Third Session, 42nd Parliament (2022)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 3, 2022
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 195
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2022
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: J Routledge.
Introductions by Members
A. Mercier: I have two sets of introductions I’d like to make this morning. First, I’d like to ask the House to join me in wishing my daughter, Charlotte, a happy birthday. Charlotte is four. We had a great birthday party at Dinosaur Park, in Langley, on the weekend.
Also, I’ve got two folks here who are constituents of my colleague from Langley East that I’m a little not sure about. I brought my parents, Marc and Roberta Mercier. They should get a hand for raising me.
But you know, it’s not often that I find myself here on the floor of a chamber like the Legislative Assembly where I’m offered the full benefit of immunity from civil actions for slander and defamation with my folks. So I thought this would be a good time to get into my long-standing list of grievances. I’m kidding, but you can see how worried they looked there for a sec.
In all seriousness, they’ve given their lives to public service, not literally but their careers. My mother is a registered nurse who’s created a lifelong suspicion of nurses in me through the overuse of hydrogen peroxide for small cuts but who had an illustrious career at Royal Columbian and the NICU in Children’s as well as teaching at Douglas.
My father moved out here from Quebec, not speaking any English, to join the RCMP as a young man about 100 years ago and spent some time at the IGTF and CFSEU as well as a long career in special O. So I’d just say to the other members of the House not to worry about being too raucous in question period. They raised four kids, and I’m the best one.
L. Doerkson: Today I am extremely proud to introduce two of the hardest-working and committed people that you are ever going to meet. The workload that they plow through every single day is absolutely unbelievable. The assistance that they provide to the constituents of the Cariboo-Chilcotin is incredible. I know the residents of Cariboo-Chilcotin are both fortunate and pleased to have this duo representing them, but it’s myself who is most grateful.
I am so thankful to both of you every day. Thank you, Jenny Huffman, from our Williams Lake office, and Beverly Marks, from our 100 Mile office. These are two of the best CAs in all of British Columbia.
Thank you for your efforts.
R. Singh: Today in the House somebody is celebrating her birthday. She’s a great colleague, a strong ally and somebody I call a very dear friend. The member for Vancouver–False Creek is celebrating her birthday.
Wishing you a very happy birthday.
Would the House join me in wishing her a wonderful day.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
PACT TEAM FOR RESPONSE TO MENTAL
HEALTH CALLS ON NORTH
SHORE
K. Kirkpatrick: This February I was privileged to sit down with Julia Kaisla, who is the executive director for the Canadian Mental Health Association, North and West Vancouver. Over the past year, Julia and her team have launched the peer-assisted care team, or PACT for short. This program is one I’d like to highlight in the House today.
It’s an alternative service to police response in a crisis call related to mental health and substance abuse. I first learned about PACT during a presentation to the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act and then again during my meeting with Julia. One thing has been clear to me and to so many others: police response alone is most often not the best response to somebody with a mental health issue. Mental health challenges are not criminal in nature, and armed response can escalate issues.
The association offers a variety of social and support groups that are free and open to everyone, but this is a program I’m particularly excited about. PACT pairs a mental health professional, such as a social worker, counsellor or psychiatric nurse with a peer support worker, with the goal to connect North Shore residents and their families who are in crisis to hope and help.
The objective is to build relationships. This includes follow-up with these individuals and families to navigate ongoing health and community assistance. Intervention by the PACT team before a major escalation occurs is a sensible approach.
Congratulations to the CMHA team for your innovative approach. I’d like to thank all those at Canadian Mental Health of the North Shore as well as the West Vancouver police and the North Vancouver RCMP for their collaboration on this great project.
B.C. UKRAINIAN CULTURAL FESTIVAL
B. D’Eith: As displaced Ukrainians fleeing the violence in Ukraine begin to arrive in British Columbia, cultural exchanges are happening in communities across this fine province. But in Mission, British Columbia, one such exchange has been happening for 25 years.
Since 1997, the B.C. Ukrainian Cultural Festival has invited dance troupes from all over the Pacific Northwest to Mission to compete and participate in the festival. Thousands of attendees converge on the Clarke Theatre to participate in the cultural celebration, where dancers entertain and perform in front of an international panel of judges.
In addition to the complex and beautiful dances displayed throughout the day, the festival includes vendors, entertainers and a host of other activities for everyone and the families to enjoy. It’s an amalgamation of music, food, dancing and vibrant colours of incredible arts, crafts and clothing.
My colleague the MLA for Abbotsford-Mission and I are looking forward to attending the Ukrainian festival this Saturday, and we have done so for many years. I know the member for Abbotsford-Mission also has a deep personal connection to the festival, having personally participated since 2005. She loves to witness the talent and pure joy of the dancing competition.
My family also loves enjoying the event. My wife Kim’s family is Ukrainian, so I’ve had the actual pleasure of enjoying Ukrainian culture in my house, including Ukrainian food, for many years. Just a few weeks ago, at Easter, there were three generations in the kitchen, fussing over the best way to make cabbage rolls and perogies. It was fun for me.
I want to thank the organizers, Darka Morin, Nathan and Wally Nychyporuk, Juana Veters, Holly Russell, Michele and Shannon Huston. We’d like to give special thanks to them for everything they do in dedication for bringing this event to our community.
We encourage everyone to come out and celebrate the B.C. Ukrainian festival this Saturday in Mission.
FORT BERENS WINERY FUNDRAISING
CAMPAIGN FOR REBUILDING
OF LYTTON
J. Tegart: The beautiful village of Lytton was almost completely destroyed by fire on June 30, 2021. To lift spirits and raise awareness and funds for the significant rebuild and recovery process, Lillooet’s Fort Berens Estate Winery is engaging the community by creating the Lytton Strong fundraiser.
Over the years, Fort Berens Winery has purchased grapes from the small Winches Spur Vineyard, owned by Chuck and Nonie McCann. Miraculously, this vineyard, located on the traditional territory of the Nlaka’pamux people, was one of the few things in the area left unscathed by the fire.
Generally, Fort Berens adds these grapes to a larger blend of Pinot Gris under their label. This year, the winery has decided to do something different. They again purchased all the grapes from 2021. However, instead of combining them with their blend, all the Winches Spur grapes have been bottled as a special edition wine that will be sold by auction this spring. One hundred percent of the proceeds will support the effort to rebuild Lytton.
In particular, the Lytton Strong campaign has a goal of $125,000 for a legacy project in the community, such as rebuilding the pool and recreation centre, a community gathering site for all. I commend Fort Berens winery co-owner and founder Rolf de Bruin and his team for this initiative, as well as TricorBraun for donating the bottles, Elite printing for donating the labels and Artus Bottling, which is donating the bottling services.
The campaign dates — put this on your calendar — are June 3 to 12. They’re soliciting corporate donations and auction items, and I am personally inviting all members in this House to participate in this fundraising.
This is a true community effort that will make a tremendous impact.
ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES
G. Lore: Yesterday a leaked document, a draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court, sent shock waves through the United States and around the world. Their plan to overturn Roe v. Wade and strip women across the country of access to safe abortions is chilling and horrifying news.
Abortion is health care. It is a profoundly personal choice that should not be decided or influenced by anyone beyond the person who is pregnant. But in the words of the leaked draft, we see the echoes of the words and actions of people, usually men, around the world who today are trying to roll back the rights of women and the rights of people who are pregnant to make decisions about their own bodies.
Today I think of the women and others who have fought for the right to choose and protected that right over many years, including women in this House. I think about the countless women who have died when safe access was denied. That is the devastating truth. Actions like this won’t stop abortions. They will just stop safe ones.
Our government has taken important steps to support access to safe abortions, including providing universal no-cost access to medical abortion and stocking it in rural pharmacies. There is more to do, especially with access in rural areas, and our government will continue to work to support and improve access across the province.
We commit to agency and autonomy and to supporting the right of all women and pregnant people to access the reproductive health care they need, including safe and legal access to abortion services when they choose.
RETIREMENT OF B McKENZIE
AND
WORK WITH CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
S. Furstenau: In 2018, my constituency office saw an increase in cases with distressed parents sharing stories about how they were treated by the Ministry of Children and Family. Their children had been removed, and they were seeking advocacy from our office to help them reunite as a family. The work is incredibly delicate. We needed someone who could serve these parents and families well.
The first time I met B McKenzie, we were at a meeting discussing the case of a mother whose child was to be removed in the hospital at birth. We had our heads together, talking as though we’d been connected all our lives. This is B’s magic. She sees a person completely, immediately.
Soon afterwards we hired B as the MCFD advocate in our constituency office. By the time parents come to our office seeking help, they are traumatized and struggling with hope. B understood their situation immediately and supported many parents in reuniting with their children. These parents trusted B because B trusted them.
Last Friday was B’s last day with our office. After a long and meaningful career in child and youth services, she is retiring. B brought to our office a deep wisdom, a wonderful sense of humour and a contagious laugh. She will not miss Maximizer, her nemesis, nor will she miss the heartbreak of her work.
B taught us so much about forgiveness, empathy and love. I will be forever grateful for her service, her storytelling and her teachings, and I wish her well in the next part of her incredible journey.
RESPONSE TO MISINFORMATION
AND
DISINFORMATION
R. Russell: We’ve seen a dangerous trend in the last two years in the prevalence and amplification of misinformation and disinformation. This polarization both undermines public trust in institutions like this assembly as well as endangers the people of B.C., driving them away from public health advice and away from services that they could benefit from.
As Jim Hoggan said: “The strategies used to mislead people with anti-science propaganda and anti-environmentalism are much more developed and robust than those used to educate people about science and the environment.”
The majority of social media misinformation about COVID vaccines, for example, is tied to just 12 individuals, the so-called Disinformation Dozen. While digital spaces offer a forum for connection and innovation, these spaces have been toxified by misinformation and harmful rhetoric.
All of us carry a shared responsibility to rebuild trust in our neighbours, our press and our governments. As Katie Couric said: “The biggest lie of all, which fuels those who spread disinformation, is that this crisis of trust and truth is uncontainable. Leadership from every sector of society and a clear framework for action is essential.”
My plea here today is that we demonstrate that leadership, that we keep, in all of our actions as members of this assembly, this crisis top of mind, and we do what we all can to help to reduce the harm of dis- and misinformation in our world.
I had the honour to listen to Sophie Pierre speak a week ago in Nelson. She spoke to challenges to our democracy at all levels of government and of working to change a bumper sticker she saw that read, “I love my country. I don’t trust my government,” to “I love my country because I trust my government.”
There’s plenty we can do. As a start, for example, the Aspen Institute Commission on Information Disorder and their recommendations focused on transparency, accountability, civic empowerment and media freedom.
Fittingly, today is the global day that recognizes press freedom. A day to reflect on how vital it is to have free press, what it means to have healthy discourse and how important it is to sincerely celebrate alternative opinions and perspective. So let’s support each other, and our journalists, to turn this tide of misinformation.
Oral Questions
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE
SYSTEM
S. Bond: Crime is out of control across this province under the Attorney General’s catch-and-release system.
In Surrey, a man with a lengthy criminal record recently attacked a mother and her 11-month-old daughter, knocking over her stroller while shouting he was going to kill the child. The prolific offender had 14 convictions for breaching probation, 17 convictions for uttering threats and 23 assault-related convictions. At the time of this particular random assault, he was under three different probation orders.
People have lost faith in this Attorney General’s catch-and-release system. When exactly will the Attorney General do something specific to deal with prolific offenders?
Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member. I think her question illustrates a couple of the major challenges we face.
When I think about how I would react if somebody did that to my family, it fills me with anger and an instinct to protect those that I love. I think everybody in this House would feel the same way. Clearly, when someone has had literally dozens of convictions — which means that the Crown has prosecuted, they’ve been to court, the judge has found them guilty and sentenced them — and this activity continues when they’re released from those sentences, we need a solution that goes beyond the current system.
Now, I accept the opposition’s suggestion that we need to be creative within provincial jurisdiction, which is why we’re working with police, why we’re working with mayors. I expect to have an announcement in the coming days about what exactly we will be doing to be creative to address these issues.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, thank you to the Attorney General. Of course that fills us with anger and horror. It would be one thing if that were the only situation that happened in our province, but it is not. Repeat and prolific offenders keep cycling through the catch-and-release system that is overseen by this Attorney General.
Over the weekend, we saw shocking video of bus passengers trying to restrain a man who violently assaulted four people on a bus. The attacker was a prolific offender but was released on conditions after that violent assault.
One of the victims, Tristan L’Esperance says: “My immediate thought when we found out he was released on bail…he’s going to seriously…injure someone.” Just another example of catch and release under this Attorney General’s watch.
Why will the Attorney General not move specifically and immediately to deal with prolific offenders?
Hon. D. Eby: I think that when we think about public spaces in downtown cores or on transit, as the member says…. We need people to have confidence when they’re using public services, when they’re in public areas, that they’re safe, that they feel comfortable.
I’m happy to work with the opposition on these issues. Where we part company, I guess, is understanding provincial jurisdiction and responsibility and federal authorities.
I’ve explained to the member, and I know she knows this…. She actually was an Attorney General. She was Attorney General with the same charge standard that we have today. She was Attorney General with the same disclosure process we have today. Now, the difference is that a couple of significant things have happened since she was Attorney General that she might not be aware of.
First, Bill C-75 at the federal level, the Zora decision from the Supreme Court of Canada and the Jordan decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, all of which place incredible pressure on our criminal justice system to respond to exactly the issues she’s describing, which are incidents involving serious mental health and addiction issues, and how the courts manage those individuals.
Now, it’s important to be realistic about the context we work in, because that will inform how we respond to it. We have to use provincial authorities to address these issues. It is unfair of the member to blame the Crown prosecution service that is using the same rules that they used under her for what we’re facing right now. We need to work together to address this serious issue.
P. Milobar: To be clear, the fingers are pointing at the Attorney General and his failed catch-and-release system. It rings very hollow, and for very good reason, when we hear the Attorney General try to deflect.
The B.C. Liberal government? We acted on prolific offenders. The prolific offender program involved intensive supervision, linking offenders to services, as well as increasing enforcement. The results included a 40 percent reduction in reoffending rates. But believe it or not, the now Attorney General actually opposed that prolific offender program, and he opposed the action on prolific offenders directly.
This is what the Attorney General had to say when he was the head of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, on October 25, 2011, in the Vancouver Sun. He said, “We have serious concerns with the results of this program and are continuing to investigate the aggressive policing tactics” — a program that dropped prolific offender reoffending rates by 40 percent.
Is this why the Attorney General refuses to take action on prolific offenders and instead insists on going down the road of his catch-and-release system?
Hon. D. Eby: I know that the opposition, when they were in government, grappled with the issue of chronic offenders. And I accept that we have a different approach than they did when they were on this side of the House. Our approach includes 500 complex care beds for people with serious mental health and addiction issues.
When I was out in civil society groups, I had to fight tooth and nail for any kind of housing other than a mat on the floor — never mind mental health services. And if the member is here to say that they cared more about resources for Crown counsel and resources to address these kinds of issues on the criminal justice side, let me give that member just one fact.
In the last year of their government, they increased Crown counsel resources by 0.9 percent. In our first year of government, we increased Crown counsel resources by ten times that, to 9.6 percent. Since being in government, we’ve increased Crown counsel resources by 35 percent. That’s leadership.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
P. Milobar: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The end result is that under this Attorney General’s catch-and-release system, people don’t feel safe in their communities. Prolific offenders are running the streets right now.
There is zero trust that this Attorney General is taking any meaningful steps, both on the prolific offender side as well as with police. In fact, the Attorney General has a long history of anti-police comments. He literally wrote a handbook titled How to Sue the Police when he worked at the Pivot Legal Society.
In 2011, he opposed a successful prolific offender program, saying he had serious concerns with so-called aggressive policing tactics. He said that you have to take police statistics with a bit of a grain of salt. Yet we’re supposed to trust his statistics when everyone acknowledges that crime is running out of control and he says it’s actually dropping. His record over the last five years is a 75 percent increase in the rate of no-charge assessments.
Once again to the Attorney General, when is he going to address prolific offenders instead of his failed catch-and-release system?
Hon. D. Eby: It’s almost like we didn’t just have an all-party committee that agreed on a radical overhaul for policing in our province.
When I wrote that book, families who had loved ones who were killed by police had to rely on police investigating themselves to address that issue. Work that I did, along with many other people, ended that system and forced the previous government to bring in the independent investigations office so that families get satisfaction.
Getting tough on crime doesn’t mean a blank cheque for police. It means addressing the core issues. Police are not going to be able to address — and they tell us that — the mental health and addiction issues in our communities. Under that government’s watch, homelessness tripled. That is not a policing issue. It is a public order issue, but it is not a policing issue. Shame on them for not addressing those social issues that drove the issues we’re facing today. We’re addressing those issues.
REVIEW OF MENTAL HEALTH ACT
S. Furstenau: I’m heartened to hear the Attorney General say things this morning, including that we need to work together to address serious issues and his comments about the all-party committee and the value of that work.
For years, advocates have asked for a review of the Mental Health Act. It was asked for in 2017 by the Community Legal Assistance Society. It was asked for in 2019 by the Office of the Ombudsperson. Just last week, the government’s own Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act recommended that the act be reviewed by an all-party committee.
So it was incredibly welcome news when the Attorney General reported that the act will be significantly modernized. But this moment of joy was interrupted when we realized that the process is going on behind closed doors. To quote the Attorney General: “We’re doing a review of those processes and the legislation because it’s very dated.”
The Mental Health Act is criticized for its lack of accountability and oversight, and it has caused significant harm to thousands of British Columbians, so this is not a “tinkering around the edges” situation without involving patients and families. This issue warrants a full public-facing review of the act. It requires serious transparency to make sure that it’s working for people and communities.
My question is to the Attorney General. Why is the review an internal process by the ministry and not a public-facing committee, as recommended by the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act?
Hon. D. Eby: A couple of pieces. When I spoke to that reporter from the Tyee, I explained that we were doing a policy review of two pieces of legislation. One is the Adult Guardianship Act. The other is the Mental Health Act. There are a number of lawsuits where the province is being sued in relation to the Mental Health Act. Part of that work, obviously, involves a policy review to make sure that we are responsive to what’s happening.
The reporter then, with the editor, decided to run a headline that we were overhauling the Mental Health Act. My team contacted the Tyee to say that’s not what’s happening. If I communicated that, just to be clear, we are not in that process. If we were, obviously the community would be broadly involved in that process.
We’re doing the work that’s necessary to respond to litigation and to make sure legislation is up to date. I can advise the member that that work will continue.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.
S. Furstenau: So we’ve gone from the news that there is an overhaul of the Mental Health Act — which is much needed, long overdue — to the news that there isn’t an overhaul of the Mental Health Act. However, pieces of that legislation are being addressed behind closed doors.
Let’s look at this government’s record on this — the handling of would-be Bill 22, the involuntary stabilization care for youth. In the consultation process, behind closed doors, experts flagged that this legislation was harmful. But the government was determined to push it through, despite resistance from the very communities it affected. Now, two years later, they finally recognize that it was deeply flawed legislation.
The bill is buried and gone, but the legacy of how this government is handling the Mental Health Act continues. Having private conversations that this government can ignore does not lead to trust. An all-party committee provides transparency to the public. They help depoliticize an issue. They show the public that collaborative work can be done to achieve consensus.
The review of the Mental Health Act is necessary and overdue. It is an opportunity for justice for patients and families. This government needs to work on rebuilding trust.
My question is to the Attorney General. Will he commit to that review of the act and ensure that it is done by an all-party committee?
Hon. D. Eby: I explained to the member the routine and regular policy work that happens within the Ministry of Attorney General in relation to these kinds of issues. That work will continue.
The headline in the article was simply incorrect.
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE
SYSTEM
T. Stone: New reports show that 241 calls to police are abandoned every single day. British Columbians simply can’t get through to the police in four out of every ten calls. That’s up from 25 percent from the same time last year.
While the crimes people face every day are under-reported, the Attorney General would rather undermine police data to protect his catch-and-release system. This is a pattern of behaviour. In the past, the Attorney General has claimed that the Vancouver police department has a history of “releasing misleading information.” The bottom line here is that people have lost faith in the Attorney General’s catch-and-release system.
When will the Attorney General take action to get prolific offenders off of our streets?
Hon. D. Eby: I’m so glad that the member stood up to ask this question. I’m busy finalizing a letter to him.
He did an interview on CFAX on April 28 where he made some absolutely outrageous allegations about me, about Crown counsel and about the administration of our criminal justice system. He said that I changed B.C.’s charge assessment policy…. He used my name “changed the charge assessment policy years ago to essentially implement a much higher standard that’s required before charges can actually be approved.”
I have an article from 2014 from then Attorney General Suzanne Anton defending the exact same charge assessment standard that we have today.
He alleged I have a new full disclosure policy that forces police to have full disclosure before charging murderers, insinuating that Crown counsel is allowing murderers to go into the community because of a policy I made. That MOU — drafted under the B.C. Liberals, amended twice under the B.C. Liberals. The exact same policy. The idea that it would prevent hard-working Crown counsel from protecting the public from murderers is absurd. It is absurd. He needs to apologize to Crown counsel for making such an allegation.
In the last year he sat around the cabinet table, he signed off on a budget of a 0.9 percent increase for Crown counsel, which we increased ten times in our first year of government. That didn’t stop him from going on CFAX to say we’re underfunding Crown counsel. He said they’re overloaded with files. They have 20 percent fewer files because crime is, in fact, down.
Hon. Speaker, if he wants to stand up and apologize to Crown counsel, I think he should.
Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order. Let’s hear the question.
T. Stone: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The only person that owes British Columbians an apology is this Attorney General for being soft on crime.
There is chaos taking place on our streets all over this province, and it’s on this Attorney General’s watch. He has tools at his disposal, and he’s choosing not to implement them. Crime is through the roof — violent crime. People don’t feel safe in their communities, and this Attorney General has the audacity to suggest that members of the opposition — who are highlighting the concerns of British Columbians, highlighting the concerns of mayors — should apologize?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
T. Stone: I don’t think so. He needs to apologize.
I know it’s uncomfortable for the Attorney General, who’s soft on crime. He should apologize for that too. In addition to opposing programs to address prolific offenders, the Attorney General has a history of dismissing the severity of crime.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Order.
T. Stone: I know these are inconvenient truths that the members of the opposite are not wanting to hear. They dismiss the fact that people don’t feel safe walking down their streets in broad daylight. Assaults are through the roof. They can laugh; British Columbians aren’t laughing.
In 2011, the Attorney General said we should cut police funding because: “I simply think we’ve hit the point where crime is at a low and acceptable level.” He continues, to this day, to claim that crime is acceptably low. Last week in this House, he said: “I disagree with the member that the statistics show that things are getting worse.”
Despite his denials, serious crimes are on the rise all across this province. In Vancouver, violent crime is up 7.1 percent. Stranger assaults are up 33 percent, over four attacks per day. Arson is up 49 percent. There is a huge increase in glass breaks, which are up 48 percent, and the police say that glass companies can’t even keep up.
When will the Attorney General acknowledge that his catch-and-release system is a failure, and when is he going to step up and take action to protect British Columbians so they once again feel safe in their communities?
Hon. D. Eby: The lack of credibility of this member goes all through his remarks. I have stood in this place and I have agreed with the opposition that there are serious issues that need to be addressed. I have agreed with them that we need to be creative within provincial jurisdiction. I have an announcement coming within the coming days about exactly how we’re going to do that.
Yet he stands up and insists the opposite, just like he stood up on CKNW and said: “They,” referring to Crown counsel, “can’t actually approve charges in a suspected homicide.” Just like he stood up and said, using my name, that I changed the charge assessment policy years ago — totally false, completely fictional.
So when the member stands up in this place and makes a series of further allegations that I don’t take this problem seriously, he’s wrong on that too.
M. Morris: The Attorney General’s job is to prevent the administration of justice from falling into disrepute. There have been a number of significant changes to the Criminal Code. There have been some significant Supreme Court of Canada decisions that affect how prosecutors do their job. So if the Attorney is relying on policy from six, seven, ten years ago to support what he’s doing today, it’s wrong. He’s got to be nimble enough to address these issues that have surfaced.
I watched the chief of police in Vancouver on the news last week saying: “I’ve heard a lot of armchair quarterbacks, but nobody knows our data better than we do. We’re talking about invasion of people’s space, physically — assaulting people, attacking people, robbing people. Violent crime is more concerning than property crime, full stop, and it’s up 7.1 percent.”
This weekend we saw multiple random attacks in Vancouver, including one where a woman suffered facial injuries after she was robbed and assaulted by a person using a broken bottle as a weapon.
Will the Attorney General get up off his armchair, abandon his doctrine of catch-and-release and take action to stop these random attacks?
Hon. D. Eby: The member from Kamloops South could take a lesson from that member. I am grateful for a question that acknowledges the very real context that we face, the challenge that we face.
Now, I mean, armchair…. Okay. This is politics. But this is the challenge that we face.
The policies are unchanged. The member is 100 percent correct. We need to be creative within the authorities we have to respond to this problem. I agree with him that those policies are not serving us right now. I have an announcement in the coming days.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. D. Eby: I have an announcement in the coming days about how we will address this issue that has become particularly acute during the pandemic. I know that the members know this. We’ll do that work.
I thank the member for his question. I also want to thank that member because that is the one member I have heard a constructive suggestion from about how to address this issue. He suggested that we have dedicated Crown counsel for some chronic offenders. I think it’s a great suggestion. In fact, we’re looking at doing that. So thank you.
L. Doerkson: One of the several attacks that happened this weekend in Vancouver included a man who was shocked in the leg with a homemade stun gun. Other random attacks included people hurling rocks, pedestrians being kicked, punched and assaulted. It’s happening everywhere. In 100 Mile House an arsonist sent residents of Parkview Apartments scrambling at three o’clock in the morning. An armed robbery at the local A&W, a stabbing on Birch Avenue, all within the last week or so.
People have lost faith. Say what you may, but the Attorney General’s catch-and-release system is not working. Residents are frustrated. They’re angry. They’re afraid. When will the Attorney General take action and restore the faith in the justice system?
Hon. D. Eby: I have had good discussions with the mayor from Williams Lake, the mayors from Terrace, Trail, who have raised these issues with me in addition to the Urban Mayors Caucus.
I have an announcement in the coming days about how we will address this issue. I agree with the member. The current system is not working for certain groups of offenders, and we need to address that. I look forward to sharing that information with him.
COMMUNITY SAFETY
IN VANCOUVER’S
CHINATOWN
T. Wat: The Attorney General claims crime is down, but nobody, no one in Chinatown believes him. No one in Chinatown believes in his failing catch-and-release system.
Tracy To’s family appliance business has been in Chinatown for 34 years, and she says things are ten times worse than ever before. She has had to deal with numerous fires, “female staff members physically attacked…non-stop graffiti, defecation, needles in doorways” are disgusting and criminals targeting our beloved Dr. Sun Yat-Sen garden and also hacking off her dragon lanterns. It’s just pure chaos.
Why does the Attorney General continue to ignore the crime concerns that are hurting our historical Chinatown?
Hon. D. Eby: I know I’ve heard the concerns from the leaders in the Chinatown community. I know the city of Vancouver has. I share their hope that an increase in foot traffic in the neighbourhood as cruise ships return, as tourists return to Gastown and to Chinatown, will have an impact in a positive way. The city of Vancouver is taking a number of steps.
I do have to take exception to the member’s suggestion that I somehow downplayed the issues in Chinatown or in downtown Vancouver or in other downtown centres. The members keep repeating this over and over, even when I stand up and say: “This is a serious issue. We’re taking action.”
The Minister of Public Safety and I have an announcement to share in the coming days about what we’re going to do to be creative with the mayors and other subject-matter experts in this area to address these issues.
I hope that when the member is communicating with key constituencies, that she tells people that the government recognizes the issue. We wish they would move faster; I accept that. We will have more to say about this in the coming days.
To those in Chinatown, those merchants and others: we’re on your side, and we’ll have more to do to assist you.
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
HANDLING OF CASES BY JUSTICE
SYSTEM
T. Halford: On the weekend, the Attorney General claimed, “In terms of this group of chronic offenders and individuals who might be involved in these kinds of random attacks, I think that we are seeing some good progress.” What does the minister mean by “good progress”?
Random attacks are up 33 percent in Vancouver. That’s good progress. In South Surrey, the latest year-over-year crime data shows a 6 percent increase in violent crimes — good progress, according to the Attorney General; a 10 percent increase in business break-ins — good progress, according to the Attorney General; an 82 percent increase in criminal disturbances — again, good progress, according to this Attorney General.
How could this Attorney General possibly tell the people in South Surrey that these increases are good progress under his catch-and-release system?
Hon. D. Eby: The answer is simple: I didn’t. The member takes a single line — as the members are entitled to — out of context. I don’t know how they could listen to me stand here, over and over, and say these are serious issues, that government needs to be creative to address them. The Minister of Public Safety and I are working with police, with mayors, to be creative, within provincial jurisdiction, to address these issues. We’re working within a challenging federal context.
I guess I’m not sure what else to say to that member to underline how seriously I take it that people, in some communities in our province, do not feel safe and that they have concerns about the system not working the way it should. It’s a priority for our government. It’s a priority for me. It’s a priority for the Premier. It’s a priority for the Minister of Public Safety and for every single member, I think, on both sides of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.
T. Halford: I’m sorry if the member’s quotes are inconvenient for him. What’s not inconvenient…. The minister talks about an announcement in the coming days. Well, why doesn’t that minister make that announcement today? The fact is that we….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
T. Halford: The government finds that this is a humorous issue. Well, I can tell you that the people in Surrey, the people in Vancouver, the people across this province find no humour in what is happening in our streets — none.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let’s hear the question, please.
Continue.
T. Halford: To the Attorney General, when will he admit that his catch-and-release program is failing British Columbians every single day?
Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate the sense of urgency that the member has. I will announce it, and the Minister of Public Safety will announce it, as soon as we can. The member will know that responses to complex challenges like this require collaborative work. We’re working with the mayors. We’re working with other key leaders on this, and we have to do that work. It does take a little longer, but the end result will be better.
[End of question period.]
Motions Without Notice
MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
COMMITTEE
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion to change the membership of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Leave granted.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:
[That Adam Walker, MLA replace Niki Sharma, MLA as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.]
Motion approved.
MEMBERSHIP CHANGE TO
HEALTH
COMMITTEE
Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion to replace a member on the Select Standing Committee on Health.
Leave granted.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move:
[That Ronna-Rae Leonard, MLA replace Harwinder Sandhu, MLA as a Member of the Select Standing Committee on Health.]
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 16, Transportation Amendment Act.
In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 16 — TRANSPORTATION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2022
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 10:59 a.m.
On clause 1.
Hon. R. Fleming: To my left is ADM Kevin Volk, who’ll be here to assist me in answering the members opposite’s questions; and to my right is Shannon Price, who is a manager of strategic real estate with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.
B. Stewart: We do intend on asking a few questions about this. I think that there’s no question that both sides of this House are interested in creating more affordability in the province of British Columbia. However, we have questions around the tool that the minister mentioned in second reading of this in terms of just how it was going to be utilized. So I think that the fact that we’re looking at this….
I’m wondering what work will be done to ensure that the private sector can provide affordable rentals and housing for first-time homebuyers near transit with Bill 16, please.
Hon. R. Fleming: As I tried to describe in second reading debate that we had the other day, in describing this as a tool — this legislation, if it were passed…. I think the member can probably understand that the affordability challenge that we face in communities around British Columbia as it relates to housing is primarily a land-cost problem — rising land costs that have, I think, quintupled in the ’01 to ’17 period that I described and that continue to rise in most parts of British Columbia.
Therefore, having the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority taking a lead coordination role, having expanded powers — and responsibility, quite frankly — that includes transit-oriented development is, in fact, a game-changer for the province.
Yes, I wish it had been done long ago, but today we have an opportunity to add this tool, which will give us the ability to create very robust, unique partnerships with municipalities for things like supportive policies agreements that relate to SkyTrain or public transit exchanges — to lead redevelopment there; to work with the private sector in partnership on delivering residential housing, commercial development, job centres and all kinds of mixed-use developments that are anticipated, with the ability of government to act proactively.
Of course, we want to work with the non-profit housing sector to deliver deeply affordable housing, which is much needed in a number of communities where working people’s wages are simply so far out of line with what it costs to rent or rent-to-own a home. These are the kinds of interventions that governments need, given the reality and the challenges that we face as it relates to housing.
B. Stewart: To the minister, I do think that he may be correct in the fact that the land cost is driving up affordability, but I think that we know — especially, take the city of Vancouver — that there is a significant delay and lag time, as we’ve seen with developments, both strata as well as other types of residential or commercial construction.
Even in the private sector, when they acquire the land and they have to wait…. Time is money is what they continue to tell us. I think the reality is that…. How does the ministry, by acquiring the land, overcome the challenges that are set in place by other municipal regulations and process?
Hon. R. Fleming: One of the things I alluded to in the previous answer was supportive policies agreements, SPAs. Not the type of spa that we’re perhaps familiar with but the supportive policies agreement. It covers a number of things between a municipal government and the provincial government, perhaps, and other partners that may be included in that. It’s things like a certain number of units of housing.
It’s not prescriptive on the form of the building or any of that sort of thing, but it says that this number of units should be built in a transit-oriented development around a transit exchange or a SkyTrain station. It could include things like a commitment, by any level of government that has approval authority for permitting and those sorts of things, to expedite those approvals so that we achieve a much more rapid ability to get to breaking ground and beginning projects.
I certainly have some experience with that with the city of Surrey, for example, on schools. We had an accord with the city of Surrey government where they would give us the ability to approve, in a reasonable amount of time — having faced unreasonable approval times — the ability to get to groundbreaking. It’s that sort of thing.
The B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, when it becomes a landowner, I think will have the ability to work very closely with municipal governments on those types of SPA agreements.
There’s some evidence already of a positive influence in this direction. The Surrey-Fleetwood neighbourhood plan has recently been updated. It’s anticipatory of SkyTrain, the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project. It’s anticipatory of transit-oriented development. It’s planning for that. It’s the product of collaboration between the city of Surrey planning staff and the province that’s involved in the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project.
B. Stewart: Well, I agree with the minister in terms of the fact that it is our desire to develop transit-orientated communities, but we’ve seen time and time again where local government and the residents are not supportive of the goals or the ambitions of what it is that we’re trying to achieve here. I do think that this is part of it, but what we do need to know is: how is it that local governments are going to cooperate, come to the table and create the zoning and the density?
In the minister’s response, he talked about schools. Well, we all know, and we often talk about, the situation of schools in Surrey, one of the fastest-growing school districts in the province — the demand for schools and the thirst by council to do that. I would hope that there’s a thirst, by other councils, to create affordable housing density. I’m not necessarily seeing that by the rules that are being put in place and the barriers that the cities are putting in place with the development costs for private development, which buys land.
Not dissimilarly to what the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority would be doing in this case, they buy the land with the best intention. At the end of the day, they not only have to pay back the land, but they have to pay the city for all the fees and build the project in rising costs. They have to be able to deliver it and, hopefully, make enough profit to be able to invest and do another project.
I guess this is only one small part of what I think we see as part of the solution, but the other parts of the solution are the other players at the table: the communities and the cities. I guess, more to the point about the question, has the ministry consulted and got agreement on projects?
Now, we know that the minister has the Broadway subway extension under development right now. In that particular project, the development is already running into being not so high, in terms of buildings having to be reduced in height and scope, etc., because of the neighbourhood push-back. I guess what I’m really driving at is: how is the ministry, once they acquire the lands at these transit-orientated exchanges, going to be able to complete or develop that? How do they see it moving forward?
Hon. R. Fleming: There was quite a bit in the member’s question. So I apologize if I don’t respond and capture all of it.
On the Broadway SkyTrain extension, which is currently under construction, with six stations — the tunnel-boring is set to begin soon — it’s not ideal…. In the sense that the Broadway plan update, which the city of Vancouver is doing, is quite comprehensive and very ambitious, I’m very pleased with what I’ve seen in the early draft stages.
I think the public engagement has been incredibly useful, to talk about what reimagining Broadway looks like, as a corridor — as a great street, I think, is what they’re describing it as, as a second downtown in the city of Vancouver, as an area of density which already has, I think, the second-highest concentration of jobs per square kilometre in the province of B.C.
It’s a very dense, productive area that supports jobs and investment right now, and it has a residential component, but there is a thirst — as the member has described it — in the city of Vancouver for housing affordability as well. There are a lot of families that cannot afford to live there. The Broadway plan does give an opportunity — for the city, primarily — to work with the development community to try and create affordable housing units there. Had we had this legislation, it might have given a much larger role for the province to take a lead role in the transit-oriented development.
By way of illustration, I think Broadway is going quite well. I think it was positive that last week, or sometime around the time that we had second reading of this bill, as a matter of fact, the city council approved a 39-storey development — PCI Developments Corp., at the Granville station site — that includes, if I’m not mistaken, something like 250 affordable housing units as part of that development. That’s all good.
With this bill, the advantage for us, as a province, is that we’ll be able to shape growth rather than chase growth. We will be able to sit down and get the planning worked on congruently, at the same time that we are making our transportation investments, so that we can influence things that are important to those communities — like housing affordability, child care infrastructure, the commercial development opportunities that would come with a transit-oriented development, and working with school districts to plan for education support.
When you bring families — I brought up the example of Richmond and the Canada Line — you’re going to need new schools. If you forgo the opportunity by not purchasing land, you’re not going to get those schools.
It really does help the province with a quite powerful tool to be able to guide what development looks like, to enter creative partnerships with local governments, with the development community, with the non-profit housing sector, to make sure that we’re not simply creating a public transit project, which is good in and of itself, but leveraging that investment to influence a number of other public goods that are priorities for our government and for communities where people live.
B. Stewart: Okay. Well, it’s great to hear that the city did approve that 39-storey tower on the Broadway line. Maybe just to add some clarity, based on what the minister’s response was, could he clarify that Bill 16 is intended for transit-orientated development in existing subway and SkyTrain lines, as well as maybe higher-density transit lines, like BRT and things like that?
Hon. R. Fleming: The province, with Bill 16 at its disposal if it is proclaimed, will be able to enter into a number of partnerships at existing public transit infrastructure. It will not choose to do so at every location everywhere in the province, as the member can well understand. We’ll look at those opportunities that have dynamic, transformative capability that will readily support densification, that are areas where we are either contemplating future transit infrastructure investment, or we may have land assembled already around transit exchanges.
I think, at second reading, I outlined a few examples that are forward-looking. Surrey-Langley SkyTrain is a real, live opportunity that we are currently planning and projecting to be completed about two years ahead of the original schedule, which is good.
I mentioned the example of Surrey-Fleetwood’s neighbourhood plan. You’re seeing that being influenced. Where there are private sector holdings that are significant, like the Willowbrook mall, they’re doing their own internal, privately led, transit-oriented development plan. I don’t know too much about that, but I know they’re excited about the opportunity of taking acres of asphalt parking and reimagining what that mall looks like as a mixed-use development.
I mentioned the opportunity in the capital regional district, because we have a bus rapid transit strategy and some existing transit exchanges that will also give us an opportunity, should we decide to use it.
We talked a little bit about Kelowna as well. The highway, which is the main spine through the town connecting large institutions and the downtown, is maybe an area that we could look at, as well, for transit-oriented development. I think that’s in good, solid alignment with the civic leadership in the city of Kelowna.
Those are the kinds of things that this tool that we will create — having the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority be able to proactively acquire land for the purpose not just of transit infrastructure itself but transit-oriented development. It opens up a whole new world of opportunity for affordability, for redevelopment in an urban and suburban setting and more livable, compact communities.
B. Stewart: I take it, from the answer that the minister has just provided, that this is more about mostly future development, not necessarily going backwards and looking…. You mentioned BRT. Sorry. Maybe we could just clarify that.
I would say there’s a lot of transit. I think it’s somewhere north of 60 stations of SkyTrain that exist in the Lower Mainland. Of those, I don’t think that the opportunity that you’re proposing here has been fully developed.
Is the intention to look at any and all transit stations and look at the opportunities? Is there a plan as to how you’re going to go about this?
Hon. R. Fleming: Yes, this bill will be a very powerful tool on future-oriented projects that we have on the books.
We have just about $7 billion worth of SkyTrain construction underway or in pre-construction right now, in the budget before the House and on the ground in the communities where it’s being built. But it will give us the opportunity — and I think this is getting to the crux of the member’s question — to do transit-oriented development on, sticking with the SkyTrain example, transit infrastructure that has been built out.
In many cases, unfortunately — I talked about the Canada Line — there has been densification with no affordability. It was completely market-led. So pardon the pun, but the train has left the station on those kinds of opportunities. The land has been bought; the densification has occurred. Working families didn’t get any access to the benefits of having an efficient, modern transportation system out of that.
But we do have some opportunities on the Millennium Line, on the original Expo Line, where government is working with, for example, the city of Surrey on the Scott Road station site to look at what transit-oriented development would look like there.
They’re already updating their neighbourhood plan. The Crown already owns land that is used for transit purposes, although underutilized. It’s a park-and-ride. There’s a lot of land that could be redeveloped as part of a transit-oriented development vision. The same goes for places like Moody station — Lougheed station as well.
So there will be some ability for us to use this legislation on existing investments that have already been made by the province.
A. Olsen: When the minister…. First of all, I’d just like to say I think that there’s tremendous opportunity here. The minister references affordable housing. I’m just wondering if, maybe, the minister can provide a little bit more context around the type of affordable housing that’s going to be built, in terms of: what’s the character of those? The public is investing money in buying land. How is that money being invested? What type of housing is going to be built?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I appreciate it. It’s a difficult one to answer, because the answer is that this bill opens the door for all kinds of potential in a number of locations. That will be determined by local governments and transit agencies like TransLink and the province — or by B.C. Transit in the communities that it serves.
What kind of housing stock is part of a transit-oriented development? The mixture of ownership versus rental market, below market, deeply below market, non-profit, cooperative housing — all of those will be possible because this bill opens the door for that to happen.
Right now it’s not. It happens organically, sometimes through governments. Local governments get involved. The city of Vancouver — we talked about Broadway Line — has some holdings that are able to influence some of the adjacent station development. But when it happens organically, it’s basically bottom-line-oriented, and it’s market-oriented, and it’s not affordable.
This allows us to have a greater measure of planning and control, of collaboration and partnership, and to determine what types of housing there ought to be and the number of units and the ratio of family-sized units and the target for rents or rent-to-own programs. Those are all things that can be determined by government working in partnership with other agencies in government.
I guess what I could say is that politics matters, doesn’t it? I think agreements would look different under a different character of government than another character of government. But those can be determined as we go, once we pass Bill 16, make it law and decide what our priorities are and what the ambition of the investment is and what the affordability targets are.
A. Olsen: I appreciate the answer. I appreciate that we’re starting with a fresh slate here, with a new opportunity. This is a point in the opportunity, I think, to put some guidelines or some boundaries around what it is that public money is investing in. I think when you see these….
Maybe the minister has heard me ask questions of his colleagues around public money being put into a real estate market that is super-hot right now, red-hot right now, and the impact that that could have, actually, on the increase in the value of the housing that’s being built.
I guess what I’m getting at in this line of questioning is just trying to understand whether or not the ministry has had conversations around what kind of boundaries we might want to set — through regulation, perhaps — once this bill has passed.
Has the ministry considered putting any guidelines in regulation to ensure that the public money isn’t actually creating further problems in a housing market that’s already red-hot, and that it’s actually addressing the areas around the deeply affordable housing that’s needed — the non-market housing, as an example?
There are opportunities that the minister could put in at this stage to say that X number needs to be non-market housing, for an example, or deeply affordable co-op housing. There’s a bunch of different tenures that could be identified. Has that been considered at this stage?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. The bill doesn’t have a granular, prescriptive set of regulations or prescriptions about what the land can be used for. That’s going to have to be determined on a project-by-project basis.
What this does, though, is allow us to participate in those sorts of things — to acquire land for the purpose of transit-oriented development. We’ve had some discussion. Earlier the critic asked about whether this bill could have a positive influence on the pace of municipal approvals — for example, of housing development. I think it can. We’ve outlined the supportive policy agreements. They’re one mechanism to do that around a transit-oriented development.
Certainly, this bill will allow Metro Vancouver and other regional cities in the province to greatly enhance the supply problem. In terms of supply and the pace of approvals, those are good, cooling effects on the red-hot market that the member describes, but for the purpose of this bill, I’ve mentioned that one regulation we will do, should this bill pass the House, is around a certain distance.
We will prescribe the transit-oriented development. From all the scans of different jurisdictions around the world that have pursued it successfully, it’s about 800 metres — or, as the Americans would say, half a mile — or a ten-minute walking distance from a transit station exchange or SkyTrain station, because that allows more affordability around not owning two vehicles, or even one vehicle. It is what people are prepared to do to get on a highly efficient public transit system that has pedestrian activity associated with that. I have mentioned that it is my intention to put an 800-metre sort of circumference around what we would describe as a transit-oriented development.
A. Olsen: Maybe just to finish this line of questioning — I appreciate that it’s not considered at this stage — I would say that where the provincial government is investing public funds, there’s an opportunity to ensure at least a certain number of units.
I know that in municipal developments, you’d say 10 percent of units, for example, need to be affordable. I say affordable. It’s because it’s contingent on the market. They need to be below market for them to be affordable, or you need to use the CMHC formula of no more than 30 percent of your income being put to housing.
The real opportunity that’s presented here, I think, is that not only do we have an opportunity to decrease people’s amount that they’re paying for their housing, we’re also potentially…. Actually, the whole point of this is to also decrease the amount that they’re paying to the other most expensive thing in their life, which is their transportation — so folks who are on minimum wage or folks who are living on a wage that’s below that living wage. There’s real opportunity here.
I’m hearing the minister very clearly that there hasn’t been these considerations. What I would say is: let’s consider this. Let’s consider the potential of regulations, of putting some numbers in place, recognizing that each community is different, each council is different, and that there needs to be that flexibility. I think the council that the minister sat on formerly and the council that I sat on formerly are very different communities, and they would require different things.
However, there is an opportunity to take some of these units out of the marketplace and give people really deeply affordable housing. Where the provincial government is investing public money in it, that’s an opportunity for us to say: “This is what we would like to see.” I just encourage the minister to consider that in the regulation-making process. I don’t expect to see it in the bill, because it does need that flexibility, but this is a great opportunity for regulations to really get good outcomes here, I think.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you for the question. As I said, I think in the previous answer, this gives us enormous ability to influence for the good the development of affordable housing in areas that we work with our partners on to declare as transit-oriented development areas, where we update community plans. The member knows, as a former municipal official, what that entails in terms of the bylaw development and the public engagement and the consultation.
We’re already seeing very huge, significant interest in the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain corridor for doing just that. I’ve brought up some examples. The Fleetwood neighbourhood plan is in the process of being updated to prepare for the transformative power of a SkyTrain station for livable density and compact development that is a lot different than the earlier pattern of development for that neighbourhood, which was auto-centric. Its zoning was based on that being people’s means of mobility and getting around, so this will be different.
Look, the bill is trying to address a problem that British Columbia has in common with jurisdictions like California, Washington state, Oregon, the Toronto market, New Zealand, Australia — which is a pretty overheated market, as the member described. We need tools like this to be able to work with local governments and others to be able to build housing in a more affordable manner and create partnerships that add that to our housing stock. It’s not the answer unto itself, but it is a powerful tool that, arrayed with other tools that government has at its disposable, I think is going to be quite complementary.
The member and I have discussed, for example, the bus rapid transit strategy that we have here in the capital regional district. He’s been supportive of investments at Mt. Newton Cross Road on the Patricia Bay Highway, and I’m sure he can imagine that with Crown land and municipal governments working together, that could be an area, potentially, for development and densification. We have an Indigenous community there that might wish to be a part of that as well, that would build housing and institutions and amenities there. That’s what we’re talking about.
Without Bill 16, we can’t really do that. With Bill 16, we can, through the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority.
B. Stewart: Minister, I just want to go back to the discussion we’re having about the existing network of SkyTrain stations. There is bus rapid transit here in the capital regional district as well as in the Okanagan.
I guess you focus in on this about the tool that it creates and the opportunity to help solve the affordability issue. My question is: is it the intention of the ministry to work in collaboration with, say, the Minister for Housing to aggressively pursue acquiring the lands so that this gets some traction and that we can expect that we’re going to see affordable housing, both a combination of non-profit, market housing, the types that you describe? Is that going to be aggressively pursued?
Hon. R. Fleming: What I can say is that a number of mayors — and I believe the mayor of the member’s city, Kelowna, is aware and well-briefed on Bill 16. Should it become law and should the city, which has a commendable vision for what 21st-century Kelowna looks like…. It’s recently made a number of amendments to their OCP. The member opposite is probably more aware than I would be, but I’ve been pleased to have them described to me.
The mayor of Kelowna has opportunity, should this become law, to work more directly with my ministry, the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. We would bring in B.C. Housing. I think on the BRT corridor, there is obviously a lot of private land there, shopping malls and commercial developments and things like that, but they would likely see an interest there as well.
I mentioned in Surrey, Langley SkyTrain, that when we talked about supportive policy agreements promoting transit-oriented development on that line, the owners — and I’m forgetting the company name — of the Willowbrook mall immediately engaged in their own revisioning of that property as a new mixed-use development that is not just retail and parking but has other things that could refresh and repurpose the land that is consumed by that development.
Uptown is a good example here in Victoria, which is in Saanich near the Uptown development. It’s a strategic site to optimize transit service in greater Victoria that we wish to invest in as a new transit exchange. We’ve just completed a pre-feasibility study with B.C. Transit and the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, so we’re on our way in anticipation of the legislation that would allow us to then work in close collaboration with the district of Saanich.
B. Stewart: I appreciate that you mentioned that mayors have shown enthusiasm, adjusted OCPs. I wonder. On the existing SkyTrain stations, communities that are impacted — New West, Port Moody, Coquitlam, Vancouver, Richmond, all the way through Surrey, etc. — have there been consultations with all of those communities about using this type of tool to help increase affordable housing?
Hon. R. Fleming: We had some direct consultations on this in the drafting stage of the legislation with UBCM staff. Certainly, there is a lot of discussion at Metro Vancouver, which was just working on completion of its 2050 plan. It’s in draft form now.
There are lots of conversations happening about what Bill 16 could do for communities that have existing SkyTrain infrastructure. Some have been significantly redeveloped, but others have not. I expect those conversations are going to grow even further. We’ll look forward to having them when we have this tool for collaboration, planning and affordable housing development at our disposal once it’s proclaimed.
B. Stewart: I was talking about how aggressive…. I don’t know what the minister sees in the next 24 months, what type of aggressiveness. Is expropriation something that would be considered in cases where it was deemed that something that should be developed or should be put together…? I don’t know how much support in the community they have, but is it a tool that would be considered by the B.C. Ministry of Transportation and the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority in terms of executing on this tool?
Hon. R. Fleming: As we are here on clause 1, we’re looking at expansion of definitions.
We have an act that is currently silent on what a transit station is. What it could mean…. We have suggested text that’s before the House on what transit-oriented development is. That’s what’s under discussion here.
In clause 3, we will get into those amendments to section 27 of the existing act, if the member wants to talk about expropriation at that time. That, of course, has long been on the statute books, and there are a number of acts — I couldn’t name them all — that give the province sort of last-resort legal authority to do that. This bill does not, in any way, seek to promote expropriation. It seeks to promote partnerships in acquiring land proactively. So there is no change that this bill before the House brings in that regard, on what is existing statute and law in British Columbia.
B. Stewart: Okay. Just in terms of communities that you’ve talked to, Minister, in terms of the UBCM, Metro Vancouver, people like in my own community, etc., what about the people that do this in the world of development, etc.? Has there been consultation with them? Where are you at in terms of the plan with them?
Hon. R. Fleming: To the member’s question, we did consult with a number of senior development companies that have experience in housing and mixed-use development. We did that, of course, under confidentiality, because if you’re contemplating the change in law, you don’t want to give a commercial advantage to anyone. We want to have a candid conversation, and we had that with the development community. They were very, very supportive of the concept of developing this legislation. Based on that and the additional consultations the member references, we went forward in drafting the bill that is now before the House.
With that, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
AND
CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Sims in the chair.
The committee met at 11 a.m.
On Vote 24: ministry operations, $312,344,000 (continued).
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We are meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.
Minister.
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you very much, Chair. With your indulgence before the member asks a question, I want to correct, with apologies, an answer that we gave yesterday to the question of agriculture emission reductions. In the interest of completeness, I want to elaborate on one of the responses to my opposition critic yesterday.
The member asked about expected reductions from the agriculture sector. The answer that I provided included most emissions from agriculture but excluded those from fossil fuel combustion. Including the additional emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the agricultural sector would result in a 2030 emissions total of 3.7 megatonnes without any CleanBC measures. Under the CleanBC roadmap, sector emissions in 2030 are estimated to decline to 2.9 megatonnes, or a reduction of approximately 0.8 megatonnes.
Thank you, and apologies again for missing that in our review yesterday to provide the answer.
A. Olsen: I wanted to follow up quickly on a question. Yesterday I asked a question around Indigenous reconciliation. The minister referenced the priorities of Indigenous leadership. One of the priorities that they have brought forward is around biodiversity. It’s also a key recommendation, recommendation No. 2, in the old-growth strategic review. I’m recognizing that’s on the forestry side of things.
I am wanting to ask…. I know that the ministry had been working on biodiversity legislation. At some point that had stopped. I think that as we see…. The member for Prince George–Mackenzie talked about biodiversity yesterday in his two-minute statement. I wonder if the minister could talk about the government’s work on biodiversity legislation and the priority within the Ministry of Environment for such legislation.
Hon. G. Heyman: Well, the member has correctly pointed out that the lead authority for biodiversity legislation, including…. We’re working with the Ministry of Forests on that aspect of recommendation 2 of the old-growth strategic review. It has transferred to the Minister of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship and so have the staff from my ministry that were working on that. They’re now in that ministry.
My mandate letter asked me to support the Minister of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship on matters of the watershed sustainability strategy and fund and protecting biodiversity. My ministry and I are eager to do that and willing to do that in whatever way the Minister of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship requests us to support.
D. Ashton: Minister, always a pleasure to see you and your staff.
Minister, just very quickly. If I could pass some notes along to you regarding an issue in Naramata. It’s about a sewage issue that’s being proposed. I’ll just pass it along. Thank you.
Minister, I would just ask in consideration…. Coming from municipal government, one of the biggest issues is that when we do sewer an area on the expense of ongoing operations, when there is a plant that is very close to other communities, I would hope the ministry would consider the opportunity of municipalities working together so that effluent could flow from one municipality to another municipality or from a regional district into a municipality. It can make a big difference in ongoing operations.
It was done during the tenure when I was at the regional district, going north into the Kelowna catchment basin. The Greata Ranch area was done. Peachland is another one. It does work. I would just ask for further consideration of that.
Second of all, I would also ask you the opportunity to meet with staff regarding an in-camera issue that both the minister’s ministry and also the Agriculture ministry has in its purview at this point in time.
And the opportunity for Topflight helicopters regarding permitting issues in the Ashnola area, especially now with the Lower Similkameen Indian Band and the issues that they have brought forward regarding the Ashnola in their traditional lands and access through those traditional lands. It’s just a request for those meetings.
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for Penticton. I know the member has a good reputation for being an effective local politician in his time in municipal government, and I know knows the issues, including liquid waste management plans, very well.
The answer to the member’s question is if the regional district puts forward a proposal for municipalities working together or receiving effluent, we would welcome that. We’re happy to talk about it. We’ve done that in other cases. One example is the village of Anmore, working with Metro Vancouver regional district.
The member asked if there could be an in-camera meeting with our staff. Absolutely, on this or any other issue. I think you didn’t mention the issue, so I’m not sure what it is. That is a courtesy I would extend to any member from any party, and so would my staff.
If I understand the question about Topflight helicopters in Ashnola, and the permitting — were you asking for a meeting regarding that? Yes, absolutely. We’ll arrange that as well.
D. Ashton: Thank you, Minister, and thank you, staff. I greatly appreciate it. Have a good day.
P. Milobar: I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out, in follow-up to the minister’s answer there, with pride, that Kamloops provides sewage handling for Tk’emlúps on the reserve, in Kamloops as well, in partnership there. That’s always worked very well. That only has one plant, then, working with the Thompson River, instead of two.
A couple of questions, though, for the minister in regards to post-wildfire, specifically more around Lytton. Just some real quick ones. Obviously, we’ve heard a lot over the last ten months — that Lytton has been trying to get the debris removed. A lot has to do with that it’s considered a contaminated site — the whole village.
Did the minister, the ministry…? Did anyone within Environment direct and make the declaration that Lytton is to be considered a contaminated site? Are they operating and not able to start to remove unless the Ministry of Environment signs off on it? Can we get some insight into that whole process as to how we are still here, ten months later, with a contaminated site as a whole town?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I think we all know that the residents of Lytton are continually concerned. There are several areas, including contamination, in which they wish answers. Ultimately, they want to get on with their lives and rebuild, and we want to see them do that as well.
There has been no declaration of the town of Lytton as a contaminated site, but our experience was that a combination of the fires and the flooding had the potential to leave contamination in the area. As a result of that, we’re working with emergency management B.C. and other ministries to develop a recovery strategy.
We worked with Indigenous and non-Indigenous governments to have qualified professionals go in and test for contamination, which would be a standard response if we had reason to expect contamination. What we are trying to do now, to ensure that we protect public health, is working with those Indigenous and non-Indigenous governments to develop a broad process for the entire town to conduct the removal in a safe way. We expect, by having not a site-by-site removal strategy but a broad strategy, that we will both expedite the speed and reduce the costs for businesses, individuals and governments to do that.
P. Milobar: Well, I thank the minister for that answer, but I think it just leads to more confusion then. There are a couple of things to unpack there. The fire ripped through on June 30. The flood event didn’t happen until November, five months later. The flood event had nothing to do with Lytton. In the ten months, we’ve seen major rain events — which, if Lytton is truly that contaminated, would have created runoff. We’ve had snow events and melt and freshet starting, which would have seen those contaminated pieces flowing away from Lytton, into the Fraser River.
At the same time, we saw Monte Lake, which burned down after Lytton, not be required to have the same cleanup conditions applied to it that Lytton had, and we’ve seen the Lytton First Nation, literally basically across the road, be fully cleaned out. The site is prepped, they’re having housing coming in, and they’re getting utilities restored. It’s great to see. No one begrudges that work happening, but literally in the exact same area, with the same fire, there has been a completely different response allowed.
At the same time, we just saw last week, with the tragic fire at the Winters Hotel in Vancouver, that building being demolished almost immediately. The only thing that delayed it was the tragic and unfortunate discovery of the bodies of people who had lost their lives in those fires. It’s understandable that things would stop so that we’d get a proper investigation, but the initial demolition and removal was immediate.
The people of Lytton are looking for a very clear answer — there was no actual order about contamination immediately put in place — as to why they’re not allowed in, why it’s still fenced off, why they can’t come and go to their own privately owned property to start remediation, if the Ministry of Environment has not put any kind of contamination order on the townsite. People are still needing to wear hazmat suits to be allowed to cross the fenced area, after getting permission, to enter into where their own private property is.
Can we get more clarification or detail as to why this site, post-fire, seems to be the only site in British Columbia that gets deemed contaminated? We can’t seem to figure out who has actually made that designation and who is actually preventing people from going back to clean up their properties, ten months after a fire has already ripped through their town.
Hon. G. Heyman: My understanding is that when we sent people in to test in Lytton, following the fire, it was found that the soot and ash from the fire was contaminated with lead and asbestos. The village has determined that that is a risk to public health, and therefore, the evacuation order is being continued.
There is nothing from our ministry that prevents that from being removed. There are a number of other factors that have to do with other issues that are potentially slowing it down, but we’re simply, in the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, waiting for it to be removed. We will then go in and test and certify that the site is clean, which is what the insurance companies will require.
P. Milobar: Has the ministry issued any orders to any landfill operations or any disposal ways of the waste that would at all be prohibiting the time frame for the removal in terms of finding a location to send it to for handling and either a burial or remediation or anything of that nature? Are there any orders given or prevention of any specific sites that it’s not allowed to go to?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for your patience. I apologize for the delay in responding, but I’ve got a partial answer. We’re trying to get a bit more detail — which we will be able to do over the lunch break and give a more fulsome answer after the break, if that’s okay.
What I can tell the member is that we have a full-time staff person who has been working with the village of Lytton to look at their needs for remediation and determine what’s needed in terms of receiving landfill and which ones are currently authorized to do that, which ones we would need to work with to expedite permit amendments to receive it within the Thompson-Nicola regional district. I can give a bit more detail after lunch.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.