2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, February 15, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 32, Number 5

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2016

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

THE IMPORTANCE OF A
HEALTHY WATERSHED

B. Routley: Our communities want more community-based watershed management involvement, and there are many reasons why communities need to be given the tools to manage our watershed at the local level. Unfortunately, we live in a time when both the federal government and this provincial government have dramatically reduced staff and budgets of the environmental support systems for the government of British Columbia.

These staff would normally provide on-the-ground monitoring of watersheds. This government has moved primarily to a professional reliance model, which is now in place. What this means on the ground is that there are less scientists acting in the public interest. There is less compliance and enforcement capability. This results in the government doing less and less remedial action or any action at all where environmental problems are taking place.

[1005]

[R. Lee in the chair.]

As the commitments and involvement of the provincial government are reduced or abandoned, there is a need to have at least a minimum of empowerment and support for our community and our citizens and local government to step into the areas that government has abandoned in terms of compliance and enforcement and to make a positive contribution to watershed management. Sadly, we have seen this taking place in the Shawnigan watershed with seniors, with moms with their children overseeing and trying to do due diligence over what’s happening at the contaminated dump site.

Specifically, within the Shawnigan contaminated-dump situation, we see a lack of the government actually having listened to the community and acting on the serious concerns of our community. This serious lack of government understanding has just outraged our communities over the mismanagement of our watershed to the point that our Cowichan Valley communities are in a legal war with this provincial government. They’re starting back today in a judicial review in court. They’ve spent scarce community resources trying to have an outcome which really just protects and secures our watershed.

I want to camp there for a minute and think about that. Really, that’s what’s happening in the province of British Columbia. We have the Cowichan Valley regional district, we have the Cowichan Tribes, we have now the Malahat band, and we have the Shawnigan Residents Association all joining together with one common cause, and that’s to ensure the protection of our watershed.

In the case of the CVRD, they spent three years developing regional zoning plans about what could be used for lands and certain sites in certain areas, which is their legal responsibility. Under the legislation in British Columbia, the CVRD has that responsibility to do zoning.

If you can believe it, or not, this government found themselves in court with the Cowichan Valley regional district arguing over technicalities. The technicality can be boiled down — in my mind, at least — to this: is this just a mine reclamation site, or is it also a landfill and a contaminated soil dump?

I think it’s pretty obvious. It’s certainly obvious to the people that live in the Cowichan Valley that you can use all the razzle-dazzle legal smoke and mirrors that you like to say, “Oh no, don’t look over here. This is a mine remediation site now. We’re remediating a minesite, and it’s got nothing whatsoever to do with a contaminated soil dump or a landfill,” which is a violation of their zoning rights.

We’ve now had a look at that matter. We’re waiting on pins and needles to see the outcome of that, but again, there is this serious lack of understanding of the provincial government that’s costing both local communities and all local taxpayers money. Certainly, the volunteers that have stepped forward to try to defend the Shawnigan watershed, through the Shawnigan Residents Association, are also spending hundreds of thousands — and now they tell me it’s headed toward $2 million, between the CVRD and the community — in trying to defend their watershed from the actions of government not listening.

At the end of the day, that means this provincial government is spending money on activities to really be at war with the communities. Again, all of the communities of the Cowichan Valley are represented either by the CVRD…. Certainly, we have the residents association doing their own due diligence on this matter.

I see this as…. The government calls this “getting to yes,” but it’s really a yes at the expense of communities. It’s a yes at the expense of watershed protection and the future water security of our province.

[1010]

This should be a government goal. I think the government has talked about changes to the Water Act. They have looked at watersheds. There are already some communities that have local management of watershed boards, but there needs to be more to fill the void.
[ Page 10338 ]

Really, our case in the Cowichan Valley, I think, can be summed up in that there was a lack of listening. Had they listened to the community’s concerns, to the huge volume that’s been turned up on this issue, why would it be that after almost three years of the CVRD establishing the zoning, of listening to the community, the government has ignored again the Cowichan Tribes and Malahat First Nation that have written letters and expressed their concerns?

It’s resulted in some horrible outcomes. We’ve now had…. The Chief of the Malahat band has resigned, sadly, because there was money involved and it came out as evidence that he was getting so much a tonne for what was going on.

Sadly, this government’s permit process, according to the court documents, suggested the statutory decision–maker has ignored a number of the community’s concerns.

J. Sturdy: I’d like to thank the member for Cowichan Valley for his remarks and bringing to the House the important topic of the importance of watersheds in British Columbia and Canada. Obviously, water is a most precious resource, and it’s of critical import to all Canadians.

One interesting fact I see is that 20 percent of our planet’s resources reside here in this country. In fact, we have more lakes than the rest of the world combined. I must admit that some days in the summer, it seems like we have more mosquitos, as well, but that’s another story.

Healthy watersheds are critically important to everyone in British Columbia — no question about that. They provide so many things — clean drinking water for residents; places for families to gather and recreate; water sources critical to business, be it farms, as in my case, or forestry or your local craft distillery; and, of course, water to sustain our ecosystems.

Government takes the protection and management of this resource very seriously, with a comprehensive permitting process for extraction and use of this critical resource. No matter what its purpose, the depth and detail of the technical work undertaken by experts at the Ministry of Environment ensure public health and the health of the watershed is properly protected.

Permitting and compliance are under the purview of dedicated ministry staff who, I have to emphasize, make evidence-based decisions based on the best available science. Our statutory decision–makers not only possess good judgment about environmental management, but they make their decisions based on administrative law.

A statutory decision–maker’s law decision always has some essential characteristics: a clear understanding of relevant statutes and regulations, and procedural fairness, which is central to any government process. Their discretion is exercised — and, I need to emphasize, exercised independently — and is consistent with the purposes of the statutory power being exercised. As elected officials, we must respect the independence of ministry technical experts.

Resource development, I think, as we all understand, by its very nature, impacts the environment. Our government is focused, yes, on growing our economy but with the necessary rules and regulations to ensure that our environment is protected. Finding that balance is critical. Even then, some people will disagree with any particular permitting decision.

With respect to the Shawnigan Lake watershed situation, ministry staff have attended the site on many occasions, have taken samples and investigated the operation for non-compliance issues. Samples taken directly from the site have shown no evidence for concern regarding human health or environmental impacts.

[1015]

While staff believe there are no issues with the company’s contact water management systems, the ministry has required a full review of water management by an independent, qualified professional and will remain in contact with the Island Health Authority and the Comox Valley regional district to ensure compliance with the permit.

To reiterate, the decision to grant the permit was a science-based decision made by a statutory decision–maker, independent of political interference. The ministry requires that qualified professionals review these applications, monitor for ongoing compliance and carry out enforcement, as necessary, based on their technical expertise. I think it’s important that we respect the independence of ministry technical experts and ensure that we do act on rational, science-based decisions.

This year the new water act was also implemented, which will replace the century-old act and, together with the existing statutory decision-making process, not only recognize the importance of our watersheds; it will ensure that we can meet our current and future water needs by strengthening our ability to protect and manage this resource in a sustainable way that protects and benefits the people and the environment.

B. Routley: In fact, the ministry’s professional reliance model has failed in the case of Shawnigan Lake in a miserable way. We have evidence that has come forward as a result of additional boreholes, and this is key.

One of the technical scientific reports that was given by the company that was overseeing the hydrology and the geology of the site tried to convince the public that there was a 75-metre impenetrable and impermeable granite layer that was going to protect the community from any potential outcome. There were at least four scientists who had raised concerns and said there is not enough testing that actually proves this speculative, I will call it, scientific opinion — based on some monitoring but not sufficient monitoring, according to other scientists.

Now, the result of the additional boreholes is that they did not support the company that had the theory of the 75-metre layer of virtually…. Instead, the results showed
[ Page 10339 ]
that the other hydrologists were right in their suspicions — namely, that there was no confining layer. Rather, there were shallow and deep bedrock layers of different permeability. The results pointed to the bedrock all being fractured bedrock aquifer, which is what one of the hydrologists had suggested was the case — that, really, the science points to fractured limestone and other results.

That’s one of the things that’s so troubling for me as representative of the Cowichan Valley — to have all of this conflicting science. I agree that we ought to be able to rely on science. Unfortunately, in this case, there are competing scientific theories, and without sufficient testing….

I’m sad to say that the statutory decision–maker for the province of British Columbia, in his own evidence, admitted he’d never even been to the site. Now, what kind of science is that, really? You don’t even show up at the site to have a look around to see how close you are to the lake. You don’t listen to your own Ministry of Environment scientists, by the way. The evidence was that….

The ministry’s own scientists said that before a permit is granted, you should do testing. Instead, what actually happened was they went ahead and did the permit, with the caveat that you should also do some testing, some more boreholes, which, by the way, obviously, they assumed were correct, and they weren’t.

Let’s get to the facts.

ECONOMIC SUCCESS

D. Ashton: On behalf of the people of Penticton, Summerland, Peachland and Naramata, it is an honour to speak about our province’s economic success.

[1020]

It is not a coincidence or by some happy accident that the province of British Columbia’s economy leads our nation. Our province is the first in Canada, with 50,000 new jobs in 2015, and tomorrow we will introduce our fourth consecutive balanced budget, a fact that no other province in this great country can claim.

Our government’s philosophy is the biggest reason for our province standing on top of the economic pile in Canada. We don’t spend $1.10 for every dollar that we collect, a key element in the credit-rating agencies’ analysis of British Columbia’s triple-A credit rating. We are focused on growing the economy, not on the size of government. And because our economy is strong, we have the ability to make significant investments into the services that we all depend upon most, such as health care and education.

It is important to create a supportive climate where the private sector recognizes that B.C. is a safe harbour for investments. It is the private sector, not government, that creates jobs. We must give the private sector as much certainty as possible and make sure that we get out of the way by eliminating needless delays and unnecessary red tape.

Government red tape is an impediment to the success by discouraging investment. We believe in keeping taxes low, because families know better than government where to spend their hard-earned dollars. We believe in balancing the budget, because we were taught never to saddle our children or future generations with excessive debt or to spend more than we collect. It is crucially important to be fiscally responsible. As a result of our fiscal prudence and controlled spending, our triple-A credit rating has been reaffirmed by the credit-rating agencies.

We believe in eliminating the provincial debt, and the introduction of B.C.’s prosperity fund takes this step one step closer. Our province has every advantage to stand apart on the world stage. Our vast resources, competitive taxes, stable and well-regulated financial system and fiscally responsible government attract investors from all around the world.

As a result, British Columbia is one of North America’s most competitive and dynamic business locations. We are focused on fostering the conditions to keep British Columbia diverse, strong and growing. These are long-term goals that can’t be achieved by not sticking to a plan. Our plan focuses on the long-term fundamentals to grow British Columbia’s diverse economy and to support job creation. Job growth and unemployment trends are headed in the right direction, and these are signs that our strategy is working.

Throughout our B.C. jobs plan, we will leverage our competitive strength in eight key areas: forestry; mining; natural gas; transportation, with the ports, marine and aerospace; technology, which is clean energy, clean tech and the green economy; international education; agrifoods; and tourism. These sectors are very important because they bring new dollars to British Columbia’s economy, dollars that will help create additional employment.

As our key economic strategy, we will continue to evaluate the B.C. jobs plan and the targets and actions that line up with the dynamic needs of this growing economy in British Columbia. Our strong economic performance means that we have the capacity to invest in our province’s health care, education and other social programs.

I’d like to focus on two sectors that are vital to the Okanagan’s economy. One is agriculture foods and the other aerospace. I’ll start with Okanagan cherries and the great news that came out last week. In 2015, B.C. cherry exports increased dramatically from the previous year to 13,600 metric tonnes — a 56 percent increase — at a value of $91.7 million, a 70 percent increase. The data also includes a significant rise in our cherry exports, from $2.7 million in 2014 to $11.2 million in 2015. That’s regarding the sour cherry industry.

Focusing on high-value B.C. products like late-season cherries is a key to growing the B.C. government’s agrifood sector to a $15-billion-a-year industry by 2020. As a direct result of our trade efforts to China, the ex-
[ Page 10340 ]
port value of fresh sweet cherries has been more than doubled from 2014 to 2015, rising from $9.9 million to $24 million.

We are going to continue to build on this momentum. Thanks to the close working relationship with our provincial cherry industry, we look forward to exploring new opportunities with the Pacific Rim countries that recently signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership. British Columbians have always known about this tasty, sweet fruit from the Okanagan. The secret is out, and together we want to share B.C. cherries with the world.

[1025]

The agrifood sector is critical to B.C.’s future growth and development. By focusing on an economic climate that supports success with the lowest income tax rates in Canada and strategic investments in innovation and infrastructure, we are working to provide B.C. farm families with a chance to earn a higher income while ensuring that our province has growth in the agrifoods economy and a reliable food source for years.

I look forward to hearing the response from the members opposite. I will speak about the Okanagan’s thriving aerospace industry in my concluding remarks.

C. James: Thank you to the member for bringing forward this statement to talk about B.C.’s economic success. I would like to start by reminding the member, and all the members on the other side, that the economy is there to benefit the people of this province. The economy is not there for the economy’s sake. The economy is there to make sure that everyone benefits and everyone contributes and everyone gains from a strong economy. Sadly, in this province, we see just the opposite.

The member mentioned low taxes, and I think that’s the place I’d like to start, to begin with. When you take a look at the fees and services and costs that families are now paying compared to when this government came into power in 2001, in fact you see just the opposite. You see the opposite of low taxes. Families are paying more and getting less when it comes to costs under this government. I just want to touch on a couple of them, because I think it’s important to acknowledge them.

I want to start off with the medical services tax. I call it a tax because that’s what it is. Every British Columbian who pays it knows it’s a tax. The government can say it’s a fee for service all they want, but everyone knows that that’s a tax that people are paying. It has gone up 108 percent since 2001 — 108 percent.

That’s not the only tax that the public is paying, when this member talks about lower taxes. ICBC — a 48 percent increase since 2001. B.C. Ferries — a 77 percent increase. Tuition has more than doubled. B.C. Hydro — 74 percent and increasing over the next four years, as already announced by this government.

In fact, hard-working families are having it harder and harder to get by. If you look at some of the stats, it’s very clear that they point to exactly that. If you take a look at the fact that B.C. families have the highest per-capita debt in the country — right here, every adult and every child, $10,000 a year higher than the national average — that says that families are struggling.

Vancity, about a month ago, came out with a report around payday loan use in British Columbia and the huge increase in payday loans. From the interviews they did with individuals who were, sadly, using that kind of ability to be able to manage, it wasn’t that they were going for extras. They’re going for basics. They’re looking at how to pay off their grocery bill for the month, how to pay their hydro bill, how to manage their rent. Those are the kinds of basics that people are looking for in the province.

I want to speak just for a moment on the issue of the private sector, because the member raised the private sector — the thriving private sector in British Columbia. Again, this is a statistic I don’t hear the government often using, but private sector job growth in British Columbia is sixth in the country. Sixth — I wouldn’t call that a thriving sector. That, in fact, is not a fantastic stat.

What about wage growth? That’s another area where you take a look at the strength of the economy, benefiting people. British Columbia is ninth when it comes to wage growth — ninth.

We on this side of the House want a thriving economy. We want to see a growing economy in British Columbia, and we want to see that growing economy benefit every British Columbian. That’s the strength of a growing economy. We don’t want to see people having trouble getting by. We don’t want to see families having to struggle.

Even when they try and benefit themselves — do things like upgrading to be able to get a better job, to be able to get a better-paying job to support their family — even there, the government makes it tougher by now charging for adult basic education to upgrade, charging for ESL business courses so that people who immigrate to this country and want to contribute aren’t able to because now they have to pay for those courses, where previously those courses were free. Even when individuals want the opportunity, are looking for it and are doing everything right, even there, the government is making it more difficult for them.

[1030]

While the member talks about a strong economy and the strength of the economy, I certainly believe that that economic benefit should point to hard-working British Columbians who, in fact, are contributing to that. We just don’t see that. The other area, of course, is the issue of poverty and the rising growth of poverty. The issue of housing I haven’t had the opportunity to touch on yet — again, not simply buying a house, which people can’t even dream about these days in many parts of our province, but rental accommodation and the cost of rental accommodation for individuals. Again, a long list, when you take a look at the challenges.
[ Page 10341 ]

D. Ashton: I would also like to thank the member opposite from Beacon Hill. We agree to disagree on some things, but again, thanks for her remarks.

Earlier I discussed our province’s agrifood industry and, particularly, the Okanagan’s cherry jubilee that is sweeping around the globe. Now I would briefly like to speak about aviation in the Okanagan Valley, a topic I have a personal passion for because it was 40 years ago this year that I obtained a pilot’s licence — something that I treasure and something I that continue to enjoy.

The Okanagan is home to some of Canada’s leading aviation industry facilities. First of all, I want to talk about one in my riding, Penticton, which is HNZ Topflight, a helicopter flight-training company that is known and very well respected around the world.

This company’s specialty is training helicopter pilots to fly in the most challenging mountain terrain in the world. HNZ has done so without an accident since its inception in 1951, when it was known by its familiar and original name, Okanagan Helicopters, founded by Carl Agar. That’s 150,000 hours of training that are accident-free in some of the toughest conditions imaginable, and it is a safety record that is unmatched in the industry. Because of this, HNZ Topflight in Penticton is renowned throughout this world for its training programs which have sent thousands of graduates to fly helicopters in other countries.

