Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call government Motion 25. That’s on the order paper in my name, so both official opposition and Third Party House Leaders are aware of it.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 25 — CHANGE TO
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR
AGRICULTURE, FISH AND FOOD COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that:

[In addition to the terms of reference previously provided to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fish and Food by the Legislative Assembly on April 24, 2018, the Committee shall examine, inquire into and make recommendations regarding how to restore healthy and abundant wild fish stocks in British Columbia.

In particular, the Committee shall conduct consultations to examine the health, habitat and management of wild Pacific salmon and the sustainability of wild Pacific salmon industry in British Columbia.

The Committee shall prepare a report on the results of those consultations no later than November 29, 2018, and report as soon as possible to the House, or following any adjournment, or at the next following session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the continued estimates debate on the Premier’s office. In Committee A, I call the continued debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In Committee C, the Birch Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Trade and Technology.

[1:35 p.m.]

After the estimates of the Premier are completed, I will also call estimates Votes 1 to 9. After that, there will be the supply motions by the Minister of Finance.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: The Premier asks us always to be out there making new friends. I like making friends in the hallways of the building here, which I did today.

I made friends with some really wonderful people from Richmond. I met Mandy Leongoich Xiang — she’s the daughter-in-law of this family — and Xiang Xial Xiang, the son. They’re both from Germany, living in Germany now as engineers. The whole family are engineers, including the father of the family, Don Xiang Xing. He was an engineer here in British Columbia and Alberta. They lived most of their lives in Calgary. His wife was with him as well, Xiu Chu Xing. Both of them now live in Richmond.

We toured the building. We got to meet a few people. I was able to emphasize that indeed, this is their House, and that they are always welcome here, as are all the people of B.C.

Can the members please help me welcome to the precinct this lovely family from Richmond.

[1:40 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:41 p.m.

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

D. Barnett: To the Premier: first of all, thank you, Premier, for allowing us to be here and ask you a few questions, and thank you for Rick Hansen Day.

I’m going to go back to the estimates of November 23, 2017. In 2017, I said I was a little frustrated, and I’m still frustrated. I’m frustrated over…. Back to the wildfires of 2017. We still have devastation. We still have issues. You made a commitment that you were here to help us, and I believe it. But some of the bigger issues we have are getting answers from your ministers on some of the issues that we’ve asked questions on. Of course, it’s back to the staff. We have the greatest staff in the world out in our regions. But we have many questions that haven’t been answered.

I will continue to write letters and hope I do get some answers. As we all realize, your ministers are extremely busy. We know that. But we must also have the passion for our constituents who are frustrated. When they have to wait a long time for an answer, they get even more frustrated. And they’re very fearful, of course, because we’ve already had wildfires, believe it or not, in 2018.

So I would just ask that you maybe see if you can’t speed up processes for us when we do make these calls. It would be greatly appreciated.

Back to the mitigation and rehabilitation from the 2017 wildfires. I know that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources has a budget of around $55 million for a three-year rehabilitation. I also know that the Forest Enhancement Society this year is putting $137,000 into rehabilitation and restoration. Mr. Premier, I’ve done my homework, and this is just a touch.

Out there on the landscape, we need, desperately, more funding for seeding. We need more money for rehabilitation. If we don’t get the seeding done quickly, of course, we’ll have an invasive problem called invasive weeds. So I’m going to make a request, to ask: what is the long-term plan and the short-term plan so that we can get some of this rehabilitation work done quicker?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her questions. I know her steadfast commitment to her community. She will know full well, because she was there on the ground every day, that we did have an extraordinary season in the last year, and we’re hopeful that we don’t see a repeat of that. But when I think of the member for Boundary-Similkameen’s comments today about floods that have arrived early and the fires that are following quick on their heels, that sounds very familiar to last year. Projections are that we’re going to have another dry summer, and that, of course, causes great concern.

Some of the issues…. I know the member has canvassed this extensively with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I’ll just add to that, that our objective is to see as quickly as possible what we can get out of the forests, the burned timber, get it to market. Once that happens, then the tenure holders are obliged to replant. So when we determine how much of the burnt wood we can actually get to market, how much then will be the responsibility of the tenure holder, then we can take stock of how we deal with those areas of land that were decimated and are potentially at risk of invasive species, as the member knows full well.

It has to be a staged process. We need to know what the obligations of the tenure holders will be before the province can step in. We are doing our level best to make sure that we accelerate both those processes.

In discussions here in the Legislature over the fall and into this spring, I know the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin and the member for Cariboo North and others have raised the concern that we need to get this timber out of the forest as quickly as we can. That really falls to the companies to do that, and they’ve been doing their level best, I’m advised, to make that happen. There are tens of millions of dollars in budgets. There are the moneys that are available through the ministry. There’s the money available through the forest enhancement fund — $137 million. I think you said thousands, but I know it’s a bunch of money.

That’s cold comfort to people like you, hon. Member, and your neighbours who depend on the land base for economic activity, for cultural purposes, when it comes to Indigenous peoples. That’s why we asked our former colleague George Abbott, and Maureen Chapman, to go quickly to respond to the fire season and bring forward recommendations for government, whether it be at the executive council level or within ministries. What can we do to be better prepared? What can we do to ensure that the recovery that the member so desperately wants to see happen quickly can actually do that?

I know she will be relentless in that, and I respect her very much for that. And I expect several more questions before we’re done today.

T. Shypitka: I seek leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

T. Shypitka: I’ve got a couple of guests in the House here today from Cranbrook — Tricia McLeod and her daughter, Elizabeth, who is 11. They are here for a speech — arts provincials. She’s representing the school of St. Mary’s, in Cranbrook. Apparently Elizabeth loves her politics, and she came to the right place, I guess, here today. They had quite a trip getting here, and I wish the House to give them a good round of applause.

Debate Continued

D. Barnett: Yes, it is $137 million. I will correct my statement. Thank you for that, and thank you for the answer.

[1:50 p.m.]

I appreciate the fact that this is a long process, and the report that just came out from Mr. Abbott and Ms. Chapman is a very massive report. One question I do have about that report…. The concern I do have is that every single recommendation needs dollars and cents, and it’s massive dollars and cents. When will the response to this report be made, Mr. Premier? Who will be responsible for the funding of each one of the components and recommendations?

Hon. J. Horgan: Certainly, not all of the recommendations in the Abbott-Chapman report require resources. But the member is quite right: many of them do, significant resources. The action plan is anticipated by end of October. To that, no resources have been attached to it at this time as we work through those recommendations, but there are a number of other initiatives. The member knows; we talked about some of them.

There are two others I didn’t mention. There’s the forest carbon initiative and the low-carbon-economy fund, together with the federal government. That’s about $140 million from them and $150 million from us directed explicitly at using our forest for a carbon sink. The challenge we have on reforestation is that the devastation was so extraordinary. Seedlings take time. Seedlings have to be at a certain stage before they can be viable in the forest. There’s a backlog, and we anticipate we’ll be in a better position by 2020.

Planting will increase substantially in 2020 to fully implement the low-carbon fund programs, but we need to get up to 300 million trees. We’re in the realm of the 250 range now. You know; you live there. You’ve seen it firsthand.

I will also say that although I visited the area many times during the fire season, I was never able to get into the Chilcotin because the smoke was so severe — from the air or on the ground. My colleague the minister and I bumped into each other at the airport in Vancouver, where oftentimes, as you know, productive meetings take place. We spent a good 20 minutes just thumbing through his iPhone at — as far as the eye could see — the blackness and the barrenness of what was a vibrant forest in your constituency.

I fully appreciate the magnitude of the problem. I don’t want the member to think for a minute that we don’t realize the magnitude of the problem. She will also know, as she’s already said, that we have outstanding government employees that are on the ground. We need to just make sure the dollars are there to back this up. The recommendations that are actionable in the Chapman-Abbott report will be done as quickly as possible.

D. Barnett: Thank you. I appreciate that.

[1:55 p.m.]

It’s more than just planting trees. Of course, there’s grasslands. We have the last good ecosystem of grasslands in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Our ranchers, of course, have lost an awful lot of their grazing areas. I hope…. I haven’t heard yet how quickly seeding will be done.

To the Premier, maybe you could respond to that — how quickly we’re going to get the grasslands planted.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member again for her questions and her concern for her community.

The forage land, the grasslands, are of course critically important to our cattlemen, our cattle industry. Fencing is another issue, of course, that has to be dealt with. The minister advises me that ongoing discussions are talking place with the B.C. cattle community in her constituency. We expect to be able to make progress as quickly as possible, but there are backlogs of the raw materials that we need to get the grasses back to an area where they can be forage land again for cattle and other grazing stock.

Again, here we are now coming up to a year from the event, and the member is still advocating for her community, as she should. I can only reinforce that she continue to do that, and we will be mindful that the broader community understands that these challenges will not be fixed overnight. We are going from catastrophe to catastrophe. We went from flood to fire and now back to flood — and hopefully, not significant fire again. But as the member already said, there are fires burning even now in the north and in the Interior.

Our commitment is to meet the needs of the community as they arise. She has quite ably highlighted that this is not without significant cost to the taxpayers, but it’s a cost that I believe all members are prepared to make in the interest of recovery and restoration in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Premier. One of the concerns I’ve heard in my riding, around, is that the recommendations in the Abbott and Chapman report do not get put on the backs of local government. It seems, when you read the report, the recommendations say: First Nations, local government and the provincial government. This is not a responsibility of local governments. This is a responsibility of both the provincial and the federal governments.

Mr. Premier, are any of these recommendations going to be put on the backs of local governments?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll have to say to the member that certainly in the past there have been cost-sharing arrangements between all levels of governments. In my meetings with the mayor and council of Williams Lake, as well as the regional district — Mr. Richmond and his colleagues — during the crisis, we made it absolutely clear that we would look at ways to stimulate economic activity outside of ensuring that interface areas were appropriately logged so that we were removing fuel from communities in the cities. But in the regional districts, that’s a bigger challenge.

It’s not our intention to be downloading anything. In fact, it’s our intention to be working with all levels of government — federal, municipal and regional — to make sure that we’re working together with the private land owners, with the cattle industry and other industries that depend on access to Crown lands as well as to private lands, to make sure that we can continue to get the Cariboo-Chilcotin back on track to be an economic engine in the region when it comes to forestry, livestock and so on.

We’re not starting out with any expectation that we will be offloading onto municipalities — quite the contrary — but we need to be working in partnership. In the case of floods this year — and my colleague the parliamentary secretary knows this full well — the floods are the responsibility of municipalities, and the fires are the responsibility of the provincial Crown. The confusion oftentimes exists within the public mind about who’s in charge here, and everyone’s always looking for someone to offer that helping hand.

I think what we’ve learned in our short time in government is the best way to proceed is to go with all levels of government together into communities to make the case that we’re there for the long term.

I’d like to think that we did our level best to do that in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. We’re certainly doing our level best in Boundary-Similkameen right now to address the flooding there, working with the federal government. The Armed Forces were sent in at the request of the PREOCs at that time. When the crisis is happening, I think you see a high level of participation and cooperation between levels of government.

The member mentioned Indigenous communities. Again, there was a high level of anxiety about being told what and where to go and what to do. The member will know full well the personalities and the communities that were affected this past summer.

I think what we need to do as elected representatives is to show the community that we are together — all levels, all political parties — when these issues arise. I was particularly grateful to travel with the Leader of the Opposition, the House Leader for the Green Party and two local MLAs from the opposition side to Chilliwack, together, so that we could say quite clearly, with one voice, to people who were facing potential catastrophe and crisis, that we were not going to be fighting amongst ourselves; we were going to be working together for outcomes.

I believe, and I know the member would agree, that shouldn’t just be the case when the crisis is happening; it should be there while the recovery takes place. I commit to continue to work with the member and her community to make sure we get success in the future.

D. Barnett: To the Premier, thank you. I would like to, through you, Mr. Chair, invite you to come on a tour with me. There are many places I would like to take you. Really and truly, I think you would appreciate the passion and the understanding of what people are living with. I invite you to come to my riding. I will be the driver, and I guarantee you I will get you safely back.

I’d like to change focus. As you know, the superintendent of real estate will be making some major changes in the real estate industry in this province. We, along with realtors — the B.C. Northern Real Estate Board, the B.C. Real Estate Board and others — have been requesting to the minister that this process be put on hold.

[2:05 p.m.]

There are many issues out there that have to be resolved. There is much more work that needs to be done. There is not an understanding in the real estate industry, both by the realtors and by myself. I was a realtor for 26 years. To take away dual agency in rural British Columbia…. We have enough economic situations with fires and floods. We do not need more job loss. We do not need more anxiety.

