Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

LUWANA DAOUST

N. Simons: Today is a special day, obviously, for all of us. We are all heading home, and that’s a good thing. It’s a special day, in particular, for someone who we see on a daily basis in the dining room. That’s Luwana, who we’ve known over the years as a welcoming face in the dining room and someone who’s been an important part of our lives. Today is a day that will be her last day in the dining room. She’s also going home to Hawaii, where her family is.

As they say, and she says, when a door opens, another bigger door opens, and that’s a good thing for her. I just want to say, on behalf of everybody in this chamber and everyone who’s had the opportunity to meet her, thank you, Luwana, for your service to us in the House and all the guests who’ve come through the door. We’ll miss you a lot.

Statements

MOVEMBER FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN

N. Letnick: It gives me great privilege to stand up today and remind everybody that today is the day we get to reintroduce our upper lips to our wives, children and grandchildren. Today is the end of Movember. On behalf of men everywhere, and everyone that participated in this campaign, I’d like to thank them all and remind them they have until the end of today to contribute and to help raise awareness for prostate cancer and men’s health in general.

Could the House please contribute and say thank you to all the men and others who helped make Movember as successful as it was.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Popham: I noticed that I’ve got someone very special in the chamber today. She is my administrative assistant. Her name is Justine Wendland. She’s visiting us for the first time. She’s joined by my ministerial assistant, Jessica Smith.

I’d just like to thank my whole team, who made this session so delightful. Jessica, Greg, Will, Lisa and Justine, thanks for everything you’ve done for me.

Tributes

PAUL SMALE

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise with some sadness to inform the House that a former constituency assistant of mine named Paul Smale passed away the other day. He only worked with me for a short time but made an incredible impression on constituents. He was bright, friendly, funny and had a really positive spirit. His most important desire, at least that I could see, was to ensure that those who were marginalized, those who had been forgotten and those who’d been ignored were listened to and found a friendly face in my office, somebody who would make them feel welcome, that they mattered and that they were worth his time and, indeed, worth the time of us all.

[10:10 a.m.]

I want to thank his partner, Tom Coleman, for sharing him with us and, really, just to thank his friends and family for providing him with the support he needed so that he could give his all to my constituents in Vancouver–West End, Coal Harbour. Paul was a remarkable guy. I’m sorry that I didn’t get to know him better in the short time that he was with my office. He will really be missed in my community.

LAURIE GOURLAY

D. Routley: I would like the members to allow me indulgence as I remember my constituency assistant. I promised myself to start this optimistically, and I was in tears before starting. So here we are.

Laurie William Gourlay was born in Hamilton, Scotland, October 23, 1953. Laurie died on November 14, 2017, in the arms of his sweetheart — who’s watching, his 41-year wife, Jackie Moad — and in the company of their six Lassie collies. As we all know, our constituency assistants become our friends — so Laurie is much more my friend — and also our partners in what we do.

Laurie was a person who was so dedicated to the environment, like no one I had ever met, and would pour every ounce of his soul into every organization that he was a part of beginning — the Georgia Strait Alliance and the recycling programs of B.C. This is a person who had dedicated himself to our planet and everyone on it, all living things, in the most optimistic way. Laurie was a “doot-de-doodly-doo” kind of guy. He was a hippie, and his long grey locks to the very end reminded us all of his lifelong commitment to these efforts.

More importantly, Laurie was a person who didn’t divide. He was forgiving of people who hadn’t reached the plateau of awareness that he had. He was always helpful, and everything he did was meant to uplift people. I think that’s what everyone who knows him will remember the most.

Jackie, we love you. Laurie, we love you.

Thank you, Members.

ANGELA LARSEN

L. Reid: I would like the House to join with me this morning in wishing the fondest of farewells for someone who worked in this place for more than 40 years. I speak of Angela Larsen. She, indeed, was the fiercest protector of the Office of the Speaker. She taught many a new member the ropes in this place.

For 40 years of dedication, I’d ask the House to please join me in wishing her the best retirement ever.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Trevena: I would like to introduce somebody who is new to working at the Legislature, a new public servant who is working in my office. Lindsey Jackson is my administrative coordinator. She’s been in my office for about five weeks, has made our team work extraordinarily smoothly and has shown her skills, working in the non-partisan way that all public servants do, along with my administrative assistant, Jacqueline Chapotelle. Lindsey is going to be observing question period in person for the first time today, and I hope the House will make her very welcome.

A. Olsen: It is with sadness that we will bid farewell to the member for Peace River North’s moustache. He has been promising us down at this end that it’s going to be going.

I would like to make an introduction. Emma Coles is a teacher at ḰELSET Elementary School. She was my son Silas’s grade 2 teacher. She’ll be here with 24 grade 5 students, including a young gentleman that I coached in soccer, Ryan Sylvester. They’re not in the House yet, but would the House make them feel welcome in anticipation of their arrival.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two very special people in the gallery today. They are Jillian Oliver, the press secretary for our caucus, and Stefan Jonsson, the B.C. Green press secretary. We couldn’t do what we do without their amazing help. We thank them, and I wish the House to make them feel very welcome.

[10:15 a.m.]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SILVER STAR SKI RESORT

E. Foster: It gives me pleasure today to rise and speak about the ski industry, which has a huge impact on B.C.’s economy and, particularly, Vernon.

Silver Star Ski Resort is a cornerstone of winter tourism in Vernon. They hire close to 700 staff at the peak — 150 full-time, 120 returning — and the balance are seasonal. The company’s payroll is close to $11 million annually, and much of that is spent in the local economy, as it is earned there. The company also spends far more than that on goods and services, again, most of which is supplied locally. Silver Star has invested over $65 million in infrastructure, lifts, buildings and developments in the past 15 years.

The Silver Star official community plan and the Silver Star resort master plan update of 2015 recognized the Silver Star resort community as an emerging year-round destination. Currently about 70 percent of the visits are regional, and 30 percent are destination. Provincially, 75 percent are from B.C., 10 percent from Alberta and 11 percent from Ontario.

It has been estimated that the overall Silver Star resort community, which also includes the ski hill and the lift operators, is an important part of the regional economy by employing more than 1,500 people, attracting annually in excess of 5,000 visitor days, with an estimated $50 million in visitor spending annually.

There are over 30 ski hills of various sizes around the province, not including heli-ski and cat ski resorts. If you use Silver Star’s impact on the local economy as a multiplier, it’s easy to see the industry’s value to the province. So with the snow starting to fall and the lifts opening, I, along with most members of the House, wish my friends at Silver Star and all the ski hills in the province a very successful year.

NANJING MASSACRE

R. Kahlon: On December 13, people across the world will pay tribute to the lives of more than 200,000 Chinese victims in the city of Nanjing. In late 1937, during the second Sino-Japanese war, hundreds of thousands of people, including both soldiers and civilians, were killed. The horrific events are known as the Nanjing Massacre, and many reports documented that 20,000 to 80,000 women were sexually assaulted.

As Canadians, we are well informed of many historic and current events happening around the world where women and children are often the first casualties of war and armed conflicts. Here is a story of a survivor:

“My name is Chen Jiashou. When the armies invaded Nanjing in 1937, I was only 19 years old. I was taken by some nearby soldiers and brought to a pond adjacent to Shanghai Road. Soldiers hustled several lines of about 200 Chinese troops toward the edge of the pond. I was terribly frightened. Thus, the instant the soldiers opened fire on us all, I immediately fell towards the ground, faking my death. Struck by flying bullets, my Chinese comrades all piled on top of my body. Right up until it got dark and the soldiers had all left, I lay underneath the dead bodies, not daring to move. I waited till dark when the soldiers left. It was thus how I became a fortunate survivor of the Nanjing Massacre.”

Canadian-Japanese writer Joy Kogawa wrote in the Toronto Star: “Large-scale acts of violence in history need to be widely known and studied so that they are not repeated. Whereas the Holocaust in Europe is taught and remembered, the same cannot be said for wide-scale atrocities in Asia’s history.”

This December 13 will be the 80th anniversary of the horrific events. Commemorative events will be held across the country and the world, and I urge members of this House to attend events in their communities.

FORT NELSON COMMUNITY
LITERACY SOCIETY

D. Davies: I rise today in this House to talk about the Fort Nelson Community Literacy Society, which has been providing advocacy services for several years in this small northern community. They are a non-profit charitable organization that is governed by a group of volunteers.

As a learning centre, they help community members in the form of tutoring and learning support. Community education is a focus and raising literacy, a priority. They provide tutoring programs for all ages, community classes, workshops, special learning events and drop-in services for those needing extra help. Many forms and documents require learners to use computers, and with low computer literacy rates, especially among the aging population, this is can be a huge barrier in this community.

[10:20 a.m.]

As you can imagine, and in a smaller community like Fort Nelson, organizations like the literacy society are very important. In the hard economic times that Fort Nelson is facing right now, this organization plays an even more important role. Helping community members fill out forms like employment insurance, social assistance, compassionate care, disability, and so on, is very important for all the residents in Fort Nelson.

The Fort Nelson Literacy Society has become a social service agency in order to fill in gaps in Fort Nelson. They’re doing important work around basic literacy, as well as that of social workers and of Service Canada, which is lacking in that community. If they did not fill this gap, community members would be without this support.

Fort Nelson is in a very vulnerable time. Community members are struggling. Some live in poverty. Without the corporate donations that this society once received, Fort Nelson Literacy has faced cutbacks at a very crucial time. But knowing Fort Nelson and the resilience of that community and its people, the Fort Nelson Literacy Society, I’m sure, will continue to provide this very important service to its community.

I’d like to say a big thank-you to Seanah Roper and all of her staff and volunteers at the Fort Nelson Literacy Society for their tireless efforts.

INTERNET AND ROLE OF NET NEUTRALITY

B. Ma: The struggle to keep the Internet free and open rages on. Originally developed in the public sector for decades and now operated by private corporations, the Internet has become an absolutely critical part of our jobs, our economy, our social structures — indeed, our lives as we know them.

But the Internet is more than work emails, Netflix, Facebook and a seemingly endless source of cute cat photos. It is also, at its core, a medium through which free speech is expressed in all of its forms. It’s how we take in and share information. It’s how we learn, communicate and seek out truths and fake news alike. It’s also how citizens organize and mobilize for a variety of issues and campaigns and a place where voices that are underrepresented in traditional media can be heard.

A key principle of the free and open Internet is a concept called Net neutrality, which prevents Internet service providers from throttling access speeds for certain sites and boosting them for others, based on the highest bidder, in order to encourage people to access some sites over others. Without Net neutrality, it is perceivable that Internet service providers could refuse to provide access to certain sites entirely, unless that site could afford to pay them. They could also limit your access to certain sites based on the website bundle you’ve purchased, like with your cable TV.

There are many powerful people who stand to benefit from the erosion of Net neutrality, tilting the playing field so that the Internet only works for the people at the top. There have also been the herculean efforts of Net neutrality activists all over the world, including right here in B.C., who have been fighting for the free and open Internet to be maintained. To those people, I am very, very grateful.

GRATITUDE IN ROLE AS MLA

S. Furstenau: The holiday season is nearly upon us, and there are many traditions celebrated at this time of year. One thing that connects all of these traditions is gratitude. I’d like to reflect, as we end our session here, on things I am grateful for.

I’m grateful to the staff here at the Legislature, including the Sergeants-at-Arms, maintenance staff, cleaning staff, restaurant staff, the Clerk’s office for helping us navigate parliamentary procedure, the librarians for responding so quickly to reference questions and the chamber staff who tend to us while this House is sitting. These dedicated individuals make this old stone building feel like a warm and welcoming place to be.

I’m grateful to the exceptional staff and volunteers in our legislative and constituency offices, who’ve provided me with everything I need to feel empowered and successful in this very serious responsibility of being an MLA. I’m grateful for the relationships I’ve developed with many members of the House, in government and opposition, these last few months and for the hard-working ministerial and government staff, who have helped me be effective in my work.

I’m grateful to the press for the work they do to communicate to the public what is happening with their government. I’m grateful for how much I’ve learned from people who’ve reached out to me from various organizations and advocacy groups. These past six months have been akin to a high-intensity university program, which, given how much I liked university, is pretty much a dream come true.

I’m grateful for my community in the Cowichan Valley — to community groups, local governments and countless volunteers who keep our social programs working, often without the resources necessary to meet their needs.

Finally, I’m grateful for my family. My amazing and supportive husband, Blaise, has held down the fort while I’m here, and my children are looking forward to their mom being home more often. I’m sure everyone in this House understands when I say I’m looking forward to curling up on the sofa with my kids for a good, long cuddle.

[10:25 a.m.]

Let us all recognize what a gift and a blessing this role is. We have a serious responsibility but also an extraordinary opportunity to make a positive difference.

DAYS OF ACTIVISM CAMPAIGN
AGAINST GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

R. Singh: November and December are important months for raising awareness of gender-based violence in Canada and around the world. Since 1991, thousands of organizations have recognized 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence and used these days to campaign for global change.

From the 25th of November, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, to the 10th of December, Human Rights Day, it also includes the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women on December 6. A day we can never forget, December 6 marks the anniversary of the 1989 Montreal massacre at École Polytechnique, where 14 students and staff were killed just because they were women.

The campaign promoting 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence is a time to galvanize action to end violence against women and girls around the world. Statistics show that women and girls continue to be more at risk of experiencing many forms of violence than men and boys. An estimated one in three women will experience some form of sexual violence, harassment or intimidation in her lifetime.

Gender-based violence does not just touch the lives of women. It has the capacity to severely affect us all. It destroys families, weakens the fabric of society and takes a heavy toll on our communities and our economy.

During the 16 days of activism, we encourage everyone to become an ally in the elimination of gender-based violence by listening to others, believing survivors, speaking up against gender-based violence, safely intervening when witnessing acts of violence and taking action so we can make our communities safer.

Oral Questions

B.C. NDP GOVERNMENT ACTION
ON CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS

R. Coleman: This is a government of reviews, avoiding decisions and broken promises — from housing to transportation to hydro rates and taxpayer-funded political parties.

The Premier has found it very difficult to keep his promises. When he was asked about his broken promise on taxpayer-subsidized political parties, he had this to say: “I would call it an amended promise.” I don’t know when the promise was made during the election that said, “I have the right to amend all my promises in the future and break them through an amendment,” but that’s what’s going on.

You make a commitment, then you break it, and then you call it amended. Can the Premier tell this House why he decided to break — oh, I mean amend — his promise and award millions of taxpayers’ dollars to political parties?

Hon. J. Horgan: I just want to comment on the member from Langley’s moustache. I’ll be sad to see it go, as will I be sad to see the one on the member beside him go at the end of November — not going to happen.

It is the last day of question period, as you know, and I’m delighted to stand and respond to the member’s question. He asked about the commitments and promises that this side of the House made during the election campaign.

I’m very, very pleased to say that on the question of reducing MSP premiums by half, we’ve delivered on that. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to say that when it comes to increasing disability rates and income assistance rates for the first time in a decade, we’ve delivered on that promise. I’m very, very pleased to say that we’ve reinvested in public education, and thousands of teachers have been hired so that we’ve got class size and class composition rules and regulations that make it easier to learn and easier to teach.

Although we only have half an hour and I have a very long list, I’ll leave the member another opportunity to ask a question.

[10:30 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

R. Coleman: For the reduction of MSP premiums you’re doing on January 1, which we were doing anyway, you’re welcome, Premier.

Unfortunately for British Columbians, the NDP and the Premier are fine with amending, bending and, in actual fact, breaking his promises. Here’s what he said when he was asked about giving British Columbians a choice of a yes-or-no question on a referendum on electoral reform. His answer was: “Yeah, exactly.” What the media probably didn’t hear — “but I have the right to amend it later if I want to” — sounds pretty clear to me.

We’re finding that the Premier is fine with amending his promises and not actually keeping them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

R. Coleman: Surely the Premier realizes that he has said one thing and done another again. Can the Premier tell British Columbians why he chose to break his promise — oh, amend his promise — on a matter that is so important that it seeks to change the way elections are held in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his question about how we elect representatives to this place.

Of course, we’re very, very proud on this side of the House that one of the first bills that we put in this House was banning big money and getting union and corporate donations out of B.C. politics. I’m also very pleased that we committed to electoral reform. There is a bill before the House today that will be passed, I’m confident, by the end the day that will allow the citizens of British Columbia to vote on a new way of electing representatives in this great institution. I’m excited about that. We’re excited about that.

I’m hopeful, based on the comments from many of the members about electoral reform…. The member for False Creek said it was high time. The member for Kamloops–South Thompson said that he was committed to enabling a third referendum. I know he’ll be voting in favour of our bill today. The member for Richmond-Steveston: “The discussion around electoral reform is a key facet of our democracy, and renewing a healthy debate of our system is important.” I know he agrees with me. I know he agrees with my colleagues and will be supporting our bill at the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.

R. Coleman: British Columbians deserve a Premier and a government who take responsibility for the promises they make and follow through on them in the way they’ve done them.

He and his Green partners have broken the promise — oh, I mean amended the promise — on taxpayer-funded political parties. He’s broken his promise — or, I’m sorry, amended the promise — for a simple referendum for electoral reform, which was going to be a yes-or-no question. He’s broken his promises — I mean amended his housing promises — on housing, which have evaporated in some amended aspirational goal, which means it will never happen. He’s cancelled the Massey Tunnel replacement project. He’s still dragging out the Site C decision until Christmas, which could affect 3,000 people working in the site.

My question to the Premier. How can British Columbians have any faith in this Premier when he clearly breaks — I mean amends — his promise on a whim, politically, rather than delivering to the people of British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m pleased that the member, who has a good depth of knowledge on housing files, raised the housing issue. We have already, in 16 weeks, invested in 1,700 new affordable housing units as well as 2,000 modular units.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the response, please.

Hon. J. Horgan: The member who asked the question will also know that there used to be a big loophole about fixed-term leases. He said year after year after year that he was going to get to it, but it was complicated. It didn’t take us very long. We closed that loophole.

While I have the floor — and I appreciate I only have half an hour — I want to pay tribute to the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition. This will be his last day as Leader of the Opposition, as the opposite party selects a new leader.

[10:35 a.m.]

Twenty-one-and-a-half years — he corrected me — of service to this institution. We have disagreed almost every day of our time together, but I do hold the member in very high regard. He knows that. I’m grateful for the work that he did to step up and assist the opposition in what was a difficult transition for them. He has, in his own way, made it a little bit more difficult for me — but not today. [Applause]

REBATE FOR RESIDENTIAL TENANTS

S. Sullivan: The government has made very specific promises on housing. For example, for the great majority of British Columbians who are struggling with housing, they are being offered temporary modular portables.

It’s made some other specific promises. Since then, we’ve heard the Premier say things are “not as easy to do as we had first hoped” and now refers to housing promises as aspirational. The budget came and went without a word on a renters rebate.

My question to the Minister of Housing. Can she explain why the promise of a renters rebate appears to have been amended?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m always pleased to get up in this House and talk about housing. For far too long, people have been neglected. We have incredible challenges around this province around housing affordability, and I am so proud of the fact that our government acted so quickly, early in our mandate. We made sure that there are 2,000 modular units that are available to those who are sitting in cold, wet conditions. We have started to deliver on those, and 900 places have been identified in very short order. The sites for 900 homes have already been identified. That’s moving quickly. That’s what it means to have a government that cares.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–False Creek on a supplemental.

S. Sullivan: I thank the minister, but I would remind her that the great majority of British Columbians do not consider temporary portable housing as their housing future. I’d ask…. The renters had hoped that a rebate would be delivered. My hon. friend the leader of the Green Party has said he’s opposed. He says the renters rebate is dead, and he also said that the promises are irrelevant. In the budget, there was no money committed, no timeline set. Renters are just left to wonder what happened.

Again to the minister, will she make a clear commitment to the renters rebate, or is the leader of the Green Party correct?

Hon. S. Robinson: There are a million and a half renters in this province who are thrilled that we fixed the loophole in the fixed-term residency legislation. They have been waiting because the members opposite said it was so complicated. We did it in our very first time here in this House.

We also increased funding, $7 million of funding, to the residential tenancy branch, which had been poorly underfunded by the previous government — long waits to get heard. We took care of that. We’re making sure that renters in our province have the opportunities to have secure rental, secure homes going forward.

DEEP-WELL ROYALTY PROGRAM

A. Weaver: I must say it’s a bit rich. It’s a bit rich to listen to members opposite, the Leader of the Official Opposition, stand up and talk about failed promises when I sat and listened for four years to the promise of unicorns in all of our backyards from LNG. On that topic, every year, the B.C. government…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

A. Weaver: …doles out hundreds of millions of dollars to oil and gas companies to subsidize horizontal drilling in the northeast of our province. The companies earn these credits by drilling qualified wells, and when the wells start to produce gas, the companies apply the credits to reduce or even eliminate provincial royalties that they would normally pay on this public resource.

[10:40 a.m.]

In recent years, the participating companies have amassed credits faster than they can spend them. The balance in their deep-drilling account has increased from $752 million in 2012 to an accumulated $3.2 billion today. Not only are we not getting paid for this public resource; we are literally paying companies to take it from us.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. How can the minister justify continuing the deep-well royalty program when it is not needed by gas companies and it is such a staggering waste of taxpayer money?

Hon. M. Mungall: Thank you to the member for the question on what is a very important issue.

Let me start by saying that British Columbians want this government to ensure that projects are providing good family-supporting jobs, but they also want to make sure that projects are meeting high environmental standards — absolutely. They want to make sure that British Columbians are also getting a fair rate of return. Last year the province received $145 million in royalty revenue from natural gas development. This money, obviously, goes to help support the services that British Columbians rely on every day.

We also want to ensure that, as I said, we’re meeting the highest standard of environmental protection. That’s why this government has announced that it will be moving forward with a hydraulic fracturing scientific review panel. That panel is going to be getting started in the new year, and we’ll have more details following in January.

Most importantly, this government is committed to ensuring that all British Columbians benefit from safe and sustainable development in this province, and that’s what we’re going to be doing.

Mr. Speaker: The leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: It was so boisterous I couldn’t hear you acknowledging my standing here.

The deep-well royalty credit program was designed to enable the provincial government to share the costs of drilling in B.C.’s deep gas basins when it was a so-called risk-based industry. It’s not anymore. Horizontal fracturing is no longer a new technology. It’s become an industry norm.

In 2009 and again in 2014, the B.C. Liberals relaxed the requirements for deep-well credits so they could pay companies more money to drill. In the eight years prior to the 2009 changes, B.C. collected an average of $1.3 billion per year in natural gas royalties. In the eight years since, B.C. collected an average of $307 million per year. Last year — the minister told us — we collected a mere $145 million.

Measured as a share of the value of oil and gas production in B.C., royalties collected by government…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: …have fallen from 44 percent in 2008 to just 4 percent last year. Our government is literally giving away our natural resource and paying oil and gas companies to extract it.

My question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is this: how can your government continue with this giveaway when there is such an urgent need in our society to transition to a low-carbon economy?

Hon. M. Mungall: To speak to this particular program, I just want to make sure that the member knows that many of the credits that he speaks of will actually likely never be used as older wells are closed. Just as an example, one well earned a million dollars’ worth of credits, but it’s been shut for ten years. It’s not going to reopen, so it will not actually be realizing those credits.

There are quite a few other examples exactly like this. I would be happy to set up a briefing for the member so that he could get to the full details of this issue, which I’m very glad that he’s quite concerned about. Question period doesn’t allow the time to go over all the details.

Again, I will say that this government is committed to ensuring that British Columbians get a fair rate of return for their resources, that they have good family-supporting jobs and that we are protecting our environment.

[10:45 a.m.]

GOVERNMENT PLAN FOR CHILD CARE

L. Throness: Last summer the NDP platform promised a rainbow-and-unicorns child care system — full-day care for $10, part-time for $7, no fee at all for families under $40,000 and a pony for every child. The platform went on to promise $175 million more for child care in this fiscal year. But in the end, there was nothing, not even a baby step on the way to better child care.

How can the minister finish delivering on her promises if she can’t even keep her word to start?

Hon. K. Chen: Thanks so much to the opposition member for raising a question about child care. I’m so happy to have the opportunity to share the work that our government has been doing to bring quality, affordable and accessible child care to B.C. families.

Since we have become government, in mid-July, we have been working hard, working hand in hand with providers, educators, parents and making sure that we are working on the implementation plan to build a system that can benefit all families in B.C., who have been waiting for years, under the members’ opposite side of the government — for 16 years — for the services that they deserve.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, if we may hear the response.

Hon. K. Chen: The members opposite had 16 years and failed B.C. families.

People are so happy to finally see a government that is working with them — that is listening to families in B.C. to put together a system that can potentially bring significant changes to all families.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Chen: There are so many things we have to do. We need to make sure the first steps we’re taking are the right steps that will lead us to a universal child care system.

Mr. Speaker: Chilliwack-Kent on a supplemental.

L. Throness: Well, we created 25,000 child care spaces. We started all-day kindergarten. We did StrongStart and the early-years strategy. We are proud of our record on this side.

Now, a couple of weeks ago the Premier met with the Prime Minister, and here’s what he said: “If we’re going to deliver on our commitments to child care, we’re going to need a willing partner at the federal level.” Well, that’s a big if. I’ve been through the NDP platform. There were no ifs, ands or buts about child care. They were going to deliver on their promise….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the question.

L. Throness: Will the minister admit that the government already overspent, the cupboard is bare, there’s nothing for the kids and she can’t deliver $10-a-day care without a federal bailout?

Hon. K. Chen: I really want to take this opportunity to thank a lot of advocates, parents, providers and ECE workers who have been working so hard to make sure child care is an issue that is front and centre. It’s because of them and because of so many people who have been advocating for families in B.C. It’s great, and it’s very interesting to see that members opposite are now growing a strong interest in investing in child care.

As I mentioned earlier, we really need to put together a lot of work to fix the system, the current system, which has not been working for a lot of families. There are so many things that we have to look into, including: how do we accelerate the creation of child care spaces? How do we support the workers, the ECE workers, who have been working with low wages and providing the important services to our youngest citizens?

[10:50 a.m.]

How do we make sure that we address the diverse needs of our B.C. communities? How about child care for First Nations communities and families? How about supported child care for families with special needs children? There’s so much work we have to do. During the past 16 years, life was getting so unaffordable for families in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. K. Chen: We are committed to making life better for B.C. families.

REVIEW OF RIDE-SHARING
AND TAXI INDUSTRIES

M. Polak: After what happened in question period yesterday, I thought I would give the Minister of Transportation a fairly direct question. In this case, it’s about the ride-hailing review, which has delayed the amended promise of the opposition to deliver ride-hailing by the end of the year. I have the terms of reference for the consultant, and it references a progress report due November 29, yesterday. I would ask the minister: has she received the report, and will she be releasing it publicly?

Hon. C. Trevena: I’ve got to say that the political games being played by that side of the House about ride-sharing are quite astounding. After our government bringing forward consultation initially, which that side of the House had initially said that they agreed with…. When we brought in consultation with the taxi industry on ride-hailing, they criticized it. Now they say we’re locking out the taxi industry — that we need to do everything.

We are moving forward with a thoughtful review. That scope, as everybody in this province is aware, has been broadened to include taxi, to include ride-share, to include broad discussion and to include, also, a committee of this House to examine this. We are doing this prudently, we are doing this thoughtfully, and we are going to be producing a ride-share system that works for everybody in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Langley on a supplemental.

M. Polak: Where to begin? I thought I was giving the minister a fairly straightforward question to which she could provide a fairly straightforward answer. I can only conclude from the answer she’s given that not only has the ride-hailing promise been amended by a delay, but in fact, now the report has been delayed. So we have….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

M. Polak: We have $165,000 of taxpayers’ money that was spent to hire a consultant to create yet more delays around ride-hailing. And now we are left to conclude that not only is ride-hailing being delayed, but the report is delayed. Either that, or the minister hasn’t read it. That wouldn’t be new. She hadn’t read the previous report. With something so critical, as the minister says….

Interjection.

M. Polak: Did I hear 16 years again? Oh.

When the minister can’t answer a question like that without going into the usual key messaging, I have to be concerned about the future of this amended promise of the NDP. When are they going to get on with it and stop with all of the delays and bring in ride-hailing?

Hon. C. Trevena: If this was so critical, as the member opposite suggests, why did that side of the House do nothing for five years, since ride-sharing was brought in?

If it was so critical, why did that clone speech, when they were very briefly government back in June…? They may have a slight memory of it. Why did the speech that the whole of the opposition voted for say: “Your government has heard the message that legitimate implementation concerns remain. Any proposed legislation will be referred to an all-party committee for extensive consultation…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Trevena: …with the public and stakeholders, in particular regarding boundaries”?

We are acting on this. We are doing a thoughtful approach. We are having an all-party committee. We are having a consultation that includes taxi and ride-share. That side of the House has absolutely no right to be questioning what’s been happening when they wasted five years of time to deal with ride-sharing.

[10:55 a.m.]

ALBERT GIESBRECHT
RELEASE AND BAIL CONDITIONS

J. Rustad: Albert Giesbrecht has been charged with first-degree murder. He is being released on bail with 22 conditions. This is certainly concerning for the family of the victims but also for everybody in the entire area. Albert Giesbrecht targeted five people, of whom four are still living in the Burns Lake area. How this judge can make a decision like this is beyond me. However, my constituents are rightfully anxious that this individual will be permitted back into the community.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Can he tell my constituents what precautionary steps his government has taken to ensure that people of the Burns Lake and surrounding area will be protected?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank the member for that question. I, too — in fact, all of us on this side of the House — share those concerns about this particular case. I can inform the member of a number of things. Crown is looking at avenues to appeal on both the conditions and the release. That is currently underway.

I can also tell the member that he is correct around the 22 conditions that currently have been put in place around the release of this individual. I could go through the full 22, but what I will say is that some of the key ones, for example, are that he will be confined to house arrest 24-7 and that there can be no departure from the residence except for court-appointed escorts or legal appointments in an ambulance or medical emergency. He is to have no access to Internet or cell phone. There is to be no possession of firearms, prohibited weapons, drugs or alcohol. And not to occupy any vehicle without court-appointed escorts.

These are some of the conditions that are in place. It is our expectation that the monitoring will take place, working with…. Both Corrections and the RCMP are aware, and it is our expectation that any deviation from any of those court conditions will result in that individual being picked up immediately and put in a safe, secure place where, I think, all of us feel he belongs.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Merit Performance Audit 2016-17 of the Office of the Merit Commissioner.

A. Olsen: I rise to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: The class that I formerly introduced is now here. Welcome to Emma Coles’s grade 4-5 split class from ḰELSET.