.

D. Routley: I'd like to join the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin in welcoming the Invasive Species

Council of British Columbia and our former colleague Mr. Thomson. Hello, Steve.

I encourage all the members to meet with the council if possible. Their work is so

important to B.C. and made ever more important because of the pressures of climate

change. The Invasive Species Council of B.C. — it grows on you.

N. Letnick: Already mentioned twice, and I know it's against the rules, but I'll go for the third

time to welcome Steve Thomson to the House. Not only was he a Speaker, as you are….

He didn't last quite as long as you have, Mr. Speaker — I think eight days was the

number, and it was a record — but at least when you look at the pictures in the hallway,

he's not the one that looks like he's dead. That's really important.

[10:15 a.m.]

Steve is my neighbour, a great MLA, a great minister of many things — including, of

course, Forests. I really want to call attention to what happens after you retire

from this place. Steve is now the chair of Meals on Wheels in Kelowna.

You can take the service out of someone, but you can't take the service out of Steve

Thomson. Please make him feel really welcome.

R. Parmar: It's a pleasure to be able to join other colleagues in this House in welcoming members

from the Neighbourhood House Society of B.C. On behalf of the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin,

I'm pleased to welcome the executive director of the Esquimalt Neighborhood House

Society, Mary Lynn McKenna.

On behalf of my colleague, the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill, I had the honour of having

breakfast with Kaye Kennish, the executive director of the James Bay Community Project.

Also, a real pleasure…. I can't see them in the House, but I know they're probably

somewhere. Nicky Logins, who's the executive director of the Sooke Family Resource

Society, is retiring from her role in a few short weeks, after decades of service,

serving the people of Sooke and the entire West Shore region for so many years. She's

going to be retiring to spend more time with her grandbaby and, I'm sure, doing lots

of travelling, but I know she's going to remain super involved in our community. I

just want to thank her.

I hope the House will join me in welcoming all of them but also in giving a special

shout-out to Nicky for all that she's done for our community.

Hon. L. Popham: Good morning. Today I have 61 VIPs in the House, as we like to say, Vancouver Island

people. These are 61 students from Pacific Christian School, who have joined us today

in two separate groups. I'd like to make them feel very welcome here.

Enjoy your stay.

J. Routledge: I'd like to introduce, in the House, Antonia Beck. She is the CEO of the Burnaby Neighbourhood

House. She leads a team of people who build our community, who make sure people don't

fall through the cracks and who make everyone feel welcome and part of our community.

Please help me in welcoming Antonia Beck.

M. Lee: I'd like to also welcome all the executive directors of the Association of Neighbourhood

Houses of B.C. and, in particular, colleagues and friends of ours, including Joel

Bronstein, the executive director of Little Mountain Neighbourhood House.

I grew up around the corner from Little Mountain Neighbourhood House. As many would

know, they had a fire some months ago. They've had to reconstruct their operation,

with friendship and support in the community, both from donors and supporters and

from other partner organizations, like Marpole Neighbourhood House.

I'd also like to introduce Mimi Rennie and welcome her as the executive director for

South Vancouver Neighbourhood House, a great example of leadership within the community.

That organization does so much with seniors, in identifying some of the inequities

that I've been speaking to in South Vancouver, in terms of community infrastructure.

Mimi and her organization, of course, and her predecessor Zahra Esmail, were there

to help restart the Marpole Neighbourhood House.

Again, I'd welcome and introduce Nilda Borrino, the executive director of Marpole

Neighbourhood House, who's done a lot of good work, including in their community garden

and their work to shelter homeless individuals in our area of Marpole.

Would all members of this House please join me in welcoming Joel, Mimi and Nilda as

well.

Hon. D. Coulter: I'd like to join the Minister of Labour in welcoming the delegation from the B.C.

Federation of Labour. I saw one particular person in the hall room with the B.C. Fed,

and that was Sean Parkinson, who is my old economics professor from UFV. Like any

good economist, he's become a union activist. He's with the Federation of Post-Secondary

Educators.

Would the House please welcome Sean.

[10:20 a.m.]

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to join with a number of colleagues here in welcoming representatives

from our neighbourhood houses across the province.

I join with the member for Vancouver-Langara in recognizing the executive director,

Mimi Rennie, from South Vancouver Neighbourhood House, as well as Joel and many others

who are here. They just do terrific work in our communities. We all know that. We've

heard their message loud and clear, as well, in terms of, really, sustainable funding

and ongoing core funding.

I appreciate the work they do.

Welcome to everybody.

I ask our House, again, to give another very warm welcome to all our friends from

the neighbourhood houses.

H. Yao: I want to take this opportunity to welcome, obviously, some of our friends from our

labour movement. I want to echo my minister and my minister of state as well. But

specifically, I want to say hi and welcome to Dal Benning from Richmond CUPE. People

who see me will think I'm actually a big person. But if I ever shake hands with Dal,

he will make sure he reminds me his palm is bigger than my palm. He will crush my

hands if necessary.

I also want to take this opportunity to also welcome one of my constituents from the

HEU, Betty, who's over here as well. She's an astronomical advocate. It's hard to

have a conversation with her without being influenced by her enthusiasm and her advocacy.

I just want to welcome them both and ask all the House to make sure they feel comfortable

in being part of our House. Thank you so much.

S. Chant: I look around in the House, and I see a friend whom I've known since our children

were small, but I also crossed trails with her once I was here. We both looked at

each other in surprise.

the B.C. Federation of Labour as well, and she is a very marvelous advocate in the

world that we all are a part of. So I'd like to welcome Sheryl Burns to the House

and hope that everybody will make her very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Anyone else? Now is the chance.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSES

M. Dykeman: Imagine a place where strangers become neighbours, and neighbours become friends,

where communities grow stronger. That place is a neighbourhood house, which so many

people see as their living room, their cozy campfire, their safe place.

Neighbourhood houses in British Columbia are like a second home for people to connect

with friends and neighbours, where people can access daycare or take an exercise class

or learn how to cook new recipes. Neighbourhood houses are also important places for

newcomers to Canada, where they can learn through ESL and adult literacy classes.

In a world that sometimes seems to grow more disconnected by the day, neighbourhood

house staff and volunteers take time with every participant to make connections. They

get to know them by name, learn about their lives and even talk with them about their

hopes and dreams.

British Columbians have lived through challenging times, and it is more important

than ever to recognize the importance of connecting with others in a supportive environment.