Next I would like to go up the valley to Kelowna, a place that we always have a little bit of a challenge with — between Penticton and Kelowna. Kelowna is a very large and expanding city in the Okanagan, which another aviation juggernaut calls home: KF Aerospace, originally known as Kelowna Flightcraft when it was founded in 1970 as small maintenance for aircraft. I actually remember Barry Lapointe and Jim Rogers, two of the gentlemen that founded it, working outside in inclement weather with a tarp spread over an airplane.

It has gradually expanded over the years by adding a commercial carrier service and passenger charter services. Today, Kelowna Flightcraft — or KF Aerospace — is one of Canada’s leading aerospace companies that maintains, flies, modifies, engineers, leases and paints aircraft for customers around the world. It has 1,000 employees across Canada, with approximately 600 who work at the Kelowna operation. KF Aerospace is a one-stop shop for servicing the needs of corporate, commercial and military aviation.

Also in Kelowna is that city’s impressive international airport, which has grown to be the tenth busiest in Canada. I can remember when it was smaller than Penticton’s. Kelowna’s airport has had humble beginnings since 1946, with a 3,000-foot grass strip and a few small aircraft. Today, Kelowna’s international airport is Canada’s tenth-busiest airport in terms of passenger volume, with 1.6 million passengers last year. That’s double the number who passed through Kelowna as recently as 1997.

I could go on and on about the Okanagan and about our government’s economic performance. At that point in time, I would say thank you.

COMMUNITIES DESERVE TO BE SAFE

H. Bains: We all know that safety and security of our neighbourhoods is becoming a number one priority and a number one concern in many of our communities. When we always worry, walking around in our own neighbourhoods…. Getting mugged or assaulted while taking a walk in our neighbourhood or while using our public facilities. When you hear shots fired on a regular basis. Innocent people getting killed in their own homes. Schools hit by flying bullets and schools in a lockdown position on a regular basis. Or bullets flying through your own house walls, narrowly missing the people inside. If you don’t feel safe in your own home, nothing else matters. It’s that simple.

In many B.C. communities, they feel and they actually face that violent crime is on the rise.

[1035]

Hon. A. Virk: The stats say otherwise.

H. Bains: The Minister of Technology is chirping away out there without looking at the stats. He should be looking at his own backyard, where….

Interjections.

H. Bains: I’ll get into the stats so that he will understand, so that he will start representing his members better, with some facts.

When that happened, that crime continued to rise in many communities in B.C., people started to lose faith in our crime-fighting strategies. They started to lose trust in our police, and that is not very good.

Their fears are not unfounded. For the benefit of the Minister of Technology, who is from Surrey, these are the facts. These are the facts by Stats Canada.

The B.C. crime rate in 2014 — that’s the last one available — increased over 2013 by 2.4 percent. The B.C. crime severity index went up over the previous year and stands at 37 percent higher than the national average. He should know better. He was a police officer. He should know better. The violent crime severity rate stands at 77 percent in B.C., which, again, is 10 percent higher than the national average.

Those are the facts. Those are not my numbers. Those are not anybody else’s numbers, so he should start to pay attention. No wonder nothing gets done, because the government side of the representatives don’t take these things seriously.

Take a look at Surrey, where the minister is from. Let’s take a look at that. If you look at the quarter-after-quarter
[ Page 10342 ]
comparison, 2015 over 2014…. These are the facts from Surrey RCMP. Let’s take a look.

Violent crimes total, quarter 4 compared to quarter 4 of 2014, 27 percent up, and for the year, 36 percent up.

Hon. A. Virk: The lowest rate in decades.

H. Bains: I can’t believe that the minister…. I hope the minister stands up and makes those statements here in the House, not chirping away out there.

Attempted murders — quarter 4 in 2015, compared to the previous quarter, 400 percent up. Robbery up. Sexual assault, 65 percent up. Assaults, 10 percent up. Abduction and kidnapping, 69 percent up.

That’s not just the last quarter compared to the last quarter of 2014. Let’s take a look at quarter 3 and quarter 2. Each — quarter 3 in 2015 compared to quarter 3 of 2014, and quarter 2 of 2015 compared to 2014 — have gone up significantly, not just 1 or 2 percent. Each quarter has gone up from the previous quarter.

And for the year, take a look at these numbers. In 2015 compared to 2014 — and I hope the minister is paying attention to these numbers, RCMP numbers — 36 percent violent crimes are up; attempted murders, 211 percent up; sexual assault, 40 percent up; assaults, 19 percent up; and abduction and kidnapping, 65 percent. Those are the facts, and I hope that the minister will take those and go home and start to pay attention.

Let’s take a look at what is happening. Why is that happening? In three key component areas to fight crime — that is, in prevention, in enforcement and in deterrence — we’re failing in each of those areas.

When you look at prevention, the parents who see that their children are going sideways in grades 6 or 7 — they are on their own. You go to the school, and teachers don’t have resources.

The Wraparound program in Surrey. Rob Rai — I have a lot of respect for, does a superb job. The Premier went there for a photo op, gave some money for a photo op purpose, left half of the kids — at-risk kids — off the list who are on the waiting list. Even today they are helping about 100 at-risk kids right now, and there are about 40 kids who should be in the program right now who are left out on the waiting list.

[1040]

Enforcement, neglected by many authorities for over 15 years, left us — not giving us enough police protection.

Finally, 100 police officers are coming. That is after the community and the opposition and everyone concerned put pressure and told in the last election, the city elections, that crime is the number one concern. They announced 100 police officers.

When they even arrive, all 100 of them, our ratio of population versus police will be lower than Vancouver. Before those 100 police officers, we were No. 32 in major communities in B.C. That’s not acceptable. That’s why drug deals in every neighbourhood out there go unchecked. That is a fertile ground for inviting more violence.

M. Hunt: I would like to thank the hon. member for putting forward this motion. Before I begin, I’m certain that I can speak on behalf of all members of this House, by saying that each and every one of us was shocked and saddened by the personal loss suffered by the hon. member due to a senseless act of violence in April.

Every act of violence hurts us. In one way or another, it hurts us all. Whether it’s immediate family members who are inflicted with the terrible pain and suffering or whether it’s the broader community, as has been mentioned by the member, it shakes our sense of community. It shatters our sense of security within our community.

This is an issue we all must address. That’s why last week’s Speech from the Throne made a specific mention of the fact that we have too many mothers that are mourning their sons who didn’t come home. The safety of our families and communities is a priority for each and every one of us, and it is not just limited to the Lower Mainland — whether Surrey or Delta.

The government recognizes that we are dealing with a criminal underworld across the province that attempts to use violence in order to, in effect, try and silence others. Criminals want to discourage people from coming forward to police with vital information.

We also know that criminals and violent offenders don’t stay within municipal boundaries. With the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team, the combined forces’ anti-gang unit, neither does police. The Integrated Homicide Investigation Team — or IHIT, as it’s normally referred to — works with several municipal partners as well as 28 RCMP detachments across B.C.

IHIT also utilizes the Real Time Intelligence Centre to monitor and offer real-time assistance during unfolding serious crime incidents in Surrey, Delta, as well as the entire rest of the province of British Columbia. The centre provides timely intelligence assistance to local investigators, and it comes right at their fingertips in their police cruisers. It’s a system that is so efficient, it is being studied by law enforcement agencies across North America.

Our community has come up with a number of collective responses as well. We launched the SMART program, which stands for Surrey Mobilization and Resilience Table. It addresses social issues before they become police problems. This model has been established in other parts of Canada, but SMART is the first risk-driven intervention model in British Columbia.

Others initiatives to proactively improve public safety in Surrey include the Wrap program, which the member referred to. This is a partnership between the Surrey school district, the Surrey RCMP and the city of Surrey, which also helps to keep at-risk youth out of gangs and a criminal lifestyle. The Wrap program offers a comprehensive, collaborative support program for students who
[ Page 10343 ]
exhibit signs of gang-association behaviour. The goal is to positively attach youth to their school, which is their community, and the home by building trusting and positive relationships. There are now over 100 youth enrolled in the Surrey Wrap program, nearly double the amount from one year ago.

Furthermore, last April Public Safety Canada announced approximately $3.5 million in funding for five years for the Surrey gang reduction program. The funding is targeted to Surrey Wrap and other programs that will provide support for approximately 400 at-risk youth between 11 and 19 years of age.

In addition, last April the government announced a $5 million investment in programs focused on crime prevention and ending violence against women.

[1045]

We have numbers of programs in our communities. Last week we celebrated the Moose Hide with First Nations. We have the Rakhi program with the Punjabi community, which means “love and respect.”

We recognize that violence is a challenge. It’s a challenge throughout this community. I think one of the things that we might also want to do in the midst of this is recognize that we have that even when we watch our televisions and we watch Hollywood and the rest of those things. But I’m pleased to report that in 2015, versus 2014, we had over 1,860 more arrests for violent offences. We had more than 4,445 additional charges for violent offence.

In Toronto, there was a study done concerning the issue of security. The rate of security and the sense of security in a home and in a family rises with the number of neighbours that they know. That is also being reinforced by the insurance companies, who give a reduction on your homeowner’s program if, in fact, you’re part of the Block Watch program. In Surrey, we have 774 of those.

H. Bains: I do appreciate the member from Panorama. At least there’s a member who appreciates and acknowledges the issues of Surrey when it comes to crime. He mentioned that so much is being done by so many different people out there. That is quite a contrast from what you were hearing from the Minister of Technology, who should know better. I appreciate the member from Panorama at least speaking and expressing the feelings of our communities in Surrey. So thank you very much.

As the member from Panorama has said, the police force and many of the community organizations are doing everything that they can, but they can’t do it alone. Whatever they have done, with the resources that they have, it’s not working. We have seen some successes, as the member has mentioned, but we still had 56 shootings last year. We just had another shooting a couple of nights ago, and people see no end to it.

The police are doing everything that they can. Arrests are being made, but then they don’t have all the resources they need — first, to enforce, and second, to proceed their charges through prosecution. When you have 100 new police officers, you need to add more resources to the prosecution branch as well. I’m hearing that they’re not getting either. We already have longer delays.

The member for Abbotsford South is a co-author of a report on the value of resources in solving crimes. Our IHIT in B.C…. The solving rate is the lowest in Canada — for years, not just last year — according to that plan. That is a member of the House, a sitting member of the House right now. We are about 20 or 25 percent lower. We have a lower success rate in gang-related homicide.

The reason that he identified is lack of resources — in wiretap, in surveillance, in investigation teams — that they need. Many times they requested those resources, they were denied. The reason given: not enough resources.

Once the members of the government start to recognize that this is the key area where the resources are needed…. Police need additional resources in catching those bad people, prosecuting their charges through the court system. That will be a serious deterrent. When you have 70 percent of the people, bad people who know that if they shoot and kill somebody…. It’s a 70 percent chance in Surrey, in B.C., that they will stay free because they will never get caught, never mind charges.

The reason, according to the report from the member for Abbotsford South, is because of lack of resources. That is what is needed, and I hope the government members start to pay attention to this.

GUIDE DOGS

L. Larson: On behalf of my colleague from Delta North, I’m pleased to speak to the following private member’s statement on guide and service dogs in British Columbia.

Guide and service dogs are a lifeline for those who use their assistance. They often provide more than just a service to people with disabilities. In many cases, they are family. Their support allows their handlers to live fully integrated lives despite the challenges they may face.

[1050]

On January 18, 2016, new legislation came into effect to modernize the guide dog and service dog guidelines in B.C., bringing higher training standards, improving accessibility to public spaces and strata properties and strengthening public safety.

The Guide Dog and Service Dog Act gives certified guide or service dog handlers access rights equal to those enjoyed by all members of the public. The act updates guide dog and service dog guidelines by expanding tenancy rights to include strata properties and certified retired dogs residing with their handlers, providing public access rights for certified dogs in training, recognizing service dogs in addition to guide dogs, requiring a
[ Page 10344 ]
high training standard and establishing a more robust decision-making process for clarification, strengthening compliance and enforcement.

The most part of any new legislation is the consultation process. This legislation is part of the commitment we made, in Accessibility 2024, to modernize B.C.’s guide and service dog legislation. Our government consulted with stakeholders, which included reaching out to the business community, transit, landlords, strata representatives and training schools.

In addition, we consulted with the coalition group advocating the modernizing of British Columbia’s guide animal legislation. Respondents indicated the need for clarity on access rights and high training standards, which this new legislation delivers.

Dog handlers will be able to submit certification applications to the security programs division of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Once these applications are processed, handlers seeking certification for guide and service dogs that were not trained by an accredited school will be able to have their dogs tested by the Justice Institute of British Columbia. Staff will also reach out to transit police, RCMP and local departments to inform them of the new rules and enforcement scheme as the regulations are developed.

New standards will be enforced through penalties. However, the goal is to prevent and address contraventions first through public education. Clear, enforceable rules around access rights, certification and identification will help ensure public safety. All previous offences will be continued from the current act, and new offences will be added for falsely purporting to have a certified dog and for interfering with a certified dog.

To help guide and service dogs become certified, the legislation outlines a straightforward and streamlined certification process. The preconditions for certification will be confirmation from a B.C. physician or nurse practitioner of the disability and need for a guide or service dog, details of the training program undertaken, a description of the tasks the dog will perform to assist with daily living and basic information about photographs for the ID card.

There are two separate streams in the certification of guide and service dogs: (1) dogs and handlers that have been trained by an organization accredited by either Assistance Dogs International or International Guide Dog Federation and (2) all other applicants, regardless of their training program.

Our government also recognizes that not everyone who requires a guide or service dog acquires a dog from an accredited training school. In order to ensure that these dogs have been trained to a high standard and pose no public safety risk, these dog-and-handler teams will be required to successfully complete an assessment through the Justice Institute of British Columbia. In addition, applicants will be required to submit medical and veterinarian certificates as part of the application process.

Our government recognizes the strong bond that is formed between a handler and his or her guide or service dog. When the guide or service dog is retired, the dog is no longer working and no longer requires public access. However, the handler may face tenancy issues if the dog is to remain with him or her. A retired guide- or service-dog certificate will allow the dog to continue to reside with the handler and to receive retirement certification.

I look forward to further comments from the responder.

[1055]

M. Mungall: It gives me pleasure to rise in this House to talk about the changes that have taken place to the Guide Dog and Service Dog Act recently. The reason why it does is that, historically, the act only focused on guide dogs, rather than all service dogs.

As we know, dogs are in service for a variety of supports to humans. Companionship is the most notable one. This act does not focus on that but focuses on dogs that are helping people who are blind or people with epilepsy, for example, and including people with mental illness, like schizophrenia, as well. There is a variety of services that dogs provide for people with disabilities.

A young woman named Tessa Hawkins was recently featured in The Province. She has epilepsy, and she had a tough time getting a job. She would go to interviews with her dog, and she would not get the job, time and time again. In fact, one employer said: “Oh, we don’t have room for pets.”

Now, we all know that her dog is so much more than a pet. Her dog is there to ensure her safety and her well-being, should she have a seizure. Of course, this new legislation will positively impact Tessa’s life. She has since been able to get job. She went to an interview without her dog, though, and was quite curious, as she looked back on her life and considered that maybe she never got those jobs because her dog was with her.

She wrote to the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation about this. That letter was forwarded on to the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Justice let her know that should she want to seek any action on past experiences, she would have to go to the human rights code and go to the Human Rights Tribunal, because all of this happened to Tessa before January 18, 2016.

That this legislation is coming to pass now, I would have to say, is long overdue, because it didn’t help people like Tessa. When the member opposite talks about this being something that came forward from Accessibility 2024, which was released in 2014, she’s not quite accurate. I actually brought this to the attention of this Legislature and to the Minister of Justice in 2012 during budget estimates debate.

A constituent of mine went into a restaurant with her service dog and was quickly ushered out of the restaurant. She was aghast. As a person with disabilities, weren’t her
[ Page 10345 ]
rights being trampled on in this situation? I looked into it, and what did I find? Actually, the restaurant had the right to do that, because the act only focused on guide dogs and not all service dogs.

In 2012, I asked for this government to act, to act swiftly. I was told that they would. Four years later — that is very slow, even by government standards, on legislation that could have addressed this problem much sooner, when needed, and could have had a more positive impact on the life of Tessa Hawkins.

I thank the government for finally coming to the table on this issue, but it was overdue. But going forward, I know that people with disabilities throughout British Columbia are going to finally be able to bring their service dogs with them wherever they go and know that their rights will have to be respected.

L. Larson: I would like to thank the member opposite for commenting on this private member’s statement entitled “Guide Dogs.” We all understand that there have been issues and it’s long overdue. As I’ve indicated in my earlier comments, British Columbia is synonymous with diversity, and ensuring equality of access to public spaces for those who depend on certified guide and service dogs is one more way we honour and celebrate that diversity.

