Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

CONDOMINIUM CRISIS

J. Thornthwaite: Today I rise to speak about a growing issue in British Columbia, that of the massive spikes in strata insurance premiums and deductibles that are hurting people across Metro Vancouver.

[10:05 a.m.]

If this issue continues to go unaddressed, it will have potentially devastating effects on the people of British Columbia. It started as a few isolated cases of strata buildings being unable to renew their insurance. We now understand that it is, in fact, a looming crisis. Anyone who lives in a condo, townhouse or duplex is at risk and, in particular, those in Metro Vancouver, where affordability is already such a significant problem.

As a townhouse owner myself, this hits me very close to home, and I’m sure that I’m not the only one in this room who that is the case for. Now, we are not just talking about seeing premiums increase by a few dollars. Strata councils are in crisis because they’re seeing their bills increase by as much as 400 percent, which is absolutely staggering.

In addition to premiums rising, deductibles are increasing too. These increases can look like $25,000 to $500,000 per claim, or in one case, $750,000 for water-related losses. Of course, these costs are then passed on to homeowners and residents.

Asifa Lalji is a condo owner in New Westminster, and she describes the situation facing her building, in an interview with the New West Record, saying: “We thought we were going to get a 40 percent increase in our insurance for our building, which would then translate to an increase in our maintenance fees. Then January rolled around, and we found out that instead of 40 percent…it was actually a 300 percent increase.”

For this owner, that means the difference between fees of $480 a month to $600 a month. Such significant increases could end up costing residents thousands of dollars per year. Asifa says that she is worried about the impacts of these fee increases on residents who are on fixed incomes or those who are already struggling to make ends meet due to the cost of living in British Columbia.

She continued: “Having a hit like that — where does the money come from? You dip into your savings. You dip into your home equity lines. There is no fiscally responsible way to cover these costs. What do you do when all of a sudden you have a $150 or $200 increase to your living expenses every month?”

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

In addition to affecting current residents of these buildings, the crisis is also affecting those who are interested in buying homes. Some strata buildings have been turned down altogether when they have sought to renew their insurance. There have been 11 such cases reported recently.

This becomes a problem for homebuyers and those looking to sell their homes, because banks won’t finance uninsured buildings, so prospective buyers are unable to afford new homes, and the deals fall through. This was the case for Zafar Khan in Cloverdale. He had an offer on his condo, and the deal was set to close on February 3. Then at the very last minute, it fell apart when the buyer pulled out of the sale because the strata couldn’t renew its insurance. Prospective buyers and those who might not be able to afford newly raised fees have little in terms of options.

We already know that the ten-year housing plan of this government is actually a 100-year plan, as they fall farther and farther behind their goals. Of the 114,000 housing units that the government promised to build, after nearly three years, just over 2,400 have been built. The only true way to deal with housing affordability is to provide greater supply, and the government is failing at this. At this time, they are not being upfront with British Columbians about the situations. They continue to promise tens of thousands of new units, yet this year’s budget shows that housing starts are projected to decline by 22 percent.

Deputy Speaker: Just cautioning the member that these remarks should be largely non-partisan.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government also told the people of B.C. that they would improve vacancy rates, and instead, they’re 0.1 percent, the lowest in the country.

These realities leave little options open to those who are now faced with the growing crisis in strata insurance. As the situation has steadily worsened over the last few weeks, people who are at risk, those who worry that they won’t be able to afford new fees and those who want to buy a new home and those who want to sell their property are waiting for some kind of solution.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. Member.

The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

N. Simons: Mr. Speaker, you’ve cautioned the member against making partisan remarks, and she is not adhering to your comments. I think that requires further rebuke.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, please, Member, in light of the remarks you’ve heard.

J. Thornthwaite: Okay. I’ll finish up what I just said, because I got interrupted. These people are unable to afford new fees. Those who want to buy a new home and those who want to sell their property are waiting for some kind of solution, but none is being offered.

[10:10 a.m.]

B. Ma: I want to start, first off, by thanking the member opposite for raising this important issue. I think that she has expressed a number of concerns very well, and I see the same concerns being raised in my community.

I’m also very grateful to the many community members who have been speaking with me over the last few months about this and keeping me in the loop about their efforts to try to renew strata insurance premiums and how that’s been impacting their buildings. I absolutely agree. It is an incredibly serious, concerning problem.

As soon as the first handful of complaints came to my attention late last year — and they came in quick succession of one another — I was in the ministers’ offices flagging the concern, asking questions, searching for solutions. I’m incredibly grateful that I had the ability to reach out directly to ministers to discuss these issues so that they could begin looking into them in late 2019, rather than having to wait until the House sat again in February to raise the issue, and so that we could immediately start looking into it.

We’ve learned several important things. First off, we’ve learned that the rising cost of insurance is an issue that strata corporations are facing across Canada and all over the world. Climate change and the increase in weather-related incidents have been having a direct impact on the cost of insurance all over the globe and here in B.C.

Here especially, in B.C., higher real estate prices and construction costs have contributed to a surge in the cost of insurance coverage. Further, stratas that have not reduced the possibility of insurance claims by having depreciation reports and following preventative maintenance programs are more likely to be impacted.

All of this came to a head when the global insurance marketplace, overseen by Lloyds of London, took what they called firm action, resulting in eight syndicates pulling out of the market and sending rates skyrocketing. Regardless of the reasons, it continues to be a serious concern.

Condo buildings in my riding are also being hit with high fees or fears of being unable to find insurance. I’m extremely concerned about what might happen to people if this issue isn’t resolved.

While the Strata Act, which requires strata buildings to have insurance, is legislation that is managed provincially, it is the federal government that bears responsibility for regulating private insurance markets. Nevertheless, we’ve asked the British Columbia Financial Services Authority to investigate the situation and ensure that we are doing everything we can to financially protect British Columbians.

As a private insurance market, the rates are set by private companies. We encourage all stratas that are having difficulties getting insurance coverage to contact the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which, ironically, is also in the midst of a campaign to fully privatize auto insurance in B.C.

ICBC was created in B.C. following similar problems in the private auto insurance market back in the 1960s and ’70s. Despite having roughly 175 private insurance companies operating in B.C., rates were sky high for certain types of drivers, and many couldn’t get insurance at all, leading to roughly one-third of all cars on B.C.’s roads operating without any insurance at all. A huge public safety hazard.

It’s clear that there are certain markets the private insurance industry just isn’t suited to serve the public in. Unfortunately, after operating for several decades to resolve that problem, ICBC itself became a problem, under the previous government, when it was run into the ground. It’s extremely frustrating to me.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, please restrain yourself from partisan comments. Thank you.

B. Ma: Absolutely. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

I wonder whether some kind of public insurance could have been a solution to this serious problem with condo insurance in the market if we weren’t still trying to get ICBC to work for people again in the auto market. There are certainly, I know, many condo owners asking the same question.

I honestly don’t know what the right solution is in this case, but it will undoubtedly need to involve the federal government. This is a serious issue for B.C., but it is not a B.C.-only issue.

Of course, I recognize, also, that the members opposite believe strongly in the free market and are opposed to government intervention. I value their perspectives, even if I disagree, because it helps all of us to make better policy decisions when a variety of views is considered. So I look forward to hearing what kinds of solutions the member opposite offers. It will be important that we all work together to resolve what appears to be a failure by the private market to work for people.

[10:15 a.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to thank the member opposite for her comments on this urgent issue. However, I would remind the other side that, regardless, the government is doing nothing to help these people and the rising fear that is resulting from the situation. The government has said that they are going to monitor the issue. In a full-fledged crisis, that simply isn’t good enough.

I would also like to point out that it is not only those of us on this side of the House that are saying that it is a very big deal. Experts and those who are experiencing it firsthand are themselves describing it in startling terms. Strata president Bruce Campbell spoke of the situation with the Vancouver Sun, saying: “I’d describe it as a crisis. There’s no other way around it.”

This should inspire action from the government. It should not be used as an opportunity to blame factors out of their control. Rather, it should be the time to focus on those things that the government does have control of. It should be a time of listening to the thousands of people across the Lower Mainland who are expressing their concerns, those who are afraid of being suddenly unable to pay their bills or buy the home they have been saving for, for years.

This is an issue that affects nearly half of the households in Metro Vancouver. In the whole of B.C., there are 30,000 strata corporations, and the Condominium Home Owners Association of B.C. estimates that 2,000 renew their insurance every month. As long as the government fails to respond to this crisis, it is only going to get worse, and as is demonstrated by those statistics, the effects of a worsening crisis are going to be incredibly far-reaching.

It’s time to take action. It’s time to do more for those who are caught up in this difficult situation. I hope that all members of this House will take notice.

CHILD CARE

R. Leonard: This past Friday I was wonderfully rejuvenated by a visit to a high-quality, affordable child care centre in Courtenay-Comox. Outside the over-threes were playing under the careful supervision of ECEs — that’s early childhood educators — and support staff. The kids were having a lot of fun, and there was lots of physical activity and lots of imagination.

Inside it was snack time for the infants and toddlers. I was snuggling a giggling baby who was working on his snack, which was peas. He almost pulled my hair off. Another toddler, I learned, had just come off a feeding tube and was learning to eat food by mouth. He was relishing it. I was so impressed that this was a place where, through such a delicate transition, parents could leave their vulnerable child, leaving confident that they are well cared for and safe.

I compare that to my own experience with child care many decades ago. I had done some contract work at home while our first-born was an infant. Eventually I was ready to dive back into the workforce before I was obsolete in my field. I could only find a space in an unlicensed home daycare.

Now, parents don’t have to pass any test before they have kids, and we know that kids don’t arrive with instructions. But we do expect our children to be safe, to have their needs met and, yes, even to be nurtured when we leave them with a caregiver. When I learned my child had been spanked by her caregiver for a toileting accident, I felt that I had failed her. My trust in the caregiver was crushed, and with no other child care alternatives in sight, I decided to stay home and not risk our daughter’s safety and security.

Fortunately, I had a spouse, and I had a spouse who had a good unionized job. Though the budget was tight, we survived. That’s not everyone’s case. But years outside the workforce take their toll on a career. Not only was I not earning a paycheque or building up a pension, I was also losing confidence. Without a job, I wasn’t keeping up to date. So like many other mothers, I shifted into new endeavours, starting at the bottom once again. All because of a lack of safe, affordable, quality child care.

[10:20 a.m.]

The state of the child care system in British Columbia has been…. Well, there’s been very little system. A poorly supported patchwork showed that child care was simply not a priority of the previous government. Instead of opening doors to see women being a part of a prosperous economy, the opposition critic has consistently stated that moms or dads should be 24-7 child care providers.

This sentiment bears out by the lack of supports for our child care system our government inherited. As the Minister of State for Child Care has noted, funding for providers was limited; subsidies for families were tough to access, with low return; and there’s been a dire lack of affordable, quality child care spaces.

Our government has made child care a priority. We’re replacing a fragmented system that failed too many children and families and choked the full potential of our growing economy by keeping one parent, mostly mothers, out of the workforce and even on social assistance.

We’re replacing it with a robust, universal child care system, thanks to the dedicated work of the Minister of Children and Family Development and a minister of state who’s solely focused on child care. People are beginning to feel the positive effects of Childcare B.C.’s three-year, $1.3 billion plan. It is addressing education, recruitment and retention of early childhood educators with 620 more learning spaces and flexible learning schedules so workers can upgrade their skills while continuing to provide the child care that families so desperately need.

So far, 5,400 ECE bursaries have been provided, and 11,000 ECEs have had a wage lift. The plan is addressing costs with start-up grants for providers who move to become licensed. Licensing improves the quality of service, and families can feel more confident with enhanced safety and improved accountability from child care providers, something I could have used.

Capital grants to local governments and school boards, NGOs and private facilities are helping with upgrading and building more affordable spaces — over 10,400 approved to date.

The fee reduction initiative is benefiting up to 50,000 families, regardless of family income, and the affordable child care benefit helps families with incomes up to $111,000 a year. So 27,000 are paying $10 a day or less. Families with incomes of $45,000 are not having to pay anything at all.

Thirty-five percent of parents rely on relatives so they can go to work. The B.C. affordable child care benefit provides up to $394 per month when grannies and aunties, who don’t live in the child’s home, care for their children. Combined, the fee reduction and affordable child care benefit can save many families more than $19,000 per year.

Once upon a time, long ago, I had the privilege of working for a non-profit on a project in partnership with the institute for health promotion research at UBC. We talked about the concept of diffusion of innovation. Innovation is not easily embraced by most people or institutions. One way to move toward universal adoption is to demonstrate advantages, tweak to fit unique circumstances and work out unintended consequences, all by way of small pilot projects.

So it is how we are exploring universal, affordable child care, beginning with 2,500 spaces at prototype child care centres across our diverse province, where parents pay no more than $200 a month. We’re working towards the successful adoption of a universal child care system where everyone is a winner.

The child care centre I visited on Friday is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. It is now one of the prototype centres. After decades of struggle for support for the centre and for families, providers and families are liking the changes we’ve introduced in the last 2½ years.

Providing for accessible, affordable, quality child care is not a gift. Our government recognizes that it works to close the income inequality between men and women and open doors for tens of thousands of workers that will help to build a sustainable and prosperous British Columbia.

L. Throness: I do appreciate the remarks of the member opposite.

The former government is really very proud of its support for child care over the years. I would point out that according to the government’s own figures, 3,400 new child care spaces per year were created between 2004 and 2017. We began all-day kindergarten for five-year-olds. We began StrongStart, the early learning program. The former government has done a great deal for child care.

[10:25 a.m.]

The present government likes to make strong claims. I’d like to examine a couple of those claims in a very factual way.

The member spoke about universal child care, but here’s what the throne speech said two weeks ago about universal child care. “This government brought forward…a universal child care plan to provide affordable quality care to every family that needs it.” The government had promised in their 2017 election platform that every family that wants or needs it would receive child care.

I would quote again from their budget in 2018. It laid out a plan for universal child care that is affordable and available for any family that wants or needs it. That was echoed again in the Canada–B.C. early learning and child care agreement, which is a legal agreement signed by both federal and provincial ministers. They had committed in writing to the federal government that they would subsidize child care for every parent who wants or needs it, but two weeks ago, in the throne speech, they abandoned that course and reversed it when they confined their program to need.

If it’s only about need, it’s no longer universal. Gone is any idea that a family that wants subsidized child care should receive it, and parents should be aware of this.

So it’s not universal anymore. I guess the government found out that it would cost too much, but there are implications to this new direction in the throne speech. For the first move, the government should stop giving fee reduction initiative subsidies to millionaires, because right now, fee reductions are universal for every family, whether they need it or not.

In this way, the government is, right now, actually giving millions to upper-income families, money that is no longer available to lower-income families, which, I would suggest, is morally indefensible, according to the government’s own philosophy. Unfortunately, the budget last week said nothing of it. But the government needs to be consistent. If child care is on the basis of need, then the programs need to be brought into line with the criteria of need.

The next thing I want to examine is the new spaces child care fund and the start-up fund, which are two funds the government uses to create incremental new spaces. The claim that was made last fall was that 10,400 new, incremental child care spaces were made in the last two years. But the Minister of State for Child Care then sent out a clarification to the press that after two years of trying, only 2,055 of those spaces were actually open and working. In other words, 80 percent of those spaces have one little problem. There are no children in them and no workers staffing them, because they aren’t open.

I can add something that was given by freedom of information. In the start-up fund, 1,178 spaces were supposedly created. This helps previously unlicensed providers to get licensed, but the freedom-of-information request told us that half of them are not new at all, because they were operating before as unlicensed spaces — meaning they are converted spaces, not created ones. So after two years of government programs doling out really vast amounts of money, only 1,466 working spaces have been created, 14 percent of the 10,400 spaces claimed.

Why aren’t the spaces operating? It’s because providers can’t find staff. But although the budget will increase spending on child care by $88 million in the coming year, to the magnificent sum of $675 million, there wasn’t a penny extra in the budget to solve this enormous problem. All together, the government will spend 4 percent of its child care budget in this year on its biggest problem, the shortage of labour.

In the three budgets of this government, it will spend nearly $1.7 billion on child care alone, and it cannot open more than 1,500 new, incremental spaces or find enough workers to staff them. This is mismanagement, in my view, on an epic scale. The government’s program is not delivering for parents. When they find out, they will be really unhappy, and the opposition and the people of B.C. will soon be able to hold them accountable for it.

R. Leonard: Thank you to the member for Chilliwack-Kent. I’d like to acknowledge that we have actually accomplished a lot, and we know that there’s still much more to do.

I’d like to share a few expressions of support for our government’s work to create accessible, affordable, quality child care — from women who recognize the opportunities a better child care system has created for them to grow careers and have better family life with their children.

[10:30 a.m.]

Natasha and John have twins. Natasha is a social worker. She’s the primary caregiver, in part because she earns less than her spouse, but also because her boys are her top priority, especially during their early years. But she also wants to work to keep current, build her skills and maintain her job security. They went through a roller-coaster when she went back into the workforce after her maternity leave, finding a child care provider they could trust. They wanted trained ECEs, criminal record checks. They wanted the boys to feel safe and happy. They started with a shared nanny and wait-lists for licensed care, then cobbled together one day here, one day there.

Today, thanks to the prototype child care centre, she’s working part-time and loving her mommy days with the boys. John has the freedom to focus and grow his business. They can afford to build up the boys’ education savings and are even saving to buy a travel trailer.

Then there’s Kimberly, a child psychologist at CYMH, which is child and youth mental health. She’s grateful her two children are finally in newly opened child care spaces at SFU after two years of being on wait-lists. We know just how in demand child psychologists are. On finally being able to return to work so the children she serves get the help they need, Kimberly says: “It’s a win-win for everyone.”

For single moms like Sarah, the affordable child care benefit has given her the financial freedom to go back to school, to retrain for a new profession. On Friday, I met a longtime early childhood educator whose daughter grew up to follow in her mother’s footsteps as an ECE and is now pursuing a degree in social development.

Another described how there are three generations of women in her family, all with careers working with children. These working women obviously take pride in their work as ECEs, and the tide is turning as we recognize the value they bring to our economy.

By bringing fees down for parents, building more licensed spaces and working to increase the number of qualified early childhood educators while better supporting those already working in the field, we are taking the first important steps towards universal child care. In doing so, we’re going a long way to creating a more fair and equitable society.

Women deliver the next generation. They deserve to share in the prosperity of this province.

Deputy Speaker: I now recognize the member for Skeena.

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND TITLE

E. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First time I’ve said that — “Thank you, Mr. Speaker” — to you. Welcome to the chair.

I’ve listened to people in this House talk about hereditary chiefs having jurisdiction because they were the plaintiffs in a court case named Delgamuukw, which was just one of the landmark court cases that were decided in the Supreme Court of Canada. I read the principles of Delgamuukw, and I never saw this principle that elected chief councillors were only restricted to on-reserve issues and vice versa in terms of hereditary chiefs.

But let’s take this logic for a second, and let’s say this logic is true. Everybody knows another landmark court case called Haida, the Haida court case that was decided in 2004. First Nations won this court case, but nobody really knows that my band, the Haisla council, elected chief and council, intervened in that court case. We argued one of the relevant points, and we won.

So using this logic, does this mean that the Crown has to consult and accommodate elected chief councillors only? That’s silly, because court cases do not decide on jurisdictional representation. They decide on principles that all First Nations can utilize, especially when you’re dealing with Aboriginal rights and title, and especially when you’re dealing with the infringements of Aboriginal rights and title under section 35 of the constitution.

There’s another principle that people fail to mention. It’s the idea of jurisdictional representation, and it actually contradicts what people are saying about the hereditary chiefs having jurisdiction over Crown lands or rights and title. It doesn’t make any sense, because in these court cases, it’s been established that Aboriginal rights and title is a communal right. It belongs to the community. It doesn’t belong to the elected chief and council. It doesn’t belong to hereditary chiefs. It doesn’t belong to individuals. It doesn’t belong to any special interest groups. It belongs to the community in question.

It only stands to reason, then, that the community should be able to decide who represents them in their Aboriginal rights and title issues. In most cases, First Nation communities have been comfortable with their leadership structure. It’s never become an issue, especially in the last 14 years, 15 years, when we’ve been dealing with Aboriginal rights and title successfully, not just in LNG pipelines but in forestry.

[10:35 a.m.]

Peace in the woods was actually established 12 years ago when the B.C. government established forest and range agreements. That was the result of Aboriginal rights and title case law.

There are countless numbers of agreements between First Nations proponents and governments that address all areas: mining, tourism, forestry, LNG pipelines, Trans Mountain. Aboriginal rights and title is serious business, and it should be treated like that. Not only does it define our roles as First Nations, the Crown, or to a lesser extent, the proponent. If it is not abided by as a road map, it can get out of hand really quick. I think we can all see, by watching news, what I’m talking about.

This is a real shame, because from my perspective as First Nations, after decades of fighting, we won the battle. We won. We won in 2004 with the Haida court case on the duty to consult and accommodate. That principle got elevated with the Tsilhqot’in court case, where governments were even forced to do a higher standard of consultation and accommodation.

But what do we do with it? What do we do with these hard-fought principles? They’re useless if we don’t use them to address what’s happening in Canada to Aboriginals. They’re useless if we don’t address what’s been labelled as Canada’s shame. That means the highest amount of Aboriginals in prison, the highest amount of suicides per capita, the highest amount of children going into care, the highest amount of unemployment.

If we don’t take these wins, and we don’t fix the next generation of Aboriginals coming up, we’ve all failed. As legislatures, as politicians, as Aboriginal leaders — we’ve all failed. To take us back 20 years in time will be a shameful achievement on all our behalf, because at the same time, you’re going to drag back Canada.

I see that there’s celebration by politicians in B.C. and Canada, talking about the demise of Teck. That is to celebrate the economy declining in Canada and to see those investors go to the United States. What country do you represent? Why do you ignore the 14 First Nations that have actually supported Teck for the reasons I just mentioned?

There’s one principle of case law that everybody else seems to forget. Aboriginal rights and title principles are meant to be on a go-forward basis. It’s not meant to address the past in general. It’s supposed to make sure that whatever happened in the past doesn’t happen again. We’ve got to observe the honour of the Crown.

We’ve got to make sure that Aboriginal rights and title is upheld in section 35 of the constitution. We’re one of the only countries in the world that have Aboriginal rights and title recognized by the constitution. This makes the document, the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous people, irrelevant and actually combative to the process that Canada has put in place since 1982.

Section 35 would not have even made a difference if we did not breathe life into it with these court cases. I’m talking all of them, not just one read in isolation. I’m talking about Mikisew Cree, Gladstone, Haida. To take one principle out of one court case, take it out of context and use it for a political agenda or use it for an agenda to shut down Canada or shut down pipelines is irresponsible. It’s reckless. It’s going against the wishes of Aboriginal leaders who do not want to see the descendants suffer through the same social ills that my generation did or my parents’ generation did.

We’ve got a chance to use Aboriginal rights and title to fix what’s wrong with Aboriginal communities, and these Aboriginal communities will do it on their own terms. They will not do it through government handouts.

[10:40 a.m.]

N. Simons: I just want to thank my colleague opposite, from Skeena, for his insight. I always appreciate that.

It’s been far too long for provincial governments to recognize the inherent rights of Indigenous people, including the inherent rights and titles of the nations of British Columbia. Part of that challenge was met with the unanimous passage of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. The next and more complicated challenge before us continues to be finding ways to work together to transpose those values that are within that legislation, within the declaration itself, into practical terms in this province.

Significant progress toward this goal has already been accomplished by Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders and Elders and good, well-minded community members supported by other citizens who are progressive in insisting that our relationship and our treaty-making process needed a fundamental, different approach. That change in treaty policy has already produced results, reconciling inherent title with Crown title through treaty and other government-to-government agreements. There are examples of where agreements have been made that begin to address title in a fundamental way, and I point to the Heiltsuk agreement, the Carrier-Sekani pathway forward agreement and the shíshálh Nation foundation agreement.

The path to where we are today has been frustratingly slow for Indigenous people, and that slowness has bred understandable resentment. Compounding that has been successive governments’ unwillingness to address the socioeconomic gaps that create even greater divisions within our province. That’s finally started to change too. Along with our government’s hope to create relationships that go beyond its legal obligations, it’s creating real opportunities for the restoration of governance authority, the support of self-government and engaging in true government-to-government partnerships.

How rights and title will be recognized, negotiated, codified or otherwise determined takes time. Previously, that’s been used as an excuse not to engage in other efforts to address the negative impacts of colonialism. That’s why I’m particularly pleased with so many initiatives that we’ve undertaken collaboratively with Indigenous communities.

Besides passing legislation supporting the United Nations declaration and laying out a path for future discussions, our government and Indigenous leaders have been working and leading the way on other initiatives. There’s a long list of these initiatives that we’ve undertaken since the last time we had an opportunity to do so.

We’ve recommitted to improving the child welfare system by expanding the tools available to nurture and strengthen families and by devolving authority back to Indigenous communities. For the first time, Indigenous communities will have a share in revenue from gaming activities. The approximately $3 billion over the next 25 years will be a resource for communities to invest in themselves. We’ve developed a new Environmental Assessment Act that incorporates the United Nations declaration, which could provide clarity to all parties interested in resource development around the issues of rights and title. We’ve invested in building homes in Indigenous communities to address the shortage that’s existed for decades. We’re the first provincial government to invest in on-reserve housing.

Our K-to-12 education curriculum now incorporates Indigenous knowledge and perspectives, something that we as adults all know too well was sorely lacking when we went through school. Our province has the first Indigenous law degree program in Canada, at the University of Victoria. We’re funding friendship centres and — something that Elders in the shíshálh always emphasized — supporting language. The province has allocated $50 million to help communities revitalize Indigenous languages, and 17 Indigenous languages have been approved to be taught in British Columbia schools and six more in development.

Finding a common footing on rights and title will take time, but while leaders talk, the rest of us will continue to work at reconciling the impacts of colonization out of a desire to ensure all British Columbians have the ability to lead healthy and productive lives. As the recently re-elected Chief of the shíshálh Nation, Warren Paull, said: “We’re not going anywhere. You’re not going anywhere. We better find ways that we all get along.”

E. Ross: UNDRIP — basically, talking about how UNDRIP recognizes rights and title. It’s already been recognized in section 35 of the constitution. It’s been defined by all the case law. We didn’t need it. In fact, if anything, there’s no clarity to it.

Now, when you’re talking about the clarity, you’re talking about an action plan that’s yet to be developed. But how do you do this when it actually contradicts, in most places, the case law — or in some cases, undermines it?

[10:45 a.m.]

I, for one, am tired of initiatives that create jobs and opportunities for political leaders and lawyers for the next 20 years, when Aboriginal leaders are suffering. I don’t believe in that.

We’ve already got a road map. The member from — I don’t know where he’s from — actually mentioned the other day that we have a successful pipeline with an environmental assessment certificate, with permits. That was done under Aboriginal rights and title. That’s the certainty and clarity that we achieved over the last 15 years of consultation and accommodation.

We have peace in the woods under the forest and range agreement that was developed 12 years ago under rights and title. Why do you throw in UNDRIP, which was actually designed by committee by foreign representatives based in New York? Who says that New York has any interest in what Aboriginals are facing today? And why are you taking advice from the United Nations when we’ve already got our own road map, and it’s been proven?

Our First Nations are digging themselves out of poverty not because of the handouts, not because of government programs. It’s because we’re making our own way through the economy.

Everybody has a definition of reconciliation, but no­body actually goes back to the case law to recognize what they said in case law. And I agree. I agree with the member’s statements in saying that we’re all in this together. Actually, that came from case law. That’s where that saying came from. The judge said: “We better figure out how to reconcile title with the Crown, because let’s face it, we’re not going anywhere.”

But there’s something else that was said: “When adequate consultation has taken place, Aboriginal rights and title concerns must be balanced against competing societal interests.” I think everybody forgot about that or didn’t even read it. This is the role of accommodation. By the way, when you’re talking about competing societal interests, you’re talking about First Nations too, because we make up the society that enjoys the hospitals, the roads, the infrastructure. So we make up the larger society too. But if you don’t abide by this principle, you’re going to divide First Nations and the greater society, which is First Nations combined as well.

The caribou recovery plan in the northeast is a good example of what happens if you don’t abide by this principle. The government might walk away feeling good, but it leaves behind a society that’s divided. That might have lasting effects that cause further division. If this goes the way it’s going….

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to finish. Are you going to cut me off? You can cut me off as your first time you cut off somebody.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Hon. Member.

MSP

R. Glumac: As of January 1 of this year, the province of B.C. no longer charges British Columbians MSP premiums, saving individuals up to $900 a year and families up to $1,800 a year. We were the last province in Canada to charge MSP premiums. Every other province moved away from this regressive form of taxation many years ago.

Now, it’s important, I think, to acknowledge this: elimination of MSP fees has resulted in a $2.7 billion tax cut to the people of British Columbia. This is not only the largest tax cut in the province’s history, but also the elimination of an extremely regressive form of taxation.

I think it’s important to take a moment to understand regressive taxation, because this is the form of taxation that was heavily utilized by the previous government and utilized in such a way as to not make it easy to know that you’re actually paying these taxes. Regressive taxation is a form of taxation that disproportionately affects lower-income earners more than higher-income earners.

As an example, let’s take MSP charged to a family making $40,000 a year. They would be charged $1,800 a year. That’s 4.5 percent of their income. MSP charged to a family making $400,000 a year was also $1,800 a year, or 0.45 percent of their income.

Interjection.

R. Glumac: That is not wrong math, Member.

The member from the opposite side is saying that that math is not correct. Well, I urge that member to take a closer look at their numbers.

[10:50 a.m.]

That’s a ten-times-higher rate of taxation for the lower-income family than the higher-income family. Regressive taxation was the hallmark of the previous government. In fact, even when they cut income taxes, they did it in such a way as to give the greatest benefit to the highest-income earners. The top 1 percent saved 5.1 percent on their income taxes, while the bottom 10 percent only saved 1 percent. That’s a five times benefit….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member. Hon. Member, please refrain from partisan comments. Thank you.

R. Glumac: Well, that’s not partisan. That’s fact. A five times….

Interjections.

R. Glumac: No, I’m just saying that’s fact — a five times greater benefit to the top 1 percent than the bottom 10 percent. At every opportunity, the previous government made taxation even more regressive.

Just a definition for the members opposite, who are confused about what regressive taxation is. There’s a definition: tax applied uniformly, taking a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners. That’s a fact.

So when you take, for example…. Let’s look at an illustrative example — somebody making $60,000 a year, what they were charged in provincial income tax in 2016 versus today. In 2016, their provincial income tax was $1,714, and today, it’s $1,416. That’s a reduction of 17 percent.

Now, when you consider changes in MSP premiums, you consider the early childhood tax benefit, you consider the B.C. childhood opportunity benefit, all forms of taxation — carbon tax, sales tax, fuel tax…. When you take all of these taxes into account, the net provincial tax in 2016 added up to $4,238, which drops to $2,212 today. That’s what affordability looks like.

That figure doesn’t account for other savings, such as bridge tolls or reduced ICBC premiums, which are coming into effect next year. Child care fees, if you have children in child care. That’s just the taxation alone that we’re talking about. A family earning $60,000 a year saved an average of 48 percent on their net provincial taxes between 2016 and today. That’s what affordability looks like. Eliminating MSP premiums is just one part of our government’s efforts to make life more affordable for British Columbians.

When we talk about removing a massive tax cut of $2.7 billion, you have to look at how you still balance the budget. Two of the last provinces to eliminate MSP premiums were Alberta in 2009 and Ontario in 1990. Ontario introduced an employer health tax of up to 1.95 percent of total wages paid by businesses, and this is what B.C. did as well.

In our case, employers with payrolls of less than $500,000 do not pay the employer health tax, which means 85 percent of businesses in B.C. are exempt. This threshold is increased to $1.5 million for non-profits, based on each location, rather than through the entire organization. The Finance Minister has also announced the government would cover net costs for public sector bodies like school districts, health authorities and post-secondary institutions.

Eliminating MSP premiums will also save approximately $50 million a year in administrative costs. Our government is very proud to have found a way to eliminate MSP premiums while maintaining a balanced budget. It’s just one way we’re making life more affordable for British Columbians.

Deputy Speaker: I now call on the member for Kelowna–​Lake Country.

N. Letnick: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and welcome to the chair. It’s the first time I’ve had a chance to address you in that position. Indeed, you look really good up there.

I also would like to thank the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam for his introductory comments. It wouldn’t come much as of a surprise, I imagine, to anyone in the House that I must disagree with much of what he said.

Interjection.

[10:55 a.m.]

N. Letnick: The facts. Well, the facts are that the EHT is there as a replacement tax — the employer health tax — to replace exactly what the member has talked about.

If he’s talking about regressive taxes, the EHT…. I should actually call it the NRT — the NDP regressive tax. The NRT actually is quite regressive, because if you’re operating a business in British Columbia, which I believe many of the members, at least on this side of the House, have done, then you would know that, at certain points, you have to pass on all those extra costs somehow, or you reduce the number of people that you employ, or you go broke, as I’ve seen. People send us letters saying that they can no longer operate businesses in British Columbia thanks to the employer health tax.

You know, when I was…. Before I became an MLA, I had a number of businesses. I can tell you that having a tax prior to income — it’s basically a payroll tax prior to even calculating your net income — means that you have to pay the government on that payroll. Whether you’re doing $50,000 in profit, $50,000 in loss or $100,000 in profit, it really doesn’t matter. You still have to pay the government that amount of money.

That makes you less competitive relative to the big guys, because the big guys have a lot more assets to share all those expenses over. As a small business operator, if you didn’t meet the lower threshold of the employer health tax, then, basically, you need to pay more per person than the big guys do. It makes you less competitive. So actually, the employer health tax is hurting small businesses in British Columbia.

Also, when I was in local government, and I know many members of this House were in local government, when the provincial government would download a tax onto us, we only had one choice, really. You pass that on to the local ratepayers — you pass that on to the taxpayers — or you reduce services. No one likes to reduce services. It’s a very tough thing to do in a municipal government — to reduce services. What you end up doing, really, is putting your other priorities aside so you can make sure that you give to the provincial government the money they need. So you either get reduced services or you get higher taxes.

Then you have the third area, which I again had some experience with. That was leading a hospital as chairman of a hospital board. In this case, the employer health tax once again impacts people trying to deliver health services in our province. Those regional health authorities have been faced with double-dipping for a year, and now they’re going to have to pay those extra costs.

What are they doing to do? Well, they’re either going to have to curtail the services that they’re providing to British Columbians, or they’re going to have to, perhaps, look at other ways of collecting money. I’ve seen just recently, in the last week alone in my regional health authority, that they’re going after local district hospital boards to start funding things that they call capital which really should be funded by the general taxpayer. This is one of those strategies that they’re looking for on how to make ends meet once the replacement tax has come in — this new regressive employer health tax.

And you factor that into all the other taxes that the government has come up with over the last couple of years: employer health tax, of course, is the key one; Victoria gas tax; Vancouver gas tax; Airbnb tax; luxury vehicle tax; tobacco tax — three times; PTT surcharge; foreign buyer tax; additional school tax; speculation tax; photo radar; carbon tax; parking tax for TransLink; development cost charges, TransLink; property tax, TransLink; cannabis tax; income tax hikes; corporate tax hikes; ICBC unlisted driver premiums; ICBC learner premium; B.C. Hydro crisis fund levy; per-trip ride-share fees; vaping PST; sugar tax; Netflix tax; and a new income tax bracket.

Over 23 new or increased taxes, and this member for Port Moody–Coquitlam has the gall to tell us that they’ve reduced taxes for British Columbia. He has some nerve and should take those comments back.

R. Glumac: I’ve listened to my colleague in opposition talk about the employer health tax and MSP. I understand that he just doesn’t understand the difference between progressive taxation and regressive taxes. This member in opposition is only familiar with regressive taxation. That is all his government understands. So when it comes to understanding the difference between how a tax affects lower-income individuals versus higher-income individuals, that member and all members on that side simply do not get it.

[11:00 a.m.]

The member talks about 24, 23 new taxes, and I commend the member for being able to count that high. It’s impressive to be able to do that. But what they aren’t able to understand is that changing tax policy to become fair to British Columbians means making changes to the taxes.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We also eliminated many taxes. One big tax we eliminated is the MSP premiums, one of the largest tax cuts in B.C. history. We also reduced provincial income tax. We also added new tax benefits…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

R. Glumac: …such as the B.C. child opportunity tax benefit.

You can count taxes to create the misleading impression that British Columbians pay more, but it just isn’t true. It’s like changing your diet to be a more healthy diet. Some food is better than other food. Eliminating $2.7 billion in regressive taxes is better for British Columbia. It’s one of the many things we’re doing to make life more affordable here.

Don’t forget we’re also introducing the B.C. access grant — $3,500 for people going to post-secondary education. We’re also taking interest away from student loans, to save $2,300 for students. We’re introducing affordable child care benefits of up to $15,000 per year and a child care fee reduction initiative — up to $5,400 per year. We’ve eliminated tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges, which saves commuters $1,500 a year. We’ve provided rebates of up to $6,000 for electric vehicles and $2,000 to replace your heating system.

Making life affordable — that’s our goal.

Hon. S. Simpson: I ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 2, standing in the name of the member for Nechako Lakes.

Deputy Speaker: Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 2 without disturbing the priority of the motion preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 2 — FOREST INDUSTRY
AND LAND BASE

J. Rustad: I move:

[Be it resolved that this House recognize that the forest industry operates on 22.5 million hectares and this land base needs to be preserved as a working forest.]

Across this province, I think lots of people are proud of what we have as a province — 95 million hectares in size. About 65 million hectares of that is forested, and our forestry operations work on about a third of what is considered to be forested in this province. It’s critical in terms of the future of our forest sector and the future of over 140 communities around this province that the forest industry has the ability to be able to carry on operating on this land base.

Last week there were more than 1,000 people that came out to the lawn of the Legislature to deliver this message to government, to say: “We need a working forest. We need our land base protected.” The Minister of Forests himself got up and thanked these people for being out there and presenting this issue. The Minister of Forests stood up in this House and presented a petition signed by over 8,000 people asking government to act on this, to create this ability for our forest sector to thrive.

Today the B.C. Forest Alliance sent out a press release that says: “They call on government to establish a working forest. More aid for the forest industry and community is needed.” I’ll read into the record here the press release they put out. “The B.C. Forest Alliance is calling on the provincial government to protect the current harvestable land base and establish a working forest that will sustain the forest industry now and into the future.”

The quotes in here are from Steve Venus.

“Last week over 1,000 people showed up on the front lawn of the Legislature because they’re deeply concerned about their future in B.C.’s forest industry. These are hard-working people, and they represent a petition with 8,000 signatures calling on the government to ensure there is a predictable long-term fibre supply.

“The rally was held on the same day as the release of the 2020 provincial budget. Unfortunately, B.C.’s NDP budget had little assistance to offer the struggling forest sector.”

[11:05 a.m.]

And a quote here from Carl Sweet.

“Throwing a few million dollars at the industry is a band-aid approach. We need long-term solutions for a struggling industry.”

He goes on, saying:

“Securing a long-term fibre supply on the harvestable land base is what we need. This will create opportunities for new investment. It will also give workers the opportunity to become more skilled and therefore more competitive in global markets.

“B.C.’s Forest Alliance is looking forward to government’s reply to the petition. In the meantime, the alliance will continue to advocate for a sustainable and renewable working forest.”

I come from a forestry community, as I think many people do, certainly on this side of the House. Forestry is such a key piece of so much of our economic development. That rally, I think, is well worth noting because it’s rare to see those people actually get that fired up and come down and be passionate — working for and trying to move towards this working forest.

The example we saw just yesterday, the example of the caribou protection up in the northeast of the province, taking away from that working forest without any solid science to support it and certainly with no engagement with the public and the people up there…. The deal was made long in advance. Afterwards they went: “Oh, there are some people protesting. Maybe we should go out and do an engagement.” That’s not the way to do these types of things.

Then the Minister of Forests stands up and says: “This will be the blueprint for how we’re going to do 21 other caribou areas around the province.” The forest industry looked at that. If that approach was taken in all of those areas, those 21 areas the minister has talked about, it means a $20 million cubic metre hit annually to the annual allowable cut in this province. About 40 percent of the Interior forest industry would disappear, including Revelstoke and so many other areas that would be heavily impacted.

It’s time this province and this government recognize the importance and the need for a vibrant, healthy forest industry and recognize that it cannot be continually chewed away to meet special interest groups and special interests by this government. It needs to have a working forest — a stable forest that can supply those jobs, that can supply that fibre for this generation and generations to come.

This province relies so much and has seen so much benefit from the forest industry. Without that secure fibre, without that secure land base, there will not be the investment that we need to see for the renewal of the forest sector for the next generation of people that want to call forestry their livelihood and want to continue to see those benefits come to the province.

J. Brar: I’m really pleased to respond to the motion introduced by the member for Nechako Lakes, asking for preserving the land base for a working forest.

Forestry workers are fully aware that the idea of legally designating a working forest has been around for more than 20 years. Members of the opposition — including the member that is now proposing the motion, in his time as minister — clearly had every opportunity to implement this type of legislation during their 16 years in government.

But the truth is that the previous government didn’t do anything during their time in government. So it is not surprising to me and to the forestry workers at all that the member for Nechako Lakes finds it convenient now to talk about this very important issue when he is sitting on the opposition benches. This is pure politics to make some critical points, and that’s basically it.

The reality is the people who depend on B.C.’s forest industry are hurting and have been hurting for a long, long time. They need our help. Our thriving forest sector has provided good, stable jobs for many families going back generations. However, over the last number of years, the mountain pine beetle, wildfires and the softwood lumber dispute have reduced the timber supply and forced mills to close their doors or scale back shifts.

These changes didn’t happen overnight. Forestry workers and their families have been struggling for a long, long time, including the 16 years under the previous government. The reality is this. The previous government oversaw the loss of 30,000 forestry jobs and the permanent closure of dozens of mills. That is their record.

[11:10 a.m.]

When they were in power, they decided to ship B.C.’s natural wealth elsewhere, and they failed to do the hard work to prepare forest workers and communities for the end of the mountain pine beetle harvest. It’s very interesting to complain in this House and do something to the government, but in 2015, his government refused to act on a consultant’s report that predicted the close of 13 mills in the Interior. Under their watch, big companies would make deals in private, with no consultation at all.

For too long, there was little to no oversight. That’s why we are doing our due diligence. We want to make sure that our forests are being managed in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. We are putting people first. That’s why we have been growing markets for B.C. wood products at home and abroad through innovation. Last year, for example, the Minister of Forests and senior executives from forest companies promoted B.C.’s innovation, innovative wood products, during the trade mission to China and Japan.

When it comes to growing the market at home, we want to make sure that more logs are processed in B.C. In other words, B.C. logs should produce B.C. jobs. Budget 2020 takes another step forward, providing $13 million over three years in new funding to begin developing opportunities for B.C.’s bioeconomy and revitalization within the forest sector. Budget 2020 also provides new funding of $65 million per year towards wildfire and emergency response management and prevention. This increases the total funding to $519 million over the fiscal plan.

Our government will continue to defend the thousands of people who rely on the forestry sector for their jobs and livelihoods — not like the opposition, who didn’t do anything during 16 years and now stand up in this House and question the actions of the government which are being taken right now to make life better for the forest workers.

D. Barnett: Last week was budget day, when the provincial government lays out its fiscal plan for the coming year and identifies its top priorities. After a careful review of the budget document, it is quite clear that forestry isn’t a concern of this government at all.

Despite the worst crisis in the forest industry in over 40 years, there was no mention of a comprehensive strategy to halt the layoffs and get out-of-work forestry workers back to work. Yes, there was no new money for forestry in this budget. As a matter of fact, the ministry’s budget has been reduced 11 percent, or just over $100 million. Nor was there any mention of communities that have been devastated by the forestry crisis.

This is typical of an NDP government that has written off rural British Columbia. It has also written off forestry and the working people who helped build this province. There is a reason why 1,000 forestry workers showed up on the front lawn of the Legislature on budget day. They are severely disappointed in a government that doesn’t consider them a priority anymore. This is a government that sat on the sidelines for nearly eight months during the strike at Western Forest Products as 3,000 people were directly out of work.

Thousands more were impacted indirectly, especially small business owners. People lost their trucks; people lost their homes. Marriages broke up. All the while, the Forests Minister, the Labour Minister and the Premier just sat back and twiddled their thumbs. The parties in the dispute were clearly at a stalemate in negotiations, yet the NDP, a party that once represented working people, refused to lift a finger.

[11:15 a.m.]

The company was asking for arbitration. Local mayors, community leaders and just everyday folk were yelling at the top of their lungs. This strike appears to be over, but the damage inflicted over the past eight months will continue to hurt communities all along the coast for years.

In the absence of the NDP, people took matters into their own hands. People like Rona Doucette and Tamara Meggitt saw what was happening to families who were struggling to even put food on the table. So they started Loonies for Loggers to support families impacted by the forestry worker strike. When the call went out, the rest of the community responded. Businesses, schools and everyday folk gave generously.

Loonies for Loggers even helped families struggling with cancer and provided them with fuel cards for their trips to and from cancer clinics. That’s how bad the situation has become. Make no mistake. These are hard-working people with great pride in their communities. The Loonies for Loggers mobile truck even learned to park on side roads. That’s because many people didn’t want to be seen accepting help in a time of need.

Is this what you call responsible government? Let me tell you that people in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin are suffering just as much as those down on the coast. Mills have shut down completely, many workers suffering crippling layoffs. All hope that someday the industry will recover. What did the government do? It cancelled the rural dividend fund, a $25 million program that was supposed to help small rural communities diversify their economies.

The members on the other side can deny it if they want to. The $69 million forest worker program, cobbled together with existing programs like the rural dividend fund, has done little for the vast majority of forestry workers who are ineligible for assistance. The fact is that this money represents an early retirement program when most forestry workers still need a job. If you are an out-of-work forestry worker on the coast, you are quite simply out of luck, because only eligible workers in the Interior qualify.

When programs dedicated to rural B.C. fall victim to government cutbacks, it becomes obvious that the NDP has simply written off rural B.C. Oh yes, they have $1 million to hand out free symphony tickets to folks in the Lower Mainland, but when a family in Williams Lake or 100 Mile needs help, they will get nothing from this government. We have a Premier who would rather play fiddle and watch the forestry industry burn than deal with a real economic crisis.

R. Kahlon: I want to thank the member for Nechako Lakes for bringing this motion forward today around preserving the working forest. I think — as one of my colleagues earlier commented — this concept isn’t new. It’s been around for 20 years. What’s new is that all of a sudden, the opposition, who were in government for 16 years, are interested in it now. My question to them would be: why was this not a priority when they were in government?

I looked through the records to see if there was any legislation ever brought. Nothing came forward. Maybe the member from Kamloops might have more insight on that than I do, but I haven’t seen it. So I do find it interesting that they’re interested in this topic now when they had the reins of power for many, many years and chose not to do anything.

I think all provincial governments, no matter who is in power, should do their best to balance climate change, protect our wildlife and keep people working. That’s the balance that we try to strike as a government over here. It’s the hard route. Some would say: “Just cut it all down.” Some would say: “Don’t cut anything at all.” We’re taking the hard route, which is sitting down with communities and organizations to find the right path — a balanced approach on how we deal with these critical issues.

Interjections.

R. Kahlon: I know members love to heckle, and they have a lot of things to say.

I think the most important thing is that when workers came here…. I’ve been in the Interior a lot. I’ve spoken to communities; I’ve spoken to mayors. I’ve spoken to workers; I’ve spoken to contractors. The member from Cariboo said that people are struggling. Yeah, people are struggling. I spoke with contractors in her community who said: “We know it’s not you guys who created this problem. This is a problem that has been created by folks who left you with this problem.” They said that to me — contractors in her community. They’re saying: “Let’s figure out a path forward.” They want to have a conversation about contractor sustainability.

[11:20 a.m.]

How do contractors actually make it? They’re being squeezed and squeezed. They talked to this government for many, many years on finding a path forward so that they can address the sustainability of their sector. Guess what: deaf ears. Now they care about the contractors. When they show up in rallies, they love to show up in trucks and take a picture with them. Where was that work when they were asking for it for so many years?

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: The member has got a lot of heckles. I appreciate that’s he’s going to have an opportunity to speak, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

The challenges, particularly in the Interior, didn’t come overnight. I think there’s an understanding that this happened over a lot of time. We’ve got climate change. We’ve got pine beetle. We’ve got unfair tariffs. We’ve got these fires that have just devastated communities. We are in a tough, challenging situation, and it has been compounded over years and years. It’s a small snowball that turned into an avalanche.

Members can dispute that if they like, and I look forward to hearing that, but what we have to do now is to find out: how do we get through this challenge ahead? Part of the solution is transitioning to high value and not high volume. We’re starting to take some of those steps.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

R. Kahlon: I have to address a couple of things that were said. The member from Cariboo said that there’s nothing being done. Well, she should maybe talk to some of those workers who have lost their jobs. What she will hear is that there are hundreds and hundreds of people who’ve applied for the pension bridging program.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. The member for Delta North has the floor.

R. Kahlon: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Yes, $69 million was put forward to address this. Workers are getting pensions, the bridging program, right now. They’re getting support right now. In fact, we have over 500 people who have applied. Contractors are getting work because we’ve provided dollars for contractors to get access to work in their communities to keep their members working.

When I hear the member for Nechako Lakes say that the province did an agreement with special interest groups…. Those special interest groups happen to be First Nations communities. Saulteau and West Moberly are not a special interest. They’re not special interest groups; they’re First Nations communities. He was a former minister of Aboriginal affairs. Perhaps the reason why their government was not able to make any meaningful progress was because of a view like that: calling them special interest groups. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Also from the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, who says no one has been helped…. She should talk to people in her community. She should actually read the budget: $69 million — all by the province; no money from the federal government. I hope that they come to the table and put some money to it. Because communities are needing it, we’re going to continue to work to support them.

D. Clovechok: Listening to the member across the way just now, I would suggest that he check Hansard. That individual didn’t talk about…. My colleague didn’t say “special interest groups.” So check Hansard.

As you’ve heard from my colleagues already — you’ll hear from more after — I am in complete support of the motion on the working forest. Forestry is part of the history of this province. It’s who we are. The first mill ever to open was right here in Victoria in 1847. It’s not just a provincial resource sector; it’s an employer. For many people, it’s a calling. It’s a way of life for many. Entire communities have been born from mills. Generations have worked and continue to work in these mills and in these operations, and they’ve contributed to local, provincial and federal economies.

It’s not just about dollars; it’s about people. These guys talk about people, but I don’t see where their policies come around people at all. It’s about workers, their families, their communities and the dozens of ancillary offshoots that this sector supports. Yet over 10,000 jobs right now have been lost, and you can see the ripple effect that this is having — from closures, curtailments, the slowdowns. It’s hurting communities where I live.

One member said they’re doing their due diligence. Well, tell the families that are now without, that are trying to figure out: how do I feed my kids? Tell them that. It’s astounding, for me, to see the inaction of this government, their minister and their parliamentary secretary. It’s astounding, to me, that they’re doing nothing to address these issues.

[11:25 a.m.]

I’d like to spend some of my time highlighting four of the operations that are in my riding that have this community connection, that employ well over 1,000 women and men where I live. Downie Timber and Selkirk Cedar in Revelstoke have been in operation for 55 years. Independently family-owned and operated, they specialize in western red cedar. It’s beautiful. It employs over 300 people, which is a sizeable portion when you consider that the population is 8,000 in Revelstoke. It prides itself on using the whole log and every log, even burning the bark for energy that powers parts of the mill and local buildings.

Then in Golden, Louisiana Pacific is another operation we have — a long-standing history in lumber. It goes back to 1893. Focusing on engineered wood products, Louisiana Pacific operations recently received a three-year safety award by the Engineered Wood Association, celebrating safety and operation excellence in the structural panel and engineered wood industry.

Then there is the Canfor mill in Radium, which has faced curtailments but is currently going strong and hiring full-time positions, well-paying positions that translate into jobs in my community. The effect of these jobs and what they provide cannot be overstated.

Finally, Paper Excellence, down in Skookumchuck, employing hundreds of people. Yet the forestry sector is made up of real people, and that’s what I want to talk about really quickly — real lives that are worried sick about being the next one being chopped by this government and their lack of action around forestry.

We’ve welcomed rallying folks right here in Vancouver with the trucks. They’re not being listened to. I hope their message is heard loud and clear. There are over 120,000 men and women across the province that directly need this industry.

If I might quote from the B.C. Forest Alliance: “Throwing a few million dollars at an industry is a band-aid approach. We need long-term solutions for a struggling industry. Long-term solutions securing fibre supply on the harvestable land base are what is needed.”

This side wants that. That side doesn’t know how to do it. They’ve ragged the puck for months and months. People are hurting in this province, and they sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing. So I support my colleague’s motion here today.

D. Routley: Thank you to the member for Nechako Lakes for the motion.

It’s a pleasure to stand up and talk about forest policy in a province that has been quite decimated over the past 16 years, before this government took control, with forest policy being essentially disintegrated — literally disintegrated, as the production lines and chains between logging, sawmilling and the pulp and paper industry were broken by this government.

Right now people across B.C. are suffering. Families across B.C. are feeling the effects of market, of pine beetle, climate, of all the other pressures on forests. But essentially, the part that government controls…. They’re suffering from a seed that was planted some 18 years ago, when the previous B.C. Liberal government endorsed the deregulation of the forest industry and the disconnection of communities from the fibre and the land base.

These families know that this didn’t happen overnight, but this previous government, the B.C. Liberal government, seems to want people to believe that. You can’t have it both ways, to the members opposite. You can’t have it both ways.

On July 16, 2008, the Auditor General of British Columbia noted that the previous government had allowed the removal of private lands from TFL 19 and TFL 25 for Western Forest Products. The Auditor General determined that this was done without sufficient regard for the public interest.

So here’s a former government member speaking for the former government that essentially gave a $200 million gift to Western Forest Products and took all of that operating forest land base out of production. Now they have the gall to move a motion, which I agree with, that we should protect the forest land base, the working forest — absolutely. But it’s simplistic. What’s being offered is simplistic.

[11:30 a.m.]

It is being offered without any regard to the fact that we are on a new landscape on the land base of British Columbia. Since the Tsilhqot’in decision and with the adoption of UNDRIP by this government, we can’t simply dictate to communities, to regions and to First Nations how these forests will be used. This government understands that in order to have a sustainable forest industry, we have to sit down with the players.

The members opposite would care to describe the various players in the industry as special interests if they don’t agree with them, but they are all special interests. Industry has a special interest. Environmental considerations have special interests. First Nations have the most special interests. No government can ignore those things.

They can sit in opposition and try to make political points by saying things that are absolutely meaningless and impossible to implement. But the fact is that government’s role is to balance the public interest between the industry, environmental consideration, climate change and social supports — the socioeconomic decisions. Most of those decisions were removed from the toolbox of the Forests Minister through deregulation. It has led to this bizarre situation, over the past year and a half, where our government has had to actually legislate the opportunity for the Forests Minister to act in the public interest.

Just think about that for a second. We had to pass legislation to allow the Forests Minister to act in the public interest. That is absolutely insane. What happened in B.C. over the past decade and a half is equally insane. It was a tactical and purposeful dismantling of an industry.

Before the previous government came to power, the high point of raw log exports was one million cubic metres. It is currently over six million. They sat by and watched hundreds of mills close — dozens of major mills, 30,000 jobs, communities decimated.

Who did nothing? They did…. Actually, it might have been better if they’d done nothing, because what they did was deregulate. There was an average of around 17 or 18 deaths in the woods before they did that deregulation. In the years afterwards, that climbed to 47. That’s the human consequence of what happened. We are doing better in balancing the public interest.

M. Stilwell: I rise today to speak to the motion that “this House recognize that the forestry industry operates on 22.5 million hectares and that this land base needs to be preserved as a working forest.”

There is no doubt that forestry is an economic driver in this province, which is home to over 140 forestry-dependent communities. Thousands of hard-working people rely on the forestry sector to support themselves, to put food on the table for themselves and their families. Yet British Columbia’s forestry industry has lost 6,600 jobs between 2017 and 2018. Our province has seen ten permanent or indefinite mill closures with over 100 weeks of operational downtime.

Many people were looking in the budget for some hope, for some solutions, but they were let down, with zero dollars in actual funding to contribute. This provides little or no comfort to forestry-dependent coastal communities that have suffered the irreparable damage due to the eight-month strike at Western Forest Products and for 450 workers who are now, at Paper Excellence in Crofton, facing those job losses due to a recently announced 30-day curtailment.

The people on Vancouver Island are suffering. The Western Forest Products strike has taken its toll on the families on Vancouver Island. People are losing their vehicles. They’re falling behind in bill payments. They’re barely able to support their families. They’ve been to my office. They’ve shared their stories. They’re feeling desperate, and they’re looking for some kind of help.

[11:35 a.m.]

I was so proud to support the workers when they paid out of their own pocket last week, after months of having no income, to come down here to Victoria and demand some respect. They held the rally outside in support of jobs and common sense, asking for protection of the working forest in perpetuity.

It was a long list of supporters, like Port McNeill mayor Gabby Wickstrom. Those workers and their families showed up, and they demanded to be heard. They took their message straight to the Premier’s front door, that message of hope for a future.

Just like the 250 logging trucks that formed a convoy in downtown Vancouver…. Those from rural B.C. took it to the heart of Vancouver during the UBCM meeting last year. They came with those voices, wanting to hear, hoping that government would hear them.

The sector is in crisis. The policy changes that have been implemented by this government have wreaked havoc on the entire sector around British Columbia — policies that were imposed on our communities without consultation. The entire industry is feeling the pressure, and the NDP have made British Columbia home to North America’s highest production costs.

The government needs to make amends by engaging with the forestry companies and the unions and start regaining some industry competitiveness. This should include immediate reduction on stumpage fees, which have significantly contributed to the shift curtailments.

In the 1990s, the NDP government strangled the forestry industry with red tape, and they made us the highest-cost producers of timber in the world. They added $1.8 billion per year in the forestry sector’s production costs, and now here they are doing it again.

There were nearly 60,000 direct forestry jobs in 2016 under the previous government, and today that number has dropped to 50,000, with more indirect jobs being affected as well. It’s absolutely unacceptable that the NDP is making such tough times by creating such uncertainty, such red tape. It’s disrespectful to every one of those families who are being affected.

We came up with a five-point plan last June for recovery of the forestry sector for those dependent communities, and to date, that plan has been completely ignored. The forestry sector is critical to our provincial economy, and immediate action is needed to save the industry, to help those families, to help those workers across the province who are hurting right now. There are increasing health issues, mental health issues, arising from the lack of work and support from this government, and it will take years for them to recover.

Throwing some money at the industry is a band-aid approach, like my former member said. They need some long-term solutions. They need the ability to secure a long-term fibre supply on the harvestable land base. That’s needed.

J. Sims: It is my pleasure today to rise and speak on this motion. It’s been interesting sitting here listening to the debate from both sides of the House.

I do want to say that when we did first come to B.C., the place we moved to was Nanaimo. I can tell you that in those days, Nanaimo was definitely a forestry-focused town. Most of the jobs that existed there came from around the mills.

I can also tell you that when I was on the B.C. Teachers Federation executive, I had the pleasure to travel around the province, and I saw the impact of our vibrant forestry sector. But I can also tell you that as time went by and I visited many of those places, what used to be vibrant villages, towns, centres, were no longer that vibrant.

I visited communities in North Island, visited communities in the Interior and recently had the pleasure to visit Mackenzie and some of the places in the Interior that are really, really suffering as a result of what has happened in the forestry sector. Listening to our colleagues across the way, you would think that it all started yesterday or the day the NDP got elected. We know that’s not how it works.

[11:40 a.m.]

Before I actually go into that, I also want to share with you some of the stories my constituents tell me about what the forestry sector added to their lives. As we all know, many of the people who came from the Indian subcontinent ended up working in the mills in the early days. I have a very dear friend who tells me how their accommodation was so bad that they had to keep the fire going all the time. It was an open fire in their shed that they called home. Often they would light fires outside in the snow, as well, just to get that extra heat from the outside.

We know that those from the South Asian community have played a critical role in our forest industry. I would invite members who are not aware of those contributions to visit the museum. There are wonderful exhibits there telling the stories of the hard work done by those communities.

I can tell you that many who retired from the forestry sector — retired on good pensions and had decent-paying jobs — were able to send their children to school. Those children are now our doctors and engineers and nurses and electricians and plumbers, and all of that was due to the jobs they had in the forestry sector. I think that for them…. They hold the forestry sector close to their hearts because of that.

We know now, today, that that is not so for many people. Yes, the families that came out last week are feeling the pain of what has been happening to the forestry sector over the last couple of decades. We also know that under the previous government, over 30,000 forestry jobs were lost. There was the permanent closure of dozens of mills. That’s their record. That’s why it was so amazing to me that here in the House today…. Listening to the debate, you would think they have been the biggest champions of the forest sector that parliament has ever seen. We know from their track record that that is not so.

Over a number of years, I’ve spoken both here and in a different House about our natural resources and how we need to use our natural resources to grow good-paying jobs right here in British Columbia for our children. When we ship our natural resources overseas, what we are shipping overseas is our children’s future as well. Those decent-paying jobs, the value-added jobs, disappear with that as well.

That is one of the things that happened under the previous government. There was a huge escalation, almost like a hockey stick, of raw logs being shipped overseas. That’s not just…. Just imagine.

P. Milobar: There’s just so much to unpack on this topic. It’s going to be tough to fit it all in, in five minutes, but I’ll give it my best shot.

It was interesting hearing the member for Surrey-Panorama talk about forestry as if it was a concept that only exists in the interior of British Columbia. There’s a great…. Much volume of our overall forest industry is actually in Surrey. I’m not sure if the member for Surrey-Panorama knows that or not. Certainly, when the fake $69 million bailout program for the forest industry happened, it only was for the Interior. It seemed to forget Teal-Jones. It seemed to forget forestry workers in Maple Ridge that were impacted by the forestry crisis that’s been created in British Columbia.

It’s good that we can rise in this House to make sure the members from Maple Ridge and Surrey understand that forestry is actually a big employer in their communities as well. We’ll keep standing up and defending those workers’ rights, because their MLAs don’t seem to recognize that.

The $69 million program I referenced was nothing more than a shell game. In rural communities, the rural dividend fund has been a mainstay over the last several years for communities to be able to diversify their economy, to be able to grow and expand away from being solely forestry- or mining-based communities.

[11:45 a.m.]

Unfortunately, the answer this government had for the forest sector melting down was to suspend that program, to suspend that program and then to be told: “Oh no. That’s okay. We’re going to roll the applications over to next year.”

I think most people, with a statement like that from the Forests Minister, would assume that that means the program was coming back this year. Otherwise, why would you roll forward the applications that had already been submitted? And $35 million worth for a $25 million fund, I would point out. But in this year’s budget, the rural dividend fund doesn’t exist, yet again. So the very fund that rural B.C. relies on to try to diversify their economy doesn’t exist.

The previous speakers talked about raw log exports. The rules around raw log exports are very clear. You have to find a local purchaser first, and you have to prove that there is no local purchaser for that log before it’s allowed to move anywhere outside of the province. Those rules have been in place for quite some time.

In the Interior, less than 2 percent of the cut, by the government’s own numbers, is actually logs for export. So that is nothing but a red herring of an argument, when you talk about Interior forestry, when they talk about raw log exports. But again, you’d have to understand forestry and understand that forestry actually is impactful in your community to know those types of figures.

Now, here’s a quote from the B.C. Forestry Alliance: “Throwing a few million dollars at an industry is a band-aid approach. We need long-term solutions for a struggling industry.” That’s because in this budget, there was no support for forestry.

I would point out…. The government can point back at 16 years all they like, but this is not happening in Saskatchewan. It’s not happening in Alberta. It’s not happening in Washington. It’s not happening in any of our neighbouring jurisdictions. Only in B.C. and only with these policies.

I’m going to read out a post from Facebook from the mayor of Clearwater. I’ve only substituted out individuals’ names with our riding names, to not cross.

“I am absolutely shocked by the Forests Minister’s response to the MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson’s question in Tuesday’s question period in the Legislature.

“The Canfor-Interfor tenure transfer was presented to the minister’s office on November 7, 2019, over three months ago. If the minister’s staff have not put it on his desk by now, then that is a failure of his and our Premier’s leadership. I have called or emailed the minister three times since last Friday. No response. I have communicated with the parliamentary secretary from Delta North many, many times. He says he’ll get me answers, but he does not.

“If I call Chief Loring of the Simpcw Nation, I get a response. We have a good chat. I get answers. We have had many conversations in the past few weeks.

“I talk to Interfor. I get answers. Canfor calls me to give me answers.

“Our MLA for Kamloops–North Thompson talks to me all the time. We’ve talked several times since these comments were made by the Forests Minister.

“I think it’s safe to say we are all frustrated and disappointed by the minister’s attitude. The people of the North Thompson are not pawns in his political game of chess.

“This is so disrespectful to all those who have struggled since Canfor closed.

“This is so disrespectful to all the loggers, contractors and their employees and all of the outside forestry workers who have been significantly affected for over a year now.

“This is so disrespectful to all the Canfor employees that have been put through the ringer by EI, CRA and any other organization that has seen fit to rob them or send them into a depression.

“This is so disrespectful to all those retail businesses that have had to cut jobs, to let their employees who are also their friends go.

“This is so disrespectful to our Simpcw First Nation neighbours, who have worked so hard with Canfor and Interfor to put some silver lining on a very crappy situation by making a deal none of them love but all of them can live with.

“This is so disrespectful to all of those who are trying to move forward.”

He ends it with:

“We’re done being patient and nice. Do your job.”

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to the motion moved by the member for Nechako Lakes around the importance of the forest industry and our working forests.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We all know, and I think we all agree, in the House, that forestry is an integral sector of British Columbia’s economy. We know that there are a lot of people who depend on B.C.’s forest industry who are hurting.

Our thriving forest sector has provided good stable jobs for many families going back generations. We know that over the last number of years, in the context of the challenge of the impact of climate change — specifically, the mountain pine beetle infestation and record wildfires…. Compounding that, our softwood lumber dispute has reduced timber supply and triggered a wave of mills to close their doors and also scale back shifts. These changes didn’t happen overnight, but certainly, we know that that doesn’t lessen the hardship that forestry workers and their families are facing now.

[11:50 a.m.]

Our government’s top priority is to ensure that people get the help they need with their lives to support their families, to plan for a good future in our province and to support contractors, businesses and communities that are impacted. That’s why we have designated $69 million to support Interior forestry workers, contractors and communities.

We know that that support is happening, and these are important steps. But we need to look forward in terms of how we ensure, moving forward, that we have a strategy to ensure we have a healthy and sustainable forest industry that meets these challenges of climate change but also brings together industry, First Nations, unions and governments to find solutions. We know that these problems didn’t happen overnight, and the old government oversaw the loss of 30,000 forestry jobs and permanent closure of dozens of mills. That’s the record.

We know that the strategy for our forestry industry, in the previous government, could be characterized as high volume. We saw record export of raw logs and a disconnect, in terms of the connection, previously, that was held between forestry resources being harvested in communities, processed in communities, providing jobs for local people who live in those communities, adding value in those communities. So that was a characterization that was ended under the previous government and has contributed towards the challenges we’re seeing today.

We know that the previous government knew of some of these impending challenges. In 2015, there was a report looking at the impact of pine beetle. The previous government was also asleep at the switch. And they’ve failed to try and get a softwood lumber deal with President Obama and left it to us to undertake and sign a deal now with President Trump, which is where we’re at.

Going forward we have significant commitments in our 2020 budget — over half a million dollars — to look at managing wildfires and reforestation in our economy. As well, we have our strategy to go from high volume to high value, to ensure that we look at innovation of a wood-first program to look at how investing in manufactured and high-valued wood products can build our economy here. That’s for the future. We have an interior forest sector renewal plan, a coast forest sector revitalization initiative. We have to balance that, as well, with an old growth strategic review and look at integrating it with a joint caribou recovery plan.

We have to bring these components together and ensure that our strategy for our forest sector is integrated, it’s supported, there’s collaboration, and we’re looking at how we ensure that we move from a high-volume to a high-value strategy, that we ensure there are jobs for British Columbians moving forward, that it’s balanced with these competing challenges that we have here today in British Columbia, ensuring that our forestry industry will be successful and continue to address these challenges.

We want to ensure that we increase the efficiency so that…. With the previous emphasis on high value, there was a lot of waste in terms of wood fibre. We want to ensure that we can utilize and increase efficiency to ensure that all our resources are used adequately.

M. Bernier: I’m noticing we have just a few minutes left, but I appreciate the few moments that I have to actually address this important situation. I’m grateful for the motion that was put forward today.

Let me start quickly by just reading a quote from the B.C. Forest Alliance. Now, people know last week the amount of families, the people that showed up on the front lawns of the Legislature with an 8,000-person petition to stress to this government that their voice needs to be heard.

[11:55 a.m.]

The B.C. Forest Alliance also is quoted as saying: “Securing a long-term fibre supply on the harvestable land base is what we need. This will create opportunities for new investment. It will also give workers the opportunity to become more skilled and therefore more competitive in the global market.”

Unfortunately, the government is basically doing everything other than that. They’re hurting these companies, and we’ve heard the impact that it’s had on the families themselves. Now, almost every single person in the NDP stood up today and actually said: “Well, you know, don’t worry. We know they’re hurting. We’re listening.” The problem is they’re listening, but they’re not hearing the issues. They’re not doing anything to actually resolve the problem.

It’s absolutely a slap in the face and a disregard, actually, for one of the most important industries in our province, an industry that actually is part of the founding of British Columbia, what built this province. It’s an honourable job. It’s an honourable profession and an industry that we should all be supporting. But when we’re seeing some of the stresses and the impacts that government policy has had on this industry, it’s important that they, the government, recognize that. So don’t just stand up and say: “We know people are hurting.” They have the power and the opportunities to do something about this and actually help people.

All the people and the families and the companies are wanting right now is government to acknowledge that they can do better. Now, I look in my riding. I have two mills operating right now. They’re struggling, but they’re working. We have hundreds of people in my riding right now that are employed in the forestry sector, and the number one thing that comes into my office right now is people who are fearful — those that are still working — fearful for their jobs, fearful for what this will mean for their families if a mill shuts down.

Now, we know that members on the other side are on record saying there are too many mills in B.C. Well, when they have that attitude towards such an important industry, that’s why people are worried. That’s why families are wondering: “Is this an honourable profession still? Is this a profession I should be encouraging my children to be involved in? Or should I be encouraging them to move to a different province to try to actually find employment when they know that the government of the day is not supporting them?”

Government needs to do better. They have the tools. They have the opportunity to help these families that they themselves have acknowledged right now, under their watch, are hurting. All we’re asking for on behalf of all of those families and those companies is that they do their job and that they help them get through, keep their employment, and continue to do something that they’re very, very proud of.

With that, noting the time, I move adjournment of the debate.

M. Bernier moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Fraser moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.