First Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 17
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Auditor General, report on financial audit work for 2019-20 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
Throne Speech Debate (continued) | |
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2021
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: P. Alexis.
Introductions by Members
A. Mercier: I’d like to introduce my constituency assistant, Jennifer Loftus. It’s Jennifer’s 28th birthday today, and rather than taking the day off to relax, she’s working hard in my constituency office, serving the people of Langley.
Will the folks in this House, the members of this House, please join me in wishing Jennifer a happy birthday.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 6 — HOME OWNER GRANT
AMENDMENT ACT,
2021
Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021.
Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce the Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021, which amends the Home Owner Grant Act. The primary purpose of this bill is to enable the full centralization of the homeowner grant program. This is the final step to ensure that the province meets its commitment to centralize the program, as announced in Budget 2020.
The province already administers the homeowner grant program for rural areas, so it makes sense for the province to centralize and streamline the program for all of B.C. We have listened to the municipalities, who told us that administering the homeowner grant program was a burden.
Centralization will make it faster and easier for homeowners to apply. It also ensures that all B.C. homeowners have equal access to a fully online application, as well as phone-based support and quicker application processing. Most importantly, it also means that applicants will receive the full amount that they are eligible for.
The amendments also modernize the Home Owner Grant Act, ensuring consistency with other legislation and providing more enforcement tools to increase efficiency and recovery of amounts owed to government.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 6, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 2021, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BILL 8 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT,
2021
Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2021.
Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I am pleased to introduce the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2021. In November 2019, my predecessor, Minister James, announced that the province would be moving to a single regulator of real estate under the B.C. Financial Services Authority. Today I’m putting forward amendments to the Real Estate Services Act to enable that transition.
This is a result of recommendations from a report the government commissioned on the regulation of real estate. Those recommendations were later echoed in an expert panel’s report on combatting money laundering in B.C. real estate. Both reports noted the inefficiencies of the existing co-regulator model, where the office of the superintendent of real estate and the Real Estate Council of B.C. shared responsibility for regulating real estate in the province.
The B.C. Financial Services Authority currently regulates financial institutions, pensions and mortgage brokers. By making the CEO of the authority the superintendent of real estate, we are working to create a unified system, a system that allows experts across sectors to work together, including opportunities to streamline investigations and enforcement. This will increase the efficiency and, ultimately, the consumer confidence in the regulation of these sectors.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 8, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kootenay East.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES
IN KOOTENAY EAST
AREA
T. Shypitka: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s great to be back in the House.
As residents of the greatest country in the world, our health care needs are protected under the Canada Health Act. The act sets out the primary objective of Canadian health care policy, which is “to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.”
However, that is not truly the case across our beautiful province. Not only does Kootenay East share the provincial border with Alberta, but it shares health care needs as well. Calgary is but a couple of hours’ drive for some folks in my riding, with no real geographical barriers to mention. It’s also close enough for family support and allows patients and loved ones to travel easily to and from work or child care issues with limited expense.
That said, the access to Alberta from British Columbia has been extinguished for many residents in Kootenay East and many other jurisdictions in B.C. Critical procedures in Alberta, such as radiation treatment for cancer, are being denied and relocated to places much farther, such as Kelowna, Vancouver or even Victoria. These locations represent such barriers that patients are actually cancelling treatments due to these barriers.
Another example is that retinal surgery often involves the use of intraocular gas, which makes it impossible to use air travel as a mode of transport. This, in turn, makes getting to an alternative site for tertiary ophthalmology care very difficult.
Now it appears that people with physical disabilities are being impacted for the first time. In the past, Alberta physicians were able to assist their patients with the completion of the PWD form. Our poverty advocate has reached out to the office to let us know that this is no longer the case. The PWD application can no longer be completed by their Alberta physician.
This is not right in a true universal health care system. We need to do better, yet this situation grows worse every day. In British Columbia, we are all equal, and we all need equal access.
I ask that all members of this House support all British Columbians in their right to access to health care without financial or other barriers.
WORK OF CUPE MEMBERS
IN LANGLEY
AREA
A. Mercier: I’d like to take a moment to thank the hard-working women and men of CUPE Locals 403 and 2058. They’re the folks working for the township and city of Langley that have been critical to keeping our community running. They’re the equipment operators, the tradespeople, the arborists, the recreation workers and countless others that do the necessary work that we all depend on.
They have benefited from strong leadership at both city and township council as well as within their unions. In particular, Sara Manchester and Jeff Culhane at Local 403 and Andrew Brown at Local 2058 have been paragons of modern, progressive leadership in the labour movement.
I’d like to take a moment and just highlight one of the programs that’s performed by CUPE 403 members, and that’s Active Beyond the Bell. Active Beyond the Bell typically runs for two hours after dismissal of the gymnasium at local schools. Every month, it focuses on fundamental movement skills and healthy lifestyle concepts, which can help your child towards a healthy, active and confident life. Each day, it focuses on fundamental movement skills, activity and nutrition. Activities are included that introduce or practise these skills in a fun, non-competitive environment. Daily happenings vary to allow for input from the kids, free time and snacks.
Physical literacy is the ability to move confidently and competently in a variety of ways on a variety of surfaces. Studies show that children today are not gaining the basic skills to move confidently and competently. Without these skills, children are less likely to participate in sports as a child and even less likely to participate as an adult.
This program is a perfect example of the work that the members of CUPE 403 are doing to help improve our community and as a general service to Langley.
KIWANIS NORTH SHORE HOUSING SOCIETY
K. Kirkpatrick: I’d like to acknowledge that our constituency rests on the traditional unceded territories of the Coast Salish peoples.
Rents on Vancouver’s North Shore are among the highest of the Metro Vancouver municipalities. It’s the highest proportion of seniors of all municipalities. Both West Vancouver and North Vancouver reported zero percent available rental in 2018, and 70 percent of its workforce does not live in the community.
I’d like to highlight the great work of Kiwanis North Shore Housing Society, which has been providing affordable rental on the North Shore for residents of low to moderate income for 70 years. Kiwanis has a dedicated and energetic board of directors with a proven track record of operating affordable housing projects. Kiwanis owns and operates 634 rental apartments in seven buildings on the North Shore. Kiwanis is currently building an eighth building in the district of North Vancouver, adding an additional 106 affordable units. All are rented below market to low-income senior residents.
In 2019 the district of West Vancouver presented Kiwanis with a Community Commitment award in recognition of its outstanding contribution to the community. They acknowledged the enormous investment in volunteer time to build and operate below-market rental accommodation that has enabled seniors to live in and contribute to the quality of life on the North Shore. In 2017 Kiwanis leased additional space to operate an adult daycare centre with the goal now of finding permanent space.
Organizations like Kiwanis cannot do this good work without the support of its partners in B.C. Housing, VCH and the contributions from the public. I’d like to acknowledge its hard-working board and staff and thank them for the good work they do for our community.
PROJECT AIM AND
ACCESS TO INCONTINENCE
AND
MENSTRUAL PRODUCTS
K. Paddon: I rise today to recognize and share the work of a constituent in Chilliwack-Kent inspired by a need in our community. Miel Bernstein is a resident of Agassiz, B.C., and the founder of Project AIM, access to incontinence and menstrual products. Miel first decided to take on fundraising for these items late in 2020, after she became aware of many in our community who struggle to afford these basic hygiene items. Through her initiative, she has collected donated products, raised money and established relationships to purchase these important products at cost.
Community members, organizations and businesses across Chilliwack and Chilliwack-Kent have supported and encouraged this project, as they recognize that the cost of menstrual and incontinence products, the cost of hygiene, dignity and access requires all of our support to ensure equal access and availability. With this goal in mind, Mohamed Hasanine and the Agassiz Remedy’sRx Pharmacy family support AIM by accepting donations at their location and by selling these products to the project at cost. Products collected or purchased by AIM have been distributed by Agassiz-Harrison Community Services and Extra FARE as well as gender counselling groups and local women’s shelters.
This is not a glamorous topic, but we know that period poverty is real. As we approach International Women’s Day, this work is especially topical, as we recognize the financial repercussions of gender in our society as well as the reality that a lack of access to these hygiene items can result in serious health issues, increased stigma and limitations to social and economic participation.
Please join me in thanking Miel Bernstein of Project AIM, Agassiz Remedy’sRx Pharmacy and everyone donating and distributing these products for the work they’re doing in recognition of this need, for shining a light on this access issue and for the generosity they offer our community.
I know our government and everyone in this House applauds the work of Miel Bernstein.
TOURISM IN FRASER CANYON CORRIDOR
J. Tegart: It’s with great pleasure that I speak today about an exciting project happening in my riding. That project has a goal to wake up the Fraser Canyon.
The Fraser Canyon is a hidden gem of British Columbia — absolutely spectacular views, incredible history and a highway corridor that was devastated by the building of the Coquihalla.
Two years ago 40 people gathered in a room in Lytton to talk about the challenges in the canyon. Everyone who needed to be there was in the room, and a plan was made.
We are now nearing the end of the process to write the tourism master plan for the Fraser Canyon. Everyone is still at the table. Government agencies have been extremely cooperative, communities are committed, and we are ready for action.
We’ve identified infrastructure projects like viewpoints, pullouts and signage. Yale First Nation is planning a new campground at Alexandra Bridge, and Pathways to Gold is working with government to stabilize the old Alexandra Bridge for walking. Trails and viewing areas will also be developed.
Boston Bar, a small community in the canyon, has received federal funding of close to $2 million to refurbish their historic train station. Trails throughout the corridor have been identified for parking and signage development.
Kanaka Bar Band is developing a new rest stop which will encourage food trucks and further development. And Lytton has identified projects both in town and on the highway.
All this work being done is built around respect for the land, sustainability and job creation. I can tell you, throughout the canyon corridor, there is excitement in the air, and we would like to invite everyone in this House to spend your staycation travelling through the Fraser Canyon this year.
VERNON COMMUNITY
RESPONSE TO
COVID-19
H. Sandhu: I’m joining you from the unceded territory of the Okanagan Indian Nations.
Today I rise in the House to recognize the solidarity shown by organizations, businesses and the wonderful people of Vernon-Monashee during COVID.
For example, at the beginning of this pandemic, Vernon became the first community in B.C. to amalgamate its shelters for people experiencing homelessness. Not only that. These shelters added physical distancing pods. All this allowed for better care of the needs of our most vulnerable citizens. This was done by Turning Points Collaborative Society, a Vernon-based organization. Many communities followed their lead.
Vernon and District Immigrant and Community Services Society also showed its care and compassion by keeping their English-language courses for new Canadians and temporary foreign workers going virtually, by not stopping the classes but switching to early online courses.
This spirit continues today in many ways. A local business owner, David Scarlatescu, at the beginning of the pandemic, started providing free lunches to seniors in need, and he continues this effort to this day. These are perfect examples of coming together to support one another during tough times.
COVID has brought the best and worst out in people, but it is reassuring to know that we have more good than bad, which makes our communities beautiful.
I would like to ask all the members of this House to please join me to thank every individual from my riding for showing their strength, resiliency and care to help.
Oral Questions
COVID-19 VACCINATION PLAN
FOR SENIORS AND SMALL
COMMUNITIES
S. Bond: Well, we continue to hear stories of seniors, the frail elderly and their families, who are concerned. They’re confused, and they’re worried about getting their vaccination.
Many of them have not left their homes. They have not been out in their communities since the pandemic began, and now they are afraid that they will need to travel to get their vaccination.
Yesterday we raised that very issue about the community of Hope. We were relieved, and the mayor of Hope and his constituents were also relieved that they would have a vaccination clinic in their community. In fact, the Premier made a commitment: “I have every expectation that the residents of Hope, particularly in phase 2, will not have to travel to get immunized.” So that was good news, and it was a relief for the residents of Hope.
Can the Premier confirm that he followed up on his promise and that he gave clear direction to the health authorities across the province that vaccination clinics will be located in communities all across the province so that seniors will not have to travel to have their vaccination?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. I did follow up with the Minister of Health yesterday, after question period, and it is clear that in phase 2, those who are unable to travel will not be required to do so. The plan starts by going to independent living facilities. It goes to those people who have home care already, people known to the ministry, people known to the health authority, to get their first shot in that phase 2 cohort.
As we move into phase 3 and phase 4, the largest immunization program in Canadian history will be underway, and it will require extraordinary efforts by volunteers, by members of the Legislature, by people all across British Columbia. It’s my expectation that those that are leading this extremely challenging file are going to do everything they can to reduce anxiety.
Again, I just want to touch on the member’s premise, which was that we’re all pretty frightened about all of this. Certainly, those who have been in their homes for the past number of months want to hear definitively that they will be safe going forward, and I can give that assurance as we go into phase 2.
When we go from there, that’s going to require a whole bunch of other work by a whole bunch of other people. I cannot guarantee, as the member wants me to, that every community will have a vaccination centre, but I can commit that those in phase 2, the particularly elderly and frail, will have access in their community.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
S. Bond: I do appreciate the Premier’s response. Most seniors at home today don’t know about phase 1 or phase 2 or phase 3 or anything else, for that matter. What they are worried about is ensuring that they have an opportunity to be vaccinated in their communities.
Yesterday the Premier made an explicit commitment: seniors “will not have to travel to get immunized.” Well, another day and another community.
I’m very surprised that the member for Delta North hasn’t actually stood up and raised this issue — the very issue that Mayor George Harvie raised, with exactly the same issue as Hope. In a letter that he made public, Mayor Harvie points out that North Delta is currently not being considered for a vaccination site. The letter goes on to outline that they are willing to do whatever is necessary.
The Premier talks about people being willing to step up. Mayor Harvie has said that his staff has searched the community. They’re willing to do whatever is necessary. He said a vaccination site in North Delta is essential. Here is the ask that the mayor has: “I would respectfully ask that you consider a Delta site to serve this population.”
Yesterday the Premier made a promise that seniors would be vaccinated in their communities, so today will he ensure that the residents of North Delta have a vaccination site for seniors, and frankly, will he please give clear direction to health authorities so that day after day we’re not bringing another community expressing concerns and fears about their frail elderly citizens?
Hon. J. Horgan: The member said at the start of her question that seniors don’t know the difference between phase 1, phase 2, phase 3, and I accept that. But every member of this House should know the difference between phase 1 and phase 2 and phase 3.
The official opposition was briefed thoroughly by the Minister of Health, by the immunization team, with the express purpose of…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Let’s listen to the answer, please.
Hon. J. Horgan: …reducing anxiety in communities.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: Mr. Speaker, I’ll get to the point the member made, but I think the preamble is critical here. It is important that all of us work together to explain to British Columbians an extremely complicated situation — an extremely complicated situation that is happening not just here in British Columbia, not just here in Canada, but indeed around the world. So if our objective is to reduce anxiety, I suggest that we collectively put our shoulder to the wheel and work cooperatively to reduce anxiety.
With respect to the particular request by the mayor of Delta, we’ll take that under consideration. But the member will also know that if you live in North Delta, you are right beside Surrey. It is a different community, but it is the same community for commerce…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Come to order, please.
Hon. J. Horgan: …for shopping, for social interactions. Again, maybe a geography lesson…. Perhaps a geography lesson would be in order here.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. We’ll resume question period after you’re finished heckling each other.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, come to order.
OPIOID CRISIS AND
MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTIONS
MINISTRY BUDGET
T. Halford: Today the coroner revealed 165 opioid deaths in January, the largest number ever recorded in a month. That follows the heels of 2020 — which, we tragically saw, was the worst year ever.
I’m going to read a quote: “Why is our provincial government unable to meet the needs of people and families desperate to find help when it comes to the opioid addiction?” Those are the words of the Premier in 2016, and, sadly, today they ring truer.
Can the Premier tell us why the budget for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions is the smallest in his government?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: The calamity of the continued overdose crisis, combined with the effects of the pandemic, are leading to increasingly heartbreaking loss for people in British Columbia, and on behalf of the province and the government, we extend our condolences to the families and friends of those lost and our thanks to those working on the front line, working very hard to save lives. It’s been a very hard year.
