Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENTS

D. Routley: It always gives me pleasure to stand up in the House and speak about the principles that I’ve tried to represent in asking people to elect me as a New Democrat MLA, to see those principles materialized in the lives of British Columbians. That’s what I want to talk about today. I want to talk about the investment in public health care and why that is so important in our culture, in our society and in this House.

The Premier recently said: “By improving how we connect people to care, we can help make sure that British Columbians get the health care they need faster and closer to home.”

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

He said: “The kind of care people need, and how it’s delivered, has to change. It’s no longer as simple as a doctor-patient relationship. We need to be looking forward and providing team-based care that better meets the needs of British Columbians. In every community I visit,” the Premier said, “patients, doctors, nurses and other health care professionals all say the same thing: ‘Health care delivery must become more patient-centred.’ We’re getting the job done.”

The Premier was talking about something very far-reaching. That was a big statement. You know, the immediate question that comes to people’s minds is: how do you materialize that? The government is focusing on three areas in trying to deliver on that principle and that goal.

The first challenge the province has addressed is the shortage of general practitioners, family doctors. We are doing that by providing funding for up to 200 new general practitioners to work in the team-based care model in urgent primary care centres. We’re offering opportunities for every family medicine resident to work in a renewed primary care system.

Essentially, three steps are being taken. Primary care networks are being established, and these networks will be the backbone to the team-based approach. This will allow patients access to a full range of health care options from maternity to end of life, streamlining referrals from one provider to another and providing better support to family physicians, nurse practitioners and other primary health providers. These networks will be rolled out in at least 15 communities — I believe ten have already been established — along with ten urgent primary care centres.

These centres, the second step, will be new to B.C. and will provide primary care to patients who currently do not have a family doctor or nurse practitioner, and weekend and after-hours care. This will take great pressure off hospital emergency departments. A total of ten centres will be established, as I said. Most of those are already up and running. There are three, I think, that are partially established, as well as seven that are fully operational.

[10:10 a.m.]

The third step will be community health centres. These health centres will bring together health and broader social services to improve access to health promotion, preventative care and ongoing services. Each of those centres will be designed and developed uniquely, in line with the needs of their communities and fully integrated into local primary care networks.

Now, these are really important steps. I think you can see that there’s a theme running through that. That is innovation, trying to take the challenge that we’re facing — a shortage of family doctors — and turn that into an advantage somehow, in that how we address it actually improves the care that people receive. Not only are they able to go to a predictable place with predictable people to get care, but there’s a network that surrounds the patient, and the patient becomes the centre of that focus.

The urgent primary care centres do provide extended hours and basic in-office urgent care services, things like sprains and simple fractures, minor cuts requiring stitches, minor burns and rapid access to mental health and substance use crisis intervention services. I think that’s a very important aspect of this. As we face a society that’s so challenged by issues of mental health and by issues of addiction, we have to find ways to support people in a more holistic way.

We look at all of these services and ask ourselves: what is the purpose of such a large investment and such an innovative approach to a problem? The reason people are motivated to do this is, yes, to keep people healthy and, yes, to not incur costs. But in a broader picture, a healthier society is healthy for everyone. If there are fewer homeless people, there are fewer people who are sick. Even those who are wealthy and healthy will live in a better community.

In order for people to thrive in this province, they need to have support. I’m proud that our government is providing that support, in terms of their health care needs, by taking what is a really difficult challenge — managing a shortage of service and actually addressing it in a way that will ramp up the quality and the level of service that we’re very proud to represent here today.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the member from Cowichan Valley, who spoke so eloquently about primary care and the changes that we see happening. Those changes, of course, have been happening for many years.

Back in 2015, the current and then Deputy Minister of Health started a consultation process, under the leadership of Terry Lake. We can say his name now in the House. That really set the stage for primary care networks as well as urgent care centres. Actually, I believe, the first urgent care centre was developed in Parksville, under the leadership of Ron Cantelon — another name we can say in the House, from a previous generation of MLAs — and, of course, widely supported by our current government and the previous government.

We work together on these initiatives. It’s really important, I believe — I think you’ve seen the philosophy here in the House — that we work collaboratively on issues of health care. Health care transcends politics, in my mind. I think the relationship you’ve seen between our leaders and the critics, when it comes to health care, exemplifies that.

Things that we’ve worked together on — measles. We’re working together on the Health Professions Act and support for a biosimilars strategy. That continues out into primary care, urgent care and increased dollars for family practitioners that are having challenges making ends meet in high-rent markets — seeing them get a little bit more. These are all things we can work well together on and, ideally, will all lead to more attachment. This is where we have patients who are currently unattached, through these processes, find their way to get attached to a primary care provider. In that way, they can have continuity of care.

The other place that we’ve worked well together, I believe, over the years is on the issue of capital investment into health care. We’ve seen billions of dollars invested by the previous government in health care capital. Now we see, of course, that continuing by the current government.

[10:15 a.m.]

This includes things like the redevelopment of Royal Colum­bian Hospital, which committed $250 million for its phase 1 expansion. We’ll see the installation of a 75-bed mental health and substance use facility to replace the Sher­brooke Centre, doubling the number of beds available. Royal Columbian also will give Fraser Health’s first dedicated geriatric psych unit designed for the elderly patients experiencing acute depression, anxiety or psychosis.

Of course, we have St. Paul’s Hospital, which is being continued by the current government. We have other investments in Kamloops and the Okanagan — expansions across B.C. But one thing that I think we need to bring attention to, both in terms of the opposition and in terms of the government side of the House, is the lack of cardiac services up in Northern Health.

Northern Health is the only health authority without a cardiac centre, which leaves the sickest patients with few treatment options, apart from waiting. Frequently they’re in hallways and have to be sent to the Lower Mainland for services. A surgical tower, including cardiac services, is about basic care for patients in the north, equal to what we see throughout the rest of the province. Northern Health has put together a solid business case, and it presented to the medical health committee. Of course, it’s our hope that what we’ll see there is them accepting that and moving forward.

Another point that we can work together on and ensure that the government pays a lot of attention to is the issue of nurses. Most of the members of this House signed a pledge for safety for nurses in our institutions, but we still have to see some more action on that. We have 265 nursing shifts that went unfilled every day in 2018. Nearly 40 percent of all B.C. nurses are nearing retirement, and B.C. has the least number of RNs and LPNs working per capita across the country.

We expanded those spaces, of course. We introduced the nurse practitioner program when we were in government. The current government, as mentioned by the hon. member, is continuing that work. That’s good work. We have to not only work on the issue of access to nursing, but we also have to work on their safety to make sure that when they go to work, they don’t come home after a time in the hospital with a broken jaw, as we’ve seen in recent stories in nursing, amongst others.

I just want to conclude by saying that there are a lot of opportunities here to continue the good work of the previous government. I acknowledge that with the current government and would support them investing in capital and Northern Health, amongst other places around the province, investing in nursing and, of course, reducing wait times.

D. Routley: Thank you to the hon. member for Kelowna–​Lake Country. He definitely framed this in a way that, I think, is important. That is that, yes, I think many people wouldn’t know that when I was in opposition, we voted together with the government about 70 percent of the time. Of course, it’s on more contentious, politically charged issues where there’s a dynamic of conflict. That can include health care, definitely.

The member did indicate that he believes it’s beyond politics. I think it is, ideally, but it is certainly subject to the same competitive drive that causes everything to happen in here. You could hear it in my presentation, where I boasted about our government’s accomplishments, and in his presentation, where he reminded us of his own previous government’s accomplishments. That’s really important. I think that in our society or our culture — a civil society that’s democratic — this is how things get better. This side says: “We’ve got a better plan than that side.”

When we are elected, our job is to make life better for British Columbians. That’s how standards have been uplifted to the point they are now, where we can expect a paramedic on scene in the ideal nine minutes within an event. Those things would not have happened without that partisan competition, really, in this place. It does take innovation, and it does take working together. I’m sure the member agrees with that. I know him well, and I believe that he adheres to those principles.

You know, the previous presentation I’d had printed in a 16-point font for my old eyes, and then I had this printed. I was going to read it out, but it’s 36 pages long of 12-point font on investments in health care. I know that if we went back to the member’s time in government, we’d see a similar document.

[10:20 a.m.]

It is incredible, the investment that we make as a society in each other — not simply so that the health care centre or the hospital is available to us but so that our community has that access. To me, that’s a really important principle and value that is representative of British Columbia. I think that investments in urgent primary care and nurse practitioners, as the member’s previous government, as he indicated, had invested in, is the way people and communities thrive in British Columbia.

We thrive when we’re healthy. We thrive in a healthy economy. None of us thrive when there are great inequalities in our society. So I think we all benefit by these investments.

I thank the member very much for his contribution.

MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTIONS

J. Thornthwaite: The call bearing the awful news about a child’s overdose is one of the most heartbreaking any parent can receive. Yet too many parents continue to get that call since the opioid crisis was first declared in 2016.

“Mom, I’m fine. You don’t need to worry about me. I’m not going to die.” Those were the words of 15-year-old Steffanie Lawrence two days after being released from the hospital and 24 hours before she died from an accidental drug overdose in January 2018. Heartbreaking words from a teen that could have been saved if more resources were in place, such as the safe care act.

Our province continues to face an unrelenting opioid crisis. Projections based on overdose statistics released July 11, 2019 forecast total deaths this year to remain higher than when the crisis was first declared in 2016.

In that time, there have been over 4,400 deaths. Just let that sink in. Not enough is being done. We need to do much more to treat those with mental illness and provide help to those suffering from addictions, just like we would, and we do, for all other chronic physical illnesses.

While the current government continues to push forward with a harm reduction strategy, they have shown very little attention to proven recovery and prevention initiatives. Continuing to pour more money into harm reduction services, including replacement therapies and drug testing kits, may help save lives today, but it won’t end the cycle of addiction, particularly when it comes to youth.

As the critic for Mental Health and Addictions, I have long advocated for the need for a full spectrum of care — a mental health system that could serve youth and adults equally, that would focus on early intervention and would help those dealing with addiction into treatment that would eventually lead to recovery.

I urge the government to bring the safe care act to debate, a bill that I first brought forward in February of 2018. Since then, more than 20 youth have died from a drug overdose. The safe care act would allow for vulnerable children and youth whose situations place them or others at risk to be placed within a treatment facility that can respond to their trauma or high risk of harm.

Medical professionals agree that addiction disorders affect youth differently than adults. Up until about the age of 25, a youth brain is still developing, and drugs can seriously affect that developmental process. The question then becomes whether you should be entrusted to safely make decisions about their treatment, while under the influence of drugs.

At the inquest into the death of Elliot Eurchuk, a Victoria teen who died of a lethal overdose in 2018, his parents stated they had hoped the recommendations included secure care for youth with severe substance use disorders and: “Parents need to get access to their vulnerable children’s health care.”

The most pressing option from government needs to be additional resources for recovery and treatment. Every person who wants to access treatment or recovery should have the opportunity, but so many are limited by the cost to do so. There are recovery beds available, yet without the funding from government, they remain too expensive for many seeking treatment.

There is evidence to support treatment and recovery. The B.C. Centre on Substance Use published a report, Strategies to Strengthen Recovery in British Columbia: The Path Forward.

“The review authors concluded that recovery residences are an important component of the continuum of care but noted that they are often undervalued or overlooked within health and social service systems. More specifically, the authors recommended that public and private health care systems should consider secure funding mechanisms for recovery residences in order to improve access, program safety and quality, which, in turn, would better support individuals pursuing a life in recovery in the community.”

[10:25 a.m.]

At the last Public Accounts meeting, on October 16, members heard from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. We heard one of the people talk about the Vancouver drug court. This is where individuals are committing offences that are motivated by their addiction, but they can elect to go through the drug treatment court of Vancouver, where they plead guilty. They remain on bail for a period of time and have regular court appearances. But, all the while, they attend a very intensive day treatment program focused on addictions that is delivered with partnership with Vancouver Coastal Health.

Vancouver Coastal therapists deliver therapy to address the addiction needs. Then at the point of a graduation, which takes about 18 months, they only have one day on probation. In essence, they get a significantly reduced sentence for undergoing treatment. They concluded that for people completing the drug treatment court, there are reductions in recidivism of up to 56 percent for drug-related offences. I see this and see that as evidence of the value of recovery.

The woman also went on to talk about Guthrie therapeutic community. This a Nanaimo correctional centre. There, the program is solidly focused on supporting individuals who are ready to work on their recovery, to do that work. “We’ve had some great success with that,” she says. “Therapists work with inmates in custody to do that work” and then actually support them when they return to the community. Again, a resounding endorsement for recovery.

It’s programs like this that aim to help people struggling with their addiction — to get them help, which they desperately need, and into a more productive, fuller life.

I look forward to the remarks from the members opposite. I’ll resume my remarks after.

S. Chandra Herbert: I want to thank and acknowledge my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour for her passion and work around mental health and addictions. I know it’s something she’s been interested in for many years along with her other colleague, North Vancouver–Lonsdale, who tells me a lot about these issues too.

I also want to thank and acknowledge the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. Since 2017, we have a minister responsible for this file, for developing the plan and for developing the road map forward.

There’s a quote that I think about quite often when I think about mental health. It’s attributed, I believe, to the former provincial health officer, Perry Kendall, when asked about what gaps existed in the mental health system in British Columbia. This was in 2017, I believe. He said: “Well, you have to actually have a system in order to identify gaps, and we don’t really have a mental health system in B.C.”

I would agree with that statement. I think there are pieces of systems. But as of yet, there’s still much more work to be done to have a fully integrated system that works for everybody.

I am encouraged. Sometimes, I must admit, looking at the state of things, it can be discouraging. I think back to my time in opposition, the previous nine years, where I would have somebody who was on the street, clearly suffering with mental health issues and clearly suffering with addiction issues, homeless. They would, eventually, in many cases, be identified and end up in hospital. They would have one issue dealt with and then be discharged right back to the street again. It was a cycle.

Again and again and again I would plead with previous health ministers. I would plead with the local health authority, the police, anybody. “This person is clearly ill. Why do they keep being discharged back to the street?” Well, I was told that there were no resources, that that wasn’t the government’s priority and that that person…. Basically, the police could deal with them, or somebody else could deal with them.

Well, in two cases that I know of, a person who was identified as clearly having a mental illness and clearly needing help — into hospital for treatment. They ended up dying on the street. They ended up dying on the street because there wasn’t housing. There was no place for them to be sent, even if there was an access department within the hospital to help triage them into that housing. There was just no housing, no transitional housing and no shelter, because previous governments had not made that a priority.

[10:30 a.m.]

Again and again the community would step up. We all knew who these people were. We were all trying to find ways to get them help. But they ended up back on the street after being treated for one illness, and often the police would come and pick them up the next day, bring them back to the hospital. Clearly, they were not well enough to be on the street, but the hospital had nowhere to send them. So it was a revolving door.

That is changing. I’ve got to say it’s changing, finally. It’s far too late for too many people and not fast enough for the people either. Government moves slowly. Of course, when you’re in a crisis, you need an urgent response.

I was pleased, two years ago, to be able to go to St. Paul’s with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to open the HUB, to open an emergency department inte­grated with the Vancouver Police Foundation Transitional Care Centre at St. Paul’s, right next door to the Rapid Access Addiction Clinic.

Those kinds of centres, where integration that now exists at St. Paul’s and that was not in existence for my previous nine years in opposition, are helping immeasurably. When somebody goes into that system, they no longer get their wound treated and just get sent back out onto the street. No, they’re given time to recuperate. They’re given time and access to staff who will help them transition into housing, help them into addiction treatment if that’s appropriate, help them with mental health treatment where that’s appropriate — to try and stop that revolving door.

St. Paul’s emergency department reports that the number of people — the crowding, the congestion that had become such a huge issue over the previous, I guess, ten years, roughly 2008 to about 2017 — is on the way down again. It’s not crowding in that way. People who were in there week after week after week because they were not getting the addiction treatment…. They were not getting the mental health treatment. They were not getting into housing. They were getting sick again once they were on the street. They’re now getting access to better care than they had before and into an integrated system of care.

I really want to thank everyone who works at the HUB at St. Paul’s for taking that on.

I also want to thank the Finance Minister for building modular housing so we have places. These people can actually get into housing, not just be sent back onto the street.

J. Thornthwaite: The previous member described very well the revolving door that still exists across British Columbia, where people are discharged too early and often die on the streets days or weeks later. The need for recovery and treatment resources cannot be emphasized enough here in British Columbia.

The NDP have been in government for over two years, and we have seen little action to increase the number of publicly funded beds. This is disappointing to see, as British Columbians are forced to watch Canadians in other provinces access treatment beds — most notably, the 4,000 new treatment beds recently announced in Alberta. Harm-reduction approaches like the overdose prevention sites and greater distribution of naloxone kits are saving lives, but those alone are not enough to break the cycle of addiction.

I wish they would listen to Grand Chief Stewart Phillip.

“I want my son’s death to be meaningful. The path forward has to be an abundance of resources to help those who are struggling with addictions. More treatment centres, more programs and a greater commitment from governments and society to pick up the responsibility for it.

“So far, governmental response has been ‘minimalist,’” said Phillip. “This notion of harm reduction is just kicking the issue down the road. It’s not dealing with getting people from an addictive state to where they are clean and sober. That’s what we need to do.”

Not only are families struggling with a lack of resources but so, too, are municipalities. I sympathize with the many mayors who have raised concerns over compassion fatigue in communities throughout British Columbia. The overdose crisis has not just impacted people in major cities but all around the province, saddling municipalities with rising costs.