Guide dogs provide assistance to people with visual impairment. Service dogs are routinely used to help people with various disabilities that are not able to perform certain actions in their daily routine. For example, a service dog aids those with issues such as severe hearing loss, epilepsy, autism or diabetes. The legislation does not set limits around which breed of dog can be certified as a guide or service dog. Rather, the legislation is meant to require specific and high training standards for all guide and service dogs in B.C.

[1100]

Generally, service dogs are used for things such as autism, diabetes and hearing loss. However, the legislation does not limit the use of a service dog for specific disabilities. In order for an individual to show they require the use of a guide or a service dog due to a disability, the regulations will require that confirmation from a B.C. physician or nurse practitioner. These requirements will be developed and set in legislation.

These legislative advancements are the result of consultation with key knowledgable stakeholders, and we thank them for the insights that have helped to make these improvements possible.

The Guide and Service Dog Act is one more step towards making B.C. the most progressive province in the country for people with disabilities. I’m pleased to support this legislation. It will help those who rely on the service from guide and service dogs. These certification changes will enable people who rely on a guide or service dog to enjoy the same protected rights and opportunities as every citizen.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 2 — AFFORDABLE HOUSING

D. Eby: I move the motion:

[Be it resolved that this House recognize that housing costs are increasingly unaffordable and out of reach for many British Columbians, and that urgent action is needed to increase housing affordability province wide.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

When Vancouver was named the third most expensive city in the world by the Demographia study this year, the government said nothing. They did nothing. Well, that’s not exactly fair. The government did say something. It’s just what they said had very little content for those concerned about an out-of-control real estate market in Metro Vancouver and loss of housing affordability across the province.

The Minister Responsible for Housing said that it was his opinion that real estate in Metro Vancouver was “actually pretty affordable.” The Premier contributed her thoughts as well, telling CTV that if people couldn’t afford to live in the Lower Mainland, they should simply move to Fort St. James or Prince Rupert.

The Minister Responsible for Housing wasn’t just a man of talk. He started a new program, a program that actually makes publicly owned non-profit housing more expensive to rent.

Under this program, the province sells public assets, social housing across the province, to non-profit organizations. Unfortunately, when they sell this social housing, they do not and they cannot, because of the economics, guarantee that all of the units will continue to be rented at non-market rates — that is, rents affordable to seniors, to people with disabilities, to families living in poverty. A significant number of these units will be rented at what he calls market rates, which is a fancy way of saying rates that are not affordable to the people who used to live in those units.

The Housing Minister is actually increasing the rents in public housing in the middle of a provincial housing crisis. With the money made from this scheme, the minister and the Premier last week announced their plan to invest some of it in new social housing — about $50 million in this coming fiscal year. It was the second time they’ve announced this program.

Why did they have to re-announce this plan? Because they were caught trying to redirect this money away from actual new money for actual new affordable housing into general revenue. It was the opposition, with the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association, that forced this government to reverse track and re-announce this program, which was contained originally in the 2015 service plan. We forced them to use the money as actual new money for actual new affordable housing, not just directed into general revenue, we hope.
[ Page 10346 ]

The actual actions of this government speak much louder than many of the words we’re about to hear. For example, if this government is investing so much money in affordable housing, why have they had so little effect?

Why has the Housing Minister stopped counting turnaways from provincial emergency shelters across the province? Turnaways are the number of people literally turned away from shelters because there is nowhere for them to go, except tent cities out front of those shelters, the side of the road or a courthouse lawn — turnaways that include seniors, families, people actually working who can’t afford to rent.

[1105]

While the Premier and her Housing Minister hold media events in Vancouver to pat each other on the back for their success in the housing market, leaving families in the dust, seniors no longer able to afford housing, people actually working and unable to afford rent, there’s a problem. For some reason the government doesn’t recognize this problem.

How can we have a real estate watchdog that held only a single hearing into a realtor’s conduct over the entirety of last year despite notorious cases of fraud, evading anti-money-laundering controls, theft from clients, misrepresentations, breach of duties — all part of the greedy grasping of an overheated housing market in Metro Vancouver?

How can we have the head of the largest investment firm in the world — Laurence Fink from BlackRock — say, “Put your money into the Metro Vancouver housing market, into condos, as an investment; use housing for families as a stock or a bond,” driving up prices for people who actually live and work in our communities, and this government says nothing about these massive inflows of international money into our housing market?

The Finance Minister has telegraphed some of his plans. He says he plans to raise the threshold for first-time homebuyers so they don’t have to pay the property transfer tax to half a million dollars. So if you’re buying a half-a-million-dollar home, maybe you won’t have to pay the property transfer tax.

Hon. Speaker, I will tell you who is not paying the property transfer tax right now. It is the shadow flippers, who are selling a home not once, not twice, but three times sometimes, four times, profiting each step, not paying the property transfer tax once. We’ll hear a lot of talk from this government on housing affordability today, but we’re looking for action.

L. Reimer: Thank you to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey for bringing forward this motion.

Everybody deserves a home. Here in British Columbia, our government is taking action to ensure that people have access to a safe and affordable place to call home. Last Friday the Premier announced the largest single social and affordable housing investment in the province’s history. Over the next five years, the province is committing a total of $355 million to create upwards of 2,000 new affordable housing units across British Columbia. Never before has a government made this large an investment in housing.

Through the new provincial investment in affordable housing program, individuals with low to moderate income will have access to affordable housing options throughout British Columbia. This program will work on a partnership basis, because we know this approach is the most effective and sustainable means to providing housing options.

B.C. Housing will be issuing requests for proposals to partner with municipalities, non-profit societies and other community groups throughout B.C. on innovative housing projects that create more affordable housing for those in the greatest need.

Non-profits have asked government to transfer housing assets to them for many years. Owning the land will help them to improve long-term planning and to secure the financing they need to be sustainable. The asset transfer will support and strengthen the non-profit sector, which operates 90 percent of social housing in B.C.

Since 2001, we have invested $4.4 billion to provide affordable housing for low-income individuals, seniors and families in communities across our province. In fact, more than 100,000 households in British Columbia benefit from a diverse range of provincial housing programs and services.

Different people have different needs at any one particular time. Some suffer from mental illness and struggle with addictions, so we offer a broad range of services. This includes funding for emergency shelters, outreach and supportive housing to help homeless people get off the street and begin to rebuild their lives.

In the Tri-Cities, I was pleased to recently tour with the minister our new homeless shelter at 3030 Gordon, which is both an emergency shelter and transitional housing. We also have subsidized rental units for individuals and families and rent assistance to keep private market rentals affordable for low-income families and seniors.

Last year more than 7,200 people were connected to housing through outreach and shelter services in British Columbia. We spend approximately $70 million annually to fund close to 1,740 permanent year-round shelter beds in 33 communities, more than double the approximately 880 that existed in 2001.

I would like to use this occasion to recognize the hon. member from Fort Langley. Over the past ten years, whatever portfolio the minister was assigned, the Housing file has always followed him for Fort Langley–Aldergrove. During that period, two Premiers have trusted the minister with the Housing file, and for good reason. He has presided over the most successful housing strategy in North American history.

[1110]

Even the former member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who vacated her seat in 2015, made a point in her farewell speech to credit the minister for taking every case seriously and making every effort to resolve them.

It is, therefore, not surprising that last Friday’s announcement is, in fact, truly historic. Certainly, we could always be doing more, but this installment of $355 million over the next five years will help ensure that we have a broad range of housing options for those in the greatest need.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, we have a question before us. Is housing a right, or is housing just for the rich? Unfortunately, this government is deciding that housing is just for the rich. They call it the most successful housing strategy in North America, in the world, in the known universe. Well, when people cannot afford their rent, when they cannot afford their mortgage, when they’re going bust, when they’re ending up homeless, that’s not success in my books. It may well be on the government side, but that is a failure, an abject failure.

What does the minister offer? He says it’s successful. What does he offer when you point to the number of homeless people on the streets increasing? He says: “Well, um, I’ve got an anecdote to share.” But, no, we don’t need any real numbers. What does the Premier say? She says: “Well, you can move to Fort St. John. You can move to the north.” Those are not solutions. Those are sidestepping. Those are failures. We should have a government that puts British Columbians’ housing needs first, not the needs of the rich to see that their assets continue to increase, not the needs of those who are just looking out for an investment property.

You look across community after community after community. You find empty homes that are bought just simply as investments. In my own community, you find one-quarter of Coal Harbour housing sitting vacant. Why? Simply because it’s an asset that appreciates in value, while this government does nothing. When you point that out to them, they say: “Oh, we have no data.” When we say, “Here’s a way to collect data,” they refuse.

This is impacting renters too. This government is focused only on those who can afford to own. Well, we also have to consider those who rent in this province — the over 40 percent who rent. In my community, one in three is paying more than 50 percent of their income just to be able to stay in their home. One in two pays more than 30 percent. A number — I find them; I talk to them — end up on the street through no fault of their own because of illness, etc. That’s why we tried to start a rent bank, and it’s going well. Did the province embrace that? No, they didn’t, instead preferring to take a hands-off approach as people end up homeless.

We need to fix the residential tenancy branch. It is not working. Renovictions — breaking the law to try and push people out just so you can jack up rents — are the way it’s working. On the government side, they think that’s a success. I think that’s a failure. You actually have to enforce the law. If people break the law — whether it be landlords, whether it be tenants — you have to enforce the law. This government refuses. Not once have they collected money from companies — or tenants, as well — who have broken the law, through administrative penalties. Not once.

We need to look at other models — Quebec, San Francisco, New York — and to look at the whole range of affordability options that exist to bring in greater rental affordability, not worsen it. This government just recently increased the cost. You got a challenge with your tenant? You got a challenge with your landlord? Now you have to pay 100 bucks.

A person I know has been evicted, unevicted, evicted, unevicted — all because the guy wanted to buy a house. He said: “I need a place to stay while I’m trying to buy the house.” You know what happened? He said: “You’re evicted.” Then he sent an email saying: “You’re not evicted.” But according to the RTB, they actually had to appeal, to say: “You can’t evict us just so you can short-term use our home and pay 100 bucks to do it.” Well, that’s putting it further and further out of reach for vulnerable people as well.

This just shows exactly how this government does not care about housing affordability issues. They decide that those who pay the cheques on their side to bankroll their campaigns matter — big real estate corporations, big landlord corporations. But when it comes to the people, a big fat zero.

British Columbians deserve better. They deserve much, much better. We on the New Democrat side will fight for them each and every step of the way to improve housing affordability, to stand up for renters’ rights and to make a difference so that British Columbians actually are first when it comes to housing in this province.

[1115]

D. Bing: On behalf of my constituents of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I rise today to speak on the motion on affordable housing. This motion addresses a broad topic where we can speak about both home-ownership affordability and providing affordable housing options for low-income individuals, seniors and families.

Housing affordability is an important issue to British Columbians. We recognize that home-ownership affordability can be challenging in B.C., particularly in Vancouver. That is why we have a number of programs in place that help keep home ownership affordable for British Columbians. These programs include the homeowner grant and the first-time-homebuyers program.

The homeowner grant is one of the key ways we help keep residential property taxes affordable for B.C. families. More than $800 million is returned to families every year. This year 91 percent of homes below the $1.2 million threshold benefit from a homeowner grant.
[ Page 10348 ]

For those people who are thinking about buying a home for the first time, we have the first-time-homebuyers program. This program is designed to help British Columbians enter the real estate market by reducing or eliminating the amount of property transfer tax B.C. residents pay when purchasing their first homes. The threshold for this program is $475,000. This exemption can save buyers up to $7,500 when purchasing their first home.

We have some options for seniors as well. There’s a seniors home-renovation tax credit, which is a refundable personal income tax credit of up to $1,000 to help individuals 65 and over with the costs of certain permanent home renovations. As well, the Home Adaptations for Independence program provides financial assistance up to $20,000 per home. This program helps low-income seniors and people with disabilities with home modifications for accessible, safe and independent living.

Lately there have been stories about real estate transactions that raise important questions that government will consider as we work to address concerns with housing prices. The superintendent of real estate has been in communication with the Real Estate Council to identify possible measures that may strengthen the public protections available to real estate buyers and sellers. If changes are necessary, they can move quickly to identify options and implement measures to address these issues. These offices have a mandate to protect the public.

We’ve already heard the council advise that it intends to appoint an independent advisory group to investigate whether assignment clauses are being used appropriately. We will be hearing about other measures government will be taking on affordability in the upcoming budget.

Last year I was working behind the scenes with the city of Maple Ridge to find a solution to the homeless camp that formed on Cliff Avenue. The government provided $550,000 for a new, temporary 40-bed shelter in Maple Ridge. Once the new shelter opened, the camp peacefully cleared and the people were found places to live.

B.C. has a diverse range of provincial housing programs and services to help people get off the street and begin rebuilding their lives. So far, 81 people in Maple Ridge have been found places to live through a range of services and available options. Outreach workers do tremendous work finding housing options that work for people. Additional supports are available, such as mental health support through clinical or in-patient treatment or counselling. B.C. Housing provides rent supplements to help people with the cost of private market rental housing. I’m pleased everyone was able to work together.

We believe in preserving affordable housing for those who need it most and, in most instances, provide support services that help them become more productive members of society.

G. Heyman: The question here is really — and it’s the question that constituents in Vancouver-Fairview ask me every time they come into my office: “Is housing a right? Do I and my children have a right to expect to be able to live in affordable housing? Or is it a privilege?”

Moments ago the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam talked about an announcement by the government last week that she claimed was historic and would put more money into affordable housing than ever before. The trouble with reading notes prepared by government spin doctors is that they need a reality check. So let’s do a reality check.

[1120]

The $355 million over five years is down $63 million from the $418 million that was part of the 2015 housing service plan. As to historic, we’re talking about 400 units of affordable housing when, in fact, in the ’80s and ’90s, B.C. was building 1,000 to 1,500 social housing units per year. The B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association says that we need to be adding 3,000 affordable units per year and that we also need $190 million to maintain the existing 60,000 units at a safe and livable standard.

There’s nothing historic or adequate about the government’s announcement. It ranks with the failure to address the housing issue that has become the hallmark of this government.

Whether it’s selling property that could be used for affordable housing, for social housing and for co-ops in order to balance its budget; whether it’s pretending there is no issue with non-resident real estate speculation and investment that leaves empty lights all over the developments in Coal Harbour while people are looking for affordable housing; whether it’s ignoring the shadow flipping and tax avoidance and harassment by real estate agents that has been going on in the Lower Mainland for years, there is nothing in the record of this government that should give Lower Mainland residents or anyone in British Columbia confidence that they are addressing housing affordability.

I have residents in Fairview who tell me they feel targeted by real estate agents who harass them to make sales. Last week, I spoke about a former constituent in Vancouver-Fairview in her 80s who was approached by a real estate agent saying: “I’d love to buy your house.” The agent even brought friends to say: “This house would be so perfect for you.” The agent said: “My dogs really would love this large backyard.” So this woman in her 80s sold the home that she had lived in for years and loved to somebody that she thought would value it the same way. Yet in a cynical fashion, within one week of this 80-year-old woman moving from her home of many years, the agent flipped it for an additional $300,000 to $400,000 over the previous selling price, and the house was torn down.

We will not advance affordability by allowing a situation where realtors do not demonstrate or act in the interests of their clients, do not disclose their vested interest — whether it’s allowed under the not adequate rules that we have now or simply a violation of those rules.
[ Page 10349 ]

This government is late to the game, very late to the game. This government is playing catch-up after revelations in the newspaper last week, and this government is desperately trying to show British Columbians that it cares about housing affordability.

But let’s simply check some recent quotes by both the Premier and the minister responsible. In July 2015, the Minister Responsible for Housing said that the province doesn’t need to collect the statistics demanded by Vancouver, nor would the information it already gathers address the city’s concern around property speculation and empty homes. “We’ve worked with the real estate guys for years and have got data on sales.” And the Premier: “There are lots of great places to live. Fort St. John is booming.”

I’ve lived in the north. It’s a great place to live, but if you work in Vancouver, you want affordable housing in Vancouver.

L. Throness: I’m happy to respond to the motion about affordable housing. I’m not at all surprised to hear about this motion from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. All of the implications of the motion, of course, are wrong: first, that there is some kind of provincewide housing crisis is simply not true; second, that everyone should expect to be able to afford to live in the city of Vancouver is incorrect; and third, that the supposed crisis justifies massive government intervention in the housing market, which it does not.

[1125]

I think we need to accept that we can’t create new land in Vancouver. There’s very limited space. We can’t change the beauty of the mountains and the ocean and the setting, its great climate, the geographic placement and all the cultural diversity that makes it an attractive place to live. So demand is unlikely to fall.

We can’t change what I would call the major structural elements of the Vancouver housing market. In fact, I would say that many homeowners are very happy about the rising value of their homes.

The member has a Vancouver-centric view, and I guess we can forgive him for that, since he lives there. But perhaps he could lift his eyes from the streets of his own city to other places in the province like Chilliwack, which is a very affordable place to live. It’s a beautiful place to live. It has lots of jobs and amenities.

In my own case, I moved several years ago from Ottawa back to the Fraser Valley. I wanted to live in Vancouver, so I explored that option. I didn’t even explore the option of buying a detached home, but I looked for condos and soon found that I wasn’t able to afford to live there.