Neighbourhood houses represent diversity by providing services and activities that

are sensitive to local cultures. All ages and nationalities come together at neighbourhood

houses to make our communities strong and a diverse place to live, a place where we

can celebrate our differences while remaining true to who we are, because there is

room for everyone to contribute and shine.

I'm also happy to note that neighbourhood houses are non-profit organizations offering

leadership and volunteer opportunities, so participants can engage while giving back

to their communities. Volunteers help run a wide range of classes or assist seniors

with day-to-day tasks, such as getting to appointments.

At the heart of every neighbourhood house are volunteers who are giving their time

and energy to make sure people feel safe and included in the community. That's why

I would like to invite all members to join me and everyone in British Columbia to

recognize the important work neighbourhood houses do and also recognize the representatives

of so many neighbourhood houses who have joined us here today at the Legislature.

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

IN KELOWNA

R. Merrifield: Well, I'm absolutely thrilled to talk about something that's very close to my heart,

the incredible business community of Kelowna, which was showcased brilliantly in the

Kelowna Chamber of Commerce's 2023 Business Excellence Awards this past week.

[10:25 a.m.]

First off, let me talk about Kelowna Pet Resort, the People's Choice Business of the

Year. Talk about a community favourite, especially for my two Bernese mountain dogs,

Phoebe and Margaux.

Manchester Signs, Printing and Graphics is our beacon of business ethics. You guys

truly set the standard. Then there's CMHA Kelowna and district, our stars in the non-profit

sector. Your work is nothing short of inspiring.

Arts, entertainment and tourism. Well, we're definitely leading the way here in Kelowna.

A huge shout out to the Rotary Centre for the Arts and Splash B.C. Water Parks.

Then there was Ashton Olsen of E-Kruise Solutions Ltd., our Young Entrepreneur of

the Year. You are the future, and we're so proud of you.

Innovation and sustainability. Well, Kelowna has it in spades. Hats off to EntheoMed

and Fill, Kelowna's refill store.

In agriculture and retail, there's There and Back Again farms, and Peter's Your Independent

Grocer are showing us how it's done with a focus on diversity and inclusion.

Our small and mid-size business champs, Potentia HR and Secure-Rite Mobile Storage:

they're the backbone of our economy.

Then there's AgriForest Bio-Technologies, our tech innovators, and BrainTrust Canada,

making such a significant community impact. Simply incredible.

Sncewips Heritage Museum, our Indigenous Business of the Year, is your treasure trove

of our rich cultural heritage.

Anodyne Electronics Manufacturing is showing the world what Kelowna can do in high-tech

manufacturing.

And lastly, Sam Samaddar, our Business Leader of the Year, is a true leader and an

inspiration to us all.

These businesses are the heartbeat of Kelowna. They're not just driving our economic

engine. They're shaping the soul of our community. Their commitment to innovation,

sustainability and social responsibility is something that we can all be incredibly

proud of.

To all the winners and nominees: you make Kelowna shine. You're not just making a

difference in business. You're making Kelowna a better place to live, work and dream.

INDIGENOUS DISABILITY

AWARENESS MONTH

J. Phillip: I rise today to honour the ninth anniversary of the Indigenous Disability Awareness

Month in British Columbia.

The B.C. Aboriginal Network on Disability Society was established in 2015 and is now

recognized by hundreds of Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and organizations

across Canada.

British Columbia is leading the way in recognizing, raising awareness and celebrating

the contributions of Indigenous peoples with disabilities. Indigenous Disability Month

is key to our journey towards reconciliation and ensures equality of rights, of access

and opportunities for Indigenous peoples with disabilities.

I would like to thank BCANDS for being an essential partner in advocating for Indigenous

people and improving the lives of Indigenous peoples for the past 30 years.

This month we celebrate many significant contributions that Indigenous people with

disabilities have made in our province, including my sister, who is one of the most

published writers in the country — Lee Maracle.

I would like to invite all members to join me in recognizing November as Indigenous

Disability Awareness Month as we work towards a more inclusive and stronger British

Columbia.

limləmt . huy ch q'u siem .

GENDER-BASED DISCRIMINATION AND

VIOLENCE IN POLICE FORCES

AND SUPPORT FOR FEMALE OFFICERS

E. Sturko: On October 12, six women, each of them former or serving police officers, announced

a proposed class action lawsuit for discrimination and harassment based on gender.

Since their announcement, more women from municipal forces across the province have

indicated their interest in joining.

Police officers often confront fear in the line of duty during investigations and

emergencies. Learning to act under extreme stress and fear is something that officers

train for. It's an expected part of the job. But no officer would expect to confront

fear inside their workplace. But for female municipal police officers who bring forward

complaints of sexual assault, sexual harassment or discrimination, this is the reality.

[10:30 a.m.]

Workplace complaints are sent to human resource departments in accordance with policy,

but from there, they're sent to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner. These

issues get treated as complaints against police. Victims are not treated as victims.

They become police witnesses. Their statements and participation become compulsory,

subject to discipline. Often, officers are re-victimized under the duress of being

charged themselves.

Those who I've spoken to who have been subjected to this process describe it as retraumatizing

and stigmatizing. Former officers told me that the nature of the process itself prevented

them from reporting serious assaults and sexual harassment at the hands of colleagues.

No one should face these issues, not anywhere, and especially not in their work in

a police department.

In this House, we have the opportunity to change the Police Act, to change the way

that sexual and gender-based violence and harassment and discrimination are handled

when the victim and perpetrator are both municipal police officers.

I want to thank these women who've come forward, and I wish them luck in pursuing

their class action lawsuit.

Please know that even if you don't achieve certification, you've made a difference.

You've brought this issue forward to this House.

I hope that in this House we will do the work required to improve support for female

police officers.

INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL

D. Routley: I rise to pay tribute to the Invasive Species Council of British Columbia.

Invasive species are a significant and growing threat to the B.C. economy. Natural

resources important to First Nations are being impacted, and there's a growing expectation

that government will work with First Nations and adequately respond.

Invasive species policy and management are strategically addressed through a team

government approach in the Inter-Ministry Invasive Species Working Group. The Inter-Ministry

Invasive Species Working Group works closely with the Invasive Species Council of

B.C., Indigenous communities, local government and others to provide input on policy

to help prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species.

Existing and future threats are increasing with climate change. Wildfire and floods

are putting the efforts of British Columbians at risk.

The Invasive Species Council of B.C. is a provincial non-profit that promotes collaboration

and delivers initiatives and programs to reduce the threat of invasive species. Government

annually provides funds to the Invasive Species Council of B.C. through a transfer

agreement.