Dumping modular housing units in communities, as an attempt to meet campaign promises, without proper treatment and recovery options is futile for those with mental health and addiction issues but also for the municipalities who are trying to do the best for their citizens without adequate support from senior governments. Needle and garbage cleanup in city parks and school playgrounds, rising safety costs and increased crime levels are just a few of the issues affecting communities across B.C.

This government is ignoring the need for a full spectrum of care, while the crisis continues to claim lives every day. Until British Columbians get to the point of having programs available that are easily accessible and affordable provincewide and that offer a complete continuum of care from detox to treatment, and until we actually address the root of the addiction, such as trauma or mental illness, we are never going to be able to turn the tide on this addiction crisis.

[10:35 a.m.]

PHYSICAL LITERACY AND ACTIVE KIDS

R. Kahlon: Good morning to everyone today. It’s nice to see everyone. It’s my privilege this morning to speak about physical literacy and active kids.

I think I first want to start off by doing a special congratulations to the field hockey national team, the men’s team, which qualified for the Olympics this weekend, beating Ireland in a two-game series, and got their ticket to Tokyo 2020. I want to — if they’re watching, if they’re out there — say a special congratulations on behalf of everybody in this House, hon. Speaker.

I was able to catch the game on Saturday. It was nice. It was a nice opportunity to gather with so many people that are involved in sport. It wasn’t just field hockey; there were people involved in sport across the spectrum. Interesting conversations would come up. It actually relates quite nicely to the topic I want to speak about today: a lot of conversations on how we keep the programs going well. How do we continue to have top-level athletes? How do we continue to see kids be active and play sport?

It leads me to a challenge that we are facing not only in B.C. and across the country but across North America, which is that kids don’t play anymore. When we were kids not too long ago, when I was a kid not too long ago, when others in this place were younger, we’d know that when it got dark, it was time to go home. Until then, you were out doing something. Now that’s not the case.

There was a recent study done about how far a child travels from their home. Ten years ago it used to be a kilometre and a half. Now it’s 50 metres — the average distance a child travels from their home. It leads to a major problem. A speaker earlier was speaking about mental health and the importance of providing supports. But when kids are not physically active, it means higher levels of depression. It means higher levels of anxiety. It means long-term health outcome challenges when you don’t have an active and healthy society.

Physical literacy is a very important topic, which I don’t think gets enough coverage in the media, in society. We talk about numerical literacy and how it’s important to have all these things. But it’s critically important for us to have physical literacy.

At the core, it’s the ability to do basic things such as run, throw, jump — balance, coordination — the things that we probably didn’t really have to think much about when we were younger because we did all of those things all the time. But now in an age of video games — I guess times are changing — and fears in communities about letting their kids travel far away, I think there are some really difficult conversations that need to happen.

In particular, on physical literacy, we need to continue to move the dial on keeping kids active and ensuring that they learn the core fundamentals of movement. Why does that matter? I think I’ve already highlighted it, but there’s a great example of it working very well. It’s the West Vancouver school district.

I had an opportunity to tour the West Vancouver school district. The province provided some small grants to communities to have conversations about physical literacy, where they brought mental health advocates, they brought sporting groups, they brought school boards, cities and health authorities all to one table. They talked about how we have a healthy and active society. I’m not just talking about kids. I’m talking about adults; I’m talking about seniors.

From that, came a proposal, in the West Vancouver school district, where they have now hired two people that are in charge of physical literacy in the classroom — half funded by the province, half funded by the school district. These instructors go classroom to classroom, and they merge curriculum and physical activity into one. Gone are the days where you had a PE class and you had to go and change and run. Now the future is merging the physical literacy into the classroom in their education.

[10:40 a.m.]

They had kids learning math with beanbags. The teacher would say: “What is two plus two?” They would find the answer on the board, and they’d have to throw the bean bag to hit the answer. They had kids doing math. The teacher would say: “How do you get to the number eight?” The kids had to do hopscotch to find the numbers to make sure it adds up to eight. Really out-of-the-box thinking.

They’ve transformed their hallways. Their hallways used to be just hallways. Now they’ve got, essentially, a little jungle gym set. You notice the kids. When they walk through the hallways…. They don’t just walk down the hallway now. They hop between the boxes. They participate in the games that have been created for them. Hats off to West Vancouver school district.

We need to continue this dial, because there are alarming studies coming out. There are alarming studies coming out around kids and being active in sport. We just saw one recently — that girls between the ages of 12 and 16 are dropping off at a crisis level from sport.

Why? There are many issues. Perhaps it’s because when we have kids, at a young age, and a boy is climbing a tree, we say: “That’s a boy being a boy.” But when girls are climbing a tree, they tell them: “Come down. You don’t want you to hurt yourself.” This is a culture of providing opportunities to boys that aren’t quite necessarily there for girls.

There are also many other things. Core to it is that kids don’t feel like they can participate in sport and activity. They don’t feel like it’s fun, quite frankly. I have a nine-year-old who now is questioning whether he wants to continue to play a sport, because he doesn’t think it’s fun, because everybody wants to win. Everybody wants to compete. If a kid is not performing to the same level, there is that social pressure not to do so. It leads to major issues, as I said earlier — mental health challenges and future health-care-related issues.

We also now are seeing physical literacy on the other end. We’re also seeing the development and the need for physical literacy for seniors. For seniors who go to care homes, there’s so much risk mitigation happening that…. They are confined to their rooms, and then they lose the ability to have balance and coordination and all of these other critical pieces.

I’ll speak more to that after whoever from the opposition will speak to this.

D. Davies: I’d like to thank the member for Delta North for the opportunity today to address the importance of physical literacy and children being active.

As the critic for Education, I believe it is vital that we ensure that the best learning outcomes are there for all of our youth so that they have the opportunity to learn and succeed in life. As a former teacher as well as a parent, I wholeheartedly support all learning programs that strive to help our kids be active and improve learning outcomes.

Spending time in the outdoors can play a pivotal role in the future of our children’s health and happiness, building foundations that last from childhood through over a lifetime. International assessments have repeatedly confirmed that B.C.’s public schools are among the highest performing in the world. A large component of that is, of course, our teachers, our dedicated and amazing teachers. Students from across the province have the opportunity to participate in a variety of programs that encourage physical and — of course, hand in hand with that — mental well-being. Our member for Delta North stressed that as well.

Outdoor school programs are incredibly beneficial for students. New learning opportunities promoting alternative methods need to be embraced by our school system. The physical benefits of being outdoors are well known. However, more research is demonstrating just how important it can be on our mental health as well. No matter what the activity is, quality time spent outside provides children the perfect environment to form positive relationships with teachers, other students and parents.

Even walking to school has incredible benefits. As the member pointed out across the way, we don’t walk the distances that we used to. In fact, the entire activity of walking to school is quickly disappearing. In 1969, 41 percent of children either walked or biked to school. In 2009, only 13 percent of our children did the same activity. I can only assume that in the last ten years, it’s probably reduced even more. Experts say that the transition has not only contributed, obviously, to the rise in pollution, traffic congestion and childhood obesity, but it’s also hampered the children’s ability to literally navigate the world.

[10:45 a.m.]

Another issue is that kids generally do not go outdoors as much. In fact, kids spending too much time indoors has become so extreme that the crisis has been named the nature deficit disorder. While calling it a disorder might be merely rhetorical, it is clear that kids do spend too much time inside. The shift is largely due to technology. The average American child aged eight to 18 is said to spend only four to seven minutes of unstructured play time outdoors and over seven hours every day in front of a screen. The numbers are similar here in Canada. Even in my own family, with my children, I need to be very aware of my own kids’ screen time.

All of this activity, we know, plays a role in the general physical and mental health of our kids, which I believe is getting a failing grade. It’s simply unacceptable. We must work toward solutions for children’s mental well-being, and we can all play a pivotal role in making that happen. Increase in a child’s activity is one step toward a healthy child, physically and mentally.

It’s important for parents and guardians to be as engaged in our school system as possible, looking at local programs to encourage our children to walk to school. In fact, many places across North America recognize a week in October or the whole month of October as Walk to School Month. I encourage parents and students to work with their schools to look at something in their own programs that they might implement.

I encourage families to get out and move around and enjoy all that “Super, natural British Columbia” has to offer. Not that that was a commercial or anything. Explore one of the many thousands of parks that British Columbia has. Find a playground. Go out and play kick the can with your kids. I’m not sure if that game just dated me or not. I don’t know if kids still play kick the can. I used to love playing it. Or play grounders, which I’m just getting to learn now. My kids love playing it.

These are just some of the fun things that all of us can do with our young people to get them to be more active. Engaging in physical exercise and mindfulness will help our kids and us, as adults, be healthier physically, healthier mentally.

R. Kahlon: I want to thank my colleague from Peace River North for his thoughtful response. I agree with him. More needs to be done, and I have good news. More is being done. We, just in the last few years, have been able to make some significant investments to really start to address some of these important challenges that we’ve just discussed.

We talked about kids getting active and enjoying the space, but we also know that sometimes cost is something that prohibits kids from entering and participating in a sport. The member has mentioned some games he was growing up playing, and I played the same games. But there are also Indigenous communities who historically have had games that we also need to bring back, because a lot of those games, through colonization, have disappeared.

I was very proud. Last year we were able to provide $1.4 million for our B.C. Indigenous athletes to be able to participate in the North American Indigenous Games. It’s the first time ever that we were able to provide funding so that cost would not prohibit young athletes from being able to participate in a sport they love.

Also, we were able to provide KidSport. Everyone knows KidSport. KidSport chapters are throughout this province. We were able to provide $2.5 million over four years. That’s on top of the traditional funds that we give them. That’s new dollars to ensure that new immigrants, children with disabilities, First Nations youth have a greater chance of participating and being active in sport. I know that was well-received from them and folks in the community.

The Minister of Education…. I am so grateful for the fund for building playgrounds. My community has two new playgrounds at McCloskey and Chalmers Elementary. The kids know what that means. The parents know what that means. It means that not only is it good for the kids that go to the school, but it’s good for the community, because we have kids coming from all over now, and the parents let them just play.

[10:50 a.m.]

That’s really changing my community. Those parks never used to have people, and now they’re packed. There are kids playing. There are seniors coming to talk, because they love watching the kids play. It’s really transformed our community.

We talk about physical literacy about kids, but we were able to announce a pilot project this year with seniors, which is, I think, a game-changer for this province. I want to thank the Minister of Health. It’s called Seniors Can Move in Delta. What it does is it takes seniors from local care homes and brings them to the gymnastics facility, where they learn balance again. They learn coordination. They get to work on skills that they don’t get to use at the care home that they’re living in. I remember that when I went there for the opening, one of the seniors said, “I can jump again,” which was amazing.

Anyways, I want to thank the member for Peace River North. I look forward to the rest of the debate.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

D. Barnett: Following the close of the last federal election last week, there is a great deal of talk about regional divides in this country. We have seen the resurgence of the Bloc Québécois in the east and now the growing Wexit movement in the west.

In British Columbia, no greater divide exists today than the distance between rural and urban British Columbians. The fact is that the wealth of this province has been built from our natural resources, all located in the north, the coast, and the central Interior of this province.

Sadly, we are experiencing a crisis in rural British Columbia. The forest industry is in a tailspin, and with it, thousands of jobs. Contractors, millworkers and all the people who service the forest industry are looking at a bleak future. And while the government likes to boast that B.C. has the lowest employment rate next to Quebec….

And that’s the problem. While the government quotes statistics, we lost 8,400 jobs in the month of September. In the past four months alone, more than 25,000 British Columbians found themselves out of work. Many of these are in the forest industry, but now job loss is spreading to the mining industry. On Friday, Teck Resources announced the loss of another 500 jobs in the Elk Valley. Most of it, if not all, is in the coal industry. Teck Resources is the largest private sector employer in the mining industry in our province.

When telltale industries like mining and forestry start to experience job losses on a major scale, it signals more losses to come. In many of these communities, the mill or the mine is often the major employer in town. So we really are talking about a social crisis, in addition to an economic crisis.

The previous government recognized the problem many years ago, and that’s why we launched a $100 million rural dividend fund. The whole purpose of the rural dividend fund was to help smaller communities strengthen and diversify local economies away from being solely dependent on one single industry. It all came about at the grassroots level when the previous government made forestry a priority and funded three pine beetle coalitions: the Cariboo-Chilcotin, the southern Interior and the northern pine beetle coalition.

Each of these coalitions did fine work on their own. Some years later, however, the Southern Interior pine beetle coalition led a proposal amongst all three. They made a pitch to cabinet, and former Premier Christy Clark listened and made their request for a $100 million rural dividend fund a reality.

The rural dividend fund recognized where the province’s wealth came from: the hard work in rural and northern communities to build British Columbia. The fund was designed to help these communities and First Nations diversify their local economies and become less reliant on just one industry. It also prepared forest communities to prepare for the eventual and inevitable downsizing of the annual allowable cut, directly as a result of pine beetle.

In order to preserve the community focus, 13 members were chosen from across the province to represent small rural communities. Premier Clark also designated a separate cabinet position in support of rural development. The minister of state was responsible for taking recommendations from the advisory committee, and this provided a structure of the rural strategy.

[10:55 a.m.]

Finally, communities with a population of less than 25,000 had a voice in cabinet. They also had a substantial budget to deal with the fallout of pine beetle and the eventual decrease in annual allowable cuts. The Minister of State for Rural Development also had the task of coordinating various departments in the provincial government and pooling resources. In the end, the rural development strategy and the rural dividend fund prepared communities to become less dependent on forestry.

I would like to know why the government has decided to cancel the rural dividend fund in what we know is the worst crisis in the forest industry in over 40 years. I look forward to hearing from the member opposite.

J. Sims: I want to thank the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for bringing up this issue of rural development and what is happening in our rural communities.

First of all, let me say that my heart goes out…. As all of us, I think, on both sides of the House are always concerned when a particular sector gets hard hit…. We know that what’s happening to the forestry sector right now is shaking up our rural communities.

We also know that that is not something new. That is something about our forest industry…. I think my colleagues across the way knew this when they were in government, that there were major, major challenges. I’m so proud of the fact that our government is taking this file very, very seriously, so seriously that the minister and the newly appointed parliamentary secretary are wholly consumed with addressing rural development and, particularly, addressing what is happening in the forestry sector.

I’m also very pleased to hear that the member across the way did talk about the need to diversify. I think we have all known that in this province for a long time, that the need for diversification is absolutely essential. Workers started on that. I am so proud of the fact that our government has made this a strategic part of our platform, to reduce the divide between the rural and urban and also to make sure that those who live in the urban areas have access to infrastructure, have access to services and, most of all, have access to the tools that they need in order to diversify.

Let me tell you that often people hear me talking about connectivity and how foundational that is for economic diversification. You look at an area like Canal Flats, where, with the mill closure, they were able to diversify and now have a data centre — it has given the whole community a whole new face; Granisle, where, using high-speed Internet, they have now really boosted their tourism; and in Cumberland, where they have diversified as well.

But it’s more than that. When I look at areas in the Cariboo…. I was in the Cariboo quite a few times, and I was so pleased with the feedback from our Indigenous communities there as well, to say how pleased they were that we were paying attention. For the first time, they felt they had a government that was paying attention to the rural communities and investing in the infrastructure that was needed.

We know that when we became government, 70 percent of our rural communities were underserved. We now know that since we have become government, 479 communities, 83 Indigenous communities, now have access to high-speed Internet or are in the process of getting it. A further $118 million investment, both from federal, provincial and from private partners, means another 250 rural communities, including 78 Indigenous…. We’re also investing money into the rural dividend fund.

[11:00 a.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Communities like Quesnel in the Cariboo are investigating new forestry management and product manufacturing opportunities. The Quesnel food hub, which is now going to be established right in Quesnel, will serve the Cariboo region and help to move them towards diversification.

You know, one of the great things about British Columbians is that when hard times hit, we do pull together. That is why one of the programs that we had was suspended, but it was only suspended so we could target more funds to help those who are being impacted in the forestry sector in the Interior.

I’m so proud of the work that has been done in many different areas. When I take a look at the investment that this government has done in our rural communities, this will all help to grow jobs. A new hospital in Terrace. Cariboo Memorial Hospital in Williams Lake is to get an expansion. Dawson Creek Hospital will get an expansion. A new hospital in Fort St. James. And 21 new, full-time paramedic positions serving northeast B.C., the central Interior and Castlegar.

D. Barnett: I would like to thank the member opposite for her comments. This still doesn’t explain why the current government cancelled the rural dividend fund in the midst of the worst crisis in the forest industry in over 40 years. It is one thing to make a $69 million announcement for forestry, but none of this is new money. This is money, supposedly, to help displaced forest workers.

I ask that someone from the opposite side who thinks that we are moving forward in rural British Columbia with this $69 million come to my office, spend one day and see where the help is. Please tell me where it is. This government is doing nothing but taking money away from rural communities and then hoping they will be grateful with repackaging. That’s not going to fool anyone in rural British Columbia.

Just listen to what local mayors are saying. “This has been a devastating blow for our community,” said Lumby mayor Kevin Acton during a news conference at the….

Deputy Speaker: Member, the statements in the morning are supposed to be non-partisan. Let’s keep in that spirit.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The rural dividend fund helped pay for the development of new official community plans. It helped diversification, as the member across the road said. That is what we’ve been looking for, and that is what the rural dividend was all about. As a matter of fact, rural communities relied on this. They spent hours putting plans together, working together. First Nations communities benefited from this in so many ways to help them move forward and get into many markets that prior to that, were unavailable.

Many, many communities have asked the same question: how do we move forward? How do we continue developing social and economics without proper and adequate funding and proper plans for our rural community?

I say, Mr. Speaker. Please ask the Minister of Forests to come to my communities and to other communities. Come with us, and spend some time so that we can explain why our rural communities need this rural dividend fund put back in place. It is a plea from rural communities and from those of us who live in many, many communities that are devastated, at this time, from the forest industry, from flooding and from fires.

Hon. C. James: I would ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 22, standing in the name of the member for Courtenay-Comox.

Deputy Speaker: Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 22 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

[11:05 a.m.]

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 22 — CLEANBC PLAN
AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION

R. Leonard: It is with great anticipation of the debate that I move a motion:

[Be it resolved that this House recognize and support Clean BC and the Government’s efforts to reduce emissions.]

I have a photo that I’ve carried as a kind of a talisman so that in all that I do, I am focused on our relationship to this special place we call home. Taken nearly 100 years ago, the photo shows my grown grandfather and a friend of his in a pristine wilderness, crowned and draped in seaweed, immersed in our special place that we call British Columbia.

Since that time, our human footprint has grown tremendously by virtue of our actions. We have faced the dire consequences of turning a blind eye to the environment which sustains us, many, many times. And many times, while rarely eliminating our impact, sincere intention and ingenuity have helped us to mitigate the damage we caused.

Today’s challenge is the largest and most encompassing consequence of human activity. Climate change is serious, and it’s deadly. For years, calls for action fell on deaf ears until a renowned economist, Nicholas Stern, sounded the alarm back in 2006. Finally, the world sat up and took notice.

We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 or face catastrophic events from which it would be impossible to recover, both socially and economically. Since that time, governments have been formed which have minimized or ignored the challenge. Today we have voices in positions of power who continue to deny the science that is irrefutable. Evident right here at home, the predictions of frequent drought, fire, flood, pestilence are being realized, raising the level of anxiety and, yes, even panic amongst our youth who will inherit our future.

Deny and delay are the targets of millions of people around the globe who are demanding a level of effort necessary to meet the challenge. That’s why I’m proud that our government is living up to our obligation to protect the special place we call home with a comprehensive plan of action we call CleanBC.

We need to pay tribute to the 18-member Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, representing First Nations, environmental organizations, industry, academia, labour and local government. Their informed and dedicated contributions ensured a balanced and comprehensive way forward to take effective climate action and develop low-carbon economic growth, a plan of hope and opportunity for a cleaner, better future.

Whether it’s industry, how people and goods are transported, how we heat our homes and businesses or how we manage our waste, targets have been set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 2007 levels by 40 percent by 2030, 60 percent by 2040 and 80 percent by 2050.

What will that look like for British Columbians? CleanBC makes cleaner options more convenient, available and affordable. We raised the climate action tax credit and will continue to raise it, as it provides relief to families who need it most. We’re helping with the upfront costs that come with home improvements and zero-emission vehicles so people can benefit from lower gas and heating bills in the long run. Lower-carbon renewable fuels will become more available to cars that are not zero-emission. Industry will see incentives, as well, to help drive emission reductions. Projects will continue to lay the path to cleaner fuels and technologies.

I’m particularly excited about our investments in skills training and research. Our strength is our people. We believe everyone in British Columbia can and will come together with sincere intention and ingenuity to create a better, more balanced and cleaner province for today and tomorrow. We need to act to combat the severe effects of climate change that would pose a tremendous cost on all of us.

I look forward to the voices of others this morning joining in the chorus to support the path of hope and opportunity that comes with CleanBC.

[11:10 a.m.]

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak about the motion around CleanBC.

I would point out that CleanBC was created after a long and successfully implemented climate strategy from the previous government. CleanBC has actually been developed with the exact same targets that that plan had and the exact same dates that that plan had. About the only addition with CleanBC was, in fact, a 2030 check-in point that didn’t exist in the previous plan. However, those targets for 2030 were the same in the previous plan as they are under CleanBC.

The 2050 end targets under CleanBC are the same end targets as the original climate plan’s. The one thing the member opposite failed to mention in the discussion around CleanBC and the plan for emission reductions is that CleanBC is actually only a plan, at this point, that delivers 75 percent of the emissions needed to be reduced. There’s a missing 25 percent and no plan in sight at this point on how to achieve the missing 25 percent of targets of emissions.

That’s very significant, because that 25 percent will likely be the hardest and most difficult 25 percent to find. As everyone knows, generally speaking, in most things, when you’re trying to reduce, the easy cuts are always the first cuts, and it gets harder and more difficult to find reductions. So I think it’s very important that we recognize that CleanBC is a three-quarter plan at this point. It’s not a complete plan. The Minister of Environment has confirmed this numerous times in media and in estimates as well.

It’s still unclear how LNG is going to fit into CleanBC. It’s interesting to note that the CleanBC plan does not really anticipate how exactly LNG — the first plant, let alone other plants — will actually accomplish this feat, especially in light of the missing 25 percent. So although it was wonderful to see the government embrace LNG after the election was over and move forward with LNG, one has to question how that fits into their CleanBC plan.

According to the NDP’s fiscal plan…. This is a very interesting point that I would like to make as well. These are, again, the Minister of Finance’s own numbers that I’m quoting. Their fiscal plan, as you look at it…. When we had a $30 carbon tax and we had the old environmental climate plan, we collected carbon tax on 41.6 megatonnes of emissions. At $35, under this government’s plan to march us to a $50 carbon tax…. At $35, yet still under the old plan, we collected 41.7 megatonnes of emissions and taxation.

Under their fiscal plan, when we get to the $50 carbon tax, in fact, they have budgeted financially to collect it on 44 megatonnes. So in a three-year period — the first three years under CleanBC — we’re actually seeing emissions rise under this plan. That’s not even taking into account the missing 25 percent.

The tax credit, the much-talked-about tax credit for low-income people, is wonderful. However, it does go up in the same increments every time the carbon tax rises, which was in place under a $30 carbon tax as well. There’s no extra money. It’s at the same rate, and the people that qualify are the same people that qualify currently, which is wonderful, but it is not doing anything to reduce emissions.

The mandatory step code will add, in my part of the world, about $70,000 to the average price of a new home being built, with about a 2 percent efficiency improvement — not exactly helping on the affordability scale when it comes to housing. The electric car program — a bit of a red herring. It only accounts for a decrease of 1.3 megatonnes, or a couple of percent.

However, the low-carbon fuel standard accounts for 4 megatonnes, about 20 percent of their first phase, but the government will not tell us how much per litre extra that low-carbon fuel standard will add at the pump. And we’re not talking about the carbon tax now. We’re talking about the low-carbon fuel standard, and we know it’ll add several cents per litre to every litre of gas that people consume, which is fair enough.

[11:15 a.m.]

The government should make sure that the public understands what the financial impact of that will be at a time of record-high gas prices right now. The fact that that discussion will not be made public, and what that dollar figure is…. It should concern all, because if there was a way to make gas cheaper, I’m sure the companies would be doing that now.

Thank you for this time. I look forward to hearing others.

M. Dean: I am very pleased to be speaking today in favour of the motion: “Be it resolved that this House recognize and support Clean BC and the Government’s efforts to reduce emissions.” We know that we’re living in a climate crisis, and we all have to do something to tackle it.

Individual efforts have proven so far not to be enough, so we have to legislate to provide the conditions and also the support and the incentives for all sectors to contribute to our response to climate change. To put British Columbia on a path to a cleaner, better future, Budget 2019 invests $902 million over three years for CleanBC programming. That makes B.C. the leader in Canada in tackling climate change and protecting our clean air, land and water.

We will reduce climate pollution by shifting home, vehicles, industry and business off burning fossil fuels and toward greater use of clean B.C. electricity and other renewable energies. We will boost energy-efficient solutions like zero-emission vehicles and heat pumps by making them more affordable and available for British Columbians. Already we’ve invested $40 million into enhancing the climate action tax credit so that a family of four now gets up to $350, and we’ll enhance it even further as we go to take care of those who need help most.

By 2040, every new car sold in B.C. will be a zero-emission vehicle. Government is helping people afford cleaner cars and save money on fuels with incentive programs and making it easier to charge or fuel them. We already have 1,700 charging stations. By next year, we’ll have a 10 percent reduction in carbon intensity in diesel and gasoline across British Columbia. People can take personal action that is more available, and it’s convenient and affordable.

We will be retrofitting B.C.’s stock of 51,000 publicly owned and funded social housing units. That will make these homes less polluting, more energy-efficient and affordable. We’re making every new building net-zero-energy-ready by the year 2032.

We’re developing new strategies and technologies for making public transportation and transit cleaner and more affordable. In my region, we’ve been piloting an electric bus, and we’re transitioning away from diesel fuels in our local handyDART buses.

We’re launching new training programs, building industry incentives and supporting new pollution-reducing technological advancements. CleanBC quantifies and describes measures that will eliminate 18.9 megatonnes in the 2030 target and will get B.C. 75 percent of the way to its climate goals.

Another very important aspect, for myself and my whole community, of our environmental protection is our management of old-growth forests. We know how important old-growth forests are, especially for the biodiversity that they support. On Vancouver Island, old-growth forests are protected in parks and protected areas, wildlife habitat areas and old-growth management areas. But we need to find a more sustainable path forward.

Part of this government’s mandate is to do things differently in the woods. We’re working hard to provide more clarity on the land base, with consideration to the need to address climate change and reflect social, cultural and environmental values. We’ve engaged with environmental organizations on a thoughtful, measured approach to old growth. We also know we must sincerely engage with First Nations, communities, labour and industry, so we’ve established an independent two-person panel to engage with Indigenous nations, industry, stakeholders and communities on old-growth management.

Additionally, British Columbians will have the opportunity to express their views on old-growth forests in B.C. through the panel’s public engagement webpage. I want to take this opportunity to encourage local governments, Indigenous nations, stakeholders, my neighbours and any interested members of the public to participate in the old-growth strategic review.

[11:20 a.m.]

This broader conversation is about developing a new approach to old-growth management in this province. We know we need to think about the land, the air and the ocean for our children and our children’s children. Our strength is our people here and now, and the children to come.

G. Kyllo: I am pleased to rise in the House this morning and respond to the motion before us.

I can certainly speak in support of efforts to reduce pollution in B.C., a central aspect of caring for our environment. Our government introduced a carbon tax back in 2008, something that many people on the other side of the House opposed at the time.

In fact, we were the first province in Canada to introduce a carbon tax, and 11 years after its introduction, the evidence suggests that the revenue-neutral carbon tax brought in under the B.C. Liberal government was good for both the environment and the economy.

However, the carbon tax is no longer revenue neutral. One of the first tasks of the current government when they actually took office back in 2017, one of their first efforts, was to actually repeal the requirement for revenue neutrality of the carbon tax.

The carbon tax, with it not being revenue neutral, actually depends on an increasing volume of emissions going forward. Additionally, it’s not even directly funding CleanBC and other strategies to reduce emissions and to address climate change. CleanBC itself only has a plan for 75 percent of targeted emission reductions, with no plan for addressing the missing 25 percent.

Just think about that for a second. Twenty-five percent of the emission targets of CleanBC have yet to be determined, have yet to be advanced or identified in any manner.

Now, it’s also important that we do not just focus on mandating a reduction in emissions but also actively support the production of clean energy and electrification of our province. Considering that this government is pursuing rapid electrification and the switch to zero-emission vehicles by 2040, one would think that they would want to be prepared for a massive uptick in demand for electricity.

Unfortunately, it looks like the opposite is happening in B.C. Independent power producers have been extremely important in the production of clean energy in our province, especially in more remote areas that are not currently served by B.C. Hydro. Instead of doing all that can be done to support these IPPs and their selling of surplus electricity back to the grid, this government has been shutting down many of these IPP producers.

We cannot hope to reach all of our environmental targets alone, so it seems extremely counterproductive for the government to be shutting down operations that are providing a steady stream of clean energy to so many communities across B.C., especially since alternatives, in many cases, would mean importing foreign power. All the while, we have capabilities to produce it right here at home.

Now, many of these IPPs also have First Nations partnerships, providing communities with revenue as well as electricity. In an age where we are committed to working towards reconciliation, it seems very odd for the government to be discouraging these operations that could have such positive impacts on these remote communities.

In the pursuit of lowering emissions, I’ve seen a trend of going after solutions that look good instead of those that will actually make real change. In my own riding of Shuswap, there are towns that are completely, still, off the grid. A good example is Seymour Arm. The community, originally known as Ogden City, has no electricity. And as such, residents are forced to generate their own power, largely through the use of gas and diesel generators.

Now, I think it would be a logical step forward to work on providing an opportunity for these remote communities to access clean energy, moving away from the power sources that release harmful emissions, Yet the government priorities seem to be elsewhere, like when they pulled millions of dollars out of government contingencies in the last fiscal to top up the electrical vehicle fund. Encouraging residents of B.C. to move into electric vehicles is, I think, a great activity and something that should be supported.

However, when you have a look at the dollars that go into subsidizing the purchase of electric vehicles, vehicles that may only last 12 or 15 years…. I would think that putting dollars into helping a community get away from relying on gas and diesel generators to provide their electricity forevermore would certainly be a much loftier goal.

[11:25 a.m.]

Reducing pollution is incredibly important, and we should be working towards it every day. But we should also be conscious that we are taking achievable steps that result in real tangible change, while still looking after our communities and respecting our taxpayers.

S. Malcolmson: Very interesting to hear my colleague from across the way talk about the previous government’s action. The old government struck a climate leadership team; ignored all their actions; abandoned action on a great number of climate change targets, including the former Premier, Gordon Campbell, expressing disappointment with his own party’s approach; and increased emissions between 2010 and 2015 by 3 million tonnes. The old government admitted concerns: once about diluted bitumen moving through our waters then and abandoned defending the coast.

Instead, for our side of the House, I’m taking my lead more from the climate strikers, the amazing youth movement in Vancouver — 15,000 people, apparently, together. Just this morning 350 activists were occupying the House of Commons, my former workplace. I’m proud that this government is taking our lead from that amazing global pressure to take real action on climate change.

We are committed to cutting emissions from 2007 levels by 40 percent by 2030 and by 80 percent by 2050, and we are acting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a lot of ways. Some of my colleagues are going to talk in more detail about some of the other pieces, but I’m going to run through, really quickly, some of the things — the big list of actions.

Reducing emissions from buildings by making every new building in B.C. net zero energy ready by 2032. Offering a huge range of supports for homeowners around home retrofits. Also, retrofitting B.C.’s stock of 51,000 affordable housing units that are publicly owned or funded with $400 million to make them more energy-efficient. That makes life more affordable for the occupants as well.

In Nanaimo, the 350-plus new affordable homes that are either underway or set to be built during our term of office, they’re all going to meet step 2 or 3 of the new B.C. building code. All of that is two mega tonnes of carbon pollution reduced by 2030.

We are speeding up the move to cleaner fuels at the gas pump, decreasing the carbon intensity of our fuel with our low-carbon fuel standard and increasing the production of renewable fuels. That’s four megatonnes of carbon pollution reduced by 2030.

We have released a new strategy for more active transportation and walkability. Just on Saturday, with activists in Nanaimo, we launched Walk in Nanaimo. We have a commitment as a government to double the percentage of people walking, cycling and using alternate transport in just 11 years.

We have legislated a 45 percent reduction in methane emissions from upstream oil and gas by 2025. We are requiring…. We want to see 75 percent of landfill methane captured by 2030, and 95 percent of organic waste will be diverted from landfills and turned into renewable resources.

Our carbon tax is going up. It’s the highest rate in North America — $40 per tonne right now and will increase to $50 per tonne by 2021. Supporting First Nations’ clean energy projects in their communities through the First Nations clean energy business fund. Also, that will help remote communities move away from reliance on diesel fuel.

Helping industry lower emissions and reduce pollution — 8.5 megatonnes of carbon emission reductions. Zero-emission vehicles have been widely discussed, 1,700 new charging stations around the province, rebates for purchases and home installation.

B.C. Ferries has got actions that it’s taking now to reduce emissions from its own fleet. There are going to be further consultations with community groups coming up in the next couple of months to talk about how we can vision our next wave of transit and the way that the Ferries move people around.

Billions of dollars of investment in public transit. Again, all pieces that make life more affordable, reduce emissions and bring our buildings and infrastructure to where they need to be to protect salmon, to protect forests, to protect oceans. All the things that are associated with a calamitous climate change.

[11:30 a.m.]

The actions that we’re taking are real. Our commitment to doing that while developing a sustainable high-tech economy and working on retraining workers is a win-win-win for our province. We’re already a leader, and we’re back on the path to have British Columbia become a climate leader and step up to the challenge of these times.

M. Bernier: I just want to start off by thanking the government for putting this motion forward today. Obviously, it’s an important discussion that’s happening right across the province, the country and globally, about making sure we do our part to have a healthy environment, whether that’s our land, our air or our oceans.

That’s why I’m really excited to see this government continuing on with the work that we started. The targets that they’ve put forward under their plan match what we were doing, as the member that spoke before myself has highlighted. Premier Gordon Campbell at the time actually spearheaded a lot of this discussion before I was in this House. I sat on the committee with the now leader of the Green Party to actually put forward a lot of the recommendations that we wanted to look at how we put forward in the province.

I appreciate the heckling from the member — who, obviously, has lots to say. He’ll probably speak after me. I doubt it’ll have much substance to it, other than probably just echoing for his side what we’re all saying here in the House. What’s happening is I’m trying to understand, really, the hypocrisy that’s taking place here.

The reason why I say that is the fact that we have a government, rightfully so, that’s looking at trying to reduce carbon emissions yet at the same time, in their own financial plan, is budgeting for increases. I’m waiting for somebody on the opposite side to explain that to the House. I’m sure the speaker after me will gladly explain to this House why they’re budgeting for the carbon emissions to actually be increasing in the province over the three-year plan. Maybe it’s because they like the fact that they’ve increased the carbon tax, and they need the money to pay for some of their budget shortfalls. Maybe that’s what he’ll say after me.

Needless to say, we need to be doing better. Nobody’s arguing that. But I also want to just try to comprehend the government’s goals and the government’s actions when they themselves back in 2008 did the big chant for Axe the Tax. Now I think they’re going to change their rant to “tax the tax.” If they really want to do something, one of the things they can start doing is maybe explain to people why there’s GST on the carbon tax. Maybe they can look at that and try to help people out there. That’s something simple. They could lobby for that change.

I really appreciate the fact — from my region, obviously — that this government saw the light and are supporting LNG. From a global carbon tax reduction with the intensity that we have, the discussions around LNG always talked about how we can do our part here in British Columbia to lower carbon emissions globally. We know that the now government spoke adamantly against this in opposition, saying that it wasn’t that — it was fairy dust, or whatever their exact phrases were — and that it wasn’t going to take place. But I’m glad to see they support it.

I’m also looking forward, in this plan…. We’ve yet to hear, as my colleague from the Shuswap said earlier, how this government plans on actually achieving the electrical demands that are going to be required for this plan. Again, I don’t think anybody is arguing that we need to lower our carbon footprint. But on the flip side of that plan, how are you going to do it?

This government has yet to say that, other than possibly buying coal-produced power and natural gas power from Alberta or nuclear power and coal power from the United States. Or maybe they’re going to admit, finally, that in order to meet these goals we have to build a couple more hydroelectric dams, which is clean power. Maybe that’s what they’re going to be supporting, going forward, in the province. I commend them if they’re going to actually come out and say that.

[11:35 a.m.]

The big thing, though, is that we need to be doing our part. Nobody here is arguing that. We’ve all supported a clean energy plan going forward. The now government, for the most part, has supported all of the goals and the targets that we put forward when we were in government. So I commend them for continuing on in that path.

I look forward, though, through the plan, to where they’re going to find the other 25 percent that they haven’t identified and how they’re actually going to achieve the targets. Putting it down on paper has done nothing so far, other than what they’ve admitted to, which is that emissions are going up. The revenue is going up. So at the end of the day, I’m just looking forward to seeing the rest of that plan.

R. Glumac: On Friday, thousands of people gathered at the art gallery in Vancouver to catch a glimpse of a young girl from Sweden. Greta Thunberg had made her way across the Atlantic and North America with minimal carbon emissions. As she walked up the steps of the art gallery in Vancouver on that cold and windy fall afternoon, the crowd became silent, waiting to hear her words.

When she finally spoke, the crowd erupted in agreement with what she had to say. “If the adults really loved us,” she said, “they would at least do everything they possibly could to make sure that we have a safe future, a future to look forward to, but they are not doing that. As it is now, it feels like they are doing the exact opposite, that they are desperately trying to change the subject every time the climate crisis comes up.”

Today in this House, we are not changing the subject. I feel her frustration. I’ve felt this frustration myself for years. When she spoke, I know that it wasn’t just her that spoke. Through her voice, millions of children across the world spoke with her, and we need to listen. Their future is not a safe one. Climate change will impact them far beyond anything that we, as adults, have experienced. She spoke about the adults and what they are doing to make climate change worse. But I know that not all adults are the same. There are some adults that want to make a difference.

Our government is taking steps in the right direction with CleanBC. CleanBC is a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and grow a strong economy — $902 million invested over three years to ensure that our children can have a cleaner and better future. Under this plan, all vehicles sold in B.C. by 2040 will be zero-emission vehicles; and 51,000 publicly owned or funded social housing units will be retrofitted to be more energy-efficient. Every new building built by 2032 will be net-zero-energy-ready. Fuel standards will be improved to reduce carbon emissions and pollution. People will be trained to develop the skills needed for the emerging economy that develops, and many opportunities will develop.

As Kathy Kinloch, president of BCIT, puts it: “B.C.’s transition towards a low-carbon economy opens up unprecedented economic opportunity for our province. The CleanBC strategy lays out a plan to build a strong and diverse economy with innovation at its core.”

Some governments are clinging to old ways of doing things, ignoring the responsibilities they have to their children to find a different way, a way that acknowledges that climate change is real and we have to take action. British Columbia is showing the world that there’s a different way. But CleanBC is just the beginning. This plan will reduce almost 20 megatonnes of CO₂ emissions, but much more needs to be done.

There are companies in B.C. that are building technologies right now that can pull carbon out of the atmosphere. You can imagine that one day there could be plants across the world, pulling thousands of megatonnes of CO₂ out of the atmosphere. That would reverse climate change.

So to Greta and all the children that are worried about the future, I understand that, but there is hope. There are some adults that are taking action. Our government is taking action. Innovative companies are taking action. And if we all work together, the future will be safe for our children.

[11:40 a.m.]

T. Wat: As I listen to my colleagues and members opposite this morning, one thing is abundantly clear. Emission reduction is a goal shared by all members of this House.

Steps implemented by the previous government laid the foundation for climate action in this province and programs such as CleanBC. I understand the goal of CleanBC, but I disagree with the implementation. The elimination of the revenue neutrality of the carbon tax was the first mistake. A carbon tax increase that does not allocate all of those funds into emission reduction initiatives is simply another tax to fill government coffers. If you are going to tax on emissions, you should be putting every cent of that back into climate initiatives rather than just a portion.

The second issue was lowering and, I assume, eventually reducing the clean energy vehicle subsidy to zero. I’m happy to see that there have been some funds allocated to increasing charging stations, but again, more should and must be done. They are taking the money in through taxation, so why is it that not all is going to where it needs to go?

To that end, I think it’s important to highlight original ways that companies are pursuing the goal of decreasing emissions and overall waste reduction. The Richmond Chamber of Commerce recently nominated Layfield, a Richmond-based company, for a Green Business award. They are going a step further towards this goal of a sustainable and practical solution that involves providing biodegradable plastics for packaging. Layfield has partnered with Ocean Wise and the Vancouver Aquarium for the Vortex exhibit, which showcases the future of plastics.

Layfield has created a product called BioFlex, which is an efficient material for high-performance packaging, which means less resources go into producing the packaging. The kicker is that the plastic product is biodegradable, so it will degrade in the landfill.

Landfills create enormous amounts of GHG emissions, most notably through the release of methane and other gases. The technology exists to set up systems to convert these gases into usable energy, thus reducing emissions and increasing power output, which in turn could be used to power more electric vehicles and so on. This means that existing waste-management infrastructure can be leveraged to create energy from disposed plastic, creating a circular economy for single-use plastic. Plastic starts its life as methane and ends its life as methane. Every pound of discarded BioFlex material could power an electric vehicle for up to 13 kilometres. Novel thinking like this is the future of emission reduction.

Layfield is working on a number of locally designed solutions that can have a real benefit to the economy’s challenges at hand. Finding new solutions to current problems combines innovation and progress. Reducing plastics while creating clean energy seems like a novel way of combating waste and GHG levels. I hope this can serve as an example and a reminder that innovation is the cornerstone of climate reduction and that raising taxes isn’t the only beneficial action.

I thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.

B. Ma: Two months ago we were in a two-car household, both powered by internal combustion engines, which means that they run on fossil fuels. Since then, we’ve transitioned to one electric vehicle, which is primarily used by my partner, and, soon, an electrically assisted bicycle, which I’m very excited about using when I’m not walking or taking public transit. This is a huge shift for us, to go from two gas vehicles to none, but with the climate crisis looming over our species, we felt it was also important for us to do.

[11:45 a.m.]

The average Canadian passenger vehicle burns about 2,000 litres of gasoline every single year. That emits about 4.6 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the tailpipe. So between the two of us, my partner and I, our cars were emitting well over nine metric tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. With numbers like that, it’s no wonder that B.C.’s transportation sector accounts for about 37 percent of all of our total provincial greenhouse gas emissions.

This is just a calculation of what’s emitted from the tailpipes of our cars. It doesn’t include the GHGs released into the atmosphere as a result of the process of producing gasoline, to begin with, which can add an additional 40 percent to that number. Those are the emissions that come as result of crude oil production, refinement and transportation of that refined product.

That’s why CleanBC put such a major emphasis on reducing emissions in our transportation sector. One of the things we’re doing is gradually eliminating the sales of fossil-fuelled vehicles in B.C. until 100 percent of all new cars sold by 2040 are zero emission.

Now, our electric car rebate program helps incentivize the purchase of zero-emission vehicles, thereby influencing the market and encouraging the increased supply and sale of more electric cars over gas cars. It’s definitely working. The rebates are flying off the shelves, and car dealers can hardly keep up with the demand.

