Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 27, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 261

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Point of Privilege

J. Brar

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Fuelling B.C.

E. Ross

J. Routledge

Climate action

S. Malcolmson

P. Milobar

Respect for the House

R. Sultan

M. Dean

Education funding

B. D’Eith

D. Davies

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 14 — Consultation and public engagement

C. Oakes

R. Kahlon

M. Bernier

D. Routley

I. Paton

J. Brar

S. Cadieux

J. Rice

L. Reid

R. Glumac

J. Thornthwaite

Personal Statements

Withdrawal of comments made in the House

J. Johal

MONDAY, MAY 27, 2019

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Point of Privilege

J. Brar: Salaam alaikum. Last week I reserved my right on a point of

privilege, and today I rise to speak about it.

We are blessed to live in the most beautiful province, home to the

most diverse community — the province built by the people who came before us

on the fundamental values of equality, justice and fairness for all British

Columbians. These principles are fundamental to Canadian society. We believe

in treating people equally, regardless of race or place of origin. This is

the people’s House, this beautiful House, and it is our job as the

representatives of the people to lift people up, not put them

down.

On May 16, the member for Richmond-Queensborough told the Minister of

Citizens’ Services that she is “an MLA for Surrey-Panorama, not Islamabad

North.” The member also claimed some of these individuals were on security

watch lists.

[10:05 a.m.]

This allegation was repeated outside of the House by other B.C.

Liberal MLAs, including the Opposition House Leader, who took it even

further by saying these people were “on the U.S. terror watch list.” This is

false. To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that these

individuals were on security watch lists.

The Pakistani community is very upset and offended as a result of the

comments made by B.C. Liberals inside this House and outside this House. The

Pakistan Canada Association said that they were disappointed by these

comments because they “feed into a troubling Islamophobia narrative.” The

Pakistani Canadian Cultural Association said that the comments “have

outraged and offended the Pakistani community.” They note that “his fellow

Liberal MLAs clapped to show support for his inappropriate

statements.”

The Pakistani community has made extraordinary contributions to this

province, and they deserve respect from all members of this House.

Therefore, the member for Richmond-Queensborough must not only retract but

apologize to the members of the Pakistani community that he has

hurt.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member. I will follow up with the member referred

to.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

FUELLING B.C.

E. Ross: Before many of us had even arrived this morning, we came into

contact with numerous oil and gas products. Toothbrushes, water bottles,

eyeglasses, and so many more, far too many to list, wouldn’t be

available without fossil fuels. Even the future of our energy use uses

fossil fuels. Wind and solar projects, as well as electric vehicles, all

need fossil fuels.

Let’s remember that these are the same industries that will

continue to stimulate battery production through the complaints of child

labour and poor working conditions in countries with fewer regulations

than Canada. None of this can exist without fossil fuels, which means to

say that to say no to fossil fuels is to say no to wind power, solar

power and electric vehicles. You can’t have one without the other. To

say otherwise is reckless and irresponsible. It would demonstrate a

complete lack of understanding as to how oil and gas actually affect our

everyday lives.

What we should really be doing is not being hypocrites but

scrutinizing the carbon footprint of the clean energy industry in the

same way we do for the oil and gas industry. A carbon footprint is a

carbon footprint regardless of what caused it. I say this to cement the

fact that oil and gas is foundational to our way of life and will

continue to be so for many years to come.

With that being the case, we need to make the most of the

situation and take our place on the world stage for the sake of global

emissions, and not for the sake of politics. B.C. does LNG and oil

extraction in more a responsible way than anyone else in the world. Our

neighbours in Washington state confirmed this when they admitted that

Tacoma’s proposed LNG plant would only reduce state emissions if the

natural gas were to come from B.C.

This is according to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, which said,

in relation to reducing GHGs that come from other fuels like diesel….

The agency went on to point out that our province has tighter controls

on upstream emissions than they do on gas produced in the U.S. and that

B.C. has tighter regulations for drilling and natural gas processing.

The Americans know what they’re talking about in this case, because

there has never been a water aquifer contaminated in the history of B.C.

fracking. B.C. companies drill too deep, and we also put in extra

protections like cement casings around the drill holes.

For some reason, many Canadians seem hesitant or polite to stand

up and defend our own societal and economic prosperity, even though we

do such a good job at it. It’s completely senseless for many in B.C. to

continue to be indifferent to or, in many cases, fight against our own

interests as a province, because oil and gas does fuel our way of life,

just like everybody else’s around the world.

[10:10 a.m.]

All that fighting against fossil fuels does is enrich our

neighbours and competitors around the world. For years, Oregon has been

keeping a close eye on B.C. LNG, hoping to capitalize on B.C.’s politics

and rhetoric, in the hopes we wouldn’t approve our own LNG projects.

They hope to buy B.C. LNG at a discount in the same manner the U.S. does

with Canadian oil. Thankfully, B.C. came to its senses, and as a result,

LNG Canada made its final investment decision.

Now it’s time to focus on Chevron’s KM LNG, Haisla’s Cedar LNG and

Squamish Woodfibre LNG, not only for the emission reductions but also so

the LNG doesn’t end up being exported out of American ports at our

expense. This is absolutely no time for us to be overly polite or

hesitant, because if we don’t go out and fight for the interests of B.C.

and our way of life, no one else will. It goes without saying what these

projects will do for our economy, employment and government

finances.

Furthermore, the potential for B.C. First Nations to thrive and

for reconciliation to be achieved is nearly unprecedented in our

lifetime. When First Nations work together with government and industry,

the agreements that result allow them to pull their people out of

poverty, to maintain the necessary jobs to support their communities and

to focus more resources on protecting their cultures. These situations

are no doubt win-win-win, and it would be a shame to allow these

opportunities to die on the vine.

Those of us who support a prosperous future for British Columbia

have fought tooth and nail for LNG to go ahead. We got the LNG Canada

final investment decision, and just recently, as a result of our

advocacy, the Senate committee of Canada rejected Bill C-48, the tanker

ban.

British Columbians have it in us to do better than our

competitors, not only for global markets but also in continually

improving our regulations. We still have two glaring advantages: we are

closer to Asian markets, and we have a colder climate that speaks to

cooling and drive loads. And we used to be a stable country,

politically. We’ll continue to fight to fuel B.C. and Canada, because

it’s our future.

J. Routledge: Thank you to the member for Skeena for introducing this statement,

“Fuelling B.C.” I welcome the opportunity to respond.

I would agree that oil and gas has been foundational in British

Columbia and that it has played a role in the development of the British

Columbia that we know today. However, I think that there are some

historical facts, some of our history, that bear paying attention to,

because there are lessons that can be learned.

Let me fill in some of the historical gaps. I represent the people

of Burnaby North, where the last remaining refinery in the Port of

Vancouver is still operational. Now, at one time, Vancouver was a major,

major refining hub. Imperial Oil built its Ioco refinery in Port Moody

in 1914. Shell built its Shellburn refinery in North Burnaby in 1932 and

expanded it in 1945.

There were four refineries in the port at that time. They produced

a wide variety of value-added products, products that were refined and

distributed to local markets in British Columbia, but they also produced

hundreds of good-paying jobs, jobs that supported families in Metro

Vancouver. In the heyday of Vancouver being a refining hub, those jobs

depended on crude oil that came by tanker from the oil fields in Alaska

and California. All of that changed in 1947, when oil was discovered in

Leduc, Alberta.

[10:15 a.m.]

Now, the federal government of the day, the Liberal government of

Louis St. Laurent, passed the Pipeline Act to help Alberta get its oil

to market. The Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Co., as it was called in

those days, made its case to the Board of Transport Commissioners, as it

was called in those days, that it should be allowed to build a pipeline

from Edmonton to Burnaby. Their core argument for wanting to build that

pipeline was that the pipeline would be used to deliver domestic oil to

domestic refineries. But even back then, not all local politicians

thought that a promise from a primarily American multinational

corporation was good enough.

Howard Green, the MP for Vancouver South and the Progressive

Conservative critic, wanted a national energy security clause enshrined

in the act. His warnings fell on deaf ears, and his warnings proved

prophetic. No sooner had Trans Mountain secured approval to build a

pipeline to connect Alberta oil to refineries in B.C. — and the hearings

only took three days…. No sooner had they got approval than they applied

for and were granted permission to build a spur line to Washington

state. This was in 1951. Now, keep in mind there were no refineries in

Washington state at the time.

Another local politician, a Liberal this time, Tom Goode, who

represented what was then Burnaby-Richmond, accused the Trans Mountain

Pipe Line Co. of double-crossing B.C. and Canada. He predicted that the

spur line would divert most of Alberta’s oil away from the Vancouver

refineries to new ones in the United States, and he was

right.

By the 1970s, 60 percent of Alberta oil was going to refineries in

Washington on a pipeline that was built because of Trans Mountain. By

the 1990s, all but one small refinery on the Burrard Inlet had closed,

and that small refinery doesn’t even have enough capacity to supply half

of the domestic B.C. needs. The result: since the 1990s, Vancouver has

had the highest gas prices compared to Toronto, Montreal or any other

major Canadian city.

We’ve been here before. Let’s think of our history and not just

motor on, so to speak, with the assumptions we’ve made in the past. We

have to rethink everything.

E. Ross: What others continually fail to recognize is that oil and

gas–based products cannot be simply parted from our way of life. Every

bike and electric car was, at least at one point, transported on a

gas-powered vehicle and uses petroleum-based parts. This isn’t even to

mention the despicable labour conditions in which some of these products

are made and the many drawbacks of their manu­facturing processes.

There isn’t an area of our lives that petro­leum products and

fossil fuels don’t touch. This lack of realization is a problem within

our province but also within the realm of federal politics.

The leader of the federal NDP has put B.C. LNG squarely back in

the arena of politics. This is not a partisan statement. This is just

the reality. The only thing he’s made clear is that the party’s position

is not to have a position, which is incredibly dangerous at a time when

fighting for Canadian and British Columbian interests is so important.

In fact, if anything, there is now an identity crisis in federal

politics,

whereas the leader of the Green Party is now saying that we

should only use Canadian oil and not foreign-imported oil, but we should

use oil for the many plastics, rubber, paint and other such products

that we currently use it for. This is an identity crisis.

We need political stability on this file. We need to build on what

we have achieved with First Nations and industry, and we need to

recognize the importance of oil and gas in our daily lives. The future

of oil and gas and the future of LNG is in B.C.

This fact was confirmed at the recent Canada Gas and LNG

Conference in Vancouver. Describing China’s demand for LNG as being

almost infinite, said Yao Li, CEO of the Chinese energy consulting firm

SIA Energy…. The energy executive says China’s shift from coal to

natural gas will require a substantial increase from LNG imports.

Currently only about 57 percent of China’s natural gas needs are

supplied domestically. B.C. is therefore in a highly strategic position

to wean China off dirty coal and transition it to the cleanest fuel on

the planet.

[10:20 a.m.]

Between 2020 and 2040, we’re expecting the gas market in China to

expand by close to 40 percent. On a global scale, about two-thirds of

gas demand growth is going to come from China.

We have battled many forces in getting LNG approved in B.C. and

will continue to do so on legitimate issues. Pandering for votes at this

stage of the game is not a legitimate issue. If we want to reduce

China’s emissions, build B.C.’s economy and pay for our social

infrastructure in B.C., we, as leaders, have to fight against partisan

opposition at all levels, especially on LNG.

CLIMATE ACTION

S. Malcolmson: Climate impacts are being felt on Vancouver Island right now.

We’re seeing hotter water harming chum, chinook and coho salmon returns

represent. Salmon are also harmed by drier rivers resulting from reduced

snowpack.

We’ve had two decades of pine beetle infestation, which has led to

tens of thousands of job losses. Ocean acidity has increased 30 percent

and is expected to increase by up to 150 percent by the end of this

century. Worldwide, since 1975, oceans absorbed 90 percent of the extra

heat caused by global warming. They are buffering us. Drought, disease

and pests threaten food security on Vancouver Island, which already

imports 95 percent of its supply.

Bless them. The global youth movement on climate action is raising

the alarm louder every day. We thank them for their work and advocacy

and their hope.

The good news is that acting on climate change can boost the local

economy and good jobs as well. Tackling climate change can incent smart

investments, strengthen local economy and promote Canadian

entrepreneurship in the trillion-dollar clean global energy economy.

With the right leadership, we can improve both our economic and

environmental outcomes for the long term. Climate action is a win-win

for our local economy and our global environment, and we are right now

innovating, cutting greenhouse gas emissions and adding good-paying

jobs.

On Nanaimo’s Bowen Road, there’s a new affordable housing complex

unlike anything else we’ve seen. Nuutsumuut Lelum, a joint project from

the Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre and B.C. Housing, is culturally designed,

and it uses 90 percent less energy in its passive house design. It’s

home to 25 Indigenous families. It’s beautiful. Last month, the Canadian

Home Builders Association of Vancouver Island awarded it for high

performance at the VIBE gala in Nanaimo.

Making our buildings and our communities more environmentally

friendly builds jobs, health and affordability, and it cuts carbon

emissions. This idea — that the transition to a low-carbon economy also

improves quality of life — is at the heart of CleanBC, our government’s

new climate plan. The green building industry already employs 32,000

people in B.C. in jobs like architecture, manufacturing and

installation, so we are already well set.

Some of the actions that we are taking together to make a

difference and reduce emissions: we’re upgrading the B.C. building code

to get more energy-efficient buildings and providing incentives for

owners and the construction industry to build and renovate to

higher-efficiency buildings.

All 300 new affordable homes announced or underway in Nanaimo,

under the new affordable housing building boom that we are working on,

are being built to step 2 or 3 of the new B.C. energy step code. By

2032, all new buildings in B.C. will be required to be built net-zero

energy ready. That’s a similar standard to what Nuutsumuut Lelum built

in Nanaimo. For renters, this will mean a higher stock of healthier,

high-efficiency housing. If you are paying less on your power bill,

then, again, you have a more affordable life.

We are retrofitting B.C.’s stock of 51,000 publicly owned and

funded social housing units to make those houses less polluting, more

energy-efficient and more affordable. It’s better for air quality too.

If you’ve got a better maintained house and less mould, people do

better.

[10:25 a.m.]

People renovating private homes can also receive rebates: $3,000

for replacing their heating system with a heat pump; $5,500 in rebates

available for installing better insulation; $2,000 for replacing older,

draftier windows and doors with better insulated ones. If anybody at

home wants to tap into any of these and they’re having difficulty

finding it, ask your MLA. We’ll help you navigate the

process.

On the bigger picture, it’s not just about what individuals do on

their homes. We’re very focused on cutting corporate emissions, reducing

provincial greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below 2007 levels by

2030. By 2040, it’ll be a 60 percent reduction; by 2050, 80 percent less

greenhouse gas emissions. That includes a low-carbon fuel standard to

reduce average carbon intensity of transportation fuels. That includes a

renewable gas requirement. That includes a 45 percent reduction in

methane emissions from upstream oil and gas operations by 2025. Already

the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission is developing regulations to better

manage and reduce fugitive emissions in the oil and gas

sectors.

Methane emissions generated from waste and agricultural sectors

also have to reduce. Our goal is to see 75 percent of landfill methane

captured by 2030, and 95 percent of organic waste will be diverted from

landfills and turned into renewable resources.

We’re speeding up the switch to cleaner fuels, making our fuel

cleaner by increasing the low-carbon fuel standard to 20 percent by

Electric vehicles. We’ve heard a lot about that in this House.

With up to $16,000 in rebates, that can bring the price of a new

electric vehicle down to $20,000. It’s still expensive but more

affordable, and then the savings in gas and maintenance make, again, it

cheaper for families. Just over 20 years from now, every car in B.C.

will be required to be sold…. New cars will have to be electric

vehicles. We’re adding new charging infrastructure as well.

A lot of investments in active transportation and public

transportation. We are also helping remote communities reduce dependence

on diesel for electricity and supporting public infrastructure

efficiency upgrades and fuel switching to biofuels.

Most importantly, arguably, switching to training so that new

graduates of our colleges and universities know how to do this hands-on

work. At Vancouver Island University, they have converted their coal

shafts to geothermal power. What a beautiful example of what an

institution can do that is innovative, teaches students how to be

hands-on and takes us away from an old fuel to a new fuel.

P. Milobar: I’m pleased to rise to speak to the statement around climate

action from the member for Nanaimo. Some good points were

raised.

Imagine, if you will, the innovation that we could see in this

province with a $2.35 billion revenue source over a four-year period.

Imagine what innovation we could see if we used all of that $2.35

billion of revenue that was generated in a four-year period to actually

spur on innovation, to actually help people trying to do exactly as the

member for Nanaimo said: innovate, bring in low-carbon standards, bring

in low-carbon industry, bring in low-carbon entrepreneurship.

Imagine if you used all of that $2.35 billion of revenue that was

generated through taxation to actually accomplish that. Unfortunately,

what we see — and we’ve heard of CleanBC from the member for Nanaimo —

is that it’s not a $2.35 billion plan over the next four years with

CleanBC; it’s a $900 million plan. It’s a plan that’s been underfunded

by almost 66 percent of what it’s actually collecting in

revenue.

Why that’s significant is because, when you look into the CleanBC

plan — and I’ve asked several ministers now in estimates around this —

22 percent of CleanBC is actually predicated on the low-fuel standard

that the member for Nanaimo was just talking about, a fuel standard that

doesn’t exist in Washington and a fuel standard that doesn’t exist in

Alberta.

Why that’s significant is that means that just as much as we like

our artisanal beers and our craft beers, our artisanal wines and our

craft wines, our craft distilleries and our craft cideries that we have

in British Columbia, which we see growing in great leaps and bounds,

we’re now going to have artisanal craft gasoline at the pumps in British

Columbia to meet the low fuel standard.

[10:30 a.m.]

Unfortunately, the government is unwilling or unable to tell us

how much more per litre that is going to cost everybody at a time when

we’re paying record fuel prices in North America. The government seems

unwilling to actually share with anyone how much of a premium we are

going to pay for this new specially blended gasoline specifically for

B.C. and B.C. only. That’s 22 percent of the CleanBC targets.

You can see where the skepticism starts to come in to whether or

not CleanBC will actually be accomplished. That’s not even talking about

the 25 percent that’s missing from CleanBC right from day one. So there

we have 47 percent of CleanBC with a big question mark next to it

already.

Then we jump to the electric vehicles that the member for Nanaimo

was talking about as well. An electric vehicle program that has actually

been very much accelerated since May 1. Since May 1, we’ve seen a better

part of $9 million spent on subsidies for people to purchase electric

vehicles, with the matching federal dollars and the SCRAP-IT program

bringing $16,000 of eligibility for a vehicle under $50,000.

Why that’s important is based on what CleanBC has budgeted for a

three-year window for 156 months’ worth of programming. They have now

budgeted, based on this uptake rate, about eight weeks of funding for

the subsidy program. That means that in about seven more weeks, CleanBC

will have expended all of its money that it had actually earmarked for

156 months’ worth of spending. Again, $900 million versus $2.35 billion

collected in taxation. One has to wonder where that extra money is

going.

The step code. A previous government brought in the step code. It

was meant to be a guiding document for municipalities to be able to pick

and choose and try to figure out how to reasonably get their

municipalities engaging within the step code. The home builders I’ve

talked to…. At a time when housing affordability is a number one issue

for people, a new home in Kamloops, where I’m from…. The step code,

being mandatory, will add $70,000 to the construction price of a new

home in a city that does not actually broach over $500,000 as an average

sale price for a home.

Now with the step code being mandatory, it will add $70,000 for

about a 1.5 percent improvement of the efficiency of a home under the

current situation that they’re dealing with in Kamloops.

That’s not making life more affordable. That’s not making housing

more affordable for people. It’s certainly not helping people trying to

get into entry-level housing when you’re talking an extra $70,000

because of government policy. I’m sure we could look into things with

other commissions, but I’m sure the government would not want us to look

into government policy.

S. Malcolmson: There is so much to bite into there — most particularly, the

previous government’s complete failure to address the affordable housing

crisis. This government is taking action in every way.

The builders that I’ve talked to in Nanaimo are embracing the

three-step energy code. They’re taking it as a point of pride, and

they’re taking it as the training and innovation opportunity that it

really is. This is the way of the future. It absolutely is.

The previous government struck a climate leadership team, ignored

all their recommendations. They abandoned action on climate change. Even

their former Premier said he’s disappointed in his own party’s

approach.

In their mad rush for LNG projects, a dozen of them, they pretty

much gave up on meeting our climate targets. Emissions increased by

three million tonnes between 2010 and 2015. They once admitted concerns

about diluted bitumen spills and the impact it would cause to our

environment and economy, then basically, rolled over while this new

government is fighting as hard as it can to protect our coast from

diluted bitumen. I just won’t spend more time on the arguments across

the aisle, because they just aren’t backed up by action in any

way.

We have a good-news story here in British Columbia. Canada’s green

building industry employs more direct full-time workers than forestry,

mining, oil and gas industries combined — 32,000 people already in B.C.

doing this work. They’re investing in hopeful renewable energy projects,

embracing new building technology, growing our food closer to home. All

of these things will create more job opportunities and support small

business in British Columbia. This is a win-win.

[10:35 a.m.]

When we act on climate, we do better. We are pushing hard — local

jobs, local economy, global environmental protection. It’s so past time

for action.

We are including greenhouse gas emissions and reductions in all of

our decision-making and celebrating the resulting innovation, job

creation and local benefits in our communities that ensue.

RESPECT FOR THE HOUSE

R. Sultan: I’ve been a member of this Legislative Assem­bly for 18

years, hoping for 20. At my age, I notice my peers, those still on this

side of the turf, whiling away the day with their feet up on the

sofa.

I was lucky. I stumbled upon politics late in the day as a sort of

consolation after my wife passed away. It has become my life, and you

have become my family. I enjoy the huge privilege of being chosen to

serve the province where I was born and raised.

With that joy comes responsibility and respect for our democratic

institution called parliament. Unfortunately, the durability of

democracy is not guaranteed. Scholars ask whether the great republic of

the United States is acquiring the earmarks of oligarchy and

dictatorship and whether Britain, home of Mother Parliament, can

maintain citizen confidence in representative government.

How did the point of a gun become the instrument of power in

places like Zimbabwe and Venezuela, leading to repression and economic

collapse? If this is not enough, what restraints today, right here,

propaganda, shaping citizens’ views of domestic affairs and overwhelming

our legitimate dialogues of democracy?

Given all of this, we must be ever more vigilant to strengthen,

protect and, most of all, maintain the public reputation of our proud

institution of parliament, the people’s House, where the voices of a

true cross-section of all of our citizens can be listened to with

respect. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen. Events occur which

provoke anger and disappointment.

Several weeks ago a member of this assembly, speaking in an

official capacity to municipal leaders, had some very unflattering

things to say about our assembly. When those in authority propagate the

view that more effective forms of leadership may be found in criminal

organizations such as the Hell’s Angels and the Mafia, and when we crank

up the publicity machine to loudly lay blame for expense account

malfeasance with a 75 percent error rate — on television, no less — and

when we bypass our institutions of internal governance without full

disclosure or transparency, it’s appropriate to ask questions in this

assembly.

There will always be contention. It’s the essence of democracy. We

advocate for what we think is best for our constituents and our

province, and views invariably diverge. But even in heated moments, we

must be respectful and uphold the good name of our assembly.

This is even more vital as stakes grow larger. When we are

threatened by global forces — and we are — beyond our control, when

technology turns our comfortable assumptions about the world upside

down, when cynicism about politicians and their sleazy ways is rampant,

this is no time for parliamentarians to circle the wagons and shoot

inward.

Rather, we must treat parliament, its leaders and all of its

members with all the more respect. If our leaders do not speak well of

us, who will? To speak well is, in fact, the law and regulation of this

place and has been for a long time.

[10:40 a.m.]

Over 100 years ago, a warrant was issued for two persons who had,

in words recorded in the Journals of B.C., engaged in “a

scandalous libel against certain members of this House and…high contempt

of the privileges and the constitutional authority of this House.” They

were arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms and held overnight in the

legislative lockup and, perhaps, served hardtack and water for

supper.

In more modern times, our website points out that MLAs — and all

of us are MLAs in this place — are expected to behave with dignity and

respect. Consulting, again, our Journals of B.C. , this time for

1962, we can read the admonition that we should not use words and

phrases that are “in bad taste from the point of view of the dignity of

the House.”

Ah, that magnificent phrase, “the dignity of the House.” I believe

our future depends on our ability to revive that sense of respect and

responsibility, which has now been placed in jeopardy.

M. Dean: Thank you to the member for West Vancouver–​Capilano for

highlighting this topic in the House. Thank you for your very long

service as well. You’re right. It’s an honour and a responsibility to

represent our communities and to come here and speak in our roles as

MLAs in chambers.

The public perception is very important because we expect that

there will be trust in our democratic processes as we’re here

representing all of British Columbia. It’s correct, as well, that some

members have actually spoken out in unparliamentary ways — even in these

chambers, even in this session. For example, the member for Langley East

compared the agriculture bill to the Holocaust and has apologized. The

member for Richmond-Queensborough made comments in bad taste and has

retracted. The member for Prince George–Mackenzie has also had to

retract some comments that have been made.

We all know from our own experience and from words that have been

spoken in this House that some behaviours and some language does need to

be tempered. When we, as Members of the Legislative Assembly, are

receiving letters from teachers that tell us that they do not want to

bring British Columbian kids in to watch us and watch our democracy in

action, then we know that something needs to change.

The Speaker actually read out a letter that he had received from a

teacher who said: “Yesterday I visited the Legislature during question

period as a chaperone for an elementary school field trip. I was

delighted by the hospitality we received on our tour and the beautiful

building. I was appalled and deeply saddened by the ugliness we

witnessed during question period. The time was wasted in posturing,

bullying and name-calling. It was…uncomfortable to watch with students

we teach to ‘Be kind; be safe; be respectful; be

responsible.’”

“That’s their school motto,” the Speaker said. “I receive lots of

letters like that. I don’t want to receive any more.”

Oral question period, obviously, is a regular item of

busi­ness that we conduct here in chambers. It’s a really

important, fundamental aspect of our democracy. It’s an accountability

tool for effective democracy. However, it receives a disproportionate

amount of media attention, and it’s much more likely to be the image

that the public holds of their parliament. Unfortunately, the perception

of the lack of decorum or substance erodes the public’s faith in our

political systems. That is in spite of the fact, I would like to

emphasize, that our Legislature functions in many effective ways outside

of QP.

Of course, when I speak to my colleagues about this, their

expectations are really, really diverse as well. But here in British

Columbia, we are very fortunate that there’s some modern, up-to-date,

recent research by a student called Rachel McMillan at the University of

Victoria. She’s supervised by Dr. Grace Lore. She’s been looking into

the nature of heckling in chambers across Canada. Her review revealed

that 56 percent of Canadians think less of the parliamentary process

after tuning into question period.

Importantly, she also explored the impact of increasing

representation of women in politics on the nature of heckling, a

significant indicator of respect for the House. Women are now

represented to a much larger extent in legislatures and cabinets across

Canada.

[10:45 a.m.]

Today in British Columbia, women make up 39 percent of the

Legislature and half of cabinet. That is in spite of the fact that

political culture is one of the most frequently cited issues affecting

the recruitment and retention of women in politics — because, of course,

our politics are built on colonial and patriarchal roots.

One of the trends that is revealed around questioning in chambers

is that women are heckled more on issues related to ethics and personal

conduct compared to men. They are significantly more likely to hear

heckles related to gender, age and appearance. While both men and women

have an experience of heckling that is gendered, women are typically

held to a higher standard when speaking on personal conduct

issues.

To finish, I’d like to question: well, what does this mean for us?

Why have this discussion here in chambers? Clearly, it’s a personal

choice. We have a lot of standing orders that govern how we work

together in this House. We’re a diverse group of people. We all make

choices about how we behave and perform and conduct our business in the

House.

R. Sultan: I would like to thank the member for Esqui­malt-Metchosin

for her well-researched remarks and thought­ful

observations.

I would like to close, myself, by quoting the Rt. Hon. Beverley

McLachlin, privy councillor and former Chief Justice of Canada, who

addressed the 17th Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers

Conference in Montebello, Quebec, on January 9, 2004. She reflected on

Parliament as follows:

“The role of a Speaker is similar in certain respects to a role that

I’m quite familiar with — the judicial role. Speakers, like judges,

spend most of their time doing something which most people avoid at all

costs — making decisions. Like judges, they rule on points of order and

make a myriad of decisions on questions of process. Like judges, they

are required to render objective and impartial decisions on issues that

can prove controversial and complex.

“Like judges, they must be above the fray and free from bias. Like

judges, they are required to abandon partisan politics and must be

independent and free from political influence. Like judges, Speakers are

human beings. But like judges, they must strive to set aside personal

preferences and opinions and rule as objectively as humanly

possible.

“And like judges, Speakers doubtless sometimes feel a little lonely.

Both roles entail sacrifice and dedication to the office. Yet both offer

great rewards, the most important being the privilege of serving one’s

nation and community by promoting justice, the rule of law and

democracy.”

I believe Chief Justice McLachlin has given us a timely job

description for parliamentary leadership, as relevant today as it was 15

years ago. It is not too much to expect our leaders today to live up to

these same words.

EDUCATION FUNDING

B. D’Eith: All of us have different reasons for why we run. For me, there

were really three main reasons.

The first one was that I worked in arts and culture and the

creative industries. There was a time when I was working nationally, and

there were, basically, cuts to arts and culture at a time when many

other provinces and the federal government were actually increasing arts

funding. That was really disappointing to me, and it really motivated

me.

The second was mental health. I have a family member who suffered

from mental health issues for decades, and there just simply weren’t the

resources for him.

Probably, the third, and one of the most important, was education.

I have five children. All went through public school in British

Columbia, and they experienced an entire generation where class sizes

were far too big and many of their friends with special needs were

simply not getting the services that they needed.

[10:50 a.m.]

The final straw for our family was when the fifth portable was put

on at Albion Elementary School — right over the track. So the kids

couldn’t have track anymore. Really, this was a period of time that the

former government spent years and years fighting the education

system.

Now, in contrast to that, of course, in 2019-2020, the K-to-12

operating funding has actually grown by $228 million. That means that

the budget now is $6.6 billion. That’s actually $1 billion more than the

previous government provided in 2016-2017. In fact, because this student

enrolment has actually increased by 3.2 percent…. If you look at that,

at the same time, the budget has actually increased 17 percent. What

that means is that we have to make sure that all districts and students

see the same results for these investments. That’s why, this year, it’s

very important to look at equity in the system.

I think I’ve heard this time and time again from the opposition:

how wonderful our education system is. It is wonderful. But similar to

the economy…. You can have a wonderful economy for certain people and

still have 500,000 people living in poverty, have one in five children

living in poverty and middle-income people struggling paycheque to

paycheque. It’s the same with our education system. We may have some

kids that are doing really well and then others who are falling behind.

I think that is one of the main reasons why investments in education are

so important.

Right now the focus is on equity and providing increased funding

for kids with special needs, for example. So what’s happening now, in

this budget, is that the total supplementary funding for kids who need

support is now at $570 million next year. That’s actually a 23 percent

increase. While the percentage of all designated students with special

needs has remained constant at about 11 percent, the increased money

means that they’re going to be getting more funding, and that’s

great.

This is really important. For the first time since 2006, every

B.C. school district is forecast to see an increase in fun­ding

next year. That’s really, really critical.

In addition to increasing supplementary funding for students who

need it the most, it’s important to focus on outcomes. One of the things

that every minister got, which was one of the greatest things I think

happened…. In every letter to every minister, there was a focus on

looking at truth and reconciliation and First Nations in every ministry.

That’s a very important part of what’s been going on.

I’m actually very proud of the progress that’s been made in this

regard. Last year there were a lot of gains made. Graduation rates for

Indigenous students actually reached 70 percent. Earlier this year the

First Nations Education Steering Committee, B.C. and Canada, came to

sign a new B.C. Tripartite Education Agreement. That’s actually going to

lay the foundation for increased equity outcomes for our First Nations

students.

Another really wonderful thing is that B.C.’s new

curri­culum includes Indigenous content in every subject in every

grade. So important as part of reconciliation is awareness of what the

history of the Indigenous peoples has been. So it’s very, very

satisfying to see that.

Another big part of investment is in mental health. That, as I

said earlier, was so important to me because of my family.

Part of tackling mental health is early intervention. That’s why

it’s really, really important that there is a focus on the outcomes of

vulnerable students. That’s why it’s great that the provincial ERASE

strategy program has been resourced so well. That’s now focusing on gang

support for students of all sexual orientations and gender identities.

There is an investment of $3 million for a range of early intervention

initiatives, and that is really, really important. If we can get in

front of this, then a lot of people will not be dealing with mental

health when they’re adults.

[10:55 a.m.]

Another really great piece of equity in the education system

recently is the announcement that all districts will be required to

provide menstrual products in school washrooms by the end of the year.

That is a really wonderful program. I did want to thank the

Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity and, of course, the New

Westminster school district for showing such leadership in this. It’s so

important for kids to feel comfortable at school and to have that

equity.

The other big piece, of course, is capital expenditure. As I

mentioned, in Maple Ridge, we had the Albion school just bursting at the

seams, and we needed an elementary school 12 years ago. We kept asking

for it and kept asking for it. It never happened. Finally, we actually

are getting an elementary school;

c̓əsqənelə is going to open in

September for 600 students. But it’s 12 years too late for many of the

families in my region. It’s wonderful that it’s happening, but it’s 12

years too late.

It’s really great that we’ve invested $1 billion since September

2017 into building these schools and seismic upgrades and buying

properties and that there will be actually $2.7 billion included in the

2019 budget for upgrading schools and building new schools.

D. Davies: Thank you to my colleague from Maple Ridge–​Mission for

opening up this discussion about education funding. As the Education

critic and a teacher, I’m certainly honoured to reply to the statement.

Always happy to talk about bettering our province’s greatest natural

resource, our children, and their education.

It’s no rumour — and all of us in this House agree — that British

Columbia has one of the best education systems in the world. For many

years, jurisdictions from around the planet have come to us, to British

Columbia, to learn how to deliver quality education. I am confident that

that will continue, with the incredible quality of teachers that we have

around the province.

Fort St. John is fast growing and has a faster-growing student

population. Since 2012, the Fort St. John Hospital has seen more than

600 births a year. Our robust resource economy means that many will

likely be there for their entire school careers. It is great to see that

both the former Minister of Education as well as the current one

understand this and are funding spaces.

In the North Peace, we have been quite lucky regarding this. In

2015, school district 60 celebrated $22.3 million in provincial funding

that had been put aside for a new K-to-6 elementary school in northwest

Fort St. John. Happy to say that myself and the Minister of Education

attended the grand opening of this school just this past fall. On a side

note, the new “Ma” Murray School is quite incredible indeed.

In 2015, land was bought again for another school in Fort St.

John. And in 2018, $30.8 was announced for an elementary school — this

one with 500 student spaces — which began construction last summer. It’s

scheduled to open in 2021.

Funding for education covers more areas than new books and fancy

lab equipment. It also ensures that the children and the youth of this

province are able to get a quality education without interruption in

their classes, which allows their teacher to give as much time to each

and every student. When my colleague from Peace River South was Minister

of Education, he successfully negotiated a five-year contract with B.C.

teachers that provided a solid five years of stability for these

students.

In many areas, this is an entire high school career. These

students were able to get the most out of their education. They did not

have to miss any valuable time due to conflict. But, unfortunately, we

are far from perfect with regards to our responses to the province’s

education requirements. That is something that I think all of us in this

House, on both sides, would agree with.

In fact, I think of Surrey, where the number of portables in the

last two years has increased 31 percent. This money needs to be going to

building actual school facilities and not just add-ons. Amazingly, the

current contract bargaining that’s going on may see larger class sizes,

which makes it far more difficult for teachers to spend time on

individual students who may be struggling. This is an issue that doesn’t

seem to be going away, even though the Supreme Court has spoken on it

and provided for mutually agreed class sizes and composition rules. It

will be very interesting to see how the discussions will go, on these

negotiations, over the coming months.

The effect of this means less teachers for more students, and I

don’t think that that is an outcome that anyone in this House wants to

see.

[11:00 a.m.]

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

In these formative years, inadequate attention from teachers can

have a devastating impact on the career and the life prospects of our

students as they navigate their lives. We need to do everything that we

can to ensure that these students are successful today and that they are

successful as they choose whatever career path that they so

choose.

B. D’Eith: I appreciate that. Thanks for the words.

It’s worth nothing that, of course, there have been over 4,000 new

teaching positions created over the last two years, through the

memorandum of agreement with the BCTF, and that’s actually made life

much better for students, including kids with special needs.

There’s been a $1 billion increase from the budget that was from

2016-2017. Now the budget is $6.6 billion. There’s also $1 billion since

September 2017 that’s gone into schools to build badly needed seismic

upgrades and purchase properties. In 2019, there’s a record $2.7 billion

to build and expand schools. Very importantly, as I spoke earlier in

regards to equity, special needs funding is at $570 million in

2019-2020. That’s really important. Also, Indigenous funding is at $889

million. There’s a $300,000 start-up to get, as I mentioned earlier, the

menstrual product program into schools. Rural school districts are at

$295 million, and there are many other increases.

As I mentioned earlier, there’s been funding for over $400 million

per year for 4,000 new teaching positions. That actually includes 500

special education teachers and 190 more teacher-psychologists and

counsellors, which is so important for our schools, especially in

regards to making sure we have that equity in our schools. There’s also

funding to hire 1,000 new education assistants. That’s critical. That’s

what parents have been asking for, and that’s very important.

Overall, actual education funding has risen by 17.1 percent since

2017. But it’s not just the Supreme Court settlement. That was 9.6

percent of that. In fact, 7.5 percent of that 17 percent is additional

funding. That’s really important to note, because the funding that’s

being made through this government is because this government wants to

support education and is not fighting education.

Hon. J. Darcy: I would ask that the House consider proceeding with Motion 14

standing in the name of the member for Cariboo North.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to

proceed with Motion 14 without disturbing the priorities of the motions

preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 14 — CONSULTATION

AND PUBLIC

ENGAGEMENT

C. Oakes: On behalf of my constituents of Cariboo North, I am pleased to

move the following motion:

[Be it resolved that this House support meaningful consultation and

public engagement with British Columbians.]

In less than two years since this government has assumed office,

there have been dozens of reviews of programs and services. Most of

these have involved small panels appointed by government. For the most

part, this government has failed to follow up on most of the

recommendations contained within the final reports of these panels. Many

others have been dismissed outright before final recommendations have

even landed on the desk of the minister.

[11:05 a.m.]

The 2017 MSP Task Force is a prime example. The Finance Minister

ignored the task force’s stern advice to eliminate MSP premiums before

even considering a replacement tax. What do we have almost two years

later? Here it is in 2019, and British Columbians are still paying MSP

premiums while the government double-dips by charging the controversial

employer health tax at the same time. It makes people wonder what

purpose these expert panels serve if the government simply ignores their

findings.

The same applies to the Abbott and Chapman final report entitled

Addressing the New Normal: 21st Century Disaster Management in

British Columbia . The panelists worked very hard to address

wildfires and flooding by providing over 108 recommendations, most of

which have been washed over or rejected outright by government. For the

people of Cariboo North and throughout my region, there remains a great

deal to be done in the wake of the 2017 and 2018 wildfires and floods.

Yet we see little if any action on behalf of this government.

The people want their voices to be heard through meaningful

consultation. Yet we only see fiascos like the caribou conservation plan

that has rural and northern British Columbia deeply upset and worried

about the future of their local economies. In fact, the government’s

entire approach to management of the forest industry is scaring off

investment and resulting in mill closures and shift

curtailments.

In early April, the Premier addressed the annual meeting of the

Council of Forest Industries and called for all stakeholders, including

local government, First Nations and forest companies, to come up with a

plan to revitalize the industry. Then, without any warning or meaningful

consultation, the government introduced legislation that will confer

extra­ordinary powers to the Minister of Forests at the expense of

the industry as a whole.

This has sent shock waves throughout the entire forest industry.

The Council of Forest Industries warns that as many as a dozen lumber

mills and processing facilities will close permanently as a result. It

appears this government is determined to institute an uncompetitive

environment throughout the province. Business confidence is eroding in

British Columbia.

In fact, this past weekend I attended the B.C. Chamber of Commerce

AGM. Confidence. They have a MindReader pro­gram that determined

that B.C.’s economy has declined in confidence by 50 percent in

business. The primary reason cited, 79 percent, is that the cost of

doing business has worsened; 54 percent say that the provincial

government is not supportive of business. Business is also concerned

about the increasingly onerous nature of provincial regulations. Almost

40 percent of respondents state that the growing complexity and time

required to gain approval for construction of major projects is hurting

their business.

Earlier this month Tolko Industries announced the permanent

closure of their sawmill in Quesnel. This is devastating news for 150

employees, their families, contractors and small businesses in the

community who rely on the mill.

The arbitrary measures being taken by government are based on

ideology and will only encourage more and more companies to leave

British Columbia. Communities like Quesnel are forest-dependent. Up to

70 percent of our businesses are directly or indirectly impacted by a

weakening forest economy.

Affordability in my region means having a job. If the government

were open to advice and meaningful consultations, communities like mine

would not feel ambushed by ideologically driven policies and

legislation. People expect more from government.

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to speak to this motion. Thank you to my

colleague across the way for bringing it.

I do find it a little problematic, because all last year all we

heard was: “Too much consultation. All they’re doing is consulting.” Now

we’re hearing: “Oh, they’re not consulting. They need to consult more.”

I think there are some real challenges, as far as consistent messaging

going on from the other side.

[11:10 a.m.]

The other piece I think it’s important to highlight around

consultations is imagine having reports given to you…. The member said:

“Well, they have reports, and they haven’t followed through on them.”

Imagine getting an ICBC report in 2014 from Ernst and Young saying that

ICBC’s got some serious challenges ahead and that report being scrubbed

and not being brought public and no action being taken.

It’s easy to say: “Well, this government is not doing public

consultation.” Well, sometimes they say we are, sometimes they say we’re

not. Then they’re saying reports are being presented, and nothing has

been done. We found uncovered reports that have been hidden. I presume

there’s a report somewhere around money laundering as well. I hope that

becomes public one day as well.

Now when we talk about consultation…. It wasn’t too long ago when

a minister from the B.C. Liberals’ side told the mayors to suck it up

when discussing funding for transit infrastructure. There was no

consultation happening there. It was: “Suck it up.”

It was not too long ago when the previous government, the B.C.

Liberal government, brought in the foreign buyer tax. Yes, I think they

can take credit for bringing in the foreign buyer tax. There was no

public consultation, except for…. I do recall Bob Rennie, a developer

who is a major donor for the B.C. Liberal Party, saying he was

consulted. But beyond him, I don’t think anybody else was

consulted.

The speaker before me — I’ve got a great deal of respect for her —

spoke about how there’s a report, and it said businesses are not feeling

like the government is listening. She then segued into the Tolko mill

shutting down. I think it’s a little disingenuous. We know that the

challenges around fibre supply, pine beetle, forest fires have been

coming for a while. In fact, the mayor from her own town had said that

he was preparing for years for this eventuality. So I think it’s not

fair to put the two together to suggest that that’s the reason why when

the previous government even knew this was coming.

Everybody in communities that are forest-dependent knows there’s a

challenge coming. To suggest it’s because of one government’s policies

and not another’s is…. I just don’t think it’s a fair point. Maybe the

member didn’t mean to make it that way. Again, I’ve got a great deal of

respect for her.

That being said, I was part of a consultation with this government

around the Human Rights Commission. It was an excellent consultation

process. We had so many organizations and groups that came to us and

said: “You know what? We’ve been waiting for someone to come to us and

talk about these issues.” There are a few members that were mentioned in

the consultations that had given these groups an opportunity to listen,

but never an opportunity for them to lay out the case around real human

rights challenges that they’re facing throughout this

province.

We travelled the province. We had written submissions. I feel that

the report reflected the sentiment and the will of all these

organizations and all the people who desperately want an independent

body that will reflect the human rights challenges that are faced

throughout this province.

I was quite grateful for the AG to take that report and take all

of the recommendations and put them forward. I’m hoping that we have a

human rights commissioner in place soon. I know that there is a

committee out there searching for the new commissioner. It’s my hope

that we get this person in place to get on with the important work that

so many people advocated for. It’s an example of consultation that our

government has done — in fact, one of the first ones. It was done very

well, and people are very happy with the outcome.

I think the thing that I’m most proud about that consultation is

our consultation with First Nations and Indigenous communities. We

didn’t go to them and say: “Here’s a report. What do you think?” We said

to them: “We have a challenge. How do you want to go about it?” Their

advice and recommendations were very much front and centre in the

report. I think it’s a start of a very meaningful and much-needed

relationship with First Nations and Indigenous communities.

With that, I will let my colleagues across the way continue the

debate.

M. Bernier: I really want to thank my colleague for bringing this important

issue forward today. For myself, I look at what’s been happening around

the province. I look specifically at what’s been happening in rural

British Columbia.

[11:15 a.m.]

Imagine waking up one morning and hearing that you might not be

able to use the back country anymore. Imagine being a local business

which supplies ATVs and snowmobiles and being told by people who come

into the store: “We’re pulling back. We’re not going to actually make

those purchases because of the uncertainty right now that the government

has brought in within the province.” Imagine being a mining company

operating in rural British Columbia and being told that because of this

uncertainty, we don’t know if we’re going to able to expand the mine or

keep people operating, keep those jobs continuing on.

The same goes with the forest sector, as was brought up earlier.

Imagine being a forest company that wants to expand and employ hundreds

and hundreds of people — 500 or more, actually thousands up in my part

of the world, in northeast B.C. — but because of uncertainty, not being

able to commit to your employees that they will have a job come the end

of this year.

I hope the members opposite are listening to this motion that was

put forward today, because the most important word in there is

“meaningful.” It’s about meaningful consultation. When this government

comes out and tries to brag about how many consultations they’re having,

they’re forgetting about adding the part about meaningful.

