2017 Legislative Session: Sixth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 41, Number 8

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2017

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

E. Foster: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce two constituents of mine, longtime friends. Well, the dad is a longtime friend. The son is only seven years old, so he’s a seven-year friend. He’s a very active young man. He’s very politically astute, and he’s here to visit us in the precinct for the first time. Please make Wilf and Alex Mulder very welcome to the House.

Hon. J. Rustad: It’s a great honour today to introduce four guests. In particular, I want to start off recognizing two who, through the important work they have done, have truly advanced the work of ending violence against indigenous women and children. Paul Lacerte and Raven Lacerte founded this campaign after a hunting trip. They’ve been working tirelessly through the aboriginal friendship centres and now have taken this campaign nationally.

Today I’m also very pleased that we have taken the campaign, as well, to the point where we’re now proclaiming our day today as the Moose Hide Campaign Day in British Columbia. They’re doing great work on behalf of all of us in terms of ending violence, and I’d like the House to please make Paul and Raven welcome.

With them are two additional guests that I’d like to introduce. Marilyn Lacerte and Marguerite Lipton are also down and are part of this. They are here today in the gallery. Would the House please make them welcome.

N. Simons: I just want to echo the words of my colleague across the floor, welcoming three generations of the Lacerte family. Paul and Raven; and Marilyn Lacerte is here as well; Auntie Marg, I think — Marguerite Lipton — an elder in the House today. I should put it that way. A wonderful campaign that began with thoughts about how we can address the issue of violence and violence against women and children.

[1335]

I think Paul and Raven should be quite proud of the efforts that they’ve made and the fact that their message is spreading to all corners, not just the province but across the country. There are people across the country today who are fasting, and there are others in the House who are part of that campaign as well. My colleagues on both sides of the House are wearing a moose patch. So I echo the words of the hon. minister and welcome everyone who is part of the Moose Hide Campaign today.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m very pleased to introduce today to the House a longtime notable resident of Haida Gwaii, Mr. George Westwood, whom I was very pleased to meet this past fall when in Haida Gwaii for the visit of the duke and duchess.

For a number of years, George has helped residents in Haida Gwaii in their time of bereavement. In fact, he was referred to by myself in this House, and I misspoke at the time in describing him. What I would like to say now is that Mr. Westwood is an esteemed and admired citizen of Haida Gwaii, and I am very happy to have met him.

George will be meeting with the staff of Public Safety and Solicitor General later today to explore ways to better service small and remote communities and ensure that there are resources available to families in their time of bereavement. Would the House make Mr. Westwood very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce the most patient woman in British Columbia, my wife, Lisa, who is here, I think, for the third time in eight years and probably the final time. As many members are aware, families put up with a lot when they have spouses in the positions serving British Columbians. In honour of Lisa, I know that the member for New Westminster will be very gentle during question period today. I would ask that the House please make Lisa very welcome.

J. Rice: Thank you to the Attorney General for her kind introduction of a very special constituent of mine, George Westwood, the Haida Gwaii undertaker. He is gracing us with his presence in the people’s House today.

George has been volunteering his undertaking services in Haida Gwaii for over 25 years now. He’s such a kind man. He has a great sense of humour, and he has an ability to put people at ease, particularly when a loved one has passed.

George has been a tireless advocate for the creation of funeral commissioners, much like marriage commissioners, in order to allow rural and remote communities to properly bury their dead, this without the burden of the extravagant costs of sending loved ones on a ferry or an airplane to a commercial funeral home in a larger city.

George reminds me that the basic obligations in life are to feed; to give drink; to clothe and to shoe; to visit; to console the sick, poor and afflicted; and to bury the dead. That is all that is required of humanity. Anything beyond that is either trim or greed. George embodies these principles in his compassionate personality and in the services he provides to the residents of Haida Gwaii.

George, we thank you for your service.

J. Yap: I have two constituents who are visiting Victoria today, Charles and Janet Barstow. They’re here with their good friends Ron and Norma Gatto from Langley. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.
[ Page 13596 ]

K. Conroy: I’m really pleased to introduce another member of our ever-growing family. On August 5, our son Wyllie and daughter-in-law Jayme welcomed a daughter, Sayge Anne Grace, sister to Moss and cousin to Daira, Alexia, Eric, Ryen, Aydenn, Kaelin and Sarah, making our wonderful total of grandchildren now number nine. I promised them I’d get all their names in.

I also want to introduce another special arrival to our family. My brother Thomas and his wife, Sandy, had their first grandchild. Their daughter Samantha gave birth to Maverick Thomas on January13 — Friday the 13th — weighing 8 pounds 8 ounces. I have to tell the House that Maverick was three weeks premature. For the women in the room who’ve had babies, they all went: “Ooh.” Yeah, he probably would have weighed 11 pounds. They are very happy and very healthy, as are Granny Kat and Great-Auntie Kat.

[1340]

Hon. S. Bond: Today I’m very pleased to welcome to the Legislature and to the B.C. public service six young people who are working as co-op students in the labour market and information division of my ministry.

We’re very pleased to welcome Siddharth Jain, who is studying for his master of business administration at the University of Victoria; Leah Martin from the University of Victoria, who’s working toward her master of public admin; Kristen Bassett, who is studying at Camosun; Amy Phipps from UVic, who’s also working toward her master of public administration; Elayne Ma, who is working toward a bachelor of arts degree at UVic; and Charlotte Safnuk, who is also working toward her bachelor of arts degree at UVic.

These six young people are a tremendous asset to our ministry, and they certainly represent the future of the B.C. public service. I know the House will want to join me in making them most welcome today.

G. Kyllo: I’d like the House to please welcome…. We have Kelvin Campbell, the business representative for District Council 38 — that’s the Union of Painters and Allied Trades, representing 2,000 members; as well as Don White, the executive director of the Hazardous Materials Association of B.C. They hosted us for a great lunch today. It was a bit of a networking session.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Madame Speaker: Opposition House Leader.

Hon. M. de Jong: Not yet. [Laughter.]

Madame Speaker: I actually enjoyed that.

Government House Leader.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yesterday we were introduced to the talented group of young people who are working with our colleagues in the opposition as part of the legislative internship program, and I’d like to take a moment today to introduce the balance of those talented young people who are engaged with the government caucus.

They are Anthony Bramwell, Cameron Fish, Brynne Langford, Kristen Littler and Tyler Norman. They joined the government caucus as part of that program in January. Anthony, Cameron, Brynne, Kristin and Tyler recently completed their undergraduate bachelor of arts degrees at Simon Fraser, University of Victoria, Mount Allison University, University of Victoria and UBC respectively.

Just as we heard yesterday, by virtue of their selection to that program, they have already demonstrated their talents and abilities. They will put those to work for us, as legislators, over the next number of weeks and months. As we have commented in the past, we would not be surprised if, one day, one of those talented young people found a seat in this chamber in another capacity.

I hope the House will make these interns very welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: Madame Speaker, thank you for letting me rise a second time, because it is important to acknowledge my predecessor, Brian Smith, QC, who is in the House today. Mr. Smith is often a visitor to this House. I, personally, always enjoy seeing him, hearing his advice, hearing his stories. He is very welcome, I know, in this House, and would the House show him that right now.

Tributes

DONALD BROTHERS

L. Larson: I’d like to inform the House of the recent passing of Don Brothers. He was born November 8, 1923, in Grand Forks, B.C., and passed away on February 9 in Grand Forks, at the age of 93.

He is lovingly survived by his wife, Betty, his daughters, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. He represented Rossland-Trail in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia from 1958 to 1972 with the B.C. Social Credit Party, becoming the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources in 1964 and the Minister of Education in 1972. He was appointed to the Provincial Assessment Appeal Board of B.C., and after that he was appointed to a number of Indian bands to chair the assessment review board.

There will be a memorial service on Saturday, February 18, in Grand Forks. I would ask Madame Speaker, on behalf of the Legislature, to send condolences to his family.

Madame Speaker: It shall be done.

[1345]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M207 — BANNING PUBLICLY-FUNDED
CAMPAIGN ADVERTISEMENTS ACT, 2017

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Banning Publicly-Funded Campaign Advertisements Act, 2017.

G. Holman: I’m very proud to introduce a number of private member’s bills as part of an overall package of proposed democratic reforms from the official opposition that will make elections fairer, make the Legislature more transparent and accountable and, last but not least, protect citizens’ rights of free speech.

I move that a bill intituled Banning Publicly Funded Campaign Advertisements, 2017, be introduced and read for the first time.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: As we approach the election this May, we’re already seeing an increase in government advertising, the main purpose of which appears to be the promotion of the governing party. As in 2013, we can expect that this taxpayer-funded advertising will be ramped up as the election nears.

British Columbia has already been described as the Wild West with respect to the lack of rules around campaign fundraising. The continued refusal of the Premier to ban corporate and union political donations and the elimination of pre-election spending limits for political parties add to the concerns that partisan-tainted government advertising — in other words, taxpayer-funded partisan advertising — reinforces the inordinate influence of big money on our political process.

The purpose of reintroducing the government advertising act is to prevent any provincial government from using public dollars to promote its own political interests. Under this bill, all government advertising must be reviewed and approved by the Auditor General based on clearly defined criteria preventing advertising that promotes the partisan interests of the governing party or creates a negative impression of government critics. The bill requires government advertising to present information factually and objectively and also bans all government advertising four months before the fixed election date.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M207, Banning Publicly-Funded Campaign Advertisements Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M208 — ELECTION (SPENDING LIMIT)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Election (Spending Limit) Amendment Act, 2017.

G. Holman: I move that a bill intituled the Election (Spending Limit) Amendment Act be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: The government has refused to take big money out of politics. In fact, while other provinces and the federal government have made changes to restrict the influence of donations from large organizations such as corporations and unions on the political process, this government has made the problem worse.

In 2015, government removed long-standing political spending limits in the 60 days prior to the campaign period. As a result of this change, despite the efforts of the official opposition, political spending leading up to the formal election campaign is now unlimited, exacerbating the problem of big money in politics. This bill would reinstate a limit on spending by political parties for the 60 days prior to the beginning of the campaign period.

To be clear, this legislation does not apply to third-party advertising, only to political parties and candidates. The reinstatement of pre-election spending limits would help restore a more level playing field in which smaller parties and independent candidates in the province can compete more effectively in election campaigns. The reinstatement of pre-election spending limits will also help restore confidence in the B.C. electoral system, which has been badly damaged in recent years.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M208, Election (Spending Limit) Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M209 — FIXED FALL ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Fixed Fall Election Amendment Act.

G. Holman: I appreciate the indulgence of the House here today. I also move that the bill intituled Fixed Fall Election Amendment Act be read for the first time.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: By moving the fixed election date to
[ Page 13598 ]
the beginning of October following the presentation of first-quarter public accounts, this will allow for more thorough assessment of the province’s finances. More importantly, it will better ensure that the people of British Columbia have an opportunity to critically evaluate the budget before they vote.

I do want to point out and thank the work of the member from Delta on this particular legislation as well.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M209, Fixed Fall Election Amendment Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1350]

BILL M210 — MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF
INTEREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Members’ Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2017.

G. Holman: I now move introduction of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Amendment Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: This bill will ensure that public office holders leaving office, their ministerial staff and their advisers do not improperly benefit from their former positions or exercise any undue influence.

This legislation will help address the growing cynicism of citizens about the conduct of public officials.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M210, Members’ Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M211 — FIXED LEGISLATIVE
CALENDAR ACT, 2017

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Fixed Legislative Calendar Act, 2017.

G. Holman: I move introduction of the parliamentary calendar act for first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: I’m pleased to introduce this bill, which will make fall parliamentary sessions mandatory in British Columbia.

Over the past six years, there have been only two fall sessions called by government, despite apparent commitments to a fixed legislative calendar with fall sessions for Legislative debate.

The continued denial of the fall session greatly reduces the days of active sitting in this chamber, which limits the ability of the opposition to hold government to account and to participate in the development of important public policies. It also means that the broader public is denied opportunities to observe and participate in the democratic process.

This bill will legislate an additional six weeks of motions, debates, statements, question periods and bills, all of which are essential elements needed for an accountable government.

In closing, I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M211, Fixed Legislative Calendar Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M212 — EMPOWERING LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEES ACT, 2017

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Empowering Legislative Committees Act, 2017.

G. Holman: I move introduction of the Empowering Legislative Committees Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: I’m pleased to introduce this bill that would increase the number of standing committees of the Legislature and increase the power of these standing committees by allowing them more discretion to exercise their mandate.

I’ve been fortunate to have been a member of two standing committees. They are less partisan, they are more constructive by nature, and they can play an essential role in the development of public policy and legislation.

Currently the standing committees of the Legislature have limited powers and can only examine issues specifically referred to them by government.

Committees are also hindered by the infrequency of meetings. Some do not meet at all. This limits the ability of MLAs and, through them, their constituents and the broader public to meaningfully participate in policy and legislation.

This bill would expand the power of the legislative standing committees to carry out their intended function.

As members of this assembly know, there are some important issues that are not represented by standing
[ Page 13599 ]
committees at all. This situation compelled our official opposition spokesperson for agriculture to form a bipartisan committee to tour the province, seeking input regarding policy for this sector that is so important to our economy and our communities.

This bill will expand the policy areas that standing committees cover to include critical industries of agriculture, as well as forestry, and arts and culture.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M212, Empowering Legislative Committees Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M213 — MODERNIZING PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY ACT, 2017

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Modernizing Public Participation in Democracy Act, 2017.

G. Holman: I thank everyone for their indulgence.

I move the introduction of the electronic petitions act for its first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: I’m very happy to reintroduce this bill to ensure that electronically submitted petitions would be recognized and accepted by this assembly. And I do want to acknowledge the work on this particular legislation by my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed, who first introduced the bill last year.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M213, Modernizing Public Participation in Democracy Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1355]

A. Weaver: While I appreciate the intention of the former bill, I do note it seems to be absent on the order paper, so I seek clarification as to whether or not we can receive this bill, in light that it hasn’t been given two days’ notice.

It’s not to say I disagree with it. I do agree with it, but I think it should have been on the order paper.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Member, we understand it was No. 3 on the order paper. The one dealing with petitions is No. 3 on the order paper.

BILL M214 — PUBLIC RECORDS
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2017

D. Routley presented a bill intituled Public Records Accountability Act, 2017.

D. Routley: I move that a bill intituled Public Records Accountability Act be introduced and read for the first time.

Motion approved.

D. Routley: I move the introduction of the Public Records Accountability Act. I am pleased to introduce a records accountability act. This is the third time I have brought forward a bill to improve British Columbia’s access to information. This all is against the backdrop of continued scandals regarding information management in this province — this against the backdrop of repeated condemning reports from successive Information and Privacy Commissioners. This bill acts on many recommendations made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner as well as several select standing committees to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

This bill does three key things. First, it creates a positive duty to document, which will require that the government maintain full and accurate records pertaining to any action that the government makes, which includes business done with contracted companies. Recent years’ triple-delete scandal and a plethora of “no records” responses to freedom-of-information requests require that the people of B.C. have more confidence in the management of the records of government.

Second, this bill requires that this information be maintained in an accessible form so that all may reference this information and ensures that no government document is destroyed without authorization.

Finally, this bill creates the duty to investigate instances of unauthorized destruction of government information and compels public bodies to release records as to how they process freedom-of-information requests. It also removes legal immunity from officials who fail to disclose documents.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M214, Public Records Accountability Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Again, the Chair is seeking clarification from Saanich North and the Islands that your
[ Page 13600 ]
bill that the other member queried, Modernizing Public Participation in Democracy Act, 2017, as on the order paper — that is the one?

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Thank you.

BILL M215 — FAIRNESS IN FINANCING
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS ACT, 2017

S. Robinson presented a bill intituled Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act, 2017.

S. Robinson: I move introduction of the Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

S. Robinson: I would like to introduce, for the third time, the Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act. This will amend the local government financing act to restrict campaign donations, in local government elections, solely to individuals, effectively banning political donations by organizations. This bill would eliminate some of the challenges and the perceived influence of big money in local elections throughout British Columbia.

Full access to the democratic process requires there is a level playing field for all who choose to put their name forward to run for office. We believe that removing the perceived conflicts that come with large donations from unions and corporations would do much to enhance the fairness and accessibility of local elections.

[1400]

We know that British Columbians want good democracy, free of real potential or perceived influence of these organizations.

With that, I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M215, Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M216 — WHISTLEBLOWERS
PROTECTION ACT, 2017

S. Simpson presented a bill intituled Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2017.

S. Simpson: I move that a bill intituled the Whistleblowers Protection Act be introduced and read for the first time.

Motion approved.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to introduce for the third time the Whistleblowers Protection Act. This bill has two purposes. The first is to facilitate the investigation and inquiry into matters that are potentially damaging to the public. The bill would establish a process for annual disclosures and empower the ombudsperson to oversee the administration of the law. It would require all reports to be public to ensure transparency and accountability.

The second critical purpose of this legislation is to protect individuals who make such disclosures. It takes courage to see something that is wrong and step up and talk about it. Legitimate disclosures of this nature are in the public interest, and people who make such disclosures need to know that they will not be punished for doing the right thing. The Whistleblowers Protection Act would provide them that assurance and guarantee.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M216, Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

WOMEN’S MEMORIAL MARCH

J. Rice: Just under the McBride Street bridge on the Highway of Tears in Prince Rupert, people gathered to honour the missing and murdered, in concert with women’s marches held all over the province this past Valentine’s Day. Now in the 27th year, the February 14 annual women’s march is held on Valentine’s Day to honour the memory of all women who have died due to physical, mental, emotional and spiritual violence.

The 1991 murder of a woman on Powell Street in Vancouver led to the first Women’s Memorial March. An annual march has resulted to express compassion, community and caring for all women in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

The annual march has illuminated the unjust violence endured by women, especially indigenous women. As an MLA representing many First Nations communities, I know personally that families of the murdered and missing feel frustrated at the slow process to address these tragedies. They feel discouraged at the resistance to deal with the systematic nature of gendered violence, poverty, racism and colonialism, which can fuel these tragedies.

The memorial march reminds us that missing and murdered women — as well as their families, communities and loved ones — deserve answers, concrete action
[ Page 13601 ]
and meaningful justice. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who attended this year’s march, tells me it provides the space to come together, to heal together, to remember the women who are still missing and to dedicate ourselves to justice.

The growing number of these Valentine’s Day marches held not just in Vancouver but across our province reminds us that gendered violence is a much broader problem not exclusive to one postal code. It is everywhere. While thousands gathered in the streets of Vancouver two days ago to honour the women of the Downtown Eastside, three indigenous mothers organized a simultaneous vigil in Prince Rupert, reminding us that even though it is 2017, violence against women is still occurring everywhere.

MOOSE HIDE CAMPAIGN DAY

M. Dalton: Today is Moose Hide Campaign Day in British Columbia. From its inception in 2011 by aboriginal co-founders Paul Lacerte and his daughter Raven, the mission of the Moose Hide Campaign is to engage aboriginal and non-aboriginal men to stand up and speak out about the violence committed against women and children in our communities.

Members on both sides of this House and staff throughout the Legislature are showing their support, either by fasting or wearing moose hide pins or both. I want to recognize over 500 male public servants who are fasting today, as I am doing also. This fasting is to show commitment to women and children in our lives.

I was honoured to attend this morning’s opening ceremonies and also to be in attendance at the legislative steps for the first official proclamation of Moose Hide Campaign Day in British Columbia. This is a movement for healing, transformation and taking a stand against violent behaviour against women, against children.

Domestic violence affects entire communities. The shock waves from the trauma reverberate through children and families, workplaces and schools, and so easily become generational.

[1405]

The simple square of moose hide is an acknowledgment that the vision of individuals can change hearts and minds and lives. Wearing the moose hide signifies our commitment to honour, respect and protect the women and children in our lives. Over 500,000 moose hide pins have been distributed. This compares with 14,000 in 2014, a small indication of how this campaign has grown and is spreading from B.C. across Canada.

The Moose Hide Campaign is an example of how people can make a difference. For every wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece or grandmother — whoever has been subjected to violence — we say that we see you, we support you, and we respect you.

SOROPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL
OF THE TRI-CITIES

S. Robinson: The word “soroptimist” was coined from the Latin soror, meaning “sister,” and optima, meaning “best.” Soroptimists are women at their best helping other women to be their best.

In the Tri-Cities, the Soroptimist International of the Tri-Cities has been around for over 17 years, and they have been committed to improving the lives of women and girls both locally and internationally. The Tri-Cities Soroptimists make a difference in the lives of women and girls every day. They host a range of programs, including Bea’s Kloset, a free store for women and young girls at risk who are transitioning to a life of their own. Gently used household items are donated, and recipients are invited to shop for free for the household items they need.

They have a warm place for women, a monthly social evening for women in need, providing hot meals, friendly faces, clothes, shoes and resource referrals. They have the Enchantment Project, providing high school graduates whose families have limited incomes with formal attire so that these young women can attend their graduation ceremonies with pride.

They also have the Dream It, Be It project for girls in secondary schools who face obstacles for a future of success. The project hosts an annual two-day conference for girls 14 to 18 where the girls discover their personal values, explore careers, learn to set achievable goals and learn to overcome obstacles.

This coming weekend the Soroptimist International of the Tri-Cities is hosting their annual fundraising gala, where they will be raising funds to run these programs. They will also be giving awards to women and girls who have made a difference in the lives of other women. There will be awards for women who have faced adversity and are persisting with their educational goals and awards for young women who are still in high school and are making the world a better place through their volunteer efforts.

As one of the award judges, I have to say that every single one of the applications that we reviewed was a story of hope and possibility. I read about the adversity some of these women have faced. In spite of these challenges, they persist in caring for their children, making their way in the world and persist in their dreams.

CHINESE NEW YEAR CELEBRATION
AND IMMIGRANTS TO CHILLIWACK

L. Throness: Recently I had occasion to visit a Chinese New Year celebration in Chilliwack at the Chinese Alliance Church there, which is pastored by Paul and Michelle Yua. After meeting a number of new people, we gathered for a delicious communal meal of authentic Chinese food. Then we all went upstairs to sing, listen to speeches and watch a video of Céline Dion singing in
[ Page 13602 ]
Mandarin, which I can tell you was a unique cultural experience in itself.

It was exciting for me to offer greetings in English while Michelle translated into Mandarin, something I’ve never done before. I was speaking to an enthusiastic group of young people, and this is what I said to them. “We’ve all been immigrants to Canada at one time or another, and we’re all welcome here. New Canadians need a friend, and I want to be a friend to newcomers to my riding.”

Chilliwack has always been a traditional area, a region populated by German, Dutch and other European immigrants. They are good people, solid people. They have built this province. Even today when I visit schools in my constituency, classrooms remind me of those that I grew up in, in northern B.C.

But our city is growing fast. Even in this area of relative ethnic uniformity, new people are moving in. Our community is changing, and we welcome that change.

I look forward to developing closer relationships with new Canadians in my riding. I especially want to wish my new Chinese Canadian friends a hearty Xin nian kuai le, which I think means something like Happy Year of the Rooster, and welcome to Chilliwack.

BILL McGOVERN AND
CAPE HORN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

J. Wickens: When I was a child, I was never sent to the principal’s office. In fact, at that time, what I remember is that the principal’s office was the last place you wanted to be, and you certainly did not want the principal to talk to your parents.

[1410]

But when my children entered public education, things were much different. Everybody wanted to be in the principal’s office. I’ll never forget the day that I walked into Bill McGovern’s office, the principal at Cape Horn Elementary in Coquitlam. I was tired, scared and wondered if the public school system would meet the needs of my child. He was caring and attentive, and took out a pad of paper and a pen and said to me: “Tell me about your son and what we can do to make him successful.” He had all the time in the world for our family, and I left that meeting feeling like things would be okay.

Bill McGovern was at Cape Horn Elementary for eight years, and we recently had to say goodbye. I can tell you that all of the staff, students and parents were incredibly sad to say goodbye to Bill. My little boy even shed a few tears.

Many of the people I talk to in the education system tell me that one of the key ingredients to an amazing school is having a great principal. In the time that Bill McGovern was at Cape Horn Elementary, he was not only a principal. He was the school counsellor. He worked with gifted students. He did pull-out math programs and much, much more.

When my daughter entered kindergarten, she couldn’t pronounce “McGovern,” so she called him Mr. Government.

Mr. Government, thank you for being a fantastic educator and principal. There are no words to express the impact that you have had on the lives of students, parents and teachers.

POST-TRUTH AND DEMOCRACY

G. Hogg: Each year the Oxford Dictionary selects a word or phrase of the year, one that has attracted a great deal of interest. Last November they selected as the 2016 word of the year “post-truth,” an adjective defined as relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion or policy than appeals to emotion or personal beliefs.

Canadian professor Mark Kingwell has written that it can seem as if “we are living in a world where fact, truth and evidence no longer exert the rational pull they once did” and that “fake news sites, junk science, politicians blithely dismissive of fact-checks and Google searches that appear to make us dumber render truth redundant.” Of course, members of this Legislature would be the singular exception to Professor Kingwell’s observation.

The World Values Survey, a global study by social scientists, covers over 100 countries, including Canada, and has found some disturbing trends. Far fewer millennials object to autocratic governments than do their elders.

Only 19 percent of Americans and 36 percent of Europeans say that a military takeover would not be legitimate. Just one-third see civil rights as absolutely essential, and in 1995, only 16 percent of American youngsters thought democracy was a bad system. By 2011, the percentage that thought it was a bad system increased to 25 percent. I wonder what that percentage would be in America today.

Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman says that we can be blind to the obvious and also blind to our blindness. May we strive to overcome that blindness and ensure that facts, truth and evidence, not appeals to emotion and personal beliefs, are the foundation of our opinions and our actions.

Rational thought really means an ongoing agreement to take each other seriously. I know that that’s true, because I looked it up and found it on Facebook.

Oral Questions

REPORTING OF ASSAULTS
IN YOUTH DEATH CASE

M. Mark: Yesterday we did not get many answers about the tragic death of Alex Gervais, but perhaps we’ll do better today.
[ Page 13603 ]

We know that Alex would have thrived if he had been placed with his family, but government rejected that. We know that Alex was in desperate need of mental health services, but government rejected that too. We know that Alex pleaded for help ten days before his death, but government ignored him.

This government has a moral, a legal and a parental obligation to act — and, instead, did nothing.

In April 2014, Alex told his caregiver and his social worker that he had been sexually assaulted by two older children in his foster home placement. In response, government took no action. They offered no counselling, no mental health supports — nothing.

[1415]

My question is for the Solicitor General. A child in government’s care was sexually assaulted. Why didn’t anyone bother to report it to the RCMP?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The tragic death of Alex Gervais and the report which we have now received from the representative paint a very unfortunate picture, a very sad picture of how the system failed that young man.

I have spoken at length about this. I have issued a statement about this. I have accepted all of the recommendations made by the representative’s office in terms of how we learn from this, how we move forward, what we do differently. I’ve committed to all of those things. I’ve laid out how we will do that, and I am committed to doing that and more to ensure that the 7,000 children and youth in our care have a system that works to protect and care for them.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a supplemental.

M. Mark: With all due respect, I’ve heard that line one too many times. Kids in this province, especially vulnerable kids, deserve some accountability.

It gets worse. According to the representative, in August 2015, Alex told his social worker that he had been sexually assaulted by an adult respite caregiver. According to Alex, his caregiver, a private contractor with this government, plied him with cocaine and then sexually assaulted him. Government’s response was to provide Alex with literature, with information about the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth.

My question again is for the Solicitor General. A child in government’s care reported that he was provided a restricted narcotic and sexually assaulted by an adult in a position of trust. Can he tell the House who was supposed to report this incident to the RCMP, and can he tell this House if he even bothered?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No one is arguing the duty to report. It is clear. We stand by that duty. It is absolute. It is all of our responsibility, if we are the first person to understand that there is a risk to the child, to report. Let me just reiterate again for the member. They will continue to use an extremely tragic circumstance and a really difficult situation in the death of a child, a youth — for lack of a better term — to slime me. They can do that, and that’s okay.

But I want them to take a moment to remember that when they paint the entire system this way, it does not reflect well on the thousands of caregivers in residential circumstances, in foster circumstances, the social workers on the front line who devote their lives to protecting children. Each and every one of those people who does a fantastic job is hurt by the commentary. Most of all, it doesn’t do anything to support the children and youth in our care, those who are thriving, those who are in circumstances where they are succeeding and who deserve our respect.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a final supplemental.

M. Mark: Shame. Shame on making those remarks that somehow this is about the minister instead of Alex.

The government has elected to make good decisions, best-interest decisions and protect the most vulnerable. I would remind everyone in this House that this is about Alex and other vulnerable children that the Representative for Children and Youth reported on — not Plecas, but an independent office that exposed the truth in what happened for a vulnerable kid named Alex in the care of the Ministry of Children and Family.

[1420]

Let’s recap. Alex was sexually assaulted by two older children in foster care, and no one told the police. Alex was given narcotics by a caregiver and sexually assaulted, and no one told the police — not the caregiver, not the social worker and not anyone at the Ministry of Children and Family Development. According to the representative, Alex was reportedly stabbed in the neck and seriously injured, and no one told the police.

My question is for the Solicitor General. Surely he knows that people in a position of trust who care for vulnerable children are required, have a duty, to inform the police when a child is harmed. Can he provide an explanation to this House as to why no one ever bothered to inform the police when Alex was assaulted, not once but three times?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, the death of Alex Gervais is tragic, and the circumstances leading up to his death are tragic and inexcusable. When something like this happens, it is our duty to investigate, for the representative to investigate, and for us to act to make changes to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. We are committed to that, and that’s what we will do.

N. Simons: Yesterday the Minister of Children and Family Development said it was not her practice to
[ Page 13604 ]
second-guess the decisions of her staff. For better or for worse, the minister responsible for the safety of 7,100 children, vulnerable children, in this province…. When one of them was sexually assaulted, no one bothered to call the police. Can the minister tell this House whose job it was to report Alex’s assault to the authorities?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, to the member, we all have a duty to report. Whoever is the first receiver of the information that a child is at risk has a duty to report.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: That’s a good message for the public to hear. However, it’s not one that’s obviously understood by everyone in this House. The minister has demonstrated a remarkable ability to be responsible without being accountable.

Alex is denied placement with his family, and that’s someone else’s decision. Alex’s repeated assaults are never reported to the authorities. That’s someone else’s decision. The obvious question to the minister is: if one of the children currently in the care of the province is assaulted, ultimately, whose job is it to make sure that the police are informed?

Hon. S. Cadieux: For those watching and for this House, let me remind the member that there are laws in this province. The CFCSA has guiding principles that outline the safety and well-being of children. Under that legislation, I, as minister, designate the authority to act on that law to designated directors. They are the statutory guardians of children in care, and they must act in the best interests of children in care. Similarly, there is a duty to report for those people who may be aware of a situation where a child is at risk. They have a duty to report.

But let’s just also remember that our front-line professionals go into homes where there may be domestic violence. There may be substance abuse. There may be child abuse. There may be a whole range of horrific circumstances. Then they have to make decisions, based on their professional judgment, whether or not to remove a child from their family.

The members opposite seem to think that it would be better for the elected officials — me, as the minister — to make those decisions, and I don’t. I don’t agree. In fact, I think that would be absurd and, frankly, dangerous, because I am not trained to make those decisions.

[1425]

FOSTER HOME STANDARDS

C. James: If the minister or this government actually cared about the most vulnerable children in this province, the minister would have made sure that the resources were there.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member, please take your seat.

Members, this House will come to order.

Please continue.

C. James: This government would have put the resources that were requested by the Representative for Children and Youth and the hard-working social workers in this province, who need the resources in the field. That’s what the government would have done if they took this issue seriously. They would have put those resources in place.

Yesterday we raised the fact that this minister has achieved a zero compliance rate for monitoring the safety and well-being of kids’ foster homes in the northwest, in the Kootenays and in the east Fraser Valley. So in three regions of this province, the minister could not or would not ensure that there were enough social workers to make contact with children in care at least once every three months.

My question is to the minister. Can she explain why she is apparently unable to enforce a law that she is directly responsible for?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member opposite would have you believe that she and the NDP are the only people in this province that care about children. She couldn’t be more wrong.

The system is not perfect, not by a long shot. There is plenty to do. Quality assurance is one of those areas that we have acknowledged needs more resources, and more have been put in. There is no question that it’s unacceptable when we do an audit and our compliance is not in line. It’s not okay. Then our directors go in and they put in place an action plan with supports to fix those problems.

We report publicly because we’re not ashamed of the fact that there is more work to do. There will always be more work to do. But on my watch, the number of kids in care is down because we’re doing a better job of keeping kids with their families. The budget has been lifted significantly to support our front-line workers and to add front-line workers so that their caseloads are lower, so that they have more time to spend directly with the families and youth that they serve, because we do understand how important this work is and how much more there is to do.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: Zero compliance. Three regions of this province have zero compliance with a very basic requirement
[ Page 13605 ]
to see children in care at least once every three months. The minister herself just said we need more resources. Since 2014, the minister has been unable to document that social workers are checking in on children in care at least once every three months.

In the case of contracted homes, homes like Alex was in, here’s how the minister’s own staff described their oversight responsibilities: “We had, like, a hands-off approach to contractors. They’re a business. We buy the service. We need to ensure they’re providing the service, but we don’t handhold them. We don’t provide support to their staff.”

If the minister isn’t monitoring kids in foster homes and she’s not monitoring kids in private care, where is she monitoring vulnerable children in this province?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There is monitoring. There is quality assurance. We need more of it. We need to do a better job of it. I am not arguing with that, and we’re committed to getting that done. We’ve laid out a plan for that, and more is continuing to be done because we value the foster and residential placements that we have for kids.

[1430]

In most cases, they are good. They are extraordinary, in most cases. In fact — the member will know this, having been a foster parent herself — there are thousands upon thousands of amazing families who give wonderful, loving, stable homes to foster children. Many of those have fostered upwards of 30 children over their many years of service. Most of our adoptive families start out as foster families.

There are tremendous caring people out there. There are also some bad actors, and we’re going to make sure we get to them.

STUDENT HOUSING
AND RENTAL VACANCY RATE

A. Weaver: Students at British Columbia’s post-secondary institutions are struggling to find affordable rental accommodation. Yet at the same time, colleges and universities across B.C. are desperate to build more on-campus housing. The barrier to building such housing is access to capital and government concern about increased public debt and how it will affect our triple-A credit rating and, hence, the cost of servicing existing debt.

But if an external organization were to own the debt, there would be no risk to B.C.’s credit rating. Colleges and universities could service it through operating revenues generated from on-campus residence fees, a very captive audience that exists there. Housing more students on campus frees up off-campus rental units, thereby easing upward pressure on rents.

Will the government commit to exploring the creation of an external non-government organization that would own the debt, thereby allowing colleges and universities to build more on-campus housing?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I thank the member from Oak Bay for his thoughtful and productive question, which distinguishes it from many in this room.

Now, the member is known to be a very clever man, but the ministry staff are at least a year ahead of him on this question. It’s actually interesting that yesterday I met with the president of the University of Victoria to discuss this very issue. The prospects there are very strong for this exact opportunity to build student housing which will not form part of government debt.

The details of this arrangement need to be worked out. There are arrangements that need to be set up for the deal structure, for the financing vehicles. But I think the key point here is to congratulate the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his insight, for his dedication to good public policy. I’m sure he’ll be so persuaded by his own genius that he won’t need to ask a follow-up question.

Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Well, I must say that was a somewhat patronizing response to a serious question. I would point out, in fact, that this lone B.C. Green MLA was several years ahead of the B.C. Liberals in identifying an affordability crisis in this province that they refuse to deal with.

There’s an ongoing affordability crisis not only in Metro Vancouver but here in the capital regional district. For many living in our two largest cities, home ownership is simply not an option for the foreseeable future. Yet at the same time, the private apartment rental vacancy rate in Victoria is 0.5 percent, and in Vancouver, it’s 0.7 percent.

My previous question offered one possible way for the government to reduce pressures on the existing rental stock, and I’m glad to see that they’re taking it up. But the question that I have is this: what other steps is this government taking to address the vacancy rates in Metro Vancouver and the CRD? An answer that’s saying “build more stock” is simply not going to deal with the issue in the time required to deal with it. What is the government doing?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The question actually reflects well into the member’s first question in that the novel housing arrangements for financing that we have come up with in this government, courtesy of the Minister Responsible for Natural Gas Development and Housing, have provided this financing vehicle that’s provided 800 non-profit housing providers in more than 280 communities across British Columbia with support for more than 104,000 households.

[1435]

The plans that the member calls upon are already being implemented. Since 2001, we have completed close to 24,000 new units of affordable housing, with more than 5,000 more units in development or under construction.
[ Page 13606 ]

Thank you for the question. If you have any further, we’d be glad to answer them.

PHARMANET SYSTEM PRIVACY BREACH

D. Routley: Last week the B.C. Liberals said they were victims of a privacy breach. The Premier said the breach made her really angry and that she was going to call the police. Then we learned that the Premier was just making stuff up.

As it turns out, last week thousands of British Columbians were victims of a real and serious privacy breach. Their personal information — including their names, addresses, dates of birth and personal health numbers — were illegally accessed through the PharmaNet website. What did the Premier say when thousands of taxpayers, thousands of citizens of British Columbia, were the victims of a serious privacy breach? Nothing.

Can the Minister of Citizens’ Services explain how he could allow the most sensitive personal information of 7,500 citizens of British Columbia to be illegally accessed from a site that he is responsible for protecting?

Hon. T. Lake: Firstly, I believe the Premier did comment on this and expressed her concern that patient information should be confidential.

This is a matter that we take very seriously. PharmaNet is an internationally recognized network, and it protects patient safety by preventing potentially dangerous medication errors.

Unfortunately, we were made aware, through one of the providers, that there was unusual activity. It was reported, and we have followed up. An investigation is ongoing to determine how that occurred and the motivation behind trying to get this information. We also are doing a separate privacy security review through a private company to ensure that we are putting those privacy mechanisms in place. We do take this very seriously, and all British Columbians that have been affected have been notified.

Madame Speaker: Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

D. Routley: Well, it’s a pattern with this government. We could just roll the tape of the last privacy breach and roll the tape of the response. “Never again” is what they said the time before. When it comes to protecting the personal information of British Columbians, they just don’t seem to care.

Yesterday we spoke to a woman who was frustrated and angry after she and her mother received letters from the Ministry of Health. They were told that their personal health profiles had been viewed by an unauthorized individual. They are concerned about the impact of this breach, and all they get from the minister is a letter saying that they should hire a credit-monitoring service or contact the police.

Can the minister explain why it is that when his government fails to protect British Columbians’ private information, it’s not his problem; it’s their problem?

Hon. T. Lake: We do our utmost to protect the privacy of patient information, but we know that in the age of data and cyber technology today, this is a risk of the 21st century. This happens to governments. It happens to organizations, as we saw south of the border during a general election. Unfortunately, it is a huge challenge when we manage so much data in an electronic world. That means that we must meet that challenge by putting security in place to protect people’s information.

In this circumstance, investigations to date have not revealed that any financial information was received during this breach. But we will continue our investigation and make sure that we do the utmost to protect patient privacy.

S. Robinson: The Ministry of Health had privacy breaches in 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016 and now in 2017. So 7,500 more people have had their private data accessed. It’s clearly a pattern for this government. The last time that PharmaNet had a privacy breach, the ministry issued a press release and told everyone that they would get to the bottom of things.

[1440]

But this time we only found out about this breach because the people affected by this latest breach…. Well, they contacted the opposition and the media. Government seems more interested in covering up than in actually answering people’s questions.

My question is for the minister. Is the reason that he didn’t inform the public about this latest breach because he didn’t know about it himself, or is it because he just didn’t care?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, firstly, I think that is a ridiculous question because I care very much about patient privacy.

There is a duty to report, as we heard earlier, in many circumstances, and when people’s private information is made available, our first duty, the duty of anyone that comes across a situation like that, is to report it to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. That is what people should do when they discover that people’s personal information is not being held confidential. That’s what we did, followed by an investigation that is ongoing.

It’s complex. The PharmaNet system serves all the pharmacies in British Columbia. Over 3,000 physicians use this system, and we are determined to make sure that it is held secure.
[ Page 13607 ]

S. Robinson: It would be helpful if we actually got an answer that, in fact, this ministry did care. But clearly they don’t because the last time that the ministry failed to protect PharmaNet data the ministry actually offered every affected person free credit protection services. Government messed up, government got caught and government had to take responsibility.

This time, what did they tell people whose privacy was affected? They told them that they are on their own. People have been calling the ministry, and they’ve been getting no answers and no help from this government.

Has this government’s lax attitude to privacy breaches become so engrained and so standard that they now expect people that they impact to just go out on their own and take care of business that they need to take care of?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, firstly, it appears that user names and passwords that are supposed to be held confidential by physicians were accessed somehow. It wasn’t the government giving out this information, as much the opposition members would have you believe.

To our knowledge, at this point, no financial information has been accessed. But we are working with individuals on a case-by-case basis. If there is any evidence that financial information was obtained or that people are at risk in terms of their credit, we will work with those British Columbians to safeguard their private, personal financial information and keep them from being at risk.

S. Simpson: In 2014, the last time PharmaNet had a data breach on the Health Minister’s watch, he promised to do better. The minister said: “British Columbians expect the Ministry of Health to safeguard their personal medical information, and as Minister of Health, I take that responsibility very seriously.”

The result of that serious concern is another breach that affects four times as many people. That’s five breaches in five years for the Minister of Health, a litany of privacy breaches under this government and this minister. While the minister may shrug and say, “We’re going to do better,” the thousands of people who have had their information breached are concerned about identity theft. They’re concerned about a whole range of issues.

What we heard today was nothing in response to a simple question. The question is: how come the government is telling these thousands of people to pick up the bill for credit protection services for themselves instead of paying the bill for your mistake?

Madame Speaker: Members know they’re directed through the Chair.

[1445]

Hon. T. Lake: Firstly, as I mentioned, if there are people who we determine, working with individuals, that their financial information is at risk, of course we will work to help protect their financial information and keep their credit from being at risk.

There are literally thousands and thousands and thousands of electronic transactions on PharmaNet each and every day, and as hard as I work and as hard as the people in our ministry work, as hard as physicians and pharmacists all across this province work, I can’t stand here and promise this House that we will never have this kind of thing happen again. This is the kind of thing, in the 21st century, where we have to be ever vigilant. If anyone is going to stand up and pretend to promise that we will never run into these challenges, it would be disingenuous.

But I do give my commitment to this House that we will work as hard as possible to keep patient information confidential and secure.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

D. McRae: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Representative for Children and Youth.

I move that the report to be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

D. McRae: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

D. McRae: In moving adoption of this report, I’d like to make some brief comments. This report was deposited with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly on November 15, 2016, and publicly released on that day. It presents the special committee’s unanimous recommendation to appoint Bernard Richard as the Representative for Children and Youth for the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Richard impressed the special committee with his experience serving children and youth, working with indigenous communities and managing independent non-partisan organizations. He also brings a record of high ethical standards and a principled and a collaborative leadership style.

Mr. Richard is in the gallery with us today — above you, Madame Speaker — along with his wife, Annie Richard; the Deputy Representative for Children and Youth, Dawn Thomas-Wightman; and the executive coordinator, Carissa Matheson. I would like to welcome Mr. Richard and his wife to British Columbia.

If I may, as he’s new to our province…. I know that his friends and colleagues back in New Brunswick perhaps are under a metre of snow right now in a second snowstorm. They always appreciate when we send pictures of cherry blossoms from Victoria, which will start ap-
[ Page 13608 ]
pearing in the next week or so. I think you’ll find that’s well received, Mr. Richard.

I also wish to express our appreciation to Ms. Thomas-Wightman and her colleagues for their professionalism and dedication during this transition period.

On November 15, 2016, the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth also considered Mr. Richard’s extensive experience and qualifications and unanimously appointed him as acting Representative for Children and Youth, commencing on November 27, 2016. I commend the standing committee for this acting appointment. It has ensured a smooth transition for the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth and has enabled the office to continue its important work on behalf of children and youth and their families.

On behalf of the special committee and all members of the legislative committee, I would also like to express my gratitude to Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond for her many contributions to B.C.’s children and youth during her ten years as our province’s first representative.

I also want to extend my sincere appreciation to the Deputy Chair, the member for Nelson-Creston, and all special committee members for their hard work and dedication on this important appointment process.

C. James: On behalf of the member for Nelson-Creston and myself, I would like to thank the Chair and thank the members of the committee. This certainly started off a very challenging task. I think, as you’ve have heard from the Chair, that replacing an extraordinary woman — Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond — was no small feat for us to take on as a committee. We had a very strong voice and a very strong advocate in our province and a woman who leaves a lasting legacy for all of British Columbia.

But we did take on this responsibility. We took it on and worked very hard over a number of months, and I am thrilled and proud to stand up and support this direction and to appoint Bernard Richard as our Representative for Children and Youth in this province.

You’ve heard from the Chair about the extensive skills and the experience that Bernard brings to the role: his experience as an independent officer, his experience with children and families. But I want to mention a couple of other pieces that really stood out in the interview process. The first one is Bernard’s passion for improving the lives of the most vulnerable. That was very clear in any discussion that we had and was first and foremost in his mind.

He also has had extensive work with First Nations, which certainly, from all of our perspectives, was an important piece in this role and was something that we felt was very important.

[1450]

The last piece I just want to mention was his respect for the voice of children and youth in the process of serving them. That was, again, another extensive discussion we had with Bernard Richard, and it was something that he felt very strongly about.

I think we are incredibly fortunate in British Columbia to have Bernard Richard come in as our representative — no longer acting, but Representative for Children and Youth.

Motion approved.

D. McRae: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to appoint Mr. Richard as Representative for Children and Youth.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE
FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

D. McRae: I move that:

[Bernard Richard be appointed Representative for Children and Youth and an officer of the Legislature for a five year term commencing on February 16, 2017, pursuant to section 2 of the Representative for Children and Youth Act [S.B.C. 2006] c. 29.]

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kensington seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I’d like to welcome a class of 20 students from the Take a Hike program at John Oliver. They’re here with us today in the Legislature. They’re accompanied by teacher and founding member Tim Gale, therapist Brian O’Neill and youth and family worker Adrian Connor.

The Take a Hike program is a unique program. It’s an experiential, adventure-based program that uses therapy to change students’ lives, and it uses a holistic approach to education, including the spirit, body and mind approach.

It’s really a groundbreaking program and a leading program, not only in British Columbia but across our country. Really, I think it’s the future, not only of ensuring that we’re bringing together experiential, therapeutic and educational aspects but as a model for all students to be successful.

They’re looking to expand the program. They’re currently at John Oliver, in Vancouver-Kensington, as well as in Burnaby and West Kootenay, and they are looking to expand the program to another district across the province. So if anyone’s interested in just a terrific program, you can approach me. I can pass on the information. I highly recommend it.
[ Page 13609 ]

When I asked the students, I said: “How would you characterize the program? What would you like me to tell everybody here what you think about the program?” They said: “Tell everybody that it kills.” Translation: it means that it’s really good. That’s from the students — just a great dynamic.

They’ve got a fundraiser snowshoeing next week. Just a shout-out for that for anyone who wants to join. One of the students said to me that being in the program is developing leadership for the future, and this young man told me that he plans to become the Prime Minister of our country.

Please ask everybody to give them a warm welcome.

Standing Order 35

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF
URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE —
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND SYSTEMIC RACISM

M. Farnworth: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. If you approve the request under Standing Order 35, it is my intention that the House would debate a resolution that would condemn Islamophobia and all other forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination. Furthermore, it would condemn the recent terrorist murders of six people at the Islamic mosque in Quebec City and the rise of incidents of hate speech in communities in British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to my colleague the Opposition House Leader. I am obliged to him for having come to see me a couple days ago to indicate his and his colleagues’ interest in this matter and, also, the opportunity to consider the form of the motion that he has just related to the House. I’m happy to inform the House that it is the government’s view that this matter should proceed. We have agreed that the matter should be deliberated upon for one hour this afternoon.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, it appears that there is agreement that the matter raised by the member for Port Coquitlam shall proceed. Shall leave be granted for a debate on the motion presented?

Leave granted.

Madame Speaker: Debate may proceed. By agreement, the debate shall not exceed one hour. As the mover of the motion, the member for Port Coquitlam may speak for up to seven minutes and other members for up to five minutes each.

[1455]

Standing Order 35

ISLAMOPHOBIA AND SYSTEMIC RACISM

B. Ralston: On the evening of January 29, 2017, six Canadians were murdered and others were seriously injured….

I have to move the motion. Pardon me.

[Be it resolved that this House condemns Islamophobia and all other forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and, furthermore, condemns the recent terrorist murders of six people at the Islamic Mosque of Quebec City and the rise of incidents of hate speech in communities in British Columbia.]

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

B. Ralston: On the evening of January 29, 2017, six Canadians were murdered and others were seriously injured at the Centre Culturel Islamique de Québec, the Islamic mosque of Quebec City. Canadians were shocked by the news of this horrific and despicable attack.

It is an assault on every one of us in Canada. It strikes at the heart of the very tenets of our civil society, our shared values and our commitment to multiculturalism, diversity and religious freedom.

One of the most gruesome aspects of these acts of terrorism was that these six people and others were injured while at prayer. Prayer is an intimate spiritual moment, whether at a church, a synagogue, a gurdwara, a mandir or a masjid. The violation of a sacred space makes this crime, this attack, particularly outrageous and despicable.

Many British Columbians and, indeed, many members of this House have gathered in vigils and demonstrations to express rejection of racism and hate. Most recently, last Sunday, a lively demonstration took place at the Peace Arch border crossing. No Ban, No Wall was organized by Jean-Michel Oblette, himself a new Canadian citizen only since January 10, 2017.

The hatred and racism that motivated the murder in Quebec has shown itself here in British Columbia, so we ought not to be complacent. In recent incidents, racist flyers were distributed in Richmond, attacking Canadians of Chinese origin. Material was distributed by hate-promoting groups in Abbotsford and Chilliwack, and pro-Nazi posters appeared in New Westminster.

When I heard of the terrorist attack of those at prayer in Quebec City in the midst of an intimate spiritual moment, I thought how it could easily be men or women at prayer in mosques and Islamic centres in my home riding of Surrey-Whalley at Masjid al-Noor on 98A Avenue, Masjid al-Huda on Grosvenor Road or Masjid Anwar-e-Madina on 105A; or children at prayer at Iqra Islamic School — and others in Surrey, whether at the Fiji Islamic Centre; the Fleetwood Islamic Centre on 162nd; the Masjid ur-Rahmah on 62nd, where the Imam Abdul Rehman held an open house just last week; or at the Surrey Jamea Masjid on 72nd Avenue; the Guildford
[ Page 13610 ]
Islamic Cultural Centre; the Cloverdale Masjid; or, indeed, the White Rock Masjid.

To give a sense of the diversity of places of worship throughout the province of British Columbia, there are Muslims among us in many, many communities. Members will know that, because I’m sure they’ve visited or offered condolences to those at those institutions very recently, whether Abbotsford, Burnaby, Chilliwack, Kamloops, Kelowna, Langley, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Prince George, Richmond, Vancouver or Vernon.

This community is feeling very vulnerable and fragile and I know will welcome the wholehearted support of the B.C. Legislature.

As some south of the border in the United States seek to build walls, to divide us, to ban people from their country, and others, based solely on their religion, we in Canada and British Columbia must reaffirm our commitment to tolerance, to diversity and multiculturalism and speak out against hate and against discrimination in all its forms.

Hon. S. Bond: The entire world was horrified on January 29 when we learned that six people were killed and 19 others were injured while they prayed in the sanctity of their mosque. Our hearts broke when we saw the images of grieving families, but we also felt heartsick that this could occur in our beloved country.

[1500]

As someone who, like the member opposite before me, has visited a mosque, it was incomprehensible to think that the incredible silence and peace of prayer in the mosque was shattered. It’s more than many Canadians could bear.

As many other MLAs in this House, I was humbled by my community’s response. In my hometown of Prince George, a crowd of over 300 people came out on a very cold Monday night to the steps of city hall to hold a candlelight vigil to honour the victims and their families. Together we shared our love and our support for our Muslim friends and our neighbours. On the steps of the city hall, the imam expressed gratitude for the visible demonstration of care and compassion. His words were powerful and personal, as they were yesterday when the imam of Victoria prayed here in the Legislature.

Ironically, I received an email from the imam this morning, noting his honour and how he felt to have led prayers in this House yesterday. And in his words: “Even though the loss of life was and always will be tragic, it is our responsibility to bring out something positive from such negative circumstances.” He said: “We must stand united against Islamophobia and against all other injustices. We must stand up for what is right, always. We are one people.”

I know firsthand that British Columbians have been working hard to ensure that we support those who choose to make British Columbia their home. Every year we welcome refugees — and most recently from Syria — people who in their country face persecution and threats against their lives. In Canada, we pride ourselves on being inclusive, accepting and accommodating to everyone, regardless of their religion, their ethnicity or their sexual orientation. With the most ethnically diverse province in Canada, B.C. welcomes nearly 40,000 new immigrants every year.

There is a poignant example of the character of the people of British Columbia. British Columbia has received over 3,300 Syrian refugees between November 2015 and December 31 of 2016. Syrian refugees have settled in 58 communities around our province, including hundreds of them who have settled in communities outside of the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley. I have been privileged to meet and welcome many refugees, including some of the first Syrian refugees to arrive in British Columbia. While their English skills might be limited right now, there were two words that I heard constantly: “Thank you.”

With the great privilege of living in Canada comes the responsibility for all of us as Canadians to make sure that those who come to our country seeking safety and help are welcomed as members of our communities and supported as such.

While I know that the majority of Canadians and British Columbians are tolerant, accepting and inclusive, it would be wrong to not address the fact that racism still exists in our society. Over time, many tools have been created to support and to partner with communities as we work together to combat racism. There have been community-led programs such as Organizing Against Racism and Hate, providing public education programs to help school students understand and challenge racism. We delivered in this very house the Chinese historical wrongs apology. We’ve provided funding for community groups to address racism in their communities.

As I said previously, British Columbians have come together as a community to support those who have come to us in need. While we know that we cannot say that tragedies like that that occurred in Quebec City will not happen again or that racism and hate crimes will stop, I know that all of us can say confidently that the people of British Columbia will continue to be inclusive, tolerant and accepting. To repeat the words of the imam of Victoria: “We must stand up for what is right, always. We are one people.” I hope that today this debate will demonstrate that very belief here in the Legislature.

[1505]

H. Bains: The motion before us is that “this House condemns Islamophobia and all other forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and, furthermore, condemns the recent terrorist murders of six people at the Islamic Mosque of Quebec City and the rise of incidents of hate speech in communities in British Columbia.”
[ Page 13611 ]

It is my privilege, it is my honour, to rise in support of this motion. This motion is very timely and fitting to discuss the issues in this motion.

Recently, we have seen a rise in racist incidents in the Lower Mainland and other places, largely coinciding, I would say, with the rise of a person with his divisive approach to politics down south. I think it is a display of demagoguery of the highest form — blaming Mexicans for crime in United States cities and building walls to keep people out, blaming Muslims for terrorist attacks in the United States. Dividing communities must be rejected, and that’s what we are doing right now.

Issuing an executive order to ban travellers from seven countries, mostly are Muslim citizens, then to say: “It is not a ban on Muslims.” Really? Please, do not insult the people’s intelligence. By the way, in all terrorist attack incidents in America or any incident of harm to Americans, none of the people involved were from these seven countries that are banned.

Since that time, we have seen the racist flyers in different Lower Mainland communities — Abbotsford, Richmond, New Westminster. I want to thank all those communities who came together to stand together and reject this racist approach by a few.

The weekend of January 28, for me, I think, will be a weekend of remembering. It started with me standing with 34 community leaders of different faiths, of different groups, denouncing the United States’ ban on travellers from seven countries. On January 29, I, along with my many colleagues from the Lower Mainland and our leader, were with our Muslim brothers and sisters celebrating the B.C. Muslim Association’s 50th anniversary in Canada. Believe me, there’s a lot to celebrate there. But then the news of the terrorist attack in Quebec City started to pour in, and the celebration turned into mourning.

As a result, six people were killed — Khaled Belkacemi, Aboubaker Thabti, Abdelkrim Hassane, Azzedine Soufiane, Mamadou Tanou Barry and Ibrahima Barry — and dozens of others were injured.

This attack was not only on our Muslim brothers and sisters; it was an attack on all of us Canadians. It was an attack on humanity. It is hard to comprehend that someone can think about attacking another person who was probably in the most peaceful position that one can be: kneeling to pray.

We also want to send, with this motion, at this time, our deepest condolences and our sympathies and prayers to those families of the victims. Today, through this motion, we in this House are sending a message also, again to the families of the victims: “You’re not alone in this. The whole nation is standing with you in support.”

We also want to send a message to our Muslim brothers and sisters in Canada that we are united to quell the forces of division and those who are trying to divide us. We are one people. That’s the message that is coming out of this House.

We’re also reaffirming our commitment to the very basic Canadian human values of inclusiveness and multiculturalism, and recommitting to continue to build Canada on those values of love and caring.

[1510]

Send a message to the world that no one will be allowed to divide us as Canadians and as human beings, for whatever their personal purpose in life is, on the basis of religion, race and place of origin. At the same time, we must stay vigilant and not be complacent, because we in Canada are not immune to these kinds of racist incidents.

We also send a reminder to each one of us that together, we can build a better Canada, a Canada that is more equal, more peaceful and more inclusive.

Hon. S. Anton: I thank the mover for bringing this motion forward.

Along with the other members of this House, we grieve. I grieve. We grieve with the families of the victims. We grieve with Quebec. Our thoughts, our hearts, our prayers are with them. This was a terrible moment, and it was particularly grievous that the victims were shot as they prayed in their mosque.

We have fundamental freedoms in Canada, and freedom to worship is one of those key fundamental freedoms. Whether you’re a Christian, a Jew, a Sikh, a Buddhist, a Muslim or any of the other myriad religions which make up our Canadian fabric, we all understand the importance of being able to practise our religion in safety and in peace. And that is not, of course, what happened in the mosque in Quebec.

In British Columbia and in Canada, we celebrate diversity. We celebrate the right of all persons to live without fear of harassment or harm.

Now, I represent the riding of Vancouver-Fraserview, which is an extraordinarily diverse riding. Like many members in this House, I go to the high school graduations. When I watch those young men and women crossing the stage, I see young men and women of every religion, every colour, every nationality, everything that you can imagine. It is a happy moment. I’m sure my colleagues share that sentiment when they see that, when you see those young men and women in their diversity. We celebrate that as being part of our British Columbia fabric, as being part of our Canadian fabric.

My colleague the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Development talked about racism. Let me talk for a moment on the issue of violence because the two, of course, are linked. Now, we in government have a violence-free British Columbia initiative. We have a provincial office of domestic violence. But let me address, for a moment, our partners in anti-violence initiatives who make the difference every single day in their work in British Columbia.

In particular, let me talk about the Moose Hide Campaign, which many of us saw at lunchtime today. Like many of us, I’m wearing the moose hide, which is
[ Page 13612 ]
a symbol of the campaign. This is a campaign by men, mainly indigenous, against violence against women and children. What an admirable campaign it is. The sentiments and the expressions of the importance of the campaign were expressed today on the front steps of the Legislature.

Those are the kinds of things that make us safe in Canada and that help all of us. It’s those such programs against violence and against racism which keep us on guard and keep us remembering that we have to be on guard. We have to always be paying attention. Such programs can keep us on guard against such things as the violence, the hate, the Islamophobia which was served upon the victims in the mosque in Quebec.

J. Darcy: I rise to speak in support of this motion.

Eight days before the horrific shootings in a Quebec City mosque, people in New Westminster woke up to learn that a local United Church had been defaced overnight by pro-Nazi posters that targeted Muslims and Jews.

The reaction in my community was shock and disbelief and outrage that this could happen in our city, a diverse community that includes people from all corners of the globe, a community that came together to welcome Syrian refugees with open arms.

Speaking personally, it also affected me profoundly because my father lost family members in the Holocaust. After the war, he brought his young family to Canada but kept his Jewishness a secret from everyone — including his children — until a few years before he died at the age of 93.

[1515]

It was clear to everyone in our community, immediately, that we had to act, to say no to Islamophobia, no to anti-Semitism, no to hatred and bigotry in whatever form. So we put out a call to leaders of all faiths and community organizations and residents to come together as something we called #NewWestUnited for equality, diversity and community.

In only four short days, we gathered 250 people on the steps of city hall, an imam, a rabbi, the New West gurdwara, Chief Rhonda Larrabee of the Qayqayt First Nation, an Anglican minister, New West Pride, a Member of Parliament, our mayor and a community choir. The words of the imam at that time were incredibly powerful, when he said we must build bridges, not walls.

In our words and in our songs that night, we sent a loud and clear message that we were resolved that we would stand together and support anyone who felt targeted and unsafe. It was a message of love, not hate.

The next day the President of the United States introduced a ban on Muslims entering the United States. Two days after that, six Muslim men were killed and many others were injured as they prayed in a mosque in Sainte-Foy, Quebec. Canadians and British Columbians came together as one to express their horror and their outrage and to express their solidarity in many different ways with our Muslim neighbours and friends.

In my community, this solidarity runs very, very deep. The New West United buttons that we produced and the New West United posters are in wide use throughout the city, but there is also a profound level of fear that is in the hearts and minds of so many people in my community — first and foremost in the Muslim community in New Westminster. But the fear extends beyond them. I spoke with a young woman of South Asian origin the next day who shared with me the weight of fear that she carries, because her family members are routinely singled out and detained at airports because “they look like they’re Muslims.”

I visited the Thornebridge independent living to celebrate their tenth anniversary with them. Staff told me that elderly residents, some of them who served or lost family members who had fought fascism in World War II, were afraid to turn on the television sets in their residence because of the horror that was unfolding and because they thought that they had fought to protect the world from this kind of thing.

This motion says that it is incumbent on all of us to stand as one in the face of Islamophobia, in the face of racism and in the face of racists who have been emboldened in recent weeks and months; to stand together in our schools, in our workplaces, in our communities, in public places and in public debates and in this House; to speak with one strong voice and with millions of voices; to say no to Islamophobia and all forms of racism, intolerance and discrimination — not here, not now, not ever.

J. Thornthwaite: I’m pleased to stand today to support the motion: “Be it resolved that this House condemns Islamophobia and all other forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and, furthermore, condemns the recent terrorist murders of six people at the Islamic Mosque of Quebec City and the rise of incidents of hate speech in communities in British Columbia.”

I believe that we need to send a strong message against the discrimination of the Muslim community, against hatred, against Islamophobia, against xenophobia and against racism. Violence against any group for any reason, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, is not acceptable in Canada and having members in this House standing up to condemn the violence in Quebec will send a strong message that it is not okay. Bullying is not okay. Exclusion is not okay.

I’ve heard some critics say they worry that this singles out a particular religion or somehow gives special privileges. I disagree. If we can’t call out Islamophobia for what it is now, then when? Words matter. We need to speak out to stop what appears to be an increased climate of hate and fear.

[1520]

The increase of racist posts on social media and the increased frenzy of extremists who see or hear this somehow justifies their own thoughts and behaviour.

We need to recognize that what has occurred south of the border is fermenting here too, that certain words do incite racism and violence that target a specific group, race or religion. This is wrong. This needs to be talked about. It needs to be condemned. And it needs to stop.

In relation to the argument that this motion only privileges one religion or that it’s politically correct, Andrew Coyne said:

“Yes, of course, all religious groups should be free of discrimination and hatred. But it does no disservice to the others to pay particular attention to one at a time when that group is particularly exposed to both. After the slaughter of six Muslims at prayer in Quebec City, people of goodwill, not to say common sense, would understand why it might be timely for all of us to offer some assurance to members of that community.”

And he continues:

“The alternative to political correctness is not bigotry and intolerance, and the answer to racism is not censorship. Indeed, we have too much of that already.”

S. Robinson: I’m honoured to rise to speak to the motion that this House condemn Islamophobia and all other forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and furthermore condemn the recent terrorist murders of six people at the Islamic mosque in Quebec City and the rise of incidents of hate speech in the communities of British Columbia. I’m proud to have the opportunity to speak to it, but I’m so saddened at the same time.

I’m saddened because it’s 2017, and I thought that we had moved on from hatred, from racism, from making distinctions between self and other. I would have thought that we would have learned the lessons of the past.

As a Canadian and as a Jew, I stand with everyone in this House. I stand with our Muslim brothers and sisters and with all Canadians in sending condolences to those families and loved ones who are affected by the heinous attack of the people at the Islamic mosque in Quebec City.

Our local mosque in the Tri-Cities, the Masjid Alhidayah, an Islamic cultural centre, had a fabulous response in our community. It touched me to the core. Immediately after the attack, they put out a call to the entire community, welcoming everybody, and said: “Come be with us. Come be with us as one, as we mourn the loss of these lives.”

What that showed me was that we are one community. When awful things happen, we sort of drop the pretences. We remember that we are all one, that we all want to raise our families in peace and that we all want to grow old and take care of each other.

It’s important right now, more than ever, that we stand united together. I’ve certainly heard in this House people commenting on what’s happening south of the border and the rise of incidents in our own community. People are feeling freer to spread hate, freer to hurt others, freer to let loose, perhaps, underground hatred and thoughts.

Personally, I’d prefer that they kept those hidden. I find it revolting and actually quite disgusting when I hear the comments, when I read the posts. I think it’s time for all of us to really stand together and call it out when we see it, to stand up and to push back on any form of racism, any form of hatred.

What comes to my mind when I see it are the words by Martin Niemöller. It’s a German name. These were his words.

[1525]

He said: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, but I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, but there was no one left to speak for me.”

I’m pleased that we are having this debate, and I’m pleased to look forward to other words from my colleagues here in the House today.

Hon. T. Wat: As the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, it is my distinct honour to speak to this motion.

First of all, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to the loved ones of the six men murdered at the Islamic mosque in Quebec City last month. Their deaths were made all the more tragic because they were spurred by hatred. They were spurred by discrimination against another person’s religious beliefs. It is a reminder that hatred and intolerance have no place in our rich multicultural society. It’s a reminder that we must be vigilant against all religious discrimination as well as other forms of racism, including Islamophobia.

Racism and discrimination are not tolerated in B.C. In fact, the government is constantly working to address racism to ensure that British Columbia is a safe, welcoming place to live. Inclusiveness and diversity are cornerstones of B.C.’s society. It is why the B.C. Multiculturalism Act mandates government to promote inclusiveness in our schools, in our workplaces and throughout our society. And it’s why each year the government provides funding for communities across B.C. to identify unique ways to challenge racism.

The B.C. government has taken a number of positive steps to combat racism, including developing committee programs such as the Organizing Against Racism and Hate networks throughout the province, providing public education programs to help school students understand and challenge racism, delivering the Chinese historical wrongs apology in the Legislature in May 2014, and providing multiculturalism grants for community groups to address racism and celebrate B.C.’s multicultural heritage in their communities.

As a champion of inclusion and multiculturalism, the government realizes that an ethnically diverse society
[ Page 13614 ]
makes our province stronger. As the most ethnically diverse province in Canada, British Columbians from various cultures and nations worldwide bring their skills, talents, energy and hopes to our province.

Not long ago, I was one of those new Canadians. So was my late husband, and so was my daughter. However, we were never made to feel like outsiders. We were never shunned because we were from another country. We never felt persecuted or threatened. Rather, we were welcomed, accepted and treated with respect, something that everyone in this country and this province deserves.

A rich multicultural society helps to nurture inclusiveness, understanding and mutual respect. It fortifies our province and helps to create a strong and vibrant social and economic future for British Columbia.

One of the things that I enjoy most about my ministry’s portfolio is the wide range of multicultural events and activities that I attend. I watch Polish dancers show off their skills. I have participated in Diwali and Vaisakhi festivities. I have listened to Buddhist prayers. I have celebrated lunar new year, celebrated by the Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese communities. I have observed members of the Islamic faith commemorate Ramadan.

Not only are these events celebrations of multicultural heritage; they are educational and enriching for other British Columbians to learn about different cultures and customs. They force a positive change in our communities now and into the future, because there’s so much to be learned from other cultures.

In closing, government is in full support of this important motion. Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination are absolutely unacceptable and have no place in our province and our country.

R. Fleming: This afternoon, this is an occasion where I feel honoured to be able to speak as a representative of the community that has elected me to this place and to join with members on both sides of the House who represent every corner and region of this province to comment on the context of this afternoon’s motion.

[1530]

We have gone through a state of unofficial and official national mourning since a lone fanatical gunman murdered six Muslim men who knelt in prayer at their mosque in Quebec City. That has forced us to respond, and we have responded with dignity, proudly, from coast to coast in this country. Standing with the Muslim community of Victoria, the constituency, the community that I represent, was no different. It was a particularly proud and dignified and large response to those terrifying and tragic events.

Our country collectively bore a state of shock and horror for the week that followed that event. We mourned for the victims and their families. We united in solidarity with the Muslim community, whose personal peace and community security were targeted by an assassin. We stood with the Muslim community in the days that followed when, unbelievably, we saw a rise in hate crimes in different parts of Canada. But the numbers of Canadians who responded compassionately, with open arms, willing to help, shedding tears with their Muslim neighbours in British Columbia, in Canada, numbered in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Canadians stood together.

That massacre was a time when we will never forget where we were the moment we heard that terrible and tragic news. I was at a Chinese New Year dinner, sitting at a table with other community representatives, when the message came over our police chief’s phone. Obviously, it changed the entire mood of the evening, and people fairly quickly went home after the news spread around the room at that event.

I came home, and the first person I spoke to — we have CNN in my house all the time — was my daughter, who is old enough to be able to digest news like this pretty quickly. She had a sleepless night, as did many Canadians. To contemplate children in Quebec City that night receiving news that they no longer had a father to parent them because an assassin’s gun burst into a mosque and tried to terrorize that community as people knelt in prayer was something that all of us could not contemplate and was terrifying for children right across Canada and in my own family as well.

What happened 36 hours later was exactly the right response. I’m speaking about Victoria. A massive crowd of thousands of people, at 11 in the morning, from wherever they worked, from whichever part of the community they lived in, came down to the city hall in Victoria — a diverse crowd, all faiths, all ages, all ethnicities. Everybody I was in the room with at the Chinese New Year dinner, the police chief included, all the leaders of the Chinese benevolent associations, were there at that assembly to stand with the imam and the Muslim community of Victoria.

After the mayor and the imam spoke, something happened very spontaneously that I think touched us all. We rarely invoke our patriotism. That is a Canadian quality. But spontaneously, from the crowd, the national anthem arose and gathered in volume as all Canadians that were there, in the city of Victoria, in our city hall square, joined in, in singing a national anthem in what was the most appropriately defiant tone, the most respectful tone, the most inclusive tone I have ever heard our country’s anthem sung in.

Days later Canadians gathered in the tens of thousands in a hockey arena in Montreal. They filed in and filled that arena to pay tribute to the victims and to vow what this Legislature is doing this afternoon, which is to stand with the Muslim community, not just in tragic times like this but at all times when those who seek to divide our community try and strike.

I am pleased that we are paying tribute to the victims and the families that have suffered so greatly through this
[ Page 13615 ]
tragic event. This afternoon it is important that all of us, as lawmakers on both sides of the House, stand together as an example to the communities we represent. We wish all of our communities to stand together, and we will stand with the Muslim community of British Columbia and thank them for their contributions.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon.

[1535]

J. Yap: It’s my honour to also stand and join in this important debate. I agree with the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, who referenced at the beginning of his comments that this is one of those times when members from both sides of the House can enter into a debate on an issue, on a motion, that has great meaning and importance for all of us, regardless of on which side of the House we sit.

I affirm my support for this motion in condemning Islamophobia and all other forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination. As others felt — no doubt, all Canadians — I, too, felt a sense of shock, a sense of hurt and a great deal of sadness at what happened. Six innocent members of a mosque in Quebec City were killed in a completely senseless act of violence. Many others were injured in this incident. And the Canadian public have been deeply affected.

One of the victims, Azzedine Soufiane, tried to disarm the shooter while he was attempting to reload. Azzedine was shot and killed in his heroic attempt. He left behind a wife and three children. Azzedine was a grocery owner and a halal butcher who helped newly arrived Muslims adapt and make a new life in Canada. He was not unlike so many other Canadians who work with newcomers, Muslim and non-Muslim, who make up the fabric of our nation.

I must admit that the sadness I felt was quickly replaced by a sense of pride that I felt when I saw so many Canadians come out in the hundreds and thousands to show their support and their respect for the Muslim community.

I felt the same outpouring of emotion recently in Richmond — our community, your community, my community — when people rallied together to share their disgust at a series of extremist flyers that showed up in the mailboxes of my constituents in Steveston, including near where I live. The flyers were directed against Chinese people, featuring xenophobic slogans and encouraging others to join the alt-right. The message of the flyer was blatantly racist and utterly vile and disgusting.

All of the neighbours in the area who received this hate literature were naturally outraged. They, too, felt a sense of hurt. But it is worth reminding ourselves that this is the work of only one or two or a few individuals who think their narrow-minded view represents the majority of my constituents. I can assure you that they do not. My constituents have said that much. To quote one individual: “I grew up in a multi-racial city and in a multi-racial country. I am married to a multi-racial man, and we have multi-racial kids.” That is the voice of my neighbourhood.

My constituents are not afraid, nor are they intimidated by one or two racist individuals who don’t have the courage to take responsibility for their own actions and simply cower behind anonymous flyers. We are talking about just a few bad apples and not the majority of British Columbians, who think little of their views.

It’s a fact that British Columbia was the first province in Canada to put its hand up and say: “We will welcome Syrian refugees.” Our Premier immediately announced a $1 million resettlement fund to get the ball rolling on welcoming refugees from Syria who had suffered persecution, had suffered the loss of their homes and, in some cases, members of their families and friends. Today there are Syrian families all across our province who are grateful to be here, as was pointed out by my colleague the Minister for Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training.

We are an inclusive society, we are a caring society, and we are not afraid to stand up for our values. We celebrate, here in British Columbia, and cherish our diversity.

[1540]

M. Farnworth: It’s a pleasure to rise and take my place in this debate on this motion, to join members on both sides of the Legislature in speaking to a motion which says loudly and clearly, with one voice, as representatives of the people who sent us here, that we condemn discrimination in all its forms, Islamophobia or on whatever basis — on race, on creed, on sexual orientation — against not just British Columbians but Canadians.

It’s important that we do that, because we live right now, I think, in a very trying and troubling time — not just in North America but globally. We see the rise of xenophobia. We see the rise of Islamophobia. We see the rise of racism. And we’ve seen in our own nation, in Quebec City, an absolutely heinous and horrific attack on a mosque, a place of worship, on people at prayer — a most solemn and personal and sacred moment — and the killing of six innocent men on the basis, solely, of their religion.

That’s something which I think all of us just recoil in horror at. Our Canada is a nation which we’re proud of, built on diversity, on wave after wave, over hundreds of years, of people who came to our land from other lands. And we’ve built a society that is inclusive. We pride ourselves on our tolerance. We pride ourselves on our openness. We pride ourselves on being a beacon for those fleeing persecution, for those seeking refuge, for those seeking safety, to build a better life.

What happened in Quebec, as colleagues on both sides of the House have said, was a wake-up call to all of us that there are those in our society who would seek to fracture the foundation. There are those who would seek to destroy the fabric on which our Canada, our British Columbia, our communities, are built.
[ Page 13616 ]

In my own community, at the Masjid Alhidayah and Islamic Cultural Centre, a mosque and cultural centre which serves a diverse community of the Muslim community. People from Somalia, from Syria, from Iraq, from Iran, of the different tenets of Islam, worship together, are active in our community together and were shocked and horrified and frightened — frightened at what had taken place in Quebec, frightened at what they’re seeing in other jurisdictions — and, at the same time, are looking to us, as elected representatives, for assurance, for us to be there.

I think speaker after speaker in this chamber has shown how Canadians, as British Columbians, as Victorians, as Abbotsford people, as PoCo-ites — you name it — have said loudly and clearly, there is no place in our society and no place in our province for the kind of xenophobia, the kind of hatred that we see and that manifested itself in Quebec.

The message that we send today is that we stand with you in sending a message that our Canada, our British Columbia…. You are welcome here. You are part of our community. You, along with the rest of us, are building one of the best places to live, one of the best nations to be, which will serve as a model of how a diverse society should be.

[1545]

We also need to remember that this was, hopefully, an isolated act. But technology has brought about changes in the Internet that make it too easy for those cowardly individuals who want to chip away at the fabric of our society to hide behind.

I just leave with this final closing thought. The words spoken by both sides in this House must not just stay in this chamber and stay here today. We must take back to our communities, as representatives of our individual communities, and make it clear that there is no place for intolerance, that there is no place for hatred, that those events in Richmond and Quebec and New Westminster are unacceptable and that we stand united against them.

S. Hamilton: I’ll start by letting the House know I wasn’t prepared to speak to this, although I am honoured to be able to stand on behalf of the Muslim community in Delta North and my community as a whole, to stand here and speak on behalf of them as a united voice in support of the Muslim community itself and to condemn the events that took place in Quebec last month.

I have a very active mosque, the Ahmadiyya Jama’at Mosque, on River Road, in Delta. It’s been my pleasure to have been greeted many, many times on different occasions at different events by that community. I cannot say enough about how welcoming, loving, peace-loving and peaceful that community is.

In my travels over the years and previously as a city councillor, I’ve been engaged in that community. In fact, we went quite a distance with them to build that mosque in recent years. It’s become a centrepiece for the Muslim community and, indeed, for all of Delta. They have reached out, and they presented themselves as wanting to preach a message of peace, to be able to communicate that message in a very loving and neighbourly way. Again, my community has welcomed them with open arms, as they do us.

I like to think of our cultural differences as being what brings us together. It’s been said before. It really is a fabric. It’s a mosaic, if you will. We are unlike, as many people refer to the United States, a melting pot. We are a mosaic. We are a tapestry of different cultures, and that is what makes us unique.

I cannot express my condolences as deep-hearted enough as I would like, because I don’t think words can adequately describe and say what we need to say, other than to suggest to the Muslim community that we do stand united, that we support them in their grief and that we support them as a community going forward. I look forward to many, many more opportunities to stand beside them and to walk with them in their journey, as they do with me in mine.

I attended a celebration of different religions at that mosque that I mentioned earlier, and we had representation from the Jewish community, the Christian community — obviously, the Muslim community — Sikhs, you name it. They practise what they preach, as we should all practise what we preach, in terms of tolerance and basically trying to live and establish a loving community.

I’ll conclude my words with my condolences again. My heartfelt thoughts go out to the community on behalf of myself and the residents of Delta North.

G. Heyman: It’s an honour but also a responsibility to stand today in this chamber and join many of my colleagues in speaking to this resolution.

[1550]

It’s an important role where we can set aside partisan differences, join together and show collective leadership as the elected political leadership of this province to speak out against hatred, to speak out against racism, to speak out against Islamophobia or anti-Semitism, and certainly to speak out against the murder of people simply for expressing their faith. We know where that can lead, and we know that it’s important for political and community leaders to speak out.

I want to speak a little bit personally in my remarks today as a child of Holocaust refugees who were given sanctuary in this country, from whom I learned much, who talked to me — not in a frightening way, but in a teaching way — about what it means to grow up and live in a country where hatred takes hold, where hatred becomes normalized and where hatred can escalate to the worst possible expressions of genocide if unchecked.

I remember very clearly my mother talking to me about her own feelings about what happened to her in
[ Page 13617 ]
Poland as a Polish Jew, what happened to her relatives as victims of the Nazi regime, telling me she wanted me to understand that. But she also wanted me to not build any hatred in my own heart, because that would take us nowhere but into a deepening of the divisions that led to what she experienced as a young woman.

I remember going to elementary school where it was normal and routine for comments that young children didn’t even realize as racist to be uttered, caricatures of particular religions or races. I remember as a young child — because no child wants to be different — wanting to be invisible when that happened, not wanting to recognize or own my own heritage and identity.

It took many years for me to get over that, for me to summon the courage as a young man to speak out against racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination. Not so much in a way to denounce the people who may have uttered them without understanding their impact, but simply to use it as an educational moment.

When we were all profoundly moved by the murders in Quebec, I thought of the synagogues in Vancouver-Fairview. I thought of the mosque on 8th Avenue in Vancouver-Fairview. I thought, as I went to an expression of solidarity on 8th Avenue at the mosque, and as I looked around on one of the coldest, wettest, most miserable days at the crowds of people who came to express their solidarity but also to denounce hatred and racism, how important it was for us to speak out. In that crowd were many representatives of every faith, including the Jewish faith.

On Holocaust Memorial Day, in the rotunda, we have heard leaders of the Jewish community remember the Holocaust and link those genocides to other genocides. It’s not about one religion. It’s not about a particular expression of hatred against one group, because if we allow one expression of hatred to occur, we will, inevitably, allow many to occur.

We have seen hate literature, as other members have described. Very recently, we found out that a very right-wing Japanese corporate owner who owns some hotels in Vancouver was distributing literature in a Vancouver hotel chain that echoed almost word for word the early words and characterizations of Jewish control in Nazi Germany in the ’30s. We all know where that led.

It’s important for us not to allow discrimination and hatred to become normalized.

In my mom’s final days, I asked her a question, as she had spent over half of her adult life in Canada. I asked her if she missed Poland, where she had grown up as a young woman. She said to me: “No, they hated us.”

Let’s not let any refugee, any immigrant, anyone’s parents have one of their last thoughts of the home in which they grew up be that they lived in hatred. Let’s not have that be the memory of the home they came to.

Madame Speaker: I thank all members for their contributions.

[1555]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: I call continued debate on the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

D. Routley: It is my pleasure to rise to speak in the House again and my honour to address the Speech from the Throne.

After several iterations of this role of responding to throne, as with so many things, you might just push a repeat button on the speech and the responses. As with so many other speeches that have been delivered from the throne in this House in the 12 years I’ve been here, this one was particularly vacuous.

People are facing huge struggles in this province. They come into our offices every day. We used to say that the institutions and supports in our society are near failure. Well, they’re failing. They’re crumbling at the edges. People are losing the support they need to the point where they cannot feed their children. They cannot pay their rent.

I know that every B.C. Liberal MLA, despite the spin that they put on the situation facing British Columbians…. Every one of them knows it, because the same people come into their offices with the same problems and then often move straight to our offices to have someone actually address their problems.

That’s the absolute truth, and every one of you should know it. Every one of the B.C. Liberal MLAs should know how many of their constituents are driven into our offices because they can’t get help. It’s absolutely true.

Madame Speaker: The member will direct his remarks through the Chair.

D. Routley: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

This government clearly has no vision. This government clearly, after 16 years, is worn out, tired and, to reuse a phrase that has been used so many times in this House to describe this government, sorely out of touch with the lives of British Columbians, the people they serve. Sorely out of touch.

I’m sure in the circles that they travel, there are exotic cars and mansions and fabulous wealth and all sorts of opportunity for children of that class, but most British Columbians face a much different reality. When the government brags about the number of jobs it’s created, they forget to mention that they’ve lost thousands of full-time jobs only to be replaced by many thousands of part-time jobs.
[ Page 13618 ]

Of the 20,000 forest workers who lost their jobs to this government’s policies, those workers are all working multiple jobs to make the income they made at that family-supporting job in the past. Their plight actually shows up as a plus on the books of the government. The books of the government say we’ve created so many thousands of part-time jobs. Isn’t that great? Yeah, but every two of them, every three of them replaces one family-supporting job.

This is something that shouldn’t be happening in a province so spectacularly wealthy in natural resources and human resources. This is the last place that that should be happening. I think people will be asking themselves that question about that issue, about that reality, in 82 days — in fact, on my birthday, on May 9.

You know what? I’m hoping for a really spectacular birthday present — not for me, but I want to share it with every British Columbian. I want to share in delivering to all of us a government that actually puts the people of the province first, that actually represents the public interest rather than the narrow, selfish interests of their donors.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

That’s what they’ve got now, and after May 9 — after my birthday — hopefully they’ll have a much more positive and helpful and productive government.

You know, it is in B.C. an exercise in fighting cynicism. There are so many examples of people seeing their government be an absolute stranger to the truth.

[1600]

When the government is an absolute stranger to truth, when it promotes an interpretation of British Columbia that is, in fact, an insult to the struggles that people face, is dismissive of their struggle, they offer up no hope for those people — the people who come through our doors, the people who come through their doors.

People’s perceptions of politics have been reduced by scandal, by dishonesty in government, by a total lack of consideration and care for people. They see government say things that are blatantly untrue. They’ve come to almost expect it.

You know, after the 2013 election and all the promises around LNG, we would say to people: “Do you actually believe that they would create these plants or that there will be 100,000 jobs or a $100 billion prosperity fund?” “No, but we all know they don’t tell the truth.”

I mean, imagine the number of people who have said that to me. Then what they say is, “You’re all the same,” right? So the deceitful behaviour of the B.C. Liberal government has damaged the perception of political and public service in this province, and we need to fight and work to restore people’s faith.

Of course there’s bickering in this House. Of course there’s conflict. We’re talking about a province with almost a $50 billion budget, $2 trillion worth of public assets in trees and forests alone. There’s a lot at stake.

There’s a lot at stake, and there are people who would like to see that wealth liquidated in their favour. That’s what this government seems to be doing. They’re an agent of liquidation. They’re basically selling off the future and the assets of this province at cut rates. They’re essentially holding the door of the treasury open for their big donors.

The interests of British Columbians, the interests of families, the interests of our environment…. Children in care, children in education in public schools, people waiting in hospitals, seniors not getting adequate care — they are the ones who pay for these choices. They are the ones who pay for the fact that the B.C. Liberal government satisfies its donors first, and that’s it.

You know, the Leader of the Opposition recently gave a speech at an event I attended where he said: “The Premier cares about two things only, and you aren’t one of them. She cares about satisfying her high-paying donors and holding on to political power. That’s it.”

We want a government that people can have trust and confidence in. We want people to feel that the role of government can be a positive in their life, with government providing economic benefits like child care; an economic program that will allow full participation, particularly for women, in the economy and in society and will create thousands of jobs; education that people can have confidence in so that their children get the services they require; health care that meets their needs.

Instead, we see the B.C. Liberals holding the door for their donors and their donors essentially writing policy. If you’re the head of a big forest company and you’ve donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Premier’s party, well, you’ll find yourself appointed to be an emissary to the United States, or you’ll find yourself in a room with B.C. Liberal MLAs and government officials writing policy for the government. That’s what they do. That’s what they pay for. They pay for policy that pays them back.

“They play; you pay.” That’s going to be the motto that people remember this government for.

All of these things are about choices — the choice that government would give a billion-dollar tax break over four years to the wealthiest 2 percent when they cannot buy textbooks for children in school, when they cannot provide care for children in care, when they cannot provide care for seniors who are languishing in underserved homes. People feel lost. People feel they don’t count.

[1605]

They’ve seen billions given to insiders in giveaways. They’ve seen IPP proponents be guaranteed $55 billion in power purchases that are vastly higher than the power is worth, and the government must pay for it, must take it. They’ll pay for it. If they don’t take it, we’ll pay for it.

So they’ve driven B.C. Hydro into $19 billion of debt. They’ve forced us into a position where we have to buy power that we don’t need with money we don’t have, and who pays? Is it those people who drive Maseratis that this
[ Page 13619 ]
government hangs out with? Is it the people who live in mansions in the most posh areas of every community? No. It’s us. It’s regular citizens of this province. It’s the citizens of this province who haven’t even been born yet. They will pay.

This government prides itself in, or at least it brags about, fiscal proficiency at the same time as they drive the debt up faster than any government in the history of this province. We see a government that took power 16 years ago, and the debt at the time, including contractual obligations, was $40 billion. What is it now? Debt and contractual obligations, $170 billion. It’s gone from every British Columbian having an $8,000 share of that debt to a $40,000 share of that debt. What do they get for that?

A. Weaver: A debt-free B.C.

D. Routley: Yeah, a debt-free B.C., my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head. A debt-free B.C. — another example of being strangers from truth.

So what are people facing? They’re facing increased costs: MSP, hydro, ICBC, ferries. They’re facing the lowest wage growth in the country. They’re facing the highest cost of living. Families of four are paying $1,000 more per year just in MSP, hydro and ICBC rates. This, for them….

When they see this government that charges $20,000 to sit beside the Premier, $10,000 a plate to have their ear…. When they see that, they know that they don’t matter. They know that the recovery that this government brags about is a rich man’s recovery. It is not a recovery for the working people of B.C. who are working multiple jobs to make the same wage they might have made before to meet ever-higher costs brought to them by the policies of the B.C. Liberal government.

They play; we pay. That’s the way it works in British Columbia. They play, and you — you, British Columbians — pay.

The Premier, meanwhile, flies overhead in private jets: $500,000 on private jets and $1 million for a videographer and photographers to follow her around the province. What does the Leader of the Opposition do? He rents an RV and travels the Highway of Tears, meeting with constituents in those regions, meeting with families of missing and murdered people.

That’s the difference. Authenticity, integrity, sitting around a campfire toasting marshmallows and listening to people’s problems, their real situations, not dismissing it because it doesn’t suit the message box of the government. They dismiss the problems people face because it doesn’t help them, because it’s about them. It’s not about the people we serve. It’s about them and their political well-being. That’s it.

Again, as the Leader of the Opposition said, the Premier cares about two things only, and you aren’t one of them. She cares about satisfying wealthy donors and holding on to political power. So if your situation is as a forest worker who lost a family-supporting job and you’ve had to desperately replace that with three part-time jobs, you actually look good to them. They’ve got a net plus two in job creation. It’s a farce. But it’s also a tragedy. It’s an insult to people.

The citizens of B.C. are the owners of the province. They’re the stewards of the province. They know it. They’re working hard every day. They care about their communities. They’re met with a government that doesn’t care about them. That’s just the way it is. We need to make life more affordable for people to live, to work and to build their future in this province.

[1610]

In Nanaimo, we see examples of the arrogance of this government. They’ve wasted over $1 billion on failed IT projects. The BCeSIS program for education data–sharing was completely abandoned after $200 million was spent. Now, in Nanaimo, we’re faced with the introduction of a health data-sharing initiative in IHealth that’s produced by a company called Cerner. It is an abject failure. It has contributed to the deaths of patients in Nanaimo Regional Hospital. It has caused huge problems for the doctors, nurses and patients of our region. They have called out for help, but the government can’t afford to be embarrassed, so they insist that the program works, and they insist that it be used.

Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the doctors and nurses in the hospital there refused to use the system? They stood up, and they were convinced to negotiate and to attempt to make this thing better. But in the end, the government is forcing that system on Nanaimo Regional Hospital.

It would be bad enough for the government to force a system on an emergency room that puts patients at risk if it actually achieved its primary purpose, which is reportedly, purportedly, to share health information so that people have better outcomes. When you go to the hospital, they can simply look at the electronic record and say: “Oh, that person was treated at a hospital on the Mainland and this procedure was done. Good thing we knew that and didn’t waste time. Good for the patient.”

The problem? The Cerner system used in Nanaimo can’t talk to any other systems, so it fails its core purpose before it starts. But the government doesn’t want to admit failure, so they force it down the throats of the people in Nanaimo.

Then they say things like…. In the throne speech, it was commented that we would have this fantastic LNG industry that we were promised. I mean, there would be one plant up and running in 2015 and — what was it? — 27 in total. We’d have $100 billion in a prosperity fund, and we’d have 100,000 jobs. Well, that was the core idea in the throne speech in 2013 before the election, right? Then after that, it became less and less of a feature.

This time we were told simply that unforeseen forces have sidelined and delayed the completion of this grand
[ Page 13620 ]
promise — unforeseen. Was it unforeseen that energy prices would go as low as they did? No. There were many people predicting that. At the time the B.C. Liberals were predicting these great windfalls for British Columbia, the window for Asian energy purchase was closing. What did the government do in response to that time squeeze? They took two years to come up with a tax and royalty scheme for the industry. They fiddled while the opportunity passed us by.

There are other warnings that they could heed but will not and will ignore, to the peril of the people I represent, like the IHealth initiative in Nanaimo, like treatment of seniors, neglect of seniors. Predictable results, real consequences — people die; families are broken up. Those are the real consequences of B.C. Liberal policy in British Columbia.

You know, when you’ve got a government….

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yeah. My colleague reminds me of what they do, and I think that it could be described as reaffirming that they are strangers to truth. That feeds cynicism, which is one of the most toxic elements in the political process. If people don’t believe or have confidence in the people that they’ve elected, then the whole system, the whole institution of democracy, is failing.

To me, of all of the things that the B.C. Liberals have done, the forest workers who have died after their deregulation of the forest industry…. The coroner in Duncan identifying deregulation as a contributory cause to the death of a faller.

[1615]

These are the consequences of what they do, of all the things they’ve done — underfunding education, children in care — all of it. I think the most jarring thing is the disrespect for democracy and not realizing, or realizing and not caring, that their behaviour, their absolute strangeness to truth, will in fact do irreparable harm to democracy in this province. That’s the game that they’re playing.

The real story here — not the story that they spin, not the story that suits their message box — is that we get debt and they and their friends get payoffs. The province takes on huge debt for service provision and for capital projects, and it just so happens that their friends, their donors, are the recipients of those benefits.

That’s the government British Columbians have, a government that occupies that side of the House in order to serve the wealthiest people in this province at the expense of the rest of us. It’s a government that is serving the top 2 percent at the expense of the public interest of British Columbia, and we’re the ones paying for it.

British Columbians are paying the bill for that in tax giveaways to the wealthy, giveaways like the $5.6 million Burke Mountain property sold to an insider who had donated over $100,000 in the previous year to the B.C. Liberals — $5.6 million appraisal and sold for $150,000. A B.C. ferry was retrofitted for $15 million and then was sold for…. We don’t know — probably 1.5, 10 percent of what they just spent.

Interjection.

D. Routley: The member tries to refer to something that was done in the ’90s that he thinks is still a big deal in people’s minds — twenty years ago? — to excuse the fact that his own government has consistently overrun its budgets by over 100 percent on capital projects like the Vancouver Convention Centre and the roof over B.C. Place, the Port Mann Bridge, on and on and on.

When they realize that they’re going to break their solemn promises to be on time and on budget, they just change the time and change the budget to suit their underperformance. What do we get? What do British Columbians get? They get diminished services, increased costs, increased poverty and decreased wages. That’s what we hear.

I’d like to read you just a few comments, the kinds of comments that we get from people on the street and in our constituencies. They say: “If the economy is so good, why all the cuts to services? Fees keep going up for everything — medical, hydro, ICBC. Why is that?”

Our answer to them: “So that this government can brag about a balanced budget.” They’ll rob B.C. Hydro and ICBC of over $1 billion a year in order to say to people: “Hey, we’ve got a balanced budget.” Who paid for it? Again, it’s ratepayers. British Columbians, citizens of the province, pay so that they can brag.

What would you think of a parent who ended the month bragging about the new car in their driveway and a balance in the chequing account, but they did it all on their credit card while they failed to feed and clothe and house the children? What would you say? That’s exactly the description of this government, particularly when you look at children in care, where it truly is a parental role and an absolute neglect of duty that has the consequence of the death of children in this province. That’s the government that British Columbians have. That’s our answer to them — not an answer we want to give.

People say: “I’m paying more out of pocket for every little thing. Stuff isn’t covered anymore in health care. Why am I paying the same MSP as someone making half a million dollars?” Or: “I make $20 an hour, and I can’t afford to pay my bills anymore. I go month to month.” “How do you ever pay off student debts nowadays? Wages are lousy. Housing is expensive. You can’t ever get ahead.” These are real problems for real people in a real province in a real world. It does not suit the world described by the spin of the B.C. Liberals.

I mean, it looks like the minister responsible for natural gas will be standing up after me, and I’m sure he’ll have
[ Page 13621 ]
wonderful news about the massive investment in natural gas. He might even say there’s been $20 billion invested. Oh no, he won’t say that. They said that. They did say that.

[1620]

A. Weaver: They said that in the throne speech.

D. Routley: Right, absolutely. They did say it, even after being forced to withdraw the ad.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yes, the alternative real facts, according to the Minister of Citizens’ Services. Quite enlightening, that gentleman.

Other things that I hear on the doorstep: “Where are all the full-time jobs?” Not here. I mean, that’s the reality people face. And these guys and gals sit across from us and say: “Wow. Aren’t we great? Isn’t it fantastic that B.C. is this or B.C. is that?”

We do want B.C. to be a leader in every way, but not in child poverty, not in the highest cost of living and not in the lowest wage growth. We’d like to see people’s lives impacted positively by their government, and so would they.

A couple more things that I’ve heard: “I make $21 an hour. I live month to month now. I can’t afford to pay my ICBC in advance. I no longer feel secure, even at my salary. I can’t imagine what other people are going through.” Then another one: “They say there are jobs, but I don’t see it. My kid has two jobs that only pay minimum wage, no benefits, and it’s still not enough to move out at 26, with a degree.” That’s the reality.

I would really appreciate it, and I’m sure that the people of the province would appreciate it, if their own government would stand up and acknowledge what they’re going through. But they can’t afford to, because they’re responsible for it. And I’m pretty sure…. I hate to give them a tip that might actually win them the election. But you know what? If they did stand up and take responsibility for these things, people might actually say: “Hey, you know what? That’s decent.” But they won’t. Instead, they’ll tell people how bloody great it is, right?

People who are huddled around a television set listening to ministers tell them how great their lives are, while they can’t afford to feed their children — that’s the reality — or heat their homes, or visit their relatives on the Mainland or whatever they could do before, because their lives have been negatively impacted by a government that doesn’t care about them. That’s what they have faced for a decade and a half, and I think they need better.

When I talk to small business people, you know what? One of them said to me: “When I look for a new location for a bicycle shop” — this is a bicycle shop owner — “I don’t look for a community that’s closing its small schools, its elementary schools and losing its family-supporting jobs.” That may be a circumstance that allows big corporations to thrive, but it does not allow local business, local economies to thrive.

Local businesses know that their bottom line is more than mathematical. They know that when their community thrives, they thrive. They’re coming to know that the policies of the B.C. Liberal government undermine that and that the policies offered by the B.C. NDP — child care, health care, supports for families, climate goals that are actually going to reduce emissions — are hopeful things.

I hope for a throne speech after my birthday on May 9. I hope for a throne speech from the B.C. NDP that will remind people that government can do good things for them that will actually impact their lives and improve their lives. That would be a really wonderful thing after so many years of neglect.

We have solutions. I’m proud of what the Leader of the Official Opposition has committed to, so many great things: minimum wage increase, child care, getting rid of the unfair MSP tax, climate change programs that will work and will actually reduce emissions and will pay people back and will create tens of thousands of jobs. That’s what is in the interest of British Columbians, not this massive sellout, not the liquidators.

I’m stunned by the wealth when I walk through Vancouver — exotic cars, people in fantastic clothes coming in and out of fantastic restaurants and passing by homeless people sleeping on the sidewalk and passing by garbage cans overflowing because there aren’t services.

[1625]

It may work for some of your friends — addressed through you, Mr. Speaker, to the crew of liquidators on the other side. It may work for some of those people who can afford 20 grand to sit beside the Premier. But I bet you none of those people who I quoted can afford $10,000 a plate to sit in the same room, $20,000 to sit beside the Premier and $20,000 to have their hopes and their challenges addressed and heard. They can’t afford it. We can’t afford another term of this damaging, irresponsible government.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks to the previous member for his remarks. I would remind him of a couple of things before I start my remarks. The only investment in electricity made by the NDP in the ten years they were in government was in a power plant in Raiwind in Pakistan that was never built.

But in the member’s riding, and the member for North Coast beside him, $1.2 billion is being spent in that area of the province alone just to upgrade, protect and increase the capacity of the John Hart dam. Not done in the ’90s; done here. And $850 million is being spent on the Ruskin dam so if there’s actually an earthquake, it won’t fall down. Again, those are the types of investments you have to make, and I’d like to remind the member opposite.

The one that I really like, though, because I’ll never
[ Page 13622 ]
forget it, is the campaign to axe the tax when the carbon tax was brought forward and the climate action thing…. To read that the plan of the NDP is to raise the carbon tax, which they campaigned in the province against, to 50 bucks a tonne…. Now they’re going to do it quietly under there and hit every person in rural British Columbia with higher costs just simply because that’s the way they look at things. I find that rather interesting.

I recently took a trip. One of my stops on that trip was in the country of Nicaragua, one in Colombia, Costa Rica. I came to this conclusion. I’d like the members opposite just to remember one thing. I know you think things are bad, in your mind. I’d like you to just look at your own household, your own benefits and what you as an individual privileged to sit in this House is the equivalent of. Your annual income is the equivalent — without benefits, without pensions and without any other costs — to the income of 32 families in Nicaragua.

What I found, as I came through that, as an understanding…. I just want people to know that I would like, at some point…. This is a personal statement. You don’t have to agree with what I’m saying. It’s fine. But I did come to a conclusion that maybe the West, the rich in the West, when they travel to Third World countries, could do one little thing that I thought we should all do. That’s pay retail. Why do we go into poor countries and dicker? I don’t know why.

It’s just a personal thought I wanted to pass on to you from a personal perspective. We have to remember that a single person on social assistance in British Columbia gets double the annual income of a person in the Third World. We should remember that, not because we say that it’s right; we should remember how good this country actually is. I know you don’t like it when I tell you how good this country is. That’s fine. All I ever hear is negative, negative. It’s negative, destructive, pessimistic attitudes to British Columbians.

I wanted to talk now about something that happened.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: You don’t like this country? I don’t know what your problem is. We can always do better. But we should think about doing better in the construct…. I want to tell you why I brought that up, because you know what? That annual monthly income is about the equivalent of what a number of our First Nations in British Columbia get every single month from the federal government. That’s wrong, hon. Member. It’s wrong in Nicaragua, and it’s wrong in Canada. And if you don’t like that comment, too bad.

Let me try and take you down a road. One of the things that I have learned, and one of the most emotional things I’ve ever had to deal with, is my most recent portfolio. Now I know…. I’ll just clarify it. The NDP do not support liquefied natural gas. They do not support the 16,000 jobs in the oil and gas business in British Columbia. They do not expose the value-added sector in that industry. I want them to know what that means.

[1630]

In the last three years, particularly, I have been in dozens of small communities of First Nations across British Columbia. Now, I know you guys just oppose LNG. You sit there, and you do oppose it. You can’t deny it. But at the same time…. You should go into some of these First Nations communities, because the success of liquefied natural gas will generationally change people’s lives.

Now, you don’t have to agree with that, because you’re not paying attention at all.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Order in the House.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yesterday we signed an historic agreement with the Metlakatla and the Lax Kw’alaams First Nations. One or two of you showed up.

These First Nations leaders are working with trainers to train their young people.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: You don’t like the fact that First Nations people would have jobs? What’s your problem? If you just want to heckle because somebody’s actually telling you a story of what they think is important — too bad. Heckle all you want. It just shows the disrespect you have for those communities in northern British Columbia that are in abject poverty — water, sewer, other services, jobs. There’s a higher unemployment rate than anywhere else in the province, as high as 60 percent among their youth. Their leaders are trying to find economic opportunities, training and education in these small communities for the future of their children and their grandchildren.

There have been pipeline benefit agreements signed with seven Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council members. There is a benefit agreement that was signed yesterday between the Lax Kw’alaams and Metlakatla. It includes everything from training — benefits to start training people — which has already started, to benefits within their communities on infrastructure, seniors housing and those opportunities. It includes money for them to actually be participants in the industry. And it includes the opportunity to actually have long-term economic benefits as this industry develops.

I would have loved to see the member opposite that heckles me, from Kootenay West, look into the eyes of those chiefs and those elders and those hereditary chiefs yesterday, who were there with vision and hope for the future of their children and grandchildren. I’d love to have her see two of the young people I met up in the Lax Kw’alaams, who have already started pre-apprenticeship
[ Page 13623 ]
training, and two that have jobs, and sit down with them and listen to how this is changing their view and vision for the future of their community and their lives. And sit down with the elder, the hereditary chief, a woman who yesterday gave me a hug in tears because of how important she sees this as the future for her children and grandchildren and how they are emotionally involved in the fact that they’re actually going to be the environmental monitors of these projects in the northwest part of the province.

I would have loved if the member for North Coast, who is abjectly, locally, totally opposed to any economic development when it relates back to anything like natural gas, propane — any of those things — and is public about it…. I would have liked to have seen the members for Stikine and Skeena there yesterday to hear from these people how important they see this as part of their future. They might have stepped back and said: “Well, maybe this isn’t just about the use of a resource, environmentally sensitive. Maybe this is about people’s lives — some of the most vulnerable people in our society, some of the most impoverished in our society, in small communities across the north.”

If you’ve been to the Lax Kw’alaams, if you’ve been to Metlakatla and a number of the First Nations at Carrier-Sekani, you’d sit down with the chief. One chief said to me: “It’s absolutely sinful, our education rates and our graduation rates.” He is thrilled that now he has a pilot project. He’s got $500,000 a year for tutors to take his kids and educational success from grade eight to nine to graduate high school. And where does that come from? A benefit agreement relative to natural gas. I know you don’t care, but I do.

I’d like you to sit down at the table. Just before Christmas, I sat down with the chief who said: “We’ve got to get on with this because I’ve had five suicides in the last month in my community. It takes me an hour and a half to drive from any place to shop for my people, to get anywhere.”

You’re opposed to liquefied natural gas. You’re opposed to not only the product, not only the opportunity, but you’re opposed to the future of an entire generation of First Nations leaders and their children and their grandchildren, who actually do want a future in British Columbia.

[1635]

I know that everybody will point to saying: “Well, they should pursue their opportunities.” So if you’re a First Nation living in close beside two or three million people, like the First Nations in the Lower Mainland, who pursue economic activities that can be done because they actually have a population for some of the things they want to pursue, or the south Okanagan where you can farm and wineries and all those sorts of things…. It’s completely different from a community of 250 people, an hour or an hour and a half out of Vanderhoof, who are sitting there getting about $280 a month from the federal government. They get less than somebody off reserve on social assistance.

It’s abjectly frustrating for me to hear members across the aisle just say, “We’re opposed to this,” and just basically discount the future children of the First Nations of British Columbia — some of them, now, who I would honestly admit are my friends. I’ve had the great opportunity and privilege of negotiating with them. I’ve had the great opportunity and privilege of being in their communities, getting to know them, and I would call them friends.

The Metlakatla and Lax Kw’alaams that were here yesterday are hoping and cooperating with the company, the port and the community, signing a benefit agreement that they know will generationally change the outcomes for their community. And the member for Kootenay West was choosing to heckle me when I was talking about the income in Nicaragua, not waiting to find out that the average income in Nicaragua is about equivalent to what the federal government will give to a First Nations person in a reserve community in northern British Columbia.

The difference is, of course, that we’re a pretty wealthy country, and we should do better. But we should not stand in the way of their own economic independence and opportunities, because as the pipelines come through and the LNG gets done, they will be the environmental monitors. They will help us, and they’ve already helped us with plants and fauna that are important to them and, significantly, heritage sites, as people are designing where this could go — millions of dollars spent to do that and to take into consideration the hopes and dreams of First Nations, along with their cultural tie to the land, in a respectful way.

You’ve never seen anything like these negotiations in B.C. But if you sat in a room and talked to these guys and looked them in the eye, you would be stunned by how much love they have for their communities and the hope that their children and their grandchildren will have a better life. I sat across from an elder who then spoke at a public meeting — a hereditary elder of the Metlakatla, on a walker. We were there for a public meeting. Nearing the end of the meeting, he was the last speaker. He got up, and he goes to the front to the microphone, and he takes the microphone, and he says: “I want to talk to you folks for a minute.”

The kids in grades 11 and ten at the school in the community were in the front row. He says: “We all talk about the days when you could virtually walk across the backs of the fish because the fish were so plentiful in the river. Those days are gone, unfortunately.” But he said: “You know what? Natural gas wasn’t here in the last 50 years that I’ve been fishing, so we can’t blame it on them. What I do know: if you can get opportunities for these young people to get jobs and training and opportunities to work, we should support this.”
[ Page 13624 ]

I saw him when we went up to do a ceremony with the band, invited into the Lax Kw’alaams community with the Premier a few weeks ago. He came in and sat down, and he said: “Rich, thank you. Thank you for working with us. Thank you for getting it there, because I really do believe success on this is success for our children and our grandchildren.”

Now, you can heckle that if you want. But you’ve got to give people aspirational opportunities. You have to give people and work towards a goal.

[1640]

The only people that aren’t working toward a goal on LNG in British Columbia that care about the jobs, care about the First Nation community, care about the opportunities for the communities where the lower job rates are in British Columbia, are all over there. They all oppose natural gas. They all oppose it, and it’s sad.

I look at it, and I think differently. I don’t think it’s about the resource, necessarily. I think that it’s about having a resource that you should get to a market, do it environmentally safely and bring in the people who should benefit the most, who’ve been held outside the economy in this country for way too long, and have them as part of the business — which they are, in these latest economic benefit agreements.

The training, by the way, has already started. Young people in the Lax Kw’alaams and the Metlakatla and the rest of the Tsimshian nation are all in employment opportunities for pretraining and what have you, being funded in advance of the opportunity and the agreement with the company and the agreement with the government. This is important stuff.

Everybody wants to talk about resource management, and they want to talk about how much in taxes people can…. All of these things will benefit British Columbians, but don’t lose sight of the fact that in a small First Nations community in northern B.C. where 60 percent of young people are unemployed, their income is $280 a month. It’s lower than in Nicaragua, and that can change. The jobs can change, the training can change, the opportunity can change, and it can only change with opportunities and working with First Nations.

I invite you guys at some point in time to go look into the eyes of these people, tell them why you don’t want them to have an economic future, tell them why you don’t care about their children and grandchildren and why they should continue to be left out of the economy of this country. I firmly believe, after being in the communities and working with the leaders and the hereditary chiefs and the patriarchs and the matriarchs of these communities that this is the opportunity that will actually change their future for them. They’ll be in the economy. Their kids will have the jobs. They’re guaranteed in the agreements we’re putting in place.

I honestly, firmly believe that LNG is not just about the resource; it’s about the people’s lives that will change. It will help the community that lost five young people in a month, before Christmas, to suicide. It will help the young person get a job. It will change the income of the community. It will change the benefits they can do within the community in the millions and hundreds of millions of dollars over a 30- or 40-year period.

It would make a phenomenal difference to their lives, and I see this as one of the single biggest responsibilities we have to those impoverished communities: to make sure we do everything possible to see the success of this resource, the success of LNG, the success of the job training and being there as partners with First Nations for the long-term success of their communities, their children, their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren. That I see as the most significant contribution. Moving a resource that we have, which is world-class, to another market will benefit hundreds if not thousands of people. We should tell ourselves that it’s about time that we’re part of the economy in British Columbia and Canada.

Now, in addition to my passion with regard to natural gas, I should tell the House that we already have one FID. We’re in very strong negotiations with regard to First Nations directly involved in the northwest part of our province, and we hope for their success, not just for what I just spoke about but because of the significant multi-billions of dollars of investment that have been made to try and get to yes in British Columbia. In British Columbia, the opposite side of this House is opposed to the 9,000 jobs and spinoff jobs at Site C for clean energy for the future of British Columbia.

A. Weaver: Where are they?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, you should go up there, maybe, and see the jobs on the site and the spinoff jobs and the electricity that might come to electrify the oil and gas sector so that we can actually reduce the GHGs.

You see, it’s interesting. You don’t heckle when I’m talking passionately about the people we can help the most by actually promoting and building an industry, and then you heckle as soon as somebody wants to talk about clean energy, even though you’re from a party that says they like clean energy. It’s striking, as far as I can see.

[1645]

The other thing that we should talk about here for a few minutes is housing. I want to do this because I think people — and the government, the opposition — should understand a few things. I’ll tell you what they’re opposed to, because they told me this in the estimates over the last four years. The rent assistance program — they would cancel or change. The Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters — they would cancel or change.

They’re opposed to the B.C. HOME program to help people buy their first home. They are opposed to a number of other aspects of housing, and they spend their
[ Page 13625 ]
whole lives trying to say that — not with an answer, but just with criticism.

It’s always instructive, I think, to remind the opposition where it was in 2001 — in housing — when we became government and where it is today. So let’s start out, first of all, with the fact that there were about 700 shelter spaces in British Columbia in 2001 for people in this province. None of them — not one of them — operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Not one of them provided a meal for the people to help stabilize them nutritionally so they could actually improve their lives.

Today in British Columbia, there are over 2,000 units of permanent, year-round, plus an emergency plan in British Columbia for weather and emergency shelters under significant redress. And I wanted to tell the members this. I heard the critic one day, saying there are turnaways, etc., with regards to shelters.

So I thought maybe I’d just give you a quick occupancy average over the months of November, December, January and into February: 59 percent occupancy in Vancouver; 80 percent occupancy in Victoria; Vancouver Coastal Region, 55 percent; Fraser region, 81 percent; Vancouver Island region, 63 percent; Interior region at 37 percent; and the north, 52 percent.

The reason I tell you that is because there was not a single time, even through the most severe weather in this province over this winter, that there wasn’t a bed for somebody that wanted to come in out of the cold and have a place to sleep — not one day.

There’s been a number of strategies as we have continued through the work. If you read Housing Matters B.C. back in 2006, you would have figured out that we’re actually, systematically, doing things in housing.

Back in 2006, when we launched the strategy, there were about 300 units of housing managed by First Nations non-profit groups for the benefit of social housing in British Columbia. Today it’s in excess of 4,000 — 300 to 4,000. They manage their housing, both culturally and for other people in society that need social housing. They have now become the managers and the owners and the operators in agreements with the province of British Columbia.

There are 24,000 additional units. Actually, up until this last fall — 24,000 additional units since 1991, or from 2001…. There are, in addition to that, another 5,000 units under approval or construction in British Columbia today.

The largest single investment in this province’s history is being made in housing right now. To put it in perspective, the number of units that are being built in British Columbia today is the equivalent — almost the equivalency — of the number of social housing built in ten years of an NDP government. In just two years, that’s taking place.

In addition to that, we have about 30,000 people on rental assistance in British Columbia. Quietly, in the marketplace, lower-income folks are helped with rent in every community across the province of British Columbia. It doesn’t matter whether it’s in Duncan or whether it’s in Victoria, whether it’s in Vancouver or up the Fraser Valley through the Interior into the north. People receive assistance with their rent quietly and respectfully from this government.

I would say to the people out there that say: “Gee, that’s pretty good, out of 101,000 people that are actually supported in the marketplace today.” But the irony is that my opposition is opposed to rent assistance. So what happens if the NDP ever have the opportunity to actually hold the rules and responsibilities on housing? Would they evict 30,000 people because they philosophically don’t believe in rent assistance?

[1650]

While they’re doing it, would they also say the same to the 30,000 seniors in British Columbia that get SAFER every month? Sixty thousand people? Do you know how many rent assistance units there were in 2001 in British Columbia? Less than 1,500 — 30,000 plus, 1,500.

They’ll go back to the old model — build, own and operate by government. They’ll put all of those low-income people and British Columbian seniors at risk simply because they don’t get it, and that’s unfortunate.

A month ago, only a month ago, we launched the B.C. HOME program, derided, of course, by the opposition. Why would we want to help young people get into their first home? Why would we actually look back in history and see a program that worked under W.A.C. Bennett to help people we know today, in our age group, buy their first home back in the 1970s? Imagine that.

The opposition said this: “We will cancel that should we get elected. We will cancel the HOME program.” I want to know. Does that also mean that they will cancel the 45 homes that will close by the end of this month? They have already been approved, got their mortgage and found the home they’re going to own. Or will they also take the other 349 people, households, that have been preapproved to go buy their own home…?

The dichotomy I get, which is interesting here, is the opposition will say — and we agree with this; all housing ministers across the country agree with this — that we need more rental housing in the marketplace. You do it two ways. You either find a way to incent the market to go back into the rental housing business — the last time it was done was during the MURBs back in the ’70s and ’80s — or you find a way to change the market.

About 90 percent of those close to 500 homes that have been approved for home ownership in British Columbia to buy are renters today. The rest live at home. Presumably, when they buy their first home and they move out, 500 more rentals will come on the marketplace. Now, if you achieve the goal…. It appears already, by the first month and the number of applications, that we will achieve our goal in the first year, which is 10,000 homes,
[ Page 13626 ]
10,000 people buying their first home. Presumably, even if there are only 800, 8,000 units of rental would become available. By the way, that’s more than every community in British Columbia built in rental housing in the last year.

You’re getting two benefits. I want to not understate the first benefit. As we did this program and worked on it…. It’s been something I’ve believed should be the next step we should try and help people with for a long time. I think each one of us should take a step back.

I got married in 1974. I was stationed at Brooks, Alberta. I was going to buy a little house for $20,000, but the foundation was weak, and I couldn’t get a mortgage. I convinced my then bride, my 19-year-old bride, at the time….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: I was 20, right? Yeah.

“Maybe we should look at a mobile home.”

The pitch was pretty good, you know? So 14 by 70. It’s bigger than what we know. We bought this first house. We built some equity. We bought a lot for $2,000 together. We built our first home, and that investment in the first home led to me being able to buy a business, to leave the RCMP, to build a future for my children, equity in my own life and help them — they’ll buy their first home — and get them through their education. That’s what I want for the families of British Columbia.

The NDP don’t want that. They don’t want first-time homebuyers. They don’t want people having a future for their children and grandchildren by actually having ownership and, at the same time, creating more housing in the market for rentals, which could drive down the price of rentals, because it does wherever there’s supply. I can give you examples of that, but I don’t have time.

I’ll tell you this — what I take from this. We have a throne speech with a vision. We’ve built a vision for British Columbians, and my biggest disappointment would be you want to cancel rents for seniors and families in SAFER and RAP. You don’t want people to have their first home. You don’t want people to have more rental supply available as a result of that program. You don’t like what we’ve done in shelters. You don’t believe in what we do in homelessness.

[1655]

In addition to that, quite frankly, I take that your total opposition to LNG is this: you don’t care about the First Nations in northern British Columbia, and I do.

I will fight and work hard through a campaign, but also as my job, to make sure there’s a future — the best we can — for those families in northern B.C. that get $280 a month from the federal government as their social assistance and get them an opportunity to be a part of the economy, a part of the future and a part of what should be there for all of them, something that we shouldn’t even stop but think we should do.

We care about the First Nations in the north. You don’t care about LNG, you don’t care about the families, and you don’t care about the First Nations. I do, and that’s why we will be successful, because we’re going to be focused on it together with First Nations in British Columbia.

A. Weaver: I must confess that that truly was one of the more enjoyable speeches — fantasy, frankly — that we’ve heard in this Legislature. I think I live in a different British Columbia. I think I live in a world of facts, as opposed to alternate facts, which is something that I’ll get to during the course of this response. I’m going to frame it in six different subsections.

First, I’ll do a brief introduction about why I got into politics. Then I’ll go and talk a little bit about the February 2013 throne speech and the promises on LNG. Then I’ll come to this throne speech, and I’ll go over the alternate facts put forward by the B.C. Liberals and compare them with the true facts as to what is the state of our economy. Then I’m going to point out that the B.C. Liberals spend most of their time in reaction mode in terms of dealing with issues, rather than a proactive role. Finally, I’ll point out that they have no plan, and I’ll offer a brief plan that the B.C. Green Party will bring to this upcoming campaign.

You know, the Speech from the Throne, instead of presenting British Columbians with a vision or a plan, really was nothing more than a laundry list of old, unfulfilled promises and old projects repackaged as new. The speech represented an abandonment of any attempt by this government to actually address the realities affecting British Columbians today.

That’s one of the reasons why I got into politics. I had a nice job at the University of Victoria as a faculty member in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, serving on international committees, working in the field of climate science. I was there early on when Mr. Gordon Campbell struck his climate leadership team. I was there when I witnessed a government, for the first time anywhere, recognize that this was an important issue to deal with and that it was important to bring together a suite of policies to think about the long-term consequences of the decisions we make today.

I was there and watched this play out, and then, come 2012, I started to see these policies unravel. I started to see a government tweak the Clean Energy Act to exclude the liquefication of natural gas in LNG facilities. I started to witness the hype of promise of prosperity to one and all here in British Columbia through LNG.

I watched our provincial leadership unravel the promises and the policies of the former administration, and it’s continued through this period now, chasing this pot of gold from the proverbial LNG rainbow that’s always just moving a little bit further down the road. Now it’s because of market forces. I’ll come to that again shortly.

I told my students time and time again in public lectures, in high school lectures, in university lectures across
[ Page 13627 ]
British Columbia — frankly, across North America, and frankly, across the world — that when I talk about climate policy, I talk about the fact that it’s a matter of intergenerational equity. The decision-makers of today think more about re-election, in many cases, than they do about doing what’s right for the next generation.

One of the examples I use…. I say this to my students. I say: “How many need a hip replacement or a knee replacement? How many of you are in urgent need of surgical treatment?” None of them put their hands up. If I do the same thing with seniors, half of them have already had hip and knee replacements. What I say to them is this. If I’m a politician who only cares about re-election, maybe what I’m going to do in the election campaign is throw a bunch of money to reduce surgical wait times just shortly before the election.

[1700]

Then I can point to that after the election and say: “Look. I listened to you, the people. I responded to your needs. I reduced those hip- and knee-replacement lineups. Now you can get those replacements, and you’re no longer living in chronic pain, with arthritic pain.”

But when a leader stands up and takes the policies forward to actually benefit the next generation, not just re-election, it requires support. What’s miraculous…. Well, not miraculous. It’s somewhat ironic. We just heard an announcement from said people opposite that they’re going to dump a pack of money to reduce surgical wait times. It’s exactly what I’ve been saying to my students for four, five, six, seven — more than a decade. I’ll come to that in a second.

One of the other things I would say to them is that it doesn’t matter who you vote for. What matters is that you actually get out and vote, because things won’t change unless you participate. They would say: “Well, they’re all the same. I don’t like any of them.” I would say to them: “You know what? Run yourself, or find someone else to run.” There are only so many times you can do that until you take a look in the mirror and say: “Well, I should do it myself.”

Lo and behold, here I am. What an opportunity this has become as I’ve witnessed an opportunity for change that needs to occur in this province. I look across at the B.C. Liberals, and I say they’re tired. They’ve been in power for 17 years. They don’t know what to do anymore, and that is exemplified in the throne speech today. I’ll come to that again a little later.

Let’s take a journey back to the February 2013 throne speech. Why I want to take a journey back to that date is because it’s important to put the context of the throne speech we’re debating today in with the last one so that British Columbians can understand the kind of rhetoric this government puts out as promises that will never transpire. Let’s take a look at a few quotes.

From the Speech from the Throne, the B.C. Liberals say this. Seizing the LNG opportunity “can trigger a possible $1 trillion in cumulative GDP benefit to our province over the next 30 years. An estimated 39,000 new full-time jobs, on average, will be created during the nine-year construction period. Once all facilities reach full production, there could be over 75,000 new annual full-time jobs.”

They also say this:

“The second stream of revenue comes from new royalty revenues directly for the province, British Columbia’s share of resource profits. This could exceed $100 billion over the next 30 years. This resource belongs to the people of British Columbia, both here today and those to follow. It must be spent wisely not just for the benefit of today’s citizens but also for our children and grandchildren.

“To protect this second stream of revenue for generations to come, your government is establishing the British Columbia prosperity fund” — which has had not a single penny of natural gas revenue put into it and has actually had revenue come into it from the hard-working British Columbians who have had to face increasing MSP premiums, hydro rates and ICBC rates.

That is where the money comes from that’s injected to this so-called prosperity fund. Another failed promise.

This is what else they say: “This will be a transformational change for our province, and we cannot afford to be shortsighted.” It goes further: “The B.C. prosperity fund can also target measures to improve social services and make life more affordable for families.” I would argue that in the four years since this throne speech, life has become far less affordable for British Columbian families, particularly in light of the out-of-control Vancouver and rest-of-province real estate market.

Whether it’s eliminating the provincial sales tax or making long-term investments in areas like education or vital infrastructure that strengthen communities, these are the kinds of opportunities that the B.C. prosperity fund was supposed to provide.

Here’s another quote: “Fellow British Columbians, this is the opportunity before us, but only if we seize it. It is not years away; it is now.” Unbelievable, because they truly were and continue to be. Even after four years in this House, I find it hard to believe that the B.C. Liberals have the gall to tell people about their LNG Plan. Like, what planet are they living on?

[1705]

Back in 2012 — back in 2012 — I pointed out that the reason that they were touting this was that there was a $12 gap between land and LNG in Asia and the price at Henry Hub here. That was in 2012. But I also pointed out that Russia had entered into 30-year contracts with China, that Australian supply was coming on stream, that the Isthmus of Panama would soon be widened, America had infrastructure on the coast that was ready to ship natural gas, that B.C. had zero infrastructure on the coast, the world had a glut in LNG, and there was simply no market for it.

For the minister of gas to think that we’re going to build an LNG industry when the landed price of LNG in 2021 is less than it costs to take it out of the ground in
[ Page 13628 ]
B.C., I don’t know what planet he’s living on. It’s shameful that this message is being put to British Columbians, because it’s recklessly irresponsible economically, and we have had lost opportunities as a direct consequence.

You know, let me flash back to March 3, 2015, when the minister of gas said this to me: “You didn’t do your research. You don’t know what you’re talking about.” And he further said this: “I know the status of discussions. I know when FIDs are coming. I know when the companies are planning on making those. I will enjoy the meal, to watch the member opposite eat his words in the next year or two. I will enjoy watching him eat his words, as final investment decisions come that are coming down the pike and he sees the construction of LNG.”

That’s two years ago. Well, you know, I haven’t had meals on my words yet, but I sure hope the minister has the courage to stand up and look British Columbians in the face and say, “I was wrong,” instead of trying to sell us more snake oil about how we’re all going to be wealthy and prosperous from an industry that we’re years behind and we’re uncompetitive with.

It’s reckless. It’s reckless economics, and I’m glad that the B.C. NDP have realized that this is reckless as well. So while he says that we on this side are all about the forces of no, the reality is that we are the forces of reality. You don’t chase Nortel stock and double down at $70 and invest taxpayers’ moneys at $50 just to say “Oh, what a great deal I have,” and then realize that you can’t sell it for a buck and change.

It’s this case with this government. Let’s go to Woodfibre LNG, an example that this government has touted. Well, what is Woodfibre LNG? It’s a plant that I argue will never be built. It’s a plant that every community around the Howe Sound is opposed to. It’s a plant where the government so desperate to land one LNG facility subsidizes that facility to the tune of more than $440,000 per job, per year, in perpetuity — 100 jobs created, subsidized at $440,000 a year.

You could take 880 people in the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver, give them $50,000 a year and say, “Go find a home,” and we’d be better off because we know that that money would be injected into the B.C. economy. Low-income people spend the money that they’re given. They don’t scurry it away for some trickle-down economics 25 years from now.

But this is the economics of this government: build Site C, which will cost 13½ cents a kilo an hour, and subsidize LNG so that the ratepayer not only builds Site C at a crazy prize but subsidizes LNG. It’s not free market. There’s nothing free market about this government. It’s all about picking winners and losers and fulfilling irresponsible election promises that they’ve made to their corporate crony donors.

Let’s come to this throne speech as another example of the alternate facts put forward by this government. It’s fascinating that the member for Surrey–White Rock talked just earlier in the members’ statements today, the two-minute statements, about the post-truth era that we live in. There is an example opposite of an entire caucus bound up in a post-truth reality, trying to squeeze water from a rock, just saying whatever it takes.

You know, let’s make B.C. great again. I guess that’s kind of the way the minister is going. Just remarkable. Remarkable. Come May 9, people in British Columbia will recognize that we must move on. It is not responsible for us to continue down under the leadership of this government.

In the 2013 pre-election Speech from the Throne, the B.C. Liberals were $1 trillion off the mark. In light of that, what are we going to make from this year’s Speech from the Throne? Once again, we’ve got a whole bunch of numbers tossed at us, and as most of us already know too well, things aren’t quite as rosy as their cherry-picked alternate facts.

[1710]

Let’s have a look at this. Let’s talk about climate change in the throne speech. It says this: “B.C. is a recognized global leader on climate action, receiving the United Nations Lighthouse award for our revenue-neutral carbon tax.” Well, I might remind this House that that revenue-neutral carbon tax was introduced by Mr. Gordon Campbell in the year 2008. Actually, under this government, under Premier Clark, it’s simply been weakened and not increased, and there’s simply no climate plan.

For the B.C. Liberals, the present crop, to claim any leadership on the file is just an alternate fact. The leadership, well-deserved, goes back to Mr. Campbell; Mr. Barry Penner, who was the Environment Minister at the time; and the climate action secretariat that was put together and brought together leaders in policy from across the world.

Let’s take a look at poverty. This is what the throne speech says: “And between 2006 and 2014, the number of children living in low-income families in B.C. has fallen by half. Even as we continue to grow in population, British Columbia has 79,000 fewer children living in low-income situations.”

More alternate facts provided by the B.C. Liberals. Their claims are widely out of sync with the numbers from the B.C. Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition, a respected group comprising 95 organizations across B.C. Their statistics are based on a poverty measure used internationally by researchers and organizers in the field. The coalition’s 2016 annual report shows that we have barely moved the dial on child poverty in B.C.

B.C.’s child poverty rate is 19.8 percent, or roughly 1 in 5, down only 5 percent from 2006. And that slight decline that occurred in B.C. occurred across the country and had nothing to do with policies that were brought in by the B.C. government.

Moreover and more shockingly, we are the only province in Canada without a poverty reduction plan. We
[ Page 13629 ]
continue to have higher rates of poverty than the national average, no matter which measure you use, despite our wealth as a province and despite the beauty of our province — a place that we should be proud of, a place where there is no excuse for poverty to exist. It’s an unconscionable situation. Ending child poverty is within our reach, and both the evidence and strategies are there. All that’s missing is political will.

But this government would prefer to use cherry-picked numbers, rather than recognizing the severity of the problem for children across B.C. and committing to helping these children. It’s unacceptable.

Think about this — the throne speech, in light of the couple of days of questions we’ve had on the tragic suicide of Alex, the young teenager who took his life. A child living in poverty fell through the cracks, and we tout numbers and are proud of numbers, alternate facts. Shame on the B.C. Liberals.

Now let’s move to addiction treatment beds. The throne speech says this: “British Columbia was the first province to declare a public health emergency for fentanyl and the first to deregulate life-saving naloxone kits and get them into the hands of first responders and at-risk British Columbians. By March 31, 500 new addiction treatment beds and more than 20 overdose prevention sites will have opened.”

Now, it’s true that B.C. was the first province to declare a state of emergency for the overdose epidemic. But the tragedy of the crisis has continued to escalate post-declaration of that state of emergency such that we had 914 of our fellow British Columbians die of an overdose in 2016 alone. So the province declares a state of emergency, and fentanyl deaths go up. What does “state of emergency” mean to the B.C. Liberals?

In reference to emergency, they say they’ll have 500 new addiction treatment beds by next month, as if the 500 treatment beds weren’t an unmet election promise from four years ago, as if the number of treatment beds for youth haven’t actually decreased since they promised more and as if the province hasn’t been devastated by the rampant illicit drug crisis since then.

[1715]

So 500 treatment beds promised in 2013 may have been appropriate when illicit drug overdoses were killing under 300 people in B.C. per year. But the rate of fatal overdoses has skyrocketed by more than 300 percent since then. Not only has the government failed to appropriately increase treatment access in response to this emergency; they are years behind in terms of beds guaranteed for us. There are currently 300 beds in the province, not 500 — 300 beds. The promise for 500 beds was made in the last election, to be met by 2017 — another failed promise.

In this year’s throne speech, the B.C. Liberals repackage old and unmet promises as somehow new and impressive plans. They are political calculations made with literally hundreds of lost lives.

To come back to the throne speech, a little more on LNG. Remarkably, I was ready to count the number of times LNG was referenced, and I couldn’t believe they were going to mention it. Well, they talked about “unforeseen headwinds” having created challenging opportunities for LNG. There is nothing unforeseeable about the current situation.

Last election, the official opposition was 20 points up in the polls. Everyone thought they were going to win. The B.C. Liberals had to come up with some Hail Mary pass of hope that they could con British Columbians with. So they threw that Hail Mary pass, much like the New England Patriots did in the recent Super Bowl. You know what? The pass was caught, and they went: “Whoops. We won the election. Now we have to deliver.” At what cost? They can’t deliver, and they’re still talking about unforeseen headwinds.

Again, going back to 2012. I’ve got my PowerPoint presentations from 2012, where I would talk publicly about the reckless folly of this promise, how the economics did not work, how there’s a glut of oversupply and that it won’t work. There was nothing unforeseeable.

The global glut is getting worse too. For this minister to have the gall to go to First Nations and tell them, “I’m going to offer you hope through LNG,” when Iran has just had sanctions lifted…. Now the world’s largest reserves of natural gas — natural gas where you just have to put a hole in the ground…. You don’t need to do horizontal fracking. You just put a hole in the ground. The world’s largest reserve is now available, and they have infrastructure on the coast.

The Philippines have recently discovered large reserves. It is folly. China has multiple times the shale gas of all of Canada combined. We are but bit players in the global market, and to think that somehow this is the path to prosperity — folly.

The singular focus on LNG has been detrimental to other sectors, like the tech sector that I’ve been speaking about for four years. Let’s go to the throne speech. It says this:

“In five years, your government has supported tech through the BCTECH strategy, including a $100 million tech fund, and worked with B.C.’s teachers to introduce the basics of coding to all students in the sixth grade.

“Your government recently established a new provincial innovation network, with UBC president Santa Ono as chief adviser. And this spring Vancouver will once again welcome people from all over the world for the second annual B.C. Tech Summit.”

Well, you know why the first tech summit happened? The beauty of living in Oak Bay–Gordon Head is that there are an awful lot of civil servants who live in my riding, and I bump into them all the time. They were simply instructed: “Oops. LNG is a failure. Better come up with plan B. We need to have a tech summit.” This happened in August — plan B strategy, no foresight. So they held a tech summit.

Nobody takes them seriously on tech, particularly the tech sector. The reason why is this. This government is
[ Page 13630 ]
so afraid of bringing forward legislation to enable ride-sharing, so afraid that their taxi driver lobbyists will not donate money to them, that they’ll kick the can down the road. You know, you can’t be considered tech innovators if you’re not willing to embrace tech innovation yourself. This government is not. B.C. should, and it’s a missed opportunity.

I’m proud to say that we will have four CEOs of tech companies running on the B.C. Green ticket in this upcoming election, tech companies who are coming to us because they look at the B.C. Liberals and say: “You have forgotten us.”

What about the teachers? B.C. Liberals say that they worked with B.C. teachers to introduce basic coding to all students. The amount of work that is done is essentially standing up…. I’m sure it happened this way. The civil servants were sitting around having their morning coffee. They opened the papers and went: “Oh my goodness. The Premier has announced that we’ve got to put coding in schools.” That’s the way policy is made in this government, and they just instruct it that coding is going to happen. You don’t just suddenly teach coding if you’ve never taught coding before. It’s remarkable the way this government thinks.

[1720]

The tech sector has advanced in B.C. in spite of Liberal policies. On top of that, though, they are struggling to attract and retain employees because of the affordability crisis.

I’ll outline, when we put forward our platform, a path towards prosperity that actually builds on our strategic advantages, including the tech sector in this province, and recognizes that the resource sector has played, historically, a critical role and will continue to play that. But the way we will compete is by bringing the tech and resource sectors together, not by somehow imagining that in the race for the bottom, we will be able to dig dirt out of the ground cheaper here than in, say, Indonesia. We have to internalize externalities associated with the environmental and social costs here that they do not have to internalize.

Let’s come to agriculture. This is what the throne speech says. “In five years, your government has focused on identifying more markets and opportunities and succeeded in increasing the sector by 18 percent.” It’s beyond belief that the B.C. Liberals would celebrate the success of B.C. agriculture, citing a marketing program that producers can only access by putting up money first, when in fact “local” in B.C. is now also code for Alberta and Washington.

Then there’s the tax credit to farmers for food donations to charities, so that producers, hard-put to keep their operations viable, can solve the Liberals’ inability to deal with poverty issues and get a tax credit instead of actual income. And they’re hosting a conference to focus on food supply security in B.C.

For hard-working ranchers in this province growing quality animal protein — now barely able to stay afloat in the value chain of market factors orchestrated by this government — these comments are, frankly, insulting. That they are made by the same policy-makers that are happy to flood the fertile Peace Valley — calculated to have a capacity to feed one million people — for an irresponsible and badly conceived dam, is unconscionable. The disconnect between what this Premier represents as a happening for farmers and what life is really like is staggering.

Let’s come to “A plan for the future.” This is my favourite part of the throne speech. To those people watching this, riveted at home on channel 119, if you’re going to clip one section, clip this: a plan from the throne speech. Here’s what the throne speech says, under the heading “A plan for the future.”

“Government is in a position to do this because it has a plan to continue growing our economy into the future — from small businesses to tourism and technology, to natural resources, trade and manufacturing.” That’s it. That quote is literally the plan for the future. I’m not making this stuff up. You can’t make this stuff up. “Government is in a position to do this because it has a plan to continue growing our economy into the future — from small businesses to tourism and technology, to natural resources, trade and manufacturing.”

That’s the plan. So what is it? Honestly, I can’t believe that these people put this forward. You know, if one of my students had written this in a first-year exam, I would have given them a failing grade. If my children in elementary school came home and said, “Dad, I have a plan, and the plan is to have a plan. Trust me; we know what we’re doing,” I’d look at them and say: “You know, Son; you know, Daughter? It’s not quite good.” A plan requires some details, some evidence, some facts, some information — not: “Trust us; we know what we’re doing.”

My friend and colleague from Cowichan Valley has pointed out precisely what this is. I must quote it, because I am truly sad that he will not be here next session. What he said is this: “It’s all jiggery-pokery.” Hon. Speaker, it is jiggery-pokery.

I’ve got so many pages of notes. I could go one for another half-hour. I know the members opposite would love that, but I won’t. I won’t talk about the opioid crisis, the false promises with health care, education, housing affordability. I could go on and on, but I see the green light there.

I will say this. The throne speech was 40 minutes of self-congratulatory patting on the back to alternate facts put out as, somehow, truth. You know, we will offer an alternative to British Columbians in the coming election. I know my colleagues down this side of the House will also come up with a plan.

[1725]

Let me just say this to the people of British Columbia. If people in British Columbia actually come out to vote….
[ Page 13631 ]
No matter who you vote for, just come out to vote. We will be done with this government, and we will move on to a government that will actually put your interests first — not your corporate donors first; your interests first. It doesn’t matter if you vote B.C. Green or B.C. NDP. A 75 percent voter turnout means we all win.

In my riding in the last election, we had a 70 percent voter turnout. The member for Saanich North and the Islands, who’s sitting before me here — second-highest in the province, 69 percent. The member for Delta South, 68 percent. The top three ridings in the province where B.C. Greens or independents ran.

If people get out to vote and get beyond the cynical voter suppression tactics that will be put forward by the B.C. Liberals…. The Say-Anything John campaign, the “Greens have no chance of forming government” — get past that. Come out to vote. Let’s be done with this lot. It’s time for British Columbia to get on a path forward, a responsible path forward that puts people first.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

G. Holman: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege regarding the Minister of Natural Gas and for Housing’s comments about First Nations and the official opposition.

Debate Continued

Hon. A. Virk: It’s indeed my honour to rise in this place to respond to the Speech from the Throne to speak about how our government’s plan is helping my constituents in Surrey-Tynehead — soon to be Surrey-Guildford — and about the work we’re doing in the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services to further enhance that plan.

As we’ve heard from the Lieutenant-Governor, our government has a plan. It’s based on a need to focus on prudent financial management, economic growth, environmental protection and, above all, on serving British Columbians. It’s a plan that controls government spending, creates jobs, defends our environment and puts money back in the pockets of hard-working citizens all across British Columbia and in the pockets of my constituents.

It’s a plan, it’s quite evident, that is working, that has been working. Not only are we coming ahead of provincial neighbours in everything from our fiscal record to job creation and economic growth; we’re also the best place in Canada to live when it comes to health outcomes and student outcomes.

This is not the kind of success that just happens overnight. It’s our principles and our plan that have brought us to where we are today. A solid foundation of sound financial management that includes consistently balancing the budget has given us the freedom to make important investments for the future of British Columbians.

In my riding, we’ve seen the benefits of those investments — benefits in health care, education, public safety and training for jobs. In the area of health care, when it comes to investment in health care, our government is breaking all records.

By 2018, we’ll be investing $19 billion a year on health outcomes for British Columbians. My constituents have benefited from an expanded hospital. The critical care tower at Surrey Memorial has saved countless lives. Surrey residents now have access to increased services for neonatal care, as well as one of the largest emergency departments in Canada. Doctors training at UBC now can work and learn on site, right in a Surrey hospital. And just recently our investment in a new MRI machine for the Jim Pattison Outpatient Care and Surgery Centre of the Surrey Memorial Hospital will mean easier access to important medical imaging services for Surrey residents.

Some of Surrey’s most vulnerable residents have also benefited this year. I had the pleasure, on behalf of the Minister for Housing, to open a 40-bed shelter to offer a safe, warm place for the most vulnerable in the winter months. That is the benefit of having financial prudence and a growing economy: to invest back in our most vulnerable.

I live in Metro Vancouver. It’s currently the second-largest city — I would suggest soon to be the largest city — with one of the fastest growth rates in Canada. Those investments are paying back.

[1730]

Let’s talk about education. We’re opening up thousands of new student seats to accommodate a rapid, sustained population growth. Last year we committed 2,700 new student spaces. We haven’t stopped there. As the Minister of Education announced just several weeks ago, balanced budget 2017 is helping us deliver the opportunity to put another 5,200 seats in Surrey. That’s $217 million that was committed for investment for the Surrey school district.

As strong economy…. There is a contrast. I was a police officer in Alberta for many, many years, and I didn’t feel homesick. Many of my neighbours were British Columbians that had been driven out of this province by lack of jobs in the ’90s. We had a local cheering section for the Vancouver Canucks in Red Deer and Calgary and Edmonton, because my neighbours had been driven out of this province by reckless policies.

But as a strong economy draws young families to Surrey now — they’re being drawn here from across the country — investments, as I mentioned, in education are going to ensure that we continue to offer the best for the next generation. We can offer every student one of the best-quality educations in the world. That’s not me saying it; that is independent bodies around the world. If we were a country, we would be No. 1, 2 or 3 in every category.
[ Page 13632 ]

B.C. students continue to have the best outcomes in the country. Surrey kids can be…. It’s a great place for kids to grow up. They can get a world-class K-to-12 education and, as mentioned before, a cutting-edge education, a creative education, the opportunity to do coding — one of three places in the world to be able to take coding in K to 12 — and to go to world-class universities right in their city and have the ability to change the world right from their own city.

In the area of public safety, we also want to make sure that Surrey continues to be a place where parents can have peace of mind as their children grow and as their children play. As a former law enforcement officer, this issue is very, very close to my heart. I’ve seen the negative consequences that can come with rapid growth and development. There are always those who seek to prey upon good people. But it also gives me hope that when a government takes strong action against organized crime, against gang-related violence, we, working with community, can make incredible results.

Mr. Speaker, you would have seen the expanded guns and gangs strategy, a $23 million boost so we can get more police teams on the ground, more dedicated prosecutors to combat gang violence and curb this scourge.

Our approach to this expansion has focused on three areas. First is ensuring that effective enforcement and prosecution efforts have the support they need — for example, increasing our funding to the provincial anti-gang unit, the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, so they can put more boots on the ground and expand their ability to support police in their communities in the fight against violent crime.

Secondly is keeping our communities safe and getting the public engaged in the process. The old adage is: “The police are the community; the community are the police.” It’s working together. It starts at home. It involves educational institutions. It involves all levels of government. Additional measures like establishing the office of crime reduction and gang outreach within the CFSE Unit are, once again, working in very much a combined way.

Third is a legislative focus, making sure that we have the laws and sanctions in place that target illegal guns and gang violence, profit and the property of illegitimate gains.

Fighting against the scourge of gang-related violence in our community is no easy task. It’s a long road to victory. But thanks to our government’s commitment to measures like these, we are seeing progress. We’ve got more gangsters behind bars, fewer gang-related incidents and a safer community.

We absolutely owe it to our children to keep pressing forward on this issue until this lifestyle is no longer seen as an option or a temptation, so our communities are safer and the next generation can focus on fulfilling its incredible potential and building a bright future.

[1735]

In the area of training for jobs, for many of our young people, we hope that the future involves pursuing further education and training. These facts are very public. By 2025, B.C. is on track to have nearly one million job openings, and eight out of ten of these openings will require some level of post-secondary education or trades training.

I want our children in Surrey and our children in British Columbia to be the first in line for these jobs. That’s why we’ve invested some $7.5 billion in education and training every year. Even this year, we saw a significant investment in Surrey at Simon Fraser University. The Minister of Advanced Education is very much a part of that, where our government contributed $45 million towards a $90 million joint provincial-federal project to build a new energy systems engineering building at SFU.

That translates to a total of 450 engineering positions at Simon Fraser University in Surrey. This building is going to allow students pursuing degrees in energy systems and environmental engineering, such as mechatronic systems engineering programs, to have a first-class learning environment in their own backyard.

Imagine expanded research in energy, hydrogen electricity and LNG sectors helping train British Columbians for good, well-paying jobs of the future. As I said before, you can take an excellent, world-class K-to-12 education, take a world-class university education and be part of inventing that new venture, that new company that’s going change the world. You don’t have to go far. You can do that right at SFU Surrey.

Let’s talk about tech. I think it’s important to talk about tech. I haven’t heard nary a whisper about the tech space from the members opposite. It’s bigger than ever. It’s better than ever. It’s a top provincial performer, employing almost 105,000 people. That’s 105,000 families that put their daily bread on the table as a result of the tech sector.

That, again, was the result of many, many years of work. Those tech workers earn an average salary that is 75 percent higher than the average wage in British Columbia. It employs almost 5 percent of the entire workforce of B.C. — at present, more people than mining, oil, gas and forestry combined.

B.C. has almost 10,000 tech companies. The moment I say 10,000 tech companies, I may be wrong, because a new one started right now. Another one was acquired, another one pivoted, and by tomorrow, we may have 20 more companies.

But that’s $26 billion of annual revenue, the highest ever recorded and only on the way up. B.C.’s tech sector has come into its own. It’s having positive effects on every industry across the province and every region across the province, from forestry to filmmaking to health care. There are tech companies, whether they are in Prince George or Kelowna or Kamloops or Surrey or Victoria or Nanaimo. Tech is, indeed, everywhere.

Growth of the number of jobs and in wages and in the number of tech companies is a clear indication of B.C.’s
[ Page 13633 ]
supportive business environment for skilled technology workers, innovators and leaders.

As I mentioned, this is all across the province. Just last week, I was informed that in Surrey alone — and the member for Surrey-Fleetwood will probably be interested; he was there with me — there were 22 new tech companies just in the last 30 days alone that chose to set up in Surrey. Entire floors of new buildings are being committed and leased out by tech companies in our backyard. Those are white-coat jobs for our kids right in our backyard. That’s what a strong economy brings us.

But this doesn’t happen by chance. This requires dedicated work, and our B.C. tech strategy has been working on this for several years. It’s a living plan. It was released in January last year. It’s a changing plan. It’s not a mission accomplished. It’s a mission in progress, and it will pivot and change as required.

In drafting the B.C. tech strategy, we consulted with the industry, with numerous stakeholders, and received significant input as to what the tech sector needs to thrive. So we’ve been driven to support and help our growing tech sector to new heights in the last three years. And the B.C. tech strategy is a key component to the B.C. jobs plan. It’s a key to building a more diversified, more competitive and export-oriented economy. It focuses on three pillars: access to capital for promising companies, talent and market access.

[1740]

You may recall that in the fall of 2015, we announced our $100 million venture capital fund, the B.C. tech fund. It’s aimed at helping small- and medium-sized tech companies access capital funding to grow their businesses. It’s about growing big, and it’s about staying home — an opportunity for a company to start small, perhaps in the basement, perhaps in the garage, moving on to leased space and becoming multinational without having to move from British Columbia.

I expect that $100 million B.C. tech fund…. Here’s what the experts are saying. There should be a four or five X multiplier. Can you imagine putting half a billion dollars of additional investment into the tech space? That creates jobs.

Budget 2015 — let me go back to people’s memory — included a $5 million tax credit increase, the Small Business Venture Capital Act, for a total of $35 million. That’s not just a tax credit; that’s an opportunity for a company to invest and to reinvest, to hire more employees and to create jobs in British Columbia.

British Columbia is also home to research institutions that are not only national but international leaders in innovation. That’s why over $2½ billion has been invested in research since 2001 right here in British Columbia. And that $2½ billion has been leveraged with significant contributions from other sources as well, so the number could be significantly higher.

This also includes $30 million that we put into the BCKDF fund. That’s just in the last year alone. These are illustrious, world-class post-secondary institutions, so their research and innovation could be commercialized. When it’s commercialized, a company forms. A company forms that hires students. Then it hires more employees and would create even more opportunities in British Columbia. That’s happening every single day.

We also know that attracting and retaining talent is a top priority for the tech sector, which is why we are developing the highest-quality talent by investing in our students. As I said before, we have to think long term. We have to think about that young girl or boy who is in grade 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 and how we invest in their future, how we provide them additional skills. That’s where that creative education, that coding in schools, comes in.

It involves re-engineering post-secondary education. As we’ve seen, that’s occurred. It’s making sure that education is relevant to what industry needs, and it makes sure that universities partner with industry.

Last month, you would have seen the appointment of UBC’s president, Prof. Santa Ono, as a chief adviser for the new innovation network. He’s going to be working with the Premier’s tech council to convene industry, post-secondary leaders and research agencies from throughout the province to build relationships and to make linkages in providing a forum to support innovation in the provincial economy.

I believe that we are in the most enviable position in B.C. We have jobs looking for people. I don’t hear that from members opposite. I’m not sure which country or which province they are referring to. We have jobs looking for people in this province.

The lead on that is: tech talent is in demand. We need, first of all, to train British Columbians to get those jobs, but at the same time, we need more people to fill those jobs. That investment in tech talent doesn’t stop there.

Investments in the life sciences sector. So $11.8 million for the new UBC undergrad Life Sciences Centre — that’s investing in jobs. The new wood innovation and research lab at UNBC in Prince George — that’s investing in talent.

We’ve made sure that any new tech degree, if it’s going to be signed off, must be co-op, because the sector has said: “We want students that have learning experience.” We made sure of that, and that was applauded all across British Columbia. We’ve increased the co-op placement program.

We’ve invested, as I said, in coding in curriculum implementation. The suggestion made that when you have these teachers teaching coding, they’re starting fresh…. Well, we brought in the experts. We brought in the experts to teach the teachers, to make sure they’re current and they’re relevant and they know what they’re talking about. We didn’t fall off the turnip truck. It was very well-thought-out.

[1745]

Let me give you an example of the benefit of coding. We’ve got the Tech Summit coming up. If you haven’t
[ Page 13634 ]
heard about it, it’s coming in March. One of our presenters is going to be young 13-year-old Tanmay Bakshi. He’s a 13-year-old IBM consultant. He’s an IBM consultant at age 13 because at age five, he learned to code. It’s the employment language of the future. In fact, young Tanmay is going to be speaking at our youth innovation day at the B.C. Tech Summit. I encourage all to be there, or listen in, as you see the benefit of starting kids very early.

Very recently, also, the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training provided $600,000 for the tech sector — for our customized labour market information. It’s to figure out what jobs are in demand, what’s needed, when they’re needed, where they’re needed and what skill sets are needed. We know for certain that tech talent is needed in B.C., but we want to plan accordingly so that local talent can step into those jobs. When our talent is tapped, when we’ve trained British Columbians, when we’ve drawn Canadians back to B.C. that left here, we need to be able to attract the most skilled workers from around the world.

That’s why we have aggressively lobbied the federal government to increase our provincial nominee allotment, and the tech sector has joined us in that lobby. We will continue to attempt to attract the best skilled tech workers from around the world. These are multiplier immigrants. When they come to our province, they multiply jobs and increase demand. So for every highly skilled immigrant that comes into the tech space, there are teams that develop around them.

B.C. wants to learn from these talented workers. As there are winds blowing in the world and waves are higher in other parts of the world, our door is open for businesses, open for those individuals that come from around the world and want to join us in building a stronger B.C. and a stronger Canada.

We’re also making it easier for companies to access new markets, by simplifying government procurement, creating opportunities to share ideas and encouraging growth.

This past fall you would have seen the Premier and the governor of Washington signing a memorandum of understanding affirming our shared interests in creating regional economic opportunities for innovation in the tech sector. The creation of a B.C.–Washington state Cascadia tech corridor is only going to strengthen our existing ties, promote global economic competitiveness and, once again, create jobs and opportunities for kids right in our own backyard — my backyard in Surrey and everybody’s backyard that’s anywhere in the province.

Mr. Speaker, the Tech Summit is coming up. You heard me mention that. Last year’s inaugural B.C. Tech Summit was a huge success. It engaged over 3,500 participants across all levels of industry, government and academia. Over the course of two days, the Tech Summit facilitated 228 business-to-business meetings between 42 small and medium-sized enterprises and 92 tech buyers in industry and government. As I said before, we’re hosting our second B.C. Tech Summit on March 14 and 15, 2017, and we expect the world to attend.

Through our British Columbia Innovation Council, a B.C. Crown agency, we provided over $6 million over two years for targeted funding to deliver their tech works program that supports student training. It’s about building that next generation. More than 230 students received co-op placements with that program alone, and 400 will get that same opportunity this year. This is, once again, children in our own constituencies all across British Columbia.

My ministry is also responsible for connectivity all across the province. High-speed Internet provides British Columbians in rural and remote communities better opportunities to learn, to do business, access services and stay connected. The ten-year connecting British Columbia agreement we signed with Telus supports access to Internet services in rural and remote areas and expands access to cellular coverage around provincial highways at no cost to the taxpayer.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

To date, 375 schools have been upgraded to high-speed fibre optic connections. We have over 1,700 additional kilometres of new cellular coverage around unconnected primary and secondary highways.

[1750]

Under our connecting B.C. program, nearly $8.5 million has been awarded to date to help expand access in over 200 communities. More than 33,000 households will benefit from this program. Also, with federal and provincial support, the First Nations–led pathways to tech project’s goal is to connect or enhance connectivity to First Nations communities. And 197 out of 203 First Nations communities have access to broadband infrastructure, up from 85 just a few years ago.

Our B.C. Services Card is a world leader. Very few jurisdictions have access to that type of technology. More than 3.4 million B.C. Services Cards have been issued to British Columbians — a highly secure piece of identification, with enhanced features to protect personal information. It also has the potential, as we look forward, to provide access to more and more services.

It’s about providing services to British Columbians as well. My ministry has 62 offices across the province that deliver literally hundreds of government services and programs — in person, on line and on the phone. We have 35 Service B.C. locations that provide services to Social Development and Social Innovation clients as well.

Just last year, we were asked by the B.C. Kidney Foundation if we would provide access at our Service B.C. offices to citizens looking to be donors. We did that. And this is something to note: in the last year alone, because of that service, 23,000 additional British Columbians registered to provide life-saving organs, compared to previous
[ Page 13635 ]
years. That’s absolutely incredible — 23,000 additional people signed up.

There are capital builds that my ministry engages in across the province. We just handed over the keys to the Solicitor General for the Okanagan Correctional Centre — a quarter-billion-dollar build. We replaced the Cariboo Fire Centre in Williams Lake. Work is underway to develop a new Okanagan centre for innovation, a new leading-edge technology centre for a region that boasts a billion-dollar tech industry. And based on courtroom and demand analysis, the city of Abbotsford is moving ahead with an approximately $160 million courthouse expansion. My ministry has the responsibility for that construction as well.

My own community in Surrey is getting a $33.5 million investment in British Columbia’s busiest provincial courthouse. It’s expanding and increasing access to justice and is expected to be opened next year.

I’m very proud of the work of this government and the work in my ministry to enhance the lives of British Columbians and to help grow our tech sector. For the fifth year in a row, B.C. has seen significant growth in its diverse tech industry. As I said, we have more tech companies than ever before, with more technology workers earning higher wages than the Canadian tech sector average. We have a flourishing technology sector that’s creating high-paying, family-supporting jobs that are benefiting families and communities across our province. Our tech strategy is only going to improve that.

I look forward to sharing more about tech strategy as it evolves to meet the growing needs of British Columbians. I expect a future that looks very, very bright for the next generation, that looks very, very bright for my children and looks very, very bright for your children.

Hon. A. Virk moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada