Third Session, 42nd Parliament (2022)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 31, 2022
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 216
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 Ombudsperson, special report, Short-Changed: Ensuring Federal
Benefits Paid to the Province Reach | |
Office of the superintendent of professional governance, annual report, 2021-22 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2022
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: J. Tegart.
Introductions by Members
Hon. L. Popham: Today is Ice Cream Day in B.C.
I am udderly excited to have some special guests to introduce in the chamber today. I am going to seize the mooment and milk it for all it’s worth.
Joining us from our amazing dairy industry are Lindsay Heer from Robin Creek Dairy, Mickey Aylard and baby Campbell from Brackenhurst Farm, Dave Taylor from Viewfield Farms, Sarah Sache from West River Farm, Mark and Christa Van Klei from M&L Farms, Jeff Hanson from Hanson Farms, John and June de Dood from Sunninghill Holsteins, Greg and Breanna Streuker from Riverbend Dairy.
We are so fortunate to have the dairy industry here to talk about the challenges and the successes of the industry. I’m not sure if our guests have heard, but the opposition tried to pass a law banning ice cream in B.C. But as your government, we deemed it unconestitutional.
Welcome to the chamber.
Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is His Excellency Scott Ryan, the high commissioner of Australia to Canada. Before his role as high commissioner, he served as president of the senate in the Australian Parliament, and before that, he held various ministerial portfolios in the Australian government, so he is certainly no stranger to the kind of question period he will witness here shortly.
He is joined by Miss Ayla Black, second secretary, and Mr. Kevin Lamb, honorary consul of Australia in Vancouver.
His Excellency is here on his first official visit to British Columbia. I had the pleasure of meeting with him yesterday, and today he will be meeting with the Premier as well as with a number of ministers, including the Solicitor General, the Minister of Forests and the Minister of State for Trade.
Will the House please make him feel very welcome.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I have a couple of introductions that I’d like to make today. First, there are five individuals who I’d like to thank. They are in the gallery today. Today is their final week with us, and they are the 2022 B.C. government caucus interns. As all of us know on both sides of the House, interns do an amazing job for us.
I’d like to thank Ireland Bellsmith, Jerika Caduhada, Aidan Guerreiro, Corie Kielbiski and Katie Korte. I want to thank them very much for their hard work for all the government MLAs.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Chilliwack.
Oh, sorry. Please continue.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I know I don’t make many introductions, hon. Speaker, but today I do have a couple.
The second introduction is…. As you all know, people do retire, sometimes from this chamber, but occasionally from the press gallery. Today we have a longtime member of the press gallery, Tom Fletcher, whose last day it is in this place.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, shame. Shame, hon. Members. Applauding the last day of a journalist? Particularly one as esteemed as Mr. Fletcher, who has been around these chambers for a very long time and has reported on events over a number of years. I do know that many of you do think he has a certain political bent on a certain side of the spectrum, but I am assured, hon. Members, that when he does retire, he will be going to his communist plot to do cantaloupe smackdown in the very near future.
Would the House please wish him a good retirement.
D. Coulter: I, too, would like to welcome my friends from the Dairy Association. I have open invitations to pet cows at some of their farms any time, which is great.
I also have a very special introduction to make. I’d like to introduce Rob Sleath. He’s in the gallery today. Rob lives in Richmond and is a member of the minister’s Provincial Accessibility Committee. Rob is a passionate advocate for those living with vision loss and, particularly, to providing them with the same rights and access to information as the sighted.
Rob is also a well-known transportation advocate in the Lower Mainland and has been president of the Committee for the Promotion of Accessible Conventional Transit and founding chair of Access Transit Users Advisory Committee for the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority.
I know that everyone knows already that today we will be making an accessibility announcement in the Hall of Honour, and having some refreshments and a little bit of food. I hope that everyone stops by and meets many of the other members of our Provincial Accessibility Committee.
If the House would please welcome Rob Sleath.
I. Paton: I, too, would like to say thank you to the B.C. Dairy Association, who have come over here to Victoria. We had a wonderful get-together with them, with our caucus last night, and we had some great banter back and forth about the industry, in general, in British Columbia with farming and agriculture.
These good folks have travelled a long ways. Some of them are from Smithers, from Saanich here on the Island, from Courtenay, Chilliwack, Creston and Grindrod. We welcome them here today. It was a great time.
I, also, am proud to say that at one time I did what they do. It’s a grueling lifestyle milking cows twice a day, at 5 a.m. and 5 p.m. Whether you get up in the morning with a cold, the flu or even a hangover, you still have to milk those cows every morning.
Hon. Speaker, I do have one other introduction to make. We have some good friends from Delta that are here today. I believe they’re in the gallery: Mr. Hari Aroon and his wife, Jini; and Jas Garewal and Suren Dutia.
Welcome them, and a round of applause for my guests.
Hon. G. Heyman: It may be a coincidence that the group I’m about to introduce is here on Ice Cream Day, but maybe not. They’re not in the gallery at this moment, but they are in the precinct. There are two groups of grade 5 students from Vancouver Talmud Torah school. They’re visiting the Legislature today with their teachers. I hope to meet with them later today.
If any of you pass them in the hallways, please make them feel welcome. They’ll be in the gallery later today. And some of them, I hope, will be checking out some of the seats, for the future.
T. Halford: One of the best parts of this job is actually getting to interact with the students that come here. I’ve got two classes today from Star of the Sea, from my riding. They will be entering the precinct here, I think, in the next 20 minutes.
I ask that the House please make them welcome.
Tributes
TOM FLETCHER
K. Falcon: I want to just play off the Government House Leader’s recognition that after today our press gallery is going to be a little bit different here in Victoria, because we are bidding farewell to Tom Fletcher, an intrepid reporter with the Black Press, who has done such an amazing job here since 2005 when he joined the press gallery. He was the voice, and this is important, for countless communities — rural communities, especially — throughout the province of British Columbia.
Whether it was the Ashcroft–Cache Creek Journal, to the Castlegar News, to the Fernie Free Press, to the Haida Gwaii Observer and the Williams Lake Tribune, Tom has spent years connecting communities to what’s happening here in Victoria that affects them directly and making sure that many of those issues are going to be addressed by holding government and opposition to account, which is what really good journalists do. And he did.
As press gallery president for over half a decade, Tom contributed a great deal to this institution. And in return, he was granted the opportunity of a lifetime when he got to dine with the Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton. That’s pretty impressive.
On behalf of the entire B.C. Liberal caucus, and I would indeed say everyone that serves in this Legislature, I want to thank you, Tom, for your years of tremendous service. Journalism matters. It is important that government and opposition always be held to account.
Thank you for the work that you’ve done. Hopefully, you will continue to do something related in the future.
Introductions by Members
S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today to acknowledge somebody who watches this House, who watches what we do and wants us all to do it better — my friend, my neighbour, a good friend to my son Dev: Jody Lee.
Happy, happy birthday.
S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to welcome back to the House, in the gallery, Dr. Lisa Gunderson. She has two other students who are part of the Black Youth Empowerment program.
Aisha Ismail is in her second year of business at UBC, and Avi Gunderson is a grade 10 student at Mount Doug. Both are part of the Black Youth Empowerment program. Both were honoured by the AHAVI youth leadership award for community involvement, initiative and inspiration for Black youth on April 30. I’m delighted to have them join us here today.
Also with Dr. Gunderson is her son Dominic Gunderson. He’s a student of political theory and English at Saint Mary’s College in California. In real time, we got to learn this morning that Dominic recently made it to the dean’s list.
Congratulations, Dominic, and welcome to all to the chamber today.
K. Paddon: As my colleagues have mentioned, B.C. Dairy is here today, and I’d like to introduce some folks from Chilliwack-Kent who came all the way out here.
Firstly, I was very grateful to see Mark and Christa Van Klei here with B.C. Dairy from M&L Farms on Camp River Road. Thank you for being here.
Also with us, from West River Farm in Chilliwack-Kent, is Sarah Sache. Sarah’s family, her partner Gene and her sons Winston and Curtis, are holding down the fort at the farm right now during a really difficult time, as we know.
The Sache family have been an important part of my time as an MLA. Their farm was one of the first dairy farms that I went to visit as an MLA.
Gene’s uncle, Jim Sache, recently taught me how to plow at Chilliwack’s 100th plowing match. I won last place, and I’m very grateful to Jim for very patiently teaching me to not only start and drive the plow but also how to stop it. Also, it gives me a very strange flex when I drive past farmer’s fields. Now I can fully appreciate the complexity of those straight lines.
Would the House please make welcome these guests and join me.
H. Sandhu: I, too, would like to welcome the guests from the B.C. Dairy Association today. I was going to join them for the breakfast, but my leave was not approved, because I had to attend the Finance Committee meeting. We are blessed in Vernon-Monashee to have amazing farms.
In addition to that, I want to wish my brother Lakhvinder Singh Boparai a very happy birthday. He’s two years younger than I, and he’s been very supportive to my sister and I through childhood but also after our dad passed away. He’s a very kind, caring human being, and he does farming. He also does volunteer social work.
Often when I talk about, sometimes, work we’re doing, the hurdles that are thrown in our way, he always says in Punjabi chal koi na. It means: “It doesn’t matter.” Then he further reminds me why it’s important for the work we do and to let the people, what they do to us…. But let’s not change who we are. Therefore, I’m always so proud of my younger brother.
Would the House please join me to wish a very happy birthday to my brother.
Happy birthday, Veer Ji.
G. Kyllo: It gives me great pride to rise in the House today to introduce some close friends of mine, John and June de Dood hailing from Grindrod. They’re dairy farmers, have recently opened Farmer John’s Market, an amazing agrotourism facility in Grindrod, in my riding of Shuswap.
Would the House please welcome John and June to this House.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
100th ANNIVERSARY OF AGRICULTURAL
FAIR AND STAMPEDE IN PEACE AREA
M. Bernier: In Dawson Creek, the greatest show in the Peace is gearing up yet again this year from August 9 to August 14, and you’re all invited. This year’s event is just a little bit more special, as we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of the show. That’s right — 100 years of holding an agriculture fair and stampede that’s become one of the premier stops in Canada for professional rodeo and chuckwagon competitors alike.
One hundred years ago this event started between two communities — and Tom Fletcher, up top, would know this well — Rolla and Pouce Coupe, because Dawson Creek actually wasn’t even around or a city yet.
It was a way to bring all of the farmers of the region together, but it has now grown into the largest event in the entire Peace, in the B.C. and Alberta region, bringing tens of thousands of people together every single year for this event.
This is truly a family event, as well — everything from an ag show to a heavy horse pull, from a full rodeo, from live country bands, chuckwagon races. Oh yeah, and of course, the most important thing for me and my family is the full road of food stands and evening fireworks every single night.
The money raised through this event helps support many non-for-profits and community groups who rely on this event every single year for funds to keep going.
I want to thank all of those who work tirelessly to make this event happen — people like Karl Gitchiff, who’s been the groundskeeper now for over 20 years; vice-president, as well, Murray Pratt; and the face and the person who has really kept this going for so many years. Everybody in the town of Dawson Creek and the region knows Connie Patterson, who is the life of this event.
It’s because of people like her and all of the people who volunteer their time that we are now able to celebrate 100 years of the greatest show in the Peace coming this year. I look forward to seeing everybody there.
GRADUATES OF 2022
J. Sims: There’s a certain electric energy in our schools. Kids seem more energetic, more carefree. Many of them are preparing for the next chapter of their lives. The bulk of their academic work is complete. Most of them have a plan for next year. All that is left is the closure of their school year, to their many years as a student in our school system.
It is so nice to see the graduations, convocations and all of the celebrations that go with these milestones taking place this spring — the grad gowns, the beautiful dresses, the suits, the flowers, the smiles, the friends, the families. It feels more meaningful this year, given what we have endured throughout the pandemic, and 2022 grads are celebrating with both their school and home families with dinners, dances and large ceremonies.
To all the school staff and parents that have made the end of this school year feel special and that have worked with students to commemorate this wonderful occasion, thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I really miss the energy in our schools at this time of the year. I can tell you that it is really palpable.
To our students, as you close this chapter in your life, go into the world. Live your dreams, and more importantly, do good. Be bold enough to use your voice. Be brave enough to listen to your heart and strong enough to live the life you imagined. Do not let anyone tell you that you cannot live your dreams.
To the students in my riding — Panorama Ridge, Sullivan Heights Secondary, Regent Christian school — and to all the many grads in Surrey, congratulations. Go and enter the world. Enjoy the next phase of the rollercoaster ride called life.
CEREBROSPINAL FLUID LEAK AWARENESS
G. Kyllo: I rise today to inform the House to mark your calendars, as June 6 to 13 is Spinal CSF Leak Awareness Week in North America.
Now, cerebrospinal fluid, or CSF, truly is the fluid of life. The daily functions of our brains and nervous systems wouldn’t be possible without it. A spinal CSF leak, also known as spontaneous intracranial hypotension, is a debilitating condition that many British Columbians and Canadians may face in their lifetime. Even the former member for Parksville-Qualicum Michelle Stilwell struggled with it for many years.
A leak occurs when the CSF escapes via a tear or abnormality in the dura mater, the tissue that surrounds the brain and the spinal cord. This can be caused by head injuries, brain or sinus surgery, lumbar punctures and a variety of other circumstances.
Now, the most common symptoms of a CSF leak are headaches, usually in the back of the head. However, other symptoms can include neck or shoulder pain, dizziness, changes in vision or hearing and brain fog, to name a few. Because of this, CSF leaks can go undiagnosed for weeks, months, even years.
While data show there are approximately 2,000 Canadians struggling today, it is believed the real number could be more than double that. If left unchecked, CSF leaks can be life-threatening and lead to serious long-term health risks, including meningitis, brain infections or stroke.
Now, the best way to protect Canadians is to increase awareness, to help lead to more early diagnosis. Although some CSF leaks may heal on their own, others require surgical repair.
I encourage all members to wear purple and to tweet and share the facts on social media. Together, let’s raise awareness of CSF leaks and help more Canadians live long and healthy lives.
FORWARD HOUSE MENTAL HEALTH AND
ADDICTION SERVICES IN
PARKSVILLE
A. Walker: In any normal year, one in five Canadians experiences a mental health or addiction problem, but as we all know, the last two years have not been normal.
Forward House in downtown Parksville has been providing mental health day programs for adults in our community since 1982. Their house on East Hirst Avenue has a welcoming home-like environment that moves adults from isolation to connection, with laughter, compassion and encouragement filling this house.
Forward House serves more than 100 adults each month through their day programs and community outreach, along with providing more than 3,300 meals per year. Clients do not need a referral or a formal diagnosis to participate. They can simply walk in and get one-on-one support or join the more than 25 group programs offered each week.
They have recently launched a program called Recovery Initiative for individuals who have started their personal journeys in addiction recovery. One-to-one sessions and small group activities help individuals embrace a healthier lifestyle while receiving caring and non-judgmental support from Sareh, the program director of addiction recovery services, and her team.
Now they are embarking on splitting their mental health and addiction recovery services into two locations, both in downtown Parksville. Their first house will continue to provide mental health services. The soon-to-be-opened Forward Recovery Centre, at 129 Alberni Highway…. This new centre will be one of the first of its kind in Canada. They offer services that are completely free. They are led by people with lived recovery experience, and they honour the multiple pathways to recovery.
Sharon Welch, the executive director for Forward House, shared with us this quote from a client: “In my entire life, Forward House is the first community where I’ve felt totally accepted for who I am, not despite it. The healing that has been able to occur as a result is unparalleled.” This client has gone back to school and has now started a successful business in our community.
Forward House helps keep clients out of hospital. It keeps them in their homes, and it keeps them connected to our community. They are mostly community funded, and they are 100 percent community focused.
Would the House please join with me in congratulating Forward House for their upcoming opening and for the life-changing services they offer to the people of Parksville-Qualicum.
B.C. DAIRY INDUSTRY AND
ICE CREAM EVENT AT
LEGISLATURE
I. Paton: Well, I scream; you scream; we all scream for ice cream. Today the B.C. Dairy Association is holding Ice Cream Day outside on the front steps of our B.C. Legislature.
The aim of this fun event is to create more awareness around the B.C. dairy industry. It gives members of this House a chance to meet with dairy producers and learn more about their experiences dealing with the heat domes, wildfires, catastrophic flooding over the past year.
Here are a few interesting facts about the industry. There are 470 dairy farms in B.C. alone, which are averaging about 150 milking cows per farm, and over 12,000 related jobs in the province, which contribute over $1.2 billion to B.C.’s GDP. Over 900 million litres of milk are produced annually here in British Columbia.
As a proud former dairy farmer, I know well the importance of contented cows and the gruelling lifestyle of milking cows twice a day, at 5 a.m. and 5 p.m., 365 days a year. All this work translates into the delicious food products we enjoy on a daily basis, from the milk and cream you put in your cereal and coffee, the cheese melted on your favourite sandwich, the butter used on your pancakes or the cold ice cream you enjoy on a hot summer day.
We should also be proud of the fact that B.C. dairy farmers are on the cutting edge of environmental innovation. Farmers are taking note of new and emerging technologies around the world to reduce their carbon footprints, like using new technology to rapidly cool raw milk and adopting a geothermal system from Europe that not only draws heat from the fresh raw milk but also repurposes that heat for the barn, offices and family home, to an anaerobic digester on a Delta dairy farm that uses livestock waste and organic consumer waste to create renewable biogas energy sold into the grid.
B.C.’s dairy farmers are also committed to providing excellent care for their cattle. The code of practice among dairy farmers includes strict requirements for housing space, bedding, feed and water, health and welfare, animal handling, and staff training.
To get more of the scoop around initiatives like these and other important work being done by the B.C. Dairy Association, please join them outside the Legislature and enjoy some B.C. ice cream today.
J. Rice: Hon. Speaker, before I commence, I seek leave to make an introduction.
Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
Introductions by Members
J. Rice: As the legislative session wraps up this week, I will be heading to Ottawa to celebrate my mother’s 70th birthday, as well as her husband’s 60th birthday, so I wanted the House to please wish them a happy birthday.
My status as the favourite child will now be overtaken by the status of my son as the favourite and only grandson.
Mr. Speaker: Is the member making a statement?
J. Rice: Thank you. I’m just trying to follow protocol.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
PRINCE RUPERT LIBRARY
J. Rice: Prince Rupert’s first library originated as a municipal reading room, which opened its doors in 1913. Stocked with magazines and newspapers in mostly foreign languages, it became a favourite haunt of men off the boats as well as the older men of the city looking for the latest news and gossip.
As the city continued to grow, locals realized the need for an official library. The Prince Rupert Public Library came to be as a one-room shack heated by a large wood and coal pot-bellied stove in 1922. During the ’30s, the library outgrew its wooden building and expanded into a two-storey building shared with the museum and located next to the government agent’s house, where our current post office is now located on 2nd Avenue.
After the Second World War, when the army moved out of the Civic Centre, the library moved in. Unfortunately, a fire broke out in 1968 that destroyed the place. Since then, the library has had many homes. The ’80s saw renovations to its current location, and in the ’90s we saw introductions of computers.
I was recently keen to be a part of announcing nearly $39,000 in COVID relief funding, where the funds will be used to replace older computer technology, buy books, equipment and other items and provide more in-library programming, including activities focusing on truth and reconciliation. They will also continue to digitize our 90-years-running newspaper, the Prince Rupert Daily News.
One thing I really appreciate about our library is it serves all members of our community from all walks of life and for many purposes. It’s more than just books. It’s access to knowledge, which is obtained in many ways. It’s also a warm, welcoming refuge out of the infamous Rupert rain.
Our library staff go above and beyond, helping people. Noteworthy, they can often be seen assisting people fill out online and government forms.
From a small wooden shack with a wood stove to a modern library, the Prince Rupert library has certainly become an integral part of our community.
Happy 100th birthday to the Prince Rupert Public Library.
Oral Questions
PROPOSED MEDICAL SCHOOL AT
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
AND MUSEUM REPLACEMENT PROJECT
K. Falcon: We are in the middle of a health care crisis, with one in every five British Columbians unable to secure a family doctor, and it’s only going to get worse with the wave of retirements coming. But yesterday the Premier had the worst excuse ever for building his billion-dollar vanity museum boondoggle instead of their promised medical school at SFU Surrey.
He said: “The commitment to new training spaces for health care workers was made just a few years ago. The first call for action on the museum was in 2006.”
My question to the Premier is simple. Why is a billion-dollar vanity museum boondoggle a higher priority for this Premier than a promised second medical school at SFU Surrey?
Hon. A. Dix: The training of new health care staff — as you know, we’ve added 30,000 people to the B.C. health care system over the last two years during the pandemic — is a fundamental priority of the government, such that we’ve just added 602 additional nursing spaces in B.C. We’ve led the country in new registered nurses since 2017.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. A. Dix: Albeit, we were starting in last place at that time, but nonetheless, we have led the country…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. A. Dix: …in new nursing spaces. We established, as the members will know…. We said at the time of the last election that over the next three years, we’d be adding, through the HCAP and other programs, 7,000 new health care workers in long-term care. We’re at 6,600 today. We’re adding new training positions around the province, in particular in different regions of the province.
The members talk about doctors. We’ve added 60 new residency spaces for doctors in B.C., giving us the largest family residency program in Canada.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
K. Falcon: Well, Stats Canada’s own numbers show that actually, in British Columbia, we have over 10,000 fewer people working in hospitals today, the worst record in Canada, demonstrating that they’re voting with their feet and leaving the system. But when the B.C. Liberals were in government, we more than doubled the number of medical training spaces, from 128 to 288, expanding the UBC medical program to the University of Northern British Columbia, to the University of B.C. Okanagan and to the University of Victoria.
The NDP, now in their second term, have failed to add a single new space — not one — in spite of the fact that we have a doctor shortage crisis. When the NDP promised their new NDP SFU Surrey medical school, they failed to mention that the Premier’s billion-dollar vanity museum project was going to be a higher priority.
Here is the NDP commitment: “The first graduating class could be in 2023-2024.” But the NDP have chosen a billion-dollar vanity museum project instead, which means that any graduating class on their broken-promise new SFU training spaces would be at least eight years away at minimum.
My question is a simple one, for the Premier. When will the first class graduate from their broken medical school promise at SFU Surrey? Will it be before or after he spends the billion dollars on the vanity museum project that they insist on going forward with?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, the Leader of the Opposition just asserted that we lost 10,000 health care workers in 2020. It is….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Members, let’s hear the answer.
Hon. A. Dix: All that shows is he can’t read a spreadsheet even though he was Minister of Finance. We count the number of health care workers in British Columbia….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members will come to order.
Hon. A. Dix: The Leader of the Opposition just said Stats Canada…. I have the numbers in front of me. For 2020, there was a net increase of 10,000 health care workers. All that happened….
Interjections.
[Mr. Speaker rose.]
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Minister, take your seat.
Members, if you think outbursts are going to stop the answer coming from the government or stop a question coming from the opposition, it’s not going to work. Let’s have order. Let’s hear each other. Then we can continue with the question period.
Thank you. The minister will proceed.
[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]
Hon. A. Dix: Thank you, Hon. Speaker.
I mean, what the Leader of the Opposition says is contrary to what’s actually in the Stats Canada numbers. It’s contrary to it. All there was at Stats Canada was a reclassification in the numbers — 10,000 were added to one category; 10,000 were taken to another category. That’s all that happened, and the Leader of the Opposition knows this. I believe he can read a spreadsheet, so he knows. I give him more credit than a lot of people would give him. Some people would argue that he can’t read a spreadsheet.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. A. Dix: What the Stats Canada numbers showed in 2020 was an increase of 14,000 health care workers. What the PSEC numbers….
You know, he was Minister of Finance. He’ll remember. The Public Sector Employers Council showed, in the last two years, an increase of 30,000 health care workers. Why? It’s because we added nurses. We added health sciences professionals. We added health care assistants. We added doctors. We’ve got to continue to do that work, to continue to build the health care system of the future.
Mr. Speaker: Members, there’s no point in heckling when somebody is trying to answer or somebody is asking a question. Let’s hear each other. We are wasting our precious time here.
STAFFING SHORTAGES IN
HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM
S. Bond: Well, I can tell the Health Minister one thing. What the Leader of the Opposition knows is that British Columbians desperately need this government to do something to deal with the health care crisis that is growing in British Columbia. That’s what we know.
It’s not the words of the opposition. It is the numbers that Stats Canada provides, and here, for the minister’s information, there are 10,000 fewer people working in hospitals under this government — the worst in Canada. Those are the facts; those are the numbers.
Let’s take a look at what happened in British Columbia over the last weekend. We had emergency rooms closing all across this province. The primary care clinics — which the NDP and this minister use as a magic bullet, we know — are woefully understaffed, and people can’t get the care they need. That’s the fact. The minister knows it, stands here, and dismisses the concerns of British Columbians every single day.
Let’s talk about Marian Howard. Maybe this will get the minister’s attention. Here’s what Marian said: “I have stage 4 metastatic breast cancer, and I live in an isolated area. We’ve lost the services of three family doctors since the beginning of this year.” I think that the minister’s words echo pretty hollowly with Marian and thousands of other people like her.
Can the Premier tell us why his million-dollar vanity museum project is more important than providing the services that British Columbians like Marian need and deserve?
Hon. A. Dix: I take the issues people raise with me every day about health care extremely seriously. The fact is that over the last two years, we’ve added 30,000 people to our health care system. They’re doctors, nurses and health care workers to support people such as Marian. We’ve taken, and are taking, the province through two public health emergencies that have had a significant and lasting effect on our health care system.
It’s why we’re taking the steps we’ve taken to increase the number of family residency positions in B.C. It’s why we’re taking the steps we’re taking, working with the Doctors of B.C. to support and sustain existing family practices. It’s why we’re taking the efforts, working with the Resident Doctors of B.C. to increase and improve the number of new doctors who choose longitudinal family practice, because we do take seriously the issues raised by people like Marian every day.
The member will know, because they’re the same stats from national agencies, that the number of people without a family practice doctor doubled between 2003 and 2017, during a period when the previous Health Minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, promised that everyone would have a family practice doctor. We were behind other jurisdictions in terms of health care reform, and we’re taking the steps now, in the context of a pandemic, to support people everywhere in B.C.
I’m very proud of our health care system, but we always have to do better for people like Marian and everybody else.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, the fact of the matter is, and the minister knows this, that not one new training seat, under this minister’s watch, when it comes to physicians in British Columbia — not one, zero. He talks about people serving in the health care system. Then why on earth are emergency rooms closing day after day, weekend after weekend? People are afraid.
The minister can stand up and say what he wants to say, but here’s what British Columbians are saying. They are afraid. They have their doctors retiring, the longest wait times in the country. Clinics are at capacity, and closed emergency rooms. That’s under this minister’s watch. The ER in Clearwater, for example, has closed five times this month. Guess what. Those patients were sent to Kamloops, where staffing shortages are acute and getting worse every single day. That’s the system, under this minister’s watch.
Here’s what one nurse told us. “Nurses are beyond done. They are beyond the point of exhaustion. They are defeated. Every shift is grossly understaffed…. Staff are taking stress leaves, or they are outright leaving the profession.” That is the record of this Premier, this minister.
It is time they did the right thing: shelved their billion-dollar boondoggle and gave some hope, support and the medical care that British Columbians deserve. Will the minister do that today?
Hon. A. Dix: The member knows when you ask a question — I think the question was about Clearwater; there was some rhetoric at the end — that at times…. There was, at times….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let’s listen to the answer. Let’s hear the answer. Otherwise, you’re not going to get any ice cream today.
Hon. A. Dix: The member will know it is the responsibility of the health care system — and in this case, of Interior Health — to ensure that treatment can be provided safely for people. The member knows this. Everybody knows this.
Last week Interior Health had the largest number of people off sick of any health authority, per capita, in the province. There were, last week, 16,000 people — 16,000 health care workers, in a very large system — who had at least one day off sick last week. That’s because of COVID-19 and the challenges it presents to the system.
Interjections.
Hon. A. Dix: It is because of it. The Leader of the Opposition can heckle, but it’s those nurses that are dealing with the reality of it.
Interjections.
Hon. A. Dix: Well, the previous week it was 16,500, and four weeks ago it was 17,500.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh.
Hon. A. Dix: They can heckle all they want, Hon. Speaker, but typically those numbers are about half of that. That’s because of COVID-19.
I’m very proud, under these very challenging circumstances, of the work of our health care workers in Kamloops and in Clearwater and in Vancouver and in Prince Rupert, everywhere in our province. We have to continue to do that work and continue to support health care workers, like we’re doing when we’re adding 602 nursing training spaces in British Columbia.
PROTECTION OF PUBLIC AND WORKERS
FROM HEALTH IMPACTS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE AND WILDFIRE SMOKE
A. Olsen: As we continue to talk about this unfolding health care crisis in British Columbia, it would be nice to see this B.C. NDP government proactively working on another growing emergency, the climate emergency. Last summer climate disasters brought an unprecedented heat dome, a devastating wildfire that entirely destroyed the town of Lytton and a record-setting wildfire season darkening the skies of our province for months.
A recent study examining 20 years of health data in Canada found that people who lived near wildfires for the past decade were more likely to develop brain tumours and lung cancer.
The worst three fire seasons on record in B.C. have occurred in the last decade. Last summer over 867,000 hectares of our province burned.
Wildfire smoke contains hundreds of dangerous particles, gases and chemicals, including carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Anyone who’s been exposed to wildfire smoke, even hundreds of kilometres away from the source, will know how unbearable air quality is and how difficult it is to breathe.
To the Minister of Public Safety, in three of the five summers that he has been the minister, wildfire smoke has choked out our communities. What specific actions has his government taken to protect British Columbians from poor air quality?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of initiatives that have been underway every fire season to ensure that we’re prepared as proactively as possible, whether it’s through the fire service, which is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Forests, or through EMBC by ensuring that we’ve got the emergency social and health supports in place in communities where people are evacuated to.
Overall, it is also ensuring we have a climate action plan that is able to deal with the changing climate here in British Columbia, and we will continue to do the work. Part of that, of course, is related to the overhaul of the Emergency Program Act that is currently underway.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.
A. Olsen: As I suspected, our government is doing nothing to protect the air that workers are breathing from the impacts of wildfires. Today we’re celebrating the agricultural industry, people who work outside in the wildfire smoke.
We’re seeing other jurisdictions, though, take action, proactive measures. Oregon occupational safety and health created rules to protect workers from the impact of climate disasters like heatwaves, like wildfire smoke. They mandated heat protections like paid breaks; drinking water; a heat illness prevention plan; access to shade; wildfire protection measures, specifically including N95 masks — the Minister of Health talked about, in estimates, having 18 million or 19 million on hand; and as well, medical checks.
The B.C. NDP government likes to think of themselves as the workers party, yet they’ve not done anything to protect workers from the impact of climate change. They failed to protect schools. They failed to protect public spaces and have failed to put plans in place to protect British Columbians from the polluted air, the worst of which comes from these wildfire seasons.
My question is to the Premier. He says he is a friend of the worker. What is he doing to protect workers — including teachers, agricultural workers, construction workers and any other worker that works outside — from the poor air quality that we are seeing summer after summer as a result of wildfires?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I want to take in that no government takes workers occupational health and safety more seriously than this side of the House, whether it’s ensuring that we’ve increased the standards in terms of the removal of asbestos or whether it’s ensuring that we have some of the toughest health and safety standards and WorkSafe standards of any province and any jurisdiction in this country. It’s ensuring that when firefighters go out to work, they’ve got the presumptive-cancer security systems in place. We’ve done that. Sometimes the opposition has done that. But all of us in this House have taken that very seriously.
At the same time, we ensure that when our fire crews go out on those front lines, when they’re fighting fires, they have the protective equipment that they need. That’s always been the case with the fire service, and it will always continue to be the case. So to suggest that that is not happening is absolutely not true.
LABOUR DISPUTE IN
SEA TO SKY TRANSIT
SYSTEM
J. Sturdy: It probably shouldn’t come as a surprise to the House that I rise to talk a little bit about this transit strike in the Sea to Sky, which has been going on for 17 weeks now. Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton have not had bus service. Families, workers, employers and communities are all saying: “This has got to end. Enough is enough.”
Tomorrow I think we’ll bring this NDP government the distinction of presiding over the longest transit strike in the history of British Columbia, the longest B.C. Transit strike. As a matter of interest, though, they hold the current record right now. The previous longest transit strike was under the NDP as well, so maybe they’re looking to break it. One would hope not.
This House is in the last week of session. This is the last opportunity that we have to force these parties into binding arbitration.
A simple question to the Premier, and perhaps the Labour Minister: will the minister bring legislation to this House to force these parties into binding arbitration?
Hon. H. Bains: I share the frustration brought in by the member of the residents of Whistler, Pemberton and Squamish. I’m not happy that both parties are not able to resolve this dispute this long into the dispute.
I have spoken to both parties yesterday. Both parties were able to negotiate a tentative agreement. It was put to vote for ratification, and the members of the union rejected that tentative agreement. I’ve spoken to both of them last night and this morning. I have reminded them of their responsibility not only to their members or to the shareholders but also to the residents of that region that they serve.
I have made it very clear that we’re not happy that they’re not able to resolve this and that they must get back to the bargaining table.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. H. Bains: They must get back to the bargaining table. That’s where the agreement will be negotiated. Not in this House, not anywhere else — at the bargaining table.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Please continue.
Hon. H. Bains: I think the opposition, knowing their record on labour rights…. They’re heckling, and they’re trying to score cheap political points. I think that is shameful. I’m talking to….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Order. Order.
The minister will continue.
Hon. H. Bains: As I said, I have spoken to both sides. I have brought to their attention their responsibility. I will have more to say later today.
SCHOOL CONDITIONS AND REPAIRS
AND MUSEUM REPLACEMENT
PROJECT
K. Kirkpatrick: The NDP’s own documents show that the Royal B.C. Museum was in far better condition — far better condition, Mr. Speaker — than the average school in British Columbia. In fact, a school with an identical rating to the museum by this government would not even be considered for replacement.
Not only are schools in worse shape today than they were five years ago, but the NDP are not keeping up with school repair bills and have deferred an additional $1 billion while spending money on a museum that nobody asked for.
How can this NDP government be in such a rush to spend $1 billion on a vanity museum project when there are schools, with our children in them, in far worse condition than the museum today?
Hon. J. Whiteside: I thank the member for the question. I do have to say it’s a welcome opportunity to talk about the investments that our government has made in education, both in operating and certainly in capital.
I would want to highlight the fact that over the last three years, we’ve invested close to $3 billion in education to build new schools, to build replacement schools, additions, to seismically upgrade schools so that our children have safe places to learn.
In fact, we’ve been doing that at a rate much more quickly than the B.C. Liberals ever did when they were on this side of the House. They spent $574 million between 2012 and 2017.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Whiteside: Since 2017, we have invested over $1.2 billion to seismically upgrade schools across our province.
Those 58 projects have resulted in 32,000 safe seats for British Columbia students. Over the next three years, we will invest close to $800 million to accelerate our seismic mitigation programs so we can build safe seats for British Columbia’s students. That is a record that is unmatched in the history of this program.
SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR SCHOOLS
AND MUSEUM REPLACEMENT
PROJECT
P. Milobar: Well, the numbers just don’t match up to what the minister is saying. The reality is that this is about a billion-dollar vanity museum project that the Premier has decided to jump the queue and prioritize ahead of 250 schools, most of which are more seismically unsafe than the museum.
In fact, if the NDP did just a modest update to the museum, like they’re doing in Alberta for the $120 million in the Glenbow Museum, we’d have about an extra $800 million to spend on schools. If they followed the Treasures for Generations…
Mr. Speaker: No props.
P. Milobar: …from the Royal B.C. Museum and archives that came out in 2018, that’s $150 million, and they’d still have another $800 million to spend on school and seismic upgrades.
In Surrey, the rating has gotten worse at the average school by 50 percent since 2017, under this government. In Chilliwack, it’s worsened by 180 percent.
When will this government start to prioritize the health and safety of our children over the Premier’s billion-dollar vanity museum project?
Hon. J. Whiteside: Well, I have to say that the record of our government is really clear when it comes to the investments that we have made in ensuring that students have the spaces they need in terms of new schools we have built, the additions we have built, the investments we have made working in partnership with school districts across the province.
I appreciate that it’s a little, perhaps…. It’s not something that the members opposite are familiar with, because when they were on this side, they closed 250 schools across our province.
We’re investing $2.65 billion over the next three years. That’s on top of…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members, Members.
Hon. J. Whiteside: …close to $3 billion in the last four — $1.3 billion to expand and replace schools to address growth, close to $800 million for seismic upgrades, $554 million for routine capital. Those projects, the projects we have approved since 2017, include 18 new or expanded schools in Surrey.
The other side of the House did nothing in Surrey when they were on this side. One addition — they built one addition in the whole time they were on this side of the House.
Eighteen hundred new seats in Sooke. Four new or expanded schools in Chilliwack. We replaced Quesnel High School. A new middle school in Lake Country. The list goes on and on and on. I’d be happy to spend as much time as the other side would like enumerating the many projects that we are investing in.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.
P. Milobar: Well, the minister might want to pay attention to the Vancouver school board meeting today. They’re talking about closing schools in Vancouver at the board meeting today, under this government’s watch. The question was about the prioritization of dollars, putting the Premier’s vanity museum project ahead of schools — unnecessarily. It’s about the prioritization of this government — choosing that school safety should take a back seat to the Premier’s billion-dollar vanity museum project.
In fact, seismic updates to schools…. Under this government, we can only find net 18 new schools that this government’s even been working on. They know how to spend a lot of dollars. They don’t know how to get any results for the dollars spent. That’s why everybody’s so concerned about the billion-dollar vanity museum project.
We could do over 100 extra schools with seismic upgrades while still following the Treasures for Generations program, which describes, almost word for word, what the Tourism Minister talks about for a billion dollars. In terms of seismic upgrades, space revamping, accessibility, digital outreach — everything — it’s all in this document for $150 million, made in 2018. But instead, the Premier wants to keep 100 schools’ worth of children at risk from seismic upgrades so that his museum project can jump the queue.
When will this government stop this ridiculous billion-dollar vanity museum project, follow Treasures for Generations and get 100 extra schools seismically upgraded instead?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear the answer.
Hon. J. Whiteside: In 2016-2017, the capital budget for our K-to-12 system was less than $500 million. This year it’s over $900 million. Last year we spent over $1 billion investing in schools in this province.
We are producing seismic upgrades to schools at a rate much faster than the previous government ever did. Our budget for seismic upgrades is twice…. We’ve spent more than twice what they have spent. Over the next three years, we are investing close to $800 million to ensure that we can accelerate our seismic mitigation program. This is work we do in partnership with school districts to ensure that we are delivering safe seats for British Columbia’s children as quickly as we can.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Ombudsperson’s report entitled Short-Changed: Ensuring Federal Benefits Paid to the Province Reach Caregivers of Children with Disabilities.
Reports from Committees
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
P. Milobar: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the third session of the 42nd parliament titled Summary of Activities 2021-22.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
P. Milobar: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
P. Milobar: It gives me great pleasure, as Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, to provide the summary of activities 2021-22 to the chamber and to the broader public.
I want to, first off, thank all the committee members. I’m relatively new to the role. Previously, it was the member for Peace River South that was chairing, and we’ve had some new membership filter through over the last year as well.
In addition, I want to give thanks to the Clerk’s office for keeping us on track with all of those changes and making sure that the important work that the committee does continues on in a way forward.
We have a great working relationship with the Auditor General’s office, reviewing all the reports that the Auditor General does to hold various government agencies to account to make sure that reports and recommendations that the audits contain are being followed through on and delivered on for the betterment of all the public.
I look forward to the next year’s work, as well, as we continue on. If the public’s at all interested in what happens in terms of accountability for all the various public agencies, I would strongly recommend they look up the report, see what types of reports we have reviewed over the year.
I will leave it at that, I guess.
R. Glumac: I’d also like to thank the Auditor General and their staff, the Clerk’s office and their staff, and all members of the committee. I’ve served on this committee, I think, longer than anyone else since we’ve been government, and I understand the very important work that is carried out in providing oversight and accountability over public sector administration.
I wanted to highlight that if you turn to the back of the report, there’s a little bit of a chronology. We’ve spent some time formalizing our follow-up process for audited organizations. Since 2015, all audited organizations have been required to table annual progress reports. But in our new process, there will also be an annual report from the Auditor General, which will help provide better assurance on the implementation of completed recommendations.
This is a new direction that we’re going, which will help close the loop and ensure more timely implementation of recommendations. This new process is expected to be fully implemented in the fall of next year.
I thank everyone in the committee, again, for their ongoing efforts.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the adoption of the report.
Motion approved.
Tabling Documents
Hon. D. Eby: I rise to present the annual report for the office of the superintendent of professional governance for 2021-22.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, Bill Pr401.
Second Reading of Bills
BILL Pr401 — SEA TO SKY UNIVERSITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022
J. Sturdy: I move that Bill Pr401 intituled Sea to Sky University Amendment Act, 2022, be read a second time now.
The Sea to Sky University Amendment Act, 2022, deals with the Quest University, which is an internationally respected liberal arts university located in Squamish. After some significant financial challenges, it was forced to sell its campus assets and lease back the property.
The original Sea to Sky University Act did not contemplate the necessity for Quest to enter into a triple-net lease situation. The standard tax exemption was originally provided for owned land. This amendment proposes to extend the property tax exemption to leased land within the district of Squamish.
The district of Squamish is very supportive of both the university and the proposed amendment. This same provision has been provided to other post-secondary institutions, including Trinity Western University, so there’s certainly precedence there.
As sponsor of the bill, I obviously support this amendment and look forward to the university rebuilding from its economic and pandemic challenges. I look forward to third reading.
Motion approved.
J. Sturdy: By leave, I move that the bill be committed to the Committee of the Whole for consideration forthwith.
Leave granted.
Bill Pr401, Sea to Sky University Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL Pr401 — SEA TO SKY UNIVERSITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr401; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:13 a.m.
Clauses 1 and 2 approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
J. Sturdy: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:14 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
BILL Pr401 — SEA TO SKY UNIVERSITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022
Bill Pr401, Sea to Sky University Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of the Attorney General.
In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:17 a.m.
On Vote 15: ministry operations, $581,587,000 (continued).
M. Bernier: Obviously, we are transitioning from the estimates portion now under the Attorney General to the Housing portion of his responsibilities, which will carry for a little while here. We’ve got a few minutes before lunch, and we’ll try not to get too deep into too much and to save that for the afternoon. I also want to thank the minister’s staff that are here and that will be helping, I assume, in different capacities with some of the members.
I’d like to start off, Chair, with some simplistic questions around the Building B.C. program. I know that every year we announce…. I don’t want to talk about the targets. I want to talk about the numbers right now that usually get announced every year about what’s open in the different categories under the Building B.C. program.
To put on the record here for the minister, we have, I guess, the nine main portions under there: the affordable rental housing, the deepening affordability housing, community housing fund, regional housing first, women’s transition housing, Indigenous housing, the rapid response to homelessness project, the supportive housing fund and the homelessness action plan. Those are nine different components the minister is well aware of. There has been work that government has been doing around opening different facilities in the Housing component around the province.
I know I just announced, to the minister, those nine different ones. I guess this will be similar to last year. I’m looking for an update, looking for the open numbers for those categories, if the minister has those close by, to be able to update for me. Of course, again, I’m looking for what’s open, what has got people actually in the units at this time. I’m just looking for an update.
Hon. D. Eby: I’ll provide a couple of sets of numbers in relation to these different programs: completed, which is the number that the member is interested in, and under construction; and then the total. The difference between those completed plus under construction, minus the total, is for projects that are either in development or initiated. Those are projects that have been funded but are not currently under construction.
On the affordable rental housing program — 465 units completed, 396 under construction.
Rapid response to homelessness, 1,894 completed.
Deepening affordability of existing projects — 1,736 completed, 398 under construction.
Community housing fund — 711 completed, 3,374 under construction.
Indigenous housing fund — 388 completed, 373 under construction.
Supportive housing fund — 1,584 completed, 1,275 under construction.
Women’s transition housing fund — 155 completed, 309 under construction.
Homelessness action plan — 286 completed, 183 under construction.
HousingHub provincial rental housing supply — 2,341 completed, 985 under construction. HousingHub affordable home ownership, 11 under construction.
I’ll run quickly through the totals for each of these programs, which would include completed, under construction, and in development or initiated: affordable rental housing, 1,247; rapid response to homelessness, 1,894; deepening affordability of existing projects, 2,194; community housing fund, 8,829; Indigenous housing fund, 1,331; supportive housing fund, 3,786; women’s transition housing fund, 794; homelessness action plan, 469; HousingHub, 4,934; HousingHub affordable home ownership, 554.
The subtotals for Building B.C. — 7,219 units completed; 6,308 under construction; a total of 20,544 units completed, under construction, in development or initiated.
For HousingHub — 2,341 completed, 996 under construction, 5,488 total.
M. Bernier: I appreciate those numbers. I figured the minister would have those, so it’s good.
I have a question, though, just with some of those. It’s great to see that in some of those categories we are seeing progress — in some areas more than others. I’m sure that at some point, maybe in this afternoon, we’ll get into where some of the struggles are.
Can the minister just explain to me…? When he talks about the difference between “initiated” and “under construction,” we use different terminology, but I know that B.C. Housing, in their affordable housing investment plan report, I believe said that “initiated” means no commitment has been made by government yet towards them financially.
Is that an accurate statement, or is there something that has changed in the process? I appreciate the commitments that government is trying to make around affordable housing, because there’s a lot that’s needed out there. I’m just trying to quantify, obviously. When the minister is saying initiated, has it already been approved through treasury, is the funding there, or are these announcements that are yet to be funded, at some point in the next, maybe, year or two?
Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question, because there is some nuance here.
Projects under construction have final project approval and are in construction — that’s probably the most intuitive of the different categories; those in development have received provisional project approval. There may be an additional approval that’s required from Treasury Board in relation to financing, but they’ve gone through the B.C. Housing financial approval process. Initiated projects have been publicly announced by government, but the specific financials of the projects have not yet been approved.
M. Bernier: On the numbers that the minister just put out, on the different categories — on what has opened, what’s under construction — I appreciate those. I will say this up front. The minister knows that I’m saying this, with all due respect. Being a new critic in this role, I’ve had lots of reading in catching up to what knowledge the minister would have, obviously, in this.
The minister and the government have made commitments around 114,000 affordable housing units within ten years. Can the minister explain, then, on the categories that he just gave to me — I might be wrong here: are those all of or part of the 114,000 commitment that this government has made? If those are not all of the 114,000, where are the other categories that are going to fill in, to complement the numbers he’s given me, to reach that 114,000 goal?
Hon. D. Eby: The numbers that I gave the member correspond to B.C. Housing programs. Government’s initiatives go beyond those.
I can provide the member with a more complete list of housing initiatives, which include things like the COVID-19 action plan, the hotel purchases and the student housing initiatives of government. This includes updates from the September 2017 Budget Update and the housing plan/Budget 2018. The numbers will be broadly similar, but there are additional categories, as I said.
Affordable rental housing. I’ll just give the total number of units that are in progress for now, and we can drill down as the member wishes.
Affordable rental housing, 1,247; rapid response to homelessness, 1,894; deepening affordability of existing projects, 2,194; community housing fund, 8,829; women’s transition housing fund, 794; supportive housing fund, 3,786; Indigenous housing fund, 1,331; HousingHub, 5,488; student housing, 6,077; homelessness action plan, 469; regional housing first program, CRD, 856; COVID-19 action plan hotel purchases, 800 units.
The total of those units in progress is 33,765. The total of the units from those categories under construction is 9,165. The total number of units open is 13,627. Our target for those categories is 39,110.
That provides a more complete picture of where we’re at on the housing supply program, which is directly funded by government. In terms of the 114,000 units, a significant portion of those units will be directly funded or supported by government.
We also, the member will know, recently passed a bill here in the House about purchasing land adjacent to transit stations, through the Ministry of Transportation, for the purposes of constructing more affordable housing near transit stations. That is a program that will, potentially, be delivered by the private sector without additional government support, other than the land purchase, and transit-based community planning engaged in by the local government.
We anticipate those units are also going to contribute to our affordability targets and the 114,000 units. We’re also doing other work with local governments around their planning processes and supports in order to be able to deliver more housing faster, including, especially, affordable and rental housing. We will have more updates about that as we continue our work.
M. Bernier: I appreciate that information now. I’m trying to understand again. When the minister and government made the announcement, I guess, of 114,000 units by 2027…. It sounds like, from the minister’s answer…. He’ll correct me if I’m wrong. It’s important information, I think, not only for myself but for the public and that as well.
So 114,000 promised units are not government-subsidized, government-initiated — government-funded, I guess — units. It sounds like a portion of those, the expectation is, will be coming from the private sector — as the minister and I both know, of course, depending on zoning and through the permitting process. That’ll be a discussion later. He and I will probably agree on some issues here.
On this one here, especially from the last answer, talking about the new bill around the acquisition of lands around transportation corridors…. How did they come up with the 114,000 number? If I’m understanding the minister correctly, it sounds like a big portion of that is going to be attributed to the private sector, who will be building affordable housing as part of, possibly, a large development process, where a percentage will be required of them to do so.
Did I understand that correctly? Am I stating it accurately, and if so, how much of that 114,000 was earmarked to be non-government funded and private sector developed?
Hon. D. Eby: Embedded in our Building B.C. program is a significant program invested in by government called the HousingHub. It’s a $2 billion construction financing program designed for the private sector.
Private sector could include non-profit organizations, churches, legions, others to facilitate the development of rental housing. There’s expertise for people who are new to development, like a legion that wants to build housing on property that they own, or a church. There is construction financing for more sophisticated developers. In exchange for the construction financing, we ask for commitments around increased affordability on the site. So the private sector development has been built into this plan from the beginning.
The original target of 114,000 came from the affordable housing association of British Columbia and a report that they did about the capacity of government, the ability of government, to deliver, through things like transit-oriented development and strategic investment, more affordable housing.
The member will know that this program was initiated in 2017. The planning process and the implementation started in 2018. Things have shifted quite dramatically since then, in terms of inflation, in terms of building supplies, in terms of the tightness of the labour market and the economic outlook going forward.
We’re going to do a review of this program to ensure that we are responding to the bottlenecks and the challenges of delivering affordable housing, if there are changes that are needed to the program — in other words, different categories of housing are more in demand than previously, and some programs were more successful than others in implementation — and whether we need to shift focus. It is not proposed to be a change to the total number or to the goal of affordable housing that the government has. Instead, it’s just to make sure that we’re still responsive to the realities on the ground for British Columbians who are looking for housing. That review process will be underway.
The member is correct. We are looking to the private sector for delivery of some of these. In fact, a significant number of these affordable housing units are in partnership with government through different initiatives.
M. Bernier: I’ll probably have a couple of questions in a little bit around the HousingHub and through the process. I’ll maybe hold off on those for a few minutes to continue on with the train of thought that I have around this section.
When we’re looking at the different areas…. The community housing fund is one of them. Now, if I’m reading the budget documents correctly, it appears there’s about $100 million that’s been added in the budget for the community housing fund. The comment was needing to accelerate it.
When I’m looking at the numbers that the minister just gave me…. The community housing fund right now is sitting at — I’m going to guess at numbers, by what the minister just gave me — around 4 or 5 percent, maybe not even that high, of the commitment and target that they were looking for. Their original ten-year target was just shy of 15,000 units, if I remember correctly.
I guess my question around the community housing fund is: am I reading this correctly? Is there another $100 million that’s been added, and if so, why was that added? Are there struggles of getting projects off the ground? Maybe the minister can just highlight that for me a little bit.
Hon. D. Eby: Just for clarity, the community housing fund are 8,829 of our target, which is 14,350. I’m not sure how the member got 5 percent from that.
The $100 million is…. This is a ten-year plan, so the $100 million was brought forward from future years. Because of the demand, we saw significantly more applications for community housing fund construction than we had funding. Understanding that there were projects that were ready to go, ready to break ground and that the need is quite urgent, we brought $100 million forward to accelerate that work.
There are categories of government’s work where we are significantly over our target. For example, our supportive housing fund. We have 3,786 of 2,500 targeted units, so we’ve exceeded the target by 1,200. This program is for supportive housing for the homeless or those at risk. The reason why we’re so significantly over target was a real emphasis during the COVID period to get people inside to manage the pandemic and also to ensure that people were not COVID-positive sick in parks and community spaces in the province.
There have been shifts in emphasis as we roll the program along, which is leading us to want to do this review to make sure we’re responsive to the needs in community with the funding we’re delivering.
M. Bernier: I apologize if I wrote something down wrong. As the minister was stating numbers, I had heard 711 completed under the community housing fund last year. It was 310, and I heard 711. I’ll go back and look at that. I might have written it down wrong, in the wrong category, as the minister was stating all of the numbers. And there might have been more added to that that I didn’t catch. I think it’s just important to also highlight.
We’re hearing an extra $100 million put in there for a multitude of reasons. But looking through the different programs, then, it does appear…. Maybe I’ll give the minister an opportunity to explain it to the House. It seems like some programs are very successful, according to the minister, and there are some that are really struggling to get even close to what the targets were. Is there a common theme, maybe, that the minister can say is one of the struggles to have some of these different categories…?
I know again, when we’re talking about Indigenous housing or women’s transition housing, obviously there are going to be different components built into the process to get development or get units open. But is there a common thread? Is there a reason why some programs seem to be successful and some are not, or are there maybe different reasons that the minister could enlighten us on?
Hon. D. Eby: The member will be aware of some of my public frustrations that I’ve expressed about approvals processes within municipal governments, the length of time that they take and the impact that they have on affordability.
This is true for private sector development projects. It’s also true, unfortunately, for B.C. Housing and government affordable housing projects. The longer these projects take, the more expensive they are. We see rising interest rates. We see rising costs of goods required to build the housing. And it’s been very frustrating, frankly — the length of time that it takes some governments to get to approval of these badly needed units.
As a generalization, there are communities that have really gone above and beyond to get these approved quickly. One of the positive stories I’m going to cite is the city of Victoria, where an affordable housing project is consistent with the official community plan. They can be approved without public hearing. That’s a new initiative that they undertook following legislation introduced by government. They’ve invited us to use statutory immunity, which allows us to bypass municipal approvals processes to construct housing for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness in the community, which has literally taken a year and a half to two years off of the construction process.
I’m incredibly grateful for municipalities that place that emphasis on delivering this housing quickly. It’s one of the challenges that has faced the community housing fund in getting units open.
The number 711 is correct in terms of units that are open for the community housing fund. We have 3,374 units under construction, 4,744 in that planning stage and 8,829 total for the category in progress.
That’s part of the challenge. The other part of the challenge with some of these programs is they’re application-based. We’re dependent on people to come forward and take up the funding — another reason why we’re doing the review.
I would say, personally, I would like to see us make more progress in the women’s transition housing fund. This is housing for women fleeing violence, spaces for them. We have a target of 1,500 units, and 155 units are open, 309 units under construction and 330 in the planning stage.
I’m working with the parliamentary secretary, working on issues related to gender-based violence, to ensure that the transition housing fund is meeting the needs of the sector. That will be part of our review as well.
M. Bernier: Thank you for that. I know the minister and I….There’s quite a bit on this we’ll probably agree on, especially as a former mayor. I’ll probably dive into some of the discussion around objectives, especially with local government, maybe later on this afternoon.
I also want to state the direction around trying to deal with affordable housing — there’s no argument, obviously, from myself or anyone in this House that this is important. When we look at the affordability crisis that’s facing the province right now, obviously there’s support to make sure we reach some of these goals. And that’s why the pressure will be…. You know, the government is making announcements. I’m not criticizing the announcements. I’ll want to make sure that those are actually achieved.
That’s where the commentary will really come in, because these are important for people right across the province, which leads me to maybe a general question. It’ll be hard for the minister to answer. I’ll acknowledge that up front. But it’s more around a decision process from a provincial basis. The minister just highlighted, let’s say, the city of Victoria. And there are some municipalities…. Again, we’ll talk about it in detail, maybe after lunch, around the process of approving programs and development.
When we’re looking at the specific programs around the affordability funding for these different nine or ten that we talked about, how does not necessarily the ministry but through, obviously, the different associations…? How do we determine where that funding goes? By that, I mean that this is a provincial issue. This is not a downtown Victoria or a downtown Vancouver issue only.
When we, especially…. The minister just highlighted women’s transition housing. That’s important in places like Fort St. John and Dawson Creek as well as downtown Vancouver. So how do we determine, whether it’s through an application process…? I’m trying to understand this, as well, and bring awareness to this. How do we determine how that funding is dispersed, how the projects are approved to try to reach people right around the province, not just in a select few areas based on obviously where the majority of the population is?
Hon. D. Eby: I’ll keep my answer brief, and we can go into more detail after the break, if the member likes.
The high-level process is that the vast majority of these programs are calls for proposals. B.C. Housing will announce that there’s an opening for applications for funding through one of these housing funds: the Indigenous housing fund, the supportive housing fund, women’s transition housing fund. Applications will be received by B.C. Housing. They’ll be evaluated and scored by staff on a number of different factors — the need in the community, the affordability delivered by the program, considerations of distribution geographically — to make sure that funding is distributed across the province.
Those recommendations from staff go up to senior B.C. Housing management level, where a recommended list of projects goes forward to government. It goes through internal processes around fiscal safeguards for government, through Treasury Board and through my ministry, and then those projects are approved to go ahead.
One of the biggest challenges of that approach is that it depends largely on either a private sector developer or a non-profit organization, or both, to be bringing forward these applications — or a municipality. There are lots of communities in the province that don’t have that capacity. They don’t have non-profit organizations. Some communities don’t even have sufficient development capacity for what they need, even just for the private market. I’m thinking of Prince Rupert in this example.
It’s another reason why we’re doing a review of this program, to make sure that we’re responding to these communities, especially more rural and remote communities, where there’s limited capacity in the non-profit sector and the development sector, which is what these programs are really based on and assume exist in these communities.
With that, I move 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 Supply (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. L. Beare 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
TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Sims in the chair.
The committee met at 11:17 a.m.
On Vote 45: ministry operations, $955,980,000 (continued).
B. Stewart: It’s good to be back. As I mentioned to the minister last night, we wanted to touch on transportation — or transit, I should say. Transportation, I guess, is obvious.
B.C. Transit recently tweeted out about upcoming trip cancellations across the Victoria region due to the ongoing driver shortage. Over a particular three-day period, B.C. Transit had to cancel more than 200 bus trips in and around Victoria. Since the tweet, I understand B.C. Transit has held a job fair, hired 17 new drivers that will start in the next month in Victoria.
I’m wondering. What discussions has the minister had with B.C. Transit about this issue not only in Victoria but across regions that are experiencing similar shortages? Kamloops is having difficulties, and of course, the one that was mentioned today. Well, it’s not part of B.C. Transit, but Sea-to-Sky transportation.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. B.C. Transit is experiencing a competitive labour market, like many, many parts of our economy. The work that B.C. Transit is doing — which includes a number of strategies to attract and retain new transit operators to the company in various regions around the province; working with contractors, in some cases, who operate B.C. Transit service in various communities — includes a number of things.
First of all, it includes enhanced job fairs and advertising to attract people into a good career with good benefits. It includes more in-class scheduled training sessions, larger cohorts of drivers being trained. It includes a focus on reducing the time from application for a job to the actual hire date for new hires. Those strategies have been successful.
We’re also living in a time of a pandemic, so when we talk about disruption to a schedule, it has to be put in that context. It also has to be measured to look at what the impact looks like. We do have some numbers — for example, in April and May of this year, the current month and the month prior — that may be of interest to the member.
He asked specifically about Victoria’s regional transit system. Even with all of these challenges, even with the strategies that are being rolled out and that are starting to show good success around new driver hiring and with the tail end of the pandemic and those sorts of things impacting workplaces across the province, the numbers for April and May were that 98.85 percent, so nearly 99 percent, of scheduled trips in Victoria were delivered during those two months. We want to get to 100, but we’re at 98.85 under these challenging conditions.
We do believe that some of the work that started in 2020 between the ministry and B.C. Transit on recruitment and retention strategies are showing good achievement. There’s more work to do to attract people to this. There is a lot of labour mobility in the economy. Some of the shortages that we anticipated and that we’re working on involve other ministries. Advanced Education has been involved in helping our ministry and B.C. Transit with mechanics and maintenance programs to make sure there are no shortages on that side of the workforce.
B. Stewart: Well, I hope the ministry and B.C. Transit are successful, because of course, with the extreme pressure on fuel prices, people are looking for alternatives. Transit is one of the ones that I know the government and the Premier have suggested are the ones that need to be considered as an option.
I want to move to the change that B.C. Transit has made. Users in Vernon and, I’m sure, other communities have a concern over newer buses, which have stairs rather than a ramp and which are more difficult to manoeuvre, especially for those with walkers or who are visually impaired. What discussions has the minister had with B.C. Transit regarding their handyDART buses and these accessibility issues?
Hon. R. Fleming: I want to pick up on the member’s comment before he asked his question, which was wishing B.C. Transit success on restoring service, operating successful services around the province. We are, indeed, blessed to have the most comprehensive public transit system, the most community coverage per capita in the country. We also were the best-supported transit system of all provinces and territories through the pandemic.
In terms of maintaining service, there were no cuts to routes or services. There were no workers furloughed in the province of British Columbia, in our transit system. We were the best-supported transit system in the country. I think that’s probably why we are experiencing among the best ridership recovery rates in North America. The additional money that we invested when farebox revenues collapsed to keep systems operating in communities like that member’s and others’ here in this committee room was money well spent, in terms of positioning us to recover quicker and more comprehensively as we build back and as we get to the end of this pandemic.
Specifically on the complaint that the member has raised here around handyDART services in the community of Vernon, I believe he was speaking about, there have been some changes there, and there have been some decisions that B.C. Transit has made recently on what kind of technology to use to help mobility needs of transit customers.
The B.C. Transit handyDARTs are equipped with lifts or low-floor ramps. There have, in the past, on low-floor buses, been complaints, occupational health and safety determinations that they were contributing to transit operator injury. That has since been revised, based on the experience of the new fleet used here in the Victoria system. That will be instructional for Vernon and other communities.
Going forward and having reviewed performance and functionality, there will be a combination of lift-based and low-floor handyDART and bus service in the community of Vernon and in the services we provide in communities around the province.
B. Stewart: Thanks very much. I appreciate the work that B.C. Transit does in all the communities of British Columbia and the comments about the funding and the recovery.
That takes me to something that is about the actual cost, Minister. B.C. Transit operating cost per service-hour is reported as $122.20 per hour in ’20-21, $127.67 in ’21-22 and is forecast to increase by 28 percent over the next three years. I guess the question is: is the revised forecast on the operating cost per service-hour over the next three years adequate, considering the inflationary pressures that you were just describing in terms of attracting drivers, the equipment and other pressures like fuel, etc.?
Hon. R. Fleming: The member asked a question about whether inflationary pressures are part of the budget consideration for B.C. Transit service. They are. The budget that’s before the House for B.C. Transit has an 11 percent increase this year, a $13 million rise that will cover inflationary increases that B.C. Transit will experience on its base service costs.
The grant will also allow expenditure to do service, 2.55 million annual service-hours in this budget. Other features include an estimate and an enhancement of the budget to cover free public transit for all children 12 and under in the province, so that’s included.
I want to go back to maybe the point I was making previously, as well, around the COVID payments for farebox losses as ridership collapsed. At one point, I think it was at about 30 percent of its normal volume. That totals $116 million. The latest instalment was provided by the province and the federal government in March of 2022, which will smooth out some of the risk as we rebuild ridership going forward to the 2024-25 budget year. That’s anticipated to be an important part of building back ridership.
There’s obviously going to be an anticipated surge coming in September as we get further and further away from the pandemic, as work patterns and post-secondary and school commuting patterns are, hopefully, the first normal year we’ve had in a few years, as we’ve toughed it out during this difficult period.
Those are sort of the highlights of the budget that will hopefully satisfy the member’s question about how we have anticipated some of the inflationary pressures and have been able to budget to accommodate for them.
R. Merrifield: In recent meetings with students and the VP of the students union of UBCO, it’s been identified that transit throughout the pandemic had a really serious negative impact on students, especially those that were still living on campus. The minister might recall that the university campus is quite a bit outside of the main centre of the Okanagan, of Kelowna, and those that were on campus had very few options for transit.
Despite going back to campus last fall and the campus reopening in whole and going back to in-person learning, there was a little bit of a chicken-and-egg that was happening with transit in that transit did not see an expansion, yet students were still looking to be on campus.
Now we have the further exacerbation with gas prices skyrocketing. While many students were forced into their vehicles and forced to drive because there weren’t transit options, that now has become almost untenable for most students with the current affordability crisis.
When will Kelowna and area see true rapid transit restored and further transit options that make sense with scheduling and frequency?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. The question was, I think, really generally about what’s happening with service levels in Kelowna and using an example of the UBC Students Union Okanagan, which has concerns that services haven’t been maintained.
In actual fact, as I was explaining in the previous question, the safe restart money has allowed us to maintain all of the service that has been present in the Kelowna transit system. That continues, even as ridership levels continue to hover around the 70 percentile.
Of course, that service may not have aligned with students’ and others’ commuting patterns that were changed by the pandemic, and of course, UBC Okanagan and all post-secondary institutions flipped to virtual education delivery from March of 2020 all the way to September 2021, which is quite an extended period of time.
What we’re doing right now, throughout the system, is B.C. Transit is looking at where the areas of greatest demand are. There has been a differing trajectory in different communities about…. When we look within the ridership recovery data, we look at which routes have come roaring back, which ones are slow to re-emerge and whether we should optimize service and, therefore, deploy some of the existing resources to service the areas that have the highest usage.
That’s happening. That, of course, is involving the city of Kelowna and others to help us conduct that exercise. We have lots of data sets from all of the boardings within the B.C. Transit system to inform that.
Perhaps I’ll have more to say about that, depending on the member’s follow-up.
R. Merrifield: The minister is correct. I used UBCO as an example, but I could have used health care workers coming from West Kelowna into Kelowna or workers coming from Rutland into the industrial sector. There is a huge demand for reliable and frequent transit and a real increase in the city of Kelowna’s desire for more transit, which brings me to my second question.
One of the bottlenecks that Kelowna currently has is the size of the current transit yard and its electrification capacity. Kelowna has had land earmarked for a transit hub and has just recently received ALR approval. This project, yes, will require about $80 million, but it also is going to require an annual operating agreement with the ministry.
Does the province have funds that are available for this type of project, and what sort of date and timing could we anticipate for an annual operating agreement?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I’ll have some additional time to consider the answer, because I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.