These moneys support various projects, such as social behavioural change programs

like "Clean, drain, dry" your boat. They deliver invasive species training in specific

sectors like forestry and Indigenous communities, agricultural producers and others.

They hold an annual conference, and they manage inquiries and reports of invasive

species across the province.

I think all the members will join me in thanking them for this important work in the

economy, the environment and the cultural heritage of this province.

SAM SAMADDAR AND WORK WITH

KELOWNA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

B. Stewart: I rise to honour an exceptional individual whose unwavering dedication has propelled

the Kelowna International Airport to unprecedented success, particularly in the times

of diversity. This individual is none other than CEO Sam Samaddar, who was recognized

on Friday as the Business Leader of the Year at Kelowna Chamber's 36th annual Business

and Community Excellence Awards gala.

In the face of unparalleled challenges in the aviation industry during the recent

wildfires and the pandemic marked by travel restrictions, a demonstrable decline in

tourism and an uncertain future, Sam and his team have demonstrated extraordinary

resilience and determination. Their unwavering efforts resulted in the establishment

and maintenance of direct flights to key destinations such as Toronto, Montreal and

Seattle, breathing new life into business and tourism sectors.

The significance of Sam's leadership becomes even more apparent when you consider

that not every Canadian airport is fortunate enough to have municipal autonomy and

authority and a management team that goes above and beyond, as Sam and his dedicated

staff have consistently demonstrated.

It's not just about managing an airport. It extends beyond that. It's about recognizing

the inherent business opportunities that arise from fostering connectivity. It's about

acknowledging the efforts of individuals like Sam that creates a ripple effect leading

to the growth of our local economy and the overall achievement in our community.

[10:35 a.m.]

While Sam may be just one leader among many, his impact is immeasurable.

Today I express my gratitude for his steadfast leadership and commend the collective

efforts of all of those who have contributed to making the Kelowna International Airport

a symbol of resilience and success.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

FOR CLEANBC PLAN

P. Milobar: We know, based on government's own documents, that the NDP CleanBC scheme is a financial

disaster that will be ripping $11,000 per year out of people's household income by

2030. While half of British Columbians are $200 or less a month away from paying their

bills and food bank usage is soaring, this government is recklessly funnelling untold

dollars into the misleading CleanBC advertising.

Just one aspect of this advertising to consider: the government is spending $22,000

for mere 30-second TV ads during the Canucks games, multiple ads during every game.

That's $700 for every second spent on misleading CleanBC advertisements.

How can the Premier justify blowing $700 a second on CleanBC TV ads when countless

people are hanging on by a thread, struggling to pay their own bills and needing to

rely on food banks in B.C.?

Hon. G. Heyman: British Columbians have made it absolutely clear they're deeply concerned about climate

change, and they want to know what our government is doing about it. We are giving

British Columbians that information because they are feeling the effects of climate

change every time there's extreme heat, every time people are evacuated from their

communities due to wildfire, every time the agriculture industry is threatened by

drought or by flooding.

We are taking action on climate change. We're sharing what we're doing with British

Columbians. We're building a strong plan, and we'll continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, the minister might want to watch his own commercials, because it certainly does

not point out that CleanBC has missed every single climate target that it has set

for itself over the last few years.

A simple fact is it has transformed into a cost B.C. plan. It's costing more and achieving

nothing. Yet this NDP government burns through $700 every second on a hockey game

ad in a misleading campaign trying to change the narrative on its disastrous cost

B.C. scheme.

In the time it takes the Canucks to have a power play, this government spends $90,000

on these ads alone. It's no wonder that since 2018, the NDP has more than doubled

their advertising budget.

As British Columbians suffer from the NPD's middle-class squeeze, how much taxpayer

money has the Premier squandered on not just the $700-a-second Canucks ads but the

cost B.C. advertising overall?

Hon. G. Heyman: We've made tremendous progress in reducing emissions in British Columbia. We exceeded

our target for the takeup of light-duty, zero-emission vehicles. We are supporting

British Columbians to install heat pumps so they will both save money and be more

comfortable. We are ahead of our methane emission reduction targets.

The only target that was missed was the 2020 target set by those people on that side

of the House when they were on this side of the House and their emissions rose. Emissions

have been going down steadily since 2017 in actual terms.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: Emissions have been going down since 2017 in absolute terms and even more on a per-capita

basis. We're staying the course because climate action is important to British Columbia,

both for our security and economically.

T. Stone: Well, the reality is that this Premier isn't just flooding TV advertising during Canucks

games. His government is blitzing primetime media slots on radio and TV, spending

millions of dollars on media markets promoting cost B.C. all across British Columbia.

[10:40 a.m.]

The Premier is doing it, all the while not owning up and being transparent about the

massive negative impacts of cost B.C. on family incomes and thousands of jobs and,

oh, by the way, that emissions are actually going up under this government.

Now, as the Premier doubles the government's taxpayer-funded propaganda budget, NDP

insiders are lining their pockets through the cost B.C. campaign. Let's talk about

the NOW Group. This is a group that is closely allied with the NDP and that has been

reaping substantial fees for spearheading this expensive cost B.C. propaganda.

My question to the Premier is this. How can the Premier look British Columbia taxpayers

in the eyes, people who are struggling, and defend prioritizing lucrative deals for

high-priced NDP consultants over the economic well-being of British Columbia families

who are set to lose $11,000 per family per year?

Hon. G. Heyman: The analysis is simply wrong. The analysis assumes that there was no climate action

in British Columbia since 2017 or that there would be none. That would only have been

true if those members had been on this side of the House, doing nothing.

Not only have we taken effective action to reduce emissions, and emissions have gone

down, we have taken significant actions to make life cheaper for British Columbians

in ways that the opposition has voted against every single time, whether it was ICBC

rate reductions, eliminating MSP premiums…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: …supporting child care or the child family benefit increase. We are taking action

to support families in B.C.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: We are building a strong clean energy economy, because that's where the world is going.

That's where we're going, too. B.C. United and B.C. Conservatives would simply leave

British Columbia behind.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Seven years in, and not a single emissions target has been met by this government.

I'll tell you the difference between cost B.C. and the Vancouver Canucks. At least

the Canucks are hitting their goals.

The NOW Group has been amassing millions from NDP government communication contracts…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

T. Stone: …and NDP caucus advertising.

The Premier's appointment of Marie Della Mattia, former president of NOW communications,

now ,as deputy minister of government communications, has only increased the flow

of taxpayer money for high-gloss cost B.C. propaganda. This blatant political payola

is fuelling the $700-a-second cost B.C. advertising blitz during Canucks games, even

as B.C. families grapple with the worst affordability in the entire country.

