Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 30, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 267

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Standing Order 81.1

Schedule for debate on Bill 22

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. J. Horgan

P. Milobar

Reporting of Bills

Bill 22 — Forest Amendment Act, 2019

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

(continued)

E. Ross

Hon. J. Horgan

D. Clovechok

D. Barnett

R. Kahlon

A. Weaver

N. Simons

J. Rice

D. Routley

S. Furstenau

B. Ma

J. Routledge

A. Olsen

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Forest Amendment Act, 2019

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment

Act, 2019

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Legislative Assembly

Estimates: Officers of the Legislature

Supply Motions

Reports of resolutions from Committee of

Supply

Funds granted for public service

Funds granted for capital expenditures, loans,

investments and other financing requirements

Hon. C. James

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Bill 34 — Supply Act, 2019–2020

Hon. C. James

Standing Order 26

Privilege

M. de Jong

S. Bond

M. Polak

A. Wilkinson

M. Lee

T. Stone

R. Coleman

T. Wat

M. Bernier

J. Thornthwaite

I. Paton

Personal Statements

Action on issues concerning Legislature

D. Ashton

Standing Order 26

Privilege

D. Barnett

J. Yap

D. Davies

G. Kyllo

S. Sullivan

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 34 — Supply Act, 2019–2020

Hon. C. James

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 34 — Supply Act, 2019–2020

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 34 — Supply Act, 2019–2020

Standing Order 26

Privilege

S. Gibson

R. Sultan

B. Stewart

E. Foster

J. Tegart

L. Throness

T. Shypitka

D. Clovechok

J. Sturdy

P. Milobar

J. Rustad

T. Redies

J. Johal

C. Oakes

E. Ross

M. Stilwell

M. Morris

L. Reid

J. Isaacs

N. Letnick

S. Thomson

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 8 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2019

Bill 14 — Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019

Bill 15 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 2019

Bill 22 — Forest Amendment Act, 2019

Bill 28 — Zero-Emission Vehicles Act

Bill 30 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019

Bill M206 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019

Bill 34 — Supply Act, 2019–2020

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Forest Amendment Act, 2019

(continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

Bill 15 — Agricultural Land Commission Amendment

Act, 2019 (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. L. Popham

I. Paton

L. Throness

T. Stone

C. Oakes

D. Ashton

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General (continued)

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. M. Farnworth

C. Oakes

M. Morris

D. Clovechok

D. Barnett

J. Tegart

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2019

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Standing Order 81.1

SCHEDULE FOR DEBATE

ON BILL 22

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is the last day of the session, and we still have some

legislation. I know that we haven’t quite got an agreement in terms of

the finishing on a particular piece of legislation.

With that, I move:

[Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), all remaining proceedings

related to Bill (No. 22) intituled Forest Amendment Act, 2019 ,

including any proposed amendments on notice standing in the Ministers’

names on the Order Paper, shall be completed and disposed of on or

before Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. At 4:45 p.m. on the date

mentioned, the Speaker and the Chair of the Committee of the Whole will

forthwith put all necessary questions for the disposal of all remaining

stages of the said bill without amendment or debate.

Any divisions called on sections of the said Bill shall be taken in

accordance with Practice Recommendation No. 1. Any division called on

third reading of the said bill may be taken in accordance with Standing

Order 16. Proceedings under this motion shall not be subject to the

provisions of Standing Order 81, or the Standing or Sessional Orders

relating to times and days of the sittings of the House.]

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate on the Office of the

Premier. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage on

Bill 22, Forest Amendment Act. And in the Birch Room, Committee C, I call

continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE

PREMIER

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 1:40 p.m.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $11,349,000

(continued) .

M. Bernier: Depending on the time here, I’m going to have a couple of

different topics that I’m going to canvass, but let’s just start with

the obvious one from my riding.

As the Premier is well aware, over the last many, many months, the

Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development was working on a partnership agreement — a now signed

partnership agreement — between the federal government, provincial

government and two local First Nations in my riding. One of the largest

debates around this was the lack of involvement, consultation — really,

input — from anybody, even though people in the riding were continuously

writing letters screaming for input — really left with the

uncertainty.

Can the Premier start by explaining why the decision was made to

not include anybody in the discussions around the partnership agreement

other than the two local First Nations?

Hon. J. Horgan: I welcome the member for Peace River South to the Premier’s

estimates. Joining me today, to my left, is my deputy minister, Don

Wright; to my right, my chief of staff, Geoff Meggs, and Bobbi Plecas,

Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations; and Vanessa Geary,

immediately behind me, executive director, operations and strategic

initiatives in the Office of the Premier.

I know the member. We’ve been colleagues for some time. I know his

passion for his community. I took guidance from him during the lead-up

to the appointment of Blair Lek­strom as a community liaison to

unravel the challenges of consultation on issues around caribou in his

community.

The challenges government have are that we need to deal

nation-to-nation, constitutionally, with the First Nations in the

territory of the electoral district that the member represents. The

federal government is the main mover on this. The Species at Risk Act is

a federal piece of legislation.

The member knows full well that the decline in caribou herds over

the past number of decades has reached critical proportions. The entire

community, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, has focused on making sure

that the caribou are sustained not just over the short term but the long

term. And so when we heard the noises, the outcry from the community

that the member touched upon in his question, we looked at ways to try

and include the community.

The first thing we had to do with the partnership agreement was to

get an agreement; that was achieved. Then we sat down, the member and I

and representatives from the Peace River regional district, of which

Blair Lekstrom is a member. We talked about how we could open this up

for further discussion.

[1:45 p.m.]

I believe we’ve done that by extending the consultation period and

giving Mr. Lekstrom an opportunity to report to me on his findings after

discussions with community leaders and representatives from the public.

He gave us a report at the beginning of this week.

Mr. Lekstrom has a medical procedure that will keep him off the

field for a few days. I will be travelling to Europe next week to

participate in the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landing at Juno Beach.

So we won’t be able to publicly announce the outcome of that

consultation until the following week. I think we’ve set the 14th or

15th of June for that announcement. But I will endeavour, absolutely, to

keep the member as up to date as I possibly can on timing and contents

of the determinations that we’ve come to based on Mr. Lekstrom’s

work.

M. Bernier: Obviously, the Premier would know what my questions are probably

going to lead to, so I appreciate him getting ahead of that. I would

have asked, obviously, that this report from Blair Lekstrom — Councillor

Lekstrom now — is something that I think the Premier…. Just confirming

now that he’s going to make public, make sure that that report is

something…. I have full confidence.

I’m not sure if the Premier has had time to peruse — I’m sure he

has, at least — and talk with Councillor Lekstrom on the feeling. So let

me just, as maybe a bit of a

preamble into what my assumptions are, let

the House know that I have no idea what Councillor Lekstrom put forward.

That was something he was working with the Premier on. Blair always, I

think, respects the confidentiality that comes with that, so I have no

idea.

The assumption, from what I’ve heard, is…. The frustration around

the uncertainty that it took until Concerned Citizens for Caribou

Recovery and other groups, grassroots groups in the communities, really

got together and started getting people to sign petitions because of the

frustration, the lack of consultation, the lack of involvement…. A lot

of this stemmed — as the Premier, I hope, would acknowledge, and he

somewhat did in his first comments there — from the fact that nobody was

involved at the beginning other than the two local First

Nations.

Now, I understand…. Nobody is taking away from the fact that there

is a Supreme Court of Canada ruling, a constitutional right for the

consultation that must occur in a process like this. But can the Premier

then maybe remind me or this House, because maybe I’m unaware, where in

that ruling, or in the constitutional approach of dealing with

communities, does it say that only the First Nations have to be

consulted? Why not other levels of government in the region or community

stakeholders? Why and where does it say that the Premier and his

minister had to wait until they had a signed agreement?

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

Now, I want to start by saying, as I did to you here when you

tabled the petition, that as a member for south Vancouver Island, not

having a representative above Prince George in the government caucus, we

take our information as it comes on the feeling and the sentiment in

community.

[1:50 p.m.]

The member and I have a long-standing relationship. He can talk to

me at any time and takes advantage of that, and I’m grateful for that

opportunity. I better understand the needs in his community. Most

members are like that. All members should be like that. I stand

representing the government of British Columbia, which is the government

of all the people of British Columbia.

How we got into this was that we started with the direction from

the federal government to put in place a partnership agreement with the

two First Nations, Saulteau and West Moberly. They were insistent on a

government-to-government relationship, as is their right. So we

undertook that. In the process, word got around — I’m paraphrasing; you

know this as well or better than I do — in the community: “Why are we

not part of this consultation? Why are we not part of this partnership

agreement?” But always, always, before any agreement was to be ratified,

it needed cabinet approval. That has not happened.

I anticipate, after getting a briefing from Blair Lekstrom and

reviewing the high points of his report…. I have not digested it fully

because I’ve had other issues in the past couple of days, as well as the

worst man cold in the history of man colds. But I know the sentiments in

the community were running very, very hot. The member brought that

directly to my attention. I contacted Mr. Lekstrom. He confirmed, as you

would expect, that the sentiments were very, very strong in the

community.

It was at that point I talked to the Minister of Forests, Lands,

Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development and said: “We need to

rethink our process here.” The process that we engaged in was not really

of our making. I’m not abdicating responsibility when I say that. It’s

federal jurisdiction. It’s a federal act. We were directed to work with

the Indigenous community, or they were going to issue an order against

British Columbia, which would have taken us completely out of the

equation.

We determined that the best course of action was to work with the

First Nation and work with the federal government and, as we moved

along, engage with the public. Life intervened, I would suggest. Now,

this is cold comfort to people in the community who were concerned about

their livelihood, their well-being and their quality of life as a result

of a decision that they, at the end of the day, probably

supported.

Everyone that I’ve talked to about the challenges of maintaining

caribou in the Peace country wants to make sure we do that, whether it’s

through predator management or whether it’s through maternal capping

processes and protecting areas. A whole host of initiatives are already

underway, supported by the community, and we want to just make sure that

everybody has an understanding and that everybody

participates.

It was the voices in the community, tabled in this place by the

member, that brought this clearly to our attention. I’d like to think we

responded quickly. We put in place a process that I think will get us

back on track, where all members of the community, Indigenous and

non-Indigenous, can start working together again, as they were prior to

the federal government bringing forward their SARA edicts.

Again, I’m not passing a buck here, Member, when I say this, but

it was a process that we entered into in good faith. It got away from

us, and I’ve acknowledged that publicly in your community and as well

here in the Legislature.

We believe we’ve got it back on track, and I’m looking forward to

working with the member to ensure that he can report to his community

that his interventions and, more importantly, their interventions to him

have borne some fruit, and we’re back on track to make sure that

everyone is focused on preserving caribou, preserving the quality of

life of northerners, as well as all the economic opportunities that flow

from that.

M. Bernier: I appreciate the Premier’s comments and the relationship. I will

acknowledge that the Premier has been very open to discuss this with me,

to hear the concerns I’ve brought forward. If the Premier will allow me,

I notice that today he’s got his glasses. So maybe we can use the

phrase, “Hindsight is 20-20,” to say that in this case, looking back, I

think a lot of this could have been avoided.

