Fourth Session, 41st Parliament (2019)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Thursday, February 21, 2019
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 203
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
Budget Debate (continued) | |
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2019
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is Byung-won Chung, the consul general of the Republic of Korea, based in Vancouver. The consul general was appointed in November of last year. We’ve had the opportunity to meet several times since. Today the consul general will meet with the Premier and several of my cabinet colleagues. Would the House please make the consul general of Korea feel very welcome.
J. Routledge: Today we are joined in the gallery by a delegation of 14 young women from Equal Voice UBC. They are Rachel Lee Berting, Kala Bryson, Sadie Cameron, Yuval Daniel, Joeveen Dhari, Jaskiran Gakhal, Kristina Maretic, Maria Michouris, Tanya Mozafari, Wenonah North Peigan, Leena Parhar, Guneet Pooni, Hailey Radigan and Neha Tadepalli. Please join me in making them feel very welcome as they experience what it’s like to be an MLA today.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL M202 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2019
A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 2019.
A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled the Election Amendment Act, 2019, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.
I’m pleased to introduce the bill entitled Election Amendment Act, 2019. This bill is designed to set term limits on elected officials in the B.C. Legislature. If enacted, this bill would limit MLAs to 12 years or three terms. In addition, an individual could not be nominated for re-election if they had already served eight years as a Premier.
The introduction of term limits would ensure that those seeking elected office recognize that serving the people of British Columbia should be interpreted as a sense of civic duty, not a career path. The general public have become cynical about politics and career politicians….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, if we may hear the member.
A. Weaver: I thank you, hon. Speaker. It’s remarkably disrespectful during an introduction of a bill to hear the chatter coming from opposite.
The general public….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, if ever you needed a demonstration that this bill needs to be enacted, it is here today shown before us by the behaviour of the members opposite.
The general public have become cynical about politics and career politicians. Voter turnout is on the decline. By introducing term limits, certain elected officials will be freed up to think about the long-term consequence of their decisions, rather than just their re-election goals. It will ensure a continued rejuvenation of this Legislature.
I feel, frankly, that we’re still fighting the Cold War in this chamber. We’ve got politicians who’ve been here on both sides of the House since the 1990s. When the same players continue their never-ending dance of dysfunction, British Columbians all lose.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill put forth by the Leader of the Third Party.
Motion approved on the following division:
YEAS — 84 | ||
Chouhan | Kahlon | Begg |
Brar | Heyman | Donaldson |
Mungall | Bains | Beare |
Chen | Popham | Trevena |
Sims | Chow | Kang |
Simons | D’Eith | Routley |
Ma | Elmore | Dean |
Routledge | Singh | Leonard |
Darcy | Simpson | Robinson |
Farnworth | Horgan | James |
Eby | Dix | Ralston |
Mark | Fleming | Conroy |
Fraser | Chandra Herbert | Rice |
Malcolmson | Furstenau | Weaver |
Olsen | Glumac | Cadieux |
de Jong | Bond | Polak |
Lee | Stone | Coleman |
Wat | Bernier | Thornthwaite |
Paton | Ashton | Barnett |
Yap | Martin | Davies |
Kyllo | Sullivan | Reid |
Morris | Stilwell | Ross |
Oakes | Johal | Redies |
Rustad | Milobar | Sturdy |
Clovechok | Shypitka | Hunt |
Throness | Tegart | Stewart |
Gibson | Isaacs | Letnick |
Thomson | Larson | Foster |
NAYS — 1 | ||
| Sultan |
|
A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M202, Election Amendment Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. J. Horgan: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. J. Horgan: Thanks, everybody.
Firstly, I want to acknowledge my friend from West Vancouver–Capilano for the courage to run his own course, as he always has.
I also want to introduce two friends I have in the gallery, two Star Trek friends. Brent and Sonya have come down from Nanaimo. I want them to live long and prosper and to remember that tonight is a new episode of Discovery. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
MARY GOUCHIE
S. Bond: On January 24, our community and our province lost Mary Gouchie. I’m grateful that Mary was recognized in the throne speech, and I know that that will mean a great deal to her family as well.
Mary was the matriarch of her family and will be deeply missed by her children, her grandchildren, great-grandchildren and, yes, great-great-grandchildren.
At her service in Prince George, Mary’s life was celebrated with tributes, music and stories. Mary was remembered for the way she made everyone feel special. Her philosophy in life was to keep busy, contribute to her community and always help people. And she did just that.
Mary was perhaps best known for her tireless efforts to protect and to preserve the Carrier language. She was able to translate street signs and landmarks and even the entrance sign into the University of Northern British Columbia campus. She was passionate about ensuring that the use of the language expanded, including in schools, where language keepers teach children about the Dakelh language and culture.
Mary played a key role in the naming of the sports events at the 2015 Canada Winter Games, when the Lheidli T’enneh were named the host First Nation, which had never happened previously at a Canada Games.
Mary’s family called her their queen, and if you ever met Mary, you could see why. Whenever she went out, Mary’s hair was done just so. She always had on her jewelry and some lipstick. Mary’s family has fond memories of her cooking, her baking, her sewing, quilting, and she crocheted amazing doilies.
Mary was a beloved member of the Lheidli T’enneh and our community. She has left a powerful legacy as a keeper of the Dakelh language and through the impact that she had on each person she connected with. I consider myself very privileged to have known Mary Gouchie. She will be missed, but her memory will be kept alive through the words of those who now have the task of carrying on her efforts to preserve and share the Carrier language.
BROOKE GLAZIER AND SHIQI XU
B. Ma: North Vancouver school district is home not only to brilliant staff, dedicated teachers and passionate parents but to incredible students as well.
Take, for instance, Brooke Glazier. Brooke is a grade 11 IB student at Carson Graham Secondary School. Recently she was granted the Vimy Foundation Pilgrimage Award, as one of only four recipients from B.C. and one of only 20 from all of Canada. The Vimy Foundation created the Vimy Pilgrimage Award to recognize the actions of young people who demonstrate an outstanding commitment to volunteer work through positive contributions, notable deeds or bravery that benefits their peers, schools, community, province or country.
As a recipient of this award, Brooke will be taking a fully funded week-long educational program in Belgium and France to study Canada’s tremendous First World War effort.
Shiqi Xu is a grade 12 student from Sutherland Secondary. I first learned of Shiqi when I heard her read an instantly captivating short story she had written for her school’s Remembrance Day peace ceremony. It was written from the perspective of a young child in a refugee camp.
In addition to being an environmental advocate and musician — she plays the clarinet, the alto saxophone and the piano — she’s also a runner, a math tutor and a member of my North Vancouver–Lonsdale youth leadership council on climate change. Shiqi is also a recipient of the coveted Loran scholarship, one of only six in B.C. and 35 across Canada, out of 55,000 applicants. The Loran award is valued at approximately $100,000 and includes annual stipends, tuition waivers, access to summer internships, mentors and more.
Brooke and Shiqi are just two of many future leaders that are being raised in our communities, lifted up on the shoulders of all those who contribute to the success of our public school system — parents, educators, support workers, taxpayers and lawmakers. It is worth fighting for.
ANGELO IACOBUCCI
T. Stone: Recently Kamloops lost a well-known news reporter. There aren’t many of us in this House who haven’t, at one time or another, had dealings with Angelo Iacobucci.
For nearly 40 years, he was a stalwart in the Radio NL newsroom. Angelo’s desire to learn and report the news was exemplified by the fact that after doing a practicum at NL in the summer of 1979, he literally refused to leave. They didn’t have a job for him, so he worked for two months for free. When that rare opening in the NL newsroom came, NL was quick to hire the kid from East Van who would not take no for an answer.
Angelo was larger than life. He was big and brash, sometimes awkward. But a sure sign of acceptance was a nickname. Those of us who answered probing and often unconventional questions from Angelo — we all had a nickname that only he would call us. Angelo was widely respected, and he knew it, and he earned it. He was, after all, a self-proclaimed legend.
But for all of his tough questions, Angelo was also respectful and fair. He was honest, and his commitment to keep his word was golden. “Off the record” was never a risk with Angelo.
I’d often receive a text from him that simply said: “Hello, Stoner.” Then another text would come in half an hour later that would say: “Are you there?” That would be followed by another text that would say: “Are you alive, Stoner?” All of this would happen in the span of a couple of hours.
I’d call him back, when I finally could, and I’d say: “Angelo, what’s the emergency?” His reply: “Oh, nothing. I’m just checking in to see what’s up.” He had more cell numbers of Premiers, cabinet ministers, MLAs and others that he interviewed than anyone else, and we all called him back.