There’s nothing wrong with that. I didn’t go to the papers. I didn’t complain to the government. I didn’t complain to the opposition. I didn’t go to the Human Rights Tribunal. I bought in Abbotsford. It was a beautiful place to live. I loved my place there.

Then I moved on to Chilliwack, where I was elected, and found an even more affordable place and a place that I like even more. Chilliwack is great. The member could come to Hope. He could come to Agassiz. He could come to Harrison Hot Springs. They’re all beautiful places to live, and very affordable.

Now, the member will, no doubt, complain that he lacks access to jobs there, and I would say that the market has a solution for a company that wants to place its company in the most expensive real estate in the province. The market will punish that business by making it more and more difficult to find workers, and this will be increasingly true as the job market tightens in the future. So companies are going to move to locations that will accommodate their employees, and it won’t require a government program to get them to do that.

But lest the member think that the government is hard of heart toward those with lower incomes, I want to give him a shortlist and educate him about some of the things that we have done. There’s the first-time-homebuyers program. There’s the homeowners’ grant, with a top-up for people in rural and northern areas of the province. We have the property tax deferral program, the seniors home-renovation tax credit, the Home Adaptations for Independence program, and who knows what great things are going to be contained in the budget tomorrow. We are all looking forward to that with great anticipation.

We have programs, also, to make housing more affordable. Since 2001 we have spent $4.4 billion to build almost 25,000 new units of affordable housing. More than 102,000 B.C. households benefit from programs like emergency shelters, supportive housing for homeless people, subsidized rental units, rent assistance to keep market rentals affordable, and SAFER, the Shelter Aid For Elderly Residents. On Friday, of course, the Premier built on these accomplishments by announcing the largest single affordable housing investment in B.C.’s history: another 2,000 units of affordable housing with a commitment of $355 million over the next five years.

What do we get from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey? No congratulations, no thanks, no happiness for those who will benefit, just more doom and gloom and criticism. I think that’s sad. No one has a God-given right to live in a particular place.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Members. Let’s have some order, please.

L. Throness: We all have to tailor our expectations to our income. That means that people like me will probably never live in Vancouver, but I do not consider myself a victim. I love Chilliwack, and I’m going to live there permanently.
[ Page 10350 ]

R. Fleming: Let me follow the member for Chilliwack-Hope by allowing myself to thank the member for Vancouver–Point Grey for discarding his alleged Vancouver-centrism and spending so much time in the capital region, which I would like to speak to this morning, helping deal with seniors in my community who right now are facing the largest renoviction crisis we’ve ever seen. We are in the middle of seeing…. Of the 23,000 rental units in this region, we are literally at risk of losing thousands of them that exist in the affordability band right now because this government has sat aside and done nothing.

Thank you again to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey for coming here and speaking with my constituents and working with housing policymakers to get something done and force this government to act.

[1130]

Housing affordability, it will be no surprise, is the number one issue in the capital regional district. It has been for a number of years. This is not according to the NDP. This is according to the United Way of Greater Victoria, the Community Social Planning Council, the real estate association, the capital regional district, the city of Victoria. It is well known to this government, yet the scale of their interventions has been so minuscule, for longer than a decade, that it has made the crisis worse and worse and worse, year by year.

Let me add some facts to how that actually plays out in real people’s lives in my community. The affordability crisis affects middle-class working families in my region who cannot rent or buy housing within their means. Of the 20,800 households in my region that are in core housing need, 53 percent of these are single households. This affects families and single renters in my region. It is driving up the number of homeless persons living in our region as well.

This year we have a vacancy rate in greater Victoria that is 0.5 percent. What that means is that at any given time, at month’s end, of 1,000 households that may be available on the rental market, actually only five are. This is like a statistical anomaly. It means that there is absolutely no churn or ability to find suitable housing for most people who either have no housing or cannot afford where they’re living now. That’s an extremely unhealthy situation for everyone.

It’s undermining the government’s own faith in rent supplement programs. That is supposedly the cure-all for affordable housing in British Columbia. As we know, when you have a 0.5 percent vacancy rate — or even a 4 percent vacancy rate, for that matter — you have very little ability for renters to secure housing. You have the deck stacked in the favour of landlords.

B.C. Housing knows this. B.C. Housing knows that the rent supplement — the takeup rate on that — is nowhere near what they wish and hope it would be, because the vacancy rate is so extreme in my community and other parts around B.C.

The reality is that affordable housing is disappearing at a much faster rate than what the contents of last Friday’s supposedly spectacular announcement was all about. We’re losing more units than this government can even get its head around to contemplate, perhaps, one day, after they sell existing social housing stock, funding to alleviate the situation.

There is a waiting list for affordable housing. This is administered by the government’s own Crown corporation, B.C. Housing, with 1,250 families on it, in the capital region right now. It grows every year. It does not get shorter, because as housing costs rise, the number of rental units in our communities have shown that they are, in fact, being reduced.

Let me talk about homelessness. I was on a ride-along last week and participated in a homeless count that was organized, in part, by non-profit agencies in the city of Victoria. What I saw was exactly what this minister and this government know is happening in our community. There are extreme gaps around housing in our community. There are extreme gaps around addiction and mental health services.

I was not surprised to be in the company of a health authority employee and to come across, in the middle of the night, a cold, shivering gentleman who was having a psychotic incident, who did not want to take the homeless survey that we were offering that night but simply wanted to go to a hospital. Now, the police did arrive at the scene, the gentleman was taken to hospital, as was his wish, and he was discharged hours later because there was nowhere for him to go.

That’s what’s happening to vulnerable people. This crisis affects middle-class people. It affects every family that’s in my region. And this government has done nothing for years and years and years.

I thank the member for putting the motion this morning.

S. Gibson: It’s my pleasure to add my voice to the motion by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. We know — there’s no question — that housing affordability is a challenge for many British Columbians, especially in Vancouver and, to some extent, in the greater Vancouver area. As the MLA for Abbotsford-Mission, I’m conscious of that. I will point out that Mission is a very desirable area for housing, and we have many people moving to that part of the valley.

[1135]

Since 2001, we’ve invested $4.4 billion to provide affordable housing for low-income individuals, seniors and families in communities across our province. We’re working hard. More than 102,000 B.C. households benefit from a diverse range of provincial housing programs and services. These include funding for emergency shelters, outreach and supportive housing to help homeless people get off the street and get their lives back on track,
[ Page 10351 ]
subsidized rental units for individuals and families, and rent assistance to keep private market rentals affordable for low-income families and seniors.

We have a number of programs in place that help home ownership to be affordable for British Columbians, such as the homeowners’ grants and the first-time homebuyers program. As our government announced on Friday, over the next five years, we’re committing $355 million to create upwards of 2,000 new affordable housing units across the province. This is the largest single affordable housing investment in B.C. history. A strong and growing economy like ours gives us the ability to make investments in critical services such as this.

This investment creates more than 2,000 new units of affordable housing over the next five years, which will ensure that more British Columbians have access to a safe and affordable place to call home — $50 million in the first year, $50 million in the second year, $75 million in the third year, $90 million in the following year and $90 million in the last year of this program. This is very exciting, and I know that the opposition will be very excited as well.

This builds on our investment of $4.4 billion in affordable housing since 2001. During that period, we’ve added more than 24,750 new units of affordable housing. More than 22,000 units are complete, and the remainder is in development or under construction. Good news.

The funding of this record investment will be generated from the non-profit asset transfer program. This program’s success is allowing us to reinvest money back into affordable housing, which also helps non-profit societies secure the financing they need to be sustainable. Non-profits have asked government to transfer housing assets to them for many years, and we’re coming through. Owning the land will help them to improve long-term planning and to secure the financing they need to be sustainable. The asset transfer will support and strengthen the non-profit sector, which operates 90 percent of social housing in our province.

We spend about $70 million a year to fund close to 1,740 government year-round shelter beds in 33 communities. That’s $70 million a year to fund 1,740 shelter beds, more than double the number that existed in 2001. Last year more than 7,200 people were connected to housing through outreach and shelter services. Since the launch of Housing Matters B.C. in 2006, we’ve invested about $150 million to purchase 51 buildings.

Since 2001, we’ve added more than 3,000 affordable housing units for low-income seniors in the province. We’ve added more than 3,400 affordable housing units for low-income families and more than 6,900 units for individuals who are homeless or homeless at risk. In addition, more than 4,400 units are specifically targeted for aboriginal people, and our government spends more than $32 million annually to support more than 820 spaces in transition and safe houses.

We believe in preserving affordable housing. We know it’s important. This government cares about housing, and our record shows that we’re committed to making housing affordable, wherever possible, throughout the province and in the Lower Mainland in British Columbia.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to be speaking to the motion moved by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey: “Be it resolved that this House recognize that housing costs are increasingly unaffordable and out of reach for many British Columbians, and that urgent action is needed to increase housing affordability province wide.”