CleanBC also recognizes that getting people to switch to electric cars as quickly as possible is not a panacea to climate change. Firstly, even before it’s driven, manufacturing a vehicle produces a substantial amount of GHGs. Those embodied GHGs can be as much as the emissions you produce from guzzling back gas, which is why driving your gas vehicles into the ground, like my partner and I did, is often better for the environment than scrapping one that runs just fine.

Furthermore, more GHGs are actually produced from manufacturing a typical electric vehicle than a typical gas vehicle — up to 60 percent more, according to some studies. So just filling our world with electric vehicles isn’t a sustainable solution in the long term either.

A second major problem is that even with the rebates available from both provincial and federal governments, electric cars are expensive. I should know. Like the good millennial that I am, I had to actually borrow money from my dad to help pay for half of the car until I can pay him back.

Yay, Dad. Thank you, Dad.

Electric vehicles are simply too expensive for most households to afford. In fact, a lot of greenifying options are difficult for average families to afford. Sure, an electric car will save you money on gas over time, but the upfront costs can be very limiting and insurmountable for many.

Finally, we need to talk about car infrastructure, like roads and bridges. Electric vehicles take up the same amount of space on the road as a gas vehicle. Congestion issues aside, expanding and maintaining car infrastructure is expensive, both in dollars and GHGs. For instance, the cement industry is one of the largest producers of man-made carbon dioxide in the world, producing, by some estimates, 8 percent of the world’s CO₂ emissions. That means that if the cement industry were a country, it would be the third-largest emitter of CO₂ in the world, after China and the U.S.

While it is critically important that we electrify our transportation system as soon as possible, there are problems with focusing only on electric vehicles to achieve reductions in the transport sector. That’s exactly why our CleanBC plan doesn’t do that and why it includes so much more than that. Critically important, CleanBC includes a strong emphasis on more environmentally and socially responsible modes of transportation, like public transport and active transportation, along with the recognition that we need to reduce travel distances for people, by building complete communities where people live, work, play, study and shop without going very far.

CleanBC demands that we build safe cycling, walking and rolling infrastructure whenever we upgrade bridges or interchanges, and makes an expansion of our public transportation network a top priority.

S. Cadieux: I’m pleased to speak today on the motion before us: “…that this House recognize and support Clean BC and the Government’s efforts to reduce emissions.” Of course we do. We all have a stake in this. We all live here together. But what I take issue with is that the CleanBC plan is widely touted as a new era by members of government, but it’s actually only a continuation of the previous government’s climate action plan.

[11:50 a.m.]

The targets and dates under CleanBC are the exact same, including the 2050 targets. Furthermore, in addressing emission reductions, there is only a plan for 75 percent of emissions — no plan for the remaining 25 percent. So in reality, no new or innovative ideas.

I do, though, want to focus a little bit on the carbon tax, because the House supports the carbon tax. When we first introduced the carbon tax, the first one in Canada, we made it a central tenet of our 2009 election campaign, unlike the now government, who, at the time, started a campaign to axe the tax. I’m glad to see that the government members have now switched their position and see the carbon tax as, indeed, a necessary part of a CleanBC plan.

In 2016, B.C. was recognized as an international climate leader for its revenue-neutral carbon tax, receiving the Momentum for Change Award at the low-emissions conference in Morocco. That was because we, as a government, did buy in to the idea that the world is changing, the climate is in ever more distress, and we need to do something.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The key point to our success with that implementation of the carbon tax, though, was the fact that it was revenue-neutral. We believe that if you’re going to pay more at the pump, understanding that most people needed to buy gasoline, the benefit should be to the taxpayer and not to government pet projects or general revenue. Ensuring the tax was revenue-neutral was the government’s way to reduce taxation and address affordability overall while still incentivizing reducing emissions across the province.

The non-revenue-neutral tax now imposed by this government is a cash grab with no clear, tangible benefits to British Columbians. Now, I recognize that they have earmarked a portion of the money towards CleanBC initiatives, but it certainly has the majority of funds going straight to general revenue.

British Columbians are paying more and more at the gas pump. The BCUC report on gas prices in the province was flawed from the beginning, with the Premier refusing to let the committee review the whole picture about why we have the highest gas prices in North America. The review heard conclusive evidence from several respondents that taxes do indeed play a large role in the high cost of gas at the pump — again, despite the fact that government policies were off-limits, although they have an obvious effect on the price at the pump.

The NDP government likes to talk a lot about green initiatives, but with only 15 percent of the $6 billion collected in carbon tax toward funding the clean initiatives in the CleanBC plan, that’s just $900 million out of $6 billion. That hardly looks like a government priority to me. A 15 percent investment is hardly a priority.

The member previous spoke about a number of issues around transportation and transit, and I agree. Those are some of our biggest challenges as we move forward. But we have to look at these things realistically, as well. Lots of people would like to move to transit. Lots of people would like to do more active transportation. But, for example, in my riding, there are thousands of workers in Campbell Heights that have no access to transit for work. No option, and no option in the foreseeable future. That means that there are thousands of people that are still going to need to drive cars.

So what is government doing with the rest of that 85 percent of the money they’re collecting in carbon tax? We know it goes to general revenue. For all we know, it could be going to pay off friends and insiders and costly additions to projects through the union benefit agreements. I’d rather see that investment in transit projects that allow residents and workers in my riding to move to those more sustainable opportunities.

There are lots of things still to be done, but this certainly isn’t an issue that both sides of the House can’t agree is one we need to face together.

[11:55 a.m.]

B. D’Eith: NASA has said that global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. We can see it. There’s the loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rises, more intense heatwaves. In B.C., of course, we’ve experienced a rise of invasive species, floods and wildfires. Valérie Masson-Delmotte from the IPCC has said: “Each degree matters, each year matters and each decision matters…. Limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is not impossible but requires strong and immediate policies.”

That’s why I’m very proud of our government’s efforts, working with the Green Party, to show leadership in North America by developing the CleanBC plan. This is the most robust and ambitious plan to tackle climate change in Canada, and unlike the previous government, the B.C. Liberals, it’s an actual plan. The plan includes a significant investment of $902 million over three years to help protect our air, land and water.

It’s a comprehensive plan. I can’t go through them all in the five minutes I have, so I’ll go through some highlights. One of them is that all new light-duty vehicles sold in B.C. will be zero emissions by 2040. This is really important, not just for setting the goal but actually for encouraging manufacturers of EV vehicles to deliver them to British Columbia. We find that those jurisdictions that have these kinds of laws actually can get access to more ZEVs, zero-emission vehicles.

Also, we have the CEV for B.C. rebate — $3,000 for battery, fuel cell or longer-range plug-in hybrids and $1,500 for short-range plug-in hybrids. I talked to a number of our local dealerships, and they cannot keep their ZEVs in stock. They are having a really hard time keeping up with the stock. This program is highly, highly successful. People really are wanting to buy more electric vehicles.

Of course, if you have an electric vehicle, you have to charge it. Right now, we have 1,700 charging stations around the province. Locally, we have them at the Maple Ridge city hall and the Mission city hall and the hospital, Ridge Meadows Hospital. But we’re obviously going to need more charging stations around the province, and that work is really important. In addition to that, there is $4 million in CleanBC for rebates to install electric-vehicle-charging stations in the home and at work, which is really important as well.

One of the things that is part of this is signing the strategic international initiative drive to zero pledge for vehicles that are medium and heavy duty. That will include things like transit buses and 18-wheelers and box trucks and school buses. This is also an important part of the equation. Another big thing that actually can impact all of our constituents is that the supports target homes and builders so that you can get up to $14,100 for incentives for home energy improvements, and, for businesses, $220,000 for commercial businesses to switch to high-efficiency equipment and make building improvements.

Another thing we heard a lot was from the active community. So the “Move. Commute. Connect.” program that will actually make sure that bridges like the new Pattullo Bridge and interchanges will be safe for walking and cycling. That will encourage active cycling and the use of active transportation.

Of course, there’s the carbon price. That has worked. The Globe and Mail said that per capita, emissions are down by 12 percent. Since 1990, the emissions for each unit of economic output have been nearly cut in half. It’s a successful program that will continue. Now, of course, at the same time, we have to make sure that people can afford the drive for low-carbon growth. That’s why we have the climate action tax credit for low- and moderate-income people.

Also, on the business side, trying to incentivize, the plan to incentivize industry to electrify, driving clean growth. In fact, Greg D’Avignon, the president and CEO of the Business Council of British Columbia, said: “Climate change is a global challenge. Tools within the CleanBC plan support low-carbon industry strategy and…position B.C. businesses and the province to be a supplier of choice for international markets seeking lower-carbon-intensive energy, commodities and other inputs for their expanding economies.”

CleanBC will help B.C. do its part to fight against climate change while ensuring that our businesses stay competitive and that our citizens have the tools to make better choices in protecting our environment.

B. D’Eith moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 12 noon.