Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

CARBON TAX

J. Johal: It is an honour today to talk about British Columbia’s carbon tax.

[10:05 a.m.]

First introduced in 2008, the tax was to encourage individuals and businesses to make more environmentally responsible choices in reducing their use of fossil fuels. The concept is simple. A carbon tax is the simplest method to price carbon. By making fossil fuels more expensive, we can better reflect its societal cost. It’s a concept supported by many economists and energy experts, who believe it encourages conservation, efficiency and cleaner alternatives.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The introduction of the carbon tax is also an acknowledgment that the cost of climate change is mounting. One only has to look back to the past two summers and see the devastating impact of wildfires on our province. The impact was significant on people and, of course, the provincial treasury as well.

Globally, also, there is a growing consensus that climate change is a clear and present danger to humanity. The numbers are quite daunting. In the northern hemisphere, the last 30 years have been the warmest since Anglo-Saxon times. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are at levels not seen in 800,000 years, and the rate of sea level rise is quicker now than at any time over the last two millennia.

There is a cost, of course. Since the 1980s, the number of registered weather-related loss events has tripled in the insurance industry. Inflation-adjusted insurance losses from these events have increased from an annual average of around $10 billion in the 1980s to around $50 billion over the past decade.

Human activity and consumption are most likely the main drivers of global climate change, and human-induced warming trends of 2/10 of a degree per decade have continued since the 1970s. One only has to look at Asia today. The combined economic output of Asia will surpass that of Europe and North America combined by the mid-2020s. Asia today represents 60 percent of humanity. The demand for energy is going to continue to grow, from cars to refrigerators. We will, of course, have to produce more energy, and it will have to be cleaner.

When the B.C. Liberal government introduced the carbon tax in 2008, it was based on four founding principles. The tax would be broad-based. The carbon tax would apply to virtually all fossil fuels. The tax would be phased in, as well, giving individuals, businesses and industry time to adapt, innovate and reduce the impact of the tax. There would be protection for lower-income households, which received an annual climate action credit of $115 per adult and $35 per child. Most importantly, the carbon tax would be revenue neutral. All revenue generated by the carbon tax would be returned to individuals and businesses through reductions to other taxes. None of the carbon tax would be used for expenditure programs.

The philosophy continued from one government to the next. For example, measures taken to make the carbon tax revenue neutral in 2017 included major tax cuts for individuals, including a 5 percent income tax cut on the first $70,000 British Columbians make and a $200 rebate for northern and rural homeowners. For businesses, it’s meant a cut to the corporate tax rate, a cut to the small business tax rate and increasing the amount you can earn as a small business. This system was created so carbon tax revenue was returned to businesses and individuals to reduce their tax burden. This meant that carbon was being taxed, not economic growth.

There’s no doubt British Columbia has a role to play when it comes to fighting climate change, but it has to be done in the context of other jurisdictions and the impact it will have on B.C. families. Families in Washington, Oregon and Idaho states aren’t paying a carbon tax, and after April 16, the people of Alberta may not either. Those are our immediate neighbours.

When businesses decide where to set up shop, paying the carbon tax becomes one more factor on where they will open their business. That’s why maintaining revenue neutrality is key to families and businesses. Removing revenue neutrality from the carbon tax is a move that will absolutely harm B.C. businesses and consumers.

Under this government, the carbon tax increases by $5 per tonne each year to bring the carbon tax to $50 per tonne by 2021. Now, instead of remaining a tax designed to encourage reduced reliance on fossil fuels, it’s become a $6 billion tax grab. This includes a projected net carbon tax revenue increase of $2.35 billion due to government changes. Now, when government takes revenue neutrality away from carbon tax, it becomes just another tax.

It’s a sentiment echoed by former Premier Gordon Campbell, the original architect of B.C.’s world-leading carbon tax. He said: “Canada should be leading the world with regards to climate. I am in favour of a revenue-neutral carbon tax, not just a simple carbon tax. In British Columbia, we adopted a multifaceted, revenue-neutral carbon tax, which was a reasonable approach. If governments were interested in the climate and not in a new revenue source dressed up in a new name, they would make the carbon tax revenue neutral. That is an environmental initiative.”

[10:10 a.m.]

B.C.’s revenue-neutral carbon tax, when first introduced, was never a tax grab. The change is now being passed on to consumers and businesses, adding yet another cost to doing business in B.C.

S. Malcolmson: Absolutely no argument with my colleague across the way about the impact and the calamity of climate change. Long overlooked, it’s always been the long emergency. We know it’s coming, yet on a day-to-day level…. I’ve been a member myself of municipal councils that say this is the work we want to do. Yet when the person that is a speaker at the next public hearing is concerned about affordable housing or another immediate “right in front of your face” calamity, somehow our commitments to climate change continue to roll in the background.

In British Columbia, more than anywhere, whether it is drought in the Gulf Islands or calamitous wildfires destroying extensive property, we know we cannot — we cannot — fail to act, and we must act faster. I’m proud that British Columbia’s been at the forefront, and the carbon tax brought in early by the former government is a point of pride. There’s no question. As New Democrats, we’re building on this.

I’m also very strongly reminded of the advice that simply pricing pollution is not the only way to combat climate change. We can be proud in British Columbia, again, of having also used flex regs, flexible regulations, that say this is the imperative: to reduce emissions in addition to putting a price on them. This was extremely successful as a way to combat acid rain in eastern Canada, where both pricing and tight ratcheting down of emissions on a year-by-year basis is what saved the environment there.

We must keep an eye, as it’s not only pricing pollution, but it’s also demanding that pollution be reduced. Just last year the B.C. government copied the Quebec government in just that sort of flex reg approach to climate change by implementing a zero-emission vehicle standard, which is a flex reg, to eliminate the purchase of gasoline vehicles by 2040. But it doesn’t tell the manufacturers exactly how they have to do that. It just tells them the goal they need to get to. We need to do more of that work.

I’m proud that this government right now is using the carbon tax revenue to actually go into green initiatives, where there is the taxation, and then the investment is the place that we feel is the most positive way to get true climate action from the carbon tax. Instead of using it for tax breaks for the top 2 percent, as the previous government did, we’re using all of it and more: $1 billion in housing retrofits and $2 billion in public transit that gets people out of their cars.

We’re spending it on many elements of the CleanBC program — cleaner transportation, improving where we live and work. That’s building retrofits, cleaner industry, reducing emissions from waste and giving British Columbians the skills they need in order to benefit from the opportunities in this very exciting industry that’s coming down our track. These initiatives more than cover the kind of revenue that’s coming in on the incremental increases to the carbon tax.

Now, we’ve got lots of examples right at home in Nanaimo of affordable housing, electric vehicles, geothermal power at Vancouver Island University. This work is already being done, and it offers great opportunity and jobs.

My question, though, to the opposition: given that the previous government agreed to the $50 carbon pricing in the pan-Canadian framework, I wonder if the other members opposite confirm that they mean to get rid of the carbon tax increase that was alluded to by your leader in the speech to your convention last year. We are very concerned that there not be any pulling back.

Given that both our parties agree to the 2050 reduction targets, how would you achieve it? And if you object to spending the carbon tax on building retrofits and transit, then what would you spend it on instead?

J. Johal: I thank the member for her comments. I’m glad we can agree on the fact that climate change is real, and we have to do something about it.

[10:15 a.m.]

My comments earlier focused on the fact that we must remain competitive, because ultimately this is about taxpayers and B.C. families. You don’t see a carbon tax in Washington state, yet we have to compete with them.

You also have to look within the global context of how far we are compared to other jurisdictions. We have hydroelectric power, thanks to decisions made by great leaders like W.A.C. Bennett. We play a significant role in regards to dealing with climate change.

Once again, look at the context of GHG emissions globally. Canada has about 1.6 percent of global GHGs. If you took B.C. Place today, 55,000 seats…. If that represented all the GHG in the world, 13,000 of those seats would be China, and 11,000 of those seats would be India. That’s 40 percent of humanity right there. British Columbia, out of 55,000 seats, would represent 76 seats. One coal-fired burning plant in China is 20 seats.

We’re playing a role, but it has to be done in the global context. We are so far ahead of other jurisdictions. We support the carbon tax, but we also supported revenue neutrality when we introduced it in 2008. Unfortunately, in 2017, the current government removed the carbon-tax’s revenue neutrality. It also removed the requirement that the Ministry of Finance prepare an annual carbon tax report and plan. This government has also significantly raised the carbon tax in each successive year since taking office and will be raising it again on April 1.

In addition, we know that of the $6 billion in revenue that the government will be raising in carbon tax revenue, only about 15 percent will be going back to the GHG reduction strategies in its CleanBC plan. That’s a pretty small fraction. It makes me wonder why this government isn’t using the vast majority of this money to pursue more innovation, more clean technologies and to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will just go under general revenue. Essentially you could call it a tax grab.

In addition, while it’s clearly a good way to increase taxes, it’s not the way to make life more affordable for British Columbians, which has been a central theme for this government.

RESPECT FOR RENTERS

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it gives me great pleasure to speak about respecting renters. For too long, I sat on the other side of the House and called for respect, and renters didn’t get it. Finally we are seeing change to respect renters in this province, and I couldn’t be happier. It’s about time, because renters need help.

You know, 1.5 million people in British Columbia rent. It’s not just a phase or a wacky time of life, as I know my colleague the Leader of the Official Opposition argued. In fact, for some, it is their entire life. It is a reality, because right now, given how things have gone over the last 18 years, one in five British Columbians spends 50 percent of their income just on rent. That means that they’re not putting it away in savings. They’re not able to build up a stake for the future.

In many cases, sadly, some are having to make decisions about: do they take money from their food budget, or do they put it towards rent? That’s the choice that renters faced under a long term, while I sat on the other side, in opposition. That’s changing. We’re seeing a real change now.

Now, renters need help in a number of ways. We need more rental supply, and I expect that’s what my colleague opposite will argue for. Absolutely, we need more supply of rental to increase the vacancy rate, to give people more choices. We’re seeing that.

In fact, last year we had more new rental housing under construction in B.C., in my understanding, than ever before. We also, last year, had more rental starts than ever before. If you compare figures, we’ve had approximately three times the rental starts and rental places under construction in our short 18 months in government than the Liberals had in their 16 years.

There’s a lot to be said about the work we’re doing to increase the number of rentals: rental zoning; working with municipalities to reduce the time it takes to get rental housing under construction; the housing hub; working with faith groups, non-profits, private contractors, etc., to get new rental housing built; and on and on it goes.

We’re seeing a real change — 5,000 new units of rental housing at universities, something I know my friends on the other side opposed year in, year out. We’re seeing a real change. That’s something that I’m really excited about.

But supply is one thing. We also need to make sure that we’re seeing a real change when it comes to how renters are treated. That’s why I’m so glad that we voted to get rid of what was called the fixed-term-rent con. That’s what I called it, anyway. It was a game where people would say: “I’ll let you live here for a year, and at the end, you’re going to lose your house, or I’m going to double your rent. How does that sound?”

[10:20 a.m.]

“Oh, you don’t like that? Well, maybe I’ll increase your rent by 30 percent. How does that go for you? If you look elsewhere out there, there ain’t too many other places you can go to, so you’d better accept it.” That was how the rules sat when my friends on the other side sat here and I sat in opposition.

We got rid of the geographic area increase clause. It was a game where a landlord would say to their tenant: “Well, you know, I see a nice suite somewhere down the road going for 50 percent more than what you pay. Yeah, it has a pool. Yeah, it has an ocean view. Yeah, it’s brand-new. But hey, I’m going to tell you that they’re charging this much, and you’re charging this much. I think you’d better be paying that much. Let’s say $2,500. How does that go for you, for a one bedroom or a bachelor? That’s what they’re paying down there.”

“Oh, what? You’re a senior? You’ve been living in your home for ten years? Oh, you’re not paying that much? Well, too bad. Under the rules that my friends in the Liberal Party set, I can apply to increase your rent that much. You don’t want to pay that much? Well, I can find a way to increase it just half that much if you sign today. Sign today, or the deal goes.”

Unfortunately, too many people were scared into signing those deals. They either lost their home — they lost their ability to pay the rent; then they lost their home — or they lost their ability to buy food. That’s what I faced, working in my community with people in this struggle. We came here again and again pleading for action. We didn’t get it.

Well, we’ve got it now. We got rid of the fixed-term rent con. We got rid of the geographic area increase clause, which was used to bully people. We’ve increased penalties, so if people cheat the system, they’re going to pay a bigger fine. We brought in a compliance team, because under the former rules, if you got caught taking money from your renter, or if as a renter you got caught stealing from your landlord, you were just told, basically: “Give the money back.” You know, we’d have a lot more bank robberies in this province if the rules were just: “Give the money back if you get caught.” Well, that’s how it stood for renters.

There was something called administrative penalties brought in. It was talked about all the time: “We’ll fine these guys.” You know what they did? They fined a guy once, and then they said: “Give the money back, and we’ll make the fine go away.” That’s how rules worked. That’s how enforcement worked. That’s how disrespected renters were under the former government.

You know the other thing? It’s not just renters who were disrespected; it was landlords as well. That’s why we acted, as soon as we got into government, to invest in the residential tenancy branch. Why did we do that? It was because we needed to reduce wait times so that people could get access to information faster and so that they could get help faster. That’s on all sides. That’s landlords, and that’s renters as well, because landlords also needed help, and they told us so.

Instead of a 20-minute delay to get a response to a phone call, you’ve got five minutes now. Instead of over 6½ weeks to deal with an emergency, we’re down to four weeks now. Instead of 25 weeks, if you’re trying to get your money back and you were stuck waiting under the former government, we brought that down to 12 weeks. Should it be faster? Sure, but you know what? Cutting it by over half the amount of time under the former government — that’s pretty impressive. I’m pretty proud of that.

We’ve increased the shelter assistance for elderly renters program so that they can get support. We’ve increased the rental assistance program for families and others struggling in low income. We also brought in something called the renters task force — and I appreciate the Premier and the Minister of Housing appointing me to be the chair of that task force — so that we could get further action for renters.

We eliminated the extra 2 percent the Liberals put on rent increases every year. They said: “It should be 4.5 percent rent increase for you this year.” We said 2.5. I know that my friend the Housing critic opposite will probably argue for no rent controls at all and say that they can charge you rent, 70 percent increase in a year, as I think he told the radio a couple of months back, but we oppose that.

We don’t think rents should go through the roof. I know that the Leader of the Opposition argued for rents to go through the roof and opposes what we’ve done. But we don’t think it’s just a wacky time; we don’t think it’s just a phase. We think renters need respect and they need action, and we’re delivering that.

I’ve got more to share, and I’m sure my colleague opposite will have some interesting things to say. I look forward to responding.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the Monday morning statements are supposed to be non-partisan, so let’s keep it that way.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: No, no, for everybody.

S. Sullivan: I am almost speechless after hearing my friend from the West End just give me his theories on the economics of rental housing. A few months ago he sent the market for rental housing into chaos by announcing that he would be imposing rent controls.

[10:25 a.m.]

Rent controls? This is like 30 or 40 years after economists from the left and the right have both agreed that it’s one of the most certain ways to destroy rental housing. Are we in the ’90s? Where does this come from? My god, as a renter myself, I am really worried about where this is going.

I love the characterization of my friend, the hon. member from the West End, to say how rent works. The rents go up because the landlords say: “Hey, I think I’m going to charge this much money.” Is that how you think it works? It is a product of supply and demand. And when you interfere by artificially bringing in rent controls, it has been demonstrated clearly, and economists on the left and the right agree, that this is a very bad idea.

I’ll tell you who does believe it’s a good idea: politicians. It is true. Politics is great. Politics likes rent controls, because what it does is it saves and does support the people who are in. If you’re in, you want rent controls for sure, for a while. What will happen then is the landlords will then disinvest in the rental property because no sane business person will accept subsidizing their business. You just can’t do that. If you start losing money on your business, you take action. You stop investing, especially if you’re told by the government that your revenue is going to be fixed by the government. That’s not how the market works.

Now, there is another way. If you want to create housing and charge whatever rent you want, it’s government housing. You do that. That is clearly…. There’s not enough money in the government to actually to build housing for everybody and create rental housing. So we rely on the market.

Ontario just got rid of rent control on new housing. Why would that be? Because they want to stimulate the creation of housing.

We see that people who are building rental housing are actually getting out of it now. They are shocked to see this travel back to the past of some bizarre idea where you can actually tell people that you’re going to just cap the rent increases without having serious repercussions on the whole industry.

Now, Seattle. What’s happening right now is that if you want to rent out your place, you have to offer really good incentives — free rent for the first few months. Some are offering flat screen TVs so renters will come and actually rent their place. That’s how you get control of the price of rental.

I, myself, am a renter, and I know where this is going. This is not a good situation for people who want to rent in the downtown. It will be good for the short term for people who are in, but they will start to experience disinvestment, and we will start to see the manufacturers, the creators of rental housing, get out. They’re going to take their money where it can actually get a return.

It’s unbelievable that this is the fate of renters in our city and our province. I’d love to see an economist…. Is there an economist who would actually condone what you’re doing?

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I appreciate my friend on the opposite side. The B.C. Liberal Housing critic has confirmed his party’s position. They want unlimited rent increases. Fair enough, that’s a point that you can take.

[10:30 a.m.]

He has said he opposes rent controls. The rent control is something that we’ve had in place in B.C. for a long time. Under the Liberals, it was 2 percent plus inflation. That was rent control. We got rid of the inflation. The argument for getting rid of the inflation was that there are quite a few folks who…. One, their wages don’t go up that much every year. Two, if you’re on a fixed income…. I heard this from seniors all across the province, and they’re going to be very interested to hear the Liberals’ opposition to this. Their pensions didn’t go up 2 percent plus inflation. They’re stuck at inflation.

In fact, this last week I was home in the constituency, in the West End. I had senior after senior come up to me and say: “You know what? Thank you, because I can actually plan ahead. I can actually make sure that I have food. And not every year….” The way they did their budgeting…. They would show me. They’d say, “I figure I can continue to be a renter for another two years. After that, I’m not going to be able to eat, so I’m going to have to move into subsidized housing,” meaning everyone else has to subsidize their rent. They’ve said to me: “Now I can live independently. I don’t have to fear for losing my home, because you acted to make rents more affordable.”

The other thing they said to me and I heard is: “We’re starting to see vacancies increase. We’re starting to see options increase.” I asked: “Why do you think that is?” They said: “I think it’s got to do with the speculation tax.” They said they felt that telling folks that they shouldn’t be leaving empty homes and empty condominiums and that they should be rented out — that is increasing the supply of housing as well.

I’ve seen that. I know my colleagues on the opposition side don’t support the speculation tax. They oppose getting people to rent out those empty homes and those empty condominiums. But my constituents want those homes rented out. I can tell you, business people do as well, because that means more people in the community supporting their businesses. I think that’s a good thing.

There’s a contrast. There’s respect for renters, and then there’s ignoring and disrespecting renters. We’ve seen what a long time of ignoring and disrespecting renters looks like, and that means increasing the number of people who are homeless. That means increasing the number of people who are on the edge of homelessness because rents have increased way faster than their ability to pay. It means renovictions and people getting thrown out on the streets so you can slap a coat of paint on and then double the rent.

There are a lot of really good landlords out there who don’t jack up rents to unlimited numbers, but there are those who can game the system. They got away with it, and they learned that there never was any penalty when they did. Well, I can tell you about good landlords in my community who’ve renovated their entire building. They kept their renters in place, and they upgraded it. They’re people we should support.

CONGESTION

J. Yap: I rise in the House to speak today on the subject of congestion on our roads, which is a major inconvenience for travellers, a safety issue for first responders and a drain on the economy.

Day after day, commuters idle bumper to bumper, not moving and not getting anywhere at the George Massey Tunnel. They’re missing medical appointments. They’re not getting their kids to soccer practice on time. It’s taking them an hour or two to get home from work to be with their family.

Or maybe they are truckers trying to transport goods to market. They’ve got somewhere to be and a schedule to adhere to. Instead, they’re sitting in traffic and letting their employers down — through no fault of their own, of course. What can they do? They’re trapped.

This side of the House has been asking the opposite side for a solution to this problem since about a year and a half ago. Back then it was 80,000 commuters a day that were estimated to be stuck in this gridlock. Today that figure is closer to 94,000 commuters a day. The number has grown significantly.

This problem is getting worse. Motorists who use this busy corridor need action. They need a solution. They plead for some movement on this issue. Of course, there was a solution in place to replace the structure, which, by the way, opened in 1959 as the Deas Island Tunnel. It’s 2019 now. The Massey Tunnel has served its purpose for 60 years. It’s old. It’s inefficient. It’s seismically unsound. It’s unsafe for emergency personnel.

Drivers have had enough. They were told the bridge, the most cost-effective and environmentally sound option to replace the tunnel, was coming. There would be some relief on the horizon. But unfortunately, as we all know, those plans are not in the works any longer. The bridge project is dead.

[10:35 a.m.]

So what is the plan? We don’t know. The government has said it won’t make a decision on upgrading or replacing this structure until the fall of 2020, a year and a half from now. I already outlined how much worse congestion has gotten in the past year and a half, so we can only imagine what it will be like by the fall of 2020.

Deferring this issue that far into the future is unacceptable to those living south of the Fraser who grapple with this situation each and every day, and I would argue that this problem affects an even wider swath of people. We know this route links people to our B.C. Ferries system. There are people relying on those ferries for work, travel and leisure.

We have folks trying to travel for business purposes who are being held back by this congestion. We have families trying to visit each other for spring break or summer vacation missing their sailing and missing out on valuable quality time. I mean, what kind of welcome are we giving to visitors to our province who are driving off that ferry in Tsawwassen and into that parking lot of gridlock? It certainly doesn’t give the best impression of beautiful British Columbia.

This traffic situation certainly is a major inconvenience for many people. It impacts their quality of life in a number of ways. But most importantly, I want to address the issue of safety.

This tunnel is seismically unsafe. That is a fact. I can’t tell you the number of people who’ve told me that they get nervous every time they have to drive through it. They’re hoping that, halfway through the tunnel, an earthquake might not hit. They’re hoping someone doesn’t ignore the rule prohibiting lane changes through the tunnel and hit them. And God forbid, if they’re ever involved in something like that or in close proximity to the tunnel, they are hoping emergency personnel can reach them.

These are all incredibly scary prospects, and that fear is shared by first responders as well. If there is a crash, emergency services often struggle to get in or out of the tunnel. They’re also very concerned about potential fires in the tunnel, which aren’t out of the realm of possibility with a bad crash. So to tell all these people that they have to just keep waiting for a solution, just be patient a little while longer, doesn’t sit well.

To add insult to injury, while they’re sitting in that gridlock, they can see that huge pile of sand from the preliminary work on the now scuttled bridge project. There are no workers to be seen. As we know, there could have been 9,000 construction jobs if that project had gone ahead. No shovels in the ground. No heavy machinery. No pieces of equipment. No noise. No activity. Just silence.

The other thing that they’re upset about is seeing the funds that are going towards the study of a rapid train between Vancouver and Seattle that would help people travel between those two cities in an hour. My colleague the hon. member for Delta South has even joked that people south of the Fraser might be better off moving to Seattle to take that train to get to downtown Vancouver. But it’s no joke. People have waited long enough. It’s time to do something here and now to relieve this congestion.

B. Ma: I’d like to talk very specifically today about the issue of urban congestion, as I recognize that rural and remote communities face and experience transportation challenges very differently.

The issue of road congestion is really important to my community out on the North Shore. As congestion continues to grow, it impacts residents, commuters, businesses, student services and the quality of life. The member opposite has identified many of these challenges already. But on the North Shore and in many areas of Metro Vancouver, the issue of traffic congestion is intricately connected to other issues like land use and, in particular, housing affordability.

For instance, as housing unaffordability increases, people are moving farther and farther away from where they were and thus spend more and more time in their vehicles on the roads to get to and fro in their daily lives. Increasing commuter traffic forms a huge part of our increasing congestion challenges on the North Shore, and that is actually a perfect example of how this happens.

[10:40 a.m.]

According to the integrated North Shore transportation planning project, or INSTPP, between 2011 and 2016 the North Shore grew by an additional 2,900 jobs, but its population only increased by about 900 working-age people. So the other 2,000 workers are being imported, for lack of a better term, from elsewhere in the region, and without viable non-car alternatives, commuters often end up back in their cars, adding to the already congested networks that exist.

Certainly, I think we can all agree that congestion has been an ongoing issue for British Columbia and particularly the Lower Mainland, not simply for the last year and ten months or so since the last election.

Now, the thing that’s always fascinated me about transportation engineering when I was studying at UBC is that it’s an engineering field that is almost entirely reliant on attempting to understand and mathematize human behaviour. Now, a piece of steel behaves in the same predictable fashion over and over and over again, but the same cannot be said about humans. What we do know, however, is that humans make decisions, at least from a transportation perspective, by weighing the pros and cons of a number of factors.

“If I leave at 7 a.m. instead of 7:30 a.m., I’ll beat the rush.” “If I take the Port Mann Bridge instead of the Pattullo, I’ll avoid the New Westminster traffic.” “If the bus costs me $2.85 and gas, insurance and car payments cost me $10 a trip, it’ll be cheaper for me to take the bus. However, the bus takes me 30 minutes longer. So how much is my time worth?”

Time, route and mode — those are three ways that people change their transportation behaviour in order to suit their commuting environments. So when you add lanes to a roadway, when you add lanes to a bridge, you actually end up inviting people to change their time of travel, their travel route and their mode to find the most efficient option, according to their tolerances for each kind of inconvenience.

“Well, actually, traffic isn’t too bad at 7:30 a.m. anymore. I’ll sleep in another half hour.” “Actually, New Westminster added a few more lanes through the city. I guess I’ll take the Pattullo Bridge now.” “Well, actually, maybe driving now saves me an hour over the bus, and I’m willing to pay the extra money that it takes to get back into my car.” Before you know it, the roads are full again.

What we have seen, time and time again, in growing urban areas around the world is that this means we never actually see our roads clear of congestion. It is a concept known as the law of congestion or induced demand, and it is a very well-understood concept amongst those who study urban traffic. It is, unfortunately, also a very difficult concept to communicate to the public and politicians looking to make political gains — quick wins, perhaps. They are trying to make political gains with bad decisions that will take advantage of that misunderstanding by promising monster highways that only ever make things worse.

Brent Toderian, who is an international consultant on advanced urbanism, said that across the world, city builders who understand the complex relationship between land use, car infrastructure and road congestion struggle to communicate it in a simple way that resonates with the public.

It’s now well demonstrated in transportation demand management research and practice that you cannot build your way out of traffic congestion by building roads. In fact, the opposite is true. The more freeways and car lanes you build, the more people drive and the more congestion and other negative results there are.

What do we do then? We can’t simply allow people to languish in worsening congestion. Instead, we must start to work to build the housing that people can afford.

J. Yap: I thank the member opposite for those comments and agree with her closing statement that we can’t allow commuters to be languished in gridlock. I think all of us in this House want to do what’s best for our constituents.

Constituents in Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Langley, drivers all across the Lower Mainland are being burdened with this congestion problem at the George Massey Tunnel, the worst traffic bottleneck in the entire province of British Columbia. It’s travellers using our ferry system. It’s people across B.C. and beyond. It’s local motorists and commercial truckers, business people and vacationers. The common thread is that their precious time is being utterly wasted in traffic — languished, as the member opposite said. Important appointments are being missed, and quality time with loved ones — evaporated.

[10:45 a.m.]

All of the studies and information-gathering that needs to be done has been done. The people want action. They want their time back. They want to stop idling and polluting the environment. They want to be reassured about their safety on this stretch of road.

What they don’t want is to wait until the fall of 2020 for answers. I fear some people will not wait, people like the CEO of London Drugs, who has said, publicly, that he’s considering moving either the head office, the distribution centre or both from Richmond. The massive delays at the tunnel impact about half of their 900 employees who live south of the Fraser. Some of them have quit because they can’t handle the terrible commute any longer.

The congestion also hampers the flow of goods to and from London Drugs, which increases their costs to do business. What happens when costs increase? They get passed on to consumers. That’s a major company, a major local employer that’s considering leaving the area because of this gridlock at the George Massey Tunnel.

I’ve already noted how at least 9,000 jobs could have been created had the bridge project gone ahead, but now we see that many more jobs could be on the line if employers start uprooting their businesses and moving elsewhere. They need a firm commitment that a solution is coming. They need to know that their contributions to our economy are valued and will be protected.

In closing, I will continue to advocate for this tremendously important tunnel replacement in whatever form it takes to proceed in a timely fashion for the good of British Columbians, our economy and our environment.

REMOVING INTEREST ON STUDENT LOANS

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak about the step of our government eliminating interest on B.C. student loans. Budget 2019 eliminated interest on B.C. government student loans, which resulted in debt relief for up to 200,000 people. As of February 19, 2019, this year, all B.C. student loans stopped accumulating interest.

We heard from the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training, who made the announcement that we “should be opening doors for people, not making it harder to get ahead…. Students spoke, and our government listened. For too long, students graduating from post-secondary institutions have been saddled with high levels of debt. Our government is committed to making life more affordable. That’s why Budget 2019 eliminates interest on all B.C. student loans going forward.”

This happened because for many years, students have been advocating for interest-free loans in B.C. — for many, many years. Instead of worrying about growing debt, students can focus on learning and graduates can put their energy into the next steps in their life.

We heard from Cristina Ilnitchi, who’s the vice president of external affairs at the Alma Mater Society, that the elimination of interest on B.C. student loans has had an immediate impact on students who are burdened by debt. Students have been asking government to reduce interest on provincial loans for years, and we welcome the fact that the provincial government has recognized that action was needed to alleviate the difficult financial situations students face during their studies and after they leave their studies.

I’ve met with many students. I know students have met with members from all sides of this House, raising concerns and asking for support to make education accessible and affordable, so I’m very pleased our government has taken this step. It’s benefiting about 200,000 B.C. student loans that are outstanding, representing about $1.24 billion. Borrowers will collectively save about $22 million in interest payments on these loans in 2019-20.

We’ve heard, as well, from Santa Ono, the president of UBC, that this is a good-news story for post-secondary students. Post-secondary education and opportunities go hand in hand. Eliminating interest on B.C. student loans and continued investments in additional tech-related spaces is welcome news for many UBC students.

The elimination of interest on student loans means that low- to middle-income students are not paying thousands of dollars more for their education than their peers who can pay up front.

[10:50 a.m.]

Not only will eliminating interest on provincial student loans benefit current and future students, but the impact will be felt by borrowers who are still paying off their student loans and accruing debt. A typical undergraduate borrower has $11,200 in B.C. student loan debt and $28,000 in total student loan debt, including both federal and provincial loans, which is certainly a crippling amount for students to face after they’ve completed their studies — and to carry that forward and to repay that after they’ve graduated. Eliminating interest on the provincial debt will save a typical borrower $2,300 over the ten-year repayment period.

This announcement comes after years of advocacy from student groups throughout the province, including the Alliance of B.C. Students and the B.C. Federation of Students. It’s a positive step forward to make education and training more affordable and accessible, as too many students were left behind for too long.

S. Gibson: I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the statement from the member for Vancouver-Kensington. As the opposition co-critic for Advanced Education along with the member for Surrey South, I’m pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the member, speaking in general to the access to higher education. I do want to acknowledge a helpful conversation I had with the member for Vancouver–False Creek regarding the subject.

Pursuing post-secondary education provides immeasurable benefits, both to our province as a whole and for individuals. British Columbia gains so much from skilled and educated workers entering our workforce, contributing to the vitality of our province. Individuals gain relevant education — I want to emphasize that — but also important life skills as they prepare for meaningful work, being responsible citizens, making important financial decisions and managing deadlines, among others.

B.C. offers myriad careers for skilled workers, whether in the trades, tech — a number of opportunities available through companies based in this province. Some really motivated students may even start their own business. Now, as a former entrepreneur, I can affirm the excitement of having your own business — stressful but exciting.

Before I was first elected to this place in 2013, I had the privilege of teaching for many years at the University of the Fraser Valley. It was always exciting for me to be a part of the training of the next generation. I also taught at Trinity Western University and did contract teaching at Douglas College in New Westminster and at the Justice Institute, so I have some appreciation for the challenges that face students today.

I do acknowledge the remarks made regarding the challenge students have today — increased costs and a rapidly changing and uncertain economy. I think, too, this applies both to young people straight out of high school as well as those folks going back and pursuing post-secondary as mid-term career changes emerge for them.

I can relate to this, as I earned degrees both as a young man and also when I went back and did a couple of grad degrees when I was working full-time in my later years. I know the complexities of working full-time — virtually full-time, often — and taking a university credential. The member is correct in acknowledging that affordability is an issue that we need to address.

People who have just left post-secondary education face many responsibilities and challenges. One option to help could be credit counselling to help students navigate their way through the financial myriad that will face them — provide resources to those students to help them manage their money wisely in order not to get into some difficult credit situations.

[10:55 a.m.]

Many students work sometimes almost full-time. In my case, that was the case. I even worked nights briefly. I worked nights, I would sleep in the evenings, and I’d go to school during the day. I wouldn’t recommend it, but it can be done.

Trades provide paid relevant experience as part of the apprenticeship program — very exciting. I think gaining work experience complements the acquisition of an academic credential. Heuristic work provides important experience and references a student can bring forward to a potential employer.

Importantly for the subject at hand today, we want to work with students to ensure that the financial burden at completion of the education is manageable.

Higher education continues to evolve, and the students need to change with that. With these changes come new challenges but also new opportunities for learning and personal growth. It’s our job as members of this House to ensure that we give students the best support we can. Our province deserves nothing less.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the remarks from my colleague from Abbotsford-Mission.

Before our government took this step, B.C. government student loans were charged the highest interest rates in Canada, at prime plus 2.5 percent. The old government resisted calls to do anything about student debt in interest rates — well, right up until their pre-election budget.

We heard from students that they were facing a crisis of affordability, with high tuition fees and difficulty making ends meet not only in terms of student loans, compounded with the crises of affordability of housing, child care and a real crisis of affordability. Our government took immediate action after 16 days and eliminated the 2.5 percent. Now we have eliminated interest on B.C. student loans.

The previous government has been out of touch with British Columbians. Let’s hear what the Leader of the Opposition said. By eliminating student loans, he claimed…. He was the previous Minister of Advanced Education, now the Leader of the Opposition. He claimed that “students in their early years may get a little carried away with how much they’re borrowing. We want to make sure that they have access to financing. But there’s got to be a right way to go about it, and that’s probably not the right way to go about it.”

He tried to backtrack, but really showing how out of touch, I think…

Deputy Speaker: Member, just let’s keep it non-partisan.

M. Elmore: Yes.

…with the concerns and challenges that students were facing, in addition to…. We heard often students rent. We heard that characterized as a wacky time. We really see what the previous 16 years have brought us and the contrast in terms of our government moving forward to take action and address the needs and provide affordability for students. So I’m very pleased about that.

This decision to eliminate interest on B.C. student loans is all about making life better for people, opening the door to opportunity so that everyone can reach their full potential and not be saddled with crippling debt that many students have face. That’s the reality in terms of needing to upgrade and get ahead and contribute fully in our province. In addition, our government feels that higher education should open doors for people. We shouldn’t make it harder for people to get ahead. We know that students graduating from post-secondary institutions have been saddled with high levels of debt for too long.

Our government is taking action to support students and support British Columbians.

Hon. S. Robinson: I would ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 4 standing in the name of the member for Skeena.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 4 without disturbing the priorities of the motion preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 4 — OPPORTUNITY FOR
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

E. Ross: It is an honour to introduce the following motion.

[Be it resolved that this House support real opportunity for Indigenous communities in British Columbia.]

[11:00 a.m.]

When I was first elected councillor and chief councillor, I learned a valuable lesson very early on, and that is that an elected chief councillor in the north has little at their disposal to deal with issues related to poverty. The most horrible of all has nothing to do with affordability. It has everything to do with substance abuse, domestic abuse, violence, suicides and many other issues — not just from my own observations and experiences but also reports from Aboriginal organizations all across Canada.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

This has been a story of First Nations across Canada for generations, but there has been a solution in place for the last 15 years, and it has nothing to do with government programs or schemes. I know this because when I was first elected, our council made every effort to apply for public programming and appeal to different levels of government for help. It was then I realized that government can only do so much, because you can’t simply legislate poverty away. If that were possible, we would have passed a law against poverty a long time ago.

What the Haisla did discover was that economic opportunity, a job, is the fastest, most efficient way to lift an Indigenous community — and any individual, for that matter — out of poverty. Ever since 2004, elected chief and councils have been creating a new story, and the progress and the results that we’re seeing in the communities and at the individual level are astounding. And it’s still an evolving story in B.C.

Naturally, anything worth fighting for, like the future well-being of current and future generations, will be met with differing opinions and controversy, but most of this is based on fear and misinformation. We are currently seeing that with the proposed construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline. Despite the fact that all 20 elected councillors have signed on to the project agreements along the 670-kilometre length of the pipeline, there are attempts by a few, a small minority, to stop the project altogether.

Quite often those who object are non-Aboriginal people that have no connection to the land and could care less about what happens to Aboriginals, let alone the people living on the pipeline route, as long as they win by opposing any resource development whatsoever. Once a development project has been derailed, outside influences declare victory and then vanish without any regard for the consequences. Left in their wake are First Nation communities and non-Aboriginal communities who now must somehow pick up the pieces and try to heal deeply inflicted wounds. We have seen this before, and we’re seeing it now.

Members on the government side, when they were in opposition, were firmly against LNG and didn’t even consider coming to our communities, let alone our First Nation communities, to support LNG. When the Haisla and 20 other First Nations were working on the Pacific NorthWest LNG, MLAs on that side were still signing anti-LNG petitions and failing to recognize that 22 First Nation leaders were working as hard as they could to resolve the technical, environmental, social and economic aspects of the LNG opportunity.

I sincerely hope that every single member of the government caucus now supports, strongly, LNG and the Coastal GasLink pipeline and all of the LNG projects in Kitimat and B.C. and will fight tooth and nail for it, just like the Haisla did and the previous government did.

What about those First Nations who signed on to Kinder Morgan and who are trying to find the same solutions to the same problems that the Haisla were trying to solve and are trying to reconcile along with the communities beside them? It seems that it’s just politics to support one pipeline but then oppose another. The elected councillors that have signed on to Kinder Morgan are doing so because they see an opportunity for the people to resolve social issues.

This government, by aligning themselves with foreign governments like Washington state and all the foreign money flowing south from the border, like the Tides Foundation, could succeed at keeping Canada out of world energy markets. But it will do so at great cost, including a sacrifice of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Indigenous communities throughout British Columbia, as well as all communities and British Columbia as a whole.

J. Rice: We’re deeply committed to….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Take your seat.

Members, please come to order.

Proceed, Member for North Coast.

[11:05 a.m.]

J. Rice: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

We’re deeply committed to reconciliation, and we have taken concrete first steps. We’ve made reconciliation with Indigenous communities a cross-government priority. We’re providing stable, long-term revenue streams, such as our new agreement to share gaming revenue, so that First Nations can invest in the services and infrastructure their communities need. This, in turn, supports self-determination, strong communities and strong families. By respecting and recognizing rights, we’re making tremendous advancements — for example, with the fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago.

These agreements demonstrate that when we work government-to-government with First Nations, we deliver results that benefit everyone. We’ve signed agreements with the shíshálh, Blueberry, Tahltan, Nisga’a and other First Nations. By respecting and recognizing rights, we’re making tremendous advancements, such as treaties and agreements that create opportunities for industry to engage with nations as nations pursue economic development for their people, as the member just spoke about.

All of this work means more certainty for First Nations, for government and for industry. We’re committed to finding new ways of working together to secure consent to recognize the rights, interests and aspirations of Indigenous peoples in decision-making.

We’ve made an historic $50 million investment to preserve and revitalize Indigenous languages in British Columbia. We’re the first province in Canada to invest in on-reserve housing to address Indigenous people’s critical need for better, more affordable housing. We’re investing over half a billion dollars in the next ten years to build over 1,700 affordable units.

We brought in new legislation to help Indigenous communities be more involved in child welfare decisions. This is helping to keep kids out of care, safe in their home communities and connected to their cultures.

We’re providing Aboriginal friendship centres with ongoing funding for the first time ever. Our investment in these important centres is $6 million over three years.

Together with many of the nations in the Broughton Archipelago, we engaged in a groundbreaking process that delivered recommendations to restore wild salmon stocks and create an orderly transition plan for the fish farming industry and impacted nations.

In partnership with the First Nations Leadership Council, we are co-developing new legislation to implement the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. We will share provincial gaming revenue with Indigenous communities to support self-government — strong, healthy communities and services. This funding was a central part of our recent Budget 2019.

The old government refused to recognize the existence of First Nations’ inherent rights, and they refused to implement the UN declaration. They also refused to share gaming revenue with them, something the First Nations’ Gaming Commission has been advocating for over a decade. They provided gaming funding to local colonial governments. Why wouldn’t they provide gaming funding for First Nations’ governments?

Instead, they took a cynical and primarily transactional approach to working with First Nations and only went to them when they wanted something, like when they wanted an LNG terminal in Prince Rupert.

This tit-for-tat, transactional relationship was developed with area First Nations. We started to see revenue flowing and projects on reserves funded not because it was the right thing to do; not because people needed supports, and it’s government’s job to support its citizens; not to right decades of colonialism and oppression; only because the former government wanted something from First Nations — namely, their land and resources.

Compare that to the funding we’re providing First Nations communities with the rural dividend grant: money, funding for clean energy and food security projects, diversifying First Nations’ economies and not relying solely on a boom-bust one, such as LNG.

When Indigenous communities asserted their inherent rights, instead of working in partnership, the previous government systematically fought First Nations in court, wrongfully arguing against their inherent rights.

D. Ashton: I just want to point out to my peer on the opposite side that Penticton, the city I was so proud to represent, actually negotiated a contract with our casino with the Penticton Indian Band to share revenues — a first in the province.

[11:10 a.m.]

A quote. I’d like to start off with two. “After decades of social engineering, ineffective federal governance, self-governance and billions of dollars of federal spending, everyday life in many First Nations continues to be deplorable” — Globe and Mail, as of recently. And the second one: “There is nothing government can give you that it hasn’t already taken away from you in the first place” — Winston Churchill.

First Nations want to get away from government funding and government bureaucracy. They want to get away from dependency. They want to be able to develop their own economics and their own economic development, to utilize the resources that are theirs, to work with other bands and others in society to make a difference for their communities and make a difference for those in the surrounding areas.

I have to look no further than the successes of where I live — the Osoyoos Indian Band, Westbank First Nation and the Penticton Indian Band. An example, Osoyoos Indian Band: wineries, a resort, manufacturing, retail businesses and tourism. Westbank First Nation: retail and commercial development, commercial entities. Penticton Indian Band: logging, working with a very well-known resort in the area, commercial development, residential development and, just as important, a real emphasis on the environment. One of their coups d’état is bringing sockeye back to the Okanagan Valley. They created a hatchery and a native fishery, and that’s being enjoyed by all.

Let’s look at some of the big opportunities that First Nations have. My peers in government today were quite offside when I first came in this House about the concept of LNG — until now. We’ve all been able to see the benefits. Those benefits are going to flow to everybody in this province. But there are other opportunities, which I’m sure that good enthusiasm should take place on, with other natural resources and, specifically, other pipelines that will not only benefit First Nations but will benefit all in British Columbia and in Canada.

Let First Nations’ voices be heard democratically, as ours are. Let’s let First Nations not walk behind us or in front of us but beside us, as the rest in Canada, so all of us can benefit from what this wonderful province and this country that we all call home have to offer.

British Columbia and Canada are built on natural resources. There are opportunities. I think, really, democratic voices have to be heard in this society. Yes, there are going to be some that are opposed, as there always are. We see that at our home, when we’re elected. Some are for us, and some are against us. Some don’t vote.

When the democratic voice comes out and it’s said that this is what we want to look for and this is what we want to do, not only for us but, again, for the people around us and for the benefit of society and all, let’s listen to those voices. Let’s not throw up more walls. For years and years and decades and decades, bands and First Nations have been met with constant bureaucracy and constant push-back. And credit to the government. There’s been an opening that is going to allow First Nations to go forward. But let’s all benefit from that, not just the bands, not just some of those, unfortunately, who have benefited too much in the past. Let’s share that wealth and give the opportunity.

Just as some of the examples that I’ve given…. In my lifetime in the Okanagan Valley, I’ve seen those First Nations blossom. I’ve seen kids I grew up with that came from troubled families and that were troubled themselves turn around. They’re working. They’ve got good-paying jobs. They’re enjoying life. They’re making a huge difference. What I see is they’re giving back to their community, and that’s really something I think needs to be focused on. When people are lifted up and given that opportunity, they just don’t stick it in their pockets and go buy something nice. They give it back to their community, and that’s what development and opportunities give.

So as we march forward in the House and the debates that we have in here, let’s give those bands that opportunity that many of us have had the opportunity to enjoy. Specifically, let’s utilize those resources that we have in this province for the benefit of all.

D. Routley: It gives me real pleasure to rise to speak to this motion, although I wasn’t sure exactly where it was headed when I first saw it on the order paper, so I’ve prepared a rather general response.

When I think about the proposition of the motion, that First Nations peoples in British Columbia need to benefit from real opportunity…. I am confused why the member wouldn’t spend his five minutes speaking to his own motion celebrating the steps that this government has taken.

[11:15 a.m.]

When I go back to the member’s maiden speech in response to the clone speech, the opposition’s adoption of most of the policies that the B.C. NDP government has implemented over the last 634 days…. I look to statements that he made. He says that “solutions to problems that couldn’t be fixed without economic development” are what are needed. He says that “positive impact can happen when government, business and First Nations work together in goodwill and agreement.” He refers to two recent agreements that were signed under the government that he represented.

I’d like to point to a few agreements: the shíshálh Nation, the Blueberry First Nation, the Southern Dakehl Nation Alliance, the Northern Secwepemc te Qelmucw agreement, the Tahltan Central Government agreement, the Nisga’a Nation sharing mineral tax revenue from Brucejack goldmine, the Tsilhqot’in Nation government collaborating on emergency management and providing greater clarity and certainty on activities in Chilcotin-declared title territory, the Malahat First Nation agreement, the Maa-nulth First Nation agreement and the Halfway River First Nation agreement.

All of these agreements are to create economic opportunity and to provide real benefit to the members of those nations. But they do more. We are the first province in Canada to invest in on-reserve housing — the first province to do that. The steps we have taken to bring new legislation to help Indigenous communities be more involved in child welfare decisions. These are significant answers to problems that have vexed this province and First Nations for generations. Now we are partnering with First Nations to bring solutions that they are defining. We are in a supportive role. That is what this B.C. government should do and should have done over the past 15 years before the B.C. NDP government took over.

We are providing Aboriginal friendship centres with ongoing funding for the first time ever. We are sharing gaming revenue with First Nations for the first time ever. These steps empower First Nations to find solutions that suit them, according to their community, their region, their special circumstance. We are not defining for them how to solve problems. We are standing with them, supporting their solutions.

The member who moved the motion said in his maiden speech in this House: “You really have to experience these issues firsthand before understanding how committed First Nation leaders are to finding their own solutions to their own problems. In my opinion, ‘reconciliation’ is not a political word. Reconciliation, in my view, has to affect the average person’s situation to be truly successful.” Well, giving free post-secondary tuition to all British Columbians who lived in care as children, predominantly First Nations, is a real step to support the solutions that the member had referred to so many days ago.

I’m confused that the member would make a statement, like he did today, that we cannot legislate poverty out of existence. He represents a government that legislated poverty into existence and that took supports from British Columbians. This government, in fact, is legislating solutions, not defined by us but defined in cooperation and partnership with First Nations. That should be something the member would celebrate.

One year, ten months and 16 days ago, when the election occurred…. When the member’s former government’s throne speech was read one year, eight months and 24 days ago, they were adopting many of the steps that have been taken by our government in the short 634 days since the election. So I’m confused why the member’s motion wasn’t meant simply to celebrate the great work that has been done, and that’s what I’m here to do. I invite the member to celebrate the solutions he’s called for.

D. Barnett: On behalf of my constituents of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, I am pleased to address the following motion: “Be it resolved that this House support real opportunity for Indigenous communities in British Columbia.”

[11:20 a.m.]

Before I begin, I would like to clarify something that my colleague from North Coast mentioned here in her speech. The rural development fund was developed by the previous government, and a lot of First Nations at that time took advantage and did great things from the rural development fund. I would say more than 50 percent of the funding went to Indigenous communities.

Many of us in this House served in local government before serving at the provincial level of government. I am one of them, having served as mayor of the district of 100 Mile House for 17 years. I found it to be an invaluable experience, because you become well acquainted with the needs and aspirations of the whole community, including First Nations.

In all circumstances, Indigenous communities are always looking for opportunities to help current and future generations. Resource development offers those types of opportunities. Madam Speaker, it should interest you to know that a significant portion of Canadians and British Columbians are in favour of resource development projects — four out of five, to be precise — while 61 percent are tired of nothing getting built in this country. In fact, 63 percent of British Columbians feel the national economy will suffer if we can’t build resource projects. The biggest supporters, not surprisingly, are northerners and rural communities like the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

For example, 86 percent support the economic benefits of the LNG Canada export facility in Kitimat. Many of those people are First Nations, including the 20 elected councils that have signed project agreements with the Coastal GasLink pipeline that will see natural gas flow 670 kilometres from Dawson Creek right to the coast. During construction, these agreements also represent approximately $620 million in contracting and employment opportunities for northern Indigenous communities. This is a vital part of giving Indigenous communities the opportunities they need to change lives and make for a better future for everyone.

Even in Metro Vancouver, 67 percent of people foresee positive economic benefits from pipelines. That’s nearly seven out of ten people on the Lower Mainland who recognize that pipelines represent economic opportunity. This begs the question: why, then, has our Premier aligned himself with the government of Washington state to stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline? Why would a Premier actively campaign against Canadian jobs and attempt to extinguish economic opportunities with First Nations?

Washington state hasn’t offered us anything in return. Seventy percent of oil that flows into Washington state’s five oil refineries comes from Alaska, and all of that oil is shipped along B.C.’s coastline. The governor of Washington, who now happens to be running as the Democratic candidate in the race for president, probably can’t believe how lucky he is to have the support of the Premier of British Columbia.

The fact is that economic opportunities and participation are a central part of reconciliation with B.C. First Nations. Under the previous government, B.C. became the first province in Canada to share revenue from mining, forestry and other resources with First Nations. As an unprecedented measure of progress, the previous government achieved close to 500 economic and reconciliation agreements. This set our province along a pathway to reconciliation with First Nations.

The government, by standing in the way of resource development, is pursuing a policy of the past to isolate and alienate First Nations from participation in the economy. This is not sound public policy. If this government is truly interested in reconciliation, in reducing poverty and in giving future generations opportunities that ten or 20 years ago were never dreamed of, then please support resource development and Indigenous communities throughout this province.

B. D’Eith: I wanted to thank the member for Skeena for making the motion: “Be it resolved that this House support real opportunity for Indigenous communities in British Columbia.”

[11:25 a.m.]

What is real opportunity? Obviously, real opportunity is economic opportunity. That’s simple. But what about the opportunity to get out of poverty? What about the opportunity to rediscover language and culture or the simple opportunities that come from recognition of rights and title, which the former government wouldn’t do? Or the opportunity to heal after the trauma of residential schools? Or the opportunity to work in partnership with all levels of government and be truly consulted on projects? This is all part of what I believe is true reconciliation.

This opportunity only comes about with respect. That’s why I’m very, very proud of this government’s commitment to reconciliation and providing opportunities to our First Nations. In fact, every mandate letter from the Premier directed every member, every minister, to look through the lens of reconciliation to implement the key recommendations of the United Nations declaration on Indigenous peoples — every ministry. That’s really important.

The old B.C. Liberal government refused to recognize the existence of First Nations inherent rights, and they refused to implement the UN declaration. This is a declaration that’s been adopted by 148 countries around the world. Our government is committed to adopting these recommendations into the laws of British Columbia.

Now, while reconciliation won’t happen overnight, of course, trust is earned. This is a generational issue that will take generations, but we are starting down this path. I truly believe that our government is moving forward, empowering our Indigenous peoples and ensuring they actually benefit from the fruits of our labour in British Columbia.

What the old government did was they actually…. All of the work they did with First Nations was on a transactional basis. Our government is looking at this from a broad basis. It’s every ministry. Every single thing that we do is looked at through the lens of how we can move forward on reconciliation. We’re working government to government — this is about respect; that’s why respect is what you need, to move to true reconciliation — to build healthy communities and create shared prosperity.

I can’t possibly get to all of the actions that have been taken in the last 18 months. I know some of my other colleagues have done that. One of the things, the refusal of the past government to share in gaming revenues with First Nations, was a really big one. We heard that in the Finance Committee. Every First Nations leader said this was the single most important thing that the government could do. Part of the reason for that is local governments can raise taxes, provincial governments can raise taxes, and federal governments can raise taxes.

But if you’re trying to build self-government in a strong and healthy community through that stability, you need money, and you need sustainable money. Sharing $3 billion of gaming revenue over the next 25 years is going to make a significant impact and really move towards reconciliation.

Also, we’re investing $21 million over three years in community-based training partnerships so that Indigenous people in over 40 communities can get access to training and education close to home. Part of the opportunity is being able to work and being able to have good jobs. That’s really important.

Another really important investment is in language. Language was stripped away from our people during the residential school period. I know I talked to a member in my community where her daughter was teaching her, the elder, how to speak her language. That’s wrong. That’s simply wrong. So this is important. This is important work, this $50 million. I’m very, very pleased with that.

Also, the $2 million for an Indigenous law program at UVic…. I was a proud alumni of UVic law school, and I am so pleased to see that this will help empower more Indigenous people to really benefit and get opportunity from our system.

In closing, as I said, it’s impossible for me to go through all of the wonderful things that have been done over the last 18 months. But really, the opportunities will flow from the treaty work that’s been done, the training that Indigenous students can get and funding for self-government.

J. Sturdy: I’m pleased to rise to speak to the resolution that this House support real opportunity for Indigenous communities in British Columbia.

[11:30 a.m.]

This is something that is important to this province. It certainly was important to the previous Liberal government, which made real progress on these issues, and certainly in my riding of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, where reside the Squamish Nation; the Lil’wat Nation; and the Lower Stl’atl’imx Tribal Council, which consists of the N’Quatqua, the Samahquam, the Douglas and the Skatin. All these nations are important parts of our economy in the region and have certainly been engaged.

The beginning of that, in many respects — certainly in my experience — was around the planning and development of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, which generated a renewed engagement and recognized that First Nations were critical partners in the successful production of those games. Certainly, they were instrumental in planning and hosting this incredible event. They participated in all aspects, and there were developments that benefited not just the nations but the region as a whole.

I’m thinking in terms of the Sea to Sky Highway improvement project, which is, incidentally, coming up to its tenth anniversary very shortly. This benefited communities. It benefited industry. It benefited business and First Nations up and down the corridor, specifically with regard to First Nations. There’s now, as you drive that corridor, a recognition of First Nations place names, First Nations Indigenous history, as well as, I think, a recognition of the vibrant future that First Nations hold in the region and around British Columbia.

As well, what it did is provide an opportunity, through the process of accommodation and consultation, for significant transfers of land, both fee simple options and potential for addition to reserve, from one end of the corridor to the other. There’s no question, as we go forward over the course of the next couple of decades, that we will see the Squamish Nation is the main developer. It’s currently the main landholder in the Sea to Sky — in Squamish, in particular — and will be one of the major development proponents in the region as Squamish doubles in population over the course of the next couple of decades.

It also set the stage for an Indigenous tourism and cultural corridor up and down the Sea to Sky. It helped the nations put together the Squamish Lil’wat Cultural Centre. For those of you who haven’t visited, you definitely need to. I would actually also argue that it brought into place an $80 million investment in terms of the Audain Art Museum, which, while not a First Nations initiative, has a tremendous First Nations focus. If you haven’t visited and seen the display of masks in the Audain gallery, that’s a must-see.

You know what? The whole resource sector in the Sea to Sky is based on partnerships with First Nations. It’s based on both the energy and the forestry sectors — without question, substantially supported by First Nations and in partnership with First Nations. Tremendous opportunities have taken place, specifically in the independent power project sector, which is something that the current government has definitely demonstrated they don’t support.

It has created almost $2 billion worth of investment in the Sea to Sky — all in partnership with First Nations, all resulting in employment, all resulting in training, all resulting in capacity-building, all resulting in impact-and-benefits agreements, all resulting in revenue-sharing — and, as well, provided an opportunity to electrify three communities in the Lower Stl’atl’imx that have been on diesel for decades and decades and are now on the grid. This has changed the lives of people down in the Lower Stl’atl’imx.

Then there are area-based tenures, partnerships on the forest land base, with community forests in Pemberton and Squamish. The Cheakamus community forest is a partnership with the resort municipality of Whistler. TFL 38 has been purchased by the Squamish Nation from the province. It is a tremendous employer in a renewable sector, a renewable industry for the Sea to Sky and for the province of British Columbia, and they have a great future in British Columbia.

[11:35 a.m.]

N. Simons: I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the motion that’s been put forward before the House by the member for Skeena: “Be it resolved that this House support real opportunity for Indigenous communities in British Columbia.” I think we’re pretty non-partisan on that. Yeah, we all support real opportunity for Indigenous communities in British Columbia. I’m not entirely sure why it was started off with a statement that basically criticized anyone who’s concerned about greenhouse gases. It made it as if there’s some sort of division where there isn’t any.

We all support economic opportunities for people in this province. I think that’s been shown throughout previous governments, once we’ve realized that we’ve got responsibilities to ensure that everyone has opportunities for similar economic development. Some communities are situated in a place where economic opportunities are different than other communities. Some communities have opportunities to grow grapes. Other communities may be on the coast, and they’re fishing communities. But we have to ensure that we do everything we can to ensure that the conditions are good for economic development.

I believe that our government is taking large steps, bigger steps than we’ve seen in the history of the province. I’m proud of those steps. I think they indicate a real fundamental agreement not only with the United Nations declaration but the recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We’re making steps towards creating the conditions or ensuring that the conditions exist in our communities where people have the economic and social capability to fundamentally establish good, strong businesses. I’m really pleased that my community has many examples of First Nations, Indigenous business organizations.

Real opportunities are created with jobs. Real opportunities are created with education. Real opportunities are created when families are strengthened with services and supports that ensure children have food in school and access to recreational opportunities — the opportunities that we ask all our communities to be able to access. I think, foundationally, if we look at the needs of communities to be strong and successful, the conditions for good economic development need to be there. That’s for every community, not specifically Indigenous communities.

The specific issues facing Indigenous communities and the development of business are obviously unique, with many overlaps as well. But I am happy to say that, on the Sunshine Coast, both the shíshálh Nation and the Tla’amin First Nation have members who are active business entrepreneurs. They are owners of businesses. The Lund Hotel, for example, is owned by the Tla’amin.

On the lower Sunshine Coast, fisheries, forestry — all sorts of economic opportunities and economic enterprises — are well established, and those are creating real opportunities. The tourism industry on the Sunshine Coast is very well loved by visitors from near and far. I think they show that Aboriginal communities are fully capable and fully engaged in taking advantage of the economic opportunities that exist in this province.

I say that a good foundation is good public services, good communication systems. The Internet — we’re making sure that people have access to high-speed Internet. That’s important for promoting opportunity. I think that we’ve done a lot of things to ensure that communities are not just resilient but are good growing grounds for people who are interested in raising everyone’s boats, providing jobs and providing opportunities.

I’m pleased that our government has redoubled the province’s efforts to ensure that opportunity and real opportunity exist, whether it’s in the resource sector, in the tourism sector or in the retail sector. Those are all areas where people from all of our communities can benefit from good active economies.

I’m happy to support the member’s statement. I think that this is one where we can see ourselves agreeing that our support for economic opportunities is bipartisan, tripartisan. I’m happy to support the motion.

[11:40 a.m.]

J. Tegart: I rise to speak to today’s motion: “Be it resolved that this House support real opportunity for Indigenous communities in British Columbia.” I’m very pleased to hear the comments throughout the House for support for Indigenous communities.

This is an issue I’m very familiar with, as the proud representative of a riding that is home to a high number of First Nations bands. Each has seen its share of successes and challenges, but one thing remains the same: a desire for access for opportunities for their members.

Economic development is often easier in populated areas in our province, but in some of our very rural parts of Fraser-Nicola, it remains a big obstacle. If you’re the Westbank Indian band, your opportunities are a tad bit different than the Seton Lake Indian band. I applaud the leadership at our band level, looking for opportunities where their reserves are. Bands in these areas are just as eager to build an economy and create more jobs for their people, but it’s often easier said than done. That’s why partnerships are so important. We’ve seen some great successes when local First Nations have partnered with the private sector to achieve these goals.

One example that comes to mind — I spoke about it in the House just before the break — is the Kanaka Bar independent power project in Lytton. For 36 years, Kanaka Bar has partnered with Innergex to develop the Kwoiek Creek hydroelectric project. The project is 50 percent owned by the band. Not only do they enjoy a reliable source of power; they’ve also gained long-term employment opportunities, tax revenue and a 14 percent annual return on investment, among other benefits. Bands throughout my riding have seen significant benefit agreements with industry in the area. Jobs, training and skills development are all an important part of these agreements — leadership — working hard to ensure good family-supporting jobs close to home.

We’ve also seen the positive economic benefits that can come from First Nations sharing their culture, not only with their neighbours but with international visitors. Aboriginal tourism has been growing in British Columbia, attracting people from around the world to experience the rich history of our Aboriginal peoples. Landscapes, cultures, traditions, art, music, food and more are just waiting to be explored in all corners of this province.

A number of First Nations entrepreneurs have responded to this global interest, setting up a wide variety of tourism opportunities for visitors. We have an incredible First Nations village in the Fraser Canyon at Boston Bar, with a traditional longhouse, native plants and how they’re used, pictographs and what they mean and symbolize, and a gift shop selling First Nations designs, to name a few.

In Fraser-Nicola, I think about the Kekuli restaurant in Merritt, which has become a huge draw for locals and travellers alike. It serves First Nations foods inspired by the simple, fresh, homemade meals that the owners grew up loving as children, often with a modern twist. The cafe’s specialty is bannock served in a number of different ways.

I think about Nlaka’pamux Creations, a new business venture in the community of Merritt, featuring First Nations artists. This store provides an opportunity for local artists to have an outlet for their products, but they also hold classes, teaching people how to make dream catchers and other First Nations art.

NVIT, when we talk about the value of education, is a campus in Merritt to be very proud of. Started by five First Nations bands, we’ve seen continued growth. Last year they offered free tuition to every graduate in the school district in Merritt. It shows the value of partnerships with government and with the local community.

These are just a few examples of the success stories in my riding, but there is more work to be done.

[11:45 a.m.]

J. Brar: I’m really pleased to speak to the motion introduced by the member for Skeena, and I appreciate the member tabling this very important motion. The motion reads: “Be it resolved that this House support real opportunity for Indigenous communities in British Columbia.”

The key question is this: what is the most important step the B.C. government must take to provide real opportunities to Indigenous communities? The answer is very simple: true reconciliation in partnership with Indigenous communities. The fact is the rights of any community are way more important than any other opportunity.

The Indigenous communities want us to implement the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples in B.C. The implementation of the UN declaration in B.C. will open many doors for real opportunities for Indigenous people.

The sad part of this motion is that the outgoing B.C. Liberal government refused to recognize the existence of First Nations rights for 16 years, and they refused to implement the UN declaration. They systematically fought First Nations in the court, and they repeatedly lost the case. As of today, nearly 150 other countries and the federal government of Canada have adopted the UN declaration. The old government refused to do the same.

Our government is moving forward on reconciliation in partnership with Indigenous peoples. I’m very proud to say that we are co-developing our new legislation with the First Nations Leadership Council, to be introduced this year. The new legislation will establish the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. It includes the right to self-determination; to be free from discrimination; to access education, health care and a fair share of social and economic outcomes. Many in B.C. take these rights for granted. They are pathways to creating real opportunity and shared prosperities for Indigenous peoples.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Our government honours and respects Indigenous rights. Reconciliation remains the most important step for our government.

Sharing revenue with First Nations is another step forward to provide opportunity to First Nations. Again, the old government refused to share gaming revenue with First Nations, even after First Nation leaders said it was the single most important thing the province could do for them.

Our government is taking action. Budget 2019 delivers on a key government commitment to share gaming revenue with B.C. First Nations communities. B.C. will share over $3 billion in provincial gaming revenue with First Nations communities over the next 25 years. Like every government, First Nations need stable, long-term revenue streams.

This revenue can be used for things like child care, housing, road upgrades and economic development. This, in turn, supports self-determination, strong communities and strong families. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia — all already share gaming revenue with First Nations. Together with the Indigenous people, we are doing the hard work to build healthy communities and create shared prosperity to benefit all British Columbians.

I would like to conclude by saying that we want a better B.C. for each and every person in this province. Therefore I support this motion to honour and respect the Indigenous rights and to provide long-term revenue streams to First Nations so that they can succeed, as other people in the province succeed.

[11:50 a.m.]

J. Rustad: I’m very pleased to rise and join this debate about creating real opportunities for Indigenous people and Indigenous communities.

I just want to correct the record. I find it interesting, this discussion around UNDRIP. When the current federal government was first elected, the very first meeting I had with them, which was the month after they were elected, I took out a delegation of teams from the former ministry I was responsible for. I met with the minister and said: “How do we implement UNDRIP together? Let us sit down. We’ll work it out. We’ll be a pilot. We can go forward in doing this.” Unfortunately, the federal government never took us up on that opportunity.

I want to go on talking about this motion. I want to start by saying this: under the B.C. Liberals, we had a 42 percent reduction in the number of children living in poverty. There were over 30 percent less children in care of the state under the B.C. Liberals than there were under the previous NDP government. How did that happen? It happened by creating real opportunities through a job, through economic growth, through an economic focus of this government. Those were huge steps. For the NDP, of course, facts are an inconvenience to their narrative.

We’re in a situation where, when you look at First Nations across this province, they want to be engaged economically. I met with many First Nations since being on the other side of the bench — as well, of course, as when I was with them. They all want the same thing. They want prosperity for their children. They want an opportunity for their nation. They want to see people lifted out of poverty.

I found it interesting. The five members from the government who got up and talked about this…. I want to thank the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. At least he mentioned the word “jobs.” None of the rest of them even mentioned it. It wasn’t even part of the narrative.

You look at it and what we did with First Nations and the agreements that we signed. Whether it was for independent power projects, which, of course, they would like to cancel, as they didn’t think they should go forward; whether or it was LNG, which up until recently, they opposed; through forestry; through mining; through tourism…. We did it. We supported people through training and through environmental stewardship. All of these initiatives, all of these agreements, had one purpose in mind: respect, engagement, partnership but, most importantly, a move to lift people out of poverty through jobs, through employment, through finding those opportunities for success.

On the LNG, just recently I had an opportunity to meet with the chiefs of some of the Wet’suwet’en bands. They’re all excited about the Coastal GasLink project. They don’t agree with the protests. They want to see this, because they know the difference it can make. They know what can happen for the people. I just sat down with the Cheslatta Carrier Nation. They’re excited about their future. They’re excited about the agreement that is coming to fruition through the work we did and that the current government is now about to sign. Why? It’s respect and recognition of the history, but most importantly, it builds a future for their people — jobs, opportunity. People have a chance to look forward.

Chief Dan George spoke at a rally just this weekend, and he talked about that opportunity. He, unfortunately, has attended more suicide attempts than, I think, anybody would ever want to see in their lifetime, for sure. One is too many, and he has, unfortunately, had to attend many. He wants to see opportunities for his people through jobs. It’s what this government doesn’t get. They don’t have a jobs plan. They don’t think about what that real opportunity means.

Many other chiefs that I talk to have talked about how they want to lift themselves out of poverty, how they want to stop managing poverty and start managing prosperity. That doesn’t come through gaming revenue. That comes through jobs. That comes through economic advancement. That comes through participating in our economy.

Other chiefs that I talk to have said the same thing. They’re tired of saying no. They’re tired of their children and the kids in their nation not having those opportunities. They want to partner. They want to build. They’re working with companies. They want to work with government to do this, not working with governments that are stopping projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline, not working with governments that are not going to put the kind of effort that’s needed to move forward on things like Coastal GasLink.

We’re in a situation at a unique time. We’ve built 15 years of history, particularly over the last four years, where we signed hundreds of agreements. We advanced reconciliation in this province farther than any jurisdiction in the country has, and we did it on a foundation of jobs. We did it on a foundation of economic opportunities, out of respect and recognition. That’s exactly what this government should be looking at and what they’re failing to do.

On that note, I move adjournment of the debate.

Interjections.

J. Rustad: Sorry. I move the motion, and they can vote it down if they want.

J. Rustad moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mungall moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.