We’ve finally seen some attention being paid to this matter by the government, by B.C. Liberals, only after repeated pressure and increasing coverage in the media with respect to not only the crisis of affordability in Metro Vancouver but also the scandals that are rocking — the claims around shadow flipping in the real estate industry.

[1140]

When I was sitting here listening to the comments from the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam, in my second term, even I was taken aback by the claims that, characterized by the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam, actually we’re seeing the B.C. Liberals showing leadership around the most successful housing strategy — not just in British Columbia, not just in Canada — in North America. I think that that is a shocking claim in the face of the crisis of housing affordability in Metro Vancouver and the crisis that we are seeing around rental stock and the crisis around the availability of housing — just shocking.

It flies in the face of the reality and hardship that British Columbians are experiencing on this issue. It’s a real contrast from the reality that people are facing in British Columbia and really lays out the clear priority for this government, for the B.C. Liberals.

When we ask ourselves, and British Columbians ask themselves, why we are in this crisis, it didn’t just happen yesterday. It hasn’t happened last year. It has been growing and increasing and intensifying over the last 15 years, certainly, under the B.C. Liberal government.

When we understand why it is that we are in such a crisis today…. When we look at the quotes of the Premier and also the Minister Responsible for Housing, I think that’s very indicative. When we hear that the Premier, in response to the difficulty of families finding affordable housing…. Her quip that they can move to Fort St. James or Prince Rupert — while those are great areas — does not address the challenges to find affordable housing in Metro Vancouver.

When we look at the record of this government in terms of their failure to address affordable housing, it is being characterized by a sell-off of property of non-profit organizations without guaranteeing affordable rentals. That has been a hallmark of their plan. When we see that they have a record of not ensuring that when they prioritize one small area around addressing housing af-
[ Page 10352 ]
fordability, around single residential occupancy and that area…. That is one area in terms of the whole spectrum of housing affordability. But the real lack of commitment and investing in the building of social housing units has contributed to the crisis that we see today.

As well, we see the lack of investigation into these fraudulent practices of shadow flipping and a real lack of enforcement of the law in British Columbia. This is contributing to the gouging of homeowners, the out-of-control escalating of real estate prices and a lack of action and a lack of concern from this government. Their action speaks louder than words. British Columbians know that when they are looking for affordable housing and are left behind.

I have my constituents in Vancouver-Kensington, young families with children looking for affordable housing. This is one area. As well, we’ve heard about the challenges of seniors, for affordable rental housing. It is also a challenge for families with kids looking for multi-bedroom complexes. This is also a shortfall. It’s a lack of commitment from this government, and British Columbians will hold them accountable for that.

J. Martin: What an honour it is to be able to rise today and speak on the issue of affordable housing.

Two things I’d like to begin with. First, I would like to sincerely thank the member for Vancouver–Point Grey for his impeccable timing at bringing this motion forward. It was just absolutely superb timing on his part because, as we’ve heard from my colleagues, we have just had an historic announcement by the Premier and the esteemed Minister Responsible for Housing last Friday.

[1145]

I mean, you couldn’t script the timing any better if you tried. The single largest investment to affordable housing in British Columbia’s history — we are giving access to more British Columbians to find a place to call home. What better opportunity is there to speak about this topic than right here, right now? Again, thank you, Member, for wonderful timing.

Secondly, I’d like to remind everybody in this House that my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows is still patiently waiting for an apology from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. If you’ve forgotten, if some people don’t recall, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey released a press release on July 8 that contained false information about homelessness in Maple Ridge.

While the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows had been working diligently behind the scenes to bring various parties together to find a solution, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey orchestrated a partisan press conference at taxpayers’ expense and shamelessly used vulnerable people for a photo op. No shame. Wow. I’m just going to have to compose myself after that.

On the contrary, we had the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows working on a constructive solution that included the government funding a temporary shelter in cooperation with the city of Maple Ridge until people could get permanent housing.

We even heard from the mayor of Maple Ridge, Nicole Reid, who issued a statement. “We have been working behind the scenes with B.C. Housing for several weeks to make this possible. I’d like to acknowledge the assistance of the MLA” for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, “who met with us again on July 3, 2015, where we discussed this solution.”

We have already heard the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows talk about the community and the number of people that have been helped — outreach workers successfully helping people off the streets and into homes. Obviously, a collaborative and constructive solution is much, much more effective than a showboat press conference that achieves absolutely nothing.

Well, we’re still waiting for that apology. This is not the first time I’ve asked for that apology, nor is it the second time I’ve asked for this apology. This is the third time I’m asking for an apology, and I have still yet to hear it.

It reminds me. Third time. That’s the number of times we’ve balanced the budget. And you know what? After tomorrow, we’re going to balance it again, and that’ll be four times. Four times we’ve balanced the budget, and I know the NDP is against that.

I guess I’ll have to ask for an apology a fourth time after tomorrow. We recognize that home-ownership affordability can be challenging in this province, and that’s why we have a number of programs in place to help keep home ownership affordable. These include the homeowner grant and the first-time-homebuyers program. We’ve invested $4.4 billion to provide affordable housing for low-income individuals, seniors and families in communities across the province.

So 102,500 B.C. households benefit from a range of provincial housing services. We have added more than 24,750 units of affordable housing. Of this, more than 22,000 new units are complete. The remainder are in development, under construction.

We are able to make these investments because we have a strong, diversified and growing economy, and we have no intention of allowing that to be destroyed. I’m sure the NDP would love to see home values plummet, as tends to happen whenever the NDP sneaks into government, but it’s not going to happen — not on this government’s watch.

M. Mungall: I’ve been here listening to the Liberal’s response to the motion. “Be it resolved that this House recognize that housing costs are increasingly unaffordable and out of reach for many British Columbians, and that urgent action is needed to increase housing affordability provincewide.”

I’ve been listening to this for 50 minutes, hon. Speaker, and I have one question, through you, to those members: are you serious? Are you actually serious about anything you say? Because if you actually come down to the brass
[ Page 10353 ]
tacks, to the numbers, rather than read the briefing notes that have been passed on to you…. Yes, your constituents actually would like you to see those numbers instead of just reading the briefing notes.

[1150]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

If you actually look at them, here’s what you find. This historic announcement — best housing strategy in the universe — is $355 million over five years. Now, let’s compare that to what was in the 2015 service plan. Well, that was $418 million over four years — one year less, $83 million less than the original promise. And that was historic. I’ll say the smoke and mirrors is what’s really historic about the plan announced on Friday.

Let’s look at a little bit more. For the 2016-2017 year — and I do encourage the members to listen, because we are looking at numbers, rather than briefing notes just handed to us by staff — $90 million down from the 2015 service plan. For 2017-18 budget year, again, $19 million down from the 2015 service plan.

We had an announcement that was done in 2015. We had a new announcement on Friday, and it’s not even close to the actual numbers and the length of time in which we were supposed to see actual new housing units built.

What we hear from the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association is that if we’re actually going to meet need, starting to get to the place where we’re actually going to meet the housing need in every corner of this province, not just the Lower Mainland, we need to see 3,000 units built per year. What we see under this historic plan is 400 units built — 2,600 units short of what’s actually needed to meet British Columbians demands.

I think that this is nowhere near historic. In fact, look at what happened in the 1990s — a decade that the Liberals love to talk about in this House on a regular basis. Not 400 units per year, we were….

Interjection.

M. Mungall: I’m pretty sure that the member for Chilliwack ought to know that I have the floor right now.

In the 1990s, we saw the government of the day build 1,000 to 1,500 units per year. That’s quite a jump from the 400 that this government is promising. There is no way that what was promised on Friday is historic. All the things that are historic about that promise is the smoke and mirrors that it delivered and the attempt to get people distracted from what’s really happening in this province.

We see homelessness in this province in every single community. Despite what we heard from members opposite and despite what members opposite have said on the radio….

The member for Fraser-Nicola, when asked about affordable housing, said she hasn’t heard a lot about it in her riding. Well, let me tell her. A quarter of aboriginal people are spending in excess of 50 percent of their income on housing in her riding. In excess of 50 percent is a crisis level for an individual, and over a quarter of aboriginal people are in that situation.

One-third of single mothers throughout British Columbia are spending more than 50 percent of their gross income on rent, and seniors throughout British Columbia are also in crisis levels, spending more than 50 percent of their income on housing. That’s from a study done just this past November — November 23, 2015 — by the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association.

David Hutniak, the CEO of LandlordBC, said: “We need all levels of government to step up to the plate.” I agree. Let’s have a real historic announcement, not smoke and mirrors, because that’s what British Columbians deserve.

M. Mungall moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada