Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 17

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Supply Act (No. 2), 2017

Hon. C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Response to wildfires in Fraser-Nicola area

J. Tegart

Response to wildfires by south Vancouver Island

firefighters

M. Dean

Relocation of Reach child and youth development centre

I. Paton

Youth wellness centre in Maple Ridge

B. D’Eith

Andrée Janyk

J. Sturdy

Burnaby Food First and food security

J. Routledge

Oral Questions

Payment of legal fees in defamation lawsuit

M. Polak

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Citizens’ Services Minister and attendees at fundraising

events

J. Johal

Hon. J. Sims

Inquiry into Port Mann Bridge project

A. Olsen

Hon. C. Trevena

Citizens’ Services Minister and attendees at campaign office

event

M. Hunt

Hon. J. Sims

Massey Tunnel replacement project

S. Cadieux

Hon. C. Trevena

Motions Without Notice

Membership and powers of Finance and Government Services

Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Johal

D. Routley

S. Furstenau

Hon. D. Donaldson

T. Shypitka

J. Rice

G. Kyllo

B. D’Eith

D. Barnett

Hon. M. Mark

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2017

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of guests that I’d like to introduce to the House

here today.

With us today is Bert Phipps. Bert was the acting director of the

independent investigations office during a difficult period. He did an

excellent job of ensuring that the office fulfilled its duty of independent

investigations of serious incidents involving police and to make sure that

it was in top shape for another guest of ours, who is here in the House

today — Ron MacDonald, who is the new director of the independent

investigations office.

Ron joins us from beautiful Nova Scotia. He has now come to the best

coast. I note that he had a wonderful record with the Serious Incident

Response Team in Nova Scotia. We’re very lucky to have him here, not just in

the House today but to join us as the head of the independent investigations

office. He has a lot of work ahead of him, and we certainly wish him

luck.

With him is Salman Azam. Mr. Azam has been chief administrative

officer of the IIO since 2015. He spent time with TransLink before joining

the IIO.

I wish the new team a lot of luck in their work and thank the previous

acting director for all of his work in ensuring the IIO was ready for Mr.

MacDonald to take over his duties. Welcome to Vancouver, and good luck in

your work.

L. Reid: Every once in a while, we’re blessed to have a wonderful soul in our

lives. This person is a poet, an author, an amazingly analytical mind. I’m

so very glad she has graced us with her presence today. Please welcome

Antoinette De Wit.

M. Dean: I would like to introduce to everybody today Pauline Majcher, who is

in the gallery, and John Bergbusch. Pauline is a local businesswoman, a

professional and an amazing philanthropist as well. John is actually the

former mayor of Colwood. Among many other leadership roles, they’ve both

really shaped and influenced our community. I trust that all members will

welcome them here this afternoon.

Hon. S. Robinson: Joining us today in the gallery is a teacher…. I believe she’s a

teacher in the Burnaby school district, but she’s better known in my

community as a member of the school trustees for SD 43. I’d like the House

to welcome Lisa Park and her friends. Annyeonghaseyo . It’s lovely

to have her here joining us. Please give her a warm welcome.

A. Kang: I would like to welcome, once again, my sister in politics, Lisa Park,

trustee from school district 43, from Coquitlam, as well as four of my

friends who are here from Korea. They are here visiting beautiful British

Columbia, as well as the Legislature here, for the first time. We have Wooyu

Cha, dean of the Centre for In-service Education; Juhyeon Yun, assistant

director; Gyuman Shin, president of Modu Tour; and Byunghak Kim, as well,

president of Seo Buk Mi Tour. So annyeonghaseyo , welcome here. I

want to have everyone make them feel welcome here today.

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s a real pleasure and thrill for me to introduce two friends today

in the gallery. The first one is known to many as the mayor of Port McNeill.

She is known to me as my sister-in-law, Shirley Ackland. Also joining her

today is her beloved mom from Burnaby–Deer Lake, Hilda Ackland. She’s here.

Both of them are here to observe the wedding of Shirley’s daughter Quinn to

her bestie, Dave. That will be happening later today.

Would the House please make Hilda’s first visit here a special one.

Also, props to the mayor to Port McNeill for all the work that she

does.

[1:40 p.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to welcome Joe and Marie Roberts to the chamber today. I was

happy to join Joe, along with the Minister of Citizens Services and the

members for Esquimalt-Metchosin and Saanich North and the Islands, out on

the steps of the Legislature today to greet Joe on day 502 of 517 in his

campaign to end youth homelessness by pushing a shopping cart, the symbol of

chronic homelessness, across Canada. Would the House please welcome Joe and

Marie.

Hon. C. James: We all know in this place that it’s the team around us that helps us

do our jobs. I’ve been very fortunate, as a new minister, to have an

extraordinary individual in my office who has helped support me and who is,

sadly — good for her but sadly for us — moving on from the

Legislature.

She’s worked in the Legislature for over 20 years, so she has helped a

number of ministers and a number of MLAs over the time period. She’s known

for her support, for her warmth and for her generosity. She is the person

that everybody calls if they need to know something in this place — what’s

going on and who they should talk to. She provides that support. I’ve

learned, in my time period, that she’s also an incredible mom with amazing

kids. She talks and brings the best stories about her kids’ soccer teams and

their first jobs.

She is moving to the seniors advocate’s office, which is a wonderful

position for her. I would like this House please to welcome and to say a

huge thank-you to Yvette Marquis for all of her work.

Hon. L. Popham: When I was first sworn in as the Minister of Agriculture, I went to

see where my office would be. I walked in and the first thing I noticed was

that there was nobody in my office at all. There were a lot of desks and a

lot of spots where people might be, but nobody was there. I came in and out

quite a few times, hoping, every time I opened the door, that some people

would be there. And it wasn’t happening.

One day I walked in, and this wonderful woman by the name of Lisa

said: “Hi, I’m Lisa, and I’m here to help.” I don’t know if I’ve ever looked

at anyone with more love in my eyes than at that point. Lisa Johnson is

here. She is my administrative coordinator.

I appreciate everything you have done since I’ve been sworn

in.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 2),

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 2017.

Hon. C. James: This bill will allow for the continuation of government programs

and services by extending interim supply for government operating

expenses for an additional three months beyond that provided by Supply

Act (No. 1), 2017. This extension, as members who’ve been in this place

know, will allow time for government to complete the estimates debate in

relation to the Budget 2017 Update, tabled on September 11.

Bill 7 also extends interim supply for government’s financing

requirements to 75 percent of the year’s voted capital expenditures and

loans, investments and other requirements beyond the two-thirds

allocation provided by Supply Act (No. 1), 2017.

I move first reading of Bill 7, Supply Act (No. 2),

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 7 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Supply Act (No. 2), 2017, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

RESPONSE TO WILDFIRES

IN FRASER-NICOLA

AREA

J. Tegart: We’ve heard in this House a great deal about the unprecedented

fire season. We all acknowledge the incredible work done by our first

responders, volunteers, local First Nations and local government

representatives. I want to give you a day 1 picture of the fire season

in Fraser-Nicola.

[1:45 p.m.]

The Elephant Hill fire started in Ashcroft on July 7. What started

as a small grass fire turned into an inferno that burned everything in

its path. The wind whipped up a fire that was moving so fast you could

not get in front of it. Many people on the Ashcroft Indian reserve had

less than 15 minutes to leave their homes safely. The fire whipped

through the reserve, taking 13 homes in a matter of minutes.

It then moved over the mountain and down the highway towards the

villages of Ashcroft and Cache Creek. It took out a new dairy barn worth

$20 million. They lost four dairy cows originally, but when they shipped

out the herd to have them looked at by a vet, they found that 30 more

needed to be euthanized due to hoof damage, their feet were so badly

burned. The owner told me: “I can replace a barn, but it’s taken me

years to build the genetics of my herd.”

On it went to consume the Boston Flats trailer park, a beautiful,

rural, 55-plus mobile home park located along the Bonaparte River.

Again, panic, confusion, a need to get out quickly. Boston Flats lost 45

residences — flattened shells of homes, car frames. Devastating, but

strong people who are asking all of us not to forget them.

I’ve shared with you the first five hours of the Elephant Hill

fire, which has been burning now for 70 days, 1,680 hours, and no end in

sight.

RESPONSE TO WILDFIRES BY SOUTH

VANCOUVER ISLAND

FIREFIGHTERS

M. Dean: When firefighters on Vancouver Island saw tragedy unfolding with

wildfires in the Interior, they were quick to act. Over the last two

months, members from many of our fire departments have been deployed to

the Interior. Members from Esquimalt, Colwood, View Royal and Metchosin

have played vital roles in the effort. A crew was sent to Williams Lake

in one of their spare pumper trucks. The chief was deployed ahead of the

team to the fire commissioner’s office in Kamloops before being sent to

Williams Lake to help coordinate the massive influx of resources to the

area.

Our members, with decades of experience, told me they had seen

nothing like it. A navy lieutenant from CFB Esquimalt headed to Kamloops

to be part of the military response to the Interior wildfires. A number

of aircraft, including two Chinook helicopters, were deployed from

Vancouver Island.

Local firefighters were instrumental in saving several lumber

mills in the Williams Lake area. These mills were stocked with millions

of dollars’ worth of logs, and the loss of those mills would have

impacted hundreds of jobs. To help relieve exhausted firefighters in 150

Mile House, Esquimalt-Metchosin members spent a week working the

graveyard shift. They patrolled the dark and smoky terrain, putting out

spot fires. In one night, they went through 10,000 gallons of

water.

Would all members join with me in thanking these heroic men and

women. We’re so very grateful for the bravery and dedication of these

men and women from all over the province, and people in my community are

understandably proud of their local members for stepping up to help out

when they were needed most.

RELOCATION OF REACH CHILD

AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

CENTRE

I. Paton: Moving is never fun. But for a wonderful organization in my

community, they are eagerly rolling up their sleeves and packing up

boxes. That’s because the new Reach Child and Youth Development centre

in Ladner is nearing completion, with the society expecting to move in

by the end of October. This welcome move is from a rather tired 1960s

site in a rural part of Delta South to a brand-new, three-storey

facility located in Memorial Park, in the heart of Ladner.

Since 1959, Delta families have benefited from the many services

Reach offers to kids with special needs. They have access to early

childhood educators, speech-language pathologists, behavioural

consultants, occupational therapists and infant development consultants.

Right now more than 1,000 children and their families use those

services, but upon the opening of the new centre, this will create

enough capacity to, over time, double the number of children being

served in our community.

Getting here was a real community effort. This project was a

partnership between Reach, the corporation of Delta, the

Ladner-Tsawwassen Kinsmen Club, and we saw so much generosity from local

residents who helped raise funds for this great cause. We also saw

businesses — such as Delta Aggregates, Mainland Sand and Gravel, West

Coast Seeds, our local McDonald’s and, of course, our Delta Agricultural

Society — step up to the plate.

[1:50 p.m.]

I want to recognize today Reach executive director Renie D’Aquila,

acting chair Denis Horgan and their entire team for a job well done in

turning their vision into reality. I can proudly say that the new Reach

facility will be aptly named the Lois E. Jackson Development Centre,

after our long-serving mayor of Delta.

Because of them, even more children with autism and special needs,

in Delta South and beyond, will be able to learn new skills, build their

confidence and reach their optimum development.

YOUTH WELLNESS CENTRE

IN MAPLE

RIDGE

B. D’Eith: I’m very pleased to tell you about a great initiative in my

community of Maple Ridge. This project has been championed by the Maple

Ridge–Pitt Meadows Community Services, run by the amazing Vicky Kipps

and her staff.

The youth wellness centre is a one-stop location for children and

youth between the ages of eight and 24. They receive responsive care and

support, including psychiatric assessments, medical care, community

resource information and support services, all within one convenient

youth centre location at the Greg Moore Youth Centre, provided by the

city of Maple Ridge.

This integrated and exciting new model of service is the

inspiration of a group of youth, parents, specialists, service providers

and family members responding to a gap in the youth mental health

services in our community. This group of like-minded people believed in

addressing a growing need in the community with a vision of creating a

better, more efficient and cost-effective way to help children and youth

living with mental illness and substance issues. Since starting in May

of last year, the youth wellness centre’s Dr. Matthew Chow has conducted

150 psychiatric assessments and 180 follow-up visits of our local

youth.

The team-based model of care at the youth wellness centre is 400

percent more efficient than the traditional psychiatric settings. This

means that more kids receive service in a timely way. Less than 5

percent of the youth are redirected to hospitals, meaning they are more

proactively reaching children and youth before they reach a state of

crisis.

The youth wellness centre is an amazing, inspiring, integrated

model for youth mental health, and I hope that we will consider it for

duplication around the province.

ANDRÉE JANYK

J. Sturdy: I am honoured to rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional woman

who was a unique example of passion and purpose and who had an

extraordinary commitment to her family and her community of

Whistler.

Andrée Janyk — parent, coach and councillor — passed away this

summer, surrounded by her family, after a difficult battle with cancer.

Andrée had a degree in kinesiology from Simon Fraser and a master’s from

the University of Brussels. Her lifelong love of sport and her

commitment to engaging others in healthy lifestyles continues, even now,

to make a real difference in her community.

Andrée was a school trustee for 12 years and most recently was

serving her second term on Whistler municipal council. She founded a

neighbourhood organic food co-op. She led the first fitness leadership

certificate program at Cap University. She was a founding president and

never stopped participating in the incredibly successful Whistler youth

soccer program. She was committed to the Whistler Secondary drama club.

She taught skiing for decades. All the while, with her husband, Bill,

she raised three amazing children, two of whom competed in the Winter

Olympics.

She was recognized as Whistler Volunteer of the Year, B.C. Alpine

Volunteer of the Year, Whistler Cup Volunteer of the Year, B.C.

Community Sport Hero and was recognized, in 2010, as Whistler Citizen of

the Year. Andrée was a mentor and an inspiration. She was a dynamo.

Everywhere Andrée went, she had a smile and an idea, and she was never

shy about sharing.

Andrée’s impact on her community was evident at her celebration of

life, where over 1,000 people were in attendance. Andrée Janyk will be

deeply missed by everyone she touched with her boundless energy and her

passion. As was posted on the Whistler Youth Soccer Club Facebook page:

“May her whistle be heard forever and respected as a beacon of fairness.

She was a mentor to so many and an inspiration to all.”

BURNABY FOOD FIRST

AND FOOD

SECURITY

J. Routledge: I’ve recently learned how to bake bread and can pears. Well,

that’s mildly interesting, you might be thinking. But with the help of a

local organization, I’ve come to believe that growing and preserving

food is more than a hobby; it’s an essential life skill.

[1:55 p.m.]

Thanks to Burnaby Food First, people in my community are

participating in local food security, and I’m one of them. The goals of

Burnaby Food First are to ensure that everyone has enough fresh, healthy

food; that everyone has knowledge and skills to prepare healthy food;

that locally grown processed and stored food is widely available; and

that food is grown in ways that respect our environment. Burnaby Food

First offers a wide range of free workshops all over our city — for

example, apartment food gardening, how to preserve your harvest, income

and food connection, and healthy after-school snacks for

kids.

Each time I attend a workshop, I’m struck by how much the room

represents a cross-section of our city. Groups share practical skills

across cultures, across generations, across genders and across income

levels.

Burnaby Food First also sponsors something they call sharing

backyards. They match apartment dwellers who want to garden with

neighbours who have extra space. My family was happy to offer part of

our yard to a senior who no longer has a yard.

To summarize, Burnaby Food First plays an important role in our

community, bringing our community together and breaking down isolation.

In this age, when extreme weather is threatening food sources around the

world, we are fortunate to have an organization like Burnaby Food First

whose mandate it is to make healthy, local food available to

everyone.

Oral Questions

PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES

IN DEFAMATION

LAWSUIT

M. Polak: On Monday, the minister for job loss said that taxpayers wouldn’t

be on the hook for his legal bills at this time. Yet this morning, the

Province newspaper reports that the minister “confirmed to

me on Wednesday that they have filed ‘indemnity applications’ for

taxpayers to pay for two high-priced lawyers.”

Can the minister confirm that on Monday, when he gave his answer,

he already knew that he planned to use taxpayers’ dollars to cover the

costs for the mess that he created?

Hon. D. Eby: I’d like to thank the member for the question. As the member

knows, and as all the members know in this House — or maybe not; there

are a lot of new members — there is a policy that is available to

members around indemnification related to legal costs. Any member in

this place can make an application to non-partisan public servants to

make a determination about whether or not they should be indemnified.

It’s a program that’s available to all members.

As the member also knows, it’s not a political decision, and it’s

not something that can be talked about in the House. I can’t reveal

details to the member about any particular application, and I’m sure the

member is well aware of that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Langley on a supplemental.

M. Polak: I thank the Attorney for his rendition of a policy that I think

all of us are fairly familiar with. But it’s not the point of the

question. The point of the question is: what did the minister tell us on

Monday versus what actually occurred? There’s an interesting timeline

occurring here.

First, he can’t just fire the guy, right? He’s got to go after

him, got to attack him in what the Province newspaper calls “a

nasty drive-by sliming.” Those are colourful words for a colourful

attack. Then on Monday, he stands in this House and says, “At this time,

no,” in answer to a question as to whether or not the public was going

to be covering his legal costs. Then we find out that his statement of

defence was filed on September 7.

I’m certain the minister did not intend to mislead the House. But

how does he reconcile his “not at this time” answer on Monday, September

10, with the fact that two different legal firms had already been

hired?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you again to the member for the question. As she knows,

there is a policy available to all members in this House to make

application….

[2:00 p.m.]

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: A number of these members, hon. Speaker, who are making those

noises I am certain have made application to this process. I am

certain.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: And I am just as certain that there are members that will be

making application in the future to this. And they will appreciate at

that time, as I’m sure all members do, that this is a confidential

process and that it is administered by impartial public

servants.

The policy is one that was established when the B.C. Liberals were

in government. In fact, I would guess that many of the public servants

making that determination are the exact same people who would have been

making the determinations when the Liberals were the

government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Langley on a second supplemental.

M. Polak: With such a well-proven policy, I’m curious to know why the

minister didn’t want anybody else to know that he had applied. Worse

than that, on Monday, he told this House that at this time, the public

was not on the hook for those bills, yet he was willing to confirm that

he had made that application to the media.

Why is it that the minister doesn’t want anybody else to know in

this House that he has made that application and fully expects to be

covered, when, in fact, on Monday, he told this House that it didn’t

happen at this time?

Hon. D. Eby: I think it’s got to be obvious to everyone in this House that the

answer is self-evident in the question that the minister is answering….

But in any event, any member in this place can make application for

indemnification.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, continue.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

There is a policy in place. It is administered by non-partisan

public servants. Any indemnification of any member in this House is

determined by them. It is confidential. It is administered by public

servants. It is administered according to a policy that was put in place

when the B.C. Liberals were in government.

I’m not sure what their complaint is about the confidentiality,

about it being determined by public servants. I don’t understand what

the concern is. They set it up. That’s what’s happening. And I thank the

member very much for the question.

M. Lee: I’d like to thank the Attorney General for taking us through the

policy. As we well know, under

section 29 of the regulation, it covers

the details of the indemnity application. The Minister of Jobs,

otherwise known as the minister for job loss, and the Premier shared

with the Province newspaper the details of the indemnity

application. In doing so, they’ve taken advantage of that

section 29

provision.

I think it’s remarkable that we stand in this House, the people’s

House, hearing about the kinds of questions that we’re appropriately

asking, the questions that my colleague is asking in this House. And I

believe that for 12 years, the minister advocated for transparency and

the proper expenditure of public funds. That’s all we’re looking for

here.

Coverage of legal indemnity in civil matters is only provided if

conduct is undertaken in good faith — good faith. That’s part of the

minister’s job. I’m just trying to reconcile that basic requirement with

the minister’s irresponsible and ill-considered comments against a

public servant. It just doesn’t mesh.

[2:05 p.m.]

Given his background as a member of the bar and as a longtime

member of this House, my question is this. Will the minister release his

full indemnity application so that British Columbia taxpayers can see

exactly what expenses he wants them to be on the hook for?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question, and I welcome him to the

House.

The member is new to the House, so I’ll just remind him, as I’ve

reminded the previous questioner, that the policy that was established

by the party which he ran with when they were in government requires a

couple of things. It requires that any applications made are

confidential. It requires that they be adjudicated by non-partisan

public servants. And it is available to all members of this

House.

I certainly welcome him, if he needs to, to make application for

that. His application will be adjudicated according to the same process

as everyone else in this House. It is not political. It is not

partisan.

M. Lee: I appreciate, for the fourth time, the recitation of the policy.

Thank you very much for that.

I would say, though, that when the minister was asked directly

about these issues in the House on Monday, it would appear that he

deliberately chose not to provide that information to this House. He

later shared that with the media. I wonder sometimes about the dynamics

across this floor. Is it because he’s more comfortable to share this

information with the media than ourselves, in answer to straightforward

questions?

I’d just like to ask this. If the minister’s conduct is reasonably

related to the performance of his duties, is that what British

Columbians can expect going forward? He was sued after making his first

public pronouncement as minister and blames the public service for his

egregious error in judgment. Now we’re seeing a theme here from this

government, and it’s only week 1. Surely the minister sees the error in

this.

His comments were not derived from his role as minister. They were

derived solely from a desire to deliver one last smear to a public

servant.

The simple question I have for the minister is this. Will he

personally guarantee that the taxpayers of British Columbia will not

have to pay any judgments awarded to the former LNG advocate?

Hon. D. Eby: I am certain that this member and all members of this House will

be glad — if they’re not immediately glad, will be glad eventually — to

know that if they are sued, there is a policy in place…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. We’ll hear the response from the minister.

Hon. D. Eby: …by which they can apply to non-partisan public servants to make a

determination about whether their legal costs should be paid. And that

is a non-partisan process. They will surely be grateful for

that.

It is a confidential process. They will surely be grateful for

that. And it is according to a policy that was established by the B.C.

Liberal government, so surely there can be no complaints from the B.C.

Liberal government about that.

CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER AND

ATTENDEES AT

FUNDRAISING EVENTS

J. Johal: Recently the Minister of Citizens’ Services defended her

attendance at the cash-from-convicts event by admitting that Mr. Gill

and Mr. Padda should not have been there.

Some on that side are trying to suggest this was a rookie mistake

by a new minister. Although she’s acting like a rookie, the minister’s

resumé includes serving as president of the B.C. Teachers Federation and

serving as a Member of Parliament.

With all of her experience and an early run-in with Mr. Gill,

you’d think the minister would know better than to stay at the

fundraiser when she learned of who was in attendance, so why, after

learning of their presence at the cash-for-access event, did she not

take any action and rather, instead, snuggle up for a

picture?

Hon. J. Sims: I was at a private event.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Sims: At least listen.

I was at a private event, and I was there as a guest, along with

others.

[2:10 p.m.]

Our focus is going to be to focus on dealing with what British

Columbians care about, which is to deal with affordability and restoring

services that you cut. I will take no lessons from people sitting on

that side of the House who made this province the front-page news in the

New York Times as the wild, wild west of political

fundraising.

And let me tell you. We have members sitting across the floor who

were not at a private event but went to that individual, stood on stage

and had photographs taken and asked for support when they were seeking

leadership or thinking about it. Take that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.

J. Johal: The member keeps referring to this as a private event. Money was

raised. A fundraiser is a fundraiser, as I said two days ago. But

judging by the guest list, it was a fundraiser at the O.K. Corral. The

NDP government claims to show leadership on gun violence. They made a

big deal out of it in the last election. Instead, the minister and

Premier mingle with criminals at their felony fundraisers.

The minister is well aware of the background of her friends. No

one believes the minister when she says she doesn’t know them — and with

good reason, because guess what. There’s another picture taken just a

few months earlier with the minister smiling with one of the gentlemen.

For someone to claim to abhor violence, why did the minister allow

herself to be photographed with this man again?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, please.

Hon. J. Sims: Let me say it again, until it’s heard. It was a private event. I

was there, and there were other guests there.

And let me say that there are members sitting on the front bench

on that side who have photos, which I have copies of, who actually went

to that individual and stood on the stage and smiled and had

photographs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, please. Order.

INQUIRY INTO

PORT MANN BRIDGE

PROJECT

A. Olsen: Last week the CBC published serious allegations that at least $150

million of taxpayer money may have been misspent during the construction

of the Port Mann Bridge. The allegations are deeply troubling, and

British Columbians deserve answers on whether their money was misspent

in this project.

In response to the allegations, my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon

Head and I have called for an independent inquiry to determine exactly

what happened during construction. We have to be deeply respectful of

the provincial taxpayer and always make sure that we’re spending their

money responsibly and that they are the beneficiary of their hard work.

These allegations must be properly investigated.

My question to the Minister of Transportation is: will the

minister commit to an independent inquiry to get to the bottom of what’s

happened at the Port Mann Bridge?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. Trevena: I thank the member for Saanich North and the Islands for his

question — first question in question period, I believe.

I just wanted to agree with him. These are very serious

allegations, allegations of the conduct that came under the previous

government’s watch. We are extremely concerned about this, as I think

all British Columbians are — that we have this uncovered. I have asked

ministry staff to do a full review. When they get back to me with their

findings, we will determine our next steps.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: I would like to, obviously, see that there would be an inquiry.

I’m hoping that that is what is returned from the staff. Some of the

allegations in the CBC report raised questions about whether there was

undue political influence involved in certain decisions concerning this

project.

The allegations also raised broader questions about transparency,

accountability and government oversight of major capital infrastructure

projects across B.C. It’s essential that our major capital projects are

providing the best value for money for British Columbians and that

taxpayer interests are adequately protected. We must ensure

accountability and transparency.

My question to the Minister of Transportation is: should it come

back that we have an inquiry, will the terms of reference for this

include specifically looking into whether there was undue political

influence involved in accelerating the construction project as well as

whether government policy on oversight of major projects is adequately

representing and protecting taxpayers’ interests?

Hon. C. Trevena: I obviously don’t want to prejudge the outcome of both the review

nor the investigation. We will follow that review. We are very serious

about getting to the bottom of this. It is work that happened under the

watch of the B.C. Liberals, so we want to make sure that when public

money is spent, it is spent in a very transparent manner and that people

are accountable for it. I await the response from the review, and we’ll

be taking next steps after we get that from my ministry

staff.

CITIZENS’ SERVICES MINISTER AND

ATTENDEES AT CAMPAIGN

OFFICE EVENT

M. Hunt: The Minister of Citizens’ Services has a very strange way of

showing her disdain. She says that she met at a private event with

people who were either convicted or charged with gun-related offences in

Surrey. If people need more evidence….

Interjections.

M. Hunt: I will withdraw the Surrey piece, because I’m not sure where the

event was. Okay?

Now, if people need more evidence, they can go onto YouTube, and

they can see a video of the minister at the opening of her campaign

office during this past election. One of the same people that she says

she abhors was there, standing behind her, while she spoke at her

campaign office opening.

I’m obliged to ask the question: How many convicted criminals or

those facing charges does the minister have among her inner

circle?

Hon. J. Sims: At my opening of my campaign office, I had over 400 people present

in total. I’m not aware of every person who was there. And there was no

stage.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale on a supplemental.

M. Hunt: Well, she’s absolutely correct. There was no stage, but there is a

pattern here. It’s a pattern of cover-up. It’s a pattern of denial. We

saw it yesterday with the Minister of Transportation with her answers

with regards to the Massey Tunnel replacement project.

[2:20 p.m.]

We saw it earlier with the minister of job loss and his legal

bills. Now we’re seeing it with the Minister of Citizens’ Services

regarding her dubious friends. Here in this first week of the

legislative sitting, we’re seeing example after example of cover-up and

denial from this government.

Knowing full well that the minister knows these men very well, can

she confirm their active involvement in her political life?

Hon. J. Sims: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you and tell members across the way that

I do not condone violence. Those who have known me as a teacher, mother,

grandmother and as an activist…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order.

Hon. J. Sims: …know that not only do I oppose violence but that I have actively

worked for a violence-free society, for violence-free schools. I will

continue to oppose violence in any place, both verbal and physical and

all types of violence. I want to say that each and every one of us in

this room abhors violence.

We were elected and sent here to serve the people of British

Columbia. I want to focus on restoring services that that group of

people cut to members. Let us focus on that.

MASSEY TUNNEL REPLACEMENT PROJECT

S. Cadieux: Yesterday the Minister of Transportation told this House that the

government still plans to replace the Massey Tunnel. Unfortunately, to

believe the minister, one would have to ignore the documents that

contradict her claim.

If the internal NDP document says, “We’ll pay for this instead of

replacing the Massey Tunnel,” the budget documents use the words

“cancelled” and “write-off,” and there’s no money allocated to deal with

the congestion for the 80,000 commuters stuck in the Massey bottleneck

every day, twice a day. Say one thing and do another — that’s the

definition of duplicity.

To the Minister of Transportation, will she stand in this House

today and confirm for the public that the NDP document is, in fact, the

NDP’s plan and that that plan is to do nothing on the Massey

Tunnel?

Hon. C. Trevena: One of the things about it being the first week: it means we can

congratulate all the former government members. This is their first

question in opposition, and I thank the member for her first question in

opposition.

We are very aware that there is a problem of congestion on Highway

99. There is no question. I think everybody has agreed on that. We want

to find the right solution for it. That’s why we’re working with the

mayors. They have a vision for….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if I may caution you. There are viewers not only in the

gallery here but viewers at home. I’m sure they would like to hear the

response.

Hon. C. Trevena: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know there is a problem with congestion. We want to find the

right solution to deal with that. That’s why we’re working with the

mayors.

They have a vision for the Lower Mainland. That’s why we want to

see whether we can work with their vision. We want to find the best

project, because this is going to be an expensive fix. And we want to

make sure that what we have is not something that has come out of a

political pet project but is the right answer for the people living and

working in the Lower Mainland.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.

[2:25 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: For 21 years, I have driven up and down Highway 99 for work and to

events and to doctor’s appointments and to school, and for 21 years,

I’ve watched that traffic get worse and volumes increase, to the point

where now there is absolutely no good time to go through the

tunnel.

Recently heavy machines and sand arrived and the preloading

started, and that was a signal that relief was on the way. That felt

good to me and all those 80,000 commuters. We had a hope that a fix was

coming. But yesterday we heard the minister tell media that the Massey

Tunnel replacement was not going to be cancelled because the

cancellation wasn’t in the platform. It wasn’t in the platform. It was

in the document. It’s not in the budget.

Surely, in light of the evidence now in the public domain — no

thanks to the minister, of course…. Will she confirm to those 80,000

commuters and tourists and others, alike, who use that corridor every

day that there is no hope and that she is committing them to perpetual

gridlock?

Hon. C. Trevena: We are committed to dealing with gridlock. We are also committed

to dealing with livable cities. We are looking at how we can make sure

that people move freely through the Lower Mainland. Highway 99 is part

of that. The Massey replacement will be part of that, but we want to get

it right. We’re not going to rush into it like the previous government

did, like Christy Clark did. We’re going to make sure that what we have

is the right answer.

This is a several-billion-dollar project. Whether it is a bridge,

whether it is twinning the tunnel, whether it is a tunnel and bridge

combination…. We don’t know. We need to see that. We need that work

done, and the work wasn’t done.

We also have a vision from the mayors of Metro Vancouver for what

they would like to see for their region. We want to work with them to

make sure that we get the right project for everyone in the Lower

Mainland and for the people of B.C. who rely on that important trade

corridor.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP AND POWERS OF FINANCE

AND GOVERNMENT

SERVICES COMMITTEE

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have a motion, which I have circulated to my colleague the

Opposition House Leader and to the House Leader of the Green

Party.

By leave, I move:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government

Services be empowered:

1. To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to

the budget consultation paper prepared by the Minister of Finance in

accordance with

section 2 of the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act (S.B.C. 2000, c. 23), and, in particular,

to:

(

a) Conduct public consultations across British Columbia on

proposals and recommendations regarding the provincial budget and fiscal

policy for the coming fiscal year by any means the committee considers

appropriate;

(

b) Prepare a report no later than November 15, 2017, on the

results of those consultations; and

2. (

a) To consider and make recommendations on the annual reports,

rolling three-year service plans and budgets of the following statutory

officers:

(

i) Auditor General

(ii) Chief Electoral Officer

(iii) Conflict of Interest Commissioner

(iv) Information and Privacy Commissioner

(

v) Merit Commissioner

(vi) Ombudsperson

(vii) Police Complaint Commissioner

(viii) Representative for Children and Youth;

and

(

b) To examine, inquire into and make recommendations with

respect to other matters brought to the committee’s attention by any of

the Officers listed in 2 (

a) above.

3. To be the committee referred to in sections 19, 20, 21 and 23 of

the Auditor General Act (S.B.C. 2003, c. 2) and that the

performance report in

section 22 of the Auditor General Act

(S.B.C. 2003, c. 2) be referred to the committee.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select

Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the committee

shall be empowered:

(

a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and

to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the

committee and to delegate to the subcommittee all or any of its powers

except the power to report directly to the House;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned,

during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and

during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and

(

d) to retain personnel as required to assist the

committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any

adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to

deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative

Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the

sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the

Legislative Assembly.

The said Committee is to be composed of Bob D’Eith

(Convener), Jagrup Brar, Mitzi Dean, Ronna-Rae Leonard, Dan Ashton,

Stephanie Cadieux, Peter Milobar, Tracy Redies and Adam

Olsen .]

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, proceed.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I am grateful for my colleague across the way to speed things up,

but there are a couple of issues that we really should get to. One is

that the said committee is to be composed of Bob D’Eith, convener;

Jagrup Brar; Mitzi Dean; Ronna-Rae Leonard; Dan Ashton; Stephanie

Cadieux; Peter Milobar; Tracy Redies; and Adam Olsen.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued insightful and scintillating debate on the

budget.

[2:30 p.m.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Johal: Prior to lunch, I was talking a little bit about uncertainty in

regards to this budget. I’m going to focus on that topic at the moment, so

let’s talk a little bit more about that.

As we speak, workers at the Site C dam are worried when the pink slips

might be coming. That’s 2,600 workers whose jobs are at risk and 10,000

potential construction jobs also on the line. The same goes for Kinder

Morgan — thousands of jobs on the line there, too, as the government takes

legal action to stop the Trans Mountain pipeline project.

But perhaps the most galling is the project closest to my own backyard

that now has been cancelled by this government. People have been waiting for

years for a solution to the aging George Massey Tunnel, which is a seismic

safety risk and the biggest bottleneck in the province. There have already

been five years of planning and consultations on the project, not to mention

three rounds of public engagement. But the NDP didn’t think that was good

enough and ordered some more study and consultation on a future replacement.

Or so they said.

An internal party document has now been released showing the NDP

always planned to kill the project. The document is clear. It says: “We will

build the Vancouver and Surrey rapid transit projects, rapid buses across

the North Shore, from Port Coquitlam to Maple Ridge and through Vancouver

along Hastings Street and 41st and 49th Avenues. That is, we’ll implement

the Mayors Council vision. We’ll pay for this instead of replacing the

Massey Tunnel.”

I see this as a stunning lack of care and regard for the safety of

commuters when they know the seismic danger posed there. In fact, an

earthquake of a magnitude of seven or higher would likely make the crossing

unusable, cutting off this lifeline during any emergency and for months or

years after.

This document shows the NDP have no plans to fix what everybody knows

is the worst bottleneck in British Columbia. They think it’s perfectly

acceptable to have 80,000 commuters stranded in gridlock traffic twice a

day. And what’s more, we now have proof the NDP has been deliberately

misleading people in my riding, throughout the province. The cancellation of

this project means that the NDP are effectively saying no to 9,000

construction jobs and 4,500 to 5,000 additional permanent jobs to be created

by 2045 through increased economic growth. And it adds to the uncertainty

about which project the NDP will axe next and how many jobs will be cut

next.

Instead of having a plan to grow jobs in this province, we see

thousands of them going out the window. Instead of a plan to grow the

economy, we see reckless spending and tax hikes to pay for it all. The fact

of the matter is: you need a plan. You need to have the economy performing,

or you’ll end up plunging into a deficit situation. But we know that this is

nothing new for the NDP.

[2:35 p.m.]

In the 1990s under the NDP, B.C. saw eight deficit budgets and six

consecutive credit downgrades. We had the highest income taxes in Canada. We

became a have-not province. B.C. was last in Canada for job growth — five

years straight. B.C. was last in Canada for private sector investment. For

every new mine that opened, two closed. Mineral exploration virtually

disappeared, resulting in almost 5,000 job losses. B.C. was dead last in job

creation.

Interjections.

J. Johal: I know this walk down memory lane is a bit painful for you,

sir.

Unemployment peaked at 10 percent in 1992 and remained above 8 percent

until the year 2000, and 50,000 British Columbians left B.C. to find work.

Those are the facts. The NDP have spent a lot of time telling people that

the 1990s were a long time ago and this is the present and things are

different now. Are they?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Will they be weeks and months from now? Time will tell. I know that

for myself, as a father of a bright, energetic eight-year-old, it worries me

where he’s going to work when he’s older. Will our province provide him

opportunities for personal growth and success, or will we have to leave B.C.

and go to where the jobs are?

As a parent, you always want to have your kids close to you, close to

home. You want to be around to watch them excel in their careers and grow

their own families right here in the community. But when there’s no plan to

sustain and grow our economy and create jobs instead of lose them, that’s

the risk we take.

I also want to touch on interest rates for a moment, because hikes to

interest rates can effect B.C.’s capacity to carry increased spending. We’ve

already seen Canada’s central bank deliver the first increase in seven years

back in July, and the Bank of Canada raised the rates once again earlier

this month. What’s more, all signals point to another potential interest

rate hike this October. We know that even small increases in interest rates

have an impact on the provincial budget, but they also hit consumers in the

pocketbook. So there’s another red flag when it comes to the NDP

budget.

But I’m not the only one who’s worried about the contents of this

budget. The credit rating DBRS also looked over it, and says:

“At this time, British Columbia continues to have one of the strongest

credit profiles of Canadian provinces and is not at immediate risk of a

negative rating action. However, this fiscal policy direction reduces

flexibility within the credit profile and suggests that social and

programmatic considerations are likely to trump deficit reduction if the

provincial fiscal plan is challenged by an economic correction.”

DBRS goes on.

“The current fiscal plan suggests the province’s DBRS-adjusted debt

burden would rise slightly to 17.9 percent of GDP this year, up from 17.6

percent at March 31, 2017, which continues to be consistent with the

double-A high rating.”

I’ve got one more concern from DBRS for you as well.

“While the NDP’s platform committed to maintaining balanced budgets, the

government may be challenged to do so, given the extent of its policy

commitments. DBRS believes that the province may require further revenue

measures to fund its ambitious social agenda.”

Where will the money come from without a concrete plan to grow jobs

and the economy? Further, if you actually make an effort to create jobs and

attract workers, you need to ensure that they have access to important

services. I’m thinking about things like health care.

In Richmond, we have a hospital that has been serving the community

for well over 50 years. The staff, medical professionals and volunteers who

work there do a tremendous job. But Richmond Hospital is an aging facility

with equipment in need of upgrades. Back in February, the member for Juan de

Fuca and now current Premier, along with some of his candidates, publicly

threw their support behind a new acute care tower for the hospital. They

issued a news release where one of their candidates accused the previous

government of giving the community a bridge instead of a

hospital.

Well, what do the people of Richmond get today, according to the

budget? Neither one. No mention of Richmond Hospital and a bridge that the

NDP has scrapped. I have no doubt that the people of Richmond will be

wondering what happened to that promise as well.

With all that in mind, I will not be supporting this budget. It’s my

hope that soon we will see some sort of plan from this government to

generate revenue, attract investment, expand our export markets and create

jobs and grow this economy for the benefit of everyone who calls this great

province home.

[2:40 p.m.]

D. Routley: It gives me great pleasure to stand in the House and support the

Budget 2017 Update. I should, as other members have, make note that we are

standing and meeting on the territories of the Lekwungen people, including

the Songhees and the Esquimalt peoples.

It’s been 12 years responding to budgets and throne speeches and 12

years of fighting against things that were bad for my community, fighting

for things that we weren’t able to achieve — like the right to access to

information and so many other issues that have been neglected by the former

B.C. Liberal government. So it gives me great pleasure to be able to stand

and support a throne speech that addresses so many of the problems that

we’ve discovered and that we’ve been told of in our travels around this

province.

It’s important to note that budgets are an expression of principle.

The choices made in a budget express the values and principles of the people

who write it. When you look at the budget that’s before us, I think we’ve

lived up to our commitment to the principles, the promises that we made to

British Columbians, that finally they would have a government that puts them

first, rather than a privileged elite and insiders.

We are committed to following through on that promise. It is a promise

to make life more affordable for British Columbians, to rebuild the public

services we all depend upon, to build a more fair economy that creates good,

sustainable jobs throughout our province, not in a selected few corners. It

gives me such pride to stand and support a budget that invests in people,

that puts people at the forefront, that returns government to the purpose it

owes to the people — that being that the people are its first

concern.

We have moved forward on increasing assistance rates for the most

vulnerable British Columbians, allowing people on assistance to retain $200

more of their earnings, should they be able to earn money that was

previously clawed back from them. That is a huge advantage to people who

have been struggling in this province for so long, who’ve been ignored for

so long.

We have moved to get rid of tuition fees for children who have been in

the care of the province. This, to me…. I was at the announcement. I was in

tears the whole time. I cry very easily, but this one was really special. I

hope you won’t mind, but even the RCMP detail with the Premier were wiping

their eyes. It was a fantastic moment, because the people in this province

who have most deserved the attention of their government and who have least

achieved it have finally been given some sort of attention from the

government that sits on this side of the House currently. I’m so proud of

that.

We’ve announced things that will make life better for my constituents

— reductions in ferry fares. On the minor routes in my constituency — I have

seven ferry terminals in my constituency — they will be reduced by 15

percent. On the major routes, they will be frozen. There will be a hydro

freeze. We are moving towards our child care program.

This budget update is essentially an update eight months through the

year, eight months through the previous government’s budget, so essentially

four months was dictated by the current government. Even in the short length

of time — with only now having sat for five days, I think, in total,

including the throne speech last week — this government, even before it came

to deliver a throne speech, had already delivered on so many of its

promises, like the removal of tolls on the Port Mann and Golden Ears

bridges. I feel proud of that. I feel proud of a government that I

represent, which is making the investments in education — public education

being the reason that I entered politics.

I’ve been watching the last 14 years of cuts and diminishment of the

most essential public service we have. An entire generation of students went

through a system that was diminished and strangled by cuts and downloaded

costs, in the most cynical way. The funding formula was cynically devised to

punish small schools in rural communities, to reduce supports to children

and to raise class sizes. We’ve gone in the opposite direction, and I’m so

proud of that.

[2:45 p.m.]

Now, since this is a budget update and not a full B.C. NDP budget, it

does allow a bit of room, I think, to refer back in time and look at what’s

happened over the last little bit here. I would say that the reason the B.C.

Liberals find themselves in opposition now is that they were not listening,

and in my experience, they hadn’t been listening for a long time.

I’ll take forestry, for example. Before I ran in the 2005 election,

the previous government deregulated and disintegrated the forest industry,

disconnected the harvest from the mills, allowed the tree farm licences to

be traded like pieces of currency, allowed a massive increase in raw log

exports. The largest number of any year under the B.C. NDP in the ’90s was

under 900,000 cubic metres. Last year we went well above eight million,

according to people who know — eight million cubic metres of logs. That’s

enough to load logging trucks from Victoria to Saskatoon, bumper to

bumper.

At the same time, mills are closing. The rules that the B.C. Liberals

severed or dismantled that protected B.C. workers in terms of safety on the

job, in terms of fibre access for our mills…. Those rules have caused a

situation where we have lost 60 percent of our value-added jobs. We have

lost 50 percent of our value-added plants. Before the economic meltdown in

2008, during the largest postwar housing boom in the United States, this

former government had already lost 30,000 forestry jobs. It is a declaration

of incompetence and failure.

Even when we look toward the future of the industry, as sustainable as

it is, our little trees now that will be big trees later…. Reforestation.

When the B.C. Liberals came to power, the year before they came to power,

the reforestation budget in this province was $130 million. After they came

to power, they cut it to $8 million and only a couple of years ago raised it

to $15 million and wanted credit for doubling it.

These are long-term investments that will pay a negative dividend

because they weren’t made. We can’t just flip the switch and catch up when

it comes to growing trees. When it comes to people, we can’t flip the switch

and catch up. Those kids who went through a diminished education system,

they will forever be faced with the same challenges that that experience

created for them.

We saw the government ignore mental health problems and addiction

problems in this province. We saw them ignore poverty, growing poverty and

homelessness. We saw them ignore the housing affordability crisis. We saw

them ignore the child care needs of the province. These are the elements of

the B.C. NDP platform of which I am most proud. These are the elements that

we have already begun to fulfil in such a short time, and I am very proud of

that.

So there is a history here. It’s on the side of the former government,

the B.C. Liberals. It’s a history of contemptuous betrayals of election

promises. It’s not lost on British Columbians that this is the former

government that had the hypocrisy of promising not to bring an HST to the

province, not to sell B.C. Rail, to deliver 5,000 long-term-care beds that

they’ve never delivered on. These are promises that go back 12, 14

years.

Interjections.

D. Routley: No, those are assisted-living beds, actually, they’re not long-term

beds. What they did was take housing money from the federal government, and

rather than put it in housing, they put it into assisted living.

So they ignored the mentally ill. They ignored the poor. They ignored

workers. They promised the HEU and teachers they wouldn’t tear up their

contracts and did. They fired the health researchers and caused terrible

tragedy in their lives, denied and covered up.

They sold properties to their friends and insiders. One worth $5

million on Burke Mountain was sold for $150,000 to a top Liberal donor. This

is wrong.

The triple-delete scandal, where they went about a complex and

purposeful plot to deny British Columbians access to the information they

own and that they need to make their democracy work for them. That is an

egregious disconnect with any kind of ethic.

[2:50 p.m.]

We see the ethnic outreach scandal. We see the LNG pipedream. These

are the inconsistencies, betrayals and incompetencies that have put the

former government into opposition. These are all the areas that the B.C. NDP

platform and the B.C. Green platform actually address in a progressive

manner. That’s why we find ourselves on this side of the House. It’s a

simple thing, really. It’s not a complex thing. When people have a track

record of betrayal and of not following through on promises — in fact, going

against exactly what they had said before, which is…. It’s a short word but

unparliamentary, so I won’t use it. But that’s why we have this mix

here.

What issues are most important to British Columbians? I would wager

that the lives of their families, the lives of their neighbours, the health

of their communities and the health of their environment are in fact the

most important issues to people. They reject a province that is headed to

higher and higher poverty rates, inequality, greater and greater costs, the

lowest wage growth in the country and the lowest employment and opportunity

for Millennials. That’s what this province has been delivered by that former

government.

In fact, these are the elements of which I am most proud of my party’s

platform and our mandate to govern, with the assistance of the Green Party,

which has found so many similar approaches to some of these most troubling

and vexing problems and issues that British Columbians face.

We’ve seen a litany of resulting and insulting flip-flops by the

former government. I think we need to peel back the layers. When I was a

kid, my favourite coat was this reversible coat. It was a different colour

every day; all I had to do was reverse it. That’s fun for a kid, but when it

comes to public-policy-making in politics, it’s pretty clear that people

don’t want to see a government that just wears a different coloured coat as

it suits them, to remain in power or to take what they need.

Let’s look back. The Liberal record on all those issues that I

mentioned — that’s what people remember. Then they saw a former Liberal

government campaign for re-election on their record without really offering

any new ideas. They stood pat on those issues and were defeated. The Liberal

campaign continued working for the elite and ignoring the people. Then when

they faced the loss of government, they desperately tried to cling to power

by issuing the now infamous B.C. Liberal clone speech. It was an

embarrassing rush to reverse their coats once again.

I think it helps us to look at what was said by members about the

throne speech, the clone speech, that they introduced, because it really

illustrates how easy it is, apparently, for this opposition to switch a

coat.

From the member for Peace River South: “But it’s really important with

our economy that we have right now…. We have a larger surplus than

anticipated, so we have the funds available now to commit to things that the

families and people of B.C. have been asking for.” That doesn’t sound like

what I’ve been hearing from the members on the other side in response to the

budget update.

From the member for Penticton: “It shows that there are opportunities,

when you have additional funds, to ensure that these vital programs that

families need the most are able to be provided. As we all know, that makes a

huge difference to many, many people unfortunately in those situations in

the province.” Yeah. This was discussing spending more on social programs.

That doesn’t really echo in the comments that I’ve heard on the budget

update from the members opposite.

The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin: “British Columbia saw the strongest

economic growth among the provinces last year and some of the fastest job

growth in more than 20 years. This level of economic activity helped provide

the means to make key investments in services that matter most to people and

ensures that we have the resources to continue and enhance those

investments.” That’s not what I’m hearing. I’m hearing an objection to us

making those very investments that have gone wanting for so many years —

over a decade and a half.

From the member for Surrey South: “A strong economy allows us to

support our most vulnerable citizens and the causes we all care

about.”

[2:55 p.m.]

From Richmond North Centre: “Our number one goal is to ensure housing

is affordable for British Columbians.” Now, that might make people chuckle,

but for those people facing the consequences of a housing crisis, it’s not

comedy. It’s tragedy.

From the member from Vancouver-Quilchena: “…it’s high time that we

took a look at rebooting our education system to ensure that student needs

are always put first….” Again, that doesn’t sound like the record of the

B.C. Liberal government or what I’ve been hearing coming across the

floor.

“Governments must invest heavily in education if they wish to create a

future that is prosperous for everyone.” That was the member for Shuswap.

Sounded a little different the other day.

Richmond South Centre — and pardon, Madame Speaker, for this quote: “I

continue to talk about access because I believe it’s hugely important.

Provide free post-secondary tuition for all children in care — that speaks

to me.” And it does to me. It is the most important piece, to me, we’ve done

so far. The speaker went on to say: “…this is a glorious initiative, one

that speaks to me and, frankly, warms my heart.” And I believe her very

wholeheartedly.

Vancouver-Quilchena again is a frequent guest at the speaker’s mike in

this House and has a certain attitude that would be a little bit challenged

by this statement: “As I said, minority governments are routine all through

they function very well because of this kind of compromise, because of this

kind of joint position that absorbs information and ideas from all parties

for the betterment of British Columbia.” Well, that did not sound at all

like the member when he was talking about the legitimacy of this government,

a minority government, or any of the programs that we’ve

promoted.

From the member for Langley East: “We had put up a toll thing in the

campaign, and we’ve gone further now, saying no tolls. I think the important

piece of no tolls is recognizing, first of all, the crosses that families

bear.” Now, that really didn’t sound like anything I’ve heard from the

members on the other side. All I’ve heard was that we’re going to spend the

province into ruin and we’re going to burden future generations with debt

because they’re doing exactly what we said they should do, but now we’re

wearing the coat the other way.

British Columbians are tired of that. I think that’s why power has

shifted in this province. They’re tired of being told things that aren’t

true. They’re tired of seeing a government that feigns concern for the

issues that matter to them and then turns around and makes decisions that do

nothing but hurt them. These are important things, and it’s kind of funny to

read these things, but it’s also a tragedy, as I said.

Again, on the tolls, the same member for Vancouver-Quilchena: “It gave

us the opportunity to simply say to British Columbia that it’s time to reap

the benefits…to deal with bridge tolls….” Surely the New Democrat members

opposite can agree on that one, since it was their idea in the election

campaign. Now, if anything didn’t sound like the member for

Vancouver-Quilchena, that’s it, because now we’re being told that that is

going to, again, spend us into ruin.

So what does the B.C. Liberal party believe? What is the B.C. Liberal

party? Is it a collection of conservatives? Is it a collection of Liberals?

What is it? I don’t think it knows, and I think that’s why it’s on the other

side of the House. And if I could give any advice, it would be to spend some

time, as we did when we were in opposition, listening to people and the real

challenges they face, formulating plans to address those challenges in

conjunction with the people affected, in partnership with them, finding out

what really matters to people inside their lives and building a program

based on solid principles and values that reflects that to the

people.

That’s the advice that I give to the B.C. Liberals. And shed the

reversible coat. Decide what colour you are and assume it, because right

now, the province has no idea.

Now, let’s look at the reversals. What are they saying now? Well, the

Finance critic, Prince George–Valemount: “But I think the member owes it to

British Columbians to talk about where they’re going to get the almost $1

billion that’s for child care.” Funny, though, they were talking about

spending $1 billion on child care over the next four years, even a faster

spend than the NDP. But now the coat’s been reversed, and it’s a different

colour.

[3:00 p.m.]

I think people are sick of that. It feeds into a cynicism. It feeds

into a kind of surrender to cynicism. I think people need to be inspired

with some kind of hope that government will take a positive role in their

lives, will do what it says it will do, believes what it says it believes,

is consistent with its principles, consistent with its values.

That speaks to the party I represent, as we express our values through

this budget update. Our values put people first. Our values support the most

vulnerable. Our values have us all contributing fairly to an economy and to

a society that’s healthy and that meets the aspirations of the people — not

the aspirations of a few, who are elite, who can control the seats of power,

but for the people of British Columbia.

What they said then…. Ah well, Richmond-Queensborough said: “That’s

why our government is committing $1 billion towards child care and early

childhood education, the single largest increase in B.C. history.” Are they

saying we’re not spending enough? Or are they saying we’re spending too

much? I don’t know. I think they’re saying both. I think sometimes they get

trapped in between quotes, and they say the same thing and then the opposite

in the same sentence almost. It’s pretty amazing.

Richmond-Steveston: “The B.C. government will amend the 2017 budget to

make a $1 billion investment in child care and early childhood education

over the next four years.” Again, it’s a stunning reversal, really, isn’t

it?

It’s less depressing to see this kind of lack of commitment to

principle and consistency while we’re sitting over here and they’re sitting

over there. It was a little tougher to take when they were delivering that

through throne speeches and budgets that ill affected the people in my

constituency.

This budget update helps the people in my constituency. It helps

Nanaimo Regional hospital gain an electrical energy centre — $11.7 million,

$7 million from the provincial government. It helps Nanaimo and B.C. Housing

in providing capital funding to a Habitat for Humanity affiliate in Nanaimo

of $100,000 to complete two four-bedroom houses. Those are going to be

larger family units, which are so hard for families who are struggling to

find.

In Nanaimo, B.C. Housing is also providing capital funding to new

Aboriginal housing developments through the provincial investment in

affordable housing program. Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre Society is receiving

$4.6 million for a 35-unit project in Nanaimo.

Vancouver Island University — their health and science centre

replacement of four buildings is at $39.9 million, $16.5 million of which is

from the provincial government. Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo —

their marine, automotive and trades complex expansion gets $20 million, $9.5

million from the provincial government. Nanaimo gets compressed natural gas

buses, 24 of them, to replace existing diesel buses. This helps us meet some

of the climate goals that local governments grapple with.

All my constituents will also benefit from greater investment in

education, from smaller class sizes, from greater student supports. All of

my constituents will benefit from a greater investment in public health

care. All of my constituents will benefit from a community that’s more

healthy, from a Mental Health and Addictions Ministry and greater emphasis,

a strategic plan to address the scourge of opiate addiction. Every one of my

constituents will benefit by a government that puts them first and puts the

job generation from natural resources ahead of the easy buck.

We want our resources to be used conservatively. We don’t want our

forests taken simply to be exported raw. We want our forests taken in a

sustainable way to provide the maximum number of jobs for British

Columbians. In Quebec, they get three times as many jobs as we do per cubic

metre; Ontario, five times. That is a failure. We need a government that’s

going to put us first.

When we said we’d take off the tolls, they said it was shortsighted

and reckless. Then things changed. Suddenly, they’re all for it. Debt wasn’t

a problem in July, I guess.

[3:05 p.m.]

All the Liberal MLAs sat — well, they are actually sitting over here —

and they applauded the throne speech that celebrated a toll-free B.C. plan.

They said, also, that it was time for British Columbians to enjoy some of

the benefits of a strong economy. They said, in a desperate bid to cling to

power, that we should finally benefit — after 16 years of ignoring people. A

desperate effort that I’m sure…. This is all very dizzying, right? They’ve

done the flip, the flop, and they’ve done the rare triple flip-flop. They’ve

done the triple, right? “We’re for it. We’re against it. We’re for it. We’re

against it.”

That is extraordinary. It’s dizzying. It’s kind of like the

roller-coaster at the PNE. It swirls you around, it jars you, it spins you,

and then you end up in the same place. And that’s exactly what we’ve had

with the previous government. They always take us back to the same place,

which is a failure to be true to their promises and the things that they’ve

campaigned upon.

It goes all the way back to B.C. Rail, it comes all the way forward to

the clone speech, and it comes all the way past that to the opposition we’re

seeing here now that is attempting to reacquaint themselves, to reposition

themselves, by opposing what they put forward in their own throne speech.

Granted, it was a desperate bid to cling to power, but if you’re a B.C.

Liberal supporter, you must feel like you’re riding that roller-coaster.

“Are we for it? Are we against it?”

It’s rather pathetic that in a place as lofty as the people’s House,

where we are tasked with meeting the test of the highest public purpose, we

would see such mischievous, such damaging, such frankly stunning inability

to maintain a course of truth. And that is a problem.

It’s been a problem…. I’ve railed against it, and you’ve heard me,

over these years, railing against the cynicism and the lack of

follow-through on promises from the previous government. I’m still doing

that, in a sense, because eight months of this budget was theirs, and their

performance since the election begs us to point to them and say: “Which

colour coat are you wearing today?”

I honestly think that the members of the B.C. Liberal Party should

step back and think about what guides them, what principles they adhere to.

It was fine to be a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals and hold power,

but now their positions divide them. Their positions divide their own

supporters. Their positions are ludicrous. Their positions are laughable.

This is serious business. But to flip-flop, flip-flop…. The triple flip is

really kind of comical, kind of farcical and less tragic now because it has

less consequence in peoples’ lives.

I’m proud to stand in this House and support a budget update that

begins to express the principles and values that the party — the B.C. NDP —

and I stand for and the promises that we made to people on their doorsteps

during the campaign. We’re fulfilling those promises. This budget reflects

those principles, and this is the proudest moment of my political

career.

S. Furstenau: I rise today to speak in favour of the budget update presented by the

government. I will begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional

territories of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. I’d also like to

commend the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation for his

statement yesterday on the United Nations declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples.

I’d also like to acknowledge yourself, Madame Speaker, for the support

and encouragement that you give to women to enter into politics. I have

personally benefited from that support, and I’m truly grateful.

[3:10 p.m.]

This is a noteworthy budget, and it comes at a noteworthy time in B.C.

politics. Members on both sides of this House are coming to terms with new

responsibilities. There has been a significant shift in B.C. politics that

presents new opportunities and challenges for all MLAs. At the same time,

our esteemed press gallery are figuring out how to understand and report on

the new decision-making processes of a minority government — processes that

have been unchanged and unchallenged for decades. All of us, as British

Columbians, are witnessing how government can and should work when one party

cannot simply ram an agenda through but is instead learning to work with

other parties to build a broader and more inclusive vision for this

province.

Few predicted that British Columbians would elect a slim minority

government in May, an election result that meant that we in the Legislature

would need to start talking with each other, rather than at each other. As a

teacher and historian, my first impulse was to look to the past to find a

precedent for this new political reality that we find ourselves

in.

Federally, there have been 13 minority governments in Canada’s

history. Every province except Alberta has had at least one, and this is

B.C.’s third minority government. The last one was in 1952.

As our caucus and staff began to explore how other jurisdictions made

these arrangements work, one thing became clear. If we could overcome the

antagonism that had come to characterize B.C. politics before this election,

we would have a historic opportunity to bring positive change to B.C. I

believe that this budget update truly is a step in this direction. We have

before us a document whose foundation was first introduced by the B.C.

Liberals earlier this year, with the values and priorities of two other

parties added to it in the months after the election.

The B.C. Greens ran on a platform that advocated government leadership

in the face of a changing planet and a changing economy. We believe that we

have an opportunity to capture the imagination of British Columbians with a

candid, innovative and forward-thinking vision for the future. Ours isn’t a

narrow vision for one part of the province, but instead, a call for a new

path forward for all communities in B.C.

In my home, the Cowichan Valley, there is an enormous appetite to see

the provincial government step up and invest in what really matters in our

lives. Our hospital turned 50 this year, and it is desperately in need of

replacing. Cowichan High is on its last legs. It was built in 1949, and it

is not holding up as well as the hon. members in this House who were born

before that same year.

Our watersheds and riparian areas suffer from the benign neglect and

blind faith that was built into the professional reliance model.

We have heartbreaking child poverty rates, and like so many

communities in B.C., we are suffering the impacts of the opioid crisis. Yet

Cowichan is extraordinary in its resilience, its strong and interconnected

communities and the determination of people to work together so that all in

the community may thrive.

The Cowichan District Hospital Foundation and the Cowichan Valley

regional hospital district have worked to create the conditions for a new

hospital. The land is purchased, and the concept plan is underway, having

been given the go-ahead by the previous Liberal government.

School district 79 is working with Vancouver Island University,

Cowichan Tribes, the municipalities of North Cowichan and Duncan and the

Cowichan Valley regional district to create a new model of education, one

that connects high school students to post-secondary opportunities in a way

that ensures a successful transition for students.

The Cowichan Watershed Board, co-chaired by Chief Seymour of the

Cowichan Tribes and chair John Lefebure of the CVRD, is a model of

cooperation and collaboration, and creates the foundation for watershed

governance.

[3:15 p.m.]

There are many extraordinary initiatives and an abundance of committed

citizens who are making Cowichan Valley an incredible place to live. Our

hope is that this budget update signals a commitment from the provincial

government to come to be a true partner in these initiatives.

Too often we speak in broad categories in B.C. — the south, the north,

rural, urban, resource-based, high tech. These labels divide us rather than

unite us, and the categories oversimplify the rich and interconnected fabric

of our province. This past summer I travelled through northern B.C., meeting

with First Nations, municipal representatives and community leaders to learn

about the challenges and opportunities facing their communities. What I

learned, in no uncertain terms, was that there is far more that unites us

across B.C. than divides us.

In every community, I heard from people the same hopes, dreams and

aspirations for their communities that we have in Cowichan Valley — their

desire to see thriving and safe schools, their hopes to have efficient

hospitals that deliver timely care, their aspirations to see support for

seniors who want to stay in their homes and close to their families. I heard

across all communities a strong desire to see stewardship and protection of

natural resources. For many people, the lack of compliance and enforcement

in the resource sectors has undermined trust in both industry and

government.

I also heard of the benefits in investment in post-secondary education

and a strong desire in all communities to see an innovative and diversified

approach to economic development. The notion that economic investment in

this province only counts when it’s an investment in the resource sector is

reflected neither in the current reality nor in the emerging

economy.

An analysis of unemployment by occupation in the northwest, based on

data from B.C. Statistics and StatsCan, tells a story that we all need to be

paying attention to. Education, professional services, health services,

small businesses, finance, science, tourism and manufacturing account for

the vast majority of jobs, while the resource sector accounts for less than

10 percent of employment.

Investment in communities, in schools, in hospitals, in

infrastructure, in government services, in post-secondary education — these

investments not only create long-term, stable employment; they create the

kinds of communities that attract further investment.

When companies are looking for investment opportunities, schools,

hospitals and services matter. We all want to live and work in vibrant,

thriving communities. I would also suggest that we ideally want stable,

well-paid, meaningful employment in our own communities, rather than in

far-flung work camps away from our families and friends.

One municipal councillor in Terrace had a great idea that would bring

together innovation, education and economic development: a renewable energy

institute of the northwest. Imagine a higher-learning facility located in

the heart of the land where we have the greatest potential for geothermal

energy, where students not only learn the skills to work in a new energy

economy but also become the leaders in developing the technology that will

move us beyond fossil fuels — a task that is our moral obligation to future

generations.

We are united across this province and, I believe, across both sides

of this Legislature by a belief that we need to ensure opportunities, not

just for right now but also for future generations. We need to sustainably

manage and protect our resources and our ecological systems.

[3:20 p.m.]

In this changing economy, government needs to be taking a greater

leadership role in preparing for the changes that are already upon us. We

have heard all week from members on both sides of this House of the

devastating toll of the wildfires this summer, and we are hearing daily of

the toll of hurricanes, of droughts, of floods. As elected representatives,

as leaders, we all share a responsibility to future generations. A part of

our responsibility today is to acknowledge the impacts of climate change and

recognize the debt we owe to our children and their

grandchildren.

The increase in the carbon tax announced in this budget update is one

small step and a necessary signal that helps us move back towards climate

leadership. Whether it’s the changes affecting our workforce and employment

or the changes in our climate that will reshape the economic and social

fabric of our communities, we must not stick our heads in the sand. We must

be bold, to call out challenges and create new opportunities. We must

embrace a vision for the future of our province that is hopeful, that brings

new opportunities and that rejects the premise that we are divided. This is

the B.C. Green vision.

Each party in this House ran on a different vision for our province

and put an emphasis on different priorities. In a minority government, these

different visions can be brought together to create policies for this

province that represent more people and are greater than the sum of their

parts. The platform commitments each of us made offer us a starting point

from which we can begin to work together to craft a greater vision that can

ensure more British Columbians have the opportunity to thrive.

How we compose ourselves as elected representatives matters. Only in

the Legislature, it seems to me, is compromise considered a bad thing. Three

years ago I brought my high school students to the Legislature for a

question period session. At the end of a typically raucous session, one

student, who was from Denmark, expressed his incredulity. “Elected leaders

are allowed to behave like that?” he said.

His reaction has stayed with me. Is this really how we want to

demonstrate leadership? Can we do better? Do our words in this chamber

always need to be about scoring points and wounding our opponents? Or can we

find new paths and new approaches, particularly given the extraordinary

challenges we face, not just in our province but globally?

Liberal MP Arnold Chan, who passed away today, in his final address to

Parliament, said: “I know that we are all honourable members, but to treat

this institution honourably, I would ask us to elevate our debate, to

elevate our practice.” I want to express my deepest condolences to the Chan

family for their loss and my gratitude to Arnold Chan for his

words.

This is what we have done in our agreement with the NDP, which was

predicated on five words: good faith and no surprises. Within these five

words is a path forward for all of us in this new environment. As we have

learned over the past few months, consultation and collaboration are not

always easy. But we have also learned that if we agree on shared values —

that government should serve the people, that building trust in government

matters and that we have a responsibility not just to the people of B.C.

today but to future generations — then we can find ways to work through

disagreement and even discord.

[3:25 p.m.]

At the root of every strong relationship are two simple concepts:

trust and communication. We will build more trust with better communication.

We need to build trust between each other so that the people of B.C. can

feel more trust in their government and more trust that all MLAs are working

together to achieve the best we can for this province. This minority

government offers us the opportunity to genuinely reach across party lines

and craft policy that incorporates the best of all of our ideas. If we spend

less time attacking each other and more time listening and communicating

with each other, we might just be able to start trusting one

another.

This is an exciting story to tell, because it does not fit into the

old framework of conflict and adversarial relationships. We invite everyone,

the press and the public, to challenge us, to ask the hard questions and

also to recognize that we are in a different landscape, in new territory,

and that the old narrative of hyper-partisan B.C. politics no longer needs

to always be the defining framework in this House.

I have many times in my life believed in outcomes that others have

told me were impossible. Yet I’ve held fast to my beliefs, which have been

rooted in my values and my true conviction that we will always do better

when we find ways to work together. This is my hope and my belief for this

House, as we move forward in this new and noteworthy time in B.C.

politics.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I first want to acknowledge we’re on the Songhees and Esquimalt

traditional territories of the Lekwungen-speaking peoples.

I’m so happy to be able to speak to this budget — so happy because

this budget puts people first. I’ve been in the Legislature for quite a few

years now, and it’s the first time that I can say that it truly puts people

first. In the past, there have been budget philosophies displayed by the

B.C. Liberals. Fair enough. They have a different way of approaching the

budget. Their budgets cater to an elite few. This was their philosophy and

that that will better for everyone. That philosophy, that approach, hasn’t

worked well in rural areas like the area I represent in Stikine.

Across the north and across rural areas, with that budget philosophy

that we’ve seen displayed in the last 16 years, It has resulted in higher

unemployment than we’ve seen in the rest of the province and fewer services

over the last 16 years.

This budget recognizes people at the heart of the economy. It’s really

hard to overstate, in rural areas, how strong communities make for strong

economies. The basis of strong communities are affordable communities and

services in those communities that make life better for people. If you don’t

have those kinds of infrastructure put in place, then it’s very hard to have

a strong economy, and we know that the remainder of the province really

depends on a strong rural economy. That is why this budget that was

presented by our Finance Minister just a couple days ago was such a

refreshing approach, and I’m really looking forward to the impact it’s going

to have on creating stronger communities and, therefore, a stronger rural

economy.

I want to give a couple examples that are specific to Stikine, which

were included in this budget update, that are really going to help in that

aspect. Then I’ll get on to some of the specifics in the budget that relate

to the ministry that I’m now the minister for.

The whole approach to facing mental health and addictions that’s

included in this budget…. I want people to know that the impacts of the

opioid crisis, the fentanyl crisis — although many of the deaths from that

crisis are in more major urban centres — are felt throughout B.C.

[3:30 p.m.]

I know personally of a young woman from our area, who I taught at one

point in the community college system, who was a victim of the fentanyl

crisis in Kamloops, for instance. That impact goes back into the rural

communities, and it really does have a ripple effect. So one of the things

that I was really pleased to see in the budget was a new Ministry of Mental

Health and Addictions.

I feel that I had a little bit of a role to play in that — and members

on the opposite side as well — through the Select Standing Committee on

Children and Youth. Through that committee, we undertook an examination of

the youth mental health system in B.C. The member for North

Vancouver–Seymour was on that committee. The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin

was on that committee, and the member for Peace River South, the member for

Chilliwack. The Speaker that we have now, the member for Abbotsford South,

was on that committee. Dr. Moira Stilwell, whom I can name now, now that

she’s not an MLA, was a very, very strong advocate on that committee; the

member for North Coast, one of the now-government MLAs; the Finance

Minister, from Victoria–Beacon Hill; as well as Maurine Karagianis were on

that committee.

The very first recommendation that came out of that investigation that

we did was that people needed a single entry point into the health and

addictions services and system within the province. I must say that we

advocated for a ministry, and Dr. Stilwell was one of the strongest

proponents of that from the B.C. Liberal side at that point. But everybody

on the committee voted for that recommendation of the single entry

point.

What we heard from numerous families who were involved with young

people, and from organizations that have faced mental health and addictions

issues, was that — with a myriad of services and, sometimes, no services,

the gaps — it was important to have a single entry point, someone who was

responsible, somebody within government that people in the public could

point to and say: “That ministry is responsible.” This is something that’s

going to help lives across the province, and in rural areas as

well.

I note in the budget that there’s a $322 million lift, over the next

three years, to address not just the fentanyl crisis but also to assist in

creating the new ministry. It means actual new services on the ground, in

many areas, around the fentanyl crisis. As I say, the impacts, the social

costs, are incredible. When a person succumbs to an addiction, those ripple

effects within a community, within extended family members — just in the

emotional toll and the toll it takes to recover from that — have economic

impacts as well. This is where a budget that is about people is linked to

creating a strong economy. I’m so pleased to see that new Mental Health and

Addictions Ministry.

Another area in the budget that’s going to have a large impact in

Stikine and on rural areas, again, with that linkage between the

social-policy side and the economic-policy side, is in education. We have

had a cohort of children going through the K-to-12 public education system

that didn’t have the resources that they should have had, going through, and

the Supreme Court of Canada found that the B.C. Liberal government engaged

in an illegal action when it tore up contracts. The restoring of $681

million, over the next three years, is a phenomenal boost to the K-to-12

public education system.

The reason I say it’s even more important for rural areas is that the

public education system is the great equalizer. There’s sometimes a lack of

opportunities in rural areas when it comes to the kind of recreational

infrastructure we have, or some of the organizations that are based in more

urban centres, but the school has a really important role, socially, in a

small rural community.

[3:35 p.m.]

It is the centre of where people interact, mostly in a positive way.

Those relationships that get built throughout the times that parents

interact while their children are in the school system lead to relationships

that can withstand when more challenging issues face rural communities, more

challenging issues around industrial development, for instance, or other

issues. The school system has been so important in that in rural areas.

Anybody who’s lived in a small rural community, like I do, knows that the

high school or the public school is where everything gets discussed, not

just education.

The funding there will be a great equalizer. It’ll put people from

rural communities…. In many of the rural communities I represent, the

socioeconomic indicators are not as good as the rest of the province. So

having a public education system that’s wholesome, that’s fulsome, is going

to ensure that a future generation of leaders and of people who can

contribute to society is in place.

Finally, before I get to the specifics of my ministry, I want to touch

a little bit on adults returning to improve their educational attainment. In

this budget, we’ve seen $19 million for the restoration of free adult basic

education, the restoration of that being free…. Returning to get a GED or a

high school equivalent is a first step for many people in the rural areas

before moving on to more advanced training, whether it’s in the trades or

health sciences or other areas. In order to bridge that gap, the ABE, adult

basic education, being free is going to be a huge and significant

step.

At one point, I taught in a college prep, I guess you’d say. It was

people who hadn’t been able to get the GED or the courses they needed in

high school because it was at a different point in their lives, especially

in the sciences. These people wanted to move on into licensed practical

nursing or those kinds of health-related careers. At that point, ABE was

free, and having that opportunity was incredible. Really, it was a lot of….

We’re talking about grades 11 and 12 biology, which are prerequisites for

moving on.

A lot of the students I taught were single mothers or women whose

husbands weren’t able to work anymore in the forest industry, and they were

going back to advance themselves. If it hadn’t been free, it would have made

it a huge challenge and a huge barrier. Then, under the B.C. Liberals, there

was a charge for ABE, and that was an impediment.

Now we’ve restored that funding, and it’s going to make a huge

difference for people. It also makes a huge difference for the colleges. Now

they have more people getting the credentials they need to get into the

college programs that the colleges offer. We’ve already seen that have an

impact up north in Northwest Community College, for example.

Again, investing in people creates more opportunities for local people

to gain employment locally. It relieves companies who are looking for people

to work for them. It relieves their burden. These are local people who want

to stay in rural communities, and now they’re getting the chance to get the

training to do so. It’s making a huge difference already.

[3:40 p.m.]

The increase of $100 per month for income and disability assistance

and a $200 increase to earning exemptions will make a big difference in

rural communities as well. It’ll mean that people who have faced challenges

and are facing challenges will be able to find ways to continue employment

that supplements their income assistance more, with the $200. Also, it means

more money in their pockets to spend locally in retail and other sectors

locally.

We know small business is the backbone and the foundation of rural

communities. So anytime there’s more money in people’s pockets, more

disposable income — and in the case of the $200 increase to earning

exemptions, it’s money people have been able to acquire through work

activities — it’s better for retail businesses and local businesses as

well.

The specifics to my ministry I want to talk about a bit. I’ve covered

a few things in rural areas where the social infrastructure is essential to

the economic infrastructure. Focusing just on one or the other just doesn’t

cut it.

The focus in this budget is on people, and people are the basis of an

economy. There is no economy without the people. I think that has to be

re-emphasized, because the word, the lens, of economy, economy, economy….

Some people forget that there’s a human element to it. That is what is

important, especially in the northern rural areas.

Specific to my ministry…. I want to emphasize that much of my ministry

is about jobs in the rural areas — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource

Operations and now Rural Development. It’s a huge ministry that touches on

all aspects of what happens on the land base in the province.

Forestry. You know, you hear a lot of things about forestry, but it

remains at the foundation of rural communities and rural economies. It’s had

its ups and downs, and under the previous government, it didn’t get the

focus that it needed. As a result, the media didn’t focus as much on

forestry. But if you go to any chamber of commerce meeting in rural

communities, and you talk to the people, especially the people who are in

the banks in rural communities, they’ll tell you forestry is still the basis

of many communities in rural areas.

We know that 30,000 jobs were lost, direct jobs in the forest

industry, under the last 16 years with the B.C. Liberals, but there are

still 60,000 direct jobs from forestry-related activities in the province.

And $7.4 billion in 2016 was generated in the provincial GDP from forestry

activities. So it’s still a major, major growing concern. The provincial

government revenue from ’16-17 was $900 million from forestry activities.

That’s not as high as it’s been in the past, but it’s still an important

aspect.

I’m saying all this because the first bullet point on my mandate

letter deals with softwood lumber. This softwood lumber disagreement now

with the United States is having a major impact and will have a major impact

unless it gets the focus it needs.

The U.S. market remains the most important market for B.C. lumber

exports. Almost 66 percent of B.C. lumber exports go to the United States.

We’re also a major player when it comes Canada. Over 50 percent of U.S.

softwood imports are coming from B.C. Not only is the U.S. market the

biggest market for B.C., but the B.C. export is the largest source for U.S.

softwood imports.

The last softwood lumber agreement ran out in 2016, over a year ago.

Of course, there was a year before that where there was the ability to start

negotiating. So over two years, we haven’t had enough attention paid to this

file by the B.C. Liberal government, especially in the form of the Premier

taking the lead on the file. That didn’t happen. Canada is the lead

negotiator. There’s no uncertainty about that. But with B.C. being the

source of 50 percent of the U.S. softwood imports, we have a major role to

play in determining Canada’s approach, influencing Canada’s approach and

making connections within the United States.

[3:45 p.m.]

So I was very happy to see and witness the commitment the now Premier

said — that within 30 days of becoming government, he would make a trip to

Ottawa and Washington on the softwood lumber file — and he did. That was the

specific trip to Ottawa to meet with the Prime Minister to lay out B.C.’s

interests.

The previous Premier didn’t go to Washington. Premier Clark, Christy

Clark, didn’t make that trip, but within 30 days, our now Premier did. It

was quite extraordinary. He was able to get a meeting with Wilbur Ross, the

Commerce Secretary. Wilbur Ross has got a history with the President of the

United States, a business history.

So it was very productive that our Premier was able to meet with the

Commerce Secretary and lay out B.C.’s interests firsthand. Wilbur Ross has

been tagged by the President of the United States as the Commerce Secretary

to lead on this file. Now, Robert Lighthizer, the trade secretary, is

starting to exert a little bit of influence, you might say, with the NAFTA

negotiations, but at this point, Wilbur Ross is still the main

contact.

The message that the Premier brought to Ottawa and Washington is that

it’s not “any deal is better than no deal.” That seemed to be the previous

approach. We are ensuring that B.C.’s interests be first and foremost at the

table and that we will not accept just any deal as far as our input to the

federal government goes.

That was made clear. I had a call with Minister Carr, Natural Resource

Canada Minister — who will be responsible for the allocation if it does

comes to a quota system — just to make sure that he knew that B.C. must be

at the forefront before any deal is signed and that when any allocation does

occur within Canada afterwards, if, in fact, a quota is part of what is

agreed on, our interests are protected there.

The budget document took a few pages to go over the softwood lumber

negotiations because they are so important. We know that there have been

countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties already enacted by the

government of the United States to a 27 percent average rate. That has an

impact. It’s a hardship on large and small companies, especially small

companies, when cash flow comes into it. Paying these duties makes it very

difficult.

I don’t know if it was because of the intervention of the Premier or

just that we’re certainly more vocal on this issue now, but at least the

International Trade Commission has delayed their decision till November 13

on the issue of duties. That’s a good thing. Any time we can get a little

bit longer to put our arguments in front of the people in Ottawa and then

Washington is a good thing.

I hope that as housing demand increases in the United States, that

will put the pressure on, because a shortage of timber for those houses is

going to increase housing costs. There will be an impact on the consumer, so

we hope for consumer pressure on the lobby groups who are against us in the

United States. There are also going to be job impacts on Americans if they

can’t get the lumber they need to build those houses. We’re hoping that

those two things will have an impact on the lobbyists down there.

We’re doing our part, keeping the federal government up to speed on

our interests, working with industry and with labour organizations and

ensuring that U.S. decision-makers know what our interests are. That’s an

important part of the rural economy, ensuring that jobs are there in

forestry. The uncertainty has an impact.

The other thing in the budget that I was happy to see, because I’ve

heard from industries who consume a lot of electricity, is the PST that

previously was charged on those electrical rates…. Eliminating it on

electricity purchases is part of the budget the Finance Minister presented.

That’s going to make a big difference.

[3:50 p.m.]

I met with the B.C. Pulp and Paper Coalition recently. They outlined

how…. That’s a major industrial user of electricity, and the fact that B.C.

was previously the only jurisdiction to levy a sales tax on electricity

purchased by energy-intensive manufacturers like those in forestry and

mining was, obviously, a competitive disadvantage.

It is going to be a $164 million hit. I recognize and understand that,

but the pulp and paper sector alone, for instance, in B.C. employs 8,500

people directly. So there are a lot of jobs that can be not only protected

by ensuring a competitive atmosphere, but also, we hope to see investment

because of that increase in competitiveness and eliminating the PST in a

two-year process.

This announcement that we had in the budget, on that tax measure we

supported, was supported by many of the communities who know how important

the pulp and paper industry is, including Vernon, Quesnel, Port Alberni and

Port Alice. They’ve all written in support of this — North Cowichan, and up

in the northeast, Mackenzie and Taylor. Those are jobs in those communities

that this measure in the budget will be helping to protect.

On the budget issue, as far as taxes…. The small business tax —

reducing that from 2.5 percent to 2 percent…. Again, in forestry, many of

the towns have small businesses that are dependent on forestry. Those are

the indirect jobs. We talked about 60,000 direct jobs, but I know that in

the town I live in, there are at least two or three retail businesses

directly dependent on forestry, let alone the consulting businesses and

other businesses. That’s just in Hazelton–New Hazelton.

In Smithers and towns in the northeast, throughout the Interior and

the southeast, the reduction from 2.5 percent to 2 percent is a recognition

that small businesses are the backbone of rural communities and that keeping

them whole is important as well.

Of course, it’s an unprecedented — that’s the word that’s being used a

lot — season so far for wildfires, and we know it’s not over. More than

4,000 firefighters have been fighting the fires in B.C., not just from the

B.C. Wildfire Service but from other provinces and countries and private

contractors. There have been 1,255 fires started since April 1. We’ve still

got 156 fires burning, nine new ones. As recently as last night, a new one

in the Elk Valley, in Elkford, that we’re keeping an eye on for

sure.

People might think this is over now, but there are still over 3,000

people on evacuation orders — out of their homes — and almost 10,000 on

alert. So the situation is not over, although in this budget, we see an

increase of over half a billion dollars in the wildfire-fighting budget.

That’s how much it’s costing to ensure that public safety is covered, first

and foremost, and that after that, structural damage is limited as much as

it can be.

I just want to thank not only the people who’ve been fighting the

fires on the front lines, the people who support them in the different

operation centres that I visited and the volunteers in communities, but

members of this Legislature, too, who’ve been impacted by the wildfire

situation. I think of the member for Fraser-Nicola, who made a two-minute

statement today, and it was obvious how much she has been impacted by the

difficulties her communities have gone through. I just want to say thank you

to the MLAs in the Legislature for working hard on behalf of their

communities who’ve been impacted.

The fires aren’t over, and the size is mind-boggling. Four times the

size of Metro Vancouver has been consumed. Two times the size of the

province of P.E.I. has been consumed. That’s huge, and it’s going to have

some pretty significant, lasting impacts. We know that approximately 53

million cubic metres of merchantable timber, annual allowable cut timber,

have been consumed by the fires.

[3:55 p.m.]

Now, we don’t know how much of that is recoverable. We’ve already been

issuing cutting permits for companies in the Interior to go in and start

cutting some of the fire-damaged timber. You want to get to it before it

gets too dry and cracked to be merchantable. But we want to look at other

ways of using that fire-damaged timber as well.

I’ve visited Prince George two times, Kamloops four times, Cache

Creek, Ashcroft and Williams Lake, and the resilience of the people has been

phenomenal. I want to just give a shout-out to the people in the communities

who have weathered this storm and are still weathering it.

There is so little time to talk about all the good things in the

budget, especially when it comes to my ministry: the $15 million we’re

putting towards capital cost to upgrade firefighting infrastructure that the

province has, $140 million that’s going to be focused on risk reduction and

reforestation over the next three years. The rural development aspect is

extremely important, going from recovery into the rural development stage,

and that’s what we’re going to be focused on.

I just want to finish off with one area of the budget. I just can’t

get over how much joy it brings me. It’s that the United Nations declaration

on the rights of Indigenous people gets a bold headline and a paragraph in

the budget. That’s something we’ve never seen before, and it’s going deliver

a firm message to First Nations that we want to have a

government-to-government relationship with, and that what is good for First

Nations is good for everybody in B.C. and we’re going to take the road

together.

T. Shypitka: I would like to also recognize that we’re on the traditional territory

of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. I come to you from the far,

far, far side of the House with my friend, here, from West

Vancouver–Capilano. We joke sometimes that if we were any farther out, we

would be selling trinkets in the gift shop. But that’s fine. I’m very

honoured to be here, and I’m a happy, proud person right now.

Before I get into talking about the budget, I would like to take the

opportunity of thanking some of the people in my riding and some of the

people that have helped myself and my constituents along the way: first and

foremost, my great assistant–campaign manager, Heather Smith, for keeping me

on track and on time, a hard thing to do; Lois Dettling, for all her help

and all the work she’s done in our new office — it’s opening September 22 —

and all the work she does.

I’d be absolutely remiss if I didn’t show some appreciation to our

former MLA of our riding, Mr. Bill Bennett, for all his work that he’s done

and the mentorship he’s shown me along the way. Kootenay Bill is alive and

well in Kootenay East, and I thought I’d let everyone know that.

Also, to my support staff here at the Legislature, Dylan and Tristan,

doing an amazing job for me — I thank them very much. My many volunteers and

my great riding association and, as well, all the members of the regional

district I was a director of and also the mayors and councillors of Kootenay

East — they’re all great people.

My wife, Carrie; and my children, Dustin, Allie — who just,

unfortunately, broke her arm yesterday in a climbing accident; get well, and

I’ll be home tomorrow — and my youngest son, Adam; along with my mom and

dad, Keith and Lynne; and my brother Brent and his wife, Michelle: thank you

for your undying support. It’s very much appreciated.

Last but not least, my riding is home to some exceptional

firefighters, first responders, evacuation centre staff and an army of

volunteers. I would like to thank all of those who have taken time to assist

in the firefighting efforts in my riding. As the minister pointed out, there

are some substantial fires going on in my area.

Some of those fires are the ones at Lamb Creek; and all my friends up

at Moyie and Monroe Lake; Canal Flats; the Linklater fire; White River

complex; White Creek; Quinn Creek; Soowa Mountain; the Flathead, St. Mary’s;

and the Vernon Creek fires; also the new ones up north of Elkford; and the

dangers that have threatened my friends at Madera Ranch and Sandy

Shores.

[4:00 p.m.]

Unfortunately, just yesterday, a great local business in our

community, in the great town of Galloway, the Galloway sawmill, saw a fire.

This is a family business that’s been running for…. Well, the business has

been in place for close to a century and the family business has been for

many, many decades. They’re great and probably one of the nicest families in

our region. A fire had started in their mill yard, and it was a helicopter

that drove by on the way to the Elkford fire that spotted it, and with quick

reaction they were able to dump the load onto the Galloway mill and

extinguish it. It was of great relief to the nearby town of Jaffray, which

surely would have been threatened by that fire.

I’m extremely grateful for the selflessness and bravery that the

members of the Elko and Baynes Lake fire departments, along with the

Cranbrook, Fernie, Sparwood, Elkford and Hosmer fire services, have provided

thus far in this crazy, unprecedented fire season.

With this, that would be a good segue into the proposed budget that we

see before us. These brave men and women that I have mentioned are

absolutely deserving of our support. Now, while the budget put forth by the

NDP does include some money for front-line forces — I appreciate that, and I

thank them for that — it’s absolutely necessary that…. There’s little in

this budget that aids economic recovery.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

When natural disasters strike, people in communities like mine need to

know that government has their back. The NDP has had an opportunity to

include funding to help rural B.C. back on its feet — a real opportunity.

But whether through lack of foresight or the need to fulfil their costly

campaign promises, they failed to do so. Rural B.C. needs to know that the

government has their back. I’ve talked to guide-outfitters. They could lose

everything this fire season. This is their sweet spot of the year, where

people come in and book their time. These guide-outfitters are now having to

refund the money, and it puts them in really great financial

jeopardy.

One of the guides — it’s a fishing guide in our area, the Elk River

Guiding Co. — has three rivers that he uses for his guiding outfit, and two

of them are shut down right now. He really wants to incorporate the rod days

that he has left on the other two fishing rivers and move them to the Elk

River, which is open through the highway right-of-way. Now, the quotas that

go into the Elk River are unlimited, so that means anybody can grab a

fishing licence and go to the Elk River. Unfortunately for this poor

entrepreneur, he can’t get his rod days transferred to the Elk River. That’s

a real issue, and I hope government can come to his assistance. With no

recovery plan in place, his seasonal window of operation is closing very

soon. His business may suffer and many more businesses like this in the East

Kootenays.

Currently my only option as an MLA is to tell guide-outfitting,

rafting companies, loggers, wood mills, ranchers…. We can’t forget about the

ranchers. They’ve been devastated equally as hard. They’ve lost grasslands.

They’ve lost fencing. They’ve lost livestock. As a matter of fact, I heard

just recently that some of the livestock is somewhat tainted because of the

cattle trying to eat the grass. They’re inadvertently eating charred wood,

and they’re becoming actually tainted from it. That actually affects the

commodity prices on that cattle.

So there are a lot of tough-luck stories, and that’s essentially what

I have to tell these people: “Tough luck.” You know, the government is not

interested in their financial hardships, it seems. And it’s of no fault of

their own.

Another undue hardship that my constituents are now having to bear

comes from the elimination of tolls on the Lower Mainland — a grand move

that will put our credit rating at risk. But more about that l