Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

[2:35 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Throne Speech Debate

R. Singh: I move, seconded by the member for Courtenay-Comox:

[That we, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in Session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present Session.]

Mr. Speaker, it’s my great honour, and I’m very pleased, to speak in support of the throne speech, which is focused on the work that our government is doing to make life better and create opportunities for people. Making life better starts with the choices we make today. The choices of the past….

We know for the last 16 years we had a government that was not working for the people of B.C., but our government is making different choices and putting people first. From affordability to services and a strong, sustainable economy, our government is fixing the problems and making progress on the things that matter most.

I can say, especially hearing from my constituents in Surrey–​Green Timbers, that affordability remains the biggest challenge facing B.C. families. Too many families are living paycheque to paycheque. No matter how hard they work, they can’t seem to get ahead. And rather than letting costs rise uncontrolled, our government is making life more affordable and helping families get ahead.

I’m so proud of the work our government has done to make life more affordable. I hear, whenever I go out in the community and talk to my constituents and also to people in Surrey, that they are so happy with the changes our government is making. We reduced the MSP prices by half, and we are going to eliminate them fully in the coming year. This has made a big difference in an average working family’s household. Now a family of four, a couple, can have about $1,800 in their pockets that they can spend on the things that really matter to them. I have heard from so many families who are benefiting from it.

Also talking from the Surrey context, the tolls that we eliminated last year are making a big difference. Even now, although it’s been almost a year and a half since we did it, I still hear from people in Surrey how happy they are that we eliminated that unfair tax.

[2:40 p.m.]

Also, our government will maintain its freeze on ferry fares for major routes and discounts on minor and northern routes. That is also something that we were hearing a lot from people, and our government is committed to making life more affordable.

One thing that I keep on hearing often — it comes in, in every discussion everywhere I go — is housing. For far too long, housing prices have left too many people unable to find affordable housing.

The previous government failed to address the housing crisis. They made choices to benefit the wealthy few while costs spiralled up for everyone else. I’m so glad that our government’s choices are making a difference. We are seeing a drop in foreign and domestic speculation, moderate home prices in the Lower Mainland and increasing vacancy rates for rentals.

It means a lot for the people of B.C. I can say that for my constituents in Surrey, this is huge for them. Whenever I go and talk to them, there are so many families who are struggling to be able to afford a house. This is a dream, especially, I can say, for a lot of newcomers who make Surrey their home. It is their dream to come to a new country, a new city and be able to get a new house, be able to buy a new house.

For the last so many years, they were just falling behind. They were not in any position to get into the housing market. I’m so proud that our government is making changes and making efforts to make it possible for those people to get into the housing market.

One thing I also want to say is that the housing crisis wasn’t created overnight, and it won’t be fixed overnight. But our government is determined to fix the problems and make housing more affordable for people.

Another issue that is very close to my heart is child care. We know that families were paying tens of thousands of dollars a year for child care, and they were waiting for months and years on wait-lists. Past governments have not helped parents to find the child care they need and move their lives forward. But this government has taken its first steps to make quality child care more affordable and more available to more B.C. families.

We are starting to make progress. Tens of thousands of B.C. families are enjoying the benefits of more affordable child care. Child care costs have been reduced by hundreds of dollars a month. Young families can purchase a home for the first time, and more parents can participate in the workforce.

This has come to me…. I’ve heard firsthand from families. A lot of women in my constituency had to make a choice because child care was so expensive that they were not getting into the workforce. It was not that they did not want to work. They just could not do it because they could not afford the child care costs, so they were making the decision to stay at home.

With the steps that our government is taking, more and more families are benefiting from the child care discounts. Also, more women — I say women because it’s usually the women who are the primary caregivers — are coming into the workforce, which is, in turn, helping our economy.

In the throne speech, it was announced that the government’s plan is to develop new collaborative legislation that will give universal access to quality, affordable child care the force of law. I’m proud that our government is taking steps to make sure that affordable child care is there for every family that needs it.

Quality public services are the key to stronger and healthier communities. After years of underfunding, our government is making record investments in education, with more support and better learning environments for students. This is something which was resonating in my community of Surrey — that in services, we were just lagging behind. Surrey, as we know, is the fastest-growing community in B.C. We get more than 1,200 people who make Surrey their home every month. But we were just lagging behind in the services that we were providing.

[2:45 p.m.]

Education is the one thing that we all should be investing in. I am so happy that our government has approved 24 seismic upgrade projects. One-third of them are completed or underway. We have hired 3,700 new teachers, including special education teachers, teachers at colleges and counsellors. And we are working to make schools more inclusive, with the expansion of anti-bullying programs and additional resources for mental health and wellness.

Along with that, I can say that for Surrey, with the growing community and the more kids we have in that community, I’m so glad that we have so many new capital projects that are coming up. Our government is committed to build more schools in those communities.

Public health care is a right, yet too many British Columbians can’t find a family doctor and are waiting for too long for care. This was another issue that I was hearing from my community over and over again — health care. I’m so glad that the throne speech underscored our government’s work to provide better, faster access to health care in all corners of the province.

The government has opened a network of urgent primary care centres, and I’m very glad to say that the first urgent care centre that opened was in my community of Surrey. Along with the urgent primary care centres, we have 200 more family practice physicians, 200 nurse practitioners and 50 clinical pharmacists and other health care providers.

We are building, renovating and expanding hospitals in communities around the province. Government is increasing staffing hours in residential care homes so seniors can get the care they need and deserve. I hear so much about it every day — about our seniors who have given so much to build our communities, and when they need the care, the staff do not have enough hours to care for them. So I’m really glad about the announcement that the Health Minister made to increase the hours in residential care settings.

We have also added thousands more surgeries and MRI exams throughout the province.

To make sure people don’t have to choose between food or medicine, government cut or eliminated Fair PharmaCare deductibles for 240,000 people last year. I can say that this has personally affected me. My parents, who are seniors, don’t have much income here. The first time they ever went to get some medications, they did not have to pay anything. I could see the smiles on their faces when they came back. There are so many more seniors — as it says, 240,000 seniors in our communities — who are benefiting from this.

Another emergency that we dealt with and our government has dealt with and is very committed to is the overdose emergency. It’s the worst public health crisis in B.C.’s history, and our government is working hard to help save lives. We are expanding harm reduction and increasing access to naloxone, connecting people to life-saving supports, including treatment and recovery, and allocating more resources to law enforcement to address the criminal elements of this crisis.

Only last week I was standing with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions in Surrey, where she announced the expansion of services to deal with this crisis — and services that are more culturally sensitive, clinics like Roshni Clinic, which is in Surrey. I’m so glad that our government is not only looking to address this crisis but also keeping all communities in mind and providing the culturally sensitive care that is required.

The throne speech presented a vision for a strong, sustainable economy that works for people. For far too long, choices were made to benefit only the wealthy few. This government is making different choices and building a prosperous economy that works for everyone. We want to make sure people can afford to live and work here, with a good job, with good pay and a home that families can afford. We are creating opportunities for people so that they can see a future for themselves in their communities. We are committed to shared prosperity for many, not just for the few.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’m also very proud of our government’s bold action on climate change. CleanBC was created in partnership with the B.C. Green caucus. It is our road map that will help us build a low-carbon economy that creates opportunities for all while protecting B.C.’s air, water and land. CleanBC will improve where we live and work through building retrofits and new net-zero energy standards for new buildings.

As we reduce emissions, we also create jobs and opportunity for people, businesses and communities. A cleaner, better future for everyone is what CleanBC is all about. We need to work together to seize this opportunity and address the challenges of climate change.

Also, I’m very proud of the work this government is doing to achieve reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. This is a cross-government priority, and B.C. will be the first province in Canada to introduce legislation to implement the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

It gives me so much pleasure that I’m part of a government which, instead of focusing on just one single sector, is investing in all sectors and supporting innovation across the board. We believe that a prosperous economy works for everyone, not just the few.

The LNG Canada project will create thousands of jobs and generate $23 billion in government revenue that will be reinvested into the infrastructure and services B.C. families depend on. This project met government’s four conditions for any major infrastructure project: a fair rate of return for our natural resources, job opportunities and training for people in B.C. and meaningful partnership with First Nations. It is included in government’s CleanBC plan as well.

The throne speech outlined government’s plan to strengthen traditional industries while making sure they work for people. We’re increasing processing and promoting partnerships with Indigenous communities and creating jobs and opportunities for local workers.

Our government recognizes B.C.’s potential to be a global hub of connectivity and innovation. Encouraging technological advances across all sectors will benefit every part of our economy. Also, infrastructure and mobility are critical to our economy and the livability of our communities.

This government is making sure public investments provide public benefits. That’s why community benefit agreements on major infrastructure projects will provide better training and more trades opportunities for Indigenous people, women and youth around the province. Our government is opening doors to skills training so that people can get good jobs with good wages and businesses have the skilled workforce they count on.

I’m pleased to see the throne speech confirm that ride-hailing will enter the market this year. I’m so proud to be part of the committee that is working on making ride-sharing a reality in the coming year, and I’m so glad of the Minister of Transportation’s commitment to ride-hailing. For so many years, people were asking for ride-hailing, and the previous government was not listening to them. I’m proud of the government that is listening to the people and is committed to provide ride-hailing, which will come this year.

In closing, I just want to say that our government is making a different choice. We are committed to making life better. We are creating opportunities for people so that B.C.’s bright future and unlimited potential is shared with everyone, not just a few. I really look forward to this work and to continuing to serve the people of this province.

R. Leonard: I’m pleased to second the motion moved by the member for Surrey–Green Timbers. It is my privilege today to be able to speak to this government’s second throne speech.

I want to acknowledge that this is….

Interjection.

[2:55 p.m.]

R. Leonard: Is it our third?

Interjection.

R. Leonard: Not at all, not at all.

Okay, let me start that again. I am privileged to address this government’s third throne speech, as we enter into another full budget cycle.

I would like to acknowledge that we are in the traditional territories of the Lekwungen-speaking peoples, particularly the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations. I think this is an important thing to acknowledge especially today as the Moose Hide Campaign began once again this year — and the acknowledgment of all the work that’s being done by the organizers for the Moose Hide Campaign, recognizing that today has been proclaimed as the Moose Hide Campaign Day.

It’s a real privilege to be able to stand here and acknowledge that, knowing that every party and every member of this House is supporting the work to reduce the violence that is perpetrated against, particularly, Indigenous women and children. I’d like to also acknowledge that in my constituency, it’s the territory of the K’ómoks First Nation.

I would also like to take an opportunity today to acknowledge my husband Ron Eby’s constant support and his commitment, particularly, to reducing our energy consumption in the house. I’d like to share with you that I have to endure the power being turned off to my hot water tank so that I’m never sure if I’m going to have a hot shower in the morning, as he tries to reduce our energy consumption. But it’s his commitment, and it’s part of the many things that he does every day to make life better for British Columbians and to do our part helping to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, which is a big part of why I stand here today.

I’d also like to acknowledge my executive. They are very involved. They’re very committed. They have a lot of special talents and skills to support the work of this government. I have been privileged to have them support me through many trials and tribulations, as this is a first term for me as MLA.

I’d like to also make a special shout-out to my constituency assistants, particularly Leanne Rathje, who’s been with me since, oh, almost day one. For many months this past year, she has had to take on the challenges of meeting the needs of people in my constituency, alone.

I’d also like to welcome a new constituency assistant, Matt Landry. His youthful energy and enthusiasm and his skills and talents are most welcome. I’m looking forward to working with him. I’m sure that the constituents in my community are going to be very well-served by this young man.

The first speech that I remember…. I remember the excitement and the anticipation of being part of a new journey that was being charted by our new B.C. NDP government. It was like a ship setting sail on its maiden voyage. I get, now, a year later, to look back on what has been an amazing, amazing trip so far. We had 16 years of inattention to the plight of all but the top 2 percent of British Columbians. Today there is a very different feel in our province. We see the positivity, the hope and aspirations, after so many years of barriers for people wanting to make life better.

There are so many things that were mentioned in the throne speech. I’m sure I won’t touch on all of them, but I’ll go through a life cycle. I’m going to start with health, because most people’s first introduction to the government is through our health care system. We’ve done so many good things to make life better for British Columbians.

