Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 4.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — ACTING INFORMATION AND
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
CONTINUATION ACT

Hon. J. Sims: I move that Bill 4, the Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner Continuation Act, be read a second time.

The bill before us today provides a temporary but necessary legislative solution to address a unique circumstance. On June 29, 2016, Drew McArthur was appointed acting Information and Privacy Commissioner by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to serve while a special committee of the Leg. Assembly undertook the important work of executing a comprehensive recruitment strategy and interview process to identify a new appointee to the position of Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The law requires the special committee to make a unanimous recommendation of a new appointee to the Lieutenant-Governor. On March 16, 2017, the special committee tabled its report. In that report, the committee indicated that it had not been able to come to a unanimous recommendation for a new appointee. As a result, the committee recommended that after the election, a new special committee should be established to undertake the work to fill the important position of Information and Privacy Commissioner. Mr. McArthur was appointed for a second term as acting commissioner on March 17, 2017.

We now find ourselves in a conundrum. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, FOIPPA, states that the current acting commissioner’s appointment ends after this Legislative Assembly has sat for 20 days subsequent to his appointment. This narrow window is not likely to provide enough time for a special committee to do its work.

In order to ensure continuity of oversight over information access and privacy issues in the interim, the bill before us proposes a short-term remedy that would temporarily suspend the legal effect of the provision in FOIPPA that sets this time limit on the term of appointment of an acting commissioner. This will enable an acting commissioner to remain in office for a period sufficient to allow the special committee to reach a unanimous recommendation for a new appointee.

While this legislative override is in place, suspending the legal effect of the provision of FOIPPA, an acting commissioner appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council without the unanimous recommendation of an all-party special committee would be able to hold that office indefinitely. Therefore, in order to preserve the integrity of the special committee appointment process for the future, it is desirable to set a sunset date for this override.

[1:40 p.m.]

The bill contains a sunset clause, effectively repealing itself on March 31, 2018, or on an earlier date prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I have every confidence that the special committee will come to a unanimous recommendation on or before this deadline.

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to provide very brief comments in second reading in response on Bill 4, the Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner Continuation Act, to advise that the official opposition will certainly be supporting this legislation. As the minister pointed out, it is there to ensure that there is someone to act as the commissioner temporarily until someone is suitable to fill that position.

In doing so, I want to acknowledge the work done by the special committee chaired by the member for Vancouver–False Creek and deputy chaired by the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, who did a lot of work to try to find a unanimous recommendation. Unfortunately, they weren’t able to do that, as required by the legislation, but I think a lot of the work they’ve done is going to set a good base for the work of the special committee that will now be tasked with making a recommendation for a commissioner.

So we support the intent of this legislation, recognizing that it is temporary. The acting commissioner, Mr. McArthur, has done a good job, and we support his continued work. The commissioner does play a very important role, as you know, in providing leadership and ensuring that the government remains transparent and protects the privacy of our citizens.

With his experience, he will provide that continuity, as the work of the special committee is done, to provide a unanimous recommendation for an ongoing commissioner. We will support the legislation, recognizing that this is, as you said, a conundrum that we find ourselves in, and we need to deal with it. We’ll be supporting the legislation both in committee stage and when it comes to a vote.

A. Olsen: I also rise to speak to Bill 4, the Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner Continuation Act. I also will be supporting the bill so that we can make sure we can get somebody in and a unanimous decision. The Information and Privacy Commissioner performs a vital role in our democracy, protecting and upholding the information and privacy rights of British Columbians. In the 21st century, with growing concerns about data security and the ever-increasing creation and use of data in British Columbians’ day-to-day lives, this responsibility is very important.

We’re happy to support the temporary solution as put forward by the minister and supported by the members of the official opposition.

Also, I’d like to thank the previous committee that was looking to do this work. Then, as well, I’d like to thank the acting commissioner for his ongoing work. I look forward to seeing the work completed by the committee and a new commissioner appointed to take on the responsibilities.

Hon. J. Sims: I move second reading of Bill 4.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Sims: I now move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 4, Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner Continuation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate on the throne speech.

[1:45 p.m.]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s a great pleasure to pick up from where I left off before lunch to continue my remarks about what I can only describe as a very inspiring and exciting throne speech.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I mean, we came into government, I think everybody is well aware, right at the height of the forest fire crisis. The word “unprecedented” I don’t think has ever been used quite so much as it has over the last couple of months. Like everyone, my heart goes out to those living and who are in the area where there’ve been the fires. It has devastated communities and has been a huge impact, and we hear the impassioned pleas from the members of the opposition talking about their communities.

I’ve been very pleased with the response from our government, who, as has been mentioned in the past, formed government and were thrown straight into this. My own ministry has been helping on the refencing with the cattlemen, but there’s also been work with evacuees and work with businesses and making sure that, in what is a disastrous situation, we’ve been trying to mitigate the effects, working with those people who had to leave their homes, working with those families, working with those businesses.

As things, we hope, start to ease, now we’re obviously going to be looking at how we can learn lessons from what has gone on. I think that that’s one of the questions that we always have, of what you are going to learn from a disaster and how you’re going to put it into effect. I’ve got to say that I’m very proud that this government will actually learn from what has happened and not just move on and pretend that it’s business as usual, as we have seen in the past.

It’s great to be part of a government that has made great strides already. I mean, this week alone we made two major announcements. One is we ended big money in politics, and there’s been a lot of debate in this House about that. We did end corporate and union donations, as I mentioned earlier on today.

We’ve also stated very clearly that there’s going to be a significant limit on individual donations. We are going to be the second lowest in the country on individual donations, which will have a huge effect on the way that business is done. Instead of pouring copious amounts of money to try to buy an election, as we’ve seen in the past, we’re actually going to have a very rational approach, with limited amounts of money that can go in and a limited amount that can be spent on an election.

Our democracy is too fragile and too important to just let it be controlled by big money, and that’s the way it has been for the last number of years. Those who have the money feel that they have the right to buy access, buy influence and try to control the way that our system works. So I’m very, very proud to be part of a government that is saying: enough. We’re going to limit the amount that individuals can spend and we’re going to say that large contributors can’t spend, so no unions and no corporations. That will obviously also have an impact on third-party donations. I’m extraordinarily, extraordinarily pleased with that.

The other initiative we launched this week — again, something, we should all, I hope, in this House recognize is a very important initiative, and I hope that members opposite will also engage in this — is the reinstatement of the B.C. Human Rights Commission.

We’re out talking to people, listening to people, but we want to make sure that everybody’s rights are recognized because everybody’s human rights are important. We have made it very clear that the reinstatement of the B.C. Human Rights Commission is fundamental. It’s important to us. We’re really pleased to have been able to make that announcement yesterday with the Attorney General and his colleague the MLA for Delta North, who was there and is leading this for us. And as I say, I’m seriously anticipating that members opposite do the right thing and get involved with this also, because it is doing the right thing.

Just going through the checklist, we’ve only been in government for ten weeks, but we have done a number of things. I mentioned in the first part of my speech, though, the elimination of the tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges. It’s going to have a significant effect on both individuals and families, as well as the commercial truck drivers, saving a lot of money and ensuring that they can then put that money back into their businesses if they’re commercial truck drivers or into basically the cost of living, and in a very expensive area. If you’re a family living in the Lower Mainland, to save $1,500 a year is significant.

We’ve also assisted, really, some of the poorest of the poor by immediately initiating the increase in disability and income assistance cheques, which had been frozen for years.

[1:50 p.m.]

You look at the cost of living. As I mentioned earlier on this morning, my riding is one that is a microcosm of the province. It is not as expensive, by any means, as the Lower Mainland, but regularly in my constituency office, I meet with people who simply cannot afford to live. They have faced living either on a disability cheque, where it is punitive, where just because they have a disability they are treated as second-class citizens, or on income assistance, equally punitive — and not seen any increase for years. So I’m extraordinarily proud that our government has made that one of its immediate actions.

Likewise, the investment in education and, as I mentioned earlier, the 3,500 new teachers, which is going to be significant for all our students. After 16 years where we’ve seen money clawed back and clawed back and education become a political football — so much so it went up to the Supreme Court of Canada for redress — finally we are actually seeing an investment back into our classrooms. That, too, is an extraordinarily exciting thing.

Our budget highlights what we’re going to be doing in the next few months and in the next few years. We have made it very clear we are going to be investing in housing. Housing is fundamental, whether it is in Campbell River, the main community in my constituency, or whether it is in Maple Ridge, in Vancouver or in Burnaby or Burns Lake. Housing is a fundamental issue for people. There simply is not enough affordable rental housing for people in this province, so I’m very proud that we are saying we are going to have a housing strategy here in B.C. The federal government may not have taken the initiative, but we can do it in B.C. and work on this.

These are some of the things that we’ve been talking about. We’ve got investments in health care — bringing back the therapeutics initiative, investing in the healthy kids program, having our own Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

When we have the opioid crisis in this province, and spreading across the country, to finally have a minister who’s responsible specifically for both mental health concerns and addictions, it’s a supreme statement of the importance we are putting on that and the importance we’re going to be putting on trying to deal with that. It’s a huge task. I think everybody is aware. I think we’re horrified. I know that I am horrified as you see the numbers of people who’ve died as a result of the opioid crisis climb.

I’m constantly shocked when I see the people who are living with mental health problems, who are on our streets, who are camping in our parks, who have, for many years, been let down by government. Now we have a ministry solely responsible for their well-being. Again, it’s something that I’m just extraordinarily proud to be a part of.

I’m also proud to be a part of a government that is being serious about climate change. We have said we are going to be increasing the carbon tax, and we’re taking away this false dichotomy of saying its revenue-neutral, which always left a big question mark for me. I think it’s on record the many times I’ve talked about it in this House. I had a big question with how you can have a revenue-neutral tax on something as important as that.

We want to invest the money that is coming from carbon tax in initiatives that will reduce greenhouse gases. As the Minister of Transportation, I’m very, very aware that one of the biggest areas that contributes to greenhouse gas emissions is the transportation sector. So as well as my priorities as a minister that have been given to me by the Premier, I’ll be looking at ways that I can work with the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Solicitor General and other ministries to bring down greenhouse gas levels in the transportation sector.

I’d like to highlight, in just my last few minutes, the issues that have come out of my mandate letter that reflect the province and reflect my constituency. Some of my constituents are wondering why I’m not acting on some of them, I think, but I am.

Part of my mandate letter — we have one check mark — was to remove tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges. I was very pleased to be with the Premier earlier this summer when we were announcing the toll removal, so that by Labour Day, people did not have to pay the tolls. That being said, up until Labour Day, up until August 31, tolls were imposed.

I’m hoping that everybody who still has not paid their toll will pay what is owed, because otherwise it’s going to become a problem when they’re trying to renew their driver’s licence in a few months’ time. We still have a bit of a backlog in tolls, but that was a great announcement.

[1:55 p.m.]

Likewise in my mandate letter is the commitment to move on the Pattullo Bridge, a vital crossing for everyone in the Lower Mainland, linking Surrey and New Westminster. It is in really bad shape. There’s no person I have met who will say that it’s got much more life left in it. So we’re working to ensure that we can get that replaced — working with the Metro Vancouver mayors and TransLink on that.

One of the ones that is a big-ticket item on my mandate letter that I’m absolutely committed to is accelerating the four-laning of the Trans Canada — Highway 1. I’m hearing rumours that we are trying to stop that. There is absolutely no way. This is a vital concern. It’s a safety concern.

The previous government, the B.C. Liberals, picked off the easy parts. Looking at the Shuswap, Salmon Arm, right through, they picked off some of the easy parts. The area that my government is going to be focusing on is the area where there are, sadly, the most deaths, which is between Golden and Revelstoke. This is an area of priority. We’re going to be looking at some of the really tough areas. I am committed to making sure that, instead of just letting this project drift on and drift on, as the previous government did, we will accelerate that.

The other areas in my ministry. I talked earlier about the false and dangerous split that we have between rural and urban B.C. We need each other. We work together. We live together. We all depend on one another. As the minister responsible for Transportation and Infrastructure, I’m going to be working on how to ensure that in rural B.C., whether it is rural Vancouver Island, rural Interior, rural Haida Gwaii or rural Kootenays, there is an investment in our roads, because that is what keeps our communities going. What keeps our province going is a strong investment in our roads as well as a strong investment in transit.

I’ve got to note, at this point, that I also have the question that will possibly be facing us about what Greyhound is doing or that the Passenger Transportation Board is looking at Greyhound’s plans to pull back service, leaving the north isolated, which would be completely unacceptable. You cannot just cut off transportation for more than half the province. That is something that has come up in my term here, and I will be looking at that.

Also on my mandate letter, and these are areas that are very near and dear to my constituents, are the commitments on B.C. Ferries. We are going to be freezing the fares on the major routes, reducing the fares by 15 percent on the minor routes and bringing back free travel for seniors Monday to Thursday.

This is something which is so vital. I would love to be able to say to my constituents that it’s happening now, but like so many things in our plan, we’ve got to look in the long term. We’ve got to look four years. The residents of coastal communities and businesses in coastal communities don’t have to wait that full four years. It’s just till next spring. They will be bringing that in, in the next budget. I’m very pleased that we will be acting on that.

We’re also looking at a comprehensive review of B.C. Ferries. It’s been allowed to evolve its own culture. After 16 years, when it was created by the B.C. Liberals, it has become unaccountable, acting in its own interests and not acting in the interests of the coastal communities which it was built to serve. It’s not acting in the interests of the residents who live on the coast, the businesses that work on the coast or the communities that are trying to survive and thrive on the coast.

The review that we’ll be having in the next few months will be trying to get to the bottom of what has gone wrong with B.C. Ferries and how we can right it. I think everybody’s got a solution. I talk to people on the ferry that I go on very regularly. People anywhere have always got a solution as to how to fix B.C. Ferries. What we want to do is really get to the bottom of what is wrong with B.C. Ferries and then work on fixing it.

Likewise, when in opposition, I brought in, several times, private members’ bills on making sure that we could build our ferries in B.C. again. This is one of the aspects on my mandate letter — to work to get ferries built in B.C. again, work to get those boats that we rely on so much not being shipped out to Poland, shipped out to Germany or shipped out now to Romania. The last thing I know that was built in Romania was a nuclear reactor, which was not exactly safe.

I think if we can get the building back here, get the jobs back here, get the investment back here, we create a whole industry that will be good for everyone in B.C. and particularly good for those on the coast. So that is another area on my mandate letter that I’m extremely excited to start working on and getting into.

[2:00 p.m.]

Then there is the question that keeps coming up — the B.C. Liberals, when they were in government, never quite got a handle on but kept promising — which is the review of what they’re going to be doing with what is described as ride-share. That is also on my mandate letter — how to work with the taxi industry, how to work with new technologies to ensure that people can travel across areas, in communities; getting a car, whether it is a taxi or another sort of vehicle; and how to make sure we have a level playing field so that everybody can travel safely.

I think one of the things that is very clear is that the Minister of Transportation has a big responsibility. Also work in the Solicitor General — a huge responsibility for safety on our highways…. I get many emails on speed limits, on stoplights, on crashes — the very, very basic things that people see every day on the highways.

I am committed to — as well as looking at the big picture of how I can be working to achieve our government’s goals on greenhouse gas reduction and the responsibility we have as we’re going in a time of climate change — making sure that whatever we are doing, we are putting safety as a very clear lens on all the decisions.

As I say, it is with great pleasure that I stand to speak on the throne speech. I think this might be the first time I’ve had the opportunity to speak since the election.

I would just like to wrap up with recognizing the extraordinary hard work of my staff in Campbell River, my staff in Port Hardy, my staff here in the Legislature and all those people who got me to where I am now four times, and the many, many volunteers who worked in my campaign, who just were so passionate about our platform, what we are putting forward as a then-hopeful and now government. I know there’s a huge excitement.

As well, to the people of the North Island who now, for four times, have put their trust in me as their representative in this place: it’s an honour, it’s a privilege, and it is something that I never take lightly. I will continue to represent them to the very best of my abilities.

D. Davies: It is my pleasure to rise today and debate the throne speech.

I think I’ll start again, as I did in the previous throne speech — which seems like it just yesterday, but it was not — by first of all thanking all of my constituents in Peace River North for giving me the privilege to represent them in this place. I also want to take the opportunity to recognize and thank my constituency assistant, Tamara Wilkinson, who is at home, as many of our other CAs are, working hard for all of us and the residents of our riding. A big thank you to her.

I also want to thank my legislative assistant, Marissa Olsen, who has been an incredible help, certainly, to a new MLA — helping me kind of find my way around this place and get the help that I do need.

In the face of the throne speech and the budget — wild spending, lack of planning — I take this responsibility to represent my constituents more than ever. As the representative, I will certainly continue to fight to make sure that our province is stronger and provide a bright future for the province of British Columbia as well as the constituents of Peace River North.

I want to thank my wife. Without her continued love and support and understanding, I would certainly not be in this place today. I certainly wouldn’t have made it this far, in regards to representing my constituents. As well, to my children, I’d like to certainly thank my son, Noel, and my daughter, Hana. I thank them for their motivation for me continuing to do this. It is for them, as well as our next generation, that I’m sure all of us are here for, that we want to make this province the best province in the country.

I also want to take a moment to recognize the firefighters, the volunteers, the residents throughout the Interior that are in the midst of — and hopefully nearing the end of — the worst wildfire situation in British Columbia history. Our thoughts and gratitude are with all of them. We hope that we can put closure to this and make sure that everyone is taken care of.

[2:05 p.m.]

As I mentioned before, in a couple of opportunities that I’ve had to speak in this place, my region is quite unique — unique within this province, unique within this country. Again, I'm so happy to represent the communities that make it up.

The land mass of Peace River North is 161,000 square kilometres. Just to put that in perspective, that is the same size as Ireland, Switzerland, and Vancouver Island combined. It gives me absolute honour to know that I represent citizens with diverse backgrounds in mining, ranching, agriculture, oil, gas, small business owners from all sides of my riding.

As I’ve also mentioned before, I was born and raised in Fort St. John. Fort St. John is the largest community in Peace River North, and we’re very lucky. We’re blessed to have so many industries that we have in our area. As I mentioned, we have oil. We have gas. We have forestry, agriculture, mining and tourism.

In tourism, we have approximately 300,000 vehicles a year that travel up and down the Alaska Highway. We are the second community — Dawson Creek being Mile Zero of the Alaska Highway — at Mile 48 on that highway and, of course, celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Alaska Highway.

These industries that I’ve just talked about all provide well-paying jobs for families, supporting jobs for hard-working British Columbians, and are an integral way for our unique way of life. That’s why hearing the throne speech was troubling to me.

What seemed like a 20-minute recap of the province’s future laid out the priorities of the government, which demonstrated that they don’t really seem to have a great plan. They aren’t really aware of some of the policies that they’re putting in place and how they’re going to affect and devastate some of the economies in rural communities. I think the throne speech was a warming-up of the GreenDP agenda. It seemed very deliberately vague on details, and we saw a continuation of this in the recent budget update.

British Columbians are looking for a strong vision. They’re looking for a charted course forward. But they were left confused, as this government seems to be floundering to try and find a purpose other than — we’ve seen this recently again in the budget — a purpose to spend their hard-earned tax money.

I think that the NDP — we’ve heard this a few times — is realizing that governing is a challenge, certainly. It’s a lot harder to govern and create good policy than it is to complain. Now they’re faced with the dilemma of having made dozens of promises, worth billions of dollars, and no real plan to implement them.

What was most telling was what I think wasn’t in this throne speech. I just mentioned that my riding contains oil and gas, mining, forestry, agriculture. There was no real mention of these industries in the throne speech. A couple of them were briefly mentioned in speaking, and the budget was mostly void of mention to these critical industries that this province relies on.

The promise of $10-a-day child daycare — for months, telling parents and families it would be coming right away…. Now they’ve replaced it with some unknown, vague promise of universal child care. Parents have been left in the dark. Not even the government can tell us when this might be coming in some form.

The government is also entirely silent on creating wealth and growing the economy. No plans for industries that matter most. The government likes to talk about the economy that supposedly works for everyone. But so far, every step that this government has done is to create an economy that we can see where nobody will be working — threatening Site C and Kinder Morgan, forcing out the Pacific NorthWest LNG and cancelling the Massey Tunnel, for starters.

The NDP tried to paint a bleak picture about the current state of British Columbia, making it seem like they were grabbing the reins of a failing and faltering economy, a province that was in dire straits, but we know that the exact opposite is true.

[2:10 p.m.]

The NDP have inherited one of the top-performing economies in the country, number one in growth for multiple years. Unemployment rates are low. And we’re all putting that at risk.

I want to talk a moment now — I’ve mentioned this a few times as I go through — on LNG, because LNG is extremely important for the residents of my riding. Some say that LNG is an industry that doesn’t exist, but my constituents know better. For us, LNG represents the future of our cities, the future of our communities — a way to reduce global greenhouse gases, food on the table, quality of life.

It’s easy for someone that’s roughly 1,300 kilometres away to talk about how LNG is nothing but a pipedream that will never come true. I believe that’s what the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has called it repeatedly: a pipedream.

I’d invite those people from this place to come to my riding. Visit Fort St. John and the thousands of people that are working in the natural gas and liquefied natural gas sector right now. Come up and talk to them, and tell them that this industry is a pipedream. I encourage you to come up to Fort Nelson and talk to the people up there that are hoping and are wishing that this comes true. It is truly going to be the future for so many communities in my riding.

Canadians and British Columbians have always been dependent on natural resources. It’s historical, going all the way back to the fur trade in the 1790s, when Alexander Mackenzie established one of the first trading posts. That is the founding trading post, I might add, for Fort St. John. It was founded on the banks of the Peace River. At the present day, it’s called the Old Fort.

Being a resource community is part of our provincial identity, and doing it responsibly is our pride. LNG means long-term jobs for prosperity for our communities, which have been hit by everything from floods to fires. Communities like Fort Nelson need LNG to become a reality. That’s why, unfortunately, the rhetoric from this government is troubling to me personally.

When the Premier was Leader of the Opposition, he and the now Environment Minister wrote a letter to the federal government saying no to the Pacific NorthWest LNG project. Then, when he and the government MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head signed their deal, Petronas cancelled the project altogether. Coincidence? I think that we can probably answer that question. What a reflection of this government.

The members opposite blame market conditions for the cancellation of the project. The truth is that what should have been a project that would have jump-started a magnificent new industry for our province, an industry that would have created a new economy with thousands of jobs, exporting western Canada’s world-class Montney shale gas, which would be put to great use reducing the carbon footprint and reducing pollution in Asia…. That opportunity has unravelled, due in large part to fears that this current government is anti-development — that this anti-development government would ensure that these resource projects never happened.

The government has made massive demands, and we’ve seen them in the budget. That includes higher non-revenue-neutral carbon taxes. They want to bleed companies dry with carbon and corporate tax increases, stifling our economic growth.

I just want to talk a little aside about the carbon tax as well. People in my community and communities in the Interior — which have winters that are much longer, minus-30-degree temperatures — are going to really be hit hard in the pocket with this carbon increase — hundreds of dollars a year just on their natural gas bills to heat their homes every year. We don’t have that option. We don’t have that option not to heat our homes without natural gas. So this really doesn’t sit well with me, and especially not being revenue-neutral.

[2:15 p.m.]

The new government demands protection for our land, air and water. It includes living up to our climate change commitments, as we all do. Everybody wants that, and the Pacific NorthWest project demonstrated a willingness to cooperate, which is why it led to environmental permits and assessments for the project from both the federal and provincial governments. The government’s refusal, though, to stand up for the resource communities, communities in my riding, and the lack of understanding led to the cancellation of this country’s largest private sector investment.

This investment — we’ve all heard the numbers — cost $36 billion to us, tens of thousands of jobs lost. The future of clean LNG, hopefully, isn’t fully lost, but it’s not looking very good for British Columbians.

That’s the first reaction to this government, and I fear that these job losses and this threatening of our resource sector are only the beginning. We lost over 5,000 jobs when Pacific NorthWest cancelled — good family-supporting jobs in an area of the province that is currently suffering. The government’s hostility toward this project and other projects made this happen. The poor attitude toward resource development meant that 1,139 businesses in British Columbia missed out on contracts and employment — employment for our citizens.

Many of those, again, are in my riding and my colleague in Peace River South’s riding. The cancellation of this project means that First Nations in other communities will miss out on over $156 million in contributions — contributions that can create new life in communities and new infrastructure and new businesses in these communities. The tunnel vision that we’re seeing means that this will never come to pass.

My colleague the member for Skeena has frequently talked about how he himself, as a former First Nations chief councillor of the Haisla First Nation, saw personally the benefits that came from the LNG agreements that the Haisla Nation signed with both B.C. and the proponents. I quote him here when he said: “These opportunities offer dignity and pride and also a solution to a problem that couldn’t be fixed without economic development. Believe me, I tried.” He goes on further to say that those agreements provide “benefits, prosperity, hope and opportunity.”

Dignity and pride, benefits and prosperity, hope and opportunity. We can only hope that the government’s shortsightedness won’t keep other communities in our province from achieving the same benefits from our incredibly responsible resource industries.

Governments across Canada lost $2.5 billion in annual tax revenue when the Pacific NorthWest project was cancelled — revenue that could have built the infrastructure that we all know we need: roads, transit, hospitals and schools across our entire province. That’s revenue that could have hired doctors, teachers…. This revenue would have made an incredible difference in many of our communities.

Site C. Of course, the Site C project sits seven kilometres from the downtown of Fort St. John. There seems to be a lack of vision. We’ve heard it in here over the last few days — and the lack of mention, even in the throne speech, of this infrastructure project, which is the biggest in B.C. history.

This project is absolutely vital to our communities in the Peace region. On the Site C project, we know there are 2,600 workers, roughly 700 of them just in the northeast, wondering if they’re going be getting pink slips as we move toward Christmas. That will wipe out a potential of 10,000 jobs — spinoff jobs, people working on the site — if this project is cancelled. It’s another huge contributor to our economy, which the NDP seems determined to strangle.

Over the life of construction, it will contribute $3.2 billion to our provincial GDP, including approximately $130 million just in the Peace River regional district alone.

[2:20 p.m.]

Cancelling Site C will also forgo $40 million in tax revenue to local governments. I sat around the table as a municipal councillor when we negotiated, these governments. It was a great thing that was coming for many of our communities in the north.

Again, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, as well, has called the jobs at Site C that are being created artificial. I’ve mentioned it here in this place before in a couple of other talks. Artificial. I find that upsetting. The jobs that are at Site C right now are providing for 2,600 people to pay their mortgages, put food on the table, make sure that their families are thriving. What is artificial is the idea that this government doesn’t really have a plan to create jobs in my riding. We’ve seen that. All of these things are going to have a devastating impact on the residents of Peace River North.

The fact remains, though, that despite what the members opposite say, including the ministers and the junior members of government, we know the power produced will be needed. We’ve seen this in studies. We’ve seen this. As our province moves to become more electrified — more electric cars, moving homes to electric heating — the need for electricity is going to be critical as we move forward.

Site C will provide 1,100 megawatts of dependable capacity and generate about 5,100 gigawatt hours of energy each year, enough to power the equivalent of 450,000 homes a year. By providing an abundance of clean, renewable energy, Site C would help British Columbia and other regions transfer away from fossil fuel use as we combat climate change.

What is surprising to me is it would appear that the Green Party is more interested in playing games than actually creating renewable energy. Site C is not only a generational opportunity; it will play an important role in helping British Columbia and Canada meet their climate obligations.

Furthermore, much of the power produced right now in Alberta is produced by coal-fired plants that emit massive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. With the power produced from Site C, we will have an opportunity here to significantly reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, helping to fight against climate change, as Alberta transitions, like they said they are doing, from coal to hydroelectricity.

That’s why this government’s review of the project is disheartening. The political games that the government is playing with Site C — and we’re seeing it play out right now — are putting the livelihoods of thousands of families at risk. I hear this firsthand whenever I’m out and about in Fort St. John, out in the coffee shops. People are talking about: “Am I going to have a job? Am I going to have a job next week, next month? Am I going to be working? Am I going to be able to provide presents for my children at Christmas?”

In a more than 800-page submission to the BCUC, Hydro showed that they have done their due diligence on this project. It can amply demonstrate that it is both the best and cheapest option for clean, renewable power for the future.

I found it really interesting when the government said in their budget that they want people to use more electricity now that they’ve implemented the B.C. Liberal cut to PST. Now, it’s surprising because their primary argument against Site C is that we don’t need the power that it will provide. If power consumption is to increase following the reduction of PST, then it stands to reason that the capacity will increase as well. That’s the whole point of this visionary project.

[2:25 p.m.]

It’s not just Site C and LNG that are industries that we need to continue to fight for, that I vow to continue to fight for. The strength of our province’s economic success is derived from the resilience of our forest industry. Our government has previously taken action on this file, including naming the B.C. trade envoy to the United States.

The NDP claim that they will fight for the deal, but there was no real mention, again, in the throne speech. The Premier made a trip to Washington to meet with the president of the Steelworkers. There hasn’t been any notable development since that meeting — on the forest file, anyway.

Education. The government said in the throne speech: “Education is one of your government’s highest priorities.” Yet the throne speech only had two short sentences on what they were going to do in education. The government has made big promises on education, but they didn’t mention them in the throne speech. The focus on capital and elimination of portables in Surrey — a huge promise. No mention in the throne speech. No new money in the throne speech. I don’t know how they propose to do this.

The Premier promised last year that B.C. would be first in per-pupil funding. No mention of that in the throne speech. This government further showed that they don’t intend to spend any more money on education, any more money than the B.C. Liberal government had committed. Much like their most recent platform — not a dime extra, no plan despite all the rhetoric.

I’ll conclude my remarks. The throne speech was an opportunity for this government to lay out their plan for the future of British Columbia. Instead, it was vague. It was empty, devoid of purpose. It showed that the government doesn’t have a clear idea of its priorities for the residents of this great province. It showed a lack of vision and truly demonstrated that this government doesn’t understand the pressures and the challenges that British Columbians, especially rural British Columbians, face.

Hon. S. Fraser: It’s always a pleasure to stand in this place. I’ve been doing this job for 12 years, and now we are government. I want to just acknowledge the members opposite. I understand the role of the opposition. I very much appreciate it and our parliamentary system and the check and balance that has to happen. I certainly don’t always agree with the members opposite. The member for Peace River North I disagree with on a whole bunch of different levels there, which I’d like to leap into. I shan’t do that because I do have other plans for my throne speech. I might have time at the end to actually touch on some of the issues that he has raised in his response to the throne speech.

That being said, we are all here for a reason. I very much respect that, and I respect all opinions in this place. I see us as a government that embraces all opinions. I’ve always thought that the system is such that…. You know, you win by a few seats, and it’s winner take all. Those who get elected and do not actually form government…. I do not believe that their opinions and their insight and their advice should be marginalized. I have felt that way for over 12 years, and I’m hoping that we can act differently as a government to embrace all opinions in this place with respect.

I’d like to begin by certainly acknowledging this is the territory of the Lekwungen-speaking people and the Songhees and Esquimalt nations. This place, this magnificent building that we are gathered in today…. And welcome to all the students from…. I’m not sure which school, but everybody, let’s give them applause.

This building is sitting on First Nations’ territory. That was unceded territory, and I think it’s important that we reflect on that. We are moving into a new era of working with First Nations in partnership, and I’m going to touch on that, certainly, as I proceed.

[2:30 p.m.]

Before then, I’d like to…. Just to acknowledge, I have been doing this job — my 13th year as an elected representative, first for the constituency known as Alberni-Qualicum. Then the boundaries got changed to Alberni–Pacific Rim, and in this last election, it got changed to Mid Island–Pacific Rim. There is a workplan here, and it is changing business cards and letterhead. It’s a big job doing that every time.

Throughout my first 12 years, right up to this last election, Brenda McLean served as my constituency assistant. She retired with this last election. I just want to acknowledge the great work that she did. I was terrified when she announced that she was retiring. She certainly deserved that. These are hard jobs, being on the front lines in constituency offices. I don’t think there’s a job description that does it justice. But thanks to Brenda McLean for all those 12 years.

Andrea McDonald was a young student that came in and offered to help at some points in my time as MLA and did volunteer work in the office. She has now become my Brenda McLean. She’s taking on the job very well. I already find her completely indispensable. Thank you, Andrea, for being there for me.

Also, Patty. Patty Edwards has been with me for the full 12 years. I feared she would also retire with this last election. She does a significant amount of casework in my constituency. It’s needed work, and she’s filling a vacuum in a system that is not helping everyone as they need. She is filling that vacuum in a way and helping hundreds. She’s helped hundreds and hundreds of people find their way through the myriad of roadblocks that people often face when they’re trying to deal with the system that they do not understand. She helps them every step of the way, and I want to thank Patty for deciding not to retire and staying with me. It gave me a relief there.

Then, of course, Dolores. My wife is my partner in life and my partner in this job, and I could not do this without her. So thank you so much, my love.

Mid Island–Pacific Rim changed significantly in this last election, with the name Mid Island–Pacific Rim. It was not just a name change. I picked up a significant amount of area in my constituency. The original Alberni–Pacific Rim, the previous constituency, was all of the west coast, of Tofino, Ucluelet. Many people know that. That’s Nuu-chah-nulth territory — many communities there. All of Clayoquot Sound and Barkley Sound down to Bamfield — Huu-ay-aht territory — up to Hesquiaht on the north, and then all across the Island.

A lot of it is largely uninhabited, beautiful country. Highway 4 is the route. It’s a curvy road. It’s exciting. For those who haven’t travelled it, sometimes it’s a little scary. But it leads from west to east to the Alberni Valley, Sproat Lake and the city of Port Alberni at the centre of the riding. That’s where my constituency office is. Then it moves on to the other side of the Island, to Whisky Creek, Coombs, Errington, Bowser, Deep Bay. That was my previous constituency.

In the new riding of Mid Island–Pacific Rim, I picked up Fanny Bay; Union Bay; Buckley Bay; Royston; Hornby and Denman islands, which are restricted by ferry travel, getting out to there; and the village of Cumberland, which is a beautiful community that’s growing fast and attracting young families.

I have a huge change all of a sudden, and I feel like I’m the luckiest MLA in this place and in this country. I have the most beautiful constituency.

N. Simons: One of them.

Hon. S. Fraser: It’s one of them; that’s true. Powell River–Sunshine Coast — we could actually, if we could see better, wave to each other across the Salish Sea.

I am bragging. I have bragging rights now because I have the floor. I say I have the most beautiful and vibrant constituency, with varied constituency issues, depending on where you go — and some of them have issues in common.

One of those issues in common is addressing equality, I would call it. The throne speech goes right to the heart of what’s important to my constituents, and it deals with equality. People have been left behind, and we’ve seen a concentration of wealth under the previous government.

[2:35 p.m.]

I believe they were misguided in this — wealth being concentrated in the top 1 or 2 percent in this province at the expense of everyone else. It’s expense not just of the creation of more poverty, a large and growing poverty class in this province, but also, with that, the loss of services that so many depend on. While we, as members of this place, may not always need these services, we will some day — if we haven’t already — need the services that are there, should be there, for people as they need them.

It is a sign of a civil society, and our throne speech is a beacon of hope in actually reinstating and working on providing and making sure those services are there. They’ve been, in many cases, gutted. They are being rebuilt by us — and a change of wealth to make sure that the common wealth is distributed more fairly and equitably in this great province. That is how you build a province: from the ground up.

I’m not an economist, and people can throw GDP numbers and debt-to-GDP and all sorts of numbers. The reality on the ground is what I care about. My constituency is not feeling the wealth. People who have been on social assistance for over a decade have seen that diminish as costs in this province have gone through the roof, and there has been no relief.

This throne speech has provided the first help that the many people who need this help get, with a $100-per-month increase on income assistance, the first raise for so many people. People with disabilities — a similar situation. They’re basically relegated to well below the poverty line, as are people on social assistance. We need to bring people up. We know we need to do more.

The throne speech recognizes that while we need to do something more, we need to do something right now too. Providing people on social assistance and people with disabilities with the first raise they’ve seen in over a decade is an important first step.

I would submit that along with that we have created…. This has already happened. We’ve only been in office for two months, and hundreds of thousands of people have suddenly felt a benefit and a feeling that a government is there to help when they need it. We are.

We raised this so many times when we were on the other side of the House: we have been the only province in the country that does not have a poverty reduction strategy. The cruel irony of that reality has been that we have some of the worst poverty statistics in the country. We have committed to and we are providing…. We have a ministry now that is not just dealing with social services but is specifically mandated to deal with poverty reduction. A full strategy is being developed that will help move us forward well beyond the increases to social assistance rates and to help people with disabilities.

I’m very proud. I was proud and honoured to be with the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction within days, I think, of being sworn in as minister — all of us in cabinet. That minister, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, signed an order-in-council that gave the first relief, the first raise, that helped hundreds of thousands of people in this province. The reality is that we, as government, can help people as they need it, can help lift people up to live closer to their potential. It will benefit not just them and their families; the entire province is benefitted by that.

I would submit, also, that we’ve seen people…. I don’t want to use the word abandoned, but certainly many have felt abandoned by the previous government when it came to education — people that are trying to increase their education, those that have not completed high school, adults trying to go back and make their lives better to live up to their potential. Charges were put on them. Costs were put on them to try to do that work and try to improve their education.

[2:40 p.m.]

Those costs have been removed. The fees for adult basic education have been removed by this government in the first two months, helping bring people up. All of these things…. There’s no silver bullet. It’s piece by piece by piece to help people that need it the most and help them live up to their potential, to help them be a productive part of our great province.

People with English as a second language…. The most basic thing. We want everyone moving to this great province, who we’re attracting from all over the world, to be able to live up to their potential. Having those that want to improve their English language skills…. We don’t want to put barriers there. The previous government did just that. So we have removed those barriers too.

As those that have been part of our child care system age out of that system, the statistics are not good, certainly, for those getting into post-secondary education. They’re actually pretty grim statistics. Those people need assistance and help to improve their lives so that they can achieve what they need to in post-secondary education. The tuition fees for those people that have aged out of care in this province have been removed by this government — again, helping people that need it the most to make the most out of their lives and to make them contributing members to our society and to this province. This throne speech addresses all of that.

We are on our way towards bringing in a minimum wage that will help lift people out of poverty. I remember when I was younger. I remember getting minimum-wage jobs. You could actually live on the minimum wage when I was younger. It has fallen so far out of step and, basically, relegated people that are working to poverty. They’re working full-time jobs, and they are living below the poverty line. This is not an anomaly. There are hundreds of thousands of people in that situation in this province. That is simply unfair.

And it’s not good for the economy. We know that for jurisdictions where they have raised the minimum wage in an appropriate fashion to reflect the economic realities of the jurisdiction they’re in, it’s shown every dime of that gets spent in local economies.

Now, you can give tax breaks to the top 1 or 2 percent — the millionaires, the multi-millionaires — in the province. Diminishing returns there. The trickle-down theory went out with Ronald Reagan. Many of you up above may not know who Ronald Reagan was. This is a theory designed by the wealthy to benefit the wealthy to ensure that they get more of the common wealth of the province.

We need people to have a fair wage in this province for their families, of course, but also for the economy. It drives the local economy. People that work in the local economy should be able to…. They can spend that money to drive the economy from the ground up. Nothing happens trickle-down. It’s all ground-up.

We’ve ended the big money in politics in this province, finally. The end of that strategy that has been used by governments previously and that reflects, I think, in some cases, influence peddling — certainly, the appearance of such things — is over. The idea that you can buy the ear of government — that era is over. That’s huge.

Those people that need government help the most, that need the ear of government the most, are the people that cannot afford to buy the ear of government.

[2:45 p.m.]

Governments, no matter what their political stripes, should be making decisions based on the public interest and the needs of the people of this province. That changed this week. That’s a huge change.

I want to reflect that people on disability — I forgot to mention this — will be receiving their bus passes back. I know, for many, that doesn’t seem significant. It’s huge. I have friends with developmental disabilities that thought they got help from government and the previous administration, and then it was taken away. It was heartbreaking. The decisions of whether to use it for transportation, which they vitally needed, or food, which they vitally needed, was a tough one, as everyone might surmise. That bus pass is coming back, and it’s not coming out of any raise of $100 a month. I know so many people that that will help.

We’re ending the grizzly bear trophy hunt. Over 90 percent of British Columbians have said that that is unacceptable in this province. I believe government’s role is to reflect the will of the people of this province. This is more than a symbolic gesture. The grizzly being an icon — I get that. As time changes, values change, and governments must make the decisions that reflect those values, and this decision does just that.

I am so honoured to be the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation in this new government. I wake up in the morning, and I wonder if it’s real. I am exhilarated. I am terrified. I am excited. Different days, different amounts of all of those feelings. But it’s mostly excited, and it’s mostly exhilarated. It’s a chance to make a difference.

I’ve been the opposition critic and spokesperson for Aboriginal relations for the better part of my 12 years in this place. The opportunity to bring forward an agenda from the Premier, a mandate letter from the Premier, that allows me to move the province in a way that it hasn’t moved before, in true partnership with First Nations and Indigenous peoples in the province…. I feel so honoured and daunted by that.

I have developed so many friends and colleagues throughout the province as I traveled, First Nations and Indigenous people, that are helping me, that are advising me. The leadership gathering we had….

I want to say, taking partisanship out of the throne speech for a moment…. I’m trying to reduce that. I’m used to being in the opposition and tend to be more partisan, I think, on that in many ways. But this is not a partisan thing at all. We had a gathering this year that had more chiefs than ever before, that had over 600 meetings, one-on-one meetings, with chiefs and cabinet ministers. This was a gathering that welcomed our Green colleagues, that welcomed Liberal members, that welcomed federal representatives.

It’s important, I think. Reconciliation can’t be about a party, whoever happens to be sitting on this side of the House. Reconciliation must involve all members of the House, because governments will come and go. Our time will come and go. The Liberal time will come and go. The Green time will come and go. There will be other parties under a new proportional representation system, I’m sure. They may come and go.

Reconciliation has to be embraced by everybody in this place and in this province. It’s about moving forward and unleashing and unlocking the true wealth — every meaning of the word “wealth” — in this great province. Our government is making different choices. We’re putting people first — First Nations and non, Indigenous and non.

[2:50 p.m.]

We have a vision of British Columbia that will not only make life affordable, but it will kick-start the economy. Part of that is in the role of my ministry, Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I’m proud of our vision of partnership with Indigenous peoples. We are at an exciting time in history right now, and we are committed to working with Indigenous peoples to create a joint vision for reconciliation based on the premise of respect and recognition.

Bold action must be taken across government. We’re taking away the silos. It’s not just the role and responsibility of one ministry, Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, to bring about reconciliation. The mandate letters from the Premier went to every minister in this place and reflected the values that we need to incorporate — the words, the actual actions. The articles of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the calls to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission — these aren’t things to be afraid of. They should not be tools to divide and conquer.

This is about the right thing to do. The world community demands it. The UN declaration was signed ten years ago. The anniversary just passed. The previous government was reluctant. I believe they created some fear around the UN declaration. It’s a human rights instrument. It’s a guideline. It’s a road map towards reconciliation that was developed over 25 years — Canada played a large part in developing that — and adopted by 148 nations. The world community is watching. We have an opportunity to show the world how to do it right, right now, and we’re doing that.

Our commitment to the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action are not the only things that we’re embracing. There has been a history in this province. Since many treaties were not actually developed historically in British Columbia, unlike other provinces, we have a history of going to court — of getting taken to court. First Nations are winning those court cases in a court system not designed by First Nations. That should be a wake-up call to everyone.

The Tsilhqot’in decision followed Delgamuukw, Haida-Taku — many court decisions. But Tsilhqot’in is particular. It recognized, for the first time, that title — First Nations, Aboriginal, Indigenous title — exists in this province. It creates fear amongst some, and we need to address that because we’re all here together. First Nations have been here for millennia. We are relatively new as settlers, as the European contact. This is all recent history.

It’s going to require all of us working together to create true reconciliation, and we are committed to working on creating a vision of that with First Nations. This is not prescriptive. We’re throwing out the colonial stuff across government, and we are moving forward with a vision that is government to government in partnership. We listened and learned at the gathering and started building a respectful relationship to create real and positive change in this province.

I’m hearing a sense of optimism from Indigenous leaders and Indigenous communities and from non-Indigenous leaders and non-Indigenous communities. We’re all going into the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention next week. This is a week-long convention that has all the mayors, councillors and regional district directors. Thousands of people show up at these things. There are great things that local communities are doing, working closely with First Nations — partnerships at that level. We need to encourage that. Those government-to-government-to-government relationships are very much important.

[2:55 p.m.]

I had the opportunity, when I was living in Tofino back in the ’90s and was the mayor, of being on a group called the Clayoquot Sound central region board. It was a great model, I thought. It had five First Nation representatives, Nuu-chah-nulth representatives; five local government representatives and appointees by the province; and two co-chairs, one appointed by Nuu-chah-nulth, one by the province. It was even. It was 50-50. The board members makeup was First Nations and non–First Nations. The leadership, the co-chairs, were First Nations and provincial appointee.

It worked. We got to know the local governments. I was the new mayor in Tofino when we began this. I didn’t know anything about my neighbours that were on all sides of us, the Nuu-chah-nulth peoples that have a great history. I learned so much in my time from Nuu-chah-nulth leadership and Nuu-chah-nulth elders. I feel so privileged to have had that. We need to look at models like that, to develop models like that to ensure that our trip together, our voyage together from now on, working with First Nations, involves all levels of government.

I’ve worked, right from the beginning, in this new job as minister with my federal counterparts, too, to make sure that we’re all working together. We have to remove the silos, and we have to recognize that we’ve had something of a dark history when it comes to the colonial relationship with First Nations. That would be an understatement.

Today was Orange Shirt Day, and I want to comment on that. I saw that the time is growing to a close. Today was, I think, the fourth or fifth annual event here in Victoria. The actual Orange Shirt Day is on September 30. It’s in Victoria. Anyone who’s here in Victoria, please — Centennial Square, I think it’s from 12 to four o’clock. The mayor will be there. There’ll be dignitaries. There’ll be First Nations.

The true hero of this is Phyllis Webstad, and she joins us with a group. I’m going to name them again: Hank Adam, Kristin Spray, Eddy Charlie, Bear Horne and Monique Pat — who are all participating in the Orange Shirt Day campaign. It’s to raise awareness of the survivors and what they went through at residential schools.

That’s part of my mandate. I want to thank Phyllis, Hank, Kristin, Eddy, Bear and Monique for helping me do part of my job that’s part of our job. It’s part of our mandate to actually apply the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action. They’ve helped me do that, and I thank them so much. My time is up.

J. Thornthwaite: On behalf of my constituents in North Vancouver–Seymour, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to respond to the throne speech of the second session of the 41st parliament. There’s a little bit the same as my budget speech remarks, but I’ve stuck some new stuff in there, so you can follow along and get some new information.

Anyways, it’s business as usual back at the constituency office, and accordingly, I’d like to thank my constituency assistants back in North Van, Nick Hosseinzadeh and Stephanie Marshall-White. They go to events on my behalf when I’m not there. Just yesterday, Nick went to the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards finalists announcement, and I was happy to see our friends from the Seymour Salmonid Society as finalists in the category of community contribution. I want to congratulate them for that.

I’d also like to thank my new caucus staff here at the Legislature — Steven Lee, my legislative assistant; Dion Weisner, my research officer; and Sean Roberts, my communications officer. These guys have done a fantastic job for the short amount of time we’ve been back, and I’m really, really pleased with this new pod that I have.

Of course, I’m always grateful for the patience and support that is shown to me by my family, who is always there to encourage me.

Lastly, I’d like to acknowledge and thank the residents of North Vancouver–Seymour, who I have had the privilege of representing as their MLA for this, now, my third term. It’s truly an honour, and I can continue to reassure them that nothing has changed when it comes to engaging with my constituents throughout the riding, despite being in opposition.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’d just like to talk a little bit about some community events that I’ve attended since my budget remarks last week. It was a pleasure to officially open the Lynn Valley Link at Lynn Canyon Suspension Bridge with Mayor Walton and the Lynn Valley Community Association. This is the first phase in connecting parks and trails in North Vancouver district to make it not only a more walkable community but also to help residents know just how big the networks of paths are in North Vancouver.

It’s always nice to see my friends from the North Shore Black Bear Society, North Shore Rescue and the North Vancouver Museum and Archives, who attended the event along with their booths of information. I was delighted to attend the Creative B.C. grand opening, at their beautiful new office, with the new minister. B.C.’s creative industries saw a rise in their contribution to our economy of 35 percent this year — over $2.5 billion to our GDP.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I always enjoy getting updates at the local liaison governance group on the North Shore at Lions Gate Hospital. This is a round table that encompasses leaders from Vancouver Coastal Health, our public health physician, school boards, RCMP, district of North Vancouver, city of North Vancouver, and all four of the North Shore MLAs were represented. Mental health and addictions did come up, as it often does, as well as affordability on the North Shore.

Last Thursday I was proud to greet Joe Roberts on the front steps of the Legislature to support his Push for Change campaign. This is to help youth homelessness. Joe was on day 502 out of 517 into his national walk across Canada, pushing a shopping cart — the symbol of chronic homelessness. It was my pleasure to introduce Joe and his partner, Marie, to the Legislature and thank them for bringing their campaign to Victoria and meeting with us to bring awareness and raise funds for youth homelessness.

Also, last week I was honoured to meet with Leslie McBain, founder of Moms Stop The Harm, at my Victoria office. Sadly, Leslie’s son lost his life to an overdose in 2014. This year he would have been 29 years old, just two years older than my son.

Leslie believes that everyone should be trained in giving naloxone to prevent deaths due to overdose and, of course, to never use alone. I was pleased she was able to give me and my colleagues a demonstration on how to use the kits and to encourage us to help remove the stigma for those with substance use disorders. She also gave me some helpful advice in my role as critic for Mental Health and Addictions.

After 16 years of strong fiscal management, five balanced budgets and the best-performing economy in the country, the Green-NDP coalition government has inherited an economy that is the envy of the rest of the country. Just last month, the Auditor General confirmed exactly this: a $2.7 billion budget surplus and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 15.8 percent.

We left this government with the lowest unemployment in the country, a triple-A credit rating and a diversified economy that offers opportunities for all. We had a solid plan to keep taxes low, attract investment, create jobs and further grow the economy.

Now I see a nervousness about the economic uncertainty that this government is creating for British Columbians. We are now faced with an NDP government that is set to kill B.C.’s record on job creation and turn back time on years of historic economic growth. When it comes to creating wealth so it can be shared with British Columbians, the government is silent. They talk about an economy that works for everyone, but so far all they have done is create an economy where no one is working.

Where is the plan to grow the economy and continue our strong record we created on jobs? Where is the plan to generate revenue and attract investment? Who is going to pay for all of the spending promises and no job growth? The answer is: all of us, through increased taxes and taxpayer-supported debt.

First, the NDP will raise the personal income tax rate for individuals earning over $150,000 from 14.7 to 16.8 percent. Next, the NDP is going to raise the corporate tax rate from 11 to 12 percent. But that’s not all when it comes to taxing hard-working British Columbians. The NDP plans to increase the carbon tax and abandon the revenue-neutral requirement that has been in place since its inception.

Under our previous Liberal government, we were the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a broad-based revenue-neutral carbon tax, and we won global awards because of it. Carbon neutrality means that every penny raised through the carbon tax is returned through tax cuts to directly support British Columbians and B.C. businesses.

[3:05 p.m.]

But now the government is set to excessively raise the price at the pumps and the cost to heat our homes across the board. I know that an extra seven cents a litre, on top of the $1.32 we are paying in North Vancouver today, is not going to go over very well with my constituents.

Moving to a subject that I’m very passionate about: mental health and addictions. Our former B.C. Liberal government made record investments in mental health and substance use, and we want to see that trend continue. As such, I implore my colleagues on the other side to make sure that B.C. has the finances in place to be able to support these promises.

The opioid crisis is affecting foster children. B.C.’s Representative for Children and Youth provided figures that show the number of substance-related injuries for children in care is climbing. The B.C. Coroners Service found that the number of illicit drug overdose deaths for those aged ten to 18 increased 140 percent from 2015 to 2016.

As reported by Tracy Sherlock in “Opinion: Politics,” there has been no money allocated in the NDP budget update to help implement Grand Chief Ed John’s recommendations, although the NDP has promised to do so. The Ministry of Children and Families did get a $109 million budget increase in February, but that was from our budget, the previous government.

The representative went on to say: “There is no new money — strong commitments — but I worry that the words in the budget won’t translate into funds where they are needed.” He said: “I will hold their feet to the fire.”

The government created a new Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, which I have congratulated them for. But the representative is concerned that the ministry’s budget won’t be adequate to help and that the new ministry might just create more bureaucracy. I quote our representative: “Was this something that sounded good to include in a throne speech while we’re dealing with an opioid crisis? I hope that it’s more than that, but to date, I’ve not seen any evidence of that.”

This summer I was honoured to be appointed the official opposition critic for the new Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions by our new interim leader. In both my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Child Mental Health and Anti-Bullying and Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, I saw this issue firsthand. It is very near and dear to my heart.

Our committee’s final report in January of 2016, titled Concrete Actions for Systemic Change, was one of the most comprehensive reports on child and youth mental health in B.C. I’m proud that many of the recommendations were subsequently adopted by our government. In fact, one of the key recommendations in the report no doubt led to this new ministry of Mental Health and Addictions in the new government.

Also near and dear to my heart is the work being done by Foundry. I thank the new minister for the invitations for the official grand opening tomorrow. I was able to attend and speak in my role as parliamentary secretary when they had their soft opening several months ago prior to the last election. A few years ago, I met Dr. Steve Mathias, executive director of Foundry and co-department head of the department of psychiatry at St. Paul’s Hospital, when the idea of a one-stop shop dedicated to youth and families was just a dream.

Foundry sites provincewide were one of the recommendations of our select standing committee, but our government promised an additional expansion of 11 new sites. Foundry North Shore is a new hub for integrated health and social supports for young people between the ages of 12 and 24, a critical time of transition for many young people. Foundry focuses on providing early intervention for mental health or substance use challenges and preventing those challenges from worsening and developing into a crisis.

Foundry centres are home to interdisciplinary teams of medical and social service providers offering a holistic approach to service delivery in one central location. As the local MLA, I was very proud to be able to work on securing government funding for the North Shore centre.

Lastly, I’d just like to give a shout-out to the member for Richmond North Centre for organizing a wonderful little field trip that we did yesterday to Victoria’s Chinese community at the Dart Coon Club, of which, apparently, the headquarters are here in Canada, in Victoria. The member for Richmond North Centre was instrumental in delivering the apology in 2014 for historical wrongs against B.C.’s Chinese-Canadian community, and we thank her for her efforts.

[3:10 p.m.]

Just a reminder that this weekend is the North Shore Disability Resource Centre’s annual fundraiser, and this Saturday is the benefit concert. I would encourage anybody to come to the benefit concert, because that group in the disability community does great work.

I’d like to just move on a little bit to talk about transit and transportation. Without a doubt, the number one issue in my riding is transportation and traffic congestion.

Since 2015, our former government, along with our federal and local counterparts, committed over $1.5 billion on transportation upgrades in the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley. We need the finances to do that, and we need to continue to support the jobs and projects that allow us to make these kinds of investments.

From the beginning, this government has been vague on the details of what it actually intends to do differently, apart from saying no to projects that British Columbians are counting on.

Building infrastructure is crucial to achieving these goals. As I’ve mentioned before, I will be holding this government to account to make sure that the Mountain Highway interchange project, currently under construction in North Vancouver, is not cancelled, like what happened to the Massey bridge. The Mountain Highway interchange is part of a four-phase project approved and endorsed by the previous government, the federal government and the district of North Vancouver and has overwhelming support from everybody on the North Shore.

Dealing with traffic congestion is a fact of life for anyone that lives on the North Shore. Right now there are three to four collisions a week on the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge, which cause enormous traffic jams on the highway and clog the feeder routes.

In fact, just before I came into the House to speak on these remarks, I noticed on the Twitter feed of the traffic reports that there were actually two accidents near the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge and one at the Lions Gate Bridge, all at the same time. I’m really glad that I’m not on the North Shore right now, but I really feel sorry for all of the people that are stuck getting to the North Shore and also leaving the North Shore.

Even in today’s Vancouver Sun, the mayor of the district of North Vancouver, Richard Walton, is publicly calling on the province to relieve congestion on the bridge and traffic delays on the Iron Workers bridge by changing the Motor Vehicle Act so that minor fender-bender collisions can be cleared from highways and bridges and tunnels faster.

This proposal will be considered in a resolution at next week’s Union of B.C. Municipalities conference in Vancouver. It’s something that I will be following when I attend the conference and, if passed, with the provincial government.

Roads are not the long-term answer to getting rid of congestion. It’s my belief that we need to begin initiating dialogue with municipal leaders, North Shore stakeholders and this government to start a conversation about what the future of transit on the North Shore will look like.

In our government’s last throne speech, there was support for a feasibility study on major new expansion projects, including LRT to the North Shore as well as up to Squamish. We need a vision for transit on the North Shore, and I don’t think it’s too early or too ambitious to start talking about connecting the North Shore to SkyTrain.

We need to do a better job of getting people on and off the North Shore, and not on the roads. I wonder if some of those people that were stuck on Highway 1 going to the North Shore and Iron Workers today were actually travelling to work or from work.

More importantly, I think it is time we start to connect the issue of transit to the issue of affordability. That means we need to continue investing in our communities in a sustainable manner. I, along with my colleagues from the North Shore, have a strong track record of working with our North Vancouver mayors and our federal government counterparts.

When in government, I instigated an inaugural meeting with these groups, along with our minister for TransLink and our Minister of Housing. Together we explored the intricate relationship between affordable housing, housing affordability of our citizens, as well as the ability for people to get around on transit.

If people can’t afford to live on the North Shore, then they need to get back and forth by transit to work. Parts of North Vancouver are already struggling to find baristas, municipal workers, teachers, professors and nurses. This is becoming an issue for small businesses, big businesses, Seaspan, Capilano University, Lions Gate Hospital and the school district, just to name a few.

Just a few days ago there was a story on Global News that referred to the North Shore worker shortage as a staffing crisis. The high cost of living and commuter concerns are forcing some businesses to close their doors early each night.

[3:15 p.m.]

This was reinforced by our mayor of the city of North Vancouver, Darrell Mussatto, who said: “When you travel down lower Lonsdale, nearly every business and every restaurant has a help-wanted sign on it.” One new business had to delay their opening by seven months, as they couldn’t find enough staff to hire.

Tied into this theme of affordability is housing, which is another big part of ensuring we continue to build livable, workable communities. In my opinion, the single most important action governments can take to make housing more affordable is to work with local governments and the private sector to increase supply.

All of us on the North Shore need to have the difficult conversations about the connection between housing affordability, transit and the diversification of housing. Let it be known that I will be no less vocal about working towards solutions to our housing and transit problems, even now that we are in opposition.

Another issue that I continue to hear about from my constituents is child care. In addition to owning a home, young families find that both partners need to work and need access to affordable, quality child care. Now that this government has abandoned its $10-a-day child care, how is the NDP’s plan going to help financially strapped parents?

I was disappointed, also, to see in the budget that the NDP is cutting the children’s fitness and arts tax credits for good. This could bar unknown numbers of children across B.C. from participating in organized sports and arts classes, something that I heard during my discussions as critic for mental health and addictions is important.

In fact, the Iceland model that many in my consultations have spoken about is to help prevent youth getting into drugs and alcohol early, and it’s to promote more opportunities for structured sports, music, art and dance programs for youth. I’m hoping that the fitness and arts tax credits would be reconsidered. But perhaps that idea to cut them came from the Greens, who probably consider this a boutique tax credit.

In conclusion, there are many serious holes in the throne speech, just as well as there were many things missing in the budget from promises in the campaign. I look forward to standing up for British Columbians, and I look forward to holding this government to account on all of those things.

Hon. D. Eby: Hon. Speaker, it’s a great pleasure to see you there in the chair.

It’s a great pleasure to be here in the House today and to be British Columbia’s Attorney General. I welcome everybody to the Legislature who’s visiting here today, and I hope to be at least mildly entertaining to you and to my colleagues in the House here. It’s an ambitious goal with this speech, but I will do my best.

Before I begin, I would like to thank the people who are the reason why I’m standing here. We all came through an election, and I had a lot of volunteers in the community that helped me out.

Before the election, though, I had a team in my constituency office that answered community queries and assisted me in being responsive to community concerns. I want to thank Anna Lindsay-Baugh, Gala Milne, Lucinda Yeung and a couple of new folks who have joined the office to help out, Nadja Komnenic and Dulcy Anderson. Without their assistance, I wouldn’t be standing here, certainly. They were instrumental in making sure that the community knew their voices were heard in Vancouver–Point Grey. I greatly appreciate that, and I want to thank them.

I also want to thank my family. All the members here in this House know the challenge and the burden that elected life places on families at home. A lot of people who are at home have to carry an extra burden with children or with loved ones or with obligations outside of elected life. We wouldn’t be here, and it would be very difficult to be here, without supportive families.

I know that’s certainly true in my case. I want to thank my beautiful wife, Cailey, and our lovely and engaged three-year-old, Ezra. He is a lot of fun and also a lot of work. A disproportionate amount of that is falling to my wife and to my mother-in-law, who actually moved in next door to us. Thank goodness, because if she hadn’t, we’d be in real trouble getting him back and forth to daycare, which we are very fortunate to have.

I want to thank Kay Armstrong, as well, for her assistance to the family, as well as my father-in-law, Al Lynch, and my mom, Laura Eby, who came out to help on the election and comes to pitch in.

[3:20 p.m.]

We couldn’t do it without family. I could run down the list of all of the family members — my siblings and my wife’s siblings and all of the people not actually related but who act like family and who have pitched in — but I only have a limited amount of time here today, and at some point, I should talk about the throne speech.

This is really a big moment for British Columbia. We had 16 years of the same government, and there has been a significant and — I would argue, and I will argue — a transformative change in how politics is approached in British Columbia now, as a result of the election of the NDP government and our partners in confidence in this House, the Green Party. When I was elected into opposition four years ago, I was glad for my time in opposition. I was glad for the chance to…. I certainly had hoped that we would have won in 2013, but as a newly elected member, to learn in opposition was very helpful for me.

What I saw when I was sitting in the opposition benches, and what I heard from my community, was a few things. The overwhelming concern, and one of the concerns that actually got me elected, was that the government had become disconnected from the concerns of community members. I’ll just talk about a few of the issues that came up in my community of Vancouver–Point Grey.

Constituents came to me and said: “I don’t understand why these issues can’t get addressed.” They just never seemed to move ahead on education, the understaffing of our schools, the fact that kids with profound learning challenges — whether it’s a language challenge, a learning disability or some other disability — weren’t getting the support that they needed. The government was spending money to go to court instead of just fixing the issue, ultimately losing at the Supreme Court. It was very frustrating to community members.

They were frustrated that Bayview Elementary couldn’t get the seismic upgrading that is so desperately needed there. They were frustrated about class sizes that weren’t being addressed. And there were small things.

You know, at the UBC Neighbourhood Association, there was a fire tax that was introduced without any discussion with that group, and they said: “Well, we’d like to know more about why the tax is being imposed. We’d like to know how much tax we pay and what services we get back from the province in exchange.” They weren’t even able to get that information from the government.

When the University Endowment Lands came forward, they said: “You’re currently flying bureaucrats into our community to make decisions about variances. It makes no sense. We want to have a local government that addresses our concerns. Can we move in that direction?” Consultants were hired, and amazingly, the consultants consulted with everybody except for the residents of the University Endowment Lands. A questionnaire was sent out to the University Endowment Lands residents — an area for which the province is responsible — that asked them about everything except for local government concerns. So they were frustrated.

UBC students said: “We have record student loans, and we’re paying interest rates on those loans. The government borrows money at prime, and then they charge us a surcharge on top of what they borrow at. So they’re actually making money on our student loans, and we have to borrow this money to pay for school. Why is the government making money on student loans?”

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: I hear some muttering from the members. The reality is that they made a lot of money off students borrowing at one rate and then charging the students a higher rate than the government borrowed at. I am very proud to say to those students that in the throne speech and in the budget, the B.C. NDP government is addressing that issue and we are eliminating the interest on student loans.

The one that really was the barnburner, certainly in my community, was housing — the issue of housing in relation to the fact and the reality of international money in our housing market. Day after day, my colleagues and I would stand in the Legislature, and we would say: “Our constituents are telling us that there are vacant homes in the community, that there is a major disconnect happening between the price of housing in our community and the salaries that you can earn in British Columbia. The money is coming from somewhere. Families are getting priced out of the community, and we just don’t understand what’s happening. Will the government just collect the information? Will they just collect the data?”

It got to the point that there was a rally at the art gallery, a big rally. The rallying cry of the assembled people there was: “Please collect the data.” It was a real, radical demand to the government.

[3:25 p.m.]

We filled up a community centre. We started in a small, local community centre, the Kits Neighbourhood House — about 150 people can fit comfortably in it — to have a forum about housing and what was happening in the housing market. That filled up, and then we moved it to St. James. You can hold about 300 people in that facility. That filled up, and then we moved it again, to the Greek community hall, where they hold great, big Greek weddings and celebrations. You can put about 1,000 people in that hall. We had RSVPs beyond the capacity of the building. I was on the CBC, and I was saying: “Please do not come to our housing forum. There’s no space. Watch the stream on line.” That is the level of concern that was going on in my community.

Every day we stood in this Legislature and put pressure on the government: “Why aren’t you even collecting the information about what’s going on?” The former Housing Minister would stand in here and say: “Oh, you know, we talked to industry, and there’s no more than 3 percent international money in the housing market. No more than 3 percent.”

Well, when they finally started collecting the data, when they finally blinked, they were amazed. People were absolutely right about what was going on: 20 percent of the real estate purchases in the community were international money coming into the housing market. The government wouldn’t have known that. They didn’t know it, because they didn’t collect the information.

When they finally collected it…. They were so embarrassed by the fact that they were so wrong about what was going on that they rushed through the foreign buyer tax, which caught a whole bunch of people that it shouldn’t have caught, people who were living and working in the community, paying taxes in the community. They failed to exempt them. It was a rush job.

That whole story is a reflection of the way that things used to happen in this place. The government was so out of touch with people in the community saying that something serious was going on. Why were they so out of touch? It’s because they received, in that same time period, $8 million in corporate donations from developers who were profiting from that situation during the same time period.

So $8 million on one hand, and a whole bunch of people demanding the government take action on the other hand. What was more important, for years? What was more important was the donations. That is why I am so proud, in the throne speech, that our government committed to get the big money out of politics. We introduced legislation to do that, because what is more important, what should speak louder, is not money. It’s the voters. There are many examples of this, too many examples of this.

The group of climate leaders who got together — residents, citizens who got together and provided the government with their best good-faith recommendations about how the government could achieve our climate goals in British Columbia — sat down and made a whole bunch of recommendations about how the government could move forward. After they were done, the government piled bureaucrats onto a plane. They flew to Calgary, into the boardroom of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers — not for one meeting, not for two meetings, not for three meetings, not for four meetings. They went there for five meetings, and over the course of those meetings, they drafted British Columbia’s climate action plan.

Were those public meetings? They were not. They were private meetings, and not only that. Until a recent FOI release, they were secret meetings. Nobody knew about these meetings. But what we did know was that the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ members had given the government $3.6 million in corporate donations. Again, this is an example of the problem that this new government is fixing with the legislation. It is in the throne speech: get big money out of politics.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: You know, I hear the fuss on the other side. They had 16 years to change that law. Even before the election, they couldn’t bring themselves to say that they would change those rules. The best they could do was say: “We’re going to study it.”

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: Well, we didn’t say we were going to study it. We said we’re going to change the rules. We changed the rules, and it will be transformative for British Columbia.

Interjections.

[3:30 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Members, please. One speech at a time, Members.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

The people in the gallery here today — if they’re British Columbia residents and they have cars, they’ve got insurance. If they’ve got insurance, they bought it from our Crown corporation, because they’ve got a monopoly on basic insurance. It’s called ICBC.

It’s a great honour to be assigned responsibility for this Crown corporation. Also, it is a great responsibility. It is a troubling responsibility because ICBC, in its last fiscal year, had its biggest loss ever in the entire history of the organization. It lost half a billion dollars in just 12 months — half a billion dollars.

What was really interesting about opening the ICBC file was to read the government’s projection for next year’s losses for ICBC. They had projected that ICBC was going to lose $25 million. Well, that sounds totally manageable. That was the information that was provided to the electorate in British Columbia before the election.

After the election, when we opened the books, what was the projection? A $360 million projected loss at ICBC. Now, that is more than ten times the loss that the government had projected — that the government had told the people of British Columbia that ICBC was going to lose. How does that happen?

I watched a video of the former minister responsible for ICBC. I watched a video of him giving a speech to an industry group in which he pledged to give away a $3 million public building, owned by ICBC, to the industry group, for free. In that speech, he bragged about reducing the effectiveness of speeding enforcement in British Columbia by 60 percent, and then he pledged to the industry group that he was going to review the rates that ICBC paid them, and the terms of reference would be written by the industry group.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: The member asked if they received donations from the group. It’s a reasonable question, because the speech was so bizarre — for an organization that was in financial crisis. Difficult conversations have to be had with the stakeholders in ICBC — with the legal community; with the industry group that the member was talking to, which does automotive repairs; with the medical experts; with the rehabilitation experts — because the costs at ICBC have to be gotten under control.

This isn’t an approach to give away buildings. This is an approach to have difficult conversations about how we protect the public interest in fairer and affordable insurance rates in British Columbia. This side of the House is prepared to have those conversations to protect British Columbians’ interests to fair and affordable car insurance rates so that they can get to work, they can get to school and they can do the things that they need to do.

I had the opportunity to do a really significant announcement for a human rights lawyer. I described myself that way in my practice. I think it was a significant portion of my practice, and I had the opportunity…. Hon. Speaker, I know that you’re familiar with this issue as well. You’ve done a lot of great work on human rights, as have many members in this House.

In 2002, the previous B.C. Liberal government eliminated the B.C. Human Rights Commission. The B.C. Human Rights Commission, as it stood then, wasn’t perfect. There were issues that needed to be addressed, but it did some very important work. As we look at what’s happening in the United States, the growth in intolerance and racism and hate…. In fact, as we look at incidents that happened in British Columbia, as well, around fliers in Richmond, around slurs and other kinds of racially motivated incidents, we’ve got to recognize that we have a lot of work to do around racism and discrimination in this province.

The Human Rights Commission. Their job across Canada — except in B.C., because ours was dismantled — is to educate the public about the importance and the equality of all people in our province and the need to provide opportunity for everybody to succeed in our province. That’s why I was so proud to be able to stand with the member for Delta North, as the parliamentary secretary, and to make the announcement that we are initiating consultations with the community to re-establish the B.C. Human Rights Commission.

[3:35 p.m.]

This organization is going to be going out and assisting employers, assisting the public, assisting public agencies in understanding how we can make a difference for all British Columbians, how we can get rid of barriers to success, how we can minimize and, ideally, eliminate racism and hate in our communities. This is going to be very important work, very important educational and outreach work. It is truly a celebration. I think it should be a celebration, by all members of this House, that we are re-establishing this important organization. It is far, far overdue.

In all of our mandate letters — I know in my mandate letter and my colleagues’ mandate letters — we were all directed to review and renew our engagement with First Nations communities and with First Nations people, B.C.’s first peoples, in our province. Being responsible for the portfolio of Attorney General, there is a huge piece of work to be done here.

The justice system comes into contact with First Nations people in so many different ways, whether it’s in relation to rights and title claims being advanced by First Nations people; whether it’s the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in our prisons, Indigenous women especially; or whether it’s the response of the law to violence against Indigenous women and children and how the law can respond and protect them. There is a huge, huge amount of work to be done.

It is a small piece of this, but it is a critical piece — the commitment that our government, our new government, has made to the First Nations justice council. The First Nations justice council is a group of leaders in the Indigenous community that have come together to assist the government in implementing this ambitious agenda around the rights of Indigenous people and our partnership and our work together in making sure British Columbia’s justice system is fair and responsive to concerns.

Our government committed operational funding for this organization because, although they existed under the previous administration, they weren’t funded. This meant that they didn’t have a place to meet. They didn’t have staff to coordinate meetings. To say to a group of people who were committed and coming together and willing to engage to assist in doing this important work, “We’re willing to hear from you,” but then to fail to provide the conditions that are essential for them to actually be able to participate in those conversations in addressing the injustices in the justice system is to functionally not have a group at all.

We addressed that right off the gate. It was a great honour to announce that, with the Solicitor General, at the First Nations leadership conference.

It is a small piece, but I think it really reflects where we are going to go in the justice system and our relationship with First Nations people. We will make sure that they have the resources to participate, to assist us in this important work — and not assist us but partner with us — in transforming B.C.’s justice system into a system that is truly just for all people in British Columbia.

Finally, an important piece of the responsibility that I’ve been asked to take on by the Premier is the proportional representation referendum. We committed to British Columbians that we would initiate a provincewide referendum on changing our democratic system here, to make it more reflective of the way that people actually vote. People will have the opportunity to have their say about whether they think we should change our system from first-past-the-post to a proportional system. It is a huge responsibility to ensure that this process is administered fairly, that all British Columbians get their say, that the issues are fully debated, that there is a fair question asked and that British Columbians understand the issues before them.

I would like to say that I think that this referendum provides the opportunity for British Columbians to really review how our current system works. The interesting thing about it is that our current parliament, in a minority system, gives every member a great deal of weight that, in an election where one party doesn’t have to consult with any other parties or they don’t have to have any other partnerships with any other parties so there doesn’t have to be conversation….

[3:40 p.m.]

It’s a very different situation that we’re in right now. When I was in opposition, the Liberals had a majority of seats. They didn’t have to listen to a single word that we said in opposition, and frankly, that was the status quo in the vast, vast majority of cases, with far too few exceptions to that rule.

Now we are in a different situation, and I think that all members of this House are slowly coming to the realization of the influence that they can have in advocating for their constituents in a minority parliament. I encourage all members of this House to take advantage of that. I think that this parliament can act as a model. This parliament can act as an example to all British Columbians of what is possible under a proportional system as well.

Our government is definitely making different choices than the previous government did. We’ve made a number of choices around making life more affordable for British Columbians — everything from reducing the MSP to reducing the small business tax to assisting people who previously had to cross a bridge that had a toll on it, saving them $1,500 a month. Many of them drove kilometres out of their way in order to use a bridge that didn’t have a toll, causing traffic jams and congestion. It was totally unnecessary. We’re making life better for British Columbians.

The opportunity that is in front of us here in this minority parliament is for all of us to work together. I heard the throne speech, from the members on the other side, before the confidence vote that they weren’t successful in. It was a good throne speech. If that is the approach that the members on the other side wish to take to governance in this province, then I can assure them that on those initiatives, they can find partners in this place. We can do some great things together, and I hope that that happens.

M. Morris: I’m here to make a few comments in relation to the throne speech. There’s been, obviously, a diverse bunch of opinions and ideas presented in this House in the last few days. I like the idea….

We’re talking about opioids with government, and we’ve got a lot of work to do. I know they’ve committed some money to deal with that. It’s a crisis that’s affected British Columbia but all of Canada. So I’m waiting with bated breath to see what government is going to do on that front.

The one thing that I kind of focused in on…. Being from rural B.C — and throughout my career in the RCMP I lived in many communities and was responsible for policing many communities throughout the northern three-quarters of the province. I know it intimately well. I know the resource sector and the industry that supports not only those small communities but everybody in British Columbia.

Under the heading in the throne speech “Government That Works for People,” there’s a statement in there that says: “The people in B.C.’s rural and remote regions, who deserve the same opportunities as all other British Columbians, face higher unemployment and have fewer services in their communities.”

I want to kind of focus in on that for a bit. Maybe it should have said “face high unemployment and fewer services in the future,” as a result of some of the things I’ve heard in the throne speech. Kinder Morgan is a good example — the fight that government has mounted against the federal government to try and shut down Kinder Morgan at all costs.

Kinder Morgan is a $7.4 billion project, with 15,000 jobs during construction, many after. There are a lot of economic benefit agreements that have already been established and presented to our First Nations communities along the way. There was an unprecedented revenue-sharing agreement that we had with Kinder Morgan over the next 20 years that would have equated to over $1 billion. That’s a lot of money for the people in British Columbia. They’re fighting to cancel that — which are rural jobs, urban jobs as well.

We have to look at what Kinder Morgan does and what that pipeline provides already. There is a refinery down in Burnaby that produces about 55,000 barrels of petroleum products every day. That’s just a fraction of what we use in the greater Vancouver area. Most of the refined fuel products that we have already come through that pipeline to the tune…. About 60 percent of the fuel that’s used in the greater Vancouver area comes through that pipeline to keep the vehicles running in the Lower Mainland.

[3:45 p.m.]

There is another refinery in Washington State that provides a significant amount of fuel for Vancouver Island. There are barges that come up and down the coast on a regular basis that transport fuel to Vancouver Island.

To shut down Kinder Morgan, to reduce the effectiveness of that particular pipeline, is going affect the entire transportation of petroleum products on the coast of British Columbia. They don’t want more tankers coming and going into the refinery in Burnaby, but we already have those tankers going up and down the coast.

The refineries in Washington State produce something like 650,000 barrels of refined products every day. Out of that, British Columbia — mostly Vancouver Island — takes 15 percent. That comes up on barges on a regular basis into our harbours, into Saltspring Island, into some of the other smaller Gulf Island communities. Its fuel that’s being delivered by barge. So the thought of reducing the pipeline expansion to what it is right now is only going to increase the amount of tanker traffic on the coast anyways, which is going to prove problematic for a lot of people.

Not only Kinder Morgan. The Pacific NorthWest LNG project was another one that kind of disappeared. I go back to a Times Colonist headline back in July 14, 2015, when the member for Sooke at the time and now our Premier said that the LNG deal is bad for B.C. He’s now Premier, and Petronas and all the other folks that were involved in that particular project had a look at that and said: “That’s a non-starter for us. It’s nonsense — us trying to go head to head with this particular government that has no interest in LNG in British Columbia and is doing their best to kill those projects.”

The LNG project in northwest B.C. was a $36 billion project. They’d already spent lots of money in B.C. — thousands of construction workers. There were thousands of opportunities there for British Columbians but not only for British Columbians; for some of our First Nations communities. Our colleague from Skeena has talked about it in this House before. The opportunities that were available for his band and for surrounding bands — for the Nisga’a, for many of the First Nations communities there — were astronomical, to bring them out of poverty and put them in a position where they can have a living like a lot of other British Columbians have. That opportunity is gone.

Now, hopefully, this government is waking up to the fact that LNG is a viable solution to greenhouse gas emissions around the world — it’s a viable solution to the economic situation that this government has put us into with some of the actions that they’ve taken here — and that for any of the other projects that are currently being considered by the proponents, this government will take the time to sit down and seriously have a discussion with them and make those projects come to fruition.

When they turn down projects like the Petronas project and the other proponents that have backed out of this race at this particular time, I think they also haven’t taken a look down the road to see exactly what downstream kinds of industry result from our natural gas — not just the LNG side of things but the petrochemical side of things.

When you look at the fact that…. Everybody in British Columbia enjoys, or most people enjoy, freshwater sources. They enjoy asphalt roads, particularly in urban B.C. here. Asphalt contains 5 percent bitumen. Our water is delivered in polypropylene pipes, which is a derivative of the liquids obtained from natural gas and other petroleum products. We have thousands of kilometres of poly pipe in the ground to deliver our water to us. We have thousands of kilometres of poly-pipe in the ground to take our sewage out to the treatment plants. We have thousands of products that everybody uses in this House every day that are made out of polypropylene — our laptop computers, our cell phones, a lot of the appliances that we have in our homes, in our vehicles.

[3:50 p.m.]

There’s a downstream industry. If this government was serious about increasing the economic opportunities in B.C., they would be pursuing this. They would be chasing this down with rigour to try and establish a petrochemical industry here in B.C. with the liquids that we have in our natural gas and with the oil that we have in northeast B.C. There are many things that we can do with that.

Going back to the Premier’s quotes back on July 14. The NDP actually voted against the agreement that we brought before this House here, the project development agreement that we had. The NDP voted against that at a particular time, saying they weren’t interested. He said that the agreement didn’t secure job guarantees — hmm, didn’t secure job guarantees; well, there’s no employment if we don’t have any plant at all — and didn’t get a fair return for the people of B.C. Now, I don’t know what a fair return means, but I think $1 billion over 20 years is not a bad dollar for British Columbians.

He also said that a 25-year deal, who does that in the 21st century? A 25-year deal of guaranteed employment, guaranteed returns coming into British Columbia, I think is a great deal for British Columbia. For 25 years, we’d be guaranteeing employment for people working at the plants. We’d be guaranteeing employment for people from the Haisla Nation. We’d be guaranteeing employment for people maintaining the pipeline — and all the spinoff jobs that result from that.

When they talk about a government that works for people, and that the people in rural B.C. don’t have the same opportunities, they’re right. If they keep on going in the direction they’re going right now, the people in rural B.C. and the people in all of British Columbia are going to be at the short end of the stick. There won’t be those opportunities for them.

The other one on that — Site C. The uncertainty over the threat to cancel a project…. There are 2,600 men and women that are working there right now. Their future is at stake. There are families impacted on that, but not only that. There’s an opportunity for 10,000 more construction jobs dealing with Site C. All that is sitting on a thread right now because of the uncertainty around the review that this government has initiated against Site C and the uncertainty that they put into that.

Is that what this government means — that they’re going to provide rural B.C. with some of the opportunities? The opportunity to be unemployed. The opportunity to get stressed out over whether or not they’re going to have money to put toys under the Christmas tree for the children or have a Christmas dinner or go travelling and visit the family over the Christmas season.

The other part of that is the fact that the uncertainty has also created a downstream effect amongst some of the other service industries. I was speaking with a mortgage broker in Prince George, and he was saying that he was having difficulty finding mortgage money for people that were working on Site C because of the uncertainty of this review.

Now, Site C is a multi-year project. Somebody going into a bank right now working at Site C with the certainty of having the job in Site C can go in and get a mortgage, because those are high-paying jobs that are going to sustain a family for probably a generation as a result of that. We’re not going to have that with the uncertainty that’s hovering over everybody here right now.

The other uncertainty and the other project that has killed jobs in British Columbia is the Massey bridge project — 9,000 construction jobs associated with that. But not only that, the NDP misled the public. They talk about postponing this particular project. But of course, as we brought up in House the other day, there was documentation to show that the NDP had looked at this, that they had cancelled it because they were going to divert the money that was already budgeted for this project and put it into something else.

Basically, not only have we put another 9,000 folks out of work, and we don’t give them that opportunity, but we’re also impacting the 80-some-thousand people that commute back and forth through that tunnel every single day — get tied up in the traffic there. We’re jeopardizing the safety of the emergency services people that have to respond to those horrific accidents that could occur and have occurred in the tunnel.

[3:55 p.m.]

I shudder to think of the consequences of an earthquake and the damages and the death that would result from that. Due diligence. There’s been a lot of work done on that project. The government is aware of the dangers that the tunnel presents in an earthquake situation and must act as quickly as possible to deal with that. By cancelling that project, what they’ve done is they’ve postponed it and they’re putting at risk the lives of many people down there.

Now, the throne speech was also speaking to…. There is a little sentence in there that talked about the rise of part-time, low-paying jobs. But I did notice there was an omission in there. There was no talk about the 250,000 jobs that we’ve created over the last few years, high-paying jobs, in this great province of ours. That’s right across the province, not only in urban B.C. but in rural B.C.

Some of those high-paying jobs — hmm. Now, we saw last year, in our last fiscal year, we had a surplus of over $1 billion, and that was attributable to all those great, high-paying jobs that we had added to the roster over that particular year.

Now we have a $2.7 billion surplus that we handed over to this government. But did you know that probably over $1 billion of that was attributable to income tax from these high-paying jobs that have been created and the people that are contributing to the economy?

When you talk about the rise of part-time, low-paying jobs, yeah, we have created a number of new jobs for students that are going to school. Your convenience store operators saw an increase in their business. Of course, they’re hiring more people to do things like that. So yeah, there was an increase in that, but there was a greater increase in the high-paying jobs that we have in the resource sector throughout the community here.

One of the other statements I read in that was: “We cannot afford to shut people out of opportunity.” Hmm, shutting people out of opportunity. I just mentioned Site C; we’re shutting people out of opportunity. The Massey bridge — shutting people out of opportunity. LNG projects — shutting people out of opportunity. First Nations are being prevented from the opportunities that are out there with our LNG and some of our other resource sectors. There’s an abundance of things out there that we’re blocking from happening in B.C. because this government is not focused on jobs. It’s not focused on the resource sector. It’s not focused on rural B.C. — in providing those opportunities for rural B.C.

Now, one of the other things…. I did mention it earlier on, but the other thing that was in the throne speech was talking about reforming B.C.’s campaign finance laws. Of course, we’ve had a great discussion this week during QP on some of the things that have come up on that. They talk about eliminating corporate and union donations, and strict limits on individual contributions, but they also say they’ll “make sure that only people living in B.C. can donate to our political parties.” We should have picked up on that. I guess now what that statement particularly means is that it’ll make sure that only B.C. taxpayers can donate to our political parties, which I think is an atrocity.

If the NDP had campaigned on that, like they should have, I don’t think they would have got the support that they did. I think a lot of the voters out there were duped into believing that things would have been different here. And as I read in some of the newspaper articles here in the last day or so, the legislation, the private members’ bills that were submitted to this house by the NDP year after year…. I think there were a number of them there. All the legislation pretty much said the same thing, but it never indicated that they were going to go after the taxpayers to foot the bill for the political parties in B.C. That was a change right at the last minute. That was a promise that was broken by our Premier, and I think he should be ashamed of himself for doing that.

Now, the dishonest approach that has led to that…. There was a fundraising event not too long ago in Surrey, where we saw some association with less than desirable folks that are involved in some criminal activities. I think that the public should be concerned about that.

[4:00 p.m.]

Here we have some misleading facts during the campaign with the Massey bridge, with the political donations and the taxpayers funding that. We have criminals that are spending $5,000 apiece to attend a fundraiser. Those kinds of things trouble me when it comes to the integrity and honesty of individuals and the party.

Under the title in the throne speech, there was another section in there called “Vision for a Better B.C.” It says: “Government’s success cannot be counted in the number of regulations it creates, bills it passes or pronouncements it makes. Success must instead by measured by how its actions and decisions benefit people.”

Well, like I just said, let’s measure some of those actions — misleading voters about the plans for the Massey bridge, misleading voters on the taxpayer-funded political parties and holding the fundraisers. What more are we going to find here in British Columbia? These things concern me.

As we have gone through the proceedings with the throne speech and the budget speech, the Finance Minister stated…. When she made her presentation on the budget to fund some of these promises that this government has made in their throne speech, she said: “This is just an update to the February budget. There are bigger things to come in February.” That, quite frankly, sends shivers down my spine.

Let’s look at some of those big things that might show up in February. The government’s already spent a pile of money. That $2.7 billion surplus that we provided is long gone, just vaporized before our eyes.

The big things that are going to come in February, the $10-a-day universal daycare that wasn’t mentioned in the throne speech…. It was mentioned in their campaign, but we haven’t seen anything. Maybe that’s going to be one of the big things, if they can negotiate with their junior partners to find some kind of a solution to that, along with a $400-a-year renters rebate, another big thing that’s going to cost taxpayers a big piece of money; the elimination of interest payments on student loans, another big-ticket item; a $1,000 completion grant for college and university graduates; $5 million to restore provincial parks and hire more conservation officers, another big-ticket item; $10 million more for arts and culture; a rollback on ferry fares; a freeze on hydro rates. There are a number of things in there.

They haven’t spent any money in comparison to what they will be spending. I’m anticipating that if they’re going to meet their campaign promises — we’ve seen some of them broken already — we’re going to be seeing a February budget come down that is going to make you cry. It’s going to increase the taxes even more than our $5 a tonne on the carbon tax every year for the next four years, then the corporate income tax going up and the higher income tax bracket for those making over $150,000.

We’re going to see capital bleed out of the country. People that have the money to invest in this province are going to leave this province. They don’t want to work and live in an environment like that. This government is going to be scratching. They’re going to be looking for revenue with the opportunities that they have forced out of the province here.

They’re ignoring the folks in rural B.C. I think they’re going to be looking at all kinds of other tax opportunities here. People better hang onto their pockets and their wallets, because they’re going to be thinner over the next fiscal year.

The throne speech was thin, but it was a bit of a scary document. We are going to sit here. We’ll watch how this government decides to spend more money and see if they can also come up with some better ways to generate money in the province here as well.

B. Ma: I rise today in order to speak in support of the throne speech.

I want to begin by acknowledging the traditional territories of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, upon whose land we are able to hold these proceedings today.

I’d also like, again, to take a moment to thank the people of North Vancouver–Lonsdale for choosing me to serve them as their MLA. It is a beautiful riding that exists on the traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples, specifically those of the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation and the Squamish First Nation.

[4:05 p.m.]

It is also a riding that has not put their faith in an NDP candidate since 1991, when former MLA David Schreck was elected.

My commitment to the people of North Vancouver–Lonsdale is that I will work hard for them every day so that I might one day be worthy of this honour that they have bestowed upon me.

This throne speech is one step towards that better B.C. that I promised people was possible. I am so grateful to have the opportunity to be able to rise and speak in favour of it. This throne speech is why I left a job I loved, a profession that I loved and that I was very fortunate to have, in order to run in this election so that I might become an MLA, so that I might be able to support this new government in their goals and their vision.

This throne speech is a wonderful small step — we do acknowledge it is an incremental step — towards our greater vision and our goals. I became an MLA because I could no longer stand idly by while I learned more and more about how the previous government was hurting the people I loved. They were hurting members of my family, my community, my neighbours, my colleagues, my friends — and hurt they have been.

There have been three themes I’ve noticed to the criticisms the Liberals have laid against the throne speech and the new government. The first theme I’ve noticed is: economy, taxes, oil and gas — rah, rah, rah. The second theme I’ve noticed is: argh, remember the ’90s? — argh. And the third theme I’ve noticed is: rabble, rabble, rabble — it’s been eight weeks; why haven’t you fixed the problems that we’ve caused yet? — rabble, rabble, rabble.

I don’t think I need to address the third theme that I mentioned, but I would like to address the other two. I’m reminded of a conversation that I had during the election earlier this year. I had knocked on the door of some community members to ask about the issues that mattered to them. At this one home, a wife and a husband, with a small child in the woman’s arms, answered the door.

I asked them how they felt about the upcoming election. “Well,” the husband began, “I suppose what’s most important to me is the economy. The economy is doing pretty well, I’m told by all the media. I’m told that the province has a large surplus, so I guess the B.C. Liberals know what they’re doing.” It’s a story that I have told before, but I think it warrants repeating for this throne speech.

The wife beside him scoffed when he said this. She scoffed loudly. “If the economy is doing so well,” she said, “why are we working so hard to make ends meet? Why can’t my sister find secure housing? Why can’t we afford to pay for child care? Why can’t my mother receive the care that she needs? Why can’t we save money for retirement? When I take my child to the doctor, why does it take an hour to catch a bus? It seems to me like the economy isn’t worth anything to our family if that economy isn’t actually working for us.”

You see, British Columbians can see through rhetoric that contradicts their own lived experiences. Under the previous government, while the province enjoyed a surplus, it was the people of British Columbia, the people of North Vancouver, my parents, my family members, my community, my friends, my colleagues who paid and paid dearly for it.

The official opposition might criticize the proposed spending in our budget update, although it is strange for them to do this given that their own throne speech echoed so much of what we are now proposing as well. But to do so, they’ve confirmed exactly how little they have learned about the experience that has led them to that side of the House.

I say again that a government serves people, and when a government delivers services, they are delivering them to real people. These are people who live, people who laugh, who cry. These are people who suffer, who yell out in pain, who love and are loved. These are the people we love. I believe that our new government understands this, by putting forward this throne speech.

[4:10 p.m.]

Now, I’ll admit, as well, in regards to the economy and taxes, oil and gas — rah, rah, rah — that after the minister’s budget update, I did receive a message from a community member that said simply: “Good job on the tax increase.” It was followed immediately by another text message that said: “No, no, no, I’m not being sarcastic. I really do mean it. Good job on the tax increase.”

He told me: “As someone who, from time to time, earns more than $150,000 a year, I can quite honestly tell you that I am not going to notice the change. And frankly, the things that aggravate me every day will benefit far more from my tax dollars than what I can do with those dollars on my own.”

He told me that what he was truly concerned about were seismic upgrades for his kids’ schools. It was about helping those living with drug addiction, and providing housing for the homeless so that playgrounds can go back to being playgrounds, rather than being necessary shelters for those with nowhere else to go. He told me that he wants the housing market to be managed so that one day he and his wife could actually own a larger home for their growing family.

He said that he wanted there to be more public transportation spending, because he enjoyed living a car-free life. He intends to continue to live a car-free life, and he would like his children to be able to grow up and do so in order to help protect the environment.

In short, he wants conditions to improve for everyone — for everyone to be lifted up. This is a family with two full-time professional income earners. Because of the cost of living and rampant real estate market, even they cannot get ahead.

The other day a constituent came into my office to tell me about her rental situation. This woman was born and raised in North Vancouver. She is a single, 42-year-old woman who runs her own business as a consultant. Up until very recently, she was working on full-time contracts, but eventually, of course, contracts end. She has never had a problem with her landlords, and she has rented all her life. But due to the out-of-control real estate market and commodification of homes, she has been subjected, in the last several years, to multiple renovictions — multiple evictions under the guise, at least, of the owner’s own use — in a very short period of time.

She told me that six years ago her rent for a one-bedroom basement suite was $700. Now it’s $1,600. Two months ago she received another eviction notice from the home that she was renting the basement suite in. The owners are selling, and the new owners want to use the basement suite for their own purposes. So she went about to try to search for a new place to live. To date, she shared with me, she has seen nearly 80 units and applied for about a quarter of those and has yet to find another place to live.

She asked her current landlord for the new owner’s contact information so that she might be able to reach out to them and ask for a little bit more time to find a new rental facility. But the new owner does not want her to know who has purchased the home, so she has absolutely no recourse, no option, to try to get a little bit more time in order to find a place to live. So at 42 years old, after working full-time for the majority of her life, she is moving back with her mother.

Again, these two stories are from people who are professional, relatively high income earners. If they can’t get ahead, what hope is there for someone of lesser means? Someone like Mike, a community member in North Vancouver who lived on the streets of Lonsdale for over three years before he was able to secure a corner of a floor in a flat of multiple people were also trying to stay off the streets.

What hope is there for the single mother of three I met on the doorsteps during the election who paid $42,000 for child care last year?

[4:15 p.m.]

What hope there is for another single mother of five who has no child care at all? So I ask: where was the B.C. Liberals’ incredible economy for them at that time?

I want to take a moment to also respond to the comments about the ’90s. You see, I was a child in the ’90s. I don’t remember all of it, but I do remember some of it. High school and elementary were interesting times for me.

My parents, two hard-working immigrants raising me in the ’90s, were able to work hard. They were able to buy a house, a real house with a yard and everything. We had access to a family doctor. Bus rides were a couple of quarters apiece. And even though I attended what was considered at the time to be one of the most troubled high schools in the province, I still had access to free after-school programs, free before-school programs, free school supplies. There were sports teams. There were special classes for those who needed help catching up, and there were programs for those who needed to get ahead.

This is important, and it was important to me. Although my parents did the best that they could, like most families, they were not perfect. There were many years when life at home was not good. So I stayed away from that home for as much as possible. I hung out, out of the house, after dark, maybe far longer than I should have. I snuck out at night. I skipped classes. I was aggressive. I was argumentative. I was combative. My grades dropped significantly.

It was a public school teacher that turned it all around for me — a public school teacher that noticed that something wasn’t quite right and that I was squandering my potential. I remember her coming up to me in the halls of my high school one afternoon after school. She grabbed me by the shoulders, turned me around and said: “Bowinn” — pardon me — “what are you doing? You’re ruining your life. You need to snap out of this. You need to do this better.”

I turned my life around. Instead of hanging out after dark, I spent a lot of time at my school, in after-school programs. I put a lot more effort into my classes. I eventually graduated and went to UBC. I became an engineer, and now I’m an MLA. But what would have happened to me if my teachers had been too stressed out, too overworked, too under-resourced to be able to notice that I was struggling?

What would have happened? What happens to the people who attend schools when schools are no longer able to function as the critical component of the social safety net that they are? What happens when children are not caught before they fall? I wonder, often, what would have happened to me if I had grown up not in the ’90s but under back-to-back B.C. Liberal governments. It has been 16 long years of people being put in the back seat, 16 long years of a government that prioritized money over people, politics over solutions and short-term priorities over long-term planning.

This throne speech is about people. It turns that around. It is about prioritizing people over profits — families, workers, small business owners — and making good decisions for them. It recognizes that poverty, addiction, mental illness…. Those things do not happen in isolation. Homelessness, overpriced homes, tenuous rental situations — they are all connected, and they demand government intervention.

After people, the environment is our greatest and most important asset, and it must be defended. I believe that we need to ask ourselves what kind of future we want for our children and what kind of world we want to leave for our grandchildren. We need to ask ourselves whether we want them to have access to clean drinking water, clean air or healthy agriculture.

[4:20 p.m.]

It is absolutely right for B.C. to take serious and decisive steps to protect the environment and meet our climate change goals. That’s why I fully support the measures in this throne speech to increase carbon tax and put an end to the revenue-neutral nature of the tax, so that families can be supported and investments can be made in green initiatives that will give us a fighting chance at saving this planet.

I will be supporting this throne speech. I will be supporting this throne speech because British Columbians deserve better than what they received under the previous government. I will be supporting this throne speech because climate change, poverty, opioid overdoses, homelessness and hopelessness — these are all real issues.

I do believe that this should not be a question of whether or not we can afford to resolve them, but rather a question of whether we, as a society, can afford not to. I’m going to end my statements there.

T. Wat: I rise in the House today to give my response to the government’s throne speech. But before I start talking about my response, I would like to take a special moment to thank my parents, who are in their 90s, for always supporting me throughout the years. I feel a little bit guilty that I don’t have time to look after them. But this is the nature of the job. All of us working here have to sacrifice a lot — sacrificing our families to do this, but for such a good cause, is extremely satisfying.

I would also like to take a moment to thank all my colleagues, my very hard-working, very capable, dedicated staff: Steven Lee, Derek Choy, Nathan Kurt, Trix Chan, Tony Liu, and also my communications officer, Tracy Grimsrud, and also my research officer, Jennifer Wizinsky.

Finally, I also want to thank all my constituents, my volunteers and my riding executives and all their support for getting me re-elected for the second term, again, after I was first elected in 2013. Especially my riding chair, Chad Pederson, and my vice-president, Wayne Duzita, and also some of my executives, David Choi, Andrew Wong, and a lot of others, who have worked so hard. They believe in me. They have a great trust in me that they all sacrifice their time, and they worked so hard before and during the campaign.

Even after the campaign now, they have been reaching out to the community because we spend all our time here in Victoria, in the Legislature. They represent me to participate in all kinds of community events. For that, I’m extremely, extremely grateful.

I also would like to take a moment to talk about yesterday — our tour to Victoria’s Chinatown. I’m thankful for my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour, the MLA, who just briefly touched on our tour to Victoria’s Chinatown. I had the honour of attending the unveiling of the plaque by the Premier, a week ago, on Sunday. This is the sixth plaque that the provincial government unveiled in commemoration of the historical significance of the Chinese-Canadian contribution to our communities, to British Columbia.

When I was the Minister for Multiculturalism, between 2013 and 2017, I had the honour of being tasked with consulting the Chinese community on what the past provincial government did wrong to the Chinese community. I conducted seven consultations throughout the province and gathered the input from all the Chinese-Canadian communities. As a result, the former Premier, Christy Clark, on behalf of all the MLAs in this House across different partisan beliefs, re-apologized to the Chinese-Canadian community for what the former provincial government had done wrong to the community.

It was a shameful, dark chapter in the history of British Columbia. As a result of that apology, I was given $1 million to implement a series of legacy initiative projects to try to recognize and draw the attention of the general British Columbians about the dark chapter of our history and also about the kind of contributions Chinese Canadians make to our community.

[4:25 p.m.]

One of the projects is to recognize the historical significance of many sites throughout British Columbia on the Chinese-Canadian contribution to our community.

We have a…. Not myself. It’s the Legacy Initiatives Advisory Council, comprised of 22 advisers, together with an expert panel. They pick 15 sites throughout British Columbia, and we put aside a small amount of money for the local community to be assigned a plaque to commemorate that particular site for its historical significance.

Before the election, I personally, together with community leaders and also the Legacy Initiatives Advisory Council members, went to five places to unveil the plaques. The first one was in Kelowna. The second one was in Cumberland, on Vancouver Island. The third one was in Ashcroft, and the fourth one is in Kamloops. The last one was in Barkerville. Barkerville is a historical Chinatown. Barkerville was designated by the federal government as one of the most significant historic towns of immense historical value.

This year we celebrated the 150th anniversary of the founding of Canada. But right in Barkerville, there’s a Freemason building. Freemasonry was established four years before the founding of Canada, so we can see that Chinese-Canadians really have contributed to our country and our province — even before Canada was founded.

I’m glad that the first thing our Premier did was to take on the legacy review project that we have done so successfully in our last term. He personally went there, together with a few ministers, and unveiled the plaque. I had the honour of being there and saw many of the Chinese community leaders in Victoria and Vancouver that we have established such a good relationship with.

That’s why I convinced my colleagues…. Over 20 of our MLAs, just yesterday, arranged a tour, walking all the way from the Legislature to Chinatown together, with over 20 local Victoria community leaders from different associations. We had lunch together, a brief lunch, and then we talked about the community issues and how they appreciated what the provincial government has done for them. I just want to relay how grateful we are to the community leaders for their time to join us.

Now I’m going back to my response to the throne speech. The throne speech is intended to set the tone for each new session, outlining to the public and to us, as members, the reasons for convening the Legislative Assembly. Sadly, I found the NDP’s throne speech to be quite short and quite weak and, like the budget that followed, lacking details on projects of interest to my constituents. Indeed, the needs in Richmond are growing as fast as its population. Its transformation is ongoing. It has a great balance of rural, urban and suburban areas and a great diversity of people living in those neighbourhoods.

Because Richmond is home to Vancouver International Airport, which is Canada’s second-busiest airport, it is a big draw for travellers as well. The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic games also have showcased our great city to the world. The secret is out. People all over the world know about our beautiful scenery, state of-of-the-art attractions like the Richmond Oval, the convenient Canada Line into Vancouver and our culturally diverse and welcoming community.

It’s no surprise that more and more people are choosing to call Richmond home, permanently. At last check, more than 218,000 people now live in the city. But with growth and success come challenges as well. With more people living in Richmond, we find more pressures on some of the services they rely on.

Health care is among the chief concerns of my constituents. We are so proud of the fine work being done by staff and medical professionals at Richmond Hospital. For just over 50 years, patients from across Richmond and Delta and even travellers from YVR and the ferry system have received excellent care at the hospital. But the reality is this facility is aging and seismically unsafe. Equipment is outdated, and the hospital is in need of upgrades and improvements.

[4:30 p.m.]

The greater community recognizes these needs as well. Some tremendous fundraising efforts have been underway, led by the hard-working Richmond Hospital Foundation. In fact, we are in the midst of the foundation’s September fundraising drive, also known as the Richmond Community Cares Month. The foundation is reaching out to the community in English, Cantonese and Mandarin to raise funds in support of a new acute care tower at the hospital. The foundation’s signature fundraiser, the Starlight Gala, is coming up in October.

I know, without a doubt, that members of our Richmond community will step up to the plate to help once again, as they have done for years. But what worries me is that the community’s need is not being met with action from this government. We don’t see any mention of a new tower in this government’s….

Interjection.

T. Wat: Don’t laugh. This is something very serious. You are not building….

Interjection.

T. Wat: We passed a concept plan.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Interjection.

T. Wat: This is not a debate. Can you let me have the stand? This is not a debate with you.

Speaker, is it going to be a debate?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We passed a concept plan, and we allocated $3 million for the business plan. It’s not being mentioned in the budget at all. Shame, shame on you.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Ministers.

Through the Chair. Please continue.

T. Wat: We don’t see any mention of a new tower in this government’s throne speech, and it was missing from the budget as well. This is puzzling, since the previous Liberal government supported the development of a business plan for it and also because back in February, the member from Juan de Fuca and current Premier was publicly supporting this new tower with some of his candidates.

Again, one of those broken campaign promises. A whole bunch of…. I think it takes me two hours to just count the broken promises that this side of the House has made. It’s surprising to me and to many, many of my constituents and the people of Richmond to see it left out of the government’s vision for the future.

I should note that the new acute care tower isn’t the only NDP commitment left out of the throne speech. The promise of $10-a-day child care has now disappeared and has been replaced by the less specific universal child care. This creates uncertainty for many young families in Richmond, as parents may be unclear on their options for care and what their fees might look like. It’s hard to plan ahead when that clarity isn’t there for them.

I think parents of older children were also disappointed that we didn’t hear anything about seismic upgrades to 25 Richmond schools in need. This is despite the fact that the NDP platform…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Ministers.

T. Wat: …committed to accelerating this seismic upgrade program. But again, nothing in the throne speech or the budget on this significant issue in my community in Richmond.

The throne and budget speeches also left a lot of uncertainty around transportation issues in my community. British Columbia is a coastal province. While that affords us a number of opportunities, not to mention unmatched natural beauty, B.C.’s geographical reality also comes with some transportation challenges. This is something that the new government really focused on in this election.

They made a number of promises around ferries, a necessary part of life for many British Columbians, including people in my riding. They promised savings for British Columbians, rolling back ferry fares by 15 percent on small routes, freezing fares on major routes and re-implementing the weekday ferry discount for seniors. These promises are not a part of the government’s throne speech, nor are they a part of their budget. However, the government has assured British Columbia that these commitments are coming, but for now, British Columbians are left weak on the details.

[4:35 p.m.]

We don’t know how much the government has budgeted for these commitments. We don’t know what this is going to look like over the long term. With no plans for diversifying or growing our economy, we don’t know where the money is coming from.

Perhaps the biggest transportation concern in my community is the George Massey Tunnel replacement project, also known as B.C.’s worst bottleneck. Some 80,000 motorists get trapped in gridlock twice a day, which means missed appointments and precious time away from their loved ones.

It also poses huge problems for our first responders, because this frequent traffic congestion causes delays in getting patients to hospital in Richmond and Vancouver. Even worse, if there’s a big traffic accident in the tunnel, those emergency vehicles might not be able to get through it at all. Not only can emergency responders not do their jobs; it puts people’s lives at risk. Public safety is also at risk because the tunnel is seismically unsafe.

Why the delays in replacing this aging piece of infrastructure? It’s because the NDP says five years of planning and consultation and three rounds of public engagement aren’t enough. At least, that’s what they were telling the public before we unearthed an internal party document that told us otherwise.

The document says: “Platform Prep 2017. This is what bold looks like. We will build the Vancouver and Surrey rapid transit projects — rapid buses across the North Shore from Port Coquitlam to Maple Ridge and through Vancouver, along Hastings Street and 41st and 49th avenues. That is, we will implement the Mayors Council’s vision. We will pay for this instead of replacing the Massey Tunnel.”

It’s clear from the document that the NDP has long planned to kill the Massey Tunnel project. Not only is this a huge blow to commuters and first responders; it’s also a huge blow to our economy. Highway 99 is a key corridor for provincial and national economic development, and the bridge project would have moved goods worth $25 billion a year more efficiently. But that doesn’t seem to matter to the NDP, and it appears that jobs don’t matter to them either.

Saying no to this project is basically saying no to 9,000 construction jobs and 4,500 to 5,000 additional permanent jobs created by 2045 through increased economic growth. Those are thousands of lost opportunities for people to support their families, put food on the table and pay for their kids’ activities.

Cancelling this project and saying no to these good-paying jobs also sends a message that B.C. is closed for business. This government isn’t just saying no to this project and these jobs. It’s also taking legal action to stop the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline project, putting thousands more jobs at risk. There are 2,600 Site C workers on pins and needles as well, worrying about when their pink slips might be coming, when the minister is actually going to hand over the pink slips to them. Not to mention 10,000 potential construction jobs that are also on the line.

Put yourself in those workers’ shoes for a minute. Imagine how the uncertainty feels when you’ve got a family to take care of. We should be growing jobs in this province, not putting people out of work. But in this government’s throne speech, we don’t see much of a vision around growing our economy and creating jobs, and that’s what I found lacking in the NDP’s budget as well.

I’ve mentioned a few promises here that have not been honoured by the NDP, but I want to mention one commitment that was kept. Surprise, surprise, right? To the government’s credit, one of the promises they followed through on was ending the tolls on the Golden Ears and Port Mann bridges. This was a hallmark election promise and a big part of the government’s throne speech. But this move should be taken with caution. Members on both sides of the House know there are concerns with affordability in British Columbia, particularly on the Lower Mainland.

[4:40 p.m.]

While eliminating tolls may seem to improve affordability, at least in the short term, this action carries some serious long-term financial implications. Large-scale projects like the Golden Ears and Port Mann bridges are costed out over decades, and that is factored into our long-term plans for debt repayment. Moves like this one mean that repaying our debts will take longer, something that the new government does not seem to have put much thought into.

As elected officials, the public is trusting us to make responsible spending decisions — ones that don’t just make sense today but for generations to come. They are trusting us to make decisions within the context of an overall plan that is sustainable in the long term. We are already seeing the risks of this early move by this new government.

Moody’s Investors Service warned that removing tolls from the Golden Ears and Port Mann bridges is credit-negative, getting rid of a stream of revenue that would help repay the debt taken on to build this major infrastructure project.

Moody’s is not the only agency to warn that B.C.’s credit rating could be at risk. The Dominion Bond Rating Services also cautioned that the province’s debt burden will likely increase as a result of the new government’s spending plans and that this spending might come at the expense of paying down our deficit.

Our former government worked so hard to build up our triple-A credit rating, through growing the economy and spending carefully. This rating means we can continue to undertake large-scale projects, like building a major bridge, at the same pace as we are able to now. It means savings for British Columbians by paying less in borrowing costs.

When we talk about affordability for British Columbians, these kinds of things make a real difference. British Columbians don’t want more of their tax dollars going towards servicing our province’s debt. They want the government to manage their money responsibly, as if it was their own personal pocketbook, and to ensure that more of their money is going towards programs and services — things that make a tangible difference in their everyday lives.

As I close my remarks, I want to reflect on the great joy I experienced recently with the birth of my first grandchild. Andre, born to my daughter Tin, is the most adorable creature I have ever laid eyes on. So says every grandparent, perhaps.

He might be a baby now, years away from starting school or even thinking about a career or a family of his own. But as his grandmother, these are the things that I will worry about, along with his mother and his father. We always need to be thinking about the next generation. What legacies and opportunities will we leave to our children and our grandchildren?

This throne speech painted a pretty bleak picture about the current state of British Columbia. But the NDP has inherited the top-performing economy in Canada and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. I want to keep it that way.

I urge this government to produce more concrete details on how it will grow B.C.’s economy and create more jobs, not fewer jobs. I know all my fellow members in opposition will join me in holding this NDP government accountable, to ensure that a wide range of opportunities are available for our future leaders of tomorrow.

Statements

COMMENTS MADE IN THE HOUSE

Hon. M. Farnworth: The other day during question period, I made some comments. I did not name anybody, but they could have been interpreted as if I was saying that somebody had done something wrong. I just want it on the record that that was certainly not my intent.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Debate Continued

Hon. L. Popham: It is such a pleasure to rise in this chamber and speak. I would like to say how honoured I am to be speaking here today on the traditional territory of the Lekwungen people, including the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

[4:45 p.m.]

I’m very pleased to see that we’ve got an audience in the chamber today. Thank you for being here. It means that our democracy is alive and well — and possibly interesting to our spectators. I hope so.

I’m so grateful to be the Minister of Agriculture for British Columbia. It was eight years of being the critic that led me to this point.

We are heading into a fall session where we’ll be debating the budget. This is the throne speech that we’re talking about today, but I just wanted to mention that as we lead into budget estimates, I am very fortunate to have not one critic, as the Minister of Agriculture but three critics, as the Minister of Agriculture. I won’t say that….

Interjection.

Hon. L. Popham: They know how tough it’s going to be. But I look forward to it. I have two critics from the official opposition and one critic from the Green Party, and I look forward to the debate on the budget for Agriculture.

Agriculture has been a passion of mine for many, many years. To be in this place now makes me excited, but I also feel very humbled, because I got my training as critic over eight years by travelling through the province, from one corner to the other, every town in rural B.C., talking to farmers and ranchers and food security activists, everyone who was concerned about how climate change is affecting our food system.

We discussed ideas on how to make that better, how to make agriculture stronger and how to look at it as an economic driver in every corner of the province. I’ve always believed that agriculture could unlock prosperity in every corner of our province. I look forward to implementing a mandate that will see that happen.

Our government was elected and sworn in during an unprecedented wildfire season. This fire has consumed more than one million hectares of forest. It has forced people from their homes and their livelihoods.

Interjections.

Hon. L. Popham: There’s some chatter from the other side of the House, and I’m not sure how that could happen. All I’ve talked about is my support for and the importance of agriculture, and there’s already chatter. I’m not sure what could have gone wrong so early on, but I’ll try and impress them a little bit more as I go on here.

One thing as Agriculture Minister that I was tasked with is leading a ministry that has taken part in a lot of the wildfire situation. That’s because we’ve got farmers and ranchers throughout the Cariboo area and other areas of our province that have been heavily, heavily affected. There have been instances over these many weeks of fire season that….

Because I’ve had such a relationship with the agriculture community for the last eight years, I have personal relationships with people in almost every town. As the fires came towards them, they were texting me about the situation. It was extremely scary for them, and many of them have lost everything they own. Some of them have lost 100-year-old ranches and infrastructure that goes with those ranches. They’ve lost their livestock.

At the height of the fire season, we know that there were about 35,000 livestock running loose through these areas. That, mixed with the wildlife that was on the run from the fires, has created a terrible situation. We still have a lot of fire threat in some areas, but as the season is winding down and we are getting close to fall temperatures…. The interesting thing about the cattle industry, especially, is that these cattle also sort of follow the seasons. When fall comes, they start to head home. So ranchers have been actually quite unaware of how many of their livestock survived in these fire areas.

As the cattle are starting to turn up on their ranches and head home, they’re relieved that some of their livestock, their herds, survived, but they know that a lot didn’t. We’re going to be working very hard through the Ministry of Agriculture with the ranchers and the farmers as we are able to assess more the losses that have happened.

[4:50 p.m.]

I was very, very grateful to meet with the federal Minister of Agriculture. We were able to talk about what recovery means and what addressing the situation means from the eyes of the Agriculture ministries, both provincially and federally. What we did come up with was an amount of money in the $20 million range that we are going to be able to use in an AgriRecovery program.

As we assess the damage in these areas…. There are a variety of things that we’ve lost, including livestock. You look at the feed that these animals will be needing over the winter. A lot of the feed has burned up and has left ranches without any feed for the winter. The AgriRecovery program will look at things like that.

We have rangeland and forage areas that have been scorched so badly that some of that forage area won’t grow back without reseeding those areas. Between my ministry, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Ministry of Environment, we’re looking at reseeding appropriately to make sure that we’ve got good forage lands available for the cattle and the livestock that use them.

The interesting thing about walking through this summer, with the ranching community in such a crisis, is that you understand how deeply embedded their passion is for what they do. Their families have been in it for so long. Their livelihoods depend on it. As they watched everything burn before their eyes, they displayed such a resilient spirit alongside this tragedy.

People talk about: “Why do people farm?” It’s because they like the way of life. They like the livelihood. It’s part of their lifestyle. But when you go through a tragedy, with part of an industry like this, you realize it’s everything to them. When you look at how they have to recover….

This isn’t about getting to the end of the fire season, making sure that their cattle have enough to eat through the winter and reseeding some areas. It’s about looking at the industry and making sure that at the end of this tragedy, we allow and support the opportunities for that industry to come back and be stronger than ever.

My commitment as the Minister of Agriculture is to make sure we are walking side by side with the agricultural industry that’s been affected. We make sure that we do that. What that means is that we get the agriculture industry back up and working so that they can make a living.

There are some things that have been lost that can never be replaced. There are heritage barns. There’s equipment. There’s the livestock. There are family homes. But we are going to do our best and work with the ranchers and farmers to make sure that they’re able to continue what they love to do and what we need them to do.

The area of the Cariboo is very well known, and the Nechako area is very well known, for their cattle industry and also for producing feed for other animals in the province. When you look at the opportunities for recovery there, you have to take a look at what areas need to be re-seeded, what can be done even better, the forest practices that have taken place. Is there a way to analyze the way that we grow trees that can incorporate more rangeland more effectively?

There are a whole lot of things that we can look at. It’s time to start over, and we cannot waste the opportunity to plan and to re-establish things and to recover in a way that makes the opportunities even better, to make agriculture stronger in this province.

I’ve travelled through those areas a lot. I’ve gone on horseback rides with families through their rangeland so they can show me exactly what it means when the cattle go out into certain areas. I’ve sat at kitchen tables over and over again, when ranching families make a lunch, and we talk about issues face to face at the kitchen table.

[4:55 p.m.]

Some of the best meals I’ve had in the last eight years have been at ranchers’ and farmers’ kitchen tables, eating the food that they’ve put away for the winter. Usually, it’s a really good, hearty bowl of soup with some B.C. beef in it or some vegetables that they’ve overwintered.

Those meals have meant so much to me. The one thing about being an MLA and being on the road as a critic — you spend a lot of time on your own. In my eight years as critic, I was travelling through rural B.C., and I’d stay in a lot of motels. Often being on the road, you hit Tim Hortons a lot.

There’s nothing better than sitting down with a family at a table and enjoying a conversation and really talking about issues that matter to people and what makes a difference to people. Sorry, it’s emotional. When I got texts from those particular people that I’ve shared a meal with, in their time of crisis, it just made me feel like we have to try as hard as we can to help them recover.

I know that our government is committed to doing that, and we’re committed to doing that with the official opposition. And we’re committed to doing that with the Green Party. We have to do it together in order to recover from an emergency like this. So I look forward to the new relationships we will have across the floor as members bring their issues to me. We have a lot of members that represent rural areas. I want you to know that my door as the Minister of Agriculture will always be open to you to bring issues forward.

A lot of members who have been in government before will know that you can’t always be aware of every issue as a minister and that you depend on the information that’s brought to you. I will depend on that information from across the floor. I have a lot of hope that our agriculture industry is going to thrive after this. It’s going to take a lot of hard work to get there, but I think we can do it.

I know that in the throne speech we’ve talked about making B.C. better for everyone. The criticisms that I’ve heard from across the floor are that we have forgotten about rural B.C., but it’s not true. I can tell you that, because the mandate that I’ve been given as the Minister of Agriculture focuses heavily on rural B.C. It focuses on everywhere in the province, but it’s heavily focused on rural B.C. to add to the economic generation that can happen in the communities that have been struggling due to resources leaving their towns and just the general struggle that’s happened.

The greatest thing about the Agriculture Ministry and agriculture is that eating is not a fad. It’s not going anywhere. And the population of B.C. is growing, so we’ve got more eaters than we’ve ever had. What that means is that we can look at our rural communities as economic generators that use agriculture and food processing as a driver.

I’ve been given a mandate to look at three different things, and it’s very exciting. Our throne speech really embraces what it means to take issues that are everyday issues and make them something exciting. I can tell you that my mandate is extremely exciting.

The first part of it is called Grow B.C. Now, over the years we’ve had the agricultural land reserve in place, which is about 5 percent of our province — 5 percent of our province that was put aside for food-growing lands for the future. It was a very progressive land use tool back in the day when it was put in, over 40 years ago. This was put in place before the idea of food security was something that we all talked about. But there was a progressive mindset back then that thought we are going to have to put aside food-growing lands for the future in case we need it, in case there’s a crisis.

This land is so valuable, and if you have an agricultural disaster, any community is going to suffer. If we don’t have this 5 percent of food-growing lands put aside for food security, then we will face a crisis more than we have ever seen. This land was put aside, and it has withstood a lot of attack. There have been pressures on it, because there’s always going to be pressure for development on the lands that are in the valleys, the fertile lands.

[5:00 p.m.]

It’s an easy place to build on, and it’s an easy place to develop, so the pressures for development are always on that land. We protected it. But as my good friend Corky Evans used to say: “At that point, we protected the land, but we forgot about the farmer.” We never did really instil policies that protected farmers and supported farming. So the Grow B.C. part of my mandate does just that.

One of the biggest barriers for young farmers getting into farming now is the cost of land. We’re going to take a look at what it’s going to take to get young people onto the land to start farming. Another thing that you hear quite often is that our farmers are getting old. The average age of a farmer is, I don’t know, about 1,000 now, and young people don’t want to get into farming. But it’s absolutely the opposite message that I’ve gotten over eight years of travelling the province.

We have a new generation of people that believe in farming. They believe in food security. Maybe they want to farm a little bit differently than it’s been done in the last 20 years. It’s a new way of farming. They want to get into it, but they all tell me they can’t afford the land to get there.

Making sure that the agricultural land reserve is available, making sure that it is shored up enough and protected enough that the threat of development goes away so that the cost of farmland is actually related to the act of farming is one of the things that we’re going to be looking at. There are a lot of creative ways to do that, but you certainly can’t do it if you don’t have the agricultural land reserve there. It’s one of the most progressive land-use tools that has ever been put in place. That is a very small glimpse of what the Grow B.C. program is.

Feed B.C. is the most exciting part, because I think it’s a game changer for agriculture in this province. Feed B.C. will increase the use of B.C. foods in hospitals and government facilities. What that means is, all of a sudden, the money that we’re spending as a province on food in hospitals and long-term care…. We’re buying food already with those dollars. Well, why don’t we increase that so we’re buying more B.C. food — not just primary products, but processed B.C. food?

We open up the opportunities in rural communities to start getting into the processing market. B.C. food processing creates well-paying, long-term jobs. These are products that not only will we use in British Columbia, but if we increase the amount of food that we’re growing and processing, the opportunities for the export market also grow.

Our platform for agriculture does have a focus on the domestic market, but really, that’s the foundation of an export market. I don’t want to be critical of the previous government. I wanted to try and keep my throne speech as polite as possible. But I have to say that my disappointment as the critic over the last eight years was that there was a sole focus, I believe, on the export market. I think we missed opportunities domestically. Well, the Feed B.C. program really embraces the domestic market and, again, gives us opportunities on the export market.

Now, can you imagine, while it would be unfortunate that you had to go to the hospital, if while you were in the hospital for your stay, the food that you were being served was from British Columbia? In 100 Mile last year, during our fruit season, at the height of our fruit season in the Okanagan, the 100 Mile hospital was serving fruit cups imported from another country — during our own fruit season.

When I heard about this story, I went around and I talked to people. Patients started sending me pictures of the food that they were being served in the hospitals where they were. The public was telling me that the hospital food wasn’t adequate, and they were bringing in their own food, on top of the food that was served in the hospitals, because it just wasn’t worth eating.

[5:05 p.m.]

I went and talked to some food processors, and I said: “Would you expand your business if you had the opportunity to sell into the B.C. hospital food procurement system? What would it take for you to process B.C. product?” They said: “Having a stable market to sell into is all we need. We just need the opportunity, and we would absolutely process B.C. product.”

In particular, I went to a place in the Fraser Valley that makes fruit filling. I said: “What type of apples do you use in your fruit filling?” Well, they were currently buying them from Washington. I said, “If you were able to process applesauce for the hospital system, and we really wanted you to use B.C. apples, would you do that? How would that change your business plan?” They said: “It’s not a problem. We can totally do it. We just haven’t had a reason to do it.” So this offers the opportunity for businesses to contact our local growers, bring those products into their processing plants and use B.C. product.

B.C. processing can be done in every community. Imagine in 100 Mile. Imagine in Prince George. Imagine in Quesnel. All these places have long-term care. They have hospital systems. They have a whole system that’s based on buying food. At this point, I would say, from what I’ve learned over my travels, we are at about 10 to 12 percent of B.C. product that we buy in those systems. Some have made it up to about 20 percent, but in the majority that I’ve talked to, it’s about 10 to 12 percent.

The reason why it’s there is because of our supply management system. They buy B.C. milk because of supply management. They buy B.C. eggs, unless they’re processed eggs, and then other products that are processed outside our province. Just for argument’s sake, let’s say we’re at 10 to 15 percent. Imagine if you brought that up to 30 percent. The amount of money we’re spending on food in this province — it would be an amazing shot in the arm for our growers and processors.

It’s not a radical idea. It’s being done in other jurisdictions. It’s being done in Ontario. It’s being done down in California. When you buy local products and you process them in communities, the money that’s being made stays in those communities. It’s a multiplier effect that you really can’t ignore. Why would you? We’re not saying that it has to be 100 percent British Columbia food. We’re not saying that. We’re saying, let’s move it up. Let’s try 30 percent and see what that does.

The thing about agriculture…. I was a farmer, so I know this well. When you make a decision on how you’re going to change the way you’re growing things and what you’re going to grow, it’s like trying to steer a big cruise ship around. It’s not a fast process. The thing about agriculture is that when you get a good policy going, you’ve got to make sure it can withstand political change, because agriculture can’t withstand policy change. It cannot withstand policies that work on election cycles. Agriculture needs long-term planning and long-term policy in place that supports farmers.

Farmers are pretty resilient. We’re going to watch our farmers in the Cariboo withstand the worst crisis they’ve gone through as far as forest fires go. They’re going to come out even better on the other side. They can withstand that kind of thing, but they can’t withstand political changes that don’t make sense for agriculture for the sake of an election.

I’m hoping that the mandate we’ve put forward in the Ministry of Agriculture, the mandate that the Premier of the province has given me, is such a great idea that the official opposition can get behind it and help us get it done. There are members in rural committees. This will help your communities, but I need you to help me do it.

When we go into communities and we do assessments in health authorities about how much food is being used, join me in those meetings. Come with me. Talk to the farmers. Make sure that what we’re doing is setting up long-term secure markets for our processors and our farmers.

I think that we will have a very successful food system in this province. I think one of the problems that I’ve seen is that policies have been done by piecemeal planning. It can’t work like that.

B.C. is so lucky. We have different regions that produce different things. It’s a very unique situation. We’ve got the fruit area. We’ve got the beef area. We’ve got the green area. We’ve got Vancouver Island, that’s growing about just every type of vegetable.

[5:10 p.m.]

If you get together, look at these different regions and specialize in these areas on what you’re processing, you can trade between these regions. I bet you, by the end of these four years, we will see the increase in the amount of B.C. food that we are using in our hospital systems.

I’ll give you an example of what this means financially. Just in the Lower Mainland, we buy $50 million a year just in hospital meals. Imagine if we took a chunk out of that for B.C. processors and farmers. Imagine what that would mean to their bottom lines. B.C. has the Lower Mainland, which I always refer to as the stomach of the province. What we need to do is we need to set up our food system so that we can distribute it down to the consumers on the Lower Mainland, because they’re crying out for B.C. food.

When you go into a restaurant in Vancouver, they’re asking for B.C. beef.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Popham: Do you know where that B.C. beef comes from? It comes from that member’s riding.

Imagine if we could make sure that we get the best value out of that beef. There are other countries that are asking for our B.C. beef. Let’s make sure that we have a system that works for farmers, so they’re not walking away from this profession. They’re not entering the profession because of reasons that we can control, like farmland prices.

This last part of our exciting mandate for agriculture is called Buy B.C. Buy B.C. was a mass-marketing program that took place in the ’90s. It still is one of the most recognized marketing programs that we’ve ever seen for agriculture. We have the opportunity to expand it now, make it more modern and make sure that it works for farmers.

Again, in the last little while, we’ve seen interesting programs come from the official opposition when they were in government, but again, a bit of a piecemeal approach. We had a Buy Local program, but it was very piecemeal, and it didn’t include everybody. The Buy B.C. program will include all producers in B.C. to make sure that we’re marketing all of our products that we produce in B.C. to all of our consumers. When we’ve done that, we can go outside of our province and tell them about it too.

Buy B.C. is going to be an incredible program. I know there are people that are very excited that we’re bringing it back. The restaurant industry is excited. Farmers are excited. Retailers are excited. We are going to be figuring out those details, and I will take any suggestions on how you think that could be done better. We are very excited to make sure that we get this done right.

Now, the idea of revitalizing the agricultural land reserve is also part of my mandate. This was one of the most difficult things for me to accept in my last eight years as critic. I really wanted to make sure that if I ever became minister and we ever became government, we could fix a problem that I think was one of the worst things I have seen in this Legislature — the change of legislation. That was when the agricultural land reserve was turned into two different zones from one zone.

It was a day that I’ll never forget. I couldn’t understand how something that had been there for over 40 years could, at this point…. When food security is most important, when climate change is a huge threat, how could it be at this time that we change something that’s such an important tool for our food security and our farmers? It was split into two zones.

I am going to be taking a look at that as the Minister of Agriculture and talking to people about that. I think it should go back to one zone. Of course, we’ll do proper consultation, but since I’ve been out there talking about it as Minister of Agriculture, I have heard from people an overwhelming amount of support to bring that back to one zone.

What happened with zone 2 anyway? I’ve heard some criticism saying: “You know, maybe it worked. Farmers had a different way of making a living on zone 2.” Well, if you look at the statistics, it didn’t. I look forward to revitalizing it.

J. Rustad: It’s an honour to be able to stand and respond to the throne speech.

[5:15 p.m.]

I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture for her comments. There are some things that the Minister of Agriculture said that I’ve got to just touch on a little bit. I appreciate her passion for the agricultural industry and her willingness to work in a bipartisan way. That’s very much appreciated. There are some issues in my riding that I’ve already had a chat with the minister about that, hopefully, we can find some solutions towards.

Also on the topic of agriculture, I’ve got to boast a little bit about my riding of Nechako Lakes. I frequently enjoy getting a chance to go to farmers markets and buying local produce and really supporting the folks that are growing the agricultural products in our areas, whether that’s beef or vegetables or turkeys that I get for my Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners. It is great to see the agriculture industry in my riding.

I want to talk a little bit, as well, about the Cariboo farmers. The Agriculture Minister talked about how resilient the Cariboo farmers are, and I agree. You know what? They’re hardy. They will get through this. Some may not, but I want to share some of the experiences of the agricultural farmers in that area, from the fire season.

It’s very sad to see, when you go there and visit and see their life’s works have been destroyed by fire. In some cases, their homes were lost. In many cases, the fencing was gone. I know there’s a program in place to be able to help with the agricultural recovery, and that’s a good thing. But what the farmers actually went through during this fire season should give all of us a moment to pause to think about how we actually fight these fires.

When the evacuation order came in, many of these farmers had equipment, so they wanted to work to try to protect their farms. They needed to be able to go through and wanted to protect their homes and do what they could, so they actually did that. They stayed behind. They ignored the evacuation order and put in fire guards, made sure they had sprinkler systems in place where they could. It didn’t always work. They actually lost some buildings, but in many cases, they actually were able to save those buildings.

When you think about what they did through this, the big challenge is that no information actually got through to them. They had no idea whether the fire was going to be coming over the hill towards their homes that night or the next day or the week after. They were basically cut off. It was very, very difficult for them when they went through this, but even after the fire went through, and they were okay in their place, the roads were still cut off.

If it wasn’t for the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin and her efforts…. She actually put together a convoy of four vehicles, four trucks, loaded up with food. And the grocery store in 100 Mile House said: “No bill. No, you don’t have to worry about it. We’re donating this.” They knew she was taking it in to help feed these farmers that were isolated and didn’t have an opportunity, because if they left their farms, they wouldn’t have been allowed back.

That’s a real challenge when you know that you need to be able to fight to save your farms, and it’s a real challenge and a real shame when you think about what they went through and the trauma that they went through. So I just want to say thank you for working with the federal government and getting some help in for those farmers. I know….

Hopefully, it will be enough. There are a lot of challenges and a lot of things that are going to be going in against this. But when you think about what they had to go through as part of it, it really is something that we need to learn from in terms of how we fight our fires and how we make sure that people are safe, that people have the supplies they need and that they’re able to work, if that’s what their choice is, to try to defend their farms.

It was similar for the Tsilhqot’in and Joe Alphonse wanting to stay behind to protect his homes. Fortunately, we set up communications with him. We were able to set up, when I was still minister, a satellite phone to make sure that he was in connection and that we were able to get in and support where we could. But many others, particularly the farmers and the people in the outback, didn’t have that same opportunity. So it’s something we need to learn from, going forward.

I actually wanted to just take one little shot, and I apologize to the Minister of Agriculture. I had to chuckle at her example that she said about agriculture: you know, we grow the food in the north, and it comes down to feed the people in the Lower Mainland. There was an old cartoon that was a picture of Canada. It was the west who fed the country, and the folks in the middle were able to reap the benefits of that, and of course, the folks on the east coast got the by-products.

[5:20 p.m.]

The point to that is that a lot of people in rural B.C., in particular with the tax changes that are in place — the carbon tax and other changes — feel like they are the ones that are having to feed the beast and that all the benefits are flowing to the Lower Mainland. So thinking about that example about how that flows for the folks up in the north…. When you think about the fact that they have long distances to drive. They have industries of forestry and mining. All of that requires fuel. They’re paying the extra taxes, and they aren’t seeing the benefits that come back to them.

It’s really too bad because they’re hard-working people and they don’t mind paying their fair share of taxes, but the key there is “fair.” Now when you add in the additional amount that needs to be paid because of tolls and other components, they’re saying: “Hey, wait a second. How is this fair for the people in rural B.C.?” Just something to think about as you’re going forward and you’re looking, going through. But it’s one of the reasons why, of course, I won’t be supporting the throne speech.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

One other thing that came out of the throne speech, of course, were the commitments around budget and taxation increases. I found it very, very interesting that when you look at the actual budget document, there’s a line in there for the tax increase for those earning over $150,000. You know what? That was a temporary tax increase that we put in. They’ve now made it permanent in terms of that. But what I found most interesting in that tax increase is that it actually schedules to drop in revenue. In other words, the budget itself actually has, baked into it, job loss in those categories.

I’m not quite sure if that’s the goal of the members opposite, but it seems to be. It’s in their budget. It’s in things that they’re doing. They’re cancelling projects. They’re saying no to things or creating uncertainty for things like Site C. That is not what a government should be doing. A government needs to be able to support families. They need to be able to support job creation. And they need to be able to make sure that our province can continue to produce the kind of prosperity that led to the $2.7 billion surplus that we handed over to this government.

When you think about that uncertainty…. I want to just touch on Site C, and I see my time is running low. Site C is needed for the future. I don’t care what anybody wants to say for the political side. Let’s just face some straight, pure math. People in the Lower Mainland and people right around the world are interested in moving to electric cars. They want to not have an internal combustion engine. I get that. It doesn’t work, necessarily, for rural B.C., but it works in urban environments. So if that’s what people want to do, maybe we need to find a way to do that.

If you do the math…. If just one-third of the passenger vehicles in British Columbia were to switch over to being electric cars, that would consume the entire production of Site C. And that’s just one-third of the vehicles. We need this type of large-scale power project for the province of British Columbia.

Now, the members opposite are playing a nice little game. They’re talking about: “We’re putting it to BCUC for a review.” BCUC has to hire the same experts to do the full review that we hired when the reviews were done. They don’t have the full depth and skills that they need to be able to do that kind of review. They don’t have the budget for doing that. So they would have to actually hire the same people that we hired to repeat the same review, if you wanted to do a full review. So this notion of putting it to BCUC is simply just a political sham. That’s all it is. It will actually have no real benefit.

As a matter of fact, in the report that was put out just the other night, an analysis was done by the ICBA. They concluded here: “There is absolutely nothing in the BCUC report that would lead anyone to conclude that construction of Site C should not continue.” There’s nothing in that report that was produced to say we shouldn’t go ahead with Site C. And yet, we continue with the uncertainty.

Today, even in question period, it was brought up — the fact that for whatever reason, this government’s direction has decided they don’t even want people to be able to go in and see the project. I mean, I don’t know why.

Take pride in what is the largest capital infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. It’s a great project that is needed for the future of this province, to be able to meet greenhouse gas emissions, to be able to meet the desires of people to want to get off of internal combustion engines. All of this is what Site C can do for the future. It has that kind of potential — not to mention, of course, the thousands and thousands of jobs that are created from this project to support an area that, quite frankly, is struggling with low commodity prices. Those areas are needed. But it’s not just those areas.

[5:25 p.m.]

Right across this province, there are people who are out there working on Site C, who live in various areas of the province and who are looking forward to continuing with this project, continuing through to completion, which, according to the report, is under budget and ahead of schedule. What do you know? Under budget and ahead of schedule.

I’m really hoping that this delay that the NDP are causing with this is not going to change that, because these are taxpayers’ dollars, and we need to be able to respect taxpayers. To that end, one of the things that I did first when I was first elected in 2005 was put up a little poster in my office, a plaque mounted in my office, to remind me every time I’m in there to think like a taxpayer.

We need to be able to respect the fact that people work hard to provide for their families. They work hard to make a living, to build their future for their children and for their grandchildren.

Those are taxpayers. Yes, they contribute, and they know they need to because they need services. But they want the value of what they contribute to be respected. That’s why I have that poster up there, to remind me every day that I’m in my office that you need to be able to respect taxpayers and the will of the taxpayers.

On that note, knowing that we’re wrapping up here, I’d like to reserve my right to continue and move adjournment of the debate.

J. Rustad moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Please remain in your seats.

[5:30 p.m. - 5:35 p.m.]

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor requested to attend the House, was admitted to the chamber and took her seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Supply Act (No. 2), 2017

In Her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the House, at its rising, stand adjourned until 10 a.m., October 2, which is a Monday.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday morning, 10 a.m., October 2.

The House adjourned at 5:40 p.m.