Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

MINING DAY

T. Shypitka: Good morning, Members. It gives me great pride and joy today to speak on my favourite day here at the Legislature. It’s Mining Day.

When I walk through the hallowed halls of this fine place here in Victoria, I’m quickly reminded by the architecture of the four cornerstone industries that have always been the foundation of the B.C. economy. Those are agriculture, fishing, forestry and, of course, the best sector of all: mining.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Mining is very important. It’s very important to me and my constituents in Kootenay East. In Kootenay East, with a population of roughly 50,000 people, mining gives us well over 4,000 direct jobs and another 10,000 to 12,000 indirect ones.

[10:05 a.m.]

One could very easily argue that mining touches one in four people in my riding. The Elk Valley — or, as some refer to it, the coal valley — simply would not have these great communities of Elkford, Sparwood, Fernie and Hosmer without our past or present mines. My first high-paying job was at the Line Creek mine between Sparwood and Elkford, where my dad was a private contractor.

The impact of the four major mines in my region expand much farther than the East Kootenays. The major employer in the area, Teck Coal, puts out close to $1.2 billion directly into the supply chain every year in goods and services, and 60 percent of that goes outside of the Kootenays. In other words, three-quarters of a billion dollars finds its way mostly to the Lower Mainland each and every year.

In B.C., Teck employs 7,000 direct jobs and has seven operations, with most of them being steelmaking metallurgical coal mines. Teck currently has 14 agreements with Indigenous communities in B.C. and in 2017 made $440 plus million in total payments to the B.C. government. This is just but one company in the province.

I’d also like to take this time to recognize North Coal in my riding, as well, as the next up-and-comer in the coal business. They have great management and a great vision. But let’s look at the rest of mining, as a whole, throughout the province and why it is needed more now than ever before and why mining will remain a cornerstone of our economy.

British Columbia is blessed with a rich bounty of natural resources and, most particularly, mine materials. B.C. produces more coal, copper and silver than any province in Canada and is the only province to produce molybdenum, which is a mineral used in steel alloys to give them strength and resilience to high heat and corrosion. Coal is a big deal in British Columbia, and we have a lot. Approximately 70 to 90 percent of the coal produced in B.C. is steelmaking metallurgical coal. B.C. copper is mentioned as another big producer and is important because of the electrical conductivity it represents.

Why is mining so important to go forward, as we transition to a low-carbon economy? Why isn’t mining a sunset industry that many may have you believe? And why do we need mining more than ever before? The answer is very simple, and it all surrounds electrification and renewable energy. These are two things the current government, as well as the former government, has made a priority for.

Steelmaking coal is key for electric vehicles and almost all forms of public transportation, including rapid transit. Air travel, trains and moving goods in and out of our province cannot be done without steel. Stainless steel and tool steel for medical equipment and diagnostic tools are also key. Critical infrastructure such as bridges to connect communities, high-rises for high-density affordable living, hospitals, schools and stadiums all need steel.

Copper is virtually in all electronics, including smartphones, televisions, computers and electric motors. Copper is also a major component in the production of superconductors, which will play a huge part in advancing technologies to the low-carbon economy. Copper is primarily the material used in the induction coils of wind turbines. Other renewable energy technology, such as solar panels and the electric motors of hybrid vehicles, also make use of large amounts of copper wiring. Even advanced medical technology requires copper. Imaging tools, X-rays, CT scans and MRIs are some of the medical technologies that utilize copper.

Molybdenum is used in environments of intense heat, including military armour, aircraft parts, electrical contacts, industrial motors and filaments. Moly is used in stainless steel, tool steels, cast iron and high-temperature alloys. Silver is a key component for long-life batteries, 3-D printing, engines, water purification, electric vehicles and solar panels. Canada is home to 14 of the 19 metals and minerals needed to make a solar PV panel, and B.C. is a big part of that.

B.C. and Canada can become the world’s leading supplier of mining products that are integral to a low-carbon economy and to make us cleaner in the process. On top of all this, mining builds up other important sectors of our economy. The emergence of the technology sector in B.C. has been influenced heavily by mining and our natural resource sector. With over 115,000 employees and 10,000 companies, technology has mining to thank for some of their successes: software development for autonomous and near-autonomous vehicles, smart shovel technology, sensor mining, 3-D virtual mining, new analytic capabilities, digital workers, wireless technologies, just to name a few.

[10:10 a.m.]

These technologies are making us safer with human life. It’s making us greener with less carbon footprint and better reclamation efforts, and it is maximizing our product and minimizing our waste. Our natural resource sector continues to spawn off other important sectors, so our economy remains perpetually strong. This, to me, is the beauty of mining.

I look forward to the member opposite’s response. Now I hand over the floor to my astute colleague for Powell River–​Sunshine Coast, who I’m certain will share my views.

N. Simons: I want to thank my friend and colleague from across the floor, from Kootenay East. Yeah, it’s fun to be able to talk about something where we don’t necessarily have a lot of differences.

I think that the mining industry is one that is, as he mentioned, foundational to our province. If you look at the beautiful depictions of mining in the rotunda and you look up at the ceiling, you can see that represented as an important industry of British Columbia, along with fishing, agriculture and logging — forestry.

Today is Mining Day in British Columbia. It marks almost a year, a year tomorrow, since the government established the B.C. mining and exploration task force, which was an important task force that decided to look at the industry from a big-picture perspective, to look at how the industry can meet the headwinds that often face our natural resource sector.

In order to meet headwinds, often you think about being streamlined. Streamlining is part of the effort our government is making to ensure that our system of approvals is one that is efficient and meets the needs of the industry, and at the same time, to ensure that we protect the health and environment and the social values that our communities depend on and expect.

I think that it’s a fitting day for our government to speak about all the efforts that it’s making, to ensure that the mining industry is not only successful but thriving. Obviously, commodity prices have an impact on the success of mining, but so do government regulations. The sector requires social buy-in and approval. I think that the government has done a lot to ensure that not only is the industry supported but that people understand the importance of the industry.

I think my friend from Kootenay East has explained very clearly the reason why we need to ensure that we have the necessary resources not only to support communities but to provide the materials needed in our new, modern economy. It includes, of course, the importance of copper, molybdenum and other steel-making requirements, including metallurgical coal. Our province has had, for a long time, a strong sector in that area.

You know, I came to politics many years ago, and I hadn’t had much exposure to mining. I did play in a band with a guy who used to play with the Hard Rock Miners. I thought that that didn’t really qualify me. But after spending 13 years in this place and learning about various industries, it did open my eyes. It made me realize that government responsibility includes setting the right atmosphere for successful economies.

I think that our efforts to engage Indigenous communities, to support exploration, to extend tax credits for the industry, to ensure that we can compete with other jurisdictions, not just internationally but, importantly, within Canada are important steps that we’re taking. I’m pleased that the government has started to take action on the task force recommendations. They made 25, and I believe that they will set the appropriate circumstances for the industry to continue to thrive in British Columbia.

[10:15 a.m.]

We are grateful for the contributions that the mining industry plays in our province. We are pleased that they’re on the forefront of establishing new relationships, and I look forward to them doing that for well into the future.

I thank my colleague from Kootenay East for his comments. It’s a nice day to be able to celebrate the industry in British Columbia.

T. Shypitka: Well, the member opposite shares another thing with me, other than being an MLA in this great place, and that is the association with the Hard Rock Miners. One of my best friends was the drummer of the Hard Rock Miners — Glenn Eidsness, a guy that I actually played in a band with as well. We share lots of things in this place, and sometimes it comes up in the most unique ways.

I’m glad the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast agrees wholeheartedly with mining being a sector that we all need to bring us full circle to a low-carbon economy. The member and I both realize we need to be the global leaders that are most responsible with our environmental and human rights standards. There are many countries, unfortunately, that would put a 14-year-old child down a rabbit hole of a mine shaft without proper ventilation. We cannot allow this to happen. It happens every day, and not to promote our mining is to promote theirs.

The CleanBC plan is to call for 100 percent EVs by the year 2040. This is a bold plan. With mining in B.C. at full throttle, I believe we can make this happen, but we need some things to change. Each EV contains roughly 183 pounds of copper, and an additional ten million tonnes of copper would be needed by 2030 worldwide. That is a conservative estimate.

Here in B.C., we’re missing the boat and the opportunity that comes with it. As the member confirms, an efficient, streamlined process is something that we all need. A new report confirms licence to operate is the single biggest concern expressed by the mining industry. In a survey released just last January 16, the 250 mining industry executives surveyed put licence to operate at the top of their list of concerns.

There is a litany of rules, regulations, consultations and bureaucracy that miners have to go through. Now they are faced with anyone with a Twitter account having an opinion. It takes ten to 20 years to take a mine from discovery to production. Environmental and social licence issues have stalled, killed or delayed project after project in B.C. We as a province need to educate and eliminate the misinformation that goes hand-in-hand in mining. Mining has evolved like no other industry around. It is smart, it is green, it supports families and communities, and it is ours.

We can accomplish so much with the resources we have, or we can pass uninformed judgments. Do we need to ensure proper practice and hold accountable those who participate? Absolutely. I want this place to be better for my children and grandchildren, just like everyone else. But if we would rather put our heads in the sand and push this off to a country that doesn’t recognize the value of our environmental and human rights standards like we do, then we cannot condemn those who accuse us as hypocrites.

Please join me today to celebrate the miners and all those that have been so instrumental in our B.C. economy for the past 150 years, and to welcome and promote safe, reliable mining in the future for many, many more years to come.

NORTHERN INFRASTRUCTURE

J. Rice: The rich resources and hard-working people of the northwest have long contributed more than their fair share to the prosperity of our province. Whether through forestry, mining, fishing or agriculture, the benefits of success have been slow to flow back to the region, leaving communities with aging infrastructure that doesn’t meet their needs, the needs of industry or the needs of the future.

We have been listening to northern communities about the need for critical infrastructure and planning funding in order to prepare for development opportunities. We are reversing the legacy of neglect with the new $100 million northern capital and planning grant. This will help northern communities and the people who live there make the most of new opportunities so that the benefits of resource development are felt for years to come. That means that $100 million will be distributed to 22 local governments and the regional districts of Fraser–Fort George, Bulkley-Nechako, Kitimat-Stikine and the North Coast regional district.

[10:20 a.m.]

As a northern resident for over a decade and a former city councillor before becoming an MLA, I know that critical infrastructure investments are needed in my community. We’ve had issues with potable water, accessing our airports, bridges in disrepair, crumbling roads and a lack of sewer treatment, to name a few of the challenges. We’ve also had worldwide attention on our port, and many industry proponents have expressed interest in our natural assets, like our proximity to Asian markets and a naturally deep harbour.

The challenge is that we need help getting ready for these industries. We simply have not had the population and, thus, the tax base to properly maintain our infrastructure. If the northwest is to support new import and export industries and an influx of workers, we need to plan for the future and provide basic services and infrastructure.

I’m proud to be a part of a government that is listening to small, northern local communities and responding with $100 million of support. For several years, we’ve been hearing from northern communities concerned that the state and capacity of their current infrastructure may not be sufficient to meet their future growth needs, especially with recent investment plans such as LNG Canada in Kitimat.

The northern capital and planning grant will help address this gap by providing northern communities with funding they can use now or leverage to help meet future demands over the next few years. This grant is a significant sum of money that may be leveraged with other revenue sources like reserves, borrowing or other grant programs such as those offered to the Northern Development Initiative Trust to cover local capital and planning costs.

This $100 million is a one-time investment to help these northern communities in strategic planning and capital investments. This will benefit local governments, as they can place this money in reserve funds for future capital and planning and draw it down incrementally as money from the fund is required. This gives more control to local governments over how and when the money is spent, something every local government has asked for. The funding is capped on larger municipalities so that they don’t receive a disproportionate amount of funding.

At the end of the day, it comes back to fairness. For too long, small, northern communities have not been able to prepare for major economic development. We want to ensure that small communities see the benefits from major investments and are able to prepare for their long-term sustainability.

The allocation of funds to municipalities is designed to favour the small communities which lack both economies of scale and a strong commercial and industrial tax base. Infrastructure and long-term planning can be acutely expensive for these smaller communities. That said, it is also important to keep in mind that regional districts and larger municipalities will still receive a substantial amount of funding. Roughly 40 percent of the grant will flow to the four regional districts and three largest municipalities.

We know there will be an increase in the demand for services and infrastructure in this part of our province over the next few years. I’ve been advocating for north coast communities who are already struggling with the burden of aging infrastructure. They need support now, so we are making a different choice: to proactively support people in northern communities as they prepare for the future.

Ultimately, this grant is an acknowledgment of the hard-working people of northern communities who need and deserve to benefit from prosperity generated by them and the resources of the region that they live in. The precise dollar allocations will be finalized in the weeks ahead. However, local governments can generally expect to receive the following, based on their populations and assessment bases.

Municipalities with populations over 10,000 people will receive between $6 million and $9 million. Municipalities under 10,000 people will receive between $1 million and $6 million. Regional districts will receive between $1 million and $6 million. To put that in perspective, Terrace will be receiving the equivalent of one-third of its annual budget in one payment. The city of Prince Rupert will be receiving about $8 million, or almost a quarter of its annual budget.

Let’s hear from a few of the local mayors on what they have to say about a $100 million announcement.

[10:25 a.m.]

Mayor Brain, the mayor of Prince Rupert, has said: “Each community in the north has struggled for years to improve and maintain infrastructure, services and day-to-day operations that meet the desired liveability outcomes for local residents, small businesses and industries. The province has listened to our concerns by providing this financial injection, as it will help all our communities begin to tackle those challenges as our region becomes a globally significant national trade corridor.”

Carol Leclerc, the mayor of Terrace, says: “This is the largest grant the city of Terrace has ever received, and it represents one-third of our annual budget. It gives us the chance to address some of the many outstanding projects we would like to tackle. We are grateful to the provincial government for recognizing the needs of northern communities.”

I’ll leave my remarks for that, and I look forward to hearing from the member opposite.

E. Ross: Thank you to the member for North Coast for raising the government’s recent announcement of the $100 million northern infrastructure fund. The need for infrastructure in the northwest is not a new one. But in all the press releases, there’s one group of people that was forgotten — First Nations leadership, who have a larger and larger interest in infrastructure development in the northwest.

The term “infrastructure” first came to our council about ten years ago when I served as chief of council. That was in terms of the hospital as well as highway development. We did flex our Aboriginal rights and title interests, but in the interest of the region, we decided not to flex it any further because we could see that infrastructure benefits everybody, regardless. So we did not pursue economic interests. We did not pursue politics, which is where these types of announcements usually devolve to.

In many ways, in Terrace and Kitimat, the urgency for infrastructure development is even greater now than it was back then, and the clock is ticking. LNG development is coming. If things go to plan, we’ll be developing the northwest, Terrace and Kitimat, for the next 12 years once LNG Canada has done its development as well as Chevron gets up on track.

To demonstrate the province’s willingness to provide the necessary supporting infrastructure to attract LNG investors, the previous government embarked on a program to identify areas of potential development. The Pacific Northwest was identified as a region of major economic development for the next five to 112 years — that is, if we’re successful in unlocking British Columbia’s potential to become a major player in the energy sector by utilizing our vast natural gas reserves.

Under the previous government, it commenced years ago with highway improvements — naturally, with the understanding that much more would be needed. Our band council agreed and supported and did not oppose any proposals regarding infrastructure. LNG Canada announced its final investment decision last October, and this process has now been stepped up even further, which I applaud.

But I should caution the House on this point. It should be noted that the $100 million announcement, just before last week’s budget, presents a very small figure compared to the $40 billion commitment by LNG Canada. To paraphrase a former Prime Minister, $100 million is not the end. Clearly, much more needs to be done, not only to accommodate LNG Canada but to attract investment further throughout the province — to attract more investments so we have more dollars for more infrastructure.

In its first phase, Kitimat will be the initial centre of activity. We will need a new bridge for heavy equipment and for workers to access the industrial site. The city of Terrace is also feeling the impact of increased traffic with the overspill of workers in need of housing. We are also attracting new businesses that will cater to the increase of industrial activity. But we also have to talk about infrastructure related to the influx of people and workers coming to Terrace and Kitimat, as well as Prince Rupert.

The Terrace-Kitimat airport has done an excellent job of expanding services, leaving behind little or no debt. How­ever, this key part of supporting infrastructure will require more funding for expansion to accommodate the expected workers trying to make their way to Kitimat and Terrace, as well as for the existing workers coming into Terrace-Kitimat airport going to the projects in Prince Rupert and for the mines north of Terrace. Happy Mine Day to my colleague from Revelstoke.

Furthermore, we must not overlook the social demand with the influx of new workers. People will be looking for recreational activities. We’re already seeing it at a marina we call MK Bay Marina in Kitimat. There’s already an increase in traffic going down to access MK Bay Marina.

As noted earlier, the $100 million announcement was not made as a part of Budget 2019. It is part of a $375 million package of funding that is being applied for before the end of the current fiscal year. It is a kind of dividend that has only come about after many years of fiscal discipline, balanced budgets and prudence with the public purse.

[10:30 a.m.]

It was money previously unavailable because we were still carrying an accumulation of debt from previous operating deficits known as supplementary estimates. The current Minister of Finance has acknowledged that none of this would be possible without the work of her predecessor, the member for Abbotsford West. This has allowed the current Finance Minister the freedom to use end-of-year surpluses to the benefit of the province as a whole. While this funding will accommodate 22 municipalities and four regional districts along the LNG corridor, I should remind the hon. member that there are many more local governments in the north who also have needs and deserve the benefit.

J. Rice: The Northwest B.C. Resource Benefits Alliance, formed in 2014, is an association of 21 local governments across the northwest from Masset to Vanderhoof. The RBA was created to negotiate a new funding agreement with the province to ensure that the northwest benefits from the tremendous level of economic activity in the region.

The B.C. NDP are fulfilling our campaign promise of working with the Northwest B.C. Resource Benefits Alliance to build a sustainable economy and support people in the northwest. The B.C. Liberals refused to support the RBA, instead opting to say to the people of the northwest: “You will only get support once an LNG terminal is built and starts making money.”

Former RBA chair Bill Miller said in 2017: “To date, there has only been one party leader who has committed to prompt revenue-sharing negotiations, and that is…the leader of the B.C. NDP.”