As the coroner pointed out in her report last month about the 2020 deaths, the effects of the pandemic border closure measures that have led to increased toxicity of illicit street drugs, coupled with increased isolation and more and more people using drugs alone, especially as supervised consumption sites and other services had to minimize their operations for safety reasons, have led to a terrible combination. That is what we are fighting.
That my predecessor and this government brought in measures, as the coroner acknowledged, that in 2019 led, for the first time since 2012, to a drop in the number of overdose deaths from illicit drugs, does say to us that we must work even harder, that what we were doing…. And, in fact, in the first two months of 2020, before the pandemic hit, also, overdose deaths had dropped.
Our government continues to be all hands in all ways, adding nurse prescribers, expanding enormously access to safe supply, opening new treatment and addiction beds. Just two weeks ago…. And, in fact, just in two days, we are going to be announcing new youth treatment beds in Kelowna in cooperation with Interior Health, a doubling of youth treatment beds for the first time in B.C.’s history.
We know there is more to do, and we are determined to do it.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.
T. Halford: I think the fact is this: the Premier’s office has a bigger budget than the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. The Premier spends more money on government advertising than he does on this ministry’s budget. That is why critics are calling this a failure.
The Premier said: “When someone needs supports, they can be stuck on a wait-list. They should not be forced to navigate the yawning gaps in B.C.’s treatment services. Addictions don’t wait.” I agree.
To the Premier, if he meant what he said, will he commit today to increasing this ministry’s budget?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: I thank the member opposite for his concern about the overdose crisis. I do wish he’d had a hand in shaping his own party’s election platform in October, at which point they pledged only 25 percent of what the elected government did for Mental Health and Addictions. But good ideas can come from all sides of the House, and I look forward to the member’s support for our commitment in the forthcoming budget, where we are again, for the fourth year in a row, contributing unprecedented dollars towards fighting the mental health and addictions crisis.
Every year $2.7 billion from my colleague the Minister of Health’s budget goes directly into Mental Health and Addictions. We’ve contributed $746 million over five years alone, starting in 2017, to combat the overdose crisis.
That has led to new services that the previous government in the 16 years they had the ability to build these in, did not — 100 new adult substance use and treatment beds, new Foundry centres across the province, an enormous expansion of prescription alternatives or safe supply, and also medication-assisted treatment, in cooperation with nurse prescribers and so many hard workers on the front line. We are doing the hard work, and I look forward to my colleagues’ support for more.
COVID-19 IMPACT AND
DISAGGREGATED DATA
COLLECTION
S. Furstenau: We can’t turn a blind eye to the unequal impacts of this epidemic. If we are not actively anti-racist in our pandemic policy development, we risk compounding the systemic racism that has long existed in B.C.
As was just reported in the Vancouver Sun, the consequence of the race-based data gap has been especially stark during COVID-19. “Public health officials have been unable to definitively say whether racialized groups are infected with the virus at higher rates.” As my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands notes in that same article, if you don’t ask the questions, you don’t collect the data, you become colour-blind to the “nuances of the way policies are affecting outcomes for different people.”
My question is again to the Premier. In June of last year, he wrote to the B.C. Human Rights Commissioner and requested her advice on how to move forward with the collection of race- and ethnicity-based data, yet nine months later, no work has been done on the suggestions put forward by the commissioner, meaning we have no data capable of informing our vaccine rollout plan.
Why has this not been a priority for the Premier?
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question and for her interest. As with all pandemics and with all serious diseases and ailments that face people, they’re profoundly affected by what we call the social determinants of health, by income, by ethnicity, by race. Indeed, all of these things play a role.
Every case is important and every case is followed here in British Columbia. That’s why we’ve engaged in the program that we are engaging in to immunize those who are most vulnerable first. That includes, because the evidence shows this, our elders — in the case of this immunization, those in long-term care. It’s why we comprehensively immunized long-term care and assisted living. It was based on the evidence.
It’s why we are providing immunization in rural and remote Indigenous communities because of the vulnerability of those communities to pandemic. It’s why, with respect to Indigenous people, we’re immunizing 65 and above during the period when, in the general population, we’re immunizing 80 and above.
Our policies have been informed by who has been affected. Our policies and direction have been informed by the concerns of regions and by people, because every case matters. Every single case matters. We take it all, as you can imagine, very seriously, both at the provincial health office, the Ministry of Health and throughout the government.
Can we do a better job in future? Yes. But I think that our provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, our deputy provincial health officer, Dr. Danièle Behn Smith, the Premier and others have been very concerned about these very questions and responding to them, and you see that reflected in our immunization plan.
S. Furstenau: Hon. Speaker, the Health Minister does indicate that decisions are being made using data and evidence. But they’re being made by the data and evidence that are being collected.
Let’s look, for example, at Manitoba. Yesterday Manitoba released a report showing how COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted Indigenous, Black and other people of colour in the province. Why was this possible? It’s because Manitoba started collecting race-based and socioeconomic data in May 2020.
What does the data tell them? Despite being 35 percent of the population, Manitobans who identified as Black, Indigenous and people of colour make up over half of the total of COVID cases in the province. This is not a naturally occurring disparity. It is created by policy. The disproportionate impact of COVID-19 is systemic, and it is seen in every jurisdiction, according to Dr. Brent Roussin, chief provincial public health officer of Manitoba. It’s not about people in communities making bad choices. COVID-19 infections are largely linked to pre-existing inequities, including housing and employment, factors impacted by government policy.
My question, hon. Speaker, is to the Premier. The best time to start collecting and sharing disaggregated data was a year ago. The next-best time is now. The Premier has directed his ministers to apply an antiracist lens in their work.
Will he now commit to collecting and sharing the data that will ensure that the ministers will have accurate information to be able to determine how COVID has exacerbated inequities in our province?
Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, we know, because every case matters, that COVID-19 has affected people differently in the province — first of all, our elders, but also in other communities. Some communities have seen a profound effect, both as regions and as communities of people. So we have taken action to address that. It’s why you see such a diversity of languages in our advertising, in our reaching out to people, and why we’ve continued to do the work that we need to do to keep everybody safe.
In June of this year, the member will know, as part of our antiracist commitment, we launched a commission into racism against Indigenous People in health care, which provided a comprehensive report in five months that we are acting on — all of the recommendations. These issues should be central to all that we do.
These issues affect all that we do, and we’re going to continue to do everything we can to ensure that those most vulnerable, those most affected by the COVID-19 crisis, are provided protection. That’s seen in every part of our immunization plan. It’s seen in all of our efforts to try and reach out to communities and provide the maximum protection possible.
There is no question that people’s circumstances make them more vulnerable to having COVID-19 transmitted to them, and people’s circumstances mean that the impact on it is greater in some communities. We saw, and we see — for example, in some of our lowest-income neighbourhoods in B.C. — the actions taken by public health to protect people, those systematic actions. I’m very proud of those, very proud of those communities and very proud of the actions taken.
Again, can we do more? You bet we can. Will we do more? Yes, we will, but I think the task and the job that we’re doing now reflects our commitment to the very issues the member raises.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR YOUTH
AND SAFE CARE
LEGISLATION
K. Kirkpatrick: One of the Premier’s excuses for breaking his word and calling a snap election was the need to pass mental health legislation, but we’ve seen nothing from this government on the topic since. Parents continue to knock on the minister’s door asking for help, but no one seems to be home.
Can the Premier confirm when he will be reintroducing legislation to support youth with mental health challenges?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Nothing is more important than keeping children safe. The stories that I’ve heard about families trying to access mental health services and addiction services, when their families were in crisis, are heartbreaking.
As Dr. Bonnie Henry has said, when our government took office in 2017, there were no systems of care. So we have been building one at the same time that we’ve been fighting an overdose crisis and now a COVID pandemic.
The legislation, Bill 22, brought into this House last summer, is something that I’m still talking with stakeholders about, and we will not be introducing it in this year. But we absolutely need to deepen our…. We are actively deepening our commitments to providing services for young people: doubling the number of youth treatment beds, opening a virtual Foundry which anybody in the province can access and opening physical Foundry centres for youth and young adults — a fantastic way for people to connect. We’re determined to build more.
Whether there is legislation to come alongside with the increased services is something I’m looking forward to hearing from families and stakeholders about.
Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capilano on a supplemental.
K. Kirkpatrick: Under your watch, wait times remain long for youth needing support. When a young person needs mental health help, any wait is like having no service at all. Trying to negotiate entry into the system is costly and time-consuming. The small amount of money the Premier chooses to put into the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions goes to salaries, not people struggling with addiction.
Again to the Premier, he told British Columbians a safe care act was vital. When will he be introducing the latest version?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: The member opposite…. Where they actively took money out of the system, they did not create a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. It’s really too bad that we have had to fight so hard under this term of government to build a system of care up and save lives, because that system was completely neglected under the previous government. Already, in just four years, we have reduced wait times for young people accessing mental health services by 21 percent. It’s not enough. There is more to do.
In August, we opened 20 new youth beds in a new treatment centre in Chilliwack. We’ve expanded an adolescent psychiatry clinic and the new Mental Health and Substance Use Wellness Centre at Royal Columbian. We launched a new 24-7 mental health access system for post-secondary students, something that was spawned out of the terrible tragedy in my own community at Vancouver Island University. Thank you to the student movement that pushed hard for that.
We have heard from families that the system remains difficult to access, and there is more to do. I hope we can work together on expanding even further the $2.7 billion budget that comes from our government into direct mental health and addiction services for British Columbians.
OPIOID CRISIS AND
PRESCRIPTION MONITORING
PROGRAM
A. Wilkinson: It’s almost three years ago now that we asked the government to implement a prescription drug monitoring program. It’s been used very successfully elsewhere. It reduces opioid deaths where it’s implemented.
A year ago the then minister said it was being implemented, in this chamber, sitting in her chair in that corner. Since then, silence. Since then, 1,700 British Columbians have died of drug overdoses.
When will this government implement the prescription drug monitoring program that it’s been working on for three years and they promised to implement a year ago? In the meantime, four British Columbians die every day.
Hon. A. Dix: I think the member would have listened and heard the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions talk about our fundamental commitment to keeping people safe. That includes changes we’ve made through the College of Physicians and Surgeons to improve protection from the abuse of prescription drugs across B.C.
I think those actions — actions on the prescription drug side, actions in terms of treatment, actions in terms of safe supply — represent a very significant response to what is a crisis for everyone.
I think the member would agree that linking the number of deaths to a particular aspect of the question is not the way to go about it; a comprehensive response is. That’s why we have a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. That’s why we’re taking steps at every turn, working with medical professionals and working with pharmacists to make the system safer. It’s safer today than it’s been. We’re continuing to do that work into the future.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: The Minister of Health knows his file. The Minister of Health just provided an answer which did not address the core question at all. He skirted around it. He avoided the topic because he has completely failed to work with the College of Physicians, the nursing college, and other prescribed entities to implement a prescription drug monitoring program. It doesn’t exist in British Columbia. It’s been talked about for years, with no results.
This is a critical time in which to look for results. We’re all horrified to get this wretched number coming out every month. This month, January, we had 5½ deaths every day. These are mostly young men going home, taking a pill, and dying in their own beds. This is a societal disaster, and we have been asking for three years for this government to do a very fundamental thing: to work with the medical profession and other prescribers to implement prescription drug monitoring to prevent addiction.
What happened to prevention, Minister? Let’s get an answer on when — not if, but when — we’re going to get a prescription drug monitoring program.
Hon. A. Dix: I’m very surprised that the member would diminish the extraordinary work being done between the Ministry of Health, the health authorities, the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, to ensure the safety of prescription drugs in the province and the safety of their utilization. The changes have been, and continue to be, extraordinary.
I think just diminishing it, just calling out names and suggesting that work hasn’t been done…. It’s just not the case. He will know that that work is extensive. I would be happy to provide him with a briefing with B.C. PharmaCare, in concert with the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, to do just that, so that he can see the work that’s been done, see the effort that has been done and see the work that’s involved — not just by me and others but that have involved the entire community of doctors and nurses working on these very questions.
It’s going to take that community and the broader community, as we respond to the crisis, the heartache and the pain of our overdose crisis in British Columbia. We’re going to continue to make those efforts at every turn, whether it’s taking actions against what have been abuses in the past by pharmaceutical companies — as we are in some of our legal actions — by expanding access to treatment, or by ensuring appropriate and proper prescribing.
All of these are aspects of the problem. I know the member is concerned with these issues. I would be happy to continue to work with him to see that we get the best possible results for people.
OPIOID CRISIS AND
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR
YOUTH
S. Cadieux: It was the worst January ever for opioid deaths: 165 people lost their lives. Yesterday the member from Abbotsford-Mission said: “In my own work as an MLA, it has been the mental health toll of COVID-19 that I’ve seen impact my constituents that has hit me the hardest, especially amongst young people.” She’s right. It brings to mind the sad case of a Langford family who got a call finally setting up an appointment with a psychiatrist, three days after their son went missing and was found dead.
To the Premier, when will he provide the promised support for those suffering with mental illness and addiction?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for Surrey South for her question and the reference specifically to a family, a grieving family, in my community. It’s not just in Langford; it is across the province. We’re all aware of that. I appreciate the work of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. I appreciate the work of all members of this House to bring awareness to the challenge so that we can destigmatize it and take proactive actions. I support, certainly, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. I support the Minister of Health.
The billions of dollars that this government and previous governments have put in to try and stem this societal disaster…. It will take all of us — not just today, not just next month, not just next week, but for a long, long time — coming out of COVID, to focus our energies on making sure the right people get the right services.
The question earlier to me on that very question — that’s what I said. That’s what our intention was when we created the ministry. The ministry’s budget is the size it is. The amount we spend is significantly higher. I’m certain that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions would love to walk the new members on all sides of the House through how that funding is undertaken.
To focus on the societal disaster is the responsibility of all of us — not just the minister, not just families who are grieving, but everyone in our community. I know, with absolute certainty, that 87 people in this place are committed to that. If we keep our shoulder to the wheel, keep focused on that and have respectful dialogue, as we’ve done today, on this important issue, we will make the progress that all of us demand not just now but in the future.
[End of question period.]
Motions Without Notice
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
TO APPOINT AN
OMBUDSPERSON
Hon. M. Farnworth: Notwithstanding Standing Orders 48(1) and 69(1), I seek leave to move two motions to appoint two special committees. The full text of these motions has been provided to the two other House Leaders.
Leave granted.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:
[That a Special Committee to Appoint an Ombudsperson be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly the appointment of an individual as Ombudsperson, pursuant to section 2 of the Ombudsperson Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 340).
That the Special Committee have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition be empowered to:
a) appoint of its number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;
b) sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;
c) adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and
d) retain such personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.
That the Special Committee report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; and deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.
That the Special Committee be composed of: Janet Routledge (Convener), Jagrup Brar, Fin Donnelly, Bruce Banman, and Teresa Wat.]
Motion approved.
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
TO REVIEW PROVISIONS
OF THE ELECTION ACT
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:
[That, pursuant to section 215.03 of the Election Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 106) a Special Committee to Review Provisions of the Election Act be appointed to conduct a review of the annual allowance paid to political parties under section 215.02 of the Act, including, but not limited to, a review of the following:
1. Whether an annual allowance paid to political parties should be continued to be paid after 2022.
2. If an annual allowance to political parties is to be continued,
a) the amount of the annual allowance, and
b) the number of years the annual allowance is to be paid.
That the Special Committee have all the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition be empowered to:
a) appoint of its number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Special Committee and to delegate to the subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;
b) sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;
c) conduct consultations by any means the Special Committee considers appropriate;
d) adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and
e) retain personnel as required to assist the Special Committee.
That the Special Committee report to the House within six months of this motion being adopted by the House, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; and shall deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment, and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.
That the said Special Committee be composed of: Jagrup Brar (Convener), Brittny Anderson, Ronna-Rae Leonard, Andrew Mercier, Greg Kyllo, Peter Milobar and Adam Olsen.]
Motion approved.
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report intituled Report on Financial Audit Work for the 2019-20 Fiscal Year from the Office of the Auditor General.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued response to the Speech from the Throne.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
Throne Speech Debate
(continued)
Hon. M. Dean: [Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ was spoken] Mitzi Dean. I go by she/her pronouns, and I spoke in the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ language to show my appreciation and respect for the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ and Xwsepsun land we are on today and the Indigenous people whose traditional territory this is, particularly the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations. I’d like to take this opportunity to recognize the Scia’new Nation, my neighbours at Beecher Bay, as well.
I’m very pleased to speak in support of the throne speech, which is focused on how government is taking action to protect the health and livelihoods of people in this province from the threat of COVID-19.
I’d like to start by recognizing some amazing people who have been working with me over the last years, in particular Lawrence Herzog and Andrew Barrett, for all of their service. They’ve recently left the constituency office, and I wish them the very best of luck in their future. I also want to thank Nubwa Wathanafa for all of her wonderful work and support for the communities of Esquimalt-Metchosin. I welcome Jared Butcher and Kristina Leach, joining our team in 2021. I am so grateful to our team and how we all work together in service to our community.
The pandemic has turned our worlds upside down. Through this pandemic, British Columbians have followed guidance from public health officials to keep themselves and their loved ones safe. This government understands what people are going through. We’re listening, and we’re taking action to make life easier for families during this difficult time.
We recognize that, as Dr. Bonnie Henry says, we’re all in the storm, but we’re not in the same boat, and we don’t all have the same emergency provisions. Whether we have family in long-term care or we’re looking after toddlers or we have a student graduating this year, we all have demanding and unique situations to consider. COVID-19 has forced us all to be flexible, to do things differently and to follow new rules to keep ourselves and others safe.
I don’t think many of us could have even imagined, a year ago, that we would be here today. It’s been a long, hard year. We’re tired, and we’re strong. It’s been really gratifying to see how, in so many ways, we have come together as a community even while staying apart.
We know that many people have been struggling to cope due to personal, emotional and economic challenges. This government is taking swift action to support them. To this end, we’ve made key investments in health care to ease pressure on the medical system and ensure everyone can get the care they need.
The vaccine rollout is well underway in British Columbia, and this is a huge step in our fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. My colleague the Minister of Health and provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry have been working around the clock to ensure the vaccine will be distributed to all British Columbians as quickly and safely as possible, beginning with those who are most vulnerable.
But we need to stay strong for a few more months. By then, vaccines will be in arms, and we’ll be closer to reclaiming our new normal. It will take some time and patience, but we are making progress.
In the meantime, government is also building a recovery plan that includes everyone, not just those at the top. The steps government has taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have saved lives. We will continue to support people, families and businesses to stay safe so we can beat this virus and move further along in our economic recovery.
Just as we’ve asked British Columbians to adapt to the pandemic landscape, government has also had to be flexible in our approach to supporting people through this unprecedented time. As the Minister of Children and Family Development, I’d like to thank the staff in my own ministry, in delegated Aboriginal agencies and in our community partners, and families in the community for all the work that they’ve done in helping families and children and youth get through this pandemic.
Our work in our ministry is demanding every day. In a pandemic, it is even more critical and tiring. I want to acknowledge the commitment of everyone to serving and caring for our children and youth: front-line workers, support staff, family members, carers, foster parents who have continued their work while also balancing their own situation in this crisis.
As soon as the pandemic hit, my ministry worked to put emergency measures in place to ensure that the children, youth and families we serve felt supported and safe. To lessen the stress of moving into independence during this challenging time, youth who were turning 19 and set to transition into independence were instead able to continue to receive the supports and stay in the homes that they were counting on. We have just extended that all the way through to the end of March 2022. This means that young adults will be able to stay in their current homes and continue to receive the supports that they count on.
In addition, for the first time, those who are eligible for the agreements with young adults program can apply to participate in both programs at the same time. Young adults using the emergency housing support could be eligible to receive up to $350 a month through AYA, based on their unique needs and the length of their program. Just imagine. This will help them participate in life skills, mental health or post-secondary programs, all while remaining in their home. Imagine how that changes their trajectory moving forward, beyond and past the pandemic. It sets them up for success and for a thriving future.
We’ve also extended and expanded emergency measures for the agreements with young adults program to make it easier for youth from care to pursue life skills and mental health supports. These supports have a long-term impact on the trajectory of development and success for these young people. I’ve heard that from young people in care — what a difference this is going to make. I’m really grateful to all of them for coming forward, for advocating, for sharing their life expertise and their insights and ideas as well.
It was only recently I was on a call with several young people who were telling me how anxious they were about their future situation, because they didn’t know where they’d be living in a matter of just a few weeks. Imagine if your teenage child was about to lose the roof from over their head, and they didn’t have you as a safety net. Well, as the parents of these young adults, we provided that security to them. They asked us to help, and I was so grateful to be able to respond to their ask and provide what they told us was vital to them.
We will continue to assess how we’re supporting the youth we serve to help prevent them from falling through the cracks as a result of this pandemic.
We also provided emergency supports for children and youth with support needs, and their families. We know that many families struggle every day, and their challenges only increased once the pandemic hit. Back in the spring of last year, many of the face-to-face services families depended on were reduced, or they had to pivot, or they weren’t available for a short amount of time. You can imagine the reality of the stress and uncertainty that that caused for these families.
We launched a temporary emergency relief support fund that provided eligible families with a direct payment of $225 per month for up to three months. This helped families who were waiting for services like respite to seek support.
A message that we heard loud and clear from families was that they wanted flexibility in these uncertain times so that they could use their respite funds to support their family in whatever ways were possible, whatever ways would work for their particular family situation to relieve some of the stress and burden.
We delivered. We made policies more flexible so that we could give families of children with support needs as much added help as possible. For example, families can use their funding to purchase services that help their family situation. It could be housekeeping, or it might be meal preparation. We’ve made the decision to extend this emergency measure, again, until the end of March 2022.
I know families are still facing challenges. We’re tired, and we’re losing our resilience. We’re continuing to work to support these families. That’s why my ministry is working on a new framework that will better meet the needs of children and youth with support needs and their families.
Back in December, I committed to setting up an advisory council to help finalize the details of the framework. Applications for the council closed only last week, and I’m really looking forward to meeting with the members to get their insights, to hear their stories and to learn from them. They have so much expertise and so many great ideas as well. Their input will, actually, help us inform the next steps of our plan. I believe there should be “Nothing about us without us.”
I’m committed to making lives better for B.C. families and to improving the supports and services that they count on. That’s why I’m so honoured to have been given a mandate by Premier Horgan that is focused on reforming the child welfare system and on better supporting families, children and youth in B.C. Having spent over 30 years working in social services and child protection, this work is a true passion of mine. I believe strongly in collaboration, and I know that together we can make a difference.
All children and youth have the right to live safe, secure and happy lives and to fulfil their potential. I see the work happening to make this possible for all of the children and youth in British Columbia.
Our government has made changes to legislation and social work practice with a focus on family preservation and keeping more families together. When it’s not possible to keep children and youth safely with their families, staff work to find permanent and loving homes for children and youth within their community so that they can keep connected with their culture.
This is a really big and significant and important change from how the child welfare system worked for so long, and we are starting to see results. We’re seeing the lowest number of children and youth in care in 30 years and the lowest number of Indigenous children and youth in care in 20 years.
We know there’s more work to do. Indigenous children and youth are still overrepresented in the child welfare system, but we are committed to working to help families stay together safely and to keep kids connected to their communities and cultures.
As we continue to weather the COVID-19 storm, the pandemic has also reminded us very strongly that affordable, good-quality, accessible child care is not just about supporting people and families. A strong child care system is the foundation of a strong economy, and it’s vital to B.C.’s recovery.
My colleague the Minister of State for Child Care is leading the way on monumental change in our province. There’s no guidebook for how to respond to a global pandemic, but I’m incredibly proud of B.C.’s response. Indeed, other provinces and territories are now realizing just how important child care is to their social and economic infrastructure.
As soon as the state of emergency was declared, our government quickly stepped up to support families and child care providers. We launched the temporary emergency funding program to protect child care spaces for families. In total, approximately $320 million flowed to 4,500 child care providers to help keep centres financially afloat.
This program was unique to British Columbia, and it demonstrates our willingness and commitment to listen and learn and to adapt to needs as they arise.
During the first months of the pandemic, many parents also chose to keep their children at home. This meant that child care centres were able to offer spaces to the children of essential workers, allowing those parents to work on the front lines of the pandemic while their children were being safely cared for.
There’s more work to do, and we recognize that the challenges aren’t over. That’s why we’re responding with tens of millions of dollars to help child care operators continue to deliver COVID-safe care.
We’re building a universal child care system that will support B.C. families for generations to come. We’ve already funded more than 20,000 new licensed spaces throughout the province, and we’re continuing to support early childhood educators through wage enhancements, training and bursaries.
Every space that opens represents a new opportunity for a family. I’ve heard directly from families, from parents. I’ve had them in tears in my office, telling me the difference that this child care plan has made to their daily lives — and not only their daily lives, but their futures and where they were going to choose to live and work and how close they were going to be able to live and work with extended family. These are really significant impacts on the long-term and short-term lives of British Columbian families.
It’s an opportunity for a child to learn and grow and thrive today and down the road. It’s an opportunity for a mom to rejoin the workforce. Then she might pursue promotions, invest in her pension — now that she can count on safe, affordable child care.
In short, access to child care is life-changing for families. That’s why I’m here. That’s why my colleagues are here. That’s why we’re all here — to deliver real, positive change for the people in the communities we represent.
We’ve accomplished a lot in government over the past four years, and there’s much more to do to continue to make life better and more affordable for people. We’ve already improved the daily lives of so many and can get so much more done in the years ahead together.
Háy̓sxʷ q̓ə. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.
Are there any further speakers?
If not, does the member have a motion to make?
Hon. S. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising today. I do understand that there is, I believe, a list of speakers, but I don’t have the list. I’m very happy to get on my feet to speak to the Speech from the Throne.
It is important to acknowledge the tradition of getting up on our feet to speak to our constituents about what is going on for us in our constituencies, what it means to be an MLA, that none of us could be here on our own.
I see that the House Leader is here. I understand that we are done our speaking order, but I just want to take a moment, if I can, to thank the members of Coquitlam-Maillardville for electing me here.
With that, I will move adjournment of the debate.
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 7.
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 7 — TENANCY STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT,
2021
Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time.
COVID-19 has turned the lives of British Columbians upside down. One of the government’s commitments set out in our election platform is to put people first. These proposed amendments address that commitment. First, to address one of the items in my mandate letter from the Premier, this bill introduces an amendment that will make life more affordable for renters, many of whom have been hit hard by COVID-19. This amendment will extend the freeze on rent increases we previously put in place to protect tenants until the end of 2021. Ensuring people have safe, secure and affordable housing is especially important during these unprecedented times. In 2022 and beyond, rent increases will be capped at the rate of inflation.
The rest of the amendments respond to the recommendations made by the Rental Housing Task Force. I want to thank the member for Vancouver–West End for chairing that task force, the member for Courtenay-Comox for being a very active member and, as well, the member for Saanich North and the Islands for his participation.
As you may remember, this biparty task force went across the province in the summer of 2018 to hear from British Columbians about residential tenancy laws, policies and services. The task force connected with renters, rental housing providers and other housing-related organizations.
There were many opportunities to participate, including stakeholder meetings, formal submissions, online engagement and 11 community meetings around the province, in Burnaby, Kelowna, Maple Ridge, Nanaimo, Nelson, Prince George, Saltspring Island, Surrey, Terrace, Vancouver and Victoria. Invitations to participate in this consultation process were sent to the First Nations Leadership Council, Métis Nation B.C., the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres and the Aboriginal Housing Management Association. We also reached out to local nations where public meetings were being held.
The result was a report and 23 recommendations to improve the system and meet the needs of landlords and tenants. The task force’s recommendations addressed gaps in safe and secure housing and highlighted the need for greater education among renters and rental housing providers about their respective rights and responsibilities and to strengthen enforcement, supply and fair process.
These amendments specifically respond to a number of the task force’s recommendations. Treaty First Nations were notified of these proposed changes.
Renovictions. The No. 1 recommendation made by the task force was to stop renovictions, a process by which landlords evict tenants under the guise of renovating a rental unit, make very minor or cosmetic changes and then re-rent the unit at a much higher rent. Even tenants who could temporarily relocate during a renovation were being evicted.
In order to ensure that landlords are only ending tenancies where the repairs or renovations are necessary and where vacant possession of a rental unit is the only way to do the renovation, we are introducing an amendment that will strengthen the criteria and require landlords to apply to the residential tenancy branch prior to issuing a notice to end tenancy. Currently the onus or responsibility is on the tenant to dispute a notice to end tenancy for renovations. Many do not because they don’t know the rules and have limited time to find a new place if they are unsuccessful. This results in tenants being displaced in situations where the landlord has clearly not met the requirements in the act.
Under the new system, the onus or responsibility will be on the landlord to prove that the tenancy must end to accommodate the work before any notices are issued. This will stop tenants from being displaced for minor renovations or situations where they can easily be accommodated while the work is being done.
The landlord will also be required to apply to end all the tenancies that are affected under a single application rather than filing a separate application for each rental unit. This will reduce the cost and administrative burden of this change and ensure consistent decisions for all tenants in the building.
We know that with aging rental buildings, major upgrades can be necessary. These changes will ensure that landlords can continue to make major life-extending upgrades to properties but end the practice of renovicting tenants for minor renovations designed only to push rents higher.
Recommendation No. 14 of the task force was to improve procedural fairness in tenancy disputes. Currently there are only three grounds by which a party can apply to have the residential tenancy branch review a decision or order that they’ve made. Ground 1: the party was unable to attend the original hearing because of circumstances that could not be anticipated and were beyond their control, such as a health emergency. Ground 2: the party has new and relevant evidence that was unavailable at the time of the hearing. Or ground 3: the party has evidence that the decision or order was obtained by fraud.
This bill has expanded the first ground to allow review if the party was unable to attend a portion of the hearing — for example, if they were disconnected and couldn’t reconnect before the end of the hearing. We’re adding two narrow grounds to address procedural fairness where a party submitted relevant evidence that was not before the arbitrator at the original hearing due to circumstances beyond their control — for example, they submitted evidence late because they were hospitalized. The second narrow ground is where there was an administrative error made by the residential tenancy branch that impacted the outcome — for example, documents were uploaded to the wrong file, so the arbitrator didn’t consider them.
We are also adding two narrow grounds allowing the director to reopen a decision if the director declined jurisdiction or wouldn’t hear the dispute, declined jurisdiction to resolve a dispute that the director was required to resolve, or the director resolved a dispute that the director had no jurisdiction to resolve.
Finally, we’ve added a new provision to allow the residential tenancy branch to review a decision or an order on its own initiative rather than waiting for one of the parties to apply. While a judicial review of the reasonableness of a decision remains within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, these amendments will allow the residential tenancy branch to undertake a review of a decision where it is clear an error has been made. It will divert cases from the judicial review process to the RTB’s internal review process, which will reduce costs to parties, the courts and government.
Recommendation No. 23 was to ensure manufactured home park rules are clear and understandable when there is a conflict with a tenancy agreement. To address this, we are clarifying language in the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act to ensure park rules, which can be changed easily by the park owner, do not override standard or material terms in an existing tenancy agreement.
As well, there are currently no limits to how often park rules can be changed. This can lead to frequent changes that may unfairly target tenants. New regulatory authority will allow future changes to limit the frequency with which park owners may change park rules. These changes will come after consultation with park and homeowner stakeholder groups over the coming months.
Recommendation No. 5 was to strengthen enforcement and compliance with tenancy legislation. A compliance and enforcement unit, or CEU, was established in 2019 to investigate cases of non-compliance with the act and levy administrative penalties where appropriate. Through their work, it has become clear that some changes are needed to improve and strengthen this process. Currently the director may compel documents from a person who is under investigation by the compliance and enforcement unit.
“Document” is not a defined term in the legislation, which has the possibility of creating confusion and uncertainty about the scope of the director’s authority and the type of documents that can be compelled. The amendment will broaden the type of material the director may compel by replacing “document” with “record,” which has a broader meaning and is defined in the Interpretation Act, bringing greater clarity to the provision. It also will allow the director to compel records from a person, such as a contractor or other third party who is not under investigation but who may hold important information related to the investigation.
Currently the director may levy an administrative penalty against a person if they contravened a provision of the act or regulations or failed to comply with a decision or order of the director. The proposed amendment will also allow the director to levy an administrative penalty against a person who gave false or misleading information in a dispute-resolution proceeding or investigation or who failed to comply with a demand issued by the director for production of records. This amendment will deter fraud in dispute-resolution proceedings and administrative penalty investigations. It will also help the director conduct thorough investigations.
Currently the grounds to review an administrative penalty decision are the same as the review provisions that apply to a dispute resolution. As we gained more experience with administrative penalties, it became clear that these grounds are not always relevant. The amendment will correct this by establishing grounds of review specific to administrative penalties. It will also give the director authority to undertake a review of an administrative penalty on the director’s initiative rather than having to wait for one of the parties to file a review.
There are currently no procedures in the act or regulations that set out how a person who has been compelled to produce records can object to having to produce them. This amendment will allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to establish in regulation procedures to provide an opportunity for a person to object to a demand for production of records. This provides greater fairness and transparency for the administrative penalty process.
Another amendment in this bill relates to recommendation No. 8, which called on the RTB to investigate options that would help increase the repayment rate of damages, non-payment of rent and other storage costs.
This amendment will simplify the process for landlords who are trying to evict a tenant for unpaid rent. It will allow the director to grant a monetary order for the outstanding rent at the same hearing if a tenant’s application to dispute a notice to end tenancy is dismissed. This will avoid a subsequent application by the landlord, an additional fee and further delay to recover the outstanding rent. It will also maximize the RTB’s limited resources by eliminating a second hearing.
The remaining changes are housekeeping amendments. The amendments that refer to the small claims limit reflect the RTB’s current policy on accepting monetary claims. These amendments will help to clarify that the $35,000 monetary limit only applies to claims for damages and debt, not other claims such as compensation or repairs.
Finally, changes to regulation-making power will ensure the government’s commitment to allow landlords to apply for an additional rent increase for capital expenditures can be implemented later this year.
B. Stewart: It’s an honour to be here speaking in this House and chamber on this particular bill.
I think it’s very clear that the government has made significant promises to British Columbians about affordability and is trying to make certain that they are trying to find ways to ensure that. I think that probably there are many questions that arise out of the introduction of Bill 7 that need to be answered. We will be questioning the minister in terms of those items.
I know that this is about creating certainty for tenants — as well as, in some cases, landlords — but I think that there is a question, especially when it comes to things like rent freezes.
When you do have things like rent freezes, how does the landlord community contain or control costs that they’re faced with — ever-increasing taxes by communities or other factors — that are beyond their control? I realize that this is a two-year hold, but the future is on the B.C. CPI index, usually established around September, I’m told. I think that probably the landlord community is going to be very interested in the degree of fairness that is also in this particular legislation.
The other things that I think…. Questions about rental evictions or rent controls. One of the areas that we know that has been overlooked, in terms of controls, has been at the post-secondary educations that have a large degree of students that are renting and on very fixed incomes and limited resources. The fact is that this act, it’s my understanding, also doesn’t affect or can’t be imposed on the universities just due to the nature of the way that it works.
I do think that there is some question by students in British Columbia, who I’ve met with recently. I know our critic will have more to say on that in very short order.
I do think that the question about administrative fairness for all renters needs to be considered when we’re talking about these types of actions and controls that are being proposed by the government and the minister to bring in, where people that are part of the residential tenancy branch are going to be making these types of sweeping decisions, taking it away from a review by the judiciary in terms of the fairness. I realize that this is about speeding up the process, but we need to make certain that it’s equitable and fair for all parties concerned.
I know that there are many recommendations created by the rental task force. I had the opportunity to participate at the well-attended meetings in Kelowna.
I do think that there is certainly a bias in terms of those types of meetings when it comes to trying to make certain that the things that are needed to create more supply…. That really wasn’t discussed. What was discussed was more about the current situation, the circumstances. To be fair to the member that chaired that, those questions, in my mind, were left unanswered and need to be considered, because supply is such an important part of this.
Recently the Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C. released a report that showed that there was a decline, just in the Vancouver area, of almost 22 percent, in construction of housing in the past 12 months. That’s a staggering amount. It’s the lowest number in many decades. The situation is that with the growing population here in British Columbia, it is not just the existing rentals that we have, but it’s the future rental properties that we need, to make certain that we’re doing our job to help bring supply online.
We need to be there to create opportunities, that opportunity for the increased supply to have the supply-and-demand effect on pricing, which I think any of the members that have an economics background would understand. If the supply is short, rates go up, and those people that are renting, or landlords, look for opportunities to increase their rents. If we could bring supply online, that would help suppress that. That’s something that I think has been brought up many times in this House in remarks about the supply of housing.
Frankly, just recently in my own community, there was a development that was turned down — for whatever the reasons are; I wasn’t at the council meeting — a 1,200-lot new development. For various reasons — transportation infrastructure, other issues about trying to address growing city demands, trapped with ALR lands surrounding the city — it’s making it so that there are very long distances in communities. I know that that exists for many of the communities.
Whether it’s Langley, Surrey, Abbotsford, Chilliwack, these communities are faced with that land use constraint, and we have to think bigger-picture if we’re going to maintain the agricultural land reserve. We have to find ways of supporting these communities — whether it’s transportation, infrastructure — to help build communities and help them with it, in terms of what the constraints are.
I know that many of my colleagues who have a background in local politics, local government, will want to have a say in this because they would like to see some of these things happen, and frankly, it’s going to be up to the province to help communities increase supply.
You can’t just choke off the rental increases and expect that this is going to solve the problem. To be honest, I think that the inverse is going to happen, and we’re actually going to have a spike in terms of lower rental properties and less accommodation, and we’re going to be faced with a new crisis if we don’t address the supply issue. I’m not certain if the minister and his staff have been talking about that, but I’ll look forward to further discussion and debate about that as we work through Bill 7 in terms of the entirety of it.
The other thing. I think the government, obviously under pressure and having called a snap election during the COVID pandemic, reiterated its commitment to affordability. Now, I haven’t seen, and there’s nothing in this legislation…. Maybe, perhaps the Minister of Finance is going to bring in some ability to roll out the renters rebate that was promised back in 2017 for renters that were facing the very same dilemma they face today: higher rental costs. The fact is that they can’t make their wages go as far as they need to, to being able to afford to rent.
It’s my understanding that up to 50 percent of wages in the Vancouver-GVRD area is going into rental. Now, I used to be in the banking business, and we would not consider lending money to people that paid more than 30 percent of their income into housing. Frankly, there’s a disconnect there, and we need to make certain that we’re doing our job to thoughtfully encourage and attract good businesses that create high-paying jobs here, into British Columbia, so that these wages are continuing to grow.
Part of that is through the institutions like UBC and Simon Fraser and all the other post-secondary education. I’m happy to see that there’s great investment in that. But we have a technology hub that is clearly a different pillar than just the natural resource–based industries that we have depended on for our entire life here in British Columbia.
More importantly, there are opportunities, but we need to foster that. Having more supply of affordable accommodation in those areas…. Whether it’s Burnaby or Langley or Surrey or wherever it might be, those hubs need to have access to that affordability so that those people will be attracted to come to work for companies that would like to be here and know that we have the talent pool to be able to make this all take place.
I think that’s clearly one of the things that we’re wanting to see the government move forward on, not just to bring in rent controls to give what I would say, in some cases, is more like window dressing to the whole issue of affordability. Affordability is a combination of being able to create better-paying jobs, making certain that the cost of living is continuing to go down and not necessarily being overloaded with taxes and other costs that governments put onto the taxpayers.
I think that’s one of things that we’re going to be looking for in terms of this particular parliament. We would like to see that we’re moving ahead and clearly establishing the opportunities that new British Columbians, young British Columbians, can bring to the table and not have to have British Columbia just become only people that want to retire here. They like the quality of life. They like the lifestyle. But what about the young people that want to raise families and have a home, etc.? How are they going to get ahead?
We’ve seen that in just the past four years, there’s been an increase in the cost of renting. It has gone up by $2,500 per year in the Vancouver area, so you can’t tell me that that’s more affordable. I think the reality is that there are many unanswered questions. To try to control it from the top-down approach with rent controls, etc., is, as I said, counter-productive. The reality is that we have to create greater opportunities for people working here. There are great opportunities in British Columbia. What we need to do is encourage that, develop that, look forward to the opportunities that we can create being a powerhouse in terms of talent and exporting goods and services to other communities.
We know British Columbia, certainly with its population of just over five million people, is not going to be able to grow unless we export. That’s one of the things that — of course, not to do with Bill 7, but previously — was a decision made by another ministry — to close down its efforts to export and then trade all across Asia, which is, as most people know, one of the biggest trading markets in the world, besides the United States.
As we’ve seen with the recent challenges expressed out of countries that have vaccine production, we’re behind the scenes. I mean, we don’t have the vaccine production here in Canada or in British Columbia. I think that probably that’s something we’re going be looking at more closely. I think independence of our goods and services is important. So what we really need to do is make certain that we can turn people’s young minds to the whole idea of being able to create an opportunity, a living and prosperity here in British Columbia and of being able to sell those talented ideas and goods and services to other communities around the globe.
I do want to know where this renters grant that was promised, not just in the 2017 election but reiterated, about making things more affordable…. I have many constituents that still are waiting for the $500 commitment to make life more affordable that was promised during the October election. Frankly, as we heard yesterday from one of the speakers during private members’ time, about two million people have received that payment, but we have over 1½ million others, maybe even almost close to two million, whose applications have not been processed. They’re in a queue where they just can’t seem to get through that.
I certainly hope that when it comes to the comparison of people wanting to go through places like the residential tenancy branch, where the workload is going to be substantially more on the staff and the director there in adjudicating many decisions that currently don’t go to them…. What are the resources going to be to the residential tenancy branch, being able to make certain that we can achieve a reasonable turnaround?
That’s the goal. That’s why the landlords of B.C. have supported that. They see that it is a streamlined process. However, without the certainty that there’s going to be a reasonably quick turnaround…. We haven’t seen that demonstrated. We’re watching today. As we know, yesterday the public health officer and the Health Minister rolled out vaccination plans — when they’re going to start rolling out for people that are over 80 and then the next age groups, as the vaccines become available. But I do think that the execution on these things is so critically important.
I think people are looking to make certain that they have certainty in their lives, whether it’s about rental, whether they can renovate, whether they can meet timelines — the fact that the community has that certainty. We need to make certain that we have the capacity in those areas where we put that responsibility. I know that we’re changing the shift, and it’s considered to be slower right now. The report from the task force on rental housing has laid it out that they needed a speedier resolution mechanism, and I certainly hope that this can be accomplished with this legislation.
I think the one thing that we have touched on here is the fact that this talks about the current stock, in terms of capping the cost for people that have existing rental accommodation. But I also hear from other people that are in communities that can’t recover their costs. They’re taking their product out of circulation and putting it into seasonal rentals or other things that avoid some of the laws and the rules. So we’re losing stock to people that are trying to make certain that it financially makes sense for them to put hard-earned dollars into rental housing stock. Doesn’t matter if it’s just….
The bigger companies will…. I don’t see in the news release that they have supported this. But I do think they’re going to be the ones that need to make certain that they have certainty, because it’s going to take a large amount of capital to build the rental stock that we need. British Columbia already has over 60,000 residents that come here every year and call British Columbia home. They need homes.
The other thing that’s happening is that the federal government is increasing immigration. They want further immigration. We know that that’s needed, too, just because of declining birth rates in Canada. We need to make certain we have positive immigration to maintain our standard of living, but it requires housing stock. I don’t see anything here that’s going to increase housing stock for the over 60,000 new British Columbians, let alone the ones that the federal government is proposing to bring in.
British Columbia is one of the most attractive locations, but we don’t want it to be unattractive. We want it to be a place where they want to come to, where they can find friends and family — opportunities — where their children or their families can grow and contribute. I just think that, as I said earlier, we have to go back to what is going to create the conditions for greater supply.
I know some people think that the federal government is partially responsible for this, but I really do believe that the provincial government is going to have to take the initiative. The difference here versus, maybe, let’s say, Toronto…. They don’t have an agricultural land reserve. They have all sorts of agricultural land that’s integrated and in certain areas. British Columbia is unique in difference. There is no other province that has that constraint around it.
Out of the 90-plus million hectares that are in British Columbia, we have about 4½ million hectares protected by the agricultural land reserve. A lot of that land is in areas that are desirable for people to live, and we haven’t answered the question about how we’re going to be able to coexist with the two, both in the Lower Mainland, in the Okanagan and in other parts. In many communities, there’s a lot of opportunity, but it’s constrained by the land commission.
Frankly, there needs to be some rethinking in terms of whether, in the Peace River or in the Cariboo, some of these places could be seen as opportunities — logical extensions of communities — rather than having them grow where there are no services and no ability to grow the housing stock within their communities. Our new opportunities, whether they’re in the natural resources sector, whether it’s mining, forestry — some of the things that are out there — whether it’s on the coast, going to grow without the development of supports from the provincial government….
I know that I cited some statistics. We talked a little bit about what had happened with the construction of new homes last year. It had dipped down to a 21-year low in terms of overall construction. This government committed, in 2017, to building 114,000 new units of affordable and rental housing, to see that done. As far as what we can tell from the reports that we’ve received from B.C. Housing in their annual reports, the government, four years into its ten-year plan, have only delivered on just over 3,000 completed units in that. I don’t know how they’re planning on counting that. I know there are projects right here in my own community. There’s a shelter that was announced in November of 2018.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
It’s still fenced. There’s nothing there. No construction. I don’t know what the problem is, and I can’t seem to get an answer as to why that’s being held up. But I do think we need a lot of the solutions that were, as part of the 30-point plan by the government…. They were going to make certain that every person had a home in British Columbia. I know that COVID has very much impacted that. However, what we have seen is many places that are the modular construction — that have built places across the province. I do think that they have been helpful. But in a lot of cases, there have not been the supports or the diversity in terms of housing stock that B.C. Housing is committed to building under its 30-point plan.
What about seniors? What about low income? Where are those properties being created? This legislation, unfortunately, doesn’t come close to being able to answer those questions in terms of where it’s going to go. I know that the minister responsible was the critic for a number of years. I’m sure he has many good ideas. But the reality is that wraparound supports for these supportive housing units are what’s going to increase the community’s willingness to embrace having these people in their communities. They know that they’re getting proper treatment, whether it’s issues about substance abuse, which we heard a lot about earlier today, or mental health.
The bottom line is: we need to make certain that there is the support there to make certain that supportive housing of all sorts and all shapes and sizes is successful. We need to make certain we find ways with communities to not suck up the available supply of land that these communities have land-banked over the years for good, important purposes. Make certain that there are opportunities for diverse, mixed neighbourhoods of all sorts of people from different ethnic backgrounds to be able to come together and celebrate in every city of the province of British Columbia, not just be put into modular housing. Frankly, a lot of it is done under a very short-term viewpoint of getting that. Tenancy on the properties, in a lot of cases, is limited.
As I said, without the wraparound supports, we have many communities living in fear around the whole addition of this type of housing coming into their community. What we need to do is have councils embrace it. Just recently, I participated in a B.C. Housing public forum on some new housing being proposed in Penticton. Council was extremely outspoken about the fact that they had seen significant increases in crime on the three other recently completed projects in their community.
They were questioning whether this project that they were proposing was actually going to meet the stated commitment by B.C. Housing of not only the supported side but make certain that the community was not going to be impacted by the addition of another complex and just more crime in another area in the city.
I know that that’s consistent with what I’ve heard and seen. I mean, we only have to look at the issues faced in Victoria. When I first got elected, I bought a home….
Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.
B. Stewart: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Just to finish that thought, I did want to talk about Beacon Hill Park. I’ll come back to that when I resume speaking.
Noting the hour, I reserve my right to continue and make a motion to adjourn debate.
B. Stewart moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.