When I look at the caribou issue right now, and the Minister of

Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development puts

forward a partnership agreement with a select group of people but says,

“Don’t worry. We’re going to come and consult with the people in your

riding. We’re going to consult with the local governments, the small

businesses, the stakeholders,” what he forgot to add into that was the

meaningful consultation and, even worse, listening to what people are

trying to say.

We’ve been having consultations around the province. I look at the

caribou issue. In fact, those have been, for the most part, a slap in

the face to the whole concept of what consultation should be. When

people show up and have genuine concerns, and they want to air those

concerns, they expect the government to listen, not argue with them why

their concerns are wrong. That’s not consultation. That’s making a

decision, going out and patting yourselves on the back as a government

to say: “This is what we’re doing. Suck it up. You should like it. We’re

not going to be changing what we’re doing.”

That’s a complete slap in the face to the people, and I will

argue, right now, for all of British Columbia but specifically to what’s

happening in my area. When you look at the people wanting just to be at

the table….

I look at the caribou issue. I look at the people up in my riding.

They want to do what’s right for rural British Columbia, for the back

country, for the caribou — but also trying to recognize that we have to

figure out how to coexist with our First Nations friends and non–First

Nations local governments and how we sit together. When this government

comes out and says, “We’re going to consult,” but never listens to those

concerns that are being raised by other elected officials, whether it’s

the local governments, the regional districts, that is completely a

sham. That’s what this government has failed to do — supply and offer

any consultation that’s actually meaningful.

If it was meaningful, they’d be listening. It’s exactly what we’re

hearing right now — they’re still not listening — and that’s where

they’re failing the people of British Columbia who have genuine, genuine

concerns.

With that, if the members opposite, if this government truly wants

to stand by what they’re saying and be proud of every single thing

they’re doing as being consulted, what they should do is try to add the

word “meaningful” in there and try to live by that, because to date,

they have failed miserably.

D. Routley: The member who spoke before me suggested that we imagine being a

forest company or imagine being a mining company operating in B.C. Well,

imagine being a British Columbian with a memory and having to endure the

absolute hypocrisy of someone who sat in government for 16 years and did

nothing on the specific issue he’s talking about.

For the previous member, the mover of the motion, to speak about

forestry…. That former government oversaw the loss of 30,000 jobs and

more than 100 mills during the biggest housing boom in U.S. post-war

history before the 2008 crisis. That’s their record.

[11:20 a.m.]

Now I want to talk about how they listened, and I’d like to bring

up a ferry petition and a bridge petition. In September of 2014 — I

believe it was September 10 — the Union of B.C. Municipalities released

a socioecono­mic study on the impact of the ferry fare increases

by the B.C. Liberal government. It ignited a firestorm of criticism

against the government’s policies. It brought the light to all the

impacts in all the communities of all of the cuts that they made —

social impacts, economic impacts, school children, small business

people.

What did this government do? Did they listen to the 20,000

signatures they had just received asking them not to make those cuts?

Did they listen to the 1,300 signatures from Bowen Island, out of 3,700

total population that asked them not to make those cuts? Did they

listen? No.

They threw a grenade into the room by listening to 700 signatures

on Gabriola asking for a bridge crossing. That ignited a huge,

diversionary, deflecting argument that saved that former government from

having to endure the burn of their cuts and the impact in people’s

lives. That’s exactly what happened. So they didn’t listen.

What did we do? We came to power, and we listened. We heard those

people, and we have restored 2,700 sailings. We have frozen fares on the

major routes. We have reduced fares on the smaller routes. We are doing

what they said that we should do: listening when they didn’t. They had

all those years to listen. They didn’t listen.

I have personally participated in some consultations that our own

government has done. I think they have been some of the most fantastic

experiences I’ve had as an MLA, particularly, the Wild Salmon Advisory

Council where the Premier brought together people from all sectors

affecting wild salmon — commercial fishermen, First Nations commercial

fishermen, First Nations food and ceremonial, biologists, First Nations

biologists, environmentalists, recreational fishermen and

outfitters.

All those people that normally clash were brought toge­ther,

and they all adopted a purpose that was given by the good…. The member

talked about good faith in consultation. It was the good faith of those

people, responding to the good faith of the Premier that made that a

success that led to $142 million in investment in the protection of wild

salmon habitat. That is important.

That’s what happens when you listen. You’re able to form public

policy that actually impacts people’s lives in a positive way. That’s

what I’m proud of — that this government has taken a different approach.

We are hearing people, who for 16 years had no voice, could not be heard

by a government that didn’t hear anyone but their donors and their core

supporters — the 2 percent, the most wealthy. Forget about the rest of

British Columbia.

Imagine, Member, just like you said. Imagine being a British

Columbian with a memory of that and the hypocrisy of a motion from that

former government talking about consultation. Well done.

I. Paton: I’m pleased to stand in the House to respond to the following

motion: “Be it resolved that this House support meaningful consultation

and public engagement with British Columbians.”

It’s an absolute privilege to sit in this place to debate policies

to make decisions that impact the day-to-day lives of British

Columbians. I know that in order to do this job successfully, there’s a

lot I need to know.

I not only need to be aware of the technical details of a

particular issue or bill, but it’s incumbent on me to imagine how people

will be affected by those details, for better or for worse. One of the

best ways that we as Members of the Legislative Assembly can do that is

by talking to people.

Before doing this job, I was a farmer. It’s easy to spend hours in

solitude, head down, doing your work diligently out in the fields for

hours on end, sitting in tractors and not speaking to anyone for long

periods of time. The days are extremely long, and there is not a lot of

time or energy to chase down government officials and share your views

on your obstacles and your challenges farming. Now, don’t get me wrong.

Farmers are a very vocal bunch.

[11:25 a.m.]

When we’re making decisions that affect their businesses, their

families, their entire livelihoods, it’s important that government

reaches out to them. Unfortunately, B.C.’s agricultural community has

not enjoyed that kind of outreach.

When we saw the creation of the Agriculture Minister’s Advisory

Committee studying the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural

Land Commission, we learned farmers would be underrepresented and key

agricultural sectors in regions of the province would be shut out.

Presentations would be done by invitation only, and everyone else would

have to go on line to provide their feedback. It certainly limited the

range of opinions and ideas that could be gathered, which I would say is

far from what I describe as meaningful consultation.

Farmers have also told me that they didn’t feel adequately engaged

on a number of issues that are directly impacting their bottom lines,

making it harder for them to succeed. Increases to the carbon tax, to

the minimum wage as well as the new employer health tax are causing them

financial stress and forcing them to make some really tough decisions in

order to stay viable.

Talk about UBCM and being left out of consultation. Just yesterday

morning I’m reading the Province newspaper, and here’s what the

Province newspaper had to say. “The UBCM decried the lack

of notice provided by the province. Representatives of the Union of B.C.

Municipalities are furious that a policy change by the provincial

government declaring cannabis growth and production as farm use within

the agricultural land reserve was enacted without warning.” Once again,

consultation did not take place on this enactment of municipalities

taking over the bylaws and legislation of dealing with cannabis grow-ops

in our farmland.

What about Bill 52, which forces farmers to make an application to

the ALC to prove they are not speculators because they want to build a

house for their family or for farm help? It’s insulting, and it adds

costs and red tape — again, things farmers just don’t need right

now.

Farmers were caught off guard when the new rules suddenly came

into effect in February. We all know that famous date of February 22,

where everybody got taken by surprise by the change in regulations,

effectively scuttling the plans of numerous farm families. Housing for

farm workers is also being put in limbo, creating confusion and

uncertainty.

Then there are other measures being proposed by the ministry and

the minister, the government, to take away from some of the rights of

farmers when it comes to managing their property. Removing individual

rights and choice is something that requires a careful consideration and

consultation. Yet again, farmers don’t feel this has happened

adequately.

I’ve outlined a few examples here where the agriculture community

feels it’s been shortchanged when it comes to meaningful dialogue on the

issues that matter to them. It’s a far cry from the situation that’s

unfolding with regards to the future of the Massey Tunnel. My

constituents continue to sit in the gridlock every day, just as this

government does with its redundant reviews and its dismissal of

thousands of pages of research and engagement that have already been

done with people, stakeholders in this province.

It’s a bizarre juxtaposition — on the one hand, a

govern­ment that plows ahead with significant changes without

consulting practically anyone and, at the same time, takes forever to do

something about a problem that’s been analyzed to death.

J. Brar: I am very pleased to stand up in this House today to speak on the

motion, introduced by the member for Cariboo North. The motion reads:

“Be it resolved that this House support meaningful consultation and

public engagement with British Columbians.” I think the members from

both sides of the House support meaningful consultation and public

engagement with British Columbians. I think that’s a given thing. I

don’t think there’s any dispute there.

The key in this motion is: who do you consult with and why? That’s

the key question. That’s where the members on this side of the House and

the members on the other side of the House differ in our

policies.

B.C. Liberals. It is known now for the last 16 years that they

chose to consult with the people, with all sincerity, in the top 2

percent — wealthy people only — and not consult with the people of

British Columbia. That was the record for the 16 years they were in

power. On the other side, we consult with the people of British

Columbia: the working people, small business people, environment lovers,

teachers, students, seniors and people looking for affordable housing

and affordable child care. The list goes on.

[11:30 a.m.]

That’s the stark difference between our policy and their policy

when we talk about consulting people. That’s the difference. It’s very

clear to me, if we look back at the last 16 years, that they have chosen

to listen to only one group of people, and that is the top rich

people.

There would be no housing crisis in B.C. today if they would have

listened to the people of British Columbia at that time. There would be

no money laundering impacting our real estate and drug overdose crisis

if they would have listened to the people — the whistle-blowers and the

experts — at that time. There would be no class-size crisis today in

B.C. schools for our students — particularly in Surrey, the

fastest-growing community in the province — if they would have listened

to the teachers and parents at that time. But they didn’t.

Phase 2 of the Mayors Council plan would have been built a long

time ago, and the SkyTrain in Surrey and the Broadway subway in

Vancouver would be in operation today if they would have listened to the

Mayors Council a long time ago.

They clearly ignored people asking for help on affordability. They

doubled the MSP premium during their 16 years. They put tolls on the

people, particularly of Surrey, on two bridges — the Port Mann Bridge

and the Golden Ears Bridge. They barely gave any increase to minimum

wage and froze the income assistance rate for ten years. That’s the

record of their listening or consultation with the people of the

province. The list goes on.

It is very clear to me and to the people of British Columbia that

they listen to the top 2 percent people of B.C. I would like to give one

example. I know the member will probably know this person very

well.

There’s a person in B.C. known as Bob Rennie. He’s also known as

Vancouver’s Condo King. He was the B.C. Liberal Party’s chief fundraiser

between 2013 and 2017. He helped raise $5 million through private

dinners with the Premier at that time. So when the new foreign buyer tax

was introduced by the previous administration to curb real estate

speculation, for some reason, the new policy specifically exempted

speculation on the presale of condos — Rennie’s core business. People

can put two and two together on this situation.

On the other side, our government is actually listening to the

people of British Columbia. People are at the centre of every choice we

make and that we have made during the last two years of our government,

because our government believes in working for the people of British

Columbia and changing lives for the people of B.C.

We have made three key promises to the people of British Columbia:

to make life more affordable, improve services that people depend on and

build a strong, sustainable economy that supports jobs in every corner

of the province.

S. Cadieux: It never ceases to amaze me how members on the other side are

given to make statements with no basis in reality to try to impugn

members on this side of the House.

Now, the previous speaker — and I’m going to give just one example

— said that we, on this side of the House, only ever cared about or

consulted with the top 2 percent. I’m going to give that member just one

example where he is absolutely wrong.

Interjection.

S. Cadieux: Oh, I could give more, but we only have a few minutes.

Just after the 2013 election, our government embarked on one of

the most comprehensive consultations we’ve seen in quite some time. That

out to thousands upon thousands of people with disabilities, none of

whom I would expect the member would suggest, or very few of whom,

reside in that top 2 percent they like to quote.

[11:35 a.m.]

The reality is that we embarked on a very comprehensive

consultation, over many months, throughout the province of British

Columbia with some of the most marginalized people in our province,

listening to what mattered to them, what was needed to make sure that

they could contribute fully in their society on topics as simple as

voting, on topics as simple as housing.

I am really proud of that consultation. It was so comprehensive,

consultation before the introduction of the Accessible Canada Act, they

modelled their consultation, countrywide, on the consultation that was

done here in B.C. by this side of the House.

Now, that’s not to suggest that the current provincial government

here in British Columbia has not embarked on consultation. They have,

and sometimes I think it’s been meaningful. I believe they are going to

embark on some additional meaningful consultation with the community of

people with disabilities in our province about what needs to be in a

government.

There’s also the misuse of consultations, when consultation is

done for the purposes of evading or delaying. There’s a really good

example of that, by this government, in the ride-hailing consultations

that I was a part of.

The government promised British Columbians ride-hailing by

December 2017. But by December 2017, all that had happened was the

launch of a consultation process, of which I was a part, which made very

reasonable, rational recommendations, of which none were brought forward

in the legislation that followed, only to be followed by yet another

consultation to provide more guidance, to which more very reasonable

recommendations were made.

We have yet to see any regulations come about as a part of that

consultation that follow along from that consultation — consultation

that was broad, consultation that involved all sides of the House and

the experts in the area of transportation and ride-hailing. One can only

surmise that the only purpose to that was, frankly, to delay.

That is not meaningful consultation. Meaningful consultation has a

report-out at minimum. That doesn’t mean we’re always going to agree on

the result, and that when we consult, every person who is heard gets

what they want in the end. That isn’t the purpose. The purpose, though,

should be to come back and explain. If government then takes a different

approach, why? Why did government not do the things that they heard in

the consultation?

That isn’t what we see from this government. We see a government

that moves forward with very little regard to what the public or the

experts are saying and, instead, with what works politically for

themselves in the current climate. Now, I’m not surprised by that. It’s

what governments do often, but we should be looking to do much more

justice to consultation.

J. Rice: This motion is interesting in that it suggests government is not

supporting meaningful consultation and public engagement with British

Columbians. I have to ask which way the B.C. Liberals want it. They’re

always complaining that we consult too much, and now they’re complaining

that we’re not consulting enough. I think some care should be taken here

in that the pot is not calling the kettle black.

For example, when the B.C. Liberals were in government, they

ignored small and rural communities, like the ones I represent, who are

missing out on infrastructure funding. They were treated like big cities

with a large tax base, and they couldn’t afford the share they were

expected to pay.

[11:40 a.m.]

They ignored the affordable housing crisis, leaving communities to

deal with the effects of rising homelessness and tent cities. They

ignored calls for acceptable, affordable child care. They ignored people

asking for help to make their lives more affordable, doubling MSP

premiums, barely increasing the minimum wage and freezing income

assistance rates for ten years.

They refused to recognize the existence of First Nations inherent

rights and instead systematically fought them in court, despite repeated

losses. Instead of listening to us in the northwest and respecting our

values of protecting our coast and standing up for wild salmon, they

rammed unwanted pipelines down our throats, and Christy Clark called

people a “ragtag group of people” for disagreeing with her.

Our government is actually listening to British Columbians. We got

rid of big money in B.C. by banning corporate and union donations so

that you can no longer buy influence with government in this province.

We’re committed to working collaboratively with local governments

throughout B.C. to improve the services people count on and to make life

better for people.

We listened to people across B.C. desperate to find affordable

housing, and we’re already seeing results with our 30-point housing

plan. So far, 20,000 homes have either been announced or already built.

We listened when communities asked for support to tackle the

homelessness crisis, with the creation of the rapid response to

homelessness program. In Prince Rupert, 36 homeless people are off the

streets and are tenants at the Crow’s Nest Lodge, where they receive

wraparound supports 24 hours, seven days a week. The village of Queen

Charlotte will soon open up 19 homes like these, plus four more homes

from our community housing fund.

From our first-of-its-kind Indigenous housing fund, Lax Kw’alaams

First Nation will see 60 homes built off reserve in Prince Rupert for

their members and 20 homes on reserve in Lax Kw’alaams. Skidegate will

see 24 homes built on reserve, and the Heiltsuk will see six homes built

in Bella Bella. We are the first province in Canada to build housing on

reserve. We are doing so because we are listening to British Columbia’s

First Peoples and the dire call for housing in this province.

We listened to people on affordability by moving to eliminate MSP

premiums, which will be one of the biggest mid­dle tax cuts in

B.C.’s history. We’re increasing the minimum wage to $15.20 an hour by

2021, and we raised disability and income assistance rates by $100 a

month on our second day in office. We listened to families by working

towards universal child care, implementing fee reductions and an

affordable child care benefit, which is already saving some families

$19,000 a year. Our universal child care pilot sites are changing

families’ lives.

We listened to Indigenous peoples, and we’re moving forward on

reconciliation, making it a cross-government priority. We moved forward

with sharing gaming revenue with Indigenous communities, something they

had been asking for, for years. We are co-developing historic new

legislation with the First Nations Leadership Council to establish the

UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples as the foundation of

B.C.’s reconciliation work. We’ve achieved the Broughton fish farm

agreement through a historic government-to-government shared

decision-making process, respecting Indigenous rights and supporting our

wild salmon stocks.

We listened when small communities told us they were missing out

on needed infrastructure funding because they couldn’t come up with

their share. For the first time ever, small rural communities will be

able to have 90 to 100 percent of eligible project costs covered by

joint federal-provincial funding. Our new $95 million federal-provincial

rural and northern communities fund addresses the unique infrastructure

needs of communities with populations under 25,000.

We are delivering on projects and services people need, because we

are meaningfully consulting and listening to British

Columbians.

L. Reid: It gives me great pleasure to speak to this very important motion

on supporting meaningful consultation and public engagement with British

Columbians.

As the critic for seniors care, I’m extremely disappointed at the

complete lack of transparency and meaningful consultation in the NDP’s

approach towards seniors care in our province. At a time when British

Columbia is facing an acute shortage of care aides for seniors, the NDP

government, this March, announced its plan to move privately run home

support service into health authorities. It decided to move more than

4,000 care aide jobs from the non-profit and private sector to public

authorities without any consultation with the sector — zero

consultation.

[11:45 a.m.]

Training more aides would help. Moving existing staff around won’t

help the labour shortage. But this is a government that thinks it knows

best. Please let me explain what’s wrong with this plan. Seniors are

looking for an increase in service, but this announcement only achieved

the exact opposite. Our health care system needs innovation, but this

government, sad to say, is reducing the opportunity. It all boils down

to choices for seniors and innovation in the home support system, which

comes from an array of providers. The NDP’s decision would only reduce

choice.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The NDP announced moving more than 4,000 home support jobs to

public health authorities, made cuts to consumer choice and created

service reductions without any consultation with the sector, just weeks

after the province celebrated home care support workers of Victoria. We

cannot afford a government which makes up policies on the

fly.

The B.C. Care Providers Association is a non-profit representing

the majority of B.C.’s seniors care providers, but it was never

consulted by the NDP government on this change. It has clearly stated

its deep disappointment in the NDP government’s decision. Its CEO,

Daniel Fontaine, said this decision to bring home support service

providers into government-run operations “is fraught with risks and

makes no practical sense, from the standpoint of seniors. These changes

only serve to drive up the cost of the support and complicate the

staffing shortage crisis the sector is facing, without addressing the

needs of B.C. seniors. Furthermore, many of our members tell us their

staff do not want to work for government.”

The B.C. Care Providers Association has been calling for putting

this change on hold and asked the government for a thorough consultation

with the home support sector before making any final decisions. They

even created a website called Hands Off My Home Care, calling on B.C.

seniors and their families to take action to have their voices heard

because neither seniors were consulted.

BCCPA understands about seniors needs. They understand that

vulnerable seniors need to be able to trust whoever comes into their

homes, and they want longer visit times. When the government disrupts

home support service for seniors, it adds stress and uncertainty to

their lives. When the 4,000 workers move jobs, it means, for many

seniors, that they no longer have the same care aide they used to have,

let alone an extension of visit times or types of service. What bothers

me more is not only how this NDP plan failed to adequately consider

4,000 jobs, but it’s really about the Premier’s unwillingness to conduct

meaningful consultation to ensure that seniors receive the care they

need and deserve.

What’s next? Who’s next for the NDP to target? Is it going to take

over all seniors care without any further consultation? They claimed

that this was part of a plan to make things more efficient but never

explained how the appropriation of workers would impact the budget. They

did not provide any detailed business plan to inform the sector families

on how the transition would be carried out, and I asked the Health

Minister repeatedly during estimates. There was no business case made.

Instead, they cooked up this plan behind closed doors. Isn’t this

familiar?

This is why this motion is so important. Had the government

engaged with the sector and the public, they would learn that the

industry is already facing a worker shortage, while the number of

seniors in B.C. is expected to double between 2015 and 2041. The NDP

plan is putting both the future of care aides and the health and

well-being of seniors at risk. Families are already faced with higher

taxes and higher gas prices. The last thing they need from this

government is higher stress levels when struggling to take care of an

elderly loved one. It is time to conduct meaningful consultation and

engagement for the home support service sector and British Columbia

seniors.

R. Glumac: Democracy — it’s something we all value greatly. The word itself

comes from the Greek words demos , which means “people,” and

kratos , which means “rule.” Democracy means “ruled by the

people,” all the people. Elections are just one part of that.

Consultation with people on an ongoing basis is a very important

part of a strong democracy, and that is why our government has made

consultation a key part of what we do. We believe that good ideas come

from everywhere, and people deserve to have a voice. That voice should

be heard. That, of course, doesn’t mean that everybody gets exactly what

they want, but what it means is that the best ideas rise up to the top

and are embraced by a government that wants to listen.

That is why, as a government, we’ve conducted consultation in many

areas — around poverty reduction, environmental assessments,

ticket-scalping, fair wages, wild salmon. The list goes on and

on.

[11:50 a.m.]

Our government is consulting at a higher rate than the previous

B.C. Liberal government, and on a wider variety of topics. This

consultation has directly resulted in informing the legislation that

we’re bringing forward.

Doing consultation in itself is not enough. The previous

government also did consultation. The difference is they didn’t

listen.

I remember when the previous government announced the climate

leadership team back in 2015. I remember reading the 32 recommendations

that followed and being excited about those recommendations, because

they were good recommendations. I remember the disappointment I felt

when the recommendations were completely ignored. Seven of the original

members of the climate leadership team wrote an open letter to the

government, expressing concern over the lack of action. Instead of

following these recommendations, the B.C. Liberals went to Calgary with

representatives from the oil and gas industry to create a very different

plan.

One of the members of that climate leadership team stated that

it’s the government’s responsibility to create good climate policy, and

that: “They abdicated that responsibility by basically asking one

sector, the oil and gas sector, to rewrite the recommendations that were

given to them by their own team of experts.” While the previous

government conducted these consultations, they never listened. They

never listened to the people of British Columbia. They never listened to

the experts that they themselves chose. But they listened to the oil and

gas sector.

It’s interesting that companies like Enbridge and Kinder Morgan

and other companies in the Alberta oil patch donated $4.2 million to the

B.C. Liberals. It is interesting. It’s interesting to think…. We can’t

forget. We have to look back and remember the bucketloads of cash that

were coming from these big companies to the B.C. Liberals and the

previous government. Just a few examples. Imperial Metals donated over

$800,000 to the B.C. Liberals. Imperial Metals received no charges and

no fines following the catastrophic environmental disaster of Mount

Polley. Wesbild donated $700,000 to the B.C. Liberals. They purchased 14

parcels of development land from the government for $43 million below

assessed value.

There were news stories at the time, where 177 of the top donors

donated $55 million to the B.C. Liberal Party. Those same donors

received $15 billion in payouts and contracts and projects from the B.C.

Liberal government. Now, did these donations influence those results? We

don’t know. But what we do know is that our government’s first order of

business, when we came into power, was to end corporate and union

donations.

Our government belongs to the people of this province. We will

continue to listen, we will continue to consult with the people of B.C.,

and we will continue to work towards a better future for all of

us.

J. Thornthwaite: I’m happy to stand in the House supporting meaningful consultation

and public engagement with British Columbians.

The NDP is somewhat of a dichotomy. On the one hand, they can’t

stop consulting, but they never make a decision, like on ride-sharing.

Our B.C. Liberal government had done the work to bring in real

ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft by Christmas 2017. We put it

in our platform, and it was ready to go. Unfortunately, we were unable

to make government after the NDP and Greens’ hasty marriage, and even

though both parties put it in their platform, they decided to

stall.

Someone told them that the reason why the Liberals lost votes in

Surrey and Vancouver was because we promised ride-sharing, and the union

taxi lobby wasn’t too pleased with that and got all of their friends and

neighbours to vote against us. Personally, I don’t believe it. But that

was the scuttlebutt.

I think a more realistic explanation is that the NDP chief of

staff, Geoff Meggs — who had committed, when he was a Vancouver

councillor, not to bring in ride-sharing because he was indebted to the

union for donations — was just continuing on that commitment in his new

role as the Premier’s chief of staff.

Assuming the NDP had no real plans to bring in ride-sharing, but

feeling the heat from the public, they decided to strike a committee,

which included the NDP member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale as the Chair,

to study the thing to death, not once but twice. Then it was discovered

that one of the NDP members on that committee, the member for Delta

North, actually had family members in the taxi industry, which, of

course, was either a real or perceived conflict of interest. No matter.

Still no ride-sharing.

[11:55 a.m.]

Then it was discovered that the guy behind the so-called

made-in-B.C. ride-sharing company that the NDP seemed to like, Kater,

was also connected to the NDP via none other than Moe Sihota, who is a

blast from the past to be reckoned with. The whole exercise of the NDP

and ride-sharing is an absolute sham of consultation on steroids, and

we’re still all waiting for ride-sharing.

In other instances, we’ve seen the NDP totally blindsiding entire

sectors with no consultation. My colleagues have already talked about

the forest industry, the caribou recovery plan and then the agriculture

sector, where, apparently, farmers are no longer people in the eyes of

the NDP. It’s obvious they were never consulted, since who on earth

would agree to be demoted as a non-person?

There are other examples of blatant blindsiding and no

consultation. The social services sector low-wage redress. Hollyburn

Family Services on the North Shore and many others are suffering because

the NDP has deemed that only union workers, even those employed in the

same agency as non-union workers, will be given a raise while the people

who work alongside them do not get that raise. It’s unconscionable that

the party that professes to be the party for the people is actually the

party of blatant discrimination.

This is in an industry that is already having a tough time as it

is securing workers. Now this is going to make it much worse. And who

will be hurt? The vulnerable people in our community seeking help from

these social services.

The so-called community benefits agreement that specifies that

only members of the NDP’s 19 favoured unions are allowed to bid on

publicly funded projects. This discriminates against 85 percent of the

construction workers in the province and has already proven to shoot up

the cost of doing the project, like the Trans-Canada Highway near

Revelstoke that will cost 35 percent more than it would without the

CBA.

The B.C. Care Providers, who look after our most vulnerable

seniors, are also sounding the alarm. They too were blindsided. Now

there’s a push for the home care workers to be expropriated into the

health authorities, again to pump up one of the NDP’s favourite unions

or to force non-union employees to actually join a union and be able to

work in their chosen field.

These are just a few examples of how the NDP is either consulting

to death to not make a decision or not consulting at all and blindsiding

total industries to the favour of the NDP’s union buddies but to the

detriment of jobs, the economy and all the people of B.C.

J. Thornthwaite moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Personal Statements

WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENTS

MADE IN THE

HOUSE

J. Johal: On May 16, during question period, I made comments that offended

some members of the Pakistani community. I recently met with six

different organizations within that community. We had a thoughtful,

respectful conversation.

I wish to withdraw my remarks and apologize.

Hon. J. Darcy moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada