Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the estimates of debate for the Ministry of the Attorney General. Subsequent to that, I will call the estimates of the Premier. In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, will be the estimates debate of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and in Section C, it will be the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology.

[3:00 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:04 p.m.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $470,469,000 (continued).

M. Lee: I’d like to just turn to the area of the Attorney General’s mandate in respect of being responsible to move forward on calls to action and reviewing policy, programs and legislation to determine how to bring the principles of UNDRIP into action in British Columbia.

[3:05 p.m.]

I’d just like to ask the Attorney General what the status is currently of the Attorney General’s review — that is, how many policies, programs and items of legislation have been reviewed currently?

Hon. D. Eby: There are two components to government’s commitment to Indigenous people with respect to the Ministry of Attorney General and government generally. One is in relation to UNDRIP, as the member mentioned. The other is in relation to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action. There are a number of actions for the TRC across government to implement the 94 separate calls to action, including change to the K-to-12 curriculum, a proposal for an Indigenous social policy framework and recommendations related to the potential development of an Indigenous reconciliation framework.

On the UNDRIP commitments, which are really, for the Ministry of Attorney General, a commitment to work in partnership with Indigenous people around their priorities in relation to the justice system as true partners, there are a number of significant initiatives underway. In the coming days, we will be participating in a forum that we are co-hosting with the Aboriginal Justice Council. The agenda has been set by the Aboriginal Justice Council in consultation with other Indigenous groups that work on justice issues across the province.

Day 1 is the Indigenous groups meeting together to discuss priorities. On days 2 and 3, we’re convening members of the justice system — chief justices, a chief judge, representatives of Corrections, representatives of sheriffs, counsel, everyone you can imagine associated with the justice system. We’re coming together to participate in and facilitate a discussion about reconciliation and the justice system and priorities. All of this is aimed at ensuring that we are achieving the UNDRIP commitment of having Indigenous people as true partners in a justice strategy that affects them in the priorities of our ministry.

This work is informed and supported by something we did very early on, in September of 2017, which was to sign an agreement, a memorandum of understanding, with the Aboriginal Justice Council.

[3:10 p.m.]

The Aboriginal Justice Council is a council conceived of and implemented by the senior leadership groups of First Nations in British Columbia. In particular, we agreed to jointly develop an Indigenous justice strategy with a focus on reconciliation with Indigenous people; decreasing the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system; improving the experience of Indigenous people within the justice system; addressing violence against Indigenous people, especially women and girls; engagement with Indigenous communities and organizations in a respectful and culturally appropriate manner; improving access to justice services by Indigenous people; and designing services that provide Indigenous people with culturally relevant, flexible and user-focused processes.

This work towards an Indigenous justice strategy, conceived in partnership with Indigenous people of British Columbia, will guide the Ministry of Attorney General’s work into the future. It is obviously a significant piece of work. I’m very honoured to be working with the Aboriginal Justice Council and their partners on this.

I’m very much looking forward to…. It’s actually June 1 and 2 that I will be with my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety. I believe the Leader of the Opposition is invited and, certainly, leadership within the justice system. The whole point of this conversation is designing and implementing an Indigenous justice strategy.

In short, in answer to the member’s question, the direction of the work and the work that we’re doing is being directed by and in partnership with Indigenous people themselves through the Aboriginal Justice Council. The work is well underway. I’m grateful to him for the question.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the Attorney, including the invitation through his office to attend that Justice Summit on the first and second of June. I will certainly be doing that. I appreciate that update.

As I’m hearing the response…. That specific review of policies, programs and legislation is specific to the Attorney General’s Ministry, as opposed to across the board in terms of what his role will be. My question to the Attorney General is: will he be playing a role across ministries in terms of reviewing policies, programs and legislation to bring into place the principles of UNDRIP?

Hon. D. Eby: As the member knows, Ministry of Attorney General lawyers provide support across government, including in relation to Indigenous reconciliation initiatives.

I can give a couple of high-profile projects that…. Ministry of Attorney General staff are supporting the work of different ministries on reconciliation initiatives. With respect to the Ministry of Children and Family Development, there are a set of recommendations the member will be familiar with from Chief Ed John that were made to government. Our ministry is providing support to the Ministry of Children and Family Development with respect to the Parents Legal Centre.

[3:15 p.m.]

The government has provided about $11 million of additional funding, about $3.8 million annually, to support the expansion of the Parents Legal Centre to additional communities. This is consistent with Grand Chief Ed John’s report that was provided to government. In particular, this is related to direct Ministry of Attorney General mandate letter priorities around improving and supporting legal aid, including First Nations legal services. It’s also in relation to MCFD priorities around ensuring Indigenous connectedness and reunification — that that report is implemented and that we achieve better outcomes for Indigenous families and children.

As another example of cross-ministerial work that the Ministry of Attorney General is participating in, we are supporting the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation in their efforts to put forward principles for the public service — ten principles guiding public servants in our approach and relationship with Indigenous people. Those ten principles are out in draft, and we’re receiving comment and feedback on those ten principles. That effort is being supported by Ministry of Attorney General lawyers.

In addition, we are working with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation on our approach to litigation, treaty rights and title to ensure that the positions that we take in court and that we take in relation to treaty negotiations are consistent with our commitment to UNDRIP and TRC. Those are two examples where Ministry of Attorney General staff are taking a significant role in supporting the work of other ministries.

There is a lot of interministerial work going on. It’s a bit complicated to pull pieces out because there are Ministry of Attorney General lawyers that are basically seconded to different departments that provide support in the day-to-day work that they do on reconciliation. But there are definitely some projects, like the two that I listed there, that are higher-profile projects where we have additional resources dedicated to those efforts.

M. Lee: I appreciate the breakdown and the examples of a number of projects. I just wanted to touch on the last two that the Attorney referenced. The first one was the draft principles, ten of which are being circulated for feedback. Could I ask the Attorney to expand on what those principles are and the nature of the consultation process around those principles?

Hon. D. Eby: The ten principles are based on federal principles that were put forward to bring our efforts in some concert with the federal government’s efforts. Obviously, Indigenous reconciliation and relationships with First Nations people are a shared responsibility between the levels of government, and the federal government has an important role to play. So what we’re trying to do is ensure our efforts are not undermining initiatives the federal government is undertaking in relation to reconciliation but support those efforts and vice versa. We’re working together to try to start a new relationship with Indigenous people.

The ten principles. The first principle is that the province of B.C. recognizes that all relations with Indigenous peoples need to be based on the recognition and implementation of their right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government.

The second is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that reconciliation is a fundamental purpose of section 35 of the Constitution Act.

The third is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that the honour of the Crown guides the conduct of the Crown in all of its dealings with Indigenous people.

The fourth is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that Indigenous self-government is part of Canada’s evolving system of cooperative federalism and distinct orders of government.

The fifth is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between Indigenous people and the Crown have been and are intended to be acts of reconciliation based on mutual recognition and respect.

The sixth is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples aims to secure their free, prior and informed consent when B.C. proposes to take actions which impact them and their rights, including their lands, territories and resources.

The seventh is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that respecting and implementing rights is essential and that any infringement of section 35 rights must by law meet a high threshold of justification which includes Indigenous perspectives and satisfies the Crown’s fiduciary obligations.

[3:20 p.m.]

The eighth is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that reconciliation and self-government require a renewed fiscal relationship developed in collaboration with the federal government and Indigenous nations that promotes a mutually supportive climate for economic partnership and resource development.

The ninth is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that reconciliation is an ongoing process that occurs in the context of evolving Crown-Indigenous relationships.

The tenth is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that a distinctions-based approach is needed to ensure that the unique rights, interests and circumstances of Indigenous peoples in B.C. are acknowledged, affirmed and implemented.

M. Lee: Just a quick follow-up to that before talking about a few of those principles. What is the status of the engagement process to consult on these principles, and how will that unfold?

Hon. D. Eby: The leadership on this file is coming from the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I can tell the member that there are several internal bodies currently responsible for the implementation of principles across government.

It includes an ADM committee, chaired by Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Assistant Deputy Minister Jessica Wood, which will work closely with the statutory decision–makers working group, on the practical application of the principles, as well as the B.C. Public Service Agency, on complementary efforts such as the diversity and inclusion action plan.

Over the next several months, there will be a plan to bring the principles into operation. Kurt Sandstrom from my ministry, Rachel Holmes from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Monica Cox from emergency management B.C are leading that work in terms of what’s happening. So it is a cross-ministry effort that’s taking place, and the coordination of this effort is happening in the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

M. Lee: I wanted to, if I could, touch on a few of the principles that the Attorney outlined. In terms of principle 7, of course, we’ve seen over three decades’ worth of litigation in Canada on section 35 items and rights in terms of Aboriginal rights and title. It sounds like principle 7 acknowledges the body of casework decisions that have been put in place in terms of the case law dealing with First Nations rights and title in Canada and in this province.

In the Attorney General’s opinion, is that a settled area of the law currently in this province?

Hon. D. Eby: Certainly, by law, it is established that any infringement of section 35 rights, which are Indigenous rights recognized by the Canadian constitution, must by law meet a high threshold of justification, which includes Indigenous perspectives, and satisfies the Crown’s fiduciary obligations. The disputes tend to arise around whether or not the threshold of justification has been met and whether or not the Crown has satisfied fiduciary obligations.

Certainly, it’s our perspective that respecting the rights of First Nations people and ensuring that they are implemented is essential. In terms of the law, there’s no dispute about these rights and the obligations of the Crown. But there’s often dispute about the thresholds and whether or not the Crown has satisfied necessary fiduciary obligations.

[3:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: With that in mind, is his ministry, on behalf of the government, developing a new approach to Aboriginal rights and title litigation in view of UNDRIP?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, we are. The concern that I have in terms of the mandate letter that I’ve been given is to make sure that when we are making arguments in court, those arguments are consistent with our commitment to operate within the terms of the TRC and the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

In particular, in civil litigation — as I’ll just use as an example — when you receive a statement of claim, you could provide a defence that says you have to prove that your nation existed. You have to prove that you existed in this particular area. You have to put the plaintiff to strict proof of every single piece of the argument. Some of those defence arguments could be incredibly offensive to a First Nation, in that the government would be saying: “We don’t accept that your nation even exists. You have to prove that in court.”

In some cases, there can be arguments about these kinds of issues, and in some cases, it doesn’t advance the case. It slows it down, and it may be offensive to the plaintiff. It may be quite obvious that the First Nation did exist and was in this area. So having a look and making sure that our legal arguments stay focused on the areas of dispute and that they don’t unintentionally make reconciliation harder than it already is, in terms of the challenge of this work and the many years that it will take to do the reconciliation work that we need to do in this province, is the goal.

We’re in very early stages of that review of how we do litigation to ensure that our pleadings and arguments are consistent with our commitments and that we are also ensuring that we are engaged in that delicate balance of protecting rights of Indigenous people and also the responsibilities of the Crown otherwise.

It’s a challenging and very sensitive area, but we are engaging in that work. We’re fortunate in that the federal government, who we often find ourselves in court with or in title discussions with on these matters, are engaging in similar work. What we’re trying to do is pair up our work so that when we arrive in court together, when we’re engaging in negotiations together, we are working from a similar framework and a similar set of shared understandings. That will facilitate not just reconciliation with Indigenous people but also, hopefully, efficiencies within the court system generally.

M. Lee: Certainly, we appreciate the importance of the work that the Attorney General is outlining and the thoughtful approach that’s being utilized, of course, because it is so fundamentally important.

It’s been commented, of course, that the section 35 litigation case law in Canada — and British Columbia, in particular — has been leading edge in terms of defining and recognizing Aboriginal rights and title in a respectful, meaningful and substantive way.

In looking at UNDRIP and the government’s commitment to adhere to the principles under UNDRIP, has the government previously received any external legal advice in terms of whether its own approach to UNDRIP needs to be limited or constrained in any way based on the body of case law work under section 35?

Hon. D. Eby: If we had received such advice, it would be subject to solicitor-client privilege, and we wouldn’t be able to talk about it here, unfortunately.

[3:30 p.m.]

M. Lee: If I heard that response correctly, just to reconfirm, the Attorney General’s ministry has received advice but is not able to discuss it in this forum. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I indicated that if we had received such advice, we wouldn’t be able to talk about it because of solicitor-client privilege. I can tell the member that we regularly engage external counsel on all manner of files, including Indigenous rights and titles files. The advice that we receive from counsel on those files is privileged. So if we had received such advice as the member describes, I wouldn’t be able it talk about it here.

M. Lee: Well, thank you for that clarification. I think that, obviously, this is a forum to have a discussion regarding the approach of government through the budget estimates process and the expenditures that are being done by the ministry. Perhaps, as we go forward, there will be opportunities to understand how the ministry is being advised or how they’re looking at UNDRIP, because there is consideration and concern regarding the expectations that have been put out by the government in dealing with certain disputes with First Nations in the province.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Let me ask this question — through you, Mr. Chair, through the switchover here — to the Attorney. Has there been a change in approach to informed consent, assurance of that, by the province in the various situations that might present themselves for government decision-making — like Site C, LNG projects or other projects that face decision-making in this province? Has there been a change in approach by this government, in view of UNDRIP, to ensuring that there has been free, prior and informed consent?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Sections 18, 19 and 23 of UNDRIP raise the issue of free, prior and informed consent in the international human rights document that is UNDRIP.

In Canada, we have, in our constitution, section 35, which deals with the rights of Indigenous people in Canada. There is a significant amount of jurisprudence under section 35 that has significant implications that relate to free, prior and informed consent and consultation duties and standards imposed on the Crown in relation to the concept of the honour of the Crown in dealing with Indigenous peoples in Canada and, specifically for us, for the province, working with Indigenous people in British Columbia.

First of all, we see our free, prior and informed consent obligations through the lens of section 35, as does the federal government, and the federal Justice Minister has spoken very eloquently about that. I can tell the member that the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and the Ministry of Attorney General staff have a working group in relation to new policy related to how we approach free, prior and informed consent as it’s described in the UNDRIP document but in the Canadian context of section 35 obligations as well — to make sure that our approach is consistent with what the UNDRIP document is telling us and Indigenous people are telling us is the appropriate approach. That work is underway.

I can also tell the member that the federal government is also engaged in its own work on this issue. They have their own working group on this as well. It’s critically important, given the nature of many of these projects, having aspects that are federal and provincial, that the Indigenous relationship with the Crown includes the federal Crown and the provincial Crown. It’s important that we, as best as possible, sync up and ensure our work is consistent with the approach of the federal government as well.

There is work underway on it. It is too early to advise the member on any changes in approach, but I can tell the member that the section 35 jurisprudence is informing very much our understanding of sections 18, 19 and 23 of UNDRIP.

M. Lee: I appreciate that response. I appreciate that it is a complex area, including involving the federal government in terms of ensuring that we have a consistent approach in this country, as both the federal and provincial governments have supported UNDRIP in Canada and in British Columbia.

I think it’s helpful to hear from the Attorney that section 35 jurisprudence is really the cornerstone through which the commitments under sections 18, 19 and 23 in UNDRIP would be viewed. The words “through the lens of section 35” I think…. It’s helpful to know that that is something that we continue to apply here in British Columbia.

Can I just ask, though…? The tenth principle spoke to some elements of differences, recognizing there might be distinctions in the approach that might occur. Could I ask the Attorney just to comment on how that principle might operate in terms of distinctions in this area?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There’s a clarifying paragraph in relation to principle 10 on the draft document that’s been circulated. The principle itself is that the province of British Columbia recognizes that a distinctions-based approach is needed to ensure that the unique rights, interests and circumstances of Indigenous peoples in B.C. are acknowledged, affirmed and implemented.

The clarifying paragraph reads as follows: “The province recognizes First Nations, the Métis Nation and Inuit as the Indigenous peoples of Canada, consisting of distinct, rights-bearing communities with their own histories, including with the Crown. The work of forming renewed relationships based on the recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership must reflect the unique interests, priorities and circumstances of each people.”

As loath as I am to attempt to summarize this, my own personal summary of it would be that sometimes there’s a tendency to say “Indigenous people” and refer to that group as a whole, without distinction. This principle draws out distinctions between different Indigenous groups in the province with different histories and relationships with the Crown and the need for the Crown to recognize the unique interests, priorities and circumstances of each of British Columbia’s Indigenous people.

Certainly, even these three groups — First Nations, Métis Nation and Inuit — within themselves have distinct communities with different histories and unique circumstances in their relationship with the Crown. So the principle is attempting to underline that we should do our best to avoid the mistake of imagining Indigenous peoples in B.C. as one homogeneous group and that there needs to be a distinctions-based approach to recognize unique history and relationship with the Crown.

M. Lee: I appreciate that we’re right about at our time estimation for the balance of AG estimates, but if I could ask the Attorney and his team to extend the opportunity for my colleague the member for Skeena to ask a follow-on question. The member for Cowichan Valley also has a few additional questions, and I may have one last question which is related to this area but not specifically what we’ve been speaking to, if that’s okay.

E. Ross: To the Attorney General, thanks for the comments regarding UNDRIP, especially the comment through the lens of section 35. I’m just going to assume that that means all the ensuing case law that further defined section 35. Also, I was glad to hear that there was an assessment done, in terms of reviewing — legally as well as a policy adviser’s — UNDRIP in light of the government decisions that they made, and even arguments being made in court.

My issue with UNDRIP has always been the uncertainty it’ll cause. I always viewed UNDRIP principles as, basically, protocol statements, protocol principles that were 36 years too late in terms of being implemented in Canada. I’m referring to 1982, section 35. I really felt that we had come a long, long way since 1982, and I thought that all the case law provided a tremendous amount of certainty on all sides.

In canvassing your colleagues, not only in these estimates but in the last session as well, I was just trying to understand how the Crown would employ its decision-making in light of UNDRIP, especially when we’re talking about the case law principles that have to be followed when we’re talking about what the Attorney General referred to as offensive.

We’re talking about courts, of course, in terms of First Nations having to prove what is referred to as strength of claim. Strength of claim is actually really important to First Nations, and it’s an offensive term for First Nations when there’s more than one First Nation involved in claiming a certain territory. Part of the Crown’s duty is to assess the strength of claim and then base its level of consultation and accommodation on that. That’s the way I’ve always viewed it.

[3:45 p.m.]

My question is pretty specific in terms of the Crown’s decision-making. I’m not talking about programs; I’m not talking about the Aboriginal Justice Council. I’m talking specifically on the infringement of rights and title when it comes to the infringement of said rights and title.

I truly suspect that First Nations believe that if they can’t get the answer they need under existing case law, then they’ll turn to UNDRIP, and they’ll use the idea of consent under UNDRIP versus existing case law. Is that the Attorney General’s opinion? Or is there a different opinion from the Attorney General and the office?

Hon. D. Eby: The Supreme Court of Canada has given some guidance to the Crown. One of the challenges, of course, as the member noted, is that section 35 was not filled in at the time that it became the Constitution of Canada. It’s been left to the courts to fill in the details of what section 35 means.

In the Haida case, there was guidance from the court that government must consult and accommodate even before a group establishes title. In the Tsilhqot’in case more recently, the court said: “You have this Haida obligation, but that doesn’t prevent you from going out and attempting to get consent in advance. You are not bound to Haida to consult and accommodate. You could go out and get consent in advance, even before a group has proven title.”

They’re trying to encourage the Crown and Indigenous groups to resolve these matters, to seek consent and avoid court if possible. So the court has given us this guidance to go out and try to get consent in advance. I think that’s a very sound piece of advice from the court, because I don’t believe personally, having seen many court processes, that it is an atmosphere that leads to reconciliation.

If we can avoid court processes, if we can seek consent in advance, that provides the greatest amount of certainty for people and the greatest possibility for reconciliation, so there is a possibility for us to go beyond the section 35 obligations.

[3:50 p.m.]

E. Ross: Thank you to the Attorney General for that answer. I’m in 100 percent in agreement with that. In fact, that’s why I’m questioning UNDRIP in the manner I am. I don’t want First Nations to end up going to court trying to define what can’t be defined in terms of government decision-making. I just see UNDRIP as a political document that came too late.

The Attorney General mentioned the Haida court case. The Tsilhqot’in case actually highered that threshold, in terms of consultation and accommodation efforts that had to be put forward by the Crown.

My concern is that First Nations, given the generality of UNDRIP and explanations of UNDRIP, will believe that consent is actually a veto. They’ll exercise all the case law principles, and they will not like the outcome of a government decision, so they will move to the provision of consent under UNDRIP.

I’ve heard a number of times a number of different government officials as well as politicians say that consent does not equal a veto. Well, these First Nations leaders don’t believe that. In terms of tenures for fish farms, in terms of authorizations for a project like Kinder Morgan or LNG, it’s becoming more apparent that First Nations are placing all their efforts into UNDRIP and the consent clause.

Because my colleague here covered off the principles of the issue very well, my last question, based on the answers I got from your colleagues in other estimates sessions, is the idea of UNDRIP being a human rights document in the context of government decision-making. I’m trying to understand that in the context of consent.

There are 220,000 Aboriginals in B.C. As a human rights document…. I always believed that human rights was actually an individual right. I’ve been trying to understand whether or not when it comes to a human rights document, when you’re talking about infringement of rights and title, this means that the Crown will be seeking the consent of 220,000 individual Aboriginal people and not really looking at the principle of case law where Aboriginal rights and title is actually held on behalf of a community, not on behalf of individuals.

Hon. D. Eby: The UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples is similar to the case law in Canada in that it recognizes…. It’s an unusual thing in a human rights document to recognize group rights. Typically, human rights documents, as the member says, recognize an individual’s rights. It might have a particular barrier that they’re facing, or it might make them subject to discrimination, or it might give them a right to do something, like to vote or to speak freely.

[3:55 p.m.]

The declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples talks about group rights. So to the member’s question: if you have 220,000 people, are you going to go around and get everybody to say: “I agree with that”? It’s about ensuring that government has, as best as possible, the consent of the representatives of a particular nation or a group of people who have rights that are at play in a particular situation.

The importance of consent does extend beyond simple title lands. What we’re looking for are chances to build opportunities, to build processes and approaches to secure consent and innovative mechanisms to really build in collaboration and consensus and new ways of working together that are less court-based, if we can. It sounds like the member on the other side is on the same page on that. I’m glad to hear it, because the court cases appear to be driving divisions rather than bringing people together. A lot of resources go into court that could be better spent, on both sides, in rebuilding and doing the work of reconciliation.

To the member’s specific question on whether you go to all 220,000-plus people to try to get individual consent from everybody on a particular project, that’s not what the UNDRIP document suggests; nor is it the section 35 jurisprudence.

S. Furstenau: Just a few questions on a few different things. I want to start with family law.

The budget commits to approximately $11 million in funding to the Legal Services Society to support the expansion of Parents Legal Centre to additional communities, consistent with the recommendations from Chief Ed John’s report on Indigenous child welfare. My questions are: which communities will the Parents Legal Centre be expanded to, how are these communities selected as areas of need, and how much of the $11 million in funding will be provided to the different centres?

Hon. D. Eby: The government has approved $3.8 million annually, 2018 to 2021, for expansion of the Parents Legal Centre model. Of this, $2.8 million is through access to contingencies in the Ministry of Finance, consistent with the practices in the funding of new programs. Consultation is currently underway with Indigenous communities and stakeholders in various municipalities to determine locations, including urban, rural and remote options for implementation. Informed by these consultations, the Legal Services Society plans to expand the model for several new sites in this fiscal year.

The core of these Parents Legal Centres is their effort to try to resolve cases consensually, out of court, which is obviously a benefit to families and to the limited resources of the court system, and to try to find alternative methods to address child protection issues before they escalate to require court processes. It’s something consistent with Grand Chief Ed John’s recommendations and seems like good, practical common sense to me.

S. Furstenau: There’s also a commitment in the budget to expand on-line legal services for remote and rural communities. My questions are: how much of the $10 million delegated for initiatives that include digital access will go towards the actual digital access? And what initiatives to improving digital access will be accompanied with educational initiatives so that remote and rural citizens are able to use the digital resources in an accessible and helpful way?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. The on-line spending by the ministry is actually contained in three different line items that we’ve got. We’re just trying to find the breakout of the on-line from the bricks and mortar, essentially. What would be easiest, if the member is agreeable, is if we could provide her with that answer in the days ahead, when we break out those numbers for her with descriptions of the various projects.

S. Furstenau: That’d be fine. I appreciate the significant efforts being made back here. So that would be fine.

Just moving to the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in prisons. In the ministry service plan, addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system is identified as a priority area. Can the minister indicate what portion of the ministry’s budget is dedicated to addressing this? What concrete steps has this funding already been used for? How will the overrepresentation be addressed as an ongoing process? And what is the ideal result?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re very fortunate to have a partnership in place with the Aboriginal Justice Council that we are working with to develop an Indigenous justice strategy for the province. The justice strategy deals with overrepresentation of Indigenous people and will deal with overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system generally, whether it’s in the child protection area, whether it’s in the criminal justice system.

One of the principles that we’re working on is the idea that we should do this work in partnership with Indigenous people. That’s why, in September of 2017, we entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Aboriginal Justice Council to design exactly this strategy, including capacity funding in the amount of $400,000 over two years for the council to be able to participate with us in this work.

They were our partners in developing the Justice Summit that is happening this weekend. Part of the work of that is to bring key actors in the justice system together with Indigenous people and provide them with the opportunity to come together and discuss how we reduce overrepresentation.

[4:05 p.m.]

Beyond that, funding from access to the contingencies vote in the Ministry of Finance totals $7.4 million in 2018-19, related to various Indigenous-related initiatives related to overrepresentation. That’s $2.8 million for the expansion of paralegal centres, which we’re consulting with Indigenous communities right now about, plus $4.6 million to increase criminal legal aid services, including increased access to Gladue reports and expanded use of criminal duty counsel, especially in First Nations courts, under a new federal-provincial cost-sharing agreement.

There are a number of different specific, on-the-ground initiatives related to Gladue reports, which are the reports related to sentencing that go to a judge that explain the particular circumstances of the individual in front of them and recognize the specific circumstances of First Nations offenders.

We also have an expanding and very successful initiative started by Chief Judge Crabtree, who was recently elevated to the B.C. Supreme Court, of First Nations courts across the province. I had the honour to be at the opening of the Mission First Nations court and the Prince George First Nations court. We have other communities that are engaging in various stages of consultation with the Ministry of Attorney General and the Chief Judge’s office to have their own First Nations courts open as well.

There are a number of different fronts of work on this, but the key piece will be the strategy and the plan, which we are developing in partnership with Indigenous people themselves through the Aboriginal Justice Council partnership that we have, and the work that’s going to happen, actually, this weekend.

S. Furstenau: The minister mentions the Gladue reports as one of the key features here, and they have been identified by many Indigenous advocates and those in the legal profession as a concrete way to mitigate some of the impact brought about by the systemic racism that has existed in our justice system for Indigenous people.

The Legal Services Society has indicated they are severely underfunded and were only able to produce around 100 reports in the 2017-2018 year. This is a report for less than 20 percent of the 600 who required them by law in that time period.

My question for the minister is: can the minister explain the shortfall of Gladue reports and how he hopes to increase the number of these reports that are going to be produced in B.C.?

Hon. D. Eby: For the first time, under this government, the Legal Services Society is being provided funding to complete Gladue reports. I acknowledge the member’s point, which is correct, that there is more demand than the funding currently allows for Gladue reports to be done, but I have happy news for her in terms of the number she has. It’s that LSS, currently, is advising us they’ll be able to do 250 to 300 reports this year.

What we’re trying to do is establish a system where Gladue reports can be done more efficiently. Many offenders come from rural and remote communities, and the people who have the information about the backgrounds and the circumstances of a particular offender are not easily reached by Gladue report writers.

One of the tools we’re looking at, in partnership with initiatives coming out of the Ministry of Citizens’ Services around increased rural connectivity to the internet, is to provide an on-line system for collecting the information to prepare Gladue reports to ensure that we can do more reports for Indigenous people finding themselves in the justice system.

[4:10 p.m.]

The current situation of Gladue reports is not acceptable, and we’re working on providing the infrastructure to address that. In the meantime, we’ve provided an additional $700,000 earmarked for Gladue reports. For that, we’re working with the Aboriginal Justice Council on decisions about how to move forward to ensure we’re doing this in an appropriate way. So there are a number of initiatives underway related to Gladue reports.

M. Lee: I wanted to say I appreciate the line of questions that the member for Cowichan Valley had raised here. They covered one question in particular that I wanted to cover, so we are actually complete at this point, because I’m respectful of the time allocation that we’ve been provided.

Let me just say on behalf of the B.C. Liberal caucus, I appreciate the time and effort for the Attorney General and his team to be here over the last three days. Thank you very much for the thoroughness of the responses, and I appreciate the assistance you provided here in this House.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you very much to the critic for his thoughtful questions and the House Leader for the Third Party for her questions and the members who asked questions during this session.

I wanted to recognize the staff who were here with me today. We’ve got Paul Yearwood, James Harvey, Richard Fyfe and, behind me, Kurt Sandstrom, senior members of the Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation through the Ministry of Attorney General. I’m very grateful for their support this afternoon and couldn’t do it without staff. They did a lot of work.

There’s a bunch of people in a room somewhere that are monitoring this and providing additional information. So my gratitude to them as well, as well as the folks from ICBC, BCLC, GPEB, the LDB and the liquor distribution folks. There are lots to name who are involved in the estimates process. Thank you again to my critic, the member for Richmond-Steveston and others for their questions during this session.

Vote 14: ministry operations, $470,469,000 — approved.

Vote 15: judiciary, $79,254,000 — approved.

Vote 16: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.

Vote 17: independent investigations office, $8,756,000 — approved.

Hon. D. Eby: It sounds like we’re moving to Premier’s estimates. If we could just have a second to change the staff and arrange for the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition.

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:13 p.m. to 4:22 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $11,305,000.

A. Wilkinson: The range of questions here will be covering a number of budgetary items, and I hope that’s helpful to your support staff there.

First of all, we’ll come to the issue of the NDP promise during the election campaign of a renters rebate of $400 per year, which doesn’t appear anywhere in the budgetary documents.

I would ask the Premier to tell us, to the extent of his knowledge: was that ever budgeted for, and was any amount concluded as to what it would cost? And an explanation, perhaps, of why it’s not in the budget.

M. Hunt: Mr. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Hunt: In the House is the second group of grade 5 students from Surrey Centre who are doing a tour with us today. We just want the House to make them welcome. I appreciate the members opposite waving to them and making them feel very welcome here in the House.

Debate Continued

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and welcome him to his first estimates as Leader of the Opposition.

[4:25 p.m.]

With respect to the renters rebate, it was a commitment we made during the election campaign. The member will know that when parties run for office, they assume majority governments will follow. In our minority situation, we had a discussion with our partners in the confidence and supply agreement about a renters rebate, and there wasn’t consensus on that, so it has not been budgeted for at this time.

However, I’d advise the member and members of this House that I have appointed a Rental Housing Task Force that’s being chaired by the member for Vancouver–West End. Two other members are on the committee: the member for Courtenay-Comox and the member for Saanich North and the Islands. They’ve been tasked with doing a consultation with landlords and tenants to look at a range of issues. Among those would be whether or not to proceed with a renters rebate.

While I have my feet, I’ll just introduce the staff that are with me today. I’m joined by Okenge Yuma Morisho, the deputy minister for intergovernmental affairs. Steven Klak, who’s the CFO for the Ministry of Finance, immediately behind me, will be assisting on financial issues within my office. Vanessa Geary is the executive director of operations. Geoff Meggs is the chief of staff to the Premier, and Don Wright is the deputy to the Premier.

They’re the staff who’ll be with me today, and if need be, there’ll be others brought in, depending on the line of questioning that the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition members want to pursue.

A. Wilkinson: Just for clarity, the promise that was found in the platform document was: “We will provide a refundable renters rebate of $400 per rental household in British Columbia each year.” Now, that’s a broken promise, apparently, and obviously the question arises: was that left by the wayside because the Premier realized it would also have to apply to renters who pay $5,000, $10,000, $20,000 a month?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the member will know that not all of the commitments in a platform document are realized in the first 12 months of a government. We have not yet been in office for a year. We are committed to ensuring that we’re making life better for British Columbians, making life more affordable for the citizens of this great province. One of those elements is trying to address the high cost of housing, not just in the Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island but right across B.C.

Renters are a significant component of the community. They are hard put upon, in many instances, and we are committed to making some progress there. That’s why, in our September budget update, we increased SAFER grants to reduce costs for seniors, and we’ve been working with the residential tenancy branch to ensure that there are more timely turnarounds on issues that affect renters and landlords alike. We are far from finished with implementing our plan. I would characterize it as a proposal not yet complete.

A. Wilkinson: So if it’s a proposal not yet complete, can we look forward to it in next year’s budget, where renters, regardless of the amount of rent they pay, will be provided with a rebate of roughly $1.10 per day?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member will know that the budget cycle in the province of British Columbia starts in earnest in the fall, in preparation for the tabling of a document in February, so it’s premature at this point to talk about where we will be on that commitment. But again, as I said, we have a renters task force in play, consulting with British Columbians, tenants and landlords alike. I’m sure that that process will lead to more details about what we can and should proceed with in the interests of bringing costs down for people that rent in British Columbia.

I would suggest that the member stay tuned. As I say, we’re in month 10 of our term of office, and we have much to do. I’m committed to making life better for renters.

A. Wilkinson: Given that there are probably 1 million people renting in British Columbia, was the Premier scared off by the fact that this would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and be the source of some kind of deep disappointment in the media when it was found out that people renting penthouses in downtown Vancouver for $10,000 a month would also gets the rebate?

Hon. J. Horgan: I think, again, the Leader of the Opposition is getting ahead of himself. We have not implemented a policy, so to suggest that some people in the community would be getting a benefit, or not, is premature.

[4:30 p.m.]

We’ll take a look at the fiscal situation, working hand in hand with the Ministry of Finance, working with renters across B.C., and we’ll bring forward a policy that will help those that need the help the most.

A. Wilkinson: Given that this would probably run into hundreds of millions of dollars, is the Premier prepared to say that this is a priority that needs to be followed up, given that it was an election promise? Or are there, perhaps, higher priorities, like student aid and welfare services?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his question and his curiosity on this matter.

We have taken numerous steps since we formed government. Last legislative session, we brought in changes to the tenancy laws to ensure that landlords could no longer take advantage of tenants on fixed-term tenancy agreements with a vacate clause. We’ve done our best to ensure that geographic areas do not lead to additional rent increases. We’ve reinforced the staff at the residential tenancy branch so that they can better serve the needs of renters and landlords alike. We’re committed to continuing on this course.

What the cost will be at the end of the day will be subject to Treasury Board, the budget process and, finally, the determination of the Ministry of Finance next year, or the year after that, as we continue through our mandate.

A. Wilkinson: I will take that as a tentative no, in that the Premier is not prepared to say that this is a priority compared to the other pressures on government. So we can, I think, call that the fourth broken promise of the day after the three earlier broken promises on proportional representation.

I’m going to turn to the previous page in the NDP platform, which is headed by the title “Fixing the Housing Shortage: Building 114,000 Homes.” Now, the only thing that I’ve been able to find in the NDP budget this year is 1,700 rentals to be built, along with some modular housing for the homeless. So perhaps the Premier can clarify. At this rate, it’ll take 67 years to satisfy that promise of building 114,000 rentals. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member will know that when we committed to a ten-year plan to address the housing crisis in British Columbia, it was a result of hearing, on doorsteps right across B.C., the challenges people were having in finding affordable housing. This is going to be a partnership; it’s not going to be 114,000 government units. The member will know that we’re going to be working with the private sector to stimulate more activity in communities by working with municipalities to streamline processes, to bring more units on stream as quickly as we can.

[4:35 p.m.]

Now, there are 4,900 units committed to in Budget 2018. What we call the missing middle, through the housing hub, will assist us in bringing together people who have land, people who have capital and people in need of housing. It’s these types of partnerships, working with B.C. Housing, that will lead to an increase in supply, which will lead to a decline in costs for people.

A. Wilkinson: B.C. Stats indicates that about 60,000 people arrive in British Columbia each year, whether they’re born here, move here from elsewhere in Canada or immigrate. So at the rate of 1,700 units a year, we’re falling behind, progressively, further and further. The population is now about 4.8 million and rising rapidly, and we don’t see any suggestion of any kind of housing supply solution here other than government building 1,700 rental unit this year.

Can the Premier elaborate on where these people are all going to find housing if there isn’t a major effort made to increase the supply of housing beyond the rather paltry 1,700 units the Premier has budgeted for?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m excited that the Leader of the Opposition has taken an interest in housing after a 16-year period in government where the former government allowed the situation to get to the critical situation it is today. We have taken steps to build partnerships. We’re working with B.C. Housing. We’re working with municipalities. I appointed the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville to be the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs as well as responsible for TransLink so that we can connect people and communities with their transportation needs and their housing needs.

I appreciate that the member is looking at one number in the budget. We have a whole host of other numbers. We can get the housing starts up significantly higher, if we want to go through that. The Minister of Housing was in this House for estimates. It would have been a better place, perhaps, for the member of the opposition to ask those questions, but I’m quite prepared to read from these notes to give him the information he needs.

Suffice it to say that we’re creating opportunities for partnership, linking capital with land. An example I can think of is in Coquitlam. The minister and I made an announcement with the United Church of Canada, which has four properties. They don’t have a lot of expertise in housing development — in fact, little or no expertise in housing development — but they had surplus lands. They had a desire to help the community. So they took their land, they partnered with B.C. Housing, and they partnered with communities to ensure that we can build new supply as quickly as possible.

We have the modular program that the member alluded to — wildly successful, supported virtually everywhere but for a few communities. I’m convinced that, over time, modular housing will be the way to go for the hard-to-house. And we have a range of other issues. The member is quite right. I appreciate that he has recognized now that we have a housing crisis in British Columbia. As more people come here from across Canada and around the world, we need to make sure we’re building that supply.

Developers have told us quite clearly that they have challenges with the approval processes in municipalities. That’s why I married Housing with Municipal Affairs to try and find ways for the government of British Columbia to work with cities and towns right across B.C. so that we can do exactly what both the member and I want to see — create more housing for people.

A. Wilkinson: Can the Premier advise how much budget is required to build the 1,700 rental units and the unit cost?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the member wants a unit cost. All the units are a different configuration. The number of bedrooms is going to have an impact on what the unit cost is. I can get that information through the Minister of Housing, or I could maybe, more appropriately, have the member go directly to the minister. I’m sure she’d be happy to fill him in on that.

The information that I have before me, although it’s not my responsibility, is $208 million for 1,700 new, affordable rental housing units. That may be the number that the member is referring to. Budget 2018 talked of a $7 billion investment over ten years to realize the goal of 114,000 units. Again, we can break that down by units, but I’m not sure where the member wants to go with that.

A. Wilkinson: That comes out to roughly $120,000 per unit, which seems a rather small number for building anything in the Lower Mainland. I invite the Premier to reconsider that number but also to consider multiplying $120,000 times 114,000, which comes up with a stunningly large number that the Premier is committed to over ten years. So perhaps the Premier can ponder whether $120,000 is even remotely accurate and whether he can come up with the necessary amount for 114,000 units.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the 114,000 units will not be all built by government. As I said, we’re looking at partnerships with the private sector and developers. If the member wanted chapter and verse on unit costs, he could have raised these issues with the Minister of Housing. I was here to defend the Premier’s office budget and talk about broad policy directions for the government. I can get back to him with that information. If he wants to send me a letter with the specifics he’s looking for, I’ll get him the specific answers.

A. Wilkinson: Well, thank you, but I think the Premier should be abundantly aware that the Premier’s estimates are to cover the entirety of government, given that the Premier is responsible for cabinet and the executive council — the entire $54 billion budget. I must say I’m a little disappointed to hear that I’m being referred elsewhere, and those estimates are already over and done with.

We come up with the 114,000 units at $120,000 each. This is a bare-bones cost. Perhaps that’s only for the actual construction. That comes out to roughly $17 billion. Is the Premier prepared to commit to that much budget space over the next ten years for housing when it’s apparently at a very minimal cost and perhaps it doesn’t even include the land cost?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’ll try and be clear with the member that we have committed $7 billion over the next ten years to realize this goal, and that is not all we’re doing. Land is available. Some will be donated. The United Church, I’ve made reference to. The housing hub is working with municipal governments, working with developers, within the budget that we’ve tabled.

Looking forward, we’re looking at investments in 36,000 new units of housing. More than 77,000 new units of housing will be leveraged in part through the housing hub at B.C. Housing and through community partnerships, local government, not-for-profits, developers, and faith and Indigenous groups.

In addition to that, we are going to be allowing universities to build student housing. The member was the minister responsible. He’ll be aware, certainly, of the shortage of campus housing right across B.C. Allowing campuses, universities and colleges to take land that they have available to invest in housing and then recoup those costs through renting those out to students will create more supply in communities as well. This is an ambitious goal, but it was a daunting challenge.

[4:45 p.m.]

Again, I’m grateful that the opposition has got on board with us and understands that housing is fundamental to people’s well-being. It’s fundamental to our prosperity as a province. We’re going to be committed, over time, to realize our objectives.

If the member wants to put in writing his questions about specifics, I’ll be happy to get him the answers.

A. Wilkinson: Earlier this week the development community put out a report saying that in the Cambie corridor the total cost of government charges to go into a two-bedroom apartment, including development cost charges, community amenity charges, the speculation tax and potentially the school tax, comes to $330,000 per unit.

Now that’s vastly in excess of the unit costs budgeted by this Premier to build these 1,700 units. So given the already existing government-driven charges that go into every unit of housing in Vancouver, in the range of anywhere from $77,000 to $330,000 per unit, perhaps the Premier can explain what possible difference his $120,000 per unit is going to make.

Hon. J. Horgan: Firstly, again, if the member wants to lay out the specific questions…. I don’t know where he got the first number. I don’t know where he got the last number. He’s referring to a report that was tabled this week. I’m not aware of that report. I’m happy to look at it.

I think the broad policy thrust of the government was to do something about the crisis that arrived as the result of 16 years of ignoring housing in British Columbia by the previous government. We’ve put in place an ambitious plan. We’ve put a significant amount of money in this budget, next budget and the budget after that, and a ten-year plan to achieve this.

I realize that after 16 years of inaction, the member on the other side is concerned that after ten months we haven’t resolved the problem, but we’re committed to doing that.

A. Wilkinson: Perhaps the Premier can just clarify, then: when the election platform said, “We will build 114,000 affordable housing units over ten years,” was that a puff piece, or does the Premier intend to deliver when the unit cost of the government charges far exceeds the budget amount to actually build the unit?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the member is trying to distort what we’re talking about here. At no time did we say the province was going to build 114,000 units. We said we were going to achieve that by working in partnership. By working in partnership, we will build, as a government, overseeing municipalities, developers and the range of people.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: Okay. Well, the member clearly wants me to just read from the book, and I’ll do that. “The government, through B.C. Housing, will invest $1.6 billion over three years — $983 million in operating funding and $638 million in capital funding — as part of our housing strategy. The government is investing $7.1 billion over ten years — $6.18 billion to increase housing supply, $1.1 billion in maintenance and upgrades to existing stock, plus $116 million over three years to expand RAP and SAFER.”

A. Wilkinson: Of course, what that amounts to is a disavow of the election promise. The Premier now says they were just alluding to other people’s work rather than his own.

Let’s move on, then, to the next topic, the next issue that has arisen, which is ending partisan advertising. I’ll first ask for the advertising budget since this government was sworn July 7, 2017, I believe it was, through to the end of the fiscal year, which should be readily available.

Hon. J. Horgan: The GCPE budget is readily available to the minister responsible for that file. It will take us some time to get it. I’m sure the member has time, so I’ll just await staff from another ministry to provide that information so I can deliver it personally to the Leader of the Official Opposition.

A. Wilkinson: While you’re waiting for that from this very able staff from the Cedar Room behind us, who are fully connected to the system and will be able to deliver that shortly, let’s have a look at page 87 of the NDP campaign document.

The platform stated: “We will start by ending waste on partisan government ads. We’ll work with the Auditor General to set strong standards for advertising spending.”

[4:50 p.m.]

Perhaps the Premier can elaborate on what has been done with the Auditor General since his government was sworn in last July. Of course, the proposition that was thrown at us when we were in government was that we should emulate the Ontario experience of having the Auditor General approve advertising by government. Perhaps the Premier can explain the progress he’s made on having the Auditor General review his ads before they go on TV.

Hon. J. Horgan: I can give the member the proposed budget ’18-19 for GCPE with respect to advertising. It’s $9.261 million. I’m having people go back to find the number from July ’17 to the end of last fiscal. With respect to how we’re going to do advertising differently, we’re preparing a framework that will ensure that key areas relating to government advertising standards are clearly defined. It was nebulous in the previous administration, and we’re going to clarify that.

British Columbians access information through now diverse communications channels — social media, particularly, which is a low-cost form of communicating directly with people. The days of the full-page ads…. The local Postmedia outlets are less able to drive a message to inform British Columbians of new programs, new initiatives and so on.

Of course, the member will know, as he was responsible for government communications when he was a minister of the Crown, that the framework will guide the development of information campaigns and public engagement activities to ensure that those campaigns are specifically directed at public information, not partisan activity.

A good example of that is the ads we’re doing right now on the opioid crisis, which I know the member would support. We’re trying to end the stigma, trying to ensure that people understand that the horrific death toll that we’ve seen from the opioid crisis in British Columbia over the past number of years affects all of us — families, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers. It’s not isolated to one part of the community; it’s everywhere. Those are the types of ad campaigns that, I believe, are providing a public service. That’s part of the framework that we’re developing.

A. Wilkinson: That note sounds almost verbatim to what I had in the ministry when I was responsible for this field two years ago. So it appears that nothing has happened since the rather high standard was set by the Premier for his own conduct — by saying that his government would work with the Auditor General to set strong standards for advertising spending.

I’ll ask the question again. Has anything whatsoever happened with the Auditor General in this regard?

Hon. J. Horgan: We’re currently working on a framework, as I said in my initial response. Once we’ve had that established, we’re going to be working with, potentially, other officers of the Legislature as well as the Auditor General to ensure that we’re protecting the public interest when we expend public dollars to inform citizens about programs.

[4:55 p.m.]

Whether it be new programs initiated through budgets — which is usually a large media buy, as the member will know — we’re looking at other ways to deliver that information. We’re looking at ways of directly getting to people through their hand-held devices, through other forms of communication. We’re doing an expansive discussion and review of how we do that, and I’m confident the Auditor General will be involved at some point in the near future.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier referred earlier to the opioid ads, and that is the kind of totally non-partisan advertising all of us can support. However, having a couple of actors walk by the camera with a 4-by-8 sheet of plywood — on it is written “114,000 housing units” — does not constitute informational advertising for the public health. It constitutes, effectively, partisan advertising to support the NDP budget.

I’ll ask the question a third time. The Premier said he would potentially be working with the Auditor General. Well, that is a dramatically different answer from what is written in the NDP platform, which says: “We will work with the Auditor General to set strong standards for advertising spending.”

Can the Premier answer the question? Has the Auditor General been met with, contacted, corresponded with, dealt with? Has the Auditor General provided commentary on advertising? If so, where is it?

Hon. J. Horgan: To get to the answer of the question of the 2017-18 advertising budget, it was $11 million; 2018-19 is $9 million. That will be a reduction, as the member will know. I’m sure he’s scribbling down those numbers.

We made a commitment during the election campaign to ensure that partisan advertising was no longer part and parcel of how government operated. We’re committed to doing that. As the member has said, there were policies in place when he was responsible for this, and despite his best efforts, partisan ads managed to squeak through every now and again. My commitment to the people of British Columbia was to ensure that over the life of this government we eliminated that. That means working with stakeholders, working with a whole host of people, including the Auditor General, to make sure we get that done.

A. Wilkinson: I’ll paraphrase my earlier question and see if we can get an answer this time.

Has there been any formal contact, whether correspondence, meetings, engagement or the offer to have the Auditor General review advertising? In other words, have the Premier’s office and the minister responsible for government advertising followed through on their promise to work with the Auditor General to set strong standards for advertising spending? Perhaps this time I could get an answer.

Hon. J. Horgan: The budget for advertising in ’16-17, when the member was responsible, was $16 million. Last year it dropped to $11 million. This year it has dropped to $9 million.

We are committed to making sure that we don’t waste public dollars on partisan advertising. We are committed to making sure that we do that in a methodical way. We’re putting in place a framework, and we will be engaging with the Auditor General. I’m advised that we’ve not yet done so. Again, I’ll remind the member: it might seem like an eternity to him, but we’ve only been here for ten months.

A. Wilkinson: Having dealt with the Auditor General myself in a number of guises over the 15 years that I’ve been involved in government, they’re a phone call away, Premier, and ten months is a long time.

So it’s a little rich to hear from you that you’ve spent $11 million in advertising when your campaign materials from one year ago said that you would work with the Auditor General to set strong standards for advertising spending. Surely, that should have been embarked upon immediately on taking office, rather than spending $11 million and then thinking that you might potentially, maybe, one day, perhaps contact the Auditor General in the future as part of the full length of your mandate.

When are you going to contact the Auditor General?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I’ll remind the member that the advertising budget for ’17-18 is half his responsibility. That $11 million will be distributed between his government and my government.

Again, I appreciate that everyone is only a phone call away. We’re doing our level best to try and clean up some of the challenges we found when we arrived. It wasn’t as easy as we thought it was going to be, because the magnitude of the challenge was greater than we were led to believe by the former government.

We’re going to work hard on this. We’re going to do our level best to meet the commitments we made during our election campaign, and I encourage the member to stand by.

A. Wilkinson: I think we can safely call that an evasive series of answers, because the Premier doesn’t want to answer it. The Premier failed to have his staff contact the Auditor General in any significant way at all in the last ten months since taking office, even though this is one of those ethical standards that he set for himself and his government: there was somehow going to be a new world of clarity and appropriate behaviour. Instead, we get the same old, same old.

[5:00 p.m.]

Let’s try another space here. We heard all about this in the election. At great length, we heard all about how daycare was going to be $10 a day. Let’s take a few quotes out of the NDP election platform. Page 8, “$10 a Day Childcare” is the header. The next page: “The $10-a-day plan will pay for itself over time by empowering parents with the choice to continue their careers, boosting our economy.”

The next page: “Affordable: the $10-a-day plan will ensure no parent is shut out of work because of the high cost of child care by offering full-day daycare for $10 and part-time care for $7 a day, with no fee for families with annual incomes below $40,000 a year.”

Let’s go to the next paragraph. It’s going to be accessible: “The $10-a-day plan will build a child care system that provides safe care for every child whose family wants or needs it.” The bottom of that page, in large font: “We’re going to work toward a $10-a-day daycare program. It’s the right thing to do for our kids, for working families and for our economy.”

Well, thousands of parents all over British Columbia took the Premier’s word for that, and within days of being sworn in, the answer was: “Just kidding.” It was just a slogan. It was taken from somewhere else. The $10 a day didn’t mean $10 a day; it meant something else.

Lo and behold, Premier, we now find that the child care operators who are being offered the new program, which is essentially a subsidy for the operators…. It makes their businesses non-viable. We’ve been told by the operators — thousands of operators — that they are forced to accept a price cap, if the subsidy is applicable to their care, and with the employers health tax and ongoing increases in costs, such as escalation of lease costs, they cannot have a viable business model.

Premier, my question is: the $10-a-day daycare — was it just a slogan?

Hon. J. Horgan: We have embarked on one of the most significant improvements in child care in British Columbia in a generation. It’s a significant undertaking, and we’re very proud of the progress we’ve made. We’re providing monthly savings of $350 per family with the child care fee reduction and launching a new child care affordability program that will benefit up to $1,250 per child, per month. And 85 percent of the seats available in British Columbia have opted in to this program. It’s just the beginning, hon. Member.

Again, I appreciate the new-found interest in child care for families in British Columbia, and I’m grateful that the member and his colleagues will be supporting this as we build this program out over the next number of years.

A. Wilkinson: Perhaps you could just clarify, in light of that enthusiastic answer: whatever happened to the $10-a-day plan which appears on four separate pages of the NDP election platform? Was it just a slogan, or is there a plan to move toward $10-a-day daycare? It’s a fairly straightforward question. This is either within the intentions and the fiscal plan of the government or not. Perhaps the Premier can answer that.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, some parents will pay $10 a day. Low-income parents will pay nothing at all come September.

We are launching a generational change when it comes to child care in British Columbia. We have to simultaneously improve quality, improve space numbers, train ECE workers and reduce costs to parents. This is a significant undertaking.

[5:05 p.m.]

I’m grateful that the member has taken an interest in this. I know that British Columbians in every corner of this great province will be delighted to know that there’s cooperation and consensus on the child care challenge in British Columbia. To have three parties elected to represent people across B.C. all working to make life better for people is very good news. I’m grateful the member is now on board.

A. Wilkinson: I’m glad to see this new cooperative tone in the Legislature, given the complete obstruction on proportional representation. But we’ll cover that another day.

The question remains, Premier….

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

A. Wilkinson: The election platform, top of page 10: “The $10-a-day plan will ensure no parent is shut out of work because of the high cost of child care by offering full-day care for $10 and part-time care for $7 a day.” Perhaps the Premier can elaborate on the number of $7-a-day daycare spaces that have been created.

Hon. J. Horgan: The member will know that we committed to phasing this in over ten years. We’ve made an incredible start on it. I’m very proud of the Minister of State for Child Care and the hard work she’s done in concert with the Minister of Children and Family Development. Creating the opportunities through our post-secondary institutions to bring on more ECE workers will allow us to achieve that.

We were always clear that this was going to be phased in over time. You know what? Most regular people out there recognize that there was a crisis. It was built over a number of years, and it will take a number of years to turn it around.

A. Wilkinson: Perhaps the Premier can provide us with the cost estimates, which must certainly have been prepared last fall, for the actual implementation of a $10-a-day care program for full-day and $7 a day for part-time. Surely this government must have prepared those estimates before concluding that they simply weren’t possible.

Hon. J. Horgan: Certainly the member will know that the most expensive care in the marketplace today is infant and toddler care. That’s where the greatest savings have been realized by the plan that we launched this year, with 84 percent uptake on spaces opting in, seeking to work with this; a $350-a-month savings for families with kids under 36 months; a $200 saving, as well, coming to others; and for families with three-year-olds to kindergarten, it’s $100. That’s a significant improvement in the delivery of the service for the citizens of British Columbia.

[5:10 p.m.]

The advocates have been asking for change, yearning for change, for a number of years. I’ll quote Sharon Gregson of the $10-a-day coalition. She said, as recently as February of this year:

“Even in our best dreams, this isn’t going to happen overnight. The child care crisis is so bad, no one throne speech or one budget is going to fix it, but we can start to make some inroads, and we can start some implementation. Let’s make it more affordable for families, not just single families. You know, there are lots of moms and dads trying to go to work between their housing and their child care needs, and they’re stressed out. Let’s start making this life affordable, and let’s get going on it right away.”

That’s exactly what we’re doing, hon. Member. This is not something that arrived on the 17th of July. It’s been building over a number of decades. The challenge for all of us is to recognize and acknowledge that child care is fundamental to success for families. We’re working very closely with the federal government. They want to partner with us to ensure that federal dollars can come into British Columbia to make life even better for the people of this great province.

We’re passionate about this. I’m glad to see that there’s new enthusiasm on the opposite side for this. We’re going to be building this out over time. We said from the beginning that we were going to phase this in. We’ve got a $1 billion start, and we’re very proud of it.

A. Wilkinson: Having served as a deputy minister myself in a transition period…. I’m sure the array of people around the Premier are fully prepared with the answer. You’ve got the Finance Minister sitting three seats away.

The question was very clear and specific, Premier: what was the price tag put on your $10-a-day daycare plan when you received the briefing from the civil service about the cost of the program? It’s a very simple question.

Hon. J. Horgan: The member is an experienced MLA. He was a minister of the Crown. He was a senior public servant. He will know that, when we came to government with a commitment to make life better for British Columbians and to develop a quality, accessible, affordable child care plan over the long term, we looked at revenues. We looked at need in the community. We reached out to stakeholders. We talked to the providers of child care. We talked to academics about how many ECEs we could bring on and what the consequence of that would be.

We built out a three-year plan which was tabled in this Legislature back in February. The member is welcome to go back and look at the results of the hard work of building that budget, which started last fall and ended with the minister standing in her place and tabling it in February.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier referred moments ago to Sharon Gregson. She appeared before the Finance Committee, on Hansard, within the past year and stated that the initiation cost of this program would be $1.6 billion. Is she wrong?

Hon. J. Horgan: I can’t comment on Ms. Gregson’s contribution to the Finance Committee. I’m not a member of that committee. I’ll certainly, because of the interest the Leader of the Opposition has, go back and scour the Hansard of that committee and take a look at it and perhaps get back to him.

A. Wilkinson: Premier, we appreciate that you’re relatively new in this role, but the role in estimates in the House here is to be publicly accountable for your government. With the array of officials around you, including the Finance Minister herself, someone in this room, surely, or someone in the Cedar Room just ten metres behind you who is monitoring this closely, can answer the question that appeared in a briefing note, most certainly on your plate last fall, about what the cost of $10-a-day daycare would be.

We’ve heard from Ms. Gregson that it’s estimated at $1.6 billion. The simple question is: what is the number?

Hon. J. Horgan: I am fully prepared to be accountable for my government. I can’t be accountable for comments from citizens at committee meetings. I’m sure the member understands that.

A. Wilkinson: I suppose it’s rather a disappointment to the people who are watching this democratic process and who are observing this proceeding that the number is clearly in the heads of two or three people sitting across from me and they refuse to provide it. Is there a reason why you won’t provide the number on $10-a-day daycare?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: The member may want a number to appear. He knows the budget-making process. We were sworn in as a government in July. We tabled a budget update in September, working with the public service, working diligently to put forward a balanced approach to deliver services for people, particularly to deliver issues like child care.

We then created a full budget starting with the process in the fall of 2017, ending with the tabling of that budget. That has a three-year plan. The information is available to the member. I can get him a copy of the budget estimates, and he can review it then.

A. Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr. Premier. I have a copy of the budget document with me here in front of me, and it doesn’t provide this answer to me.

Perhaps the more pointed question is: does the Premier’s staff and the Minister of Finance have the number at all? Or was it never even embarked upon as a serious enterprise to figure out what the cost would be of $10-a-day daycare, because the Premier and his staff knew that it was not a viable program, knew that it was nothing more than an election slogan, tried to downplay it and immediately told officials to forget about it. Is that the truth?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition wants to establish a narrative. What I want to do is establish quality child care for citizens of British Columbia. We’ve done that in Budget 2018, tabling a three-year plan that will build out a child care program that’s affordable, accessible and available to citizens who need it so that we can continue to grow our economy.

All members of society, particularly women who are often disproportionately removed from the workforce when children are brought into families…. We want to do what we can to make that better. That’s what we’re doing.

I appreciate the member wants to establish a narrative. But I, instead, invite him to go out and talk to people about how excited they are that finally, there’s a government that’s putting people first, investing in children and investing in early childhood education so that we can all benefit from the bounty of this province.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier talks about establishing a narrative. What we’re all doing here is trying to establish some facts, trying to establish what the truth is. But the Premier is being completely evasive on this topic, perhaps because he’s got quite a lot to hide on the $10-a-day daycare program, which was an illusion from the very first day.

We see that the Finance Minister is heaving a sigh of relief. We’ll move on now, because perhaps she knows the number and doesn’t want to tell the Premier.

Let’s talk about another evasion. May 4, 2017. When pressed, the NDP in the election campaign put out their position on ride-sharing. “The reliance on and demand for ride-sharing is growing, and B.C. needs to be ready for it. John Horgan and the B.C. NDP support the passing of new rules to introduce ride-sharing to B.C. in 2017.” Premier, what happened?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I realize and I appreciate that ride-hailing is an issue that certainly was on the agenda for the previous government for a number of years. I recall that when I became Leader of the Opposition and the member for Kamloops–South Thompson was the minister responsible, he talked about bringing in ride-hailing. I think it was 2014-2015.

At that time, I encouraged him to bring it to an all-party committee so we could have a comprehensive discussion about what the consequences of a new technology, a new service to the people of British Columbia, would have on existing carriers. That overture was rejected at that time, and then there was a long pause of some 24 months.

Just prior to the election — the member might remember it was in March or heading towards April, during the writ period — the government then announced with much fanfare that they had planned to do something, and they would get back to us what that would be. So during the election campaign, the member will know, ride-hailing companies, international and local, were raising this issue as a topic.

At the same time, existing industry, the taxi industry, was expressing concerns that they wanted to ensure that there was a level playing field and the new costs of the new ride-hailing companies would be similar to the costs of the existing industry.

When we formed government, I asked the Minister of Transportation to commission a report by Mr. Dan Hara on the existing taxi industry and what steps we could take to improve service — to ensure that those businesses, which the member will know full well are family businesses, were in a good place to receive new competition and that that competition would be on a level playing field. In addition to that, we struck a committee, an all-party committee of the Legislature — members from all three political parties — to do a review in this place of the future of ride-hailing in British Columbia.

We’ve made good progress on this, and I’m confident that the Minister of Transportation will have more to say in the days and weeks and months ahead.

A. Wilkinson: We’ve heard loudly and clearly from the Green Party that they support the whole concept of ride-sharing and ride-hailing. So apparently, they aren’t an obstacle in this. Given that this was to have been completed in 2017, I suppose the obvious question is, Premier: what’s the obstacle? It’s been implemented widely around the world. Is there something in the way?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, members opposite will know there are significant challenges in this industry. Uber first came to B.C. in 2012. That was two elections ago. The government of the day, re-elected in 2013, did nothing until just before the last election, and that was not clear.

The Leader of the Opposition said, in February: “We have to make sure that whoever is carrying passengers in British Columbia is appropriately licensed, appropriately trained and skilled and appropriately insured.” That sounds like just a sentence, but the member will know full well that there are complexities within that.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia was in crisis when we arrived in government. We had to take stock of how we were going to transform that Crown corporation and get it back to a place where it could deliver cost-effective services for the people of B.C. and, at the same time, address the challenges of the existing industry and any new adherents that would come into the marketplace. These are not easy issues. The member knows that.

I appreciate that, again, it comes back to a narrative. But we want to work as diligently as we can to make sure that when ride-hailing comes to British Columbia, it happens in a way that has a level playing field so that the existing industry is not adversely affected and that, most importantly, the services that people are looking for are going to be delivered in a safe, effective way that doesn’t have any more burden on the taxpayers than we have already seen with challenges at ICBC.

A. Wilkinson: This sounds remarkably like the same proposition that’s been heard over the last two, three, four, five years. So I suppose the obvious question is: given the election promise from the Premier to implement in 2017, what is in the way?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll refer to the last throne speech of the previous government, where on this question the Lieutenant-Governor read that there were “legitimate implementation concerns” remaining. The member knows that. All members know that.

This is a challenging issue. There’s a demand for improved service right across, certainly, the Lower Mainland, southern Vancouver Island and densely populated areas, to have improved access to ride-sharing and ride-hailing services. But it is not that simple, and the member knows that. Certainly, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson knows that.

What we’ve been faced with is trying to find the balance between protecting the existing industry and also ensuring that it reforms and meets the needs of the travelling public; at the same time, new adherents, new arrivals to the marketplace have to have the same set of rules as the existing industry. That has been the focus of the all-party committee, and that will be the challenge for the Minister of Transportation in the months ahead.

A. Wilkinson: I think just about everyone in this House has heard for a good long time about the need for a level playing field. Can the Premier explain what is not level about the playing field now that he’s had a year to consider this issue and has failed to deliver as he suggested he would in 2017? What is it that’s unlevel about the playing field?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I know the member understands the challenges here. One of them is: how do you continue to have a regulated environment for public safety, with a public auto insurer protecting the interests of the existing industry — those that have invested, for many, their homes, their life savings into starting their businesses? How do you make sure that the public is going to get the service that they’re seeking in a cost-effective way? Do we want to ensure that new adherents are also operating with the same level of training, the same level of background checks and the same level of appropriate oversight to their activities?

These are challenges that were not new in July of 2017. We, as the previous government did, are working diligently to try and get through this in the interest of public safety and in the interest of ensuring that we can continue to have the services that people want in British Columbia.

A. Wilkinson: The taxi industry, as far as I’m aware, is most concerned about the elements of the level playing field being comparable insurance, comparable driver standards and comparable vehicle standards. So, Premier, what’s in the way?

Hon. J. Horgan: Just what the member said. I mean, it’s: how do we bring in a regime with…? In many instances, some of the ride-hailing companies are located offshore. They’re app-based. So ensuring that the drivers of the ride-hailing vehicles have the appropriate training, have the appropriate licensing and have had the appropriate background checks is more difficult to do than just waving a wand.

That’s why the Minister of Transportation is working to make sure that what we have in place for the taxi industry, we’ll have in place for the ride-hailing industry.

[5:30 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Now, page 38 of the NDP election platform contained a statement that is very clear. It says: “We will replace Surrey portables with real classrooms, building new schools in B.C.’s fastest-growing region.” That sounded very ambitious and desirable and that a lot of capital costs would be spent on schools. But lo and behold, we now have 11 more portables in Surrey than we did a year ago.

Perhaps the Premier can explain what’s going to reverse the tide of portables.

Hon. J. Horgan: On the old government’s watch, portables in Surrey increased by 50 percent. In 2001, there were 218 portables. By 2017, there were 316.

That was complicated further by the almost decade-and-a-half-long fight between the former government and the B.C. Teachers Federation that ended with a Supreme Court ruling in I think it was less than the time it would take to watch a sitcom on television. A decision rendered from the bench in some 22 minutes found that the previous government had, in fact, stripped the rights of citizens and had to restore the class-size ratios of the 1990s, I believe it was, at the end of the day.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The consequence of that was overcrowded classrooms and the need for more portables. Before we could even be sworn in, the former government had succeeded in increasing the number of portables by avoiding addressing class size and class composition for a decade and a half.

What we have done since we came to government…. And I’ve been very proud to be with members from Surrey, on all sides of the House — the member for Surrey South and other members, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. All members in that community understand and recognize that in the fastest-growing community in British Columbia, we need to make sure we’re providing not just education but health and other services to the people of that community. And the challenge has been trying to keep pace with the backlog as development permits come forward. We don’t have appropriate lands to build new schools.

In the time we’ve had available since September of 2017, we’ve created 1,800 new spaces in Surrey. We recently announced a 605-seat elementary school in the Douglas area, a 100-seat expansion at Coyote Creek, a 150-seat addition at Frost Road, another 655-seat new elementary school in Grandview Heights and a 300-seat addition at Pacific Heights. And there’s much, much more to do.

The best part of this, however, is that we have established an office in Surrey, working with the Surrey school board to make sure that we can fast-track and accelerate the building of new schools to meet the demands of the citizens of that great city. I’m very proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish, but we have much, much more to do.

A. Wilkinson: The question remains: with all of that enthusiasm and some capital investment, why is the number of portables going up in Surrey?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the answer rests in the inaction of the previous government. The memorandum of agreement between the government and the BCTF has led to, in Surrey, 156 new portables because of the inaction of the former government. So they’ve gone up because you refused to live by collective agreements.

A. Wilkinson: Well, it’s rather disappointing to hear that, in fact, the number of portables has not gone up by 11; it’s gone up by 156. The Premier, I suppose, has an obvious question to answer. When the election promise was “We will replace Surrey portables with real classrooms, building new schools in B.C.’s fastest-growing region,” the obvious question is: when? When are these portables, hundreds of them, going to be replaced in Surrey?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll correct myself. The 156 is across the province, as a result of the MOA.

[5:35 p.m.]

The answer to “when?” is: as quickly as we can possibly do it. That’s why we put in place an office specifically to accelerate capital projects in Surrey, and we’ve made great progress. Again, we are ten months into the job. I want to commend my Minister of Education, who’s not here at the moment, for the diligent work he has done to go across the province to address the needs in communities like Kelowna, where I was pleased to announce a new school some months ago.

There’s new work being done in my district, the fastest-growing district on Vancouver Island. Chilliwack is another area. I see the member for Chilliwack, who also knows that young families are moving to Chilliwack for affordability reasons, and they need services.

Education is a high priority for me, a very high priority for me. Addressing the capital needs to make sure that we’ve got facilities for our students is what we committed to do in the election campaign, in Surrey and right across the province, and we’ve made good progress. But these things are not done overnight.

Had it not been for the tactics of the previous government with respect to collective bargaining on class size and class composition, we wouldn’t have had the increase, the spike, that we saw following the court resolution last year.

A. Wilkinson: I suppose, being unusually pessimistic on this side of the House and unusually optimistic about the longevity of the government abroad, is there a reasonable prospect…? Can the people of Surrey look forward to all of their portables being gone three years from now, which is the construction cycle? Yes or no.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, there is incredible excitement and optimism in Surrey, as we’ve launched a plan with the Mayors Council to build light rapid transit in that city, and we’re working to bring on new health services in that community. We’re building schools. We’ve eliminated tolls. We’ve made equal citizens of the people who live in Surrey.

I know the level of optimism on this side of the House and in Surrey will make its way over to that side of the House soon enough.

A. Wilkinson: That answer can only be considered to be completely dismissive and evasive. So I suppose we’ll get back to the norm in these estimates, which is that the Premier doesn’t provide any answers at all, even though he has arrayed around him his Minister of Health, with a $21 billion budget, his Finance Minister, his deputy and a fleet of people who know the answers. But the Premier refuses to provide them.

Let’s try another tack. Page 34 of the NDP platform document, a very simple one-line statement: “We will make student loans interest-free — current and future.” That, Premier, is a stroke of the pen. That requires you to tell the Finance Minister to do it. It’s simple. There’s no process involved. This government, under our prior Finance Minister, reduced the student loan interest rate to the prime rate. So now we have to ask you: what happened to that promise to make student loans interest-free?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll remind the member that the length of a mandate is approximately four or 4½ years, and we’re just getting started. We have reduced interest rates on tuition fees. We’ve eliminated tuition fees for adult basic education. We’ve eliminated tuition fees for English language learning so that new people coming to British Columbia can get the skills that they need.

We also eliminated tuition fees for former kids in care, which provides opportunity and hope for kids who did not see any hope after travelling from foster care to foster care to foster care. Now we’ve given kids coming out of the system some hope that the government’s got their back, not just till they age out but right through their life.

These are initiatives that we’re very proud of. I appreciate that the former minister wants us to do everything with the stroke of a pen. It’s interesting how the pen didn’t work very well for 16 years. We’re doing our level best in the ten months that we’ve had.

A. Wilkinson: Of course, we were able to, as the Premier recognized, reduce student loan interest rates to prime rate, and that was met with great enthusiasm from the student body.

[5:40 p.m.]

The Premier made a representation to the 430,000 students in post-secondary education in British Columbia that he would eliminate student loan interest. Has the Premier failed to do so, and if so, when will he do it?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, effective August 1, the variable interest rate for B.C. student loans was reduced from prime rate plus 2½ percent to a fixed rate, and that is just the beginning. The Minister of Finance is working very diligently to make sure that we can reduce fees for students, not just in terms of their interest but in other ways, as I said — adult basic education, English language learning and former kids in care.

Again, I’ll just remind the member that we have four years. I appreciate his enthusiasm for getting this all done. If we can have unanimous consent for this, we’ll do it tomorrow.

A. Wilkinson: It’s an interesting day in the Legislature when the Premier says he’d like to have unanimous consent to just add to the budget and throw another $200 million in the pocket of the Finance Minister. If this is the budgetary process the Premier anticipates, then why are we here in estimates? If it would simply take a unanimous vote of the House to pass a few things, a couple hundred million dollars here and there, it begs the question of why we need the budgetary process at all.

After that rather glib remark from the Premier, perhaps he can go on to the other great promise that was made immediately below the previous one. “We will provide a $1,000 completion grant for graduates of college, university and skilled-trades programs to help pay down debt when they finish their programs.” Does the Premier have a plan in that regard, or was that another puff piece to attract the votes of students, all of those post-secondary students around British Columbia who were convinced to vote for the NDP because of a false and empty promise on two fronts?

Hon. J. Horgan: The student debt problem in British Columbia got out of control when this government came to power and let tuition fees rise uncontrollably, and the cost to students went up as a result. Student debt continued to increase on their time in government. I’m grateful, again, that we have this conversion from this side of the House to that side of the House that members are now concerned about kids, that they’re concerned about the costs they’re incurring to get the education they deserve and need to participate fully in the modern economy.

We’re committed to making sure that we’re making life better for students. We’re committed to making sure that access to education is there for everybody — kids in care; kids that need to have their skills upgraded; young adults; elders that are dislocated in the workforce, transitioning from one career to another.

Education is the great equalizer. The member knows that. He’s a well-educated individual and has benefited as a result of that. I want to make sure that everyone has access to that education, and that’s why we’re going to bring forward, over the next four years, a whole range of initiatives to make it easier to get that education that will benefit everyone, as it’s benefited he and I.

A. Wilkinson: Perhaps when we’re speaking to post-secondary students, is it fair to say, Premier, that help is on the way? They just need to hold their breath, and some day in the future, they’ll get interest-free student loans and $1,000 completion grants. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: We’re going to continue to make it more affordable for quality education in British Columbia. That’s a commitment that we made during the campaign, and we’re going to continue to do that through the course of our mandate.

A. Wilkinson: Turning quickly to one last item, the legendary hydro rate freeze. Now, we have this on page 89 of the NDP campaign materials. It’s right underneath the $10-a-day child care promise. It says, “Freeze hydro rates,” and that apparently fell to pieces when you went to the Utilities Commission.

Perhaps the Premier can explain whether that’s actually going to be a continuing plan to attempt to freeze hydro rates or if that’s been completely abandoned because the Utilities Commission told him it was completely lacking in credibility.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll just advise the member that a recent CBC report has over 70 percent of the commitments that we made during the election campaign have been realized. I appreciate that we’re not quite at 100 percent, but we’re getting there.

With respect to B.C. Hydro and the hydro rate freeze, when we came to government, we did not anticipate the magnitude of the challenge at ICBC. When you have your two major Crowns that have been basically used as cash machines by the previous government, the ability to turn that around is more difficult than we had first assumed.

The difference between those of us on this side of the House and those on that side of the House is that we wanted to ensure that the Utilities Commission was restored to its original purpose, which was to protect ratepayers from governments that would be making decisions that were in their political interest. That’s why we asked the Utilities Commission to review the Site C project to tell us where we were at. How did it fit with other projects in the marketplace, and what would the consequences be of a go/no go on that project?

When we looked at the rate freeze, I asked the Minister of Energy to take a look at that with her officials. Rather than direct — which we could have done, as the previous government had done — the Utilities Commission to freeze the rates, we allowed the commission to take a look at the existing responsibilities that B.C. Hydro had, how they’re going to be able to meet their costs going forward. The request was denied.

The good news out of that, although it was a difficulty that we had to see the B.C. Liberal rate increase imposed in April…. That was the result of the Utilities Commission doing their due diligence. We were able to find an opportunity to work with B.C. Hydro and the Utilities Commission to look at other mechanisms to reduce costs for those who most need them.

The member made reference earlier on to the renters rebate, that that would have been an universal program in his mind and that those that did not necessarily need the break would have got one anyway perhaps. What we are seeing now is there are examples of things like the lifeline rate, which is used in other jurisdictions, that would focus on those most in need to ensure that their rates were either capped or reduced over time.

The good news — allowing the Utilities Commission to do its work and impose the 3 percent increase that had been mandated by the former government — is that we’ve had now good work done by B.C. Hydro.

The Minister of Energy has been particularly focused on this over the past number of months, to try and find a way that we can use the existing tariff structure at B.C. Hydro, allow the Utilities Commission to continue to do its independent work to protect ratepayers and also put in place programs that will reduce costs to those who are most adversely affected by increased energy costs over time.

A. Wilkinson: That was a rather lengthy answer to a rather simple question. Given the Utilities Commission rejected the concept as not viable, will the Premier be taking back to the Utilities Commission the question of a hydro rate freeze or not?

Hon. J. Horgan: The advantage of giving a long answer is you’re hopeful that people will be listening to the content of it.

What I said was that rather than direct the commission, as the previous government had done, to do what it was told by special direction, we allowed the commission to do its work unimpeded. They came back to the Minister of Energy and said that the 3 percent rate increase that had been mandated by the former government would have to go forward if Hydro was going to meet its costs over the fiscal year.

The advantage of that is that now B.C. Hydro staff and Ministry of Energy staff are working to try and find ways to reduce costs for those who most need it. That’s the benefit of having flexibility to allow the commission to be independent but to ensure that B.C. Hydro and the ministry officials in Finance and in Energy are working to find ways to reduce costs for people.

One example that I used in my long answer was the lifeline rate, which has been proposed in the past and may well be a solution for those that most need the help.

A. Wilkinson: We’ll turn briefly to the budget document. Page 18 contains the summary of revenue by source. At the top of the page, of course, is personal income tax, forecast at $8.886 billion in 2017-18, rising to $9.836 billion in 2018-19. So this is a fairly simple question that begs a fairly simple answer. That’s a rise of $950 million in income taxes, isn’t it, Premier?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, my read of the budget document is, as the member says, personal income tax revenue has increased year over year.

A. Wilkinson: We seem to be reaching new heights of evasion in that this is a simple matter of subtracting one number from another. The number is very clear. It’s $950 million, isn’t it, Premier?

Hon. J. Horgan: Yes it is, if we’re looking at the same document. The updated forecast ’17-18 was 8.886, and the next year it’s 9.836. I’ll take your word on the math. It looks straightforward to me. I don’t understand what the question is.

A. Wilkinson: Well, I’ve got to tell you, Premier, it’s pretty daunting to me when the head of the executive council of this province, who collects $54 billion in revenue from the people of British Columbia, says: “I guess you’re right.”

It’s a $950 million increase in income tax, Premier, and you seemed to be unaware of it until this moment. What is the issue is that you seem to be surprised by the fact that almost $1 billion of income tax has been increased during your mandate. This is breathtaking, that you can sit there and think that this is humorous.

The question, obviously, Premier, is: what warranted a $950 million income tax increase in a single year, and who is paying it?

Hon. J. Horgan: I didn’t know there was a question. There’s an increase in income tax revenue to the Crown because of growth in the economy, new people coming to British Columbia. In my mind, that’s good news. That allows us to provide the services that people want, whether it be health, education, transportation services.

I didn’t hear a question, Member, and that’s why my surprise. I look at the number. It’s increased year over year. That’s good news for the B.C. economy.

A. Wilkinson: The point, Premier, is it’s almost a $1 billion increase in a population of 4.8 million. That means that the people of British Columbia are paying a lot more income tax under your government than they have been previously. The rate has gone up by fully 12 percent in a single year. That’s a huge increase in income tax. Where is that coming from, and who is paying it?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the increase is the result of the first full year of the increase in the high-income surtax, growth in the economy and wage growth. Again, you’ve read our campaign documents. You’ve been reading me back pieces of it. We committed to increase a high-income surtax. We’ve done that, and the result has been an increase in revenue to provide the services that British Columbians need.

A. Wilkinson: The next question, of course, arises from the speculation tax and the sudden reversal executed by the Finance Minister in March, where she suddenly decided that a few NDP and Green ridings would be exempted from the speculation tax, including the municipality of Juan de Fuca, in your own riding, and the Gulf Islands in the Saanich North and the Islands riding.

Given the obvious arbitrary nature of the speculation tax zone, which includes West Kelowna but not Summerland, includes Kelowna but not Vernon or Lake Country, then the question arises: why were those areas removed from the speculation tax zone?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I know this was thoroughly canvassed with the Minister of Finance, but the objective of the speculation tax, when it was introduced, was to address vacancy rates to ensure that those homes that were not occupied were being utilized in the marketplace.

We never wanted, never intended, to capture vacation homes. There was no revenue change, because that wasn’t factored into Finance work at the time. The geography lens was the most appropriate way to ensure that we were removing those elements of vacation properties. That wasn’t the intention, and that’s why that happened.

Again, I know your colleague beside you had many, many, many hours with the Minister of Finance.

I’d like to go back to the question about personal income taxes. I’m surprised, and I know the member will be, to look at personal income tax growth from 2010 to 2018. It continues to go up year after year after year, except for one year in that time. Again, I don’t know why that would be, other than a strong and robust economy.

A. Wilkinson: Since the Premier has gone back to the issue of income tax, perhaps we should talk about whether there’s been a 12 percent compounded rate of growth in income tax over the last 15 years. Or perhaps that just happened under this regime when they increased income taxes.

Perhaps he can clarify that. Was the growth over the period he just referred to, 12 percent per year, consistent? Or was it a couple of points here and there with the growth of the economy?

Hon. J. Horgan: I did answer that question. I did say, and our campaign platform was explicit, that we campaigned on increasing the high-income surtax. That’s a significant portion of that increase. But growth in the economy and growth in wages is a positive thing for all of us, and that leads to higher retail sales. It leads to higher income taxes.

Again, we did campaign on making sure that the top 2 percent were paying their share so we could deliver services to people.

A. Wilkinson: Well, perhaps the Premier can then explain, if he’s basing this on economic growth, why the corporate income tax budget is actually going down by $60 million.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his patience. This is what they characterize as a prior-year adjustment. When the taxes are collected, oftentimes the estimates are inaccurate, and they balance them out over time. As they say — and the member, as former Minister of Finance, will know this — sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose, in terms of your expectations of revenues and what actually is realized when the moneys are transferred. That’s, I think, a pretty safe assessment.

A. Wilkinson: That being characterized, in the world of personal income tax, as a loss carry-forward…. Is that the routine with this government now? The loss carry-forwards are going to be applied to each item in the revenue table?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: No, there’s no change in previous practice to current practice. The federal government collects the money. They send it to us. Sometimes they miss. It’s not unusual. It is the way it has always been. There’s nothing extraordinary. No change has been made by us.

A. Wilkinson: I’d just like to go back to the speculation tax. When it was revised, I believe it was in March, there was a threshold applied of $400,000 in order to avoid the title of it being the cabin tax. The idea was that worthy British Columbians were allowed to have a cabin or a secondary home worth up to $400,000, and after that, they would be penalized.

We now have a scenario where two-thirds of the people paying the speculation tax are indeed British Columbians, I understand. I believe the Finance Minister has confirmed that within recent weeks. Clearly, these British Columbians are going to be paying the speculation tax on secondary homes worth over $400,000. The presumption in the budget that this would capture large groups of non-Canadians engaging in speculation seems to have been completely lost.

Perhaps the Premier can explain who is actually going to be paying this tax and why it’s still called a speculation tax when it’s in fact just a British Columbian secondary home tax.

Hon. J. Horgan: So 99 percent of British Columbians are exempt from the tax. Of the 1 percent that are paying it, two-thirds are British Columbians. The tax was designed with a whole range of other measures to address the housing crisis, which we talked about at the start of the estimates. The Minister of Finance said, when she tabled the budget, that we were going to review this and there’d be more to be done as we go forward in the weeks ahead.

A. Wilkinson: Well, it came up in passing earlier about the development charges in a city like Vancouver, where the speculation tax is now being applied to vacant houses about to be torn down and turned into condominium projects. This, of course, layers in large amounts of tax when a project consists of half a city block or more. This, of course, gets passed on to the purchaser.

We see the purchasers…. These are bona fide, often young, British Columbians trying to establish their first home. In fact, when they purchase that first home, a very large percentage of the purchase price is government-induced charges, whether it’s development cost charges, community amenity changes or now the speculation tax and the very misguided and poorly described school tax, which is actually flowing through the cost of purchases of condominiums.

Perhaps the Premier can explain why the speculation tax, which has nothing to do with speculation, is not being made exempt for projects that are under construction.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. It is an issue that has been raised with the Minister of Finance through the development community, and she is working with them to see what we can do about that — on the question of projects not yet started and the vacant homes that the member referred to.

A. Wilkinson: So I’m not mistaken — a second revision to the poorly named and inaccurately described speculation tax is in the works. Is that correct?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, again, I’ll take the member back to February, when the budget was tabled. We were very clear at that time. The Minister of Finance said that this is new territory. This is an area that the previous government had not contemplated. It was an area that we felt was important to bring forward.

We said, at that time, if there were amendments that were required, we would do so. Final decisions are coming in the fall, and I know the member will participate fully in that debate when it happens.

A. Wilkinson: I think it’s time now to turn to another rather sorry tale involving this government, and that’s when, a year ago, the NDP campaigned on the famous promise to use every tool available in the toolkit to stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

Of course, we then fast forward to the famous confidence and supply agreement of 2017, which states in section 2(c) on page 5 that the government would “immediately employ every tool available to the new government to stop the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline.”

Perhaps the Premier can clarify when he got the legal advice, saying that that was legally and effectively and financially impossible.

Hon. J. Horgan: When the Lieutenant-Governor asked if I had the confidence of House and I could form a government, the transition process began in earnest. It was at that time that we received advice from the Attorney General that our ability to implement that component of our platform would be difficult.

That’s why the mandate letter to the Minister of Environment talked about what we could do to ensure that we were protecting the interests of British Columbians. That has been our objective from the beginning — in July of last year.

We entered into existing court cases. One, on the side of the Crown, was, again, a surprise to us upon transition. The other is currently before the courts — what’s characterized as the Tsleil-Waututh case.

In addition to that, the Minister of Environment was tasked by executive council to look at what mechanisms could be brought forward to protect the interests of British Columbians. You’ll remember, in January, we began a consultation on regulations to protect the interests of British Columbia.

It received an adverse response from the government of Alberta, and since that time, we have come to a position where we are now in the Court of Appeal seeking reference on what our jurisdiction is in this matter, and we await a result there.

Our objective, since being sworn in, was to protect the interests of British Columbia, and that’s what we’ve been doing.

A. Wilkinson: I’m sure the Premier will correct me if I’m wrong, but the initial position was to stop the pipeline using every tool in the toolkit, and then the Environment Minister made clear in his estimates that the legal advice received in July of 2017 said that that was simply not possible.

To use to his words: “It became clear, through listening to legal advice, that we did not have the authority to stop a project that had been approved by the federal government within its jurisdiction.” Again, he learned that “the authority to say yes or no to a pipeline rests with the federal government, and that is their jurisdiction. We accept that.”

[6:15 p.m.]

It seems that the government, run by this executive council, concluded in July that they could not pursue that line, and so the premise was changed, as I understand it, to defending the coastline of British Columbia. The Environment Minister said in his estimates: “Neither the Premier nor I nor any member of our government has said that we would use every means available to delay or to deny the pipeline. That is not what we’ve said. What we’ve said is that we’ll use every tool in the toolbox to defend B.C.’s coast, our economy and our interests.”

Now, I’m hearing a third version here today. Perhaps I’m paraphrasing this, but the Premier says the intent all along was not to do anything about using every tool in the toolkit to stop the pipeline, perhaps not to defend B.C.’s coast, our economy and our interests, but rather to protect the interests of British Columbians. Premier, is this a new position?

Hon. J. Horgan: No. It’s not a new position.

A. Wilkinson: We understand the chronology is that once the Environment Minister had learned that it was impossible to stop the pipeline for jurisdictional and liability reasons, instead the idea was to go ahead with issuing permits on the business-as-usual basis because the government had learned from their legal counsel that there’d be a stunning lawsuit if this government obstructed permits. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: The Leader of the Opposition’s chronology is very close. We were advised during the transition of what the legal parameters would be for an incoming government. From that point, we’ve been focusing on ensuring that we protected the interests of British Columbians from litigation. Also, at the same time, we looked at the range of options available to us to protect what is dear and near to the hearts of British Columbians — that is, our marine environment, our coast, our rivers, our streams and our economy. Integral to that economic success is a pristine environment when it comes to tourism, film, fisheries, agrifoods and so on.

We have been diligent in ensuring that we are protecting the public interest. So much so that, as I said, of the two court cases that we entered into, one of them we entered into on behalf of defending the position of the former government.

The integrity of the Crown is part and parcel of a new government. The member knows that. We haven’t been reckless, as he has suggested. In fact, we have been earnest in our desire to fulfil the desires of the majority of British Columbians to protect what is important to us from a decision that was made by the previous government and by the federal government.

A. Wilkinson: If I could continue the chronology, the Premier doubtless can recall the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Mr. Justice Stratas, in the chamber’s decision dated August 29, 2017, where he noted that “British Columbia does not appear to understand the basic ground rules of the complex proceeding it is seeking to enter.”

He went on to say: “To enter complex proceedings, especially at a very late date, a party must intimately understand the proceedings and, to the extent possible, work within existing strictures…to minimize any prejudice.” He then went on to say: “While British Columbia may have been blasé in approaching this motion to intervene, it must be vigilant in complying” with the conditions outlined. “If any are breached, the panel hearing may revoke British Columbia’s status as intervener.”

Premier, it appears that our counsel — the people of British Columbia’s counsel in this action, acting for the government — blundered into the courtroom, and the judge reprimanded them for not understanding the most basic tenets of what they were up to. The court went on to say: “An intervener cannot introduce new issues or claim relief that an applicant has not sought.” Well, that’s basic law school 101, Premier. “Instead, an intervener is limited to addressing the issues already…. An intervener cannot introduce new evidence.”

Premier, was this a stunt? Was there any purpose in joining as an intervener, given that the courts severely constrained the function of the province of British Columbia in the courtroom?

The court went on to say: “Some of the concerns British Columbia raises…are new issues in these proceedings. For example, the ‘constitutional limitations on British Columbia’s ability to regulate the project’ are not in issue, nor is the ‘regulatory regime that governs interprovincial pipelines’ except to the extent that the meaning of certain regulatory provisions has been put in issue by the parties.”

British Columbia was not a party, as you’ll recall.

[6:20 p.m.]

“Further, ‘profound questions about cooperate federalism in Canada’ have not been raised. These issues are off the table…. British Columbia shall not advance new issues.”

Premier, perhaps you can explain why British Columbia took the stance it did in the Federal Court of Appeal, to the embarrassment of British Columbians.

Hon. J. Horgan: The Leader of the Opposition will recall that it was some months after the May 2017 election that the government changed. So the time we had available to seek standing was limited by the time of the transition. The former government did not seek standing. The government of Alberta did.

It was our view that if Alberta had standing, we should seek it. I do not dismiss the earnest efforts of our legal team to seek as much latitude as possible going into that proceeding.

I think that, ultimately, the key issue here is that the judge granted us the standing we sought, and we have been in court defending our interests.

A. Wilkinson: Now, another element of this, of course, was the $1.5 billion coastal protection plan which was put completely on hold because of the position of the government of British Columbia. We learned that there were six coastal stations that were supposed to be under construction on the Strait of Georgia that were then put on hold and nothing had happened, in those terms.

The question is: now that things have moved on, is that coastal protection plan coming into place? Is there a relationship with the federal government that allows the $1.5 billion to be invested in coastal protection in British Columbia? What is the state of affairs, Premier?

Hon. J. Horgan: I could stand to be corrected. We’re waiting, but I didn’t want to leave you hanging here.

The bases that you referred to were not a part of the ocean protection plan. They were part of Kinder Morgan’s requirements, and they’ve been suspended because Kinder Morgan suspended activity. It’s not connected. Obviously, it’s connected through Kinder Morgan’s initiative but not to the coastal protection plan.

Our concerns about the coastal protection plan are that it’s over a ten-year period, and it affects all three coasts. It’s not specific to British Columbia, nor is it specific to that project that’s been in question.

[6:25 p.m.]

I have been speaking regularly with the Prime Minister about my concerns about coastal protection, and I’ve had, I believe, a fairly receptive response. The Minister of Environment is working with his colleagues about what are acknowledged by all sides as gaps in science.

In fact, the federal government announced back in December that they were going to work on their behalf to try and determine where we could find the gaps in the science, which have been referenced by the royal society, I believe it was. That is something we’re very interested in, and there has been a back and forth between the two Ministries of Environment here and back in Ottawa.

The Prime Minister has given me assurances that he is committed. Prior to the financial arrangements that were concluded this week, he was committed to making sure that the ocean protection plan was robust and had a disproportionate amount of support here in British Columbia, rather than in the Arctic and the Atlantic. That’s a trade-off, as the member will know, within our cooperative federation. We are going to obviously advocate as hard as we can to make sure that the bulk of the resources that have been committed are here in British Columbia.

Now that the federal government is going to become the owner of the project, I believe that gives us a unique opportunity to have accountability throughout the corridor as well as on the coast. I’m going to be working as hard as I can to continue to maintain…. Although the opposition leader has characterized the relationship between Ottawa and Victoria as strained — certainly it is on this question — there is a range of issues that we’re working very positively on.

I know the member will be, at least privately, enthusiastic about that, because it benefits all British Columbians when we have cooperative relationships between all levels of government. As a former minister, he’ll understand that that doesn’t always happen.

You want to make sure that on every day that you go forward to build relationships with other partners in the community — whether they be municipal entities, federal entities, corporate, not-for-profit — you want to put your best foot forward. Certainly, we’re doing our level best in a difficult situation around the Trans Mountain pipeline proposal to make sure that we do not impair other activities between our two levels of government.

My opinion differs from the Leader of the Opposition. My opinion is that we’re in pretty good shape on a whole range of fronts. On this question, there’s work to do. Now that the federal government has stepped in, I think we can continue to make progress.

A. Wilkinson: To extract the substance out of that answer, it sounds like the six coastal protection stations that the Premier says are being put forward by Kinder Morgan have disappeared. The second aspect of that: we heard no substance in terms of ongoing conversations with Ottawa about the implementation of the $1.5 billion coastal protection plan.

The obvious question is: has there been any assurance since yesterday, when the federal government decided to take over the Kinder Morgan pipeline completely, as to whether the federal government is prepared to talk to British Columbia at all about this anymore or whether they will simply just act unilaterally and ignore the province of British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: It is early days in what is a new regime with respect to this project. I can say definitively that in my conversation with the Prime Minister yesterday — was it just yesterday? — he remained committed to the ocean protection plan. I am advised by my deputy of intergovernmental relations that discussions as recently as the past two weeks have taken place between senior officials in Environment here and in Ottawa.

In terms of the specifics around ocean protection, we’re on track. We’re continuing to advocate for the lion’s share of those resources to come to British Columbia.

On the bases in question — again, I’m hopeful we’ll get a direct answer — my understanding, from memory, is that the suspension of those projects was the result of Kinder Morgan’s stand down. Our initial assumption, although we’re getting advice all the time — it’s early days — is that if those bases were a requirement of Kinder Morgan’s completion of the project, they will be a requirement of the new owners as well.

[6:30 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: It’s somewhat surprising to hear the Premier stand up and say: “If they’re a requirement of the new project.” The new owners being the government of Canada, one would think the government of British Columbia would have a very clear understanding with the government of Canada about whether we’re going to get the coastal protection that came with not only the federal program for $1.5 billion but also the owner of the pipeline, whoever that might be, providing those stations.

Perhaps the Premier wants to clarify his answer. Are we getting those protections or not?

Now, if we turn to the issue of the reference case that the Premier initiated in the B.C. Court of Appeal, this was based on the premise of draft regulations that were to be reviewed by the B.C. Court of Appeal. I must say that most of us are rather stunned to find out that it exempted shipping altogether, when the Premier’s primary concern seems to be diluted bitumen in the marine environment. Perhaps that’s a recognition that the province has no jurisdiction in that space whatsoever, given that shipping and navigation are clearly outlined in the constitution as a federal responsibility. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: The reference case is focused on issues that are of concern to British Columbians, whether a diluted bitumen spill found its way into our lands, our rivers, our coast. Those are areas of jurisdiction that rest with us, and we want to clarify that we have the ability to regulate, if need be. That’s the point of the reference.

A. Wilkinson: That answer was completely evasive. The draft regulations say in subsection 22.3(2): “Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who has possession, charge or control of a substance on a ship.” Your government wrote the regulations. Your government referred them to the B.C. Court of Appeal. Your government, with you as the head of the executive council…

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

A. Wilkinson: …has to explain to British Columbians: does that mean that this province, this government, this leadership, claims no jurisdiction or interest or control over what’s on a ship in British Columbia waters, just the way it says in the regulation?

Hon. J. Horgan: We retained a litigation team headed up by Joe Arvay. The member will know Joe’s track record. He’s an outstanding litigator. And he has put forward our reference case with the view to ensure the greatest likelihood of success, to ensure that we can protect those issues that are important to British Columbians. A diluted bitumen spill impacting our land, our waters, our coast, is something that no one wants to see. We want to make sure that we have the ability to protect ourselves. That’s why we’re taking the reference to the Court of Appeal.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

A. Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Well, that answer, with all due respect, Mr. Premier, is the most evasive that I have heard this year.

[6:35 p.m.]

Your cabinet passed the regulation in draft, section 22.3, that says, in subsection (2), that the subsection (1) limit on hazardous substances “does not apply to a person who has possession, charge or control of a substance on a ship.” That’s diluted bitumen. As soon as it’s on the saltwater environment, you’re claiming no jurisdiction over it. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: Our concern has been about the diluted bitumen hitting our shore. We have confidence in our legal team. We approved the regulation, and it’s going forward with the best interests of British Columbia at heart. I’m disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition, a lawyer himself, does not see the value and merit of asserting our jurisdiction on areas that we want to control and demonstrate to British Columbians that all of us in this House are interested in protecting those things that are important to British Columbians.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

A. Wilkinson: Quite obviously, if the ship is loaded in Burnaby, moves out through the Second Narrows and, unfortunately, comes to a bitter end somewhere in the Gulf Islands…. Apparently, the Premier said: “Well, that’s not our concern, because it was on a ship.” Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, our objective here is to ensure that if diluted bitumen washes onto the coast of British Columbia, we have an ability to ensure that someone’s accountable for that and we have an ability to protect British Columbians. Again, I don’t understand why the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t understand that all British Columbians and, I know, he does as well….

I appreciate that his responsibility is to hold me accountable, and I thank him for that important role in our British parliamentary system. But we have a very, very experienced litigation team that has brought forward a package to take to the Court of Appeal that has the greatest likelihood of success. As a litigator, a lawyer, he will understand that the objective when you go into court is to have the greatest degree of success, and we’re hopeful that we get that.

A. Wilkinson: Of course, this obviously raises the question that, presumably, the legal team had a role in drafting the draft regulation. The draft regulation states clearly that it does not apply to ships. Perhaps that’s an acknowledgement by this government, by this Premier and by his legal team that under the Constitution of Canada, navigation and shipping is a federal jurisdiction exclusively. So perhaps the Premier can just acknowledge to us: is his goal, in this constitutional reference, to establish jurisdiction other than on ships?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member is reading into the record and asserting the areas which we want to protect. Again, we’re looking for the greatest degree of success. We believe that we have the jurisdiction to protect our air, water and land, and our coast, and that’s the objective of the court reference.

A. Wilkinson: Of course, it speaks volumes that the Premier, for the fourth time, is not prepared to answer a very straightforward question about a regulation that he wrote for cabinet and signed off as chair of the executive council. It’s a bit stunning to have someone who is the very author of the document refuse to acknowledge the contents of the document.

I’ll ask it one more time. Presumably, there was legal advice. Presumably, the ministers involved considered this. Presumably, the draft regulation went through cabinet and was reviewed, and the people in the room said: “Yes, that’s fair. Our reference will not involve shipping.” Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the Leader of the Opposition will know that we’ve put in place a draft regulation. We’ve taken it to the B.C. Court of Appeal. We’re asserting that this is a jurisdiction and an ability for us to protect those issues and interests that are of interest to British Columbia — our air, our water, our land, our coast. He’s read it several times. He’s a learned member of the bar. He will know the objectives that we’re trying to realize. I think that all British Columbians agree with us that the province of British Columbia should rightly be able to protect the province of British Columbia. That’s the objective that we’re trying to realize. I’ve answered this question now, I think, four times.

A. Wilkinson: The problem is, of course, that the Premier has not answered it at all, and of course, his answer stands for itself that he’s not prepared to answer something that is clear on the face of it. So I have to assume that he has accepted the proposition that ships are not to be involved in this constitutional reference at all.

[6:40 p.m.]

Perhaps we’ll move on to the other part, which is subsection (1), which deals with the hazardous substances. This is, of course, exempt — certain hazardous substances that are listed in the definition of the substance and the volume. At the bottom, it says “the minimum amount” of substance that has to be present to invoke the jurisdiction the Premier seeks, and it exempts all of the existing flow.

Now this, to the reader of the newspaper, is a bit baffling, because the Kinder Morgan pipeline — as it currently is, before it becomes the Canadian taxpayers’ pipeline — carries about 300,000 barrels a day in common understanding. About 55,000 barrels a day of that is diluted bitumen right now. If you do the arithmetic, Premier, about 7,000 litres a minute of diluted bitumen are flowing through British Columbia.

It’s my understanding that this regulation that you’ve put before the B.C. Court of Appeal exempts that existing flow. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: The objective of the reference was to deal with the order-of-magnitude increase in the transmission of diluted bitumen through British Columbia. We didn’t specify a mode of transportation. We focused specifically on the substance and on areas where activity was not already underway. The retroactive burden on the existing enterprise, we felt, was not the scope that we wanted to address. It was the magnitude increase in the transmission of this product, whether it came by rail or by pipeline. We’ve been pretty clear on that.

I’m confident that British Columbians want to know that their government is exhausting every avenue to ensure that we’re prepared to protect those interests that are important to British Columbians. That has been the objective from the beginning.

A. Wilkinson: Premier, what I understand from your answer is that in fact the 7,000 litres a minute of diluted bitumen coming through British Columbia today — this hour, this minute — are exempted. Is that because the government knew that it would be sued successfully if it attempted to stop that flow?

Hon. J. Horgan: I won’t speculate on whether we would have been sued for anything. I can tell you what we did. What we did was to respect the existing pipe and the approvals that were in place to focus on the magnitude increases that, we were fearful, were not well understood. The Royal Society and others have said that what diluted bitumen does in the marine environment once it hits water, once it hits fresh water, once it hits our coast, is unknown. The consequences of cleanup were unknown. That’s what we’re focusing the regulation on.

A. Wilkinson: Well, Premier, you’ve hit the nail precisely on the head: 7,000 litres a minute of diluted bitumen, at that flow rate, would fill up this entire chamber within an hour. As I understand it, your reference to the courts does not make any attempt to restrict, control, manage or reduce that flow whatsoever. So if we take a chamber full of diluted bitumen and it’s dumped into the marine environment, you’d take no position on that, based on your reference. Is that correct?

[6:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I’m delighted to hear the concern, now, from the Leader of the Opposition about the amount of diluted bitumen travelling through British Columbia. I wish that curiosity and concern existed when he was a member of executive council. I wish that curiosity and interest existed when the former government gave up its ability to regulate not just existing flows but projected flows.

Our objective, on forming government, was to look at the world as we found it. What we found was that the previous government had little or no interest in restricting the consequences or addressing the consequences of a diluted bitumen spill.

We put together a consultation process to go out and speak to British Columbians to see what we can and should be able to do to protect their interests, to talk to people about what they felt was in their best interests. That process led to a response from Alberta that was quite startling. We worked through that and agreed that we would take that draft regulation that we were going to talk to British Columbians about and we would talk to the B.C. Court of Appeal instead. That process is now well underway.

I appreciate, now, that the Leader of the Opposition is on board with us and is concerned about the flow of diluted bitumen through British Columbia. I’m hopeful that, as the reference proceeds, we’ll continue to have his support.

A. Wilkinson: Perhaps we’ll just get to the final paragraph in the reference document, which refers to the minimum amount of substance which is exempted from this reference. It reads: “The largest annual amount of the annual amounts of the substance that the person had possession, charge or control of during each of 2013 to 2017.” That’s a legal way of saying the highest annual amount over those four years.

The Premier has completely avoided answering the question of 7,000 litres a minute of diluted bitumen coming through British Columbia, and this reference case does nothing to attempt to regulate, reduce, in any way manage or take control of that. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: What is correct is that the former government had 16 years to do something about that and did nothing.

A. Wilkinson: The former government, the Premier seems to have forgotten, is the one that negotiated the $1.5 billion coastal protection plan, which this Premier has failed to implement by squabbling with Ottawa.

Just as we wrap up, to summarize, what we’ve learned is that the reference case that the Premier is putting before the courts has nothing whatsoever to do with shipping — ships full of whatever fuel product, whether it’s crude oil, gasoline, diesel, bitumen, will not be affected in any way by this reference — and this reference case completely exempts the 7,000 litres a minute of diluted bitumen flowing through British Columbia. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: The reference case is directed at the sevenfold increase in diluted bitumen that would result from the twinning of the Trans Mountain pipeline and any other means of transmitting this product through British Columbia. It was not specific to a pipe; it was not specific to a rail line. It was the product and the volumes that were being proposed.

We felt, getting legal advice, that our best effort, our best likelihood of success was to formulate the reference as we did. We have a very good legal team. Joe Arvay is an outstanding lawyer and has a great track record, and we’re very happy to have him on our team. I’m confident of success.

The new-found concern about the transmission of bitumen through British Columbia by the Leader of the Opposition and, I assume, his entire benches, will be good news for all of us as we come to the point where we break for the summer. We can all go back to our constituencies and say: “There’s unanimity in British Columbia. Both sides of the House believe that diluted bitumen is not well understood, and the consequences of its release into the natural environment could be catastrophic.”

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions of the Ministry of Attorney General, progress on the Office of the Premier and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:50 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolutions and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have been advised by the Government House Leader that there’s an agreement amongst all parties to have a 60-minute debate, under the provisions of Standing Order 35, on the report and recommendations of the Attorney General on the 2018 electoral reform referendum released earlier today. It is, therefore, unnecessary to provide a formal ruling on the Standing Order 35 application introduced earlier by the official opposition House Leader.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It will take place tomorrow morning at 11 o’clock, when we will have the hour debate on the motion.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is fine, because if that’s the case, that just cuts into your debate time.

I can advise the House that the debate will take place tomorrow at 11 o’clock. We’ve agreed with the Opposition House Leader.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.