Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate on the Office of the Premier. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on Bill 22, Forest Amendment Act. And in the Birch Room, Committee C, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

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

The committee met at 1:40 p.m.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $11,349,000 (continued).

M. Bernier: Depending on the time here, I’m going to have a couple of different topics that I’m going to canvass, but let’s just start with the obvious one from my riding.

As the Premier is well aware, over the last many, many months, the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development was working on a partnership agreement — a now signed partnership agreement — between the federal government, provincial government and two local First Nations in my riding. One of the largest debates around this was the lack of involvement, consultation — really, input — from anybody, even though people in the riding were continuously writing letters screaming for input — really left with the uncertainty.

Can the Premier start by explaining why the decision was made to not include anybody in the discussions around the partnership agreement other than the two local First Nations?

Hon. J. Horgan: I welcome the member for Peace River South to the Premier’s estimates. Joining me today, to my left, is my deputy minister, Don Wright; to my right, my chief of staff, Geoff Meggs, and Bobbi Plecas, Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations; and Vanessa Geary, immediately behind me, executive director, operations and strategic initiatives in the Office of the Premier.

I know the member. We’ve been colleagues for some time. I know his passion for his community. I took guidance from him during the lead-up to the appointment of Blair Lek­strom as a community liaison to unravel the challenges of consultation on issues around caribou in his community.

The challenges government have are that we need to deal nation-to-nation, constitutionally, with the First Nations in the territory of the electoral district that the member represents. The federal government is the main mover on this. The Species at Risk Act is a federal piece of legislation.

The member knows full well that the decline in caribou herds over the past number of decades has reached critical proportions. The entire community, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, has focused on making sure that the caribou are sustained not just over the short term but the long term. And so when we heard the noises, the outcry from the community that the member touched upon in his question, we looked at ways to try and include the community.

The first thing we had to do with the partnership agreement was to get an agreement; that was achieved. Then we sat down, the member and I and representatives from the Peace River regional district, of which Blair Lekstrom is a member. We talked about how we could open this up for further discussion.

[1:45 p.m.]

I believe we’ve done that by extending the consultation period and giving Mr. Lekstrom an opportunity to report to me on his findings after discussions with community leaders and representatives from the public. He gave us a report at the beginning of this week.

Mr. Lekstrom has a medical procedure that will keep him off the field for a few days. I will be travelling to Europe next week to participate in the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landing at Juno Beach. So we won’t be able to publicly announce the outcome of that consultation until the following week. I think we’ve set the 14th or 15th of June for that announcement. But I will endeavour, absolutely, to keep the member as up to date as I possibly can on timing and contents of the determinations that we’ve come to based on Mr. Lekstrom’s work.

M. Bernier: Obviously, the Premier would know what my questions are probably going to lead to, so I appreciate him getting ahead of that. I would have asked, obviously, that this report from Blair Lekstrom — Councillor Lekstrom now — is something that I think the Premier…. Just confirming now that he’s going to make public, make sure that that report is something…. I have full confidence.

I’m not sure if the Premier has had time to peruse — I’m sure he has, at least — and talk with Councillor Lekstrom on the feeling. So let me just, as maybe a bit of a preamble into what my assumptions are, let the House know that I have no idea what Councillor Lekstrom put forward. That was something he was working with the Premier on. Blair always, I think, respects the confidentiality that comes with that, so I have no idea.

The assumption, from what I’ve heard, is…. The frustration around the uncertainty that it took until Concerned Citizens for Caribou Recovery and other groups, grassroots groups in the communities, really got together and started getting people to sign petitions because of the frustration, the lack of consultation, the lack of involvement…. A lot of this stemmed — as the Premier, I hope, would acknowledge, and he somewhat did in his first comments there — from the fact that nobody was involved at the beginning other than the two local First Nations.

Now, I understand…. Nobody is taking away from the fact that there is a Supreme Court of Canada ruling, a constitutional right for the consultation that must occur in a process like this. But can the Premier then maybe remind me or this House, because maybe I’m unaware, where in that ruling, or in the constitutional approach of dealing with communities, does it say that only the First Nations have to be consulted? Why not other levels of government in the region or community stakeholders? Why and where does it say that the Premier and his minister had to wait until they had a signed agreement?

Hon. J. Horgan: Thank you, Member, for the questions.

Now, I want to start by saying, as I did to you here when you tabled the petition, that as a member for south Vancouver Island, not having a representative above Prince George in the government caucus, we take our information as it comes on the feeling and the sentiment in community.

[1:50 p.m.]

The member and I have a long-standing relationship. He can talk to me at any time and takes advantage of that, and I’m grateful for that opportunity. I better understand the needs in his community. Most members are like that. All members should be like that. I stand representing the government of British Columbia, which is the government of all the people of British Columbia.

How we got into this was that we started with the direction from the federal government to put in place a partnership agreement with the two First Nations, Saulteau and West Moberly. They were insistent on a government-to-government relationship, as is their right. So we undertook that. In the process, word got around — I’m paraphrasing; you know this as well or better than I do — in the community: “Why are we not part of this consultation? Why are we not part of this partnership agreement?” But always, always, before any agreement was to be ratified, it needed cabinet approval. That has not happened.

I anticipate, after getting a briefing from Blair Lekstrom and reviewing the high points of his report…. I have not digested it fully because I’ve had other issues in the past couple of days, as well as the worst man cold in the history of man colds. But I know the sentiments in the community were running very, very hot. The member brought that directly to my attention. I contacted Mr. Lekstrom. He confirmed, as you would expect, that the sentiments were very, very strong in the community.

It was at that point I talked to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development and said: “We need to rethink our process here.” The process that we engaged in was not really of our making. I’m not abdicating responsibility when I say that. It’s federal jurisdiction. It’s a federal act. We were directed to work with the Indigenous community, or they were going to issue an order against British Columbia, which would have taken us completely out of the equation.

We determined that the best course of action was to work with the First Nation and work with the federal government and, as we moved along, engage with the public. Life intervened, I would suggest. Now, this is cold comfort to people in the community who were concerned about their livelihood, their well-being and their quality of life as a result of a decision that they, at the end of the day, probably supported.

Everyone that I’ve talked to about the challenges of maintaining caribou in the Peace country wants to make sure we do that, whether it’s through predator management or whether it’s through maternal capping processes and protecting areas. A whole host of initiatives are already underway, supported by the community, and we want to just make sure that everybody has an understanding and that everybody participates.

It was the voices in the community, tabled in this place by the member, that brought this clearly to our attention. I’d like to think we responded quickly. We put in place a process that I think will get us back on track, where all members of the community, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, can start working together again, as they were prior to the federal government bringing forward their SARA edicts.

Again, I’m not passing a buck here, Member, when I say this, but it was a process that we entered into in good faith. It got away from us, and I’ve acknowledged that publicly in your community and as well here in the Legislature.

We believe we’ve got it back on track, and I’m looking forward to working with the member to ensure that he can report to his community that his interventions and, more importantly, their interventions to him have borne some fruit, and we’re back on track to make sure that everyone is focused on preserving caribou, preserving the quality of life of northerners, as well as all the economic opportunities that flow from that.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the Premier’s comments and the relationship. I will acknowledge that the Premier has been very open to discuss this with me, to hear the concerns I’ve brought forward. If the Premier will allow me, I notice that today he’s got his glasses. So maybe we can use the phrase, “Hindsight is 20-20,” to say that in this case, looking back, I think a lot of this could have been avoided.

If you look at how it really escalated…. Of course, right now we only have a partnership agreement in the South Peace, in my riding, but as the Premier should be, and I know is, well aware, as this kind of news travelled around the province — and town hall meetings started in corner to corner of rural B.C. — the frustration escalated. Whether it was accurate or not is yet to be seen, depending on the decisions that come out of government, based on not only this partnership agreement but, I guess, on recommendations, if I can use that word, of what Councillor Lekstrom might put forward.

[1:55 p.m.]

I will say that although I do appreciate the Premier listening to some of my concerns, I do want to acknowledge on the record the frustration when you have, as he acknowledged, very few rural MLAs within his caucus — 21 or 22 on the opposition side from rural B.C.

I know the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin wrote numerous letters not only to the Premier but to the minister asking for the slightest of briefings or information so that we could at least share information with the public. I have numerous letters in front of me addressed to the Premier and to the minister, none of which were answered.

We wanted to work with our communities, work with government to try to resolve this issue. Can the Premier maybe let me know why he, his office and the Minister of Forests and Lands refused to answer any of our emails as a rural caucus, where we were trying to help and work on this issue?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the member will know this, but I think it’s important for the record and for those who are joining us here in the gallery today to talk about that this is not something that happened two years ago. The decline in caribou populations has been going on across the province for a considerable period of time. In 2003, the federal government designated the mountain caribou and the southern mountain caribou as threatened species, and then put in place a federal strategy in 2014.

When we came to government, I had an expectation, Member, that the previous government had been doing some of this heavy lifting in communities — represented, in most cases, by members of the government at that time — to do the information-sharing that would be required to have a better understanding across the province.

No other part of the province has the same characteristics, however, that the member has in his constituency. There are no partnership agreements with Indigenous peoples that I’m aware of in any other part of the province. It was only with the Saulteau and the West Moberly. The characterization that there was secrecy was a result of a nation-to-nation negotiation. That’s not happening in other parts of the province. It’s not happening in Cariboo-Chilcotin that I’m aware of. I’m happy to talk to the member. I’m hopeful she’ll come. She usually does participate in these estimates, and I look forward to that discussion.

We felt that a solution would have been better with the province at the table than not. So when the federal government basically told us that this is what they were going to do, we said, “Wait a minute. I think we should have a conversation here, in British Columbia, about that,” and we began that with the Saulteau and the West Moberly.

Now it has begun again with the people in your community, through extending the consultation process, as well as providing an opportunity for the community liaison to look at the lay of the land and report back to us on how we can best proceed. We’re proceeding on the assumption that everybody understands that we have a crisis within the caribou stocks, the caribou herds in the region. The objective is to find a way where all community partners can agree, to the extent that that’s possible.

The member knows; he has sat at the cabinet table. There are tough decisions that have to be made, and it is a shock to no one that you don’t please everybody all the time. We’re not so Pollyanna that we believe that’s the case, but we do need to respond and acknowledge the concerns in the community. Again, I credit the member for his openness with me and our ability to talk about this candidly so that we can address the issues in the Peace.

Other parts of the province have bigger problems, inasmuch as the herds are much, much smaller. So the chances of turning this around are diminished. That’s not to say that we’ve given up, or that the federal government has given up, but our objective was to make sure that we didn’t have something imposed upon us.

[2:00 p.m.]

The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is working diligently with his officials to make sure that we’re getting information to people in a timely way. The challenge of that — and the member knows this — is that when you send a public official into a public meeting with a couple of hundred angry people, they’re less inclined to stick their neck out of their shirt and tie. I don’t mean that as a sense of cowardice, but decision-makers are at cabinet. They’re not at the public meetings.

We were not able to get ministers to the public meetings, because we were here in a minority parliament winning votes. So our ability to travel around the province was diminished. As luck would have it, today is the last day of the spring session. Some of us are delighting in that. I am certainly looking forward to the opportunity to come into the member’s community and speaking directly to his residents about these issues and a whole host of other issues.

We haven’t been able to do that in the period of time that led up to the crisis that I hope that we’ve averted. If we work together, as I know the member wants to, not just in the Peace but in other areas of British Columbia, we’ll be able to address these issues in a way that meets everybody’s interests.

M. Bernier: I hope we’ve averted a crisis. The crisis is what people thought we had because of the lack of information and the way things were shared. I, for one — I don’t want to speak on behalf of my entire caucus — am not glad that today is the last day, because we have lots more to discuss, to debate and to ask of government. The Premier can smirk at that, because I’m sure many people are excited to be out of here.

That being said, I do acknowledge, again, the pressure that his government — and, I will want to put on the record, our government, when we were in government — had on dealing with the caribou issue. I appreciate the Premier is not being too hyper-partisan on this, because it is something we need to work on together for the caribou. But the characterization made from his minister and others that this happened only because the last government did nothing is a complete falsehood.

As the Premier knows, I don’t have notes in front of me when I do this, but if memory serves me, in 2017, about $29 million was put forward towards this. There was great success working with the local First Nations around penning, herding programs. There was also, although controversial, a lot of work being done around culling programs that are required.

As you know through the SARA legislation, some of the recommendations and policies put forward saying that we need to get our predator management under control…. When you look at having less than three — let’s say we use wolves — wolves per 1,000 kilometres in order to have safe recognition of the amount of ungulates and predators.

Unfortunately, we’re at over 20 in my riding. That’s not counting the amount of issues that we have with grizzly bear. The numbers are growing. Huge populations of wolverine. Luckily, in my area, not as many cats, but our ungulate population is at risk. The Premier acknowledged that.

I also want to acknowledge, though, as he mentioned, and I agree with him, that every single person that I’ve talked with in my region — and, I’m sure, as the Premier has heard as well, and I’ve shared this — wants to do what is right for the back country. We live there. We choose to live there. As the Premier knows, I was born and raised in Vancouver, moved up north, never came back after 30 years. We choose to live up there. We love the outdoors, we love the back country, and we want to do what’s right for the wildlife and for the back country.

That does come with some tough decisions. So my question…. After that acknowledgment of we want to do what is right, we also want to do what is right for the people who live there, because if there are no jobs, if there’s no opportunity to use the back country, that makes it very difficult.

I’ve had numerous small businesses come to me to say that people have cancelled the purchase of their ATVs or their snowmobiles because of the uncertainty of what’s going to happen on a decision with this government. I’ve had the frustration of the chamber of commerce and local governments coming to me because the town hall meetings, if we want to have a quick discussion on that….

As the Premier said, there were no ministers there. When I was at the cabinet table, there were many times I had to be at town hall meetings in front of hundreds of people who wanted to voice their opinion, let’s just say, of the decisions that government was making. It’s important that we’re there.

[2:05 p.m.]

In this situation, we had no decision-makers. I am hoping, as this goes forward, before any decisions are being made, that that respect for the ridings will take place where the actual decision-makers…. I will acknowledge the Premier came up and extended…. Again, I thank him for, at least, that extra month there.

Before any decisions are made, people need to be heard. I went to these town hall meetings that we had in our region. I will share with the Premier, if it did not get back to him — and it’s probably in Lekstrom’s report — the frustration of those meetings. Instead of the panels…. All due respect to staff and others that were there. Instead of people being acknowledged for their concerns and being listened to, people left those meetings even more frustrated because every time a question was asked, they were told why their question was wrong, why their opinion was inaccurate or how it was deflected to decisions not being done in the past or on to the federal government.

Maybe I’ll, after that…. I know I’ve got another colleague that wants to ask some questions. We will have limited time here as a few other colleagues possibly come into the House. If not, you’ll get to hear from me again.

I do want to have the Premier, on the record, acknowledge for me, to give some comfort, where he can…. His Minister of Forests is on record through this entire process saying that there will be job losses in the region. If it’s not true, the Premier can correct me on that. But I can find the comments. The minister has said that there are going to be tough decisions, and there will be job losses, to the point where we actually had calls to our Community Futures office in Dawson Creek.

I do not know if it was from the provincial or federal government, so I won’t say which it was. But our Community Futures was called to say that they needed to start ramping up what supports they would need if a mill shut down. Hopefully the Premier can see, when these things are happening, that the uncertainty in our communities obviously gets pretty ramped up.

Will the Premier, on record today, acknowledge for me: are the minister’s comments true? Are there going to be job losses? Is it true that the forest companies are saying that they might have to shut down a mill because of the decisions of possibly shutting down tens of thousands of cubic metres of available timber supply?

What the people in my riding are wanting to hear this government say is that we will work together. We will protect the caribou. We will work together to make decisions on where we can or cannot use certain areas of the back country to ensure that we don’t have impacts on the caribou but, at the same time, recognize and have security for the jobs in the region.

What can the Premier say that is going to give comfort to my area that we are not going to have a mill shutdown and are not going to have job losses because of these decisions coming from government?

Hon. J. Horgan: Firstly, a couple of things. We know that we have a dwindling fibre basket in the Interior. This is not a caribou issue. This is a result of chasing more volume over more value in our forest industry. It’s a result of the beetle kill. It’s a result of two million hectares of merchantable timber lost in the past two years.

[2:10 p.m.]

There is a variety of issues that are conspiring against the forestry industry at this time. That’s why we’ve called upon the forest industry, community leaders, Indigenous leaders and labour representatives to come together in a timber supply area by timber supply area initiative to talk about how we manage fibre region by region to ensure that we maximize job protection in the near term as we see the annual allowable cut coming down.

Now, our estimates — and this would have been confirmed by the minister — are that there may be up to 300,000 metres alienated as a result of this initiative. So that doesn’t help with an already challenging situation.

There are opportunities of underutilized fibre north of your community that we are hopeful we can repurpose to meet any shortfall, but it’s also why we wanted to get at the table so that we can force the federal government to recognize that it’s federal jurisdiction, federal legislation we’re dealing with, and they have a responsibility to step up. We’ve been working….

My chief of staff was back in Ottawa in the off week talking to decision-makers there to remind them that British Columbia is a vital part of Confederation that requires the same level of supports that other parts of the country do when federal decisions are going to have an impact on our economy and our quality of life.

We’ve been taking a couple of approaches to address this issue at the 40,000-foot level. We’re dealing with our federal government, dealing with forest companies, communities, to make sure we’re trying to find a way through what has been obvious to all of us who pay attention to the forest industry for 20 years. The fibre is going down, and volumes are staying about the same in terms of the amount of wood coming out of our forests and getting into the marketplace.

We’re now looking at trying to see where industry can change its habits to get more value out of our wood. Engineered wood products — Structurlam in Okanagan Falls. Kalesnikoff is opening an engineered wood product facility in Castlegar so that we can take chunks of wood and make them into large pieces of wood and get more value out of that and create more jobs. I think the industry understands that that’s the way they need to go.

Certainly communities understand that as we see a decline of the beetle-kill wood available for harvest and we see the devastation of the past two years in terms of forest fires, we have to find a new way to go forward. I’m very excited that the majority of companies that operate in British Columbia on public lands understand and recognize that they have an obligation to work with communities, to work with Indigenous leaders, to work with labour to find a way forward. It’s not going to be easy. No one expects it to be easy.

I know the member wasn’t suggesting that caribou are the problem here. There are a host of challenges to the sector. Our obligation as a government, and our obligation as members of the Legislature, is to advocate strongly, as the member does, to make sure that we leave no stone unturned in trying to find a way to protect, preserve and expand economic activity in our communities.

The Peace country is blessed with an abundance of resources, not just forests but metals, minerals and natural gas. There’s a lot going on in the region, but forestry is a vital part of that.

We’re going to do what we can, working with those CEOs who have agreed to participate with us — Canfor, West Fraser, Tolko, Interfor and others — to make sure that we’re finding a way to maximize the utilization of the existing fibre basket and create more value from our timber, in the hopes also, of course, that the United States tribunals that we’re embroiled in with respect to softwood will come on our side, as they have time after time after time, and we can continue to go forward.

P. Milobar: I’ll switch gears away from caribou here for a little while. I’m trying to follow up on a couple of questions that I’ve asked several different ministers through estimates and not been able to get an actual definitive answer from any of the ministers. I figured I should come and ask the Premier to see if anyone in government indeed has an answer to these couple of areas.

The first one is the low-carbon fuel standard. We know from estimates yesterday that the current low-carbon standard that we have adds about one cent a litre to fuel. I think there’s already been an acknowledgment that low-carbon fuel standards do add a cost to the refined product. In the case of CleanBC and the new standard, that accounts for about 22 percent of CleanBC’s emissions targets.

[2:15 p.m.]

It’s a very significant piece of the overall plan for CleanBC. If it has any chance of trying to actually meet any of its stated goals, it would need this low-carbon fuel standard to be in effect and operational in short order. However, when asked about modelling of what the new low standard will be, going from ten to a 20…. That doesn’t exist in Alberta currently. It doesn’t exist in Washington state currently. It’s used somewhat down in California. There doesn’t seem to be a willingness to answer what modelling has been done to the price at the pump for the new fuel standard.

I’m wondering if the Premier could shed some light on what the cost per litre, during a time of record gas prices right now with this low-carbon fuel standard as part of CleanBC — an integral part of CleanBC — is going to add at the retail level? What modelling has been done before CleanBC was signed off and that initiative was done to know what the impact to people in their daily lives was going to be?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his participation in the estimates today. He did ask many questions of the minister, who, conveniently, is here to assist me in this area. We did do modelling through Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. We’re happy to offer a briefing to you on the results of that.

We are endeavouring to match California standards. The member is quite right that if we’re going to realize our objectives, the low-carbon fuel standard is a key part of that. The cost, of course, for that will come down as more jurisdictions start to buy into this initiative.

[2:20 p.m.]

Currently it’s, by and large, California, British Columbia and a handful of other jurisdictions. As more jurisdictions start to get on board with this, the cost, of course, will come down. Again, we’re also trying to bring forward incentives to get people out of carbon-emitting vehicles altogether. That’s the thrust.

We had a question yesterday from a member. I was able to tell him that 15 percent of the vehicles purchased in British Columbia this month, with still a day to go, were electric vehicles. This is good news that will see our emissions go down and see our personal footprints diminished.

The member is quite right. The low-emission standards are key to our success. We did do modelling. I don’t have it at my disposal. I’m happy to get a briefing set up for the member if he wants one.

P. Milobar: Well, the electric vehicle program will account for 1.3 megatonnes by 2030 of the CleanBC plan. That’s assuming that there’s actually funding for the subsidies to continue. We know that at the current rate, there are about eight more weeks of subsidy left in a 156-week budget cycle. If you drain out the contingencies in CleanBC that are remaining, that might buy you an extra few weeks. Then you have no more money budgeted over the next three years. Again, that’s 1.3 megatonnes for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of subsidies to see that. That’s less than 10 percent of the overall CleanBC goals, actually.

The low-carbon fuel standard is for four megatonnes of reduction — over three times what the electric vehicle program would generate for emission reductions, based on the 2030 target date.

The problem is, to the Premier…. I did ask the Environment Minister. The Environment Minister told me to go talk to the Energy Minister. I believe I actually even asked the Finance Minister, just to be safe on this as well. And then I asked the Energy Minister about this exact topic as well. The answer back was that they don’t know. The Energy Minister’s answer was totally contradictory to what the Premier just said. So there was either an unwillingness, then, in estimates to give a straightforward answer….

There was certainly no briefing offered of the modelling that was done. And I have found it strange, asking this question now over the space of about a month’s time, that there hasn’t been some form of modelling provided. I can only surmise that’s because we are in the midst of very high gas prices. It seems people don’t want to answer what a very significant piece to the CleanBC plan is going to add to the price at the pumps.

When I asked the Energy Minister about it being an ethanol blend, the Energy Minister made it very clear that the target was not meant to be ethanol. Later on, the Energy Minister made it very clear that ethanol blend is actually the cheaper blend, and maybe that is the blend that they’ll go with, instead of wood waste and other types of additives that could get made to be put in.

Again, I guess, it sounds like the Premier’s staff is now helping the Premier acknowledge that there is going to be some price-at-the-pump change. Is there no way to be able to access that information? It has been asked now, canvassed in three different ministries. It has been canvassed everywhere I’ve been sent to canvass. This is the first I’ve actually had an acknowledgment from government that there was any modelling done at all, despite asking three previous ministers. So I’m wondering why this modelling would be hard to access and to provide very clearly to the public what they can expect the low-carbon fuel standard to cost them at the pump every time they fill up.

Again, this is 22 percent of the CleanBC targets. We already have a missing 25 percent of the CleanBC targets. Between these two items alone, that’s almost half of the CleanBC plan, and there doesn’t seem to be an answer for it.

I’m just wondering when we can expect to hear what the price-per-pump increase is going to be as a result of the government policy around a low-carbon fuel standard. We know that the BCUC report will not be able to look at government policy. Hopefully, the government can at least answer what their policy is going to impact people’s pocketbooks by.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: The member is right. At the front end on the electric vehicle side, there will be less impact in terms of megatonnes, because it takes, on average, about 12 years for people to roll over their vehicles. The challenge is to try and reduce the carbon standard in existing gas vehicles by using low-carbon standards. It’s working in other jurisdictions. It will work here. The modelling is underway.

The questions you’ve asked…. I’m aware of asking questions to the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Environment. The Minister of Finance is here. He doesn’t recall you asking about low-carbon fuel standards, but you alleged that you did. I am here to debate the budget estimates for the Premier’s office.

I appreciate that on broader policy questions, it’s absolutely an appropriate line of questioning. I’m not deterring you from carrying down this road, but we’re confident that the plan is going to work. It’s aggressive, it’s ambitious, and we’re looking forward to working with all members of the House and the broader public to meet the objectives that all British Columbians want to see.

Time and time again we have young people in the gallery. They’re going to inherit the planet. I know the member is as passionate about this as anybody. We believe that the initiatives that we’ve put in place are going to be achievable.

The broader question of gas prices at this time was fully canvassed by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I’m happy to go over that, the supply-and-demand arguments, again with the member if he wants to.

P. Milobar: Well, this has nothing to do with supply-and-demand arguments, except for the fact that CleanBC will create, essentially, an artisanal blend for British Columbia that doesn’t exist other than outside of California on the west coast. I’m not disputing that the low-carbon blend would actually create a drop in emissions. That wasn’t the question, and that wasn’t in dispute. The question the government does not want to answer is how much per litre that government policy will cost people when they purchase gasoline for their vehicles.

That’s the straightforward question. I keep trying to get an answer for it. The Premier is correct: I can’t 100 percent remember if I asked this specifically of the Finance Minister or not, but I know for a fact I did ask the Environment and Energy ministers about this. The problem is that if we’re talking transparency, if we’re talking about people understanding what government policies are going to do to impact their daily lives, I think the public deserves to have answers to very straightforward questions about how specific government policy will impact them in their pocketbook.

That’s what the questions are around. It’s not around the validity of whether or not emissions would drop with the low-carbon standard. We know they would. That’s why they got created. That’s why they’ve been looked at in other jurisdictions around the world. You’ve seen a drop in emissions as a result.

I’ll move on, in the interest of time, but I will take up the Premier’s offer of a briefing from the Energy Ministry around this so we can maybe, at some point in the future, get to what the actual cost-per-litre increase the government policy is going to create.

The reason…. This ties in to my next piece. Again, people need to understand what the impacts of these policies will mean.

[2:30 p.m.]

We have a carbon tax increase to $50 a tonne, which adds 4½ cents, roughly, per litre. So in the next two years, it will go up again and again. At the same time, we’re going to have a low-carbon fuel standard implemented, which will increase the price at the pumps. But the government is unwilling to tell us what that modelling shows it to be.

We have an LNG project coming on stream where they will be able to access carbon credits to make sure that they meet their emissions standards to be considered world-leading. Why that’s significant is while people will be paying 4½ cents a litre more in carbon tax at the pump, LNG Canada will be able to buy carbon credits on the world market to receive a $20-a-tonne rebate from those same taxpayers.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

All industry, according to the Minister of Environment, will be treated equally, so they will each get to do this to make sure that they go to world-leading. LNG Canada has to operate at a 0.15 discharge rate. We’ve had the Minister of Finance indicate that world-leading will be considered somewhere between 0.22 and 0.28, at this point.

When there were other debates in this House, the Minister of Environment confirmed that they would be able to purchase offsets to go between 0.28 back down to 0.15 to be within their operational budget or operational mandate of their certificate, while still generating those emissions. That would qualify them for the $20-a-tonne rebate and, in fact, they could purchase carbon credit offsets on the world market at a world price. The day I was checking, you could purchase for about $3 Canadian a tonne for qualified programs out there.

I guess the question I have for the Premier is similar to the other ministers I’ve asked this of as well. With the LNG deal, why was there no minimum purchase price of offset within this deal if offsets were going to be allowed to be purchased to keep yourself operationally compliant?

Why are they allowed and why would industry, in general, be allowed to go to a world market at whatever lowest price they can find to be able to access the $20-a-tonne rebate from the taxpayers of British Columbia? It’s a rebate that, I would add, would be on 100 percent of their emissions, so it actually would be, given they’d only have to buy 50 percent of their offsets to get down to the 0.15 for their operating permit, that they would actually net out at about $1.50 a tonne to receive a $20-a-tonne rebate from the taxpayer.

Why did the Premier not ensure that there was protection for the taxpayers of this province when that deal was negotiated and signed off on — that there was at least a minimum purchase price for offsets that would be able to be accessed to be able to access the $50 back to $30 industry rebate?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, firstly, just so the member is aware — I know he’s a new member here — the carbon tax was introduced by the B.C. Liberals. The low-emission fuel standards were begun by the B.C. Liberals. Currently one cent a litre can be ascribed to the low-carbon fuel standards.

I’ll accept as a given that the member would like a briefing, and I’ll endeavour to make sure that’s set up.

There is no intention to allow large emitters to purchase credits — none. The standards have not yet been developed. The minister is working on that. I believe that was the essence of his answers to you during the budget estimates when you had the appropriate minister available to talk to about these issues.

Again, I’ll remind the member that the challenge of dropping in on the Premier’s office to talk about details that are better answered by the minister responsible is that you’re going to oftentimes get different nuances based on the intensity of the questions, much less the intensity of the emissions.

Our objectives with LNG Canada are consistent for all large emitters. If they can demonstrate world-leading practices, then incremental increases on the carbon price over $30 a tonne will be relieved. That’s an objective that doesn’t just assist LNG Canada. It will assist all large emitters, will keep economic development going and also allow us to meet our climate action goals.

P. Milobar: Well, that’s quite astounding for an answer, frankly. The minister, who has now been advising the Premier today, was very clear on question over question over question. We can go back and read the Hansard. It’s all right there. I’ve re-read it before. The answers were very clear.

We spent a lot of time going back and forth discussing this. The Finance Minister spent a lot of time talking about the 0.28 to 0.22 variable area that was still under negotiation with LNG Canada. The Environment Minister was very clear that not only do they have the ability to purchase offsets to stay within their operational permit of 0.15, but they could do it at a world market at an open price — and that as a signatory, he did not negotiate that into the agreement.

The answers we’ve had and I’ve had, going from minister to minister to the Premier, have been the same, to talk to people that had anything to do with the agreement. That’s exactly what I’m doing here today.

I assume that the Premier would have been heavily involved in negotiations and any agreements to sign off, even though he may not be an actual signatory. I find it hard to believe a $40 billion deal, with an extra $6 billion worth of credits kicked into the kitty to make it happen, did not have any oversight by the Premier.

The reason I’m asking the question, and I guess I’ll highlight it here, is that I find it interesting that companies able to access that $20 rebate per tonne, purchasing offsets on a world market at a time…. Yes, this was B.C. Liberal policy, but it was policy that, in fact, members of the then opposition, now government, spoke very strongly against, and that was public sector organizations needing to buy carbon offsets at $25 a tonne.

That policy is still in effect. I guess the question I have to the Premier, then, is: does the Premier have any inclination to change the policy? Asking the Minister of Environment, it was made very clear that he had no interest in reversing the policy that would require schools, hospitals and universities to pay $25 a tonne back to the government to stay carbon-neutral.

Does the Premier have any inclination or is planning on reversing that policy so that at least public sector organizations — schools, hospitals, universities — could operate with the same playing field of accessing carbon credits for carbon offsets that heavy industry will while they’re accessing $20-a-tonne rebates from the taxpayers of British Columbia?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: As I said in the earlier answer, we’re still designing the rebates with industry so that we don’t see carbon leakage to other jurisdictions. We want to maintain our competitive advantage while we still appear and consistently become world leaders in this regard.

I appreciate the member has put a lot of energy and effort into the budget estimates this year on the files that he’s responsible for. But again, I think that based on the opinions that I’m getting here, you’re conflating a couple of issues.

We certainly do not want and do not intend to put public institutions at a disadvantage to industry. That’s not the objective. I’m advised that the average cost of offsets for the public is 9 to 12 approximately, on average. That’s not even remotely close to what the industrial rebate will look like.

I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:43 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Reporting of Bills

BILL 22 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 22, Forest Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete with amendment, to be considered later today.

Hon. C. James: I call Bill 15, Committee of the Whole, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, Douglas Fir Room. Here in the chamber, I call continued estimates for the Premier.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $11,349,000 (continued).

E. Ross: LNG Canada, Chevron, Cedar LNG in Kitimat mean a lot to the region, to the Haisla, B.C. and Canada. We know the story, the billions and the job opportunities, the training, the contract and whatnot. But there are still a few obstacles in the way.

Probably the number one obstacle is the pipeline blockade. I understand that you got personally involved with the process in trying to resolve this. I was actually part of the process for the last 15 years. We were actually the catalyst trying to bring the 15 bands together in the first place for KM LNG. That’s how we started up the First Nations Limited Partnership. Then we also watched this translate over to the LNG Canada negotiations.

I’ve been watching the news, reading what’s going on. I understand the process that’s been put in place. I also understand that you put a point person in place to try to resolve some of the issues regarding the Wet’suwet’en.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’ve been trying to understand from asking your other ministers. Can I ask, in terms of the process that you’ve laid out here, what is the objective?

Hon. J. Horgan: I welcome the member for Skeena to the discussion. I have to correct, in the interest of clarity, some of his initial comments. I have personally involved myself in discussions with the Wet’suwet’en, but it’s been focused on their disappointment. At the invitation of the hereditary chiefs, I visited the traditional territories twice since August — once to participate in a smoke feast to talk about the Wet’suwet’en desire to see the Delgamuukw decision realized in their territory.

The discussions that I’ve been involved in have had nothing to do with CGL’s issues — the injunction, which is, I understand, being respected. CGL has access to the territories and is proceeding with construction of their camp.

I asked MP Murray Rankin to be my emissary in concert with one individual designated by the Wet’suwet’en hereditary leadership to discuss those issues that revolve around respect for hereditary decision-making that flowed from the Delgamuukw decision.

I know the member is from the north. He understands these issues very, very well and has been a leader in his community. I just wanted to make clear that I’ve separated these issues. There is the LNG Canada question. There is the CGL pipeline route and all of the support that that has — that the member worked hard personally and professionally to realize. The injunction is being respected. Work is underway.

Parallel to that, I have asked Murray Rankin, at no cost — he’s working pro bono, because he is a Member of Parliament currently — to be our emissary. He understands these issues very, very well. I’m advised that he reports back to Minister…. I was going to say his name. I can’t say his name. The name of the ministry is MIRR, Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I apologize, Member. I’m dumbstruck. I said this to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

We have separated those issues for reasons of clarity. As you know, the Wet’suwet’en are not unanimous in their concerns about CGL, but they are unanimous in their concerns that Delgamuukw has not been respected, and we’re coming up to 22 years since the decision. I believe — I’ve given direction to all ministers of the Crown — that reconciliation is part of their mandate letters, and as a result, at the request of the Wet’suwet’en hereditary leaders, I have visited the territory twice to make progress on issues outside of the industrial and economic activity that the member was talking about.

E. Ross: Thank you, Premier, for that answer.

What I’m trying to understand is the process under Murray Rankin. Is that absolutely separate from the blockade issue, or is it a parallel issue, or is it a related issue? I understand that you want to create the relationship. I understand the issue around reconciliation and then the Delgamuukw case.

[2:55 p.m.]

My concern is the initial process that took over 15 years to accomplish with a law-abiding company that actually achieved all of its certificates, all of its permits and actually carried out the principles of case law, as far as I could tell, to a T. That’s how we got unanimous consent from all of the band councils — elected band leaders from Prince George to Kitimat and even further down the channel.

I’m trying to understand the process that Murray Rankin is actually leading as your emissary. What is the objective in relation to the pipeline blockade, if any?

Hon. J. Horgan: There is no relationship. I appreciate that all of these things come together at some point in communities. But we made it abundantly clear, and it was made abundantly clear to us by the hereditary leadership and the various clan houses that wanted to address the unresolved issues raised by the Delgamuukw decision. Murray Rankin, a constitutional lawyer, a Member of Parliament, was an ideal person to appoint on my side.

In our discussions in the first visit to the Office of the Wet’suwet’en, it was clear that they wanted someone that they could talk to that was not part of government, not part of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation but someone that would be an emissary to me. Mr. Rankin agreed to do that. I was delighted. He’s a very busy guy. He’s wrapping up his time as a Member of Parliament. But he has been working diligently since the smoke feast, which happened in the past couple of months, in March, to focus on those issues.

Now, having said that, we’ve also, of course, respected the band council decisions that allowed permits to be issued to CGL. The member will know full well — again, better than I…. I feel, sometimes, that I’m telling him things that he and his community know way better than I will ever, even though I do my level best to try and keep pace with these things.

We did not want to have the industrial project that is overwhelmingly supported by Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in the north to be an obstacle to realizing genuine reconciliation with the hereditary leadership. Nor did we want that reconciliation with the hereditary leaders to be an obstacle to success on the industrial side. Although they are separate, I think the member well understands the north and well understands the corridor. We need to have success on a range of fronts in Wet’suwet’en territory if we’re all going to be successful.

E. Ross: Thank you, Premier. I understand it fully. I understand the principle of case law fully. That’s how we got to this stage in terms of LNG Canada making its FID.

Reconciliation. I have a different term of reconciliation than most. I’m trying to close the gap in terms of standard of living. This is the very first opportunity in the history of Canada that we’ve been able to do this, ever since the fur-trading days. So this is absolutely critical that we get this right. I understand the sensitivities. But I also understand the principle of case law. It got us to this place in the first place.

Now, the government is in a pretty awkward, sensitive situation, so I’ll take that answer as no, this process under Murray Rankin has got nothing to do with the blockade. I understand that the objective is mainly towards relationship-building and talking about Delgamuukw, in whatever form that might be.

Is it my understanding that, then, the Crown will not take any part in resolving the pipeline blockade and actually just leave that up to the company in question, CGL, well as the injunction?

Hon. J. Horgan: Yes, we made it clear to LNG Canada that they were the operators, or CGL was the operator that was contracted to construct the pipeline to feed LNG Canada in Kitimat. We’ve been working very closely with Crystal Smith and other leaders along the corridor to ensure success, but the company sought the injunction.

The company, seeing the injunction respected at this time…. They’re moving equipment. They’re preparing to lay the pipe in the territory. I believe, at latest report, that things are on track. The province has not had to have a role at this time because the company is doing what companies would do, asserting their rights based on the permits that they’ve received and the support that they have through the territory. That’s not to say….

[3:00 p.m.]

I don’t want to preclude provincial involvement if it’s required, but it doesn’t appear to be at this time.

E. Ross: Thank you, Premier. These issues are overlapping, and it’s very messy. The Wet’suwet’en chiefs are talking about title. They’re talking about: “Absolutely no way will this project get built on our lands.” Now, one case…. Murray Rankin will be talking about this in terms of Delgamuukw. At the same time, they’re saying absolutely no pipeline will be built. The company is trying to build a pipeline knowing that this conversation is taking place with the Crown.

It seems confusing to know that two conversations that are happening at the same time when the majority of the northwest of B.C., including First Nations and non-First Nation municipalities, regional districts and even the province, are actually depending on a good outcome. It just seems unfair just to leave the company there, along with an injunction, knowing that a title conversation is happening with the Crown.

In saying that, and I brought this up with your ministers as well, title is a pretty vague, complicated subject to talk about in Canada, especially B.C. There’s only three forms of it that I can understand outside of the case law.

In terms of the title discussion the Wet’suwet’en want to have with the Crown, I’m assuming the Crown knows that whatever decision the government makes regarding title, theoretically will have to be applied to 203 bands in B.C. who will probably want the same thing. Can I ask: in what context is the Crown thinking about title in their discussions with the Wet’suwet’en chiefs?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his questions. They come from a place of deep understanding, and I appreciate that. I acknowledge that, dealing with what has been re-emerging as the long-standing traditional decision-making and governance processes within Indigenous communities, particularly the Wet’suwet’en.

At the same time, two orders of government, the federal and provincial governments, are working on addressing reconciliation in a genuine way, addressing rights and title as defined by Delgamuukw and also living under the Indian Act band council model. It’s not an easy thing, and the member knows this, because he’s experienced it firsthand.

What we’ve been trying to do is do more than one thing at a time. We believe that the industrial activity that we all want to see that will flow from the CGL work and culminate with the creation of LNG Canada in Kitimat can and will be achieved in short order. It’s happening right now.

[3:05 p.m.]

I have no information that shows me that there are any challenges for CGL right now. It’s a sensitive question. The member knows that. There will be points of conflict going forward, and we’ll address those as they emerge. But as it stands right now, the injunction is being respected. We are taking the opportunity to build relationships with traditional leaders, hereditary leaders in the Wet’suwet’en territory, and we’re trying to find a way forward that will meet the needs of everyone in the region. Not an easy task. The member knows this full well and has lived some of these challenges.

We’re just focused on making sure that the FID, which was universally embraced by the people of Kitimat and the people in the Peace and most of the communities in-between, is achieved in short order. I believe we’re on a good track for that.

The fundamental issues that predate LNG Canada contemplating coming to Kitimat are well and truly on the table with the Wet’suwet’en leadership, and I believe they’re pleased that they’re getting access to government in a way that is nation to nation, respecting the case law, respecting the traditional governance models, and also at the same time speaking to communities outside of Wet’suwet’en territory as they transition or evolve into whatever form of government they choose to be in their best interest.

E. Ross: Thank you to the Premier. The question wasn’t about LNG. The question was about the Wet’suwet’en’s desire to have a conversation about title. Whatever decision the Crown comes to around title, if you choose to go down a road, it would have to be applied to 203 bands in B.C. This will be a precedent, because title has never been decided upon by the Crown. It’s always been decided upon through treaty negotiations or through the courts. Apart from that, it’s always a vague conversation around development on territories where rights and title may be infringed.

I understand that it’s a complicated subject. A lot of people don’t understand the concept of title. Many lawyers don’t understand it, so I don’t expect political leaders, as well as governmental staff, to truly understand what it means. I’ve always settled for the idea to go to court to figure it out in the manner of Tsilhqot’in, for example, because I don’t understand how it could play out unless the government is deciding to go down a road of discussion of title.

On a related question, then…. I don’t expect an answer on title, but can I ask: given what happened with the caribou issue — the non-consultation with non-Aboriginals — and given the non-consultation given around the Tsilhqot’in title, what is the plan to talk about what the discussions are regarding land and rights associated with the Wet’suwet’en chiefs as this process unfolds under Murray Rankin?

It’s unfair for the First Nations to be put in a position where they have to defend the conversations they’re having with government when the ink is dry. It’s very unfair to put them in that position. It’s very unfair for non–First Nations not to understand what’s happening with the land base or the fish and the animals and whatnot.

In fact, one of the principles of case law…. I will reiterate what your Attorney General said: that they will view rights and title through the lens of section 35 and the pursuant case law. Now, in terms of everything I’ve heard from your ministers, that is the one statement I do agree with. It actually provides a way out for the Crown as well as the First Nations.

I just want to know: what will the process be to keep the non–First Nations apprised of what’s going on with the talks around the land and the animals and the rights and title associated with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, a couple of things. The member put a lot of stuff on the table.

Firstly, with respect to Tsilhqot’in, title exists. There’s a map. It exists. That has not led to a rush to the Supreme Court to determine maps in other parts of the province. The member knows Indigenous communities are not homogenous, even within territories. Challenges between the Nisga’a and the Lax Kw’alaams and the Metlakatla and, here in my territory, the Nuu-chah-nulth and the Coast Salish…. This has been here predating the Indian Act. These challenges have existed for millennia.

We find ourselves at a moment in time where case law has determined, with respect to Tsilhqot’in: “This is your territory as defined by oral histories and the traditions that were brought to court over a quarter of a century.” The Tsilhqot’in said, “We will not participate in the treaty process,” as did other nations, as the member knows.

I remember very vividly at the time, being, in the early ’90s, an ardent supporter of the treaty process, that I felt the Tsilhqot’in had made the wrong decision. When I phoned Joe Alphonse, the chief of the Tsilhqot’in Tribal Council, after the victory in 2014, I apologized to him, even though he had no idea that I had said to myself that he and the Tsilhqot’in were wrong.

That is an example of where we can go together. We do not presume that the discussions with Wet’suwet’en based on Delgamuukw, based on rights and title as defined by the hereditary leadership, will be imported to other parts of the province. I don’t believe that’s going to happen. I think every part of the province, every nation is going to come to a nation-to-nation discussion with different objectives and different goals. The overlaps, as the member knows full well — I touched upon some of them in areas close to him and close to me — mean that this is hard work. I don’t believe there is going to be a template to lay over top of the province.

The former Premier, Premier Campbell, made a concerted effort to resolve some rights and title issues in one fell swoop. That was met with resistance from nations right around the province. So we learned a lesson from that as well. I believe the course we are on now is a result of failed and successful exercises over many decades of Indigenous to non-Indigenous relationships with respect to the land, Crown-to-nation discussions, two orders of government — federal-provincial — as well as a multitude of nations throughout British Columbia. Hard work, and work that needs to be done — progress being made when leadership steps up in non-Indigenous and Indigenous communities and finds a way forward.

He made reference to the caribou question. I had a good exchange with the member for Peace River South in estimates. We talked about this in some detail in his community, as well as before I got there. It is difficult to put, in that case, West Moberly and Saulteau in the position of having to defend their rights to talk to government about issues that are relevant in their territory. But negotiating in public is also very difficult, so we have to find a way to ensure that all members of the community are included in the discussion so that we don’t have that tension and acrimony between Indigenous and non-Indigenous.

We’re doing our level best to try and find that way forward. It will be difficult. There will be points of friction within communities and outside of communities. But we want to do our level best to reduce that and make sure that everyone can realize their full potential on territories, in the case of Indigenous people, that have been theirs for millennia, and also for those newcomers to British Columbia who have been here for generations or even just for days. That’s the nature of our dynamic community, and I’m very excited about the prospects going forward. I know that you are as well.

Hon. K. Chen: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[3:15 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Chen: I’m really happy to be able to welcome a group of 29 students from St. Michael’s school who are visiting the Legislature today with their principal, Ms. Caterina Kennedy, along with their parents and family members. They’re really here to learn about the work we do in this beautiful Legislature and also joining the Premier’s estimates, which will be really interesting. I would like to ask the House to please make them feel very, very welcome.

Thank you for being here.

Debate Continued

D. Clovechok: I certainly appreciate the opportunity to stand here today to ask some questions. Just very, very quickly, I want to recognize and thank the Premier. It’s been a year now since I’ve been able to canvass him on another issue. The year’s gone by very quickly. That was, of course, the Three Valley Gap. I do want to recognize whatever efforts he did in achieving that goal with the rock attenuator system. I want to publicly thank him for that. It’s working, fingers crossed. It’s going to take a big cheque to fix it. We’re all aware of that. But I do want to thank the Premier for that effort.

Today I want to canvass and hopefully…. We’re batting a thousand so far, so hopefully, we’ll keep that going. I do want to canvass the Premier on some caribou issues today. Specifically, not so much on the fact of the caribou. We all agree that it’s important to protect caribou. It’s more on the process that I want to bring to his attention.

On April 15, in Revelstoke, we had over 800 people attend that meeting, and it was live-streamed to around 2,000 people — so a great turnout, where people were respectful and certainly had some very knowledgable questions that were put forward to the government representatives there that day.

One of the problems that we had — and in estimates with the Minister of Forests, who I asked — is that the mayor of Revelstoke was shut out of any consultation process, in directly talking with either the minister himself or with the government representatives. We were able to secure a meeting, which was going to be face to face, but then it ended up on a phone call, which was not what we’d hoped for but nonetheless appreciated.

To that, what’s happened so far…. There has been a letter that the Premier’s office would have received, dated May 24, from Mayor Terry Rysz, of the district of Sicamous, and also Mayor Gerry Sulz, from the city of Revelstoke. I’m going to read a couple things into the record very quickly. This is from Mayor Rysz and Mayor Sulz.

“Dear Premier,

“The Community Charter speaks to the consultation on matters of mutual interest and identifies provincial legislation and policy for which the ministers responsible must consult with local governments through the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Local governments have consistently requested greater consultation and engagement on decisions that will affect or impact their communities.”

It goes on later on in the letter:

“Back-country closures pose an immediate threat to the sustainability and future growth of our communities. We’re asking that you extend the consultation timeline, at a minimum, to the fall, allowing for a comprehensive and transparent socioeconomic impact assessment and the appointment of a Columbia-Shuswap liaison in the interim.”

They also went on to say here:

“The district of Sicamous brought forward a resolution to the Southern Interior Local Government Association, SILGA, and their annual convention. Through its support at SILGA, this resolution will come before the UBCM convention in September.”

Very, very quickly, to the Premier, that resolution is:

“Whereas many local governments and communities rely on back-country industries for economic stability and development and, at the same time, those local governments and communities care about sustaining and protecting the environment….” I skip through the writing here. “Therefore, be it resolved that UBCM work with the provincial and federal governments to ensure that there are no further back-country closures in areas in B.C., until and unless the local governments, stakeholders and communities are consulted on social and economic impacts, and a sustainable solution for both be considered.”

One of the big issues here in the House…. I think it was yesterday I presented a petition of 12,000 signators from both Mayor Sulz and Mayor Rysz, which brings a total of well over 50,000, which was of course inclusive of the Peace country.

My question to the Premier is that…. Local governments, in essence, have been locked out of these conversations, especially around the socioeconomic impact. The Premier is very aware of the fact that Revelstoke is a tourism-related town, with the skiing and the snowmobiling and the quadding and, also, the logging industry.

[3:20 p.m.]

I know that in section 11, it’s clear that there are no back-country closures associated with section 11. That’s conceded. But it was at the meeting in Revelstoke on April 15 that the government representatives did concede that through the herd plans, there will be potential — and I say potential — back-country closures. That is a huge concern, given the fact that these two mayors have not been consulted with.

I know that in the Peace country, Mr. Blair Lekstrom was appointed, and his report is coming out very soon. The problem I’ve got with that is that Mr. Lekstrom’s scope of work was not inclusive of the Revelstoke and Columbia-Shuswap areas.

Given all of that, what I would ask the Premier is…. The first question: would the Premier today…? I always invite these mayors to watch, so I’m hoping that they’re on Hansard today and that they are appreciative of the fact that the Premier did cowboy up through this sickness that he’s got to be here today. Will you guarantee these two mayors today — and their constituents and my constituents and their councils — that you will ask your Minister of Forests to have direct meetings with them?

Hon. J. Horgan: I do know that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has increased his Hansard television ratings every year, because I got a couple of letters about Three Valley Gap as a result of our exchange last year, and I was delighted about that. I know if the mayors are watching at home, I hear you.

What we learned from the issues in the Peace…. Again, it was really a direct result of the partnership agreement which we were obliged to enter into with the federal government and the Indigenous communities. It led to a friction and a tension that we do not want to see duplicated in other communities.

Mr. Lekstrom, who I asked to be our community liaison, was here this week issuing his report and advised me that he was receiving an awful lot of phone calls from the Columbia region saying: “When are you coming here?” And he said: “Look, that’s not my thing. I’m just in this region.” The challenges in the member’s area are different to the challenges in the Chilcotin. They’re different to the challenges in the Peace. Again, we need to find a way forward that involves socioeconomic impacts.

We’ve been very aggressive with the federal government in this area. This is federal legislation that is promoting these discussions. Well, first of all, let me…. The member said this at the outset. What’s prompting these discussions is a genuine desire by all citizens to protect the caribou, but what are the consequences of that? And how are we going to work through the economic, particularly, and the social disruptions that may flow from that? The federal government has to step up.

I’ll say to the mayors that I’m aware there’s a federal election coming. This would be an ideal time to talk to the candidates who are putting their names forward, to talk about these issues and how they’ll be affecting the livelihoods and the well-being and the quality of life of people in Columbia River–Revelstoke.

With respect to meetings, if I heard the member correctly, one of the challenges — and I said this to the member for Peace River South — is that with our minority parliament, the time I have available to travel is limited, because we have a fixed calendar with a spring session and a fall session. That keeps me in this House. Votes are votes, and we have to keep things going. I’m not complaining, but in the past, Premiers have had more flexibility about their time in the House, and that allowed them to travel this great province more readily.

I do have a relationship with the member, as I do with the member for Peace River South, and I’m always anxious to have conversations with people in communities. If I can find an opportunity to be face to face or even on a phone call with the mayors— certainly, the phone call would be a much simpler task for me — I’ll endeavour to do that. And I’ll count on you to help set that up.

D. Clovechok: That’s a very generous offer. I will set that conversation up between your office and those two mayors, and they can have that conversation. Very much appreciated on that scale.

[3:25 p.m.]

You mentioned Blair Lekstrom, of course, working up in the Peace country. One of the issues that was brought forward in the letter is the request for not only an economic impact assessment, but we ask that you provide all stakeholders with a seat and a potential appointment of someone to look at the Columbia-Shuswap liaison in the interim. Because it’s unique in some ways, as we all know, but it’s very similar in other ways.

I guess, from the eyes of the folks in the Columbia-Shuswap regions, those two mayors that I speak of — and, of course, myself as a representative of those people — is there a potential that we could have a body appointed, through you, by the government to have an assessment done specifically in the Columbia River–Revelstoke and Shuswap regions? It’s really important in terms of the impact that this will potentially have on our areas and our families. So that’s the question that we really need to know. Will you today see a possibility to have someone in the interim appointed to do the same kind of work that Blair Lekstrom did, in our two regions?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, firstly, the circumstances were quite unique in the Peace, inasmuch as there was a partnership agreement, nation-to-nation-to-nation, between Canada, British Columbia, the West Moberly and the Saulteau First Nations. I don’t believe that those circumstances exist in the member’s constituency. But we did learn a great deal from our inability to communicate directly with municipal leaders as well as community members who have passions about back country and talking about concerns about potential impacts on forestry and so on.

I won’t rule that out, Member. I don’t know if we have the same set of circumstances that Mr. Lekstrom was able to step into, but that may yet happen. I hope that’s not the case.

We have the summer ahead of us. We have an opportunity, with my discussion directly with the mayors and hearing from them their concerns.… I welcome you to be a full participant in those discussions. If, from those conversations, we find a reason to proceed along the lines of the community liaison that we set up in the Peace country, I’m happy to look at that. But I don’t think the circumstances are quite the same, and based on the learnings from the Peace, I think we’ll be able to avoid some of those conflicts going forward.

One of the other things I want to touch upon…. I had the opportunity to talk to the member for Peace River South about this, and I’m hopeful that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin will be asking me some questions on this. I’ll give an answer to her, even if she’s not going to ask the question. Timber supply reviews are underway now with CEOs at the highest level, Indigenous leaders, community leaders and representatives of workers so that we can look at the fibre basket and the changes that will be required.

This is, again, not something that existed, that came about because of caribou specifically. Caribou are a component part of that. Fires are a part of that. The end of the beetle kill is a part of that. Prices, supply. All of those issues are conspiring to create challenges in forest-dependent communities.

We have reached out to leaders at the municipal level, in Indigenous communities as well as companies to sit down. We’ve had very positive responses from Tolko, Interfor, West Fraser, Canfor and other companies to say: “Yeah, we’ve got to figure this out. We have to find a way to make sure that we’re moving fibre in the best possible way to keep maximizing community benefits and job creation and job maintenance in territories right across B.C.” There are a whole bunch of opportunities for us to do that. It’s ambitious. I don’t know how successful we’ll be.

Caribou fit into that as well. People generally talk about beetle kill in areas that were critically affected or the horrific fire seasons in 2017-2018, but I believe that there’s a whole host of issues that are affecting how we look at the forest industry going forward. The industry understands that. Communities absolutely understand that. And I’m looking forward to those discussions.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

D. Clovechok: Well, thank you very much for the answers. My goal today was to get an audience for the two mayors with you, so we’ve achieved that goal. We’re still batting a thousand. So with that, I will set that up and take my seat. Thank you very much, sir.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member, and I’ll say that now that our engagement is completed, Hansard TV’s viewership just dropped down.

[3:30 p.m.]

D. Barnett: Premier, we are all elected to represent our constituents, whether it be on the government side, this side, and we all strive as hard as we can to work with our constituents. Politics stay out of the way when we work with our constituents.

The past two years have been very difficult for my constituents and myself and many of my colleagues to have access to ministry staff in our local communities. We have no access to them. We have to write letters to ministers in order to get permission to go to our local staff with issues for our constituents. That never happened before.

We have wonderful staff. They’re honest. They’re hard-working. They help our constituents. But I am tired of telling my constituents that I can’t have access to local staff. I have to go through Victoria. That is not right, Mr. Premier.

I’ll give a prime example. I made an appointment — it took me three weeks — to go to talk to our local fire centre, just to have a look, see how things are going, thank the people, one thing and another. I made an appointment, went through the process. I’m sitting there, going to talk to the staff. Somebody from Victoria had to be on a conference call to know what the staff and I were talking about. That is embarrassing to me. It’s, in my opinion, belittling staff. It certainly doesn’t serve my constituents.

My question to the Premier is: why can we, as local MLAs, not have the freedom to local office, staff offices, to serve our constituents?

Hon. J. Horgan: I know the member is earnest and is a hard-working member of the Legislature. This is a new experience for her to sit in the opposition benches.

I can tell you I spent 12 years writing letters, making phone calls. I wrote a letter to the member for Langley East, and it took four years to get an answer. This is not a new phenomenon.

I want to do my level best to make sure all members access government employees. I understand you just asked the Minister of Public Safety the very same question. I appreciate, Member, that these are challenging times for those on that side of the House.

No, no, no, listen. This is exactly what we endured for 12 years. There’s no shame involved in that. I’m not suggesting this is a deliberate attempt — not at all.

Yesterday we talked, the Leader of the Opposition and I, about coming together with the member for Chilliwack and the member for Chilliwack-Kent when the flood season was upon us, working together. I worked with the member during the fire season two years ago.

We do our level best, Member, to make sure everyone has access to decision-makers. But sometimes it takes a little bit more time when you’re on that side of the House. That is not a partisan statement. I can tell from 12 years of experience that it’s not always sunshine and roses when you’re trying to access government employees. I’m speaking the truth, Members. I’m speaking the truth.

I want to do my level best while I have the opportunity to be in this chair to make sure that all members of the House get access to the people they need to. I’ve made that commitment to the member in the past. I’ll continue to do that.

I met with the mayor and an Indigenous leader from her community not that long ago. She wasn’t there, but the meeting was set up by the member. I do my level best. All members are doing their level best.

It is absolutely appropriate for you to raise these questions. But I want all members to know that it is oftentimes extremely difficult to go from the access that you have when you’re in government to the access you have when you’re in opposition.

Good example for me, personally…. There was a big logjam in Port Renfrew in 2008. I contacted the Minister of Public Safety at that time and said: “How can I work with you to make sure that my community is fully informed?” It took two weeks to get a call back. That’s not acceptable. When that happens to you, Member, I want you…. You have my number. I’ve given it to you. Phone me, and I’ll do what I can to help you out.

D. Barnett: Could I, Premier, have your commitment that when I have issues in my riding and I have to talk to somebody in Forestry or Highways, I do not have to write a letter to Victoria to get permission?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member has my cell phone number. You have called me, and you can continue to call me whenever you have to, Member.

[3:35 p.m.]

I know how passionate you are about your community. But I think it’s important that we all understand this is the last day of a very difficult session for all of us. I apologize for how I approached you on this issue. But I have 12 years of experience that was extremely frustrating as well. I know what that feels like. I don’t want that to happen to you again.

R. Kahlon: I’d like to take this opportunity to ask the Premier some questions, as well, if the House permits. I’ll start with asking the Premier….

Interjections.

The Chair: Member, proceed.

The member has the floor.

R. Kahlon: I believe we are allowed to ask questions as well, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Member, proceed, please.

R. Kahlon: I’d like to start by asking the Premier…. He was in my riding recently and had a really good conversation with the mayor. We talked about many things in our community. We’ve got a community grant process that’s opened up for community groups to access funds for recreation facilities. We hear that a lot from various communities groups. Perhaps the Premier can give us more information about how community groups can access funds when it comes to recreation and other facilities?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. What we do know is that there is a joint federal-provincial program with respect to these initiatives that the member raised. We’ve had an overwhelming response from across British Columbia. Communities want to see access to recreational facilities. I think we have eight requests for every one ability to pay.

The federal government has asked us to accelerate our processes here. We want to make sure that we’re doing the due diligence that we need to do to make sure everyone in British Columbia, all members of the House, have an opportunity to access these resources.

It’s been challenging, because there’s been a backlog and a pent-up demand. When you and I were together in Delta last week, at Delta View Park, it was abundantly clear in your community that there’s a need for more investment. I know that’s the case in my community. I’ve been to every corner of the province, and everyone wants to see more engagement in their community. It leads to healthy living. It leads to better outcomes for people. But the federal government has money on the table, and we need to make sure we’re doing what we can to get to a place where we can have that money distributed around the province.

R. Kahlon: Thank you for that answer, Premier. I know many members of this House have been advocating for community-related infrastructure money. I want to thank you for the answer.

I have another question for you, Premier — through the Chair, of course. We had a good conversation with the mayor of Delta. I know you’ve mentioned some of these things before about the level of cooperation between all the mayors — them coming together and having a conversation about infrastructure throughout the region.

[3:40 p.m.]

In particular, residents are really excited about the new Pattullo Bridge, which alleviates lots of pressure in our community. But I’m hoping you can perhaps give us a little bit more information about the Broadway extension line, which will be starting very soon, and how you see that proceeding.

Hon. J. Horgan: The Broadway corridor is fully ready to go. There has been a challenge with the change of government, municipally, in Surrey. With the change of mode, TransLink is working with the Mayors Council, working with the city of Surrey, to determine what outcome they want to see from the investments that are ready to go.

There’s provincial money on the table. There’s federal money on the table. TransLink has its components in place. We’re optimistic that the Vancouver portion will be moving ahead very soon. I’m confident that the members from Surrey, from all sides of the House, are going to be working with mayor and council to make sure that they come up with whatever the corridor is, and the mode that they want to see realized there, as quickly as possible.

R. Kahlon: Thank you to the Premier for that answer. The biggest issues that come up in my community, overwhelmingly, are housing, transportation-related questions and health care. I’d like to ask the Premier around housing…. Perhaps the Premier can share with me some of the things that we’re working on in housing to alleviate the pressures that people are facing in my community and throughout the region.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members, every member has the right to ask questions. Please.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the questions. It has been, certainly, two years since the last provincial election. The number one issue that I hear wherever I go is the unaffordability of living here in British Columbia. We’ve done our level best to bring more housing supply into the marketplace. Some 20,000 homes are complete or underway because of the good work of the Minister of Housing.

In 80 communities right across the province, we’ve brought into play demand-side measures to reduce the increased cost. The speculation tax that was introduced, the first of its kind, by the Minister of Finance has been wildly popular because it affects just 1 percent of British Columbians and has done its job to bring down costs, in the Lower Mainland particularly, allowing citizens to stay in the communities that they grew up in.

I know that the member has an acute interest in a range of other issues, as a young father. Child care has been one of the issues that I think I’m getting the most positive feedback from.

I was in North Vancouver with the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale and the Minister of State for Child Care at one of the $10-a-day pilot sites. We got just a wonderful collection of letters from parents who were transformed. Their families have been transformed by reducing the costs of child care so that they can invest those dollars back into their families, back into their quality of life. That means that they’re not fretting from month to month about meeting the challenges of daily costs, and their children are in affordable, accessible, quality licensed child care facilities. That’s made a huge difference and a huge impact on peoples’ lives.

We have been just 22 months on the job. We know the economy is moving along very, very nicely, leading the country in economic growth — the lowest unemployment rate, triple-A credit rating, balanced budgets going forward. We eliminated the operating debt for the first time since the Dave Barrett government back in the 1970s. I think we’ve accomplished a lot, but we have much more to do.

R. Kahlon: Thank you to the Premier for that answer. Of course, I didn’t mention child care. It doesn’t come up as often, but I know people are very happy with the investments we’ve made in child care in our community. I’ve got a young child.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: I think I hear a member across the way also saying that she’s quite happy with the investments in child care.

I have another question for the Premier. As I said, the biggest topics that come up in my community are transportation-related. The Premier has given a good answer on that, and we talked about other matters. But health care. People in my community are always asking what we are doing to improve our health care system. What are we doing to provide better access to health care in our communities? I guess my question to the Premier is: can he perhaps give me some insight on what the vision is for health care and providing better health care opportunities for people in my community of North Delta?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. One of the areas in health care that would have a profound impact on members in your constituency — and, in fact, constituencies right across British Columbia — is the elimination of medical services premiums in British Columbia.

[3:50 p.m.]

British Columbia was, of course, the last province to eliminate medical services premiums. That puts about $1,800 a year back into the pockets of British Columbians so that they can use that to their benefit. That would be, of course, the largest tax cut in a generation here in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: The people on the other side apparently don’t like that.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: We’ve expanded team-based primary care with the primary care network. We have networks in Burnaby, Prince George, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Coquitlam, Anmore, Belcarra, Richmond, Summerland, Penticton, Okanagan Falls. And urgent primary care centres in Surrey, Kamloops, Quesnel, the West Shore, Burnaby, Prince George, Nanaimo and in Vancouver.

We had a target of increasing MRIs, and nearly 44,000 MRIs in 2018 — vastly above what we had anticipated, meaning that more diagnostic services are available, which helps people get into surgeries to get into better health care down the road.

I know there’s no hospital plan for Delta, but there is a new hospital plan for Surrey, as well as one in Richmond and improvements in Burnaby, Vancouver, Terrace — I did mention Richmond — Dawson Creek. Penticton has just completed. Kamloops. Fort St. James.

I’m very excited about Fort St. James. I went to the territory last year on my way through. I stopped in Williams Lake where there’s also a new hospital being built. But in Fort St. James, hon. Member, the hospital there was constructed in 1972. It was two ATCO trailers. They’d expanded it to four ATCO trailers, but it was high time that someone invested in that community. I was very proud that our government had chosen to do that.

A. Weaver: My humble apologies to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. There are some burning questions I have for the Premier. In light of the fact that I had requested an hour’s time of the Premier’s estimates…. I was told by members opposite that I could only have half an hour, because they had too many questions to ask.

Now I see that they decide not to ask questions — yet another example of us listening to them…

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, come to order.

A. Weaver: …and not having them agree to one thing and not following through.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

A. Weaver: As the Leader of the Third Party, it is my right to ask questions. I respected the jurisdiction of the official opposition to have more time, because they had so many burning, urgent questions that they felt it was appropriate for me to rise at 6:30 for 20 minutes last night when I knew I had an hour.

I have three very important questions for the Premier. I’m sure all British Columbians want to know. To the Premier, who do you want to win the basketball game tonight?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ve become accustomed to questions not necessarily related to the office budget of the Premier, so I’m happy to answer this question as well. It speaks to something that all Canadians are passionate about. I, myself, was a university basketball player. I’m a big fan of hoops. I’m a huge fan of the Vancouver Grizzlies and, before that, the Seattle SuperSonics. They’re both gone now. So go, Raptors, go!

A. Weaver: On this important line of question, I have, for most of my life, participated in hockey pools. In fact, I won a hockey pool once. I won $10,000 once. It was quite remarkable. I was very pleased.

However, this year I had chosen Boston against St. Louis in the final, but I got knocked out in the first round. My question to the Premier is: who does he want to win the Stanley Cup this year?

Hon. J. Horgan: If I had consulted with community liaison member Blair Lekstrom, who is very ably helping us with caribou issues in the Peace country, he would have said the Boston Bruins. He had the audacity to wear a Boston Bruins jersey into our meeting earlier this week.

I certainly couldn’t support that initiative because of the 2011 outcome in Vancouver, but I think St. Louis is long overdue. It seems an ideal place to send the Stanley Cup.

[3:55 p.m.]

A. Weaver: On a more serious note, I just would like to ask an honest question here. As the Premier will know, we’ve been together in the CASA agreement for the last two years. There have been low points, and there have been high points.

I’m wondering if he could reflect upon the last two years and, perhaps, identify to the Legislature some of the high points that he believes are important areas where the government and this B.C. Green caucus have worked together for the betterment of the people in British Columbia. Perhaps he could elucidate that for the members of the gallery there who would like to learn about some of the good work that has been done.

I can understand it will take the Premier some time to reflect upon this, because there is so much good work that has been done. I really believe the Premier might need a few minutes to reflect upon the good work that’s been done.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member, my colleague in the CASA agreement, for his question. It has been two years plus a day since we signed the agreement, a historic agreement in British Columbia, that’s led to stable government, posi­tive outcomes for British Columbians in every corner of the province.

It’s difficult to point to one highlight, but one I know that the member will be most satisfied with is the development of CleanBC, which was absolutely integral to the foundation of a climate action plan that leads the continent. He and the Green caucus were critical to making that happen.

I know members on the other side of the House as well, leading the first carbon price in North America set by the former government…. Their enthusiasm has waned over time for that, but I know that they laid a solid foundation. I give full credit to Premier Gordon Campbell for having the courage to start that initiative. I’m excited that we’re here to take the next step and lead the country and, in fact, the continent in that regard.

When I think about…. Again, the member comes from the post-secondary sector, so he would also agree with me that eliminating fees for English language learning and adult basic education was also critical to reducing barriers, eliminating obstacles to people realizing their full potential. At a time when we have a skills shortage, it’s important that we get people back into the classroom so that they can get the skills they need to be full participants in the economy, for their families, for their communities and, in fact, for the province.

We also have done a number of initiatives to cap tuition fees, to ensure that we have eliminated interest on student debt, on B.C. student debt, which I think is something that would be applauded by all members of this House. One area that I’m particularly excited about: the member for Mount Pleasant, the member for Kootenay West and I were at Vancouver Island University in the first couple of weeks of our time in government — at Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo — announcing the tuition waiver for kids in care.

Of course, for those who are unaware of the program, that is an opportunity for those who have been in foster homes, have been wards of the state. When they age out, oftentimes they see an abyss rather than an opportunity. By waiving tuition fees, we’ve allowed kids in care to see hope in their future, to see opportunity in their future. That’s not just good for the individual. It’s good for the broader community. I know our colleagues in CASA were very supportive of that.

[4:00 p.m.]

Arts and culture is another area that I’m very proud of. Reinvesting in the B.C. Arts Council, making sure that we’re doing everything we can to get the payback that we all see from arts and culture. I’ve been to a number of film studios in my time as Premier to see firsthand just the enormous number of jobs that we get in this sector. I know my deputy and I are ad idem on this question. We see electricians, carpenters, actors, extras — extras who get their big break by being at the right place at the right time on a Netflix film or a series or whatever it might be. That launches their careers. Deadpool coming to B.C. not once but twice and, let’s hope, three times.

Probably the defining moment for me was just last week, Member, when I was visiting a studio in Vancouver that did the dragons for Game of Thrones. Now, not a lot of people know that, but the CGI for Game of Thrones was developed and designed in Vancouver, which had a whole host of other spinoffs for the community. Subcontractors creating more jobs — good, high-paying jobs — whether it’s coders, whether it be artists, and that’s all happening here in British Columbia. It’s not just in Vancouver, by the way, but also throughout B.C.

On the economy, of course, the member will know that we put in place an innovation commissioner to make sure that we’re talking about the economy of the future. We also, of course, are very mindful that traditional industries built British Columbia. We’re working hard to make sure that forestry, mining and other resource industries can prosper and flourish. Agriculture is very important to the member. He supports the agricultural land reserve. He supports strengthening tools like that for all British Columbians.

I know the member would like me to go on.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: You would? Okay. Creating a ministry…. I didn’t know I was filibustering myself, but here I find myself. It’s been a while.

On the housing side, the member is devastated, as I am, to see homelessness proliferating across B.C. But with modular housing programs, we’ve seen the hard-to-house and homeless finding a place to hang their hat and to start a new life, and it’s been transformative in places like Surrey. The Whalley strip was infamous, and now that’s been changed. Nanaimo — we’re working very hard on that. One of the largest tent cities in Vancouver Island’s history, no longer there. Services in place for the people that have been moved into modular housing….

We’ve increased a whole host of other issues with respect to seniors. We’re demanding accountability for staffing standards in care centres. There’s more support for Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, increased length of home support visits, capital funding to strengthen seniors centres.

A systematic review of care centre staffing levels. This is something that the Minister of Health was absolutely pivotal on. We remember back to the turn of the century, when the government of the day was ripping up contracts, making it more difficult for seniors to find care facilities that were appropriately staffed with enthusiastic workers — caregivers that were not just coming to a job but coming to care for our moms, our dads and our loved ones. An underrespected and underpaid area of our economy, and we’ve taken steps, through the leadership of the Minister of Health, to achieve that, with the support of the Green caucus.

We ended the disability clawback for transportation for bus passes. I know the member responsible for poverty reduction was the lead on that, but we had full support of the Green caucus in that regard, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Anti-SLAPP legislation. I know the member and I talked about anti-SLAPP legislation in the first session. There were some challenges. A decision, a determination made in Ontario, made the bill that we were working on together on this side of the House a bit in doubt. We worked with the Attorney General, leg. counsel and the Green caucus to make sure that we could have anti-SLAPP legislation here in British Columbia to protect those who are standing up for their communities.

We’ve made a whole host of other changes. The reduction of PST on electricity was absolutely critical to industry and something that should have happened a long, long time ago. That’s created more opportunities as well.

I think there’s more here, but if the member has more questions, I’ll take that….

[4:05 p.m.]

N. Simons: I’m pleased to have this opportunity — kind of unexpected. I’m pleased to remind all private members that they have an opportunity to ask the Premier questions about policy and direction. I’m pleased to be able to have an opportunity to ask about an issue that I know he’s concerned about and pays attention to, as my colleagues all do, and that is encouraging young people into healthy activities and encouraging young people to participate in community programs, programs in their communities, whether it’s arts or culture or sport.

I know that with our emphasis on trying to do preventative work in the area of health promotion and addressing some of the social determinants of health, we have invested in early programs to ensure that young people are actively involved in programs and services in their communities to promote their health.

I ask the Premier if he can perhaps give us some examples of how our government is supporting young people to be participatory, whether it’s arts or culture or even sports programs in the province.

Hon. J. Horgan: I know the member’s question is directed at what the determinants of health are. When we invest in education, that’s an investment in health care. When we invest in the arts, that’s an investment in health care. When we invest in sport — as we did, the minister and I, just a few weeks ago, in KidSport — making sure that there are resources for young families who don’t have the money to get into a hockey or a lacrosse program…. We have an opportunity for them to access equipment so they can be full participants.

Economic determinants and health determinants go hand in hand. That’s why having a poverty reduction strategy is so critically important to success in the community and why I’m so proud of the minister responsible that we are, like other provinces in the country, finally putting in place a poverty reduction plan — something that was ignored for many, many years.

For me…. I know the member’s background is in music. He is a concert cellist. I was a lacrosse player and a basketball player. But I know that when I was growing up, the son of a single mom, the cost of sport was prohibitive. My mom made significant sacrifices so that I could participate. So when we invested $2.5 million last week in KidSport, to keep that program going, that made a whole host of difference, largely for single-parent families.

The $15 million we invested in the B.C. Arts Council — I made reference to that to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Again, opportunities to have creativity in our community. We all know that for every dollar that we put into the creative sector, we get a significant return back. These are investments in not just our economy, but in our culture and all of the things that are important about being here in British Columbia. Emotional health, spiritual health — all come from the same place. The arts and sport are fundamental to that.

I am very excited about the coming summer events. I know I’m going to be participating in the Indigenous Games launch when we look for a bid in 2022. We’re also very much in play for the Invictus Games in 2022. The Invictus Games are, of course, not about results but about participation for those that have been injured as part of their service to community. Having an opportunity to see the indomitable spirit of the human condition, to participate, to succeed….

Whenever I watch events where those that are coming in last are cheered on as vigorously as those who cross the finish line first, it reminds me that getting in the game, participating, being as healthy and as well as you can possibly be, in and of itself, is a positive outcome. But it benefits us all when we take public investments and make those programs stronger.

J. Rice: For some time, northwest communities have been looking for their fair share of resource development revenues from the northwest. Can the Premier explain what steps he’s taken to help northwest communities plan for major development and fund much-needed infrastructure?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her questions. I know that in a ferry-dependent community like North Coast, those are the areas that are particularly important to her. We have an additional 2,700 round trips to be provided through ten routes. Port Hardy, midcoast, Prince Rupert and, of course, Haida Gwaii to Prince Rupert as well — these are critical to her community. Reinvesting and re-establishing routes that had been terminated by the previous government was vital to that.

Rural connectivity. When it comes to broadband, 440 communities, 70 of which are Indigenous, have been connected since we started the initiative two years ago.

We’ve been connecting the coast and First Nations through a whole range of other initiatives, whether it be through investments in education, investments in child care, telehealth and so on.

The biggest investment, I think, that the member would be aware of — and the impact on Prince Rupert — was the $100 million infrastructure grant for the northwest or for communities right across the north of British Columbia. Prince Rupert, Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Burns Lake, Mackenzie all the way through to Valemount got access to this $100 million grant.

Vanderhoof. I know I talked to the mayor of Vanderhoof about this, who was absolutely over the moon. These smaller rural communities don’t have the dollars to leverage other dollars. When funding programs come forward from federal or provincial governments, they don’t have the resources to get in the game. So providing $100 million to those communities across the north gave them the seed capital they needed to make those types of investments.

I think of Alice Maitland, the longtime mayor of Hazelton. For 43 years, I believe, she was the mayor of Hazelton. When I visited there with the member for Stikine, I met her at the old ice rink. I don’t know how long Alice has been out of the NHL — probably a long time — but she knew the importance of the ice rink in Hazelton. They didn’t have the wherewithal to make the investments to get that bridging money to work with the federal and provincial governments to make it happen. That was the motivation. That was the seed put in my mind and the mind of the Minister of Finance that this $100 million that was surplus to our needs would be absolutely critical to those small communities.

I think of Mayor Lee Brain, in Prince Rupert, talking — as you have, Member — since we first met about the wooden pipes in Prince Rupert. It’s high time that infrastructure investments were made in rural communities. We’ve provided the resources so that those infrastructure investments can be made.

D. Routley: I’d like to talk to the Premier about one of his favourite topics, and that would be wild salmon. The Premier has a deep connection to the issue. He has taken action, including the formation of the Wild Salmon Advisory Council, which I was very pleased to be able to co-chair with Chief Marilyn Slett of Heiltsuk Nation.

For the members’ information, there was recently a poll done that showed that wild salmon are as important to the identity of British Columbia, to British Columbians, as the French language is to Quebecers. It shows the deep importance that people feel for the fish and the deep importance it plays in our culture. The First Nations’ connection to the land and the water is symbolized no better than through salmon and the life cycle of salmon.

[4:15 p.m.]

I was pleased to serve on that committee with several other members. We looked at the challenges. We brought together the various stakeholders from this sector and took away the impetus for conflict and collision of interests. They surrendered those interests and took the interests of the fish in hand. I thank the Premier for being able to bring people together in that good-spirited way, in the spirit of good faith. I think we did good work.

What I’d like to ask the Premier is: where does he feel we need to go from here in terms of helping wild salmon thrive and helping those communities that depend on wild salmon to benefit and prosper?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. We share a passion for wild salmon. I think all British Columbians…. Salmon are iconic to who we are as British Columbians.

I’ve said many times that growing up here on southern Vancouver Island, going to Goldstream Park…. First of all, it was a cheap outing for the family to watch the salmon spawn year after year after year. Young people would go and watch the salmon return, as they did annually forever. It was transformative for me as a youngster and, as I grew older, to recognize and acknowledge the fundamental importance of salmon to our forests, to our bears, to our eagles, to every part and parcel of what is so special about British Columbia. But nowhere is it more important than to Indigenous people who have, for millennia, depended on the return of salmon.

I had the opportunity, as leader of the government, to go to Port Renfrew in my community, to the Pacheedaht territory, and participate in a cultural fishery with the community. There were hundreds of people on the San Juan River. It was a beautiful, sunny day on a Sunday in October, and the salmon were returning, as they always did. A net would be thrown into the river, and out would come literally hundreds of coho, all about the same size, fat and friendly and silver.

The objective was to connect the young people in the community to the salmon, so elders were there, young people were there and everyone in between. The little ones’ responsibility was to get the fish and put it in the boat. There’s nothing funnier than watching a little person pick up a fish almost bigger than them and try to get it from the beach into the boat — slapped in the face by the tail, dropping it and laughing and picking it up again. And to see the look on the face of the elders, who were seeing for another generation the connection of the salmon to the people was really inspiring.

Then to go just literally the next day to the Broughton Archipelago and Alert Bay to be in the big house — with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and my colleague the Minister of Transportation, whose constituency it was in — and to hear the elders there talk about the absence of salmon, how the salmon had disappeared over time. Instead of having full freezers to feed the community, the freezers were empty, and the prospects for salmon returning had been diminishing year after year after year.

So we put in place a program to talk nation to nation with Indigenous people from the Broughton to see how we could revitalize the wild salmon stocks. That led to the appointment of the restoration enhancement funding that we did with the federal government, a joint program — $142 million to invest in stream rehabilitation, small community micro-hatcheries to revitalize streams and rivers that had gone barren because of previous practices, whether it be forestry….. Some would characterize it as overfishing on the commercial side. We have to address all of those issues.

I went to Fort St. James, in the Interior, and visited Stuart Lake, 1,100 kilometres away from the mouth of the Fraser River, where the salmon come annually. To see the salmon when they arrive in Fraser Lake — these are tough, tough salmon who’ve gone a long, long way. They’ve avoided the mouths of grizzly bears. They’ve avoided fishers all the way up from the ocean to the mouth of the river, up the river back to Stuart Lake so they could spawn and start the process again.

The people — the Nak’azdli, the Tl’azt’en, the Indigenous people in the community — wait for the salmon year after year, decade after decade, century after century, and they’ve always come back.

[4:20 p.m.]

We have an obligation, I believe — our generation — to ensure that the wild salmon are sustained not just for the next couple of years but for all time. As I see youngsters leaving the place, I know they’re all passionate about salmon as well, and we’re going to do our level best to make sure there are lots of them for that generation and the generation after that and the generation after that.

D. Routley: For many years — in fact, ten years — from the time the Premier and I had neighbouring ridings, which were separated by redistribution…. I moved north, and I took on the responsibility to fight for a place called Morden Colliery Historic Park. I did two-minute statements ad nauseam about that issue and pressed for support from the previous government, which never came.

The community rallied to the support of that park and organized and pressured. I’ve worked with people. They’re all my friends. They’re very happy that finally, after ten years of fighting, this government has funded a $1.4 million restoration of that park. It’s a very historical structure — one of only two of its type remaining in North America, one of the first examples of reinforced concrete construction, built during the coal-mining strike in the early part of the last century.

The Minister of Environment, thankfully, saw the value of this investment to my community and supported that. Our community is very, very grateful for that. But the Premier is a history student and a history buff. I’d like to hear from the Premier about his sense of the value of these kinds of elements of our history, our shared history, and how they represent the difficulties of our communities and the accomplishments.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. The colliery project was one that he has advocated for, certainly, for as long as I have been in the Legislature. I was very pleased that, working with the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Finance, resources were found to protect and preserve this critical piece of historical example of what industrial Nanaimo looked like going back a good distance.

It reminds me also, as I think about the work that the member for Vancouver-Fraserview has been doing to revitalize the notion of a Chinese-Canadian museum in British Columbia, to preserve and protect that enormous piece of heritage as well.

We have made a commitment to invest in the revitalization of the Royal B.C. Museum. The business plan is being worked on right now. Of course, it’s just across the street from us here — an absolute treasure to not just the people of British Columbia but the people of Canada.

When we can protect those massive symbols of our heritage and our culture, as we can at the Royal B.C. Museum, or as we will with the Chinese-Canadian museum, we all get some pride from that. But it’s the small issues that represent what community is about, that you advocated so ably for, for so many years. To be able to preserve and protect artifacts or legacies of our past is so critically important. We would not be who we are today, all of us, as citizens of British Columbia, if we were not to preserve our past and learn from the errors of our ways and also celebrate those victories that we’ve had when we’ve made the right decision.

We don’t always make the right decision in government. Government can’t fix all problems, but we can do our level best always, Member, to ensure that when we get the opportunity to invest in community, to invest in people, we do that. That’s been the focus of our government for the past 22 months. Where there’s opportunity to demonstrate to the public that coming together collectively, pooling our wealth as we do to make sure that wealth is distributed to every corner of the province to protect the things that are important to all of us, I’m very happy to do that, and I’m grateful for your leadership on this as well.

J. Rice: Access to reliable Internet and cell phone service is a modern-day piece of infrastructure that is often taken for granted. Yet, coastal B.C. and many northern and rural remote First Nations communities lack this access. Can the Premier explain what this government is doing to improve Internet and cell phone infrastructure for rural remote and First Nations communities in B.C.?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question. I talked earlier about the connectivity initiatives that we’ve been working on, but specifically, when it comes to Vancouver Island, Haida Gwaii, Prince Rupert, we’ve been making great strides connecting these communities around the coast and looping that back to exchange with Vancouver. That means that we can keep people in their communities, and they can still access the services that they need, whether it be health care, education, emergency preparedness or preparing for the jobs of the future.

I’ve got a comment here from a Haida elder. Of course, you will know that Haida Gwaii is one of the most spectacular places on the planet. It’s the jewel of the north coast. Now Haida elders can see their children staying in communities because they’re connected by Internet services. Broadband opens up the world to people who have oftentimes felt isolated and alone. That has a profound impact on how people look at themselves, look at their culture and look at their community.

I mentioned Port Renfrew, on the far end of my constituency, which is at the end of the highway, although there’s now a loop through a logging road infrastructure. It was at the end of the road. Get a little bit of rain there, as well, so keeping a positive disposition in November, December and January is sometimes difficult.

I know the member for North Coast sees a little bit of rain in her community as well, so being able to access the world through broadband allows all of us to be global citizens. The notion of being isolated and alone in small rural remote communities, as important as that is to the families and the communities that exist there….

Being able to connect to the rest of the world is so fundamental to who we will be in the future. I think British Columbia has been leading the way, making sure that, as our contribution to Canada, we’re connecting all of the disparate groups so they can keep contact with each other. That will also help with protecting and preserving Indigenous languages. I know the member has just a plethora of Indigenous communities in her constituency, and protecting Indigenous language is fundamental to culture.

We oftentimes hear the Quebec question, the two-language question in Canada. I think now, as we look at going into the 2020s, we’re no longer talking about two languages in Canada. We’re talking about dozens and dozens — in fact, hundreds of languages in Canada. That is, I think, transformative. We’ll be able to achieve so much, because we can contact people inside communities and, in fact, across the country and across the globe so that we can preserve and record the languages that kept British Columbia moving for millennia.

These are powerful investments that don’t often make it onto the front pages of the newspapers. We invested $50 million in Indigenous languages in our first budget — unprecedented investment. We did so because the keepers of those languages, the elders in communities across B.C., are sadly passing on, and with them goes the language, the knowledge of the culture, and we need to preserve that.

Investing in languages is one of the most important things we can do to preserve and maintain the cultures that are so distinct here in British Columbia and particularly in the member’s community.

S. Furstenau: The Premier in the past represented the people of Shawnigan and over the years was a true ally in our efforts to protect our watershed. In fact, he came up to the site on numerous occasions.

As he’s well aware, we await the decision on the removal of soil. I just wanted, for the people of Shawnigan, to hear the Premier’s confirmation of his position on the protection of drinking water for communities, particularly in Shawnigan.

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for Cowichan Valley for her question. She’s absolutely right. I did represent Shawnigan Lake in my first term as a member of the Legislature.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I grew up swimming in the lake as a boy. My best friend lives on the lake. I’m there regularly. I know many, many people in the broader community, not just from my time as a member of the Legislature but as a result of just living in the community. I know the member’s passion for this issue, and I know the passion of the people of Cobble Hill — and, broadly speaking, Shawnigan — about this issue.

The member knows full well that the decision-maker is the Minister of Environment. He’s deliberating over this. It has been an issue of significant public importance to the people in the region. We want to do our level best to make sure that we’re doing the right thing, not just for the people of Shawnigan but in fact for the province. The challenges, of course — the member will be well aware — are that we need to determine what the best course forward will be.

I have not been fully briefed. I know the member is in contact with the minister regularly. I get contacted from my friends regularly about their concerns. And I have to confess that I’ve been saying for six or seven years: “Don’t worry. The right thing will always happen.”

Well, that was in opposition. Now I find myself the leader of the government. I’m very much hopeful that the right thing will happen, but that will take some time, and the decision, of course, is not in my hands; it’s in the hands of the Minister of Environment.

But I know the member is passionate about this, as are the people of Shawnigan Lake, and I’m hopeful that resolution will be available soon and that all parties will have a way forward.

B. Ma: As you will know, as the MLA for North Vancouver–​Lonsdale, I’m exceptionally fortunate to be able to serve an area of B.C. where there is a very strong representation by the Iranian-Canadian community. They’re able to enrich our communities, our lives, our culture, our economy on a daily basis by sharing with us their food, their dance, their art, their culture, their hard-work ethic and, in particular, their exceptionally high levels of professional expertise. We have accountants and engineers and physicians — a myriad of professionals from a variety of backgrounds.

It’s a very diverse community. Though it is a diverse community, in a lot of ways, a lot of the concerns that they have are similar to the concerns of all of my community members. They’re concerned about affordable housing. They’re concerned about how to move around in the community — so transportation. They’re concerned about the cost of child care.

All of these issues are issues that our government has been working very hard on. But one of the very unique challenges that the Iranian-Canadian community has, as well, and that they often come to me to discuss, is the issue of recognition of foreign credentials. We are exceptionally fortunate to have these highly trained professionals choose Canada, choose B.C. and choose North Vancouver, in particular, in relation to my riding, as their new home.

[4:35 p.m.]

I know that they come with their families with the hope of creating a better life for themselves and their families, of engaging and being a part of the communities that they are calling home and, in particular, that they really want to be able to give back to their communities through their high level of expertise that they bring with them from their home country.

However, some of the challenges are that…. Many of these new immigrants will come to Canada, come to B.C., come to North Vancouver, and find that their international credentials aren’t recognized. In particular, physicians that are trained internationally, in particular in Iran, will come here and find that after many, many years of trying, they’re unable to actually practise medicine.

Now, I recognize that issues of immigration, visas, foreign international recruitment, tend to be federal issues. I also recognize that the recognition of credentials of physicians is managed by the College of Physicians, so the B.C. government doesn’t have a direct role in that. But I’m wondering if the Premier might be able to describe some of the things that B.C. can do in order to support these very highly trained community members in being fully engaged here in their new life in Canada.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for North Vancouver–­Lonsdale for her question. I do know full well that recognition of foreign credentials is a fundamental issue for those new people arriving in Canada and to British Columbia, not just in health care but a whole range of other professions. The challenge…. The member knows, as an engineer, that you can have your engineering credentials from another jurisdiction, and you come to British Columbia, and those credentials aren’t recognized. So we’re taking steps to work with….

Those recognitions are not by government, as you know. They’re done by professional bodies — the College of Phy­sicians and Surgeons when it comes to doctors. I was just having a chat with the Minister of Health. He’s working hard to ensure that opportunities for internships and other ways to access the system to continue to use the skills that were found in another jurisdiction, the training that was given in another jurisdiction, can be applied reasonably here in British Columbia.

Of course, much more work needs to be done, but there are other little minor issues as well. If there is a requirement for an upgrade, the elimination of adult basic education costs…. If you come from another place and you don’t speak English, the elimination of fees on English language learning will also allow new citizens or new residents who come to British Columbia to not feel that there are more obstacles in the way.

I would suggest that it’s probably bad enough that you come from another jurisdiction. You’re fully qualified to practise a profession in the country you left, and you assume, because you’ve been invited to come to Canada, that you can practise that profession here. Then you find that you’re not able to.

If we can’t convince the governing bodies for these various professions that are finding that their credentials are not being recognized, the minimum that government can and should do is ensure that if there are upgrades required, those don’t lead to additional costs and, if it’s a language skill issue, that we’re making it as easy as possible to adopt English language training so that people can realize their full potential.

I’m the son of an Irish immigrant. Aside from the member for Saanich North and the Islands, the member for Skeena and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, all of us came from somewhere else. It seems to me that as a welcoming, multicultural, diverse country, we need to ensure that we are reducing barriers for newcomers so they can realize their full potential, and the whole province, the whole country, will benefit from that.

[4:40 p.m.]

J. Routledge: I know that the Premier has a special place in his heart for the students at Gilmore Community School in the Heights in Burnaby North, but I wonder if he is aware of a development that could actually be putting those students at Gilmore School at risk? I’m talking about increased traffic and increased congestion.

Now, Burnaby is uniquely situated between the eastern suburbs and downtown Vancouver. So at rush hour, we have a lot of traffic whipping through there. People often contend with that by getting off of Hastings Street and taking shortcuts through the side streets where Gilmore Community School is. They’re in a hurry to get home to their own kids. So I don’t blame them for that. But it does put our neighbourhoods at risk, so I’m wondering if the Premier has a plan going forward to relieve congestion and increase the safety of our streets.

Hon. J. Horgan: I want to thank the member for her question and also to say that Gilmore Elementary is very close to my heart because during the last election campaign, we stopped to do an announcement at a home in that area. I saw a group of kids walking by the bus, and I thought: “Oh isn’t that nice. There’s a group of kids on their way to somewhere.” It turned out that they were on their way to the press conference because they had got wind — the teacher had got wind — that the Leader of the Opposition at that time was coming to make an announcement just around the corner from the school.

They all locked hands, walked around the corner, stood across the street and observed the press conference. After the press conference was over, they all came rushing across the street to ask their questions. One of the youngsters from the school was designated to ask the questions. He had his pencil with the eraser forward, and his notepad, ready to ask questions that were valid and important to the kids of Gilmore Elementary. So I’m grateful to hear Gilmore echoing in the halls of this Legislature again.

The specific question that the member asked about is: what we are doing to eliminate congestion in the Lower Mainland, in the suburbs of Vancouver? Of course, in the fiscal year 2019-2020, B.C. Transit will invest $117 million in operating grants in addition to the estimated $78 million in capital grants right across the province to improve projects that will reduce congestion in communities that are serviced by B.C. Transit.

TransLink is building, of course, significant infrastructure to reduce automobile traffic, to reduce the congestion in communities. That means expanding SkyTrain, which, of course, runs through the member’s constituency. That means expanding services out across the Fraser. We’re making sure that people have access to public transit. We’re building high-occupancy-vehicle lanes, so we’re encouraging people to car pool, encouraging people to use other modes of transportation.

I had a good exchange the other day here. Actually, it was with the leader of the Green Party in his first round of questions during estimates about a passive transportation alternative so that communities like the Gilmore area don’t have this fear that there are going to be cars racing through, trying to cut corners through the hearts of communities to get back on to the main arteries that move people back and forth within the Lower Mainland.

I thank the member for her interest in this. She can be comforted that we’re making significant investments in public transit through not just B.C. Transit but through Trans­Link and a whole host of other initiatives to keep people safe, to keep people moving and to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

A. Olsen: I just would like to take the opportunity to ask the Premier one final question here, just with respect to the mental health crisis that’s happening in many of our communities. It’s a question that has not yet been raised here in this round of estimates. I know that the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions was asked questions earlier.

[4:45 p.m.]

I’d just like to hear, from the Premier’s perspective, about the work that he and his team, the government, are doing to address the significant opioid crisis, the addictions crisis in our society right here in British Columbia, and what his government is doing to address the opioid and mental health crisis here in B.C.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question and his interest in this very important area.

The member will know that British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in Canada that has a dedicated minister responsible for mental health and addictions. I believe that that member from New Westminster is doing an outstanding job under extremely difficult conditions.

Three or four British Columbians die every day from opioid overdoses. This is not just about those that are affected by street drugs on a regular basis. These are professionals. These are carpenters. These are regular people. These are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers.

Destigmatizing mental health and addiction is one of the primary objectives that the minister has. We’ve launched programs with organizations in the community to make sure that people have candid conversations about these challenges.

To that end, we’ve invested, since 2017, $608 million to support an escalated response to the opioid crisis. That saves lives. That reduces stigma, and it builds a network of treatment services right across the province. We’re working with our partners to build a spectrum of treatments and recovery options so more people can find support where they need it, when they need it.

The member will know that when it comes to mental health, if you present in an emergency room or to one of our urgent primary care centres with anxiety, with depression or with other mental health challenges, if you’re not quite right at the moment, you may not get the services that you need.

If you present with a broken arm or a laceration, you get immediate service, because the system can understand how to cast an arm or to stitch a laceration. But mental health issues are different, and we need to make sure that the broader medical fraternity understands that.

Our primary care network solution to that is to make sure that when you present, you get the right treatment. That might be a nurse practitioner that can direct you to a mental health practitioner. Whatever you might need, the primary care network can help to you do that — instead of just showing up to have an admissions clerk at emergency say: “Well, we can’t help you right now, because you’re not bleeding or something’s not broken.” You have a challenge. The community has an obligation, we have an obligation to help with you that.

We’re increasing support for Foundry locations — one-stop shops with wraparound services to support youth mental health service and wellness, with much, much more to do.

Just this year we’ve put $74 million into new investments for child and youth mental health recovery services. That’s fundamental. If we’re not focusing on mental health challenges in our schools, we’re failing kids at the start, which will make their lives more difficult going forward. The Minister of Education, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions are all focused on making sure we’re bringing these services together. I know that members of all sides of the House understand the importance of doing that.

I’m proud to lead a government that understands that if you present with a mental health challenge, if you present at a moment of clarity in a haze of addictions, that’s when the opportunity is there for recovery. We need to have the services in place so that we can get people when that moment arrives and ensure they get the services that they need.

I thank the member for his interest in this subject.

Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $11,349,000 — approved.

Hon. J. Horgan: I move the committee rise, report completion and resolution of the estimates of the Office of the Premier and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:50 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading on Bill 15.

We’re still waiting for the committee to report out, so in the meantime, I call third reading on Bill 22.

[4:55 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 22, Forest Amendment Act, 2019, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 44
Chouhan	Kahlon	Begg
Brar	Heyman	Donaldson
Mungall	Bains	Beare
Chen	Popham	Trevena
Sims	Chow	Kang
Simons	D’Eith	Routley
Ma	Elmore	Dean
Routledge	Singh	Leonard
Darcy	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Eby	Dix	Ralston
Mark	Fleming	Conroy
Fraser	Chandra Herbert	Rice
Malcolmson	Furstenau	Weaver
Olsen		Glumac
NAYS — 38
de Jong	Bond	Polak
Wilkinson	Lee	Stone
Coleman	Wat	Bernier
Thornthwaite	Paton	Ashton
Barnett	Yap	Davies
Kyllo	Sullivan	Reid
Morris	Stilwell	Ross
Oakes	Johal	Redies
Rustad	Milobar	Sturdy
Clovechok	Shypitka	Throness
Tegart	Stewart	Sultan
Gibson	Isaacs	Letnick
Thomson		Foster

[5:00 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — AGRICULTURAL LAND
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Mr. Speaker: The House Leaders have agreed to waive the time.

Bill 15, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 44
Chouhan	Kahlon	Begg
Brar	Heyman	Donaldson
Mungall	Bains	Beare
Chen	Popham	Trevena
Sims	Chow	Kang
Simons	D’Eith	Routley
Ma	Elmore	Dean
Routledge	Singh	Leonard
Darcy	Simpson	Robinson
Farnworth	Horgan	James
Eby	Dix	Ralston
Mark	Fleming	Conroy
Fraser	Chandra Herbert	Rice
Malcolmson	Furstenau	Weaver
Olsen		Glumac
NAYS — 38
de Jong	Bond	Polak
Wilkinson	Lee	Stone
Coleman	Wat	Bernier
Thornthwaite	Paton	Ashton
Barnett	Yap	Davies
Kyllo	Sullivan	Reid
Morris	Stilwell	Ross
Oakes	Johal	Redies
Rustad	Milobar	Sturdy
Clovechok	Shypitka	Throness
Tegart	Stewart	Sultan
Gibson	Isaacs	Letnick
Thomson		Foster

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of Supply.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES:
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

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

The committee met at 5:06 p.m.

Vote 1: Legislative Assembly, $83,015,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

Vote 2: Auditor General, $18,216,000 — approved.

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

Vote 4: Elections B.C., $18,151,000 — approved.

Vote 5: Human Rights Commissioner, $2,000,000 — approved.

Vote 6: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $6,702,000 — approved.

Vote 7: Merit Commissioner, $1,365,000 — approved.

Vote 8: Ombudsperson, $8,873,000 — approved.

Vote 9: Police Complaint Commissioner, $3,822,000 — approved.

Vote 10: Representative for Children and Youth, $9,750,000 — approved.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise, report completion of the resolutions and completion of the estimates of the Legislative Assembly and Officers of the Legislature, Votes 1 through 10.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:11 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B) reported resolutions.

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

Supply Motions

REPORTS OF RESOLUTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply on March 7, 25, 26; April 3, 8, 29, 30; and May 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 28 and 30 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.]

Motion approved.

FUNDS GRANTED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That there be granted to Her Majesty, from and out of the Consoli­dated Revenue Fund, the sum of 47 billion, 62 million, 752 thousand dollars towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2019.]

Motion approved.

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

Hon. C. James: I move:

[That there be granted to Her Majesty, from and out of the Consoli­dated Revenue Fund, the sum of 1 billion, 116 million, 497 thousand dollars towards defraying the disbursements for capital, loans, investments and other financing requirements of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2019.]

Motion approved.

[5:15 p.m.]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — SUPPLY ACT, 2019–2020

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2019–2020.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 34 be introduced and read now a first time.

The supply bill is introduced to authorize funding for the operation of government programs for the ’19-20 fiscal year. This House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the reports of resolution from the Committees of Supply after consideration of the main estimates. In addition, this House has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds to defraying the charges, expenses and disbursements of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020.

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

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 34, Supply Act, 2019–2020, introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

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

Standing Order 26

PRIVILEGE

M. de Jong: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26.

Regrettably, I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

S. Bond: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

M. Polak: I rise present to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

A. Wilkinson: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromising of the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records and electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

[5:20 p.m.]

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any potential litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

M. Lee: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

T. Stone: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

R. Coleman: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

T. Wat: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I’ve further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of the assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

M. Bernier: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

[5:25 p.m.]

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

J. Thornthwaite: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of the assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

I. Paton: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

Personal Statements

ACTION ON ISSUES
CONCERNING LEGISLATURE

D. Ashton: I rise on a point of privilege. I would just like to say that my Dad brought me up to ensure that the best pillow is always a clean conscience. He always told me to treat everybody else how you like to be treated. I would like to say, hon. Speaker, to yourself, to the government — including the opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the government and the Leader of the Third Party — there’s a power hanging over this House, the House of the people. It has to be addressed. It has to be addressed now.

We’re leaving this place, the House of the people. We’re leaving it until October. This will continue to haunt us. It will not only haunt us during the time that we’re away, but it is going to haunt us for our tenure. We have all been elected here. We’ve all been elected here to represent the people at home. I beg of you, hon. Speaker, to the Premier and to the members of the government, to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Leader of the Third Party, let’s put our collective heads together and resolve the issues so that we can continue to govern the way that we have been elected to do by the people that we represent.

Standing Order 26

PRIVILEGE

D. Barnett: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as the member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

J. Yap: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

[5:30 p.m.]

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedoms as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

D. Davies: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The points have not complied with the provisions of Standing Order 26.

Therefore, I recognize the Minister of Finance to continue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, continue.

G. Kyllo: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedoms as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

Mr. Speaker: Members. I note again that the comment doesn’t comply with the formal provisions of Standing Order 26.

Therefore, I recognize the Minister of Finance to continue.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Sorry. Vancouver–False Creek.

S. Sullivan: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26, on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of the activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedoms as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Finance.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — SUPPLY ACT, 2019–2020

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 34 be read a second time now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Finance was up first.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I’m sorry. I indicated it wasn’t in keeping with the formal provisions of Standing Order 26.

Interjections.

[5:35 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Finance.

Hon. C. James: Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 34 be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 34 be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 34, Supply Act, 2019–2020, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 34 — SUPPLY ACT, 2019–2020

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 34; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 5:36 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 34 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:37 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — SUPPLY ACT, 2019–2020

Bill 34, Supply Act, 2019–2020, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Standing Order 26

PRIVILEGE

S. Gibson: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish now to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

R. Sultan: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

[5:40 p.m.]

I have become aware of the behaviour and conduct by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromise the ability of these officers to independently perform their duty. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Furthermore, insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House.

May I finally add that I have deep regret that these proceedings seem to be regarded with great amusement by key leadership members of the opposite….

B. Stewart: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

E. Foster: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those fine officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

J. Tegart: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

L. Throness: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26, and it’s the first time I’ve done so in my two terms as an MLA, on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

[5:45 p.m.]

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and, sadly, a contempt for this House.

T. Shypitka: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and contempt for this House.

D. Clovechok: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of the Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

J. Sturdy: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

P. Milobar: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

J. Rustad: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

[5:50 p.m.]

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

T. Redies: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

J. Johal: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

C. Oakes: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

E. Ross: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

[5:55 p.m.]

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

M. Stilwell: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behavior and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly, and they impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

M. Morris: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behavior and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

L. Reid: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behavior and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. The people who work in this place deserve so much better. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself from any of these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House.

J. Isaacs: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behavior and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

N. Letnick: It’s with the deepest regret and a heavy heart that I must rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

[6:00 p.m.]

I have become aware of behavior and conduct taken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including any subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

S. Thomson: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 on a matter of personal privilege.

I have become aware of behaviour and conduct undertaken by the Speaker with respect to senior officers and employees of this Legislative Assembly that I believe to be improper and compromises the ability of those officers to independently perform their duties. I have further become aware of activities undertaken by the Speaker, including the seizure of records, including electronic records, that I believe constitute improper conduct with respect to my rights as a member of this assembly and impede my personal freedom as a member of this assembly.

Insofar as the Speaker serves as the presiding officer of this assembly, I wish to disassociate myself for all purposes, including subsequent litigation from these actions which I believe constitute a breach of the individual and collective privileges of this House and a contempt for this House.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members, for your personal statements.

I now advise members that the Lieutenant-Governor is present in the precinct. Please remain seated.

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

[6:05 p.m.]

Royal Assent to Bills

Acting Clerk:

 

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019

Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019

Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019

Forest Amendment Act, 2019

Zero-Emission Vehicles Act

Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019

Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019

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

Supply Act, 2019–2020

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

Hon. J. Austin (Lieutenant-Governor): Thank you, Kate.

I do indeed thank you for all of your work, for all of your service to the province on behalf of all British Columbians. I thank you for your continued service and your continued goodwill as we work together in the future.

I wish you all the best over the summer season, and I’ll look forward to seeing you again in this environment ere long.

All the best to everybody.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until further notice.

The House adjourned at 6:10 p.m.