Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

FUELLING B.C.

E. Ross: Before many of us had even arrived this morning, we came into contact with numerous oil and gas products. Toothbrushes, water bottles, eyeglasses, and so many more, far too many to list, wouldn’t be available without fossil fuels. Even the future of our energy use uses fossil fuels. Wind and solar projects, as well as electric vehicles, all need fossil fuels.

Let’s remember that these are the same industries that will continue to stimulate battery production through the complaints of child labour and poor working conditions in countries with fewer regulations than Canada. None of this can exist without fossil fuels, which means to say that to say no to fossil fuels is to say no to wind power, solar power and electric vehicles. You can’t have one without the other. To say otherwise is reckless and irresponsible. It would demonstrate a complete lack of understanding as to how oil and gas actually affect our everyday lives.

What we should really be doing is not being hypocrites but scrutinizing the carbon footprint of the clean energy industry in the same way we do for the oil and gas industry. A carbon footprint is a carbon footprint regardless of what caused it. I say this to cement the fact that oil and gas is foundational to our way of life and will continue to be so for many years to come.

With that being the case, we need to make the most of the situation and take our place on the world stage for the sake of global emissions, and not for the sake of politics. B.C. does LNG and oil extraction in more a responsible way than anyone else in the world. Our neighbours in Washington state confirmed this when they admitted that Tacoma’s proposed LNG plant would only reduce state emissions if the natural gas were to come from B.C.

This is according to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, which said, in relation to reducing GHGs that come from other fuels like diesel…. The agency went on to point out that our province has tighter controls on upstream emissions than they do on gas produced in the U.S. and that B.C. has tighter regulations for drilling and natural gas processing. The Americans know what they’re talking about in this case, because there has never been a water aquifer contaminated in the history of B.C. fracking. B.C. companies drill too deep, and we also put in extra protections like cement casings around the drill holes.

For some reason, many Canadians seem hesitant or polite to stand up and defend our own societal and economic prosperity, even though we do such a good job at it. It’s completely senseless for many in B.C. to continue to be indifferent to or, in many cases, fight against our own interests as a province, because oil and gas does fuel our way of life, just like everybody else’s around the world.

[10:10 a.m.]

All that fighting against fossil fuels does is enrich our neighbours and competitors around the world. For years, Oregon has been keeping a close eye on B.C. LNG, hoping to capitalize on B.C.’s politics and rhetoric, in the hopes we wouldn’t approve our own LNG projects. They hope to buy B.C. LNG at a discount in the same manner the U.S. does with Canadian oil. Thankfully, B.C. came to its senses, and as a result, LNG Canada made its final investment decision.

Now it’s time to focus on Chevron’s KM LNG, Haisla’s Cedar LNG and Squamish Woodfibre LNG, not only for the emission reductions but also so the LNG doesn’t end up being exported out of American ports at our expense. This is absolutely no time for us to be overly polite or hesitant, because if we don’t go out and fight for the interests of B.C. and our way of life, no one else will. It goes without saying what these projects will do for our economy, employment and government finances.

Furthermore, the potential for B.C. First Nations to thrive and for reconciliation to be achieved is nearly unprecedented in our lifetime. When First Nations work together with government and industry, the agreements that result allow them to pull their people out of poverty, to maintain the necessary jobs to support their communities and to focus more resources on protecting their cultures. These situations are no doubt win-win-win, and it would be a shame to allow these opportunities to die on the vine.

Those of us who support a prosperous future for British Columbia have fought tooth and nail for LNG to go ahead. We got the LNG Canada final investment decision, and just recently, as a result of our advocacy, the Senate committee of Canada rejected Bill C-48, the tanker ban.

British Columbians have it in us to do better than our competitors, not only for global markets but also in continually improving our regulations. We still have two glaring advantages: we are closer to Asian markets, and we have a colder climate that speaks to cooling and drive loads. And we used to be a stable country, politically. We’ll continue to fight to fuel B.C. and Canada, because it’s our future.

J. Routledge: Thank you to the member for Skeena for introducing this statement, “Fuelling B.C.” I welcome the opportunity to respond.

I would agree that oil and gas has been foundational in British Columbia and that it has played a role in the development of the British Columbia that we know today. However, I think that there are some historical facts, some of our history, that bear paying attention to, because there are lessons that can be learned.

Let me fill in some of the historical gaps. I represent the people of Burnaby North, where the last remaining refinery in the Port of Vancouver is still operational. Now, at one time, Vancouver was a major, major refining hub. Imperial Oil built its Ioco refinery in Port Moody in 1914. Shell built its Shellburn refinery in North Burnaby in 1932 and expanded it in 1945.

There were four refineries in the port at that time. They produced a wide variety of value-added products, products that were refined and distributed to local markets in British Columbia, but they also produced hundreds of good-paying jobs, jobs that supported families in Metro Vancouver. In the heyday of Vancouver being a refining hub, those jobs depended on crude oil that came by tanker from the oil fields in Alaska and California. All of that changed in 1947, when oil was discovered in Leduc, Alberta.

[10:15 a.m.]

Now, the federal government of the day, the Liberal government of Louis St. Laurent, passed the Pipeline Act to help Alberta get its oil to market. The Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Co., as it was called in those days, made its case to the Board of Transport Commissioners, as it was called in those days, that it should be allowed to build a pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby. Their core argument for wanting to build that pipeline was that the pipeline would be used to deliver domestic oil to domestic refineries. But even back then, not all local politicians thought that a promise from a primarily American multinational corporation was good enough.

Howard Green, the MP for Vancouver South and the Progressive Conservative critic, wanted a national energy security clause enshrined in the act. His warnings fell on deaf ears, and his warnings proved prophetic. No sooner had Trans Mountain secured approval to build a pipeline to connect Alberta oil to refineries in B.C. — and the hearings only took three days…. No sooner had they got approval than they applied for and were granted permission to build a spur line to Washington state. This was in 1951. Now, keep in mind there were no refineries in Washington state at the time.

Another local politician, a Liberal this time, Tom Goode, who represented what was then Burnaby-Richmond, accused the Trans Mountain Pipe Line Co. of double-crossing B.C. and Canada. He predicted that the spur line would divert most of Alberta’s oil away from the Vancouver refineries to new ones in the United States, and he was right.

By the 1970s, 60 percent of Alberta oil was going to refineries in Washington on a pipeline that was built because of Trans Mountain. By the 1990s, all but one small refinery on the Burrard Inlet had closed, and that small refinery doesn’t even have enough capacity to supply half of the domestic B.C. needs. The result: since the 1990s, Vancouver has had the highest gas prices compared to Toronto, Montreal or any other major Canadian city.

We’ve been here before. Let’s think of our history and not just motor on, so to speak, with the assumptions we’ve made in the past. We have to rethink everything.

E. Ross: What others continually fail to recognize is that oil and gas–based products cannot be simply parted from our way of life. Every bike and electric car was, at least at one point, transported on a gas-powered vehicle and uses petroleum-based parts. This isn’t even to mention the despicable labour conditions in which some of these products are made and the many drawbacks of their manu­facturing processes. There isn’t an area of our lives that petro­leum products and fossil fuels don’t touch. This lack of realization is a problem within our province but also within the realm of federal politics.

The leader of the federal NDP has put B.C. LNG squarely back in the arena of politics. This is not a partisan statement. This is just the reality. The only thing he’s made clear is that the party’s position is not to have a position, which is incredibly dangerous at a time when fighting for Canadian and British Columbian interests is so important. In fact, if anything, there is now an identity crisis in federal politics, whereas the leader of the Green Party is now saying that we should only use Canadian oil and not foreign-imported oil, but we should use oil for the many plastics, rubber, paint and other such products that we currently use it for. This is an identity crisis.

We need political stability on this file. We need to build on what we have achieved with First Nations and industry, and we need to recognize the importance of oil and gas in our daily lives. The future of oil and gas and the future of LNG is in B.C.

This fact was confirmed at the recent Canada Gas and LNG Conference in Vancouver. Describing China’s demand for LNG as being almost infinite, said Yao Li, CEO of the Chinese energy consulting firm SIA Energy…. The energy executive says China’s shift from coal to natural gas will require a substantial increase from LNG imports. Currently only about 57 percent of China’s natural gas needs are supplied domestically. B.C. is therefore in a highly strategic position to wean China off dirty coal and transition it to the cleanest fuel on the planet.

[10:20 a.m.]

Between 2020 and 2040, we’re expecting the gas market in China to expand by close to 40 percent. On a global scale, about two-thirds of gas demand growth is going to come from China.

We have battled many forces in getting LNG approved in B.C. and will continue to do so on legitimate issues. Pandering for votes at this stage of the game is not a legitimate issue. If we want to reduce China’s emissions, build B.C.’s economy and pay for our social infrastructure in B.C., we, as leaders, have to fight against partisan opposition at all levels, especially on LNG.

CLIMATE ACTION

S. Malcolmson: Climate impacts are being felt on Vancouver Island right now. We’re seeing hotter water harming chum, chinook and coho salmon returns on the Englishman, Cowichan and Nanaimo Rivers and Mill Creek, which I represent. Salmon are also harmed by drier rivers resulting from reduced snowpack.

We’ve had two decades of pine beetle infestation, which has led to tens of thousands of job losses. Ocean acidity has increased 30 percent and is expected to increase by up to 150 percent by the end of this century. Worldwide, since 1975, oceans absorbed 90 percent of the extra heat caused by global warming. They are buffering us. Drought, disease and pests threaten food security on Vancouver Island, which already imports 95 percent of its supply.

Bless them. The global youth movement on climate action is raising the alarm louder every day. We thank them for their work and advocacy and their hope.

The good news is that acting on climate change can boost the local economy and good jobs as well. Tackling climate change can incent smart investments, strengthen local economy and promote Canadian entrepreneurship in the trillion-dollar clean global energy economy. With the right leadership, we can improve both our economic and environmental outcomes for the long term. Climate action is a win-win for our local economy and our global environment, and we are right now innovating, cutting greenhouse gas emissions and adding good-paying jobs.

On Nanaimo’s Bowen Road, there’s a new affordable housing complex unlike anything else we’ve seen. Nuutsumuut Lelum, a joint project from the Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre and B.C. Housing, is culturally designed, and it uses 90 percent less energy in its passive house design. It’s home to 25 Indigenous families. It’s beautiful. Last month, the Canadian Home Builders Association of Vancouver Island awarded it for high performance at the VIBE gala in Nanaimo.

Making our buildings and our communities more environmentally friendly builds jobs, health and affordability, and it cuts carbon emissions. This idea — that the transition to a low-carbon economy also improves quality of life — is at the heart of CleanBC, our government’s new climate plan. The green building industry already employs 32,000 people in B.C. in jobs like architecture, manufacturing and installation, so we are already well set.

Some of the actions that we are taking together to make a difference and reduce emissions: we’re upgrading the B.C. building code to get more energy-efficient buildings and providing incentives for owners and the construction industry to build and renovate to higher-efficiency buildings.

All 300 new affordable homes announced or underway in Nanaimo, under the new affordable housing building boom that we are working on, are being built to step 2 or 3 of the new B.C. energy step code. By 2032, all new buildings in B.C. will be required to be built net-zero energy ready. That’s a similar standard to what Nuutsumuut Lelum built in Nanaimo. For renters, this will mean a higher stock of healthier, high-efficiency housing. If you are paying less on your power bill, then, again, you have a more affordable life.

We are retrofitting B.C.’s stock of 51,000 publicly owned and funded social housing units to make those houses less polluting, more energy-efficient and more affordable. It’s better for air quality too. If you’ve got a better maintained house and less mould, people do better.

[10:25 a.m.]

People renovating private homes can also receive rebates: $3,000 for replacing their heating system with a heat pump; $5,500 in rebates available for installing better insulation; $2,000 for replacing older, draftier windows and doors with better insulated ones. If anybody at home wants to tap into any of these and they’re having difficulty finding it, ask your MLA. We’ll help you navigate the process.

On the bigger picture, it’s not just about what individuals do on their homes. We’re very focused on cutting corporate emissions, reducing provincial greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below 2007 levels by 2030. By 2040, it’ll be a 60 percent reduction; by 2050, 80 percent less greenhouse gas emissions. That includes a low-carbon fuel standard to reduce average carbon intensity of transportation fuels. That includes a renewable gas requirement. That includes a 45 percent reduction in methane emissions from upstream oil and gas operations by 2025. Already the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission is developing regulations to better manage and reduce fugitive emissions in the oil and gas sectors.

Methane emissions generated from waste and agricultural sectors also have to reduce. Our goal is to see 75 percent of landfill methane captured by 2030, and 95 percent of organic waste will be diverted from landfills and turned into renewable resources.

We’re speeding up the switch to cleaner fuels, making our fuel cleaner by increasing the low-carbon fuel standard to 20 percent by 2030.

Electric vehicles. We’ve heard a lot about that in this House. With up to $16,000 in rebates, that can bring the price of a new electric vehicle down to $20,000. It’s still expensive but more affordable, and then the savings in gas and maintenance make, again, it cheaper for families. Just over 20 years from now, every car in B.C. will be required to be sold…. New cars will have to be electric vehicles. We’re adding new charging infrastructure as well.

A lot of investments in active transportation and public transportation. We are also helping remote communities reduce dependence on diesel for electricity and supporting public infrastructure efficiency upgrades and fuel switching to biofuels.

Most importantly, arguably, switching to training so that new graduates of our colleges and universities know how to do this hands-on work. At Vancouver Island University, they have converted their coal shafts to geothermal power. What a beautiful example of what an institution can do that is innovative, teaches students how to be hands-on and takes us away from an old fuel to a new fuel.

P. Milobar: I’m pleased to rise to speak to the statement around climate action from the member for Nanaimo. Some good points were raised.

Imagine, if you will, the innovation that we could see in this province with a $2.35 billion revenue source over a four-year period. Imagine what innovation we could see if we used all of that $2.35 billion of revenue that was generated in a four-year period to actually spur on innovation, to actually help people trying to do exactly as the member for Nanaimo said: innovate, bring in low-carbon standards, bring in low-carbon industry, bring in low-carbon entrepreneurship.

Imagine if you used all of that $2.35 billion of revenue that was generated through taxation to actually accomplish that. Unfortunately, what we see — and we’ve heard of CleanBC from the member for Nanaimo — is that it’s not a $2.35 billion plan over the next four years with CleanBC; it’s a $900 million plan. It’s a plan that’s been underfunded by almost 66 percent of what it’s actually collecting in revenue.

Why that’s significant is because, when you look into the CleanBC plan — and I’ve asked several ministers now in estimates around this — 22 percent of CleanBC is actually predicated on the low-fuel standard that the member for Nanaimo was just talking about, a fuel standard that doesn’t exist in Washington and a fuel standard that doesn’t exist in Alberta.

Why that’s significant is that means that just as much as we like our artisanal beers and our craft beers, our artisanal wines and our craft wines, our craft distilleries and our craft cideries that we have in British Columbia, which we see growing in great leaps and bounds, we’re now going to have artisanal craft gasoline at the pumps in British Columbia to meet the low fuel standard.

[10:30 a.m.]

Unfortunately, the government is unwilling or unable to tell us how much more per litre that is going to cost everybody at a time when we’re paying record fuel prices in North America. The government seems unwilling to actually share with anyone how much of a premium we are going to pay for this new specially blended gasoline specifically for B.C. and B.C. only. That’s 22 percent of the CleanBC targets.

You can see where the skepticism starts to come in to whether or not CleanBC will actually be accomplished. That’s not even talking about the 25 percent that’s missing from CleanBC right from day one. So there we have 47 percent of CleanBC with a big question mark next to it already.

Then we jump to the electric vehicles that the member for Nanaimo was talking about as well. An electric vehicle program that has actually been very much accelerated since May 1. Since May 1, we’ve seen a better part of $9 million spent on subsidies for people to purchase electric vehicles, with the matching federal dollars and the SCRAP-IT program bringing $16,000 of eligibility for a vehicle under $50,000.

Why that’s important is based on what CleanBC has budgeted for a three-year window for 156 months’ worth of programming. They have now budgeted, based on this uptake rate, about eight weeks of funding for the subsidy program. That means that in about seven more weeks, CleanBC will have expended all of its money that it had actually earmarked for 156 months’ worth of spending. Again, $900 million versus $2.35 billion collected in taxation. One has to wonder where that extra money is going.

The step code. A previous government brought in the step code. It was meant to be a guiding document for municipalities to be able to pick and choose and try to figure out how to reasonably get their municipalities engaging within the step code. The home builders I’ve talked to…. At a time when housing affordability is a number one issue for people, a new home in Kamloops, where I’m from…. The step code, being mandatory, will add $70,000 to the construction price of a new home in a city that does not actually broach over $500,000 as an average sale price for a home.

Now with the step code being mandatory, it will add $70,000 for about a 1.5 percent improvement of the efficiency of a home under the current situation that they’re dealing with in Kamloops.

That’s not making life more affordable. That’s not making housing more affordable for people. It’s certainly not helping people trying to get into entry-level housing when you’re talking an extra $70,000 because of government policy. I’m sure we could look into things with other commissions, but I’m sure the government would not want us to look into government policy.

S. Malcolmson: There is so much to bite into there — most particularly, the previous government’s complete failure to address the affordable housing crisis. This government is taking action in every way.

The builders that I’ve talked to in Nanaimo are embracing the three-step energy code. They’re taking it as a point of pride, and they’re taking it as the training and innovation opportunity that it really is. This is the way of the future. It absolutely is.

The previous government struck a climate leadership team, ignored all their recommendations. They abandoned action on climate change. Even their former Premier said he’s disappointed in his own party’s approach.

In their mad rush for LNG projects, a dozen of them, they pretty much gave up on meeting our climate targets. Emissions increased by three million tonnes between 2010 and 2015. They once admitted concerns about diluted bitumen spills and the impact it would cause to our environment and economy, then basically, rolled over while this new government is fighting as hard as it can to protect our coast from diluted bitumen. I just won’t spend more time on the arguments across the aisle, because they just aren’t backed up by action in any way.

We have a good-news story here in British Columbia. Canada’s green building industry employs more direct full-time workers than forestry, mining, oil and gas industries combined — 32,000 people already in B.C. doing this work. They’re investing in hopeful renewable energy projects, embracing new building technology, growing our food closer to home. All of these things will create more job opportunities and support small business in British Columbia. This is a win-win.

[10:35 a.m.]

When we act on climate, we do better. We are pushing hard — local jobs, local economy, global environmental protection. It’s so past time for action.

We are including greenhouse gas emissions and reductions in all of our decision-making and celebrating the resulting innovation, job creation and local benefits in our communities that ensue.

RESPECT FOR THE HOUSE

R. Sultan: I’ve been a member of this Legislative Assem­bly for 18 years, hoping for 20. At my age, I notice my peers, those still on this side of the turf, whiling away the day with their feet up on the sofa.

I was lucky. I stumbled upon politics late in the day as a sort of consolation after my wife passed away. It has become my life, and you have become my family. I enjoy the huge privilege of being chosen to serve the province where I was born and raised.

With that joy comes responsibility and respect for our democratic institution called parliament. Unfortunately, the durability of democracy is not guaranteed. Scholars ask whether the great republic of the United States is acquiring the earmarks of oligarchy and dictatorship and whether Britain, home of Mother Parliament, can maintain citizen confidence in representative government.

How did the point of a gun become the instrument of power in places like Zimbabwe and Venezuela, leading to repression and economic collapse? If this is not enough, what restraints today, right here, prevent social media from becoming a channel for non-Canadian propaganda, shaping citizens’ views of domestic affairs and overwhelming our legitimate dialogues of democracy?

Given all of this, we must be ever more vigilant to strengthen, protect and, most of all, maintain the public reputation of our proud institution of parliament, the people’s House, where the voices of a true cross-section of all of our citizens can be listened to with respect. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen. Events occur which provoke anger and disappointment.

Several weeks ago a member of this assembly, speaking in an official capacity to municipal leaders, had some very unflattering things to say about our assembly. When those in authority propagate the view that more effective forms of leadership may be found in criminal organizations such as the Hell’s Angels and the Mafia, and when we crank up the publicity machine to loudly lay blame for expense account malfeasance with a 75 percent error rate — on television, no less — and when we bypass our institutions of internal governance without full disclosure or transparency, it’s appropriate to ask questions in this assembly.

There will always be contention. It’s the essence of democracy. We advocate for what we think is best for our constituents and our province, and views invariably diverge. But even in heated moments, we must be respectful and uphold the good name of our assembly.

This is even more vital as stakes grow larger. When we are threatened by global forces — and we are — beyond our control, when technology turns our comfortable assumptions about the world upside down, when cynicism about politicians and their sleazy ways is rampant, this is no time for parliamentarians to circle the wagons and shoot inward.

Rather, we must treat parliament, its leaders and all of its members with all the more respect. If our leaders do not speak well of us, who will? To speak well is, in fact, the law and regulation of this place and has been for a long time.

[10:40 a.m.]

Over 100 years ago, a warrant was issued for two persons who had, in words recorded in the Journals of B.C., engaged in “a scandalous libel against certain members of this House and…high contempt of the privileges and the constitutional authority of this House.” They were arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms and held overnight in the legislative lockup and, perhaps, served hardtack and water for supper.

In more modern times, our website points out that MLAs — and all of us are MLAs in this place — are expected to behave with dignity and respect. Consulting, again, our Journals of B.C., this time for 1962, we can read the admonition that we should not use words and phrases that are “in bad taste from the point of view of the dignity of the House.”

Ah, that magnificent phrase, “the dignity of the House.” I believe our future depends on our ability to revive that sense of respect and responsibility, which has now been placed in jeopardy.

M. Dean: Thank you to the member for West Vancouver–​Capilano for highlighting this topic in the House. Thank you for your very long service as well. You’re right. It’s an honour and a responsibility to represent our communities and to come here and speak in our roles as MLAs in chambers.

The public perception is very important because we expect that there will be trust in our democratic processes as we’re here representing all of British Columbia. It’s correct, as well, that some members have actually spoken out in unparliamentary ways — even in these chambers, even in this session. For example, the member for Langley East compared the agriculture bill to the Holocaust and has apologized. The member for Richmond-Queensborough made comments in bad taste and has retracted. The member for Prince George–Mackenzie has also had to retract some comments that have been made.

We all know from our own experience and from words that have been spoken in this House that some behaviours and some language does need to be tempered. When we, as Members of the Legislative Assembly, are receiving letters from teachers that tell us that they do not want to bring British Columbian kids in to watch us and watch our democracy in action, then we know that something needs to change.

The Speaker actually read out a letter that he had received from a teacher who said: “Yesterday I visited the Legislature during question period as a chaperone for an elementary school field trip. I was delighted by the hospitality we received on our tour and the beautiful building. I was appalled and deeply saddened by the ugliness we witnessed during question period. The time was wasted in posturing, bullying and name-calling. It was…uncomfortable to watch with students we teach to ‘Be kind; be safe; be respectful; be responsible.’”

“That’s their school motto,” the Speaker said. “I receive lots of letters like that. I don’t want to receive any more.”

Oral question period, obviously, is a regular item of busi­ness that we conduct here in chambers. It’s a really important, fundamental aspect of our democracy. It’s an accountability tool for effective democracy. However, it receives a disproportionate amount of media attention, and it’s much more likely to be the image that the public holds of their parliament. Unfortunately, the perception of the lack of decorum or substance erodes the public’s faith in our political systems. That is in spite of the fact, I would like to emphasize, that our Legislature functions in many effective ways outside of QP.

Of course, when I speak to my colleagues about this, their expectations are really, really diverse as well. But here in British Columbia, we are very fortunate that there’s some modern, up-to-date, recent research by a student called Rachel McMillan at the University of Victoria. She’s supervised by Dr. Grace Lore. She’s been looking into the nature of heckling in chambers across Canada. Her review revealed that 56 percent of Canadians think less of the parliamentary process after tuning into question period.

Importantly, she also explored the impact of increasing representation of women in politics on the nature of heckling, a significant indicator of respect for the House. Women are now represented to a much larger extent in legislatures and cabinets across Canada.

[10:45 a.m.]

Today in British Columbia, women make up 39 percent of the Legislature and half of cabinet. That is in spite of the fact that political culture is one of the most frequently cited issues affecting the recruitment and retention of women in politics — because, of course, our politics are built on colonial and patriarchal roots.

One of the trends that is revealed around questioning in chambers is that women are heckled more on issues related to ethics and personal conduct compared to men. They are significantly more likely to hear heckles related to gender, age and appearance. While both men and women have an experience of heckling that is gendered, women are typically held to a higher standard when speaking on personal conduct issues.

To finish, I’d like to question: well, what does this mean for us? Why have this discussion here in chambers? Clearly, it’s a personal choice. We have a lot of standing orders that govern how we work together in this House. We’re a diverse group of people. We all make choices about how we behave and perform and conduct our business in the House.

R. Sultan: I would like to thank the member for Esqui­malt-Metchosin for her well-researched remarks and thought­ful observations.

I would like to close, myself, by quoting the Rt. Hon. Beverley McLachlin, privy councillor and former Chief Justice of Canada, who addressed the 17th Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers Conference in Montebello, Quebec, on January 9, 2004. She reflected on Parliament as follows:

“The role of a Speaker is similar in certain respects to a role that I’m quite familiar with — the judicial role. Speakers, like judges, spend most of their time doing something which most people avoid at all costs — making decisions. Like judges, they rule on points of order and make a myriad of decisions on questions of process. Like judges, they are required to render objective and impartial decisions on issues that can prove controversial and complex.

“Like judges, they must be above the fray and free from bias. Like judges, they are required to abandon partisan politics and must be independent and free from political influence. Like judges, Speakers are human beings. But like judges, they must strive to set aside personal preferences and opinions and rule as objectively as humanly possible.

“And like judges, Speakers doubtless sometimes feel a little lonely. Both roles entail sacrifice and dedication to the office. Yet both offer great rewards, the most important being the privilege of serving one’s nation and community by promoting justice, the rule of law and democracy.”

I believe Chief Justice McLachlin has given us a timely job description for parliamentary leadership, as relevant today as it was 15 years ago. It is not too much to expect our leaders today to live up to these same words.

EDUCATION FUNDING

B. D’Eith: All of us have different reasons for why we run. For me, there were really three main reasons.

The first one was that I worked in arts and culture and the creative industries. There was a time when I was working nationally, and there were, basically, cuts to arts and culture at a time when many other provinces and the federal government were actually increasing arts funding. That was really disappointing to me, and it really motivated me.

The second was mental health. I have a family member who suffered from mental health issues for decades, and there just simply weren’t the resources for him.

Probably, the third, and one of the most important, was education. I have five children. All went through public school in British Columbia, and they experienced an entire generation where class sizes were far too big and many of their friends with special needs were simply not getting the services that they needed.

[10:50 a.m.]

The final straw for our family was when the fifth portable was put on at Albion Elementary School — right over the track. So the kids couldn’t have track anymore. Really, this was a period of time that the former government spent years and years fighting the education system.

Now, in contrast to that, of course, in 2019-2020, the K-to-12 operating funding has actually grown by $228 million. That means that the budget now is $6.6 billion. That’s actually $1 billion more than the previous government provided in 2016-2017. In fact, because this student enrolment has actually increased by 3.2 percent…. If you look at that, at the same time, the budget has actually increased 17 percent. What that means is that we have to make sure that all districts and students see the same results for these investments. That’s why, this year, it’s very important to look at equity in the system.

I think I’ve heard this time and time again from the opposition: how wonderful our education system is. It is wonderful. But similar to the economy…. You can have a wonderful economy for certain people and still have 500,000 people living in poverty, have one in five children living in poverty and middle-income people struggling paycheque to paycheque. It’s the same with our education system. We may have some kids that are doing really well and then others who are falling behind. I think that is one of the main reasons why investments in education are so important.

Right now the focus is on equity and providing increased funding for kids with special needs, for example. So what’s happening now, in this budget, is that the total supplementary funding for kids who need support is now at $570 million next year. That’s actually a 23 percent increase. While the percentage of all designated students with special needs has remained constant at about 11 percent, the increased money means that they’re going to be getting more funding, and that’s great.

This is really important. For the first time since 2006, every B.C. school district is forecast to see an increase in fun­ding next year. That’s really, really critical.

In addition to increasing supplementary funding for students who need it the most, it’s important to focus on outcomes. One of the things that every minister got, which was one of the greatest things I think happened…. In every letter to every minister, there was a focus on looking at truth and reconciliation and First Nations in every ministry. That’s a very important part of what’s been going on.

I’m actually very proud of the progress that’s been made in this regard. Last year there were a lot of gains made. Graduation rates for Indigenous students actually reached 70 percent. Earlier this year the First Nations Education Steering Committee, B.C. and Canada, came to sign a new B.C. Tripartite Education Agreement. That’s actually going to lay the foundation for increased equity outcomes for our First Nations students.

Another really wonderful thing is that B.C.’s new curri­culum includes Indigenous content in every subject in every grade. So important as part of reconciliation is awareness of what the history of the Indigenous peoples has been. So it’s very, very satisfying to see that.

Another big part of investment is in mental health. That, as I said earlier, was so important to me because of my family.

Part of tackling mental health is early intervention. That’s why it’s really, really important that there is a focus on the outcomes of vulnerable students. That’s why it’s great that the provincial ERASE strategy program has been resourced so well. That’s now focusing on gang prevention, mental health and wellness, substance use, social media and support for students of all sexual orientations and gender identities. There is an investment of $3 million for a range of early intervention initiatives, and that is really, really important. If we can get in front of this, then a lot of people will not be dealing with mental health when they’re adults.

[10:55 a.m.]

Another really great piece of equity in the education system recently is the announcement that all districts will be required to provide menstrual products in school washrooms by the end of the year. That is a really wonderful program. I did want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity and, of course, the New Westminster school district for showing such leadership in this. It’s so important for kids to feel comfortable at school and to have that equity.

The other big piece, of course, is capital expenditure. As I mentioned, in Maple Ridge, we had the Albion school just bursting at the seams, and we needed an elementary school 12 years ago. We kept asking for it and kept asking for it. It never happened. Finally, we actually are getting an elementary school; c̓əsqənelə is going to open in September for 600 students. But it’s 12 years too late for many of the families in my region. It’s wonderful that it’s happening, but it’s 12 years too late.

It’s really great that we’ve invested $1 billion since September 2017 into building these schools and seismic upgrades and buying properties and that there will be actually $2.7 billion included in the 2019 budget for upgrading schools and building new schools.

D. Davies: Thank you to my colleague from Maple Ridge–​Mission for opening up this discussion about education funding. As the Education critic and a teacher, I’m certainly honoured to reply to the statement. Always happy to talk about bettering our province’s greatest natural resource, our children, and their education.

It’s no rumour — and all of us in this House agree — that British Columbia has one of the best education systems in the world. For many years, jurisdictions from around the planet have come to us, to British Columbia, to learn how to deliver quality education. I am confident that that will continue, with the incredible quality of teachers that we have around the province.

Fort St. John is fast growing and has a faster-growing student population. Since 2012, the Fort St. John Hospital has seen more than 600 births a year. Our robust resource economy means that many will likely be there for their entire school careers. It is great to see that both the former Minister of Education as well as the current one understand this and are funding spaces.

In the North Peace, we have been quite lucky regarding this. In 2015, school district 60 celebrated $22.3 million in provincial funding that had been put aside for a new K-to-6 elementary school in northwest Fort St. John. Happy to say that myself and the Minister of Education attended the grand opening of this school just this past fall. On a side note, the new “Ma” Murray School is quite incredible indeed.

In 2015, land was bought again for another school in Fort St. John. And in 2018, $30.8 was announced for an elementary school — this one with 500 student spaces — which began construction last summer. It’s scheduled to open in 2021.

Funding for education covers more areas than new books and fancy lab equipment. It also ensures that the children and the youth of this province are able to get a quality education without interruption in their classes, which allows their teacher to give as much time to each and every student. When my colleague from Peace River South was Minister of Education, he successfully negotiated a five-year contract with B.C. teachers that provided a solid five years of stability for these students.

In many areas, this is an entire high school career. These students were able to get the most out of their education. They did not have to miss any valuable time due to conflict. But, unfortunately, we are far from perfect with regards to our responses to the province’s education requirements. That is something that I think all of us in this House, on both sides, would agree with.

In fact, I think of Surrey, where the number of portables in the last two years has increased 31 percent. This money needs to be going to building actual school facilities and not just add-ons. Amazingly, the current contract bargaining that’s going on may see larger class sizes, which makes it far more difficult for teachers to spend time on individual students who may be struggling. This is an issue that doesn’t seem to be going away, even though the Supreme Court has spoken on it and provided for mutually agreed class sizes and composition rules. It will be very interesting to see how the discussions will go, on these negotiations, over the coming months.

The effect of this means less teachers for more students, and I don’t think that that is an outcome that anyone in this House wants to see.

[11:00 a.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

In these formative years, inadequate attention from teachers can have a devastating impact on the career and the life prospects of our students as they navigate their lives. We need to do everything that we can to ensure that these students are successful today and that they are successful as they choose whatever career path that they so choose.

B. D’Eith: I appreciate that. Thanks for the words.

It’s worth nothing that, of course, there have been over 4,000 new teaching positions created over the last two years, through the memorandum of agreement with the BCTF, and that’s actually made life much better for students, including kids with special needs.

There’s been a $1 billion increase from the budget that was from 2016-2017. Now the budget is $6.6 billion. There’s also $1 billion since September 2017 that’s gone into schools to build badly needed seismic upgrades and purchase properties. In 2019, there’s a record $2.7 billion to build and expand schools. Very importantly, as I spoke earlier in regards to equity, special needs funding is at $570 million in 2019-2020. That’s really important. Also, Indigenous funding is at $889 million. There’s a $300,000 start-up to get, as I mentioned earlier, the menstrual product program into schools. Rural school districts are at $295 million, and there are many other increases.

As I mentioned earlier, there’s been funding for over $400 million per year for 4,000 new teaching positions. That actually includes 500 special education teachers and 190 more teacher-psychologists and counsellors, which is so important for our schools, especially in regards to making sure we have that equity in our schools. There’s also funding to hire 1,000 new education assistants. That’s critical. That’s what parents have been asking for, and that’s very important.

Overall, actual education funding has risen by 17.1 percent since 2017. But it’s not just the Supreme Court settlement. That was 9.6 percent of that. In fact, 7.5 percent of that 17 percent is additional funding. That’s really important to note, because the funding that’s being made through this government is because this government wants to support education and is not fighting education.

Hon. J. Darcy: I would ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 14 standing in the name of the member for Cariboo North.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 14 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 14 — CONSULTATION
AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

C. Oakes: On behalf of my constituents of Cariboo North, I am pleased to move the following motion:

[Be it resolved that this House support meaningful consultation and public engagement with British Columbians.]

In less than two years since this government has assumed office, there have been dozens of reviews of programs and services. Most of these have involved small panels appointed by government. For the most part, this government has failed to follow up on most of the recommendations contained within the final reports of these panels. Many others have been dismissed outright before final recommendations have even landed on the desk of the minister.

[11:05 a.m.]

The 2017 MSP Task Force is a prime example. The Finance Minister ignored the task force’s stern advice to eliminate MSP premiums before even considering a replacement tax. What do we have almost two years later? Here it is in 2019, and British Columbians are still paying MSP premiums while the government double-dips by charging the controversial employer health tax at the same time. It makes people wonder what purpose these expert panels serve if the government simply ignores their findings.

The same applies to the Abbott and Chapman final report entitled Addressing the New Normal: 21st Century Disaster Management in British Columbia. The panelists worked very hard to address wildfires and flooding by providing over 108 recommendations, most of which have been washed over or rejected outright by government. For the people of Cariboo North and throughout my region, there remains a great deal to be done in the wake of the 2017 and 2018 wildfires and floods. Yet we see little if any action on behalf of this government.

The people want their voices to be heard through meaningful consultation. Yet we only see fiascos like the caribou conservation plan that has rural and northern British Columbia deeply upset and worried about the future of their local economies. In fact, the government’s entire approach to management of the forest industry is scaring off investment and resulting in mill closures and shift curtailments.

In early April, the Premier addressed the annual meeting of the Council of Forest Industries and called for all stakeholders, including local government, First Nations and forest companies, to come up with a plan to revitalize the industry. Then, without any warning or meaningful consultation, the government introduced legislation that will confer extra­ordinary powers to the Minister of Forests at the expense of the industry as a whole.

This has sent shock waves throughout the entire forest industry. The Council of Forest Industries warns that as many as a dozen lumber mills and processing facilities will close permanently as a result. It appears this government is determined to institute an uncompetitive environment throughout the province. Business confidence is eroding in British Columbia.

In fact, this past weekend I attended the B.C. Chamber of Commerce AGM. Confidence. They have a MindReader pro­gram that determined that B.C.’s economy has declined in confidence by 50 percent in business. The primary reason cited, 79 percent, is that the cost of doing business has worsened; 54 percent say that the provincial government is not supportive of business. Business is also concerned about the increasingly onerous nature of provincial regulations. Almost 40 percent of respondents state that the growing complexity and time required to gain approval for construction of major projects is hurting their business.

Earlier this month Tolko Industries announced the permanent closure of their sawmill in Quesnel. This is devastating news for 150 employees, their families, contractors and small businesses in the community who rely on the mill.

The arbitrary measures being taken by government are based on ideology and will only encourage more and more companies to leave British Columbia. Communities like Quesnel are forest-dependent. Up to 70 percent of our businesses are directly or indirectly impacted by a weakening forest economy.

Affordability in my region means having a job. If the government were open to advice and meaningful consultations, communities like mine would not feel ambushed by ideologically driven policies and legislation. People expect more from government.

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to speak to this motion. Thank you to my colleague across the way for bringing it.

I do find it a little problematic, because all last year all we heard was: “Too much consultation. All they’re doing is consulting.” Now we’re hearing: “Oh, they’re not consulting. They need to consult more.” I think there are some real challenges, as far as consistent messaging going on from the other side.

[11:10 a.m.]

The other piece I think it’s important to highlight around consultations is imagine having reports given to you…. The member said: “Well, they have reports, and they haven’t followed through on them.” Imagine getting an ICBC report in 2014 from Ernst and Young saying that ICBC’s got some serious challenges ahead and that report being scrubbed and not being brought public and no action being taken.

It’s easy to say: “Well, this government is not doing public consultation.” Well, sometimes they say we are, sometimes they say we’re not. Then they’re saying reports are being presented, and nothing has been done. We found uncovered reports that have been hidden. I presume there’s a report somewhere around money laundering as well. I hope that becomes public one day as well.

Now when we talk about consultation…. It wasn’t too long ago when a minister from the B.C. Liberals’ side told the mayors to suck it up when discussing funding for transit infrastructure. There was no consultation happening there. It was: “Suck it up.”

It was not too long ago when the previous government, the B.C. Liberal government, brought in the foreign buyer tax. Yes, I think they can take credit for bringing in the foreign buyer tax. There was no public consultation, except for…. I do recall Bob Rennie, a developer who is a major donor for the B.C. Liberal Party, saying he was consulted. But beyond him, I don’t think anybody else was consulted.

The speaker before me — I’ve got a great deal of respect for her — spoke about how there’s a report, and it said businesses are not feeling like the government is listening. She then segued into the Tolko mill shutting down. I think it’s a little disingenuous. We know that the challenges around fibre supply, pine beetle, forest fires have been coming for a while. In fact, the mayor from her own town had said that he was preparing for years for this eventuality. So I think it’s not fair to put the two together to suggest that that’s the reason why when the previous government even knew this was coming.

Everybody in communities that are forest-dependent knows there’s a challenge coming. To suggest it’s because of one government’s policies and not another’s is…. I just don’t think it’s a fair point. Maybe the member didn’t mean to make it that way. Again, I’ve got a great deal of respect for her.

That being said, I was part of a consultation with this government around the Human Rights Commission. It was an excellent consultation process. We had so many organizations and groups that came to us and said: “You know what? We’ve been waiting for someone to come to us and talk about these issues.” There are a few members that were mentioned in the consultations that had given these groups an opportunity to listen, but never an opportunity for them to lay out the case around real human rights challenges that they’re facing throughout this province.

We travelled the province. We had written submissions. I feel that the report reflected the sentiment and the will of all these organizations and all the people who desperately want an independent body that will reflect the human rights challenges that are faced throughout this province.

I was quite grateful for the AG to take that report and take all of the recommendations and put them forward. I’m hoping that we have a human rights commissioner in place soon. I know that there is a committee out there searching for the new commissioner. It’s my hope that we get this person in place to get on with the important work that so many people advocated for. It’s an example of consultation that our government has done — in fact, one of the first ones. It was done very well, and people are very happy with the outcome.

I think the thing that I’m most proud about that consultation is our consultation with First Nations and Indigenous communities. We didn’t go to them and say: “Here’s a report. What do you think?” We said to them: “We have a challenge. How do you want to go about it?” Their advice and recommendations were very much front and centre in the report. I think it’s a start of a very meaningful and much-needed relationship with First Nations and Indigenous communities.

With that, I will let my colleagues across the way continue the debate.

M. Bernier: I really want to thank my colleague for bringing this important issue forward today. For myself, I look at what’s been happening around the province. I look specifically at what’s been happening in rural British Columbia.

[11:15 a.m.]

Imagine waking up one morning and hearing that you might not be able to use the back country anymore. Imagine being a local business which supplies ATVs and snowmobiles and being told by people who come into the store: “We’re pulling back. We’re not going to actually make those purchases because of the uncertainty right now that the government has brought in within the province.” Imagine being a mining company operating in rural British Columbia and being told that because of this uncertainty, we don’t know if we’re going to able to expand the mine or keep people operating, keep those jobs continuing on.

The same goes with the forest sector, as was brought up earlier. Imagine being a forest company that wants to expand and employ hundreds and hundreds of people — 500 or more, actually thousands up in my part of the world, in northeast B.C. — but because of uncertainty, not being able to commit to your employees that they will have a job come the end of this year.

I hope the members opposite are listening to this motion that was put forward today, because the most important word in there is “meaningful.” It’s about meaningful consultation. When this government comes out and tries to brag about how many consultations they’re having, they’re forgetting about adding the part about meaningful.

When I look at the caribou issue right now, and the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development puts forward a partnership agreement with a select group of people but says, “Don’t worry. We’re going to come and consult with the people in your riding. We’re going to consult with the local governments, the small businesses, the stakeholders,” what he forgot to add into that was the meaningful consultation and, even worse, listening to what people are trying to say.

We’ve been having consultations around the province. I look at the caribou issue. In fact, those have been, for the most part, a slap in the face to the whole concept of what consultation should be. When people show up and have genuine concerns, and they want to air those concerns, they expect the government to listen, not argue with them why their concerns are wrong. That’s not consultation. That’s making a decision, going out and patting yourselves on the back as a government to say: “This is what we’re doing. Suck it up. You should like it. We’re not going to be changing what we’re doing.”

That’s a complete slap in the face to the people, and I will argue, right now, for all of British Columbia but specifically to what’s happening in my area. When you look at the people wanting just to be at the table….

I look at the caribou issue. I look at the people up in my riding. They want to do what’s right for rural British Columbia, for the back country, for the caribou — but also trying to recognize that we have to figure out how to coexist with our First Nations friends and non–First Nations local governments and how we sit together. When this government comes out and says, “We’re going to consult,” but never listens to those concerns that are being raised by other elected officials, whether it’s the local governments, the regional districts, that is completely a sham. That’s what this government has failed to do — supply and offer any consultation that’s actually meaningful.

If it was meaningful, they’d be listening. It’s exactly what we’re hearing right now — they’re still not listening — and that’s where they’re failing the people of British Columbia who have genuine, genuine concerns.

With that, if the members opposite, if this government truly wants to stand by what they’re saying and be proud of every single thing they’re doing as being consulted, what they should do is try to add the word “meaningful” in there and try to live by that, because to date, they have failed miserably.

D. Routley: The member who spoke before me suggested that we imagine being a forest company or imagine being a mining company operating in B.C. Well, imagine being a British Columbian with a memory and having to endure the absolute hypocrisy of someone who sat in government for 16 years and did nothing on the specific issue he’s talking about.

For the previous member, the mover of the motion, to speak about forestry…. That former government oversaw the loss of 30,000 jobs and more than 100 mills during the biggest housing boom in U.S. post-war history before the 2008 crisis. That’s their record.

[11:20 a.m.]

Now I want to talk about how they listened, and I’d like to bring up a ferry petition and a bridge petition. In September of 2014 — I believe it was September 10 — the Union of B.C. Municipalities released a socioecono­mic study on the impact of the ferry fare increases by the B.C. Liberal government. It ignited a firestorm of criticism against the government’s policies. It brought the light to all the impacts in all the communities of all of the cuts that they made — social impacts, economic impacts, school children, small business people.

What did this government do? Did they listen to the 20,000 signatures they had just received asking them not to make those cuts? Did they listen to the 1,300 signatures from Bowen Island, out of 3,700 total population that asked them not to make those cuts? Did they listen? No.

They threw a grenade into the room by listening to 700 signatures on Gabriola asking for a bridge crossing. That ignited a huge, diversionary, deflecting argument that saved that former government from having to endure the burn of their cuts and the impact in people’s lives. That’s exactly what happened. So they didn’t listen.

What did we do? We came to power, and we listened. We heard those people, and we have restored 2,700 sailings. We have frozen fares on the major routes. We have reduced fares on the smaller routes. We are doing what they said that we should do: listening when they didn’t. They had all those years to listen. They didn’t listen.

I have personally participated in some consultations that our own government has done. I think they have been some of the most fantastic experiences I’ve had as an MLA, particularly, the Wild Salmon Advisory Council where the Premier brought together people from all sectors affecting wild salmon — commercial fishermen, First Nations commercial fishermen, First Nations food and ceremonial, biologists, First Nations biologists, environmentalists, recreational fishermen and outfitters.

All those people that normally clash were brought toge­ther, and they all adopted a purpose that was given by the good…. The member talked about good faith in consultation. It was the good faith of those people, responding to the good faith of the Premier that made that a success that led to $142 million in investment in the protection of wild salmon habitat. That is important.

That’s what happens when you listen. You’re able to form public policy that actually impacts people’s lives in a positive way. That’s what I’m proud of — that this government has taken a different approach. We are hearing people, who for 16 years had no voice, could not be heard by a government that didn’t hear anyone but their donors and their core supporters — the 2 percent, the most wealthy. Forget about the rest of British Columbia.

Imagine, Member, just like you said. Imagine being a British Columbian with a memory of that and the hypocrisy of a motion from that former government talking about consultation. Well done.

I. Paton: I’m pleased to stand in the House to respond to the following motion: “Be it resolved that this House support meaningful consultation and public engagement with British Columbians.”

It’s an absolute privilege to sit in this place to debate policies to make decisions that impact the day-to-day lives of British Columbians. I know that in order to do this job successfully, there’s a lot I need to know.

I not only need to be aware of the technical details of a particular issue or bill, but it’s incumbent on me to imagine how people will be affected by those details, for better or for worse. One of the best ways that we as Members of the Legislative Assembly can do that is by talking to people.

Before doing this job, I was a farmer. It’s easy to spend hours in solitude, head down, doing your work diligently out in the fields for hours on end, sitting in tractors and not speaking to anyone for long periods of time. The days are extremely long, and there is not a lot of time or energy to chase down government officials and share your views on your obstacles and your challenges farming. Now, don’t get me wrong. Farmers are a very vocal bunch.

[11:25 a.m.]

When we’re making decisions that affect their businesses, their families, their entire livelihoods, it’s important that government reaches out to them. Unfortunately, B.C.’s agricultural community has not enjoyed that kind of outreach.

When we saw the creation of the Agriculture Minister’s Advisory Committee studying the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission, we learned farmers would be underrepresented and key agricultural sectors in regions of the province would be shut out. Presentations would be done by invitation only, and everyone else would have to go on line to provide their feedback. It certainly limited the range of opinions and ideas that could be gathered, which I would say is far from what I describe as meaningful consultation.

Farmers have also told me that they didn’t feel adequately engaged on a number of issues that are directly impacting their bottom lines, making it harder for them to succeed. Increases to the carbon tax, to the minimum wage as well as the new employer health tax are causing them financial stress and forcing them to make some really tough decisions in order to stay viable.

Talk about UBCM and being left out of consultation. Just yesterday morning I’m reading the Province newspaper, and here’s what the Province newspaper had to say. “The UBCM decried the lack of notice provided by the province. Representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities are furious that a policy change by the provincial government declaring cannabis growth and production as farm use within the agricultural land reserve was enacted without warning.” Once again, consultation did not take place on this enactment of municipalities taking over the bylaws and legislation of dealing with cannabis grow-ops in our farmland.

What about Bill 52, which forces farmers to make an application to the ALC to prove they are not speculators because they want to build a house for their family or for farm help? It’s insulting, and it adds costs and red tape — again, things farmers just don’t need right now.

Farmers were caught off guard when the new rules suddenly came into effect in February. We all know that famous date of February 22, where everybody got taken by surprise by the change in regulations, effectively scuttling the plans of numerous farm families. Housing for farm workers is also being put in limbo, creating confusion and uncertainty.

Then there are other measures being proposed by the ministry and the minister, the government, to take away from some of the rights of farmers when it comes to managing their property. Removing individual rights and choice is something that requires a careful consideration and consultation. Yet again, farmers don’t feel this has happened adequately.

I’ve outlined a few examples here where the agriculture community feels it’s been shortchanged when it comes to meaningful dialogue on the issues that matter to them. It’s a far cry from the situation that’s unfolding with regards to the future of the Massey Tunnel. My constituents continue to sit in the gridlock every day, just as this government does with its redundant reviews and its dismissal of thousands of pages of research and engagement that have already been done with people, stakeholders in this province.

It’s a bizarre juxtaposition — on the one hand, a govern­ment that plows ahead with significant changes without consulting practically anyone and, at the same time, takes forever to do something about a problem that’s been analyzed to death.

J. Brar: I am very pleased to stand up in this House today to speak on the motion, introduced by the member for Cariboo North. The motion reads: “Be it resolved that this House support meaningful consultation and public engagement with British Columbians.” I think the members from both sides of the House support meaningful consultation and public engagement with British Columbians. I think that’s a given thing. I don’t think there’s any dispute there.

The key in this motion is: who do you consult with and why? That’s the key question. That’s where the members on this side of the House and the members on the other side of the House differ in our policies.

B.C. Liberals. It is known now for the last 16 years that they chose to consult with the people, with all sincerity, in the top 2 percent — wealthy people only — and not consult with the people of British Columbia. That was the record for the 16 years they were in power. On the other side, we consult with the people of British Columbia: the working people, small business people, environment lovers, teachers, students, seniors and people looking for affordable housing and affordable child care. The list goes on.

[11:30 a.m.]

That’s the stark difference between our policy and their policy when we talk about consulting people. That’s the difference. It’s very clear to me, if we look back at the last 16 years, that they have chosen to listen to only one group of people, and that is the top rich people.

There would be no housing crisis in B.C. today if they would have listened to the people of British Columbia at that time. There would be no money laundering impacting our real estate and drug overdose crisis if they would have listened to the people — the whistle-blowers and the experts — at that time. There would be no class-size crisis today in B.C. schools for our students — particularly in Surrey, the fastest-growing community in the province — if they would have listened to the teachers and parents at that time. But they didn’t.

Phase 2 of the Mayors Council plan would have been built a long time ago, and the SkyTrain in Surrey and the Broadway subway in Vancouver would be in operation today if they would have listened to the Mayors Council a long time ago.

They clearly ignored people asking for help on affordability. They doubled the MSP premium during their 16 years. They put tolls on the people, particularly of Surrey, on two bridges — the Port Mann Bridge and the Golden Ears Bridge. They barely gave any increase to minimum wage and froze the income assistance rate for ten years. That’s the record of their listening or consultation with the people of the province. The list goes on.

It is very clear to me and to the people of British Columbia that they listen to the top 2 percent people of B.C. I would like to give one example. I know the member will probably know this person very well.

There’s a person in B.C. known as Bob Rennie. He’s also known as Vancouver’s Condo King. He was the B.C. Liberal Party’s chief fundraiser between 2013 and 2017. He helped raise $5 million through private dinners with the Premier at that time. So when the new foreign buyer tax was introduced by the previous administration to curb real estate speculation, for some reason, the new policy specifically exempted speculation on the presale of condos — Rennie’s core business. People can put two and two together on this situation.

On the other side, our government is actually listening to the people of British Columbia. People are at the centre of every choice we make and that we have made during the last two years of our government, because our government believes in working for the people of British Columbia and changing lives for the people of B.C.

We have made three key promises to the people of British Columbia: to make life more affordable, improve services that people depend on and build a strong, sustainable economy that supports jobs in every corner of the province.

S. Cadieux: It never ceases to amaze me how members on the other side are given to make statements with no basis in reality to try to impugn members on this side of the House.

Now, the previous speaker — and I’m going to give just one example — said that we, on this side of the House, only ever cared about or consulted with the top 2 percent. I’m going to give that member just one example where he is absolutely wrong.

Interjection.

S. Cadieux: Oh, I could give more, but we only have a few minutes.

Just after the 2013 election, our government embarked on one of the most comprehensive consultations we’ve seen in quite some time. That was the consultation for Accessibility 2024. That consultation reached out to thousands upon thousands of people with disabilities, none of whom I would expect the member would suggest, or very few of whom, reside in that top 2 percent they like to quote.

[11:35 a.m.]

The reality is that we embarked on a very comprehensive consultation, over many months, throughout the province of British Columbia with some of the most marginalized people in our province, listening to what mattered to them, what was needed to make sure that they could contribute fully in their society on topics as simple as voting, on topics as simple as housing.

I am really proud of that consultation. It was so comprehensive, in fact, that when the government of Canada decided to embark on their consultation before the introduction of the Accessible Canada Act, they modelled their consultation, countrywide, on the consultation that was done here in B.C. by this side of the House.

Now, that’s not to suggest that the current provincial government here in British Columbia has not embarked on consultation. They have, and sometimes I think it’s been meaningful. I believe they are going to embark on some additional meaningful consultation with the community of people with disabilities in our province about what needs to be in a British Columbia accessibility act. I welcome that consultation by the government.

There’s also the misuse of consultations, when consultation is done for the purposes of evading or delaying. There’s a really good example of that, by this government, in the ride-hailing consultations that I was a part of.

The government promised British Columbians ride-hailing by December 2017. But by December 2017, all that had happened was the launch of a consultation process, of which I was a part, which made very reasonable, rational recommendations, of which none were brought forward in the legislation that followed, only to be followed by yet another consultation to provide more guidance, to which more very reasonable recommendations were made.

We have yet to see any regulations come about as a part of that consultation that follow along from that consultation — consultation that was broad, consultation that involved all sides of the House and the experts in the area of transportation and ride-hailing. One can only surmise that the only purpose to that was, frankly, to delay.

That is not meaningful consultation. Meaningful consultation has a report-out at minimum. That doesn’t mean we’re always going to agree on the result, and that when we consult, every person who is heard gets what they want in the end. That isn’t the purpose. The purpose, though, should be to come back and explain. If government then takes a different approach, why? Why did government not do the things that they heard in the consultation?

That isn’t what we see from this government. We see a government that moves forward with very little regard to what the public or the experts are saying and, instead, with what works politically for themselves in the current climate. Now, I’m not surprised by that. It’s what governments do often, but we should be looking to do much more justice to consultation.

J. Rice: This motion is interesting in that it suggests government is not supporting meaningful consultation and public engagement with British Columbians. I have to ask which way the B.C. Liberals want it. They’re always complaining that we consult too much, and now they’re complaining that we’re not consulting enough. I think some care should be taken here in that the pot is not calling the kettle black.

For example, when the B.C. Liberals were in government, they ignored small and rural communities, like the ones I represent, who are missing out on infrastructure funding. They were treated like big cities with a large tax base, and they couldn’t afford the share they were expected to pay.

[11:40 a.m.]

They ignored the affordable housing crisis, leaving communities to deal with the effects of rising homelessness and tent cities. They ignored calls for acceptable, affordable child care. They ignored people asking for help to make their lives more affordable, doubling MSP premiums, barely increasing the minimum wage and freezing income assistance rates for ten years.

They refused to recognize the existence of First Nations inherent rights and instead systematically fought them in court, despite repeated losses. Instead of listening to us in the northwest and respecting our values of protecting our coast and standing up for wild salmon, they rammed unwanted pipelines down our throats, and Christy Clark called people a “ragtag group of people” for disagreeing with her.

Our government is actually listening to British Columbians. We got rid of big money in B.C. by banning corporate and union donations so that you can no longer buy influence with government in this province. We’re committed to working collaboratively with local governments throughout B.C. to improve the services people count on and to make life better for people.

We listened to people across B.C. desperate to find affordable housing, and we’re already seeing results with our 30-point housing plan. So far, 20,000 homes have either been announced or already built. We listened when communities asked for support to tackle the homelessness crisis, with the creation of the rapid response to homelessness program. In Prince Rupert, 36 homeless people are off the streets and are tenants at the Crow’s Nest Lodge, where they receive wraparound supports 24 hours, seven days a week. The village of Queen Charlotte will soon open up 19 homes like these, plus four more homes from our community housing fund.

From our first-of-its-kind Indigenous housing fund, Lax Kw’alaams First Nation will see 60 homes built off reserve in Prince Rupert for their members and 20 homes on reserve in Lax Kw’alaams. Skidegate will see 24 homes built on reserve, and the Heiltsuk will see six homes built in Bella Bella. We are the first province in Canada to build housing on reserve. We are doing so because we are listening to British Columbia’s First Peoples and the dire call for housing in this province.

We listened to people on affordability by moving to eliminate MSP premiums, which will be one of the biggest mid­dle tax cuts in B.C.’s history. We’re increasing the minimum wage to $15.20 an hour by 2021, and we raised disability and income assistance rates by $100 a month on our second day in office. We listened to families by working towards universal child care, implementing fee reductions and an affordable child care benefit, which is already saving some families $19,000 a year. Our universal child care pilot sites are changing families’ lives.

We listened to Indigenous peoples, and we’re moving forward on reconciliation, making it a cross-government priority. We moved forward with sharing gaming revenue with Indigenous communities, something they had been asking for, for years. We are co-developing historic new legislation with the First Nations Leadership Council to establish the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples as the foundation of B.C.’s reconciliation work. We’ve achieved the Broughton fish farm agreement through a historic government-to-government shared decision-making process, respecting Indigenous rights and supporting our wild salmon stocks.

We listened when small communities told us they were missing out on needed infrastructure funding because they couldn’t come up with their share. For the first time ever, small rural communities will be able to have 90 to 100 percent of eligible project costs covered by joint federal-provincial funding. Our new $95 million federal-provincial rural and northern communities fund addresses the unique infrastructure needs of communities with populations under 25,000.

We are delivering on projects and services people need, because we are meaningfully consulting and listening to British Columbians.

L. Reid: It gives me great pleasure to speak to this very important motion on supporting meaningful consultation and public engagement with British Columbians.

As the critic for seniors care, I’m extremely disappointed at the complete lack of transparency and meaningful consultation in the NDP’s approach towards seniors care in our province. At a time when British Columbia is facing an acute shortage of care aides for seniors, the NDP government, this March, announced its plan to move privately run home support service into health authorities. It decided to move more than 4,000 care aide jobs from the non-profit and private sector to public authorities without any consultation with the sector — zero consultation.

[11:45 a.m.]

Training more aides would help. Moving existing staff around won’t help the labour shortage. But this is a government that thinks it knows best. Please let me explain what’s wrong with this plan. Seniors are looking for an increase in service, but this announcement only achieved the exact opposite. Our health care system needs innovation, but this government, sad to say, is reducing the opportunity. It all boils down to choices for seniors and innovation in the home support system, which comes from an array of providers. The NDP’s decision would only reduce choice.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The NDP announced moving more than 4,000 home support jobs to public health authorities, made cuts to consumer choice and created service reductions without any consultation with the sector, just weeks after the province celebrated home care support workers of Victoria. We cannot afford a government which makes up policies on the fly.

The B.C. Care Providers Association is a non-profit representing the majority of B.C.’s seniors care providers, but it was never consulted by the NDP government on this change. It has clearly stated its deep disappointment in the NDP government’s decision. Its CEO, Daniel Fontaine, said this decision to bring home support service providers into government-run operations “is fraught with risks and makes no practical sense, from the standpoint of seniors. These changes only serve to drive up the cost of the support and complicate the staffing shortage crisis the sector is facing, without addressing the needs of B.C. seniors. Furthermore, many of our members tell us their staff do not want to work for government.”

The B.C. Care Providers Association has been calling for putting this change on hold and asked the government for a thorough consultation with the home support sector before making any final decisions. They even created a website called Hands Off My Home Care, calling on B.C. seniors and their families to take action to have their voices heard because neither seniors were consulted.

BCCPA understands about seniors needs. They understand that vulnerable seniors need to be able to trust whoever comes into their homes, and they want longer visit times. When the government disrupts home support service for seniors, it adds stress and uncertainty to their lives. When the 4,000 workers move jobs, it means, for many seniors, that they no longer have the same care aide they used to have, let alone an extension of visit times or types of service. What bothers me more is not only how this NDP plan failed to adequately consider 4,000 jobs, but it’s really about the Premier’s unwillingness to conduct meaningful consultation to ensure that seniors receive the care they need and deserve.

What’s next? Who’s next for the NDP to target? Is it going to take over all seniors care without any further consultation? They claimed that this was part of a plan to make things more efficient but never explained how the appropriation of workers would impact the budget. They did not provide any detailed business plan to inform the sector families on how the transition would be carried out, and I asked the Health Minister repeatedly during estimates. There was no business case made. Instead, they cooked up this plan behind closed doors. Isn’t this familiar?

This is why this motion is so important. Had the government engaged with the sector and the public, they would learn that the industry is already facing a worker shortage, while the number of seniors in B.C. is expected to double between 2015 and 2041. The NDP plan is putting both the future of care aides and the health and well-being of seniors at risk. Families are already faced with higher taxes and higher gas prices. The last thing they need from this government is higher stress levels when struggling to take care of an elderly loved one. It is time to conduct meaningful consultation and engagement for the home support service sector and British Columbia seniors.

R. Glumac: Democracy — it’s something we all value greatly. The word itself comes from the Greek words demos, which means “people,” and kratos, which means “rule.” Democracy means “ruled by the people,” all the people. Elections are just one part of that.

Consultation with people on an ongoing basis is a very important part of a strong democracy, and that is why our government has made consultation a key part of what we do. We believe that good ideas come from everywhere, and people deserve to have a voice. That voice should be heard. That, of course, doesn’t mean that everybody gets exactly what they want, but what it means is that the best ideas rise up to the top and are embraced by a government that wants to listen.

That is why, as a government, we’ve conducted consultation in many areas — around poverty reduction, environmental assessments, ticket-scalping, fair wages, wild salmon. The list goes on and on.

[11:50 a.m.]

Our government is consulting at a higher rate than the previous B.C. Liberal government, and on a wider variety of topics. This consultation has directly resulted in informing the legislation that we’re bringing forward.

Doing consultation in itself is not enough. The previous government also did consultation. The difference is they didn’t listen.

I remember when the previous government announced the climate leadership team back in 2015. I remember reading the 32 recommendations that followed and being excited about those recommendations, because they were good recommendations. I remember the disappointment I felt when the recommendations were completely ignored. Seven of the original members of the climate leadership team wrote an open letter to the government, expressing concern over the lack of action. Instead of following these recommendations, the B.C. Liberals went to Calgary with representatives from the oil and gas industry to create a very different plan.

One of the members of that climate leadership team stated that it’s the government’s responsibility to create good climate policy, and that: “They abdicated that responsibility by basically asking one sector, the oil and gas sector, to rewrite the recommendations that were given to them by their own team of experts.” While the previous government conducted these consultations, they never listened. They never listened to the people of British Columbia. They never listened to the experts that they themselves chose. But they listened to the oil and gas sector.

It’s interesting that companies like Enbridge and Kinder Morgan and other companies in the Alberta oil patch donated $4.2 million to the B.C. Liberals. It is interesting. It’s interesting to think…. We can’t forget. We have to look back and remember the bucketloads of cash that were coming from these big companies to the B.C. Liberals and the previous government. Just a few examples. Imperial Metals donated over $800,000 to the B.C. Liberals. Imperial Metals received no charges and no fines following the catastrophic environmental disaster of Mount Polley. Wesbild donated $700,000 to the B.C. Liberals. They purchased 14 parcels of development land from the government for $43 million below assessed value.

There were news stories at the time, where 177 of the top donors donated $55 million to the B.C. Liberal Party. Those same donors received $15 billion in payouts and contracts and projects from the B.C. Liberal government. Now, did these donations influence those results? We don’t know. But what we do know is that our government’s first order of business, when we came into power, was to end corporate and union donations.

Our government belongs to the people of this province. We will continue to listen, we will continue to consult with the people of B.C., and we will continue to work towards a better future for all of us.

J. Thornthwaite: I’m happy to stand in the House supporting meaningful consultation and public engagement with British Columbians.

The NDP is somewhat of a dichotomy. On the one hand, they can’t stop consulting, but they never make a decision, like on ride-sharing. Our B.C. Liberal government had done the work to bring in real ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft by Christmas 2017. We put it in our platform, and it was ready to go. Unfortunately, we were unable to make government after the NDP and Greens’ hasty marriage, and even though both parties put it in their platform, they decided to stall.

Someone told them that the reason why the Liberals lost votes in Surrey and Vancouver was because we promised ride-sharing, and the union taxi lobby wasn’t too pleased with that and got all of their friends and neighbours to vote against us. Personally, I don’t believe it. But that was the scuttlebutt.

I think a more realistic explanation is that the NDP chief of staff, Geoff Meggs — who had committed, when he was a Vancouver councillor, not to bring in ride-sharing because he was indebted to the union for donations — was just continuing on that commitment in his new role as the Premier’s chief of staff.

Assuming the NDP had no real plans to bring in ride-sharing, but feeling the heat from the public, they decided to strike a committee, which included the NDP member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale as the Chair, to study the thing to death, not once but twice. Then it was discovered that one of the NDP members on that committee, the member for Delta North, actually had family members in the taxi industry, which, of course, was either a real or perceived conflict of interest. No matter. Still no ride-sharing.

[11:55 a.m.]

Then it was discovered that the guy behind the so-called made-in-B.C. ride-sharing company that the NDP seemed to like, Kater, was also connected to the NDP via none other than Moe Sihota, who is a blast from the past to be reckoned with. The whole exercise of the NDP and ride-sharing is an absolute sham of consultation on steroids, and we’re still all waiting for ride-sharing.

In other instances, we’ve seen the NDP totally blindsiding entire sectors with no consultation. My colleagues have already talked about the forest industry, the caribou recovery plan and then the agriculture sector, where, apparently, farmers are no longer people in the eyes of the NDP. It’s obvious they were never consulted, since who on earth would agree to be demoted as a non-person?

There are other examples of blatant blindsiding and no consultation. The social services sector low-wage redress. Hollyburn Family Services on the North Shore and many others are suffering because the NDP has deemed that only union workers, even those employed in the same agency as non-union workers, will be given a raise while the people who work alongside them do not get that raise. It’s unconscionable that the party that professes to be the party for the people is actually the party of blatant discrimination.

This is in an industry that is already having a tough time as it is securing workers. Now this is going to make it much worse. And who will be hurt? The vulnerable people in our community seeking help from these social services.

The so-called community benefits agreement that specifies that only members of the NDP’s 19 favoured unions are allowed to bid on publicly funded projects. This discriminates against 85 percent of the construction workers in the province and has already proven to shoot up the cost of doing the project, like the Trans-Canada Highway near Revelstoke that will cost 35 percent more than it would without the CBA.

The B.C. Care Providers, who look after our most vulnerable seniors, are also sounding the alarm. They too were blindsided. Now there’s a push for the home care workers to be expropriated into the health authorities, again to pump up one of the NDP’s favourite unions or to force non-union employees to actually join a union and be able to work in their chosen field.

These are just a few examples of how the NDP is either consulting to death to not make a decision or not consulting at all and blindsiding total industries to the favour of the NDP’s union buddies but to the detriment of jobs, the economy and all the people of B.C.

J. Thornthwaite moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Personal Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS
MADE IN THE HOUSE

J. Johal: On May 16, during question period, I made comments that offended some members of the Pakistani community. I recently met with six different organizations within that community. We had a thoughtful, respectful conversation.

I wish to withdraw my remarks and apologize.

Hon. J. Darcy moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.