If you look at how it really escalated…. Of course, right now we

only have a partnership agreement in the South Peace, in my riding, but

as the Premier should be, and I know is, well aware, as this kind of

news travelled around the province — and town hall meetings started in

corner to corner of rural B.C. — the frustration escalated. Whether it

was accurate or not is yet to be seen, depending on the decisions that

come out of government, based on not only this partnership agreement

but, I guess, on recommendations, if I can use that word, of what

Councillor Lekstrom might put forward.

[1:55 p.m.]

I will say that although I do appreciate the Premier listening to

some of my concerns, I do want to acknowledge on the record the

frustration when you have, as he acknowledged, very few rural MLAs

within his caucus — 21 or 22 on the opposition side from rural

B.C.

I know the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin wrote numerous letters not

only to the Premier but to the minister asking for the slightest of

briefings or information so that we could at least share information

with the public. I have numerous letters in front of me addressed to the

Premier and to the minister, none of which were answered.

We wanted to work with our communities, work with government to

try to resolve this issue. Can the Premier maybe let me know why he, his

office and the Minister of Forests and Lands refused to answer any of

our emails as a rural caucus, where we were trying to help and work on

this issue?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, the member will know this, but I think it’s important for

the record and for those who are joining us here in the gallery today to

talk about that this is not something that happened two years ago. The

decline in caribou populations has been going on across the province for

a considerable period of time. In 2003, the federal government

designated the mountain caribou and the southern mountain caribou as

threatened species, and then put in place a federal strategy in

When we came to government, I had an expectation, Member, that the

previous government had been doing some of this heavy lifting in

communities — represented, in most cases, by members of the government

at that time — to do the information-sharing that would be required to

have a better understanding across the province.

No other part of the province has the same characteristics,

however, that the member has in his constituency. There are no

partnership agreements with Indigenous peoples that I’m aware of in any

other part of the province. It was only with the Saulteau and the West

Moberly. The characterization that there was secrecy was a result of a

nation-to-nation negotiation. That’s not happening in other parts of the

province. It’s not happening in Cariboo-Chilcotin that I’m aware of. I’m

happy to talk to the member. I’m hopeful she’ll come. She usually does

participate in these estimates, and I look forward to that

discussion.

We felt that a solution would have been better with the province

at the table than not. So when the federal government basically told us

that this is what they were going to do, we said, “Wait a minute. I

think we should have a conversation here, in British Columbia, about

that,” and we began that with the Saulteau and the West

Moberly.

Now it has begun again with the people in your community, through

extending the consultation process, as well as providing an opportunity

for the community liaison to look at the lay of the land and report back

to us on how we can best proceed. We’re proceeding on the assumption

that everybody understands that we have a crisis within the caribou

stocks, the caribou herds in the region. The objective is to find a way

where all community partners can agree, to the extent that that’s

possible.

The member knows; he has sat at the cabinet table. There are tough

decisions that have to be made, and it is a shock to no one that you

don’t please everybody all the time. We’re not so Pollyanna that we

believe that’s the case, but we do need to respond and acknowledge the

concerns in the community. Again, I credit the member for his openness

with me and our ability to talk about this candidly so that we can

address the issues in the Peace.

Other parts of the province have bigger problems, inasmuch as the

herds are much, much smaller. So the chances of turning this around are

diminished. That’s not to say that we’ve given up, or that the federal

government has given up, but our objective was to make sure that we

didn’t have something imposed upon us.

[2:00 p.m.]

The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is

working diligently with his officials to make sure that we’re getting

information to people in a timely way. The challenge of that — and the

member knows this — is that when you send a public official into a

public meeting with a couple of hundred angry people, they’re less

inclined to stick their neck out of their shirt and tie. I don’t mean

that as a sense of cowardice, but decision-makers are at cabinet.

They’re not at the public meetings.

We were not able to get ministers to the public meetings, because

we were here in a minority parliament winning votes. So our ability to

travel around the province was diminished. As luck would have it, today

is the last day of the spring session. Some of us are delighting in

that. I am certainly looking forward to the opportunity to come into the

member’s community and speaking directly to his residents about these

issues and a whole host of other issues.

We haven’t been able to do that in the period of time that led up

to the crisis that I hope that we’ve averted. If we work together, as I

know the member wants to, not just in the Peace but in other areas of

British Columbia, we’ll be able to address these issues in a way that

meets everybody’s interests.

M. Bernier: I hope we’ve averted a crisis. The crisis is what people thought

we had because of the lack of information and the way things were

shared. I, for one — I don’t want to speak on behalf of my entire caucus

— am not glad that today is the last day, because we have lots more to

discuss, to debate and to ask of government. The Premier can smirk at

that, because I’m sure many people are excited to be out of

here.

That being said, I do acknowledge, again, the pressure that his

government — and, I will want to put on the record, our government, when

we were in government — had on dealing with the caribou issue. I

appreciate the Premier is not being too hyper-partisan on this, because

it is something we need to work on together for the caribou. But the

characterization made from his minister and others that this happened

only because the last government did nothing is a complete

falsehood.

As the Premier knows, I don’t have notes in front of me when I do

this, but if memory serves me, in 2017, about $29 million was put

forward towards this. There was great success working with the local

First Nations around penning, herding programs. There was also, although

controversial, a lot of work being done around culling programs that are

required.

As you know through the SARA legislation, some of the

recommendations and policies put forward saying that we need to get our

predator management under control…. When you look at having less than

three — let’s say we use wolves — wolves per 1,000 kilometres in order

to have safe recognition of the amount of ungulates and

predators.

Unfortunately, we’re at over 20 in my riding. That’s not counting

the amount of issues that we have with grizzly bear. The numbers are

growing. Huge populations of wolverine. Luckily, in my area, not as many

cats, but our ungulate population is at risk. The Premier acknowledged

that.

I also want to acknowledge, though, as he mentioned, and I agree

with him, that every single person that I’ve talked with in my region —

and, I’m sure, as the Premier has heard as well, and I’ve shared this —

wants to do what is right for the back country. We live there. We choose

to live there. As the Premier knows, I was born and raised in Vancouver,

moved up north, never came back after 30 years. We choose to live up

there. We love the outdoors, we love the back country, and we want to do

what’s right for the wildlife and for the back country.

That does come with some tough decisions. So my question…. After

that acknowledgment of we want to do what is right, we also want to do

what is right for the people who live there, because if there are no

jobs, if there’s no opportunity to use the back country, that makes it

very difficult.

I’ve had numerous small businesses come to me to say that people

have cancelled the purchase of their ATVs or their snowmobiles because

of the uncertainty of what’s going to happen on a decision with this

government. I’ve had the frustration of the chamber of commerce and

local governments coming to me because the town hall meetings, if we

want to have a quick discussion on that….

As the Premier said, there were no ministers there. When I was at

the cabinet table, there were many times I had to be at town hall

meetings in front of hundreds of people who wanted to voice their

opinion, let’s just say, of the decisions that government was making.

It’s important that we’re there.

[2:05 p.m.]

In this situation, we had no decision-makers. I am hoping, as this

goes forward, before any decisions are being made, that that respect for

the ridings will take place where the actual decision-makers…. I will

acknowledge the Premier came up and extended…. Again, I thank him for,

at least, that extra month there.

Before any decisions are made, people need to be heard. I went to

these town hall meetings that we had in our region. I will share with

the Premier, if it did not get back to him — and it’s probably in

Lekstrom’s report — the frustration of those meetings. Instead of the

panels…. All due respect to staff and others that were there. Instead of

people being acknowledged for their concerns and being listened to,

people left those meetings even more frustrated because every time a

question was asked, they were told why their question was wrong, why

their opinion was inaccurate or how it was deflected to decisions not

being done in the past or on to the federal government.

Maybe I’ll, after that…. I know I’ve got another colleague that

wants to ask some questions. We will have limited time here as a few

other colleagues possibly come into the House. If not, you’ll get to

hear from me again.

I do want to have the Premier, on the record, acknowledge for me,

to give some comfort, where he can…. His Minister of Forests is on

record through this entire process saying that there will be job losses

in the region. If it’s not true, the Premier can correct me on that. But

I can find the comments. The minister has said that there are going to

be tough decisions, and there will be job losses, to the point where we

actually had calls to our Community Futures office in Dawson

Creek.

I do not know if it was from the provincial or federal government,

so I won’t say which it was. But our Community Futures was called to say

that they needed to start ramping up what supports they would need if a

mill shut down. Hopefully the Premier can see, when these things are

happening, that the uncertainty in our communities obviously gets pretty

ramped up.

Will the Premier, on record today, acknowledge for me: are the

minister’s comments true? Are there going to be job losses? Is it true

that the forest companies are saying that they might have to shut down a

mill because of the decisions of possibly shutting down tens of

thousands of cubic metres of available timber supply?

What the people in my riding are wanting to hear this government

say is that we will work together. We will protect the caribou. We will

work together to make decisions on where we can or cannot use certain

areas of the back country to ensure that we don’t have impacts on the

caribou but, at the same time, recognize and have security for the jobs

in the region.

What can the Premier say that is going to give comfort to my area

that we are not going to have a mill shutdown and are not going to have

job losses because of these decisions coming from government?

Hon. J. Horgan: Firstly, a couple of things. We know that we have a dwindling

fibre basket in the Interior. This is not a caribou issue. This is a

result of chasing more volume over more value in our forest industry.

It’s a result of the beetle kill. It’s a result of two million hectares

of merchantable timber lost in the past two years.

[2:10 p.m.]

There is a variety of issues that are conspiring against the

forestry industry at this time. That’s why we’ve called upon the forest

industry, community leaders, Indigenous leaders and labour

representatives to come together in a timber supply area by timber

supply area initiative to talk about how we manage fibre region by

region to ensure that we maximize job protection in the near term as we

see the annual allowable cut coming down.

Now, our estimates — and this would have been confirmed by the

minister — are that there may be up to 300,000 metres alienated as a

result of this initiative. So that doesn’t help with an already

challenging situation.

There are opportunities of underutilized fibre north of your

community that we are hopeful we can repurpose to meet any shortfall,

but it’s also why we wanted to get at the table so that we can force the

federal government to recognize that it’s federal jurisdiction, federal

legislation we’re dealing with, and they have a responsibility to step

up. We’ve been working….

My chief of staff was back in Ottawa in the off week talking to

decision-makers there to remind them that British Columbia is a vital

part of Confederation that requires the same level of supports that

other parts of the country do when federal decisions are going to have

an impact on our economy and our quality of life.

We’ve been taking a couple of approaches to address this issue at

the 40,000-foot level. We’re dealing with our federal government,

dealing with forest companies, communities, to make sure we’re trying to

find a way through what has been obvious to all of us who pay attention

to the forest industry for 20 years. The fibre is going down, and

volumes are staying about the same in terms of the amount of wood coming

out of our forests and getting into the marketplace.

We’re now looking at trying to see where industry can change its

habits to get more value out of our wood. Engineered wood products —

Structurlam in Okanagan Falls. Kalesnikoff is opening an engineered wood

product facility in Castlegar so that we can take chunks of wood and

make them into large pieces of wood and get more value out of that and

create more jobs. I think the industry understands that that’s the way

they need to go.

Certainly communities understand that as we see a decline of the

beetle-kill wood available for harvest and we see the devastation of the

past two years in terms of forest fires, we have to find a new way to go

forward. I’m very excited that the majority of companies that operate in

British Columbia on public lands understand and recognize that they have

an obligation to work with communities, to work with Indigenous leaders,

to work with labour to find a way forward. It’s not going to be easy. No

one expects it to be easy.

I know the member wasn’t suggesting that caribou are the problem

here. There are a host of challenges to the sector. Our obligation as a

government, and our obligation as members of the Legislature, is to

advocate strongly, as the member does, to make sure that we leave no

stone unturned in trying to find a way to protect, preserve and expand

economic activity in our communities.

The Peace country is blessed with an abundance of resources, not

just forests but metals, minerals and natural gas. There’s a lot going

on in the region, but forestry is a vital part of that.

We’re going to do what we can, working with those CEOs who have

agreed to participate with us — Canfor, West Fraser, Tolko, Interfor and

others — to make sure that we’re finding a way to maximize the

utilization of the existing fibre basket and create more value from our

timber, in the hopes also, of course, that the United States tribunals

that we’re embroiled in with respect to softwood will come on our side,

as they have time after time after time, and we can continue to go

forward.

P. Milobar: I’ll switch gears away from caribou here for a little while. I’m

trying to follow up on a couple of questions that I’ve asked several

different ministers through estimates and not been able to get an actual

definitive answer from any of the ministers. I figured I should come and

ask the Premier to see if anyone in government indeed has an answer to

these couple of areas.

The first one is the low-carbon fuel standard. We know from

estimates yesterday that the current low-carbon standard that we have

adds about one cent a litre to fuel. I think there’s already been an

acknowledgment that low-carbon fuel standards do add a cost to the

refined product. In the case of CleanBC and the new standard, that

accounts for about 22 percent of CleanBC’s emissions targets.

[2:15 p.m.]

It’s a very significant piece of the overall plan for CleanBC. If

it has any chance of trying to actually meet any of its stated goals, it

would need this low-carbon fuel standard to be in effect and operational

in short order. However, when asked about modelling of what the new low

standard will be, going from ten to a 20…. That doesn’t exist in Alberta

currently. It doesn’t exist in Washington state currently. It’s used

somewhat down in California. There doesn’t seem to be a willingness to

answer what modelling has been done to the price at the pump for the new

fuel standard.

I’m wondering if the Premier could shed some light on what the

cost per litre, during a time of record gas prices right now with this

low-carbon fuel standard as part of CleanBC — an integral part of

CleanBC — is going to add at the retail level? What modelling has been

done before CleanBC was signed off and that initiative was done to know

what the impact to people in their daily lives was going to

be?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his participation in the estimates today.

He did ask many questions of the minister, who, conveniently, is here to

assist me in this area. We did do modelling through Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. We’re happy to offer a briefing to you on the

results of that.

We are endeavouring to match California standards. The member is

quite right that if we’re going to realize our objectives, the

low-carbon fuel standard is a key part of that. The cost, of course, for

that will come down as more jurisdictions start to buy into this

initiative.

[2:20 p.m.]

Currently it’s, by and large, California, British Columbia and a

handful of other jurisdictions. As more jurisdictions start to get on

board with this, the cost, of course, will come down. Again, we’re also

trying to bring forward incentives to get people out of carbon-emitting

vehicles altogether. That’s the thrust.

We had a question yesterday from a member. I was able to tell him

that 15 percent of the vehicles purchased in British Columbia this

month, with still a day to go, were electric vehicles. This is good news

that will see our emissions go down and see our personal footprints

diminished.

The member is quite right. The low-emission standards are key to

our success. We did do modelling. I don’t have it at my disposal. I’m

happy to get a briefing set up for the member if he wants

one.

P. Milobar: Well, the electric vehicle program will account for 1.3 megatonnes

by 2030 of the CleanBC plan. That’s assuming that there’s actually

funding for the subsidies to continue. We know that at the current rate,

there are about eight more weeks of subsidy left in a 156-week budget

cycle. If you drain out the contingencies in CleanBC that are remaining,

that might buy you an extra few weeks. Then you have no more money

budgeted over the next three years. Again, that’s 1.3 megatonnes for

hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of subsidies to see that. That’s

less than 10 percent of the overall CleanBC goals, actually.

The low-carbon fuel standard is for four megatonnes of reduction —

over three times what the electric vehicle program would generate for

emission reductions, based on the 2030 target date.

The problem is, to the Premier…. I did ask the Environment

Minister. The Environment Minister told me to go talk to the Energy

Minister. I believe I actually even asked the Finance Minister, just to

be safe on this as well. And then I asked the Energy Minister about this

exact topic as well. The answer back was that they don’t know. The

Energy Minister’s answer was totally contradictory to what the Premier

just said. So there was either an unwillingness, then, in estimates to

give a straightforward answer….

There was certainly no briefing offered of the modelling that was

done. And I have found it strange, asking this question now over the

space of about a month’s time, that there hasn’t been some form of

modelling provided. I can only surmise that’s because we are in the

midst of very high gas prices. It seems people don’t want to answer what

a very significant piece to the CleanBC plan is going to add to the

price at the pumps.

When I asked the Energy Minister about it being an ethanol blend,

the Energy Minister made it very clear that the target was not meant to

be ethanol. Later on, the Energy Minister made it very clear that

ethanol blend is actually the cheaper blend, and maybe that is the blend

that they’ll go with, instead of wood waste and other types of additives

that could get made to be put in.

Again, I guess, it sounds like the Premier’s staff is now helping

the Premier acknowledge that there is going to be some price-at-the-pump

change. Is there no way to be able to access that information? It has

been asked now, canvassed in three different ministries. It has been

canvassed everywhere I’ve been sent to canvass. This is the first I’ve

actually had an acknowledgment from government that there was any

modelling done at all, despite asking three previous ministers. So I’m

wondering why this modelling would be hard to access and to provide very

clearly to the public what they can expect the low-carbon fuel standard

to cost them at the pump every time they fill up.

Again, this is 22 percent of the CleanBC targets. We already have

a missing 25 percent of the CleanBC targets. Between these two items

alone, that’s almost half of the CleanBC plan, and there doesn’t seem to

be an answer for it.

I’m just wondering when we can expect to hear what the

price-per-pump increase is going to be as a result of the government

policy around a low-carbon fuel standard. We know that the BCUC report

will not be able to look at government policy. Hopefully, the government

can at least answer what their policy is going to impact people’s

pocketbooks by.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: The member is right. At the front end on the electric vehicle

side, there will be less impact in terms of megatonnes, because it

takes, on average, about 12 years for people to roll over their

vehicles. The challenge is to try and reduce the carbon standard in

existing gas vehicles by using low-carbon standards. It’s working in

other jurisdictions. It will work here. The modelling is

underway.

The questions you’ve asked…. I’m aware of asking questions to the

Minister of Energy and the Minister of Environment. The Minister of

Finance is here. He doesn’t recall you asking about low-carbon fuel

standards, but you alleged that you did. I am here to debate the budget

estimates for the Premier’s office.

I appreciate that on broader policy questions, it’s absolutely an

appropriate line of questioning. I’m not deterring you from carrying

down this road, but we’re confident that the plan is going to work. It’s

aggressive, it’s ambitious, and we’re looking forward to working with

all members of the House and the broader public to meet the objectives

that all British Columbians want to see.

Time and time again we have young people in the gallery. They’re

going to inherit the planet. I know the member is as passionate about

this as anybody. We believe that the initiatives that we’ve put in place

are going to be achievable.

The broader question of gas prices at this time was fully

canvassed by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I’m happy to go

over that, the supply-and-demand arguments, again with the member if he

wants to.

P. Milobar: Well, this has nothing to do with supply-and-demand arguments,

except for the fact that CleanBC will create, essentially, an artisanal

blend for British Columbia that doesn’t exist other than outside of

California on the west coast. I’m not disputing that the low-carbon

blend would actually create a drop in emissions. That wasn’t the

question, and that wasn’t in dispute. The question the government does

not want to answer is how much per litre that government policy will

cost people when they purchase gasoline for their vehicles.

That’s the straightforward question. I keep trying to get an

answer for it. The Premier is correct: I can’t 100 percent remember if I

asked this specifically of the Finance Minister or not, but I know for a

fact I did ask the Environment and Energy ministers about this. The

problem is that if we’re talking transparency, if we’re talking about

people understanding what government policies are going to do to impact

their daily lives, I think the public deserves to have answers to very

straightforward questions about how specific government policy will

impact them in their pocketbook.

That’s what the questions are around. It’s not around the validity

of whether or not emissions would drop with the low-carbon standard. We

know they would. That’s why they got created. That’s why they’ve been

looked at in other jurisdictions around the world. You’ve seen a drop in

emissions as a result.

I’ll move on, in the interest of time, but I will take up the

Premier’s offer of a briefing from the Energy Ministry around this so we

can maybe, at some point in the future, get to what the actual

cost-per-litre increase the government policy is going to

create.

The reason…. This ties in to my next piece. Again, people need to

understand what the impacts of these policies will mean.

[2:30 p.m.]

We have a carbon tax increase to $50 a tonne, which adds 4½ cents,

roughly, per litre. So in the next two years, it will go up again and

again. At the same time, we’re going to have a low-carbon fuel standard

implemented, which will increase the price at the pumps. But the

government is unwilling to tell us what that modelling shows it to

be.

We have an LNG project coming on stream where they will be able to

access carbon credits to make sure that they meet their emissions

standards to be considered world-leading. Why that’s significant is

while people will be paying 4½ cents a litre more in carbon tax at the

pump, LNG Canada will be able to buy carbon credits on the world market

to receive a $20-a-tonne rebate from those same taxpayers.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

All industry, according to the Minister of Environment, will be

treated equally, so they will each get to do this to make sure that they

go to world-leading. LNG Canada has to operate at a 0.15 discharge rate.

We’ve had the Minister of Finance indicate that world-leading will be

considered somewhere between 0.22 and 0.28, at this point.

When there were other debates in this House, the Minister of

Environment confirmed that they would be able to purchase offsets to go

between 0.28 back down to 0.15 to be within their operational budget or

operational mandate of their certificate, while still generating those

emissions. That would qualify them for the $20-a-tonne rebate and, in

fact, they could purchase carbon credit offsets on the world market at a

world price. The day I was checking, you could purchase for about $3

Canadian a tonne for qualified programs out there.

I guess the question I have for the Premier is similar to the

other ministers I’ve asked this of as well. With the LNG deal, why was

there no minimum purchase price of offset within this deal if offsets

were going to be allowed to be purchased to keep yourself operationally

compliant?

Why are they allowed and why would industry, in general, be

allowed to go to a world market at whatever lowest price they can find

to be able to access the $20-a-tonne rebate from the taxpayers of

British Columbia? It’s a rebate that, I would add, would be on 100

percent of their emissions, so it actually would be, given they’d only

have to buy 50 percent of their offsets to get down to the 0.15 for

their operating permit, that they would actually net out at about $1.50

a tonne to receive a $20-a-tonne rebate from the taxpayer.

Why did the Premier not ensure that there was protection for the

taxpayers of this province when that deal was negotiated and signed off

on — that there was at least a minimum purchase price for offsets that

would be able to be accessed to be able to access the $50 back to $30

industry rebate?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, firstly, just so the member is aware — I know he’s a new

member here — the carbon tax was introduced by the B.C. Liberals. The

low-emission fuel standards were begun by the B.C. Liberals. Currently

one cent a litre can be ascribed to the low-carbon fuel

standards.

I’ll accept as a given that the member would like a briefing, and

I’ll endeavour to make sure that’s set up.

There is no intention to allow large emitters to purchase credits

— none. The standards have not yet been developed. The minister is

working on that. I believe that was the essence of his answers to you

during the budget estimates when you had the appropriate minister

available to talk to about these issues.

Again, I’ll remind the member that the challenge of dropping in on

the Premier’s office to talk about details that are better answered by

the minister responsible is that you’re going to oftentimes get

different nuances based on the intensity of the questions, much less the

intensity of the emissions.

Our objectives with LNG Canada are consistent for all large

emitters. If they can demonstrate world-leading practices, then

incremental increases on the carbon price over $30 a tonne will be

relieved. That’s an objective that doesn’t just assist LNG Canada. It

will assist all large emitters, will keep economic development going and

also allow us to meet our climate action goals.

P. Milobar: Well, that’s quite astounding for an answer, frankly. The

minister, who has now been advising the Premier today, was very clear on

question over question over question. We can go back and read the

Hansard . It’s all right there. I’ve re-read it before. The

answers were very clear.

We spent a lot of time going back and forth discussing this. The

Finance Minister spent a lot of time talking about the 0.28 to 0.22

variable area that was still under negotiation with LNG Canada. The

Environment Minister was very clear that not only do they have the

ability to purchase offsets to stay within their operational permit of

0.15, but they could do it at a world market at an open price — and that

as a signatory, he did not negotiate that into the agreement.

The answers we’ve had and I’ve had, going from minister to

minister to the Premier, have been the same, to talk to people that had

anything to do with the agreement. That’s exactly what I’m doing here

today.

I assume that the Premier would have been heavily involved in

negotiations and any agreements to sign off, even though he may not be

an actual signatory. I find it hard to believe a $40 billion deal, with

an extra $6 billion worth of credits kicked into the kitty to make it

happen, did not have any oversight by the Premier.

The reason I’m asking the question, and I guess I’ll highlight it

here, is that I find it interesting that companies able to access that

$20 rebate per tonne, purchasing offsets on a world market at a time….

Yes, this was B.C. Liberal policy, but it was policy that, in fact,

members of the then opposition, now government, spoke very strongly

against, and that was public sector organizations needing to buy carbon

offsets at $25 a tonne.

That policy is still in effect. I guess the question I have to the

Premier, then, is: does the Premier have any inclination to change the

policy? Asking the Minister of Environment, it was made very clear that

he had no interest in reversing the policy that would require schools,

hospitals and universities to pay $25 a tonne back to the government to

stay carbon-neutral.

Does the Premier have any inclination or is planning on reversing

that policy so that at least public sector organizations — schools,

hospitals, universities — could operate with the same playing field of

accessing carbon credits for carbon offsets that heavy industry will

while they’re accessing $20-a-tonne rebates from the taxpayers of

British Columbia?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: As I said in the earlier answer, we’re still designing the rebates

with industry so that we don’t see carbon leakage to other

jurisdictions. We want to maintain our competitive advantage while we

still appear and consistently become world leaders in this

regard.

I appreciate the member has put a lot of energy and effort into

the budget estimates this year on the files that he’s responsible for.

But again, I think that based on the opinions that I’m getting here,

you’re conflating a couple of issues.

We certainly do not want and do not intend to put public

institutions at a disadvantage to industry. That’s not the objective.

I’m advised that the average cost of offsets for the public is 9 to 12

approximately, on average. That’s not even remotely close to what the

industrial rebate will look like.

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

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:43 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 22 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2019

Bill 22, Forest Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete with

amendment, to be considered later today.

Hon. C. James: I call Bill 15, Committee of the Whole, Agricultural Land

Commission Amendment Act, Douglas Fir Room. Here in the chamber, I call

continued estimates for the Premier.

[2:45 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE

PREMIER

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

On Vote 11: Office of the Premier, $11,349,000

(continued) .

E. Ross: LNG Canada, Chevron, Cedar LNG in Kitimat mean a lot to the

region, to the Haisla, B.C. and Canada. We know the story, the billions

and the job opportunities, the training, the contract and whatnot. But

there are still a few obstacles in the way.

Probably the number one obstacle is the pipeline blockade. I

understand that you got personally involved with the process in trying

to resolve this. I was actually part of the process for the last 15

years. We were actually the catalyst trying to bring the 15 bands

together in the first place for KM LNG. That’s how we started up the

First Nations Limited Partnership. Then we also watched this translate

over to the LNG Canada negotiations.

I’ve been watching the news, reading what’s going on. I understand

the process that’s been put in place. I also understand that you put a

point person in place to try to resolve some of the issues regarding the

Wet’suwet’en.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’ve been trying to understand from asking your other ministers.

Can I ask, in terms of the process that you’ve laid out here, what is

the objective?

Hon. J. Horgan: I welcome the member for Skeena to the discussion. I have to

correct, in the interest of clarity, some of his initial comments. I

have personally involved myself in discussions with the Wet’suwet’en,

but it’s been focused on their disappointment. At the invitation of the

hereditary chiefs, I visited the traditional territories twice since

August — once to participate in a smoke feast to talk about the

Wet’suwet’en desire to see the Delgamuukw decision realized in their

territory.

The discussions that I’ve been involved in have had nothing to do

with CGL’s issues — the injunction, which is, I understand, being

respected. CGL has access to the territories and is proceeding with

construction of their camp.

I asked MP Murray Rankin to be my emissary in concert with one

individual designated by the Wet’suwet’en hereditary leadership to

discuss those issues that revolve around respect for hereditary

decision-making that flowed from the Delgamuukw decision.

I know the member is from the north. He understands these issues

very, very well and has been a leader in his community. I just wanted to

make clear that I’ve separated these issues. There is the LNG Canada

question. There is the CGL pipeline route and all of the support that

that has — that the member worked hard personally and professionally to

realize. The injunction is being respected. Work is underway.

Parallel to that, I have asked Murray Rankin, at no cost — he’s

working pro bono, because he is a Member of Parliament currently — to be

our emissary. He understands these issues very, very well. I’m advised

that he reports back to Minister…. I was going to say his name. I can’t

say his name. The name of the ministry is MIRR, Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation. I apologize, Member. I’m dumbstruck. I said this to the

member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

We have separated those issues for reasons of clarity. As you

know, the Wet’suwet’en are not unanimous in their concerns about CGL,

but they are unanimous in their concerns that Delgamuukw has not been

respected, and we’re coming up to 22 years since the decision. I believe

— I’ve given direction to all ministers of the Crown — that

reconciliation is part of their mandate letters, and as a result, at the

request of the Wet’suwet’en hereditary leaders, I have visited the

territory twice to make progress on issues outside of the industrial and

economic activity that the member was talking about.

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

What I’m trying to understand is the process under Murray Rankin.

Is that absolutely separate from the blockade issue, or is it a parallel

issue, or is it a related issue? I understand that you want to create

the relationship. I understand the issue around reconciliation and then

the Delgamuukw case.

[2:55 p.m.]

My concern is the initial process that took over 15 years to

accomplish with a law-abiding company that actually achieved all of its

certificates, all of its permits and actually carried out the principles

of case law, as far as I could tell, to a T. That’s how we got unanimous

consent from all of the band councils — elected band leaders from Prince

George to Kitimat and even further down the channel.

I’m trying to understand the process that Murray Rankin is

actually leading as your emissary. What is the objective in relation to

the pipeline blockade, if any?

Hon. J. Horgan: There is no relationship. I appreciate that all of these things

come together at some point in communities. But we made it abundantly

clear, and it was made abundantly clear to us by the hereditary

leadership and the various clan houses that wanted to address the

unresolved issues raised by the Delgamuukw decision. Murray Rankin, a

constitutional lawyer, a Member of Parliament, was an ideal person to

appoint on my side.

In our discussions in the first visit to the Office of the

Wet’suwet’en, it was clear that they wanted someone that they could talk

to that was not part of government, not part of the Ministry of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation but someone that would be an

emissary to me. Mr. Rankin agreed to do that. I was delighted. He’s a

very busy guy. He’s wrapping up his time as a Member of Parliament. But

he has been working diligently since the smoke feast, which happened in

the past couple of months, in March, to focus on those

issues.

Now, having said that, we’ve also, of course, respected the band

council decisions that allowed permits to be issued to CGL. The member

will know full well — again, better than I…. I feel, sometimes, that I’m

telling him things that he and his community know way better than I will

ever, even though I do my level best to try and keep pace with these

things.

We did not want to have the industrial project that is

overwhelmingly supported by Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in the

north to be an obstacle to realizing genuine reconciliation with the

hereditary leadership. Nor did we want that reconciliation with the

hereditary leaders to be an obstacle to success on the industrial side.

Although they are separate, I think the member well understands the

north and well understands the corridor. We need to have success on a

range of fronts in Wet’suwet’en territory if we’re all going to be

successful.

E. Ross: Thank you, Premier. I understand it fully. I understand the

principle of case law fully. That’s how we got to this stage in terms of

LNG Canada making its FID.

Reconciliation. I have a different term of reconciliation than

most. I’m trying to close the gap in terms of standard of living. This

is the very first opportunity in the history of Canada that we’ve been

able to do this, ever since the fur-trading days. So this is absolutely

critical that we get this right. I understand the sensitivities. But I

also understand the principle of case law. It got us to this place in

the first place.

Now, the government is in a pretty awkward, sensitive situation,

so I’ll take that answer as no, this process under Murray Rankin has got

nothing to do with the blockade. I understand that the objective is

mainly towards relationship-building and talking about Delgamuukw, in

whatever form that might be.

Is it my understanding that, then, the Crown will not take any

part in resolving the pipeline blockade and actually just leave that up

to the company in question, CGL, well as the injunction?

Hon. J. Horgan: Yes, we made it clear to LNG Canada that they were the operators,

or CGL was the operator that was contracted to construct the pipeline to

feed LNG Canada in Kitimat. We’ve been working very closely with Crystal

Smith and other leaders along the corridor to ensure success, but the

company sought the injunction.

The company, seeing the injunction respected at this time….

They’re moving equipment. They’re preparing to lay the pipe in the

territory. I believe, at latest report, that things are on track. The

province has not had to have a role at this time because the company is

doing what companies would do, asserting their rights based on the

permits that they’ve received and the support that they have through the

territory. That’s not to say….

[3:00 p.m.]

I don’t want to preclude provincial involvement if it’s required,

but it doesn’t appear to be at this time.

E. Ross: Thank you, Premier. These issues are overlapping, and it’s very

messy. The Wet’suwet’en chiefs are talking about title. They’re talking

about: “Absolutely no way will this project get built on our lands.”

Now, one case…. Murray Rankin will be talking about this in terms of

Delgamuukw. At the same time, they’re saying absolutely no pipeline will

be built. The company is trying to build a pipeline knowing that this

conversation is taking place with the Crown.

It seems confusing to know that two conversations that are

happening at the same time when the majority of the northwest of B.C.,

including First Nations and non-First Nation municipalities, regional

districts and even the province, are actually depending on a good

outcome. It just seems unfair just to leave the company there, along

with an injunction, knowing that a title conversation is happening with

the Crown.

In saying that, and I brought this up with your ministers as well,

title is a pretty vague, complicated subject to talk about in Canada,

especially B.C. There’s only three forms of it that I can understand

outside of the case law.

In terms of the title discussion the Wet’suwet’en want to have

with the Crown, I’m assuming the Crown knows that whatever decision the

government makes regarding title, theoretically will have to be applied

to 203 bands in B.C. who will probably want the same thing. Can I ask:

in what context is the Crown thinking about title in their discussions

with the Wet’suwet’en chiefs?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his questions. They come from a

place of deep understanding, and I appreciate that. I acknowledge that,

dealing with what has been re-emerging as the long-standing traditional

decision-making and governance processes within Indigenous communities,

particularly the Wet’suwet’en.

At the same time, two orders of government, the federal and

provincial governments, are working on addressing reconciliation in a

genuine way, addressing rights and title as defined by Delgamuukw and

also living under the Indian Act band council model. It’s not an easy

thing, and the member knows this, because he’s experienced it

firsthand.

What we’ve been trying to do is do more than one thing at a time.

We believe that the industrial activity that we all want to see that

will flow from the CGL work and culminate with the creation of LNG

Canada in Kitimat can and will be achieved in short order. It’s

happening right now.

[3:05 p.m.]

I have no information that shows me that there are any challenges

for CGL right now. It’s a sensitive question. The member knows that.

There will be points of conflict going forward, and we’ll address those

as they emerge. But as it stands right now, the injunction is being

respected. We are taking the opportunity to build relationships with

traditional leaders, hereditary leaders in the Wet’suwet’en territory,

and we’re trying to find a way forward that will meet the needs of

everyone in the region. Not an easy task. The member knows this full

well and has lived some of these challenges.

We’re just focused on making sure that the FID, which was

universally embraced by the people of Kitimat and the people in the

Peace and most of the communities in-between, is achieved in short

order. I believe we’re on a good track for that.

The fundamental issues that predate LNG Canada contemplating

coming to Kitimat are well and truly on the table with the Wet’suwet’en

leadership, and I believe they’re pleased that they’re getting access to

government in a way that is nation to nation, respecting the case law,

respecting the traditional governance models, and also at the same time

speaking to communities outside of Wet’suwet’en territory as they

transition or evolve into whatever form of government they choose to be

in their best interest.

E. Ross: Thank you to the Premier. The question wasn’t about LNG. The

question was about the Wet’suwet’en’s desire to have a conversation

about title. Whatever decision the Crown comes to around title, if you

choose to go down a road, it would have to be applied to 203 bands in

B.C. This will be a precedent, because title has never been decided upon

by the Crown. It’s always been decided upon through treaty negotiations

or through the courts. Apart from that, it’s always a vague conversation

around development on territories where rights and title may be

infringed.

I understand that it’s a complicated subject. A lot of people

don’t understand the concept of title. Many lawyers don’t understand it,

so I don’t expect political leaders, as well as governmental staff, to

truly understand what it means. I’ve always settled for the idea to go

to court to figure it out in the manner of Tsilhqot’in, for example,

because I don’t understand how it could play out unless the government

is deciding to go down a road of discussion of title.

On a related question, then…. I don’t expect an answer on title,

but can I ask: given what happened with the caribou issue — the

non-consultation with non-Aboriginals — and given the non-consultation

given around the Tsilhqot’in title, what is the plan to talk about what

the discussions are regarding land and rights associated with the

Wet’suwet’en chiefs as this process unfolds under Murray

Rankin?

It’s unfair for the First Nations to be put in a position where

they have to defend the conversations they’re having with government

when the ink is dry. It’s very unfair to put them in that position. It’s

very unfair for non–First Nations not to understand what’s happening

with the land base or the fish and the animals and whatnot.

In fact, one of the principles of case law…. I will reiterate what

your Attorney General said: that they will view rights and title through

the lens of

section 35 and the pursuant case law. Now, in terms of

everything I’ve heard from your ministers, that is the one statement I

do agree with. It actually provides a way out for the Crown as well as

the First Nations.

I just want to know: what will the process be to keep the

non–First Nations apprised of what’s going on with the talks around the

land and the animals and the rights and title associated with the

Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs?

[3:10 p.m.]

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

table.

Firstly, with respect to Tsilhqot’in, title exists. There’s a map.

It exists. That has not led to a rush to the Supreme Court to determine

maps in other parts of the province. The member knows Indigenous

communities are not homogenous, even within territories. Challenges

between the Nisga’a and the Lax Kw’alaams and the Metlakatla and, here

in my territory, the Nuu-chah-nulth and the Coast Salish…. This has been

here predating the Indian Act. These challenges have existed for

millennia.

We find ourselves at a moment in time where case law has

determined, with respect to Tsilhqot’in: “This is your territory as

defined by oral histories and the traditions that were brought to court

over a quarter of a century.” The Tsilhqot’in said, “We will not

participate in the treaty process,” as did other nations, as the member

knows.

I remember very vividly at the time, being, in the early ’90s, an

ardent supporter of the treaty process, that I felt the Tsilhqot’in had

made the wrong decision. When I phoned Joe Alphonse, the chief of the

Tsilhqot’in Tribal Council, after the victory in 2014, I apologized to

him, even though he had no idea that I had said to myself that he and

the Tsilhqot’in were wrong.

That is an example of where we can go together. We do not presume

that the discussions with Wet’suwet’en based on Delgamuukw, based on

rights and title as defined by the hereditary leadership, will be

imported to other parts of the province. I don’t believe that’s going to

happen. I think every part of the province, every nation is going to

come to a nation-to-nation discussion with different objectives and

different goals. The overlaps, as the member knows full well — I touched

upon some of them in areas close to him and close to me — mean that this

is hard work. I don’t believe there is going to be a template to lay

over top of the province.

The former Premier, Premier Campbell, made a concerted effort to

resolve some rights and title issues in one fell swoop. That was met

with resistance from nations right around the province. So we learned a

lesson from that as well. I believe the course we are on now is a result

of failed and successful exercises over many decades of Indigenous to

non-Indigenous relationships with respect to the land, Crown-to-nation

discussions, two orders of government — federal-provincial — as well as

a multitude of nations throughout British Columbia. Hard work, and work

that needs to be done — progress being made when leadership steps up in

non-Indigenous and Indigenous communities and finds a way

forward.

He made reference to the caribou question. I had a good exchange

with the member for Peace River South in estimates. We talked about this

in some detail in his community, as well as before I got there. It is

difficult to put, in that case, West Moberly and Saulteau in the

position of having to defend their rights to talk to government about

issues that are relevant in their territory. But negotiating in public

is also very difficult, so we have to find a way to ensure that all

members of the community are included in the discussion so that we don’t

have that tension and acrimony between Indigenous and

non-Indigenous.

We’re doing our level best to try and find that way forward. It

will be difficult. There will be points of friction within communities

and outside of communities. But we want to do our level best to reduce

that and make sure that everyone can realize their full potential on

territories, in the case of Indigenous people, that have been theirs for

millennia, and also for those newcomers to British Columbia who have

been here for generations or even just for days. That’s the nature of

our dynamic community, and I’m very excited about the prospects going

forward. I know that you are as well.

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

Leave granted.

[3:15 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Chen: I’m really happy to be able to welcome a group of 29 students from St.

Michael’s school who are visiting the Legislature today with their

principal, Ms. Caterina Kennedy, along with their parents and family

members. They’re really here to learn about the work we do in this beautiful

Legislature and also joining the Premier’s estimates, which will be really

interesting. I would like to ask the House to please make them feel very,

very welcome.

Thank you for being here.

Debate Continued

D. Clovechok: I certainly appreciate the opportunity to stand here today to ask

some questions. Just very, very quickly, I want to recognize and thank

the Premier. It’s been a year now since I’ve been able to canvass him on

another issue. The year’s gone by very quickly. That was, of course, the

Three Valley Gap. I do want to recognize whatever efforts he did in

achieving that goal with the rock attenuator system. I want to publicly

thank him for that. It’s working, fingers crossed. It’s going to take a

big cheque to fix it. We’re all aware of that. But I do want to thank

the Premier for that effort.

Today I want to canvass and hopefully…. We’re batting a thousand

so far, so hopefully, we’ll keep that going. I do want to canvass the

Premier on some caribou issues today. Specifically, not so much on the

fact of the caribou. We all agree that it’s important to protect

caribou. It’s more on the process that I want to bring to his

attention.

On April 15, in Revelstoke, we had over 800 people attend that

meeting, and it was live-streamed to around 2,000 people — so a great

turnout, where people were respectful and certainly had some very

knowledgable questions that were put forward to the government

representatives there that day.

One of the problems that we had — and in estimates with the

Minister of Forests, who I asked — is that the mayor of Revelstoke was

shut out of any consultation process, in directly talking with either

the minister himself or with the government representatives. We were

able to secure a meeting, which was going to be face to face, but then

it ended up on a phone call, which was not what we’d hoped for but

nonetheless appreciated.

To that, what’s happened so far…. There has been a letter that the

Premier’s office would have received, dated May 24, from Mayor Terry

Rysz, of the district of Sicamous, and also Mayor Gerry Sulz, from the

city of Revelstoke. I’m going to read a couple things into the record

very quickly. This is from Mayor Rysz and Mayor Sulz.

“Dear Premier,

“The Community Charter speaks to the consultation on matters of

mutual interest and identifies provincial legislation and policy for

which the ministers responsible must consult with local governments

through the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Local governments

have consistently requested greater consultation and engagement on

decisions that will affect or impact their communities.”

It goes on later on in the letter:

“Back-country closures pose an immediate threat to the

sustainability and future growth of our communities. We’re asking that

you extend the consultation timeline, at a minimum, to the fall,

allowing for a comprehensive and transparent socioeconomic impact

assessment and the appointment of a Columbia-Shuswap liaison in the

interim.”

They also went on to say here:

“The district of Sicamous brought forward a resolution to the

Southern Interior Local Government Association, SILGA, and their annual

convention. Through its support at SILGA, this resolution will come

before the UBCM convention in September.”

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

“Whereas many local governments and communities rely on back-country

industries for economic stability and development and, at the same time,

those local governments and communities care about sustaining and

protecting the environment….” I skip through the writing here.

“Therefore,

be it resolved that UBCM work with the provincial and

federal governments to ensure that there are no further back-country

closures in areas in B.C., until and unless the local governments,

stakeholders and communities are consulted on social and economic

impacts, and a sustainable solution for both be considered.”

One of the big issues here in the House…. I think it was yesterday

I presented a petition of 12,000 signators from both Mayor Sulz and

Mayor Rysz, which brings a total of well over 50,000, which was of

course inclusive of the Peace country.

My question to the Premier is that…. Local governments, in

essence, have been locked out of these conversations, especially around

the socioeconomic impact. The Premier is very aware of the fact that

Revelstoke is a tourism-related town, with the skiing and the

snowmobiling and the quadding and, also, the logging

industry.

[3:20 p.m.]

I know that in

section 11, it’s clear that there are no

back-country closures associated with

section 11. That’s conceded. But

it was at the meeting in Revelstoke on April 15 that the government

representatives did concede that through the herd plans, there will be

potential — and I say potential — back-country closures. That is a huge

concern, given the fact that these two mayors have not been consulted

with.

I know that in the Peace country, Mr. Blair Lekstrom was

appointed, and his report is coming out very soon. The problem I’ve got

with that is that Mr. Lekstrom’s scope of work was not inclusive of the

Revelstoke and Columbia-Shuswap areas.

Given all of that, what I would ask the Premier is…. The first

question: would the Premier today…? I always invite these mayors to

watch, so I’m hoping that they’re on Hansard today and that they are

appreciative of the fact that the Premier did cowboy up through this

sickness that he’s got to be here today. Will you guarantee these two

mayors today — and their constituents and my constituents and their

councils — that you will ask your Minister of Forests to have direct

meetings with them?

Hon. J. Horgan: I do know that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has

increased his Hansard television ratings every year, because I got a

couple of letters about Three Valley Gap as a result of our exchange

last year, and I was delighted about that. I know if the mayors are

watching at home, I hear you.

What we learned from the issues in the Peace…. Again, it was

really a direct result of the partnership agreement which we were

obliged to enter into with the federal government and the Indigenous

communities. It led to a friction and a tension that we do not want to

see duplicated in other communities.

Mr. Lekstrom, who I asked to be our community liaison, was here

this week issuing his report and advised me that he was receiving an

awful lot of phone calls from the Columbia region saying: “When are you

coming here?” And he said: “Look, that’s not my thing. I’m just in this

region.” The challenges in the member’s area are different to the

challenges in the Chilcotin. They’re different to the challenges in the

Peace. Again, we need to find a way forward that involves socioeconomic

impacts.

We’ve been very aggressive with the federal government in this

area. This is federal legislation that is promoting these discussions.

Well, first of all, let me…. The member said this at the outset. What’s

prompting these discussions is a genuine desire by all citizens to

protect the caribou, but what are the consequences of that? And how are

we going to work through the economic, particularly, and the social

disruptions that may flow from that? The federal government has to step

up.

I’ll say to the mayors that I’m aware there’s a federal election

coming. This would be an ideal time to talk to the candidates who are

putting their names forward, to talk about these issues and how they’ll

be affecting the livelihoods and the well-being and the quality of life

of people in Columbia River–Revelstoke.

With respect to meetings, if I heard the member correctly, one of

the challenges — and I said this to the member for Peace River South —

is that with our minority parliament, the time I have available to

travel is limited, because we have a fixed calendar with a spring

session and a fall session. That keeps me in this House. Votes are

votes, and we have to keep things going. I’m not complaining, but in the

past, Premiers have had more flexibility about their time in the House,

and that allowed them to travel this great province more

readily.

I do have a relationship with the member, as I do with the member

for Peace River South, and I’m always anxious to have conversations with

people in communities. If I can find an opportunity to be face to face

or even on a phone call with the mayors— certainly, the phone call would

be a much simpler task for me — I’ll endeavour to do that. And I’ll

count on you to help set that up.

D. Clovechok: That’s a very generous offer. I will set that conversation up

between your office and those two mayors, and they can have that

conversation. Very much appreciated on that scale.

[3:25 p.m.]

You mentioned Blair Lekstrom, of course, working up in the Peace

country. One of the issues that was brought forward in the letter is the

request for not only an economic impact assessment, but we ask that you

provide all stakeholders with a seat and a potential appointment of

someone to look at the Columbia-Shuswap liaison in the interim. Because

it’s unique in some ways, as we all know, but it’s very similar in other

ways.

I guess, from the eyes of the folks in the Columbia-Shuswap

regions, those two mayors that I speak of — and, of course, myself as a

representative of those people — is there a potential that we could have

a body appointed, through you, by the government to have an assessment

done specifically in the Columbia River–Revelstoke and Shuswap regions?

It’s really important in terms of the impact that this will potentially

have on our areas and our families. So that’s the question that we

really need to know. Will you today see a possibility to have someone in

the interim appointed to do the same kind of work that Blair Lekstrom

did, in our two regions?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, firstly, the circumstances were quite unique in the Peace,

inasmuch as there was a partnership agreement,

nation-to-nation-to-nation, between Canada, British Columbia, the West

Moberly and the Saulteau First Nations. I don’t believe that those

circumstances exist in the member’s constituency. But we did learn a

great deal from our inability to communicate directly with municipal

leaders as well as community members who have passions about back

country and talking about concerns about potential impacts on forestry

and so on.

I won’t rule that out, Member. I don’t know if we have the same

set of circumstances that Mr. Lekstrom was able to step into, but that

may yet happen. I hope that’s not the case.

We have the summer ahead of us. We have an opportunity, with my

discussion directly with the mayors and hearing from them their

concerns.… I welcome you to be a full participant in those discussions.

If, from those conversations, we find a reason to proceed along the

lines of the community liaison that we set up in the Peace country, I’m

happy to look at that. But I don’t think the circumstances are quite the

same, and based on the learnings from the Peace, I think we’ll be able

to avoid some of those conflicts going forward.

One of the other things I want to touch upon…. I had the

opportunity to talk to the member for Peace River South about this, and

I’m hopeful that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin will be asking me some

questions on this. I’ll give an answer to her, even if she’s not going

to ask the question. Timber supply reviews are underway now with CEOs at

the highest level, Indigenous leaders, community leaders and

representatives of workers so that we can look at the fibre basket and

the changes that will be required.

This is, again, not something that existed, that came about

because of caribou specifically. Caribou are a component part of that.

Fires are a part of that. The end of the beetle kill is a part of that.

Prices, supply. All of those issues are conspiring to create challenges

in forest-dependent communities.

We have reached out to leaders at the municipal level, in

Indigenous communities as well as companies to sit down. We’ve had very

positive responses from Tolko, Interfor, West Fraser, Canfor and other

companies to say: “Yeah, we’ve got to figure this out. We have to find a

way to make sure that we’re moving fibre in the best possible way to

keep maximizing community benefits and job creation and job maintenance

in territories right across B.C.” There are a whole bunch of

opportunities for us to do that. It’s ambitious. I don’t know how

successful we’ll be.

Caribou fit into that as well. People generally talk about beetle

kill in areas that were critically affected or the horrific fire seasons

in 2017-2018, but I believe that there’s a whole host of issues that are

affecting how we look at the forest industry going forward. The industry

understands that. Communities absolutely understand that. And I’m

looking forward to those discussions.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

D. Clovechok: Well, thank you very much for the answers. My goal today was to

get an audience for the two mayors with you, so we’ve achieved that

goal. We’re still batting a thousand. So with that, I will set that up

and take my seat. Thank you very much, sir.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member, and I’ll say that now that our engagement is

completed, Hansard TV’s viewership just dropped down.

[3:30 p.m.]

D. Barnett: Premier, we are all elected to represent our constituents, whether

it be on the government side, this side, and we all strive as hard as we

can to work with our constituents. Politics stay out of the way when we

work with our constituents.

The past two years have been very difficult for my constituents

and myself and many of my colleagues to have access to ministry staff in

our local communities. We have no access to them. We have to write

letters to ministers in order to get permission to go to our local staff

with issues for our constituents. That never happened before.

We have wonderful staff. They’re honest. They’re hard-working.

They help our constituents. But I am tired of telling my constituents

that I can’t have access to local staff. I have to go through Victoria.

That is not right, Mr. Premier.

I’ll give a prime example. I made an appointment — it took me

three weeks — to go to talk to our local fire centre, just to have a

look, see how things are going, thank the people, one thing and another.

I made an appointment, went through the process. I’m sitting there,

going to talk to the staff. Somebody from Victoria had to be on a

conference call to know what the staff and I were talking about. That is

embarrassing to me. It’s, in my opinion, belittling staff. It certainly

doesn’t serve my constituents.

My question to the Premier is: why can we, as local MLAs, not have

the freedom to local office, staff offices, to serve our

constituents?

Hon. J. Horgan: I know the member is earnest and is a hard-working member of the

Legislature. This is a new experience for her to sit in the opposition

benches.

I can tell you I spent 12 years writing letters, making phone

calls. I wrote a letter to the member for Langley East, and it took four

years to get an answer. This is not a new phenomenon.

I want to do my level best to make sure all members access

government employees. I understand you just asked the Minister of Public

Safety the very same question. I appreciate, Member, that these are

challenging times for those on that side of the House.

No, no, no, listen. This is exactly what we endured for 12 years.

There’s no shame involved in that. I’m not suggesting this is a

deliberate attempt — not at all.

Yesterday we talked, the Leader of the Opposition and I, about

coming together with the member for Chilliwack and the member for

Chilliwack-Kent when the flood season was upon us, working together. I

worked with the member during the fire season two years ago.

We do our level best, Member, to make sure everyone has access to

decision-makers. But sometimes it takes a little bit more time when

you’re on that side of the House. That is not a partisan statement. I

can tell from 12 years of experience that it’s not always sunshine and

roses when you’re trying to access government employees. I’m speaking

the truth, Members. I’m speaking the truth.

I want to do my level best while I have the opportunity to be in

this chair to make sure that all members of the House get access to the

people they need to. I’ve made that commitment to the member in the

past. I’ll continue to do that.

I met with the mayor and an Indigenous leader from her community

not that long ago. She wasn’t there, but the meeting was set up by the

member. I do my level best. All members are doing their level

best.

It is absolutely appropriate for you to raise these questions. But

I want all members to know that it is oftentimes extremely difficult to

go from the access that you have when you’re in government to the access

you have when you’re in opposition.

Good example for me, personally…. There was a big logjam in Port

Renfrew in 2008. I contacted the Minister of Public Safety at that time

and said: “How can I work with you to make sure that my community is

fully informed?” It took two weeks to get a call back. That’s not

acceptable. When that happens to you, Member, I want you…. You have my

number. I’ve given it to you. Phone me, and I’ll do what I can to help

you out.

D. Barnett: Could I, Premier, have your commitment that when I have issues in

my riding and I have to talk to somebody in Forestry or Highways, I do

not have to write a letter to Victoria to get permission?

Hon. J. Horgan: The member has my cell phone number. You have called me, and you

can continue to call me whenever you have to, Member.

[3:35 p.m.]

I know how passionate you are about your community. But I think

it’s important that we all understand this is the last day of a very

difficult session for all of us. I apologize for how I approached you on

this issue. But I have 12 years of experience that was extremely

frustrating as well. I know what that feels like. I don’t want that to

happen to you again.

R. Kahlon: I’d like to take this opportunity to ask the Premier some

questions, as well, if the House permits. I’ll start with asking the

Premier….

Interjections.

The Chair: Member, proceed.

The member has the floor.

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

Chair.

The Chair: Member, proceed, please.

R. Kahlon: I’d like to start by asking the Premier…. He was in my riding

recently and had a really good conversation with the mayor. We talked

about many things in our community. We’ve got a community grant process

that’s opened up for community groups to access funds for recreation

facilities. We hear that a lot from various communities groups. Perhaps

the Premier can give us more information about how community groups can

access funds when it comes to recreation and other

facilities?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. What we do know is that there

is a joint federal-provincial program with respect to these initiatives

that the member raised. We’ve had an overwhelming response from across

British Columbia. Communities want to see access to recreational

facilities. I think we have eight requests for every one ability to

pay.

The federal government has asked us to accelerate our processes

here. We want to make sure that we’re doing the due diligence that we

need to do to make sure everyone in British Columbia, all members of the

House, have an opportunity to access these resources.

It’s been challenging, because there’s been a backlog and a

pent-up demand. When you and I were together in Delta last week, at

Delta View Park, it was abundantly clear in your community that there’s

a need for more investment. I know that’s the case in my community. I’ve

been to every corner of the province, and everyone wants to see more

engagement in their community. It leads to healthy living. It leads to

better outcomes for people. But the federal government has money on the

table, and we need to make sure we’re doing what we can to get to a

place where we can have that money distributed around the

province.

R. Kahlon: Thank you for that answer, Premier. I know many members of this

House have been advocating for community-related infrastructure money. I

want to thank you for the answer.

I have another question for you, Premier — through the Chair, of

course. We had a good conversation with the mayor of Delta. I know

you’ve mentioned some of these things before about the level of

cooperation between all the mayors — them coming together and having a

conversation about infrastructure throughout the region.

[3:40 p.m.]

In particular, residents are really excited about the new Pattullo

Bridge, which alleviates lots of pressure in our community. But I’m

hoping you can perhaps give us a little bit more information about the

Broadway extension line, which will be starting very soon, and how you

see that proceeding.

Hon. J. Horgan: The Broadway corridor is fully ready to go. There has been a

challenge with the change of government, municipally, in Surrey. With

the change of mode, TransLink is working with the Mayors Council,

working with the city of Surrey, to determine what outcome they want to

see from the investments that are ready to go.

There’s provincial money on the table. There’s federal money on

the table. TransLink has its components in place. We’re optimistic that

the Vancouver portion will be moving ahead very soon. I’m confident that

the members from Surrey, from all sides of the House, are going to be

working with mayor and council to make sure that they come up with

whatever the corridor is, and the mode that they want to see realized

there, as quickly as possible.

R. Kahlon: Thank you to the Premier for that answer. The biggest issues that

come up in my community, overwhelmingly, are housing,

transportation-related questions and health care. I’d like to ask the

Premier around housing…. Perhaps the Premier can share with me some of

the things that we’re working on in housing to alleviate the pressures

that people are facing in my community and throughout the

region.

Interjections.

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

Please.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the questions. It has been, certainly, two

years since the last provincial election. The number one issue that I

hear wherever I go is the unaffordability of living here in British

Columbia. We’ve done our level best to bring more housing supply into

the marketplace. Some 20,000 homes are complete or underway because of

the good work of the Minister of Housing.

In 80 communities right across the province, we’ve brought into

play demand-side measures to reduce the increased cost. The speculation

tax that was introduced, the first of its kind, by the Minister of

Finance has been wildly popular because it affects just 1 percent of

British Columbians and has done its job to bring down costs, in the

Lower Mainland particularly, allowing citizens to stay in the

communities that they grew up in.

I know that the member has an acute interest in a range of other

issues, as a young father. Child care has been one of the issues that I

think I’m getting the most positive feedback from.

I was in North Vancouver with the member for North

Vancouver–Lonsdale and the Minister of State for Child Care at one of

the $10-a-day pilot sites. We got just a wonderful collection of letters

from parents who were transformed. Their families have been transformed

by reducing the costs of child care so that they can invest those

dollars back into their families, back into their quality of life. That

means that they’re not fretting from month to month about meeting the

challenges of daily costs, and their children are in affordable,

accessible, quality licensed child care facilities. That’s made a huge

difference and a huge impact on peoples’ lives.

We have been just 22 months on the job. We know the economy is

moving along very, very nicely, leading the country in economic growth —

the lowest unemployment rate, triple-A credit rating, balanced budgets

going forward. We eliminated the operating debt for the first time since

the Dave Barrett government back in the 1970s. I think we’ve

accomplished a lot, but we have much more to do.

R. Kahlon: Thank you to the Premier for that answer. Of course, I didn’t

mention child care. It doesn’t come up as often, but I know people are

very happy with the investments we’ve made in child care in our

community. I’ve got a young child.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: I think I hear a member across the way also saying that she’s

quite happy with the investments in child care.

I have another question for the Premier. As I said, the biggest

topics that come up in my community are transportation-related. The

Premier has given a good answer on that, and we talked about other

matters. But health care. People in my community are always asking what

we are doing to improve our health care system. What are we doing to

provide better access to health care in our communities? I guess my

question to the Premier is: can he perhaps give me some insight on what

the vision is for health care and providing better health care

opportunities for people in my community of North Delta?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. One of the areas in health

care that would have a profound impact on members in your constituency —

and, in fact, constituencies right across British Columbia — is the

elimination of medical services premiums in British Columbia.

[3:50 p.m.]

British Columbia was, of course, the last province to eliminate

medical services premiums. That puts about $1,800 a year back into the

pockets of British Columbians so that they can use that to their

benefit. That would be, of course, the largest tax cut in a generation

here in British Columbia.

Interjections.

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

that.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: We’ve expanded team-based primary care with the primary care

network. We have networks in Burnaby, Prince George, New Westminster,

Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Coquitlam, Anmore, Belcarra, Richmond,

Summerland, Penticton, Okanagan Falls. And urgent primary care centres

in Surrey, Kamloops, Quesnel, the West Shore, Burnaby, Prince George,

Nanaimo and in Vancouver.

We had a target of increasing MRIs, and nearly 44,000 MRIs in 2018

— vastly above what we had anticipated, meaning that more diagnostic

services are available, which helps people get into surgeries to get

into better health care down the road.

I know there’s no hospital plan for Delta, but there is a new

hospital plan for Surrey, as well as one in Richmond and improvements in

Burnaby, Vancouver, Terrace — I did mention Richmond — Dawson Creek.

Penticton has just completed. Kamloops. Fort St. James.

I’m very excited about Fort St. James. I went to the territory

last year on my way through. I stopped in Williams Lake where there’s

also a new hospital being built. But in Fort St. James, hon. Member, the

hospital there was constructed in 1972. It was two ATCO trailers. They’d

expanded it to four ATCO trailers, but it was high time that someone

invested in that community. I was very proud that our government had

chosen to do that.

A. Weaver: My humble apologies to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

There are some burning questions I have for the Premier. In light of the

fact that I had requested an hour’s time of the Premier’s estimates…. I

was told by members opposite that I could only have half an hour,

because they had too many questions to ask.

Now I see that they decide not to ask questions — yet another

example of us listening to them…

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, come to order.

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

through.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

A. Weaver: As the Leader of the Third Party, it is my right to ask questions.

I respected the jurisdiction of the official opposition to have more

time, because they had so many burning, urgent questions that they felt

it was appropriate for me to rise at 6:30 for 20 minutes last night when

I knew I had an hour.

I have three very important questions for the Premier. I’m sure

all British Columbians want to know. To the Premier, who do you want to

win the basketball game tonight?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ve become accustomed to questions not necessarily related to the

office budget of the Premier, so I’m happy to answer this question as

well. It speaks to something that all Canadians are passionate about. I,

myself, was a university basketball player. I’m a big fan of hoops. I’m

a huge fan of the Vancouver Grizzlies and, before that, the Seattle

SuperSonics. They’re both gone now. So go, Raptors, go!

A. Weaver: On this important line of question, I have, for most of my life,

participated in hockey pools. In fact, I won a hockey pool once. I won

$10,000 once. It was quite remarkable. I was very pleased.

However, this year I had chosen Boston against St. Louis in the

final, but I got knocked out in the first round. My question to the

Premier is: who does he want to win the Stanley Cup this

year?

Hon. J. Horgan: If I had consulted with community liaison member Blair Lekstrom,

who is very ably helping us with caribou issues in the Peace country, he

would have said the Boston Bruins. He had the audacity to wear a Boston

Bruins jersey into our meeting earlier this week.

I certainly couldn’t support that initiative because of the 2011

outcome in Vancouver, but I think St. Louis is long overdue. It seems an

ideal place to send the Stanley Cup.

[3:55 p.m.]

A. Weaver: On a more serious note, I just would like to ask an honest

question here. As the Premier will know, we’ve been together in the CASA

agreement for the last two years. There have been low points, and there

have been high points.

I’m wondering if he could reflect upon the last two years and,

perhaps, identify to the Legislature some of the high points that he

believes are important areas where the government and this B.C. Green

caucus have worked together for the betterment of the people in British

Columbia. Perhaps he could elucidate that for the members of the gallery

there who would like to learn about some of the good work that has been

done.

I can understand it will take the Premier some time to reflect

upon this, because there is so much good work that has been done. I

really believe the Premier might need a few minutes to reflect upon the

good work that’s been done.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member, my colleague in the CASA agreement, for his

question. It has been two years plus a day since we signed the

agreement, a historic agreement in British Columbia, that’s led to

stable government, posi­tive outcomes for British Columbians in

every corner of the province.

It’s difficult to point to one highlight, but one I know that the

member will be most satisfied with is the development of CleanBC, which

was absolutely integral to the foundation of a climate action plan that

leads the continent. He and the Green caucus were critical to making

that happen.

I know members on the other side of the House as well, leading the

first carbon price in North America set by the former government…. Their

enthusiasm has waned over time for that, but I know that they laid a

solid foundation. I give full credit to Premier Gordon Campbell for

having the courage to start that initiative. I’m excited that we’re here

to take the next step and lead the country and, in fact, the continent

in that regard.

When I think about…. Again, the member comes from the

post-secondary sector, so he would also agree with me that eliminating

critical to reducing barriers, eliminating obstacles to people realizing

their full potential. At a time when we have a skills shortage, it’s

important that we get people back into the classroom so that they can

get the skills they need to be full participants in the economy, for

their families, for their communities and, in fact, for the

province.

We also have done a number of initiatives to cap tuition fees, to

ensure that we have eliminated interest on student debt, on B.C. student

debt, which I think is something that would be applauded by all members

of this House. One area that I’m particularly excited about: the member

for Mount Pleasant, the member for Kootenay West and I were at Vancouver

Island University in the first couple of weeks of our time in government

— at Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo — announcing the tuition

waiver for kids in care.

Of course, for those who are unaware of the program, that is an

opportunity for those who have been in foster homes, have been wards of

the state. When they age out, oftentimes they see an abyss rather than

an opportunity. By waiving tuition fees, we’ve allowed kids in care to

see hope in their future, to see opportunity in their future. That’s not

just good for the individual. It’s good for the broader community. I

know our colleagues in CASA were very supportive of that.

[4:00 p.m.]

Arts and culture is another area that I’m very proud of.

Reinvesting in the B.C. Arts Council, making sure that we’re doing

everything we can to get the payback that we all see from arts and

culture. I’ve been to a number of film studios in my time as Premier to

see firsthand just the enormous number of jobs that we get in this

sector. I know my deputy and I are ad idem on this question. We

see electricians, carpenters, actors, extras — extras who get their big

break by being at the right place at the right time on a Netflix film or

a series or whatever it might be. That launches their careers.

Deadpool coming to B.C. not once but twice and, let’s hope,

three times.

Probably the defining moment for me was just last week, Member,

when I was visiting a studio in Vancouver that did the dragons for

Game of Thrones . Now, not a lot of people know that, but

the CGI for Game of Throne s was developed and designed in

Vancouver, which had a whole host of other spinoffs for the community.

Subcontractors creating more jobs — good, high-paying jobs — whether

it’s coders, whether it be artists, and that’s all happening here in

British Columbia. It’s not just in Vancouver, by the way, but also

throughout B.C.

On the economy, of course, the member will know that we put in

place an innovation commissioner to make sure that we’re talking about

the economy of the future. We also, of course, are very mindful that

traditional industries built British Columbia. We’re working hard to

make sure that forestry, mining and other resource industries can

prosper and flourish. Agriculture is very important to the member. He

supports the agricultural land reserve. He supports strengthening tools

like that for all British Columbians.

I know the member would like me to go on.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: You would? Okay. Creating a ministry…. I didn’t know I was

filibustering myself, but here I find myself. It’s been a

while.

On the housing side, the member is devastated, as I am, to see

homelessness proliferating across B.C. But with modular housing

programs, we’ve seen the hard-to-house and homeless finding a place to

hang their hat and to start a new life, and it’s been transformative in

places like Surrey. The Whalley strip was infamous, and now that’s been

changed. Nanaimo — we’re working very hard on that. One of the largest

tent cities in Vancouver Island’s history, no longer there. Services in

place for the people that have been moved into modular

housing….

We’ve increased a whole host of other issues with respect to

seniors. We’re demanding accountability for staffing standards in care

centres. There’s more support for Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters,

increased length of home support visits, capital funding to strengthen

seniors centres.

A systematic review of care centre staffing levels. This is

something that the Minister of Health was absolutely pivotal on. We

remember back to the turn of the century, when the government of the day

was ripping up contracts, making it more difficult for seniors to find

care facilities that were appropriately staffed with enthusiastic

workers — caregivers that were not just coming to a job but coming to

care for our moms, our dads and our loved ones. An underrespected and

underpaid area of our economy, and we’ve taken steps, through the

leadership of the Minister of Health, to achieve that, with the support

of the Green caucus.

We ended the disability clawback for transportation for bus

passes. I know the member responsible for poverty reduction was the lead

on that, but we had full support of the Green caucus in that regard, and

a whole bunch of other stuff.

Anti-SLAPP legislation. I know the member and I talked about

anti-SLAPP legislation in the first session. There were some challenges.

A decision, a determination made in Ontario, made the bill that we were

working on together on this side of the House a bit in doubt. We worked

with the Attorney General, leg. counsel and the Green caucus to make

sure that we could have anti-SLAPP legislation here in British Columbia

to protect those who are standing up for their communities.

We’ve made a whole host of other changes. The reduction of PST on

electricity was absolutely critical to industry and something that

should have happened a long, long time ago. That’s created more

opportunities as well.

I think there’s more here, but if the member has more questions,

I’ll take that….

[4:05 p.m.]

N. Simons: I’m pleased to have this opportunity — kind of unexpected. I’m

pleased to remind all private members that they have an opportunity to

ask the Premier questions about policy and direction. I’m pleased to be

able to have an opportunity to ask about an issue that I know he’s

concerned about and pays attention to, as my colleagues all do, and that

is encouraging young people into healthy activities and encouraging

young people to participate in community programs, programs in their

communities, whether it’s arts or culture or sport.

I know that with our emphasis on trying to do preventative work in

the area of health promotion and addressing some of the social

determinants of health, we have invested in early programs to ensure

that young people are actively involved in programs and services in

their communities to promote their health.

I ask the Premier if he can perhaps give us some examples of how

our government is supporting young people to be participatory, whether

it’s arts or culture or even sports programs in the province.

Hon. J. Horgan: I know the member’s question is directed at what the determinants

of health are. When we invest in education, that’s an investment in

health care. When we invest in the arts, that’s an investment in health

care. When we invest in sport — as we did, the minister and I, just a

few weeks ago, in KidSport — making sure that there are resources for

young families who don’t have the money to get into a hockey or a

lacrosse program…. We have an opportunity for them to access equipment

so they can be full participants.

Economic determinants and health determinants go hand in hand.

That’s why having a poverty reduction strategy is so critically

important to success in the community and why I’m so proud of the

minister responsible that we are, like other provinces in the country,

finally putting in place a poverty reduction plan — something that was

ignored for many, many years.

For me…. I know the member’s background is in music. He is a

concert cellist. I was a lacrosse player and a basketball player. But I

know that when I was growing up, the son of a single mom, the cost of

sport was prohibitive. My mom made significant sacrifices so that I

could participate. So when we invested $2.5 million last week in

KidSport, to keep that program going, that made a whole host of

difference, largely for single-parent families.

The $15 million we invested in the B.C. Arts Council — I made

reference to that to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Again,

opportunities to have creativity in our community. We all know that for

every dollar that we put into the creative sector, we get a significant

return back. These are investments in not just our economy, but in our

culture and all of the things that are important about being here in

British Columbia. Emotional health, spiritual health — all come from the

same place. The arts and sport are fundamental to that.

I am very excited about the coming summer events. I know I’m going

to be participating in the Indigenous Games launch when we look for a

bid in 2022. We’re also very much in play for the Invictus Games in

2022. The Invictus Games are, of course, not about results but about

participation for those that have been injured as part of their service

to community. Having an opportunity to see the indomitable spirit of the

human condition, to participate, to succeed….

Whenever I watch events where those that are coming in last are

cheered on as vigorously as those who cross the finish line first, it

reminds me that getting in the game, participating, being as healthy and

as well as you can possibly be, in and of itself, is a positive outcome.

But it benefits us all when we take public investments and make those

programs stronger.

J. Rice: For some time, northwest communities have been looking for their

fair share of resource development revenues from the northwest. Can the

Premier explain what steps he’s taken to help northwest communities plan

for major development and fund much-needed infrastructure?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her questions. I know that in a

ferry-dependent community like North Coast, those are the areas that are

particularly important to her. We have an additional 2,700 round trips

to be provided through ten routes. Port Hardy, midcoast, Prince Rupert

and, of course, Haida Gwaii to Prince Rupert as well — these are

critical to her community. Reinvesting and re-establishing routes that

had been terminated by the previous government was vital to

that.

Rural connectivity. When it comes to broadband, 440 communities,

70 of which are Indigenous, have been connected since we started the

initiative two years ago.

We’ve been connecting the coast and First Nations through a whole

range of other initiatives, whether it be through investments in

education, investments in child care, telehealth and so on.

The biggest investment, I think, that the member would be aware of

— and the impact on Prince Rupert — was the $100 million infrastructure

grant for the northwest or for communities right across the north of

British Columbia. Prince Rupert, Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Burns Lake,

Mackenzie all the way through to Valemount got access to this $100

million grant.

Vanderhoof. I know I talked to the mayor of Vanderhoof about this,

who was absolutely over the moon. These smaller rural communities don’t

have the dollars to leverage other dollars. When funding programs come

forward from federal or provincial governments, they don’t have the

resources to get in the game. So providing $100 million to those

communities across the north gave them the seed capital they needed to

make those types of investments.

I think of Alice Maitland, the longtime mayor of Hazelton. For 43

years, I believe, she was the mayor of Hazelton. When I visited there

with the member for Stikine, I met her at the old ice rink. I don’t know

how long Alice has been out of the NHL — probably a long time — but she

knew the importance of the ice rink in Hazelton. They didn’t have the

wherewithal to make the investments to get that bridging money to work

with the federal and provincial governments to make it happen. That was

the motivation. That was the seed put in my mind and the mind of the

Minister of Finance that this $100 million that was surplus to our needs

would be absolutely critical to those small communities.

I think of Mayor Lee Brain, in Prince Rupert, talking — as you

have, Member — since we first met about the wooden pipes in Prince

Rupert. It’s high time that infrastructure investments were made in

rural communities. We’ve provided the resources so that those

infrastructure investments can be made.

D. Routley: I’d like to talk to the Premier about one of his favourite topics,

and that would be wild salmon. The Premier has a deep connection to the

issue. He has taken action, including the formation of the Wild Salmon

Advisory Council, which I was very pleased to be able to co-chair with

Chief Marilyn Slett of Heiltsuk Nation.

For the members’ information, there was recently a poll done that

showed that wild salmon are as important to the identity of British

Columbia, to British Columbians, as the French language is to Quebecers.

It shows the deep importance that people feel for the fish and the deep

importance it plays in our culture. The First Nations’ connection to the

land and the water is symbolized no better than through salmon and the

life cycle of salmon.

[4:15 p.m.]

I was pleased to serve on that committee with several other

members. We looked at the challenges. We brought together the various

stakeholders from this sector and took away the impetus for conflict and

collision of interests. They surrendered those interests and took the

interests of the fish in hand. I thank the Premier for being able to

bring people together in that good-spirited way, in the spirit of good

faith. I think we did good work.

What I’d like to ask the Premier is: where does he feel we need to

go from here in terms of helping wild salmon thrive and helping those

communities that depend on wild salmon to benefit and

prosper?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. We share a passion for wild

salmon. I think all British Columbians…. Salmon are iconic to who we are

as British Columbians.

I’ve said many times that growing up here on southern Vancouver

Island, going to Goldstream Park…. First of all, it was a cheap outing

for the family to watch the salmon spawn year after year after year.

Young people would go and watch the salmon return, as they did annually

forever. It was transformative for me as a youngster and, as I grew

older, to recognize and acknowledge the fundamental importance of salmon

to our forests, to our bears, to our eagles, to every part and parcel of

what is so special about British Columbia. But nowhere is it more

important than to Indigenous people who have, for millennia, depended on

the return of salmon.

I had the opportunity, as leader of the government, to go to Port

Renfrew in my community, to the Pacheedaht territory, and participate in

a cultural fishery with the community. There were hundreds of people on

the San Juan River. It was a beautiful, sunny day on a Sunday in

October, and the salmon were returning, as they always did. A net would

be thrown into the river, and out would come literally hundreds of coho,

all about the same size, fat and friendly and silver.

The objective was to connect the young people in the community to

the salmon, so elders were there, young people were there and everyone

in between. The little ones’ responsibility was to get the fish and put

it in the boat. There’s nothing funnier than watching a little person

pick up a fish almost bigger than them and try to get it from the beach

into the boat — slapped in the face by the tail, dropping it and

laughing and picking it up again. And to see the look on the face of the

elders, who were seeing for another generation the connection of the

salmon to the people was really inspiring.

Then to go just literally the next day to the Broughton

Archipelago and Alert Bay to be in the big house — with my colleague the

Minister of Agriculture and my colleague the Minister of Transportation,

whose constituency it was in — and to hear the elders there talk about

the absence of salmon, how the salmon had disappeared over time. Instead

of having full freezers to feed the community, the freezers were empty,

and the prospects for salmon returning had been diminishing year after

year after year.

So we put in place a program to talk nation to nation with

Indigenous people from the Broughton to see how we could revitalize the

wild salmon stocks. That led to the appointment of the restoration

enhancement funding that we did with the federal government, a joint

program — $142 million to invest in stream rehabilitation, small

community micro-hatcheries to revitalize streams and rivers that had

gone barren because of previous practices, whether it be forestry…..

Some would characterize it as overfishing on the commercial side. We

have to address all of those issues.

I went to Fort St. James, in the Interior, and visited Stuart

Lake, 1,100 kilometres away from the mouth of the Fraser River, where

the salmon come annually. To see the salmon when they arrive in Fraser

Lake — these are tough, tough salmon who’ve gone a long, long way.

They’ve avoided the mouths of grizzly bears. They’ve avoided fishers all

the way up from the ocean to the mouth of the river, up the river back

to Stuart Lake so they could spawn and start the process

again.

The people — the Nak’azdli, the Tl’azt’en, the Indigenous people

in the community — wait for the salmon year after year, decade after

decade, century after century, and they’ve always come back.

[4:20 p.m.]

We have an obligation, I believe — our generation — to ensure that

the wild salmon are sustained not just for the next couple of years but

for all time. As I see youngsters leaving the place, I know they’re all

passionate about salmon as well, and we’re going to do o