Latest / Political Capital with Rob Shaw / #124 - BC Builds vs BC United rent-to-own, Richmond safe injection site

Transcript

#124 - BC Builds vs BC United rent-to-own, Richmond safe injection site · Political Capital with Rob Shaw

0:02
Check podcasts. Hey everyone, and welcome to Political Capital, your source for
0:19
all the latest NBC politics. I'm your host, Ropshaw, coming to you
0:22
from the Czech news world to headquarters here in Victoria. Lots to talk about
0:26
this week, but first the important stuff. Panelist Jillian Oliver, who left
0:31
on maternity leave, has had her baby. You can see her right here,
0:35
little Evelyn, born eight pounds fourteen ounces, as Jillian put it,
0:40
born with a huge head, perfect for hot takes. One day perhaps on
0:44
this panel twenty twenty five years from now, which I'm sure we'll still be
0:49
going. Good and strong, healthy baby, healthy mom, thanks to the
0:53
good folks at Cootney Lake Hospital were thrilled for Jillian and wishing her well on
0:58
her maternity leave. Okay, back into politics, let's bring in the panel.
1:03
Jeff and Ally are here as always in filling in as a special guest
1:07
this week. You've heard of the People's champ, Well, this is the
1:10
People's Mayor, Port Coquitlam Mayor, Chair of the Mayor's Council and Regional Transportation
1:15
Brad West. Brad, thank you for being here. Thank you very much
1:19
for having me. I'm excited to be with you all. I was going
1:23
to call you your worship, but I think People's Mayor is actually kind of
1:26
cooler than you know what. I prefer People's Mayor. Let's go with that,
1:30
all right, You'll be laying the SmackDown this week as the People's Mayor
1:34
on the show. We're going to start with dueling housing proposals from the NDP
1:38
and BC United Premier David ebe unveiling his long awaited BC Builds program matches up
1:45
public land, municipalities and housing operators for rental apartment buildings for the middle class.
1:52
So let's start with that. We've been waiting for it for a long
1:55
time. It has been something that the Premier said was kind of a sort
2:00
of centerpiece of his housing proposals, and man has he got a lot of
2:05
them over the last year or so. So Brad, to you first,
2:08
what do you think of this targeting of the middle class with ors what are
2:12
essentially government built, you know, apartment buildings. Well, I think it's
2:17
certainly smart politics and I think it's a smart move. You know, clearly
2:23
people who make decent middle incomes are finding increasingly difficult to find housing and in
2:30
the use of public land. I mean that's something that's been talked about by
2:32
a lot of folks, and it seems like a no brainer. I mean,
2:36
I just think in the Tri Cities and pork Equiplam, the Provincial Garment
2:39
is one of the largest landowners. In fact, a lot of time that
2:44
lands it's vacant or under utilized. So the idea of trying to use that
2:49
to provide housing for middle income folks, I think is a smart move.
2:53
You know, I heard from some people that are like, when they heard
2:57
the income thresholds, they thought, you know, Mike Odd, those are
3:00
people who make some decent incomes, which is probably just a reflection of where
3:05
we're at. I mean, I talk to families all the time, you
3:07
know, household income of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and you might
3:12
think, well, they probably do okay. But you know, when you
3:15
add just the reality of life, you know, of childcare, of you
3:21
know, all the things that are going up, it doesn't go as far
3:24
as it used to. And so I think it's smart politics in particular to
3:30
be aimed at that particular demographic group. Yeah, one hundred percent. I've
3:34
been saying before that there there is you know, the middle class that on
3:38
paper, looks like they're doing really well. Don't qualify for any government aid
3:42
programs or any housing assistance, but who are stuck, you know, trying
3:46
to afford cost of living and housing. And this is the first time the
3:50
NAP is really targeted, and they did get a little bit of blowback,
3:53
but from their base, you know, targeting people with up to one hundred
3:55
and ninety two thousand dollars in household income for this program. Some folks in
4:00
the NDP think that should be helping those people. We should be helping everyone
4:04
else first, So that's kind of interesting ali that target demographic in an election
4:10
year. And then also kind of the scale of this program. It's not
4:13
a lot of units, maybe four thousand units in three to five years.
4:16
What do you make of that, Well, it's not a whole lot of
4:19
union units, but it is still helping towards the larger goal and that's really
4:26
all we want is to continue to progress on this. You know. What
4:30
was interesting, It was interesting timing that this came out right before the session
4:36
starts again for the spring. Not surprising though, because this is where the
4:41
NDP had shined in the last two sessions, where it's housing housing, housing,
4:46
and then they get to do this outside of the session in that they
4:48
get to promote it within their local communities before they then get the provincial stage
4:54
and then get larger session media. So I think that was very strategic,
5:00
very well done. Yeah, I mean the INDIP know how to plan and
5:03
execute something we'll be talking about. Maybe it was a little bit lacking in
5:08
the BC United plan as our next topic, but Jeff close us out on
5:11
this. What do you make of this? The target group? There wasn't
5:14
a lot of details and I think, you know, some folks might have
5:17
questions about what market rent is and you know, how your income is tested,
5:23
and there's a vague sort of reference to only for the people who live
5:27
in those communities can access to those buildings, So an example in North Vancouver,
5:30
how that works. There wasn't a lot of answers on that kind of
5:34
stuff. I think it'll be bureaucratically a lot simpler than what the opposition is
5:43
suggesting. In term of that rent own program. We can talk about that
5:46
in a bit. There's two things that I like about the program what the
5:50
premiere has put forward here. One is we've talked about it. It's the
5:55
demographic of the people who are eligible, and it's for people who are solidly
6:01
in the middle class. And for those folks who are blowing back on targeting
6:08
to this group, I suggest that those folks talk to people in the middle
6:13
class and about what life is like and what cost of living is doing to
6:17
them and how stretched they are. This is a group that, as you've
6:20
been pointing out, Robb, you mentioned this for a long time, this
6:24
is a group that's feeling a lot of pain, and it's good to see
6:27
a program that is targeted there. I also just happen to like that it's
6:31
going after a monopoly. It's going after the private sector's monopoly on home building.
6:38
We need all of the private sector and the public sector to be working
6:42
on building housing. We've had decades of the private sector doing it by itself
6:46
as governments retreated from building housing. Government's getting back into the game. That's
6:51
going to mean for renters and folks at home, more choice, more options,
6:59
public and private, and more supply. And that's going to be by
7:05
itself. You talk about the numbers being small, like there's no one single
7:10
program that's going to solve all the problems. But I think this is a
7:13
good, good part of a solution. It kind of sets up a very
7:16
clear sort of philosophical difference. You touched on it there, Jeff and Brad
7:19
will go to you on this. But you know, the premiere took a
7:23
shot at the private sector saying it has not done well to get us out
7:27
of this housing crisis. It's led to speculation the private sort of house building
7:30
sector. Kevin Falcon comes out with his plan for BC United, which is
7:35
a rent to own plan that is kind of all in on the private sector.
7:39
It's setting aside fifteen percent of new units and buildings. People pay their
7:43
rent three years, it becomes their down payment, and the government backstops it
7:46
but gets out of the way. And so you to kind of have this
7:48
NDP actually you know, government builder plan over here and then a United plan
7:55
of kind of getting out of the way for the private sector. Do you
7:59
think voters care about about that or what do you make of that sort of
8:03
match up between the two. Well, I think generally voters want to see
8:09
government engaged in this issue, and I think, you know, it continues
8:13
to be the top issue when you ask people. Every POL says housing affordability
8:18
is top issue and I think most people would say, look, government needs
8:22
to be involved. You know, my actually critique of BC bills in reading
8:28
it is it actually sounds not so much like government is going to be back
8:33
in the game of building housing. They're going to provide financing and grants to
8:37
nonprofits to build housing. My good friend, former Premier Glenn Clark said,
8:45
you know, when he was premier BC housing actually built housing, actually managed
8:50
housing, and you know, and that is government very much being engaged in
8:54
housing. So you know, it may not be the full swing at getting
9:00
government back in the house housing game that they have. They've presented it,
9:05
you know, the BC United plan. It's interesting. As mayor, I've
9:09
had lots of developers come to me with rent own concepts and they always sound
9:16
like they're very intriguing and like they make a lot of sense. I don't
9:20
know that I've seen one that actually delivers in the way that conceptionally people think
9:26
of it. It often has a whole lot of conditions and and you know,
9:31
and and people can actually get themselves in a bit of trouble, so
9:35
it'll be interesting to see the details. I like the concept of it.
9:37
I think home ownership is a good thing. You know, a lot of
9:41
the messaging to people my generation has been you should give up on the idea
9:46
of ever owning your home, and and I don't think that's the positive thing.
9:50
Certainly. You know friends of mine they want to own their own home.
9:54
And so the concept of not having to rent forever, but actually being
9:58
able to own something, have something that's yours, maybe even you know,
10:03
achieve a bit of equity there. I think that's a positive thing. So
10:07
I'd be interested to see how those details work out. The rent to own
10:09
concept is a good one. Execution from my perspective has always been a bit
10:16
challenging, but I think the idea of getting people into homes that they own
10:20
is a positive thing. I think the rent to own idea is such a
10:31
good one. Ally, the nDEP are probably going to steal it. That
10:33
was the originals. That's kind of the reaction that Housing mister Raby Kaylon gave
10:39
was well, this is already going to be part of BC Builds, which
10:41
it isn't, but it might be now that United has put it out.
10:46
Yeah, and that's always the risk, right of putting out ideas before a
10:50
platform, and I applaud the BC United for doing that, and it shows
10:56
that they have ideas and that there are many more coming down the pipe.
11:01
But yes, it's if it's taken, it's taken. That's just politics.
11:07
What I found very interesting about this though, is so when I looked up
11:11
the rent to Own program, the first introduction of it that I saw was
11:18
from the federal government, but that was coupled with federal money. This one,
11:24
on the other hand, is private sector, and so you have to
11:28
think you have to assume that, given Kevin falcons background as a developer,
11:33
that he's probably consulted this group extensively before making this announcement, so that there
11:41
might be that appetite from developers. As Brad was saying, So, I
11:46
thought that was very interesting. I think what they're going to get critiqued for
11:48
is the tax up to one million. Look around, folks, there's not
11:54
a whole lot for less than one million in the Lower Mainland. Well it's
12:00
it's it's a great idea, but I think that one has its challenges as
12:03
well. Jeff, what do you think? Wow, so rent own sounds
12:09
great, but boy this you know, I've worked in government and has anyone
12:16
been you know, heard stories of well executed complex administrative programs run by governments.
12:26
This is going to be, you know, every renter's rent, with
12:30
every developer in BC tracked and calculated and monitored and administered. It's going to
12:37
be with all the conditions that your worship a flag, you know. I
12:41
think it's going to be a bureaucratic nightmare. I also don't see it as
12:45
a stimulating supply, which is what we need. I think it's more a
12:48
stimulating demand measure. So without the additional supply, that's going to make housing
12:56
more expensive, is my concern. Maybe Rabbi Camin will come out and steal
13:05
the idea and I'll look like an idiot for saying this. But that's my
13:09
gut read on this. And I do want to say I saw some of
13:11
the communications and collaterals around this from BC United and it looked good. It
13:18
really did position Falcon as the fellow who builds things. But I think that's
13:24
risky highlighting that when you were in the private sector, you were a developer.
13:28
You left government to make money off a housing crisis that some folks out
13:33
there think that your government helped to generate at the expense of everyday people.
13:37
Maybe I get what you're going for, but I'm not sure developer experience is
13:45
the best looked during an election about housing affordability. Brad, before we close
13:50
this topic off, you mentioned public land like where you are in Port Equitlam.
13:54
If the government or even the BC United plan on the use of public
14:01
land, I think it's a dollar for ninety nine year leases to groups that
14:03
want to build on public land. If we really took advantage of that started
14:07
building housing everywhere. How much of a difference do you think that would make
14:09
in your community, Well, a community like pork Equillam, I mean,
14:13
it could add a significant supply, and our community is very dense, We're
14:18
quite constrained. We've got three rivers around us, we've got a railway going
14:22
right through the middle of the city, and so land is precious and provincial
14:28
government is a major landowner in our city. So if they decided to open
14:31
up some of that land that, like I said, a lot of is
14:35
is utilized, but it's very underutilized. You know, it's built to what
14:39
our expectations were in the seventies when a lot of public housing and building was
14:45
done, and certainly expectations around density have changed significantly since that time. So
14:50
it seems like very low hanging fruit, and you know, we're in a
14:54
place where pretty much every unit counts, but it could make a significant headway
15:00
in the community like pork equiplam, and I know we're not unique in that
15:03
regard. So I'm interested to see whether government can really put some muscle behind
15:09
this, really put their shoulder to the wheel on it, because it just
15:11
seems like a no brainer and it's there waiting to be used. Okay,
15:16
staying with you, you got multiple hats that you wear, you know on
15:20
a transportation from the mayor's council and also as a mayor and then as an
15:24
observer of politics. You're looking at the budget next week and the throne speech.
15:30
What do you think the government has to deliver on those to be successful
15:33
and what's shaping up to be a massively busy week for these pre election announcements
15:39
here from the NDP, well, certainly from a mayor perspective, I think
15:46
we're looking to see if there are infrastructure dollars that are going to be in
15:50
place to support this rash of housing announcements that have been made. Every time
15:56
the province makes a new announcement from housing, you hear from local government is
16:00
concerns around infrastructure and its ability to absorb increases in population and density that are
16:07
far beyond what had traditionally been planned for. And you know, this is
16:12
not stuff where you know it is an exaggeration. This is like not some
16:18
bolts. This is not Brad west Meer saying this. This is my city
16:21
engineer saying, hey, if people want to be able to flush their toilets
16:25
here, we're going to have to expand capacity. And you know what,
16:29
all of that takes a lot of money, and it's getting more expensive by
16:33
the day. And so from a local government perspective, you know, we
16:37
have so many tools at our disposal to try and fund that. This issuld
16:41
been raised to provincial government repeatedly that if you're going to go for that additional
16:48
density, there's got to be dollars attached to it to support the infrastructure that
16:52
makes it all happen. They said that they've heard that message. They talk
16:57
a good game about it. We'll see if they put their money where their
17:00
mouth is with the budget and we see a significant investment in infrastructure, because
17:07
the reality is if that doesn't happen, you're not going to see the unit
17:14
count that they're looking for the increase in housing density, and not because a
17:18
politician is going to block it, because your city engineer is going to say
17:22
it just can't happen. People need to be able to flush toilets, people
17:26
need to be able to get water, and certainly on the transit perspective,
17:30
people need to be able to get around. Government's put a huge focus on
17:33
transit oriented development and that makes a hell of a lot of sense. We
17:37
should be building more dense housing where transit is so people have more options.
17:42
Maybe they don't need to have two cars, maybe they don't even have to
17:47
have one car. I'll tell you what. Right now, Translink in Metro
17:51
Vancouver is in a very precarious financial position and something needs to change there or
17:57
else. Two years from now, organization is going to have to reduce it
18:02
service by sixty percent. So you tell me how that's going to work for
18:06
transit oriented development and housing. So I think it's an important budget and I
18:11
think there'll be a lot of eyes on it, particularly of course because we're
18:15
going into an election. Ali transit makes a lot of sense. I think
18:26
for the government to fund in a pre election budget, infrastructure is completely needed.
18:30
But it'll be a little bit harder maybe for them to turn that into
18:33
a pre election goodie. Hey, you can keep flushing your toilets in the
18:37
future. That's why governments tend to not announce as much infrastructure because it's not
18:42
quite as sexy for people. But do you think we'll see that transit?
18:47
What else do you think we're going to see in this pre election budget.
18:48
I'm assuming it's not going to be balanced in any way, shape or form
18:53
whatsoever, and money is really kind of no object for this government with the
18:57
deficit through the roof, but that's just my I'm yeah, Unfortunately, it
19:02
probably won't be balanced, but because it is an election year and they'll kind
19:07
of promise everything. But typically we see like an over promising in a pre
19:14
election budget, like this is your time to just put everything out there and
19:18
make all of these promises. It might be a little bit of an indicator
19:22
as to what their platform might emphasize as well. But because the indieper are
19:26
doing so gosh darn well and they will potentially become a government once again,
19:33
they will actually be held accountable to this budget too, so I think it
19:37
will be somewhat reserved rather than in previous years where they're just promising everything under
19:44
the side. Yeah, it's a good point because if they look like they're
19:45
going to win their massive supermajority or at least get reelected, you don't want
19:48
to shoot for the moon and be unable immediately on day one after getting re
19:52
elected clawing back your promise. Yeah. Okay, Jeff, what do you
19:57
think? Well, First of all, I have to say that I'm pretty
20:02
excited to be talking about throwing speeches and toilets at the same time. It
20:07
seems like a good juxtaposition, and it's nice to be talking about toilets,
20:11
not in the context of public support for BC United. I'm hearing twenty pieces
20:18
of legislation focused on housing, affordability and healthcare. It's an important session because
20:25
the last chance for the government and the opposition parties to compay to voters their
20:29
values and what they're focused on, and they're getting things done. I think
20:33
there's going to be some movement on community building. We'll see if there's dollars
20:41
there. But hearing about government getting more proactive about schools and infrastructure. Right
20:45
now, they spend a lot of time waiting for growth and then responding after
20:51
the fact, which is suboptimal in a bit. More planning for growth and
20:56
getting ahead of it. So that would be good to see. One thing
21:00
I'm expecting to see in the budget because I use the Google machine to see
21:03
what Premier eb promised in terms of legislation that he'd bring forward that he hasn't
21:07
brought forward yet. He promised last year he bring in a flipping tax right
21:12
to discourage people from buying up homes as investments to profit from them. So
21:18
if he's a man of his word, I expect to see that this session
21:22
and add that to the speculation tax and crack down in short term rentals and
21:27
now BC built, and he's got himself a pretty decent looking housing plan to
21:33
take to the vote, not a bureaucratic nightmare at all, monitoring every single
21:36
housing purchase in the province and making sure that its nothing bureaucratic. Much like
21:41
the speculation tax, you just mail it out to everyone and then let the
21:44
chips fall where they may. So, but you're right, that is a
21:47
plan. I think it's a two year flipping tax somewhere around three percent issue
21:52
of a penalty. If I'm just going based on what we think it's going
21:56
to be, but that'll be an impact as the housing market looks like it
22:00
might start picking up again. All right, picking up another topic here.
22:03
Lots of controversy in Richmond this week as council considered a possible new safe drug
22:08
consumption site. Obviously we are in the middle of a worsening overdose crisis.
22:15
Council ultimately voted in favor of exploring this, but man, what a reaction.
22:19
Hundreds of protesters is spilled into city Hall. There was confrontations and racist
22:26
things said. The Premier appeared to back away from this at one point saying
22:32
maybe we don't need it. The Health Authority, which had been I guess
22:36
somewhat supportive, said they didn't need it. We don't really need to get
22:40
too far into the local Richmond political part of this, But what interests me
22:45
is is the public mood we're reading on this, and at a time when
22:51
the overdose deaths are continuing to reach record levels, but we're feeling some of
22:56
maybe what the public's kind of end of the rope for these processes are.
23:03
I don't know, Brad. Let's start with you, as a local politician,
23:06
who I mean, you really challenge the andp government on the decriminalization and
23:11
drug use in public places at a time when they were just basically gaslighting the
23:15
whole province that that was even an issue. So when you see something like
23:18
this playout in Richmond, what do you think? Yeah, it's an interesting
23:22
turn of events. And certainly, you know, I've picked up very quickly
23:27
in our community that you know, people were really challenged by the impacts that
23:33
they were in fact seeing, and I you know, and you're right.
23:36
I think government's first response was, Oh, what you're seeing is not happening.
23:41
It's not you know, that's not real, or if it is,
23:45
it's incredibly isolated, it's an aberration. Well that's not what was happening on
23:49
the ground in communities, and in many respects still continues to happen. And
23:53
you know, and that's why in pork Equiplam, we decided to take the
23:57
bull by the horns, said all right, we're going to step in,
24:00
going to do it by lack. And I was communicating with government throughout that
24:03
entire process that like, look, there is an issue here, and if
24:07
you don't step in and address it, we are going to in port Equiplum,
24:12
you know, So we did that then they ultimately did what they did,
24:15
brought in legislation, and now of course that's been challenged and the court
24:19
made a decision that I think is ridiculous, and we'll see where it goes
24:22
from there. But I think you're right. The public I think has a
24:27
tremendous amount of compassion because there's probably not a family in this province, including
24:33
my own, that hasn't been impacted by addiction. And at the same time,
24:41
I think people have very reasonable expectations around public safety, around public spaces,
24:51
and so I think government is trying to recalibrate themselves to that and to
24:56
you know, to show that sensitivity to public concerns. And obviously you saw
25:03
that in terms of the premier's reaction and then one of their MLAs went out
25:07
and was very definitive about this not happening. But I have to say,
25:11
you know, in many respects, what's happened in Richmond does impact the rest
25:15
of the province because a provincial government has, you know, at least within
25:19
the bureaucracy, been saying to local government, you need to have more of
25:26
these types of facilities everywhere, and then you have the premiers saying, well,
25:30
maybe it's not needed in Richmond, folks. Richmond is the fourth largest
25:36
city in this province. So if it's not required there, how are you
25:41
going to go make an argument in a small town or a smaller community that,
25:45
hey, you may be a quarter of the size of Richmond, but
25:49
it's different for you. You have to have it, even if your community
25:52
is against it. So I think there's going to be some ripple effects of
25:56
this whole saga, and it will be very interesting to see how it plays
26:02
out. And it comes at a time when the province was kind of lecturing
26:04
local communities to get behind over those prevention sites safe consumption sites so that people
26:11
you know, it's it's drug use law that they've amended, will move people
26:15
along. And the question was, well, where are you moving them?
26:18
And the answer was to some sort of supervised consumption site, which communities better
26:22
get behind because we need more of those. And then the premier just completely
26:26
backs away from this one. And you're right, I'm sort of struggling to
26:29
understand how to square that circle. Jeff, let's bring you in. What
26:33
do you think? Oh? Sorry, mayor all right for me, hang
26:37
on one more. I was just going to say, well, you even
26:38
had like in the first response to it, you had the Health minister out
26:41
there telling everyone about the data and the evidence and what it says, and
26:47
that they work and they reduce harm and they do all these things. So
26:51
you know, it was Adrian give a pretty stern lecture about what the data
26:56
says, what the expert opinions say on this, and then again you know,
27:00
uh, they reverse course pretty quickly. So interesting, it was interesting
27:06
to watch, Jeff, what do you think. Yeah, for me,
27:08
this is really interesting. It's kind of a shiballeth buster. I couldn't hear
27:14
you over your bar do it again? Yeah, I couldn't shift. It's
27:18
a uh you know, typically this debate to generates into this polarized argument where
27:26
on one side saying, if you're on board with safe consumption sites, you're
27:30
you know, government playing the role of a dealer of hard drugs and you're
27:34
responsible for crime and chaos and death on the streets, and on the other
27:38
side saying, if you're opposed to them, or you have concerns about them,
27:44
then you're for abandoning addicts, leaving them to use and die in alleyways
27:48
alone. And I think what Richmond has done is refocus the debate onto the
27:53
middle ground and onto Yes they're important, but they have to perform well.
28:02
And there's an issue clearly in communities across the province about the performance and about
28:10
the impacts. And I think safe consumption sites are important, and I think
28:15
that there is an important they play an important role, but if folks government's
28:19
coming to the realization that if they want to see more of them across BC,
28:26
they need to be consistently well resources and they need to be consistently well
28:30
run. And if they're not, then what we saw in Richmond is going
28:36
to happen all over the place, but isn't. And so I think it's
28:40
a message to government that it's not about an ideological argument. It's about if
28:45
you want, if these things are so important, and they are, then
28:49
make sure you're actually doing a good job and you're not just lecturing people.
28:53
And that seems to be the issue that we've been talking about for the better
28:57
part of a year, right, is that if you build an overdose prevention
29:02
site, or you build a temporary shelter for the homeless, or you build
29:07
something in a community and you don't put the right wrap around supports around it,
29:11
the neighbors, the Downtown Business Association starts to complain about the impact of
29:17
it, and then the government loses buy in from the public on it.
29:22
Yeah. Yeah, And I want to even describe it as complaining, I
29:25
would say raising legitimate concern concern right, yeah, you know. And I
29:30
think as much as Premier eb has leaned into the middle ground, which he's
29:33
done more recently with the legislation that Brad referred to with the decision that they
29:40
made on Richmond, in the face of what he's seen in the community there,
29:44
the more in tune he is with public opinion, and the more likely
29:47
he'll be able to keep the public on side with the sites in the rule
29:51
that they play over the long Ali, I guess the flip side to being
29:56
in tune with public opinion is that it clashes a little bit with the government
29:59
direct that they've been going in and it doesn't really do a lot to address
30:04
the overdose crisis, which continues to get worse. And you know, we're
30:07
stuck in this kind of loop of recommendations things we should be doing, things
30:12
that are having in consequence, things that are unpopular, and it doesn't get
30:18
any better. Oh boy, where do I even begin with this one.
30:25
Okay, let me break down some facts that I think are important because what
30:29
we've seen the last couple of weeks is an absolute failure from our provincial representatives
30:34
on all sides politicizing this situation in a way that's just not helpful. So
30:41
let me back up here. This was counselor cash Heat putting forward a motion
30:48
to explore the possibility. Let me emphasize that this was not a we're going
30:55
to put shovels in the ground for a safe injection site tomorrow. Because the
31:02
opposition groups, particularly BC United and John Rustad's BC Conservatives, have both gone
31:10
to the internets and said we need to stop this safe injection site from happening.
31:15
Well, it was never going to happen. It was going to be
31:18
a study for the site. And so when we talk about the fact that
31:23
we need to get politics out of this conversation in order to get to real
31:27
solution, this is exactly what we're talking about, because it has escalated the
31:33
situation to these epic proportions when we're seeing close to twenty thousand signatures on a
31:40
petition, where we're seeing news outlets trying to cover this, but the information
31:45
is changing, and where we're seeing these political groups take advantage of a situation
31:53
and it's just not helping. Interestingly, though, there's a lot of opposition
31:57
to a safe injection site, but there is still solutions in people feeling a
32:02
little bit more comfortable with perhaps a treatment facility with again all of those wrap
32:08
around supports, as Jeff was saying, and so I've been I've just been
32:13
so upset with this whole thing because this is not where we need to go
32:16
in this conversation whatsoever. And so then for BC United MLAs En Richmond,
32:25
there's only one to then say shame on the NDP and David eb for supporting
32:32
this. Well, the fact of the matter is that there was actually no
32:36
support for that because this is really just a motion for a study. And
32:40
then at the end of the day, this is the health authority that makes
32:45
that final decision too, which also is a very convenient shield for the premiere
32:51
and then the NDP MLA Henriet comes in at the eleventh hour like where were
32:58
you in trying to share the correct information throughout this entire entire process. That
33:05
is kind of your job as in MLA. But then he comes out at
33:08
the very end, because he was scared, at least in my political opinion,
33:14
and so for those reasons, I just didn't think that there was leadership
33:16
on any side here. And then that's not even to get into the fact
33:20
that, according to the corner most people are inhaling drugs right now, not
33:23
even you know, consuming them by injection. We don't have enough facilities that
33:29
even allow that, let alone whatever this was going to be. And it
33:34
just feels like we're sort of it feels like we're kind of at a turning
33:37
point here. We talk about this on the show again and again and again.
33:39
Where the public is here, they're not willing to go any further.
33:43
The government is stuck between the recommendations from its medical side to go further and
33:49
the reality of the public over here. And we're just stalled. We're completely
33:52
stalled out. Well, the death count continues to rise, and I don't
33:55
know how we get around that, because this is kind of an encapsulation of
34:00
that in a nutshell. And how do we get against supervised consumption sites that
34:05
have been around forever, how do we because they produce results that are suboptimal
34:12
for people who are living there, in the communities living there because the model
34:15
government refuses to kind of change it and improve it and address that, and
34:19
it's a mess. I despair on this topic. We talk about it all
34:22
the time and it just it just feels I don't know, is there a
34:24
solution, Brad that we're missing, Like should the government take safe consumption,
34:31
like rebuild it with supports around it and say this is the base from now
34:36
on or I don't know. Yeah, I think there's a couple of things.
34:40
First, the sites that they do have have to operate well, you
34:45
know, and because people look at that and if it's a gong show,
34:51
people are going to say, well, I'm don't sign me up for one
34:53
of those. And you hear stories like you know the Yale Town ops for
34:58
instance, right the over those prevention side in Yale Town. Well, you
35:02
know from all reports it is bit of a gong show. And so in
35:07
government I think doesn't want to acknowledge that maybe there could be improvements because they
35:14
see that as throwing the whole baby out with the bathwater. If you admit
35:17
that they're not operating the way they should, then you know that means you
35:22
gotta get rid of it. Well, no, what we need to do
35:24
is demonstrate that these sites can work, they can be in communities without causing
35:31
a whole bunch of other issues. So first a lot of improvement there,
35:37
and then I think, you know, and in some respects this is maybe
35:40
happening, but government is not placing the right emphasis in terms of what they
35:45
talk about to the public. They have to show that this is part of
35:49
a larger plan. You know, I think people understand you need to have
35:53
a continuum of care. You're going to have some people who are at this
35:58
stage, but the goal has to be to advance them to this stage,
36:01
and then too this stage, and then to get better. And when all
36:06
of the emphasis in terms of the public discourse seems to be around legalization,
36:12
harm reduction ops, safe injection sites, even if there are things happening on
36:17
treatment, and I know they had an announcement on treatment, but it is
36:21
not piercing the public consciousness. People are thinking that the only thing government is
36:27
doing is this, because that's all I hear about. So I think it's
36:30
about and I think government bears responsibility for that because they rolled out a bunch
36:35
of things without having the other pieces in place. So probably what they need
36:39
to do is a big reset and to be able to demonstrate to the public
36:45
that all the pieces are in place, that all the funding and support is
36:49
in place so that these things operate product you know, can operate in the
36:53
community without major issues. Yeah, things are going to happen, but that's
36:58
going to be the exception, not the rule. You start to put that
37:00
together and then I think you get the buy in that you need from the
37:05
public to say, Okay, there's a plan. There's a plan, and
37:08
people are trying the government is trying to get people to a point where they
37:14
can be you know, live productive and healthy lives and not be you know,
37:20
in this sort of just despondent sort of stage where you know, you
37:23
go to downtown east Side, it's heartbreak. I mean people are, you
37:28
know, bent like pretzels. You know, they're alive, but you know
37:32
there's no living and we have to do better than that. And and so
37:37
I think that's the approach. You need to take a reset that has social
37:43
buy in. You know, one of the reasons the premier changed the open
37:45
public drug use law is he said he needed for there to be continued social
37:50
buying on DCRIM. You have to show that the community can function and this
37:53
policy can function together or else people just refuse to support it. So Jeff
37:59
Alli, either you want to jump in wrap it up, Yeah, yeah,
38:02
I know. Gut well all the time for for for ali uh uh.
38:07
The government is a large part of it is is about setting priorities and
38:16
making tough decisions about where you put scarce resources to address the biggest challenges you've
38:22
got. And so if I had advice for for government and this is based
38:28
you know, I worked in government and saw there's this sense of okay,
38:30
well, how can we spread resources as as as to get the bare minimum
38:36
so that we're doing okay on everything. I think at a certain point got
38:39
to say with with with with mental health and addiction and what's happening in the
38:45
street that if we've got to you know, cut back on some other things
38:51
to apply resources to this one, that's you know, that's the kind of
38:55
leadership that BC needs right now to meet the moment to make sure that you
39:00
know, when you go to a safe consumption site that we've got the best
39:04
health workers, that we've got lots of health workers, and we've got all
39:07
the supports, that we've got community safety in place, so it can be
39:09
accepted by the community, and we've made a decision as a as a province
39:15
to you know, expend a lot of resources on that because there's so many
39:20
people who are dying and the impacts on families and communities is so huge and
39:23
instead of trying to just get by and because I sense that's where we're at.
39:30
And then on the you know, the issue of you know, government
39:36
listening feeling the pressure from the health experts. The health experts are doing their
39:40
job, which is to provide the best scientific medical advice that they can,
39:47
but politicians have to lean into their job, which is understanding the public mood
39:52
and engaging the public on these issues. And I think the way that that
39:58
Brad has talked about he's doing important coquitmum, but you know, pushing like
40:02
resisting when you're being pushed by the bureaucrats to do something that is so offside
40:07
with the public mood that you're not going to get done, but you want
40:08
to get done. That's your whole job in politics is to is to bring
40:14
the slowest person on the team along to the finish line and get it done.
40:19
And on this issue, politicians and all parties need to be doing that.
40:22
More al you want to close us off on this, Yes, And
40:25
I'm going to try to be a little bit more positive here because I feel
40:29
like I was really negative. Rightfully so, but I was negative. Here's
40:34
an opportunity for the existing MLAs en Richmond to really come together and engage the
40:44
community and provide answers, not political spin, real answers, and to really
40:49
break down what happened and where we go from here. Equally, with any
40:53
political party trying to take advantage of this situation for their gain, they need
41:00
to take a look in the mirror and decide whether or not they want to
41:05
be that kind of candidate that just exposes all of this fear mongering without really
41:09
exposing the details of what really matters. And that's just more support for people
41:16
who need it. Until then, I will be here continuing to rant about
41:22
how bad they did. All right, Well, that is a very interesting
41:27
discussion on one of the biggest topics of facing the promise today. And I
41:30
appreciate you all walking through us. I appreciate the mayor for being here.
41:35
Thank you, and we will be back. Make sure you subscribe to the
41:37
podcast because we'll be back next week with a mega show on the budget and
41:40
the throne speech, and a whole bunch of stuff happening in DC politics.
41:44
Here on Political Capital. Political Capital is brought to you by Uber Canada.
41:54
Learn more at uber dot com. Slash flexibility works