In the same release, Phil Germuth, the chair of the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine and the mayor of Kitimat, said: “The B.C. Liberal Party’s message has been that they support development, and once that development generates revenue…”

Deputy Speaker: Member, let’s keep it non-partisan.

J. Rice: “…they will consider providing benefits to the northwest. In fact, there’s already been lots of development, generating significant new provincial revenues and local costs, and there is lots more coming, whether or not LNG…proceeds.”

We recently provided the resource benefits alliance with $300,000 to support the RBA community’s continued efforts to strengthen economic development in the region.

Our B.C. NDP government recognizes that strong partnerships are essential to addressing issues facing people throughout British Columbia. The province will continue to work closely with the resource benefits alliance and its communities to strengthen economic development in northwest B.C. The $100 million capital and planning grant demonstrates that we understand the need for investing in northern infrastructure and that we are working for all British Columbians in every corner of our province.

The rich resources and hard-working people of the northwest have long contributed more than their fair share to the prosperity of this province. We are reversing the legacy of neglect by addressing long-standing infrastructure needs that are holding back the region.

MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTIONS

J. Thornthwaite: “Mom, I’m fine. You don’t need to worry about me. I’m not going to die.” Those were the words of 15-year-old Steffanie Lawrence 24 hours before she died from an accidental drug overdose in January 2018. This was just two days after she was released from hospital prematurely. Brenda Doherty believes that if the Safe Care Act was in place when her daughter Steffanie was released from hospital, her daughter would be alive today.

I introduced the Safe Care Act almost a year ago, February 28, and have asked this government to bring forward the act for debate in the House. As of today, almost 20 youth have died from drug overdoses since that day. Government and others keep saying that safe care and mandatory treatment do not work. I think they’re wrong, because what is the alternative? No treatment at all?

It is true that voluntary treatment for substance-use disorders generally yields better outcomes. But compulsory admitted patients can do well, too, if what happens next is methodical, not just discharge. It is important to keep in mind that the alternative to compulsory admitted treatment is no treatment at all and, instead, a continuation of life-threatening drug use behaviours.

[10:35 a.m.]

When assessing the success and value of the Safe Care Act, it is important to compare a youth brain to adults. Up until about the age of 25, while youth brains are still growing, the use of drugs can affect their development. Puberty is also associated with sensation-seeking and more immediate gratification and risk-taking. Quite simply, the youth brain does not consider the real risks associated with drug use. In fact, the prefrontal cortex, which controls executive control, impulse and response inhibition, attention regulation, emotional regulation, and planning, is not fully developed until the mid- to late 20s.

Furthermore, most of the medical community views addiction as a disease of the brain, with a loss of capacity to control substance use and characterized by impairments in health and social function. The evolving adolescent brain is particularly vulnerable since it is still under construction and at a high risk for substances to permanently hijack neural development.

A youth who has been on a drug binge for several days and who has just received Narcan and is in a state of drug craving and possibly hypoxia has significantly impaired judgment and is not capable of informed consent. And 60 percent of youth with substance use disorders may have concurrent mental health disorders, which may increase the risk of a repeat overdose.

It is for this reason that proponents of the Safe Care Act believe that because addiction is a disorder of the mind, addicts cannot make the choice to become well in their own right after an overdose. So for those who do not support the Safe Care Act, you can’t agree that addiction is a disorder of the mind, a medical disease, on one hand but then, at the same time, say using those drugs is a choice, because once you’re in chronic drug use, you’re not thinking straight, especially if you’re a youth.

Research also indicates that if youth are discharged too early, which commonly occurs within hours of an overdose, they have increased chances of dying soon afterwards because their brains have not had time to recover before they have the knowledge enough to not use again. This is why some say it is unethical to discharge youth before their brains have had a chance to get back to a normal state. And at what point would that be? Well, researchers in Norway say it’s about three weeks.

After chronic drug use, it takes approximately three weeks for cognition to normalize. In other words, you should never discharge an overdose victim within an hour, which is a common practice in British Columbia.

I learned that in Kelowna, after OD’ing and being revived in the ER, youth are admitted under the Mental Health Act to the pediatric ward and start a very comprehensive individualized treatment and recovery plan before being discharged often weeks later. They are not discharged early, but this practice does not happen everywhere. The advantage of the Safe Care Act is not only to protect the youth from immediate harm or another overdose but to help their brains become rewired and back to normal and to get them the necessary help in the required amount of time they need for treatment and recovery.

When it comes to secure care, a lack of evidence of effectiveness of an intervention is not evidence of a lack of effectiveness. Take Calgary-based health services. They’ve provided mandated care to at-risk youth for over three decades. Their priority is to rescue the youth from imminent risk of serious harm or death.

The secondary goals are to assess the overall needs of the youth, stabilize them with withdrawal management; opioid agonist therapy, if indicated; feed, clothe and provide safe and secure housing; develop and initiate a treatment plan; reconnect the youth with family and community resources; and then discharge them. Health services report that 78 percent of youth meet these goals with two or less cycles, and notably, 90 percent of youth who are involuntarily placed in a secure care program stated that it was of benefit.

Many physicians are guided by the concept that adolescents are fully competent to make medical decisions and that if they choose to continue on a path of life-threatening drug use, it is within their rights to do so. This approach is inconsistent with our current understanding of adolescent neurodevelopment and existing laws to protect teens. Therefore, not only should parents be immediately notified upon their child’s admission to hospital; the most responsible step in keeping the youth safe, to immediately keep them safe, is mandatory treatment.

Certainly, the Safe Care Act would be a good start.

[10:40 a.m.]

B. D’Eith: Thank you to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for making this very important statement and for her clear passion and dedication to the issue.

One of the key reasons that I ran for office was because of my family’s experiences with the system around mental health. While my brother Guy is receiving very good care now, I can say uncategorically that if he did not have the family battling for him every single day, he would certainly not be getting the support that he’s receiving now. Without an advocate, often people do fall between the cracks in the system. And it’s very, very difficult.

That’s why I’m actually very pleased that we have the first Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, a minister who wakes up every day to address mental health and addiction issues that are facing so many people in British Columbia, a ministry that’s dedicated to ending the stigma of mental health and addictions and creating solutions to very complex issues.

As far as mental health, Budget 2019 sets out an additional $74 million in investments, and it’s focusing on prevention and early intervention for children, youth and young adults because we have to get there early. The goal is to build a system of care where children and youth can ask for the help and get it fast. That’s why the government is opening new Foundry centres. We’re very, very pleased in Maple Ridge to have our Youth Wellness Centre transitioning into a Foundry.

Other things: providing specialized family care services or day treatment programs, scaling up the parent-child social and emotional development programs for young children and strengthening specialized service teams to support children and youth.

On the addictions side, I was very pleased today to see that East Vancouver has approved the biggest drug addiction rehab centre in British Columbia. We’re very, very pleased about that because four people are dying per day because of fentanyl. This is unacceptable. But what we’re dealing with is actually a poisoned illicit drug supply. Last year the coroner’s report said that, in fact, 85 percent of the overdoses are fentanyl-related. And what’s happening, of course, is that the amount of fentanyl in the drug supply keeps going up and up.

This new budget, Budget 2019, adds an additional $30 million, so now there’s a total of $608 million since Budget 2017. It’s starting to make a real difference. Over the past year and a half, front-line workers have reversed more than 4,700 overdoses — saving lives — even while the drug supply continues to become increasingly toxic.

The ministry is going to keep escalating the response to save lives and connecting people to a healing pathway. The ministry launched the overdose emergency response centre. There are 18 community action teams — dramatically increased in the availability of naloxone, doubled the overdose prevention and safe consumption sites, expanded access to injectable opioid and oral opioid agonist therapy.

There’s a safer supply program for people that are most at risk. We’re expanding post-overdose care to include treatment and recovery for referrals by first responders. There’s an agreement with the federal government for $34 million to provide more care and treatment. There’s also working with communities with the funded community innovation projects that focus on local action, because every community is different.

Also truth and reconciliation, working with our First Nations. There has been a signed historic agreement with First Nations in communities that puts them in the driver’s seat in shaping programs. And $20 million to First Nations health authorities.

The ministry is thinking outside the box, as well, with a drug-checking pilot project. And because so many overdoses are men, especially using alone, the ministry has aimed at innovative ways to get at stigma, through partnerships with the Vancouver Canucks and the B.C. Lions. Also, at St. Paul’s, there’s a hub in Vancouver. It’s a one-of-a-kind, first-of-a-kind health care model.

There’s no one pathway to help. There are many. The one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work. Everybody walks a different path. Not everybody walks at the same speed. And that means that for some, it’s going to be abstinence-based recovery. For others, it’s going to be the opioid substitute therapies.

The Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions is working across the government and with all partners to provide a full spectrum of treatment and recovery options. The ministry is starting to have a better, more connected mental health and addictions system that really emphasizes early intervention and prevention for children and youth before they get into trouble, and partnership with Indigenous people. The goal is to have a system of care in this province where if British Columbians ask for help, they get it fast.

J. Thornthwaite: Two weeks ago Angus Reid released a national poll asking about mandatory treatment for those with substance use disorders.

[10:45 a.m.]

The poll found that 85 percent of Canadians support mandatory treatment for anyone dealing with an opioid addiction. One in five Canadians say they have a close friend or family member who has dealt with an opioid addiction or dependence, with 7 percent saying someone close to them had experienced an opioid-related overdose.