Why is the Premier funnelling taxpayer funds to his political cronies and splurging

$700 a second on ads aimed at peddling a cost B.C. scheme, all the while not being

straight up with British Columbians about the massive negative impacts of cost B.C.

on family incomes and private sector jobs in every corner of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Heyman: You know, 15 years ago the then B.C. Liberal Party believed that climate change was

real and that we should do something about it. They introduced a carbon tax. The leader

of BCU said it was one of the proudest moments that he had in government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.

Hon. G. Heyman: It is very unfortunate that the official opposition and the Conservative Party would

have British Columbians believe that climate change doesn't matter.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member, the minister has the floor.

Hon. G. Heyman: We know that if they were on this side of the House, they would rip up the plan and

do nothing.

[10:45 a.m.]

It would cost B.C. businesses and individuals hugely. It would make communities insecure,

and it would leave British Columbia behind in the kind of clean energy investments

that we saw just last week with an investment in E-One Moli and the creation of over

400 jobs in Maple Ridge.

That's what we're doing on this side of the House. That's what we're going to keep

doing on this side of the House, and that's what British Columbians expect and want.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, as I reminded yesterday, let's hear the question, and please let's hear the

answer as well, okay.

CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM AND

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

MINISTRY ACCOUNTABILITY

A. Olsen: Yesterday my colleague asked about the lack of accountability and oversight in the

Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Child welfare workers in this province have extraordinary powers to remove children

from their families. Based on an allegation, they can walk into anyone's house and

decide to remove children. This B.C. NDP government doesn't even require the MCFD

social workers to be regulated under the College of Social Workers, protecting the

families, protecting the social workers.

British Columbians have reason to be deeply concerned. The public needs to have trust

in the system, and the minister and the senior staff continue to fail us. We spend

$135,000 per child per year in care. Poverty is a primary driver of children being

removed from their families.

Wouldn't it be more compassionate and make more economic sense to spend the money

on keeping children in their homes with their families and diverting these funds to

the families in need?

Hon. A. Dix: This will give me an opportunity to respond to the questions raised by the Leader

of the Green Party yesterday, as well, that were referenced in the member's question.

As the member will know, changes were made to raise standards in 2019. All people

working for the ministry are expected to live up and work to the highest standards

as public servants and under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

In addition to that, the members will know…. I know this is an issue of particular

interest to the Leader of the Green Party, because she has raised it with me in the

past: the regulation of social workers in British Columbia. I'd say that there is

a broad engagement going on right now around the oversight of all social workers in

British Columbia. That included over 200 participants in 32 sessions, with 1,700 survey

responses. We should expect a response and information about that early in the new

year from the Minister of Children and Families.

On the issues raised by the members around those questions of qualifications, of social

workers and of colleges, part of how we're responding to that is reaching out and

talking to the community of social workers.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the minister's response, but in the response, there is an expectation

that social workers meet standards, paraphrasing what the minister just said.

However, by the own audits of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, by

the constant reports from the Representative for Children and Youth, we're not meeting

those standards. We haven't been meeting those standards for five, six, seven — for

decades.

Rather than creating layers of transparency and accountability, this government has

failed to give social workers, and families that are impacted by the decisions that

social workers make, a basic level of protection.

In what other industry in this province would we put the care of our children, the

care of our people, the care of our seniors…? Without a regulated industry, only the

most vulnerable children in our province get that kind of special treatment. It's

not a kind of special treatment that we need to be celebrating in this House.

You know, when a social worker walks into a family's house, they're given basically

one tool: to remove the child. Yet we know that $135,000 is invested in each child

per year of care.

[10:50 a.m.]

When is this government going to provide child welfare workers with a more diverse

set of tools so they can actually support the families that are in need?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, I would argue that we are doing that, and we must do that. The very significant investments

and supports provided in the system, the profound and historic work that is being

done and must continue to be done with Indigenous communities show that.

I think in this process, and these are issues…. I'm very respectful of the questions

provided, because these are issues….

The member will know that social workers are, obviously, important workers in health

authorities as well as in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The expectation

of high standards of front-line workers, all front-line workers, whether they're social

workers or not, is an expectation.

We have to do exactly the kinds of things the member is talking about. We also have

to engage with our community of workers to make sure that they have the skills necessary

to do the work. That's what this process is about. I think it's what the process that

we're engaging in right now is about.

I expect that there'll be a role for members of the Legislature. I will endeavour

to ensure that the member and his colleague are kept fully informed about what happens.

I know that the Minister of Children and Families will do so as well.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

DRUG TOXICITY CRISIS AND

MANAGEMENT OF SAFE SUPPLY

B. Banman: Dr. Anna Kindy, the Conservative Party of British Columbia's candidate for North Island,

recently told me about a patient she saw at her clinic in Campbell River. This patient

was a teenager in high school, who is, to this very day, addicted to safe supply drugs

— drugs, I would remind everyone in this House, that this NDP government is buying

from its former provincial health officer. The kids call them dillies.

Dr. Kindy asked this teenager how many of his fellow students were addicted to these

deadly safe supply drugs. He told her: "At least 30."

Thirty. As a grandfather, I worry that my own grandson will be peer-pressured into

trying these safe supply drugs one day. He's almost 12 now, and I know he has lots

of support at home. But this is the reality of what's happening in our schools under

this NDP government.

To the Premier, my question is: as a father, what age does he think is appropriate

for children to encounter these drugs in our streets or school system, and if, God

forbid, his own child became addicted to these drugs, would he encourage them to keep

using safe supply, or would he get them into a rehabilitation program?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I'll thank the member for raising what I know is a concern for everyone in this House,

for everyone across our health care system, for front-line care providers, with respect

to the challenges for children and youth, with respect to mental health and substance

use issues in these times.

I would say, when it comes to how we are addressing a public health emergency that

has taken the lives of over 13,100 people so far since it was declared in 2016, over

1,800 British Columbians so far this year, that we have to work across the entire

continuum. We have to work very hard to ensure that we are keeping people alive while

we are connecting them to care and support.

With respect to what are some very challenging circumstances on the ground in Campbell

River — and I've had a chance to go to Campbell River and meet with care providers,

meet with doctors — I am so grateful for the work that our public health officers

are doing in that part of the Island, what front-line doctors and nurses are doing

to support individuals who are struggling with substance use.

I would say, though, however, the member is just wrong with respect to what he is

suggesting as fact with respect to sources of drugs. I mean it's just wrong that there

is a connection to Fair Pharma here.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

B. Banman: You know we are all parents, grandparents and mentors here. If any of those in our

charge became addicted to drugs, safe supply or not, I am certain that each member

here would do everything that they could to get that child or young person into a

rehabilitation program.

[10:55 a.m.]

The reality is that working-class British Columbians, the ones whose children are

most likely to be targeted by predatory dealers and safe supply pushers, wait months

to get their kids into treatment. Make no mistake. Children die waiting for access

to those beds and facilities.

For example, Greg Sword in Port Coquitlam, whose daughter Kamilah was told by a drug

counsellor that she could keep using marijuana to deal with her anxiety at the age

of 13 and died from an overdose of NDP safe supply drugs at the age of 14….

The drugs that killed Kamilah were bought for addicts by the NDP, all paid for with

money taken from hard-working B.C. taxpayers.

My question to the Premier: how many more parents like Greg Sword will have to bury

their teenage children because of this NDP's failed safe supply policy?

Hon. J. Whiteside: There is no one in this House, no one in any of our communities that wants to see

youth struggling with addiction, struggling with mental health issues. That is why

we are working so hard across our health care system with experts, with our colleagues

in Education and Child Care, with our colleagues in MCFD to ensure that we have the

kinds of systems in place and pathways to care for youth to support them when they

are experiencing mental health and substance use issues.

It's why we've spent so much investing in upstream supports, massively expanding access

to primary and mental health care through our Foundry system, which is low-barrier

care for youth aged 12 to 24. It's why we're working with Education to build integrated

child and youth mental health teams that go to where kids are at and wrap services

around them so that we can ensure that we are building the pathways to care that youth

need in order to provide the support.

We will continue to do that work across government, with a whole-of-government approach.

CLEANBC PLAN AND ECONOMY

M. de Jong: Not only are the Premier and the government embarking upon a climate plan that is

failing to deliver on emissions targets; there is now a growing list of reputable

analysts who, relying on the government's own methodology, are predicting economic

disaster that will follow from this plan.

Ken Peacock isn't just the senior economist for the B.C. Business Council. He's also

a long-standing member of this government's Economic Forecast Council. The Premier

and the Environment Minister are doing everything they can to discredit him and his

analysis — we just heard it again from the minister earlier today — which is based

exclusively on material produced by the government.

That modelling says that this cost B.C. plan will lead to the B.C. economy shrinking

by upwards of $28 billion in the next six years, and the loss of tens of thousands

of jobs.

My question to the Premier is: why is he so intent on hiding the truth about the devastating

impact this cost B.C. plan will have for families in B.C.?

Hon. G. Heyman: The truth about devastating impacts to B.C. is this. In 2021, extreme weather cost

the B.C. economy $17 billion — in that year alone. This past year the costs of wildfire

fighting were over $1 billion — in this year alone. People are losing homes. People

are losing businesses. People are losing a sense of security.

Contrary to what the member opposite claims, our plan is reducing emissions steadily.

We expect it to reduce emissions more as the programs we put into place take root.

That's what British Columbians need.

[11:00 a.m.]

An analysis that is taken out of context, that assumes that somehow, magically, BCU

was still in power and did nothing about climate change, as they had for the previous

six years, and therefore…. It's apple to orange.

We have built a strong economy in B.C. It's the strongest in Canada. We're going to

continue our work.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West, supplemental.

M. de Jong: Well, not surprisingly, Mr. Peacock has been listening carefully to what the minister

and the government have had to say. Yesterday he wrote to the minister. In his six-page

letter, he dissects what the minister has been attempting to do in dismissing his

own government's finding. He dissects it point by point.

Page 3 of the letter…. The minister stands up, he has repeatedly in this House, and

says: "Well, look, there are going to be all these new economic opportunities that

are going to be sufficient to offset the loss of $28 billion."

But Mr. Peacock says to the minister yesterday: "We have been unable to find support

for these statements in the methodology report." That's the minister's methodology

report. Nowhere does the minister's methodology report suggest that uncertainty about

the future energy economy should be taken to mean that there are large, unambiguously

positive economic gains for B.C. that are missing from the modelling and can be assumed

to negate its findings.

It appears this NDP government has rediscovered the lost NDP art of injecting optimism

into economic forecasts when they don't like what the real numbers say.

The minister just last week in this House said, and I think he just said it again

a moment ago: "The comparison in the CleanBC documents were of the CleanBC plan against

no climate plan whatsoever, which is what existed in 2017."

The problem with the minister's statement is it's not true. It's not, not true because

I say so; it's not, not true because Ken Peacock says so. It's not true because in

the minister's own methodology, they list 14 initiatives that were in place in 2017

when the government changed.

Government is doing everything it can to dismiss and discredit this report. They're

spending millions of dollars on advertising to discredit this analysis and this report.

There is a $28 billion gap between what this minister is saying and what a long-standing,

respected member of the government's own Economic Forecast Council is saying.

My question is to the Finance Minister: who's right?

Hon. G. Heyman: The members opposite, unfortunately, think that the time for climate action isn't

here and that it's not happening in B.C. and that it's not happening around the globe.

But in fact, the exact opposite is happening.

The United States Inflation Reduction Act is injecting $3 trillion in investment in

renewable energy and renewable energy technologies. British Columbia is positioning

itself to be a leader in both those fields and to take advantage of those investments.

We've seen E-One Moli — 450 permanent jobs, over $1 billion invested.

Here are the facts that the members opposite don't like, the economic facts about

our record in government: our GDP growth since 2017 is the highest in Canada among

large provinces, and our unemployment rate is the lowest in Canada.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

FOR CLEANBC PLAN

S. Bond: Well, one fact we know that is absolutely clear is that under this Premier's watch,

British Columbia has become the most unaffordable jurisdiction in the country, bar

none.

That is this minister's record. He can stand in this Legislature day after day and

dismiss and try to discredit experts. But let's be clear: they are using this government's

own documents.

In fact, the minister's arguments make zero sense. By any single measure, this plan

will cost B.C. And what will it cost B.C.? Well, in fact, B.C. families will get $11,000

cut from their household income every single year.

[11:05 a.m.]

The minister smiles and thinks that's funny. It's not to families in British Columbia

who are making a decision about whether to feed their kids or fill their gas tanks.

That's this government's record.

With income plunging for families, essential services at risk, will the Premier do

the right thing: stop blowing millions of dollars on misleading ads that are going

to cost British Columbians? Will he do the right thing and, for once, start protecting

the livelihoods of British Columbia's families?

Hon. R. Kahlon: We've had a long exchange for the last couple of days. But what's troubling about

this entire exchange, hon. Speaker, is the trend we've seen throughout this session.

What we've seen throughout this session is a complete flip-flop…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …every single time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. He hasn't even started yet, Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Wait. Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have seen so many flip-flops. It's unbelievable.

First, they support the Surrey police transition. Then the B.C. Conservative Party

says: "We're against it." They switched their position.

We bring in short term….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh. Members. Members.

Please continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We bring in legislation to get more housing back in the housing market. They support

it. The B.C. Conservatives go the other way. Then they switch their tune.

When we talked about harm reduction, they said they supported it. The B.C. Conservatives

switched their position. They switched their position.

Now a party….

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members. It's almost over. Just a few more seconds.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take it easy, almost over. Let him answer.

The minister has the floor.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

The minister will continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The party that founded the carbon tax, the party that's decided that they want to

be leaders on climate action, now, because of the B.C. Conservatives, are completely

switching.

What's clear to us is they will say anything to get elected next election. They have

no principles. They have no values. They believe in nothing but trying to win the

election.

We're going to continue to fight against that every single day, hon. Speaker.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Auditor General's Annual Report 2022-23 and the Ombudsperson's report, No Notice, No Benefit: How Retroactive Changes to the B.C. Emergency Benefit for Workers

Resulted in Unfairness .

A. Walker: I seek leave to move a motion that upholds democracy in B.C. and ensures every member

of this assembly has an equal voice and can participate in all motions before this

House.

Mr. Speaker: Member, do you want to read the motion?

A. Walker: Certainly.

By leave, I move that the sessional order adopted by the House on October 5, 2023,

enabling certain proceedings of the House be undertaken in three sections be discharged.

Leave not granted.

Mr. Speaker: Sorry, Member. It has to be unanimous.

Question of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. G. Heyman: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege.

Orders of the Day

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

Development) Amendment Act.

in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 42, Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act.

[11:10 a.m.]

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 11:13 a.m.

On clause 1 (continued) .

The Chair: We'll draw the committee to order.

A. Walker: I want to put on the record that I would love to be in two places at once. In another

committee, I had three different amendments to bring forward. Due to the nature of

this place. I am unable to do two things at once. I just wanted to put that on the

record.

As we continue on the questions from yesterday, I had asked what input a person in

a single-family home would have if a new home were being built next to them. The answer

I received was that the single-family homeowner would have no input but would be able

to participate in the OCP process. Could the minister clarify if that is correct?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, that is correct.

A. Walker: Yesterday, the minister said that someone who's living in a single-family home could

expect that a neighbour, under these new rules, could build three to four homes on

the property. Is that the maximum that would be allowed under this act?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Not three to four separate homes. I want to make sure that's clear. Three to four

units within a structure can be built under this legislation, depending on the size

of the lot.

A. Walker: To be clear, whenever we do announcements in communities, we don't call them units

anymore; we call them homes. When we had the housing announcement in Parksville that

87 new homes were built, we referred to a condo project as 87 homes. It's being a

little bit nuanced here.

[11:15 a.m.]

Is the minister saying that these multifamily units will all have to be contained

in one building?

Hon. R. Kahlon: You could have a home and an accessory dwelling unit that's not attached to it. It

would be an example of that, yes.

A. Walker: I'll refer to them as units, just to be clear. So someone who lives in a single-family

home could expect, next to them, a three-unit building, three homes in one building,

and one other home on the same lot. That would be the maximum that would be allowed

as far as number of buildings and number of units under this new act?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I would say that they shouldn't expect it. It could be, because some people will choose

to still build a single-family home. So I wouldn't say that they should expect it.

I would say that it is possible.

A. Walker: To be clear, this act will not allow someone to have two accessory dwelling units

if they have a single-family home. So there would be a maximum of two buildings on

one lot as proposed?

The minister asked me to ask the question again. I don't fully recall what the question

was, but I think the idea was: is it possible that a property with a single-family

home on a larger lot could see two accessory dwelling units, as in more than one building

per lot?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I see there are some students that have just entered the gallery. I'm not sure what

school you're from, but….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Oh, okay. Minister Fleming is not here, but Vic High, welcome to the chambers today.

We are right now going through what we call committee stage where members can ask

questions about a piece of legislation that's in front of the House, so we go line

by line to explain what's happening. Welcome to the proceedings.

To the member, yes, we don't put in what kind of building forms…. So it is possible,

if the lot were big enough. What is also possible is that individuals just leave their

home as it is because they love living in it. They don't need to change.

A. Walker: I think it's important, as this legislation comes through, that people understand

the intention of government and what that could mean for their lives and their communities.

The minister originally said that they could expect four units on a lot — a home and

an accessory dwelling unit — when I first asked, could people expect four homes on

a lot?

It sounds like what the minister is saying is that people who live in these single-family

neighbourhoods could expect to see four homes built on one lot. Now, these could be

in different form or character, if there's a ratio of the smaller unit to the larger.

Could people living in single-family neighbourhoods expect to see four separate homes

built on one lot next to them?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the member keeps using the word "expect." "Expect" means that this is going

to happen everywhere. I'm not sure if he's doing it on purpose or not, but I just

have to re-emphasize that it's possible that that would happen if the lot is large

enough. From my engagement with folks in the home-building community, that is not

what people want. So it's not really what I expect will happen, but it is available

for folks to do that if the lot is large enough.

A. Walker: I don't want to get into semantics, but in the answer, the minister did say "expect"

with the same intended meaning that I used in mine.

[11:20 a.m.]

It's not that every home will see this, but as a single-family homeowner in a community,

they no longer have the opportunity, through their council, to have an input on what

gets built next to them under this legislation. I just want to be very clear, as we

go through this process, so that I fully understand and that my constituents fully

understand what this could mean.

In my community, we have a company called aux box. They build these prefab, beautiful

little homes that can get put into place very quickly. I could expect to see that

in my community. I know that there are lots of people who live near me who would love

to put one or two of these in their backyard. This act could give that power to a

homeowner to do that.

The minister said that the maximum number of homes that somebody could…. To the minister,

if you want to propose a word other than "expect…." I'll use expect this time, but

maybe not from the same meaning that he's expecting. The minister said the maximum

number of hones that somebody could possibly see next to them would be four units.

But there are obviously provisions in here for near transit. What is the maximum number

of homes that somebody who lives in a single-family neighbourhood, under this act,

could see built next to them?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it's important to note here, for the member, that if someone is going to build

a single-family home next to you or me, the public really doesn't have a say. What

we're saying is that this is a minimal allowable. Of course, local governments can

zone higher. In fact, I had one mayor ask me if this meant, now, that this is the

only thing that can be done on it. I've said to them that local governments have the

ability to go higher.

I think the member was also referring to…. In the legislation, we say six units for

housing that's near certain levels of transit. That requires frequent transit areas

only. That's a different area. Some of those details will come out through regulations

of what we're defining. But it's a smaller footprint of area. It doesn't mean it's

going to be widespread and within the communities.

A. Walker: So to be clear, the minister previously said that three or four maximum homes is the

most that somebody could possibly — I'm really trying not to use the word "expect"

— see next to them. But the minister just said that it would be possible that there

could be four homes built next to a single-family house with no input from the homeowner.

Is that correct?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This legislation allows for minimum allowable housing. If the member is trying to

get somewhere, maybe it would be easier for me to understand. Maybe I'm not communicating

it well enough, but this allows for…. Minimal allowable is up to four units on single-family

lots.

A. Walker: I'm not trying to do anything silly here. These are questions that I've been asked

by members in my community: "What does it mean for my neighbourhood when this new

act passes?" The minister first said that it'll be three or four units, but they'll

be in a building. Then he said: "Well, it could be an accessory unit, a triplex with

accessory unit." Then he said: "But it won't be three single-family homes," and then

later said, "Well, I mean, yeah, they could be all four detached, if the lot size

was there." It creates uncertainty in my community. It's creating angst.

People have invested heavily in their homes and their neighborhoods. We know we're

in a housing crisis. We're not trying to get in the way of seeing development happen.

But it is important that people who live in these communities know what they can expect,

both from the builder's perspective, who wants to actually get more homes built, but

also for those that live in the communities already.

[11:25 a.m.]

I'm just trying to get a straight answer from the minister as far as, through this

act, what the intention of the maximum number of homes is that could be built on a

single-family lot without input from the neighbors or from council.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think what the member and his community can expect is kids back in neighbourhoods

again, levels of affordability in communities.

Specifically, to the member's question, I think, for small-scale multi-unit housing,

secondary suites or an additional dwelling unit, like a garden suite, in a single-family

zone provincewide. Three to four units will be allowed on lots zoned exclusively for

single-family or duplex lots in municipalities with population over a certain threshold,

which we anticipate will be 5,000.

To the member's core question, we don't dictate what that unit will look like. Homebuilders

can identify what the market needs. What we're saying is that three or four units

will be the minimum allowable.

A. Walker: I guess the question that goes unanswered, though, is…. I asked: what is that maximum

minimum allowable? The minister said if it's near transit frequent stops, that would

be six.

The minister is saying the maximum minimum allowable is three to four, so I'm just

trying to get a sense of…. I guess the minister has answered the question. It's that

six is the most somebody could expect as minimal allowable on a single-family lot

if it's near transit. Is that…? I guess I'll ask that.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to my friend across the way. A minimum of six units will be allowed on larger

lots close to transit stops with frequent service.

A. Walker: Just trying to get a sense of that. For somebody in my community, what was being considered

as this act was brought forward, as the modelling was brought forward.

What would be the definition of a large-enough lot and of frequent transit service?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The lot size would be 280 metres squared.

Definitions around the frequent transit

area will come through regulations, but I can confirm for the member that it would

not impact his community.

A. Walker: Trying to figure out where this does take effect. We've got Parksville and Qualicum

Beach, both municipalities. In between those, we've got electoral areas that have,

in some ways, a more dense population and more population.

If an electoral area like my constituency…. French Creek is within the urban containment

boundary. I think they call it the growth containment boundary, but same model. An

area like French Creek — would that be captured under this new act?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Can I get back to the member on whether French Creek is in or not? We've just got

to look to see the details of where it lies and the urban containment boundary areas,

etc.

A. Walker: Certainly. Just more broadly, I guess, in an electoral area that's not Islands Trust

— as we heard yesterday, there are some special provisions there — in an electoral

area where there is a growth containment boundary or urban containment boundary established,

is it the intention that this act would apply to those areas?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, that's correct.

A. Walker: Just jumping back to the previous question, 280 square metres…. I use acres, which,

unless Google's done the math wrong, is actually quite a small lot, 280 square metres.

The minister said that there is no frequent transit that would apply in my constituency.

Is the minister aware that my constituency goes into Nanaimo, where we have bus hubs

that have eight or more routes, that have fifteen-minute service? If that's the case,

could the minister define what is being considered right now, as the modelling is

put together, what frequent service would be?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I understand what the member is saying. I can still confirm that they don't get captured

in that. They may get captured in the TOA legislation — that's the next one — given

that that line he refers to in Nanaimo has an exchange. But not for the six units

as we've discussed here.

A. Walker: For clarity, could the minister explain: what is the definition that's being used

for the frequent transit?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, that piece is coming in regs. What I will share with the member is that we

are looking to make it as closely as possible aligned with how B.C. Transit and TransLink

define frequent transit area. But again, it's in regs. The work's still happening

on that piece. We are trying to make sure it aligns as closely as possible to how

it's already being defined.

A. Walker: I'm certainly not trying to jump into the regulatory end of things. As the government

has modelled this bill, they've set projections. They've set goals. In that process,

it would be assumed that they would have things like that defined. That answer is

sufficient. I can look up B.C. Transit and sort that out.

[11:35 a.m.]

Yesterday the minister mentioned that this bill will not create urban sprawl. The

minister is aware of the communities like mine, and like the member for Saanich North

and the Islands, that are in many ways predominantly single-family homes. We have

nodal centres, and then the rest is just basically single-family. What would the minister

define as sprawl?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the member knows the answer, but I know he wants it on the record. I'll say

that urban containment boundaries and regional growth strategies are decided by consensus

by member communities. That's why the legislation captures those homes being built

and within those areas.

A. Walker: That certainly doesn't answer the question. Communities like mine, through the official

community plan, have established an urban containment boundary — recognizing that

there are folks that want to live in more rural and remote areas of the community,

single-family lots — that whole plan of the urban containment boundary is based around

single-family homes, not four homes.

The minister, yesterday, said this will not create sprawl. I'm just looking for the

definition that the minister is using for what is urban sprawl.

Hon. R. Kahlon: If communities have identified an area where there's development happening, that is

what's captured by this. If communities have already decided that there's development

happening there, there are homes being built there, it's captured by this legislation.

When I say we're not encouraging sprawl, it's that this legislation is not saying

that it should be done outside of urban containment boundary areas. It shouldn't be

outside of areas where communities have already predefined where development should

happen.

A. Walker: I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm just looking for a definition. The minister

said it won't create sprawl. The minister's pointing to local government, saying they

have the tools for the urban containment boundary.

I'm wondering. What is the definition that the minister is using when he talks about

urban sprawl?

Hon. R. Kahlon: When we engaged with local governments, they shared with us that this type of housing

should be done in areas that local governments have already defined and already started

development.

That's why I use the language I have, which is we're not encouraging sprawl, because

communities have already defined where the development should happen. In fact, there's

development already there. We believe that these types of housing options will be

available where development is already occurring within defined areas within communities.

A. Walker: I don't want to belabour the point. I'm just looking for a definition of what is urban

sprawl. The minister again is pointing back to that there was engagement with local

governments. I'll ask later which, because certainly, none in my constituency have

had any feedback with this.

[11:40 a.m.]

The minister has said that it's in defined areas, urban containment boundaries. That's

fine. But these, in some ways, are already sprawl. I'm looking for a definition of

what the minister…. When the minister says this doesn't create sprawl, what is the

definition the minister is using? Just succinctly, what does the minister call urban

sprawl?

The Chair: I'd just say that we are starting to get a little repetitive here.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member.

Again, when I use the language that I did, and I'm going to continue to use it, I'm

saying that communities that have defined where growth should happen. Where communities

are already seeing development is where we're focusing on. We're not encouraging it

to go beyond that.

This legislation does not say three to four units everywhere in the province. It says

within urban containment boundary areas where communities have already decided that

development should happen. That's the context and when I use this language.

A. Walker: Thank you, Chair. I will follow the guidance of the Chair.

I think I've asked it four or five times. I still don't have an answer. You know,

if I look online, it says "uncontrolled expansion into urban areas," which we have

seen in our communities. I don't know what definition the ministry is using in that.

I guess through that, though, it has brought up some other questions.

In my community of Qualicum Beach, they have seen this as potentially creating urban

sprawl. The minister said that the act doesn't intend to create urban sprawl, and

I'm assuming that the minister does not want to see urban sprawl. So the town of Qualicum

Beach has just recently passed a motion that is changing their growth containment

boundary or urban containment boundary. I think it's "urban" for municipalities; in

the regional district it's "growth."

Does that please the minister, then, that municipalities like Qualicum Beach are actively

looking to shrink their urban containment boundary to prevent sprawl?

Hon. R. Kahlon: They would have to amend their regional growth strategy to do that.

A. Walker: Yeah, the minister has said this act doesn't create urban sprawl. I assume that means

that there is a desire not to create urban sprawl.

The minister has pointed to local governments to define the area of the urban containment

boundary that defines where, outside of which it would be considered to be sprawl.

The town of Qualicum Beach is going through the process right now to amend the regional

growth strategy. He and I are both aware of that process. They are amending that to

dramatically shrink that urban containment boundary to prevent sprawl.

The question is: is that something that the minister supports?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: If they were to attempt to do that just to avoid housing to be built, I believe that

would be shortsighted. They have a vacancy rate of 1.2 percent. There are people struggling

in the community to find housing. There are a lot of seniors who own homes and who

are looking for opportunities to downsize and create opportunities for others.

That is my opinion, given the housing challenges that they're facing in the community,

but the mechanism for them, if they were to consider that, would be to amend the regional

growth strategy.

A. Walker: Thank you, Minister. So as long as the intention is not to limit the development of

housing, then the minister does not oppose that.

The town of Qualicum has expressed concern about the loss of trees, loss of habitat,

the densification of the outside core, which creates more car-dependent communities.

Their focus has not been on blocking housing. For many years now in the town of Qualicum

Beach, they've had a bylaw that allows for accessory dwelling units, and the uptick

has, frankly, not been there.

As they work through that process, my understanding is that as long as the intention

of the resolution of council is not to prohibit the development of housing, the minister

supports that. Just for clarity, is that the case?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I guess there are a couple of things. I can speak to what's within the legislation.

I think the member is trying to ask for my personal opinions on matters, and I've

given him some opinions. I won't go further. The member asked a question: can they

make changes? I've given the answer that they can amend their regional growth strategy.

I think it's also important to note for Qualicum that they will be doing a housing

needs report. They're going to need to assess how much housing their community needs.

That means if they were able to do that, they would need to put more housing in the

footprint that they have in order to meet their goals.

I'm not entirely sure of the question the member has around the legislation, but I'm

happy to answer it if he wants to repeat that question or rephrase it in a different

way.

The Chair: We are starting to get a little outside the bounds of the legislation, so if we can

draw it back, I would appreciate it.

A. Walker: I appreciate the guidance of the Chair.

These are just in response to previous questions where we talked about where this

housing will take place. The minister said: "Within urban containment boundaries."

[11:50 a.m.]

The question was: what is the definition of sprawl? We went along that for a little

while. Then the minister said that as long as that development takes place in that

urban containment boundary, that would be not sprawl, and that would be appropriate.

So the question is…. As written in the legislation, it defines that this will take

place in the urban containment boundary. I am not speculating with hypotheticals of

what happens if a municipality decides to make it smaller. What I'm saying is that

the municipality is going through that process right now, so it very much applies

to this legislation.

My mayor would be very upset if I didn't correct myself and the minister for saying

Qualicum. It's Qualicum Beach. I know it drives the mayor a little crazy, so if you

ever want to get to get under Teunis's skin there, you can certainly do that. I apologize,

Teunis, if you're watching this.

One of the things that local government is looking at, as well, is just the efficient

delivery of services. We've got some areas that are nice, quaint subdivisions, single-family

homes, that have very old asbestos cement water mains. So they're also looking at

how to mitigate some of the impacts of this, what I would call, sprawl on the infrastructure

that just, quite frankly, wasn't designed for it.

Next question that I have, similar to this, is…. Arguably, there are parts of our

province that should see this type of development — urbanish areas, single-family

neighbourhoods that aren't within an urban containment boundary. Why have those areas

that should see densification, that should see nodal cores, been excluded from this

legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Over 90 percent of B.C.'s population is covered by these requirements. The requirement

for secondary suite accessory dwelling units will apply to single-family-home zones

everywhere.

The requirements for three, four or six units will apply broadly to single-family

and duplex zones inside urban containment boundary areas and regional growth strategies,

and to municipalities with a population over a certain threshold prescribed in regulation,

which is likely, as we've said, 5,000.

If one of these municipalities has an urban containment boundary laid out in their

official community plan, they're also permitted to respect that growth boundary.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada