Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament (2023)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 305
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 Representative for Children and Youth, report, Advocating for Change: Five Years in Review, April 2023 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2023
The House met at 10:01 a.m.
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Hon. Members, pursuant to Standing Order 12, I’m advising you of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.
Consequently, the Deputy Speaker will take the chair.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: E. Ross.
Introductions by Members
Hon. P. Alexis: It’s my honour and privilege to rise today and make introductions on what is the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Agricultural Land Reserve. The ALR was formed in 1973 by people who saw the need and value of preserving farmland for food production. And that need hasn’t changed. B.C. farmers are still working on ALR land, providing healthy, local and sustainably grown food for British Columbians in every part of the province. We look forward to the next generation of farmers doing the same.
The ALR is a key part of B.C.’s plan for a sustainable local food system and I’m delighted to be able to celebrate its golden anniversary today with two very important people here in the gallery.
Joining us today are Jennifer Dyson, the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission and Kim Grout, the CEO of the ALC. Both women play an important role in maintaining the integrity of the ALR.
I would kindly ask members to join me in welcoming them here today.
J. Tegart: I am pleased to welcome students from grades 10 and 11 from Merritt Secondary School to the precinct. It’s not very often that I get visitors here at the precinct, particularly from school groups. I had the opportunity to meet with them and their chaperones in the Hall of Honour this morning, and talk about the importance of the work done in the people’s House.
Please make them feel very welcome.
B. D’Eith: I just wanted to say that in the House today is my successor at Music B.C., Lindsay MacPherson, who runs Music B.C., which is the trade organization for the music industry. As part of Creative Industries Week, we’re really pleased to have film and music and book publishers. Everyone had a wonderful time at B.C. Book Day.
I just wanted to say that Lindsay is doing an incredible job at Music B.C. We’re meeting with them today. They’re having a showcase tonight. I also wanted to congratulate Music B.C. on launching their second ARC program for artist development, which is coming up.
Would the House please make Lindsay feel very welcome.
Deputy Speaker: I just would remind members. Please don’t use your phones to take pictures in the chamber. Minister for Children and Family Development.
Hon. M. Dean: Today we’re joined by Colin Sparks, from Metchosin, in the gallery. He’s here with his mom, Nina.
He’s a student at Royal Bay high school, and he entered my constituency office’s My Vision for B.C. contest. He came up with two suggestions, actually. He came up with this really great proposal of revolutionizing the fine system to be more equitable here in the province so that fines — if you think about, for example, a speeding fine — would actually be based on income and would be proportional to income, because he thought that would be fairer and would actually be a better deterrent as well. I thought that was a great idea.
Colin and his mom are going to be here for a few hours, and meeting people here in the building, and we’ll be having lunch together later on. I’m really excited to spend some time with them.
Would everybody please make them very welcome.
S. Furstenau: I have the pleasure of introducing two guests who are with us today up in the gallery. We have Christina Peet-Williams. She’s a first-year student at UVic, doing a double major in environmental studies and human geography with a very strong interest in environmental issues and climate change, as we should all share. Christina and I met at an “Introduction to Canadian Politics Class,” where I was a guest lecturer, and her main interest involved how environmentalism and politics can be woven together.
With Christina is Claire Rimmer, and Claire is from Cowichan Valley. She is 16 years old and grew up in the Cowichan. She’s in 11th grade at Brentwood College and really enjoys classes focused on social justice, law and politics. After high school, she hopes to attend school somewhere in Canada, study political science and maybe go to law school. She’s an avid sailor, dancer and reader, and she loves performing.
I would be remiss not to give a shout out to Claire’s brother Hugh, who has made it a habit of finding my family when we’re out on the Salish Sea and rescuing us when we need it the most.
So a huge welcome to Claire and Christina and a thank-you to Hugh.
J. Sims: Last night many of us gathered from all sides of the House to celebrate an Iftar, breaking of the fast, hosted by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at of B.C. It was a multi-faith dinner. We heard wonderful speeches, but more than that, we got to join in and enjoy the food that was brought here all the way from Surrey. It was amazing food. It was an experience for many. I’m sure for some it was their first Iftar, but others have been to many others.
I want to acknowledge the president of the B.C. region, Rizwan Peerzada; the local president of greater Vancouver; Naeem Ahmed; Muhammad, Shakoor Ahmad; Umar Farooq Chaudhry; Yawar Ahmed; Tariq Ghuman; Ashfaq Ahmad; Hashhar Ahmad; Irrtaza Ahmad; Mubarak Chaudhary; Roukhshan Butt; Md Rokonozzammam; Waseem Aahmad Sheikh; Ayman Al Sultan; Husin Sultan.
I want to thank the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at of B.C. for hosting the Iftar dinner right here in the People’s Hall of Honour. It was an absolute delight to participate.
I will end by finishing with a philosophy that the Ahmadiyya live by: “Love for all; hatred for none.”
G. Begg: I’m pleased today to welcome two distinguished guests, both in the gallery. Dr. Claire Sira, a clinical neuropsychologist here in Victoria is on the executive of the board of directors and a past president of the B.C. Psychological Association and is one of the co-authors of the primary care psychology proposal currently being revised for resubmission to the Ministry of Health to integrate mental and behavioural health services into primary care.
She’s accompanied by Dr. Lesley Lutes, a clinical health psychologist professor, director of clinical training and director of the Centre for Obesity and Wellbeing Research Excellence in the department of psychology at UBCO. She’s also one of the directors of public advocacy for BCPA and one of the co-authors of the primary care psychological proposals.
Would the House please join me in welcoming them.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 26 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING
AND VALIDATING
(No. 5)
AMENDMENT ACT,
2023
Hon. R Kahlon presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 5) Amendment Act, 2023.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m introducing the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 2023. This bill would expediate development of much-needed supportive housing at 2086-2098 West 7th Avenue and 2091 West 8th Avenue in the city of Vancouver, also known as the Arbutus project. This bill addresses a request made by Vancouver city council for the province to legislatively intervene to move forward on the Arbutus project.
This project will create 129 supportive and affordable housing units and will provide homes for people living in the community. We are in a housing crisis in Vancouver and across the province with too many people sleeping outside. We cannot afford to wait for much of these homes to be built.
The project took more than 15 months to be approved, and consultation and engagement included six days of public hearings lasting more than 30 hours with 300 community members participating. In addition, over 2,000 written submissions were received for the project.
In July 2022, the Vancouver city council approved the Arbutus project in principle. The adoption of the rezoning bylaw and construction of the project has been delayed due to legal action by opponents of the project. This bill, if passed, would position the city to proceed with the Arbutus project for construction to begin, scheduled this fall of 2023, and provide critically needed housing for people in the community.
Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 26, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No.5) Amendment Act, 2023, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
JAY MacARTHUR AND
CONTRIBUTIONS
TO OUTDOOR RECREATION
J. Sturdy: It’s human nature to protect the things you love. Jay MacArthur spent 40 years as a volunteer protecting trails, parks and outdoor recreation areas of British Columbia. He loved the outdoors and the outdoor life. He recognized very early that preservation needed to be balanced with public access and necessary maintenance of trails and parks.
Jay MacArthur unfortunately passed away in October of 2022 at the far-too-young age of 65. In the late 1970s, Jay became involved in the Federation of Mountain Clubs of British Columbia. He served as the president and was recognized as an advocate for land preservation, trail development and ongoing maintenance of trails.
Jay received awards and recognition for his contribution as a dedicated volunteer in the outdoor recreation community, namely a Distinguished Service Award and a leadership award from the Alpine Club of Canada. Jay had a hand in the creation of several provincial parks and helped to obtain federal funding to construct the Howe Sound Crest Trail in Cypress Provincial Park.
Jay and I worked together to restore access through Whistler-Blackcomb’s controlled recreation area to Singing Pass in Garibaldi Park. We saw partial success there as the summer access was re-established, but winter access remains very limited. I have not given up on his vision of ensuring that B.C. Parks and Whistler-Blackcomb adhere to the commitments of the master development agreement which commits that the public should be able to freely and safely transit through the Whistler-Blackcomb ski area to access the tens of thousands of acres of Garibaldi Park and beyond.
As the founding member and eventual president of the Southern Chilcotin Wilderness Society, Jay helped establish the Southern Chilcotin and Big Creek Provincial Park. We don’t all participate in back-country recreational activities, but we can all appreciate and applaud Jay MacArthur for his dedication to preserve and protect the environment.
Working with Jay was always a pleasure. He was focused, collaborative, respectful and, above all else, incredibly committed to wild spaces and public access to the back country.
I know he will be greatly missed.
CANCER SOCIETY DAFFODIL CAMPAIGN
A. Singh: Each year the Canadian Cancer Society’s Daffodil Campaign for Cancer Awareness Month unites British Columbians to take action for the nearly half of Canadians expected to be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes.
Donations raised through the Daffodil Campaign will fund nationwide support programs that offer comfort and connection and word-leading research to transform the future of cancer treatment and care.
While the entire month of April is Daffodil Month, April 18, today, has been identified as a day of action when statements will be read out loud throughout legislatures in the country and will coincide with landmarks being lit up across the country.
I’ve spoken of this here before, but I wanted to again recognize the impact that cancer has on our loved ones. We know it has touched so many in this hall, including myself.
This time last year I was in my seventh month of chemotherapy, and although I made it to work almost every day with a smile, I can confess that it wasn’t easy. It’s likely the second-hardest thing that I’ve done, overcoming alcoholism being the hardest.
They are not unrelated. Alcohol is a known carcinogen, and I cannot say that it didn’t contribute to my cancer. My good friend Dr. Eric Yoshida, our province’s most prominent gastroenterologist, would say that it likely did. But that’s a story for another day.
Cancer, dear colleagues, remains the leading cause of death in Canada. More than two in five Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, and about one in four will die from cancer.\
Lung, breast, colorectal and prostate cancers are expected to remain the most common diagnosed cancers. They have been for the last little while, accounting for almost half of cancer diagnoses. Skin melanoma cancer continues to increase, despite being a highly preventable cancer.
Wear sunscreen, my friends. It’s even more deadly for people with darker skin, as it tends to be diagnosed at a later stage. So if you’re brown like me don’t think you’re immune to skin cancer.
There is good news, though. Death rates have been, in general, declining over the last few years. The current five-year net cancer survival rate is estimated to be at 64 percent for all cancers combined. It wasn’t always.
Those statistics are also a lot better than they have been in the past, and that’s a testament to the significance of continued research and detection and treatment and how awareness programs like Daffodil Month have helped improve those statistics.
LIZ BORRETT AND
MARATHON RUNNING
ACHIEVEMENTS
B. Stewart: Let me introduce you to an inspiring woman who defies age and proves it’s never too late to start running. She recently returned home from Tokyo after completing all six races of the Abbott World Marathon Majors and also setting a new world record as the oldest woman to ever complete the series. The Abbott World Marathon Majors includes Boston, New York, Chicago, London, Berlin and Tokyo.
Meet Liz Borrett, the W-80 age group crusher from Kelowna B.C. who, at the age of 63, decided to take up running and has since then run approximately 25 marathons. It’s astonishing to know that she almost always wins her age group, and she continues to challenge herself and push the boundaries of what’s possible.
Borrett’s love for running started when she participated in her first marathon to help a friend fundraise. She didn’t train for it but enjoyed the experience, which motivated her to start training and eventually join a running group.
In 2019, Borrett celebrated her 80th birthday. Despite her age, she continues to set the bar high by winning her age category in both Boston and London marathons that same year. In addition, she completed Disney’s Dopey Challenge, which consisted of running 78.3 kilometres over four days. It’s incredible to see that even at the age of 84, she’s still up for new challenges and adventures.
Liz Borrett is an excellent example of how determination, discipline and passion can help achieve great things. So let’s take a leaf out of her book and commit to leading healthier, more active lives no matter our age.
Congratulations, Liz, on all your successes. Thank you for being such an inspiration to us all.
B.C. MUSIC DAY
AND SUPPORT FOR MUSIC
INDUSTRY
B. Anderson: I rise in the House today to recognize B.C. Music Day.
Music is an essential part of many of our biggest moments in life. It is a key ingredient when we are celebrating love or can help to ease our pain when we are mourning the loss of a loved one. Oliver Sacks, professor of neurology at the NYU School of Medicine said: “Music can lift us out of depression or move us to tears — it is a remedy, a tonic, orange juice for the ears. But for many of my neurological patients, music is even more — it can provide access, even when no medication can, to movement, to speech, to life. For them, music is not a luxury, but a necessity.”
There is no denying the power of music. Music helps us share our culture and creates shared experiences. We are fortunate to have such a vibrant and vital music scene in B.C., and I am thrilled to be able to celebrate the incredible artists and businesses today as part of B.C. Creative Industries Week.
In addition to our incredible musicians, B.C. is home to presenters, venues and music companies that showcase B.C. talent. This diverse industry creates jobs and supports local businesses through events and festivals.
We relaunched B.C.’s fairs, festivals and events fund in February, providing $30 million in grants which will bring people together and attract visitors to B.C. Through our government’s partnership with Creative B.C. and the B.C. Arts Council, we have taken action to support 11,000 people who work in the industry. We have literally amplified thousands of voices, built local talent and helped to launch careers through Amplify B.C.
Please join me in celebrating B.C.’s music industry. We are grateful for all the people and businesses that entertain us and move us each day with their creativity and resilience.
PETER’S YOUR INDEPENDENT GROCER
ANNIVERSARY EVENTS IN
KELOWNA
R. Merrifield: This last week I attended the anniversary celebration of Peter Boyd and his exceptional store, Peter’s Your Independent Grocer. This celebration not only highlighted the success of Peter’s grocery store but also shed light on the vital role of local food artisans in our community.
Throughout the years, Peter’s dedication to providing the best-quality products, exceptional customer service, support of new Canadians and unwavering support for local food artisans has established his store as a pillar in our community of Kelowna. His passion for promoting local businesses and fostering relationships with food artisans has helped strengthen the bond between the residents and the local food scene.
At the anniversary events, several noteworthy female local food artisans were showcased, offering a fantastic opportunity for our community to appreciate their talent and hard work.
Las Mexicanas, a woman-led artisanal food company, presented us with an array of delicious Mexican cuisine that transported us to the heart of their cultural roots.
Umami “Crave the fifth” showcased their culinary prowess with a selection of exquisite dishes that played with our taste buds, offering a symphony of flavours that left us in awe.
Shuswap Coffee Co. literally energized the crowd with their sustainably produced aromatic coffee blends. Their efforts to maintain ethical and eco-friendly practices in their coffee production speak volumes about their values.
St. Hubertus winery was on hand for tastings of their latest vintages and showcasing some of the wines offered in Kelowna.
And last but not least, BABz offered delectable vegan options that catered to the plant-based food enthusiasts in the crowd, showing how do delicious and satisfying vegan cuisine can be.
In conclusion, Peter’s Your Independent Grocer’s anniversary celebration was not only a tribute to the store’s success but also a testament to the power of support for local food artisans. I left with more than just a full belly but a full heart, seeing all that Peter is doing to support our community.
Happy anniversary, Peter’s Your Independent Grocer.
EVERETT CROWLEY PARK
G. Chow: Oftentimes I talk about washrooms, but not today. Today I’m going to talk about a garbage dump.
Once upon a time, there was a garbage dump in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview, on the unceded territory of the Coast Salish peoples — a 40-hectare or 100-acre property that borders Burnaby city to the east, Kerr Street to the west and Fraser River to the south. An area one-tenth the size of Stanley Park was Vancouver’s garbage dump for almost a quarter-century until 1967, when city council came to its senses and closed it.
The landfill was decommissioned and covered with five feet of fill to cap the entire area and left alone. As vegetation started growing in the area, it became a popular destination for motocross riders. Many ideas were proposed for the land, but nothing permanent panned out.
In the mid-1980s, the Vancouver Natural History Society recommended the area to be a low-development natural park, and the Kerr Road Park Committee was founded.
In 1987, the Vancouver park board started work on the site, building a small parking lot, some walking trails and viewpoints and named it Everett Crowley Park in honour of the owner of Avalon Dairy, which was Vancouver’s last independent dairy. Everett Crowley also served as Vancouver park commissioner from 1961 to 1966.
With time, the garbage dump was reforested by local vegetation and invasive species. The Vancouver park board, along with the community, took great efforts in planting thousands of native trees and wildflowers to attract pollinator bees. Since 2002, there were annual Earth Day planning activities and celebrations in the park.
I recall former Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan’s fondest saying when I was on council: “If everyone lives in the world like Vancouver, we need three Earths.”
Since we only have one Earth, we need to love it and treasure it. Let’s come to my park, Everett Crowley Park, this Saturday, April 22.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. See you there.
Oral Questions
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
HANDLING BY JUSTICE
SYSTEM
P. Milobar: Under this soft-on-crime Premier, crime and disorder in neighbourhoods, business districts and on transit has never been worse, and it’s completely out of control. This all began with his time as the Attorney General, where we saw a 75 percent increase in no charge assessments and, worse, a 40 percent decrease in the numbers of people in jail.
Just yesterday this is what a chief of police had to say about this Premier’s failed catch-and-release justice system. He said, “We’ve lost sight of the victims. I don’t know if we’d even call it a justice system any more.” That’s a chief of police acknowledging that he feels we do not have a justice system any more in this province under this Premier’s watch.
When will the Premier finally put the rights of victims and people to be safe ahead of those who continue to reoffend on a daily basis?
Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for the question. Everybody deserves to feel safe in their communities. We as a government have been taking action on many levels to address the situation that’s happening in communities.
From my part as Attorney General, the justice system, we have been advocating for the federal government to make changes to the bail policy. Cities across this country have been seeing a rise in repeat violent offenders. Through our leadership and advocacy, we received a commitment from the federal government to make those changes, and as Attorney General, I’m monitoring that.
We’re also taking action in terms of investing in the supports and the services needed in our justice system to help address this issue. Recently we announced 12 hubs for the repeat violent offender intervention initiative across this province to address the repeat violent offenders and their impacts on communities.
We’ll continue to do the work necessary to increase safety in communities.
Deputy Speaker: Member, supplemental.
P. Milobar: Frankly, none of that’s working. People don’t feel safer in their neighbourhoods, and empty words and promises by this Premier and this government are not making the situation better. By every measure, it’s worse than it’s ever been.
People feel unsafe everywhere in this province — urban centres, rural centres, in suburbs, you name it. They’re tired of the robotic responses from this government and the lack of accountability from this soft-on-crime Premier when it comes to assaults and violence and the threatening of people every single day.
The simple fact is not only is this soft-on-crime Premier the architect of the catch-and-release policies, he literally wrote the book on how to sue the police.
Given this Premier’s past, it’s not surprising that during his time as Attorney General, we saw that 75 percent increase in no charge assessments and a 40 percent reduction in those jail populations. That’s led to what we saw yesterday — a chief of police saying that we don’t have a justice system in this province anymore, aligning with what the public is saying.
The only people that seem to think things are getting better on our streets are the members of the government. Everyone else outside of this chamber knows the fear they’re living with on a daily basis.
When will this Premier end his catch-and-release policies and prioritize the families of this province over the prolific offenders?
Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their communities, and we as a government are taking action on many levels.
This, unfortunately, is happening across the country, in countries and provinces, and we were happy to join with ministers and Premiers from across this country calling on the government for specific reforms to the bail policy in order to address repeat violent offenders.
But we’re not stopping there. I’m working with my colleagues across this government to invest in the programs and services needed to address this challenge. We’re meeting with communities. We’re understanding issues on the ground and responding.
We announced the largest increase in funding to police officers across this country. We announced one of the largest calls to Crown counsel under my ministry to help support the work that needs to be done. We’ll continue to invest in the resources and the programs that are needed to make the situation better.
PUBLIC SAFETY ON TRANSIT SYSTEMS
T. Halford: Yesterday we heard the Solicitor General say: “Everybody deserves to feel safe.” We heard the Premier say: “Everybody deserves to feel safe.” We’ve heard the Attorney General say: “Everybody deserves to feel safe.”
In the communities in our province, people do not feel safe. On our transit systems, people do not feel safe.
Another transit union representing SkyTrain workers is also speaking out about unchecked violence on transit. Tony Rebelo, president of CUPE 7000 says: “Our members are definitely concerned, and they have been rattled, to tell you the truth.”
Sunday afternoon a 25-year-old woman, sexually assaulted, riding an escalator at the Granville Street SkyTrain station. People who rely on our public transit system every day to get to work and to get to school do not feel safe.
Will the Premier listen to CUPE? Will the Premier listen to transit riders? Will the Premier listen to anyone and stand up and do something about his soft-on-crime policies in his catch-and-release system?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question, and I want to address the two issues that he raises.
First, in terms of our transit system, as I said yesterday, we are working in my ministry. The director of police services is working very closely with the transit police, the RCMP and the other policing agencies, as well as unions, in terms of identifying potential gaps and additional resources that may be required to ensure that we are doing everything we can to make sure that our transit system, which is used by over 400,000 people a day, is safe.
The issues that we have seen in terms of the attacks, which all of us are horrified by, are not unique to this province but are, in fact, occurring in transit systems across this country. Whether it’s Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, all have experienced similar situations.
I can tell you the Premiers of the provinces — all of the provinces, because they’re all concerned about what they’re seeing in their own jurisdictions — will be meeting on the 21st of April to deal with this specific issue.
We are doing everything we can to ensure that our communities are safe and to work with all levels of government and policing agencies, unions and everybody involved in our transit systems to ensure that our transit systems are safe for the public.
Deputy Speaker: Member, supplemental.
T. Halford: Let’s be very clear on this. It is the Premier’s failure to do his job — to do his job when he was Attorney General and to do his job now as he is Premier to keep people safe, whether they’re walking the streets or whether they’re using public transit.
This Premier has seen an explosion of random violence under his watch, and it continues every single day. People riding the bus, people riding the SkyTrain, do not feel safe. The minister just referenced transit police. We have got a police chief who says he would not even call it a justice system any more. A police chief is saying that in this province.
This is what Lara writes: “Nobody, regardless of age and gender, feels safe in this city anymore. Criminals are arrested and let go the next day. Nowhere is safe in Vancouver anymore. I do not feel safe walking on the street.”
My question to the Premier: how much longer will British Columbians have to endure relentless violence before this Premier finally decides to step up and do something and prioritize the safety of our communities and our transit systems?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I notice that he quoted a police chief saying that he doesn’t feel safe walking on the streets in the city of Vancouver. But I note that they didn’t name the chief of police. That would really assist in terms of understanding part of the member’s question. If he would….
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, two quotes but put together. But I still….
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, a question has been asked. Let’s let the minister have his response.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I make that observation because the opposition does have a habit of, when they quote, which they do on a regular basis, naming the individual they are quoting, yet today they are choosing not to do that. Now, that is….
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
Please sit, Minister.
[The Deputy Speaker rose.]
Deputy Speaker: Members, please, we’ll have an answer to the question, and then you’ll get to ask a question again. Thank you.
[The Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
As I said, that’s up to them. Now, to deal with the specific issues that they have raised around transit safety, as I said, our ministry is working closely with the police, transit police, the RCMP and the agencies to determine what additional steps need to be taken. At the same time, in terms of the federal jurisdiction around the Criminal Code — which again, the opposition likes to raise — I will remind them that that is federal jurisdiction.
We have pushed and have got a commitment from the federal government to ensure that the reverse onus when it comes to bail conditions is expanded to include a full range of weapons, not just firearms but knives, bear spray and any kind of weapon. That’s real action and commitment from this government. We are going to continue to do everything we can to ensure that our communities are safe.
SHIPBREAKING ACTIVITIES IN
BAYNES SOUND AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
A. Olsen: Baynes Sound produces about half of British Columbia’s shellfish. It’s an important economic, food, social and ceremonial site for K’ómoks First Nation and has federal designation as an ecologically and biologically sensitive area. Despite the significance, the province has permitted shipbreaking, an environmentally hazardous industry, in Union Bay.
In October 2021, the province issued a foreshore lease to Deep Water Recovery that allows them to drag ships over the beach and onto dry land.
In 2022, Deep Water Recovery was found to be out of compliance four times under B.C.’s Environmental Management Act and hazardous waste regulations. The company received three warnings and one advisory. However, the company has not faced regulatory penalties, nor did the province issue fines or revoke the original licence. By not acting, the province is sanctioning this damage.
My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. Will he take enforcement actions against Deep Water Recovery to protect the environment and the people of Baynes Sound?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. As the member knows, compliance and enforcement actions are taken by staff of the Ministry of Environment on the ground, in this instance, as well as staff of other ministries. I am very aware, as are my colleagues, of the concerns of the community around Baynes Sound shipbreaking activities. There are active investigations ongoing. When and if specific violations are determined, action will be taken.
A. Olsen: I do understand where the regulatory and enforcement actions happen. I also understand it’s the ministers that are government that are responsible for ensuring companies and people are following the rules and the regulations.
Ultimately, the responsibility lands on that side of the House. K’ómoks First Nation opposes the shipbreaking operation. The Comox Valley regional district has initiated a court action against Deep Water Recovery.
In June 2021, Transport Canada invited the province to participate in a technical review of internationally recognized shipbreaking regulations.
In March 2022, a group of NGOs sent a joint letter urging this government to create regulation and follow the example from existing legal frameworks and legislation.
In April 2022, the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities unanimously approved a motion calling on this government to adopt shipbreaking regulations in B.C.
Despite these requests, the ministry has not taken any meaningful action to regulate this hazardous industry. If properly regulated, shipbreaking is an important industry. Without adequate provincial oversight, however, this industry poses serious risks to workers, communities and our marine environments.
To the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, will the minister regulate this activity that is actively imperiling the health and the rights of First Nations?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you again, to the member for the question. I and my colleagues realize this is a critically important issue to people who live in the area. They have been communicating with us directly and often. We have been meeting regularly with staff in my ministry and staff in other ministries. This is an interjurisdictional issue, as the member knows. It involves my ministry and the Ministry of Forests. It also involves the federal government.
We’re working with other regulatory agencies, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada as well as WorkSafeBC with respect to the potential for asbestos exposures. We are working to determine that the environment and human health are protected, but the member also knows that there are procedures in place.
There are laws that specify what compliance looks like. There are matters of administrative fairness. We have visited the site — inspectors from my ministry — multiple times, taken water samples for independent analysis and issued warnings and one advisory to the company under the Environmental Management Act. Activities and inspections continue.
I and my colleagues continue to request and receive regular briefings on this issue, and we will continue to do that to resolve this issue for the people who live in the area.
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES
AND IMPACT ON
BUSINESSES
E. Sturko: I actually find it appalling that this government would have to be told that the person that we were quoting was police chief Dave Jones of the Metro Vancouver Transit Police, because this has been all over the media this morning. It’s clear that this government has no idea what’s going on, so I’ll read the quote again from police chief Dave Jones of the Metro Vancouver Transit Police.
He says: “We’ve lost sight of the victims. We hear that from victim’s families. They feel victimized again. Has it gone so far that people, whose laws they’re meant to protect…? They’re expressing frustration and disbelief in it, and I don’t know if we can even call it a justice system any more.”
He goes on to say: “You eventually come to a point where you sit back and you realize how far we’ve gone. I think it just worries me as a citizen. How am I protected within society?”
Because the reality is that this government’s soft-on-crime policies go beyond the courtroom. It’s your abject failure to deal with the root causes of crime, your failure to deal with…
Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.
E. Sturko: …mental health and addictions, social issues. Adding more police to the problem is like putting a band-aid on a cancer. You have to deal with the underlying cause.
Just yesterday, we learned of another violent attack in downtown Victoria. An armed criminal brazenly robbed a busy Victoria jewelry store in broad daylight. He shattered glass in a display case while yelling and threatening staff with a hammer. This seems to be the second time in under a week that the same hammer-wielding robber attacked the same store.
How much longer must communities, small businesses, staff and the public suffer the havoc caused by this Premier’s soft-on-crime policies?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, because it gives me an opportunity to outline the work that we have been doing and the actions that we have been taking since we formed government.
I have done that on a number of times in this House, in terms of the police side, whether it’s the largest investment in policing in the history of this province, whether it is the establishment of the hubs and the increase in the number of Crown prosecutors or whether it’s getting changes done at the federal level when it comes to the Criminal Code of this country — all of those things that have to be in place.
The forensic firearms lab. All of the things I’ve mentioned before.
What I’d now like to do is to address some of the issues the member just said, because on this side of the House we know that it is about the root causes of crime, which is why we have been taking actions to undo the neglect, the negligence on that side when they sat on this side.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Shame? Shame? Shame?
Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Shame?
Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I will tell you what shame is.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Shame was cutting $300 million from mental health services when you sat on this side of the House.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: You want to say “gall” and “appalling,” hon. Member? Appalling was cutting $35 million in supports for those on mental health services.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.
Members.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
Sit down, Minister.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Member.
Minister, sit down.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, we’ll come to order, and then we’ll move to the next question.
E. Sturko: You know, we heard it from the Premier’s own handpicked expert Doug LePard, and we see it in the evidence we see on our streets with the chaos and violent attacks every day that criminals are emboldened by the lack of consequences under this soft-on-crime Premier.
We now have a chief of police saying that we don’t have a justice system any more. Crime is out of control, thanks to his time as Attorney General, marked by a 75 percent increase in no-charge assessments and a 40 percent drop in people being kept behind bars.
The head of the downtown Victoria association, Jeff Bray, has called this robbery a brazen attack and is calling on the province to step up and deal with out-of-control violence. But people like Jeff have no reason to trust a Premier who has spent his whole career putting criminals ahead of victims.
When will the Premier listen to businesses suffering robbery after robbery and end his soft-on-crime policies?
Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said a moment ago when they raised the question on the mental health side of things, I reminded them they cut $35 million in supports for mental health and addictions for youths. They completely deregulated the recovery homes. And as Health Minister, the current Leader of the Opposition cut over $300 million in the health system, which mental health experts called staggering.
So we have spent a lot of time undoing the damage that they did.
I also now want to address the quotes that the member has been talking about. Remember I said I was a little puzzled as to why they didn’t mention the chief’s name at the beginning? Now I’m able to provide a little more context.
In an interview with Sophie Lui done today, she asks Chief Dave Jones about the transit system: is it safe? Dave Jones says the transit system is safe. He says the most recent data shows crime rates have declined. Crimes against persons in 2022 dropped by 21 percent compared to the year before, and crimes against property were down 33 percent.
That’s part of the interview. I appreciate that the opposition has a job to do, but let’s at least try and get all the facts out there.
That’s why I’ll repeat what I said. My ministry…
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members. We will have order in this chamber.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …is working with the transit police, with the unions, with the RCMP, with the policing agencies. I will note that TransLink’s budget for policing has increased 13 percent in this year. They would like to see more officers. They want to see more resources.
As the Premier said yesterday, we are identifying those gaps, and if more resources are needed, they will be there.
CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND
ACTION ON COMMUNITY
SAFETY
S. Bond: What we’ve seen on display by the Premier and the Solicitor General today is exactly why British Columbians are terrified, because his opportunity to stand up in this House and acknowledge that people are afraid, that a mother is experiencing the loss of a 17-year-old child because of a transit bus incident….
We get those kinds of answers from this Solicitor General? He should look at himself in the mirror and recognize that this is on the shoulders of a Premier and former Attorney General who simply has not done enough — period.
If the Premier and the Solicitor General want to talk about their lack of attention to victims, let’s talk about Clint Smith in Nanaimo. The Premier rolled on into Nanaimo and reannounced empty words. Clint runs the auto shop, and he was shot in British Columbia while trying to reclaim his property.
Clint is a victim, and here’s what Clint had to say to the Solicitor General. He can bluster all he wants…. These are the words of a victim in British Columbia. “A whole lot less of lip service” and “a whole lot more action” is required.
When will the Premier end the lip service, acknowledge that there is chaos reigning in British Columbia and that it is squarely on his shoulders as a former Attorney General and the now Premier of British Columbia? When will he stand up and do something?
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Member.
Minister of Public Safety.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. The member has a role to criticize me as the Solicitor General. I understand that. But I also want to point out that we are dealing with situations, particularly when it comes to the root causes of crime, that were very much started when she and her colleagues of the United party sat and were in government.
The last time the United party was in government, they made those cuts to health care, to mental health services. They made those cuts to mental health services. They made cuts to sexual assault centres. They did irreparable damage to the social service sector, which provides the supports that they now want to see in place, that this government is now having to undo.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, there was silence when you asked the question. Please provide the same respect when he gives an answer.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, this government does care about victims and realizes the trauma they have been through, which is why we have taken actions.
I’ll also say this to the member, in regard to that particular individual, Clint. I did have a conversation with him in Nanaimo. I also listened to his interview that he did on CKNW, where he also acknowledged that the steps we’re taking were a step in the right direction.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Go read the transcript, hon. Member. Go read the transcript.
What I want to tell you, hon. Speaker, again….
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, please. You had your chance to ask a question. Give him a chance to answer it.
Hon. M. Farnworth: When it comes to supporting victims, we didn’t cut victim services, when they did when they were on this side of House. We’ve increased victim services. We increased it.
We are working with the federal government, police agencies, local governments, provincial Premiers right across this country to deal with the challenges that all of us are facing to keep our communities safe. We are going to continue doing that, and I am very proud of the work this government is doing.
M. de Jong: Well, look. People are trying to reconcile what they are hearing from the Premier, from his ministers today, yesterday with the reality of what is going on out there. Does the Premier see what’s going on out there, in cities across British Columbia, random violence at rates that we have never seen before in this province, a provincial police chief who seems to have given up on the justice system?
Look, it has to be said. In cities across British Columbia, there are times when it’s hard to walk four blocks and not trip over someone who is strung out on the sidewalk with drug paraphernalia strewn about.
If the Premier doesn’t think that the proliferation of drug use that has taken place as a result of policies that he has introduced does not lead to unpredictable behaviour and sometimes violent behaviour, then he’s in denial. The Premier chose to expand the availability of drugs without ensuring that detox on demand was available, and people are paying the price. Those addicted are paying the price.
The Premier chose to warehouse the homeless without providing adequate supports, and people are paying the price. The Premier has defended, for years now, his catch-and-release justice system…
Deputy Speaker: Question, Member.
M. de Jong: …that has seen random crime spiral out of control. Innocent victims are paying the price. No one believes the Premier’s announcements…
Deputy Speaker: Come to the question, please.
M. de Jong: …because no one has heard the Premier acknowledge that the chaos we see in the streets are the result of his policies. Will the Premier acknowledge and finally admit that it’s his failed policies that have led to the chaos…
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.
M. de Jong: …that it’s his failed policies…
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.
M. de Jong: …that have led to the violence, and that it is his policies…
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.
M. de Jong: …that have left British Columbians feeling unsafe in communities right across the province?
Hon. D. Eby: When I was sworn in as Premier, there were four key areas of priority that I laid out for British Columbians that we would work on: the issue of housing, making sure you have an affordable place to live; the issue of health care, making sure you have access to health care when and where you need it, including family doctors; the issue of public safety…
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, please have some respect.
Hon. D. Eby: …recognizing that everyone in our province has a right to be safe…
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: He listened to your questions. Listen to his answer with respect.
Hon. D. Eby: …when they go to work, when they go to school, when they use transit, at home; and to build a strong economy that works for everybody.
On the issue of public safety, we’ve been aggressive with Ottawa. It was the Minister of Public Safety and the Attorney General who led the charge nationally to get the federal government to commit to change their bail laws to fix the problems that have been caused by that change.
On that national front, we are unified with Premiers across Canada, meeting with the chiefs of police from across Canada on April 21, in just three days, in an emergency meeting, called for by all the Premiers, to respond to this issue that we’re seeing across the country. This is a very serious issue. It deserves to be treated with seriousness.
I have to say, I regret very much the members standing up and pretending that our response to the toxic drug overdose crisis was not endorsed by all the parties in this House except for the B.C. Conservatives. They were the only party that did not endorse that approach.
It’s a complicated and challenging issue of keeping people alive so they can get into treatment — $1 billion we put into the budget to expand treatment options for people. We’re going to continue to do that work. The members on both sides of the House know this is a complicated national issue, but B.C. is showing leadership every single day.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Deputy Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Representative for Children and Youth’s report Advocating for Change: Five Years in Review.
Hon. B. Ma: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. B. Ma: They slipped in and slipped out really quietly right during question period, but we were graced by the presence of 30 grade 11 students from Sutherland Secondary from my community of North Vancouver.
They were here as part of the global perspectives program led by their teachers, Jeffrey Aw-Yong, James Nevison and Claudia Panton. It’s quite a fantastic program. By doing this one semester-long program, they earn credits for social studies 11, English 11, social justice 12 and economics 12 all at once.
They’ve already gone, but I think they’re still in the Legislature, so I would the House please join me in making them feel welcome to the building.
Reports from Committees
SELECTION COMMITTEE
Hon. R. Kahlon: I have the honour to present the second report of the Special Committee of Selection for the fourth session of the 42nd parliament.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the report be adopted.
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call continued debate on Committee of Supply of the Ministry of Housing.
In committee room A, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.
In committee room C, I call continued debate on the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation.
Deputy Speaker: We will take a short recess to get everyone in their appropriate places, and then we’ll proceed with the business of the day.
The House recessed at 11:06 a.m.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Tegart in the chair.
The committee met at 11:12 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning. I call Committee of Supply, Section B, to order.
We’re meeting today to consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Housing.
I now recognize the minister to move the vote.
On Vote 33: ministry operations, $884,436,000 (continued).
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
I now recognize the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.
K. Kirkpatrick: Welcome back to the minister and his team. The minister was talking about 114,000 units that were initially promised by this government over ten years. We discussed that a little bit yesterday. I just want to ask a bit more about that. So it would appear, this year in the budget, that the NDP has backed off that commitment to 114,000 homes, as it wasn’t in the budget. And they haven’t provided updates on the status of individual Building B.C. programs.
Yesterday, however, I heard the minister say that there was still a commitment to those 114,000, to that target of 114,000. Now we know that that target was grossly inadequate for what British Columbia needs in order to address this housing crisis. So why was the NDP promise to build 114,000 homes not mentioned in the budget?
Hon. R. Kahlon: So the member says that the ambitious goal of 114,000 units was grossly inadequate. I would highlight to the member that they came nowhere close to that in 16 years, when they were in government. It shows you the challenge that we’ve had and how far behind we are when it comes to investments in housing.
To the second question from the member, I would say that we are on track, and we, in fact, will surpass 114,000. The housing strategy that we’ve launched highlights that the challenge has, in fact, grown. The headwinds we’re facing have grown, coming out of the pandemic, and we’re going to require more action in the province. Those numbers, of course, are reflected in the Homes for People strategy.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I will mention this because the minister mentioned it. A question that I have here is: when will the minister and this government take responsibility for their lack of the ability to address the housing crisis rather than continually blaming the previous government for their last seven years of inaction?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the acknowledgment of the lack of action that was done prior to us coming into government. I think that the member mentioned in the initial comment that the numbers weren’t in the budget. We’re not quite sure what she was referring to. Page 11 of the budget laid out the record investments in housing, both operating and capital investments, to address the challenges we are facing in the housing crisis across the province.
K. Kirkpatrick: There is discussion of record investment, but there is no longer a target, unless I have missed that somewhere. That 114,000 target has been removed, and I do not see a new target.
I also just heard the minister, if I heard correctly, say that the NDP has exceeded the target of 114,000. Will the minister clarify what I heard there?
Hon. R. Kahlon: What I’ve said — I said it yesterday, and I’ll say it again — is we had an ambitious target of 114,000 units coming online. We, in fact, will meet that target. We are on track. In fact, we will surpass it. We have to surpass it, because we know the needs have only grown coming out of the pandemic.
K. Kirkpatrick: So the minister is confirming that the 114,000 commitment made in 2017 to have new builds of 114,000 — they will actually meet that goal by the end of that initial ten-year period?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the commitment when the initial housing strategy was launched was that 114,000 units would come from direct investments in housing. It was going to come through student housing. It was going to come through funding, partnering with not-for-profits, partnering with the private sector. It was also going to come through policy. Changes like the speculation tax, which brought 20,000 units back online.
All those pieces are important, because those were units that were not available to people. Now I highlighted for the member across the way that that’s 20,000 units that are available to people right now that weren’t available. Students that are out at UBC now are five, six of them living in mansions.
The strategy from the beginning was that. I actually highlighted for the member comments that were made in estimates from both the critic before her and the minister before me, both sides acknowledging that they understood that it was going to be that way. That commitment continues to hold. We are on track to get the 114,000, and we’re going to continue to work to surpass that, because we know the need has grown.
K. Kirkpatrick: I’m going to stick on that number for a little bit because it is being kicked around and a major part of the initial 2017 platform. I would like to just quote from the NDP election promise: “…build 114,000 affordable rental, non-profit, co-op and owner-purchasing housing units.” Then, it continues on to talk about what the minister has said in terms of housing for singles, seniors, families. But the word “build” there, I think, is important to remember.
Will this NDP government be meeting that 114,000, and I understand they will, but will they be doing it with new housing stock as opposed to other policies that have been bringing stock back onto the market?
Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s going to be long 15 hours if we’re just going back and forth on this question. I’ll say it again, which is the 114,000 units that we committed to as part of our initial housing strategy was everything from direct investments, working with the private sector, policy-related measures, working with the federal government.
All those measures were part of it. It was reflected in the estimates. Both the critic at the time and the Minister Responsible for Housing at the time acknowledged that that was the case, and that remains the case now.
We also have increased the amount of funding that’s available for housing, which we also canvassed yesterday. I’m happy to do this back and forth, but I’m sure we can find better use of this time, getting into the numbers and going into more detail.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thanks to the minister. The reason that we’re going back and forth is because we need, and it’s my responsibility, to ensure that we have got clarity on what the answer is. I’m going to say what I believe the answer is, and then we can move on to some additional questions.
I heard the minister say that initial 114,000 units that were promised will actually be created, built by this government. I shouldn’t say built because that’s the challenge here. We’re not using the word “built.” There will be 114,000 additional units based on that initial promise, but it will also include not just new units. It will include a whole number of measures.
So if I can just confirm that, and then you have my word that I shall move onto a new question.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I can tell the member that the commitment we made, part of the initial housing strategy, which was to deliver 114,000 units within ten years, is something that we will meet and that we will surpass. We are on target. That will come through policy. It will come through direct investments. That will come through partnering with the private sector, and it will come through partnering with the federal government.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. We’re going to get our exercise here. This is quick.
If the minister…. I’ve got a number of programs, and what I’m looking for is the actual number of units created in each of these programs. I’m wondering if I can just perhaps list the programs rather than get up and down and say each one individually. Then see if we can get numbers on the number of units completed.
Just to clarify, this is not the number of units that are currently underway. It’s actually completed. That would be in the affordable rental housing program; deepening affordability; community housing fund; women’s transition housing; Indigenous housing; rapid response to homelessness; supportive housing fund — we’re almost there; homelessness action plan; and the HousingHub.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I will go through all those pieces for the member. Under the affordable rental housing, we have 465 complete, 396 under construction, 181 in development and 105 initiated. Under the rapid response to homelessness, we have 1,894 complete. Under deepening affordability, we have 1,809 complete, 230 under construction.
It might be easier for me to just give this to you in writing. Is that easier for you?
Interjection.
Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll read it now. Then I’ll get it…. I’ll share that with the member after.
Community housing fund, 1,475 complete. Women’s transition house funding, 188 complete. Supportive housing fund, 1,812 complete. Indigenous housing fund, 427 complete. Homelessness action plan, 409 complete. That’s under the Building B.C. program.
We have also non–Building B.C. programs. You’ve only asked for two of them, but there are many more. So I’ll share the HousingHub, the provincial rental supply, 3,194, and the HousingHub affordable home ownership, 135.
Now, it’s important to note, and I know the member knows this, that it takes, from putting money into the budget, sometimes three, four, five, six years for housing units to get complete. I wish it was faster. But that’s the unfortunate side of getting through permits and other things. So a lot of the investments we made when we first formed government are reflected in the completes, and a lot of the money we made the years after are part of the under construction, in development and initiated.
I can share with the member that under Building B.C. programs, complete, under construction, in development projects are 20,825. Under the non–Building B.C. that are under the complete and under development, it’s 11,672.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you very much to the minister. He even answered my next question, which was: how many are in the initiated process? I believe that those are part of the numbers that the minister is going to provide to me.
B.C. Housing has significantly reduced its transparency of its capital progress reports. It no longer provides updates for individual housing programs. Can the minister explain why that is?
Hon. R. Kahlon: B.C. Housing does a lot of work to ensure transparency. The member had many questions yesterday around many issues, or many topics, around B.C. Housing, and I was able to point to the service plan, where it’s actually made really clear to people so they can get a sense of what’s happening.
A lot of the progress is reported on the B.C. Housing website. The Q3 report is just being finalized to reflect the additional funding from the Homes for People strategy and will be released very soon.
K. Kirkpatrick: Now, the service plan is not the same as an accountability report, and the accountability reports are showing how progress is being made in more specific ways. Will the minister confirm or commit that future B.C. Housing capital updates will revert back to the original style and accountability format?
There has actually been a change in the information that’s being provided. It used to include providing the numbers of housing units complete, in development, under construction and initiated for each individual housing funding stream, much like the information you have provided and read to me. Will that be once again available on the B.C. Housing site?
The information is still made public. The format of how it’s shared has changed to make it more user-friendly to be able to navigate. The questions the member has asked around specific programs and the progress, that’s all on the site.
We can share the link with you so that you can see. Quarter 2 is up on the site right now. Quarter 3 is just being updated to reflect the additional supports that we have in this budget for housing. Once that’s done, that will be made public — happy to send you a link so that you’ve got that.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. That link would be appreciated. It sounds to me like you’re saying that the information that was previously provided is still provided, just perhaps in a different format or a different location. I appreciate that.
I’m going to ask a bit about transition housing. As we know, families fleeing violence, domestic violence…. The inability for someone to leave a dangerous scenario because they don’t have somewhere else to go, somewhere that they can have access to, that they can afford. But it seems that the number of transition houses that have actually been completed by this government is significantly smaller than the 1,500 that were promised. Why is that? And can the minister confirm how many of those transition homes are actually open at this point?
Hon. R. Kahlon: On the women’s transition housing funding, I think it’s important to know that part of our 2018 commitment was to build 1,500 units for women fleeing domestic violence. Part of our 2023 budget is an additional $1.1 billion, so the target from 1,500 is now going to go up to 3,000 because of the commitments, plus $118 million additional operating subsidies because of a reflection of the cost pressures that many operators are facing.
Now, we do have a challenge with this type of housing to bring it on line in that it’s complex in the way that the buildings need to be designed because it needs to be done in a more sensitive way. I can share with the member that we have 188 complete, 546 units that are under construction right now and 164 of them that are going through development approvals.
K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister confirm just from a timing perspective, then, the initial 1,500, of which I understand him to have just said 188 have been completed? When will that initial 1,500 promise be met for the initial? Then the additional 1,500, which is good to hear — when will those be completed by?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The question is part of our original ten-year plan, where we’ll be in the year ’27-28. We project we will be either complete or under construction of 2,375 units. Now the member will say how many will be complete, and I will say that at that pace I’m fairly confident we’ll meet our 1,500 commitment of open by that date.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Recently, the minister announced to legislatively upzone single-family lots to three to four units provincewide.
There have been a lot of questions about how that’s going to work. There’s been a bit of a development freeze as some communities and some developers are waiting to see what impact that’s going to have to their future projects.
So a few questions around this. The first being: what does the ministry anticipate will happen to property values once this upzoning takes place?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the question.
We know how critically important it is to ensure that housing be available for young families, for seniors who are looking for additional cash flow opportunities in their home, opportunities for families to stay united. So that’s why we’re advancing these policies, in particular on the small-scale multi-unit.
Now I can share with the member that clearly when one lot gets upzoned, we often see a significant increase in value in that one lot. That’s why many would argue that spot zoning is not the most effective way to build affordable housing.
We can share that, in the example of New Zealand, they did it in large areas, which mitigated the lift in property value because it was spread over a larger area, as opposed to being done in one specific area. We believe that is the benefit of doing it in a large area of the province, because the property value lift will be less than if it were an individual site being upzoned.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’m not sure I heard…. That was a lot of information provided to me there.
So there is a belief that the upzoning will result in an increase in property values. I believe in New Zealand they use minimum density requirements, which was rather than specifically zoning properties — for example, as a fourplex — as long as the community met those minimum density requirements, that there would be more flexibility in terms of where that density would be taking place.
Does the minister believe that this will make it harder for families who want to acquire a single-family lot to be able to purchase one?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I would say that it’s hard right now for young families to acquire a lot. Many parts of the community…. There were some areas of the province where it was a little more affordable at some points. But certainly, coming out of the pandemic with the record numbers of people, we’ve seen, with low interest rates…. And quite frankly, the mobility of labour. We always say capital is mobile. Now labour is mobile. People are moving from cities to smaller communities, which is putting pressure on housing across the province.
So I would say that right now it’s not affordable. For zoning to be in place that says only a single-family home can be built on that parcel of land will actually make it less affordable for young families to be able to purchase. Giving them options, giving the ability for options, I think will make it more affordable for families.
In fact, we’ve seen it in the New Zealand example, where prices flattened, rents flattened, compared to all their jurisdictions. So, yes. I believe that this type of policy change will make more affordable options available for families.
I can also share with the member that we’ve seen other benefits as well. There’s a woman named Kathleen Higgins in my riding who rezoned her property to have four units be built on it. Now she lives in one unit with her partner, and her kids live in the individual units.
So now the question would be: why is that success that we all celebrated only available to one family? So there will be options for others. I’ve heard from young folks at the UBCM — young councillors, in fact — who said: “Does this mean now that I’ll be able to go with a few of my friends, get a property and all of us build our own units within that, and maybe even live together?” And I said: “Yeah.” These are the types of opportunities we want to create.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for the answer. No debate from me that affordability is an issue and that we have the highest affordability crisis we’ve ever had in housing.
The specific answer was with respect to single-family lots. Because there is very little detail on how this program and the upzoning is going to be rolling out, will there be single-family lots available for families anywhere in British Columbia?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Single-family homes will continue to be built if people can afford them and want them. That’s going to be going forward. What we’re simply saying with where we’re going is that now there will be options for others. In many communities….
I grew up in a single-family home. I was lucky. My parents were able to buy it at a price that I can’t even say here, because I don’t want to be ridiculed. But it was a different time in the ’70s. Now, it’s just simply too far out of reach for too many young families. But for some, it is still an option. What we’re saying is that the market will decide what kind of units get built on those lots. Those that want it and can afford it will continue to have it. But those that feel the prices are too high and want other options will have those options.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for the answer. To the minister, then, maybe I can ask a bit around tax implications of this. We know that highest and best value, your B.C. assessment, is going to come in now. The minister can correct me if I’m wrong. My single-family home is now sitting on a lot that can be zoned for a fourplex. What impact is that going to have on my property taxes?
Hon. R. Kahlon: The member knows that the property tax policy is done at Finance. But I would say that the value of homes is assessed with the zoning that exists now, not what it might be down in the future. But specific property tax questions would be better for the Ministry of Finance.
K. Kirkpatrick: I understand the need to ask tax questions to the Minister of Finance. But, certainly, the implications of this new zoning impact costs, and taxes are a big part of this. Is the province anticipating an increase in tax revenues from this zoning change? I believe that’s something that the Minister of Housing would discuss with the Minister of Finance.
Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member for the question. Property assessments are based on sales in the area. It will be reflected in sales, maybe in future years. But it’s hard to project that now.
K. Kirkpatrick: Is the province considering any land value capture taxes to tax the result of the upzoning policy? As I’m sure the minister knows, Generation Squeeze was here. They’re calling on government to implement a land value capture tax in tandem with this policy. Is that something that’s been discussed with the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Finance?
Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s important to ground this in that the reason why we’re going in this direction is that too many young families are priced out of housing. It’s a generation, now, that will not have the same opportunities that generations before had. The reason for that is that we don’t want to lose young families to other provinces because they simply can’t afford to live here. That’s why we want to give more options.
It’s not necessarily to get more tax revenues. Certainly, I’m not saying that’s what the member is intending to say, but I’m just saying that for the record. All the tax-related pieces are the Ministry of Finance, so I’m not able to give the member any response to her answer.
K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate that. I do think that any time policy is being made and tax implications are an important piece of it, it needs to be done in concert with Ministry of Finance.
I want to just go back to the initial question I had on property values. Does the minister believe that it will not drive speculation, where developers have the opportunity to come in and to begin to buy up single-family homes, because they know they’re going to be able to rezone to triplex or fourplex?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, if we were zoning in small areas, that is something you would see, but because we’re going in such a large area, we don’t expect to see that type of thing.
What we’re hoping is those, in particular in the private sector — but not only, maybe some of the not-for-profit sector also — see an opportunity to be able to build more units, because we desperately need them. That’s what our hope is from the policies. I can’t share any more on that.
K. Kirkpatrick: I do think it’s naive to believe the real estate sector — whether they’re for-profit, not-for-profit, social development — would not see a financial incentive to begin to buy up single-family lots, which would ultimately push up the price of land across the board from this rezoning.
It concerns me that I heard the minister say that the minister did not believe that would actually be the result. May I just confirm, then, on the record, that the minister does not believe this new upzoning will drive speculation and push real estate prices up?
Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I have answered the question, which is that if the upzoning was in a small area, we could certainly see that, but the lessons learned from other jurisdictions — New Zealand, California, Oregon, Washington state, other areas where they’ve done this — is that we haven’t seen, because of the upzoning in large areas, the same significance.
Now, the member knows that most of our housing is built by private sector. Yes, the private sector is going to look to make a profit. This is how our free market works. We will see some in the private sector see an opportunity to build more units than a single-family home, because it’s going to be dictated by the market. That will be more affordable for people, unless people can afford it and they want a single-family home.
To the original point the member made, certainly, no one over here is naive. We understand that we’re in a housing crisis. We desperately need more units to come online, and we believe the private sector has an important role to play in that. That’s why the zoning is going to be in a large area of the province as opposed to confined to a small specific area, because we know that the land value lift will be much less when it’s in a larger area than when it is specifically in small areas of the province.
The Chair: Member, one last question.
K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you very much.
Location matters. Although I appreciate the minister’s answer, certainly, if we’re dealing in a smaller rural area, it’s not going to have that same impact. Whereas if we’re dealing with something in a more urban, compacted area, where there’s more of a pressure on densification, the likelihood of that not actually driving speculation in those communities…. I do think that is unlikely.
I know we’re running out of time. My next question might be long. Shall I just sit?
Hon. R. Kahlon: We have ten more hours of discussion, so we have plenty of time to go through all these things.
At this point, I move that the committee rise, report progress on estimates of the Ministry of Housing and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.
The House resumed; S. Chandra Herbert 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.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Deputy Speaker: The House is adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:56 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); H. Yao in the chair.
The committee met at 11:10 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order.
We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.
I now recognize the minister to move the vote.
On Vote 45: ministry operations, $1,020,919,000 (continued).
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
I now recognize the Leader of the Third Party.
S. Furstenau: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m glad to have an opportunity to ask just a few questions about one of my favourite topics, which is public transportation. I’ll just start with a little anecdote, as I’m inclined to do often.
My son is getting ready to go to UVic in the fall and has been spending a few days checking out the campus, checking out classes. The first day he did this, a couple of months ago, he came to Victoria on the commuter bus from Shawnigan, a $10 bus ride, and then was able to purchase a day-long bus pass for every bus in the CRD for $5. One bus ride, $10. Bus rides all over the CRD, $5.
He was so delighted with the ability to get anywhere he needed to within the CRD by bus. He came home aglow because this is so different from the experience that he has had growing up in Cowichan. In looking for work for his gap year, he was really limited to either Shawnigan Lake or Mill Bay. The bus schedule to Duncan really made it impossible for him to be able to get to and from work without a car. The commuter bus system really, also, couldn’t serve his needs.
It was great to hear yesterday about the improvements and the rapid buses and all of the really great investments into the transit system here in the capital regional district. Then you leave the capital regional district, and it is a bus desert. It’s not an oasis.
The argument that often happens — and I was transit chair, for a while, at the CVRD — is: “Well, we just don’t have the ridership.” But we know with public transit…. We know that until the system is reliable, accessible, easy to use, there when you need it, you won’t get the ridership. People can’t rely on a system that isn’t there for them and that doesn’t meet their needs. We’re in this relentless chicken-and-egg.
I guess my first question to the minister really is…. It’s eight in the morning. There is one person in the Cowichan Valley who needs to get to Victoria, and there’s one person in Victoria who needs to get to the Cowichan Valley. Neither owns a car. What do they do?
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member. I know we’ve talked before about the Cowichan Valley Commuter. It’s a relatively new service. It came into existence not too long after this government was elected and began increasing its schedule and service before the pandemic. It had a rough go during the pandemic, as bus service did generally.
I believe we have now restored about four-fifths of the pre-pandemic service, in terms of frequency, of the Cowichan-to-Victoria service. We’ve also introduced one from Cowichan to Nanaimo, a brand-new service that was introduced last year. We’re working on an intercommunity bus strategy that is not just about Vancouver Island but around the province. We were one of the provinces that introduced the recovery of service routes to about 85 percent or 90 percent of where they were prior to when Greyhound vacated British Columbia.
We regularly compare the strategies of other provinces, and British Columbia is much further ahead than most of the jurisdictions across Canada, who have now all completely lost Greyhound service. I won’t go too far down that road, because I know she didn’t specifically ask about Greyhound. But what I would say is that the Cowichan Commuter goes from one separate, distinct regional district to another.
B.C. Transit serves both communities as a Crown corporation. They are continually engaging riders to look at recovering demand for service. I will expect that additional service will be added on the basis of that demand management for the service and continuing to understand ridership patterns. That’s how any bus route and schedule is really determined in any transit system.
But I would also ask the member to maybe recognize that the Cowichan Valley Commuter is not a typical route. It’s over 65 kilometres in duration. It’s a much longer commute between distinct regional districts. In a way, it’s a little bit like the West Coast Express in Vancouver, which costs about $7 or $8 per trip, depending on your end destination. If you buy a monthly pass, if you’re a regular commuter from Cowichan to Victoria, the savings are significantly better. It would be about $5 a trip, which is not bad for about two hours of commuting — an hour each way — on the bus.
We’re going to continue to engage riders to see if there’s additional demand to restore service and then add service. We’re going to continue to evaluate where it is that commuters want to stop at, because it is an express service. We’re going to continue to add service like it throughout B.C. Transit’s system. We’ve added intercommunity B.C. Transit service in the southern Interior, in the Okanagan, in northern British Columbia and on Vancouver Island. I know many of these services are in the member’s constituency, so I’m sure she’s pleased that the Nanaimo-Cowichan express came into existence in 2022.
B.C. Transit is supported by the budget that is under discussion under estimates to continue to deliver on new initiatives and new innovations and continue to engage with ridership to see what the patterns are. Things are different after the pandemic. There’s no question about it.
Commutes to work are different. Work arrangements are different for a lot of people in the workforce. All that has to be taken into account as we prioritize the deployment of resources to get more people to use public transit and give them opportunities to make their commute on a public transit option.
S. Furstenau: The question I actually asked was not specifically about the Cowichan Valley Commuter bus, which I’m well aware…. It actually existed before this government. It existed before 2017. That’s one piece of a puzzle, but that’s not regular transit between regions.
Now, let’s compare Sooke. Similar distance between Sooke and Victoria — 38 buses a day. So when the minister indicates, “Well, that’s a different region,” I think that this is actually the issue that we have to solve. When it comes to public transit, we have to look at the fact that over 20,000 cars a day are coming over the Malahat.
There is a huge amount of connection between Cowichan and the capital regional district in terms of the number of people who come to work or to school over the Malahat every single day. So the thinking that is going to get us to different outcomes when it comes to transit on southern Vancouver Island, which is what I think we have to be thinking about, is….
Stop thinking like: “Here the CRD ends, and we no longer consider that as part of our thinking when it comes to public transit, because that’s the CVRD, and that is a different realm.” We know that’s not the case. Tens of thousands of people every day cross between the realms, keep economic activity going and are an important part of this.
Then there are a whole bunch of people who can’t. If you don’t have a car at eight in the morning and you’re in Cowichan, you can’t get to the CRD, and if you’re at eight in the morning and you’re in the CRD, you can’t get to Cowichan by bus.
I figured out a few ways. You can take the Mill Bay ferry. You have to get to Saanich and then take the ferry. But then the bus schedule doesn’t align with the ferry schedule. So you’re going to be spending a lot of time waiting at Mill Bay ferry terminal, where there’s nothing there, until maybe a bus comes, quite a bit later. That’s one option.
The other option is that you could take Harbour Air. You could go to Vancouver harbour and then to Maple Bay. Honestly, I’m not being facetious. There is no way between these two regions, and I think that that can be solved by thinking differently about these regions, not separating them when it comes to transit planning.
Bring the Cowichan Valley regional district and the Nanaimo regional district to the table for south Island transit planning. Recognize that these regions are deeply connected and that people are moving between them every single day. Start making public transportation planning oriented towards: how do we keep people moving on southern Vancouver Island in an effective, efficient, affordable way? I think that we could get to a lot of solutions that way.
Honestly, unless the minister has another answer for me — and I’ll ask him again; maybe his staff knows something that I don’t know: at eight in the morning, if you don’t have a car, you’re in one of these two regions, and you want to get to the other, how do you do it?
Hon. R. Fleming: As I said to the member, again, we are in a unique situation, recovering from the pandemic. B.C. Transit has done an excellent job, compared to any other transportation authority in North America, by all comparables.
Ridership is coming back, but we’re looking at it on a route-by-route basis. Those that seek to commute from Cowichan, for work or other purposes, to the capital region — generally, downtown Victoria — are part of an engagement. Ridership has still not recovered very significantly, but I know that B.C. Transit is looking at ways to promote and add back service there.
Her question is not just for me, though. I do want to say this: the Victoria Regional Transit Commission, on this end of the journey that she speaks of, between Cowichan and Victoria, is composed of mayors and elected councillors. Their job, under the legislation, is to decide on routes and services.
I would suggest the member should not just communicate with me but also communicate with people who are elected to represent the capital region, who decide on where they would like to deploy new and additional service. People are looking at where commuting patterns are. They’re looking at where the biggest environmental benefit can be had.
Obviously, one of the priority decisions on service expansion that was recently announced and made was between the West Shore and downtown. This will literally take hundreds of vehicles off the same highway that the member speaks of, will actually have an appreciable difference in reducing greenhouse gases and is a high-impact, efficient investment that elected members of local government made.
Don’t forget: those that pay fares are local constituents of mayors and councillors. Ratepayers, through their property tax, contribute a significant amount of funding. I applaud and support the integration between different regional districts, and we have lots of examples of where that happens, but there is a different set of taxpayers in the Cowichan than there is in the capital region.
They’ve obviously agreed that a service between the two regional districts is important. What they now have to agree upon is a strategy. I would suggest it’s best informed by data analytics and engaging with users — which is happening through B.C. Transit — to get that in a priority list that is considered alongside other investments that are needed.
The reason why Sooke has had enhanced service is because our government invested significantly on Highway 14, and there was significant demand from Sooke. The expanded service there is excellent. It has made sure that our highway investments are going to go a lot further, because we’re not going to clog it up with cars. We’re going to shift people to transit. We want to do the same thing on the Malahat, and we want to build upon the service that we have.
I guess, at the end of the day, I’m asking for a bit of patience from the member. We’ve gone through a pandemic. We’re rebuilding service everywhere in the province. To inform a decision to add back or enhance service pre-pandemic on the Cowichan Commuter, we’re going to continue to rely on management and elected officials that are our partners to collaborate on making that a priority.
S. Furstenau: This will be my final question. Thank you to the official opposition for the opportunity.
I didn’t get an answer on the 8 a.m., trying to get between…. I think, in response to the minister’s comments: yes, obviously, there are other tables involved here, but there is a need for leadership from the province.
The role of the province is really to have the bird’s-eye view on this and to recognize that the regions are going to be focused on themselves. The province has a role to play to make sure that, as the minister says, post-pandemic public transit world really recognizes how important it’s going to be to create accessible, reliable public transit.
The difference between the Sooke and the Cowichan is the price as well. It’s a couple dollars to catch the bus from Sooke to Victoria. It’s $10 one way from Cowichan. It’s $20. I know there’s a monthly pass. So as an experiment, put a bunch of buses on for a couple of months. Make them very low cost, and see how many people choose to ride them. That’s how you’re going to collect data about the willingness or interest in ridership.
Having the system as it exists right now, which is very limited and very expensive, is not a good indication of what the desire for public transit is between these two regions, because it’s inaccessible on a number of levels — the timing, the cost, the inability to go in either direction at any time other than once a day.
I just think that there’s a real opportunity for out-of-the box thinking that says: “How can we create the conditions so that most people who want to access public transit actually can do it?” Right now those conditions don’t exist between Cowichan and the CRD, and I think this is solvable.
The last I’ll end with very briefly — if the minister could just speak to the decision to wait, really to the last moment, on the E&N railway, to come out with the province making an announcement about funding going to First Nations around potential next steps. Just so people can understand, what informed the decision to wait right to the last minute? That will be my last question.
Hon. R. Fleming: On the preamble point there about Cowichan Commuter, and just to maybe offer some final comments to the member’s questions there, I take away the suggestions she’s made, because I think there is a balancing act between looking at demand and not losing sight of potential demand. So I think she makes a good case there, and there are lots of examples of where one needs to be certain about what the data is actually telling you and what might be missing.
But for sure, demand is down — there’s no question about it — on the Cowichan Commuter post-pandemic. Work patterns have simply changed. There is less demand right now. We want to make sure that there isn’t some kind of suppressed demand that could come back, but the member has to concede that there may not be such a thing.
I will commit to working with her and the B.C. Transit executive. There may be some information she doesn’t have that B.C. Transit has, and we’ll commit to sharing that as well. Certainly, we want to strengthen public transit everywhere, which we’re doing in most communities.
I think we’re in a good place overall in our transit system. We have some community service by B.C. Transit that is at 110, 115 percent of their pre-pandemic ridership levels, which is extraordinary. We have some that are still in the phase of building back, and we’ll continue to work on that.
In terms of Island rail, I want to stress that our government did not wait until the last minute. In fact, we grew a little bit tired of waiting for the federal government — which, by the way, is the respondent to the court action that was sought originally by the Nanoose Bay Indian Band.
We expected the federal government, especially given that this Island Rail Corridor was an article of Confederation that united Vancouver Island with British Columbia, would take an interest, given that it was divested, given that they used to operate a passenger rail service here until 2011 and pulled VIA Rail out of here, given that they’re making rail investments in other provinces.
We begged their attention and begged them to have an adequate response and to understand that this corridor, even if it’s not important or feasible today or next year or the year thereafter, will be important again to Vancouver Island — especially given that we only have one north-south corridor, which is the Island Highway, available to us to connect different parts of the of the Island; and especially because we just went through the atmospheric river, and we know that there are economic costs coming from that.
The federal government did not want to lead an engagement. They did not want to work with regional districts. They did not want to work with First Nations people directly. They preferred the province to lead that exercise. So we didn’t wait for them. We got involved.
There was an 18-month response period. We spent 16 months doing public engagement — the province. We tried to get the federal government to attend. Sometimes they did; most times they didn’t. We tried to get them to come up with an investment plan. We said: “We have some ambitions here, and we would like to do it as well.” We tried to get them to lend support and capacity-building to the Island Corridor Foundation. That didn’t happen, unfortunately.
What they did come around to, though, because we did a number of economic studies about what the future of this corridor can and should look like, is they conceded that in order to support passenger rail service being returned, it must have an economic base. It must have economic activity that moves freight around Vancouver Island.
We shared all the data with them that we have about travel levels and commercial traffic on the Island Highway, and we said: “At this point, with 99 percent of truck movement responsible for goods movement on Vancouver Island, this corridor has a role.” A population of 800,000 now, which will surely go north of one million by a decade to two decades from now, is only growing importance. In fact, Nanaimo and Langford are two of the fastest-growing cities in the province of B.C., which puts them in the top fast-growing communities in Canada. That’s the next steps.
I think, at the end of the day, the federal government aligns with our values as a province around taking reconciliation seriously. There were some objections that are understandable from First Nations communities, saying: “Look, this corridor was forcibly seized from reserve territories that were granted over a century ago and, essentially, confiscated and bisected.” Yes, trains did rumble by for three-quarters of a century and provided no employment, no economic benefit, no connection to goods and services. That was wrong, and that is wrong.
It further blocks economic development now because most of the Island corridor is adjacent to the highway. The disruption of the track from access egress to adjacent business opportunities on their territory is what was the genesis of that court decision.
We have decided, in the 4 percent of areas where there were confiscations from First Nations, we will return those, and we will continue the discussion and the planning for what goods movement will look like and passenger rail service will look like when we have some of the planning that is additionally needed.
We can’t just restore VIA Rail. It wasn’t that good. The track condition has significantly deteriorated, so the cost will be very large. The federal government has to be a partner, quite frankly, in restoring it. We’re watching very closely what they’re doing in Ontario and Quebec. There’s a bit of a rail renaissance going there, which is excellent, and those opportunities exist in B.C., and we want to make that case.
VIA Rail, when it suspended service, moved 40,000 passengers a year. TransLink moves 400,000 a day. B.C. Ferries moves 21 million passengers a year. So it was an insignificant portion of people movement when it was wound up.
We want to get back to something that’s going to be much more effective, and it could be that the sum of the parts of the Island Rail Corridor are greater than the whole that was useful at the end of the 19th century into the mid-20th century. Nanaimo, north-south orientation, rail, could have a significantly different official community plan that’s organized around transit. I can give other examples in the Cowichan as well.
What we wanted to do was make sure that the corridor was not lost and that the negotiations going forward are done on a reconciliation basis, acknowledging that First Nations have suffered harm and no economic benefit over the years, and that a decision to restore rail service — or not, depending on what segment we’re talking about — will be done on a respectful government-to-government-to-government basis. The federal government has to be there.
So I outline that. I thank the member for the opportunity to raise the question. I apologize for the long answer, but it was a very detailed 16 months of intense activity. Our ministry had to take the leadership role because the federal government just didn’t step up, and nothing would have happened if we didn’t have a good examination of a railway that we don’t even own and never have.
That’s where we are. I think there is a fantastic future for this corridor, and I’m very optimistic that it will provide benefits to everybody, not just a few that live on Vancouver Island in the future.
J. Sturdy: I’ll certainly take this opportunity to continue to talk about regions that are fast-growing. I’d like to talk about the Sea to Sky a little bit, where I think we understand there is…. I think the minister mentioned Nanaimo, some of the areas that are growing quickly. Certainly, the Sea to Sky — Squamish growing at 22 percent over the last census, Whistler growing at 18 percent and Pemberton growing at 34 percent, which is, I think, in fact, the fastest-growing community, virtually, in this country.
I also was interested to hear the minister speak to the idea of enhancing the opportunity to connect communities through B.C. Transit. I’m sure the minister is very familiar with the initiatives that were generated out of the 25-year Sea to Sky transit future plan back in 2017 to connect the Líl̓wat Nation with the community of Pemberton, with the community of Whistler, with the community of Squamish, Pinecrest and Black Tusk in between and then down through Britannia Beach, Porteau Cove, Lions Bay and into the TransLink system.
This has been an initiative that these local governments have come together on over the course of the last probably four or five years. They have signed a memorandum of understanding between the local governments, the regional district, the municipalities and the First Nations, with a proposed model for governance in terms of a commission model, and the minister is probably familiar that I have forwarded a private member’s bill to support that model, and a funding model that would be similar to the funding model for the CRD and TransLink.
Now, historically the minister’s predecessor rejected that model and kept telling the members of the MOU, the signatories of the MOU, to be more creative in terms of their fiscal creativity around how to fund a service like this. I think there’s been really no change from the signatories of that MOU. They still support the idea of a transit fuel levy, albeit at a much more modest level than what is currently in place in Metro Vancouver or the capital regional district.
My question to the minister at this point is: what movement has been made? What commitment can the government make towards the creation of a regional transit service which, frankly, doesn’t exist?
I had heard…. There are bits and pieces. I listened to the member from Cowichan speak to it, around the need, around growth and around the fact that you can’t get from one place to the other unless you want to fly Harbour Air, I think she said, or drive.
Now, we don’t have the Harbour Air option. We don’t have a ferry option either. Really, there’s no option but your thumb or a private vehicle to either connect to Metro Vancouver or to connect up to Whistler. We have a small service, a limited service, from Pemberton to Whistler. It’s supported by the Líl̓wat Nation, supported by the regional district, supported by the village of Pemberton. It was better served before Greyhound pulled out of town.
There’s a real demand and a real consistent request of the ministry to support a regional transit service. Perhaps the minister could provide me with an update on what that initiative looks like today and whether we can expect to see some support for it from the province in the near future.
Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. I know that he has a long-standing interest in this and that this is important to his constituents.
We’ve been working, during the pandemic, on different options around intercommunity service on the Sea to Sky corridor. We thought we had a proposal that elected officials up and down the corridor would participate in and match provincial dollars to fund. They have some objections. So we’re still in the process of arriving at a plan that will meet the needs and the agreement of everybody.
It’s not a “back to the drawing board” situation. We have some baselines about what the service should look like. We have a number of private operators who are operating from Vancouver all the way to Whistler now too. So there’s a healthy amount of competition and service that wasn’t there previously. That’s good — to see transportation options increasing on the corridor.
B.C. Transit, obviously, has service areas and intercommunity connections between Pemberton and Whistler and between Squamish and Whistler as well.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Fleming: They have discussions about offering a transit service there. They’re also making investments in infrastructure for supporting an expanded transit service there that would be owned by the province that we can plan for the future around. I don’t want to get into too many details about that, because it does involve discussions around land acquisitions and things like that that are best left off the record.
What I will say is that I’ve also participated in some discussions with the Member of Parliament for the Sea to Sky region, who has expressed some confidence that the federal government would like to participate on a 2.0 proposal of the pilot that we discussed in 2022. We did a travel demand study to support that.
I know that the mayors are very interested in this. People who are living on the corridor, the business community at the resort municipality of Whistler for getting their employees to and from the workplace, were certainly interested in moving quickly on where discussions left off. I’ve told some of the mayors, though, quite frankly, service can be implemented a lot quicker than legislation can be changed. It’s fine to talk about governance and those sorts of goals that they have for the corridor, but I’m more interested, as the minister, to talk about service at this point in time that will inform those kinds of decisions.
The reason why a pilot is so critical is it will inform how we make a new service connecting all the communities in the Sea to Sky corridor financially sustainable for the long term and how we build it up and have it under part of the B.C. Transit service for residents in that region.
I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
AND INNOVATION
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:11 a.m.
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order.
We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation.
I now recognize the minister to move the vote.
On Vote 37: ministry operations, $112,841,000 (continued).
B. Stewart: I just want to welcome the minister in her new portfolio. I know that she’s very…. I’m sure she’s doing an excellent job. I know some of her staff, and I look forward to going through some of the parts of trade in terms of the ministry’s responsibility.
Minister, in 2019, your predecessor closed the trade offices in key Asian markets. I just wanted to ask if the minister could discuss her position on the matter and whether this has adversely affected trade in key markets for B.C. products.
Hon. B. Bailey: Hello to the member opposite.
I know this is an area that you have a lot of experience on, and I look forward to the dialogue. Thank you for the question.
We have changed the model in which we locate our offices. The trade representatives are now co-located with the government of Canada offices, and we’ve actually found some benefits from that relationship. The feds are sometimes able to open doors that we might not have been able to open. There’s a lot of cooperation that happens with these trade representatives, but it still allows us to have a B.C. focus, so we’ve found that to be a positive relationship.
I will share with the member that between 2020 and 2022, B.C.’s exports grew from $39.604 billion to $64.463 billion, with growth being seen in all major trading markets, with the exception of China and Taiwan.
B. Stewart: Just in response to the response. I guess I wonder…. Some of the numbers we’re seeing in the report — that is, I believe, the Annual B.C. Origin Reports — shows that there’s a decline of 24 percent in trade with Hong Kong. Further, there’s a 52 percent decline — this is based on the 2018 period, prior to the office closures on December 31, 2019 — in India.
Can you just explain why those are showing up? It doesn’t agree or line up with what you just responded with.
The Chair: Members, if you can turn off your devices, please.
Hon. B. Bailey: I’m not sure which report the member is referring to, but I’ll share the numbers that we have, which are derived directly from B.C. Statistics.
This is mainland China and Hong Kong from the period of 2012 to 2022. Exports to China and Hong Kong increased by 46 percent. The greatest export increases were in metallic mineral products, which was plus 196 percent; energy, plus 125 percent; machinery and equipment, plus 81 percent; fish and seafood products, plus 87 percent. In 2022, China and Hong Kong accounted for 13.5 percent of B.C.’s total exports.
If the member would like to provide to us the material he’s referring to, we could certainly review it and compare.
B. Stewart: The information I’m getting it from is from B.C. Stats, and you just surmised that the report…. Just to clarify, you said 2012 to 2022, a ten-year period and up 46 percent.
I guess, specifically, because of geopolitical issues, I’m sure there are variations in China just due to the nature of what happened in the last few years. However, Hong Kong was separate. India, obviously, is a separate country.
I was more interested in the change from when the offices last fully operated as B.C. TIRs and when they changed to the co-located model within the embassies. Maybe to rephrase this. In the markets where there were the 13 offices throughout Asia, if the minister could comment: have they at least increased or held their own in all markets, with that one exception I mentioned with China?
Hon. B. Bailey: I’ll just describe the situation to the member. It’s quite difficult to pull one factor out during this time frame, because, of course, the impact of COVID-19 during this period was very significant, particularly in regards to trade. As the member knows, it’s just very difficult to isolate one single factor that could explain a decrease in trade. Commodity prices were affected. The COVID shutdowns were major inputs as well as just, frankly, less economic activity.
In regards to the member’s questions about the number of people working on the ground and the trade investment officers that we have in the field, I’ll share that with the member.
In Japan, we have five full-time trade and investment representatives in place. In South Korea, there are four full-time trade and investment representatives in place, and we also are hiring one additional, to make it five. In China, there are nine full-time trade and investment representatives in place, located in Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing and Guangzhou. Hong Kong is covered out of the office in Guangzhou, and the province intends to hire one additional position in Taipei.
In Southeast Asia, there are six full-time trade and investment representatives in place, located in Singapore — that’s two positions; Jakarta, one position; Manila, two positions; Ho Chi Minh, one position. One position is vacant and currently under recruitment.
The member also asked about India. In India, there are four full-time positions. In Delhi, there are two. In Chandigarh and Bangaluru…. There is one vacant position currently in Mumbai. That would bring us to five positions. That recruitment is currently under place.
B. Stewart: I guess the question about the transition from a standalone operation to a co-located…. What’s the cost expected to be in this fiscal year? And what was it…? If we could just get the number for the ’22-23 and ’23-24 fiscal years as to what the cost of operating those two years would be.
Hon. B. Bailey: I’m going to explain this by referring to the bucket of spending that we’ve been allocated by Treasury Board, and that amount has remained flat across ’21-22 and to ’22-23. But while that amount is $9.2 million, you will see that we have not spent to that amount for obvious reasons — ’20-21, ’21-22. So I’ll share those numbers with you.
In ’20-2021, we spent $5,362,532. In ’21-22, that number was — we’ll just round it out for convenience sake — $7.9 million. And we have to Q3, 2022-2023. That number is $8.5 million. Of course, we do expect to be on track to spend that full bucket of $9.2 million.
B. Stewart: Just going back to the previous answer that the minister provided, I want to clarify, and I may have…. I want to just understand that the number, totally, on the ground today, not including the positions that are vacant, is 29.
Hon. B. Bailey: Yes. The numbers I shared with the member in my previous answer were for Japan, South Korea, China, Southeast Asia and India. I also came to 29, not including the vacant positions. I didn’t include Europe and the United States, so I’ll add those now, if I may, Member.
We have a contract with Articulate International for the European market, including the U.K., and there are seven trade and investment representatives in the EU, based in the U.K., Germany and the Netherlands. The United States — in that situation, we have a contract with Fox Group International for the U.S. There are eight full-time trade and investment representatives in place, and those are located in Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Boston.
B. Stewart: I just want to go back to some previous responses that were given by former ministers. I think one of the things that we were trying to understand is the closure cost of the TIRs across Asia.
It’s our understanding, but we don’t have the details, that there was some litigation that was supposed to have been…. Well, it was in progress a couple of years ago. I’m just wondering if that litigation has been concluded and if that information is available as to what the outcome was of the litigation differences.
Hon. B. Bailey: I will advise the member that these are personnel matters that we’re not able to divulge publicly. But I will confirm, in fact, that those proceedings are concluded.
B. Stewart: Thanks very much for that clarity.
I’m sure that the minister is aware that there are different legal requirements in different jurisdictions, of course, in the markets where these 13 offices — where there were differences, especially with COVID and the obligation on some of these people. I’m sure that’s perhaps understood by her staff more so than her.
Anyways, I noticed that there are some missions that the minister herself has taken to Texas recently. I’m just wondering if she could outline the priority visits in the next year for trade in terms of her ministry and what the objectives are.
Hon. B. Bailey: My focus is on increasing export opportunities for B.C. companies and in attracting investment into British Columbia. The federal government has announced its Pacific strategy, and we will be announcing our trade diversification strategy in the coming weeks. Essentially, I will share that the key focus of that strategy is our tech sector; life sciences; energy, including hydrogen; forestry; mining; agriculture; and really focusing on further diversifying our trade opportunities and investment.
The member also asked about my recent trade mission to Austin. That mission was a four-day mission that included both Austin, Texas, and San Francisco. We attended South by Southwest in Austin, Texas, specifically the tech aspect of South by Southwest, and a couple of hydrogen meetings at South by Southwest. Also, in San Francisco, we attended the World Agri-Tech Summit.
The focus, really, of both of those opportunities was to highlight the incredible work that’s happening in British Columbia in our tech sector, in our agritech sector. Again, the two focuses — looking for opportunities for export and partnerships and also, very importantly, looking at attracting investments.
We met with a number of very high-level venture capitalists that are interested in our tech market here in British Columbia. As well, we took a couple of meetings with large multinational corporations that have not yet settled on where their Canadian head office will be located. We’re working with two of those companies for the answer to that question to be British Columbia.
The Chair: Minister, if I can ask you to move the motion.
Hon. B. Bailey: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.