Will the Premier please speak to his minister, who has the authority — we make the legislation — to put the changes to the superintendent of real estate on hold until we have an all-party commission or something so that we can better understand and make changes that are necessary in the best interests of all of British Columbia — and, in particular, not to devastate the rural economy any further.

Hon. J. Horgan: To the greatest extent possible…. I have a son getting married — my gooder son. The good son’s not married; the gooder son’s getting married this summer. Barring that, I would be delighted to travel in the Cariboo-Chilcotin with the member, going to places I’ve not yet been. I would be delighted to do that. So my people will talk to your people and make sure that your driving record is clear and that you, indeed, will get me back safely.

Firstly, I want to say that the possibilities of conflict between realtors is not trivial. The member knows that. But I also appreciate that small communities are quite different from large metropolitan centres. Everyone knows everyone, and oftentimes, the best way to close an arrangement that’s in the benefit of both buyer and seller is with one agent. Perhaps that might be the only way, in some cases, that that can happen.

Although I will not commit, in these estimates, to make determinations on behalf of the minister, I will commit to the member to talk to the minister about our conversation today and direct her to the Blues if she wants to directly read your comments. I’ll certainly commit to do that.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Premier. I don’t think anybody realizes or understands the ramifications, should this all pass, through the superintendent of real estate. In rural British Columbia, in places we have one realtor. We have one office. In other places that are a little bigger in rural British Columbia, we have family real estate offices. Probably over 50 percent of our realtors will be unemployed, and there will be no representation for our citizens. This is taking away consumers’ rights to hire whom they wish.

I sincerely hope that this issue can be resolved collaboratively and with input from realtors, not just people who are appointed to the Real Estate Council. There are 12. Only two are actual realtors, and two, I believe, are from rural British Columbia. I will leave this in your hands, Mr. Premier, and hope for a positive outcome.

With that, I will turn this over to my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke.

[2:10 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: Thank you to the Premier for this opportunity. Before I get into what I’m going to chat about today, I just would warn him, if he’s going up to the Cariboo-Chilcotin with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin — I spent four days with her — eat before you go, and do not drink water, because bathroom stops are not allowed. And I dare you to try to keep up to her. It was a task, let me tell you. But it’s worth the trip, and I encourage the Premier to take her up on that offer. But prepare yourself for that.

Also, just a follow-up to the Premier around this real estate issue. It’s a huge issue in Columbia River–Revelstoke. It’s a huge issue in Kootenay East. It’s an issue in all rural communities. I really want to reinforce what my colleague had to say — that this is a big deal where we come from, and it’s affecting people’s livelihoods. I take your offer to follow up on that in all good stead, because it’s something that’s very serious and needs to be done for our rural realtors. What is made for or proposed in the Lower Mainland doesn’t work where we live, so there needs to be another solution. I just needed to mention that.

I also stand here today as the voice of the people of Columbia River–Revelstoke, and specifically, for the folks in Revelstoke, and maybe, like my colleague did a little bit, hit the History Channel button and go back to November when I spoke to you about the Three Valley Gap issue associated with the Trans-Canada Highway. The Premier talked about the Colwood crawl and the Saanich crawl, which are big issues for those folks. But when reflecting back on that, prior to me standing here today, it’s kind of apples and oranges.

When you’re stuck in a traffic jam — and we’ve all been in cities and, obviously, in Vancouver traffic — there’s a difference between turning on your radio and listening to some tunes and getting home half an hour later, and actually driving through an area knowing full well that your life is in peril. I just wanted to highlight that there are huge differences. I understand there are transportation issues across this province, but this is a massive issue that has the potential of threatening life.

I want to let them know that Shannon Smith is watching today from Revelstoke. The mayor is watching from Revelstoke, and many people from Revelstoke are watching this today, as we speak, because I gave them the times that I would be up here today.

During the last estimates, and this comes right out of Hansard…. I just want to remind the Premier of some of the words that were spoken that day in relationship to the Three Valley Gap. “That is a personal commitment of mine that we get to start as soon as possible.” And I quote again: “It’s my commitment to him” — referring to me — “and to his constituents that we want to make sure that those improvements occur as quickly and as seamlessly as possible.” Then he also said: “I’m going to commit to talk to the minister about Three Valley Gap.”

My first question to the Premier would be: how fruitful were those conversations with the minister around Three Valley Gap, and what do we know — more than what we did back in November?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll do a couple of things while we wait for a little bit more information to come into the room. Firstly, on the dual-agency question. I was travelling back to Ottawa recently at the request of the Prime Minister, and it happened to coincide with the national real estate meeting in Ottawa. So I wasn’t the only one sitting in economy; there were a whole bunch of realtors as well. They took full advantage of that opportunity, particularly those from rural communities, to advise me of their thoughts on the matter. Some of them took pictures with me. I don’t know where they ended up or whether they used them for malice or for positive outcomes, but we had good exchanges.

[2:15 p.m.]

Again, I’m not just hearing about these issues inside the Legislature. The real estate associations across the province are active on this question, and I know the minister takes it very seriously.

But I will say to this member, as I did to the last: the conflicts in larger areas are not insignificant, and that issue needed to be addressed. It was acknowledged by the previous government. This is not a concoction of the new government. It’s something that I think we all recognized, and we have to make sure we get it right.

When it comes to the particular roadway in question — the Three Valley Gap — and having the difficulty of the railway, the river, the mountains, everything that the member knows full well, I did have a discussion with the Minister of Transportation. Our commitment has been pretty clear for the past ten months that the corridor from Kamloops to the Alberta border is one that we want to see accelerated. I said that last year. That remains the case today. We’re hoping to get a little bit of information on that.

I’m really ragging the puck at this point, but the good news is I’ll be in Revelstoke next week talking to the Interior lumber association. I’m not suggesting that you and I go for a drive, because you’ve already suggested that perhaps the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin should be ride-hailing…. We’ll call it ride-hailing from Cariboo. We’ll get an app for that so that the three of us can go.

I will be in the region next week. I’m sure I’ll hear about it again. We are committed to accelerating the development of highway improvements through the corridor, and Three Valley Gap is an integral part of that. But as he knows, it’s going to be costly, and we need to all be mindful of that as well.

D. Clovechok: I will be at the same ILMA conference as he is, so hopefully we can…. And the minister…. Sorry. I almost called you by your name — which is a great name. Nonetheless, we’ll see you both there.

I know that “accelerate” and “expedite” have really been driving words behind your government’s approach to the Trans-Canada Highway, yet I’m going to be very candid with you, sir, and very frank with you here today. The people of Revelstoke have had it. Frankly, I’ve had it. And it’s not your problem. You didn’t create this. You didn’t do this. I want that to be read into the record, no question.

When we were in government, we put in measures that would make people safer, especially the towers up on the bluffs for avalanches. But at the end of the day, you are government now. When the member and I spoke back in November, you said: “Cut me some slack.” That was the word. “I’ve only been here for four months.” And you know what? We gave you the benefit of the doubt. Well, the training wheels are off, and you’ve had some time now.

What I want to do today…. Shannon Smith, I referenced her in November as well. An amazing Revelstokian, who got nailed by a huge rock. The Premier — if I recall from those estimates — also mentioned a situation with you and your son.

Interjection.

D. Clovechok: I won’t go there. Nonetheless, you’ve had that experience, and you know how scary it can be.

I would certainly hand these to you at some other time, sir — although, we’re not supposed to use props here. These are pictures of Shannon’s car. And that was a small, little rock that got her. A brand-new car, completely written off. She’s had nerve damage. She’s really struggling today — I’ve met with her several times — with the psychological debris, if you can use that word, of what had happened to her. Her daughter is not allowed to drive on that highway, because she’s just so afraid of what’s going to happen.

Also for reference, that I can pass on to the Premier…. About four weeks ago, a boulder came off of the cliff there that was bigger than my truck. Thank goodness it didn’t hit anybody, because had it hit somebody, they would have died.

They also talked, and the minister has talked, about netting. Netting is not going to stop that rock. There is something very nefarious going on. And that bluff…. It’s been happening since the ’60s. As I mentioned, this is not anything that you created, but you are now government, and therefore you need to deal with this.

Just referencing back to the folks of Revelstoke, who I stand here and represent today.

[2:20 p.m.]

I know that your office…. You certainly wouldn’t have been able to read them all, but right now there are over 800 letters that have been written to the Premier’s office from Revelstokians about this issue.

I would like to read into the record a couple of quotes that I just pulled from these. I have these here with me today. I’ve got over 600 of them sitting here today, although there have been 800 that have been sent. They’re here today, and those should have been in your office.

This is from Alanna Widmer, in Revelstoke: “Our lives are affected deeply by this issue. We need action. We need your help.”

This one comes from a Revelstokian by the name of Victoria Sims, who works at Three Valley Gap, actually, and lives in Revelstoke: “I drive to and from work and have to pass that rock face at Three Valley Gap every day. I feel like I’m playing Russian roulette with my life, and I don’t like doing that. I need this job, but it’s not fun going to work. The fear of this stretch of highway is very real for us.”

This is a quote from Louisa Fleming, another Revelstokian, who actually had an experience herself: “In August 2016, we were on our way to a medical appointment in Salmon Arm when hit by a rock in the middle of the road at Three Valley Gap, shattering two wheels and shredding two tires. Fortunately, we were not injured, but I missed my CT scan in Salmon Arm and couldn’t rebook until November. Not only that; we had to pay the towing charges and a $500 ICBC deductible. Please do the right thing and get this upgrade done before more people are killed or injured.”

A quote from Chris Harvey, in Revelstoke: “This highway needs attention. We shouldn’t have to wait for someone to lose a loved one before something is done.”

This comes from Cindy Lloyd, from Revelstoke: “I implore you to please give this issue the depth of attention that it deserves.”

This comes from Nick Thomas, in Revelstoke: “It’s time for the government to be honest with the people of British Columbia. Until there’s some sort of overall plan, with feasible options to upgrade all the remaining two-lane sections, and more funding, then the only decent thing to do is to stop pretending that a Kamloops-to-Alberta-border program exists.”

I won’t go on; there are multiple examples of this. But Revelstoke has had it. They’re afraid for their lives. As a result of that….

To the Premier, I’m just wondering what he can commit to today, to the people of Revelstoke, that will help them understand that this is a public safety issue. Frankly, this government today knows that it’s a public safety issue. They know that it’s not a matter of if someone is going to get killed; it’s a matter of when someone is going to get killed. If someone does lose their life, God forbid, then, Premier, that’s on you, sir, and your government. I’m not a lawyer, but there’s going to be litigation, and we don’t need any more litigation in this province.

To the Premier, I would ask, on behalf of the people of Revelstoke: what is your government’s plan to fix this? It’s not a twinning issue; it is a public safety issue. People every day fear for their lives, and they’ve had it.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I remember well the conversation the member and I had last fall when he reminded me of the rock, bigger than two of these desks, that came pounding down the highway in my community and how close it came. I had forgotten about that. Thanks for reminding me of it.

But I do remember very well the conversation, and my commitment remains the same. Certainly, we can’t rely on typical rock-face fencing. That’s not adequate. We need to find new ways to address this.

There are designs underway to develop new rockfall fence systems. That design work is ongoing. Since we spoke in November, of course, the construction season has been…. Snow and weather prohibit any significant work until where we are right now. The projects in the budget this year call for some $700 million for projects in and around the member’s area — Three Valley Gap being among them.

But we do have to make sure we’re getting it right. We don’t want to make those significant investments and still have the same safety challenges that the member knows so well. I will continue to work with the Minister of Transportation. We have made this a priority. I said it directly to the member, to his citizens, last fall, and that remains the case.

I do know that work is underway, as I said, to try to find new technologies that will be more effective than the traditional mechanisms that are clearly inadequate in that stretch of highway. I appreciate the volume of correspondence the member has with him. That speaks to the passion of him and his community, and I’m not dismissive of that in any way.

We’re hopeful to find out, of the $700 million that would be involved in the completion of these projects, how much of that is going to flow this summer, next summer and the summer after that. If the member has another question, I’ll wait for that information to arrive.

D. Clovechok: These are the pictures that I was referring to. The Premier can see the size of that boulder. The size of that boulder is not going to be stopped by any netting — not a chance. The vehicle was Shannon Smith’s car, which was hit by a small rock. When you look at that car, it’s absolutely amazing that that woman did not lose her life. As I say, she still suffers today from the trauma that was associated with that accident.

During the Ministry of Transportation estimates, it was brought to our attention that there are no extra dollars in the budget for Three Valley Gap mitigation. It would be additional dollars, from what I understood before, that would have to be applied here. The point that I really want to hammer through here today is that this is something that can’t wait. This is critical. I know the Premier values British Columbians, and he values the safety of British Columbians. I know that.

At this point, it’s not happening in Revelstoke. And that’s why the volume that we have here…. We’re anticipating over 2,000 letters are going to land on the Premier’s desk sooner or later. People have had enough of hearing about accelerating and expediting, when nothing is going on. Nothing has happened. Now, with Donald to Forde Station on the Trans-Canada Highway, there’s been an RFP, and it’s on its way. It’s good. And the Kicking Horse Canyon — I’m thrilled to know that it’s going to still continue.

But Three Valley Gap…. We’ve got to figure this out. It’s not my job to provide solutions, but today, I believe…. I’m not a geologist; my son is. But I believe that a geotechnical survey needs to be done on this rock face to find out what is going on up there. This has been happening since the ’60s.

This is not the fault of this government, but it’s now the responsibility of this government to do something about it and do something about it now. So a geotechnical study, anything that would suggest that we can find a solution as to why this rock surface is moving — nobody has done that. So if I can offer that solution today, that might be something.

[2:30 p.m.]

Moving forward, I would really like to see and hear from the Premier today. What could be a potential timeline, given the critical mass of this? Is this something he’s willing to instruct his minister to act upon, not yesterday but today, right away?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I don’t doubt for a minute the urgency of the matter and the importance of public safety to the member and all members of this House. I do appreciate — the member has been clear — that this is not something that just happened ten months ago. It’s been building for decades. Successive governments of all political stripes have not been able to find the solution to give the people in the communities the confidence that this valley is going to be safe for the travelling public.

I think we also have to take note…. This is, again, particularly apparent. I think of the questions we just had from the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin about the intensity of fire seasons, the intensity of floods, the snowpack this year, the impact on the geology of the area that the member represents — mountainous, spectacular vistas that are being changed by climate change.

As we see more snow and a rapid melt and then a freeze again, fissures in rocks create opportunities for frost to grow to ice and then to melt and then to have the avalanches or the rockfalls that we have evidence — photographic evidence — are significant and important for us to address.

I do know, based on the notes I have before me, that this design work to try and find something that is certainly more adequate than the traditional safety equipment — the netting and the rockfall fencing that do not work in the area of the member’s constituency — is underway.

I will ask the minister for an update on the geoscience. I think that’s an appropriate and helpful suggestion. I don’t know what work has been done in that regard, but I do know, by the preamble to the answer to his question, that it strikes me that we all have to come to terms with the changing environment that we live in, where more intense and severe winters and more intense and severe summers are going to lead to changes, not just in the landscape but also in the geology. That’s obviously apparent in an area that has had a history, as the member knows full well, of avalanche and rockfall.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I do know that the three-year budget for the area is $464 million. That is increasing year over year, from this year, next year and the year forward. These are significant investments, and they may just scratch the surface. But the member should continue to advocate directly with me, and his constituents are welcome to do that. The minister responsible understands this. You had an opportunity to direct questions to her specifically on this matter. The dollars are in the budget. The design work is being done.

I will take back the suggestion of doing some geotechnical work to see if there’s a baseline. I’m hopeful there’s a baseline. I wouldn’t have been there over the past 16 years to establish that, but I’m hopeful that the geology has been reviewed and the geoscience is understood. If there has been a shift in activity, then we need to shift our perspectives and how we apply the dollars that are in the budget to make those roads safe.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate those words, and I know that you take this very seriously. What I would ask…. You may not be able to answer this today, and I’d be happy to hear back from you. Out of the budget dollars that you have just quoted, how many of those dollars are designated specifically for the Three Valley Gap mitigation?

Interjection.

[2:35 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: I can repeat it. I’m asking, based on the dollars that you just quoted in terms of the Trans-Canada Highway, how many of those dollars are actually allocated directly to the Three Valley Gap mitigation project.

Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t have those numbers at my disposal, but I will commit to the member to get that answer from the minister and get it to him as quickly as possible.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate that and look forward, as soon we possibly can get those numbers.

Let’s just, for a hypothetical sense, assume that there are no dollars associated with that budget for the Three Valley Gap issue. Let’s just assume that that might be the case. Would this government be willing to provide extra dollars to deal with this issue? It needs to be dealt with right now. We can’t wait for another month. We can’t wait for another two months. We certainly can’t wait for another year.

Would the Premier be willing to commit to at least looking at the potential of putting some extra dollars towards…? Whether it’s a geoscience survey or whatever that takes, something needs to be done.

Hon. J. Horgan: Certainly, I commit to ensuring that if there has not been geoscience work done in the past ten months or the past ten years, we get on that right away, because I do genuinely believe that our landscape is changing. We see that with fires. We see that with floods. We see that with avalanche and rockfall. We need to have a baseline, and if that work hasn’t been done, it needs to be done, so I’ll certainly commit to that.

With respect to the budget numbers, until I know what they are, I can’t commit to increasing them or not. But we’ll get that information for the member, and I commend him for his tenacity on behalf of his constituents. Again, he said quite clearly that this is not something that I created, and I’m hopeful it’s something that I can solve.

D. Clovechok: I appreciate those words very much. If you can solve it, then I tip my hat to you.

Weather, no question, is an issue here. I live in a mountainous area, and we know that we’ve got issues, whether they’re slides or what have you. But I do want to make sure that the Premier understands that it’s not just the weather that’s creating this. There’s something very wrong going on there. When you get boulders the size of that, those don’t come from cracks and fissures.

With that, again, I want to thank you for that. I think that Shannon, back in Revelstoke, has heard today that you’re aware of this and that you’re going to act on it sooner than later — sooner, hopefully. When you leave here today, you’re going to be getting on that phone and talking to your minister and saying: “Let’s move on this.” It’s not because the MLA from Columbia River–Revelstoke asked to you do it. It’s nothing to do with me. It has to do with public safety and the health and well-being of the people in Revelstoke. Respectfully, Mr. Premier, that’s your job as the leader of this province.

I want to thank you for the opportunity, and I’ll take my chair.

Hon. J. Horgan: I would just say to Shannon, either if she’s watching or if she gets a chance to read the Blues, that I now have a picture of her car — the devastation of her former car. I want to say to her that I’m grateful she is recovering and that I’ll keep a copy of that picture in my office as a reminder of the challenge in this area and the work that needs to be done.

L. Throness: I have a few questions for the Premier as well. First of all, I want to thank him for leading us on a tour of the Fraser River last week. It was great that he came out to our community. We very much appreciated him including MLAs on all sides of the House and making a non-partisan event, because we all pull together as British Columbians in the face of emergency.

It seems that we have dodged the bullet this year. The Fraser is going down a little bit. We’re not out of the woods yet, but we’re hoping for the best, and so that’s good news. But we need to keep in mind the very keen sense of anxiety that we all felt last week as we were flying over the Fraser. We need to remember that feeling, because the next freshet is coming next May.

In the 2017 budget, the former government put $20 million in for flooding, and that comparatively small amount, when you compare it to the total need, went a long way. I’m wondering if the Premier has considered putting in some money this year. Perhaps if we have a lower fire season than we anticipate or something like that, whether some funds could be put toward municipalities to help them better protect themselves next year….

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I want to thank the member, the Leader of the Official Opposition, his colleague from Chilliwack, as well as the member for Cowichan Valley. That was a very informative tour we did together. As the member says, gratefully and thankfully, we are not anticipating the significant flooding in the Fraser that was predicted at the time of, or just prior to, our visit.

It did bring home very clearly…. The member and I shared a helicopter together. I can’t say that about everybody, you know. There are very few people I can say that about. The member and I shared a helicopter together. It was an opportunity. I think it’s events like that that bring us closer together as legislators.

The prospect of driving around the Cariboo with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin…. As daunting as that may be, I’m looking forward to it, because it creates opportunities for dialogue. It creates opportunities for a better understanding of the challenges in areas that I don’t represent. I know, chapter and verse, Langford–Juan de Fuca. And I would invite everyone to come there and spend their summer at the Sooke Potholes. Were it not for a fish closure, we could have fishing in Sooke. You have to go all the way to Port Renfrew to catch a chinook now. But it’s engaging with people in communities that allows us to better understand the challenges that people face.

The diking question that the member is alluding to is part and parcel of how the provincial government can help municipalities prepare for the eventuality of another high snowpack and a rapid melt. It’s something that I now take more seriously. I don’t want to suggest that I diminished the importance of it prior to this, hon. Member, but nothing is better than seeing and having someone with local knowledge, as I did in the tour with the member, tell you and advise you of what the changes are that are happening in real time, as a crisis is emerging.

I learned a great deal from the trip, and I’m going to take that information back to the budget-making process next year and ask the very questions that the member has raised here as we’re preparing for Budget 2019. Do we have additional resources within our revenues to make expenditures, as the member suggests, to better prepare people? The ounce of prevention may well be very, very advantageous to the pound of cure that could result from a catastrophic flooding event along the Fraser, particularly in the member’s community.

L. Throness: I would simply remind the Premier of the enormous risk to infrastructure in the Fraser Valley. Some $30 billion is at risk. A comparatively small amount of money would help to reduce that risk.

It also appears that we have weather patterns that are changing, where we have a high snowfall and an early spring with hot weather early on. So we very much fear that we could go through the same freshet again next year, and we hope that this fiscal year, there could be some money applied to municipalities.

I want to go on to talk about the tour that we were on last week, where the Premier met with Clem Seymour at Seabird Island. We made a stop there and heard from him. He talked about the traditional knowledge that he has of the river. The Premier encouraged me to remind him of this, and so I’m following his instructions today.

Would the Premier be willing to meet with Clem and other First Nations to talk further about how we can mitigate the problem of the rising riverbed near those First Nations and other lands, which is causing them many problems? We would be happy to invite him out, or we’d come to Victoria. We’d make it as easy as possible for the Premier. We would like very much to speak to him about this issue and apply the traditional knowledge that First Nations have, in particular, to the solution to this problem.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for mentioning the visit we had with Chief Seymour at Seabird Island and the magnitude of the loss of land as a result of shifting weather patterns, the rise and fall of the river over time and the impact that has on that Indigenous community — and equally importantly, the impact it has on the lifeblood of British Columbia. The Fraser is iconic for many, but it is the lifeline for the member’s constituents and others in the region.

[2:45 p.m.]

The silver lining in the lack of a catastrophic event this spring is that it allows us to better prepare for that eventuality in the future. That means making the investments now that will assist municipalities, so that we don’t have to think of the unthinkable should a high snowpack and rapid melt happen again next year or the year after that. That’s important.

I’m not certain when my schedule will allow me to visit Chilliwack again or to meet with Chief Seymour, but I have asked my deputy, already, on the return from the trip, to get my head around what we can do about the changing landscape, the hydrology of the Fraser River, particularly with respect to Seabird because of the controversy around gravel mining.

We’ve already had illegal gravel mining in the area, as the member knows, up and down the river. That has an impact on where the river goes and how it flows. We have issues around extracting water from the aquifer for commercial purposes. That is controversial as well. There’s a whole host of issues around the Fraser that I think we need to direct our attention to.

Again, the value of having the opportunity to be with the member, who has local knowledge and local relationships, is that I now have a better understanding of the challenge. I commit to him, as I did to Chief Seymour, to get back to him on how we can proceed with that.

E. Ross: To the Premier, for this session and the last session, I was trying to understand the mandate that was given to ministers, through the mandate letters, on implementing UNDRIP. I couldn’t get an answer.

In talking with the Attorney General yesterday, I think I’ve gotten an answer in terms of where the Attorney General sees UNDRIP being implemented. That was in relation to section 35, especially the jurisprudence under section 35, the constitution, which is really what I was getting at. I felt that UNDRIP was a political statement of principles, versus the case law of Aboriginal rights and title that the province has been trying to form policies under for the last 36 years or so.

There are two issues with implementing UNDRIP, and I want to categorize them. In terms of delivering programs and services…. For instance, working with the Aboriginal Justice Council in terms of working out the justice system and how you implement some of the principles of UNDRIP is great. That’s perfect. What you do in terms of health — that’s good. You want to put a highway in. That’s good.

But really, what I was getting at was: how do you implement UNDRIP in relation to the infringement of rights and title, especially when we’re talking about the duty to consult and accommodate and, ultimately, the decision that government has to make at some point when they’re dealing with the infringements of rights and title?

In one case, it’s fine to consult and work with a group — with the Aboriginal Justice Council, for example — in terms of implementing UNDRIP. But in another case, when you’re dealing with rights and title, that is not a preferred method, mainly because the rights and title are held on behalf of the community, which by the way, your Attorney General confirmed as well.

So in trying to implement UNDRIP, in terms of infringements of rights and title, does the Premier have a plan for how to communicate any policy decision-making or any types of methods to deal with that at a high level, a general level, not a specific level?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: There’s a lot of content in the member’s comments so I’ll just start with bits and pieces. I assume we’re going to have an exchange of questions and answers here so I’ll try and not be comprehensive at the beginning. We’ll build to more complete answers when the questions become clearer.

Certainly, I agree with the member that rights and title and true partnership and reconciliation are the objectives of any government interaction with Indigenous communities in an UNDRIP environment. We’ve been working with what we call a principles document that was begun by the previous government, working with the leadership council. We’ve made some amendments. There have been some suggestions by the leadership council that elements that were removed by the previous government be returned to the document. So we’ve been back and forth on that.

Ultimately, however, it’s not just the leadership council that government needs to engage with on principles of reconciliation; it’s directly with Indigenous communities in every corner of the province. I know the member for Skeena fully understands that from his former leadership role in his community.

Our objectives are to find ways forward through what have been very complex issues — through section 35, through the Tsilhqot’in decision and the consequences of that, as well as successive Supreme Court rulings. Our view, my personal view and what I’m trying to move through my government, whether it be through the Minister of Indigenous Relations or others, is to find areas where we can have genuine partnership and reconciliation, community by community with rights holders, as they emerge, so that we can have genuine reconciliation over time.

Now, that takes a different shape, as the member knows, based on the community and based on the issue. But I believe that working with the federal government, which is also embarked on a path of reconciliation and embracing the principles of UNDRIP, makes for a very exciting time in British Columbia. We have two governments coming together at a time in history where there’s a genuine desire within communities, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to have true reconciliation and to ensure that certainty on the land base will lead to economic activity that benefits all British Columbians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous.

E. Ross: That’s correct. There was a lot of content in that question — only because there are very few people in B.C. or Canada that understand the real principles behind the case law that’s pursuant to section 35 of the constitution, and I’m including Aboriginal leaders. You really have to have a law degree to understand the principles behind it, let alone trying to implement that in a government decision-making context, let alone political.

That was my whole concern around implementing UNDRIP. I didn’t understand it in the context of the case law around section 35. That’s all I’ve been trying to do for the last two sessions. I’ve been trying to clarify how this would be implemented, given the extensive reviews, I’m assuming, that the previous government did, either through the Justice Institute of B.C. or with outside legal expertise.

[2:55 p.m.]

My mistake in not clarifying another question yesterday with the Attorney General. He confirmed everything that I thought about case law versus UNDRIP yesterday, especially viewing UNDRIP through the lens of section 35. That was all I was getting at. I was glad…. I forgot to thank the Attorney General for that clarification.

But it was my mistake that I didn’t clarify one of the questions I had. Ultimately, what I was trying to get at was: has this government done a full assessment, a legal assessment, on how the government will implement UNDRIP in terms of the jurisdiction, in terms of the decision-making, in terms of any policies that the government will be implementing or trying to assess on its own?

I wasn’t really looking for any type of information that would breach the client-solicitor privilege. I wasn’t looking for that, like on a specific file. I was just trying to understand if there had been a full legal review on implementing UNDRIP, especially when this government acknowledges that they’re viewing UNDRIP through the lens of section 35 and the jurisprudence underneath that. That was my question.

So I’ll ask the Premier: has the government done, or plans to do, a full legal assessment of implementing UNDRIP through the lens of section 35 of the constitution?

Hon. J. Horgan: I very much thank the member for his interventions in these estimates today. This is an area of particular interest to me. Why I crafted the letters to my ministers the way I did was so that we could try and resolve what is a complex area.

The member makes reference to case law and section 35. We had Calder. We had Sparrow. We had Haida. We had Delgamuukw. We now have Tsilhqot’in. Governments have been playing catch-up as the courts have set new boundaries and parameters around rights and title as it pertains to section 35 and other issues.

That, in my mind, coming into government, was an issue that we should try and get in front of, rather than continuing to play catch-up. We’ve had multiple, extensive meetings of cabinet specifically on the questions of rights and title, reconciliation and how we manage a treaty process — which is a quarter of a century old, meeting the needs of some and absolutely not meeting the needs of other communities, and then those who did not participate at all.

I know that this is nothing new to the member. He knows these issues very, very well. He also understands the challenges of making sure that we harmonize the federal and provincial, the two representatives of the Crown, when we’re engaging with Indigenous communities when it comes to their rights and title and recognition of those rights.

[3:00 p.m.]

What we’ve been trying to do is to get ahead of the case law rather than react to it. We’ve been doing our level best, in the direction I’ve given to the ministers, to look at all of the legislation that they’re responsible for and view it with the lens of how we amend this legislation to meet the principles of UNDRIP. That’s the starting point, and it’s not something that will happen with a date certain. It will be a process that will evolve over time.

The ten principles that the federal government announced recently have also been very timely for us, a new government that is directing officials to move toward an understanding of how we can take the federal principles and amend them to meet the needs of British Columbia. Of course, as the member will know, unceded territory in British Columbia makes it a much more complicated situation than you would find in other jurisdictions where treaties have been established and rights and title are differently interpreted.

From a unique B.C. perspective, we’re anxious to work with the federal government — as the member knows well — on the principles. We have an Indigenous Justice Minister from British Columbia who understands full well the issues here. We want to work cooperatively with the federal government to make sure that when we meet with Indigenous communities in the fall and the regular meeting of the leaders gathering, and every day after that, we’re making progress on the issues that the member cares so passionately about.

S. Bond: Good afternoon to the Premier and his staff.

I want to just make a comment about one issue that’s been raised by one of my colleagues, and then I have a specific question before I return the floor. I know the Leader of the Opposition has a lot of questions.

I want to encourage the Premier to have a discussion with the Minister of Finance about the real estate situation. During the estimates process, we took the time to ask questions and to probe about whether or not it was possible to encourage, through a….

It’s a regulatory process. The Finance Minister has every opportunity to say to the superintendent of real estate: “This is going too quickly. There are details that are very complicated for real estate brokers and agents across British Columbia.” There is time to take a pause and actually look at that issue. Hundreds of realtors across British Columbia are upset about that, and I would encourage the Premier to follow up, as he committed that he would.

My question relates to the employer health tax. I simply want to ask a couple of questions. The Premier, in an editorial board in the Vancouver Sun, said that the tax increases that were in the platform were the only tax increases in the first term of his government. I’m wondering if the Premier could explain how that changed and British Columbians were surprised with the introduction of an employer health tax?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her participation today in the estimates process. What we said during the election campaign — and what I’m proud that we’ve been able to accomplish in the short time we’ve been in government — was to do away with the flat, regressive, medical services premium tax. That was part and parcel of the platform.

That platform also included ensuring that the revenues were there to provide the services people need. We have opted for an employer health tax, consistent with taxes similar to those used in other jurisdictions. We will now be the last and final jurisdiction to do away with flat medical services premiums. I’m very proud of that.

S. Bond: I’m not here to debate whether or not the government said they were going to eliminate the MSP premiums. What I am here to point out is that the Premier told British Columbians that the only taxes that would be increased were the ones in the platform. So he managed to surprise small business, municipalities, colleges, non-profits, with an ongoing — and, in many cases, higher — tax. Those are simply the facts.

Well, the Premier can smile, but those are the facts.

My concern today remains what it was when we had a discussion with the Finance Minister. There have been continual promises made by a variety of ministers and the Premier, telling British Columbians who are impacted by this tax, employers, but the most difficult one to understand is non-profits. They have been told by this government that they’re going to make them whole. They’re going to fix it; they’re going to do something. While the Premier continues to say, “The details don’t really matter. We’ll figure that out. It’ll happen because the taxes aren’t in place yet,” non-profits today are waiting for an answer from this government about how they will be expected to make up significant impacts on their organizations.

My question to the Premier is: is he prepared today to assure non-profits, in particular — and others impacted by the employer health tax — that he is going to meet the commitment that many ministers on his side made and hold those organizations whole?

Hon. J. Horgan: We want to make sure we get the implementation right on this. It won’t take effect until January 1. We continue to consult with a broad group of stakeholders. We’re listening attentively to the input we’re getting from all corners of the province, and I’m confident the member will have her answer shortly.

B. D’Eith: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. D’Eith: I’d just like to introduce Helen Homer, who’s come here from our constituency. She’s in the gallery. Thank you very much.

Debate Continued

S. Bond: I guess I simply want to urge the Premier and his Minister of Finance to end the anxiety and the concern that are being expressed by organizations all across British Columbia. There’s been lots of feedback. In fact, I am prepared to wager that pretty much every MLA in this House has had a deluge of emails, concerns and visits — organizations marching into our offices saying: “We can’t manage this. It means laying off staff. It means cutting services and ending programs.”

If the Premier is prepared to say publicly, which he has, that we’re going to fix this, I think it’s time to fix it now and make sure that these organizations can end the anxiety that they feel, that the people that they work with feel.

[3:10 p.m.]

I simply want to end my comments by saying that it’s time to either fix it or clarify the details for the people of British Columbia who are going to be deeply impacted by the surprise tax that this government imposed on them.

A. Wilkinson: I’m going to take the Premier back to the budget book, page 80, if he’d like to have a look. On the right-hand column, it refers to the speculation tax and says:

“The tax will be administered by the province outside of the normal property tax system and property tax cycle. The province will issue notices by mail that will direct residential property owners to a Ministry of Finance website that will contain an electronic tax form….

“To make the administration easier, the form will collect relevant information from the taxpayer, including social insurance number, household information, information on worldwide income, information relating to upfront exemptions and other information identified by the Ministry of Finance.”

It goes on to say that the relevant information will be shared with the Canada Revenue Agency.

The question to the Premier is: when is this notice going to go out, and when will the information be collected?

Hon. J. Horgan: I welcome the questions from the Leader of the Official Opposition. Legislation to implement the speculation tax won’t be in this Legislature until the fall, so the information can’t be collected until that time.

I would also, while I’m on my feet…. In questions yesterday with respect to western marine bases which were part of the approval process of the Trans Mountain pipeline, not part of the ocean protection plan…. As we were engaging in the conversation, an announcement was made that the WCMRC projects, the six bases, would resume, effective yesterday evening. So those issues that we were mixing between the ocean protection plan and the requirements of the proponent appear, at least on the surface of the requirements of the proponent, to be back on track. I wanted to share that with the member and the committee at the earliest opportunity.

A. Wilkinson: Roughly three hours ago the Premier gave a press conference outside in which he said that the speculation tax and the employer health tax do not apply until next year. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Horgan: Yeah, they do not take effect until January 1, 2019.

A. Wilkinson: If we turn to page 66 of the budget document, it says that in the 2018-19 fiscal year, there’ll be $87 million of speculation tax collected. If the legislation is not available until September, disclosure documents are not going to be available and returned until at least Christmas. One has to wonder how on earth you’re going to collect $87 million in the remainder of this fiscal year.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: The revenues that are booked will be collected on the basis of the 2018 property tax year and the 2018-19 tax year. That’s how you get the amount from January to the end of the fiscal in the ’18-19 tax year.

A. Wilkinson: I’m going to suggest to you, Premier, that that answer has no credibility whatsoever. The legislation won’t be ready until the fall. It won’t be passed and won’t get royal assent until later in the fall. Then there’ll be the collection of information from over one million households — one million households. That information has to be processed, and exemptions have to be examined to see whether this speculation tax will apply to that household.

Then there has to be a collection period. The collection period will take months, as there’ll be delay in filing by tens of thousands of homeowners who don’t know whether the rules apply to them. And then there’s the collection period as well.

It is completely implausible, Premier, that you’re going to collect a STOB period of three months of revenue on an annualized basis. Can you please explain to the people of British Columbia how your budget has any credibility, when there’s an $87 million hole in it because you didn’t figure out how to collect taxes on a new program?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I guess I just don’t share the member’s pessimism. New programs…. The child care program, for example, has had tremendous uptake. We’ll see legislation this fall, and the member will have his opportunity to debate its value at that time.

A. Wilkinson: With all due respect, that answer is even worse than the previous one. You need royal assent to introduce tax legislation. You need to have taxation policies imposed and fully implemented. Your deputy minister is abundantly familiar with the process of tax application, administration and collection. It will take at least six months to collect the necessary information and to collect the revenue associated with it.

Premier, I’m going to ask you one last time: is there an $87 million hole in your budget? You have generated a budget that is based on a completely implausible tax administration program that is not possible in terms of implementation. So one last time, Premier: will you have an $87 million revenue from the speculation tax in this fiscal year? Or is that simply not plausible?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: There is no hole in the budget. We’ll meet our targets.

A. Wilkinson: In recent years, the term “plausible denial” has come up, and that simply does not apply in this circumstance, Premier. That answer has no credibility whatsoever.

So let’s go on to another zone. Let’s talk about your freedom of information and your staff. A quote from you, October 28, 2015: “The public is not well served when senior representatives — being paid a princely sum, to boot — are not recording their actions on a daily basis. That is, in my opinion, an affront to our basic institutions.” John Horgan in the Times Colonist.

The Chair: Mr. Leader, just provide a title.

A. Wilkinson: Yet we found out in recent days that the Minister of Citizens’ Services, the Minister of Advanced Education, the Minister of Public Safety, the Government House Leader, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, Kate Van Meer-Mass, Layne Clark, Suzanne Christensen, Stephanie Papik, Christine Kennedy, Amber Nash and Maria Del Matta disclosed no records whatsoever when asked for disclosure of all emails, text messages, BBMs, Slack messages and WhatsApp messages.

Premier, how can that possibly be reconciled with your remarks to the Times Colonist two years ago?

Hon. J. Horgan: I did set a high standard with respect to the new government’s ability to live within the rules of the Freedom of Information Act, and we haven’t met that standard. I asked my deputy minister to have all information that had been removed from computers as “no records” responses brought back into the system. They’re being gone through now, and we’re reviewing the freedom-of-information requests that came from the opposition for information.

The good news is that there was no mandate to triple-delete information, as was the case with the previous administration, so it was an easy matter to retrieve the information. Now the hard work of going through those records to ensure that we’re complying with the Freedom of Information Act is underway.

I will also say that we are renewing the training procedures for new staff and existing staff to make sure we live up to the high standard that I expect from my office and other offices as part of executive council.

A. Wilkinson: So the obvious question arises: has the Premier reported these people to the Information and Privacy Commissioner so that they can go through the appropriate level of sanctions or retraining or otherwise be corrected in their ways by the Privacy Commissioner, when they completely failed to meet the standard that he laid out in the media less than 30 months ago? What is the sanction for this behaviour?

Hon. J. Horgan: My deputy has been in contact with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and he has been advised of the actions we’re taking to see if any information that should have been released was not released. We don’t know that that’s the case. These could all be transitory records.

We have also, through my deputy, been in consultation with the commissioner and advised that we’re going to be increasing the rigour of our training processes for existing staff and any new staff so that we can meet the high test that I expect, not just from myself and my colleagues but from those who work for us as well.

[3:25 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Of course, having been involved in electronic discovery myself in the past, it is extremely expensive to reinstate emails from servers when the emails have been deleted. This is a tedious and costly process. So the obvious question arises: why did this happen in the first place? Did the Premier not instruct his staff at all in terms of the standards he expects for their ethical and professional behaviour?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll just dispute one of the statements the member made with respect to the cost of retrieving this information. The new government does not have a mandate to triple-delete information, so retrieving it has been less costly than he would suggest. Perhaps the technologies have improved over time since he was doing discovery.

I would also say that we did our level best — I did my level best — to give instruction to my senior staff to ensure that all members of the executive council and all of the staff that work for them had sufficient training to meet the standard that I set. That training took place on multiple occasions, a dozen training sessions over a reasonable period, a number of months, after the new government was sworn in.

Again, I would argue that when these issues arose, I took responsibility for them, as I should. I did set a high standard because of the appallingly low level of retrieval of documents under the previous administration that led to a report from the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner with recommendations that we will do our level best to adhere to. We missed the mark, Member. I acknowledge that. And I’m going to do everything I can to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

A. Wilkinson: Well, Premier, given the high profile of this matter during your time on this side of the House, given that your Solicitor General, who is responsible for law enforcement, was one of the perpetrators here, and given that your Minister of Advanced Education has experience in this House and should have known better from all of the vitriol that came from this side of the House when we were in government on this very issue, and given the gravity of the situation, resulting in criminal convictions related to this, certainly someone’s head should roll over this. Was the training deficient? Did your senior staff fail to implement the training? Who dropped the ball, Premier? That’s the question.

Hon. J. Horgan: Just for the record, the criminal convictions the member refers to were Liberal Party staffers. I want the record to certainly reflect that.

The question of lopping off heads in a show trial format, as the member suggests, is not in the interest of better outcomes, I would argue. I think that reinvigorating the training process…. Certainly, my senior officials who are here know full well my profound disappointment in this matter. I again reflect that directly to the member, through you, hon. Chair. We’re going to do better. That’s as simple as that. I’m not going to punish people for not doing the best they could, but I expect a high standard, and if I don’t see it, we’ll take action at that time.

A. Wilkinson: Before I move on, it seems that it can be summarized that the Premier’s approach is: “There are lots of rules. You’ll get trained in them. We’ll attack the government when we’re in opposition on this very basis.” But when it comes to this Premier forming government: “Don’t worry about it. If you blow it on repeated occasions — dozens of people in senior positions, including senior ministers with $2 billion budgets — it’s just fine. There’s no sanction. Don’t worry about it. We’ll blow off the opposition.” Is that correct, Premier?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, sanctimony sits well for the member. I welcome him to carry on this line of questioning. I have acknowledged my responsibility in not making it abundantly clear to my colleagues in the executive council and staff that I hold them to a higher standard. But I’m not punishing anyone for not meeting that test. I’m redoubling our efforts to make sure the training is in place so they can do a better job in the future. That characterizes a better way to get good outcomes than punishing people who made mistakes.

[3:30 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: Well, before I move on, perhaps it’s a fair summary that punishing people for breaking the law doesn’t seem to be in the mandate of this Premier. People can ignore the rules even though they’re trained to do otherwise, and there is no sanction whatsoever. It’s just: “Carry on, and we’ll cover for you.” That’s a pretty sad ethical standard to set, for this government, but perhaps we’ll have to get used to that.

Moving on, perhaps the Premier can provide one specific example of what his Municipal Affairs Minister has done in speeding up the municipal development approval process.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll just remind the member, going back to the previous question, that the criminal activity that was undertaken by representatives of the B.C. Liberal Party that led to charges and a conviction were outside of the bounds of the act. There are no sanctions in the act. I’ll remind those here that a woman, Ms. Cadario, the deputy chief of staff to the former Premier, was triple-deleting on a regular basis. There were no sanctions for her. A guy named Nick Facey who worked for the B.C. Liberals was doing the same thing. There were no sanctions for him. Those who committed criminal acts, were charged and convicted — it was on the B.C. Liberal watch.

I want to set a higher standard for freedom of information and privacy. Everyone expects that, they know it, and it’s going to continue into the future.

With respect to the very good work of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, she is working collaboratively with UBCM and regional municipal officials to make sure that we can find ways to break the impasse when it comes to development permits and bringing more housing supply into the marketplace to meet the needs of British Columbians, needs that were sadly neglected for 16 years by the previous government.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier describes the relationship with municipalities and development permits as an impasse. How is that going to help in alleviating a housing crisis?

Interjection.

A. Wilkinson: You said exactly that, Premier. No, you said there was an impasse over development permit issuance.

We can check the transcript if the Premier wants to go into further denial, but this is perhaps a continuation of denying the facts and denying the past. We can delete emails en masse and say: “Oh gosh, we’re sorry.” We can deny what we said moments ago.

Premier, let’s get down to the details. Has your Municipal Affairs Minister done anything at all to improve the speed of approving development permits in our municipalities?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, certainly the Minister of Municipal Affairs is also responsible for housing and transit — I think a mix that the member will know is critically important.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

If we’re going to build a new housing supply and increase density, we need to be able to move people around. Making sure that transit hubs are an integral part of that development is, of course, important to everybody.

[3:35 p.m.]

The minister has been working — a good example would be — in the Tri-Cities where, working together, the communities in that area are seeing positive outcomes, and they’re working hard to make sure that development approvals get in place in a timely manner. We’re going to continue that collaborative approach, working hand in hand with municipalities to try and get the outcomes that people want to see.

A. Wilkinson: Yesterday we canvassed, at some length, the issues related to Kinder Morgan. Of course, there’s now a new owner in the wings. Financial close is expected in August.

Of course, we all recall the April 15 meeting in Ottawa between Premier Notley, our Premier and the Prime Minister.

The obvious question is, with the federal government taking over the pipeline in complete ownership…. That invokes federal jurisdiction and federal ownership, just like a military base or an airport. So given that federal paramountcy both in legislation and in ownership, is there any point whatsoever in the Premier continuing his court reference given that the federal government will be the respondent?

Hon. J. Horgan: My legal advisers tell me that this is a contested area of jurisdiction. The specific wording of the reference and the regulation, as the member canvassed yesterday, does not talk about a particular project. It talks about a product and the consequences of that product to our natural environment. We believe it’s a worthy undertaking, and we’re going to continue with the reference.

A. Wilkinson: Has the Premier’s Office or, for that matter, anyone in this government had contact with the federal government about the futility of this court reference given that the new owner will be the government of Canada — that is, all of us, as taxpayers? If not, has the Premier obtained some legal opinions about whether or not it’s a useful exercise to continue this litigation?

Hon. J. Horgan: The new circumstances have certainly led to legal counsel working with the Attorney General to review what potential outcomes may well be. I spoke directly to the Prime Minister earlier in the week, advised him that we’re going to continue on with the reference case. He saw no problem in that. This is an area of contested jurisdiction, and we’re going to see how it falls.

A. Wilkinson: Has the Prime Minister ever suggested or advised the Premier that his court reference is an exercise in futility given the federal paramountcy and their ability to simply pass legislation, claim national interests and, just like a military base, say: “Get out of the way. It’s a federal project”?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, obviously, federal officials have their view and we have ours. That’s why a reference to the courts is relevant to both parties — to get a better understanding of where the jurisdiction rests on these issues. The member would know that.

A. Wilkinson: By saying here today, and perhaps the Premier will deny this as well, that federal officials have their views and you have yours — that the federal officials apparently are telling the Premier this is an exercise in futility…. Will the Premier tell us today what the federal position is? Or is he going to hide behind solicitor-client privilege, which really doesn’t apply here?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: As I said yesterday, the reference is dealing with areas that we want to determine are within our jurisdiction to regulate. That’s why we’re in the Court of Appeal, as I said. The member may want to take my words and use them to his advantage. I’ll say it again. It’s well canvassed in the media that the federal government has their view. At no time has the federal government said to me that they have any legislation planned, as he suggests.

When I said to the Prime Minister this week that we were carrying on, he seemed to have other issues on his plate, and they’re significant ones. The member will know that. Another day, another tweet, another trade dispute. Our aluminum industry is again put at risk and steel in Canada is put at risk because of the actions of the U.S. administration. The federal government is working very effectively to try and represent the interests of British Columbia in that regard.

Again, I’d have to say that our relationship is a positive one, despite this one issue. It is our right as a province to seek clarification on jurisdiction, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

A. Wilkinson: It is a good thing for British Columbia if the relationship is positive, because we’re deeply dependent on the federal government for the well-being of British Columbians. When I hear that the relationship is positive except this one, it would seem to indicate that the federal government has completely dismissed out of hand the Premier’s effort in the courts since they’ve taken ownership of the pipeline.

Perhaps we can just summarize the state of affairs. The federal government is now about to take ownership of the Trans Mountain Pipeline. The federal government is committed to building the expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline. They have said the expansion will be built. They have not put in money for the coastal protection program yet, because the Premier obstructed it for more than a year.

We now have difficult relationships with Alberta and Saskatchewan because of the Premier’s high-handed conduct, which has amounted to nothing, and we’ve used up a lot of federal goodwill in the process. We have a reference case in which the Premier is not willing to tell us what the federal position is. It certainly sounds as if the federal position is to dismiss it out of hand as an exercise in futility and a political stunt. We have the cost of employing Arvay Finlay to litigate the matter, even if it is futile.

Perhaps in summary we can say: what does the Premier have to show for his efforts over the last eight months except a potentially futile court reference, having lost all credibility with the federal government at the expense of all of us as federal taxpayers?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I would consign the member’s summary to the fiction section. I have a very positive relationship with the government of Saskatchewan. They continue to be a vital part of the relationship I have with people right across the country. The federal government is in regular contact with us on a host of issues.

Having a dispute on one issue often happens in communities. It happens in families; it happens in the Legislature. For the summary that was just put forward by the Leader of the Opposition that somehow the world has come to an end because there’s a disagreement between the federal and provincial governments…. Like that’s never happened in Canada? Come on, man.

R. Sultan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Sultan: In the galleries behind me, out of sight — somebody is peering over the rail, though, so I’m sure they’re there — we have 27 students from grade 7 of Cleveland Elementary School in North Vancouver, accompanied by three parents and their teacher, Suzanne Simpson, who teaches in the French immersion division of Cleveland Elementary.

Cleveland is one of the outstanding elementary schools in school district 44, and we’re very proud, on the North Shore, that these schools consistently rate near the top in terms of academic achievement and other activities. Would the House please make these students of political science welcome.

Debate Continued

A. Wilkinson: On the further issue of petroleum, pipelines and oil transportation, can the Premier advise what level of notification occurs to the provincial government when oil is shipped by rail down the Fraser Canyon on the CP and CN rail lines? And can we have an understanding of what the volume was during the period of 2013 to 2017?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: We don’t currently have that information at our disposal. Perhaps we can move to another question, and we’ll come back to this when the information arrives.

Interjection.

The Chair: Let me call…. I’ll recognize, and then you start.

Leader of the Opposition.

A. Wilkinson: Given the passage of time and that we’re in the last day of the session, I’m hoping that this isn’t an evasion tactic.

I’ll ask a very simple question. What level of disclosure is required of the railways, which are federal undertakings under the constitution and are not regulated by the province, in terms of disclosure of the cargos — whether they’re hazardous or crude oil or diluted bitumen or otherwise?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: We just had confirmed by both the Ministries of Environment and Transportation that that information is held by the federal government, and it is not currently shared with the province.

A. Wilkinson: From that answer, it’s abundantly clear that the Premier and the entire civil service have no idea whatsoever how much crude oil and diluted bitumen are coming down the Fraser Canyon every day, every week, every year. So the reference case that refers to the largest annual amounts in each of the four preceding years is of no utility whatsoever in regulating oil by rail because the federal government and the railways don’t tell you.

This appears to be a completely pointless exercise — to say that the province wants to get a declaration and will limit the expansion of diluted bitumen transfer and crude oil transfer by rail when that information isn’t available at all and the Premier has no idea and no jurisdictional way to find out how much is being shipped by rail.

Perhaps the Premier can clarify. What’s the point of having a constitutional reference that will limit the amount of diluted bitumen or crude oil travelling by rail when the Premier has no access to that information and no ability to verify it at all?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the very point of having the reference is to allow us to have the jurisdiction to collect that information so we can protect citizens along that rail corridor. That’s the whole point of the reference: to ensure that we are obliged to issue permits before the product can transit British Columbia. That’s the point.

A. Wilkinson: The Premier knows full well that railways have been coming to Vancouver from Alberta since 1885, and there’s been no disclosure of the oil and diluted bitumen content ever. The Premier now suggests he’s going to invent that authority with his constitutional reference, which is a laughable proposition.

The courts are not going to create jurisdiction that hasn’t existed for 133 years, Premier. So perhaps you can explain to us what on earth this reference is going to do to limit, change or otherwise regulate oil by rail, because it’s clear you have no control over it now.

Hon. J. Horgan: The point of seeking the jurisdictional clarification is so that we have the right to collect that information to protect British Columbians. That’s what we’ve been talking about since July of this year. Yesterday we had the member acknowledge that we didn’t want a Legislature filled with diluted bitumen. Neither do I. We’re on the same page on this one. We’re seeking the jurisdiction to protect British Columbians.

A. Wilkinson: Well, thank you, Mr. Premier, but you haven’t had that jurisdiction for 133 years. Now you’re going to try to invent it out of thin air. Now we find that the Premier is trying to create nothing out of constitutional thin air. The federal government and the railways are going to ignore him. Perhaps he’ll drag out his court reference as long as he can, because the answer is going to be an embarrassing one.

Can the Premier tell us what he has salvaged out of this Kinder Morgan fiasco except to send a $12 billion bill to us as federal taxpayers? Has he accomplished anything at all?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, the federal Liberal Party believes that this is a solid investment and that they’re going to be able to recoup their costs with profit down the road. I guess he can disagree with his federal colleagues on that question.

The whole point of the reference is to establish jurisdiction. For the member to talk about 1867 is not relevant to this proceeding in court. We are trying to establish jurisdiction today to protect British Columbians. That’s what we’re getting out of this process.

T. Redies: Good afternoon, Premier.

I have been speaking with the Premier and the Minister of Transportation for numerous months now with respect to an issue in my riding, which is the BNSF rail line that goes through a very crowded, heavily populated area. There are substantial risks of a Lac-Mégantic type of accident because there are trains carrying anhydrous ammonia, heavy oil, a lot of very dangerous things. We asked the provincial government to put up $300,000, along with federal participation, to look at a feasibility study to move the rail line.

[3:55 p.m.]

Yesterday we had an incident, an incident that was one of the risks that I had raised with the Premier previously, in that the train basically was stuck for 45 minutes. It cut off Crescent Beach from any emergency access. Thankfully, nobody was hurt and there was no emergency, because there would have been no way of getting into Crescent Beach.

The Premier has put up $300,000 for the high-speed rail line. I am just asking again for his assistance to deal with this problem so that we can get moving on it.

Premier, I am just looking for your continued help. Could you please explain to me when we can get this funding going?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her continued interest in this issue. We spoke about it last year. We’ve been in correspondence since then.

The member will know I spoke with MP Gordie Hogg about this issue. He, for 20 years, sat in this place sharing the same concerns about the federal right-of-way that cuts off her community from the coast and also is a potential safety challenge of significant proportion. Having Member Hogg, who knows full well the issue, on the government benches in Ottawa I think puts us in a much better position to make some progress on this question.

She does know that this is a significant undertaking, to move the right-of-way. It certainly has my full support and is one of the issues that perhaps we can make some progress on going forward with the federal government. As she knows, Member Hogg knows these issues very well. Having him in Ottawa is a very positive outlook for us in the short term. Hopefully, we can make that significant change in the long term.

T. Redies: Premier, thank you for that. Can I take that as a commitment that the Premier will provide funding to protect the safety of people in my riding?

Hon. J. Horgan: I make an undertaking to work with the federal government to address the right-of-way question, working with her and Member Hogg and anyone else in the region that wants to side with us. But when it comes to funding of a corridor that’s managed and maintained by the federal government, I think we’d have to wait and see how receptive they are to movements. If there’re not, then we certainly have to look collectively — municipally, federally and provincially — at how we protect the safety of the citizens in your community.

A. Wilkinson: I’m just going to read out three quotes from the Premier, starting with April 10, 2017, on a video with Fair Vote Canada. “We will set up an all-party committee to hear from citizens and formulate a referendum question at the conclusion of that process — John Horgan.”

[4:00 p.m.]

The Chair: Member, no names, please.

A. Wilkinson: The next one is from May 1, 2017. “You are going to have 50 percent say yes or no.” Mr. Shaw: “So you give them one system to vote on?” The Premier: “Yeah, exactly.” The Province newspaper, May 1, 2017.

The third quote, again from Fair Vote Canada, from their interview on April 10, 2017. “The amending formula for our constitution, for example, requires approval by seven provinces, with 50 percent of Canada’s population. So it is an absolute 50 percent, but it has to include seven provinces…. This amending formula is similar to the kind of formula we’d need for a plebiscite on changing how we elect people in British Columbia.”

So Premier, it’s a simple question. Were all of those complete fabrications and just plain wrong?

Hon. J. Horgan: Certainly, the question of electoral reform is one that I canvassed extensively with a whole host of people over the election period and since that time. What we did is we put in place…. We tasked the Attorney General — the member has been an Attorney General, so he would know this — in the unique role that that member of executive council has at the cabinet table, to independently review and assess the best way forward to implement electoral reform in British Columbia.

He tabled a report yesterday. Cabinet has received that report. We’re looking at it with great interest, and we want to ensure that we give people the opportunity to have their say on this question.

That’s why we have passed legislation last fall after a vigorous debate in this House. We went through all stages of debate. The bill was passed, and we’re going to be proceeding with a referendum. A mail-in ballot will be the form of votes for the people of British Columbia, and they’ll have an opportunity to decide, 50 percent plus one, whether they want to have the existing system or a proportional representation system.

A. Wilkinson: That was a complete evasion of the question. The Premier has ignored his statements from the past, as is becoming common on this proportional representation process.

I’m going to ask him one more question, and this statement is less than four hours old. The reporter asked: “For the last two days, we’ve talked about the lack of maps. People will be voting, not knowing what their boundaries will look like. If you’re committed to people voting for this, is there no way you could direct Elections B.C. to fast-track the mockups of what this could look like for voters?” The Premier replied: “We could do that.”

So Premier, was that another fabrication you intend to stand up to, or is it something you intend to follow through on? If not, why on earth would you not follow through with that request to Elections B.C.?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I did engage in a year-end scrum, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, and I did say that of course we could ask the Chief Electoral Officer to draw maps. But the point here is this. I’ll say it clearly so the member can understand the intent of my comments from the beginning. We are asking the public to decide between keeping the system that they have or opting for another system, a proportional representation system. The Attorney General has put forward three scenarios for that to happen should people decide to change from what we have to something else. That will require, if the member follows through, three separate maps for different outcomes.

It seems to me to make more sense to await the verdict on question 1 before you start working on the solution to question 2, which is maps and boundaries that would be done in the normal course of events by an independent commission that was commissioned to do their best efforts to draw maps that balance the rural and urban issues that are part and parcel of life in British Columbia and that balance the needs to have groups of people in clusters of similar size right across the province.

The member knows full well what redistribution looks like and how much time and effort goes into that. To suggest, as it was suggested in the scrum today…. Could this be done? I said: “Well, it could be done, but is it practical to do that?” I would suggest it’s not. What is a better course of action, and the course that we’re going to follow, is to ask citizens what they want to do. If they want to make a change, what will that change look like? Vote 1, vote 2, vote 3. Whatever one of those comes forward, maps will be drawn up by an independent body — not by politicians, not by he or I, but by a commission that will put in place a new system for a better way to elect people to this representative body.

That is my commitment. The member on the other side has a different one. He wants to keep the status quo. He wants to keep things just the way they are. We disagree on that, and that’s fine. In a democracy, we’re entitled to have differences of opinion. He has his; I have mine.

A. Wilkinson: The path is apparently clear. The Premier could actually live up to his promise and have a yes-no vote on part 1 of the proposed referendum, which would maintain his integrity and leave the option open for map development later, or he can follow through on the Attorney General’s recommendation and have us all vote on something we don’t really understand and have no maps for, even though he said it could be done. The Premier needs to make a decision and guide his cabinet toward what we hope will be the first option, which would maintain his integrity and not play games with the people of British Columbia.

With that, I will hand the floor over to the member for Vancouver-Langara.

M. Lee: To the Premier, would he consider, then, holding the referendum on question 1 and hearing that result before proceeding to question 2 in a separate referendum?

Hon. J. Horgan: Yesterday we received a report from the Attorney General, and cabinet will be reviewing that report and making a determination in the near term.

M. Lee: Just about the report and the cabinet review-making process here. Is it the expectation of the Premier that cabinet will either accept the recommendations of the Attorney General in that report in its entirety or will vary from that report?

Hon. J. Horgan: I can’t predict what cabinet will do until we’ve met and deliberated.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. Lee: Does the Premier have any concern regarding the perception of British Columbians as to the notion that a report has been generated by the Attorney General, in the role that the Premier has asked him to do, and now cabinet will have the ultimate decision as to how this referendum will come about — the question, the process, the kinds of considerations that the Leader of the Opposition just outlined? Is there a concern that the Premier would have as to putting cabinet in the final decision-making position as to how this referendum will be conducted?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, as I said in the earlier response, cabinet received the report yesterday. We’ll be reviewing it and deliberating and making a decision in the short term.

M. Lee: Just in respect of the timing of when cabinet will be making that decision. When can we expect that the government through cabinet will be making the decision as to how to proceed with this referendum?

Hon. J. Horgan: Soon.

M. Lee: When can we expect that the regulations that include ensuring the availability of information respecting the matters to be voted on will be issued?

Hon. J. Horgan: Following the decision.

M. Lee: When can we expect that Elections B.C…? I understand that Elections B.C. just received a copy of the report yesterday. When will Elections B.C. be provided with the opportunity to proceed to put in place what is necessary for the conduct of this referendum?

Hon. J. Horgan: Following a decision by cabinet.

M. Lee: Will the Premier commit that the regulations will ensure that there’s an accurate and realistic sample ballot that will be provided to voters for each system of proportional representation being proposed?