While the number of Canadians saying this is a crisis at the national level is statistically unchanged from the November 2017 poll, the number who say it is a serious problem for their own community has increased significantly: up 8 percentage points to 41 percent. Clearly, the general public is ready for a rethink on how we tackle the ongoing opioid crisis.

I suggest, given that nearly 1,500 people died of an overdose last year in British Columbia, that the crisis is not getting better, and it is high time we start looking at different solutions — bold solutions. When people say mandatory treatment does not work, even if those studies continue to come out suggesting the contrary, doesn’t it seem prudent for government to give it a try, given that what we are currently doing clearly isn’t working?

Not only should this government take a strong refocus on treatment and recovery options for those with substance use disorders, but I once again ask that they immediately bring the Safe Care Act to debate in the House for the sake of our youth and for the sake of all British Columbians.

CLEAN TRANSPORTATION IN THE
CLEANBC PLAN

A. Kang: Today I’ll be talking about clean transportation in the CleanBC plan. Transportation has become a part of daily life in the 21st century. Almost everyone uses a form of transportation on a daily basis, from walking to biking, from public transportation to driving.

Our government recognizes the importance and relevance of transportation to our society and our dependency on transportation. That is why we have taken many steps to make it cleaner, as laid out in the CleanBC plan, from investing in transit to regulating cleaner fuels to providing incentives for people to switch over to driving zero-emission vehicles. In Budget 2019, we see an investment of $107 million to help British Columbians switch to cleaner transportation.

B.C. is one of the best places to work, raise a family, live and retire. We have one of the fastest-growing populations and economies. As our economy continues to grow, so too will our transportation needs. Recognizing this, our government is taking action on addressing the issue of climate change. We’re working hard to tackle emission reductions and climate change in various ways. Of course, one of the ways is creating a clean transportation plan.

To encourage clean growth in this sector, B.C. is proposing solutions in three areas: cleaner vehicles, cleaner fuels and cleaner transportation systems. First, I would like to talk about what our government is doing in creating and encouraging cleaner vehicles. While I recognize the previous government’s investment in the clean energy vehicle program with $40 million over three years, our government is stepping up and doing more with this vision.

Our government, in Budget 2019, is investing $107 million over three years to address emission reductions. We have set an ambitious goal that by 2040, every new car sold in B.C. will be a zero-emission vehicle. That will mean that almost all vehicles will have no emissions in 21 years. Statistics show that currently approximately 39 percent of B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions is produced by transportation. B.C. is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions steadily over the next few decades.

One of the many exciting things that we are doing is encouraging people to purchase electric or emission-free cars by increasing incentives. The previous government brought B.C. to the position where our province had the highest ratio of zero-emission vehicle sales, with over 4,800 zero-emission vehicles on the road. We also have the largest charging network in Canada. But we need to go further. Our government is now making electric cars even more affordable.

I’ve had many conversations with friends about switching to zero-emission vehicles, and I’m sure many of you may have heard the same responses from them. One of the reasons that they have not switched to a zero-emission vehicle is that they feel that a zero-emission vehicle is too expensive and unaffordable.

[10:50 a.m.]

To make clean energy vehicles more affordable, our government has begun programs such as offering incentives of up to $5,000 for the purchase or lease of a new battery-electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, and up to $6,000 for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. The thought that electric or clean vehicles are unaffordable might be just a thing of the past.

The second reason I hear people tell me is that they are concerned that they won’t be able to travel far because, driving far, they might not have enough battery or charging stations. Well, in addition to making zero-emission or clean energy vehicles more affordable, we’re investing in more charging stations than ever around the province.

To help more drivers make the transition, our government is making investments to expand the size of the province’s electric vehicle direct current fast-charging networks to 151 sites, with 71 already completed or underway. As well, we will be working with the federal government and private sector to put another 80 in the works.

Equally important is planning and building smart infrastructure in our communities and allowing people to move quickly and easily between work, home and other destinations. We are investing in public transit. Our government’s commitment is to fund 40 percent of the capital costs of Transit’s ten-year plan.

We believe in the power of partnerships, and that is why we are working with the mayors and providing them new long-term funding sources so the system will remain sustainable. This investment is the largest in transit and transportation in Metro Vancouver’s history, as it sets the stage for unprecedented increases to transit services.

Living in Burnaby…. We are rapidly growing. Public transit services are also growing to accommodate its growth. We see upgrades in the Metrotown SkyTrain station and increased bus services in the Metrotown bus hub to get people out of their cars and using public transit. With two SkyTrain routes going through Metrotown, there’s a diverse network of transit connections, as not everyone goes to work or goes to school in downtown Vancouver.

Having a good transportation network is one of the solutions to clean transportation.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to speak about clean transportation and the CleanBC plan.

When you read the CleanBC plan, it clearly says that “new revenues from B.C.’s carbon tax are dedicated to supporting measures that drive down GHG emissions.” I think we can all agree clean transportation does that as well. The increased carbon tax will generate — over the next four years that it first started to increase — $2.35 billion extra in tax revenue, which should be used, according to CleanBC, to drive down GHG emissions.

Let’s take a look at that, shall we? We heard a lot of talking about the zero-energy program. It was ongoing. None of these incentives are different than what was previously in place. Let’s look at that $42 million over three years that will be invested.

Generously, that will result in about 7,000 to 7,500 subsidies for vehicles. Yet when you read CleanBC, it’s very clear that by 2030, there needs to be 500,000 new electric vehicles on the road. When I look at the spending over the next three years of this subsidy, it seems we’re 493,000 vehicles short of meeting our own clearly stated target within CleanBC. From 2023 to 2030, in seven years, we are expected to go from 11,000 electric vehicles to 500,000. I’m not quite sure how that’s going to work out, and I look forward to hearing the government explain where the extra $1.4 billion of carbon tax has gone, because it’s not to the CleanBC plan.

When I read the CleanBC plan, though, when you look at transportation with cleaner fuels, cleaner vehicles…. We touched on the $42 million, and more support measures to get people out of their cars. I thought: “Well, maybe that’s the way that they’re going to clean up the transportation, the active transportation piece of the CleanBC plan.”

[10:55 a.m.]

I went to the document to look at what new increased carbon taxes, of that $2.35 billion, would go towards active transportation. It’s a shocking $6 million spread over three years for active transportation, for the whole province, for all municipalities to tap into. I can tell you, as a former mayor, we just built a path in Kamloops for active transportation that was 1.8 kilometres long that was about $4½ million, I believe, and that was one city. I would suggest there’s still that $1.4 billion of extra collected revenue that has been unaccounted for, for carbon taxation.

“For the buildings where we live and work” — again, I’m reading directly out of CleanBC — “raising our standards for new construction and encouraging energy-saving improvements in existing homes and workplaces.” That sounds like a very laudable goal to bring down greenhouse gas emissions as well.

The step code which will take by law mandatory the fifth step of step code by 2032…. When you talk to homebuilders…. Right now it’s an optional step for municipalities to opt into which of the five steps they would like their homes built to. When it becomes mandatory, in the case of Kamloops and Kamloops–North Thompson, it’ll add $78,000 in today’s dollars to the price of an average home being constructed.

The average home price in Kamloops these days is just short of $410,000. This mandatory step code will add 20 percent to the cost of a new home, with about 2 percent more energy efficiency happening to it. So it’s not really tying in housing affordability with that.

Let’s look at the renovation program within this as well. The renovation program, which was existing and was actually oversubscribed last year, was $24 million last year — and EfficiencyBC. The thresholds are the same, the subsidies are the same, moving forward.

So $24 million last year oversubscribed and applications cut off. What we do we see with CleanBC and the $2.35 billion and $1.4 billion of unaccounted-for dollars? It’s $41 million over three years. Instead of around $24 million a year, that would be $72 million over three years and still oversubscribed. The government’s answer is to cut that down to $41 million, because, again, we’re not seeing the increased carbon tax going to this.

Now, one last thing with municipalities. By reducing emissions from organic waste and diverting it from landfills — again, very expensive to try to get green recycling into communities and try to get those methane emissions out of landfills that green waste does. So you would think with $2.35 billion in new revenue, there’d be massive dollars. And what do we see? One million dollars spread over three years for the whole province to help municipalities.

I look forward to finding out where the extra $1.4 billion of increased greenhouse gas emissions are coming from, with the reply from the member.

A. Kang: I want to thank the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson for sharing your views. Actually, I was going to talk about clean solutions to clean transportation, but what I heard was clean buildings and organic waste and landfills. So I’m going to go back to the topic that is in discussion today.

Clean transportation is an issue where we all have to work together, and there are many great programs that the previous government has done. I really think that this is an issue that is non-partisan. We only do better when governments work together on both sides of the House, when governments work with the people and encourage people and give them incentives.

Whether it’s getting the kids to school or getting goods to market, transportation is a part of daily life in B.C. CleanBC’s plan for clean transportation includes incentives to switch to electric vehicles or zero-emission vehicles and investing in public transit so that people spend less time in gridlock. It takes everyone to work together in B.C. on a pathway that powers our future with clean, renewable energy and reduces air pollution.

As I have mentioned previously, Budget 2019 is investing $107 million over three years. This is to fund dozens of incentives that are part of government’s CleanBC plan to tackle climate pollution. Some notable projects include bringing down the price of clean vehicles, speeding up the switch to cleaner fuels, getting rid of gridlock and supporting public infrastructure efficiency upgrades and fuel switching to biofuels.

By bringing down the price of clean vehicles, we’ll be able to see in just over 20 years from now that every new car in B.C. will be a zero-emission vehicle. Not only that, but it will put more money back into the pockets of British Columbians by saving money on gasoline. How much more? British Columbians who purchase electric vehicles will typically save about 75 percent on their fuel and maintenance costs, which adds up to about $2,400 per year. That’s a lot of savings back in our citizens’ pockets.

With new investments in charging stations, it will now be even easier to charge or fuel a clean e-vehicle and take your car a distance.

[11:00 a.m.]

To improve on the efficiency and effectiveness of our public transportation, our government is committed to fund 40 percent of the capital cost of TransLink’s ten-year plan. This historical agreement will see more than $7 billion in transportation improvements, which will drive transit ridership growth up and help reduce congestion, as more people will choose to leave their cars at home and take public transit.

As part of our GreenBC plan, as part of our clean transportation plan, I want to say that our government is doing a great job. I also want to commend the previous government for doing a great job. This is a non-partisan topic. I hope that our citizens will also buy into GreenBC.

Hon. K. Chen: I call for consideration Motion 1, standing in the name of the member for Kamloops–South Thompson.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 1 — HOUSING SUPPLY
AND AFFORDABILITY

T. Stone: Perhaps the most vaunted promise of the NDP in the last election and one where they have failed miserably is to make housing more affordable. So let’s canvass this in more detail and see how they’re doing.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I haven’t met a constituent who has said that in the past 19 months, as a result of the actions of the NDP, housing is more affordable. In fact, British Columbians are saying quite the opposite. Life is hard, and it’s getting harder for them.

Deputy Speaker: Member, may I ask you to move the motion, please?

T. Stone: I move Motion 1:

[Be it resolved that this House agree that housing supply is critical to housing affordability.]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Proceed.

T. Stone: While the NDP continues to highlight its commitment to investing in additional supportive housing projects across British Columbia, the NDP and their Green Party partners seem to be among the small minority who don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge how important supply is to housing affordability.

The result of this government’s focus simply on demand measures such as the so-called speculation tax has been to thrust the construction and real estate sectors into the early stages of a serious downturn, jeopardizing thousands of construction jobs and much-needed additional market housing supply. In fact, Budget 2019 indicates the NDP expects housing starts to plummet by 30 percent over a three-year period.

Why is this? Well, let’s start with the three tax measures the NDP implemented as part of their 2018 budget: the speculation tax, the school tax increase for properties valued over $3 million and the luxury property transfer tax, which has been increased to 5 percent. All of these tax measures have had unintended consequences on affordability. The reason is that all three apply to development sites, as many such sites are valued well above the $3 million threshold for the school and luxury property transfer tax and could be potentially considered unoccupied second residential properties under the speculation tax.

The impacts of these measures on the cost of new housing are substantial. The Urban Development Institute estimates: “Based on a conservative five-year development and construction timeline, homebuyers of a 700-square-foot apartment in Burnaby could see an increase as high as $20,000 to $25,000 due to the increased taxes on development land. This represents an incremental increase to the municipal fees, GST and PTT buyers already pay. The development lands designated for new rental buildings would also be subject to these taxes, which are the equivalent of an annual rent increase of $850 for each unit.”

Moving forward, if the government was serious about addressing affordability for all British Columbians, it would embrace the principle that taxation of development lands ultimately hurts affordability and, therefore, should not be subject to the speculation tax regarding sites in which there is a development pre-application or application before a municipality. The government would also be focused on affordability if it amended the application of the school tax on development lands based on the principle that it, too, will negatively impact affordability.

Similarly, because the luxury property transfer tax is a one-time tax, the government would be addressing affordability concerns by rebating this tax to proponents when homebuyers occupy units and have paid property transfer tax. Beyond this, the speculation tax is having massive unintended consequences reflected in an increasing slowdown of construction activity, not just in spec tax zones but also in other areas of the province.

The government’s demand-obsessed actions are suppressing the construction volumes of rental stock in communities across the province. Simply put, margins have become far too tight for the construction of market rental housing to make sense. The NDP’s decision to accept the recommendation by the Rental Housing Task Force to restrict the annual allowable rent increase formula to CPI only will continue to result in widespread and unintended consequences, not the least of which is that such changes will make new purpose-built rental projects, which are already facing many financial hurdles, even more unviable.

[11:05 a.m.]

If the government was serious about encouraging the construction of more rental housing stock, the government could provide local governments with funding to fast-track approvals of purpose-built rental projects. The government could provide a complete exemption from the property transfer tax for any purpose-built rental building which at the time of completion is subject to GST. The government could provide a rebate of the PST on all construction materials.

The bottom line is that to ensure that purpose-built rental projects are not delayed or cancelled, the NDP needs to get serious in offering incentives to encourage the construction of this housing supply. That’s not what’s happening today, as we are actually seeing fewer housing starts become the reality in communities across B.C. Fewer housing starts mean less supply, which, in turn, means less affordability. Regrettably, this budget makes no mention of supply-focused actions to be pursued by the NDP as part of a more complete strategy to drive housing affordability.

R. Kahlon: Well, that was interesting. That was very interesting.

It’s my pleasure to speak on this motion: “Be it resolved that this House agree that housing supply is critical to housing affordability.” Quite frankly, to start a Monday morning being lectured by members from that side of the House on housing affordability is quite the joke.

I hope the member…. He criticized this government for the speculation tax. I want to remind him that when he was running for leadership of the B.C. Liberal Party, he had an idea. It was an amazing idea in his campaign platform. He said: “Why don’t we levy vacant-home owners a yearly property tax surcharge unless they take the steps to rent their property?”

That is a speculation tax, and we just heard the member complain about the speculation tax hurting the economy. He’s suggesting ideas to us in his platform. I suspect he should have stood up and said, “That was a good idea,” because he also had that idea.

I think I would be more comfortable with this motion if it was: “Be it resolved that this House agree that a full spectrum of housing supply is critical to housing affordability.” We can’t just talk about one end of the spectrum.

The member opposite who brought this motion mentioned housing starts. What he also failed to mention is that in their 2017 budget, they actually had less housing starts predicted than we did — in fact, 35 percent less. So imagine the hypocrisy Monday morning when you come here and you hear him lecture about housing starts when their budget had 35 percent less housing starts than ours. Excuse me for not listening to all the suggestions from the hon. member across the way when it comes to housing.

We have some serious challenges when it comes to housing affordability. There’s no doubt. We can’t do what the previous government did. After 16 years of barely doing anything on housing affordability, they just stand up and say: “Well, you know what? Maybe they should move to a smaller town somewhere else. If they can’t afford it here, they should go somewhere else.” That is not good enough for the people of B.C.

People are struggling. Employers are telling us that they can’t find the employees that they need for the work that they are creating. The economy is so booming right now. They desperately need people. The tech industry is complaining that they cannot keep people here because of housing affordability.

What we’re doing is taking steps. We have a housing crisis on our hands, and it just didn’t happen overnight. It has been building over years — years of no one doing anything. We have money-laundering issues. That hasn’t been addressed for years and years. We’re trying to deal with all these things.

We’re building modular housing for the most vulnerable people because we know that until they have housing or some sort of stability in their lives, they can’t get the supports that they need. We heard the member talking about mental health and addiction. Housing is a critical step.

I hear from people in my constituency. Quite frankly, what I hear from them is: “Forget about buying. I can’t even afford rent.” That’s how crazy things have gotten.

We have made a bold commitment to get over 100,000 new units built in B.C. Some say it’s unattainable, but that’s the type of response we need. We’re taking steps to build 17,000 homes. They’re already in the queue to be built.

I can talk about this. This should be an hour topic. Five minutes is not enough. I hope my colleagues will talk more about the great things that are happening in this province. But I will say…. I’ll give you one example. I mentioned talking about supply.

[11:10 a.m.]

First off, people can’t afford the homes that are being built, because they’re way too unaffordable. We need to build units that people can actually afford to live in. We’re doing that with partnerships with the private sector and B.C. Housing. The B.C. housing hub is taking very innovative approaches to partner with the private sector to build affordable units for people to buy.

There was a study that just came out that 108,000 new units are in a queue to be approved, but cities aren’t approving it. Why? Because 16 years of a B.C. Liberal government didn’t build the social infrastructure that is required for housing to be built around. That means transit. That means hospitals. That means schools.

The city of Surrey is not approving developments for Surrey right now because there are not enough schools in their community for the housing. That is the job of the provincial government. It’s to build social infrastructure and let the private sector build around it.

I won’t hear lectures anymore from the members opposite about how it’s done, because we’ve seen how they’ve done it, and it’s not working. We’re taking a new approach. The Minister of Housing has a 30-point plan with the Minister of Finance. All of us are taking active roles in our community.

I look forward to hearing the other members speak on this.

B. Stewart: It’s an honour to stand in front of you in this House to speak again about something that I think this side of the House clearly does understand and gets right when it comes to creating supply and affordability.

It’s critical that we do have housing and affordability. Right now across the province, there are people struggling with the growing affordability crisis, of which housing is at the forefront. In response to this crisis, the government has made efforts to destroy equity in homes and tackle the demand side of the equation by labelling out-of-province Canadians as foreigners, subject to or under the punitive speculation tax.

In my riding, Kelowna West, where we are at ground zero of the negative effects of the speculation tax, housing starts have decreased dramatically. The construction industry has experienced a slowdown, and developments are being cancelled or put on hold every day.

Last year we saw 1,000 units of new housing lots cancelled or postponed at Goat’s Peak, scrapped by the developer directly citing the speculation tax for not proceeding. It’s not just the thought of losing 1,000 possible new homes for the communities and families that are trying to escape this endless cycle of living in rentals but also the loss of every single person who would have worked on that project.

I know that project because I sat on the APC, I’ll bet you, a dozen years ago when that project was going through its OCP amendments and changes to get onto the docket. And here we are; we’ve destabilized that project. Carpenters, painters, electricians, drywallers, contractors, plumbers, you name it — their families are now finding harder times as the construction industry slows.

We understand that as people are looking to purchase homes, our province looks to accommodate over 55,000 new people moving to British Columbia every year. That’s part of the strong economy that this side of the House built. A true progressive approach is to build new things and welcome newcomers, celebrate those who want to put roots down and settle in our towns and cities across British Columbia. But instead of a progressive approach, we see the government intent on tackling demand, thinking how we can dissuade people from moving here.

This side of the House firmly believes in increasing the supply of housing. Not only does that respond to the demand and bring prices down, but it provides work for the trades and all those now suffering under this NDP slowdown. It also brings more people into our communities, more culture, more families, more businesses.

Unfortunately, the provincial government is not the only one to blame for the lack of action on increasing supply. Many municipal councils have long stood in the way of progress, tying developments up in red tape or forcing additional costs upon them.

Just last month the Lake Court infill development in my riding completed final registration. Despite being exactly what the OCP called for, it took four years from first reading to getting shovels in the ground.

The C.D. Howe Institute estimates that because of the barriers to building, homeowners in the eight most restrictive cities paid an extra $229,000 per new single-family dwelling between 2007 and ’16.

[11:15 a.m.]

In Vancouver, the cost of housing restrictions is by far the largest in Canada, at $600,000 for the average new house, and ranks amongst the largest internationally as a share of market cost. That is not the cost of the house. These are the additional costs placed by the price of things like development charges, zoning regulations and the lengthy back-and-forth with local council and planning departments.

On top of these additional costs, too many projects are tied up in the arduous planning processes that can last years, as I pointed out. Those are the months upon months of bureaucratic inaction while people are asking for solutions.

The provincial government can and must encourage municipalities to do a better job to respond to this crisis. This year as landlords pass on the increased property taxes as a result of the NDP’s new employer health tax, affordability will only get worse. With the 19 new and increased taxes since coming to power, one would think this government would be able to invest more in increasing supply.

We need to do more to create a housing supply in this province. That means working with municipalities, working with the federal government and tackling the crisis head-on by investing in housing supply and investing in the future.

M. Dean: It’s an honour to speak today on this motion on housing. One of the largest concerns in my community is the lack of affordable housing, and that is an issue that has been building over many, many years.

So many families in my community are working hard, yet with the cost of owning or renting a home, they are struggling to make ends meet. They are at risk of having to make choices between shelter or food or heat.

For too long, the previous government let the cost of housing skyrocket. Our homes were allowed to become commodities. After years of inaction, our government has created and is already delivering on a 30-point plan. This includes building varied types of housing for the people of B.C. to be able to live and work and be with loved ones in their chosen community.

We are creating the right kind of supply of housing, not safety deposit boxes in the sky. We’re building for families, for women and children leaving violence, for Indigenous people, students and people who are homeless. We’re building collaboratively through our new housing hub, and we are empowering local governments to zone for rental projects to create incentives for new supply.

Since we formed government, we’ve already started moving on close to 17,000 new homes. In greater Victoria, housing starts are up 10 percent compared to last year. Overall, predicted housing starts over the next four years are higher than the ten-year average for 2008 to ’17 and higher than in the B.C. Liberal’s plan.

The success of this strategy is obvious to everyone in my community. Exorbitant, luxurious developments were proposed in my community, yet they weren’t viable. So we were left with holes in the ground. Now we have numerous projects building our community and meeting a range of needs.

Last month we announced a new project of Indigenous housing in Colwood. We were honoured to have Chief Chipps from Scia’new, Chief Robert Dennis and an elder from Huu-ay-aht Nation, Claire Marshall from the Aboriginal Land Trust Society and Mayor Rob Martin in attendance. Wishkey, a renowned Huu-ay-aht cultural representative, blessed the ceremony and started the project in a very good way.

Next month I will attend an opening ceremony of new affordable housing managed by Pacifica. This is a great success story of the non-profit organization upgrading old stock and increasing density and excellently managing the housing needs for the residents through the process. The redevelopment is replacing 12 townhouse units with 82 new units for low- to moderate-income one-parent households, also two-parent families with children and single-person households, including adults with disabilities and seniors.

In the fall of 2018, I was very proud to stand with the Premier and announce that West Shore will at last see a transition house built in our community. This is a need that I’ve been highlighting for well over a decade. Over the past couple of months, I’ve been at announcements around the province for 12 new transition homes being built in partnerships in communities such as Prince George, Vancouver and Kelowna.

We also have two affordable housing projects that have been announced in Esquimalt, an area that’s full of families and people in need of housing.

[11:20 a.m.]

On Goldstream Avenue behind the new Pacific Centre for Wellbeing, there will soon be a new affordable housing project with over 100 units. Having been part of the initiative of the collaboration between two non-profits in the beginning of this project, it’s going to be a really proud moment to see it completed. Already I can see that our housing plan is bringing benefits to the people of Esquimalt-Metchosin, and I know that we’ll continue to work with partners to meet the needs of people in communities across the province.

At a town hall in Esquimalt this past weekend, we brought together a range of important partners to be able to create projects to apply for funding in the next funding round. We have B.C. Housing hub, municipalities, non-profits, local leaders, interested community members in attendance and taking part, so I know we will be well placed to bring forward more proposals and to continue building into the future.

D. Barnett: On behalf of my constituents of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, one of many constituencies representing northern and rural British Columbia, I am pleased to speak to the following motion: “Be it resolved that this House agree that housing supply is critical to housing affordability.”

The key point we are talking about is housing supply. It is well acknowledged that the purchase of a single detached home in Metro Vancouver is beyond the reach of many, yet for many years, home ownership was never just a dream in British Columbia. It was part of the foundation of the middle class that came as a result of hard work and saving up for that first down payment.

For several years now, British Columbia has led the rest of the country in economic output. People came here from the rest of Canada because it offers opportunity in a beautiful place to raise a family. But with that economic growth comes demand, and the supply of housing has not been able to keep up with the growing population. This is true not only in Metro Vancouver but in the rest of the province as well.

In terms of supply, government has a certain role to play, but so does the market. The first mistake by any administration, regardless of political stripe, is to assume that government can somehow fulfil the role of the market. Sure, it’s easy to throw around big numbers like building 114,000 units of rental housing over the next ten years. It sounds great. But no one knows who will be in government a decade from now or whether 114,000 units will be sufficient to fulfil demand in 2029.

It also assumes that government is solely responsible for the construction of housing in the province, which simply is not true. What government can do, and should do, is provide the private sector with the most favourable conditions to build affordable housing. Last May UBC’s Sauder School of Business identified red tape — not speculators, not foreign buyers — as the main culprit behind high prices and lack of supply. In Metro Vancouver, it can take up to two years just to receive municipal approval before a shovel hits the ground. That two-year lag adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to the price of a unit, making affordability even more distant.

In fact, the study by author James Tansey found that of all Canadian regions, Metro Vancouver is the slowest to respond to low supply. The report argues that the government is making a mistake by focusing too much on demand side and interventions such as increases in the property transfer tax, the new school tax and the implementation of the new speculation tax. Instead, what’s needed in British Columbia are supply-side policies that focus on reducing the time it takes to approve new developments. Reduce development costs that are passed directly on to consumers. Simplify the zoning process in areas currently dominated by detached homes.

We should also look at building codes in all areas of the province. A one-size-fits-all approach is not really serving rural British Columbia, where affordable rental units are also scarce.

[11:25 a.m.]

R. Leonard: Thanks to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson for raising the matter of housing affordability. Achieving housing affordability is complex, as the equation is charged with a lot of variables and unknowns. It certainly is not simply about supply, as we all know very well that not all housing is equal. The math doesn’t add up. More housing does not always equal more affordable housing. History has proved that right here in British Columbia. Supply is important, but it is a question of the kind of supply that we nurture.

It would be wrong to put all of our eggs in one basket to solve our housing affordability crisis. That’s why our government has developed a 30-point housing plan and is working on other fronts to make life more affordable, to respond in multiple ways to the multitude of challenges that British Columbians face after 16 years of neglect by the former government — a government which left it to the open market to find its own equilibrium. This perspective did very well to serve the top 2 percent, but it has left the vast majority behind.

Let’s look at the last testament of the former government from the B.C. Liberal budget of 2017. They predicted only 27,500 housing starts in 2018. That’s a drop by more than a third, after a high of 41,000 actual housing starts in 2016. If supply is a critical measure, it is clear that with its hands-off approach, the old government had no real goal of increasing housing affordability. In the first year of rolling out our new government’s 30-point housing plan to address affordability, housing starts grew two-thirds more than the former government had predicted, and the vacancy rate had started to climb upwards.

In stark contrast, our new government is on track to see nearly 42½ thousand more housing starts over the next five years than the former B.C. Liberal government planned for. The opposition may wish to rely on the supply side of the equation to grow housing affordability, but in doing so, they fail the test. The numbers add up to show that today’s government is on a path to make life better for British Columbians.

Let’s have a look at another side of the housing affordability equation. I recall when the speculation and vacancy tax was being debated in this House, the member for Vancouver–False Creek warned of pressure from the tax that would drive housing prices up at the lower end, making condos and apartments less affordable. That has not materialized. In fact, house prices across the board are moderating.

Our government has asked homeowners to be a part of the solution. By proactively declaring their residency, they help reveal those properties that sit vacant. Imagine a community where fewer and fewer people have a roof over their heads, while more and more homes sit unoccupied, waiting for a good return on investment. Why wouldn’t a government work with the people to change the dial so that housing is for people first? As the minister who’s responsible for housing has said: “We’re not seeing investments in housing for people; we are seeing safety deposit boxes in the sky.”

Year 1 of our journey to invest $7 billion over ten years saw 17,000 units underway for mixed-income housing, supportive modular units, transition homes, student on-campus housing, Indigenous housing on and off reserve. Confidence remains strong as we continue into year 2 to build affordable housing, directly with supports where needed, and to undertake other measures to support more affordable housing, in B.C.’s housing market, in both existing and new housing.

It’s an ambitious plan, and the course is unfolding with success. The formula is proving itself. Successful partnerships are replacing the competition for scarce resources seen under the old government. There’s an atmosphere now of: “How can we jump on board and get some of that housing in our community?”

I also hear more and more constituents saying: “My kids are really struggling, even though they have good jobs.” That’s why the new housing hub is such a boon, as we look to develop new partnerships that are so necessary in the housing marketplace to grow more affordable housing for what’s been tagged as the “missing middle.”

[11:30 a.m.]

With all hands on deck, we’re on a course to make life better, for British Columbians with an address, for every kind of housing need.

S. Sullivan: There are only really two aspects to price: supply and demand. Both of those determine what the price of housing will be. This government has released its 30-point plan, and almost all of the points are about suppressing demand. Only a few points address supply. Some of these are welcome, but they address supply of government housing for special populations. Certainly, it’s important for us to do this, but for the general population of British Columbians, the average homebuyers or home renters who are simply in the regular market, this doesn’t help them at all.

Not long ago the CMHC, federal government, was asked by the minister to find out what’s going on in large metropolitan regions — what is happening and what’s behind house prices. The minister gave pretty much an unlimited budget. They had 30 PhD and masters economists, and they spent a year. They had access to all of the Stats Canada information. They had access to all the federal information.

These 30 very qualified people crunched the numbers, and what they found was that 75 percent of all of the rising house prices in the metropolitan areas of Canada could be predicted by three points. One is income, one is population, and one is mortgage rates. They went to look for the rest of the 25 percent, and they found it, basically, in the supply of housing. Metro Vancouver has the worst elasticity of supply in the country.

Edmonton, Calgary, Montreal all have very healthy supply elasticities. Basically, a rise in house prices will immediately result in pretty good supply — sort of a 1 to 1 ratio. Toronto has a very bad supply response of 0.5 elasticity. That means for all the rise in house prices, you’d get only half an amount of housing that you would want from a healthy market. Metro Vancouver is the worst: 0.25. For every rise in price, you will get only a quarter of the amount of housing you would expect in a healthy market.

Certainly, there are problems with geography. In Calgary, Alberta, Montreal, you can pretty well sprawl wherever you want. In Toronto, you’ve the lake beside you. Vancouver has the most difficult geographical problems. We’ve got ocean on the left. We’ve got mountains on the north. We’ve got the U.S. border, and then we’ve got the agricultural land reserve. This really constrains our supply ability.

The only thing we can do is government policy. It is government policy that really restricts the supply of housing. Much of this is municipal policy, but it is provincial government that sets the mechanisms for municipal governments to respond to supply problems, and they are working within a system that was really designed in the 1970s specifically for the purpose of restricting the supply of housing.

Government policy has worked. The supply of housing has been restricted. That came about in the 1970s. It was largely because of the experience with the West End.

[11:35 a.m.]

At that time, the city of Vancouver was really upset about turning the West End, which was a very suburban community, single-family homes…. It turned into the West End, which was very high density.

Many people in Vancouver at that time, and throughout Metro Vancouver, were upset about that. They instituted these procedures and policies so that it was very difficult to up-zone neighbourhoods, and it worked in Vancouver. About 70 percent of all of the residential land was in the form of single-family homes, and today, about 70 percent is in the form of single-family homes. So basically, there has been no ability to convert suburban areas into higher density.

R. Singh: It is my great honour to speak on this housing motion.

In my community of Surrey, housing affordability is a huge issue. When I was running for the election and since I became the MLA, the most that I hear from people is about the housing. In the last so many years, people were being left behind.

We know that Surrey is the fastest-growing community. We have almost more than 1,000 people move into Surrey to make Surrey their new home, but somehow those people are falling behind. Housing is one of our basic needs that every family needs, but every other family that I’m talking to is not able to fulfil this dream.

Forget about owning, as the member for Delta North mentioned; people are not even able to afford to rent a house these days, especially that goes for the new immigrants who are moving. More and more new immigrants are making Surrey their home, and this is a story that I hear from almost all of them.

My colleagues on the other side talk about their record, about what they were doing with the housing, but I’m very sad to say that those — whatever housing they were creating — were not helping the average person. The housing that was coming up, the developments that were coming up, was more like safety deposits for people who already had the money, and they could make more money out of the housing.

People who could afford a house, with the flipping, were able to afford more than a few properties. I know, even in my acquaintances, I’ve seen people make more money out of it. But the average family was being left behind, and that’s where this whole crisis came up from.

I’m very happy that our Minister of Housing is very dedicated on this issue. She totally understands the complexity. She knows what the last 16 years have done, so she’s working with all kinds of partners to create housing and different kinds of housing — housing for women fleeing abuse, as my colleague here mentioned, and housing for even the homeless people.

In Surrey, we had 135A Street, which was known as the tent city. It was, in the last so many years, very notorious about what was happening on that street. But we came together, with the partnership of our city, our municipality, and came up with modular housing in that area, and we created more than 300 housing units for the most vulnerable population.

That is the population that was being left behind. That is the population that the other side was not thinking about. They are also citizens of this province, and they need to move ahead as well — and other vulnerable populations as well.

Women who are fleeing violence. There was a big need to create more housing for those women, and we are very committed to doing that. We have already announced a number of projects to help those women get the housing they deserve.

Also, housing for even students. We are committed to creating that housing as well, because there was a big need. In Surrey, especially, there was no student housing. Most of the students had to go into the commercial sector, go rent the basements or the condos, because they could not get housing on the campus. That is another thing that our government is looking after.

[11:40 a.m.]

Whatever my colleagues on the other side say, by the numbers that I have, we are making the largest investment in affordable housing in B.C. history — $7 billion over ten years to build 114,000 affordable homes throughout B.C. Since we formed government, we have already started moving on close to 17,000 new homes, and that’s only in the first year out of ten. This also includes 4,900 mixed-income homes for people in 42 communities across the province.

I can say for my community of Surrey…. I was just looking at the statistics. In the last quarter, the city of Surrey had more housing starts than anywhere else, which I think is good going. As I said, we get the most new people. It is the fastest-growing community in B.C. I’m very happy, very positive, with the changes that our government is doing, that our Ministry of Housing is doing. It will help everybody. It’s not just 2 percent of the population but everybody who deserves housing.

R. Coleman: I’ll just take a couple of minutes to talk about housing.

First of all, as we know today, 12,500 units of housing that were going to be built for rental in this province are now on the shelf and not going to get constructed. It’s basically because of the EHT, which is actually taking costs down to the tax base so people can’t make their numbers work — plus add in the fact that the government has taken away the ability to even have so much as a 2 percent increase if you’re in the rental marketplace. There’s no way to make the numbers work in the private sector to do that.

The second thing is, in reality, if you look at the numbers that are being produced by B.C. Housing with regards to housing, the government is about 18,000 units behind schedule on what they said they would do relative to affordable housing in B.C. They’re not building it.

The biggest challenge here is the misunderstanding of housing that people in this House have. Do you know that in Vancouver, $600,000 is the estimate cost in order to go through the process — the community amenity charges, the DCCs, the impost charges, the time and the money it takes to build one unit? It’s $600,000. Could you imagine if you’re able to discount $600,000 off of every house in Vancouver, how much more affordable it would be?

If you go from community to community to community in British Columbia, you’d be shocked about how much money is in a house before you actually build it — a unit or a house. Now, if you go upcountry in this province, they look down here and shake their heads. In Aldergrove, a 5,000-square-foot lot is $500,000 — Aldergrove, almost an hour outside of Vancouver.

Go into most communities, small communities across B.C., and find me a $500,000 house. You’ll find that, in actual fact, you won’t. If there is, it’s very rare, because most of the housing will be less than that. A 3,000-square-foot house last year in Ashcroft, on a 10,000-square-foot lot, sold for about $270,000.

The affordability matrix is something you have to look at internally: how you can take that money that municipalities are taking and reinvest it in things like share equity. In other words, don’t take it out of the house — municipalities. Leave it in. Buy the price down for affordability within the community. When they sell, take your percentage back on the upside and continue to build an annuity for affordable ownership in your communities. It’s a plan that’s in place that has worked before and would work again.

It would actually change the whole dynamic without having to build at all by simply using the equity that’s there. If it’s land, municipal land, if it’s DCCs or whatever, put that back into an investment in the unit. If that brings down the price to 20 percent below market, then when somebody buys it, they buy it at 20 percent below market. When they sell, they give 20 percent of their profit back to the municipality. It works like an annuity. It works like a pension.

I did those projects back in the ’90s. I have one project I did in one community across B.C. where today the price of land has been paid back four times, and it’s still the most affordable condo project in the community. This is where you have to get innovative. We put those programs in place and were doing them, and then the government cancelled them, which is their lot to do.

At the same time, if you’re not building rental housing, because you changed the rules and it’s not getting built, and you’re not using the value of the equity of the land and those things to give you more options, you’re failing on every level, especially when you claim to be building 114,000 units over the next ten years and you’re nowhere near to doing 2,000 to 3,000 in the first two years.

You’re so far behind, you’re underwater, and you’ll find it’s difficult — the zoning, public hearings. All of those things are difficult. You need a buy-in. You need a partner, and that’s the municipalities. Everybody has to get to the table to look at how you build affordable housing, long-term, where people can have a piece of ownership, which allows them to lever up in the market to do other things so the next generation can come behind and get the same opportunity.

[11:45 a.m.]

People should realize my first home wasn’t a single-family home. It was a single-wide mobile home. I think the reality is we need people to understand that investment in the market starts at the beginning. You build your equity, you work up to it, and as the market moves, you can move with it. But you need to get in the market if you want to be a homeowner.

So don’t think you’re entitled to starting out with a single-family home. My children didn’t. They started out with condos. Today they have homes. They did that because they worked hard, they paid it down, and they built their equity.

I think the opportunity is still there in the marketplace for that to happen. But at the same time, for those that have a tougher time getting into the market with a down payment, we can do like I just described and share equity by taking equity to actually build an annuity-type form of housing, which will actually give people affordability and the opportunity to be in the market early and long term, for their families.

Also, don’t forget that coach houses, suites and other things are important to affordability.

Deputy Speaker: Abbotsford-Mission.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Surrey-Fleetwood.

J. Brar: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s very interesting that since morning, we have been talking about the affordability of housing, the motion moved by the member from the other side. I’m very surprised to see that the members on the other side are talking about the affordability of housing.

They had been there in power for 16 long years, and what they gave to the people of British Columbia is very clear. They gave the people of British Columbia this. For everybody who comes to this country or who is born in this country, the biggest dream they have is to buy a house. And during their time, the price of housing has gone up so much that they killed the dream of people owning a house. That’s the first thing they did.

Now the majority of people who come to this country as immigrants, or the new generation, no matter what kind of job they do, cannot buy a house in B.C. because the price has gone significantly up. The price, which normally goes up in 25 years, has gone up in just three years. That’s the situation. So that’s why people cannot afford housing in B.C. anymore.

We — the government, the member on this side and the minister of the government at this point in time — have put together the 30-point plan. Under that plan, we are building 117,000 affordable rental housing in the province of British Columbia, and we have already built or are in the process of building 17,000 housing in the province. That’s a big, big thing in 15 months.

The members on the other side…. I know they talk about that we’re behind in the schedule and all that kind of stuff. I would like to ask the members on the other side how much affordable housing they built during 16 years. Not many.

The housing situation is very, very serious. It’s the number one issue in the province of British Columbia at this point in time.

The member talked about supply. Yes, supply is very important, but at the same time, they have been there for 16 years. I would like to ask them: what have they done to make sure we have enough supply of housing in the province of British Columbia? They haven’t done anything on that one. They are here just to criticize the plan of the B.C. NDP government at this point in time.

We have put together a 30-point plan that’s working. It’s working for the people of British Columbia, and the government of Canada has also taken steps on this one. The housing prices are going down at this point in time. At the same time, we’re building housing for the people of British Columbia who can’t afford it, whether it’s working people or middle-class people. We are on the way to build that housing. We are committed to make housing more affordable, and we’ll continue doing that work for the people of British Columbia.

[11:50 a.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

S. Gibson: Thanks to the previous speaker, from Surrey-Fleetwood, with that surprise speech. I appreciate it. It was good.

In my own situation, just as we speak about the housing supply and how it’s critical to housing affordability, I could speak very personally. My oldest daughter and her husband, with three boys, were living in Vancouver in a tiny apartment so small, you had to go in the hall to change your mind. We got them moved to Chilliwack, and the hon. member for Chilliwack is hosting them out in a little community called Yarrow. We had to put up a lot of our family savings together to make that possible, but we’re sure glad to have them out there close to us in Abbotsford.

It’s an honour for me to speak and take my place here on behalf of my constituents in Abbotsford-Mission. Really, the issue is complicated. I think we agree with that. But one thing I believe, right from my heart, is that this government is creating a culture that discourages housing development. It’s creating a culture that is saying to developers — people that want to create housing, rental and other housing: “You don’t need to do that. You’re not welcome.” It’s a tragedy.

Developers in my community have spoken to me. They’re very opposed to this government. They get nervous about what this government might do next. My colleagues previously have spoken eloquently about the taxes that are being imposed. It’s troubling. It’s a taxing culture.

I had the privilege of working as a marketing manager for many years for a large credit union. Our livelihood was mortgages in many ways. When the rates went really high, people struggled. They’re struggling today. And this government is not making any effort to create a welcoming culture for folks that want to develop housing, particularly rental housing, single-family housing.

Now, the other part of the paradigm, which I acknowledge, is that local government has a role to play. It was my privilege to serve for three decades in Abbotsford, the fifth-largest community in British Columbia, and we could see the challenges that were needed to make housing more affordable.

We’re looking now at the future. Housing starts are going down. In fact, housing starts are predicted to drop 16.7 percent this year — last year they dropped 6.4 percent — and another 10 percent more in 2020 and 2021. How tragic. This is the place people want to come, to B.C. This is the province of hope and excitement for our country. How tragic that housing starts are going down. It’s almost unbelievable.

Such a huge decline would mean a loss of over 50,000 housing units across the province — totally the opposite of where we want to go. Now, when a government limits supply, they limit the ability of British Columbians to afford homes. Most of us in this place probably own our own home, but for the next generation coming up, my daughter that I mentioned, it’s challenging to be able to afford to buy a home.

It’s affecting all people from all walks of life. Of course, the really tragic part of this equation is homelessness. We’re seeing, in the valley and elsewhere, homelessness, which is the real evidence that housing is becoming unaffordable in the most dramatic terms.

In Abbotsford, where I live and represent, the average price of a single-family home has gone up $100,000 in just four months — a tragic commentary on this government’s inability to handle the challenges that face them. Government’s approach is just tax, tax, tax. Create more obstacles. Make it impossible for companies to develop housing that is so desperately needed by our residents.

[11:55 a.m.]

I saw a quote here. The Urban Development Institute conservatively predicts…. Here’s the quote, and government, pay attention, please. “Homebuyers of a 700-square-foot apart­ment in Burnaby….” We have MLAs from across the floor from Burnaby; this would be of interest to you, I think. “Homebuyers of a 700-square-foot apartment in Burnaby could see an increase as high as $20,000 to $25,000 due to” — what? — “the increased taxes on development land.” That’s the terrible story that we’re hearing daily throughout our province.

Hon. Speaker, it’s a pleasure for me to speak to this. It’s a tragic issue. This government needs to address it aggressively, or else we’re going to run out of opportunities for people to buy their own homes and rent homes.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it gives me great pleasure to hear the B.C. Liberals finally talking about housing affordability, as if it’s a brand-new topic. When I joined this House back in 2008, I raised the huge, huge, humongous increase in homelessness under the B.C. Liberals in communities like Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Vancouver, Prince George — all across this province. For years, they did nothing. They sat on their hands as the numbers increased, increased, increased.

You know what the Premier, the former leader of the Liberal Party, used to tell people when we raised the concerns about housing affordability? They said: “Move somewhere else. Leave your home community. Oh, you can’t live in Vancouver anymore? Move to Fort Nelson.” That’s what the leader of the Liberal party used to say.

We’ve got a New Democrat government now that will actually work incredibly hard, day in, day out, on housing affordability, building more homes — more homes than the Liberals had in their last budget, mind you. But you know, let’s not look at facts. Let’s just look at rhetoric.

We’re actually seeing more houses being built now than there were under the Liberal government’s last budget. We’re seeing more affordable housing, more co-op housing, low-income housing, modular housing to help with homelessness — housing, housing, housing. There’s probably not a day that I don’t say the word “housing” a million times because of the sheer amount of need and the sheer amount of work that we’re doing as a government.

It’s a shame that the Liberals didn’t for 16 years. But hey, now we’ve got a government working for the betterment of all of us, for housing for all of us, for affordable housing for all of us. It’s a great day that we have that government in B.C.

S. Chandra Herbert moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Chen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.