Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 78

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

M. Morris

L. Krog

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Sims

A. Olsen

J. Brar

D. Barnett

R. Singh

R. Coleman

Hon. S. Simpson

J. Rustad

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2018

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate on the throne speech.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

M. Morris: As I was about to quote before we broke for our noonhour, I refer to

the throne speech itself. When they talk about a “sustainable, diverse

economy,” it says: “Your government’s vision for a fair and inclusive

society will be built from the foundation of a healthy, growing economy.”

[Applause.] Yeah, that does deserve some applause on that.

So “from the foundation of a healthy, growing economy.” I think this

government can thank the previous government for building that solid

foundation of a healthy economy. We left them with a $2.7 billion surplus.

Not too many incoming governments have the benefit of a $2.7 billion surplus

in order to build their future upon.

They go on in that, so I’ll also quote further. It says: “…from a

clear understanding that we must create wealth in order to share it.” One

thing that was obvious in its omission from the throne speech was how they

plan on creating wealth. They’ve got lots in there on how they are going to

share it, but they’ve got nothing in there to describe how they are going to

create it. That’s problematic for British Columbians. They don’t know what

direction that they are going in.

Do we create a sustainable, diverse economy by initiating a fight with

Alberta, by initiating a fight with the federal government, by putting at

risk $1.5 billion worth of their ocean protection plan, by restraining

federal infrastructure spending, by risking billion-dollar export

opportunities to Alberta, by losing a $150 million child care funding

opportunity? That doesn’t sound like a sustainable, diverse economy

opportunity for us.

[1:35 p.m.]

Do we create a sustainable, diverse economy by fighting Kinder Morgan

in court, by damaging Canada’s international reputation and ignoring the

findings of the National Energy Board in approving the Kinder Morgan

expansion, by questioning the integrity of the Constitution of Canada and,

by doing so, causing significant damage to the British Columbian and

Canadian reputations as a country and a province to invest in?

We’ve had a lot of companies internationally…. I host the resource

forum in Prince George every year, and we’ve had a lot of companies come to

that resource forum to see what British Columbia has to offer. British

Columbia has a lot to offer when it comes to the diversity of the resource

sector that we have in this province, the people that we have in this

province who can work in that resource sector, and the opportunities that it

presents for the investors. I think the message they’re getting from this

current government, though, is: stay away from B.C.

Do we create a sustainable and diverse economy by unnecessarily

delaying Site C, adding $1 billion to the cost of the project? According to

the minister during estimates, the project was on time and on budget as of

the end of June 2017, just before this government took over.

Folks, the tough decision to proceed with Site C wasn’t made by this

current government. The tough decision was made by our government when we

were in government in 2014, after looking at the mountains of material and

the data that was collected and the studies that were undertaken over the

previous 30 years prior to that to indicate that Site C was a viable project

for us to move ahead with.

The Premier unnecessarily delayed Site C. It was his own making. It

wasn’t a tough political decision for him to make. It was a political

decision, but it wasn’t a tough decision. It was caused by his own doing.

But that decision caused thousands of B.C. workers all kinds of untold

stress, for them and their families, leading up to Christmastime. “Are we

going to be employed after Christmas? Are we not going to be employed?

What’s going to happen in this great province of ours?”

Do we create a sustainable and diverse economy by changing an

environmental assessment process that’s already considered to be one of the

most rigorous in the world, causing more uncertainty for potential investors

looking at opportunities in the province? They don’t know where the

goalposts are anymore. So what are they going to do? They might just sit

back and wait for weeks or months, perhaps years, for this province to

re-establish whatever goalpost they may have out there so that everybody

knows what the rules are.

Let’s look at the reality of a sustainable and diverse economy in

B.C., one that’s threatened by the government’s actions. Rural B.C.

contributes 78 percent of B.C.’s annual exports. A recent report came out

called the State of the North Report . It was produced by the

Northern Development Initiative Trust’s office out of Prince George. The

research was done by MNP.

There’s some good data in this report. It says that “78 percent of

B.C.’s annual exports….” That equates to between $24 billion and $30

billion, annually, produced by rural B.C. in exports. So $24 billion to $30

billion — that’s new money coming into our province. That’s not encouraging

B.C. wine drinkers to drink more wine and recirculate B.C. money internally

within the province. This is new money coming into the province from other

countries, from other provinces. It’s creating thousands of jobs

provincewide. Consider this when you think about the billions of dollars in

export from rural B.C.

Let’s look at rural B.C. and urban B.C. When you look at the greater

Vancouver regional district and the capital regional district in British

Columbia, those two combined have over 60 percent of British Columbia’s

population. So 60 percent of British Columbia’s population live in the

capital regional district and the GVRD, but they only live on 0.57 percent

of B.C.’s land base. Less than 1 percent of B.C.’s land base has over 60

percent of B.C.’s population. I think rural B.C. is punching way above its

weight when you look at the contributions that we make, in the $24 billion

to $30 billion a year in exports, for this great province of

ours.

[1:40 p.m.]

Just to bring it home a little bit more, the capital regional district

here in the greater Victoria area has approximately 400,000 people,

according to the last Stats Canada stuff. In the northern 80 percent of the

province, we have 330,000 people. So 330,000 people living in rural B.C. are

contributing to 75 percent, roughly, of B.C.’s exports. People wonder why

voters in rural B.C. get a little bit upset when they hear talk about

proportional representation and some of the other things that are going on

here. That’s because of the disparity that we see between….

Let’s look at the capital regional district, which is a stronghold for

the Green Party that is basically forcing the NDP to look at the referendum

on proportional representation. A small, little fraction of British Columbia

is trying to force electoral reform upon all of British Columbia. They use

many examples. They look at examples in New Zealand, in Ireland, in Germany

as good examples of what proportional representation is all

about.

Proportional representation in those countries probably works because

of the population densities that you have. Population densities in Germany

are 300 people per square mile. In Ireland, not much bigger than Vancouver

Island, population densities are between 80 and 100 people per square mile.

They’ve got the same population as British Columbia. In British Columbia,

we’ve got 4.5 people per square mile.

When you look at the GVRD and the capital regional district, that’s

where everybody lives. Very few people reside in the rest of the province.

So when you look at proportional representation and you look at the Supreme

Court decisions that have come down over the years that talk about effective

representation and meaningful representation, it’s based on population, yes,

but it’s also based on geography, regional differences between the different

areas in the country and the provinces.

That needs to be taken into consideration when we dare go down the

road to electoral reform in this province. I question the validity of the

referendum that the government plans on holding. I don’t know if it would

stand up to a Charter argument or not.

Rural B.C. continually punches above its weight. Look at that $24

billion to $30 billion that we contribute toward our export

economy.

Our government, when we were in government for the last 16 years — we

hear all the time about the great 16 years that we had — signed over 500

benefits agreements with First Nations communities in British Columbia, 500

benefits agreements with First Nations communities that are contributing to

better economic performances in many of those First Nations communities.

It’s raising people from poverty and giving them jobs and a meaning to carry

on.

It was a step in the right direction when it comes to reconciliation.

I think the previous government was leaps and strides ahead of many other

jurisdictions in the country when it comes to reconciliation because of

those 500 economic benefits agreements that we signed with many of those

other First Nations. Other than the rhetoric, the throne speech doesn’t

appear to contribute towards economic well-being for our First

Nations.

They’re talking about more environmental assessment processes. They’re

talking about stopping Kinder Morgan. They’re talking about LNG. I think

there’s a lot of discomfort across the hall from me, with the government, in

supporting LNG. That’s the life bread for many of our First Nations

communities: the Haisla, the Haida, the Nisga’a, the Gitxsan-Wet’suwet’en.

There are a number of people that will rely upon those projects to pull

their communities out of disparity.

The throne speech also talks about building B.C. through

infrastructure. I’m just going to talk a little bit on this. It speaks to

the Pattullo Bridge. The Pattullo Bridge is a TransLink responsibility. So

here we have the province stepping in and saying: “We’re going to build this

bridge for you folks down here in urban B.C. because it’s a safety issue.

It’s a high priority for us. It’s a safety issue.” What about the Massey

Tunnel? What about the safety issue surrounding the Massey

Tunnel?

[1:45 p.m.]

Can you imagine cancelling that tunnel project, a project that had

been studied for years — thousands of pages of documentation indicating the

breadth and extent of the research that took place on that? But it was

cancelled merely because somebody within the new government thought that it

was a pet project of our previous Premier. A pet project, so cancel it.

“We’re not even going to look at it.”

I find that quite juvenile. That was a very juvenile determination

that I heard coming from government to cancel a project that had been

studied for a number of years, with thousands of pages of documentation on

it, with all kinds of safety issues that had been identified — issues that

were preventing emergency vehicles from passing through that very narrow

confine along that highway system. They cancelled it because it was a pet

project, in lieu of another project that’s the responsibility of

transit.

It’s not a level playing field when we look at transit projects like

the Pattullo Bridge and other projects within the Lower Mainland and greater

Vancouver regional district. Those municipalities don’t pay a hospital tax,

in my understanding, in exchange for the fact that they will look after

paying their transit costs.

We pay our hospital taxes in rural B.C., and the province expects us

to pony up with half the cost of building a new hospital in rural B.C. How

do you think that sits with my constituents and other constituents

throughout rural B.C. when they see the province now saying, “Well, we’re

going to help you out. We’re going to build bridges. We’re going to put

hundreds of millions of dollars into rapid transit and a number of these

other projects down here,” and we need a new hospital in Prince George. We

need a new hospital in Terrace, which has recently been announced. We need

new hospitals and new medical facilities in a number of different areas in

rural B.C. I think we need to have a look at that, and that needs to be

rectified.

With reference to public safety, it was nice to see that the

government continues to invest in police officers and specialized units to

address guns and gangs. That was one of the strategies that we had in

government. It’s still a problem that will be presenting itself to British

Columbians and Canadians. But what I found troubling was that there was no

mention of the critical need for police resources in rural British Columbia

— communities that experience extremely high persons crimes, sexual assault

and domestic violence.

I go back to my policing days, and I remember looking at the

statistics for the province. In the northern three-quarters of the province,

the persons crimes were always significantly higher in proportion to the

property crimes. Down in the southern part of the province, more populated

areas, property crimes were significantly more than persons crimes. It takes

a lot more resources to investigate sexual assaults, homicides and domestic

violence than it does to investigate a break and enter.

A lot of the missing and murdered women were driven from their

communities because of the high incidence of sexual assault and domestic

violence, yet we’re not seeing any dedicated resources for that. I look at

the disparity between police resources in rural B.C. and police resources in

urban B.C. In urban B.C., we have a number of police departments and

detachments that are in close proximity to one another. They back up each

other at a moment’s notice whenever the call for help goes out, which is

great. That’s exactly what should be happening.

When you have a detachment like Williams Lake with 26 members in it

versus another police department here in the capital regional district with

the same amount of members, the Williams Lake detachment has a criminal

caseload per member of around 160 criminal files per year versus 19 for the

similar-sized police department down here in south Island, which has access

to multiple police resources within very close proximity to them.

Vanderhoof is another area with criminal caseloads that far exceed

what a police officer should have to worry about. In my experience, and I’m

sure the member opposite will probably verify this, I don’t think it’s

possible for a police officer to investigate much more than about 50

criminal files in a year, considering all the other work that he or she

might have to have.

[1:50 p.m.]

With the complexities associated with criminal investigations these

days, the complexities that have been passed down by various court decisions

over the years, there is no wiggle room for an investigator to make a

mistake. You start investigating a file, and you’ve got other files to work

on at the same time. You make a mistake partway through a homicide

investigation, and when it comes to charge approval, you don’t get charge

approval because you’ve made a mistake somewhere along the line or the

evidence isn’t there. You blow $1 million on an investigation.

Police resourcing is a critical area within the province that needs to

be addressed, particularly in rural B.C. It would be nice to see the federal

government step up to the plate as well and start paying attention to First

Nations policing, the way they should have over the years.

One of the other areas I’d like to talk on is the poverty reduction

strategy. I noticed that was mentioned in the throne speech,

I previously remember the minister responsible talking about some

models that he was looking at internationally and within Canada, so I had a

look at those jurisdictions. This was several months ago now. The one

jurisdiction that he was talking about in Canada has one of the highest

debt-to-GDP ratios that we have — pushing 40 percent. In B.C., we’re

sitting…. Well, when we were in government, I think we were sitting

somewhere around 15 percent. Who knows what it might escalate to in the next

year or so?

What I’m saying is that that jurisdiction has also run deficit budgets

year after year after year after year to the point, I believe, that

something like 60 percent of their current debt load has been the result of

the last seven or eight years of deficit budgets. Is that a direction that

we want to go? Is that a direction that we want to take this province

in?

We’ve had very little operational debt. We were in the process of

paying it down. Do we want to mortgage our grandchildren’s future and have

them paying for the services that we’re getting today? I don’t want that for

my grandkids, and I don’t think anybody in this room, in this House, wants

it for their grandchildren as well.

On this side of the House, we believe in free enterprise. We believe

in balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. As was demonstrated in our 16

years in government, we had several consecutive balanced budgets prior to

this government coming into being. We provided this government with a $2.7

billion, maybe $2.8 billion, surplus to make life easy for them, to make it

easy to make that transition into making British Columbia a better place.

Yet I see from the throne speech that we’re going in the direction where we

will be mortgaging our grandchildren’s future and, perhaps, our

great-grandchildren’s future to pay for services that they want to initiate

today.

In closing, it would have been great to see a little bit more

substance to the pages of rhetoric that were in the throne speech. It just

pains me to see that my grandchildren are going to be paying for a lot of

the services that we have here today. I’m sure that they will be reminding

me of this when I sit in my rocking chair in years to come and they’re

coming and telling me about all the taxes they have to pay in order to cover

the costs that this generation of government has incurred upon the people of

British Columbia.

L. Krog: Considering the sense in the House today, I’m thrilled that anyone

even noticed I stood up to speak. I wish to offer my apologies if I ignore

the heckles of some of the members in the opposition. It’s only because I

have a cold, and I’m a bit stuffed. So I might not hear their brilliant wit,

as I usually often do.

Having said that, I want to talk about a couple of things first before

I talk about the politics. Firstly, I want to recognize that there are

members on both sides of this chamber who are facing some real health

challenges right now. I want to express my sympathy to them personally and

to their families as they face those challenges. We sometimes forget that

mere position in life does not prevent one from suffering the same pain that

anyone, high or low, does. That’s to be recognized here today — and the

sacrifice those members have made in their own health. We all understand the

pressures that come with this position.

[1:55 p.m.]

I also want to talk a little bit about Dave Barrett. Now, I know that

given his iconic stature in the history of this province, everyone wants to

clothe themselves, to some extent, in their relationship with Dave Barrett.

In my party, it used to be Tommy Douglas. Everybody had either met Tommy

Douglas or shaken his hand or been married by Tommy Douglas or sat next to

him at a dinner or was introduced by Tommy Douglas.

Forgive me if I indulge a little bit personally by mentioning that

I’ve known Dave Barrett for a long time. Indeed, it was that first

successful election in 1972 — yes, you can do the math — some 46 years ago.

It was the first campaign I worked in formally as a member of the New

Democratic Party, helping elect Bob Skelly in a constituency that was then

referred to as Alberni.

I don’t think I will ever forget the excitement or the sense of

optimism that existed across the province, regardless of whether you were an

old Socred or a long-time CCF’er, New Democrat, or even a Conservative or a

provincial Liberal. We still had them in those days — real Liberals, not the

current Liberals who are that wonderful amalgam of Conservatives and

Liberals. They’re never quite sure what they are, but the great thing about

it is you can take a position on a much wider range of political views when

you can assert yourself being a B.C. Liberal.

There was an incredible sense of optimism. There were changes that

people had been waiting for, for 20 years under Social Credit — 20 long

years. I must say that one has that same heady sense of excitement today in

British Columbia. After 16 years of the B.C. Liberals, we go into a

full-blown regular legislative session with a full-blown NDP throne speech

and a full-blown NDP budget to be presented next week.

It is an exciting opportunity to make progress on issues that British

Columbians have had at the forefront of their minds and on their political

agendas for a very long time. In our first-past-the-post system, which the

members opposite are so fond of, we’ve never had a government in British

Columbia, in my lifetime, that ever got elected with more than 50 percent of

the vote. Arguably, the majority of British Columbians have always

chosen….

Interjection.

L. Krog: In 2001. Yeah, the member may well be right, and look what that got

us.

My point is this.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Things went downhill from there, I know. We don’t have to end up with

Premier Clark. We won’t finish off the long story.

If I may continue, notwithstanding the interest of the member for

wherever today, all I know is they pretend to represent rural British

Columbia. I just heard the member for Prince George–Mackenzie indicate that

Prince George is rural B.C. I hate to have to tell him. The last time I

checked it was the city of Prince George, but we’ll get to that in due

course.

The fact is that we have an opportunity, as promised in the throne

speech, as promised in the last campaign, to give representation in a true

and fair way, if British Columbians decide to do so, by way of proportional

representation. I think it is an idea and a concept that is long

overdue.

When I think of some of the reforms in the throne speech…. It talks

about Dave Barrett, “whose many contributions to public life are still

enjoyed by British Columbians today, including the agricultural land reserve

and public auto insurance.” What I think is the very fact that tomorrow, if

I want, although I probably won’t, I’ll have the opportunity to go and read

what I said here today. If I want, I can have a CD made of it and sent to

somebody I dislike or wish to bore to tears.

All joking aside, that was one of the fundamental reforms that was

made by Dave Barrett. It changed the conduct in this chamber, and it is to

be admired and respected and honoured, amongst the many other achievements

of that government.

The books have been written. It was one of the most productive

legislatures in the history of the province of British Columbia. I suspect,

no disrespect to the current Premier, we may not be able to match that

record, but we certainly have been given an opportunity, with the support of

the British Columbia Green Party, to make some promising changes that will

meet the needs of a modern world.

Now, I listen to the members of the opposition as best I can. The

member for Prince George–Mackenzie gave what I will call an admiration for

rural British Columbia, which I share with him.

[2:00 p.m.]

I was raised in a community that was so small, all we had was the

general store and the post office and, a little later, a gas station and

then a second general store for a little while. So I understand about rural

British Columbia. It’s where I spent the first 20 years of my

life.

Now I live in what would hardly be described as a metropolis, but it’s

the city of Nanaimo. That makes me an urbanite. Now, why am I living in the

city of Nanaimo? Why does anyone live in the city of Nanaimo? Why does

anyone live in the city of Prince George or in Delta or in West

Van–Capilano? They live there because that is the nature of our

society.

We have not been a rural nation since the First World War. More

Canadians live in urban settings than live in rural settings, and that’s

been the story for literally 100 years. Why is that? It is not that people

don’t like rural British Columbia. Gosh knows, they’re willing to spend big

bucks to go out and see it, whether it’s whale-watching or kayaking or river

rafting or whatever. It is because it is in the concentrations of urban

population where we find our universities. It is where we find our large

employers. It is where we find people with skill sets and knowledge to

impart and capital and opportunity.

In a Canada where we lived and produced on farms and were largely and

often self-sufficient in so many ways…. That worked for a few hundred years,

but with the Industrial Revolution, that changed. As much as I appreciate

what the member has to say, I’ve never heard him recite Gray’s Elegy

Written in a Country Churchyard . Perhaps he’d be wise to read it

and get some sense of that lament, written several hundred years ago,

recognizing already that rural life was largely disappearing then in Great

Britain. Perhaps he would take some comfort from it.

As the member suggests proportional representation won’t do, our job

is not just to ensure that rural British Columbia is heard but that rural

British Columbians enjoy, as much as is reasonably possible, the level of

services that urban British Columbians do. But geography is a pretty big

thing to overcome. As someone once said, much wiser than I, the trouble with

Canada was that it had too much geography and too little history. Nothing

has changed. The bulk of us are crowded in a little strip within a few miles

of the American border. That’s the reality of Canada.

When I hear the member talk about rural British Columbia as if he

doesn’t represent an urban area, I’m always rather surprised. The fact is

that Prince George is a major city. I know the members don’t want to bring

up the ’90s, but I remember with pride who built the University of Northern

British Columbia. I want to assure that member that the people of Prince

George did not stand with pitchforks at the entrance to the city saying:

“Gosh, no, don’t bring us one of those big urban universities. That’s the

last thing we want, where we could educate our children close to

home.”

No, the good people of Prince George had been promised — and worked

for, asked for and begged to ensure — that they could have a university in

their community. It was so the citizens from central British Columbia, which

Prince George is — not northern British Columbia, central British Columbia —

would have an opportunity to get an education close to home, just as they do

in my city at Vancouver Island University, just as they do in the university

of the Okanagan, just as they do in other communities around this

province.

For the member to suggest, somehow, that the anti-urban party is over

here in the government benches now, ready to destroy rural British Columbia,

is beyond farcical. It is beyond farcical.

I would point to the history of the previous government, 1991 to 2001,

and the Dave Barrett government, which made every effort to ensure that

those communities survived, even some things which were ill-advised.

Investing in Ocean Falls to keep the community from dying — now, the Socreds

of the day said it was a terrible thing to do. But if it wasn’t the

government putting its money where its mouth was to preserve rural British

Columbia…. There’s just one simple example.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now, I have to also comment on the member’s remarks about the poverty

reduction plan. He moved from a poverty reduction plan to leading the

province to a high GDP-deficit ratio. Basically, he was saying that we would

spend this province into bankruptcy by trying to tackle poverty.

Now, I don’t mind a big one. I’ve been fishing with the boys from time

to time. I know everyone talks about the big one that got away. I get that.

But it was really a bit of a stretch and a whopper — there’s a lot of line

being let out on that fish today — to suggest for a moment that it is bad

public policy, that to address the issues of poverty in your communities is

somehow a bad thing. Now, come on. Really, I’d like to see that member come

in here tomorrow and repeat those remarks again.

Maybe, just maybe — I’m afraid this might be the truth — we finally

heard what the Liberal Party really believes about poverty — that they’re

not prepared to actually address poverty. “It’s just this little issue over

on the side that the NDP gets to play with, but we don’t really want to

touch it.” As long as the majority of British Columbians were doing okay and

the rich were getting richer and the real estate developers in Vancouver

were happy and as long as Bob Rennie could raise lots of money and pay for

the campaigns, life was grand. They were okay with that.

If that’s what the member is saying — and that’s the only way I can

interpret his remarks — then I’d like him to confirm that again. I’m giving

him that opportunity here in this Legislature to do so, if he cares to avail

himself of it.

He says we don’t know what direction we’re going. I come from a party

founded by what we used to call muscular Christians. We want to get to the

promised land. We know what we want. The difference is that we know the road

is long and hard, and we know we’re not going to accomplish it in four

years. But to suggest for a moment that what exists in British Columbia

today is satisfactory to British Columbians, is okay and is a status quo

that, in a modern 21st-century democracy, we should continue to support is

just dead wrong. It’s just dead wrong.

There are things that need to be done. There are programs that need to

be instituted. We are one of the last major liberal democracies in the world

that doesn’t have some form of universal child care.

In a world where everyone expects the opportunity to work — regardless

of gender or where they fit on any scale, regardless of their colour or

their religion — to not have a child care program that is safe, affordable

and accessible is just preposterous. Even the federal government understands

that. Notwithstanding all the ki-yaying about the alleged war between the

jurisdictions in this country, the federal government understands that

issue. It will be one of the last major and important social programs

instituted in this country, and it is long overdue. This government has made

a genuine commitment to do that, and we’ll see even more details next

week.

I’m proud of that commitment. There are people in my community who

tell me honestly that they would love to have the opportunity to work, but

they can’t because they cannot afford child care. They want to be able to

develop their skills. They want to be able to move off social assistance, in

some cases, or to increase their opportunities for themselves and for their

children, and they can’t do that in their present situation because they

can’t afford child care.

We have a societal interest, each and every one of us, in ensuring

that children get every opportunity. It’s because we know the social costs

of dealing with children who never had a crack at it, who never had an

opportunity, are significant. We know that for the child with

early-identified autism, if they’re lucky enough to get identified early….

That isn’t dealt with, and the parents don’t get the assistance they need.

That child potentially is looking at a lifetime of dependence instead of

independence.

When the member talked about the poverty reduction plan as if it was

somehow a scheme to drive the province into deficit, I just have to ask

myself: since when is the creation of opportunities for more people to work

and produce more going to drive us into deficit?

[2:10 p.m.]

I appreciate that this government left behind a number of issues. I’m

not going to talk about them too much. But essentially what I’ve heard from

the Liberals lately is: “Gosh, why aren’t you fixing the messes we left

behind much more quickly?” That’s really what the thrust of the remarks

appears to be. “We made a few mistakes. We left you with — I don’t know —

nearly $4 billion in a hole up in northern B.C. that you’ve got to fix and

deal with. We left you with warring mayors in the Lower Mainland around a

transit plan. Yeah, we left you with a balanced budget — isn’t that enough?

— and a big surplus.”

Yeah, well, when you have a social deficit that outweighs your

budgetary surplus, many modern-thinking economists will tell you that is not

a good thing. That’s essentially what we’ve been left.

I have to make a little bit of a joke here today. Gosh knows, everyone

is going to go “oh” somewhere in the building, if they’re listening to what

I have to say.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Oh, no, no. I don’t wish to be careful. I’m of an age, Member, where

I’m not that careful anymore because it’s not dangerous.

I know the members opposite have been given their notes and their

message box, and we’ve been given our notes in our message box over here.

That’s a great thing to employ all those young, thoughtful people to ensure

that no politician ever says anything original in this place and sticks on

message, just to ensure that we’re all on the same message box.

Well, in tribute to our folks on our side and a compliment to the

folks on the other side, I’m sure each of us has been given enough material

that would more than occupy half an hour. I’m going to resist going too

deeply into the message box lest I get lost in the incredible number of

bullet points available to me to ensure that I say nothing untoward that

would upset anyone, only satisfied, as I am, that — apart from the members

present and the odd person in the gallery, including some old friends who’ve

returned here today — no one is actually listening.

Now, that’s a terrible thing to say, but that leads me to talk about a

couple of things that are smaller that weren’t mentioned with great interest

in the throne speech. That is the possibility of a government that’s

actually going to use committees, just as we had a committee table a report

today around modern transportation.

Maybe we’ll start to move forward to give an opportunity to the

members of this chamber to make useful contributions, to take the incredible

array of talents and experience, whether you be a farmer from Delta or an

economist from West Vancouver or someone who comes out of theatre in the

West End or people who’ve run small businesses or had careers in the RCMP.

Give them a fulsome opportunity to deliver their talents.

Interjection.

L. Krog: I’m sorry. The member beside me doesn’t have one of those enormous

egos. It doesn’t need to be stroked.

I could mention diversity, that the diversity of the membership of

this chamber would actually be put to good use. That’s a positive thing,

because those things will have long-term, positive aspects.

Reconciliation is just so important, having grown up, as I did, in

this province and seen the dramatic changes. I’ve mentioned it before in

other responses to the throne speech, but none of you read those either, so

I’m safe in saying it again. It’s like Ronald Reagan telling another story.

No one remembered them.

I concluded my first speech to the first throne speech in 1992, the

year after we were elected to government, talking about how proud I was

because the NDP government of the day was setting in motion the treaty

process. It’s 26 years down the road. We’ve got a couple of major treaties.

We still have high rates of aboriginal incarceration. Over 50 percent of the

children in care by the ministry are aboriginal. Poverty is still rampant on

reserves. Poverty amongst aboriginals who live off reserve is still rampant.

Drug addiction. Deaths in the fentanyl overdose crisis are all much higher.

We haven’t really come very far.

I’m not going to cast aspersions on the opposition. They had 16 years.

They made some efforts. We made some efforts in the ’90s. But we didn’t do

enough, and we haven’t done enough. That’s why it is so crucial and so

important that this government not just talks the talk, as it did in throne

speech, but walks the walk in a serious way.

[2:15 p.m.]

We are not going to move forward with economic development, with the

kind of development that is necessary to give the fulsome opportunities that

so many have enjoyed in our society but have been denied, through various

means — fair, foul, through lack of attention, through lack of care — to the

First Nations of this province, who occupied the land a long time before any

of our ancestors showed up here.

I am optimistic. I am optimistic because the world is changing

rapidly. I come back to the report we had from the committee today, the

argument between those who want ride-hailing or ride-calling services and

those who want to ensure that the taxi industry, where people have paid

enormous amounts of money for the privilege to operate a taxi…. In behind

is, many will say, the exciting and innovative and modern world of

driverless vehicles.

We’re having a political discussion in British Columbia.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Ah. The member says not where he lives. Perhaps he should go and work

for — what is it? — Suncor. Is it 400 jobs they’ve announced will disappear

in driverless vehicles in the minesite? The province of Ontario is already

moving rapidly.

I commend to the member, as I did a couple of years ago — I believe it

was last year, actually — a book I’ve read called Sapiens . Well,

there’s a follow-up. It’s called Homo Deus , “Man is God,” where the

writer talks about the possibilities of what liberal democracies and what

the world will look like with the advent of technology, bionics, all of

those things. These things are coming down the pipe quite clearly and quite

quickly, and more rapidly even than we think.

What our job is as government — I believe, still, idealistic as I am —

is that we have to ensure that we can do as much as we can to prevent and

save from the incredible dislocation that will follow, the damage that will

come to the families of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia,

but at the same time, ensure that we are the first in line for those

economic opportunities. We talk about it, and we talk about it. It’s why the

innovation cluster that’s been announced today by the minister — I believe

we call it a supercluster — is such an important step.

I come back to it. If, in a prosperous…. Yes, the members will take

credit, I know. I’m surprised they aren’t clapping the desks at the moment

of mention of a prosperous British Columbia. If we don’t take advantage of

the prosperity, the education system, the natural amenities and everything

we have here, why would we expect the rest of the world to do so? We have

that opportunity. We have the opportunity to allow that rural kid that the

member for Prince George–Mackenzie is worried about to perhaps work from

genuinely rural British Columbia, because he’s got access or she’s got

access to high-speed Internet. Maybe she’s on a reserve up in the Kispiox

and she’s doing work for a tech company in Vancouver. That’s all

possible.

The industrial revolution took people out of their homes, women

weaving in cottages, and stuck them in factories. Then the factories got

more efficient, and the people lost their jobs. The world is coming full

circle now. With technology, we are enabling people to produce things of

value in a knowledge-based world in places far remote from those urban

centres that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie worries

about.

When we make the kind of announcement we did today as government, what

we are saying is that we have confidence in British Columbia, we have hope

for our future, and we’re looking forward with enthusiasm to those

opportunities. But those opportunities will not be fulfilled if we continue

to ignore the affordability crisis in British Columbia.

Now, look. I don’t think everybody deserves or is entitled to a

single-family dwelling in Vancouver. All right? The day’s gone. Sorry,

folks. The door’s closed. It’s over. We’re not going to tear down the

high-rises and build single-family dwellings. But we can maybe ensure that

families will have an opportunity, through programs that control the

marketplace in a way that is reasonable, that will enable them to have a

future in those urban areas where people have chosen to, or been forced to,

for whatever reason, make their homes.

It’s interesting. In my own community, Vancouver Island University has

a wonderful, innovative program, drawing students from around the world in

its business faculty. Many of those students, as soon as they get to

Nanaimo, which isn’t a big place by modern standards, choose to stay. They

try to find employment, because it’s attractive, and that’s what we’re

asking.

[2:20 p.m.]

If they can’t afford to live there, we’re not going to keep them.

They’re going to go someplace else, and we don’t want to lose that talent,

particularly after you’ve educated them. As the speech says, young families

wait longer to have children or give up their dreams of home ownership

because they cannot afford to pay for both. Some will make the difficult

choice to move away from family, friends and communities to fill those

dreams.

The B.C. Liberals sat by and watched the affordability crisis grow and

grow and grow. We are making a commitment to take action and to do it in a

way that does not distort the marketplace in an unfair or ridiculous way.

These are good, positive choices, because we know what we want. Society has

generally agreed on those things.

Notwithstanding what will be said here over the next few days as we

debate the throne speech, is there any disagreement in this place about

wanting to have a safe, secure home? An opportunity for education? An

opportunity to experience a little green space, do a little travelling, rise

in society? Do we wish to discourage social mobility? I don’t think

so.

We all pretty much know what we want. We argue around the edges in

this place about how much free enterprise and how much regulation. But I

said this last fall, and I don’t think the members believed me. Maybe they

didn’t listen. They’d still be sitting where I’m sitting if they had only

listened more to British Columbians.

If they had acknowledged the growing gap between the rich and the

poor, if they had acknowledged rising student debt, if they had acknowledged

the affordability crisis, if they had acknowledged the wait-lists in

hospitals, if they had acknowledged the lack of economic opportunities that

were more fulsome than a minimum wage job, which they happily kept down year

after year after year, they would probably be sitting over here, still, and

I’d be giving a different kind of speech — the speech, sadly, that I got

used to giving for 12 years.

It is with no small amount of delight that I get to lecture the

opposition a little bit today to say I am proud of what the government has

indicated is our game plan in the throne speech for the next year, of being

given the opportunity to participate in moving British Columbia forward, to

make priorities clear — the priorities of British Columbians, which will be

first on the agenda — to make life more affordable and to ensure that this

is an economy that looks after all British Columbians.

That I am proud of. That’s why I’m going to be voting in support of

the throne speech, notwithstanding the protestations of the member for

Prince George–Mackenzie or any of the other members over there who wish to

pretend that dealing with poverty is the road to ruin.

P. Milobar: I’m glad the member opposite referenced that his response to the

throne speech was a lecture. That is most certainly what it felt like. It

was a very interesting perspective that we all got to hear.

I’m going to start off my comments about the throne speech by maybe

addressing a few of the startling comments made by the previous speaker,

especially around things to do with rural B.C. There seems to be a narrative

in that last speech that would indicate that rural B.C. is deserving of a

bit of token attention, and that’s really all it should get because everyone

wants to live in downtown Vancouver — or that Nanaimo or Kamloops, where I

am from, or Prince George should be the only centres of area that people

should worry about when you’re in government.

I would like to point out to the member opposite, though, that

although my riding is called Kamloops–North Thompson and, as he mentioned

the member from Prince George…. It’s not just Prince George, and it’s not

just Kamloops. There’s a reason it also says North Thompson. There are many

hard-working men and women all up and down the North Thompson Valley, which

I represent, that would be quite offended, frankly, by hearing the previous

speech. They live and they work in very rural areas. They can be 15, 20

minutes out of downtown Kamloops and not have cell service and not have

connectivity.

[2:25 p.m.]

I think they would consider themselves still to be very rural yet

still very productive members of our B.C. provincial economy — trying to

make our province grow, trying to make our province prosper, trying to

provide for their families and making sure that they have good outcomes for

their family as well. They deserve to have the same attention from

government as someone that lives in downtown Vancouver.

I would also point out that although I live in Kamloops, if you are

from one of those small rural areas, a Blue River or that, you may consider

Prince George or Kamloops to be urban. But I have news for the member. If

you’re from downtown Vancouver, you most certainly do not ever consider

Kamloops, Prince George and, for a lot of cases, even Kelowna to be urban

metropolises. You consider it to be rural. So the fact that the member

opposite seems to think that anywhere outside of a population base is

considered rural is a little bit troubling.

If you look at how the federal government will view the difference

between rural and urban and at how it gets categorized when you are looking

for grants from a federal government in terms of population cutoffs, when

you look at even how the CBC defines rural versus urban, where they are

going to set up radio stations or not, I would suggest that the member

opposite and his colleagues might want to really brush up on what rural and

urban actually means.

That’s not to say that we shouldn’t have hospitals, and it’s not to

say that we shouldn’t have universities in these areas. Absolutely, we

support that. But to suggest, as the tone of the comments were, that really

we need to just give a bit of passing attention to the more rural areas of

our province and really focus in on the Island and the Lower Mainland, I

think, speaks volumes to the direction that this government is going. I

think it speaks volumes to some of the things that are in the throne speech

and, more importantly, what are missing from the throne speech. It’s very

troubling when you hear that type of narrative.

I would point out that although the member opposite made sure that he

stuck to his party-provided bullet points, as he referenced, I stand here

with none. I stand here without speaking notes because I wasn’t directed by

my party how I need to respond to a throne speech.

I notice it’s very interesting that the members opposite have

free-wheeled a little bit when it comes to this throne speech. I think that

also speaks to some of the confusion that maybe is out in the general public

around this throne speech when we’re hearing very different messages of

expectation from the government’s own members on what they think is

contained in this throne speech and what their expectations in the upcoming

budget are.

Now, that’s another troubling aspect to it. Although there are a lot

of words in this throne speech document, it really is light on detail. It’s

really light on content. A lot of times, actions do speak louder than words.

Let’s hope that’s the case, because these words…. There’s not a whole lot of

action in them. What there is, is a whole lot of grand

statements.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Of course, people want to see people living in comfortable and safe

housing, appropriate to what they’re able to afford, and be able to have

safety and security for them and their family. Of course people want to see

that their social supports are in place. Of course people want to see that

there’s a good educational system in our province. I would point out that we

routinely get referenced as having an outstanding educational system,

especially in K to 12, despite previous protestations from the members

opposite over the years.

I don’t think any of that type of language is really that surprising

in the throne speech. But the problem is that although most throne speeches

contain some types of language around that, it seems to be all this throne

speech really does contain.

I guess it’s fitting — and we saw referenced in the media already —

that there seem to be a lot of concerns by the members opposite in the last

few days as a trade war gets generated around diluted bitumen, because in

this throne speech, what I see, quite frankly, is a whole lot of diluted

promises that they have made to their supporters.

I think, as time marches on here, through this throne speech, through

the budget debate, I would suggest that they’re going to find a lot of their

groups of support are going to be sorely disappointed when they see how

little the government is able to actually enact based on their campaign

promises, based on moving forward with what they said was going to be a

priority.

[2:30 p.m.]

We don’t see $10-a-day child care anymore, certainly, in this throne

speech. No, in fact, what we see is a government trying to distance

themselves from $10-a-day child care and actually saying: “Well, that was

really just a marketing slogan in our campaign. You couldn’t really have

believed that we were talking about $10-a-day child care. That’s silly. We

were just talking about the ideal of providing affordable child

care.”

Now we go from $10 to affordable. We’re going to start seeing a

government try to figure out a way to finagle what they define affordable

child care to be, all the while failing to deliver on a key campaign

promise, which I think will see very many people disappointed and upset with

their government — that they did not see that come true.

It’s interesting that in one paragraph, under “Affordable child care,”

they talk about cracking down on unlicensed providers. Yet just a few

paragraphs later, they go to great detail to say how they’re going to set up

a framework to let parents know if their child is in unlicensed daycare so

that they can make an informed decision. “We know the person is operating

without the proper permits, so we’re going to pass some legislation that

says, basically, that they need to declare that to you.” That’s how I’m

reading this throne speech piece.

Somehow that magically makes it okay, because the person has made an

informed decision that they’re still sending their child to an unlicensed,

unregulated daycare. And this seems to be the magical fix to child care:

“We’re not going to actually expedite making sure everyone is brought up to

standard. We’re just going to make sure everyone signs a waiver.” Somehow

that waiver absolves the government of needing to worry about it.

It makes me think of how municipalities in the city of Kamloops, where

I was the mayor for several years, dealt with basement suites in much the

same way. “As long as you stay out of sight and out of mind, it’s okay. Go

ahead and operate.” Well, that’s okay for a basement suite, I think,

especially in light of the housing crisis we have and the mortgage helpers

that people have.

I don’t think that out of sight, out of mind…. “Just don’t cause a

fuss with the neighbourhood. Make sure the kids are quiet so they don’t

disturb the neighbour, and we won’t come and investigate you.” I don’t think

that’s what the public expects out of their government when it comes to

making sure there’s safe child care, “safe” being the key word. Affordable

is important, but so is safe. You need to have both of those, and this

throne speech falls sorely short in both of those areas.

Another area in this throne speech which is very interesting to me as

the Environment critic is…. We’ve seen a whole lot of discussion about the

environment through the election and through their agreement with their

junior partners, the Green Party. In the last throne speech, it was quite

disappointing to see that, out of what I believe was an 11-page throne

speech, the first throne speech, the environment was mentioned right near

the very end.

This time, okay, the throne speech is double. It’s got 21 pages.

They’ve added a whole lot more words in there. They’ve fluffed things up.

But frankly, they’re repeating a whole lot of stuff that they said they were

going to do in September. They’ve sat around for seven months and not really

done any of them yet. So they thought they should probably repeat a whole

lot of it. “Maybe this time we should add a little bit more language around

it to make it look bigger and more impressive.”

I remember back to the estimates, when I asked the Environment

Minister the very first question of the day: “Where is the importance of the

Ministry of Environment on the scale of the overall government operations?”

He assured me that it was of the highest priority for the government and the

Green Party. Then he had trouble explaining to me why, if that was the case

and when almost every other ministry saw substantial increases to their

operating budget in that budget update that we saw, the Ministry of

Environment saw nothing.

They saw no monetary increase. They saw $2 million, which actually

came from an increase in fees generated from camping fees and the licence

plate program. The government itself didn’t have to find extra dollars. The

government itself didn’t have to prioritize their spending. It was actually

just some found revenue that went into the Ministry of

Environment.

Luckily, they had that extra $2 million because they did have to hire

some extra administrative staff within the minister’s office to try to cover

off some of the extra staff that they wanted to bring in at the ministerial

level but certainly not at the park ranger level, certainly not at the

conservation officer level and certainly not trying to address any of the

other needs out there within the Environment portfolio. But we sure have a

well-staffed minister’s office now. I’m sure people breathe much easier at

night knowing that there’s all that extra support staff within the

minister’s office. That’s certainly a high priority, I’m sure, on most

average people’s minds when it comes to how to staff.

[2:35 p.m.]

I go back to this current throne speech. Under that envelope of the

minister assuring myself — and, by extension, all British Columbians, as the

estimates are an open and public forum — that the environment was the

highest of priorities of the government…. Now, remember, this is back in

estimates, and it would’ve been — what? — around November that we were doing

these. The highest priority in November.

Throne speech comes out now. Where is the environment in the throne

speech? It’s on page 20 of a 20½-page document. There is no mention of most

things until about the third-to-last paragraph when it comes to the pipeline

debacle that has been created.

One would think, given the superiority of thought that the government

feels they’re at, standing with the Kinder Morgan pipeline and the blockage

threat and subsequent trade war, that they would want to stand with pride

and with strong language in the throne speech about how this was big,

important and critical, given that it’s in real time.

I’m sure, in this day and age of computers and cut and paste, it would

have taken all of a few seconds for someone to click and drag that paragraph

to the front end of the document to make it more relevant to what’s going on

reflecting real-time issues within British Columbia and the seriousness that

we see with them.

Instead, we see it buried on page 20 of a 20½-page document. It

actually carries on to page 20½. It’s very…. Actually, the language used

around diluted bitumen is quite diluted itself compared to the statements we

were hearing on January 30. Even in their own document, we see the

government trying to backtrack their way out.

Yet during question period, it’s obvious that they’re trying to also

dig their heels in the sand — not the tar sands, because I know how much you

don’t like the tar sands — to make sure…. Their stubborn adherence to making

sure that we can see as much impact to our economy as possible seems to be

the game plan for the government.

It’s an interesting negotiating strategy. When I read the throne

speech, these promises, these grand ideals, come with a very hefty price tag

— all of which, generally speaking, require federal partnerships for

housing, for childcare, for health care and for addictions and mental health

issues. That’s interesting to then pick the pipeline project to now go toe

to toe with the federal government.

Make no mistake about it. I think it would be safe to say that it

would be fairly unique for a sitting Prime Minister to sit down and have a

half-hour conversation with an exclusive media outlet, which, by far, is not

considered to be a right-wing media source by any means, and make it very

clear what his stand on Kinder Morgan is, make it very clear what his stand

on pipelines is and make it very clear how wrong the Premier is when it

comes to this.

It was very clear language. There was no misinterpretation possible

for the language that the Prime Minister used around the stance the

government is taking to harming the national carbon action plan.

That again, I think, speaks volumes to where we see things around the

environment located within this throne speech. Here we have all of these

programs that are going to require federal supports — long-term federal

supports.

We’ve already seen the federal government coincidentally,

conveniently…. Now, it was only the actual press conference part that got

cancelled, but I think that sends a bit of a message to the general public

that they’re not very happy with how things are going. They expect, frankly,

that the province of British Columbia would actually follow the constitution

of Canada that we all are under.

Let’s go back to the federal government needing to be a full

participating partner with British Columbia when it comes to things around

housing, health and education. You name it. The federal government is a

partner with the province every time. Rapid transit. You think we’re going

to do rapid transit without the federal government’s support and dollars

coming in? I don’t think so.

Let’s look at this. You’re setting up a negotiating stance where

you’re, essentially, picking a fight with that person you need to literally

unload billions upon billions of dollars.

[2:40 p.m.]

I guess there’s another way to get those billions and billions of

dollars out of the federal government, and that’s to drive our economy into

the ground, turn us into a have-not province and rely on federal transfer

payments. That seems to be, perhaps, the end-run goal of this government.

It’s to make sure that these high, lofty ideals can be paid for but not do

it in a way that most British Columbians take pride in — where they work

hard and pay their taxes, and then they see their government stepping up and

providing those supports to people.

No, instead what we see is a throne speech and actions by a government

seeming to be intent to drive our economy into the ground so they can still

get that federal cheque. But they can get that federal cheque without the

pride of knowing that they’re a full-partner participant in these programs,

more of a: “Please can we have a few dollars to keep running our

programs?”

We see it happening in other provinces that are have-not provinces.

They get billions of dollars of transfer payments. Those transfer payments,

ironically enough, are actually generated, a lot of them, out of B.C. and

Alberta, when it comes to being part of confederation and making sure that

everyone stays whole.

That, I think, in a nutshell, is a lot of the problems that I see with

this throne speech. It’s a lot of repetition from September. It’s

interesting to note that most of the promises or implementation pieces that

they’re very proudly talking about within this throne speech were actually

all initiatives generated by the former B.C. Liberal government and, in

fact, budgeted for and were already in the budget when the change in

government happened.

Really what we’re seeing is a government that has done none of their

own heavy lifting in the first several months. They have referred things to

over 17 different committees, to this point, for study, for look, for

review.

There’s a lot of talk about the need for transportation in the Lower

Mainland, and we need to make sure that there’s rapid transit. I fully

support that. I have always believed, even as a mayor, that each city goes

through a different cycle of development and need and that each city should

have that support from the province and the federal government, based on

what they truly need, not just a swimming pool for each town because the

first town got a swimming pool. Sometimes the town needs a swimming pool,

and the other towns don’t. So we help, as a collective, to make sure that

swimming pool gets built.

Other times it’s things like rapid transit and SkyTrain down in the

Lower Mainland. I’ve always supported that. I would note that even the

Canada Line, which this side of the House fully supported being built…. I

could stand to be corrected, but if memory serves, I’m pretty sure the

members in the government all opposed the Canada Line being built. So it’s

interesting how projects that could move things forward to make sure that

people are able to get around the Lower Mainland, the same problems we’re

faced with and keep trying to build for….

The members opposite, in government, were opposed to almost every

single project. They were opposed to the Coquihalla. They were opposed to

the Canada Line. I think they’ve been opposed to just about every major

transportation project in this province, except for the Island Highway,

which wound up being 20-something percent over budget and wound up with much

less design put into it because it was so over budget that they had to scrap

the overpasses. Oh, that’s right. There were the fast ferries too. They

didn’t oppose those, but that worked out really well for us as

well.

What I find interesting, though, is that’s the approach, in the past,

taken on transportation. When you see a glaring omission of something…. No

mention whatsoever of a Massey Tunnel replacement in their throne speech

when they’re talking about transportation. It’s like — poof! — magically,

the Massey Tunnel is no longer a problem.

Now, I’m not talking that it had to be a specific bridge referenced in

the throne speech. No. I think, though, that the people in Delta and the

people in Richmond would have liked to have seen some recognition from their

government that, in fact, the Massey Tunnel needs to be replaced and needs

to be replaced quickly, that the Massey Tunney is no longer seismically

sound and that the Massey Tunnel is British Columbia’s biggest

bottleneck.

Instead of any recognition of that whatsoever, they just have ignored

it now, which makes one wonder if the Transportation Minister has forgotten

that she was even studying it. It’s not in the throne speech. It has zero

importance all of a sudden.

[2:45 p.m.]

We’ve gone from, “We’re reviewing a project,” to “We’re reviewing a

project, and oh, by the way, we’ve pulled the money out of the budget. But

don’t worry. We haven’t forgotten about it,” to the next throne speech.

Well, we don’t even know that they’re still reviewing the project, and there

certainly isn’t going to be the money in the budget for the

project.

Where does that leave the people of Delta? Where does that leave the

people of Richmond? Where does it leave the people in the Lower Mainland

trying to get back and forth for a commute? There is zero ingenuity coming

from the government. There is zero thought process coming from the

government on how to actually advance and move a project forward.

I can understand that, I guess. They’ve spent 16 years fighting

against everything, you know, so one would understand, I guess, that their

problem-solving skills need a little bit of sharpening up. But I think

people expected the first seven months to be that time frame. I think that

now, moving forward, people have expected that this government would come

back in February ready to govern, ready to make decisions, ready to actually

do something on their campaign promises.

We’re not asking them to deliver our campaign promises, which,

ironically, are the only ones they’ve actually delivered on so far. What

we’re asking them for, and what I think the public — certainly the special

interest groups that supported the government — is expecting is to see their

campaign promises actually delivered upon. I think the reason they’re not is

because they’re realizing there is no way they can afford these.

There’s no way they’re going to be able to afford these when they

drive every dollar of possible investment out of this province. You can’t

have an Environment Minister going off on a project that’s been fully

permitted, federally and provincially, in terms of approvals and working

through its last things that it needs to do.

I would note that today — actually, about an hour ago — the National

Energy Board granted Kinder Morgan the right to start work on the Burnaby

Mountain tunnel to get their line going through there to try to make sure it

times out with the migratory patterns of the birds. So the project is still

moving forward, yet we have a government that’s fixed on trying to kill that

project.

At the same time as you have an Environment Minister standing up

trying to kill a project which has gone through years of rigour, you have a

Premier in Asia trying to attract oil and gas investment into this province.

The scary

part is that the members opposite don’t see that as contradictory

at all. The members opposite don’t understand why that would be a problem.

The members opposite have almost zero acknowledgment that in a global age,

in an age where the world is communicating instantaneously on electronic

devices, somehow that would resonate with the investment

community.

I’ve got news for the members opposite. If you’re an investment

company or a large company that’s looking to do a project in the

several-billion-dollar range…. Do they honestly think British Columbia is

the only jurisdiction that company is looking at, at the current

time?

Or do they think that company has the ability and the wherewithal to

say: “You know what? Things look a little off in British Columbia right now.

We’re just going to go take those investment dollars, and we’re going to go

do some other projects right now. We’ll come back when British Columbia

figures out what it is they really want to do — when their government

figures out what it is they really want to do, when their government no

longer keeps trying to change the goalposts on us after we’ve already gone

through all the due process we were told we had to go through and are

permitted to go through it”?

That’s the problem within the investment world. The fact that the

government seems bent on ignoring the reality of how global investment

works…. I shudder to think they’re actually in charge of our $52 billion

budget.

Let’s look at the other language in here, around procurement processes

for public works. That will drive the costs higher. Remember when I

referenced the Island Highway being about 22 percent over budget? That was a

lot of the same policies that were enacted then that they’re talking about

now. So the fact that there’s a lack of recognition that some of these

policies are going to drive the cost of these capital projects through the

roof is, again, a mind-boggling, stuck-in-the-1970s way of

thinking.

The apprenticeship piece — I think there’s value to that. I think we

do need to make sure that our young people have a way forward and a way to

keep getting trained and a way to have a viable career moving forward in the

types of work that they want to do. A lot of the work, ironically enough, is

centred in rural British Columbia, which the member before me seems to think

really is somewhat of a side note when it comes to worrying when you’re the

provincial government.

[2:50 p.m.]

Still, the key to all this is to make sure that we have projects

moving forward. Well, if you take projects…. In Kamloops’ case, we have a

hospital that is soon to be going out to get built. It will be in the $417

million range, currently.

If this new policy comes into place before that goes out to bid, is

the province going to pick up the difference? Or are they going to rely on

the local hospital board, which has already contributed $200 million of the

$417 million for the project, as well as the foundation, which is going to

contribute another $20 million? Is the province going to make up the

difference, 100 percent, because of their policy around

procurement?

Are they going to look back at the residents of Kamloops — yes, the

rural areas outside of Kamloops — that are paying into that $200 million?

Are they going to turn around, and are they going to say: “You need to come

up with your 40 percent of this cost overrun because we decided to change

our construction procurement processes”?

Does that seem right? Does that seem like we’re going to see a

province moving ahead with major projects? I don’t think so. We have right

now a situation where ideology which sounded great — and, I’m sure, when

they were soaking in the orange Kool-Aid for 16 years in opposition, really

started to make sense — doesn’t make sense in the real world, in real

time.

I can’t support this throne speech. I can’t support the direction this

throne speech is taking us in. I don’t see a way forward in terms of how

they’re going to pay for the promises that they’re alluding to in this.

Frankly, I think there’s a whole lot of watered-down, diluted promises in

this from their election.

I think it’s disappointing to the members of the public in British

Columbia. When a political party says they’re going to do something in an

election campaign, they should follow through and actually try to deliver

that, especially in their first several months. They shouldn’t just simply

rely on delivering the promises of the former government when they’ve been

in power for this first several months. So I won’t be supporting the speech,

and I thank you for the time.

Hon. J. Sims: As Minister of Citizens’ Services and as MLA for Surrey-Panorama, I’m

actually thrilled to rise today and speak in support of this throne speech,

a speech that so clearly outlines a vision focused on our most valuable

resource. That is British Columbians. I’m proud to be a member of a

government that is focused on people, and I want to thank the people of

Surrey-Panorama who elected me and sent me here on their behalf.

Now, British Columbians want a government of action that puts their

needs first and helps deliver access to affordable housing and affordable

services, including high-speed Internet for the new economy. The

hard-working people of this province deserve a chance to thrive and not to

just keep pace with rising costs or to be in the red. As the economy grows,

our citizens expect and deserve to share in the bounty that our province

produces.

Like this government, I, too, share a passion to make life better for

the people of B.C. It is what motivates me every day, whether I’m here in

Victoria or in my constituency of Surrey-Panorama or visiting the people and

communities across this beautiful province. My work and the work of my

ministry is to take every opportunity to ensure that all British Columbians

are able live in a province that is the best it can be, not only for all of

us today but for the future.

Some of you may know that I was actually born in India, grew up in

England and started my teaching career in England. I was actually one of

those early recruits to come and teach in Canada. For 40 years now, I have

lived in beautiful British Columbia. This is where my home is, this is where

my heart is, and this is where I have raised my children and where my

grandchildren live and give me so much delight.

B.C. is a wonderful place to live and grow. That is why I am excited

about the future of this province, a future with a government that, after 16

long, long years, puts people first. That means supporting a strong economy

that works for everyone.

[2:55 p.m.]

One important way we do this is by making life more affordable: with

real estate and rental markets that operate fairly, curbing speculation in

the housing market and giving more people a chance to participate; by

increasing training for childhood educators, giving more kids a chance to

succeed; by investing in affordable child care spaces to relieve families of

a very high-cost burden; and by making the largest investment in housing in

our province’s history, allowing more British Columbians to be a real part

of our economy instead of struggling to just find a place to

live.

This is a government of action, and I am proud to support its efforts

to move British Columbians back to the front of the line. These are

important to the people in my riding of Surrey-Panorama. By building

approximately 160 temporary modular housing units in Surrey, more people

will have access to housing and the necessary services they need to support

them.

With over 60 daycare centres in my riding alone, we know that this

fast-growing community will need support for early childhood education along

with access to affordable child care. The people of Surrey-Panorama need to

know that there is a place for their children in safe, affordable child care

spaces. Our government understands this and has committed funding for 372

new licensed child care spaces in Surrey already. I’m delighted to say that

114 of them are in Surrey-Panorama itself.

With the investment of $10.4 million in funding towards seismic

upgrades in our schools, we are taking another step to keep our children

safe. This government’s priority is to put our kids first. With that in

mind, I know our government is working to build new schools and accommodate

our growing, diverse communities. Sullivan Heights Secondary School, a

school that’s in my riding just across the street from my constituency

office, is well over capacity and, as a matter of fact, has so many

portables that it’s hard to find green space where children can play. We

need to get kids out of portables and into safe classrooms.

We are also looking forward to investments that will bring the LRT to

Surrey, finally. This large and growing region needs affordable, accessible

rapid transit. We are committed to working with the Mayors Council to bring

LRT to Surrey and to improve access to the rest of Metro

Vancouver.

In less than five years, the Pattullo Bridge will no longer be in use

because it will no longer be safe. We need to keep people safe, so we’re

going to move quickly to replace the Pattullo.

There is incredible work being done already in Surrey Memorial, but we

recognize the need to bring more services to Surrey’s population as it

starts to catch up with other major cities, like Vancouver. The previous

government promised time and time again, for 16 long years, that they would

build a new hospital in Surrey. But what they did instead was…. They didn’t

build a hospital. They actually sold the piece of land that a hospital could

be built on. Well, with a new government in place, we will move forward with

building a new hospital in Surrey and have already begun the concept

planning to help meet the needs of our rapidly growing

population.

The overdose crisis, as you know, is a public health emergency that

has touched every community, and we need to take more steps to fix this

problem. To support the hardest hit in our communities like Surrey, our

government is committed to providing more resources, such as the provincial

overdose emergency response centre — there are going to be 18 of them around

the province — creating a public awareness campaign to help reduce the

stigma of drug use; giving police the tools they need, like more officers

and anti-trafficking teams; and funding $20 million over three years to

support Indigenous communities hard hit by the crisis.

[3:00 p.m.]

It is essential for us to support communities, front-line workers and

volunteers in order to keep the people of our province safe.

Premier Horgan has visited Surrey many times. It was delightful when

he visited Surrey Women’s Centre and announced, again, an announcement that

made many in the audience shed tears. After 16 long years, they heard an

announcement from a government that was going to be supporting and actually

providing $5 million to women’s centres to decrease wait times and increase

services for those who have experienced domestic violence. We need to

continue to support women and children through these vital

programs.

Government has also committed to ongoing funding for successful

community programs, like the Surrey Wrap program, to keep at-risk youth out

of gang life.

I could go on and on with the amazing actions that this government has

taken and what the throne speech promises as it lays a blueprint for this

legislative agenda. But let me talk a little bit more now about the Ministry

of Citizens’ Services. As we all take steps to make life more affordable for

British Columbians, I want to talk about how my ministry is working to

support the people of the province.

The Ministry of Citizens’ Services is focused on the people of British

Columbia. This is another source of pride for me: a ministry that is truly

about its citizens. It’s the face of our government through over 62 Service

B.C. offices where British Columbians all over the province access direct

services. It’s the backbone of our government, with information technology

infrastructure giving the people access to the government services they

need. It’s the function of government, with procurement of necessary

products and services, as well as real property, that manages facilities on

behalf of the people of British Columbia.

That includes a strategy to green provincial buildings by reducing

emissions, finding cost-saving efficiencies and protecting the environment

and working with companies that can provide innovative ways to ease the

impact on the environment.

The dedicated public servants at the Ministry of Citizens’ Services

have been doing incredible work to help make British Columbia a province

that works for all its people.

Throughout my career, as both a public servant and as a teacher, I’ve

come to truly understand the value of partnerships and working in

collaboration. In education, I know that achieving the best outcomes

requires all kinds of partnerships between children, their peers, families,

teachers and the community as a whole. Nothing worthwhile is ever achieved

alone. We understand that. We know that we are stronger and more successful

if we work together with the First Nation businesses and other levels of

government.

When it comes to connectivity, last month we announced the results of

just this kind of partnership to bring fibre optic connectivity to

communities and First Nations along our coastline, to Haida Gwaii and

Vancouver Island. By working together — the provincial government, along

with B.C. communities, First Nations and the federal government — we

announced a $45.4 million investment that will help to connect 154 coastal

communities, including 56 First Nations communities, with access to

high-speed Internet.

This is an investment that will make a meaningful impact on the lives

of our rural neighbours in coastal B.C. This will support this government’s

commitment to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples.

It was an absolute delight and a tear-jerker to hear the First Nations

community talk about what this will mean to them, when a leader from the

Haida Gwaii community said: “Having this high-speed Internet is going to

allow us to keep our children at home. Having this is going to allow us to

grow our economy. It’s going to allow us to keep our language and allow us

to make inroads into health and education.”

[3:05 p.m.]

We will work with rural and Indigenous communities to find solutions

that work for them through high-speed connections that deliver access to

services and to economic opportunities. In fact, many of those remote

coastal communities, including First Nations, are ones that have no Internet

at all at the moment. For those of us who live in the Lower Mainland or on

Vancouver Island, at least around the city, it’s hard for us to

comprehend.

Investments like these are so critical to ensure British Columbians

are able to participate and compete in the growing digital economy no matter

what part of the province they call home. We will continue to work with our

partners to increase the availability of reliable Internet

connections.

This is technology that brings families closer together; gives our

businesses a critical tool to be a player in the international arena; allows

our tech industry to innovate and compete on the world stage, and the recent

announcement on the supercluster is a prime example; gives our more

traditional industries like tourism, fishing and logging a better advantage

and allows them to innovate; and helps British Columbians gain easier access

to services that they can count on, like health care and education. Not

everyone can access a specialist with ease, and for some of our remote

communities, telehealth is a lifesaver.

It also means communities like Trail, which has a tech sector that

supports traditional industries, are also supporting other industries that

grow because of the development of applications that provide a local

solution for a local business, the smelter. This innovation is now ready for

the world market.

The subsea cables that will be installed, connecting the coastal

communities on Haida Gwaii and Vancouver Island, from the southern tip all

the way up to Alaska and then back again into the exchange, will bring

state-of-the-art emergency response services to these remote communities.

That will not only protect people in these areas; it will provide better

early response for all of us in B.C.

My ministry is also engaged in important work to create more

opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses, including those in

First Nations communities, to do business with government. The purchasing

power of government means we have an opportunity and a responsibility to

encourage B.C. businesses to employ B.C. talent.

We can do this whenever we put a bid out for any good, service,

product or project. We want to make sure that this government is giving

B.C.-based companies, regardless of their size, the best possible chance to

compete and win valuable government contracts, especially companies that

have local supply chains that create good-paying jobs in communities right

around this province, including First Nations communities.

The Ministry of Citizens’ Services and this government believe that

the procurement process can do so much more to help our B.C. businesses and

our skilled labour to thrive. For too many years, big companies held all the

advantage when bidding on large government contracts. Smaller, innovative

companies had a hard time. Many have been all too often left

behind.

The time has come to review and renew procurement in a way that

enables smaller and medium-sized companies to compete. Right now my ministry

staff are reaching out to stakeholders in industry, government and

businesses to identify ways to remove barriers and make access more

transparent and straightforward.

Once again, it’s about partnerships, partnerships that build

opportunities. More chances to do business with government not only helps to

create jobs and opportunities for British Columbians; it allows our

companies to gain experience, perfect their method and become more

competitive when seeking business in other jurisdictions, and it means

better services and supports for the people of this province.

I’m looking forward to what these changes will be and will provide

more information in the coming months. It is another way our government is

putting people first.

As a ministry, we are working hard at Citizens’ Services to improve

connectivity, transparency and access to government services and contracts,

looking for more ways to make life more affordable for British

Columbians.

[3:10 p.m.]

As an MLA, I see programs in housing and child care that will make

life better for the people in Surrey-Panorama. I’m so proud of the work

being done by my minister colleagues — the Minister of Education is in the

House at the moment — and the amazing job he has done to make up for the

long 16 years of a drought that was faced by public education when schools

were not being built and teachers weren’t being funded.

Under this government, we have hired over 3,000 new teachers. Students

with special needs are getting the supports they need. Librarians are back

in our schools. And what is so exciting is that in Surrey we are so looking

forward to having the kids move out of portables, because every child

deserves to learn in a real classroom.

As a British Columbian, I’m excited about a future that puts our kids

and our people first. I am proud to support the throne speech and to work

with the fantastic people at the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, and in

government, to represent the good people of Surrey-Panorama, to help support

our vision for a British Columbia that truly, after 16 long years, works for

British Columbians, and to be a partner in this vision for the

future.

A. Olsen: You’ve all been there. Whether you have a summer home on one of our

Saanich relatives — Mayne, Pender, Saltspring, Galiano or Saturna — or

you’ve passed through to catch a flight or a ferry back home, you’ve all

been to Saanich North and the Islands. It is really an incredible

place.

Saanich has always been a social, economic and environmental unit. The

Saanich Peninsula and southern Gulf Islands have worked together for

centuries. My roots tap deep into the soil there. For countless generations,

the land and the ocean have produced great wealth in Saanich — a rich

culture, abundant watersheds and forests, bays and inlets teeming with wild

Pacific salmon, and sophisticated trade networks creating prosperity. This

is still the case for Saanich North and the Islands. My

S¸ELELW̱ÁÁN , my

ancestors, believed that Saanich was the centre of the universe, and I tend

to agree.

Today it has not diminished in importance. It is home to the

highest-quality agricultural and industrial land in the region, world-class

attractions and trade networks connecting Vancouver Island by air and sea to

the Lower Mainland and, indeed, the rest of the world. We are home to

innovative entrepreneurs who employ thousands of people from across greater

Victoria, and diverse communities of artists and musicians who push to the

edges of their craft. A mild climate, great schools, quality hospitals. The

list goes on and on.

Perhaps I’m a little biased or a lot biased. There are 86 other

representatives in this chamber who, I’m sure, can express equal love for

their constituencies. That said, I believe Saanich North and the Islands

plays a key role in the health and well-being of our region and our

province.

In the few brief months that I’ve had the honour of representing

Saanich in this House, I’ve been able to see below the shiny facade. I’ve

seen and heard what we are doing well, and I have heard and seen what we

could be doing better. We’ve had hundreds of meetings, numerous town halls,

community dialogue sessions and dozens of site visits. The list of people

we’ve connected with is impressive. Our community outreach and public

engagement program is called the public circle. It has been a powerful

exercise in participatory democracy, and it has helped us deeply understand

the needs of our riding.

Last spring I ran on a hopeful vision for the future of my riding and

our province, a vision where the provincial government works with our

communities to improve the quality of life of people. Founded on the belief

that well-supported people build a strong economy and make better choices to

protect and enhance the life-sustaining ecosystems that we live in and that

strengthen our society…. I made the commitment to my constituents to be

bold, courageous and forward-thinking and to make decisions that not only

improve our lives today but do not mortgage our future.

[3:15 p.m.]

I think of the famous quote: “We do not inherit the earth from our

ancestors. Rather, we borrow it from our children.” This throne speech is

heading in the right direction. I support the approach of this

government.

My main criticism of this throne speech — indeed, many of the

critiques I have heard from the public — has been that it’s heavy on

rhetoric and light on details. Many of the words in this throne speech

outline an encouraging direction, but these words alone do not provide us

enough detail on what the government is going to do. It is the action that

counts. Much of what is said in this throne speech highlights the gaps that

my constituents have brought to our attention in our office. But what is

needed urgently is the action on these fronts.

I will interpret this throne speech through the lens of my riding. In

a number of ways, Saanich North and the Islands mirrors the challenges faced

more broadly across British Columbia. I will be focused here on what I’ve

heard from my constituents in the past number of months since becoming their

MLA.

Government has made transformative commitments to improve Indigenous

relations. We are at a critical moment in time. Bold commitments have been

made across government. Every minister has been tasked with renewing their

relationship with Indigenous people. We heard yesterday that some in this

House don’t think it can be done, that implementation is going to be too

hard, so we should just throw our hands up in the air and give up. We heard

from one former chief’s view, a narrow view, offering easy solutions to

complex problems. That is a dangerous mix.

In Saanich North and the Islands, we have chiefs that have a different

perspective. Perhaps, this is the best indication of the complexity that we

face. I’ve met with them, and they’re ready to work with a government who is

willing to respect their treaty and come to the table in good faith. They

were ignored by the federal government and told they were outside the

national interest when the Prime Minister approved the Kinder Morgan

pipeline. As interveners, they were concerned about the impact of diluted

bitumen on their resource-harvesting areas. They were told: “It’s all good.

Don’t worry. We’ve got your back.” Nothing could be further from the

truth.

Where was the former government when they could be standing up for the

resource that made this province and my people so wealthy? Nowhere. Perhaps

it is not wise to stand in this House and offer simple solutions for complex

problems.

I’m thrilled to see this government’s commitment on Indigenous

language learning. We are ready in Saanich North and the Islands. The

W̱SÁNEĆ School in my home community,

Tsartlip, is growing a SENĆOŦEN immersion program. Saanich kids can learn

entirely in SENĆOŦEN to grade 4. We have skilled educators developing

appropriate curriculum. It is exciting. It’s beautiful to see our children

speaking in their language, their parents becoming educators and a language

that was once on the endangered list reborn.

It’s not just W̱SÁNEĆ. School

district 63 has also embraced SENĆOŦEN learning. Indigenous and

non-Indigenous students are choosing to learn SENĆOŦEN at the local

elementary, middle and secondary schools. They’re under-resourced, and they

are doing it on a shoestring budget. This commitment in the throne speech is

exactly what Saanich and school district 63 need to turn this into a

powerful example of reconciliation.

Saanich North and the Islands is more than ready to pilot, test, learn

and refine this so that other languages can be saved and children all across

this province can benefit from learning from the beautiful world view that

is unlocked through Indigenous languages in our province.

On housing, government made commitments to build affordable units. In

Saanich North and the Islands, we’ve identified the gaps. We know the need

for housing solutions for workers, low-income families and seniors. We have

housing non-profits and developers ready with innovative solutions to help

build non-market affordable housing. We are ready to take advantage of the

investment in housing in this throne speech.

[3:20 p.m.]

I look forward to the long-awaited announcements in the budget next

week on how government is going to address the speculative forces inflating

our real estate market and putting housing out of reach for British

Columbians just trying to get by.

On transportation, government, through this throne speech, has made a

commitment to the Lower Mainland. No doubt it was needed. But I’m

disappointed not to see more focus on the needs of the capital region. We

have the Transit Future Plan . It is seven years old now. We need

leadership from this government to bring the local governments together so

that we can improve transit in this region and in my riding and on the

Saanich Peninsula.

On health care, government has made a commitment to interdisciplinary

team-based care. A year and a half ago, a non-profit society opened a clinic

on the Saanich Peninsula. We needed to address a gap in primary care. We

needed to attract new doctors. Well, we are ready to go. The society and the

clinic have been successful and now need this government to align the policy

to deal with the complexity of how multiple disciplines are remunerated

through a single office. Saltspring is now getting going and will be in a

position soon to also have a similar clinic.

We are creating and refining a model that can be replicated across the

province, and we look forward to working with the minister and the ministry

on this important service for all 87 constituencies in this

province.

The throne speech addresses mental health and addictions. Service

providers are desperate for help in tackling this crisis on the Saanich

Peninsula and Gulf Islands. We are ready to work with this government.

Mental health workers on the Gulf Islands are crying out for more resources

and help. They know the problems and need the support of our

government.

In Sidney, a youth mental health clinic was operating one evening per

week and had to close its doors because of the challenges of navigating the

funding to pay their professional people. These services should not be

volunteer. It broke their hearts and the hearts of our youth that they could

no longer offer the service.

Our youth deserve better, and when we fail to provide a stable and

reliable service for vulnerable youth, it sends the message that they’re not

worth it. Again, Saanich North and the Islands is ready to help address the

mental health challenges in the riding, which this government

inherited.

This throne speech made remarkable commitments on child care. Young

families in my riding need support right now. It is important that we create

a sustainable program that will provide families with support over the long

term. I understand that this cannot happen overnight, that we cannot train a

workforce or create spaces out of thin air. I get it. But as I have said all

along, we should not have such a narrow view on this.

I was a work-from-home dad. What is missing from this throne speech is

the support for parents who choose to stay at home. We must be part of the

equation. This is a step that government could take right now to support

families while the rest of the program is being developed, spaces created

and people trained.

Finally, I believe we are better served if this program is

administered through the Ministry of Education, not Children and Families.

Child care should be a part of a continuum of lifelong learning.

As was just mentioned by the minister for the civil service,

high-speed Internet is absolutely necessary on the Gulf Islands. We lack the

connection. It’s hampering real estate, and it’s hurting the Gulf Island

communities. We will continue to work with the government to provide

high-speed Internet service in the remote communities in my riding on the

Gulf Islands.

Frankly, I’m saddened by the lack of urgency on the wild Pacific

salmon. We’re seeing a collapse of wild stocks. Yet I feel there’s a laissez

faire attitude towards this. What we need is more desperation from all

levels of government. For all the ranting and raving of the official

opposition about economic development, I’m utterly disappointed that when

you were supposed to be the stewards of this critical coastal industry, you

now ignore it like it never existed.

[3:25 p.m.]

The Pacific salmon are one of the most valuable renewable resources

that we have in this province. The federal government has been derelict in

their responsibility to protect this resource, and our government has to do

a lot more to enhance the habitat of the wild Pacific salmon. Wild salmon

are not in this throne speech, and they should be.

This throne speech provides an encouraging outline in many respects —

in fact, in most respects. It is founded on the principle of supporting

people. We have seen what happens when a government abandons people. We

inherited it — housing, transportation, health, mental health and so many

other areas. Costs increase, life becomes unsustainable, society decays, the

environment is ravaged, and the strong economy is built on fancy

words.

I’m happy about this throne speech. I will be supporting it because I

believe we are turning the corner. My message to this government is: we are

prepared in Saanich North and the Islands. We have done the groundwork. My

office is investing in building the relationships so that we can be in a

position to connect the important government initiatives outlined in this

throne speech to the amazing people working hard to make our communities

even better than the incredible place I described earlier.

To this end, I am reminded of that famous quote: “We do not inherit

the earth from our ancestors. Rather, we borrow it from our children.” Thank

you. HÍSW̱ḴE .

J. Brar: I’m very pleased to rise in this House today to support the Speech

from the Throne tabled by the government this week. I’ve been here for

almost nine years now, and I have never seen a throne speech like this — a

throne speech that is good for the people of British Columbia, a throne

speech that is good for the people of Surrey. I will come back to talk about

the throne speech in detail after a couple of minutes.

First, I would like to convey my sincere thanks to my people, the

people of Surrey-Fleetwood, for giving me this rare opportunity to represent

the people of Surrey in this House and for putting their faith in me. Thank

you to the people of Surrey-Fleetwood from the bottom of my

heart.

Huge thanks, also, to my three exceptional staff members. Navneet

Kahlon recently joined the Surrey-Fleetwood community office, and she’s

doing a great job. Deanna Fasciani also works in my Surrey-Fleetwood office

part-time, and she has exceptional skills. Gurbrinder Kang is a seasoned

professional who works in my Victoria office. They’re all doing an excellent

job of serving the people of British Columbia and helping me every day to

deliver my day-to-day duties. Thanks to all of them.

Last but not least, thanks from deep inside my heart to the love of my

life, my friend and beautiful wife, Rajwant Brar, to my daughter, Noor, and

to my son, Fateh, for their unconditional support to me for the last many

years. I love them all.

Coming back to the throne speech, to begin with, once again let me

make it absolutely clear that I feel proud to support the throne speech

delivered this week by the government. I support the throne speech because

making life more affordable was front and centre in this week’s throne

speech and will be at the core of next week’s budget. That’s great news for

the people of British Columbia.

[3:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Historic investments in housing and child care are at the heart of the

throne speech, which focuses on making life more affordable and creating

more opportunities for people and a brighter future for British Columbia.

I’m really pleased to see, finally, the real focus on making life better for

the people, not for the top 2 percent of people who remained the focus of

the previous administration for 16 long years.

It is absolutely clear that our Premier and our government are working

for the people. We are making life more affordable, improving the services

people count on and creating jobs for the people throughout the province of

British Columbia.

After 16 years of bad choices and neglect by the previous

administration, I have finally seen a throne speech that is dedicated to

making life better for the people of British Columbia. For too long, too

many people couldn’t get the services they need. It is time to fix those

problems by putting people first and making life better for families

everywhere in the province of British Columbia.

Our government strongly believes that a strong economy is one where

everyone is doing better, no matter who they are or where they live. We will

make sure every region benefits from the jobs and the opportunities our

province creates. I am proud to be part of a government that is making

different choices and moving B.C. in a new direction — one that is focused

on people, with solutions to make life better for the people of British

Columbia.

The throne speech is good news for the people of Surrey. The people of

Surrey are very, very happy with the directions our government is taking.

This throne speech has lots of good news for the people of

Surrey.

The city of Surrey, as you know, is the fastest-growing community in

the province of British Columbia. We welcome over 1,200 newcomers every

month. Our great city has led the province in population growth and

particularly in building new homes. Clearly, we have been paying our dues to

the provincial coffer for too long.

The previous administration made bad choices and completely ignored

the needs of our growing community for 16 long years. They were out of touch

with our reality. As a direct result of the bad choices made by the previous

government, the people of Surrey are faced with a number of crises. The

housing affordability crisis became a real crisis for our people under the

B.C. Liberals, because they failed to take timely actions.

Seven thousand children don’t have real classrooms because the B.C.

Liberals initiated a wrong and long, illegal fight with teachers about class

size and composition, which they lost in the Supreme Court of

Canada.

Next, patients at Surrey Memorial Hospital suffer in pain over six

long hours, but the previous administration made the decision to sell the

piece of land that the previous NDP government purchased to build a new

hospital.

They also failed to build a transit system to support the population

growth in the city of Surrey. People were being forced to pay unfair tolls

for the Port Mann Bridge and Golden Ears Bridge. They took no action to

replace the old and unsafe Pattullo Bridge. The list goes on. That’s the

record of the previous administration if we look back for the last 16

years.

The previous government left the city of Surrey in a big and ugly

mess, and we are fixing those problems one by one. That’s what we’re trying

to do. That’s why the people of Surrey are very excited about the direction

and actions of our government.

[3:35 p.m.]

Affordability. Affordability, of course, is the big issue. The

government’s first and most urgent priority is to make life more affordable.

We cannot build a better future if British Columbians cannot afford to be

part of that future. Government’s first steps to make life more affordable

are already making a difference.

By cutting MSP in half, government has put up to $900 a year back into

the pockets of thousands of hard-working British Columbians. We have done

that. By removing unfair bridge tolls on the Port Mann Bridge and Golden

Ears Bridge, daily commuters are saving up to $1,500 a year, and that has

been done. By cutting student loan interest by 2½ percent, graduates can get

out of debt more quickly and on the path of their chosen career. By making

thousands of British Columbians can prepare for their degree and upgrade

their skills for work. To keep hydro rates affordable, government has asked

the B.C. Utilities Commission to freeze hydro rates for this

year.

It’s just the beginning. We have taken all those actions which I just

indicated. In the months and years ahead, government will take even more

actions to make life more affordable and create opportunities for the people

of British Columbia.

The housing crisis is a big issue. People tell me everywhere, almost

every day when they come to my office, that the single greatest challenge to

affordability in British Columbia is housing. Home is at the heart of

belonging to a neighbourhood, a community, a province or country. Home is

the place to raise a family and to feel safe and secure. Where people cannot

find an affordable home, that safety and security is taken away. We become

uncertain about the future and our place in it, and that’s how far too many

families in British Columbia live today.

Every British Columbian has a dream to buy a dream house of their

choice, and the previous administration has killed that dream because they

refused to take action for too long. They were listening to a person known

as Bob Rennie, who was the chairperson of the B.C. fundraising committee,

and he’s known as the Condo King. They did not listen to the people of

British Columbia until it was too late.

We are listening to….

Interjection.

J. Brar: Well, I’m saying it here. The member from Langley is saying: “Say it

outside.” I think that was in the newspaper, Member, and he said it himself

— that he knew about this whole thing for two weeks before it happened. He

was the chair of the B.C. Liberal fundraising committee. He was. The reason

there’s no tax on the condos is because he was the chair of the B.C. Liberal

fundraising committee, and that’s the fact. That’s true. They refused to

take action even as the opposition kept asking questions about the rising

costs of housing. They refused because their adviser on the other side had

his own personal interests in this game.

We are listening to the people of British Columbia, and that is the

difference between us and them. We are going to change the way things were

in the past. Our government is taking actions to help make housing more

affordable. This throne speech announced the start of the largest investment

in affordable housing in the history of this province. This is the first

time any government has done this, including social housing, student

housing, seniors housing, Indigenous housing and affordable rentals for

middle-class-income families.

[3:40 p.m.]

The government will also take steps to address the effects of

speculation on real estate market prices, to crack down on tax fraud and

money laundering in B.C. real estate markets. That action will be taken as

well. They failed to take those actions. They actually refused to take those

actions for a long, long time.

Access to affordable, safe and secure housing is the top concern for

the people of British Columbia. To tackle the housing crisis head-on, the

government will make the largest investment in the history of the province.

This is going to, for the first time, take swift and broad-ranging actions

to control the skyrocketing housing crisis.

In the last budget, we took a bold first step. We invested $208

million over four years to support the construction of more than 1,700 new

units of affordable rental housing in communities across the province. We

have done that. We also provided $291 million over two years to construct

2,000 modular supportive housing units for people who are

homeless.

Child care is another issue. We understand that housing has a major

impact on the cost of living for B.C. families. So, too, does the search for

quality child care in the province of British Columbia. These families work

extra shifts and often drive miles out of their way to take advantage of

child care they feel lucky to have found, a service that can cost tens of

thousands of dollars a year per child.

Then there are the thousands of families who do not even get their

chance. Instead, they wait months, even years, on waiting lists. Careers are

put on pause. Family income falls because child care is not available for

them. Past government has not helped parents find the child care they need

to move their lives forward, getting an education, taking a new job and

making the most of their opportunities. Our government has good news for the

people. This year, British Columbians will turn a page.

This throne speech also focuses on making significant investments to

make sure families have access to safe, quality and affordable child care.

That’s the commitment made in this throne speech. Families are paying tens

of thousands of dollars a year for child care or waiting months and years on

wait-lists for child care.

Our government is taking the first step forward on a made-in-B.C.

child care plan that will deliver — including reduced child care fees for

thousands of families, increased training for early childhood educators to

create quality child care spaces — and help thousands of children and

families get a better start and grow our economy to the benefit of all

British Columbians. It’s all good news for young families.

When we invest in quality child care, everyone benefits. Children get

the best start and the opportunity to succeed. Parents can go ahead and find

work, earning more money to pay the bills and save for the future. Employers

benefit from the talents of tens of thousands of skilled people, many of

them women, coming back into the workforce. The people of Surrey are very

happy with the announcement of safe, quality and affordable child care. It’s

certainly a win-win situation for everyone.

Poverty is another issue that is very close to my heart. Poverty is an

important issue that requires significant actions, and our government is in

the process of developing a comprehensive poverty reduction plan.

[3:45 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker, probably you remember that on May 25, 2011, I received a

letter from Raise the Rates entitled “MLA welfare challenge,” which went to

every MLA. Raise the Rates — a coalition concerned about poverty, inequality

and homelessness in B.C. — invited me to spend a month living on

welfare.

After much consideration and support from my family, stakeholders and

colleagues, I decided to accept the welfare challenge to experience

firsthand what life is like for half a million families and individuals

living in poverty. As a father of two young children, it is very hard for me

to imagine that in a province as wealthy as ours, we had 137,000 children

living in poverty at that time, under the B.C. Liberals.

It was hard for me to imagine that about 70,000 British Columbians

were using a food bank every month. Almost one-third of those using a food

bank were children. It was hard for me to believe that the gap between the

rich and the poor under the B.C. Liberals was widening every day, that the

top 10 percent of B.C. families earned considerably more than the entire

half of families living in this province.

We have a wealthy family, a wealthy society, and we can do better. I’m

sure that British Columbians want us to do better.

I lived on provincial income assistance for a month beginning in

January 2012. Over the month, I met the people living in poverty and on

welfare and listened to their painful and heartbreaking stories, and each

story has a message for all of us.

We cannot afford to not take action to address the growing gap between

the rich and the poor. British Columbia is at its strongest when we are all

pulling in the same direction. Our government is taking actions to fight

inequality and bring down the barriers holding people back. The cycle of

poverty has divided people from opportunities and hurt thousands of children

and families.

This year your government will deliver B.C.’s first-ever poverty

reduction plan. B.C. has been the only province, under the B.C. Liberals,

that did not have a poverty reduction plan, but this year we are going to

change that. Your government will deliver B.C.’s first-ever poverty

reduction plan.

This strategy will rely on investments across government to make life

better for low-income families and the working poor — from the minimum wage

to housing and child care, mental health, legal aid, post-secondary

education and skills training. We are all made stronger when we give

families a better start.

To erase inequality, we must create a province where everyone is

welcome to contribute — no matter their ability, race, religion, sexual

orientation, gender identity and expression or political beliefs. That’s why

I support this throne speech.

Before I move to my concluding remarks, I would like to respond to

some of the comments I’ve been hearing from the other members. I hope I have

some time for that.

One of the top comments coming from the other side, which I hear from

almost every member because it’s part of their message, is that they left

behind a $2.5 billion surplus. That was a big thing. But what they don’t

tell the people of British Columbia is that they took almost $1 billion from

ICBC.

[3:50 p.m.]

What they don’t tell the people of British Columbia is that they sold

100 properties of the people of British Columbia to their friends and

insiders to balance the budget. They don’t tell that part. What they also

don’t tell the people of British Columbia is that when they took over in

2001, the NDP gave them a $2 billion surplus as well. Somehow their surplus

is something good, but the NDP surplus was not good. That’s how they define

the surplus. That’s one thing I wanted to mention here that they talk

about.

The other comment I hear from them is this, which I want to respond

to. They made one more comment. I want to respond to that too. They talk

here about the broken promises, and I laugh when they talk about

that.

Let me give you the list of broken promises by the other side when

they were in power. There was the time in 2013, an election day promise to

the people of British Columbia for a debt-free B.C. They promised that there

would be seven LNG projects in the province of British Columbia. There would

be 100,000 jobs, with a $100 million prosperity fund.

The outcome of that is this. The debt of B.C. doubled under them. It’s

not free. There were zero jobs created out of 100,000. There was only one

job, which I don’t want to mention here, that they created. There is not

even $1 of the $100 million prosperity fund. That was their promise. Zero

delivery out their promises, and they won the election by saying

that.

They also promised just before the election that there would be no HST

in B.C. After one month, what happened? There was HST in B.C. The people of

B.C. stood up to that challenge, because that was a complete lie that they

made to the people of British Columbia. They had to withdraw, through the

process.

They also promised to the people of British Columbia before the

election that they would not sell B.C. Rail, but after the election, they

sold B.C. Rail. That was their broken promise as well. During the election

in 2009….

Interjections.

J. Brar: The floor is mine.

During the election in 2009, Premier Gordon Campbell and his team

promised to the people of British Columbia that the total debt of B.C. — it

was after 1990, by the way — would be $495 million, not a penny more. That

was the promise. But the actual debt was $2.5 billion. So here, standing in

this House, you talk about the broken promises. It doesn’t make any sense,

doesn’t cut it.

I could go on and on about these things, but I would like to conclude

because my time is probably coming up.

Interjection.

J. Brar: I could go on. I see the member for Surrey-Cloverdale is very excited

to hear…. I can probably fill him in.

Let me give you the B.C. Liberal record versus the NDP record for

Surrey. B.C. Liberals forced the people of Surrey to pay unfair tolls on the

Port Mann Bridge and the Golden Ears Bridge. The B.C. NDP eliminated those

tolls, which saves almost $1,500 for each person who works on the other

side.

The B.C. Liberals refused to build a new hospital for the people of

Surrey. In fact, they sold the land we bought to build a new hospital. But

we are committing, once again, to build a new hospital. We have already

found the money to build the concept planning for that one. That’s your

record.

[3:55 p.m.]

B.C. Liberals refused to fund the 40 percent funding for transit for