Hon. J. Horgan: I think we would be looking to Elections B.C. to assist in the development of those materials.

M. Lee: Will the Premier commit to ensuring that voters will understand the impact of each form of proportional representation on voters and British Columbians locally?

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s our expectation that there will be a full airing of views on this issue during the campaign period and prior to that, and as much information as is possible would be available to the public so they can make an informed decision. That’s the outcome all of us would want to see.

M. Lee: Well, we’ve had some debate and discussion in this House in the limited opportunities that we’ve had since the report was issued yesterday. In terms of the 24 items that need to be reviewed by the committee of this House and the Electoral Boundaries Commission, does the Premier have any concern that British Columbians will not have the ability to know precisely what they’re voting on when they’re being asked to choose, potentially, between three different forms of proportional representation?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Certainly, we’ve done everything we can to make sure that there’s been an arm’s-length process in place. The member will know the unique role, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, a former Attorney General…. The Attorney General has a unique role at the cabinet table, and he has exercised that. I saw the report at the same time the member did. Cabinet was not briefed prior to its release. It was released, and we read it at the same time.

We’re hopeful that there’s a broad interest in this. Based on the consultation that the Attorney General undertook, there is broad interest across the province in this issue, and we hope to continue to see that grow as we get closer to the decision that the public will make at the end of the day.

While I have the floor. I’ve just been handed a statement by Elections B.C., and I want to read a portion of it. I don’t know if the member has this yet. It says a number of things — certainly that Elections B.C. will be producing non-partisan information and resources about the PR options and the referendum, including general information about how electoral boundaries might change under the proposed systems. “We will not be producing actual maps that show electoral boundaries under the proposed systems for a few reasons.”

I want to read this one to the member because it’s been consistent with what I’ve been saying, and I think it clarifies the position that the Opposition House Leader has been saying. It goes as follows: “Drafting electoral boundary maps has always been left to the independent electoral boundaries commissions, and is not part of our legislated mandate.” In the 2009 referendum, for example, the maps that compared first-past-the-post to BCSTV were produced by the boundaries commission that was operating at that time. That’s my comment, Member. It does take a fairly significant amount of time and resources to produce these maps. And the statement goes on.

We’ve been trying to make this point to members. I don’t know if it was fully canvassed in the debate this morning, but there were no maps in 2005. There were maps in 2009 because we had a boundaries commission that was operating at that moment and it was convenient to do so — or more convenient to do so.

I believe that the public will have adequate information to make an informed decision about whether they want to keep the existing system — the status quo that has led to a minority of votes having a majority of power every election but one since Confederation. I’m confident the people of British Columbia will participate fully and make a decision, informed as they can be, on what they see as their best interest.

M. Lee: Thank you to the Premier for reading that statement from Elections B.C. Hearing that…. As we talked about this morning during the emergency debate, the timing of when this referendum is being held came out of the confidence and supply agreement, and then into the Electoral Reform Referendum 2018Act. That timing was determined by this government. There clearly is time to have, just as there was in 2009, an electoral boundaries commission.

To the Premier, would he consider having that conducted?

Hon. J. Horgan: Boundary redistributions happen every decade in British Columbia. I don’t believe there’s one scheduled in the short term. So that would be an impractical suggestion — to convene an electoral boundaries commission before we know whether or not we’re going to be changing the electoral system.

It is about an 18- to 24-month process, a very vigorous one. I participated in… Certainly in my constituency, as I mentioned in my remarks today…. I started in Malahat–Juan de Fuca, transitioned to Juan de Fuca and now represent Langford–Juan de Fuca. I haven’t moved at all. I live in the same place, but I represent different people because of the redistributions and the growing populations that we see in my area, that has led to maps that have changed virtually every two elections.

It would be impractical to ask that we strike an electoral boundaries commission to put maps in place for the purposes of this referendum.

[4:20 p.m.]

That’s why we’ve been trying to make the point that the best course of action is to ask the people what they want and then build it after they’ve made their decision.

M. Lee: This is what’s been brought upon here. This is the third time in the history of this province that we’re conducting a referendum of this nature. In 2009, British Columbians had the opportunity to know exactly what they were voting on, the riding boundaries. There are other points, though, of the 24 items. When you look at the rural-urban PR decisions for the Legislature, what is being proposed here is three alternative forms of proportional representation. The Premier is considering something that is very complex for British Columbians to understand.

Three different forms of proportional representation is what’s being proposed by the recommendations of the Attorney General. Why not just have one? Why not make it simple? That’s what the Premier committed to before. For example, under the rural-urban PR decisions, one of the 24 items to be determined is the total number of MLAs in the province, either a specific number or a range of up to a maximum of 95 members.

One of the three principles that were set out in the news release was that there would not be an increase in the size of this House. And yet, in one of the considerations for one of the models here, it’s 95 members. So which is it? How will British Columbians understand the impact of the number of ridings that will be under each form?

Another example is the ratio of FPTP seats to list PR seats in an MMP region. That in itself is back to the Leader of the Opposition’s analogy of alphabet soup. That’s a great characterization of what we’re talking about here.

There needs to be some consideration of this. How will British Columbians understand, when they’re faced with that piece of information put out by Elections B.C., to say: “Oh well, there’s going to be a process. We’re going to figure out the ratio of FPTP seats to list PR seats in MMP regions”? They’re going to understand that. This is a concern, so I would suggest that as the cabinet considers the report from the Attorney General, they take a very serious look at how they’re conducting this referendum.

We have said, and we agree, that this is a decision for British Columbians. I just don’t see how they’re going to be able to make it. We have now what has been a ten-month process to get to a report that sets this out.

Again to the Premier, is he not concerned about the complexity that’s demonstrated in the report in respect of the three forms of PR that are being proposed and the 24 items that still need to be determined post the referendum vote?

Hon. J. Horgan: I very much value the member’s interventions. He’s a thoughtful member, and I know that he’s making these suggestions in a way that attempts to be helpful. I genuinely appreciate that, and as we deliberate, I’ll take his remarks into consideration.

I’ll add a few points. In the previous two votes on STV, which was a system that was rejected twice by the people of British Columbia, it was in concert with a general election. There was a high voter turnout because people were in the polling place anyway. They were also asked the question: while we have you here, would you do this or that? They chose to not support single transferrable ballots, which were, many people told me, extremely complicated and difficult to understand, once without a map and once with a map. In fact, the votes went down when there was a map. I’ll leave that hanging there and move on.

What we’ve tried to do in the time available is to put in place an opportunity for citizens to engage — by the Attorney General’s account, an unprecedented participation through visits to the website, through submissions, heading towards almost 100,000 in the time that was available. We will have what will be an extensive opportunity to discuss this over the barbecue this summer, into the fall, while people are thinking about whether they want to keep what they have or go to something different.

I think it’s incumbent upon us…. I know, certainly, the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he’s going to be out there vigorously defending the status quo, and other members will make their choices as they see fit. I think that’s good for democracy.

[4:25 p.m.]

I think that if we give the public their due, they will come to the conclusion that’s in their best interests. It may well be to stay right where we are, and it may well be to choose something different. We’ll have three options if we implement the recommendations from the Attorney General. I have every confidence that the people of British Columbia can wade through that information and make a decision that will benefit all of us.

A. Weaver: I have three questions for the Premier concerning government policies on LNG development. Let me please start by saying I’m extremely encouraged by the work underway on developing a truly visionary climate plan, and I’m fully committed to delivering on the opportunity that this minority government has to finally put a plan together that understands that addressing climate change and meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets is an economic imperative yet also an economic opportunity.

This will require hard work, thoughtful and innovative solutions and the engagement of all British Columbians. What we must never again allow is for the stated commitments to reduce emissions to be used as a cover for actions that undermine that commitment. That is what we see playing out federally. I believe this government is sincere in its commitments to meeting its greenhouse gas reduction targets, but they have some work to do in showing how the action they have taken in advancing a major expansion of a fossil fuel industry like LNG is in line with these commitments.

Please let me explore with you three questions. First, in May 2015, the B.C. Liberal government signed a development deal with Pacific NorthWest LNG in an aggressive move to spur the Malaysian-led project to become the first major Canadian exporter of LNG.

In response, the Premier, who at the time was the Leader of the Official Opposition, was sharply critical and said the provincial government had put too much on the table for industry. I just want to provide a quote. He said this. “My biggest concern is that we’re tying the hands of future governments because a desperate government made commitments that they overpromised on,” he said in Victoria, “and now they want to get a deal at any cost.”

The B.C. NDP argued that the agreements the B.C. Liberals were offering to LNG companies were too one-sided and did not provide sufficient certainty for the owners of the resource, the general public. The NDP at the time charged that this was “a sellout for B.C.” They said also: “The LNG tax legislation was written by industry and for industry.”

Are we not similarly now offering LNG Canada a deal that has been written explicitly for them while ignoring the costs that this project will incur on British Columbians, including the costs to other sectors of our economy that we’ll be forced to pay to accommodate the massive increase in our greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his participation in the estimates today. I know that there will be a series of questions on this issue. It’s one that is of critical importance to him and his colleagues, and also to all British Columbians.

[4:30 p.m.]

When we formed a government, we were approached by industries — mining, forestry and any number of industries — to find out what the new government’s plan was on taxation and what regulatory regime would be in place for a range of issues.

We established a framework for the LNG industry. The member will know — we talked about this during the election campaign — that we wanted to ensure there was going to be a return to taxpayers for the resource that belonged to them. Ministry of Finance officials worked on the development of the framework to ensure that there would be a benefit to British Columbia’s treasury as a result of any LNG development in British Columbia, and that’s what the framework is designed to do.

We also made a commitment to the public — and we reinforced that when I was in Asia talking to potential proponents — that Indigenous participation and meeting our climate action objectives were integral to any approval by the province of British Columbia.

I know the member’s participation in the development of our climate action plan going forward will be absolutely pivotal to our success. I look forward to his interventions.

I want to say that as we look at the potential of a final investment decision in the north, we want to make sure…. Leaders of industry have said to us that they welcome this type of private sector investment. I’ve said to them, as I know the member has, that if there’s an increase in emissions as a result of this sector growing, then that means there’s going to need to be a concurrent reduction and more so in other industrial activity. The business community understands that.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We need to make sure that as we develop the plan, in concert with our colleagues here in the Legislature, we know that industry understands that we need to reduce emissions over time. If we’re going to have a net increase from one project, that means concurrent decreases from other sectors.

A. Weaver: A key reason why I want to ask this question, the previous one and the next two is that the financial regime this government has brought forward is described by the Premier’s government as a better deal than what the B.C. Liberals were offering. When this was brought forward earlier this year, it was reported: “The tax breaks would water down LNG taxes enacted by then Premier Christy Clark after the 2013 election. Instead of the provincial treasury receiving an estimated $28 billion in revenue over 40 years if LNG were built, B.C. would take in only $22 billion.”

Put another way, we’re offering a project that would become the single largest source of new greenhouse gas emissions in Canada at a $6 billion discount from what the previous government was willing to offer, not the least of which is also including a reduction in electricity rates, PST and exemptions on carbon tax increase.

Why are we going out of our way to offer a better deal than even the B.C. Liberals were willing to consider to bring an LNG industry to British Columbia, in spite of the commitments we have made to a real climate plan?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his questions.

Firstly, I think we have to look back at the market for natural gas in North America and the precipitous drop-off in prices here for a commodity we have in abundance in the northeast.

When the former government put in place their LNG tax, they had an expectation of higher market prices, which would have led to potentially more revenues coming to the province. But as prices continued to be soft and demand continued to be flat, the prospect of an investment started to fall away. We saw proponent after proponent after proponent leaving the province because with the framework that was in place from the previous government, it wasn’t possible to realize a final investment decision.

[4:35 p.m.]

Again, working with Finance officials, we took a look at what was possible with tax changes, a repealing of the B.C. Liberal LNG tax and bringing in a tax that would allow us to continue to get revenue to the Crown and also allow the project to proceed. With respect to electricity, again, the B.C. Liberals created…. Again trying to squeeze more juice out of what was a declining prospect because of prices internationally, they created a new tariff for electricity. We agreed with the industry that if you’re a pulp mill or a mine or any other industrial activity, there’s a tariff that you pay, and that should be the same tariff for an LNG manufacturing plant.

What we have done when it comes to electricity prices is put in place an industrial tariff that exists for all industrial activity. I think that’s a fairness question. On the energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries, I know the member and I have had long discussions about this. He understands the issue very well. If we are going to have a successful climate action plan and a robust economy, we have to keep our energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries in a position of being able to be positive and also meet our climate objectives.

This is not going to be an easy challenge. The member knows that better than anyone else in this Legislature. It’s for that reason that I’m grateful that he’s on board to try and help square this circle. But the investment opportunity is significant. Upstream electrification will help reduce emissions from wellhead to waterline. These were issues that we debated in this Legislature when the previous administration brought forward their ideas. I think we’re in a better position now to make the changes that we need.

We’re not focusing on one, two, three, four or ten LNG plants. It’s two trains and a community that is receptive and that has almost complete First Nations participation. I believe that if we work very hard on this, we’ll be able to see a final investment decision by what is a very diverse group of proponents from China, Japan, Korea and Royal Dutch Shell. I think the opportunity is a positive one, but the challenges are significant, and no one knows that better than the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

A. Weaver: Thank you for the answer. I certainly hope government is looking to support from the B.C. Liberals for repealing the LNG Income Tax Act, because the B.C. Greens have been quite clear that we will not support the repealing of the LNG Income Tax Act, in light of the fact that the deal that was given by the B.C. Liberals was a rich deal at best, and this rich deal is being made richer. I look forward to the debates ahead as the B.C. Liberals stand in support of government repealing the LNG Income Tax Act that they brought in.

In 2016, the NDP concluded that plans for the $11.4 billion terminal at Lelu Island would generate an unacceptable increase in the province’s greenhouse gas emissions and filed a definitive position against the project with the federal environmental authorities. The project, the NDP noted in their March 2016 letter to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, would increase the province’s entire carbon footprint for industry, transport and residential activity combined by 8.5 percent. The proposal failed “to meet the condition of air, land and water protection with respect to both the threat to marine habitat and species as well as to climate through unacceptable high and inadequately regulated greenhouse gas emissions,” the letter stated. “Until and unless these deficiencies are addressed, we urge you to withhold final recommendation for approval.” Those are the NDP words.

As was reported in Times Colonist at the time, the key reason the opposition was citing, greenhouse gas emissions, is an issue with all the big LNG plants that have been under consideration in B.C. for the past several years. If the B.C. NDP applies its Pacific NorthWest LNG reasoning to all other proposals, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where the party would support LNG in general. “Unacceptable high emissions cited by the letter are in fact lower than the emissions projected to arise from LNG Canada. According to Pembina’s analysis, LNG Canada would increase our emissions by 14 percent of 2015 levels.”

Furthermore, the same analysis projects that upstream emissions from LNG Canada will be comparable to those outlined as unacceptable in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency letter. LNG Canada is about five megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent a year. That’s for two trains, two then four. This would suggest the analysis that led the B.C. NDP to reject Pacific NorthWest LNG on climate grounds would equally, and more so, apply to LNG Canada. Again, I don’t have any philosophical objection to the LNG industry. LNG may be an important local transition fuel to meet our plans for commercial vehicles and other forms.

[4:40 p.m.]

What we can’t allow, and what I believe you were arguing yourself, hon. Premier, in the letter you filed with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, was that the LNG industry cannot come at the expense of our commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

How does the Premier reconcile his strong opposition to Petronas with his support for LNG Canada? I don’t see how you can have it both ways.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. Our analysis shows the emission intensity of LNG Canada is significantly lower than the Petronas proposal or Pacific NorthWest LNG — 0.23 versus 0.15 in terms of emission intensity. Also, LNG Canada proposes their upstream assets are largely in the Montney basin, the southern portion of the Montney basin, which will provide more opportunities for electrification to ensure emissions at the wellhead are reduced so that the package from wellhead to waterline is significantly greater than the Petronas or the Pacific NorthWest LNG proposal.

I believe that new technologies that are proposed by LNG Canada also assist in reducing their profile, versus Pacific NorthWest LNG. The member will remember that the critical issue when it came to the Pacific NorthWest LNG issue was siting of the plant on Lelu Island, which was contested by the Lax Kw’alaams hereditary leadership as well as many very concerned about one of the most robust salmon rivers in North America at the mouth of the Skeena River. The putting at risk our wild salmon was a significant challenge that I believe Pacific NorthWest LNG wasn’t able to overcome.

When it comes to LNG Canada, they have the full support of the Haisla Nation. They have support virtually from Treaty 8 right through to Kitimat. The city of Kitimat is almost uniformly supportive. I believe that the fiscal framework we’ve put in place will allow a significant return to the people of British Columbia.

The challenge, as the member knows full well, is meeting our climate objectives. We’re going to need a lot of work by a lot of people to do that. Individuals are going to have to reduce their footprint. Industry is going to have to reduce their footprint to make space for this new emerging industry. But it will create significant employment growth, wealth for British Columbians and, I believe, will allow other jurisdictions to reduce their climate emissions by having a transition fuel in place.

I thank the member for his questions.

R. Sultan: I cannot resist this moment of delicious irony as the Premier of British Columbia, after having feasting on the ridicule of the previous Premier for this fantastic and improbable dream of an LNG industry, is now, with great enthusiasm, knowledge and gusto, promoting the selfsame project, which I hope, out of respect, he would rename the Christy Clark LNG project. We look forward to his imminent announcement of a prosperity fund, as we see the money pour in.

Christy, it appears, will have the last laugh, because she is joining, I think, certainly what was in my experience, the pre-eminent oil and gas law firm headquartered in Calgary. I’m sure we have not heard the last of Christy and LNG in this precinct.

But I really rise to ask a question of the Premier pertaining to the fundamental economics of the underlying, underpinning, the exchange between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition on legal issues. Clearly, the issues described in that exchange in this House not too many moments ago involved highly trained, very expensive, capable people operating within a very expensive justice system with a lot of high-cost infrastructure — which does not come inexpensively.

[4:45 p.m.]

So my question to the Premier is: can he help us better understand the cost of the various legal actions in which this government is engaged, both against Canada on the grounds of environmental jurisdiction to inhibit the building of a new pipeline for the transmission of the petroleum products into British Columbia, and simultaneously we see legal action is taken by this government against Alberta opposing their threat to cut off the transmission of petroleum products into British Columbia. Cut off versus maintain — it doesn’t take a legal scholar to see the contradiction in these two actions involving our government. My question to the Premier is: what is all of this costing the taxpayers?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano for his question and, also, highlighting the irony. Certainly, if the former Premier would accept a call from me, I’d be happy to invite her to a ribbon cutting, should there be one, but I rather doubt she would. Perhaps you could be an intermediary, Member, and I could offer my invitation through you to her.

When it comes to the cost of litigation, that’s, of course, something that would be declared in the public accounts in the year preceding the expenditure of the resources. The member would know that. But I want to diminish the magnitude, in his mind, of what that final bill might be.

Firstly, since we formed government we entered into two existing litigations, one which is completed — awaiting appeal, I believe — with respect to the Squamish Nation and consultation with the province of British Columbia. We, in fact, sided with the province, not surprisingly, in terms of maintaining the integrity of the Crown. The second case we entered into was at the federal court with the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, and that litigation is ongoing. We had a very capable lawyer, outside counsel, made our submission, and we await a final ruling from that court.

When it comes to the reference case, I believe this is a worthwhile exercise, particularly because of the exchange I just had with the Leader of the Opposition, who seemed to believe that it was important that the province have some ability to understand the magnitude of rail transport of oil into British Columbia. We currently don’t have that ability. We’re seeking to get that ability, and I think it’ll be in the interests of all of us to make sure that the province of British Columbia has the tools to defend our coast, to defend our air and our water and land. What the price tag will be on that, hon. Member, will be made known in public accounts, and there’s some irony being able to stand and say that to the member as well.

R. Sultan: Thank you for that response, although I was hoping for a dollar figure, but I will have to await public accounts, I suppose.

Turning to a certainly well-publicized but maybe, hopefully, not quite as large in magnitude legal action, I was recently shown documentations pertaining to the action taken by Gordon Wilson in the Supreme Court, the initial dossier dated 17, August, 2017 and the initial response of September 7, 2017. Just for the record, the plaintiff being Gordon Frederick David Wilson and the defendant being Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia by officer of the government, referring to the Premier, and also the hon. Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology. I think that the public would be very interested in where this dispute stands and, again, how much money we are spending to defend the Crown in this action.

Hon. J. Horgan: That matter is before the courts, better directed to the Attorney General.

The Chair: The member for Maple Ridge–Mission seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. D’Eith: I wanted to say that I’m very pleased to have some students from Meadowridge School from Maple Ridge and their teacher Kevin Kennedy. They’re touring the precinct, and they’re very fortunate, because it’s our last day in session, to be able to see the Premier answer questions in the House. We really would like to make them very welcome.

[4:50 p.m.]

Debate Continued

The Chair: Shall Vote 10 pass?

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

ESTIMATES:
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Vote 1: Legislative Assembly, $77,408,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

Vote 2: Auditor General, $17,666,000 — approved.

Vote 3: Conflict of Interest Commissioner, $718,000 — approved.

Vote 4: Elections B.C., $13,846,000 — approved.

Vote 5: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $6,252,000 — approved.

Vote 6: Merit Commissioner, $1,141,000 — approved.

Vote 7: Ombudsperson, $6,893,000 — approved.

Vote 8: Police Complaint Commissioner, $3,615,000 — approved.

Vote 9: Representative for Children and Youth, $9,418,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise and report resolutions and completion of Vote 10 of the Office of the Premier, Vote 1 of the Legislative Assembly and Votes 2 to 9 of the Officers of the Legislature and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[4:55 p.m.]

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

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

Committee of Supply (Section C) reported resolution.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Forthwith.

Mr. Speaker: So ordered.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call for the consideration of the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply.

Supply Motions

REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply on March 6, 7, 13; April 10, 17, 18, 19, 24, 26; and May 7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 28, 29, 30 and 31 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That there be granted to Her Majesty, from and out of the Consol­idated Revenue Fund, the sum of 43 billion, 138 million, 106 thousand dollars towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2018.]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR CAPITAL
EXPENDITURES, LOANS, INVESTMENTS
AND OTHER FINANCING REQUIREMENTS

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That there be granted to Her Majesty, from and out of the Consol­idated Revenue Fund, the sum of 903 million, 429 thousand dollars towards defraying the disbursements for capital, loans, investments and other financing requirements of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2018.]

Motion approved.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — SUPPLY ACT, 2018-2019

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2018-2019.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 35 be introduced and read a first time now.

This supply bill is introduced to authorize funding for the operation of government programs for the ’18-19 fiscal year. The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply after consideration of the main estimates. In addition, the House has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges, expenses and disbursements of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019.

It is the intention of government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading.

Motion approved.

[5:00 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I would ask that you remain in your seats for a few minutes while the bill is being circulated.

Members, the bill has been circulated. In keeping with the practice of this House, the final supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Bill 35, Supply Act, 2018-2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — SUPPLY ACT, 2018-2019

Hon. C. James: I move Bill 35 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move Bill 35 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 35, Supply Act, 2018-2019, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — SUPPLY ACT, 2018-2019

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 35; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 5:03 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 35 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:04 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[5:05 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — SUPPLY ACT, 2018-2019

Bill 35, Supply Act, 2018-2019, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if I may just ask that you remain in your seats. It’s my understanding that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct.

[5:10 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.]

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

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act, 2018

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018

Real Estate Development Marketing Amendment Act, 2018

Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2018

Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act

Voluntary Blood Donations Act

Cannabis Control and Licensing Act

Cannabis Distribution Act

South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2018

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment Act, 2018

Canadian Chinese School of Theology Vancouver Act

In her Majesty’s name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act, 2018-2019

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

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): All right. I guess we’re done.

[5:20 p.m.]

Before I go, though, I would just like to say how much I respect and admire the work that you all do together and how much I appreciate the many, many sacrifices that you make for the privilege of serving all of us.

I know there’s still a lot of work ahead for all of you, but I do hope you have some time this summer to enjoy relaxation with family and friends. I wish you all the health and happiness, and safe travels in the time ahead.

Take care.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have one final motion to move, but before I do, I’d just like to make a couple of quick points. One, the staff have requested that people clean out their desks. All I know is that when I was on that side, it was like that much stuff, and being a minister, it’s only this much stuff, so that’s all right. The second is for all of this in this House to give a big round of applause to the staff who make this place function so very, very well. [Applause.]

With that, I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the third session of the 41st parliament of the province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. And in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the House do now adjourn, and everybody have a safe and happy summer.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we all know that there are those out there who are thinking it’s a bit of a break, but we also all know that all of you will be working hard on behalf of British Columbians.

Have a great summer. Best wishes to all of you.

This House stands adjourned until further notice.

The House adjourned at 5:25 p.m.