[3:00 p.m.]

I’ll start with the Fair PharmaCare. As the member for Surrey–Green Timbers mentioned, 240,000 people are benefiting from the cuts to Fair PharmaCare. That’s a lot of impact. We’ve also supported urgent primary care provision, and it’s happening in my community. There are more family doctors, more pharmacists. In my community, I’m particularly proud that we are supporting nurse practitioners in a big way.

We have a new hospital in the Comox Valley, and when it opened, there simply weren’t enough beds, right from the get-go. As time went on and things didn’t settle out, we were very privileged to have more beds added to try and relieve some of the pressures in the health care system in our community.

On top of that, we have a desperate need for residential care for seniors, and our government created temporary beds until the request for proposals was approved. This request for proposals added on to the 70 beds that had been approved through the previous government. What we did was made permanent those temporary beds that were a stopgap measure, and we added more respite beds, added more hospice beds and added more residential care beds. So instead of 70, our community is going to be receiving 151 beds.

It’s going to be provided through two different models. We’re going to have a dementia village, which is a really exciting possibility that’s opening up with Providence Care. We also have an inspiring new facility that’s coming to town, a new provider.

We’ve also seen an increase in the community care hours so that people are able to stay at home, where we know people want to be. We’ve also, of course, added, across the board, throughout the province, an increase in hours so that residential care beds have the kind of care that they need. It’s a standard that is being met by millions of man-hours, staffing hours, to make sure that people, if they have to go into care, are going to be well cared for.

I know that this is…. I’ve witnessed that with a lot of friends who have aging parents. The last place they want to see their loved ones go to is a residential care facility. In fact, it can be a wonderful experience, taking people out of isolation, if it’s done well, and we have that commitment to doing things better.

We’re also, in the health care field, adding more hip and knee surgeries and more MRIs. One of the things that we all hear about is the long wait-lists. That’s starting to be chipped away at so that people don’t have to suffer and can get on with their lives.

We also have more health care training spaces at our North Island College. The Minister of Health made a comment, when he was making the announcement around the residential care beds recently, about how we really need to value the jobs of the people who do the care. It is not a place where you’re going to see people entering into that as a profession unless we actually value it and celebrate it. I think that’s one of the avenues that we are pursuing — to make sure that we are reflecting, in our policies and programs, that value.

After you’ve given birth and you go home and you’ve dealt with all of your aches and pains…. The next big thing that was in the throne speech was child care. So many people have had to wait very long periods of time to find decent-quality affordable child care. Many families end up having a parent stay at home because they simply cannot find it. Our economy really deserves to have people who have developed their skills and talents come back into the workforce when they are ready and not be seeing child care as the barrier for the advancement of people in their careers, an advancement for the businesses where they serve.

I’d like to make a comment, too, about women who leave the workforce for a period of time to raise their children. It’s an admirable thing that women do. It’s, generally speaking, women. But when they leave the workforce, there are long-term effects. They’ve reduced their earning power. They’ve reduced their pensionability.

[3:05 p.m.]

They have to take a place where…. They haven’t advanced their careers for so many years, and getting back into the workforce is often a very difficult thing. So for us to take the steps to really make child care a number one driver of our economy is something that I value so much.

In terms of what’s going on in my community, we’ve seen new spaces come. We have more spaces at North Island College for training the early childhood educators.

Again, the issue around valuing that job, the early childhood educators. We’ve increased wages. We’ve added bursaries and on-the-job training so that people can work and improve their skills. We’ve also made more affordable the child care for families. I’m very proud to say that not only do we have the programs relating to reducing child care fees and subsidies; we’ve also introduced pilots for the $10-a-day child care. And one of those pilots is in our community.

We are also working on partnerships. At Lake Trail School, where we’re doing a $26 million renovation replacement, it includes 60 new child care spaces. Of course, we have a program where we will partner with local governments and school districts, public institutions, to provide $1 million to develop those child care spaces, a half a million dollars for non-profits and a quarter of a million dollars with for-profit child care institutions.

What we have done is focused on quality affordable child care. The throne speech makes mention of the fact that we are going to have new collaborative legislation that will give universal access to quality affordable child care the force of law. Not a program that’s going to be dismissed at any time in the future.

Now after you get the kids in school, you have a whole new set of issues to deal with. I have mentioned Lake Trail, and we know that the funds are going into not only seismic upgrades but also new builds, to make sure that we get rid of portables. We also know that there’s been the contract language reinstating so many teachers that are coming back into the classroom. That’s so important, especially after seeing a 14 percent increase since 2013-14 in mental illness and behaviour categories.

Our government is providing for 3,200 special education resource teachers, 180 educational psychologists and 918 school counsellors. I know in my own community, kids entering into kindergarten on the vulnerability scale are doing abysmally, and they need all of the supports that they can have to become successful in life.

Nearly half of the students who have mental illness or behaviour categories don’t graduate. One of the issues around mental illness is anxiety. As I say, the numbers are growing. There are things that we can do to make life a little less anxious for our young people. If they see that there’s hope in the future and that they can have confidence that they’re going to have a place in our economy and that they are going to have a better life, that helps. It’s not all about the supports. It’s about seeing that there is a future for them.

In my community, it’s been forever that kids leave the valley — that they don’t see those opportunities and have to leave their families. It’s a big scary world out there, and there’s a lot more that needs to be done to train our young people so that they see that future.

I want to talk next about the environment, because I know that that’s a deep concern for the youth of this province.

[3:10 p.m.]

I also know it’s very important to my constituency as a whole. People are very, very passionate about the environment. I want to say that the path forward on climate change has not been very stellar with our old government. They undermined the recommendations that were being brought forward by people who work in the field, even going so far as to go outside of the province to make sure that they got the direction they wanted.

However, we now have a new government, and we have charted a new course, in partnership with the Greens. I think that it’s going to give the confidence that people need in our future in B.C. The CleanBC plan offers clean energy jobs. It’s going to be dealing with solid waste, cleaner transportation, dealing with buildings and reducing pollution from industry. I’d like to just touch on that because a lot of people hear the word “CleanBC,” but then they don’t get a fleshed-out version, a sense of what it is that we can accomplish if we stay the course.

The training. As I mentioned earlier, that’s the future of our youth. It’s a place to build confidence and a place for success, and we are investing in that.

On solid waste. I know in my community, particularly, the issue around solid waste is that it’s getting more and more expensive. The opportunities for solutions are diminishing. The throne speech makes mention that we are going to be helping communities to achieve the reductions that they need. I know that’ll be welcome news to many in our communities, especially in local and regional governments.

On clean transportation. I had somebody come into my office who was just so excited that they were getting one of the electric vehicles. She said: “It’ll be my last vehicle, and I never would have been able to do it without the $6,000 incentive program that’s available.” We really need to be focusing on those renewable fuels because, by and large, the biggest contributor to our greenhouse gases in our everyday lives is our vehicles.

In terms of our buildings, of course, there’s the whole issue of retrofits — another thing my husband is very keen to hear about. I know that we spent $1.7 million additionally on an affordable housing project called the Braidwood housing project. I was told by the organizers that it was, in major part, to increase building efficiencies.

We all have a part to play. It makes life more affordable when we have reduced energy costs. I’m excited that we are going to be looking at net-zero energy building standards so we can make sure that everybody benefits from that now and into the future.

Of course, all of that reflects on the ability for us to increase our jobs and opportunities. There’s a company in my community called Prisym, which I was just reading about in our local community development newsletter that comes out every week. They’re a solar energy provider, and they’re integrating renewable energies into new and existing buildings. They’re going out and providing complimentary information sessions so that contractors, as well as people who are doing their own contracting, can benefit from those possibilities.

I remember many years ago when I was in local government and hearing about the opportunities and the incredible savings there are if you are building new — being ready to adopt those renewable energies, rather than trying to fit them in long after you’ve built the houses. Of course, most of us don’t live in brand-new houses. Most of the marketplace is older buildings, so we have to find ways to make that happen.

I’d like to just make a comment about the consumer protections that were mentioned in the throne speech. I don’t go out to concerts a lot, but I do remember having an opportunity to see Duke Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald, and it was pretty exciting. It was before there was such a thing as bucket lists. It would’ve been on my bucket list to be able to see such performers.

[3:15 p.m.]

There are performers now who try to make it accessible for people to see them perform, and the whole scalping industry has made it inaccessible to so many people. I’m very proud that we are going to be taking action to try to circumvent the software that is making it difficult for people to be able to enjoy concerts and other events throughout B.C.

Also, I know that people — oh, so many people — have to live paycheque to paycheque. The idea of dealing with short-term loans in a way where…. We’re increasing consumer education and providing oversight and some capping so that we can start to influence the direction, to make life more affordable. You don’t want to be seeing people being taken advantage of, and I applaud our government for taking that on.

I can’t tell you how many people have turned to me about cell service, saying: “Oh, if you can do something about cell service….” I recognize — it was mentioned in the throne speech — that we don’t have all of the power on the issue of the cost to consumers of cell service. But where we have authority, we are paying attention and doing what we can.

On the issue of ICBC, I hear a lot of comments about: “Oh, we need the competition. We need to go into private insurance.” It’s been just shown over and over again that that’s not the way to drive down the costs and make sure that people have quality insurance. We’re committed to that — to having a public insurance system that provides the lowest cost and a quality product. The lack of regulation and the skimming off of ICBC’s revenues is over. Our government last year put in $950 million to try and straighten out the books, and I’m pretty impressed with the work that’s being done.

I’d just like to conclude by saying that we have so many opportunities. The future is bright; hope is in the air. We have every opportunity to turn to our youth and say that we’ll hand on the baton to the next generation, once we start to further implement the things that we have started in the last year. It isn’t a rehashing. It is the beginning of the building of the foundation that we started last year. We have to build on it. It’s going to take time, and people need to be patient. They need to be persistent in making sure that they hold our feet to the fire, and we will accomplish a better B.C. for everyone.

P. Milobar: As I rise to address the throne speech…. I was thinking back yesterday, as I was listening to it, and throughout the night and today, getting ready to rise and speak, and I reflected on many years ago, when I and a great many in North America were really taken by, really entertained by and quite the fans of a television show that was a show about nothing. Unfortunately, this throne speech is about nothing. That’s not a good thing for the citizens of British Columbia. That’s by no means a way to try to run a government.

When I was listening again yesterday to the throne speech being read by the Lieutenant-Governor, it struck me…. I thought: “Well, I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I’m just not quite hearing correctly. I’ll wait, and I’ll read it in print after it gets printed out by Hansard.” When you read it, it’s the same as it sounded. It was a throne speech that sounds like and was read like each minister was asked to submit two to three sentences that they would like to see inserted into the throne speech. Everything just seemed to be cobbled together in a random order of commitments and looking back on things.

[3:20 p.m.]

It wasn’t a throne speech that was actually looking forward and of any great significance. In fact, it was a throne speech that sounded more like a year-in-review interview that you often see around Christmastime than what you would expect to start a legislative session. It’s not just me. That’s widely what we’ve heard out there from pundits and other organizations in the 24 hours now that it’s been out there. And there’s no wonder. It was a throne speech totally devoid of any forward-looking, of any substance issues.

What it was, was a throne speech that really just started to reiterate announcement after announcement that had already been made over the last year. I guess that for this government, that feels like a forward-looking document. In spite of their insistence that they have checked off a whole lot of things on their to-do list, all they’ve done is create task forces. They’ve created studies. They’ve created enabling legislation that has zero regulations attached to it.

They haven’t actually followed through on the vast majority of things, in actual practice, that they promised in the election back in 2017 — two years later, three throne speeches later. And, yes, I agree. It’s easy, with how bland they have been, to realize it has been three and to actually think it has been less. In the 18-plus months now that these three throne speeches have been brought forward, and despite repeated press releases reannouncing the same things, there has been very little progress, in a real, tangible way, that this government can point to on a wide variety of things — things that they touched on in the throne speech.

There’s all sorts of motherhood-and-apple-pie language in there about working together, about working with communities. Yet what do we see in action with this government when communities try engaging? What we see, when it comes to the employer health tax, is communities being told point-blank by the Finance Minister: “Suck it up. Deal with it. Pass it on to your property tax payers. It’s not my problem.”

What do they get told by the same minister when they bring forward legitimate concerns around the speculation tax and the arbitrary way it was implemented? “Deal with it. And you know what? If you’re lucky, we’ll change things a little bit so that I’ll meet with you once a year.” How magnanimous is that — a meeting once a year with the Finance Minister so the municipalities can get told: “Too bad. The tax stays”? That’s been the response, in actuality, by this government towards partners that they referenced in this throne speech.

That’s why, I think, people are very disappointed in this throne speech. It hasn’t actually brought through anything of significance.

It’s somewhat sad that much earlier on in the throne speech, there’s great deference and acknowledgment of the CASA agreement and the Greens, but the word “job” had to wait for 20 minutes in. I think that speaks volumes to the citizens of this province about the importance within this House that the government places on trying to cling to power or not and whether or not they’re truly concerned with what’s going on in communities around this province. If they were really concerned with what’s going on with the job creators in this province…. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Yesterday we heard the Premier make it very clear. In fact, it was referenced in the throne speech as well. The only way people are struggling to keep their heads afloat in the last 18 months…. People who used to have one job now need two, while the government is trying to say they’re making life more affordable for them. That doesn’t sound like a more affordable B.C. It doesn’t sound like a B.C. that holds the promise of opportunity for people.

It sounds like a province where people, through no fault of their own, are starting to see their hours cut, are starting to see their shifts removed, because of government policies that are layering 19 different taxes on individuals and employers in this province, job creators in this province, entrepreneurs in this province. The ripple effect is starting to happen.

[3:25 p.m.]

So what happens? The person gets their hours cut a bit, and we get a throne speech that acknowledges that they now need two jobs to try to keep their household afloat — a household that hasn’t quite yet received the full brunt of those 19 taxes, a household whose jobs rely on those same job creators, who have already started to cut hours, not quite receiving the full brunt of those 19 taxes. But boy, do they start coming on in a hurry in 2019, because like most things this government has done over the last 18 months, they’ve done nothing but delay.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Well, at a certain point, the bill gets sent in the mail, and 2019 is that magical year where this government needs to come up and start finding their extra $5.5 billion in taxation that their latest budget had created — $5.5 billion spread over 19 different taxes. That’s what the public has in store. That’s what the job creators and the innovators in this province have in store for them in 2019.

When people start to open their bills, when people in May get a speculation tax bill that was sent in error for several thousands of dollars, when they get it layered on with their property tax bill that comes in June to the municipality, which is inflated because of the employer health tax, when people’s bosses start to get a further assessment of the employer health tax and people start to see their hours cut even more, the government’s answer is a bland, visionless, benign throne speech on how they’re going to deal with things in 2019.

The poverty reduction plan is a great example of delay and kicking things down the road. The poverty reduction plan was supposed to be a key pillar in the election platform of the government. The poverty reduction plan was supposed to be out and started to be actioned last spring, a full year ago.

What happened last spring? We were told: “Oh, wait till the fall.” What happened in the fall? We saw it right at the very end of the legislative calendar. What did we see at the end? We saw enabling legislation. That was it. No dollars attached, no programming attached. Instead, we have people living in poverty and the agencies that work with those people, our most vulnerable, being told by their government: “It’s okay. We promised this. But just wait another year.”

Let’s look at the timeline. The budget doesn’t come out for another week. Something like the poverty reduction plan spending won’t be approved through this chamber for some time after that. Nothing can actually happen, moving forward, with the poverty reduction plan until those approvals are made.

This means any substantive change to programming, any substantive change to staffing to try to help with the programming, any substantive change within the poverty reduction plan, in all likelihood, won’t be instituted until late, late 2019, or this time next year — hardly a government that was putting the poverty reduction plan as a high priority, as they campaigned on.

We know why that was. They had many other serious priorities at play to occupy their time. They needed to make sure that the debacle of a PR referendum got rushed through in their first year instead of dealing with things that would actually impact people’s day-to-day lives, like a poverty reduction plan that they had campaigned so hard on.

They made great promises during the election. All of your dreams can come true if you just vote for the NDP. Everything we’ve committed to in our platform fits under the existing B.C. Liberal budget framework. There would be no new taxes. There would be no increases needed. In fact, they could do everything. All they would do is shuffle the cards a little bit, and magically, massive commitments around housing, poverty reduction, transit, schools, health care…. You name it. It was all fully funded within the existing B.C. Liberal framework.

[3:30 p.m.]

So what did we see when the very first actual budget was brought forward by this government? Nineteen new taxes and $5.5 billion extra in taxes. Did that accomplish things in their platform? Absolutely not. In fact, the vast majority of their promises sit totally unfilled with token little injections of the start of a program here or a pilot project there, with no real deliverable that people in their everyday lives, en masse, can point to.

They campaigned on affordability. Only with B.C. NDP math is adding over $5 billion of taxes considered affordability. It hits the end-user. Needing to find these new taxes, which they campaigned that they would not bring in…. Job one was to make carbon tax no longer revenue-neutral.

Now, we introduced the carbon tax. In fact, the Finance Minister, who’s now in charge of the carbon tax, campaigned aggressively against a carbon tax when it was first being brought in. My, how the times have changed. The Finance Minister has gone from campaigning against carbon tax to now trying to use it as a revenue cash cow for government. The first year was last year. The fiscal year is just winding down. No new spending of any significance for all that extra carbon tax revenue that they brought in.

Now we’re heading into another budget, another $5 lift. Industry is uncertain if there’s going to be anything for them to help innovate and reduce their footprint. Homeowners are unsure if there’s going to be anything of consequence there. When you ask the Environment Minister about that, whom I’m the critic of, the Environment Minister says: “Whoa, although I’m the minister responsible for climate change, I’m not responsible for how carbon tax gets spent.”

It seems like a bit of a moving target for people to try to get a handle on where all this extra revenue that’s being generated goes. Why it’s significant is…. We go through this February cold snap across our province, including the Lower Mainland, the capital regional district and the rest of the Island. If anyone takes the time to look at their Fortis bill…. I know a lot of people don’t. In this day and age of direct debit, you get your bill, and it comes directly out of the bank account. It’s all electronic, your electronic bill. You get the email. You might glance at it. I think people would be very interested to see it, now that carbon tax is no longer revenue-neutral.

When this side of the House was in government and introduced the carbon tax, there was a recognition: (a) it had to be revenue-neutral; and (b) the people in colder climates and more rural areas travelled farther distances and needed to heat their homes for longer portions of the year. So there was an additional $200 homeowner grant put onto your property tax bill, not if you lived in the Lower Mainland but for those areas that would be impacted that way.

Madam Chair, may I stop myself for one second to be the first to welcome you to your new chair, your very first session.

The carbon tax is now no longer revenue-neutral. We’ve been told that existing homeowners can expect no more relief. We’ve been told that existing homeowners, like municipalities, can just suck it up and figure out how to pay for it. They can pay for it at the pump. This April they’ll pay another 1.4 cents a litre every time they go and fill up, with no corresponding offset coming from this government. On their Fortis bill, they’ll pay for it as well.

Now, I won’t get into the minutiae of all the rounding of all the numbers. But essentially, and right now, if people are to go to their Fortis bill and look, I think they would be surprised to find out that the natural gas on their bill actually costs less per gigajoule than the carbon tax.

[3:35 p.m.]

Now, carbon tax is designed to help people change how they structure things around their life and to try to make sure that they bring forward energy-efficient ways to live. On April 1, the carbon tax will go up again on your Fortis bill to make it that much more expensive than the gas that you’re consuming. Homeowners will be told by the government: “Well, just put in a more efficient furnace.” That won’t change the fundamental fact that the tax itself will still remain higher than the product your furnace is consuming.

There are a great many people out there that can’t afford to put in a new furnace. Despite what the government will probably roll out next week — some form of an incentive plan, like we’ve seen in the past — a $1,000 incentive won’t necessarily still enable people to cover off what they need to install a new furnace, let alone the payback time on it.

I say this because a lot of people that will need to access the equity in their homes to try to do some of these energy retrofits that the CleanBC bill is going to be demanding of them need the equity in their home to be able to go to a bank. They need equity in their home to be able to help, in part, meet the new stress-test requirements to refinance.

A lot of people are going to go to their banks and find out that the stress test alone will be a struggle for them to be able to refinance — let alone a few extra dollars to try to bring in some energy efficiencies to their home — and then find out that the bank is getting a little more leery as well. With much celebration, this government seems to think it’s wonderful that people are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars of equity in their homes as we speak.

I don’t think anyone on this side thinks that government should not be trying to help in the housing crisis, but draining people’s home equity out of their houses is not the way to do it. Expanding housing options, working with municipalities — not telling them to suck it up here and deal with it there — to get supply flowing is what is needed, not policies that are actually seeing projects put on hold. Large rental projects are getting put on hold because banks are telling the potential landlords: “We won’t approve the borrowing because the numbers are no longer going to work, based on government policy.”

The government policy is doing the exact opposite of what they claim. That’s no surprise, because just about everything in this throne speech is doing the exact opposite of what their flowery words try to say.

An interesting piece in there — talk about populist politics at its finest: cell phones. We’ve even heard it walked back by the Premier immediately after the throne speech. We heard it today, from the previous two speakers, starting to get walked back, in a recognition that the provincial government doesn’t actually have any control over cell phones. The further explanation by the Premier yesterday was really that it’s about transparency on billing, which was dealt with federally a few years ago.

Now, I’m not sure if the Premier is unsure on how to read a cell phone bill or unsure what it is when you go into a cell phone provider, but it’s pretty straightforward. It’s almost like a menu in a restaurant. They show you how much data you get for X amount of dollars a month. They show you how many texts you get. Most plans are unlimited now. They show you how much air time you get. Most plans are close to unlimited or an amazing amount of air time, because it’s all about data. Then they show you what the overage charge is if you go over your data. They tell you there’s a $6.95-a-month administration fee.

They tell you: “This all could be yours if you take this phone out of here today with a two-year contract or a three-year contract.” I think it’s down to two years now, by law. It’s all pretty up front. Now, when people start to get into trouble with their cell phone bills, it’s usually because they start going over their data usage, which can get very expensive.

Well, if the Premier was woke, he would know that data alerts on your phone are lit, because that’s what everyone does. At least they can set a data alert with their provider. It warns you when you’re at 90 percent of your data usage for the month. I don’t know. Perhaps the Premier has been in government for so long that he hasn’t had to pay that close attention to his own cell phone bill. I’m not sure. Certainly as a father of three 20-somethings, I have to look at those cell phone bills regularly. They’re not that confusing. If people are confused, it’s very easy for them to connect with their provider.

[3:40 p.m.]

I guess I bring this up because if that’s the crowning glory in a throne speech, that’s pretty sad. I agree the public likes to know what it is they’re purchasing, but I think they would expect a little bit more out of their government’s forward-looking view of how they’re going to use legislative time, how they’re going to use resources of their taxpayer dollars with staff time and staff expertise. I think they would want people to come up with something of a little more substance to their everyday life than trying to design a program on teaching people how to read a cell phone bill. Obviously, they’re not worried about how people read their Fortis bill, where the carbon tax is more expensive than the gas itself.

Let’s look at CleanBC. It’s amazing, to me, hearing yesterday in the throne speech that CleanBC is now predicated on the “abundant supply of hydroelectricity.” Remarkable, coming from a government propped up by another party and both of those parties spent the better part of the last five years screaming and yelling about how bad Site C would be and that we don’t need the hydroelectricity. Yet here we have a CleanBC document that very clearly says we’re going to need it and everything else we can get from hydroelectricity and that “Oh, by the way, it’s nice, clean, green energy as well.” Seems a little contradictory.

At the same time, they’re talking about LNG — LNG and their four conditions. There are four conditions, one of which is a fair rate of return. A fair rate of return. Let’s think on that. So they’re propped up by a party who doesn’t want LNG but won’t vote against LNG. In fact, they supported a change in legislation that allowed the Environment Minister to set LNG GHG emissions as a separate, stand-alone entity by regulation and never having to come to the House to confer again. He can just do it by order-in-council, whoever the Environment Minister is at the time when LNG comes forward. That was propped up by the Green Party as well.

The fair rate of return. Now, this side of the House obviously supports LNG. We worked on it for many years. We were trying to bring forward an investment climate that would enable it. In the NDP math world, the fair rate of return to meet their four conditions is an additional $6 billion of taxation given back to the LNG industry.

Somehow walking away from an extra $6 billion is a fair rate of return in the NDP way of thinking things. But that wraps in with CleanBC — a clean B.C. that is missing 25 percent of the emissions needed to hit their targets. But you won’t hear the government talk about the missing 25 percent. No, no. Guess what they said they’re going to do. They’re going to study it. They’re going to work on it. Oh, and it’s going to take 18 months to 24 months. Isn’t that convenient? The 18 months to 24 months it’s going to take to find that missing 25 percent of emissions magically won’t be found until after the next general election.

In spite of them being threatened to be brought down, in spite of them being told that there was no way they would get to continue to govern by the Green Party unless there is an emissions plan that actually takes into account LNG and still meets our targets, both parties on the other side of this House have no problem turning a blind eye to 25 percent of the emission target. Now, one could argue that the first 75 percent in any plan, although it will be difficult, would be the easy 75 percent. It’s the missing 25 percent that’s going to require the real heavy lifting, the real political fortitude and the real change in things to try to make happen. But no mention of the missing 25 percent.

In fact, when you look at the missing parts through this whole farce of a throne speech, it’s quite astounding. The $10-a-day child care — yet another massive campaign promise, a massive campaign promise that has not been delivered on.

[3:45 p.m.]

When the Premier was asked yesterday point-blank about $10-a-day child care being connected to any of the language in the throne speech, there was a lot of tap dancing. No commitment at all to actually delivering. In fact, it was just discussion around evaluating, looking at the pilots, seeing how things are working, seeing how we can expand or not. No wonder people that have qualified for the pilot are singing its praises, because those scarce few people that actually qualify hit the equivalent of the child care lottery by the government.

It’s like they went to their corner store and bought a Scratch and Win and got an extra “$1,000 a month until your kid is out of school” prize. Maybe that’s the government’s next plan for child care. It could be a whole new Scratch and Win. I won’t even ask for a royalty of it. You could work with B.C. Lotteries, and people could win child care for life, because that’s the way this government is dealing with it — like it’s a lottery. For a government that’s supposed to be predicated on very socialist values around all for one and one for all, they sure don’t mind picking winners and losers when it suits them.

Let’s look at the last week leading into the throne speech. Our Premier, our illustrious Premier, chose to go down to Washington state. What was the topic down in Washington state? Nothing of economic consequence to British Columbia. No.

One would have thought that the Premier, based on his stand and concern around one tanker a day being added to the current fleet of ships coming in and out of our ports, would have gone down there to strike a hard bargain with the governor of Washington state to talk about all those tankers going back and forth, up and down the Washington coastline, up to Alaska, right in front of all our same waters. But no.

Instead, we have talk about a high-speed link that sounds like it’ll actually get people to unload before they hit the Massey Tunnel. That’s great. They can get a high-speed link to Washington state, and then they can sit in the Massey Tunnel waiting for, well, a taxi, I guess, because there won’t be Uber.

What do we have for internal transportation from this government? No plan for a Massey Tunnel replacement. No plan for the Cariboo connector. No plan for North Shore rapid transit. No plan for Fraser Valley gridlock. No plan for four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway at any time. They’re more interested in photo ops down in the States, because there was no mention of tankers down our coastline from Washington state in a much higher volume than the one a day that the Kinder Morgan project would create. No. Instead, they would rather fight with Alberta on their oil, with no plan for better highway connections with the rest of our own country.

I started with a Seinfeld reference. I guess I’ll end with a Simpsons reference. Instead, they’re worried about pushing a monorail project, like we have seen infamously dealt with on The Simpsons.

That’s not leadership. That’s not vision. That’s not being part of Confederation. That’s trying to be an isolated silo without actually moving forward with the projects and the types of infrastructure that our communities need, that our country needs, moving forward.

Thank you for this time, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party.

A. Weaver: Thank you. Welcome to the new position as Assistant Deputy Speaker. It gives me great honour to speak, as not the first but the second person, under your oversight.

I thank the member for Kamloops–North Thompson for his remarks. I must say, somewhat cynical in the remarks, but I understand that. I do share some of his concerns about the throne speech, and I’ll come to that in more detail later.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Peace River North suggests that I’m cynical too, but I beg to differ with the member.

I am the designated speaker. I know members opposite are looking forward….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: You hear them groaning in delight, but the member for Vancouver–West End is quite excited by the words to come.

Let me start, please, with thanking my staff in the Legislative Assembly for helping us, in the B.C. Green caucus, do the work that we do day in, day out. Without their support, we would not be able to be prepared for issues like this, speeches like this.

[3:50 p.m.]

I’m very grateful for the work of the staff, both in the Legislature and the constit office as well — and, more generally, to the people in this building. Whether it be the guards, whether it be in the cafeteria, the people who clean, the people who take…. Or even Libby, who is now upstairs somewhere, ushering people into the gallery. It must be tough for these people to work here knowing that there’s a cloud over this place. Let it be said that we are very grateful for the hard work that they do, and we’ll all move beyond this. So thank you to the people who work here, and to the public service in general.

None of these bills that we’re going to debate in the upcoming session would be possible were it not for the hard work by the public service. Let me tell you, it is my experience that British Columbia has the best and brightest from all across Canada in our public service. I say that because it’s one of our key strategic strengths. It is the quality of life in British Columbia that we can offer people, which is why we can attract and retain some of the best and brightest.

It’s also one of the reasons why we have an affordability issue. People choose to live in B.C. because it is a lovely place to live. Great economy. Great weather, except for the last couple of days. Wonderful people. Friendly, relaxed atmosphere. And never a dull moment in the B.C. Legislature either. Lots to do here in British Columbia.

Finally, to the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I thank them for entrusting me as their representative in this place. I have countless meetings with constituents, and I do appreciate the ongoing feedback that they give. Thank you to them.

Now to the throne speech. Let me start by saying that I’m pleased that the throne speech did recognize the important work that’s been achieved on a number of priority initiatives outlined in our confidence and supply agreement with the B.C. NDP. That agreement, written a couple of years ago, basically put in writing our shared values, values that, collectively, we wish to focus on as a condition of our support in this minority government. Values with respect to affordability. Values with respect to putting people first — education, child care, and so forth.

In particular, in this throne speech, one of the things that I think is critical, at least from my perspective, is that it highlighted the importance of CleanBC, a framework that will guide British Columbia as we respond to the challenge yet realize it is but an opportunity. That is, the challenge of climate change is actually an economic opportunity.

Let’s be clear. CleanBC is not a climate plan. CleanBC is an economic vision. It’s a vision for the economy of British Columbia grounded in innovation, grounded in clean energy and grounded in positioning British Columbia as a leader in the new economy. It’s the B.C. Green vision. It’s a vision that we recognized is what is needed to position British Columbia as leaders in the new economy.

We will never compete with our traditional resource sectors if we continue to do more of the same. We can’t compete with Indonesia. We can’t compete with Thailand in terms of just digging dirt out of the ground. The reason why, of course, is that they don’t internalize some of the externalities that are so precious to us: environmental externalities, social externalities, standard of living externalities.

It costs more to dig dirt out of the ground in B.C. than it does in other jurisdictions. We won’t compete head-to-head unless we continue down the path of race-for-the-bottom economics, which I’ll come to shortly — a card that the B.C. NDP have taken from the Liberal play deck but actually taken to a whole new level. We’ll come to that, moving forward.

The way we compete is by recognizing that we have to be smarter and more efficient. You can’t grow the economy just by doing more of the same. You grow it through efficiency. What does efficiency mean? It means that when we dig the dirt out of the ground, we do so in a manner that is cleaner and more efficient. As such, we can actually export not only the dirt and the minerals that arrive but also the technology and knowledge that has been acquired in the development of efficiency measures.

I’ve referenced many times, in various speeches, an innovative company by the name of MineSense that developed sensing technology in bucket face that can actually take rock at the rock face and actually determine at the face whether it’s economical to ship that rock to the crushers or whether it should be put aside for fill later.

That is being smarter. That is being more efficient, because not only can MineSense then mine mines in B.C. and compete internationally, but there’s technology that is B.C.-based, internationally leading technology that we can export. And not only export, we can actually send our people there, to other jurisdictions, to showcase some of this technology.

[3:55 p.m.]

And it saves money. It saves money because less water is used in the crushing process, which is cleaner. It saves money by not having to worry so much about the backfill. So these are the kinds of technologies that we need to position ourselves.

Forestry. Probably the single most important industry, historically, in British Columbia. Forestry. Hardly a mention in the throne speech about forestry. A few words but hardly a mention. Yet our opportunities for innovation in the forest sector, whether it be through value-added — people like Structurlam, an incredible CrossLam and glulam manufacturing company based in Okanagan Springs and Penticton…. My friend from Penticton is not here. An amazing company, B.C.-based technology….

R. Coleman: Okanagan Falls.

A. Weaver: Okanagan Falls. What did I say?

R. Coleman: Okanagan Springs.

A. Weaver: I’m thinking beer. The member for Langley East correctly pointed out that I said Okanagan Springs as opposed to Okanagan Falls. Clearly, my craft beer senses were…. I was getting thirsty, I think.

Anyway, a company that has built CrossLam and glulam, that led to the highest wood-constructed building in the world, UBC’s 18-storey student residence. Our beautiful Harbour Air — CrossLam and glulam projects.

This is where we have opportunities for innovation. We talk about building schools and hospitals — lots of that in the throne speech — but we’re not talking about building schools and hospitals that showcase innovation and allow us to position ourselves as a leader in the new economy.

Each school and hospital that’s built is an opportunity for innovation. We can build a bunch of brick walls and hammer some drywall together, or we can recognize that by spending a little more now — it may not even be more, in fact; many would argue it’s the same cost or even slightly less — we can save in the long term through operating cost reductions in terms of heat and so forth.

I really think that we need to recognize that CleanBC is a plan, an economic vision, for British Columbia, one that is grounded in our strengths as opposed to chasing the weaknesses of others.

You know, this year’s throne speech also referenced some very important investments in child care, education, addressing affordability and improving transportation services. These clearly are important issues for British Columbia.

Likewise, we know that wild salmon have an immense cultural, economic and ecological value for British Columbia. I’m glad to see, again, that this was recognized in the throne speech. We can thank…. A lot of good work on this area came from my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, whose advocacy for wild salmon led to the establishment of the Wild Salmon Advisory Council last year.

With the work of that council now complete, I expect — and I’m sure my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands will insist — that government will get to work and actually start implementing the recommendations, starting right up front with movements towards habitat protection and restoration of critical streams, salmon-bearing streams across British Columbia.

We often focus on overfishing, often focus on fish farms, important things to focus on, but what we tend not to focus on is habitat destruction of the streams to which these salmon return. And that is critical in British Columbia.

With that said, with the good in the throne speech, I do tend to agree with my friend from Kamloops–North Thompson that the throne speech looked a little bit like each minister was given a memo and asked to provide a couple of sentences about what they would like in the throne speech, and a rather disjointed potpourri of issues and items and things are slapped together in the throne speech, missing, critically, a broader overall vision as to where this government would head.

Now, again, I do have some troubles with that, because I listened with interest in question period today as the Transportation Minister went back to the tired narrative of saying: “You didn’t do it for five years.” At some point, government needs to recognize that they’re government now; they are not in opposition. And when you’re government, it does not do you any service to blame someone for not doing something five years ago.

You’ve had two years. We’ve been talking about ride-hailing for two years. You actually promised that it would happen last year. It hasn’t. You’ve actually promised it would be one of the things you would do immediately when government got elected. It hasn’t. This is what we look for from government. We look for leadership, look for a vision, and we look for no longer passing the buck and blaming.

[4:00 p.m.]

Just as the B.C. NDP were tired of the B.C. Liberals turning around and referring back to the decadent era of the 1990s, I’m a little tired, honestly, of hearing about the last 16 years of the B.C. Liberals. Let’s move on. I think some of the B.C. Liberals never get tired of hearing about the last 16 years, but….

An Hon. Member: I loved those 16 years.

A. Weaver: Some of them actually loved them.

I really want to talk not about the last 16 years or, heaven forbid, the 1990s. Like, the 1990s? I was in Montreal in the 1990s — not relevant to me.

An Hon. Member: Most people left B.C.

A. Weaver: Most people left B.C. I was one of these people who left B.C. in the early 1990s.

Let’s get on with what we’re going to do now. What is the vision that is actually driving the narrative of the throne speech? That, sadly, I think, is missing. A throne speech that tries to be all things to all people all the time ends up leading to contradictory legislation. It focuses on short-term policy instead of long-term outcomes.

We start ending up doing things like campaigning on reducing hip and knee replacement lineups. We know that that’s important, but we also know that people over the age of 65 are typically those who need hip and knee replacements. Except me. I’m under 65, and I need one. Nevertheless, if you’re looking for short-term wins, so-called quick wins, that you can actually campaign on and say, “Look, vote me back in. I’ve done something that makes a real difference in your life,” you campaign and you start talking about hip and knee replacement lineups.

What about the structural issues in our society? What about things like the new economy? What about things like transportation? What about the broad poverty reduction strategy that we’re still waiting for? These require much more careful, detailed analyses and thought, frankly. We should have seen much more of that articulated in this throne speech.

We basically had a throne speech that reminded me a little bit of one of the last B.C. Liberal throne speeches, which was quite full of self-congratulatory messages, quite light on details about what will be done, but smatterings of very populist things like cell phones. What are we going do with cell phones in B.C. given that we have no jurisdiction in the area? Transparency in the bills. Well, I would suggest that if you go onto your Telus account or Rogers account, all the transparency you want is there.

The thing that troubles me is that I spend 400 bucks a month on cell phones, and that is a lot of money. I think that’s a lot of money for the average person. That’s because I have my own personal cell phone as well as the Leg cell phone, and never the twain shall mix, keeping public and private stuff separate.

CleanBC was highlighted in the budget. This is good. I’m glad that it is. But it made me worry when immediately, as if the last breath of CleanBC went out and the next breath starting talking about LNG….

I’m looking forward to the LNG-enabling legislation that we may be getting. I’m looking forward to seeing whether or not the members opposite will believe that they should support this increasing level of generational sellout. Because I tell you, we’ve made it very clear for more than a year now that the B.C. Greens will not support any enabling legislation for this generational sellout.

What is going on with LNG, in case people haven’t realized, is that the B.C. Liberals recognized that in a global market, it’s really tough to compete with the royalty structure we had in place. So the so-called deep-well credits were extended to, in essence, long-drilling credits, horizontal credits, so that in essence all natural gas exploration was subject to very, very enticing tax credits for the proponents. Petronas accrued an awful lot of tax credits with it because it had a lot of investment in upstream fields. They brought those into the LNG Canada partnership.

The B.C. Liberals recognized that we’re not going to make any money from the royalties. We make a lot from leases, but not so much from the royalties. So what they planned to do was make money down the road through the LNG income tax. The idea was that when companies were making money, B.C. would start making money too.

Now the NDP have signalled out that this is…. They want to get rid of that. They want to get rid of the LNG Income Tax Act, but I suspect they’re going to need to keep a little tax credit portion in there. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out.

To give you a sense of the kind of head-shaking moment, when the B.C. Liberals gave away the natural gas, they at least required LNG proponents to use electricity in the compression of natural gas if, and only if, they’re going to get the industrial rate of about 5.4 cents kilowatt hour.

[4:05 p.m.]

In classic B.C. NDP economics, they decided that that’s too rich, and they exempted that, so now natural gas can be burnt to produce electricity to compress natural gas.

Well, here’s the joke on that one. They’ve given away the resource upstream because of the royalty structure and the credit structure, and now LNG Canada has access to natural gas, which is our resource, the people of British Columbia’s resource, that they can burn essentially for free to compress natural gas. That couldn’t have happened under the B.C. Liberals. This is part of the generational sellout of the B.C. NDP on this.

It’s really quite mind-boggling that they would think that actually, on the one hand, they could talk about CleanBC and in the next breath, on the other hand, start talking about LNG. Let’s be very clear. CleanBC is an exciting economic vision that only takes us to 75 percent of our reduction targets. There’s a six megatonne gap. Guess what. Four of that six megatonnes would be from LNG Canada if that were to go ahead.

It’ll be interesting, as we move forward with this, to watch government work with the official opposition to see if they can deliver this. We’ll be watching here with great interest as we have a race-for-the-bottom chase to see who’s going to actually give our resources away the most. Will it be the Liberals? Will it be the B.C. NDP? Or will it be the Liberals supporting the NDP?

You know, one of the other things in the economic opportunity associated with CleanBC, of course, is recognition in that plan that economic opportunity and ecological stewardship go hand in hand. Never is that more obvious than with things like wildlife preservation.

We know, for example, with the willy-nilly approach we have to natural habitat destruction in this province, that we end up creating problems for ungulate populations from north to south and east to west because we’re putting in roads, logging roads. We’re disturbing the land. These ungulates can’t find a safe place. They can’t get away from the predators.

We spray glyphosate. On what planet do we do this to suppress the deciduous undergrowth in certain areas of logged pine forest? And we’re surprised that ungulate populations are suffering. This undergrowth is food for the ungulates, but it’s also easy for them to escape through the deciduous undergrowth that’s growing.

We seem to think it’s economy here or climate change there or ungulate saving over here. We don’t view, in this province, things as a whole. We don’t ask and stand back: what is our vision for prosperity for this province that protects that which makes our province great, which is our environment, that accesses our resources which we’ve been blessed with in a manner that’s sustainable, that actually is not race-for-the-bottom economics but builds prosperity locally and ensures that we’re not only harvesting resources, but we’re building value-added and shipping technology and the resources and the value-added to other jurisdictions?

We seem to think, in British Columbia, that somehow we’re magically going to stop shipping raw logs away to other jurisdictions. Well, not with our timber licence system. We’re not going to change anything. If I’m up in Fort Nelson or some jurisdiction, and I’m a big multinational, and I own the licences for timber lots, I harvest them when I feel like or not feel like. And if I harvest them — there’s no appurtenancy anymore in B.C. — it’s to my advantage to avoid softwood lumber or to not have to internalize those externalities and to ship those logs to U.S. mills or to Asian mills for value-added. That’s wrong.

There’s a role for government here. When we look at Vancouver Island mills, we ask the question: why have these not retooled? Why is it that we’re the only jurisdiction that continues to harvest its last bit of old-growth forest? Community after community after community in British Columbia is seeking to have old growth on Vancouver Island protected. But our mills can only process old growth, and the second growth or the hemlock or the other species get shipped raw elsewhere because we haven’t retooled.

There is a role, actually, for government to provide incentive to allow mills to retool so that they can process the wood that we’re shipping elsewhere. They should do that, but there is no vision. There’s no vision in this throne speech to do that. It’s just a laundry list of various things.

[4:10 p.m.]

ICBC. We have self-congratulatory issues on ICBC. I would suggest that we need to take a step back and ask, to use the words of the Attorney General: this dumpster fire — is it salvageable? Where is the big-picture thinking on this? What about the potential of allowing competition? Should we not be having that discussion here? What about no-fault insurance? Should we not be having that discussion? It seems like we want to have private insurance, but we don’t. We want to have a Crown corporation, but we don’t. Again, it’s messed up, because instead of thinking about what’s good public policy, we end up thinking about what’s in it for our stakeholders.

LNG and cell phone costs are covered. Payday loans. Really important, payday loans. But again, it’s a shopping list. It’s an item that’s great. Let’s pass the legislation. Move on. You’ll probably get no discussions here. It’s hardly a substantive issue in the throne speech on which to hang your hat.

Ferry fares. Okay, we’re keeping them fixed again. Fine. Fine, but why aren’t we talking about shipbuilding in British Columbia? Why is it that in Richmond, we have one of the world’s leading producers of electric storage systems for ferries shipping those systems to Poland, to Norway, where they build the ships and use these ferries? Why is it that our shipbuilding industry is hurting here? Why is it that we’re not recognizing the opportunity for innovation in our shipbuilding sector in places like Nanaimo or Victoria or elsewhere, when we recognize that there are really only three classes of vessels that we need in British Columbia — small, medium and large?

We know that there are about 30 vessels in the B.C. coastal fleet, and we know the lifetime of a vessel is about 30 years. It’s a no-brainer that we should be having a self-sustaining shipbuilding industry in B.C. where we bring in and service out the ferries. As we bring them in, we build one. We know one is coming off. That’s called a self-sustained economy. That’s an economy grounded in innovation, and it’s missing it, because there’s no vision, no broad vision in the throne speech.

Gaming revenue. The fact that we’re even getting excited about gaming revenue is basically getting excited about a plight that affects some of our poorest people. When we start to build social programs based on gaming revenue, what we’re really saying is that those people who can least afford it…. “Thank you very much for this tax on the poor. We’re going to take it, and we’re going to use it to give services to the poor.” To me, this is very troubling.

Daycare. I’m very pleased, of course, with the announcement in the government about the daycare. However, again, we’d like to see a more integrated component of daycare with the school system, with K-to-12, because daycare really shouldn’t be viewed just as care but also education. One of the things that does excite me is some of the partnerships that have been going on with school districts across British Columbia.

We’ve got some PharmaCare.

The train corridor, okay. That’s kind of a vision, but it’s not a vision B.C. is going to pay for. It’s likely that, if it’s going to happen, it’s going to be U.S.-led. Working with Washington State on innovation…. Okay. That’s great. If you’re going to work with Washington and Oregon to build a tech hub area, you’ve got to have something that you’re taking into the negotiations, not just: “We are here too. Let’s be part of this.”

What is the plan? What is the vision for B.C.? What is our vision? Broadband for northern communities — great. But what’s the vision there? Just put some broadband in? Is there some vision?

Why are we talking about LNG? Why isn’t government actively going out, trying to get industries like Tesla, like BMW, like others, to build their manufacturing facilities in Terrace, in places up in the north that are on the rail line between Prince Rupert and Chicago, the gateway to Asia and the gateway to eastern U.S. This is how we build prosperity. It’s by diversifying our economy away from our traditional narrative of only being hewers of wood and drawers of water. That was the opportunity missed in this throne speech.

As I said, sure, most of the items in the throne speech are good, important. But they’re not illustrative of a comprehensive vision or strategy for how the government can and will tackle the enormous challenges we’re facing in terms of growing income inequality and, frankly, some of the environmental threats that face us.

I feel a little bit like I’m on the Titanic trying to urge our captain to change course so we avoid the icebergs ahead, the same icebergs that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson suggested were melting at a very slow pace. I would suggest to him that they’re melting faster than he thought. Anyway, instead of charting a safe passage, the captain turns to me and starts telling me about the dinner specials in the dining room. He offers me a free ticket to tonight’s show. That is not what we want in a throne speech.

Short-term perks are fun and shiny, but I’m gravely worried about the future of the health and safety and security of British Columbians.

[4:15 p.m.]

With CleanBC, we had a map for how we could avoid some of the threats on the horizon while at the same time building a prosperous economic future. But it needs to be followed through urgently and in its entirety, and I look to the budget to ensure that, in fact, we see that happening.

To come back to my analogy with respect to the Titanic, the Speech from the Throne makes me worried that the captain is going to take the CleanBC map and say, “Great. We’re saved,” and get busy changing light bulbs, without touching the steering wheel. Even worse, now the captain is looking straight at the LNG iceberg and hitting “accelerate.”

Again, it’s not that the pieces are inherently bad in the throne speech. The problem is how they’re scattered, with no structure to them. We’ll not tackle the problems we all care about if we fixate on symptoms and not the actual system that created them.

For example, the issue of the fentanyl crisis in British Columbia. Without a doubt, every single member in this House is concerned about the preponderance of deaths — lately, often men between the ages of 30 and 60 at home. These are not your typical homeless street people. These are people who are partying on a weekend. We’re seeing growing numbers of deaths in this area.

Our response, collectively, is to go after the harm reduction, issue naloxone kits to everybody and stop people from dying. Great. It’s harm reduction — wonderful. But we know that when you only focus on harm reduction, there are times when you’re resuscitating the same person multiple times a day. We don’t stand back and ask the following question: why is it that these people are here in the first place, and what is the pathway to recovery? An approach, taking this throne speech, would be like: “We’re going to give you naloxone kits.”

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast suggests that it’s not right. I would suggest to him: show me in the throne speech where we have a discussion of the systemic issues that have led to the problems we have today.

I would suggest, as a working hypothesis, that we’ve cut kids’ support services, at their critical years of development in the K-to-7 system, when they needed it most. We cut the child psychologists; we cut the speech pathologists; we cut the assistants. We’re now dealing with the social consequence of those cuts, a generation later, and we still don’t have a pathway to recovery. We don’t have that in place.

We’ve had a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions in operation for two years — for two years — and I’m still waiting to see an overall vision and direction for that ministry to actually tell us how that pathway for recovery is going to go. It’s not just opening a clinic here or opening a clinic there. It’s: “What is your plan and your strategy to actually get us out of this problem into the future?” Two years is a long time. You can’t blame the previous government anymore. It’s time to actually show us what you’re made of.

Because of the government’s lack of vision in the throne speech, let me see if I can’t offer something up that might be something that we could hang our hats on. As we know, the B.C. Green caucus, the three of us, got into this business of politics because we felt, each of us, that many of the decisions we are making here are really fixated on short-term goals. We’re not thinking about the long-term consequences of our decisions. We’re thinking about re-election.

How many people in this place have been here for greater than 15 years? An awful lot, frankly. Stay tuned as I bring in term-limiting legislation in a couple of weeks because this place needs some change. We should not be having people sitting in this place for 30 years or 20 years. What value-added are you bringing here when all the life that you’ve known is this building? It becomes a sense of entitlement. You think that you know how things work. This place only stays relevant if it is rejuvenated. It only stays relevant if we get new ideas coming in. It only stays relevant if we start bringing in these new ideas from across the province and if they’re listened to.

Unfortunately, many of these are not actually happening. I look at government now, and I look at the past government. The power brokers in this government have been here since the 1990s, in some cases, and many of the power brokers in the opposition were also here in the 1990s. The rest of us might as well go home, because it’s the 1990s Liberals arguing with the 1990s B.C. NDP. Who’s losing out? It’s British Columbians. It’s time for us to actually clean this place up. I’m looking forward to working with my caucus colleagues and others here to do just that as we see a rejuvenation in this place.

[4:20 p.m.]

We got into this, as I said, because of our concern about the fact that we’re overlooking some of the longer-term problems that we somehow think by wishing they weren’t so would go away — issues like income inequality, growing income inequality. We have many, many examples in human history of what happens when income equality….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Did I just hear that correctly? One member, whose name shall not be mentioned, just noted it was 4:20. I suggested that….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I’ll just leave it at that.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I won’t get too high and lofty over that one.

Anyway, coming back to the issue of some of these defining issues that are much broader, we just assume that if we ignore them, they’ll go away. We assume that income inequality, which has been growing over time, somehow will take care of itself.

As I pointed out, in human history, we have ample examples of what happens as income inequality grows. In each and every case, the end is clear. It ends in revolution and collapse. That is a pathway that is not inconceivable. We’re starting to see the rise of populist movements across the world, whether it be the rise of the Arab Spring. We see the yellow vests movement in Paris, which was about income inequality. You know, some denier types seem to think it’s about carbon tax. No, it was an income inequality issue.

We see Brexit. We see the rise of Trump. We see the rise of Ford and campaigning with no platform apart from buck-a-beer. This is what we start to see, and this troubles me, if we don’t get actually get a handle on some of these growing problems.

Coming to government, government promised to put people first. I don’t know how many years I listened to government berate the Liberals for not increasing the housing allowance. We’re waiting. Where are the housing allowance increases? Where are the housing allowance increases from the government that argued we needed housing allowance increases? They’re not there. So really, again, we need to have a little more thoughtful look at some of these bigger problems.

Climate change. You know, we’re at a pivotal point in human history where we can ignore this problem or we could recognize it’s an incredible economic opportunity. We’ve got the foundations of that in CleanBC. But that plan needs to permeate each and every ministry.

I get worried when the architect of that, the Deputy Minister of Environment, Bobbi Plecas, an outstanding civil servant who put her heart and soul into the CleanBC plan — a plan where she had to deal with business stakeholders, NGOs, Green MLAs, government MLAs…. She did a yeoperson’s job, but now she’s no longer the Deputy Minister of Environment.

That worries me, because that shows a change of priorities — that the government is shifting the best and brightest from a ministry that actually led to a foundational economic vision into some other ministry. This is troubling, and people need to know that this is what’s going on. Anybody who thinks this government is committed to climate action needs to know that, in fact, it’s just superficial and surface-layer deep, and if it were not for the B.C. Green caucus, none of this would have happened.

I can say that unequivocally, because you cannot on the one hand….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I see the Minister of Agriculture saying: “Wow.” You cannot on the one hand stand up and champion LNG and for any second think you have any credibility on a climate plan.

The climate plan will take us 75 percent there. Fine. We’re still not 100 percent. Where’s the government’s vision to get 100 percent? It’s not in the throne speech. Where is the government’s vision to implement CleanBC? It’s not in the throne speech. It’s really a government that looks to a box-fixing exercise, and that needs to change as we move forward.

You know, elected officials in here will be held, by history, unkindly. We will be looked upon unkindly by history for the actions that we take today. Future generations will look back on this time and look at the people in this room, and they’ll ask them what they did and why they didn’t do what they did.

They’ll ask one of two questions. They’ll either ask the question: “How did you have the moral fortitude to actually move with this and deal with this and recognize the opportunity that is there and take advantage of it?” Or they’re going to say: “How could you have done this? How could you have ignored the scientific evidence?”

Way too many people in this room — way too many people in this room — will fall in the latter category and very few in the former. Sadly, most of those in the former are not in the decision-making capability in this government or in cabinet by itself.

They’re sitting in the back benches, down on the end here. You’ve got your climate caucus down on the end here, backbench government MLAs speaking passionately about climate.

[4:25 p.m.]

I don’t hear it coming from the caucus, from down in the executive branch. I don’t see it coming from executive branch. I hear good words coming from my colleagues down at this end of the aisle.

We, as the B.C. Green caucus, over the past year and a half have worked tirelessly with government to….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Again, the smug arrogance coming from the member for Saanich South here, I would suggest, is inappropriate. If she would like to discuss this further, I’d be happy to. But let me say: what about some of the promises you’ve made about Site C? This is a member who stood up and told people not to vote for the B.C. Greens because she needed to get elected because she would stop Site C.

Take a look in the mirror, member for Saanich South, and then we can talk a little bit more about hypocrisy and say whatever it takes to get elected.

We have a problem here. We have a government that says one thing and does another. We have fish farms. Again, government said they would take fish farms out. “No, we’re going to talk about it and study it and have a plan for the future.” Haven’t done it. Again, let’s be realistic. Government says it’s going to do things, but it doesn’t actually do it, and it studies a lot. Government needs to actually get the vision down there and start addressing this vision.

Of these three areas that we’ve worked tirelessly on and will continue to do over the next two years, one is the issue of trust in government. The other is health and well-being, and the third is innovation. I’ll touch upon each of those three.

Let’s start off with trust in government. There is a cloud over this place. Allegations are filling the hallways of this building like never before. We’ve got the Speaker’s report, a 76-page report. We’ve got the government talking about money laundering. I’m sick and tired of listening to the government talk about money laundering. When are you going to do something about it? You have a landing page collecting lots of data, on the B.C. NDP website, and telling people to “sign this petition if you’re against it.”

Fine. You’ve got your data now. What are you going to do about it? We’ve sat for two years, and we’ve talked about the issue of money laundering. Hasn’t been dealt with. I suspect that the political machinations of the powers that be like the idea that this is niggling in the background and makes the B.C. Liberals look bad on an ongoing basis. But you’re elected to govern. And when you’re elected to govern, you take leadership. And we need to see leadership on that money laundering because it has been sorely lacking.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Lobbying reform. This is something that we campaigned on that we got legislation through and passed. We’re pleased to see some of this, but there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done in this area of trust in government.

Standing order reform and electoral reform. There is a lot that needs to be done still.

Let’s come to UNDRIP. Again, good words in the throne speech, good words about UNDRIP, but that was supposed to happen this spring. Now we’re told it’s probably going to be in the fall.

On the one hand, we talk about UNDRIP, and then we talk about the Wet’suwet’en. And we recognize, right off the bat, that we know for a fact that the B.C. NDP decided not to get involved. Instead of showing leadership in government-to-government negotiations, they thought it was LNG Canada’s problem and they should try to deal with the Unist’ot’en Camp and the Wet’suwet’en people. It’s for them to do it. So LNG Canada does the only thing they know to do, which is to seek a court injunction, and away we go.

That is an absence of leadership. That is a government that missed an opportunity for truth and reconciliation, to actually stand with the Wet’suwet’en, to actually have a discussion on a government-to-government basis, not putting the company to do their dirty work for them. So again, we’ve got a failed history of colonialization in this province that continues to this very day.

Coming back to the well-being of British Columbians, I see a shopping list in the throne speech that misses some of the key things like climate change. You know, we have an IPCC report. I’m so sick of IPCC reports, frankly. But another one says we’ve got 12 years before we’re committed to breaking 1½ degrees.

Frankly, I think that’s wrong. We’ve already broken 1½ degrees. The reason why it’s wrong is it didn’t account for the permafrost carbon feedback, not because they didn’t know how to but because it wasn’t in the mandate. We know the world has warmed by 1 degree already. We know that we have a committed warming of about 0.6 degree because of existing levels of greenhouse gases. That takes us to 1.8.

We know that the permafrost carbon feedback gives us another 0.2 to 0.3. We know the world is going to warm between 1.8 and 1.9 degrees regardless of what we do today. So this notion that somehow this is a problem down the road and that maybe we can get to it is simply false. It’s simply false, and history will not be kind to those who stand by and watch this happen.

[4:30 p.m.]

There are a lot of important policies that have happened so far. These wouldn’t have happened were it not for the B.C. Greens here.

Now, I know we’re not very good at telling our story. We’ve not been very good at telling British Columbians the effect we’ve had in this Legislature, but the professional reliance reforms are a B.C. Green initiative. The environmental assessment review was a B.C. Green initiative. CleanBC was a B.C. Green initiative. The Fair Wages Commission was a B.C. Green initiative. The innovation commission was a B.C. Green initiative. The emerging economy task force was a B.C. Green initiative. The salmon council was a B.C. Green initiative. Lobbying reform, a B.C. Green initiative.

If we had our way, we would have had ride-hailing in here four years ago, but we’ve got a government that seems to find any excuse it can to delay, to delay, to delay. Now today, we have allegations coming through in question period that, in fact, there’s a cloud over that as well.

How on earth are we ever going to rebuild trust in this institution if we don’t start to actually declare when there are potential perceived issues and if we don’t actually start putting people first instead of our vested interests first? It will never, ever change. Shame on government, actually. Shame on government for not knowing that this could be found out and recognized, as it was done in question period today. I commend the opposition for their research on that, because that explains a lot to me.

It explains a lot because I sat on the first Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, and I couldn’t understand the objections that were being raised about class 4 versus class 5 licences. I couldn’t understand the objections that were raised about safety. Has anyone seen the video of the taxi driver who was being pushed up a hill, where a dude was sitting on the hood of a car with his feet on the taxi in front, and they were pushing the cab up the hill? Like, safety? It’s a two-way street.

Government needs to really ante up on the ride-hailing, because British Columbians are sick and tired of the excuses. There are no more excuses. Lyft and Uber have been committed to British Columbia. Lyft now owns centre ice in Rogers Arena. If you watch the Canucks, you see Lyft. They want to come here.

If it were not for my colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands, that legislation that was brought in before Christmas would have guaranteed that no ride-hailing would happen in British Columbia. His amendment to allow the Passenger Transportation Board to have greater leeway in terms of the decision-making was critical, because we know, in talking to Lyft and Uber, that they both would have walked if that amendment had not passed.

That was a B.C. Green amendment, despite the government, because government really doesn’t want ride-hailing. I agree with the members opposite. Government really doesn’t want ride-hailing. They have yet to demonstrate a commitment to ride-hailing, other than saying it’s coming later this year. There’s no excuse for it to come later this year, unless government decides that some friends and relatives need a leg up or a year’s lead to try to get their thing going. There’s no other justification for it, and this is just not right.

I come back to the jobs. I take exception with the fact that members opposite said that they didn’t mention jobs until line whatever. I, frankly, wish they would stop talking about jobs and start talking about careers. People don’t want jobs; they want careers. They don’t want to just go up to Site C and build a dam and then be unemployed. They want to know that they have stable, long-term employment opportunities in our beautiful province and that they can live close to where they are.

There is no vision for careers in the throne speech. Frankly, there’s been no vision for careers in the opposition’s comments today. There’s only been a few, and hopefully, they’ll flesh those out as we move forward.

You know, we have right now, ongoing in British Columbia a problem that was not even mentioned in the throne speech. We all know about the issue of the residential school era and the so-called Sixties Scoop. We know about those times. What is going on in British Columbia right now makes that pale in comparison in terms of the way MFCD is scooping children on First Nations reserves for, at times, nothing. Mothers are having their babies taken away in hospital. The threat of phoning MCFD is being used in family arguments to settle scores.

We have a systemic problem in MCFD in terms of the child welfare system and dealing with our Indigenous communities and not allowing their children in these communities to be brought up by the community. We scoop ’em up and think that somehow government is going to do a better job by taking a baby from a nursing mother in hospital and shoving them in some foster home somewhere.

[4:35 p.m.]

This is a problem. This is what the government was elected to do: to look after people, to put people first, not just union jobs on CBA agreements but people first. That is what we need to get back to, because we forget why we’re here. We sometimes forget why we’re here.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Again, the member for Saanich South…. I would be delighted when the member for Saanich South actually did what she said she would do and start dealing with the fish farms in the wild sockeye migratory paths, because she hasn’t. She’s done the talk — door-knocking, done the talk — but when push comes to shove, hasn’t delivered. It’s like that on so many files: talking the talk, but when it comes to government, not delivering. That’s what we need to get back to.

Housing. Our housing has become a playground for the rich, a bank account for international players to park money. One of the things that we supported in the speculation tax was the satellite family notion. It has created all sorts of problems with dubious claims. People should be on title or shouldn’t be on title. This is going to be a problem. I wonder to what extent government is actually monitoring the market, because there’s a very real potential the market is going to go out of control.

The government, in its wisdom, decided that it knew best as to the approach to actually introduce this speculation and vacancy tax. Now, I don’t want to rehash that, but with that to say is that it is critical…. It is absolutely critical, with such a significant intervention tool in the market, that government is monitoring on a daily, weekly basis what’s going on. I can tell you that prices of houses are dropping, and most people can absorb a 10 percent cut. I don’t think there are a lot of people in Vancouver worried about a Point Grey house going down by 10 percent.

However, if 10 percent turns to 20, turns to 25, then you start to get a problem. Then you start to have an escalation, and you start to have houses going under, people walking from mortgages and so forth. So I certainly hope the government is looking at this speculation tax. Frankly, I think it should already be thinking about repealing it. Why do I say that? It’s because the market is already tempered through uncertainty. Let’s see if they are willing to actually take a look at that.

There are issues that, again, I didn’t see mentioned within the broader area about putting people first — issues with respect to the LGBTQ2+ community. You know, health and safety and equality. We’ve got the issues of the sexualized violence policies that are on university campuses. Has there been any follow-up? We’ve certainly heard myriad stories about work that still needs to be done.

We would like to see continuing work, not only to deal with the issues of exploitation…. We have some ideas we’ll bring forward in a number of private members’ bills this session. But there are very serious safety issues still prevalent within a number of our more marginalized communities, marginalized only inasmuch as they’re minorities and there are people who still exhibit a prejudice against such communities. We will be bringing in some legislation in that regard.

In the area of innovation, coming back to the issue of innovation, British Columbians, by their very nature, are innovators. It is who we are. Some of the best and brightest companies out there are B.C.-based or have started from B.C. I mentioned MineSense. I haven’t mentioned Carbon Engineering or General Fusion. There’s Saltworks. There’s a ton of these companies.

What we need to see is… In the throne speech, what we were looking to see and hoping to see was a vision that actually recognized that we have an economy, a diverse economy that should be the foundation of us moving forward, a stable economy that would allow us to actually ensure that companies are connected with post-secondary institutions.

Government seems to be void of an understanding that, in fact, there are companies out there…. It looks like I’ve got a chorus just behind me to heckle me now. Government seems to have missed the opportunity that comes through partnership with industry and post-secondary institutions.

We have opportunities in Squamish with the clean energy program out of UBC, which was an incredible opportunity for government to take the bull by the horns and to work with UBC, the Squamish Nation, the consortium in the Squamish area to get innovation and to get those anchor tenants in there to build that clean energy centre, which is actually a foundation for the economy of tomorrow.

[4:40 p.m.]

We should be creating spaces in post-secondary institutions — spaces for post-docs, for students, for co-op positions. We should be creating spaces that would allow partnerships with industry, with our innovators. But we don’t. We think education is here and industry is over here and not recognize that, in fact, they’re coupled together. They work closely together.

Our cooperative education policies need to be updated to ensure that students graduate with more hands-on experience. Right now the demand for co-op is insurmountable. Yet it’s difficult to actually find the positions, and it’s difficult to seek the government to support, to actually provide the value-added opportunities that we need to do. We should be looking at improving efficiency, developing technologies and actually focusing on the value-added.

Government has a role to play, also, in terms of innovation through the services that it provides and offers. There is, in government, a very incredible innovative group that actually does do a lot of data innovation and things like that. However, government misses opportunities through innovation itself. I look at the CBA agreement. Let’s be clear. The CBA agreements are nothing more than project labour agreements. They’re not community benefit agreements. Let’s stop pretending that they are. They’re project labour agreements.

I understand that project labour agreements are needed for stability in some projects. However, government yet again missed an opportunity. It missed an opportunity, through the procurement phase, to actually send a signal to the market as to the type of direction it would like to see the market go.

Instead, government decides it’s going to pick its 17 building trade unions, winners and losers, and say: “What we’re going to do is we’re going to call it a CBA.” It’s not a CBA; it’s a project labour agreement. “Those 17 unions are the players, and no one else can play.” How is that innovative? That’s not. It’s going back to fight the trade union wars of the early 20th century. Those wars were won. Let’s move on. People are sick and tired of those wars. Let’s move on and recognize that government has a role to signal to the market. Government should signal to the market, and it has missed that opportunity as it has moved forward.

We’ve had a bunch of other issues that I could go on and on about. I guess the issue here about ride-hailing is one that hurts. In the throne speech, it says this: “This year ride-hailing will enter the market.”

It doesn’t work that way, government. Ride-hailing enters the market if ride-hailing companies want to participate in the market. They don’t enter the market because you say they will. You have to create the regulatory environment that allows them to participate.

Right now, if it were not for my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, Uber and Lyft would have walked. They would have walked from this province before Christmas. They’re still close to walking, because we have discussions at the table that are simply not relevant to ride-hailing. A complete misunderstanding of the fundamentals of what the ride-hailing model is. The surge pricing model, the critical aspect of the surge pricing model that allows them to work in partnership with the taxi fleet, which creates a base supply of transportation, whereas the ride-hailing provides surge demand to allow more people on the road when you need it and get them off the road when you don’t.

These are opportunities that need to be properly centre stage through regulation. No more talking about it. Look, if I could write a bill as a private member’s bill three years ago — opposition had an entire package ready for when government shifted; they were just waiting to get through the election — how is it that the government has taken two years to continue to talk about this?

Finally, I do want to come back and say that I am pleased. You know, while I’ve been rather critical of some of the lost opportunities, lack of vision and the kind of shopping list approach that the government has taken in the throne speech, I will say that there is an opportunity before us, and that is through the CleanBC. It’s not just about a ZEV standard. That’s necessary. What’s critical is the electrification of our mining sector, electrification of forestry, electrification economy-wide.

Again, just to point out how, on the one hand, government says one thing and, on the other, it does another. Right now it’s reviewing the IPP contracts. Now, we recognize that those were extortionate when they were first given out. However, there are many of these small power producers that are going to go under because government is actually not going to renew their purchase agreements.

We’ve already had virtually every small energy company in B.C. leave the province because of the reckless decision of government on Site C, despite the guarantees of a couple of MLAs to their constituents that they must vote NDP because a vote for the NDP will eliminate Site C, and that egregious trampling on Indigenous rights and fiscal recklessness in terms of building, in an unsafe environment, a megaproject that’s not needed, which also killed the clean energy sector.

This is a real worry. What’s government going to do? We talk about energy use. What’s it going to do to actually get companies back here? The Canadian Wind Energy Association. They’ve left B.C. They’re in Alberta right now. TimberWest.

[4:45 p.m.]

I believe it was five First Nations and EDP Renewables which wanted to invest $700 million — not of your money, hon. Speaker, not of my money, but of industry money on Vancouver Island to build a wind capacity in partnership with Indigenous communities on private land. But no, it’s gone. Walked. So $700 million gone because of Site C, $700 million of industry money. Instead, it’s going to be $10 billion of ratepayer money.

We know that Site C is going to cause the doubling of hydro rates in B.C. over the next five years. It’s the only way it can happen. We know that cost overruns are going to be egregious. We know the north bank is unstable. We suspect that when they start drilling the diversion route, there will be collapses. Good luck drilling a diversion route through the fractured shale layer. This is yet another example of government not thinking this through.

With that said…. There are huge challenges ahead. We will continue to approach our role in this government as one in opposition. We will continue to provide the advice that we think is warranted on bills that we think are relevant. We will continue to offer solutions. We will bring in private members’ bills. We will offer British Columbians an opportunity that could actually bring truth and integrity and honesty back to this place. Frankly, right now there’s far too much saying and not enough doing: “Do as I say and not as I do.” And that needs to change in this Legislature.

With that, I thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to the comments of others on this throne speech.

S. Thomson: I’m pleased to get up and respond to the 2019 Speech from the Throne. I’m obviously a little surprised that the members opposite, the members from the NDP, haven’t got up to continue their opportunity for debate on this throne speech. Perhaps it is because they really don’t see the vision in it, as has been pointed out in the comments already, that it is much more simply a shopping list, a year in review, something that lacks the vision and something that they are not really wanting to be active in, in getting up and talking about and defending in this Legislature and in this opportunity.

Perhaps it’s a result of the many points that were raised by the member for the Green Party, the Third Party, in terms of many aspects of this throne speech.

Before I go into some of my comments on it, I just want to again take this opportunity, as we do when we get the chance to go back into a first session, to thank my wife, Brenda, and family for their continued support. All of us in this chamber know the sacrifices that our families make when we do this job — keeping us away from our children and our grandchildren and our families. I also want to thank Nan and Janice in the constituency office for the continued great work they do, helping and supporting so many constituents in our communities on so many issues.

The Speech from the Throne is one of the most important statements a government can make. It outlines their priorities, states their values, gives the public an idea of the direction that the government wants to take. A throne speech is something where we should be able to see exactly where the government wants to go and what they want us and the public to think they value.

[4:50 p.m.]

These priorities will be put to test in the upcoming session and in the upcoming budget, but as has been pointed out, this throne speech is really…. People have been searching for the way to describe it, but it is really, as has been pointed out by a couple of the previous speakers, something that looks like a number of people were asked to simply put placeholder items in to make sure that they got some reference. The year-in-review kind of approach, a shopping list.

It doesn’t really lay out that vision for the future of the province. If we really want to look at what the government stands for, I think looking back a little bit at how they’ve handled the budget, particularly in Budget 2018, is really what gives you an indication of where the focus of the government is.

No government in history has had such a solid financial situation to start with than this government did when they took the position. They inherited the best-performing provincial economy in Canada: a $2.7 billion surplus and a triple-A credit rating after five balanced budgets in a row. With all of that in mind, what have they done? You can put it, in many respects, into one word: taxes.

Despite the promises of making life more affordable — and again, we see in the throne speech, essentially, a kind of doubling down on that agenda of affordability — what do we really see? It’s 19 new and increased taxes, increasing taxes by almost $8 billion — $5.5 billion in Budget 2018 alone.

Many of these taxes that have been brought in and are being brought in are ones that we have yet to see and feel the direct impacts of. These are taxes that are still to come. When we look at things like the employer health tax and things like the impact of the speculation tax — that misinformed, ill-informed approach — we will really start to see those impacts.

Despite all of those promises of making life more affordable, what we really do have is a litany of broken promises — so many processes into some kind of ongoing do-loop of consultation and study that seems to be the approach to so many things. We even see that referenced in the throne speech, with many areas looking at being studied or consulted on. So despite all these promises of making life more affordable, what we do see now is that families in British Columbia, businesses in British Columbia, are going to be paying more.

We have the non-revenue-neutral approach to carbon tax that means people are going to be paying more to drive their vehicles to work, take their children to hockey practice and heat their homes in the cold winters. The lack of revenue neutrality means that that revenue can’t be used to fund further ways to reduce emissions and help make other aspects of life for British Columbians more affordable.

The budget was supposed to consist of affordability measures for all British Columbians. But really, what we’re seeing is that this is just a kind of lip service that is being applied to this. The reality in what we see in so many of the measures is simply punitive tax increases targeted willy-nilly at people and at small businesses that government thinks can handle the financial burden.

Taxing B.C. businesses — important local employers and bastions of our communities across this province — is not the way to make life more affordable. Forcing these businesses to lay off workers and raise prices is not the way to approach things. And surprising these family-run businesses, agencies and school boards, for example, with a very specific example around the employers health tax is not the way to make life more affordable, nor is it the way to grow our economy. It’s hardly the way to address affordability.

[4:55 p.m.]

Let’s just look at a specific example from my community. The members opposite, the government, have put a lot of emphasis on making child care more affordable and on building more spaces. I think there is going to be a real look at how many net new spaces have actually been developed through their approach. Are they achieving those targets that were set out in the previous throne speech?

What we also see is the impact that the other tax policies are having on those businesses. This is input that I received from a constituent of mine in Kelowna-Mission. Just to put it into context, it starts out with: “My family did not pay, or does not pay, MSP. My benefits were covered through my employer.” They are now, and have been, seeking child care spaces for their children. It is impacting their working positions. But more specifically, what has happened is that the child care they had been have been able to find now is facing, and has had to increase their costs as a result of, the employer health tax.

The point is made here that this affects them and their ability on the child care side of things. It affects her husband’s business as well, because after all is said and done, they are paying more.

Very specifically, I was provided a copy of the notice from the government around those fees. Specifically noted in the response…. It notes that because child care fee reduction initiative…. Any changes to child care fees must first be approved by the province before they can be introduced.

“We applied for this increase last fall and now have received approval. Included below is a portion of the approval letter from the province. It says: ‘To receive approval from the province for a fee increase, a contractor must demonstrate to the ministry that the facility in question is experiencing unexpected, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that result in bona fide material and unexpected expenses.’”

Then the response goes on to say:

“‘Your facility,’ meaning the facility that was applying for the increase…. ‘The ministry has reviewed all the information that you have submitted as a part of your request for the in-contract fee increase, as well as your original application and relevant correspondence to determine that your facility’s employer health tax costs fall under the eligible circumstances — that is, a sudden or unexpected increased pressure outside the control of the provider that impacts the facility’s ability to remain operational. The expenses incurred as a result of the implementation of the employer health tax are determined to be bona fide, material and unexpected.’”

Here we see an implementation of a tax that is having a direct impact on facilities, directly impacting the child care facilities and, in fact, impacting the families and making that more unaffordable, more costly for the family because the facility has had to increase their fees in order to accommodate the increased costs of the employer health tax. The ministry recognized that as an unexpected, extraordinary sudden cost that met the criteria for ability to raise their fees — again, surprising.

You know, of all of these businesses…. Businesses will be paying $4.2 billion worth of payroll tax over the next four years. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business believes that more than half of its members will need to pay the new levy when it kicks in, in January 2019. On top of all of that, as we know, the government has, in implementing the policy….

[5:00 p.m.]

For 2019, we have the employer health tax come into effect, and people will need to continue to pay MSP premiums, or employers, if they pay them on behalf of their employees, will need to do that until 2020 — the double-dipping approach to the employer health tax.

One of the most important things for a business is stability, being able to plan and budget for the future. These kinds of measures certainly do not achieve that objective. The health tax ambush, the speculation tax — all of those approaches create that climate of uncertainty with a significant increase in operating costs. It certainly seems to me that the government doesn’t understand the needs of small businesses for certainty in an increasingly competitive environment.

What do we see in the throne speech? A couple of populous kinds of issues. The cell phone costs are clearly a federal jurisdiction and already, as was pointed out in comments, have been walked back in terms of their real ability to achieve this.

Concert ticket scalping — an applaudable approach. I know and have heard that people are concerned about that approach. We obviously wish the government a lot of luck on this in terms of addressing it. But does it really address the long-term economic growth, the long-term affordability, the jobs imperatives in B.C.?

I’m not sure that those two populous baubles in the throne speech are really what people are looking for in terms of the vision for the province. What people look for through the throne speech is: what is that long-term plan? What is that approach? Quite clearly, this throne speech doesn’t deliver that.

We’ve talked lots, previously, about the speculation and vacancy tax — that this clearly is not going to help the average British Columbian. This tax affects people who are no different than your grandparents, family members who have planned carefully and worked hard for their retirement and for their children’s future.

It’s going to harm our local economies while failing to make life more affordable for British Columbians. We’ve already seen examples and impacts of that in our communities with projects that have been halted, jobs that are not taking place because of the impacts of this.

On top of all of this, we see this botched implementation process, a costly implementation process that is creating so many challenges and problems out there. You know, 1.6 million notices going out, over two million declarations that have to be made to respond to that, the whole negative billing approach that assumes people are…. People have to declare that they’re not a speculator.

We’ve got so many examples coming into our offices of the challenges in dealing with this and the fact that people feel just generally insulted about this whole approach. For a government that, throughout all of its talk, talks about working for all of the people, I really wonder when they take this approach and have so many people that feel that this is just a real insult. Lots of questions about the security of social insurance numbers and personal information in the process that are not getting good answers in the questions that are being raised.

I’ll just use another example. This is some information that I got through the Canadian Home Builders Association today. This is just an example, but they asked a question of the government about it.

[5:05 p.m.]

If a developer has gone through the process of subdividing his property into an 80-lot subdivision, but the roads, servicing, are not in place, does he need to produce 80 separate declarations, even though there is no way any of those additional individual properties could be utilized for habitation yet? At what point do we need separate declarations versus one large parcel declaration?

The answer from the government was that once the subdivision is reflected in the records of the land title office and a separate land title exists for the lot, a declaration has to be completed for each lot. So this developer is going to have to submit 80 different individual declarations rather than one parcel declaration. How does that address affordability?

Obviously, that developer is going to have to take additional costs and time and everything to do those declarations. Again, we question how this really addresses that long-term affordability for a policy that isn’t meeting the objectives that it was set out to do in the first instance. We’re seeing declines in residential sales in our communities. It really is just an example of a failed policy that is not meeting the objective.

As was pointed out previously, I think it’s really time for government to consider repealing this speculation and vacancy tax and relooking at the whole approach and bringing in a proper speculation tax approach, not one that is targeting and ends up impacting people who’ve worked hard all of their lives, saved for their retirements, planned for their families, planned for their futures and contribute to our local economies.

Interjection.

S. Thomson: Thank you to my colleague for Kelowna–​Lake Country, because this is something that really does impact both of our communities. Again, I had looked and hoped to see something in the throne speech. Maybe we’ll see something budget-wise, but I’m not holding my breath for it for sure, recognizing that this is really a failed approach.

I’m not sure, again, quite what it is — whether it’s incompetence or ideology. But whatever way you look at it, these kind of actions are harming B.C. communities. It’s hurting families and businesses in my riding and all ridings across the province. It continues to send the wrong signals, setting a disappointing precedent for anyone who wants to come and do business and contribute to our economy.

In our local community in our region, we are seeing some very good things happen and some great work being done by our post-secondary institutions. A growing technology sector through Accelerate Okanagan, leading health care facilities and investments in Kelowna General Hospital and cancer centre are really paying strong dividends in our community.

This week our working group partners — the Okanagan College School of Business, UBC Okanagan faculty of management, Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, city of Kelowna — released a detailed economic scorecard which measured our community, Kelowna, against similar communities across North America and internationally. It provided important benchmarks. It provided valuable information to help shape a future direction for our communities.

We scored well economically, but clearly, some areas for improvement were shown in those benchmarks. We didn’t score quite as highly in some of the social indicators that were measured. As local leaders commented, knowing where we stand on these 24 critical indicators and where we need to adjust our policies for improvement and growth will only help all of us get to the future we envision in a more effective way. I want to congratulate all the partners for undertaking that and doing that. It will help us in our policy work and our advocacy work as well.

[5:10 p.m.]

The concern, I know, will be that when they look to the things they need to address coming out of that…. I’m not sure, and I don’t think they will see where the throne speech, with its lack of future vision and its approach around simply being a bit of a shopping list and a year-in-review kind of approach…. I don’t think they will see where many of those issues fall into that longer-term vision.

We’ve got good investments in our community at Okanagan College, new investments at UBC Okanagan. And I do just want to comment on one of those while I have the opportunity. We’ve recently seen the official opening of the Commons, the new library and study space, which was a commitment made when we were in government. I want to particularly acknowledge the students at UBC Okanagan who agreed to increase their own student fees to make an important contribution to support that investment. Both of these institutions continue to see record levels of enrolment, and they play a critical role in the region and in the prov­ince’s future opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide some comments on the throne speech. I think that it can be safely portrayed as a real disappointment in terms of its patchwork approach, its shopping-list approach, its lack of vision. It’s not really putting people first. We need to look at those longer-term approaches in order to ensure that we have the foundation that is going to continue to move the province forward, and I think that the throne speech significantly lacks in that.

It’ll be very interesting to see how Budget 2019 next week links up to this. The throne speech looked back over some of what it felt were accomplishments. When I look back, it’s really…. When you look at what the real impacts have been on the ground, it’s been the taxes — the impacts on business, the impact on people. As we’ve said, 19 new taxes, $5.6 billion in additional costs. I just don’t see how that is making things more affordable for people in British Columbia.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide some comments, and I look forward to the rest of the debate on the throne speech.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers….

The question on the motion.

J. Rustad: What’s the motion?

Deputy Speaker: The motion is Address in Reply.

Division has been called.

[5:15 p.m. - 5:20 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

M. Polak: I’m just inquiring with respect to adherence to the standing orders, which require, as I recall, that there to be no less than two and no more than five minutes between the calling of the first division bell and the following.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I think the issue here is that we’re wanting to make sure that we have the issue that ought to be before the House clarified before we move forward. I know it’s an unusual situation.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Well, it may well have been an error. If you could be patient for a moment.

M. Polak: Might I suggest that to be consistent with the standing orders while something is figured out, the doors should be locked at the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

[5:25 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Just some clarity about…. I understand that the division was called. However, there was an agreement about speaking order, which I understand was put into place, and that speaking order agreement wasn’t adhered to, which has resulted in this.

I would just like to say on behalf of our caucus — a very small caucus staff and a very small caucus — that we’ve been working quite feverishly to get our responses to the throne speech prepared and that this opportunity is now being taken away from us in what appears to be a bit of a game.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member. I think that’s best dealt with after we have the vote here.

The motion, the reason division is called, is on the Address in Reply. It has been called.

Motion approved on the following division:

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the House do now adjourn and remind members that tomorrow morning we will be debating legislation, whether people are ready or not.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:29 p.m.