A celebration of life service for Angelo was held on February 2, and it was a testament to the man. Hundreds of friends, family, politicians and colleagues gathered for tears and tributes for a man who was so greatly respected.
Angelo was also dedicated to the city he would not leave. He was beyond proud of his community, and that community will be forever proud of him.
FRASER VALLEY YOUTH SOCIETY
SERVICES AND
EVENTS
B. D’Eith: The Fraser Valley Youth Society is an amazing non-profit that’s been in my community and throughout the Fraser Valley since 2000. They started with a weekly LGBTQ2+ drop-in group, and now they have a board of directors, staff and dedicated volunteers in Abbotsford, Mission and Chilliwack.
Their focus is to support LGBTQ2+ and allied youth in the Fraser Valley. They help connect them to peers and their community and provide support and drop-in programs. They also do education and awareness programs with special events, local advocacy and staff- and youth-led presentations.
For the last four years, they’ve hosted a Hero’s Gala, which is both a fundraiser for their organization and an event that recognizes exceptional individuals or organizations that have contributed to the society and the LGBTQ2+ community at large.
Last week I had the pleasure of attending the Hero’s Gala and celebrating this year’s hero, Nadine Langford. Nadine has spent endless hours supporting the society by running their concession and is always looking for ways to raise funds to support the LGBTQ2+ youth in our communities.
I want to thank Nadine for her tireless work supporting the community in the Fraser Valley, and especially the youth. I’m so proud to have people like Nadine, the staff, volunteers and other heroes as part of my community.
The Fraser Valley Youth Society also organizes the Fraser Valley Pride Walk and celebration in Abbotsford each year. What started out as a walk around Abbotsford and a barbecue in a parking lot is now in its seventh year and has grown into a week full of events. It leads to a huge celebration in Jubilee Park and a walk around downtown Abbotsford, with hundreds of individuals and organizations in attendance. I encourage all of my Fraser Valley MLA colleagues to join me in this year’s pride walk on July 20 and in supporting this amazing organization.
Thank you to the Fraser Valley Youth Society for all the work you do, and congratulations to Nadine.
PUBLIC TRUST IN GOVERNMENT
AND ACTION ON CLIMATE
CHANGE
S. Furstenau: Today I rise to speak of the importance of public trust in government. We have seen around the world and throughout history what happens when people lose trust in their government. Trust is the currency of legitimate democratic rule — trust that those elected will follow the rules and act in the best interests of the public.
My colleagues and I have been asking questions all this week and last about money laundering happening in this province and the parts that government played in its proliferation. The issue of trust is paramount in this work. But today I want to highlight that it’s not just day-to-day actions of government that the public must have trust in. They must have trust that their elected leaders are planning for tomorrow — that they are acting in the best long-term interests of everyone, particularly future generations.
Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old Swedish girl, has become an international symbol for climate activism. She tweeted earlier this week that it was annoying to her to hear older people say that her generation symbolizes hope — hope that young people will save the world. Her response to the adults? “I think it would be helpful if you could help us just a little bit.”
Greta’s words really hit home for me. Many of us in this chamber have children and grandchildren, and the decisions that we make today will have the greatest impacts on their lives.
I ask all members of this House to acknowledge that we have a responsibility as elected leaders to not only follow the rules and work for the benefit of current British Columbians but to always work on behalf of future generations as well. The generations of tomorrow are trusting us to do the right thing and to make the tough decisions that ensure a stable future. We must do so.
HENRY WONG
J. Rice: How do you live past 100? Well, never drink cold water, only eat food that’s been cooked well, get lots of fresh air and exercise, avoid MSG and be happy. That is the secret to living well, according to Prince Ruperite Henry Fook Hen Wong, who recently turned 100.
Henry’s father, who had 12 children with six wives, moved to Canada to work on the railroad. In 1928, when he was ten, Henry and six of his siblings were sent back to China to get their education.
At 18, Henry and his family were forced to flee the city of Guangzhou and move to Hong Kong after the Japanese invasion of 1937. During the occupation, he met his wife, Julia, and they had two sons, Philip and William. Unfortunately, Julia passed away while the children were young. Wong and his two sons moved back to Guangzhou, but after the Communist Party came to power in China and began seizing privately owned land, Henry returned to Canada in 1947 for more opportunity.
Working ten-hour days at the B.C. Royal Restaurant in Vancouver earning 30 cents an hour, it took Henry ten years to save enough money to bring his kids back home to Canada with him. After being reunited with his children, Henry continued to work as a cook in Vancouver until he arrived in Prince Rupert in 1979. He continued cooking in Prince Rupert until he retired in 2012, at the age of 94.
Surrounded by family and members of the Prince Rupert Chinese community, Henry recently celebrated his 100th birthday at the West End Restaurant, a popular Chinese eatery in Prince Rupert — clearly a determined and hard-working man, still driving his own car.
I’d like to recognize and wish a happy 100th birthday to Henry Wong.
Oral Questions
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
ON LNG CANADA
AGREEMENT
J. Johal: We know that LNG agreements exist. However, those agreements have not been made public.
Will the government make these LNG agreements public today?
Hon. C. James: We will be as transparent as possible. The agreement is not finally signed. When the agreement is signed, it will be released.
Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.
J. Johal: There certainly has been no disclosure from the government, as the minister has stated.
LNG Canada would not have moved forward on a $40 billion project, the largest investment in this country’s history…. Mid-project, it will be one of largest industrial projects on this planet. You do not move forward without some sort of security for large multinational companies. In the end, we’re asking questions on behalf of British Columbians, because they should know that they’re getting appropriate dollars for their natural resources.
I ask again: where are the agreements, and what is this government hiding?
Hon. C. James: Again, we’ve been very clear about the LNG framework. We are finalizing the agreement. When the agreement is finalized, it will be made public.
Mr. Speaker: Richmond-Queensborough on a second supplemental.
J. Johal: Back on July 14 of 2015, the now Energy Minister said: “All those discussions and everything will happen behind closed doors with absolutely no input, no view, no review from the public. That’s a concern.”
On January 22 of 2019, the Ministry of Energy responded to our request for an agreement by saying: “Information has been withheld as negotiations are still ongoing.” There is nothing stopping this government providing a broad overview to British Columbians in regards to what the deal will entail.
Once again, I ask the minister, will they tell us what’s being negotiated behind closed doors?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. I know he is familiar with the sector, having come from it recently.
I am very excited that we will be bringing forward legislation shortly that will consummate the agreement between LNG Canada and the province of British Columbia. There will be ample opportunity to discuss that at that time, and I know I’ll have the full support of the Liberal caucus.
S. Bond: Well, we asked, under freedom-of-information legislation, for a copy of any form of agreements entered into between the government of British Columbia and LNG Canada. Considering what the Finance Minister and Premier have just said, they might be interested in this response. The government responded: “Please be advised the records you requested are withheld in their entirety.”
Apparently records do exist. What records, and can the minister stand up today and explain why the government is refusing to release these LNG agreements?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I’m excited about the enthusiasm of the opposition in ensuring that we get the best possible deal for British Columbians. That certainly was our objective when we entered into discussions with all stakeholders in the sector, not just LNG Canada.
We had a competitiveness gap that was created largely by world markets, but in other issues that were raised by the former government. So we sat down with the sector and put in place a framework, which we publicly announced last March, I believe it was. It was that framework that allowed LNG Canada to make their FID in October.
We are withholding information on the final agreement because there is no final agreement. When it is complete, it will be made public.
Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: I’m assuming the Premier is trying to ask British Columbians to believe that a sophisticated company, a multinational company like LNG Canada is proceeding without a signed agreement. That’s simply not believable.
The government has so far completely failed to disclose any detailed LNG agreements.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
S. Bond: The public and the members of this House deserve to know exactly what the agreements say.
Will the Premier, who’s so excited about this file, stand up and commit to releasing the records today?
Hon. J. Horgan: We’ll release the documents when they’re concluded. They’re not yet concluded.
The decision for a final investment by LNG Canada and their joint venture partners was made by them — not by the province of British Columbia, not by the NDP and certainly not by the B.C. Liberals. They made their decisions, and they are proceeding. We are finalizing the agreement, and it will be made public when it’s finished.
MONEY LAUNDERING AND OPIOID CRISIS
S. Furstenau: Roughly one person a day dies in Vancouver because of an overdose. This isn’t new. The opioid crisis has been going on for years. In April 2016, B.C.’s provincial health officer declared a public health emergency in response to the rise in drug overdoses and deaths.
The Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions has done important work, but progress seems slow. In 2017, there were 1,489 deaths associated with illicit drug overdoses. In 2018, there were 1,487. For all the work, a two-death reduction.
The chief coroner of the B.C. Coroners Service has stated that fentanyl is implicated in 86 percent of overdose deaths. Fentanyl is coming to our streets from international drug trafficking, and they have been benefiting for years from the Vancouver model. Traffickers seem able to launder their money with seeming impunity.
My question is to the Attorney General. What is his ministry doing to examine the connections between money laundering and the public health emergency that has gripped our province for years?
Hon. D. Eby: One of the profound ironies to me of this file was that the previous administration said that they were concerned about gang violence, very concerned about gang violence. “We’re going to crack down on gang violence.”
On the other hand, they knew, and we know they knew, that money was coming into the casinos unsourced. Bulk cash in large volumes coming into the casinos, clearly all hallmarks…. It took me ten minutes of watching the videos presented by the regulator to know all the hallmarks of the proceeds of crime. Instead of saying to the casinos, “Stop accepting this cash,” they allowed that practice to continue.
Now they need to explain to the public why they made that decision, I think. I know they haven’t asked me any questions about this issue. I suspect they’re embarrassed, as they should be, about their conduct on this file.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Eby: I note the member says that he’s not interested in jeopardizing an investigation. I’d be curious about what investigation he’s talking about. In any event, at least there is an investigation under this government.
In terms of the connection to fentanyl, this is a connection that was made by Dr. German in his report that he was commissioned by our government to undertake, on forming government. We actually were concerned about the fact that the proceeds of crime were coming to B.C. casinos, and we wanted to stop it as quickly as possible. I’m glad that he’s illuminated that connection. His work continues to investigate whether this money is also going into the real estate market, into luxury cars — and how we stop that as well.
The Finance Minister has a review about how we close loopholes that the previous government also knew existed and that they took no steps to address. So we’re taking the action that’s necessary.
I thank the member for the question. It’s a very serious issue.
Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: One person dies every four days in Victoria because of an overdose. Roughly one person every day dies in Vancouver. Despite all the effort put into tackling this crisis, we don’t seem to be getting anywhere. Where some regions have gone down, others have seen a sharp spike. In Prince George, for instance, the number of overdose deaths nearly doubled last year.
This is like a game of Whac-a-Mole. Throw resources towards fixing a problem in one area, and then it springs up somewhere else. We need to get to the root cause of what is killing British Columbians by the thousands. We need to crack down on the international crime networks fuelling this crisis. To do so, we need to follow the money.
I appreciate that the Attorney General has mentioned the reviews and reports, but I want to know what he is going to do, through his ministry, to tackle the root cause — the international trafficking and crime of the opioid crisis.
Hon. D. Eby: I’ve had the opportunity to stand a couple of times on these issues, thanks to the questions from the Third Party. I do appreciate the chance to express to British Columbians what we’re doing on this issue.
The international aspect of this challenge…. Now we’ve heard reports of a major drug cartel out of Mexico operating in British Columbia — astounding allegations from a former senior official within the Drug Enforcement Administration in the United States; allegations around organized crime operating out of China as well, operations centred here in British Columbia — very disturbing international issues that we require federal government support on.
There is a very obvious problem. It appears that there are inadequate resources within policing, within the prosecution service and then perhaps even within the rules that they’re trying to apply that are frustrating the ability to detect, investigate, prosecute and ultimately jail people who are involved in these activities.
That is exactly…. What we’re trying to do at the provincial level is identify what those gaps are so that we can be more effective — as effective as we can be at the provincial level, recognizing that we’re going to need the federal government to look at their areas of jurisdiction: international relations, the banking sector, FINTRAC, the Criminal Code and the RCMP nationally. They have huge responsibilities here, and we’re hopeful that they will continue to be a good partner as we move forward on this.
RELEASE OF INFORMATION
ON LNG CANADA
AGREEMENT
T. Stone: It’s been four months since the government and LNG Canada made their announcement. Since that time, there has been no disclosure of the terms of any agreement this government has entered into with LNG Canada.
Now, it’s the FOI response from the government that leads us to believe that there are indeed records respecting this arrangement or contractual obligation or agreement — call it whatever you want — respecting this project. It’s a multi-billion-dollar project, and it’s very hard for British Columbians to believe that a multinational corporation would have made a multi-billion-dollar final investment decision absent of the kinds of guarantees that a company would be looking for, for this kind of project.
My question, again, to the Premier would be this. What guarantees, if any, have been provided to LNG Canada that would bind future governments or future taxpayers?
Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I’m delighted to have the confidence of the opposition as we go into this session to talk about LNG Canada and all of the positive impacts that will flow from this massive investment that has been done as a result of, I believe, the confidence of all the joint venture partners, whether they be from Korea or Malaysia or China or Japan or Holland. God bless the Dutch. My spouse will forgive me for saying that, or not forgive me if I hadn’t said that.
It’s a confidence in the people of British Columbia that led to this final investment decision. We laid out a framework, publicly and transparently, last March. The joint venture partners looked at that. They took stock of where they were in the international marketplace, where prices were going, where volumes were going to be, and they made a final investment decision.
We were delighted about that, and I recall very much the enthusiasm of many on that side on that day.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.
T. Stone: You will forgive British Columbians for being somewhat confused by the government’s approach to this file. They talk about transparency and the importance of these details being known to British Columbians. On the other hand, we do know that this government also intends to repeal the very legislation that would require government to make these agreements publicly available.
Bill 30 came into force on July 21, 2015. It requires that LNG agreements be publicly disclosed. Yet we know that on October 2, 2018, the government announced that it “intends to introduce legislation to repeal the project development agreement act, passed by the previous government.” Again, British Columbians deserve to know what the details are that led to this final decision, the details of a contractual obligation or understanding that was entered into by the government to enable this consortium to make this investment.
Has the government entered into any form of an agreement that includes provisions for termination rights by either party?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, again, I’ll say to the member for Kamloops–South Thompson the same thing I said to the member from Queensborough and the member from Valemount. We are in the final stages of finalizing the agreement between LNG Canada and the province of British Columbia. When that agreement is finalized, it will be made absolutely public, and we are going to celebrate that day.
We’re going to celebrate that day, because when we ran the election campaign and when we were debating the very bills that the member is talking about, we took a pan–British Columbia view on this side of the House. We said: “What’s in the best interest of British Columbians?” Having a clear and transparent process was paramount.
First and foremost, we said we wanted to make sure that British Columbians benefited from the extraction and the sale of their resources. That’s been done. We wanted to ensure that there were jobs for British Columbians. That’s been done. We wanted to ensure that First Nations were full participants. That’s been done.
Lastly and probably most importantly, we wanted to make sure that whatever happened on the LNG front, it fit within our climate action plan. I give my hands up to the minister responsible for Environment and the Minister of Energy for making that happen. That was what we ran on. Since that time, we looked at the sector and we looked at the lack of competitiveness because of some of the policies that were put in place by the previous government.
For example, those on that side of the House said: “Well, you’re going to pay more for your hydro than any other industrial customer in British Columbia.” That’s not fair. LNG Canada said: “That’s not fair. Why wouldn’t we pay the same amount as a pulp mill, a mine or a forest company?” We agreed to that, and we took care of that on day one. On October 3, the industrial rate for electricity was provided to LNG Canada.
M. de Jong: I wrote to the Finance Minister, well, over four months ago now, on October 17, and I asked her some basic questions in the aftermath of the announcements — basic questions about the nature of the agreement, the arrangements that the government had come to with LNG Canada. What’s the term? What is the nature of any guarantees or indemnifications? What are the specific contractual obligations around local hiring and procurement? Things that members of the New Democratic Party went to great pains to point out were a prerequisite to any agreement when they were debating the agreement that the previous government laid before this House in its entirety.
The letter generated, we know from FOI responses, lots of internal activity — except an actual answer, unfortunately. The minister was advised, in one of the few unredacted documents we received, to say this: “I just received the member’s letter and have asked staff to review it and prepare a response.”
Where’s the response? Where is the answer to the basic questions that British Columbians deserve to know about the agreements and the arrangements that have been arrived at with LNG Canada?
Hon. C. James: As I said to the member in the House in the fall when he asked the question, when the agreement is in place, when we have finished finalizing it, it will be released publicly. I will say that again to the member. When the agreement is finalized and when we have it signed, it will be released to the public. The details, of course, as well, will be coming in legislation, as the Premier stated.
Mr. Speaker: Abbotsford West on a supplemental.
M. de Jong: Well, all of this happened four months ago. No answers…. It sounds like there are some pretty extensive negotiations still taking place. What’s being negotiated? What is actually…?
You know, the previous government brought an agreement before this House, called a special session, and members got….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Abbotsford West has the floor.
M. de Jong: The Legislature and the people of B.C. got an opportunity to analyze, critique, debate every clause of the agreement. And you should see what members of the New Democratic Party had to say about what was an essential ingredient to an agreement — the now Energy Minister, the Premier, the Finance Minister, the Attorney General, the Jobs Minister. But don’t worry. They’ll have a chance to revisit their words.
What British Columbians want is an opportunity to compare what they said in 2015 with what they’ve actually achieved, or purported to achieve, in 2019.
Will the Minister of Finance submit the agreement to the same level of scrutiny in this House, and secondly, will she commit today to not repealing the legislation that requires LNG agreements to be released in their entirety?
Hon. J. Horgan: Let’s just go back down memory lane for a moment, shall we? Let’s go back down memory lane. I seem to recall the former government and the former Premier saying that we’re going to be 100,000 jobs from 20, 30, 40 LNG plants. I seem to recall that the sales tax was going to disappear. There were going to be gold bars on every street in every town in British Columbia because of the commitment of the former government to get a final investment decision.
Six years they’ve played the trumpets and they got the brass band out. They dropped the balloons every couple of weeks, saying: “LNG is coming, baby. Get ready.”
Well, guess what happened. Bupkis, not a darned thing. So when we came to power in July of 2017, we looked at the state of play in the sector. We looked at the reality that the world was operating in. We said to the industry — not to one company but to all of the companies: “How can we make sure that we’re meeting the objectives of the people of British Columbia and the objectives of international investors?”
Over a lot of hard work, we managed to come to a place where one of the largest private sector investments in the world, certainly in British Columbia, is going to happen. I was proud to say at that time that people have been talking about LNG development in British Columbia since the 1980s — Socreds, New Democrats, Liberals, New Democrats again. And we are this close to realizing it.
Now I hear the former House Leader, the former Finance Minister, is going to say: “Well, I tell you, if I don’t see that paper by the end of the day, we’re not going to support LNG.” What happened? The member for Langley East, I’m certain, would not take that position. If the member for Skeena is of the view that we don’t want to see $40 billion in private sector investment in the north to lift the Haisla people…. If the former bingo caller from Global Television and the former hack for the LNG Alliance are going to vote against that, I can’t wait to see that happen.
R. Coleman: On October 4, 2017, in the Vancouver Sun, the Premier of this province said: “The government has direct agreements with Royal Dutch Shell and their partners.”
Why haven’t those agreements been made public?
Hon. J. Horgan: Directed is not concluded, hon. Member.
He knows full well the challenge of this. The agreements have not yet been signed. When they’re signed, they’ll be made public.
Again, I know that the member who just asked the question is very passionate about this issue, and I respect that significantly. I know that we disagree on a lot of things over our time together in this place. But I do not dismiss his passion for the people of B.C. and an economic development opportunity that is unparalleled in our history.
We will release the documents when they’re concluded. That’s what we said we would do, and I am committed to that.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Langley East on a supplemental.
R. Coleman: Well, I remember the debates of 2015 and the project development agreement. I remember every member on that side of the House saying: “We sold out the industry. We weren’t getting enough for the resource or the royalties or the taxes.”
I think the only balloons that were popping, hon. Member, was when you started to negotiate a deal where you gave up the PST, you gave up the LNG tax, you gave up the protection of molecules in British Columbia — because the LNG tax would protect your royalties in molecules coming from our gas in British Columbia going to an LNG plant — and other issues that may be in this agreement coming. I think, at Royal Dutch Shell and Petronas and the other partners and the members of LNG Canada, they’re the ones that got the balloon popping, because I think you gave the farm away.
Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t think there was a question there, and it was balloon dropping, not balloon popping. I hate to burst the bubble of the people on the other side, but we have entered into discussions and negotiations with LNG Canada. We are very close to concluding that. When we do, we’ll be tabling legislation. When that happens, we’ll be issuing the documents for all to see.
Again, I appreciate that during the debates in this House, there were heated comments. That’s the responsibility of the opposition. I do not want to diminish for a second the apprenticeships that are going on right now as people on that side of the House get their first taste of being in opposition. I’m hopeful that you’ll continue to work hard and get those tough questions and ask them each and every day, and I will continue to stand here and happily answer every single one of them.
M. Bernier: Let’s be clear. The people of British Columbia and this House deserve to know what is being discussed behind closed doors and what’s been given up. In response to freedom-of-information requests to the Ministry of Energy and Mines…. The response back: “Information has been withheld. Negotiations are still ongoing.”
Will the Minister of Energy and Mines stand up in this House and actually talk, even a snippet, of what’s being negotiated behind closed doors?
Hon. J. Horgan: Last March we laid out a framework for discussion with the sector. That is the framework. That’s what we’re negotiating. One of the issues I’ve already talked about was the attempt by the previous government to say, “Well, we’re going to make you pay more for your hydro,” probably because they wanted to recoup some of the money they’d lost for ratepayers with their IPP scam over the past….
Interjections.
Hon. J. Horgan: Instead of raising, yet again, hydro rates for people — already 70 percent, 80 percent increases under the watch of the former government — they tried to squeeze a little bit more out of the LNG sector. The LNG sector said: “What’s the difference between us and a pulp mill and a mine or a forest company?” Our response was: “Well, absolutely nothing.”
We have an industrial rate in British Columbia that has served us well — when we had control over B.C. Hydro, rather than giving it away to the private sector as the former government did. We intend to live by that agreement. In fact, on the day after the agreement was announced, the final investment decision by the joint venture partners, we instilled the industrial rate that exists for all industrial customers for LNG Canada.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River South on a supplemental.
M. Bernier: It’s interesting how they’re trying to have it both ways. In the House today, they’re saying they’re still negotiating. But according to the Premier, in the Vancouver Sun, October 4, 2017: “The government actually has direct agreements with Royal Dutch Shell and its partners.” He can’t have it both ways. He can’t say they’re still negotiating while he also says they’ve already got agreements in place for them to make final investment decisions.
Will the Premier actually say which time he was mistaken?
Hon. J. Horgan: Okay. Let’s again go back to March of 2018. We laid out, in public — a press conference, questions back and forth; stories were written — that this is the new framework for LNG development in British Columbia. That was the new framework for development.
Royal Dutch Shell, KOGAS, Mitsubishi, Petronas and PetroChina in joint venture agreed that they felt that that framework was sufficient for them to make a final investment decision. I didn’t make that decision. The Liberals certainly didn’t make any agreements in their time in government.
A final investment decision was made. Based on that, based on dollars being spent on job creation and economic development in Kitimat and in other places, we, as part of our framework, which was an industrial rate for electricity, implemented that industrial rate. We have more negotiation and discussion to do, to be completed before the legislation is tabled. We hope to have that in the next couple of weeks. At that time, I’m hopeful we’ll have celebration from the other side as an extraordinary opportunity for the north is realized so people can lift themselves up and we can have prosperity in the northwest and in the central part of British Columbia that was missing for 16 years on the watch of the previous government.
M. Polak: Sometimes the more interesting part of question period is what isn’t said. As I’ve been….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
M. Polak: As I’ve been listening, what I’ve been making note of is the very many, many opportunities that the Premier and other ministers, the Finance minister, have had to get up and answer what is essentially a yes-or-no question.
There were ample opportunities for those members, in answer to a question about whether or not there were contractual obligations, some of which we’ve outlined…. Do they exist? The Premier could have stood up and said, “No, they don’t,” and sat down. It would have made our question period harder, because they’re short answers.
At the end of the day, that’s what leads me to put in place what we do know, right? We know from the Premier that there are direct agreements with Royal Dutch Shell. We haven’t seen them. We know from the FOI response that there are records, but they’re being withheld. I’ve never seen a response like that from FOI. I’ve submitted many in my day, and I’ve read many that have been submitted for my ministries.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
M. Polak: Then we come to the real smoking gun and the reason they don’t want to say yes or no, which is that they’ve already said they intend to repeal the very legislation that requires them to deliver those agreements here to this House to be debated. There is no reason to repeal that legislation except that you don’t want British Columbians to see it. You don’t want us to debate it.
If the Premier is true to his word, he will stand up today and say: “No, we’re not repealing that legislation.” Will he do that?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I’m just reeling from the line of questioning. I know this is difficult. It’s tough to come together with a coherent line of questioning for half an hour when you get the answer on the first question. The question was: “Are you going to release the information?” The answer was: “Yes, we are, when it’s finished.”
Were it not for the Third Party raising an issue of public importance to the people of British Columbia, this whole question period would have been about: “Why won’t you release the documents you said you were going to release when you tabled the legislation?”
Well, here we are. We’re half an hour in. The light is on. It’s a colour that I can’t identify, but it tells me that we’re almost at the end. I’d hate to end question period without talking a little bit about a budget that was tabled on Tuesday. I would not want to miss that opportunity.
I think it’s relevant to the question that was asked, because the subtext of what the B.C. Liberals have been saying is they’re concerned about the B.C. economy. Rightly they should be, because it’s doing so well on our watch, and it wasn’t doing so well on their watch. No final investment decision on their watch; 4½ percent unemployment on our watch, leading the country in economic growth year after year after year. Going forward….
Again, I wanted to just wrap up on a question that was asked yesterday. In the budget tabled by the member for Abbotsford West, they predicted 35 percent fewer housing starts than we tabled on Tuesday. It’s a shame that we weren’t able to give that answer yesterday. For those who were concerned about a decline in housing starts, you should see the budget that you tabled. Holy cow.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the budget.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
Budget Debate
(continued)
R. Coleman: I am pleased to rise and respond to the budget. As I get into this subject, first of all, though, I would like….
One of the members opposite was talking about a friend that just celebrated their 100th birthday. I have a friend named Dorscie Paterson that, on January 25, turned 106. She is one of the most delightful people that I’ve met. She’s a fan. She’s probably more of a fan of my wife, because they sat on the hospice foundation which Dorscie started in Langley — the hospice foundation; it’s got a hospice — in the 1970s and has been involved in ever since.
I cannot talk about a budget or anything that goes on in this House without a little bit of memory lane. First of all, one of my mentors, as you know, passed away — Gerry Furney, who passed away a little while ago. Gerry and I were great friends. He used to give me his angle on what I should be thinking and what I should to be doing.
As I started to prepare for this speech, I was thinking about…. Over the years, when I’ve had to do media on both the opposition side for five years and 16 years in government — the last year and a half in opposition — I have had some relationships in the media. I never gave anybody my phone number in the first five years, except for one guy. I gave out my pager one, to one that nobody will remember. Well, maybe a couple of members might remember a guy named Andrew Lynch.
Andrew had the Lynch Report back in the 1990s. He would sit up in the gallery, and he’d be there late at night, and he would talk to you in the hall. He was the first person I actually gave out my direct line — in those days it was a pager — so he could call me any time, and he did. He wasn’t afraid of calling you early in the morning or early in the evening. Oftentimes he’d just talk. At the end of every session, he was the only reporter left, given the history….
It used to be that the press gallery was filled on the last day of the session, and they would throw their notes and papers over the balcony down onto the floor of the Legislature. Andrew continued to do that until he passed away in the late 1990s, and he was the last of a kind.
Then there was Angelo, who the member for Kamloops–South Thompson just talked about. Angelo and I became friends in the 1990s. Just because we happened to bump into each other when I was in Kamloops, we sort of hit it off. That was the first reporter that I ever gave my personal cell phone to. I can’t say he never abused it, but he certainly was topical.
As the member from Kamloops just a few minutes ago talked about, Booch, as we called him, had a nickname for every single person. Mine was a lot nicer, and so was the member from Kamloops’s, than some of the nicknames he had for everybody in the newsroom, everybody on council and everybody else. Mine was Richie or Richie Rich.
He used to answer the phone all the time when he recognized a number. He’d say: “Mr. Premier.” Well, we found out, of course, because a number of us were there, and I’ve talked to some colleagues from both sides of the House, that he would call pretty much every House Leader, every Leader of the Opposition, every cabinet minister and members of the opposition who weren’t in a position on either side Mr. Premier. At the memorial, one guy stood up and said: “We never figured out who Mr. Premier was. That’s because just about everybody was.”
But the remarkable thing about him was this. He was a person that literally understood the game, understood integrity, understood tough questions, understood that he had to take you on sometimes and, at other times, he had to not take you on. As the member from Kamloops said, it also was that if Angelo said it was off the record, it was off the record. That’s a trust you build in this business to the legends of the media, because people that do that are special.
The reason I talk about that is because this will be about…. Well, it would be after at least 20 years where I used to talk to him after every throne speech and after every budget day. When the budget was being read the other day, I thought: “Jeez, should I bother phoning NL?” After all, Angelo is not there, and that’s who was going to take my call, because we were such friends. He had a lot of humanity, professionalism, class and was fact-based.
When I talk about class, before I get into my actual budget response, I want to tell the House a little story. One of my folks found out that their husband, partner, had been in a serious accident about a week or ten days ago — a little over a week ago, actually.
It was on the canyon. He’s a truck driver, hauls a semi. Left the road, went down into a gulch, rolled a number of times and ended up upside down. If you drive the canyon this time of year, you’ll know there are lots of times when very few cars go by. Fortunately for our friend, a Good Samaritan stopped. They saw some skid marks in the dirt and saw the truck down at the bottom of the gulch.
They made the call that was necessary to get emergency responders and then went down to check. They came back up. The emergency responders arrived, the ambulance. They didn’t want him to hang around. He said: “No, he’s on his own down there.” He went and got blankets from his vehicle and took them down and sat with my friend until help arrived. The Hope Search and Rescue guys had to rappel down with a stretcher to take this individual out. He was taken to Hope and airlifted to Royal Columbian Hospital.
In a week, things can change. A little over a week ago, he was on life support. Yesterday he walked to the washroom. The remarkable people in the health care system that took care of him and the people that were there for him — including, particularly, his partner, Jen — are remarkable. But what it told me, as I saw this, was that there is hope in society for decent, caring people to do the right thing.
As I go into my speech, I want to say this to this Legislature. You need to have respect. You need to have respect for each other. You need to have respect for this House. And from a personal perspective, I want to tell everyone that works here — Sergeant-at-Arms, sessional staff, people working in the Clerk’s offices, all through this building — you have my utmost respect and my utmost trust. You’re going through a difficult time, which will pass. Remember that members like myself, who’ve been here for 23 years, think you do a fantastic job.
Now to the budget. I said to one of the members opposite, I could have three or four speeches because I’ve got different movies I can talk about as I respond to this budget.
The first thing I want to say to the members opposite is this. I was here in 2009 on that side of the House. We presented a balanced budget. In June — and this could happen this year to you, so this is why I give you the warning — corporations, particularly, can go back and take their losses back three years. So instead of having $900 million that we thought we had in transfer payments, additional, we were advised that the number was off by $900 million. All of a sudden, you’re above water and you’re under water. That feeling of not being in control in a government is very difficult.
I don’t know what the solution is. But I can tell you, if things like housing starts go down and corporate profits go down or people have a bad year from last year to this year, be aware that you’re on a razor-thin budget. This is something you may have to deal with come June.
As I’ve looked at this, I want to talk about things that are really affecting my constituency. There’s one that I’ve had more stress over and spent more time helping people to understand, as they find out different things about their homes and their properties. It’s the speculation/inheritance tax. So 1.6 million people received a form to say that they live where they live. Because whoever is on title has to sign, they have to file or they pay a tax.
I have a gentleman in my riding that can’t get an answer from the Ministry of Finance. It’s a very weird story. Not really. He and his wife bought their home in about 1996-1997. She unfortunately passed away in about 1998 to 1999. She put her four children on her half of the house as tenants in common. Now, you can imagine the surprise, 20-plus years later, when you go to file a form and you receive a letter including your now-deceased spouse for over 20 years on title and say you have to submit a form that she can’t sign.
You find out that that’s on title and there are four tenants in common, and they can’t sign either, because they’re not actually owners. They’re tenants in common if the house were ever to sell, relative to the settlement of the final estate. You get told by the government that you need to have the executor of your will, who allowed this to happen, file a form. Well, two of the executors are dead, and the third one can’t be found. And nobody in the government, as we’ve talked to the agencies involved, can come up with a solution for this poor guy, who is actually going to have to pay a tax if we can’t.
Now, it costs about $3 a mailout, if you’re lucky, to send out some information in the mail. So about $4.8 million to $5 million was spent on this thing. You put this in perspective. One of the big things the NDP government wanted was to do electoral reform. They gave $500,000 to the yes and the no side to go out and educate four million British Columbians. Then they turn around, and they spend $5 million to see where 32,000 people are who don’t live full-time in the second home, so they can tax them.
They sent it to 1.6 million people. Some of these people live and work in two communities, because that’s where the job for one or the other is. Some of these people have recreation property for their children and grandchildren that they bought decades ago. You know, the area up around Anmore is actually included in the spec tax. Do you know how many cabins there are up in Anmore? The land is pretty valuable. Some of those folks have had those second homes for their kids and their grandkids for 30, 40 years.
The other thing that’s disturbing…. A lot of people at the beginning said this: “Why do I have to give out my SIN number? I don’t want to give out my SIN number.” Now, I was not as fussed with that as some people were. Every form I ever filled out when I was in the RCMP…. Every time I went to a doctor, I had to put my regimental number and my SIN number on it. You know, it’s just a number.
Then the questions started about…. The on-line form requires that you fill out the email address. So the government is collecting 1.6 million emails. Now, here’s where the freedom of information and privacy will come into it. The question we’ll be sending to the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner is: what is the government allowed to do with my private email, which they require me to fill out, in a box, in the field, before I can not pay the spec tax from here on in?
I have deliberately, in the last 18 months or more since this government came to office, stayed on government on-line news to get emails every day from the government that tell me everything from “we just paved a kilometre of road in Powell River–Sunshine Coast” or “we just replaced a bridge up near Salmon Arm” to “we just talked to this group about coming to some kind of agreement.” This is the fact.
When I started to think about it, I counted the emails for a day. There were 11. One day in the last week or so, I had 20 emails from government, promoting government, right? Now multiply that by 16. So is the government going to take the private emails of my constituency and just use them for a big promotion, to send out information to tell them about all of the good things that government is doing? And if they do that, are they breaking the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act?
My constituents gave those email addresses because they were required, and the understanding would be that that would be so they can write them next year to file their form so they don’t have to send them a letter. But are those also going to go into the government communications department to be used for promotion and stuff to actually push the other aspects of government?
Now, my concern there is this. I’m not a member of the Green Party, but if I was them, I’d think I got snookered on this deal, especially on electoral reform with so much being spent.
Interjection.
R. Coleman: Go ahead.
M. Hunt: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
M. Hunt: In the gallery right now this morning, we have a group of students, with a group of parents coming with them, from Serpentine Heights Elementary School within my riding. I’d ask the House to please make them welcome.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Langley East will continue.
Debate Continued
R. Coleman: As we move from the spec, which is basically an inheritance tax, I also want to talk about a few other aspects that I’m very concerned about relative to the government’s budget. The biggest one is relative to the future of housing, dealing with opioids and having a base in communities to make sure that we can help these people and turn their lives around.
I had the portfolio on housing for a decade. We bought old SROs in downtown Vancouver. We renovated them, put them back in for another 100 years of life, built thousands of units for people in need of support and help — whether they be addictions or whether they be mental illness — with supports in the units, and meals, because I thought that was important. We were the ones that said: “Shelters won’t close every day and have people go out to the street. Leave them open 24-7.” We added meals in and outreach workers, who connected, in the last year before this government came into place, 7,000 people who were homeless in British Columbia to homes.
One of the things I fundamentally believed was that if you really want to take care of something that is so difficult as mental health and addictions and the social aspects of it in communities, you need to have community support. I always said to British Columbia Housing, on any of the projects that we looked at: “Make sure that you’re doing public consultation and that you’re advising people what the plan is, what the zoning is. Make sure that you’re well presented at the public hearings. If there’s a real pressure in the community, go back and work some more to get community buy-in.”
That, to me, was extremely important. As anybody that’s been around politics for any length of time knows, the toughest thing for local government and the toughest thing when it comes to even just doing the simplest of social housing is NIMBYism. In the early 1990s, I did social housing with clients, for seniors and for families. They were just low-income projects — some people on social assistance, some people low income; 30 percent of income went to the rent — yet there would still be 200 or 300 people at a public hearing opposing the project. I learned that I needed to spend a lot more time in neighbourhoods talking to people who had concerns and to try and dumb down their concerns.
This government has made a fundamental mistake on housing, and it really worries me. It worries me because they’re in the process of destroying the opportunity for any community in British Columbia to agree, at a council level or any other level, for future supportive housing. What they’ve done is divided — to put modular housing, as they refer to it, on properties in communities — overstepping the zoning, saying it’s there, and putting a society in to run it. No consultation with the neighbourhood, no public hearings, no council decision to support. The outcome is pretty set.
I want to give you a couple of examples of this, because this is what’s happening. These are now in Kamloops, Maple Ridge and two in Nanaimo. The stories around the one in Maple Ridge and the ones in Nanaimo are pretty much the same. The first thing we should know is that a lot of the camps that were being put in place in the last couple of years were done by activists who went on line and invited people to come to camps and communities — who were actually not homeless.
As a little side story, I was standing in the Seawest Lounge here about a month ago. It’s on the B.C. Ferries, which is basically my travel to Nanaimo. They should give out travel points, by the way. I’m standing behind this young couple who are going to Victoria, and they’re talking to the couple in front of me. They said: “Where are you going?” They said: “Well, we’re going to Victoria for a few days. Then we’re going to Nanaimo to the protest homeless camp. They say it’s fun, and we’re going.”
Before that, when I was in Nanaimo last summer, I went down to the camp. I walked in, talked to people and found out — as I expected, just like it was in Victoria and in other camps — that not everybody that was there was homeless. A lot of people were there as activists to try and embarrass local government and others to do more.
In Nanaimo, they put a project right in an established neighbourhood — no zoning, no consultation, a very weak plan. The society, I think, was in over their heads. They built this place that looks worse than the product you would see with a portable at a school, which is actually more modern — 80 people crammed into small rooms, no amenities on site, an eight-foot wooden fence all the way around, security at a gate — and the community is destroyed.
I went to visit it, look at it. I walked the neighbourhood with some people who were concerned, and then I walked the neighbourhood myself. When you have a woman in her late 70s come out of her apartment — because she recognizes you walking her street — crying and telling you that her life has been destroyed by the noise, the drugs, the intrusions and trespass on their property with lewd acts, drug shooting up and all of that, in a nice neighbourhood that never had that before, you’ve got to listen.
If you’ll talk to other people in the same neighbourhood, you’ll find that housing prices have dropped. They can’t sell because people have figured out that it’s no place to go. They told me some other stories, that this had become the drug-dealing place for people to buy opioids in Nanaimo.
I thought: “Well, you know what? I’ll go back, deal with the folks there. I’ll go talk to some people in some of the rest of the community, single-family homes.” It was the same story; it was the same. Then I thought: “You know what? I’m going to observe this place for an hour.” In the first 35 minutes, I saw something that just turned my stomach.
I saw people the age of me or older, and people that would be middle-aged, pull up in very good vehicles, new trucks, SUVs. In each case, they dropped somebody on the street — I could see both corners of the property where you could do this — only to watch them jump the fence, even though in some places it was eight feet high, over the fence. I watched the cars circle the block until that person came back over the fence and jumped into the vehicle, and away they went.
The two projects in Nanaimo — and this is sad — have 3,000 calls in three months, a 60 percent increase in crime and 30 calls per day — not to mention the disruption of what was a quiet, livable neighbourhood. It’s a site where I’m having seniors telling me they are taking anti-depression, anti-anxiety medications so that they can still live there — they can’t think about where they can go — and landlords who are saying: “I might as well eventually tear my building down, because I don’t want to even operate in this neighbourhood anymore.”
The reason I say that, I tell this House that, is because this is going to go out across B.C. Instead of having communities like we had in Langley that opposed the Quality Inn to begin with for people with mental health and addictions — having transition housing for them, when B.C. Housing purchased the property…. They’d fought it and fought it. When it finally went to public hearing — because of the community consultation, because we sat down with people and talked to them and explained the clientele, because we let them know — they actually came out and supported the project when almost 100 percent of people had opposed it.
When you drop it in, using your own domain under law, without involving the community…. Then you put what is there today in that community, quite frankly — it’s really an eight-foot solid wood fence, security at the gate: people buying and selling drugs, people behaving late at night, screaming and yelling, people walking down the street at night when somebody is out for a walk with their dog. They now walk, by the way, not by themselves. When they walk their dogs, they walk in groups, having to tell people yelling at them on the other side of the street: “Well, it’s our neighbourhood, too.” With the abuse this neighbourhood is taking because of this project, I think they made a mistake.
The mistake is very simple. You didn’t spend the time necessary. You were in such a hurry to jump over local government, and now you have no community buy-in. So what’s happening on Vancouver Island because of what’s happening in Nanaimo? A very good project was planned for Parksville, had gone through the process. B.C. Housing was ready to buy. People ran for council on the basis of what was going on in Nanaimo. The entire slate got elected, opposed to supportive housing in their community. They’d point to that, and they said: “Look at what’s happening there. We don’t want it here.” That’s the challenge.
When government does a project, you need to spend the time, you need to educate people, and you need them to meet the society that’s going to operate it. And as we learned way back in 2010, you need to integrate a community when you build the housing. If everybody is addicted and there’s mental illness among them, and there are no other people that have other interests or whatever, there’s no learning opportunity for the therapy of the community.
This leads me to my biggest — the next concern. And that’s the drugs, which are, basically, probably opioids. We have people dying in B.C. from opioids, and we need to address the issue. I remember when I was in government, my former colleague Terry Lake, the Health Minister, would tell me: “This keeps me awake at night.” He tried everything. He tried everything to think about it.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the present government is doing the same thing. But in order to attack it, you need an integrated system, a system where people are in residence, where there’s actually treatment and counselling to help them get off the drugs.
You don’t have to do everything by harm reduction. You need to have other opportunities. That means, in some places, therapeutic communities. In some therapeutic communities, they can be abstinence-based. There are 90 men in a facility in my community that have been turned over, over the years — Wagner Hills Farm, a therapeutic community. Hundreds and hundreds of people have gone through there and had success fighting their addictions and winning.
The reason is because they’re there long enough to get past the initial phase, which a 28-day program does not give you, to go and find out about themselves and their humanity and who they are so they can actually deal with the issues that maybe pushed them to drugs in the first place.
There’s a therapeutic community I always call Baldy Hughes, which is an old army base outside of Prince George. Its recidivism rates are phenomenal, but the recidivism rates on a 28-day program in B.C. are about seven days. So we just cycle people through. Let’s shift it and start looking for more therapeutic communities. Let’s shift it so we can actually have people stay long enough to deal with their issues.
I think the budget needs to deal with this by providing the dollars necessary for mental health and addictions at a level where you’re integrating into housing so you can actually help people turn themselves around while you’re providing the housing and supports. I’m a big believer in that. That’s why I supported Baldy Hughes and Wagner Hills Farm and the Hope Centre, which is also in my riding. It’s a therapeutic community for women. In some cases, these are faith-based communities; some are not. It doesn’t matter, because the heart’s in the operation, caring for the people that are there.
As you do that, you can start to address the mental illness. I want to give you an example of this, because it’s always better to understand the humanity of this type of issue versus just saying they’re all bad because they’re on drugs. The reality was…. A First Nations young man in the community of Baldy Hughes sat down with me. He was 21 years old. He’d been clean for 18 months, and he said: “When I got here, I didn’t know I could love myself.” He’s been clean for five years, and he’s turned his life around.
So when you talk about a budget…. There are so many other things I can talk about. That’s why I said to the member opposite that I could give four or five half-hour speeches. But I think this budget needs to recognize that you’re on a thin edge. If you really care about humanity, start integrating in mental health and addictions, and please, please don’t continue with this imminent domain, dropping housing in the middle of communities without community consultation, because what you’re doing is you’re destroying the very thing you’re trying to do. That’s give people adequate housing, change their lives and give them an opportunity for the future.
The other thing you’re not doing by stopping this…. You’re not destroying the opportunity for future housing, because every community will go to public hearing and point to Nanaimo and Maple Ridge and these other ones you’ve already done and say: “Not here.”
It won’t be: “Not in my backyard.” It’ll be: “Look at the crime stats. Look at what’s going on there. It’s not working. Until they come up with a model that works, don’t welcome it here.” I would hate to see that happen in housing in British Columbia.
So the budget has to understand that supports and dollars are important to make sure it’s integrated and to do it right. Remember, like I said at the beginning of my speech, you really do have a thin edge on this budget.
R. Kahlon: Thank you to the member previously for his remarks.
It’s my privilege to stand today and speak on behalf of this budget. I will be voting in favour of this budget. It was an exciting read. I haven’t gone through the entirety of it. I only have half an hour, so I’ll highlight some of the pieces that I’m particularly excited about.
Of course, the main focus of this budget is to make life better for people. We hear from people in our constituencies all the time that they’re struggling. They’re struggling with affordability issues. When you talk to them, they want to see better services in their communities. People, quite frankly, want good-paying jobs.
This is what this budget does — all three of them. It improves the public services that we depend on. It addresses affordability measures. It talks about good-paying jobs. Those are some of the focuses of this government. When you talk about affordability, I think that the single biggest thing that you have to talk about, which I’m really proud of, is the largest tax cut for middle-class families in B.C.’s history — eliminating the MSP.
We saw, for years, a steady incline of MSP premiums, and now people are seeing hope. They’re seeing the MSP premium got lowered by 50 percent. Now what we’re seeing…. By this end of the year, we’re going to see a complete elimination of the MSP. I am so delighted about this.
I’ve shared before that previously, before the election, I was knocking on doors, and this would come up all the time. But it was, in particular, this couple. They were talking about…. They actually invited me in, asked me in for a glass of water. You know, when you’re knocking on doors all day long, that’s always a welcome gesture from anyone, to come in for a glass of water. Sometimes you wonder whether you should, but they looked like a very nice couple, and I went in for a glass of water.
They shared with me many concerns, but their top issue was MSP premiums — No. 1 issue for them. Her husband had been retired for just a year. He had been covered by MSP by his employer. She had been covered by their employer. Because of retirement, now they no longer were covered. They had a fixed income. The fixed income did not, obviously, incorporate the cost of the MSP premium, and they were talking about how difficult it is living on a fixed income and having this MSP premium there.
I remember giving them the commitment that we would take a look at it. I wasn’t able to say to them: “Hey, it’s going to be gone.” I’m proud, if they’re watching, to share now that we’ve taken the step in two years. But at the time, I heard their concern. I told them that was something we were going to look at and something we were concerned with. I’m proud to share with them now. I’m also proud to be able to go back to them and share that story.
I think that the MLA from Surrey-Cloverdale would like to make an introduction, if that’s okay.
M. Hunt: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
M. Hunt: Once again, we have the second of two groups from Serpentine Heights Elementary School in my riding here. I am asking the House to please make them welcome as they spend their day here in Victoria.
Debate Continued
R. Kahlon: Thank you to the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale for making the introduction. It’s nice to see some beaming, young faces up in the audience today.
Just for the young folks that have just arrived here, we are having a debate about the budget that just got released a few days ago. So I’m highlighting some of the things that I really like about the budget. Actually, it’s timely, because I’d like to talk about the B.C. child opportunity benefit.
We hear from parents all the time about how hard it is to raise kids. I’ve got an eight-year-old at home. I know that when my son was leaving daycare and going to school, we had a little bit of a party. We invited some close family and friends. The first question they said was: “We don’t know whose birthday it was, so we didn’t bring a present.” I said: “It’s no one’s birthday. Now that he’s no longer going to child care, we don’t have to pay for child care anymore, and we’re celebrating.” So everybody had a good chuckle, and we had a cake and all that.
It’s a reflection of what young families are struggling with, with young kids. How do we find ways to support young families and give kids the opportunities that all kids should have, whether it’s all the opportunities around education, whether it’s opportunities to participate in art and culture and sport? There are many families that can’t afford to do those things.
This B.C. child opportunity benefit is a huge step in that direction. I have had people messaging me on this topic for the last 24 hours, wanting to know details of how they can get access to it. What this benefit means is that every family that has one child up to the age of 18 will get $1,600 per year. If you have two children, it’s $2,600 a year. If you have three, it’s up to $3,400.
That is a significant amount of dollars to go towards savings for parents, educational opportunities, sports and many things. The list always grows of all the things that young children have access to, and this singular issue will be massive for the pocketbooks for young people.
I’m really, really, really grateful to the Minister of Finance for introducing this. And, of course, this is a benefit that is income-tested. I think the number, off the top of my head, is $114,000 net income for parents. So anyone that earns net income below that, I believe, is covered by that. I think it’s quite fantastic, and I’m really proud of that piece. It’s a signature piece that the minister introduced.
I just briefly mentioned child care. I spoke about our experience with child care. If they’re watching, they were phenomenal.
You were phenomenal, so thank you for all of the work you did with my young son. He loved his child care. Still when we drive by many years later, he’ll always mention how much he misses his child care providers and all the activities they did and all the important skills that he learned.
It’s not just about taking care of your child. It’s also about giving your child the important social aspects of them learning to mingle with other children. It’s the skill sets that they learn about good behaviour. It’s the educational opportunities they get. It’s encompassing. It’s not just about dropping your kid off and leaving them. It’s an education process, and it’s fundamental for children as they grow.
Again, part of this platform of our government was to introduce a minister dedicated to child care. And we are going to move to a more affordable childcare model. It’s $1.3 billion for affordable, accessible child care. That means fee reductions for parents with children, licensed care up to $350 a month — so that’s a saving of $350 per month for people who go to licensed care centres — $4,200 per year, an additional 52,000 child care spaces.
We hear from parents too often that they want child care but they can’t find it. They can’t find it before school. They can’t find after school. If they’re anything like my household, the conversation every Sunday is: “Okay, pull out your calendar.” And we have to figure out: “Can somebody pick up my son this time? Who’s going to drop off? What about your nephew who’s coming? Who’s going to take him?”
Literally, we have a conference call in our family with everyone trying to get their calendars out to figure out, quite frankly, who Grandpa and Grandma are picking up, when they’re dropping off and when they can and, also, how we can swap and take care of the kids, because there are just not enough opportunities available for our kids.
To see this many child care spaces being created — partnerships with cities, partnerships with school boards — is a huge step, not to mention some of the initiatives that we’re looking at through sport, in partnerships about after-school programming, whether it’s arts, sports or just culture.
I mean, for my generation, this is the critical question and what you hear from parents. And often, unfortunately, it always happens to be the woman in the relationship, if there’s a woman in the relationship, that has to make a decision about not going to work.
Creating these opportunities and making it affordable allows men, but mostly women, to get back into the workforce. It’s the most challenging question many young families face. When your child is one year out of child care, you say to yourself: “Hey, should we just continue to just take care of our child, or should I go back into the workforce?” Often it’s a very difficult decision that comes with a great deal of regret from parents either way. It certainly was for us.
Knowing that it’s affordable and the quality is high allows it to be an easier decision for parents to make, to enter back to the workforce, to provide extra dollars for their families. I have to say the Minister for Child Care is doing a phenomenal job — visited my community several times to meet with providers, talk about their struggles, talk about how we can increase capacity.
We didn’t even have data. Most communities didn’t even have data on how many child care spaces were available until we funded a program through UBCM. We’ve given UBCM dollars to sit down with communities and have everybody at the table to talk about what the needs are and what the actual demand is and what the supply is. Imagine that. Imagine communities not even knowing what child care spaces are at a school board, what child care spaces are available through private institutions and so on.
UBCM is funding this table. My community of Delta, I’m proud to say, has accepted that challenge. The mayor is doing a good job. The mayor has joined the group. The school board chair and school board have joined. All the providers, the child care options, are at the table.
Now for the first time, they’re drawing a complete picture of child care needs. No more parents calling up everybody that they can to say: “Hey, where do I get child care from?” Now they have a place to go, a table to go to, and help create this opportunity. I’m grateful that this is a major signature piece of our budget.
A third piece is something that hasn’t been getting much coverage. I know that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head mentioned it briefly. But it’s something that I’m incredibly proud of. I know that the Minister of Children and Families and the Minister for Child Care have been working strongly and forcefully on this issue. It’s about supporting caregivers.
The Minister of Advanced Education introduced tuition waivers so any child growing up in the system, in the care of us as a province…. We know the stats, and I won’t go through the stats. We’ve got young people here in the audience. But the stats are not great. So when the Minister of Advanced Education introduced free tuition for any child that’s aging out of care, that was a huge step. The pickup has been huge in that program.
Another step, an important step of this that has been called for, for many years, is that if you have a child and if a family is struggling and that child has been sent to a foster care home, foster care parents are being paid more — not a lot more, but more — than a parent or a loved one who wants to take care of that child. There’s an imbalance.
If I have an aunt and uncle and I’m financially struggling and I’ve got some challenges and my child needs to leave the home, if my aunt or uncle would want to take my child, they would get significantly less support dollars from us than if they went to the foster care system. So it’s an imbalanced system that was created to encourage kids to be taken away from their families and loved ones and go into the foster care system.
This is not getting much coverage from people, and I don’t know how many people have talked about this. I heard the MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head talk about this, and I’m glad he did. I know many others will, especially my colleague here from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who has been advocating for this issue for way, way too long. For him and I and for all of my colleagues, this is a very important gesture.
What this does is it brings up parity. So now if auntie and uncle are taking care of this child, there’s a parity in the pay, and it’s being increased.
We know foster care parents…. The numbers are not there for the kids we need. This gives them a lift, and they haven’t had a lift in a very, very long time, so it’s an important step.
Again, another big piece is for students. Now, I’ve got a lot of students. They hang around my office. I go regularly to speak to kids in all five of the high schools in my riding. The number one issue that comes up, and it’s timely for them, is: “How am I going to pay for advanced education?”
You know, I hear from parents…. Kids say: “Well, my parents won’t be able to financially support me, but I want to go get a trade and training. I want to get advanced education.” Believe it or not, we lend money to students to go to school, and then we charge them high amounts of interest so that we can make a profit from the money we lent to them.
Now we are eliminating the interest. We are eliminating the interest for student loans on the B.C. portion of it. And you know what? That’s a significant step.
Interjections.
R. Kahlon: Members might find it funny, or maybe I missed the number. That’s fine. But when I talk to young people, this is huge. This is huge. It’s not the end-all. There are still challenges to access education. There’s no doubt more needs to be done, but this is a significant step. When you’ve got those student debts and they’re piling up, this is important. This is important for people.
We will continue to make advancements on this, but this is a very important step and very welcomed by many of the young folks. I look forward to going back into my community and speaking to these high schools and to be able to share with them that we’ve taken this important step. And it’s not the last step.
Housing, housing, housing. Housing is one of the number one issues that comes up in my community. You know, we often talk about housing as in: “Well, how am I going to buy a home?” That’s not what I hear in my community. What I hear is: “How am I going to pay rent?”
There are two parts of this conversation. There’s the part about: “How am I going to afford a home?” But mostly what I hear from people is: “I can’t even afford rent.” So what we’re trying to do with this is to address the continuum of housing stock.
I’ve had an opportunity to meet with many of the people working at B.C. Housing. There are some amazing, innovative approaches being brought forward — the housing hub, for example. The housing hub itself is working with the private sector to bring on housing stock of affordable housing so that many of my peers who now say that they’ll never be able to afford a home….
Maybe someone will say, “Hey, maybe you can go to a small town,” but their employment is here. Now they’ll be getting hope with this budget, because there will be affordable units coming on line, and there will be support for people buying homes for the first time. That is something. One of the pieces we’ve talked about — and we’ve seen — is all these camps being set up where people have no choice. They’re going to these parks. They’re sleeping in these parks, and tents have been set up. We’ve been grappling with this. The member previously spoke about it and shared his words of caution — and, I think, fair words of caution.
One of the things we’ve been doing is building modular homes. We’ve been building modular homes in these communities. As the Minister of Social Development will tell you after going through rounds and rounds to create a poverty reduction plan…. I could do a half-hour just on the poverty reduction plan and the need to address poverty in our society.
You cannot help people get stable — to build a home, to get a job, to get the health care they need — until they’re stable at home. This is what the modular home project is about. It’s about creating temporary residence for these people so that they can find some stability in their lives and so that we can provide them with the supports that they need.
We are seeing huge successes from it. I’m sure the Minister of Social Development will share some of those successes, because he hears from advocates all the time. I read just recently about Maple Ridge, this gentleman talking about his personal experience and how important a modular home was to him. That’s just one example. We’re hearing examples everywhere.
It’s important to work with communities. We have a crisis, it needs action, and we are taking that action. Communities that maybe, perhaps in the past, have not wanted to put their hands up are now seeing the true benefit of this and now are putting their hands up and saying: “We want to be part of the solution.” The modular-home piece is significant.
Part of this budget is money towards building 114,000 affordable homes over the next ten years. We hear lots of discussions about: “Well, the housing starts are slowing down.” Housing starts are higher than the ten-year average. As we learned today from the Premier, housing starts now are actually projected higher than when the previous government had put their budget forward. I’m sure it’s not going to distract them from using their messaging on it, but it is critical that we build housing — not only that, that we build affordable housing.
Noting the hour, I’d like to reserve my place and move adjournment of the debate.
R. Kahlon moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. A. Dix: Looking forward to seeing everyone in the afternoon, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Deputy Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
Copyright © 2019: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada