The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs.

In Section C, tiny House, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 7.

In the Douglas Fir Room…. I will not make the same mistake. It is bill…. No, it's not. It’s WLRS — estimates of WLRS, of water, land….

Interjections.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Yes, I know. I know. Bill 5 has been driving me nuts all day.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

[1:05 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Housing and Municipal Affairs
(continued)

The Chair: Thank you, Members. We are going to call this House back to order.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,513,975,000 (continued).

The Chair: We are, of course, considering the estimates of the Housing and Municipal Affairs Ministry.

Rob Botterell: One of the areas that comes into play in our efforts to address the housing crisis in this province, particularly as it relates to renters, is the policy option of rent control and, in particular, vacancy control.

My question to the minister is: does the minister’s housing plan include any form of rent control and, in particular, vacancy control, that could moderate rent increases overall and limit evictions-for-profit to protect renters?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Again, thank you, Member, for the question.

Just previous to lunch, we were discussing the many measures we’ve taken to ensure protection for renters. I mentioned that in order to do those changes, we had created a task force which included the member’s predecessor, the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture and the former MLA for Courtenay-Comox, where they travelled the province to identify what the greatest needs were, what could work, but used data to help advise us on what measures we should be doing as we go forward. On the question of vacancy control, that report, that task force recommended against it. They recommended against moving in that direction.

We know that New York, for example, has vacancy control, but they are facing some serious challenges right now around…. Because of vacancy control, those buildings are not seeing the investments to be fixed up, and it’s causing additional challenges in the community. Because of that recommendation, government made a clear commitment that we were not going to proceed in that direction.

But we do have protections in place. Right now rents are limited to be increased to CPI. We release that number every year so that there’s some protection for renters. Landlords have the ability to increase rents above that if they need to do renovations of their properties. But they apply, and they get permission given to them. So we have systems in place to ensure some protections, unlike a few provinces that exist.

Of course, as I mentioned to the member before the break, one of the most important things we can do to help renters, to give renters power in the marketplace, is by increasing supply. That’s the work that we’ve been doing as a government.

Rob Botterell: Thank you for the answer, Minister.

I’ll illustrate the basis for the next question with an example, but there are examples, I expect, throughout the province that the minister hears about on a regular basis and we all hear about on a regular basis.

[1:10 p.m.]

On Salt Spring Island, in my riding, there is a massive housing crisis. The result is, because of the lack of affordable housing, that we have over 100 boats in the harbour where individuals are living aboard the boats because that’s the only accommodation they can find. This amount of boats, sailboats, all sorts of boats in the harbour

100 boats in the harbour where individuals are living aboard the boats because that’s the only accommodation they can find.

This amount of boats — sailboats, all sorts of boats — in the harbour is causing significant environmental impact. Actually, recently a couple of the boats have sunk in the harbour. The people living aboard those boats are not living there out of choice. They’re living there because there is not access to affordable housing on Salt Spring Island.

To complicate matters further on Salt Spring, there are a large number of individuals and families who are living in trailers and other types of accommodation that is far from being healthy and safe but is effectively the only accommodation that they can afford that is available.

So that just has created a huge housing crisis, and it impacts people on Salt Spring who work on Salt Spring, work in shops on Salt Spring. It’s not about accommodating an influx; it’s about the people who are on Salt Spring right now. The question that keeps coming up when I meet with Salt Spring residents and constituents is: there’s not an infinite budget to tackle the housing crisis, and there is a process through B.C. Housing which is entirely appropriate, that is at arm’s length. The question that keeps coming out from constituents is: how are funds allocated as between rural communities and urban communities and within rural communities to tackle this issue?

There’s a concern on Salt Spring that they have a housing crisis. What are the criteria in terms of the funds that could be available for eligible projects? For the constituents that are listening in to this or are attending community meetings, it would be helpful to have an explanation of how that allocation decision is made, not for an individual project but for rural versus urban and within rural.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Thank you to the member for raising some of the complexities that the member is seeing in his community and the things that he is hearing. I am certainly aware of the challenges that are faced on Salt Spring. I had many opportunities to engage with member, of course, on this topic, and his predecessor as well, and add to that the complexity of how difficult it is to actually build housing on Salt Spring Island. It adds to the challenge.

I can share a couple of things with the member. I can share with the member that Salt Spring, the elected officials there, are apprised of the situation. They’re seeing the benefit of the short-term rentals registry and the actions we’ve taken on short-term rentals across the province. They have actually written to us requesting that we include them in the principal residence requirement.

They see an opportunity for them to have more housing. They see the challenge, which is a lot of people are buying up properties in their communities. The people locally can’t find housing, and they can’t find a workforce to operate the businesses. It’s having a huge impact, as the members rightfully raised. So Salt Spring has asked for that. That’s something that I’m considering at this time. And I think that will help. That will help immediately for that community.

The second thing I could share with the member is that we have made investments to the question around how do we decide between rural communities and non-rural communities. I think it’s important to note that we don’t fund just affordable housing in cities. We do fund housing in rural communities.

[1:15 p.m.]

I can share with the member that we have opened 80 units of housing over the last few years on Salt Spring. We have opened 22 units on Crofton Brook, phase 2. We have opened another 34 units at Crofton Brook, phase 3. The member will probably be aware

housing over the last few years on Salt Spring. We have opened 22 units on Croftonbrook phase 2. We have opened another 34 units at Croftonbrook phase 3.

The member will probably be aware of the Salt Spring Commons — that’s 176 Bishops Walk Road; 24 units there of affordable housing — and we have right now under construction some units on Drake Road, as the member’s probably aware as well. Also, we have supportive housing at that site. So there are about 32 units that are under development right now on that site.

Of course, we want to look for more opportunities. I shared with members yesterday that part of the learning that B.C. Housing has put in, some of the feedback they’ve put in, is that now the community housing fund applications will be, so to speak, rolling, so that if someone applies and they are not successful, they have an opportunity still within that approximate year to apply again by updating their application.

So we are trying to be as flexible as we can, because at the end of the day we want to see housing, and we want to see all communities see the benefit of that. Those flexibilities are built into this. I appreciate the member’s comments around the fairness piece. All the decisions go through a fairness commissioner so that it’s clear that these decisions are being made with a data-informed lens.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister. It would be helpful to understand in a bit more detail for Salt Spring constituents…. And certainly appreciate the projects that have just been referenced in relation to Salt Spring. Right now, the Islands Trust on Salt Spring has in effect put a moratorium on enforcement of bylaws in relation to various units that would be out of compliance, because to enforce the bylaws would effectively put constituents into a homeless situation.

So the contribution that’s been made is certainly much appreciated. The question I’m curious about is that if there are, say, roughly 1,500 Salt Spring Islanders who are living on boats or in trailers that are not safe, and so on, that’s a large number of residents that we need to address. The short-term rental registry decision or request certainly helps in part.

The question that I’d appreciate some further guidance on is if there were $200 million, as a hypothetical, available for affordable housing in rural communities around the province, leaving aside specific applications, how is that allocated? What are the criteria governing the allocation of those funds in particular envelopes for particular parts of rural B.C.?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I think it’s a fair question. It’s one of the discussions that we’ve had. In fact, we made this change with the last CHF call. We heard from many not-for-profits that there was a concern that they didn’t want to be competing against Vancouver, because Vancouver had the greater capacity to have better applications, have more dollars to put in, etc.

So last CHF call we made the change to have a certain amount of allocated units per region and then the applications are only competing against their region. They’re not competing against the entire province. We saw some good success with that.

Our intention is, with the next CHF call, to do a similar thing. I can’t give the member the exact breakdown numbers for the next CHF call — we’re still in development — but we will use the same formula to ensure that there’s a region and there’s an allocation of units, and then the competition is within that region. So the region benefits by knowing they’re going to be having those many units going forward.

[1:20 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

In a couple of examples that I was provided by constituents in the riding last year

those many units going forward.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

In a couple of examples that I was provided by constituents in the riding last year was that the call for proposals…. They learned later on, after making the proposal or the application, that they would have had a better chance of succeeding if they had teamed up with a First Nation or an Indigenous partner as opposed to proceeding without the benefit of an Indigenous partner. It was a bit of “hindsight is 20-20,” as far as they were concerned.

I’m just wondering if there are ways to ensure that potential applicants are aware of those criteria before they apply so that they can put the best possible application forward.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We do provide feedback to anyone that’s not successful, although I can’t comment on a specific application. We don’t have enough of the information.

There are usually various reasons why some projects don’t score as high. If you’ve got significant housing pressures, we know that often there’s a disproportionate impact felt by Indigenous communities, by, say, racialized communities. That is one of the reasons why the feedback may have been that way. Again, I’m presuming because I wasn’t present in those discussions.

One of the main things that we do look at, though, is: is a project shovel-ready? Do they have council on board? Do they have the approvals? Are they ready to go? That’s a challenge that some proponents have when they come forward, that they don’t have that. They don’t have the zoning done. They’re not prepared in that sense. They’re prepared because they want to see it happen, but they don’t have all the ducks in a row.

We always advise anyone that is considering to apply to meet with their local council. My experience has been that…. I would say a majority of councils that I’ve been able to work with, when they know it’s an affordable housing project, will do what they can to prepare to get that there. That is a instrumental piece.

Again, I’m not saying that’s the specific case, but generally that’s some of the feedback we provide. And if anyone doesn’t succeed, we do provide them information about what they could do to strengthen their application and be prepared for future calls.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

I will switch my line of questioning momentarily, but I do have one other question, which is…. Through this process of applying and having a project that’s shovel-ready, there can be instances where the local government — whether it’s a municipality, whether it’s the Islands Trust — has provided all the land use planning approvals necessary. These non-profits have put the effort in, often with the support of the province, to prepare the application.

It’s not unlike a real estate transaction with subject-to clauses. The way I mean that is that it may be 99 percent shovel-ready, but there is a need to…. And the getting it to 100 percent is, partially, having the tentative approval from B.C. Housing, which then enables the non-profit to deal with another issue.

[1:25 p.m.]

I’ll give you an example. There’s a project in my constituency which is shovel-ready that could make an application tomorrow, and there is a road access issue where the applicant, the non-profit, will be able to get the funding to build that road access

that could make an application tomorrow. And there is a road access issue where the applicant, the non-profit, will be able to get the funding to build that road access. But it’s contingent on knowing that B.C. Housing approval is in place.

So it’s a bit chicken-and-egg, and I’m just curious how B.C. Housing and the minister deal with those sorts of situations, where it’s very real that it will get funded — that additional bit of infrastructure — but everybody needs to know that the project has been approved, and then the funding will come from that, not from the province but from private donors.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: One of the reasons why we have, now, a rolling call is to address those types of challenges, where you’re almost there, but you’re not quite there. And now it’s…. Because there’s going to be some steady rollout to it, it gives those types of situations the opportunity.

But there also are challenges where local governments say: “Well, we approve of the housing, but we don’t yet approve the people.” That’s something we have to push back against as best we can, where everyone is supportive of the housing until they find out what incomes people are coming in with. And then they stigmatize people, stigmatize the project. So those are some of the challenges that we try to deal with.

For us, of course, we want to see an understanding from the local government that, yes, they want that housing. They understand that there are going to be some more vulnerable people, low-income seniors, etc. But the rolling call will help, and we’ll have to navigate any challenges that come, but I think that’ll be an important step to help along the way.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

House Leader of the Third Party.

Rob Botterell: One of the things I like about estimates is hearing my name as House Leader mentioned repeatedly through the afternoon. It almost makes me wish I could ask 100 questions rather than maybe only 25 or 30. It’s very good for my heart. Thank you.

The Chair: Recognizing the House Leader of the Third Party.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Chair.

One of the items that I’m sure has been canvassed prior to this section of the estimates but I think would be helpful to maybe summarize or go through in some detail is the issue of municipal infrastructure.

Now we have a government in place federally, with Prime Minister Carney, that certainly has indicated a high degree of ambition to address housing and infrastructure needs across Canada.

In the case of municipal infrastructure and local government infrastructure, there are going to be a couple of different situations. There will be the situation which we’ve canvassed in previous parts of these estimates, where the infrastructure is already in place. There’s overcrowding in housing. So the infrastructure, whether it’s sewer, water or whatever it is, is already servicing the community, but it’s more about creating a healthy, safe housing environment than it is about lack of actual infrastructure.

It’s also about, for affordable housing, ensuring we’re accommodating residents that are already in the community. This isn’t about creating the infrastructure to support an influx of new $1 million, $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, $5 million houses in a part of a community where more individuals are coming. This is about folks that are already there. They want to work in the community, and they’re looking for affordable housing.

[1:30 p.m.]

From the municipality’s perspective, or the local government’s perspective, there’s an infrastructure gap. So the UBCM estimates that municipalities need $24 billion during the next decade just to replace core infrastructure, and how they will

perspective or the local government’s perspective, there’s an infrastructure gap.

The UBCM estimates that municipalities need $24 billion during the next decade just to replace core infrastructure and how they will accommodate infrastructure upgrades that are reasonably needed to support the housing growth that is resulting from this government’s — I would say, innovative — policies.

What is the government’s plan to address the infrastructure deficit in municipalities? Secondly, what is the government’s plan of action in terms of engagement with the federal government to ensure that the federal government steps up to the table to help close that gap as well?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I’ll start by saying I thank the House Leader of the Third Party. I think I’ll just make a comment on that, which is to say, we forget how big of an honour it is to be in this place. When you hear the MLA from Abbotsford, the MLA from White Rock, when you hear these things, it’s our reminder that we have an honour to serve the people of this province.

So for you to take a moment to reflect on that, I think, is something we all appreciate on this side and something all of us should appreciate because we’re here temporarily. I appreciate your comment on that.

Part of the changes we made last year around small-scale, multi-unit, around transit-oriented development was on the principle that the best use of our existing infrastructure is housing where the infrastructure already exists. Our legislation was built around the notion of not wanting to encourage sprawl beyond where communities had already decided their growth — urban containment areas.

So you know, we have seen research; Metro Vancouver had research that showed that this type of housing was the best use of the existing infrastructure to get more housing.

We have, as the member has asked, had a really good relationship with the federal government when it comes to infrastructure. We always want more. It always feels like it’s not enough. But whether it’s our government or it’s the government before us, there’s been a lot of work to align our programs with the federal government, because local governments find it frustrating to have to apply one place and then try to piecemeal it from another level of government.

We had two funds in particular. One, it was provincial. We provided $1 billion, part of the growing communities fund to local governments. We didn’t prescribe what they could use the money for. Local governments made a decision of where they wanted to allocate those dollars.

For example, in the member’s community, Sidney was provided $3.82 million, and I believe they did some work with the waterfront washrooms, the Philip Brethour Park playground, Beacon west roundabout. They put those dollars to use to help improve the infrastructure. That work is happening.

One of the important pieces that…. Infrastructure is definitely on the top of our list in our discussions with the federal government. It was on the top of the list before; it’s on the top of the list now. I shared with members yesterday that our top asks to the federal government are infrastructure dollars; money around Indigenous housing is one of those top priorities as well. We’ll see what they come through with. Our goal will be to try to align as best we can with them.

The federal government had a community housing infrastructure fund. The federal government launched this in, I think it was, May or June last year. We spent a lot of time negotiating with the federal government around how we could contribute to that pot of money and leverage that for local governments. We were not successful. We were not successful in the entirety of the fund.

[1:35 p.m.]

The federal government was able to get Metro Vancouver $250 million, on the condition that Metro Vancouver agreed to put two-year in-stream protection in place, so that more projects could proceed, and make some changes to how DCCs are collected. So that was an example of how you can make sure local governments have infrastructure dollars but, at the same time, ensure that projects can still pencil and proceed.

We tried to negotiate for the rest of those dollars, but we were unsuccessful, mainly because we couldn’t agree with the criteria that was set. They were hoping for a three-year freeze of DCCs across the province, and local governments have greater infrastructure

and proceed. We tried to negotiate for the rest of those dollars, but we were unsuccessful, mainly because we couldn’t agree with the criteria that was set.

They were hoping for a three-year freeze of DCCs across the province, and local governments have greater infrastructure needs than the dollars the federal government was willing to put to the table. So we advised them that it’s best that they work with local governments directly.

That being said, that was before the election. It was a different government, different Prime Minister. I’m looking forward to when a new Minister of Housing or a new Minister of Infrastructure is announced to be able to have a meeting at their earliest convenience to discuss how we can continue to build our infrastructure to support housing in our communities.

Rob Botterell: In the work that UBCM has done, they have identified the gap as being $24 billion over the next ten years.

To the minister: is that in accord with your understanding of the funding gap we need to close? As a second part of that question, are there options to develop a more consistent and reliable funding formula rather than a grant-based system of infrastructure funding?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It’s hard to get to an exact number. Many variables are linked to why it’s a challenge. One is that local governments’ needs change often. They could identify certain amenities they need, some sewer and water infrastructure upgrades they need. There are some communities that have needs and some that have wants, because they have desires to grow their community in a certain way.

It’s ever changing, so it’s hard to come to an exact number of what it is. But there are significant needs in community. Part of our discussion with the federal government will be: well, how do we have something consistent that can support communities as they grow?

Of course, local governments also depend on DCCs and ACCs. Maybe it’s a good time to touch on that, which is just to say that there have been challenges from local government on how they collect fees. Those in the home-building community argue — and I think, in some cases, justifiably — that the fees are just too high to have anything be built in the community.

Part of our changes was to make a shift from how housing decisions are made. This is prior to this new session. We brought in legislation to change that. Because we have moved to more pre-planning now, communities are required, every five years, to update their official community plans. Engage with the community: where do you want the housing, where do you want the parks, and where do you want the amenities?

Any project that comes forward that fits within what the community had agreed upon doesn’t have public hearings anymore. So that means that the ability to negotiate and extract dollars is not the same. The ACC tool allows local governments to still collect dollars for amenities, but they’re required now to identify what the amenities are and put it into their bylaws so everyone knows the money’s going to this.

They are allowed to charge for net new. So you can’t say, “There are ten units; we’re going to build ten units,” and, all of a sudden, you have to pay for the new playground for new people when the amount of people is the same. So it’s net new, and the fees are more transparent.

I think that’s good for the home-building community. I think it’s good for elected officials, too, because the number one thing I hear from people, and I think mostly unjustifiable, mostly not correct — maybe in some cases it is correct — is that one developer is getting a better deal than another one because all of this is being negotiated behind closed doors, not in public.

There’s always this doubt in people’s minds, “Why are they doing that for that developer, and they are not doing it for this?” or “What kind of arrangement do they support financially?” I think that undermines our democracy. Have an ability for a local government to say, “These are the amenities we want in our communities. Here are the dollars we need. Here’s what we’re going to need to collect per unit for net new units,” and be transparent about it, I think it’s better for everybody.

[1:40 p.m.]

That’s the direction we’re heading. I think that that certainty will help everyone involved. It helps the local government, and it helps the people in our community to understand that these are the amenities that we’re prioritizing. So it is a holistic change of how things have been done.

direction we’re heading. I think that that certainty will help everyone involved. It helps the local government. It helps the people in our community to understand that these are the amenities that we’re prioritizing.

It is a holistic change from how things have been done. If you include additional dollars — we provided $1 billion last year, directly to local governments as well as First Nations, for infrastructure — that’s a significant investment, some of the largest investments ever made for infrastructure.

Then I ought to add on top of that the investments we’re making in transit, the investments we’re making into 911 calling, the investments we’re directing to water and sewer facilities. We continue to make historic investments, and we’re going to continue to do more, but it’s going to involve a partnership with the federal government.

Rob Botterell: One of the approaches that has been taken in other jurisdictions around Canada — and, certainly, south of the border as well — goes by various names, so I’ll just describe it: when you put in major infrastructure, for example, a SkyTrain line or a new road through an area, it can often raise the land values in the adjacent properties. What in effect happens is that the landowners adjacent to the corridor receive a windfall in terms of the value of the property.

One of the measures that other jurisdictions have taken — maybe it’s happening in B.C. and I’m unaware of it — is that there are tax policies and approaches taken to recover some of that windfall. Effectively, what has happened is that the public have subsidized, through their taxes, the upgrade in infrastructure, but the benefit goes to adjacent properties. Really, it would be appropriate, from a public policy point of view, that some of that windfall, if you will, be returned to defray the cost of the upgrade of the infrastructure.

My question to the minister is: has that type of approach to funding, or recovering the cost of, important public infrastructure been considered, or would it be considered?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member’s description could be of two things.

One, it could be land value capture, with a lift of the value of the land; the Ministry of Finance would do that work. I know that we’ve done work to enable local governments to be able to capture some of that value. It’s a better question for the Ministry of Finance, on where that work is proceeding.

The other way that could be looked at is around inclusionary zoning and capturing some sort of value from a project. Maybe it’s affordable housing; maybe it’s cash in lieu. We have provided, in the legislated change that we did, the ability for local governments, especially in transit-oriented development areas, to do that, but the requirement for them is to do a feasibility study to ensure that any inclusionary policy they’re putting in place does not deter development.

We do that because a change in Vancouver will be different than a change in Burnaby, in Surrey or in a different community. Having one standard policy just wouldn’t work, given the different dynamics within communities, but the ability is there for local governments to do that.

It’s vitally important that I emphasize that it requires a feasibility study, to ensure that it doesn’t deter development. It’s easy to say: “That project right there is going to be six stories; we want 50 percent affordable housing.” I just used a number; let’s say 20 percent. If the project still can’t pencil at that price point, you’ve essentially just killed the project.

We want local governments to have the ability to have inclusionary zoning policies, but we don’t want it to be a poison pill, where it’s used to deter development in communities. Finding that balance is something that we tried to strike in this.

[1:45 p.m.]

So there are two pieces. We do inclusionary policy to enable local governments’ land value lift. I know there are discussions happening in TransLink as well and in other authorities looking at that, but that would be something that we wouldn’t directly look at. It would be the Ministry of Finance.

there are two pieces. We do an inclusionary policy and enable local governments land value lift. I know there are discussions happening in TransLink as well and other authorities looking at that. That would be something that we wouldn’t directly look at. It would be the Ministry of Finance.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

I’m going to shift gears now to local housing models funding. There are a variety of local housing models to ensure that the distinct needs of a community can be attended to, rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach. I know we’ve, on a number of occasions, had helpful discussions around the village model that is implemented in Duncan and other similar models around the province.

I’m particularly interested in tiny home communities like the bluegrass meadows microvillage. What types of funding are there in this budget directed towards local and alternative housing models, and has this been expanded since last fiscal year?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I know the member is passionate about this topic, because we’ve had opportunities to speak about it. There’s a lot of interest around tiny homes and communities as well. The member is well aware that we have a tiny home village, so to speak, in Cowichan and in Victoria. We have expanded tiny homes in Kelowna and Campbell River.

It’s important to know that tiny homes work in some communities, but they don’t work in some communities. They work on some lots, but they don’t work on some lots. It’s not the one solution that fits for everyone, but it may be a good solution for some communities.

B.C. Housing has been very flexible in ensuring that different models be considered in different communities, and now as part of our agreement with the B.C. Greens, we will be able to expand that and we will be looking to expand that. It won’t necessarily be tiny homes in every community because some communities are not interested in that. They would like to do a different structure. But that option is available for the communities that are interested in doing so.

I can share with the member that we have increased funding for heart and hearth — $44 million in capital, $227 million in operating for this type of model — and we’ve had some big success. I look at Kelowna and what’s happening in Kelowna where, you know, we’re going to have just over 120 units within the next few weeks. They’re seeing over 60 percent of people going into this supportive housing getting wraparound supports, learning, doing important life skills, getting IDs, connecting, getting a chance to work and reconnect with family. We’ve seen over 60 percent of people move in and already establish themselves in different opportunities or connect with work. So that’s a big success.

We’ve been rolling these units out, as the member is aware, in Campbell River. We have communities that were fighting us because they didn’t want this type of housing in their community now calling us and saying, “Can we have it?” because people have realized that the only way you can address homelessness is by addressing the fact that we don’t have enough housing.

I often will say this, and I mean it, which is that the problem isn’t homeless people. The problem is that they’re homeless because there’s no housing. That’s our responsibility: to scale up housing opportunities in communities. And we’ve had some success. We’re going to do more because of the agreement that we have with the B.C. Greens, and certainly hope to be able to share more of those details with the member very soon.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

The whole issue and topic of building codes has been canvassed fairly extensively over the period of budget estimates.

[1:50 p.m.]

On Saturna Island and in parts of the riding in Sidney and North Saanich, there is active discussion around supporting young families starting out or folks in their 20s who want to build, I’ll call it, a tiny home.

From their perspective and certainly getting this feedback

in their 20s who want to build, I’ll call it, a tiny home. From their perspective — and, certainly, getting this feedback from some of the local governments and the CRD — the building code requirements for what would be a very small house, but enables folks to get into the housing market and live where they work, appear to them to be quite onerous.

The question is: has there been consideration to relaxing some of the requirements under the code in relation to what are fairly very modest tiny starter homes?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I appreciate the members raising this. I think it’s important to start by saying that a complete home not built well is just as dangerous as a tiny home not built well. Right now, tiny homes are being built throughout the communities, throughout the province, but they require a level of safety to ensure that they’re safe.

We do hear from some local governments who say: “It’s the building code. That’s the reason why we can’t do the tiny home.” But there are a lot of communities where there are tiny homes, but they’re not to code. I’ll give the member an example. We had in Prince George, at Moccasin Flats, a homeless encampment. We had almost 100 people a year ago. A lot of people struggling to get into housing. And so we had an agreement with Prince George, an MOU, that said we were going to deploy 140 homes in that community, everything from modular to purchasing if we need to. We now have a handful of people left on Moccasin Flats, and they’ve been offered housing but they haven’t chosen it.

But during that process, we had a tiny homes manufacturer from Alberta say: “We’re going to come in, and we’re going to provide tiny homes to the community. If the province can’t get that, we’re going to do it.” And they came in, so to speak, illegally and put some tiny homes down. Within two weeks there was a fire, and we lost those tiny homes. I didn’t hear from that company again. So what’s widely important to me is that we’re always looking at the building code, but if it’s going to put people’s lives at risk I will not be the minister that signs off on it.

It’s the same thing I hear about seismic. I hear people say that the new seismic code, which is going to have a big impact here on the Island, which essentially is research from the National Research Council that says specific types of soils require different types of building structures…. I hear from folks in the home building community say: “That’s going to put a lot of costs on us.” But I always say: “Do you agree with the research that it could be dangerous?” And they say: “Yes.” And I say: “Well, then, what are we discussing here? Why don’t we find innovative ways to find solutions around that? Let’s make sure we do it in a safe way.”

That’s the same with tiny homes. If there are suggestions that the member has on the code where the member hears ideas of how it can be done in a safe way and ensure that more of them can be deployed, I’m all ears. I’m very open to that, and so if the member hears that please do bring that forward.

Rob Botterell: I’ll certainly take you up on that offer. We have some folks in our riding that I think have some fairly creative ideas that respect the need for safety and seismic and all of the reasons you have a code. So thank you for that offer.

We’ve talked at some length with about speculation and vacancy tax and had a fairly vigorous exchange this morning on this issue through question period. We, certainly, in the Green caucus, support the speculation of vacancy tax and the approach that’s being taken from a policy perspective.

[1:55 p.m.]

We would appreciate what information the minister could describe about the housing that is being created or what the minister could describe

perspective. We would appreciate what information the minister could describe about the housing that is being created or what the minister sees as the future capacity or potential for the housing being created through this tax and how that tax collected might be deployed to support affordable housing.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This was canvassed yesterday with the official opposition as well. The speculation tax is with the Ministry of Finance, so they’ve got all the information. It’s led by the Ministry of Finance.

I’ll just make a comment just to say that it’s been one of the most effective policies to get more housing back in the market. It’s a very simple premise. If you have investment properties and you leave them empty, you pay the tax. If you have investment properties and you don’t pay taxes in British Columbia, you pay the tax. In fact, if people are renting their properties out and not leaving them empty, they’re not paying the tax and it’s good for us because it means more housing available.

The member is aware, because he heard the debate this morning, that in Metro Vancouver alone we had more than 20,000 units come onto the market for people to rent. That’s remarkable. If you think of how much it would cost us to build 20,000 homes and how long it would take us — billions of dollars. One tax policy brought those homes back available for people in our communities.

You know, what I would say is that it’s a huge success. In fact, when I was travelling through the Interior, I remember meeting with one of the mayors in the Interior who told me that close to 54 percent of all of their mailings for their notices go outside the community. That’s pretty remarkable for a community that wants to operate, have a community, where a majority of their tax filings are heading to people that don’t even live in the community.

They were asking us: “How do we get in?” We want to make sure that our housing is for the people in our community, make sure our kids have a place to live, because they’re struggling and thinking about leaving the community, leaving the province, when we have housing right here and it’s sitting empty.

That’s just my view on it. That’s our government’s view on it. But the actual tax measures are better situated for the Ministry of Finance.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

This may be more of confirming that this is also a topic to be canvassed with the Minister of Finance. What we’ve seen in the riding is constituents who are starting out in the housing market who are facing the challenge of meeting the mortgage and meeting all the various commitments that come with new home ownership.

I’ll digress for a moment and say that I have a certain amount of empathy for these folks because when we bought our first house on Bowen Island many, many years ago, long before the internet, we had to cancel our subscription for Granada TV in order to pay the mortgage. That was one of the best things we ever did because our daughter grew up without TV, and I think she’s better for it. But that’s a digression. Back to the question.

The question is…. These young families that want to get into the house market need that extra helper in terms of rent. You know, in compliance with all zoning, they would be looking at adding a suite or finding some other rent helper, and often the obstacle to doing that for them is that it’s just one step too far in terms of that $10,000 or $15,000 to actually create the suite fully up to code.

[2:00 p.m.]

Is this a question that you can consider, or should I save it for the Minister of Finance, in terms of setting up some form of loan guarantee program or something that enables the government to both assist that initial investment and also get it returned in due course?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I was smiling at the member when he was describing his child not having TV. I had the opposite moment with my kid who…. I had my grandma visiting about ten

investment and also get it returned in due course.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I was smiling at the member when he was describing his child not having TV. I had the opposite moment with my kid, who…. I had my grandma visiting about ten years ago, visiting my home, and my son called me at work and said: “Dad, you won’t believe what we have here. We have a cell phone with a wire that goes into the wall.” I realized pretty quick he was talking about a land line — you know, those things we used to have.

Interjection.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, it’s rough. Times do move.

I’m very sympathetic to the point the member has made as well. We hear from a lot of families in my community who say: “I’ve got a home, and I just want to put a little accessory dwelling unit in the back so my kids can be near me. I want my grandkids near me. I don’t want to have to travel. If I can do that, that would be easy.”

But there are a lot of challenges to be able to do that. There are some building code challenges, which I’m looking at right now to find ways to make it easier, to ensure the safety but ensure that it’s a smoother process. There is the federal government. We had a program, but we cancelled the program because the federal government program, and what’s coming and what they’re offering, is just way better than what we were able to provide.

There is going to be the financing piece, but I think that a major part of the solution will be a two-parter. One is more set designs — I wouldn’t say pre-approved, but pre-reviewed designs. Planners don’t like pre-approved; they like pre-reviewed. That standardization allows for those that build these modules through manufacturing, etc., to be able to create the efficiency to be able to make it cheaper.

If they’re constantly creating different designs, it’s expensive, but if they have a whole host of set designs, they’re able to produce them and drop the cost considerably. That’s one of the things that we’re rolling out, but it will make a big difference.

The other one is from the city or local government perspective. Every local government has different rules. When you have every local government with different rules, different height, different law coverage, it’s hard for those that are manufacturing to create the scale to be able to lower the cost. So we do need some standardization.

We put set design guidelines out to local governments and said: “Here’s what you all should be doing. This is the best standard.” It was done by a planner who won provincial-wide awards for his green planning. He was the chief planner at the city of Vancouver and award after award for his sustainability lens on planning. And one of the things they highlight is the need to standardize both the zoning from local governments but also to standardize the templates of what these units can look like.

So we’re doing some work on that. We have some more work to do because it’s all over the map still.

We do need to set some basic, I think, requirements for local governments, to say, “Here’s what it should be at a minimum; you can go much more than that if you want,” so that we can create standardization so that our industries can respond to lower costs for young families, for families that want their kids nearby or for people that are thinking: “Hey, you know what? I have a home. I can put a little unit in the backyard. I’ll live in the unit, in part of my retirement, and I could rent the rest of the house out to another family.” There are just different things you can do with it.

Last thing I’ll say is that if you look at California, who brought in similar changes to us…. They were a little bit more, I would say, aggressive on ADUs, accessory dwelling units. I think the last that I saw was, in L.A., 33 percent of all the new building permits were accessory dwelling units. People said: “This is much quicker. I’m just going to put one of these ADUs in my yard and have some families living in it.”

There’s huge potential in it. We are going to explore that as we go forward.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister. That’s certainly very promising.

[2:05 p.m.]

There’s a bit of a carve-out that I’d like to explore a bit more, which is…. In my riding, and I think it’s probably similar around the province, young families will look at a house these days and it’ll be, in some cases, fairly large — this may sound small to some these days, but from their perspective — 2,500 square feet or something, and it has a basement. They could add a one-bedroom suite, to code, in the basement.

But once they figure out the cost of acquiring that house, it’s not about

2,500 square feet or something, and it has a basement. They could add a one-bedroom suite to code in the basement, but once they figure out the cost of acquiring that house, it’s not about building a separate unit, it’s about renovating within the existing footprint of the house to code. They just look at it, and they say: “Well, it’s just one step too far.”

But if we had some financial assistance or a loan guarantee or something — and not everybody has parents with deep pockets — they could actually add housing, a one-bedroom, say, or a studio. It would be a mortgage helper, and it would also help address the shortage of housing generally in that affordability range.

Maybe that was addressed in your response, Minister, but that’s an area where I think there’s a huge opportunity, certainly in parts of my riding, to add housing stock at low cost and certainly see the government’s assistance returned in due course.

So I’d be curious for your thoughts on that, Minister.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: Yeah, maybe I wasn’t clear. I tried to touch on that in the beginning of my answer, which is…. We had the secondary suite program, which offered up to $40,000, and the federal government came in after and said: “We have a program that’s $80,000 low-cost financing, 2 percent interest rate, over 15 year amortization.” So in order to be efficient with dollars, why have a program that’s half the dollars that the federal government has?

I think that would address the piece that the member is referring to.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister. The first-time-homebuyers program allows people to get property transfer exemptions if the property has a fair market value of $835,000 or less, yet the average price of homes in B.C. is around $965,000, creating a barrier for entry into home ownership. Would the minister consider raising the property value cap for first-time homebuyers to reflect increasing housing costs?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: That, again, is finance. Tax measures are always with Ministry of Finance, so that’s better situated there.

Rob Botterell: When I raise it with the Minister of Finance, can I say that the Minister of Housing is highly supportive of an increase?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: When you raise it with the Minister of Finance, please mention that I’m looking for a lot more dollars for affordable housing as well.

Rob Botterell: Can the minister speak to the estimated revenue from the school tax and what portion of revenues from the additional school tax applies to high-value residential properties? And related, does this government have — and this may be Finance again, but anyway — have any intent to expand the additional school tax rate, such as by adding additional brackets to account for high-value residential portions assessed over $5 million?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: This will be the shortest answer I give you today, but it is Ministry of Finance as well.

Rob Botterell: When the flipping tax was launched last year, the Minister of Housing and the Premier identified that the tax was expected to make over $40 million in revenue and would also help free up more homes. Can the minister tell us how much revenue has been made from the flipping tax so far and estimate tax revenues for this fiscal?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: All tax measures are with the Ministry of Finance. Our ministry doesn’t handle those measures.

Rob Botterell: A key

doesn’t handle those measures.

Rob Botterell: A key issue with attracting and retaining health care workers in this province is the lack of affordable housing options available to them.

I can use both Salt Spring Island and Sidney as examples of where the challenge associated with increasing access to primary health care and increasing attachment of constituents to doctors is not, interestingly enough, a lack of doctors. It’s not a shortage of doctors; it’s a shortage of housing for doctors and the health professionals that support the doctors. As with many issues, they’re interlinked.

Can the minister describe this government’s plan or approach to providing affordable housing specifically for health care workers? That is the obstacle to significantly increasing attachment.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member is very right. It’s a major challenge for a lot of communities that are trying to attract a skilled workforce, whether they’re health care professionals, whether they’re working in local government planning or whether they’re firefighters, police officers; the list goes on.

Traditionally, historically, B.C. Housing has been in the space of supportive housing and, maybe, more low-income housing. We have really expanded it with BC Builds, and it’s very much targeted to what the member has just highlighted.

The first project we announced was with the city of North Vancouver. The city of North Vancouver came forward with land. They had identified that their biggest priority, the biggest challenge that they were dealing with was that because of the north shore’s lack of housing and the high cost of housing, they couldn’t attract health care workers to work at the hospital, and Seaspan, which pays really well, was struggling to attract workers to work for them. They couldn’t get housing, and people were commuting a long distance over the bridges, etc.

There’s a whole host of projects, being built through BC Builds, which targets middle-income families. I know the threshold is around an $89,000 income up to $190,000 for family incomes. The reason we got that space was to address that very challenge. We have a whole list of projects I can share with the member that the north bank project is very much focusing on that type of workforce.

We’ve got a project in Gibsons that’s being developed by a not-for-profit, operated by Sunshine Coast Affordable Housing Society, which is going to be 33 homes, a four-storey building with child care built into it. It’s going to be focused on that. We have Whistler.

Even in the member’s riding: if the member is aware of the units at the Drake that are being built for supportive housing, part of that also has some units that are workforce-related.

It’s a challenge for us. You know, we also have this conversation around the Downtown Eastside on the units are going to be there and what we are going to do. For a lot of the not-for-profits that operate, their workforce can’t afford to live there anymore, and they’re moving out.

So we do need to do more of this — this BC Builds opportunity — but that’s really what that program was launched for. It was launched to ensure that there’s housing that’s below market, for workforce housing that meets people’s needs and their incomes where they’re at.

[2:15 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: The work in the riding that is taking place is much appreciated. As the minister will know, as part of our accord with the NDP government, we are collaborating on a study.

is much appreciated. As the minister will know, as part of our accord with the NDP government, we are collaborating on a study on community health centres and how to expand community health centres across the province.

So many of these issues are multiministry, and so — I’m going to phrase this as a question — it would be very helpful to discuss how best to plug your ministry’s senior people into that study because it’s going to be the obstacle to many community health centre expansions.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The BC Builds program is built with a lot of flexibility in that it’s very possible that you have health care below and housing above. In fact, we have projects that are being worked on where there’s a fire hall below and housing above. I know some people think: “How can you have a fire hall and then housing above it?” But it’s possible.

Victoria is an example where we built affordable housing above a fire hall. When the fire bells go, all the lights turn red, so actually people in the neighbourhood don’t actually hear any fire trucks because the trucks can get out with no cars moving.

There are other communities that are looking to build community centres. We’re even considering a school being built with housing above it. This is the future. And BC Builds is well suited and actually is working really well for local governments because local governments are thinking…. A lot of local governments’ concern was: “We have land, but one day we wanted to build X. One day we wanted to build Y.” Now when they get our money through our growing community fund, now they can take those dollars to advance their project, and then we can come in and put housing on top.

You know, I think I’ll be following very closely to the work the member is doing with the Ministry of Health. If there are opportunities, then we’ll certainly look to leverage those.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

We have discussed exclusionary zoning, to a certain extent, this afternoon. Let me just frame the question this way. While the government has made commitments to expand non-market housing and upzoning, current exclusionary zoning regulations often make non-market housing developments unaffordable and unnecessarily arduous. This is most evident in Vancouver, where apartments are still not allowed on more than three-quarters of the city’s residential land.

The question to the minister is: is the minister working or will the minister be working to implement provincewide initiatives in a tailored way to end exclusionary zoning for non-market housing?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: It is an important topic, and obviously, we’ve done a lot of work in this space, and we’re going to do more. It goes to my comment I made earlier which is — I said this yesterday, and I mean it — that, you know, if you were to go to an affordable housing rally with people in a community, they would say: “What do we want? Affordable housing. Where do you want it?” And then it’s dead silent. Nobody has a second piece to that.

The exclusionary challenges are real because too often

that if you were to go to a affordable housing rally with people in a community, they would say: what do we want? Affordable housing. Where do you want it? And then it’s dead silent. Nobody has a second piece to that.

The exclusionary challenges are real, because too often it’s not the housing that’s the problem; it’s who is coming into the housing. So there are policies. Our zoning laws have a history of being designed not to limit housing but to limit people and certain types of people. We just have to come to grips with that, and that’s a reality.

Part of our work has been to this point to move to local governments. It starts with our housing needs, and it starts with housing targets. We have given communities housing targets, and it’s not just go and build whatever you need. It’s saying, you know, here’s how many one bedrooms, two bedrooms, three bedrooms you need to be a complete community. You need supportive housing. You need affordable housing.

That has fundamentally shifted the conversation in communities. Instead of not-for-profits begging to get attention of elected officials, elected officials now are going to not-for-profits and saying: “We have to reach these targets. How can we work together to do it?” I think that’s healthy. That’s a healthy start.

Then, now that local governments must update their OCPs to their housing needs, now they have to start planning their official community plans with a lens of where is this housing going to go and have it approved up front. So then when we get to the process of these projects coming forward, we’re not debating whether these people should be living in our community, but more thinking about community as a whole. So we are doing a lot of work in this space. We have more work to do, and part of that is leadership from elected officials.

I was praising my critic from Surrey. When she was mayor, she took a really tough stance in her community and said: “Yeah, we need to have housing for people. It’s the only way to support people.” But we need to have those things across the province, and that means pushing back against stigma and not stigmatizing people even more. I’m definitely not referring to the member, because I know he’s a champion of this housing. But we are doing lots of work and we have more work to do.

Rob Botterell: Thank you, Minister.

Electrification of new buildings is a vital step to reach net-zero emissions, as buildings were the third-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada in 2019. My question to the minister is: does this government have a plan for the electrification of new housing developments, and has the minister considered establishing a clear, time-limited plan to work to implement a provincewide policy to prevent oil and gas hookups to new buildings where electricity is available?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: There is a lot of work happening in this space.

First off, we made changes last year to ensure that all stratas are doing an analysis of their building’s portfolio to assess what energy capacity they have. That’s a good baseline, an important baseline.

We made changes to ensure that if someone were to want to build a charging station in a strata building, there was an easier process for them to be able to do that.

Right now, we are making some of the largest increases in hydro and electric capacity in the province. We have legislation in front of the House, which I won’t go into, which allows us to expediate more energy in our province to be able to meet that housing demand and our demand for electrification. But we need to do that in order to have this.

I would say that there’s not a discussion about a blanket across the province at this stage, but there is work happening to ensure that we have electricity to meet the demand in our housing market. And there are conversations in communities. In each community, they’re slightly different. So our focus right now is to build up the capacity.

I don’t want to go too much into estimates for the Minister of Energy. I’ll leave that to him. I’m busy enough with my file.

[2:25 p.m.]

But I will say that we’re doing changes around code, around working with B.C. Hydro to ensure that power is being provided to projects as we go forward.

If I can use this moment just to share with the member that we’ve also launched a digital permitting hub. The digital permitting hub, I think, is going to be, over time, a game changer for communities . Essentially, it’s digitizing the building

that power is being provided to projects as we go forward.

If I can use this moment just to share with the member that we’ve also launched a digital permitting hub. The digital permitting hub, I think, is going to be, over time, a game-changer for communities. Essentially, it’s digitizing the building code so that when a building permit application is submitted, within seconds it can check to see if it’s code compliant. It can check to see if it’s energy compliant.

The province has a sense of where energy portfolios are of the buildings. And we’re looking to partner with B.C. Hydro so that B.C. Hydro can get information on building permits right away, as well, so that it allows them to prepare to provide energy in a quick and efficient way. I think those are good incentives to help drive more electrification in home building as we go forward.

Rob Botterell: We’ve canvassed this to some extent in previous parts of the estimates, but the construction trades workforce is facing a significant labour shortage, with approximately 11,500 construction jobs currently unfilled in B.C., and certainly, prefabricated houses and so on are part of the solution.

A question is: what is this ministry’s approach to closing that gap, since that can make a huge difference to our ability to close the housing gap?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: The member is correct that there’s no one solution to the housing crisis, and every solution involves lots of different moving pieces, and skills and trades training is critical to do that. We have been expanding trades training at a considerable rate. We have more to do. We have been doing a lot of education in schools to remind young people that this is a good career to get into and push back against, perhaps, misconceptions of what the work is and what it’s not.

I remember laughing with my dad about 15 years ago, when I was working at banking and stressed out all the time and my best friend was an electrician, and I remember saying to him: “You told me not to get into trades and look how happy he is.” But it’s a great career field.

So we’re doing work there. We’ve been using the limited numbers we have from the federal government on immigration to fast-track trades to immigrate here.

We have been expanding small-scale, multi-unit and housing near transit — lower-density housing — because the skills that are required to build that housing are different than the bigger developments, and we have more access to trades in that space. So expanding there is an easier space to do that. We’re putting less pressure on our labour force.

Prefabrication is the future. Mass timber is the future. I was fortunate enough, when I was in the Ministry of Jobs, to be able to put together the mass timber action plan, and it is still as relevant today as it was then. Part of moving that forward is doing the things we’re doing, using government procurement to help drive that demand and that change.

But it requires more work, especially in the small space, the accessory dwelling units, all this. We need more standardization. I know the member mentioned earlier standardization. We need some minimums, and that’s what we try to do with the site standard document we released.

Just let’s have minimums so that industry can scale up and produce at large scale the amount of housing at the minimum. If local governments say we want to go higher, that’s great. That’s up to them. They want to do a bigger footprint; that’s up to them. But let’s have some minimums that are thought out so that industry can scale up the production to be able to meet that demand and lower the cost over time.

I’m passionate about this. I know members are probably passionate about this. This is key to addressing our housing crisis.

[2:30 p.m.]

Those of us that have seen how fast a mass timber building can be put together, it’s remarkable. North Vancouver — the city — is now the champion, the leader. Vancouver used to be; now it’s North Vancouver city. They’ve got an amazing amount of buildings coming online. I said to the mayor: “Why are you so happy about this?” And she said: “B.C. product — we’re using sustainable products in our buildings. That’s what people in our community are demanding. Addressing embodied carbon. It’s being

Now it’s North Vancouver city. They’ve got an amazing amount of buildings coming online. I said to the mayor: “Why are you so happy about this?” She said, “B.C. products. We’re using sustainable products in our buildings. That’s what people in our are community demanding — addressing embodied carbon. It’s being done in a way faster time frame, less trades on site and less complaints from the public. There’s no noise because everything’s being done off-site. It’s just being assembled there.” So I just think it’s the future.

The federal government is doing some work in the larger building space for preset designs of buildings, which will help. But it’s going to require us to do some more work on standardizing minimums for small-scale, multi-unit and for accessory dwelling units so that we can see industry scale up.

Rob Botterell: We have pretty much reached the conclusion of the memorable part of estimates, being the Green caucus’s presentation. How’s that — quirky?

I do have one more question. But before I pose this question, I do want to thank the minister and the minister’s staff and all the public servants in the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and B.C. Housing, who have contributed very helpful answers and detailed answers to the questions we’ve raised.

Earlier today, there was some significant and extensive discussion around cats. It occurred to me that that is an emerging fairly major issue in the province. I thought I’d conclude with this question, which is: this government included a commitment to get rid of no-pet clauses for purpose-built rental apartment buildings, which excludes pet owners from rental housing. Can the minister describe the timeline and plan for implementing this commitment? What funding exists for this so that we can have cats and dogs everywhere in the province?

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: We are going to be doing some consultation with landlord groups, with tenant groups, to do a better assessment of what this means and how we go forward. We haven’t started that yet. I can’t give the member a firm timeline, although we are committed to it in our mandate. When I have a better update, I certainly will share that with the member.

The Chair: House Leader of the Third Party.

Rob Botterell: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister. Those are my questions.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: First off, I want to thank everyone for the thoughtful exchange. The member for Skeena asked some fantastic questions yesterday. The member for Surrey–Serpentine River — we had a great exchange. The member from Prince George, and, of course, my friend across the way from Saanich North and the Islands. This is what majority of the work should look like in government and it does look like.

I appreciate that the people that are here get to see a thoughtful exchange. It’s not just yelling and screaming. That only happens for half an hour in the day. I want to do a special thank-you to the amazing people behind me, because I don’t do the work. They do the work. Not only them. There are people in the other room, and there are people in their offices across the province that are watching.

A lot of people work. They do work. But the work that these individuals do has a massive impact on people’s lives every single day. I think that when somebody joins the public service, they want to know they’re doing something meaningful. I want to let the folks here know that what they’re doing is instrumental in the time that we’re living in, and I’m really grateful for all the work that they do. To the people in the other room: thank you for the work that all of you do.

With that, Chair, I would like to wait for them to leave, and then I will read the statement. Thank you all.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I will now call the vote.

[2:35 p.m.]

Vote 33: ministry operations, $1,513,975,000 — approved.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion and ask to leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee will stand adjourned.

The committee rose at 2:35 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:35 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Lorne Doerkson: Committee of Supply B reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs and asks to leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Jennifer Whiteside: In this chamber I call continued second reading of Bill 5.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Budget Measures
Implementation Act, 2025
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Members. We’ll bring this chamber back to order, and of course we will be debating the amendment on Bill 5, and we will recognize the member for Skeena to begin this afternoon’s debate.

On the amendment (continued).

Claire Rattée: Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that, and I’m happy to be back and talking a bit more about the amendment that was made to Bill 5 last week, I believe it was. I know that it’s been a little while, and I started my speech already last week, so I’m kind of continuing here.

I wanted to talk a bit more about what this amendment, the grocery rebate guarantee amendment, will actually mean for British Columbians, but I wanted to start off by talking a bit about why this is necessary and why our leader moved this amendment, because the issue that we’re having with the fact that the government campaigned on a promise to provide a $500 rebate to each person in British Columbia, which would be $1,000 per family, and then pulled it away when they brought forward the budget, is that you can’t have it both ways.

I know that there’s been a lot of talk about tariffs, for example, being one of the reasons why they couldn’t bring this forward in their budget. You know: “We’re concerned about tariffs. We’re concerned about what these costs are going to mean, so now we have to claw back something that was promised originally.” But you can’t have it both ways. Either you knew the tariffs were coming, or you didn’t know the tariffs were coming, because of the timelines of when the budget was put forward.

It’s no different than the carbon tax, for example, removing the requirement for the carbon tax. Again, either you knew it was coming, or you didn’t know it was coming. So when this budget was put forward without this grocery rebate that was promised, the issue becomes: was that actually factored in there, or was it not? Because at that point we didn’t have tariffs yet.

That’s why we brought forward this amendment, because you can’t have it both ways. Now more than ever British Columbians are struggling. They’re struggling to make ends meet. We know that many British Columbians are only $200 away from insolvency, and something as minor as this could make a massive difference in their lives.

I want to spend a bit of time talking about, like I said, what this actually means for people in my riding, for example. Just recently, during the Housing estimates, I brought up one constituent that is low income and is struggling and is on income assistance This individual makes just under $17,000 a year.

[2:40 p.m.]

So when you think about somebody that’s making that much money a year, somebody that has traumatic brain injury, has multiple barriers, and is struggling to make ends meet as it is, $500 extra on their income taxes in a year is a significant difference. That makes a lasting impact, and this amendment would ensure that this is something that that individual and every single British Columbian would get every single year.

When somebody is making

on their income taxes in a year is a significant difference that makes a lasting impact.

This amendment would ensure that this is something that that individual and every single British Columbian would get every single year. When somebody is making $17,000 a year, an extra $500 could mean the world to them. I’ve got a number of constituents that are on income assistance right now because things have been very difficult in my riding. We’ve lost our forestry sector. All the mills have closed. Times have been very tough.

Right now in the city of Terrace, based on the last homeless count, one in 83 people are homeless in Terrace. It is a staggering number, and the problem is that because that only equates to a few hundred people, this government hasn’t necessarily paid attention to it. To put it in perspective, if you were to look at what that means for population, that would mean that for the Greater Vancouver area, the entire township of Langley would have to become homeless for it to be on par with those same numbers. If that happened, the government would call a state of public emergency. But because it’s in my riding in Skeena, up north, nobody seems to care.

An extra $500 a year to one of those people that has to sleep on the streets in Terrace, a place that is very cold most of the year, could make a significant impact on their quality of life. It might allow them the ability to actually get into some kind of low-income housing and improve their lives. So $500 might not seem like a lot to some of the people that are in this chamber but to most of my constituents it would make such a significant difference, it cannot be overstated.

When you look at some of the factors of things that are going on in Skeena right now, the challenges that people are facing, the potential impacts of agreeing with this amendment and approving this promise that the NDP made — that they campaigned on, that is very likely the reason that they got elected — makes sense. It’s really the bare minimum that could be done at this point when there’s essentially very little to nothing in this budget that was put forward for 2025 to actually address affordability for the British Columbians that are struggling right now.

Another significant area that this could make a massive difference for people in my riding are people that are struggling with medical costs. There’s a lot of talk about how our medical system in Canada is free, but people don’t talk about all of the extra things that are involved in medical care that aren’t free, that aren’t covered. For people that are lower income or even somebody that’s generally considered middle income — because, really, that’s still not very much money in today’s day and age — any kind of a significant health problem costs them so much more money because of, again, our geography.

I know of three different people in my riding right now that have significant kidney problems and to be able to access the dialysis treatment that they need to go for. One of them is at risk of actually losing their home with how much money it’s costing them to drive from Kitimat to Terrace three or four times a week to be able to access dialysis. It’s a 63 kilometre drive to get to Terrace. You do that three or four times a week in a truck, because that’s what you need when you live up north because the highways are in horrid shape, and it’s incredibly dangerous because of the weather frequently. That adds up. That’s significant.

This person’s spouse has been unable to work because they need to be the one to drive them to these appointments because dialysis is incredibly difficult on the body, and it’s not easy for somebody to drive themselves to and from these appointments three to four times a week. For that couple, this might mean them actually being able to keep their home.

On top of that, this individual has had to drive multiple times and actually spend most of the summer this past year in Prince George, which is an eight-hour drive away, and pay for hotels for their spouse and all of that. So again, the financial impacts of having a health care problem when you live in a riding like mine are incredibly significant. I know that $500 a year or $1,000 for a couple, again, doesn’t sound like a lot of money, but it really is. It could make such a significant difference in the lives of people like that.

[2:45 p.m.]

I know another couple that are both seniors. They are both on long-term disability, and again, obviously, have very little income.

Again, it doesn’t sound like a lot of money, but it really is. It could make such a significant difference in the lives of people like that.

I know another couple. They’re both seniors. They’re both on long-term disability and again, obviously, have very little income. They do everything that they can to be able to live as sustainably as possible. They have a wood-burning stove so that they don’t have to use electricity or gas. They’re also very kind people. They take care of a lot of stray animals near their property. Recently they also faced a lot of significant challenges with their health. On top of that, because of some clerical errors, they weren’t receiving their cheques for a few months.

I want to see an amendment like this passed because I don’t ever want to get a phone call from a woman like that again, in absolute tears because she and her husband haven’t eaten in a few days because they can’t afford it. All the stray animals that they take care of, they haven’t fed. She’s just heartbroken. And now finding out that she has to go to Smithers, which is about four hours away, to be able to get medical treatment because she can’t access it in our riding, and leaving her husband, who is severely disabled and has no other caretaker there to assist him….

The financial impacts of this were immense. Again, there’s a couple that could really use that extra $500 a year. It would have such a significant impact on their quality of life and what that would mean for them.

So I really do urge everybody on both sides of the House to think about those stories. Think about the stories of people that you know in your communities that have come forward that are struggling. We know that food bank usage is at an all-time high. British Columbians are struggling right now. They can’t afford this.

If tariffs are the reason why we’re not able to provide British Columbians with a little bit of tax relief, think about what those tariffs are going to do to those British Columbians that are struggling to make ends meet right now. If the tariffs are the reason why we have to tighten up the budget, again, think about what that does to those families that are struggling to make ends meet and what this could actually mean to them. It’s, again, a very, very small thing that has a huge impact on every single British Columbian.

I’ve got families in my riding right now that can’t afford to feed both themselves and their children. We live in British Columbia. That should not be happening in our province. That should not be happening in our country. Parents that have to make a decision between feeding themselves and feeding their children, or hopefully relying on school programs to be able to provide them with food throughout the day — it’s shameful. That shouldn’t be happening in a country like Canada. It shouldn’t be happening in a province like B.C.

This amendment fixes something that was promised by the NDP. The opposition is giving them the opportunity to make this right and to save face on it. The trust of British Columbians has been broken. Campaigning on a promise as significant as that and utilizing it to be able to win an election, one which was not won by any great number, by any means…. It was very close, so I think we can feel fairly confident that that was a big factor in why it was won by the NDP. Then to pull it away after winning election…. British Columbians don’t trust the government right now. They don’t trust that this government has their back.

The suffering that I’m seeing consistently, especially in my riding, especially in a number of different areas throughout the province where people are not as fortunate…. The difference that this could make for those people is massive; $500 a year can buy a lot of extra groceries. It might not stretch as far as we’d like it to now because of the tariffs, because of that threat, but it would still make an impact.

[2:50 p.m.]

So I’d really urge everybody on both sides of the House to think about what this actually means, what this would mean for British Columbians, what this would do to start to restore some of that faith in government and to recognize that both sides of the House are able to work together

make an impact.

So I’d really urge everybody on both sides of the House to think about what this actually means, what this would mean for British Columbians, what this would do to start to restore some of that faith in government and to recognize that both sides of the House are able to work together. Because that’s what British Columbians are looking for. That’s what Canadians are looking for. Again, I think we saw that very clearly both through our provincial election and this last federal election.

There is an expectation that we find common ground and that we work together on solutions that are going to actually improve the lives of the people that we’re here to serve. This is one way that we could very easily accomplish that. It would help significantly with restoring that faith. It would help with some of the strains that we’ve seen on mental health. We’ve been talking about that a lot lately in this house, about the impacts on people’s mental health.

Financial insecurity is a huge impact on that. Financial insecurity is absolutely a factor in anxiety and depression. It can mean the difference between a parent having to work overtime shifts and not getting to spend enough time with their children because they can’t afford to make ends meet. And that child then growing up, feeling like they weren’t paid attention to enough by their parents. It’s a vicious loop.

We should be doing everything in our power right now to try and ease that burden on hard-working British Columbians that deserve a little bit of a break right now, especially with everything that they’ve been through recently. They’ve come out of a pandemic, and we saw the impacts that that’s had.

I’m a business owner myself. I know the impacts that that’s had on small businesses. I know that the cost of supplies for me to be able to run my shop have almost tripled. And just because things have come down slightly since COVID prices doesn’t really mean anything when you factor in the fact that everything skyrocketed during COVID.

Everything is still more expensive than it was prior to the pandemic. Cost of living just keeps on rising. I think that members of the government know that, and that’s why this was something that was promised in a platform and then not delivered on. I think that members of the government likely have constituents in their ridings that have reached out to them with similar stories to the ones that I just shared, and countless others.

Again, I’ll just reiterate that the people in my riding are really suffering right now. And until we can make sure that we’re focusing on getting our industries back up and running in that area, and that everybody has access to good work, and that there are enough homes available for people, that they can live comfortable lives and they don’t have to be insecure about their financial status, they can live comfortably, it’s the least that we can do to provide them with a little bit of relief.

It’s the least that we can do for underserved populations specifically, to try and ensure that fewer people are having to use a food bank to feed themselves and their children, that fewer seniors are having to live out of their vehicles or go into shelters and be surrounded by crime and drug use and things that they should not have to be surrounded by.

The fact that there are seniors that are having to utilize shelters right now is shameful. Again, I don’t understand why something like that would be happening in a province like ours. We have so much potential with our industries to be able to generate more revenue for the province. We have that ability to do that. British Columbians don’t necessarily have the ability to do that for themselves, but this government has the ability to do that.

If they’re concerned about saving money, and that’s why they don’t want to approve this amendment, and they don’t want to ensure that British Columbians have more money back in their pocket, then focus on promoting those industries and getting things moving again in this province. Focus on things like forestry to make that money back up to ensure that we can put more of it in the pockets of British Columbians. Because they deserve that opportunity, they deserve to be able to afford basic groceries, to be able to heat their homes.

[2:55 p.m.]

I’ve got another constituent in my riding that…. They had their gas turned off in their home for a few months over the winter because they have a pellet stove. They still received a $160 gas bill every month, even though their gas was turned off. Things are not affordable right now in this province.

Again, it’s a very small amount of money in the grand scheme of things, but for each of those individuals

bill every month, even though their gas was turned off. Things are not affordable right now in this province.

Again, it’s a very small amount of money in the grand scheme of things, but for each of those individuals, it can make a big difference — for a student that needs to be able to buy textbooks, for a mother that needs to be able to feed her children, for somebody that’s struggling with addiction that needs to be able to buy nicer clothes to be able to go to a job interview and get their life back on track. These small things can make a very big difference in the lives of British Columbians.

I really hope that everybody will make the right choice when we vote on this amendment, recognize that it was a mistake to take away this rebate from British Columbians and ensure that we do the right thing: we vote yes on this amendment, and we provide British Columbians with at least one small benefit from this budget that’ll help with their cost-of-living expenses.

It’ll prevent more British Columbians from trying to leave this province to go somewhere that it’s more affordable to live, to ensure that parents don’t have their young children, teenage children, young adults leaving to go find work in other provinces. This could make such a huge and significant impact.

Like I said at the beginning, you can’t have it both ways. We knew what was coming down the pipe when the NDP originally promised this $500 rebate. The Premier had already stated that if the federal backstop for the carbon tax was removed, we were going to remove it too. This promise was still made, and it was still broken. Nothing really changed, just the politics of the situation — being elected and feeling safe being back in government again and not having to make good on a promise to British Columbians.

I hope that we make the right choice: we vote yes on this amendment.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I just wanted to remind everybody that we are, of course, going to continue this afternoon with second reading debate on Bill 5.

For those joining us in the gallery, this is: “a motion for the second reading of Bill 5, intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2025, be amended by deleting all the words after ‘that’ and substituting therefore the following: Bill 5 not read a second time until the House amends the basic personal income tax provided in section 4.3 (1.1) of the Income Tax Act (R.S.B.C. 1996) to $22,462.”

Today we are going to entertain speakers on the amendment.

Rosalyn Bird: I stand proudly today as the MLA for Prince George–Valemount, a British Columbian and as a member of the opposition, to talk about two topics I would hope are close to the heart of each elected representative in this House: our families and this province’s economic well-being. When I speak in this House and I discuss the future of British Columbia, I cannot ignore the profound impact that the actions of this government have and are having on the constituents of my riding and on every British Columbian.

Today I want to enlighten you on a topic that has the power to uplift our families, strengthen our communities and bolster our province’s economy: reasonable tax rebates. Tax breaks of any size in my riding and throughout the North would be highly appreciated and, unfortunately, necessary due to the significant downturn in the resource sector.

Let’s start with how these may benefit families. When households receive tax rebates, they gain a little breathing room. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives supports the idea that targeted tax relief can increase disposable income for families. They advocate for personal income tax cuts that aim to benefit middle and low-income Canadians and indicate that such measures can lead to higher disposable income.

[3:00 p.m.]

Additionally, they emphasize the need for fair tax measures to address economic challenges, further supporting the notion that targeted tax relief can positively impact family finances, allowing them to invest in necessities like education, health care and even save for future endeavours. This isn’t just good for individuals and families; it’s good for our whole community.

Now let’s talk about communities. With families having more money in their pockets, local

necessities like education, health care and even save for future endeavours. This isn’t just good for individuals and families, it’s good for our whole community.

Now let’s talk about communities. With families having more money in their pockets, local businesses can thrive. Imagine a town where families can support their favourite shops, restaurants and services. It sparks economic activity, it creates jobs, and it fosters local entrepreneurship. Communities that invest in their residents become more vibrant and resilient.

Of course, we must not ignore the broader province. When families and communities flourish, our province benefits. Enhanced local economies mean increased tax revenues, which can be reinvested into essential public services, like education and health care. A study by the Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that for every dollar invested in community initiatives, it can yield up to $4 in economic return. Investing in residents of B.C. and B.C. families is investing in all of our futures.

Our Premier has said that the residents of British Columbia need relief now. That could not be truer with the continuous yet inconsistent looming threats and tariffs from our southern U.S. neighbours. Tariffs will impact every community, every industry and every person across this province and country.

Many B.C. residents were $200 away from being able to pay their bills before the threat of added economic pressure. At the end of last year, a third of British Columbians reported they are already insolvent, unable to cover their bills and debt obligations and they have an average of $97 less left over. Tragically, half don’t believe they will be able to cover all living expenses in the next 12 months, without going further into debt. So imagine what $500 to $1,000 a household could mean for families in British Columbia.

Well, today marks six months and 12 days since the 19 October 2024 provincial election. As opposition, the Conservative Party of B.C. has introduced an amendment, the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee), to Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

This bill amendment remedies a broken promise, a promise abandoned post-election by this NDP government, one the Premier campaigned on, one he and his MLAs garnered votes from and the $1,000 annual grocery rebate. On 9 October 2024, ten days prior to the provincial election, Premier Eby was quoted: “Under our plan, families will get more support and you’ll get it right away. John Rustad would hand tax breaks to billionaires and speculators….”

The Chair: Member, we don’t use names, of course, in the chamber here.

Rosalyn Bird: It’s in a quote, Mr. Speaker.

The Chair: I would prefer that you stay away from the member’s name, please.

Rosalyn Bird: Noted. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

“He would hand tax breaks to billionaires and speculators while leaving you waiting for the help you need now.” As it turns out, it is the Leader Of The Opposition offering that support and the Premier leaving B.C. residents waiting for the help he stated they need now.

As we look to the future, I encourage each of you to envision the kind of British Columbia you want to see — a place where families thrive, where every child has access to quality education, healthy food, recreation and where communities are resilient and prosperous. Together, this House can turn that vision into reality.

[3:05 p.m.]

A high cost of living significantly impacts individuals, families and communities, leading to increased financial stress, reduced well-being and, potentially, hindering social and economic progress. For individuals, it can mean less discretionary income, financial insecurity and difficulties accessing essential resources, like housing and health care. Families may experience strain on their budgets, affecting their ability to save and invest and, potentially, leading to increased stress and conflict.

For many households, $500 to $1,000 in tax savings can cover essential and unexpected expenses. It may be medical bills, car repairs or transit fares, ensuring families don’t have to choose between essential needs

stress and conflict. For many households, $500 to $1,000 in tax savings can cover essential and unexpected expenses.

It may be medical bills, car repairs or transit fares, ensuring that families don’t have to choose between essential needs and emergencies. That relief, even if it seems small, may allow families more time together, because one or both parents can schedule one less shift. It could go towards children’s education, saving tuition fees or purchasing necessary school supplies and books. Investing in our children today cultivates a promising future for British Columbia.

We all recognize and have directly felt or seen the results of the rising cost of living. In my riding of Prince George–Valemount, the use of our local food bank has nearly doubled over a three-year span. Most of those individuals are seniors and children. With this savings, families may be able to more readily afford healthy food options, grow a garden, and they can, can the bounty their garden produces, which in turn helps to combat food insecurity and promote better overall health.

When families spend this savings locally at a family restaurant, tickets to a Cougars game or a visit to the Exploration centre, they support their communities, and they contribute to job creation, ensuring that our neighbourhoods thrive. It’s a ripple effect of positive change.

It may free up extra money that can bolster savings accounts, providing families with a cushion for crises, fostering financial security that can lead to peace of mind. It may enable families to enjoy leisure activities, perhaps a family trip or a membership at the local recreation facility that will enhance quality of life and strengthen family bonds and significantly improve overall health.

When the government invests in families, it isn’t charity. It’s an investment in our province’s future. Thriving families lead to healthier communities, reducing long-term costs on health care and social services for the province and the country.

At a community level, a high cost of living can increase existing inequalities, limit economic opportunities and impact public services and infrastructure. Often it can disproportionately affect low-income communities and families, thereby widening the gap between the rich and the poor and potentially stifling economic development.

Increased demand for social services, such as affordable housing and food banks, as I have seen and heard in Prince George, puts a strain on public budgets and resources. It can make it difficult for individuals to move up the social ladder, limiting their opportunities for advancement. High housing costs can drive up demand for affordable housing, potentially leading to longer wait-lists and increased competition for scarce resources.

Lowering housing costs and other living expenses can make it less difficult for individuals to pursue new opportunities, attend post-secondary school like UNBC or CNC college, start a new business like Jack’s indoor adventure playground, or grow a business such as the Wall of Fame sandwich shop, all of which are in Prince George.

The stress associated with continued increased costs can lead to increased mental health challenges within the community, impacting the overall well-being of all residents. There has been a doubling of requests for mental health services in my riding, which speaks to this particular concern. In the past few years, we have seen a record number of young British Columbians and residents moving to Alberta, attracted to the province’s economic growth and job opportunities, while struggling with B.C.’s high cost of living and housing has prompted many young people to move or to seriously consider a move. My stepdaughter, her husband and my four-year-old grandson just moved to Grand Prairie six months ago for these very reasons.

[3:10 p.m.]

An additional $500 to $1,000 in tax savings for B.C. residents and families doesn’t just represent money. It symbolizes hope, security and the investment in brighter futures for themselves, their children and their communities. Let’s work together, creating opportunities that resonate with compassion and integrity for all.

Every decision that we make as individuals

hope, security and the investment in brighter futures for themselves, their children and their communities. Let’s work together, creating opportunities that resonate with compassion and integrity for all.

Every decision that we make — as individuals, as a political party, as an elected government — has consequences. Sometimes they are positive, other times negative, and occasionally those decisions have unintentional and unforeseen consequences.

I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to an essential pillar of Canadian democracy: confidence in all levels of government — municipal, provincial and federal. For residents of British Columbia, this confidence is not merely a political abstract. It is the very foundation of a thriving, engaged and empowered community.

While I was campaigning, and still today, I have had many conversations with or received correspondence from B.C. residents who have lost faith in the government. Many feel unseen, unheard and forgotten. They remain disappointed with the continued broken campaign promises, administrative mismanagement, increased taxes and a lack of accountability and transparency. This has resulted in residents forgetting that in a democratic country, the residents, the voters, are in fact the government.

We, as their elected representatives, have a responsibility to honour their choices and to do everything we can to adhere to the principles of good governance, solid fiscal policy and management while always striving for transparency and accountability.

When residents trust their government, they are more likely to engage in civic duties, whether that’s voting, attending town halls or volunteering for community initiatives. This active participation fosters a vibrant democracy where every voice is heard. Confidence in leadership and elected officials encourages support for policies that benefit our communities.

When families feel assured that their government has their best interests at heart, they are more likely to embrace initiatives aimed at the improvements, be it in education, health care or environmental protections.

As a proud veteran, I have seen firsthand in many places that trust in governments is essential for social cohesion. When residents believe their leaders are acting with integrity and making decisions based on compassion, we build a united community where diversity is celebrated and collaboration flourishes.

A confident, assured public will stimulate economic growth. Investors and businesses are attracted to regions with stable governance, knowing that leadership will foster a favourable environment for growth. This influx leads to job creation, supporting families and communities across our province.

In times of crisis — may it be natural disasters, forest fires, landslides, flooding or public health emergencies — confidence in our government becomes a lifeline. A government that communicates transparently and acts decisively instils a sense of security, fostering communal resilience. We can weather all storms together.

Perhaps most importantly, confidence thrives in a system where integrity, accountability and transparency are prioritized. B.C. residents deserve a government that acts with integrity, is transparent in its dealings and is willing to admit mistakes. This honesty fosters trust, an invaluable currency, in governance.

As we move forward, let us remember that our collective voices are powerfully capable of shaping policies and making changes that reflect the diverse needs of B.C. residents and our communities. Also, we must consider the legacy we choose to leave behind for future generations. When we cultivate trust in our government and invest in our families today, we are equipping our children with the tools they need to thrive tomorrow. A strong foundation today leads to resilient leaders of tomorrow.

[3:15 p.m.]

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the importance of confidence in our provincial government cannot be overstated. It is what binds us as a community. It strengthens our democracy and empowers us to strive for better. Together, let’s advocate for leadership that embodies honesty

The importance of confidence in our provincial government cannot be overstated. It is what binds us as a community, it strengthens our democracy, and it empowers us to strive for better. Together, let’s advocate for leadership that embodies honesty, integrity and commitment to all residents of British Columbia.

I ask all members of this House to support the bill amendment and make the grocery rebate guarantee a reality as it follows through on a promise made and provides some tax relief that British Columbians deserve and need. Members of this House, let’s work together and move forward towards a future that honours every individual’s and family’s right to thrive. Together we are stronger, and together we can achieve greatness for our communities, our province and Canada.

Kristina Loewen: I rise today in this chamber to support this wonderful amendment that was brought forward by the member for Nechako Lakes. This is an amendment that speaks to the heart of what matters most right now to British Columbians: affordability, fairness and responsibility. That is why I’m standing here today and speaking to this amendment.

This is an amendment that is grounded in fairness, responsibility and, most importantly, meaningful relief for British Columbians who are being crushed by the rising cost of living. Right now, families across this province are struggling under the weight of rising prices. Rent is up; interest rates are up; groceries are sky high. The previous member mentioned that some things are coming down, but that’s after they skyrocketed during the pandemic, and that was an insane time.

I think, just for the record, when we compare where we’re at now to where we were two years ago, we’re not comparing apples to apples. We need to be comparing, or this government needs to be comparing, where things are now to where things were when they took over the government. It doesn’t matter whether you live in Prince George, Campbell River or Kelowna; the cost of living is pushing people to the brink.

Everywhere I go in my constituency — whether it’s the grocery store, the gas station or the community centre — I hear the same thing: “I don’t know how much longer I can keep this up.” Families are watching their paycheques disappear before the month is over. Seniors are making impossible choices between prescriptions and groceries. Young people are wondering if they’ll ever be able to get ahead.

It breaks my heart — listening to the stories of the people of Kelowna that are really struggling — and they aren’t getting ahead. They are the reason that I am an MLA. They are the reason that I decided to put my name forward and run.

British Columbians are resilient. They work hard, they pay their taxes, they play by the rules, but they are tired of promises made and promises broken. They are tired of being taxed to death — taxed on their income, taxed on their property, taxed on their purchases and taxed on their taxes.

This bill begins to change that. The Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act proposes to save each British Columbian $500 a year. That’s $1,000 to every two-income household. Those are families that we’re talking about. This means that every family would save $1,000 each and every year.

This means more money in families’ pockets, and not another broken promise from this NDP government. The NDP promised voters a $1,000 grocery rebate in the 2024 election. After the votes were counted and they regained the power that they’d feared losing, they walked away on this campaign promise. That promise was a whisper of hope, a glimpse of relief and a chance for just a sliver of peace and optimism for families that are living, paycheque to paycheque, just $200 away from trouble, loss and hardship every two weeks.

[3:20 p.m.]

This promise was one that I would have latched onto in their shoes. When my husband and I had our four children, as young parents in our early 20s and early 30s, we struggled. Life’s plans changed, and finances weren’t always easy. We lived paycheque to paycheque.

one that I would have latched onto in their shoes.

When my husband and I had our four children as young parents in our early 20s and early 30s, we struggled. Life’s plans changed, and finances weren’t always easy. We lived paycheque to paycheque. And, yes, $200 — heck, even $100 — whether it was short or extra, made a huge difference in our monthly bills. This was a time when we, like so many families today, could not afford for one thing to go wrong.

We just got by. We didn’t go on trips. We didn’t go to movies. We didn’t go to the mall, because we couldn’t buy anything. For us, we worked hard. We loved our kids well, and we pinched and saved and budgeted, and we just hoped for calm waters.

We hoped the van wouldn’t break down — and it was a real threat — because I was running a daycare at the time, and I needed the van to drive the kids to and from school. A costly repair could impede my ability to work.

We just hoped no one would get sick. When my oldest child was four, she needed emergency surgery, and it turned into a lengthy hospital stay, and our family was in trouble. If I wasn’t there to run the daycare, the loss of income would set us back significantly. Many times, I pushed through work while not feeling well, because there was no option, no other option for an entrepreneur living paycheque to paycheque.

It was promises like this, temporary and immediate relief, that tugged on our hearts and minds, and yes, tempted us for our vote in the past. This is a cheap way to grab votes. I get it. It works. Desperate people will cling to hope. They will grab the closest thing to their grasp which will keep them from drowning. It’s a survival instinct. It’s a good thing. It’s smart. It’s necessary. I have been there, and I get it. But it’s especially cheap now that it’s been used as a bait and switch.

Well, this new motion could rectify that. It would give families the relief that they need now. It would also give this government the opportunity to make good, to provide the much-needed and much-promised relief. It’s a start. This new amendment would reduce income tax, and it would be permanent, not just three years.

One of the biggest reasons I got involved in B.C. politics, the biggest reason actually, was affordability. I have four kids, as I mentioned before. They’re all young adults or almost young adults now. I’m really proud of them, by the way. They don’t have the same optimism that I had at their age. I was told: “Your whole life is ahead of you. What will you do? Where will you travel? What do you want to be? Where will you live?”

I dreamed of travel, family, home ownership with a beautiful yard and pets. Kids and young adults now seem to feel, or maybe they know, that they will never own a home. They don’t have the same license to dream that I had not that many years ago.

My own kids have mentioned Alberta or further away for affordability reasons. Others have left not only the province but the country. People are seeing their futures erode in B.C. We are being taxed to the eyeballs.

Prior to being elected, I worked in real estate, and I saw firsthand how expensive people find British Columbia. From the property transfer tax, which we sometimes call a deal killer here in B.C. with those from out of province, to the sheer number of buyers that just gave up here on our market or to the sellers that left for more affordable ground, we saw it firsthand as realtors everywhere. If we could reduce taxes for families, we might keep some families here in B.C. If we could reduce taxes for people, we might keep our adult children here in B.C.

In October of 2024, the Premier said: “Under our plan, families will get more support, and you’ll get it right away. The Leader of the Official Opposition would hand tax breaks to billionaires and speculators while leaving you waiting for the help you need now.” Well, actions speak louder than words, and it turns out that it was the Premier that left you waiting for the help you need now.

[3:25 p.m.]

The Premier was all tax — oops, Freudian; I mean all talk — and no action. That is like seeing someone drowning and saying: “Nah, I’m not going to throw you this rope and flotation device now because I can’t afford it, but I know you’ll be fine, and thanks for voting for me.”

The Leader of the Official Opposition knows that

Premier was all tax — oops, a Freudian. I mean all talk and no action. That is like seeing someone drowning and saying: “Nah, I’m not going to throw you this rope and flotation device now, because I can’t afford it. But I know you’ll be fine, and thanks for voting for me.”

The Leader of the Official Opposition knows that people are drowning financially and that they need this help now. That is why I can support this amendment, and I hope that you will too.

Families are hurting, and 307 new clients registered for food bank support in the Central Okanagan. That was just this March. These are new clients to the food bank, people who never needed a food bank before. These are families. In fact, the fastest-growing clientele at the Central Okanagan Food Bank is middle-income families — families with two income earners, two working adults in one home. Many have good jobs. Many have university degrees. This is unacceptable in Canada. This is unacceptable in British Columbia and in Kelowna.

This amendment could be a first step in instant relief for families. I read all of the ministry mandate letters, and they all start with the same points: grow the economy. But I do not see that happening, unless you consider government jobs and bureaucracy economic growth.

This amendment would put more money in the pockets of British Columbians. For some, it will be the difference between seeking help from a food bank for the first time or going to the grocery store like they live in the first-world country that they actually live in.

For others, like the entrepreneur I was, it could mean being able to spend time in the hospital with a loved one without going into debt. Maybe it will be a payment on a student loan or an investment in a product for the start of a small online business.

Or, since cats are a theme today, hon. Speaker, maybe you can afford to buy your cat some pet food or some fresh litter.

I hope to make the point and emphasize how much people are struggling in the real world, outside of the walls of this chamber. Seniors are struggling. A couple of weeks ago in Kelowna, and I know I’ve said this before, three different senior men sought shelter in one day at one particular location. That was one day in Kelowna. It’s worth noting that not one of these men, not even a single one, had a drug use issue, and not one of these men had previously sought shelter.

I’m sure that for them, after working productively their whole lives, this would have been a blow to their pride. And I can’t imagine. I feel so bad for them. I can’t imagine how they must be feeling and what they’re facing. This is how bad it is and how badly British Columbians need this relief that this bill could offer.

In October of 2024, the Premier said: “I’m on the side of everyday people and families who just want to end the day a little further ahead than when they started it.” The Premier sounded so kind, and maybe I believe him a little bit because, well, he does yoga like me, and yogis are nice people usually. Because I like to believe the best about people and because I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, I want to believe him, because most people want good things for themselves and for others. We don’t like to see others suffering. But I do think there’s a disconnect from that side of the room, because life is harder. Everything seems less affordable.

How can he be on the side of everyday people when he cancels relief, and life just continues to be harder and harder for the shrinking middle class? I have a hard time with the Premier’s statement, because after eight years of NDP government, there is nowhere that you can look in any sector where life is better, unless it’s an executive position in a government-funded job. Yet I hear all of these nice things coming from the other side of the room. Things like: “We’re investing in this. We’re increasing funding in that, continuing to support this. We’ll begin to support that. We will do. We have done. We’ve reduced poverty. We’ve expanded programs.”

[3:30 p.m.]

But then tell me why. Why does life seem worse, harder? Why is everything less affordable? Why are there more mental health struggles than ever before and more crime? There seems to be a disconnect here, a difference between some really pretty, dressed-up word salads and reality.

affordable.

Why are there more mental health struggles than ever before and more crime? There seems to be a disconnect here. A difference between some really pretty dressed-up word salads and reality. I like to deal with the root of the problem. This amendment speaks to the root of the problem. There’s not enough money in British Columbians’ pockets. Rather, this government seeks to tax British Columbians, and then give a little bit back here and there. This is the kind of system that promotes reliance on the government, and quite frankly, it buys votes. It’s the kind of system that takes away from an individual’s ability to provide for themselves. It erodes pride and purpose, two things that are key to an individual’s ability to feel whole and alive and to achieve the mental wellness that comes with that.

When I raise my kids, I want them to grow with a sense of reliance, with a feeling of purpose and optimism. Too often today, this government is pushing a “we’ll take care of you” approach. Trust us to give it back to you. Trust the system to be there when you need it. Trust us. This takes away from a person’s motivation, and, furthermore, that system is broken. The system is so broken and breaking down in front of us. What will be left to trust in after we’ve gathered their trust?

This amendment could be a beginning. Together we can work to put more money into wallets, money that the government never took out to begin with. Novel concept, I know. But I believe we need to begin here. On September 30, 2024, the Premier said, “A $1,000 tax cut the year after that, the year after that and the year after that.” It was a cheap promise, but now the government can make good on it, and it can be a joint effort across political lines, and it can be permanent, not just three years. British Columbians need more than three years of relief. We need a real and lasting plan for a stronger economy, lower taxes, and more hope and opportunity for young British Columbians.

This bill promises relief. Perhaps we don’t need to make poverty a thriving industry, fueled by high taxes and low incentives for the business community. Perhaps we can move back towards a thriving middle class. As we all know, a healthy and thriving middle class is essential and important to a healthy democracy. A healthy and widespread middle class provides a healthy foundation for the economy. Modest taxes coming from this class can also support a wide range of supports for a struggling and vulnerable population. Without a strong and healthy middle class, all of the systems that the vulnerable depend on become at risk.

As the critic for social development, I am keenly aware of how at risk some of these programs are or could become. Like any household budget, one cannot expect to run deficits, build debts, use credit cards in an infinite manner and be able to sustain that behaviour long term. At some points, payments become unmanageable, and the whole house of cards will fall. This is my concern with the struggling middle class. It’s why I believe this amendment is so important. We have to support the middle class, as it is they who support every program that this government runs.

On September 29, 2024, the Premier said, “People need help now so they can get ahead. The Leader of the Official Opposition would make ordinary people wait 18 months to receive any support. That’s if you believe him at all. Our tax cut for the middle class supports people now who are struggling with the high cost of groceries.” The Premier said people will need relief now, but what’s changed since September that he feels he can simply cancel this plan? What is his plan to support those who need relief?

This amendment seeks to answer that call, delivering immediate relief to families who are now just $200 away from falling behind on their bills. The people on this side of the room have the backs of all British Columbians, and that is why we will support this amendment. We want to see businesses thrive. We want a healthy middle-income society. We want healthy programs supporting our vulnerable, but we realize we can’t do that without a strong and healthy middle class who pays a reasonable amount of tax and has a strong chance for opportunity and prosperity.

[3:35 p.m.]

We aren’t against social programs. We understand

we want healthy programs supporting our vulnerable, but we realize we can’t do that without a strong and healthy middle class who pays a reasonable amount of tax and has a strong chance for opportunity and prosperity. We aren’t against social programs. We understand how they must be funded and that money does not grow on trees.

I knew then and I know now that the member for Nechako Lakes would bring policies that would bring relief to everyday British Columbians, policies that would release the stranglehold of high regulation and overtaxation that it has on everyday British Columbians and small businesses. This amendment brings real, recurring relief to the people of British Columbia, which is what they need right now.

I know the people of Kelowna would support this type of amendment. During my campaign, I heard from small businesses, small business owners and restaurant owners, that they will not survive another four years if this NDP government stays on the current trajectory of high taxes and high regulation. I have witnessed many businesses in Kelowna close down in the past couple of years, so I believe them.

One of my colleagues on this side of the House tells me that restaurant owners in his riding used to run their restaurants with 12 staff. Take home was millions, and a burger was $6 just a few years ago. Well, now that same burger is $12, so it has doubled. They can only afford to have two staff, not 12, and they take home about 65 percent of what they were taking home several years ago.

This is not sustainable, and this is why we will continue to see families in the food bank lineup, leave the province and businesses leave the province. Unless and until this government begins to bring relief to the middle class, we are on a path to deficits, debt and lack of opportunity.

I do know that all members want good things for British Columbians, so I urge all of us to dig deep, consider what is working and what is not working, and find a common way forward. I do believe that we can agree on many things and that we should drop the things that matter less. Ideologies and regulations and being right all matter very little when children are hungry and jobs are scarce or the ones that are available simply don’t pay the bills.

Let me remind this House that it wasn’t that long ago — it was just last year, in fact — that the Premier himself promised British Columbians a $1,000 annual grocery rebate. He stood in front of cameras and said that help was coming. Then after the election was over, after the headlines faded, that promise was abandoned, but not before they gave themselves raises.

British Columbians are not asking for luxuries. They’re not asking for handouts. They’re asking to be able to afford milk, bread, diapers, gas to get to work. They’re asking for a little bit of breathing room. They’re asking for the supports to be able to provide for themselves, and this bill gives it to them.

This amendment holds the government to its word too. If the Premier and his cabinet believed in that rebate enough to campaign on it, then they should believe in it enough to support this bill. I hope all members of this House will support this bill and provide the tax relief British Columbians so desperately need and deserve. This is an amendment that every member of this House should support. It brings real solutions to real problems. It’s not broken promises anymore. I urge all members of this House to support this commonsense measure and give British Columbians the tax relief that they deserve.

We in this House have a responsibility to listen to our constituents not just during elections but in moments like this when action is needed, when leadership is required, when talk is not enough. So I ask all members of this House to set aside the politics. Think of the people in your riding who are watching their grocery bills climb. Think of the young families barely keeping up with mortgage payments and daycare costs. Think of the seniors counting their change in the checkout line.

Just like my caucus colleagues, I support this amendment, and I hope the other side will support it as well.

[3:40 p.m.]

Trevor Halford: It’s always a privilege and an honour to speak in this House at any opportunity

support it as well.

Trevor Halford: It’s always a privilege and an honour to speak in this House at any opportunity. I think this is a very special one, because I think we have a unique opportunity to do something here that will help all British Columbians.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing. I think we’ve got a great, like I said, opportunity in front of us to do just exactly that for a couple of reasons.

It’s important that we do our best to live up to our words and our commitments, something I know that we try and do in this House. I try and do it as a parent, I try and do it as a community leader, especially when we make commitments. I think this is what we’re talking about today, and this is a fundamental challenge — that this government has made a commitment.

We are, on this side of the House, doing our part to help fulfil that commitment. I think that’s good. I think that that’s collaboration. I think it’s an opportunity for us all to come together and do the right thing. We’ve listed it off, and I look forward to hearing some of the government members speak on this amendment. I’m sure we’ll be able to do that.

Here’s why I want to see that happen. It’s because a lot of the members that have sat in this House presently spoke on the grocery rebate during the campaign, quite often, numerous times a day. Probably handed it out on their campaign literature. Here is what an NDP government is going to do for you.

That’s good. That’s what campaigns are all about. Whether it’s campaigning on free contraception, renters rebates, involuntary care, that’s what campaigns are all about — making commitments. The big problem, though, is that when you get there, at the end of the finish line, they expect that you somehow fulfil those commitments, because you should.

So I guess my challenge would be that if it’s good enough to campaign on and speak about and go on CKNW, have ads, use it in leaders’ debates, local chamber debates — when they showed up — I think it’s really important that we do that now. There’s an opportunity to speak on that and defend it, vote on it, support it.

I can’t see any constituency out of the 93 that are represented in this room that wouldn’t support what we’re talking about today. There are no food banks in this province right now that are saying: “We actually don’t have a long list of people.” In fact, they’re saying: “We’re running off the food of our shelves. We’re running low on money. We’re struggling.” This would go a long way in helping that. I think we have an obligation to have that conversation, and unfortunately, on this amendment, it’s a one-way conversation.

You know, I look at it from a couple of perspectives. I think, one, we’ve heard the Finance Minister talk about why she wouldn’t support this. We heard her during the campaign talk about why she would support it, but now she doesn’t. She lists tariffs and all that stuff. We know the reality of what’s going on. We see it every day. It changes every day.

But the fact is that this decision to renege on this commitment, just like the decision to renege on the renters rebate in two consecutive elections, the decision to renege on the commitment to support involuntary care, even the decision to delay free contraception…. They’re all decisions made by this government.

[3:45 p.m.]

But this one here, in terms of helping those who need it the most, helping actually every British Columbian — they made a conscious choice not to do it. And that was prior to any talk of the change of tariffs.

I had people that came up to me — and this was after October 19, and it was more than just once — and said: “Do you think that there’s any chance that we could get that money prior to Christmas?”

not to do it. That was prior to any talk of the change in tariffs. I had people that came up to me — and this was after October 19, and it was more than just once — and said: “Do you think that there’s any chance that we could get that money prior to Christmas?” I’m sure I wasn’t the only one that was having those conversations.

I think there’s a reality of why the Premier didn’t want to reconvene in the fall post-election. It was because he didn’t want to give that bad news. My question would be…. You probably even knew during the campaign that you couldn’t fulfil this commitment. There are people sitting here today that benefited politically and probably owe their seats because of that commitment that this Premier made. That’s a fact when you look at some of the margins in some of the ridings. It played that big of a role.

All we’re doing here today is we’re trying to be helpful, collaborative and say: let’s work together. Let’s get this done. Let’s help out British Columbians. Let’s help out not just the people in Surrey-White Rock. Let’s help out the people in the Finance Minister’s riding, the Agriculture Minister’s riding. Let’s help out all 93 ridings right now and make sure that people know that when we make a commitment, we’re going to follow through. That’s it. We get that done real quick because, like I said, it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing.

We’ve mentioned the quotes from the Premier on this. He talks about it. The Premier says…. This is on CBC, September 30, 2024, and I think much of the budget numbers and the budget was focused on numbers prior to that. The Premier made these comments on September 30, which I’m just going to read, and he says, and I quote: “A $1,000 tax cut the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that.”

On October 9 of 2024, he says…. And this is actually in an NDP news release, so this goes back to what I was talking about: “Under our plan, families will get more support, and you’ll get it right away.” Right away. “The Leader of the Opposition would hand tax breaks to billionaire speculators, while leaving you waiting for the help you need now.”

That was in an NDP news release during the campaign, something that I’m sure all 93 NDP candidates were circulating everywhere. Whenever they knocked on doors, they did phone banks, they did rallies, when they went to their chamber debates, wherever it was, this was something that they were keen to talk about.

They’re not that keen to talk about it right now, and that’s a big problem. We have to be accountable in this place. There’s an expectation that we do that. It’s fundamental to what we do. Here’s the problem: when you make a commitment and you don’t live up to it, there are big challenges with that.

Again, we heard about the tariffs. We understand the tariffs, and we understand the impacts that they’re having. Nobody in this House is happy about that. But these decisions were made before we even heard President Trump talk about tariffs. The decision to pull the rug out from British Columbians when they needed it the most, when they actually went to the polls and voted because of this — to me, that speaks to a core credibility issue that we’re seeing with this government.

I’m going to talk about the importance of what this money could do for people in my riding and some of the other ridings. Now, everybody here remembers the heat dome that we had. We lost 617 British Columbians.

[3:50 p.m.]

I lost a few seniors in my riding from that. We have very aged apartments there that basically turn into greenhouses. Some of them didn’t even know that if they opened their windows, it actually got worse.

The fact of the matter is then the government comes out and says: “Okay, well, we were totally unprepared for this, but here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to give rebates” — whatever it is — “on air conditioners.” I can tell you that the majority of people in my riding that need those air conditioners

that it actually got worse. The fact of the matter is, then the government comes out and says: “Okay, well, we were totally unprepared for this, but here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to give rebates,” whatever it is, “on air conditioners.”

I can tell you that the majority of people in my riding that need those air conditioners didn’t get access to them. This, what we’re talking about in front of us right now, this could actually help them go to Home Hardware, wherever it is, RONA and get those air conditioners as we move into the hot summer months. That’s the decision that they could make.

For the single mom, she can make the decision if she’s going to put her son or daughter in spring hockey. This helps with that. To the senior that’s making a decision whether or not they are going to be able to pay their rent or pay for their prescriptions, this helps with that. Maybe for the person that is struggling with mental health but doesn’t have the benefits that so many people enjoy and needs to get counselling services that aren’t publicly available, this — what we’re talking about in front of us — can help with that. It does. It helps a lot.

It helps when you have so many British Columbians that are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills, when the cost of everything is going up day by day, and it’s getting harder and harder. In this House, what we’re hearing from this government is: “Be patient. Help is on the way.” It hasn’t been.

We are asking British Columbians to do so much right now. We’re asking them to Buy B.C., which they should be doing and which we all should be doing; it’s very important. We’re asking them to be patient. I’ll tell you, the patience is running out.

If you look at it, even how expensive it is…. I had a guest come over to visit me on the ferry. There and back with gas, ferries — it’s over $250, just to visit the capital city. No hotel. That’s just filling up her car and getting on the ferry. This helps with that.

This helps people maybe be able to make that mortgage payment that month or their rent. We deal with a lot of individual cases where we are, and I’ll never forget the one where I had an event and a lady came up to me, an elderly lady, and she said to me…. I’ve told this story before.

She said: “Are you using your parking spot over the weekend in front of your office?” I said: “No, it’s free. You can use it, but what do you need it for? You can have it.” She goes: “Well, me and my daughter, we sleep in our car, and we get harassed. And I think that if I’m parked in front of your office, maybe they’ll leave me alone and we can get a good night’s sleep.” That’s a true story. This helps her. It won’t change her life, but it will help her life when she needs it the most.

Why wouldn’t we do that? Why not? We’re smart people in this room.

I grew up in a small business family. My mom’s last day is actually going to be tomorrow; she’s retiring. She ran that business for 30 years. She kept the same staff for almost all of it, and she treated her staff very well. One of the things that she always stressed is that if you treat people well, they’ll stick with you and they’ll keep coming back.

[3:55 p.m.]

But part of it, too, was we learned early on that people when they have a little bit more money in their pocket, they tend to spend it. And when they spend it locally, we all do well. When they say “you know what, tonight we can actually afford to go down to the beach and have fish and chips,” that doesn’t just benefit them. It benefits the people that are selling it. It benefits the people that are getting the fish, serving the fish, that are frying the fish. It all trickles down.

That’s what I think this government doesn’t understand — that when people do better, we all

It benefits them. It benefits the people that are selling it. It benefits the people that are getting the fish, that are serving the fish, that are frying the fish. It all trickles down. That’s what I think this government doesn’t understand. When people do better, we all do better. That’s how it works.

I can’t see a vast amount of people that are going to take this money and say: “Know what we’re going to do? We’re going to invest it.” Maybe some of them definitely will. But the majority of people need help, and they need it right now. We’re hearing that. I know every MLA office is hearing that.

The Leader of the Opposition has taken an opportunity to put this amendment on the floor. We’re having this debate. Right now, it’s pretty one-sided. But there’s an opportunity right after I sit down for somebody to pop up on the government side and either support this or tell British Columbians why they have failed once again to live up to their word.

In the next election, I don’t know what the NDP slogan might want to be. Like, “We overpromise and underdeliver,” because we’ve had election and election where that’s happened. Renters rebate. Same thing. I think it worked out to almost a dollar a day, if that. But here, we have something that can be very vital to how people are living.

To me, it’s all about priorities. Nobody is thinking in this House, and nobody is thinking, definitely, outside of this House that this NDP government are wizards when it comes to the financial realities of where we are. We’ve had credit rating downgrades. Now we’ve got record-setting deficits.

We heard in question period that we’ve got stuff that’s been sent to a minister’s office and not even been reviewed or not been followed up on or unaware of stuff coming into that office. We have an opportunity right now, right in front of us, to do the right thing. I think that we should take advantage of that.

One of the things that, right after we were elected…. You can tell right away. First of all, the Premier was more panicked on trying to find a Speaker than he was when he was trying to get the grocery rebate. But people were asking: “When are you going back to Victoria? When are we getting this?” Right away, you could see the hedging that was happening.

“Well, we’ll have to see. We have to look. We’ve got to appoint a cabinet. We’ve got to do this. We’ve got to do that. We’ll see, but we’re looking hard at it.” Suddenly those brochures disappeared a long time ago. Those debates didn’t exist. This was the last thing that he wanted to talk about. Then, in the weeks that followed, it was more hedging. Then it was like: “It ain’t happening. Don’t ask me about it again.”

We have a chance right now. We can get this done very quickly. It’s important. We talk about priorities and after you were talking about…. We are talking about $500 a year, which is not…. It’s a lot of money to somebody that’s at a food bank. But let’s take an example. When you’re the Premier’s chief of staff for less than two years, and a press release goes out that they’ve mutually agreed to part ways or whatever it is…. By the way, here’s $275,000 out the door. That gets done right away. But we’re talking about a grocery rebate. It’s about priorities. That’s what this is about.

[4:00 p.m.]

When we broke for Christmas, holiday break, I think there was only one NDP MLA that was

making base salary. I don’t know who it was. I feel sorry for them. But one of them was, I think, if that. Just one.

when we broke for Christmas, holiday break, I think there was only one NDP MLA that was making base salary. I don’t know who it was. I feel sorry for them, but one of them was, I think, if that — just one. Everybody else was making over that $119,000. And this wasn’t the priority. The priority was to maintain caucus and survive.

I’m telling you right now that there are people lined up at the food bank that are trying to survive. There are seniors that are deciding on if they can afford their prescriptions. They are trying to survive. There are people sleeping in their cars wondering where they’re going to drive to next. They are trying to survive. There is a single mom trying to figure out how she’s going to have the conversation with her friends to borrow money or tell their kids that they can’t play hockey this year. She is trying to survive.

This government looks like they’re trying to survive the day. It’s an economic disaster over there. And they can blame whoever they want. They’ve got to look in the mirror.

It’s going to get worse. If the families of British Columbia ran their finances like this government runs theirs, I can’t imagine. I can’t imagine. They can’t do that. They don’t have that. Credit cards are maxed out. This government’s credit card is really maxed out.

But we still have an obligation to step up and fulfil the commitments that we make. It’s the right thing to do. I don’t know why we wouldn’t do that. And if you’re not going to do it, stand up and defend why you won’t do it. Don’t just nay it. Stand up and say: “Here’s why we won’t do it.” Somebody has got to.

You owe it to the people whose doors you knocked on and who came out there. I had people that came out there and said: “You know what? I really like you, but I need that money, and the Premier said we’re going to get it quick.” They’re still waiting. Everything else has gone up. Transit fare has gone up, ferry has gone up, and grocery has gone up. Still waiting.

I actually don’t know what, in this House, the numbers would have looked like if people actually knew the reality that this government had no intention of fulfilling this commitment — none. They didn’t. They didn’t believe them on the renter’s rebate because that was twice. They didn’t believe them on voluntary care because that was twice.

The problem with this is…. I’m not even going to give them credit because I don’t even think it was genuine. I think it was panic. But, in that panic, they gave false hope to people that needed this at such a critical time. That is wrong.

You know, I don’t know anybody in the circles that come into my office and they need help that would say: “We don’t need this right now. We think that you guys should focus on hiring more people in the Premier’s office for communications. We think that you should have nine or ten people in a minister’s office making combined salaries of over $1 million. Those are the priorities I think you need to be focused on. I’m good. I’ll just get a third job and see what we can make work.”

That’s not fair. At least if you’re going to have that perspective, get up and defend it. Have that debate.

[4:05 p.m.]

All we hear is “Trump” and “tariffs.” We’re aware — have been for a few months. These decisions were made before that ever happened. That’s the fact. We know that. We’ve got smart people on this side. And it’s been proven out time and time again. The numbers don’t lie on that.

Just be honest. Just get up and say

These decisions were made before that ever happened. That’s the fact. We know that. We’ve got smart people on this side. And it’s been proven out time and time again. The numbers don’t lie on that.

Just be honest. Just get up and say: “We never intended to do this. Sorry, our bad.” It was just like the renters’ rebate. It was just like the free contraception. It was just like when we talked about involuntary care and pretended to be mad. We never intended to do it. Overpromise, underdeliver, but this time they screwed up, because people are angry and are fed up.

They see the way this government treats the finances of British Columbia, and they don’t trust them. And they shouldn’t. Credit ratings don’t trust them either. They see what they spend, whether it’s the Cowichan Hospital, which, by context, is going to be one of the most expensive hospitals in Canada by bed. They’ve seen the fact that even before a shovel goes in the ground, if it ain’t over budget and it ain’t delayed, it ain’t NDP. And that’s not good. Like, I wouldn’t even let my kids treat their allowances like this government treats our taxpayer money.

I think the biggest challenge that we have is just being transparent. I think this amendment is a really good test of where we are. When the Premier gets up and says, “we have to work,” and the Premier right after the election says, “I’m going to work with every MLA in that House. I don’t care where they are, what they represent. I’m going to work with each of them. If they’ve got a good idea, we’re going to support it,” this is a great opportunity to do that. Let’s do it, right?

Let’s support good pieces of legislation. It’s not difficult, but if you’re not, get up and defend it. Get up and say: “Hey, I’m sorry I knocked on your door, and I’m sorry I sold you on this promise.” And a couple of the other promises, but we’ll talk about that later. Get up and just say why you won’t do it. Just say why this is a bad idea.

You should have done that, actually, on October 20, when the votes were counted, but you didn’t do that. That never happened. But it goes back to my point, where the Premier says: “We want to work with everybody.” This is a good amendment that makes a lot of sense. I think that the people would expect that their representative, their MLA, that either campaigned for this or a similar version of this, should be able to get up in the House and represent them and speak to it, why they’re going to support it or why they won’t.

It’s not that hard. It maybe leads to a few difficult conversations, but I think that’s what we’re here for. But I can tell you, in my riding, we have a lot of low-income seniors that could use this money. Out of my office, every year from March to the end of April, we have sources come in, and they help with the taxes. So I get to see these people come in as they file their taxes, and a lot of them are just stressed. They’re stressed.

Some of them, sadly, are embarrassed, and they have no reason to be embarrassed. They shouldn’t; this government should be embarrassed. They should be embarrassed that they campaigned on one thing, they barely squeaked out of an election, and then they pulled the rug right out from British Columbians before any talk of tariffs, before any talk of Trump, and said: “Yeah, we’ll figure that out, and we’ll get back to you.”

We knew right away that this wasn’t happening. That’s wrong. But even worse is that when an opportunity is presented to you to do the right thing, you don’t even take that. What’s even worse than that is you don’t even get up and defend why you won’t take it. Again, it’s a privilege.

[4:10 p.m.]

I support this amendment. I hope others support this amendment. Like I said, it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing. With that, I will conclude my remarks, and I want to thank you for allowing me this opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Surrey–White Rock.

Like I said, it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing.

With that, I’ll conclude my remarks. I want to thank you for allowing me this opportunity.

Á’a:líya Warbus: I stand today in support of this amendment to Bill 5, which I think has been reflected very well by my colleague, who talks about issues from a very different place, demographically, than my constituency in Chilliwack. We have different issues there, different needs, a different kind of labour force and population, but on everything that he’s canvassed and reflected on, it sounds exactly the same.

I think what we’ve heard and experienced over our time in the House is this need and desperation that people are feeling now. You can take those stories — we hear them over and over again — and it is no different for the constituents of Chilliwack–Cultus Lake.

When I went out door-knocking and started to meet people on many of their concerns top of mind, that would be the first thing that they would want to talk about: affordability. They would talk about the struggles that they were experiencing.

A single mom, a nurse with an adult son at home, is trying to pay for the rent at that time, for the needs of her son and for herself, struggling because of the long hours that she had to work, night shifts as a nurse, and to still be there for her son, as the only parent in the household. She’s struggling because she doesn’t want him to have to get a job at the age he’s at, but to be able to focus on his studies. With being there as well, she’s so worn out and so tired from just trying to make ends meet.

Soon I was hearing stories, from people at the doors, that they were leaving. A lot of people weren’t home. I was surprised to find “For Sale” signs in many of the places where I was visiting. People were in the midst of packing up their belongings and their family. Many of them were talking about going to other provinces and sharing stories of how there was work there for them, property that they could afford, more space for their children to expand into and to grow into, because these cramped spaces that they’re able to afford in Chilliwack are not good enough.

It’s interesting, as I reflect on some of the statistics that were handed to me in my office when I was elected and found this common trend of 30 percent, when I looked at this, on my first visit to the food bank. The Salvation Army is an excellent resource in Chilliwack. They’re doing such good work, and I always want to recognize those people who are caring for all of those that are on the margins and who are struggling. We need those services, absolutely. But the extent to which we need them now, I’ve never seen in my lifetime that I’ve grown up in the town of Chilliwack.

When I went to go and tour the services at Salvation Army, they expressed that the food bank lineups have never been at such high demand. We understand from the statistics now that there’s a 30 percent increase in food bank usage, just from 2022. It’s not a long time, but that’s a big jump in the amount of everyday people that have to go to the food bank in order to make ends meet.

[4:15 p.m.]

What they told me was that each day people were lining up earlier and earlier so that they could secure a place at the beginning of the line and not be left with the scraps after everybody else had made their way through. I saw elders, I saw disabled people, I saw veterans, and I saw young moms with baby strollers waiting in that lineup.

a place at the beginning of the line and not be left with the scraps after everybody else has made their way through. I saw elders, I saw disabled people, I saw veterans, and I saw young moms with baby strollers waiting in that lineup.

What they have to do for working families is shut down the food bank at a certain amount of time so that they can leave food on the shelves. Then those people who are lucky enough to have part-time work are able to come back at the later hour, when they’re off work. They open for two more hours so that those working people can also access their services.

They made that adjustment after they received feedback from people who were saying: “We’re coming here as soon as we can. As soon as I’m done work, the first thing I do is rush here so that I can have a chance to get food for dinner tonight, and you’re empty. You’re closed. You’ve given all the food out.” So they made that adjustment for working people. Mostly they’re finding that it’s single-parent households. In Chilliwack, we have many of those — close to 3,000 single-parent households; 30 percent are men who are raising their children on their own.

Another number that reflects that 30 percent is that 30 percent of people’s income is going to their rent or their mortgage. But in Chilliwack, we’ve also seen a 30 percent increase in real estate costs.

When I first moved back, and that was after studying in the city and doing many things but being ready to move back home into my own territory, I was looking at the real estate landscape. It seemed possible then for me and my young family to be able to get in at that point. But since then, it has more than doubled for the exact same dwelling. That’s a longer stretch of time, but this 30 percent increase in real estate costs in Chilliwack has been recent, a recent ballooning in those prices.

If we know that the average income for a family in Chilliwack is only $47,000 a year, then how are they to afford almost $3,000 to go towards their mortgage? What that leaves for them is next to nothing, about $300 a week to live on. And who can do that? Who can afford that with grocery prices going up? We know a small bag of groceries…. That is if you’re not buying protein. Meat has gone off the charts. You’re going to leave with a small bag of groceries and oftentimes it’s $30, $40 and you’ve barely gotten anything.

So when we’re talking about relief like this, it can go a long way for somebody who wants to afford insurance on their car for a year, and that is for the people that are lucky enough to have jobs right now in this economy. Many people are looking for work and are not successful. Many people are facing the brink of desperation for the times that they’re in.

Another interesting statistic for Chilliwack is the amount of adult children that have had to what they call “boomerang.” There’s an actual term for it now. They leave home only to have to come back a few years later, and they have to move in with their parents. What we know about this situation is that dwellings become cramped. Children are growing up and they don’t have bedrooms. I live across from a family who has three families now — one grandma, her two adult kids, their spouses and their kids all living under one roof so that they can afford food, so they don’t have to go to the food bank to make ends meet.

When we talk about the larger picture…. Again, I just want to thank my colleague for the reflection on the many pieces that can impact the struggles that we see. But when we take a look at the larger picture, people really feel a sense of hopelessness right now.

[4:20 p.m.]

You can visually see the difference in a place like Chilliwack. Again, not that many years ago, we didn’t see as many people who were visibly struggling, visibly struggling in all parts of town.

visually see the difference in a place like Chilliwack. Again, not that many years ago, we didn’t see as many people who were visibly struggling — visibly struggling in all parts of town, not just the downtown core but in all parts of town. And because what we have is a lot of recreational space and campsites, they are now becoming a danger to the forests. They’re contaminating the waterways. They’re starting to infringe upon private properties, steal food from people’s refrigerators that they keep outside or freezers that they keep outside.

We’re on the brink of some real public safety concerns because people are that desperate, and we do not have the resources. You move an encampment, and they pop up another place just like that. I talk to the area coordinators in my constituency all the time about these issues and how dangerous it’s getting in the valley.

Private homeowners are at their wits’ end at this point because they don’t know what to do with their properties being stolen, their food being stolen. This is a huge risk. And it all ties back in to this feeling of desperation that people have, whether they cannot find work, whether they’re having a hard time balancing work, single parents and their kids, again, to pay that huge mortgage bill if they have housing or the skyrocketing rents, and then with what little that they have left over, be able to afford not luxuries, not trips, not sports for their kids, nothing that’s exquisite at all but just the basics of clothing, food, being comfortable.

Again, I reflect on the social programs that we have and the extension of my local government programs, fundraising, all the things that these small not-for-profit societies are doing to keep their doors open so that they can help people because, from their heart, that’s what they see, and that’s what they want to do. But even they are overburdened with the amount of people they need to turn away because they don’t have enough resources, because the whole thing is splitting at the seams.

Another example of this mass exodus that we are indeed experiencing…. I’ve looked at the statistics, and it was reflected in the 2025 budget — this example of young families that are leaving British Columbia. Well, they’re not just taking the money or the talent that they may have been able to contribute and infuse into this economy that we so badly need, but they’re also taking their small businesses with them, their children that could have lived here and raised families. So when you talk about numbers of people that are leaving the province, we have to think about — I said this before and I’ll say it again — not just right now, not just our generation, not just the extension of one term of four years that you have in government. The thinking needs to go way beyond.

When you make a promise to people, and they start to gear themselves up or start to plan to have that extra money, and they’re kind of counting the days…. I know a lot of people who…. They depend on some of these tax breaks And then it doesn’t come. That sort of scramble and shift and what they have to take away…. I know that some people are deciding between medications and food. I know many people that are sleeping in their car, and they’re moving from place to place to place.

[4:25 p.m.]

It’s exactly that reason — because they’re going to be harassed. I know there are many things on the surface that don’t seem like poverty, and they are. There was a woman that was visiting the food bank and getting services, clothing, a lot of help out of the Salvation Army.

to be harassed.

I know there are many things on the surface that don’t seem like poverty, and they are. There was a woman that was visiting the food bank and getting services, clothing, a lot of help out of the Salvation Army. The workers there said: “Look, she comes in this fancy car, and she’s getting these services. It’s not fair. Optically, it doesn’t look good.”

But because the frontline workers in Chilliwack have made such great relationships with the population, they actually knew who she was, what her circumstance was, and why that was all she had to her name. That was her house and transportation, fleeing a difficult situation.

But what I’m getting to here is, and what I have experienced since, as I said, knocking on doors, talking to everyday people, the experiences that I’m having now at my office through the many, many cases of people that come to me is that in these tough times, if a promise is made, then people actually expect you to follow through with it. Not only do they expect you to follow through with the promise, but some of their livelihood actually depends on it.

What I haven’t seen reflected, and it goes with this amendment and other things, is that the breaks that people need are not there. Instead, what we’re doing is we’re taxing everyone else. A new tax here, a new tax for this, a new tax, and we’re going to solve this problem by a new tax, by a new tax.

We’re shaking everyone down for the pennies they have in their pockets and feeling like that is going to now solve the problem that this growing margin of people is facing — homelessness, hunger, hopelessness, angst, addiction, mental health, violence that’s becoming more and more severe.

We are experiencing it, too, in Chilliwack. My nephew was a front store clerk. He worked nights, broke his leg chasing down a criminal, was absolutely told that was not the policy, but did it, because that’s the kind of person he was.

I told a story about one of my favourite and regular corner stores that I always go to. That young man, when he was attacked at work, didn’t want to return but had to. He’s the only one supporting his family — his mom and his younger sisters and brothers. Had to return to work but was terrified, because he did nothing wrong and nothing to provoke that attack. But that, again, is the level of desperation that we’re seeing in our communities. And we’ve never seen that before.

So what I urge for people to reflect on in this House and on items like this, where we can come together to really make a difference for people on the ground…. You know, some of the things that we talk about and we vote on and we debate…. The tangibility of that is like…. It’s a little, tiny needle in people’s lives, right? They may notice that if they come across that specific policy in their industry or their work.

But when we talk about changes that are going to affect each and every person in British Columbia, and when we know that those changes are so desperately needed, and we play with that anticipation and that hope, I’m not quite sure what kind of message that sends. Not a good one. Not the kind of message that I would want to lead with if it were up to me.

[4:30 p.m.]

That’s why I’m standing to talk about these things, to try to put it into understandable, feasible language, give you numbers, examples, because maybe that is the way that people can actually understand. What does it mean to be $200 away every single month, not knowing…? Is my tire going to go this month? Am I going to have an unexpected tax bill, speculation? Am I going to owe more than I thought?

to be $200 away every single month, not knowing if my tire going to go this month. You know, am I going to have an unexpected tax bill, speculation? Am I going to owe more than I thought? Did I file this correctly? There you go. There’s that money flying out of your pocket that you didn’t have in the first place. And now what do you do?

Many people don’t have credit or a safety net or a savings. We know that. They’re far from it. And so, again, making a promise that this leader promised to British Columbians, time after time…. I could read these quotes, and I’m sure they’ve been read, that this $1,000 tax cut will help British Columbians right away — only to find out that no, it’s not going to happen. It’s really, really disappointing.

I think we have the opportunity right now to correct that, to make a difference, to come together, to ensure that right now, in the most dire of time that we’ve seen in this province, we are doing everything that we possibly can to make good on promises, but also to just follow through on what many of us promised to do when we came here, and that’s make a difference in people’s lives.

I’d just like to also say, in regards to the food banks and some of these trends that we’re seeing, that it’s not just elderly people, it’s not just people who are coming upon hard times, and this is temporary for them. The hardest part of this entire reality right now is that we are seeing the highest numbers of children who are going hungry right now. That, to me, is wrong. It’s heartbreaking. And again, we can only program ourselves out of these issues and tax the rest of the population so much until the whole thing busts apart.

We’ve got a patchwork of ideas and ways to get more money, a creative tax regime, but without an economy to support the needs of the province, then I feel like the trends that we’re experiencing now are only going to get worse. I think that we’ve experienced that already. The hunger among children and the poverty rates is around 126,000 children in British Columbia.

Single-parent households in Indigenous communities are disproportionately affected. We need to find a way, with this initiative and beyond, to continue not to band-aid the issues with quick fixes and reactive solutions, but to start to ensure that our systems are giving people their pride in their life and their own initiative back. To get a job because there are jobs available. To get a home because they’ve become affordable. To buy groceries because the prices are not skyrocket high and unattainable.

When I was a young person, that was the normal thing. Before you left high school, you’d go out and get a part-time job. But it was unusual to have to do that to be able to support your family. You do that because it was going to give you skills and put something on your resume. My brother and my sister did that. I did that. We all worked different fast food places.

[4:35 p.m.]

But we’re starting to see all of those jobs be taken up, because there is no other work. And so now young people can’t even get into the basic job market anymore. All of those spaces that normally would have been there are all taken by other people who are desperately looking for work because of the lack of work in the larger economic picture

can’t even get into the basic job market anymore. All of those spaces that normally would have been there are all taken by other people who are desperately looking for work because of the lack of work in the larger economic picture. It’s difficult times right now.

What I campaigned on to come here and to make a difference, in government or not, was to use this platform and my voice to represent those who cannot.

Today I’m standing in support of this amendment. I’m urging everyone to think about it — really think about it. Allow some of these points to hit home for you. Imagine your family, your children and, as I’ve said many times before, your grandchildren. What would you want for them? And what would you want to tell them, at the end of the day, that you stood up for?

For me, that is this amendment, to ensure that the basic personal amount for every British Columbian who files taxes in British Columbia, that they will be able to save $500 on their income taxes and that that relief can come to them very quickly.

I urge everyone to, please, support this amendment. I support this amendment. On this side of the House, we support an amendment to do this, to stick to what we thought that British Columbians would be getting with this government.

I thank you for the time to stand today and speak to this.

Heather Maahs: Well, I want to thank my colleague for speaking so eloquently about our lovely city that we live in. Everything she said — absolutely 100 percent. And I experienced the same things.

As I’m sitting here listening, I’m reflecting on the purpose of what we’re doing here. We’re debating an amendment, an amendment that the NDP made in the first place, the offer, during the election and then took off the table. We are now offering the opportunity to bring it back.

I know a lot of you probably feel badly hearing the terrible stories, which are all 100 percent true. I think you would probably like to say: “Yeah, you know what? You’re right. We should really vote in favour of this.” But unfortunately, this isn’t actually debate. This has become a solidarity. We’re all going to vote the same way, no matter what anybody says, and it really kind of defeats the whole purpose of debate, which makes me sad. Because we’re all speaking truth here, and no one on the other side is actually really listening.

A letter from my great-grandmother to my grandmother surfaced a while ago, and in it, she talked about: “Oh, now I’m going to be….” She was one of these women of her time who was working, and she worked for government. She told my grandmother in the letter that she was going to now have to start paying income tax. This was a brand-new thing: income tax, which had not been paid until after wars started, and they had to pay for the wars. Income was based on trade and tariffs.

Imagine that. We didn’t have a bajillion taxes, but countries still managed to make it. They did it by doing the things that businesses do, by improving the economy, as we heard my other colleague talk about today.

[4:40 p.m.]

We give free drugs to addicts, but we can’t give B.C. people a tax break. This is all about winning, winning the vote, but really what we should be doing is making the citizens of B.C. the winners.

We give free drugs to addicts, but we can’t give B.C. people a tax break. This is all about winning, winning the vote. But really what we should be doing is making the citizens of B.C. the winners. Give them a break.

I have three children. One of them has packed up and moved to Alberta, so I’m a walking, talking statistic. One-third of our young people have left. He’s doing well for himself, so it was a good move. But it’s a bad move for me because my son, my daughter-in-law and three of my grandchildren are now a flight away.

My own mother is a senior citizen living on low income, and she scrapes. When she needs new hearing aids, she’s in trouble. When she needs new glasses, she’s in trouble. When she needs to go to the dentist, she’s in trouble.

This relatively small tax break would mean so much to so many people. I would urge the four members in the House who are listening to me right now to consider the possibility of voting in favour of this amendment that we’ve put forward.

Let’s be honest. This is a province where the cost of groceries, rent, gas and basic necessities has reached levels that many families simply cannot afford. Our beloved province has become a place where…. You know, we say, “$200 away from being broke,” but you know, I can speak for people that I know, and it’s not even $200 away. They’re already in debt. Their strata fees go up, and their mortgage rates go up — no more piano lessons, no more soccer, because they simply can’t afford the fees.

Instead, you put everything on credit cards. Now we have a situation where the interest rates on the credit cards are so high that they just can’t make it, so it’s “sell everything” or “pack up and become homeless” in a lot of situations. We know it’s true. This is reality — a reality confirmed by data, by reports and by stories that we’ve heard in this House today. These are the people, the stories of the people, that we were elected to represent.

Like my other colleagues, I’ve listened to their struggles. I’ve heard their frustrations. The one thing that has become painfully clear is far too many people are working harder than ever and still falling behind. They aren’t asking for a handout. They’re just asking for a fair shot, a fighting chance to get ahead, a little bit of breathing room. That’s all. That’s what this amendment is about, and it’s about the promise that was made during the campaign.

This is not a rebate that you have to apply for. This is not a program that gets shuffled out the door. This is real, predictable relief, year after year, budget after budget.

Last year the Premier made a clear promise to the people of British Columbia: a $1,000 annual grocery rebate. He repeated that promise again and again. The problem with making promises that you don’t keep is nobody believes you anymore. Nobody trusts you anymore. So when you say something, you think: “Well, you didn’t come through with the last promise. Why should we believe you this time?” British Columbians deserve better.

[4:45 p.m.]

I’ve listened carefully to the government’s arguments against this proposal. They’ve accused us of wanting to hand tax breaks to billionaires and speculators. They’ve tried to frame this amendment as some sort of gift to the wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth. This amendment is about the working poor, the middle class

wanting to hand tax breaks to billionaires and speculators. He’s tried to frame this amendment as some sort of gift to the wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This amendment is about the working poor, the middle class, the people who are doing all the right things — working full-time jobs, raising kids, paying taxes — and they still can’t get ahead.

Raising the basic personal amount doesn’t help billionaires. It helps the grocery clerk, the small business owner, the home care worker, the single mom. It helps the people who are struggling to pay for food, gas, rent. Your sons and your daughters, your mothers and your fathers, your aunts and your uncles. It’s the people on the ground, the ones feeling the most squeeze of rising prices, who will benefit the most from this amendment.

Let’s talk about the broader context that makes this amendment not just advisable but essential. British Columbians are carrying some of the highest consumer debt in the country. That’s a fact. In Vancouver, household debt levels are the highest in Canada. People are maxed out. They’re using credit cards not to take vacations — which I’ve already stated — or to buy luxury goods. They’re paying the rent, and they’re keeping the heat on.

In 2025 alone, food price inflation is projected to rise between 3 and 5 percent. For the average family of four, that means up to $800 more just to put food on the table this year, if they’re lucky. Add that to rising rents, rising mortgage payments, rising gas prices, rising utility bills, and no wonder, so many British Columbians are feeling the squeeze to the breaking point.

This is not complicated. When families are struggling to cover the basics, the best thing we can do is to let them keep more of their own money, not through complex rebate applications, not through slow-moving bureaucratic programs, but directly, predictably, through the tax system.

When we talk about affordability, we can’t do it with a straight face while we continue to tax people who are living below the poverty line. That’s not just bad policy; it is fundamentally unjust. The amendment before us corrects that injustice. It lifts the tax burden off the shoulders of those who can least afford to carry it. And it does so in a way that is transparent, responsible and fair.

The simple truth is this: British Columbia is governed today by one of the most urban-centric administrations in its history. It’s not a smear. It’s not a political spin. It’s a reality that is reflected in where decisions are made, where dollars are allocated, which communities are prioritized or neglected.

If you happen to live outside Metro Vancouver, you feel it in infrastructure that’s crumbling, in hospital ERs that are under-resourced, in classrooms without the basics. You see it in roads that don’t get fixed and bridges that never get built. You see it when the provincial budget lands, and once again, your region is barely a footnote.

And the frustration is only growing. The people of the Fraser Valley, the Thompson-Okanagan, the Kootenays, the North — these aren’t second-class citizens. These are taxpayers, they’re workers, they’re families, and yet too often, they are left waiting and watching as more and more resources are funneled into the Lower Mainland, with promises that never quite make it east of Hope.

[4:50 p.m.]

This amendment raising the basic personal amount does not solve the urban-rural divide, but it does send a message that no matter where you live, the government sees you, that your ability to put food on the table matters just as someone commuting via SkyTrain. It’s a first step in restoring some equity into a system that has become deeply imbalanced.

There are people in this province who live in communities where the grocery store is an hour’s drive away, where heating bills have doubled and where job opportunities are increasingly scarce.

some equity into a system that has become deeply imbalanced.

There are people in this province who live in communities where the grocery store is an hour’s drive away, where heating bills have doubled, and where job opportunities are increasingly scarce. Those people deserve to keep more of what they earn, period. We are simply asking that the government stop taxing people until they earn at least enough to cover the most basic cost of living. We are asking that the tax code reflect reality, not some idealized version of life in this province but the real numbers — groceries, rent, gas, child care, insurance, utilities.

The current basic personal amount is $15,705. Imagine trying to live on that. You can’t. It’s impossible. That figure hasn’t kept pace with inflation. It hasn’t kept pace with the rising cost of living. It hasn’t kept pace with what it actually takes to survive in this province, let alone get ahead. Raising that amount to $22,462, the equivalent of a low-income cut-off, is the least we can do. In fact, I would argue it should only be the beginning.

We have a provincial government that claims to be progressive, that claims to champion affordability, that claims to support working families. But where is that support when families are being taxed below the poverty line? Where is that commitment when real action is proposed and voted down on the basis of partisanship?

You cannot stand on a stage and call yourself a defender of affordability while allowing people earning minimum wage to pay provincial tax. You cannot promise relief to struggling families during an election campaign, only to shelve those promises the moment the votes are counted. You cannot tell British Columbians to wait, to trust, to be patient, when what they need is action.

At the core of this amendment is something far bigger than dollars and cents. At the core of this amendment is an issue of trust. When governments make promises, people listen. When leaders go out in the community and declare that relief is coming, families plan around it. They adjust their expectations. They adjust their budgets. They might even adjust how they vote. I would actually go so far as to say it was a total misrepresentation during the campaign.

When those promises are broken, when they vanish into thin air, people don’t just feel disappointed; they feel misled.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we’ve had a pretty wide berth here this afternoon. I would warn you against suggesting anybody is misleading anybody.

Heather Maahs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This amendment keeps the promise that was made during the election, not through bureaucracy, not through press conferences, but through the tax system, efficiently and permanently.

If the Premier and his government are serious about helping British Columbians, they should support this amendment. If they meant what they said about affordability, about urgency, about immediate help, this is their chance to prove it. The low cut-off in this province, as I mentioned, is $22,462 for a single individual. This is not an arbitrary number. This is the threshold below which Statistics Canada tells us a person is struggling to meet the minimum standard of living. What possible defence can be made for a system that asks the working poor to contribute before they’ve even covered their rent, their heat and their groceries?

[4:55 p.m.]

This isn’t about billionaires. It’s about bus drivers. It’s about care aides. It’s about construction workers and grocery clerks and hairdressers. Let’s be clear. A billionaire in British Columbia doesn’t rely on the personal basic amount to avoid taxes. Their accountant

billionaires. It’s about bus drivers. It’s about care aides. It’s about construction workers and grocery clerks and hairdressers. And let’s be clear. A billionaire in British Columbia doesn’t rely on the personal basic amount to avoid taxes. Their accountants have more complicated strategies than that.

This amendment isn’t about loopholes for the rich. It’s about relief for the working class, it’s about fairness, it’s about aligning the tax system with reality, and it’s about ensuring that the people who are struggling the most are the ones who get help first.

The Premier has said many times that people need help now, that affordability is the priority of this government. I agree with him wholeheartedly. He is absolutely right. But the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House is that we’re actually prepared to follow through, and we’re inviting that side of the House to join us with this amendment and to make it a reality. It means lifting the burden off the shoulders of those who are already weighed down by the cost of living.

These aren’t hypothetical people. These are constituents. These are families who come into our offices asking for help. These are seniors, seniors who call us because they can’t make their rent. Sixty to 70 percent of the people who come into my constituency office or who call or who email are seniors. They are really struggling. They’re not asking for luxury. They’re just asking for fairness.

If we cannot agree across party lines that taxing people into poverty is wrong, then what are we doing?

Lifting people up does not just help those individuals. It strengthens our economy, it strengthens our communities, and it strengthens our province. Here’s the truth. Letting struggling families keep more of what they earn is not just compassionate. It’s smart economic policy. We heard that. We’ve heard that. When you put $500 back into the pocket of someone living paycheque to paycheque, they don’t send that money offshore. They don’t hoard it in a savings account. They spend it right here at home, in B.C., on groceries, on rent, on kids’ clothes, at the local gas station, at the small businesses that are the backbones of our communities.

I’m going to close here, and I would really urge members across the aisle to really think about this, to really think about this amendment. Put a face in front of you from the food bank, from your constituency office, when it comes to giving them this financial break.

Elenore Sturko: Pleased to rise to speak to the amendment to Bill 5. It’s a grocery rebate guarantee brought in by the Leader of the Opposition. I’m really happy to be able to speak to it because I think back to when I was on the campaign trail and a lot of people at the door, of course, were talking about affordability. When I spoke to Bill 5 before this amendment, again, I mentioned that. I think that affordability, the cost of living and financial uncertainty, is one of the biggest challenges that is facing the province right now.

What’s proposed in this amendment…. I know people have heard it, but I want to reinforce it. This is a rebate that is to benefit everyday British Columbians. The Premier promised in his campaign to be elected that he would provide British Columbians with a $1,000 tax rebate. And then, of course, that promise was broken. The situation changed, the Finance Minister said, and they’ve reneged on that promise.

[5:00 p.m.]

This amendment restores that promise. It restores a commitment to British Columbians to help them by lowering the rate of personal income tax to the extent that it would benefit each individual taxpayer by $500. So for a family with two incomes, that would be the $1,000 that could help them out

reneged on that promise. This amendment restores that promise. It restores a commitment to British Columbians to help them by lowering the rate of personal income tax to the extent that it would benefit each individual taxpayer by $500. So for a family with two incomes, that would be the $1,000 that could help them out. And it’s really, in this province where we have such an affordability problem, a crisis. It isn’t enough, really, to help with what they really need. We need a lot more relief than that. We need a lot more programs. We need a lot more of the lowering of everyday costs for British Columbians. But $1,000 for a family in a year would certainly help. It would help a lot.

I’m just going to read a couple of quotes here, Mr. Speaker, if you’ll just indulge me, because this is, in fact, our Premier on October 9 of 2024. He says: “I’m on the side of everyday people and families who just want to end the day a little further ahead than when they started it.” And that, of course, is something that I think we can all agree on.

We don’t always agree on things in this place, but I think agreeing that British Columbians deserve to end the day a little bit ahead is definitely worthwhile, which is why I’m supporting, of course, the amendment to Bill 5, the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act. I really hope that members on both sides of the chamber can come together on this.

My friend and colleague, the MLA for Surrey–White Rock, brought up what I think is something worth noting.

I don’t want to in any way mislead the House, Mr. Speaker, so if I’m wrong, I will withdraw this comment. But as far as I know, we’ve only had one member of government speak to this amendment, which was, of course, the Minister of Finance, who responded when our leader brought this amendment onto the floor.

At that time, she had said the situation in British Columbia had changed, and that’s why the government wasn’t going to be able to help families out with the $1,000 grocery rebate anymore. And yeah, the situation has changed in British Columbia, because we had a government that was handed a surplus of billions of dollars, and they turned that around. The situation changed to where we are now billions of dollars in deficit. So when it came time for that stress test, that challenge, that financial uncertainty that we are facing in this province, the cupboards are bare. The cupboards are bare.

You know, there are a lot of things that make me really sad, beyond just thinking about everyday British Columbians that won’t be able to afford the extras, and beyond not affording the extras, just the things that are not extra — people who are struggling just to afford food, medication.

I think a lot of my other colleagues spoke to this as well. One of the members on this side was talking about having constituents — I think it was our House Leader — making those choices between medication and food, paying rent, keeping that roof over their head and food and medication. I, too, have constituents that are in a similar situation.

What makes me pretty frustrated and pretty sad…. Something that I want British Columbians to think about is that I think that the difference between giving this break and not is about $3 billion. Our Finance critic might be able to help me out here — around $3 billion, I think, maybe a little bit more than $3 billion. But I just want to remind people that just within the last year, 2024 — three significant overruns by this government, more than $2 billion, I think around just under $3 billion, in fact, about $2.5 billion plus of the overrun of the cost of the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain.

That’s not for me. I’m not saying that I don’t want the SkyTrain. I definitely do. I know that people in Surrey and Langley and Metro Vancouver are grateful to be able to have that extension. But it’s the mismanagement — $2½ billion. That almost paid for the grocery rebate. But in addition to that, just announced in the last year — a $1 billion cost overrun at the new Cloverdale hospital before it even broke ground, and a $1 billion cost overrun at the Richmond Hospital.

[5:05 p.m.]

Increasing access to health care, increasing services, building new hospitals — these are good things. But we need proper management of our financial situation. Build hospitals, but do it fiscally responsibly, and manage your budget.

That’s $4½ billion that could have paid for the

But we need proper management of our financial situation. Build hospitals, but do it fiscally responsibly, and manage your budget.

That’s $4½ billion that could have paid for the grocery rebate. Instead of taking care of British Columbians who right now are struggling, the fiscal mismanagement by this government on just these three projects means that they’re not going to get it. The help that British Columbians need has just flown out the window. It’s a shame.

I want to read for you something that comes from a publication from the CBC News, posted January 15, 2025. The headline: “Half of British Columbians $200 away from not being able to pay bills, survey finds.” We say stuff in this House…. We say things like: “You know, four in ten British Columbians can’t afford….” People might wonder where we get these things. Which orifice did we pull that out of? We’re politicians, right? It’s rhetoric.

No. A survey of British Columbians found that nearly half of the people living in our province are $200 away from not being able to pay the bills. MNP consumer debt index, conducted by Ipsos, found almost half — 49 percent — of British Columbians do not think they will be able to cover expenses over the next 12 months without going further into debt. Ipsos found that 46 percent of those surveyed are just $200 away from not being able to pay their bills and debt payments, and nearly one-third are already unable to pay them.

So a third of us in the province already can’t pay the bills. And 18 percent of British Columbians surveyed expected their debt situation to worsen one year from now. This was published at the beginning of 2025. This is probably still during a time when people in British Columbia thought they were getting the grocery rebate.

We’ve had some significant and horrific incidents take place in British Columbia over the last week, and the conversation around mental health has really, I think, in many ways, advanced in our province. I’m grateful for the opportunities that I’ve had to be able to speak about mental health, and I’ve appreciated that members on all sides of this House have agreed that we need to make changes.

One of the things that impacts people’s mental health is the stress of finances. Definitely. When you can’t pay the bills, the toll that that takes on people’s mental wellness, the stress that they’re feeling — it’s significant.

So when we look sort of holistically at the health and mental health of this province, I think that it would be irresponsible of us not to consider what type of impacts that our fiscal situation and even the uncertainty that British Columbians are feeling, and certainly now that the NDP has broken a promise of potentially a thousand bucks, a grand, that people in British Columbia were depending on….

They believed you. They believed this government. So I think of all the things that need to be a priority, finding any way possible to ease the financial burden that British Columbians are experiencing right now should be a priority. Because it’s a health issue as well.

I would love to hear from members of government that if they don’t support this amendment, please tell me why. Please explain to my constituents why. I think just saying broadly, well, the situation has changed, knowing, as I said, how much money this government is literally mismanaging away that could have been used to provide relief to British Columbians, I think a deeper explanation is required.

[5:10 p.m.]

Or maybe you’re saving it up for the last part of the debate, because you’re going to surprise us all and support it, support the amendment.

In my constituency, in my riding, Surrey-Cloverdale, there’s an amazing organization. It’s called the Cloverdale Community Kitchen. They provide meals for people in the community. They have a food bank that they operate

and support it, support the amendment.

In my constituency, in my riding, Surrey-Cloverdale, there’s an amazing organization. It’s called the Cloverdale Community Kitchen. They provide meals for people in the community. They have a food bank that they operate. They do tremendous work. I’ve had the opportunity to tour there two different times, and one of the things that always struck me was just the variety of products, the things that are both generously donated and purchased with funding that people donate.

I’m always happy to see that when I see the generosity of the community, and I’m always heartbroken when I see things like diapers on the shelf. It’s not because I don’t want people who need diapers to be able to get diapers, but it breaks my heart that young families in this province would have to rely on a food bank or a service of donations to be able to Pampers their child, to be able to put the diapers on them, to be able to get the basic necessities for a little baby in this province, because the cost of living has become such that people are reliant on these services.

When I went there the last time, there was a huge lineup of people. I think that if you close your eyes and you imagine the food bank, I don’t think people would quite be able to imagine who was here at the food bank. It certainly was not what I expected, because I saw young families. These are not people that are unemployed or living on the fringes of society, although certainly we had people that were very impoverished in the line, people that may be on disability. There was a variety of people, but there were also people there that both of them had jobs, multiple jobs and still reliant upon donations to be able to feed their kids.

They’re paying taxes. They’re paying taxes, and they deserved to have the grocery rebate promised by this Premier and his government. I just, frankly, can’t understand why they would be as cruel as to turn their back on people that had counted on them.

I think one of the greatest honours that you can have as a British Columbian is to sit in this place. At least it is for me. Honestly, there’s not a day that I have any regrets being in here. I love it. And when I went on the doorstep and I made commitments to people, it is my absolute commitment to follow through with everything that I promised to do. Was it not the same for the members of the government? Did they not intend to follow through? Now is an opportunity to do it, please.

As the public safety critic, I also think a lot about the impacts of affordability and poverty on things like domestic violence. I have talked about it in this place before, about being a police officer in the Northwest Territories, where I had the sad task of investigating a lot of domestic violence, dealing with a lot of families deeply in poverty and a lack of housing and social services.

We have similar situations here. When people can’t afford, for example, to move away from domestic violence, they become trapped in situations that they’re at risk. But they can’t go anywhere because where are they going to go? Shelters are full; the affordable housing is full.

Imagine, though, that you suddenly received a tax break of $500 or even a cheque, you know, a bonus that you could even get a hotel for a few days. To be able to stay with a friend and be able to help buy some new things for your kids so that you can leave the situation.

[5:15 p.m.]

Beyond the ability that it gives people to have a sense of freedom when they don’t have the extra money, it’s that stress again that I talked about, the stress of unaffordability and the kind of tension in a family that builds up when they can’t pay the bills. They start arguing, and they start fighting. If there is violence, we see it go up. So these are not just

talked about — the stress of unaffordability and the kind of tension in a family that builds up when they can’t pay the bills. They start arguing, and they start fighting, and if there is violence, we see it go up.

These are not just about buying groceries. There are deeper social issues — tied to the affordability crisis we have, that are related to crime and that are related to violence against women and against children — that we definitely need to keep in consideration. When you vote in favour of the Income Tax (Grocery Rebate Guarantee) Amendment Act, you are given an opportunity to provide more money back into the hands of someone in B.C. that could be struggling — a mother, a father — and that trickles down to their children.

The cost overruns. You know, we had a little break of a week in here. I was prepared to speak to this amendment the week previous, and I had a list of the expenditures. I didn’t bring it in here with me; I forgot it. But in my mind I can still.... I had compiled a list, over this NDP government’s tenure as government here, about eight years, of how many projects of theirs had cost overruns. Just in cost overruns alone, it was over $17 billion in eight years.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

When it comes to spending money wildly, like it’s going out of style, like they’re printing it in the basement, the province is spending cash like they have this unlimited supply. That’s when it comes to the priorities for them, when it comes to the ability for them to put out a press release or take a picture. But when it comes to people who are struggling, it doesn’t seem to be a priority.

Noting the hour, I reserve my place and would like to adjourn the debate.

Elenore Sturko moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Jessie Sunner: Committee of Supply, Section A, reports progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Susie Chant: Section C reports progress on Bill 7 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. David Eby: Hon. Speaker, I wanted to take the opportunity to rise in the House. Earlier today, during question period, I was intemperate in my language. I used unparliamentary language. For that, I apologize. I apologize to the members of the House. I’ll endeavour to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Hon. Ravi Kahlon moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 o’clock Monday, May 5.

The House adjourned at 5:19 p.m.